It seems that you don't account for the existence of mind (or mental activities) at all. You just deny physicalism, and offer no alternative.

What I'm arguing is that all such 'reductions' are themselves dependent on intellectual constructs. — Wayfarer

our experience of sense-able reality is still dependent on the brain — Wayfarer

So what? These don't doesn't falsify physicalism, and these don't imply alternatives are in any better position.

the world is not simply given but is also constructed by the brain-mind. What I fault physicalism for is neglecting or failing to take into account this basic fact. — Wayfarer

I disagree with the wording of the 1st sentence: it equivocates on "the world". There is an actual world, and then there is a concept of the world. There is some disconnect, of course. But there is also a connection: we exist within it.

Physicalism accounts for both the actual world and it accounts for the existence of minds within it. It's hypothesis, and skepticism is warranted. But the skepticism should be applied even-handedly, not just as an excuse to shoot down theories that lack some subjective appeal.

If by 'abstractions' you mean formal concepts, like number, arithmetical proofs and logical principles - my view is these are real, but not existent as phenomena. They are intelligible objects. They exist outside our individual minds but can only be grasped by a mind. — Wayfarer

You could develop a metaphysical theory that includes abstract objects, but it's just another unprovable theory. My point is that intelligibility doesn't establish existence. We can form concepts about abstract matematical systems unrelated to extra-mental reality. We can formulate, or learn, details about fictional entities (dragons, wizards, unicorns...) that are intelligible, but they are not part of extra-mental reality.

I pointed out in my first post that "experience" could be defined in a way that includes rocks;
— Relativist
Well, you said that experience is a physical process. That is all I need. Do you think that this physical process or experience in the case of the rock goes in the dark? Yes, or no? If yes, why the physical process in the brain does not go in the dark? Why things are not dark for you instead they have some features that you are aware of. Could you say that you are unaware of things that happen to you? What is awareness to you? — MoK

First I'll note that you're going with a broad definition of experience, one that applies to mindless objects as well as objects with minds. A boulder rolling down a hill experiences changes along the way: pieces are chipped off, and new substances stick to it. Certainly this can happen in the dark of night, and without any mindful beings being aware of it.

Absolutely things can happen to us, and/or to our brains, without our being aware of it. Examples:
-surgery under general anasthesia
-Developing cancer prior to symptoms
-hair growth
-brain damage caused by sudden trauma.

What is awareness? Awareness entails developing beliefs about some activity or state of affairs. This could be from direct perceptions (a perception is a belief), by being told (as when a surgeon describes what he did), or hearing about something indirectly (such as from news sources).

What do you mean mental here? Experience is a physical process for you and any physical undergoes a physical process so I don't understand what you are going to gain here. — MoK

Mental activity is brain activity associated with a revision of intentional states.

1. The brain... goes from one state to another state later.
2. I am not saying that the brain is caused to do something
3. it [the brain] is caused when it changes.
4. The mind is Omnipresent in spacetime as I argued in the third part of the argument in OP.

#1 entails a change of states. Change entails a cause for that change. #2 implies there is no cause of the state change. That's incoherent.

#3 makes no sense. What is the cause, and what is the effect?

Your assertion about the mind (#4) is unrelated to 1-3. — Relativist

Xxxxxx

2. I am not saying that the brain is caused to do something
— Relativist
The brain is caused since it changes. — MoK

The brain already existed. Do you mean a new brain state was caused? If so, what caused the brain to change states?

#2 implies there is no cause of the state change. That's incoherent.
— Relativist
#2 is incorrect. — MoK

#2 referred to your statement "I am not saying that the brain is caused to do something"
Are you saying you were wrong?

#3 makes no sense. What is the cause, and what is the effect?
— Relativist
By cause I mean it is created if that is not obvious. — MoK

Then your ignoring the cause-effect. What I challenged you to do was to explain the cause-effect relationship between mind and brain. On the one hand, you seem to deny there is one, but in that case, the mind isn't involved at all with what we do, nor with our experiences.

