Elaborate on the Maine case.

My point was that she was required by law to make a decision, and she followed the correct process. No one has done anything wrong. Of course, you can disagree with her decision, but it was her decision to make- just as (ultimately) it will be a decision for SCOTUS to make. If you feel she made a reasoning error, then identify it. Bear in mind, this was an administrative hearing and decision, and it will next be taken to court.

Re: Colorado, you said: "Their evaluation is wrong. He was both acquitted of the charge in the impeachment process and was never charged, nor convicted, under any other insurrection law. So why do you think they are correct?"
Whether or not their decision is "correct" will be determined by SCOTUS. But there's nothing prima facie incorrect about basing the disqualification on the trial that found there to be clear and convincing evidence Trump participated in insurrection. I don't see how an impeachment acquittal has any bearing: an acquittal doesn't preclude a criminal indictment for the same acts, and besides - the Senate Trial didn't entail a relevant finding of fact - it merely denied the articles of impeachment.

I cannot follow. That someone has the right to do something does not entail that she is right to do it — NOS4A2

Maine's Secretary of State was required by Maine Law to hold a hearing and make a decision on the matter. How can it be considered wrong to follow the law?

That he hasn’t been criminally prosecuted, let alone convicted, and also that he has been acquitted of the charge in the impeachment process, are two points against the argument that he has engaged in insurrection. — NOS4A2

The question of whether or not Trump engaged in insurrection was evaluated on the evidence by Colorado Courts. Their Supreme Court noted:

"After permitting President Trump and the Colorado Republican State Central Committee (“CRSCC”; collectively, “Intervenors”) to intervene in the action below, the district court conducted a five-day trial. The court found by clear and convincing evidence that President Trump engaged in insurrection as those terms are used in Section Three".

This footnote is also relevant:
"President Trump also listed a challenge to the traditional evidentiary standard of
proof for issues arising under the Election Code as a potential question on appeal,