Here's what I mean by involvement: 1) a causal involvement, in which the mind causes something to take place in the brain. You deny this causal role; 2) the mind is impacted by something in the brain (e.g. by sensory perceptions), but this would entail a change to the mind - which you say is changeless.

The mind does not learn anything in the sense that we are learning. The Mind just experiences by this I mean it is aware of states of physical. It does not have any memory of things that experienced in the past. It just experiences a state of physical in one state and causes physical in another state immediately. — MoK

You said the mind is unchanging. Any sort of learning entails change, and it entails some sort of memory. So you're saying the mind does not learn in any sense at all, right?

Suppose there's a rock sitting under my living room sofa. It is present when I sit on the sofa, and when I get up. It has no causal role and isn't changed during my sitting and changing. How does an unchanging mind with no causal role differ from the rock?

defend them with reference to the obvious shortcomings of physicalism, about which you have not answered any of my arguments. — Wayfarer

Your theory also has shortcomings. You admitted to a huge one:

how could mind be an uncaused cause? Well, damned if I know — Wayfarer

Further, you note that we don't know that we're seeing the world as it is, but that also applies to our the product of our self-reflection about the mind. For example, abstractions seem to exist, because we can reflect on abstractions. That doesn't establish that they necessarily exist outside our minds. This extends to all the allegedly nonphysical character of mind: it seems correct but can't be established as such.

Do you think that a rock experiences as well? There is a physical process within a rock as well. If not, what makes a brain different from a rock? — MoK

I pointed out in my first post that "experience" could be defined in a way that includes rocks;

Define "experience". A boulder rolling down a mountain has "experienced" the roll, and has been altered in the process. Similarly our "minds" are altered by sensory perceptions and by its own inner processes. — Relativist

We subsequently honed in on "mental experiences", which entails mental activity. Rocks do not have a structure that produces mental activity. So the answer is: no, unless we broaden the definition.

Your definition is at best incoherent. — MoK

You obviously forgot we were discussing mental experiences. If you still think there's something incoherent, map it out - like I do, below, with my allegation of incoherence.

This is incoherent. If the brain is not caused to do something by the immaterial mind, then the mind has no role in an account of experience, and no role in behavior.
— Relativist
It is not incoherent. You need to read it carefully. — MoK

I did. Here's a breakdown of what you said:

1. The brain... goes from one state to another state later.
2. I am not saying that the brain is caused to do something
3. it [the brain] is caused when it changes.
4. The mind is Omnipresent in spacetime as I argued in the third part of the argument in OP.

#1 entails a change of states. Change entails a cause for that change. #2 implies there is no cause of the state change. That's incoherent.

#3 makes no sense. What is the cause, and what is the effect?

Your assertion about the mind (#4) is unrelated to 1-3.

There is vertical causation with the difference that the Mind is not subject to change whereas the physical is subject to change. — MoK

This contradicts #2, above. You now seem to be suggesting the mind is causing the brain to change. If that is what you mean, then there must be a causal connection to the brain. Describe the nature of this connection.

If the mind never changes, then why does it interfere with brain function when it does? The mind hasn't learned anything to base it on, because learning entails change.

What you think the 'world at large' is, relies on and is dependent on a great many judgements that you will make when considering its nature. You might gesture at it as if it were obviously something completely separate from you, but the very fact of speaking about it reveals the centrality of your judgement as to what the 'world at large' is. — Wayfarer

Sure, but why shouldn't we trust this judgement? If we don't trust it, then no scientific or metaphysical claims are justified.

Of course it exists. It's just that we don't see it as it truly is. Nobody sees it as it truly is. — Wayfarer

Then you should accept agnosticism and extreme skepticism.

You're starting from the assumption that the appearance, the phenomena, the world as it appears, is real independently of you, when your cognitive faculties provide the very basis for how it appears to you. If you want to refute this argument you need to understand what it is saying. It is not positing 'mind' as some objective, if ethereal, substance or thing.

My assumption is that our senses provide us a functionally accurate understanding of that portion of reality that we directly interact with. This is the epistemological ground for studying the world at large, beyond our direct access. This approach has lead to a coherent, and useful understanding of the world. Of course it's not provably true, but it's a rational worldview. It's also rational to be agnostic about the true nature of the world, but that is a dead-end.

I don't think the sense in which the mind is 'the product of reality' is at all well established or understood. — Wayfarer

Of course not. But it's a reasonable inference consistent with a coherent world-view. I don't see how you can defend any of your metaphysical judgements.

You define experience as a set of processes. That is not what experience is. When you experience something, it feels something in a certain way to you. So experience is not a mere process — MoK

Non-sequitur. As I said:

An experience is a set of perceptions (changes to the brain) and the related changes it leads to (eg the emotional and intellectual reaction; the memories).

Aren't you happy with my definition of experience?... — MoK

Of course not. You defined it in a way that's inconsistent with physicalism. You haven't identified anything that is necessarily non-physical. By contrast, my definition is neutral, and covers all associated, uncontroversial, facts.

...If not, you still need to define the experience since we cannot progress without it. — MoK

This is ridiculous! I already did!

Of course, experience is not an physical thing given my definition. And I don't assume its existence. — MoK

Consider what you're saying: you admit that you define experience as non-physical, then contradict yourself by claiming you don't assume it.

So, a chair is physical to you. What makes you think that the brain is not a physical object? — MoK

????!!!!??? Of course I think the brain is physical!

The brain like any other physical object is subject to change. It goes from one state to another state later. I am not saying that the brain is caused to do something but it is caused when it changes. The mind is Omnipresent in spacetime as I argued in the third part of the argument in OP. — MoK

This is incoherent. If the brain is not caused to do something by the immaterial mind, then the mind has no role in an account of experience, and no role in behavior.

It also has the ability to experience and cause physical. — MoK

You've just contradicted yourself.

The Mind is a substance that exists independently — MoK

If it is independent, there is no causation in either direction.

It causes a change in you because you as a person have a location in spacetime. — MoK

Then there has to be a causal connection between mind and brain. You gloss over this by making vague claims.

I have studied this topic but it seems that the nature of hallucination is not yet known to the best of my knowledge. — MoK

And yet, it makes perfect sense under physicalism. The point of my questions was to demonstrate that every metaphysical theory of mind has some problematic areas. If you were to claim non-physicalism is proven by the "hard problem" of physicalism, you'd be making an argument from ignorance. Such an argument from ignorance seems implied in your claims. The only reasonable approach is to draw an inference to best explanation: compare the strength and weaknesses of the 2 accounts. Among your challenges is the ad hoc nature of assuming a mind just happens to exist by brute fact. It's considerably more plausible to think "minds" are a rare, accidental occurrence in a universe of immense age with a potentially infinite extent.

And where is that 'external world' grounded, if not in the mind? — Wayfarer

It's grounded In the actual world. Don't you agree one exists?

The whole problem with physicalism, and the reason I'm criticizing it, is because it forget, omits, or excludes the role of the mind in the construction of what we understand 'the physical' to be. — Wayfarer

No, it doesn't. It just doesn't treat mind as the center of attention in metaphysics, like it appears you do. That's not a criticism, it's just an observation.

Physicalism accounts for the world at large first, and after that focuses on whether the mind can fit that paradigm. It can account for the mind, but it's not in the terms we generally apply to mental processes.

how could mind be an uncaused cause? Well, damned if I know, but I think agree with Kant: we only recognize causal relationships because the mind imposes a framework of intelligibility on experience. — Wayfarer

Naturalism (physicalism or physicalism+) accounts for minds coming to exist as a rare sort of thing in a 14B year old universe of potentially infinite size. That seems a superior account than a mind just happening to exist uncaused. Mind isn't a metaphysical ground. Our minds ground knowledge, but that's because knowledge is an aspect of minds. That our minds would reflect the reality that IS, seems reasonable because we are products of that reality.

the 'interaction problem' that bedevils Cartesian philosophy, but is only exists because of the idealised abstraction that gave rise to it. — Wayfarer

Agreed.

The mind and body is actually a body-mind with physical and psychic aspects that are inter-related.

What you regard as psychic aspects are a product of the abstract framework. It doesn't entail something nonphysical (in the broadest sense).

Notice the contradictory nature of 'making sense using physical brains' - you deploy the word 'physical' because you think it 'makes sense', but that all depends on what is meant by 'physical'. — Wayfarer

I don't see anything contradictory, other than uncareful semantics. "Making sense" of a word means a mental connection to its referent(s). Making sense of a proposition entails applying a learned pattern to the construction. This calls into question the grounding, but I think this can be plausibly accounted for in terms of the connection to the external world through our senses.

Much of our cognitive activity depends on sub- and unconscious processes, which by definition are not experienced (otherwise they'd be conscious). — Wayfarer

I disagree; all the processes are experienced - changes to the brain take place, but these changes are not connected directly to the portions that exhibit consciousness. Of course, there could be indirect connections - where the subconscious triggers emotions that affect conscious thoughts.

The mind has non-physical properties, such as the ability to infer meaning and interpret symbols such as language and mathematics. These acts are not determined by physical causes in that there is no way to account for or explain the nature of the neural processes that supposedly cause or underlie such processes. — Wayfarer

When an arm is raised, electrochemical signals are passed from brain to nerves that activate muscles that result in the activity. If mind decides to raise the arm, that intent has to somehow connect to the brain to cause it to occur. This suggests that either the mind has some physical properties, or the brain has some non-physical properties. Which is it? Either way, it seems problematic.

Logical relationships exist without being physical (e.g., modus ponens or the law of the excluded middle in logic). Arguably, so-called 'physical laws' are themselves not physical, in that they rely heavily on idealisation (perfect objects and contexts) and abstraction.

Meanings are real, yet they are not physical objects, and furthermore, to arrive at any concept of what physical objects are, requires the use of definitions, rules of inference, and so on, which cannot themselves be regarded as objects. — Wayfarer

Meanings and logic are semantic relations, not ontological (except insofar as we make sense of things using our physical brains).

the experience of "redness" is not itself a property of neural firings, even if those firings correlate with it. You cannot ascertain what it is like to see something red on the basis of the examination of neural data. — Wayfarer

The perception of redness is a representational brain state - it enables discrimination among objects. The "what it's like" seems to me to be imaginary, because the sense of it is not actually real.

A brain state may be correlated with an experience, but it does not contain meaning in the way that a sentence does. — Wayfarer

Meaning implies neural connections, connecting past learnings to current perceptions.

Then there's the various forms of the argument from reason, which says that if thoughts and decisions were physically determined, there would be no room for rational inference — Wayfarer

Rational inference is semantics applied to learnings.

That is a physical process. You can call it perception. I asked you what is experience though. — MoK

I already answered that:

An experience is a set of perceptions (changes to the brain) and the related changes it leads to (eg the emotional and intellectual reaction; the memories)...An unperceived event is not an experience. Perceptions entail physical changes to the brain. The experience is therefore a physical phenomenon. . — Relativist

You then asked me to define "perception", which I did, and now you've ignored all that and are reasking the question I already answered.

I already defined experience. Given this definition, I distinguish between physical and experience. — MoK

Your definition ASSUMES there is something nonphysical, and then when a physicalist approach cannot account for it, you think you've proven something.

Is there some relevant uncontroversial fact that I haven't yet accounted for?

Do you think objects around you experience anything — MoK

They don't have mental experiences.

Please read OP and let me know if you have any questions — MoK

I read it. Here's a few questions:

• how can a brain (with all the various properties of material objects), be caused to do something by something that lacks all material properties (no mass, no energy, no charge, and no location in space)? Alternatively: does the mind actually have some material properties? If so, which ones?
• Explain the connection between mind an brain: is there one place in the brain that makes this connnection? Multiple places? Does every neuron connect to it? Every synapse?
• If minds occupy a specific location in space (at least in part, so it can interact with the brain) where is this? Does it occupy the same space as the brain? The brain, and it’s components, occupy physical space, so if the mind is to interact with it, there must be some sort of connection – one that connects to your brain, rather than your wife’s.
• How does the brain deliver sights and sounds to the mind? For example, does every neuron connect to the mind, or only certain ones, or combinations? I discussed physical activity associated with vision. Where does the non-physical mind fit in to that?
• Can a mind exist without a body? Can it become detached? If a mind can become detached from a body (as in an OBE or after death), how is it able to perceive what is happening in the absence of being connected to sense organs? If sense organs aren’t needed when disembodied, why are they needed when paired with the body?
• Do minds pre-exist bodies, or do they come into existence with the body? If the latter, when? At fertilization? Does it develop in parallel with the brain?
• What ties a specific mind to a specific body? E.g. if a mind causes me to raise my arm, why can’t my mind cause you to raise your arm?
• If my mind causes me to raise my arm, and simultaneously your mind causes you to raise your arm, how do we know it wasn’t my arm causing your arm to raise, and your mind causing my arm to raise?
• Memories are lost when brains are damaged from trauma or disease, showing that memories are encoded in the brain. If memories are physical, and destroyed as the brain decomposes at death, but your mind survives, in what sense is that mind still YOU? i.e. what aspects of YOU is your disembodied mind?
• How do you account for the impact of natural chemicals (such as hormones, seratonin) and artificial chemicals (e.g.hallucinogens, mood altering substances) on thought processes?

define perception — MoK

Perception=a short term memory produced when our sensory organs sends electrochemical signals to a portion of the brain that channels the data to the cerebral cortex. E.g. photons stimilate the retina, signals are passed by the optic nerve to the visual cortex, and then the cerebral cortex. Physical changes throughout.

Experience is not a physical phenomenon since matter according to physicalism works on its own without any need for consciousness. — MoK

I accounted for experience as a purely physical phenomenon. What aspect of it can you prove to be nonphysical? Stipulating a non-physical definition isn't proving anything.

Regarding consciousness: I embrace the film analogy: at each point of time, the brain is in an intentional state (analogous to a frame of a film). Consciousness entails the running of the film- a sequencing of brain states.

Matter by definition is a substance that undergoes changes governed by the laws of physics. It seems that you are unfamiliar with the Hard Problem of consciousness. Experience is not a physical phenomenon since matter according to physicalism works on its own without any need for consciousness. — MoK

I am defending a new version of substance dualism and I am attacking physicalism for two main reasons, 1) The Hard Problem of consciousness and 2) The common sense that tells us that the change in physical is due to experience. — MoK

"Conmon sense" isn't an argument. Appearances can be deceiving.

Outline your theory. Explain what exists other than the physical, and how it interacts with the physical. E.g. is there a single conduit within the brain? Multiple? What ties this nonphysical thing to a specific body? I have many more questions, but need to know exactly what your theory is.

An experience is a set of perceptions (changes to the brain) and the related changes it leads to (eg the emotional and intellectual reaction; the memories).

But we cannot equate matter or change in matter with experience. Could we? — MoK

Yes, we can. An unperceived event is not an experience. Perceptions entail physical changes to the brain. The experience is therefore a physical phenomenon.

It seems that you're trying to disprove physicalism by using phrasing that you interpret in ways inconsistent with physicalism.

You defined "experience" as:

A conscious event that is perceived by the Mind and contains information. — MoK

You're defining "experience" with more vague terms: "Event", "conscious event", "information".

So you agree that the brain changes by new experiences, whether the experience is perception, thoughts, etc. You however didn't answer my question: How could the experience change the brain knowing that the experience is not a substance? — MoK

The brain changes due to perception (sensory and bodily) and due to thoughts. This is all there is to mental experience. You're treating "experiences" as something more than the brain changes. This is the source of your error in claiming there's overdetermination.

I think the De Broglie–Bohm interpretation is the correct interpretation of quantum mechanics because it is paradox-free. — MoK

What paradox is entailed by an actual quantum collapse from entanglement?

There is an abundance of fake news (original definition) on social media. The list is common sense: it's ridiculous to give equal credibility to every comment one sees on the internet, irrespective of source. Do you not personally do something similar to the items listed?

I have three questions for you: 1) How experience can affect the brain knowing that it is not a substance, 2) Do you believe that physical motion is deterministic and is only based on the laws of nature? and 3) If yes, then how could the brain be affected by experience? — MoK

1)Your question reifies "experience". The brain is changed by new perceptions and the act of thinking.
2) Yes to laws of nature, but there may be some indeterministic elements, due to quantum collapse.
3) See #1, and (finally) provide your definition of "experience".

Here's the notorious disinformstion primer that Shellenberger complained about:

https://cnxus.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/usaid-disinformation-primer.pdf

Take a look at at and identify a few things that we should all be outraged about. Personally, it looks to me like solid advice. Here's an example:

Step-By-Step Guide to Combatting Disinformation
I. Do a Visual Assessment
Assess the overall design. Fake news sites often look amat have lots of annoying ads, and use altered or stolen images Overall, does the news article and website seem hi quality?
2. Identify the News Outlet
The Wall Street Journal and CNN are examples of news you haven't heard of the news outlet, search online for more information. Is the news outlet well known, well respected, and trustworthy?
3. Check the Web Domain
Many fake news URLs look odd or end with ".com.co" or (e.g., abcnews.com.co) to mimic legitimate news sites. Does the URL seem legitimate?
4. Check the "About Us" Section Trustworthy news outlets usually include detailed backgro information, policy statements, and email contacts in the "About/About Us" section.
Does the site provide detailed background informa and contacts?
5. ldentify the Author
Fake news articles often don't include author names. If inc search the author's name online to see if he or she is well and respected.
Does the article have a trusted author?
6. ldentify the Central Message
Read the article carefully. Fake news articles often push or viewpoint, have an angry tone, or make outrageous claims Does the article seem fair, balanced, and reasonab
7. Assess Spelling, Grammar, and Punctuation If the article has misspelled words, words in ALL CAPS, poor grammar, or lots of "!!!," it's probably unreliable.
Does the article have proper spelling, grammar, and punctuation?
8. Analyze Sources and Quotes
Consider the article's sources and who is quoted. Fake news articles often cite anonymous sources, unreliable sources, or sources at all.
Does the article include and identify reliable sources?
9. Find Other Articles
Search the internet for more articles on the same topic. If you can't find any, chances are the story is fake.
Are there multiple articles by other news outlets on topic?
10.Turn to Fact Checkers
FactCheck.org, Snopes.com, PolitiFact.com are widely trusted checking websites.
Do the fact checkers say the news story is true?

What is bad about this advice?

Your list adds up to about $729M. The single biggest item (over half) was $486M toward The "Consortium for Elections and Political Process Strengthening".

It's mission: is to work together with local, regional, and global partners to build resilient, inclusive and accountable democracies. "

No doubt, you think this is a waste of money, but many of us feel it is a worthwhile cause. I would have no problem scrutinizing it with a cost/benefit analysis, but that's not the DOGE way. And that's the problem.

In principle, it would be fine to compromise. But Trump's starting position is exactly everything Putin wants.

Lindsay Graham actually had a good suggestion: that if Russia violates the newer Ukraine borders, this would trigger automatic entry into NATO. Are you good with that?

excuse me if that charge doesn't exactly arouse my sympathies. — BitconnectCarlos

You have been misreading if you inferred I was trying to arouse your sympathy. I simply trying to get across to you how Palestinians would take it, and that this will have consequences. You had suggested this would all go away.

So you believe the end justifies the means and might makes right. Let's agree to disagree.

The war will continue until Palestinians accept their defeat. It took huge amounts of suffering for Germany and Japan to get there. What Israel is doing isn't any different than what the Allies did, except Israel is being much more careful. The punishment we inflicted on Japanese and German cities before they surrendered was incredible, but that's war. — RogueAI

International standards developed after WW2 in the Geneva Conventions (1949 and 1976) would consider our "punishment" of civilians as war crimes.

Yes, it became Arab because Arabs conquered it in the 7th century — BitconnectCarlos

So you think think it was appropriate to correct a situation established 1300 years earlier. That's as ludicrous as suggesting Israel should be abolished because of the past injustices to Palestinians. Irrespective of Palestinian claims, Israel exists and has a right to continue. That doesn't doesn't justify ethnic cleansing. I absolutlely understand Israel's need for security, but this approach seems likely to provoke more resentment from Palestinians and more hostility from Israel's neighbors.

What allowed the Germans to accept that and move on but the Palestinians can't? — RogueAI

What difference does it make? You're judgement of what they "ought" to do doesn't compel them to do so.

Ancient history determines current reality. Jews have lived continuously in the land since antiquity. — BitconnectCarlos

History story is continuous, and you're omitting the reality that over time, the area became predominantly Arab. Jews were a tiny minority until the Zionist movement took off in the 19th century. It was falsely advertised as "a land without people for a people without a land. Still, Arabs welcomed them at the time.

Many countries lose wars and accept the new reality and move on. Why won't the Palestinians? — RogueAI

There's not many close analogies of a conquered people being ejected from their land. But regardless, I'm discussing the reality that they aren't likely to be docile about it.

Jews are indigenous to the land — BitconnectCarlos

Ancient history does not trump current reality. There were few Jews in Palestine before the 19th century Zionist movement.

Yes it sucks for the Palestinians. They lost a war. — BitconnectCarlos

And you think this means they should just accept their lot, like native Americans did? What "should" happen isn't the point. It's what WILL happen. They won't accept it, and neither will their Arab neighbors.

Giving the aggressor what he wants is a way to "peace" very similar to the 1938 Munich Agreement.

Their own failure to annihilate the Jews in the region and secure the land as another Islamic territory is their "Nakba." — BitconnectCarlos

You've completely ignored the history. These Arabs were in Palestine, and were forced out. Israel often excuses this as perfectly fine, because it's so similar to the treatment of native Americans in the US. They see that as perfectly fine.

I'm not defending the actions of Palestinians, I'm explaining why they won't accept the theft of their "reservation". You had claimed it was no big deal. That's utter nonsense.

There was a native, Arab population living the that area of the Ottoman empire labelled "Palestine". After WWI, the winning Western powers carved up the Arab area into "mandates" - quasi-sovereign states under European control (Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Jordan, and Palestine). Great Britain ruled Palestine. While the other mandates moved toward self-determination, Great Britain decided to turn their property into a homeland for Jews. At the time, Arabs lived in towns, villages and cities spread across Palestine. They wanted a state of their own, like the other mandates. Jews were a minority population, less than 10%. This grew during WW2 to 30%. After the WW2, the UN voted to partition Palestine to create the state of Israel. Native Arabs were ejected.

So it's not that there was some loyalty to a state, but a sense that they were entitled to their geographical home- like everyone else in the region. Now they're being ejected again.

I put "minds" in quotes. I don't believe a "mind" is an object that exists. Rather, a brain engages in mental activities (perceptions, moderating between stimulus and response intentional behaviors, deliberations, learning...). IMO, experience is the constant flow of these mental activites, which entails changes in the brain

Now you tell me what you mean by "experiences".

It's been 78 years since they were ejected from their homeland, and that hasn't faded from their memories yet. They believe they have a sacred bond to their land,and this part of their culture won't fade. Tribalism not assimilation, is typical in the Middle East.

Meanwhile, the Criminal-in-chief is at home talking about how reasonable it was for Putin to invade Ukraine, and blaming Ukraine for "going into" the war. Not to mention his overt politicization of the DOJ, ignoring laws and the Constitution.

:lol:

Trust me, when he believes Vladimir Putin more than his own American intelligence services, that tells something. — ssu

Good point. He does trust authoritarians, and mistrusts democratic leaders. But in terms of making "deals", I don't think he'll intentionally pick Russia over UK. The net result would be the same, because of the trust issue - and his stupidity.

If wishing for the destruction of a culture where e.g. powerful men routinely abuse young boys or human sacrifice is a constant make me a Nazi then so be it. — BitconnectCarlos

Exiling Palestinians from their land will not destroy their culture. It will be a second Nakba.

Trump is Putin's useful idiot.

In his press conference on Feb 13, Trump made it abundantly clear that he completely agrees with Russia with regard to Ukraine.

He said Russia had to go in to Ukraine, to prevent their joining NATO ("They've been saying that for a long time that Ukraine cannot go into NATO. And I'm Ok with that.")

It's Ukraine's own damn fault ("it was not a good war [for Ukraine] to go into, and I think they have to make peace, that's what I think.")

Russia deserves some of Ukraine's territory ("They took a lot of land, and they fought for that land, and they lost a lot of soldiers").

When asked if he viewed "Ukraine as an equal member of this peace process?" Trump responded, in the negative ("It's an interesting question. I think they have to make peace. Their people are being killed, and I think they have to make peace." )

Press conference transcript.

So far, P01135809 has followed Putin in some respects:

• gathered/appeased religious conservatives (and extremists, disillusioned)
• threatened other countries
• efforts to sideline (or remove most) non-loyalists, merits less relevant
• moves to ditch some protection of minorities (or vulnerable)
• lied

(Did I miss any?) — jorndoe

Yes. You missed the Trump administration overtly using the DOJ to achieve political objectives, by ordering them to drop the prosecution against Eric Adams.

JD Vance schools Europe’s overlords. — NOS4A2

Are you under the impression that his "lesson" was well-received by his "students"?

JD Vance attacks Europe over free speech and migration

"The address was met by silence in the hall, and later denounced by several politicians at the conference. German Defence Minister Boris Pistorius said it was "not acceptable".

"The EU's foreign policy chief, Kaja Kallas, characterised Vance as "trying to pick a fight" with Europe, home to some of the US's closest allies."

"Vance went on to criticise the use of laws enforcing buffer zones, saying that free speech was in retreat and alleging that the Scottish government had warned people against private prayer within their own homes."

Unsurprisingly, his speech was well-received by the leader or the right wing "Alternative for Germany (AfD) party"

Trump really wants to please both the leaders of Russia and China. — ssu

My take on it is that Trump has no favorites, which means he feels exactly the same about the UK or France as he does about Russia or China. So the concept of "allies" is a dead one under the Trump regime.

He's demonstrated that he'll ignore treaties. He may not formally withdraw from NATO (as Bolton predicted), but I seriously doubt he would fulfill a commitment to help if a NATO country were attacked.

Nonsense. Abstractions do not "exist" (A. Meinong) and are not "subject to change". Thus your conclusions are not valid.
— 180 Proof
I am not talking about the abstract objects here. I am talking about experience. Are you denying that you experience and your experience is not subject to change? — MoK

I didn't talk about the mind and its role in the body but the experience. — MoK

Define "experience". A boulder rolling down a mountain has "experienced" the roll, and has been altered in the process. Similarly our "minds" are altered by sensory perceptions and by its own inner processes.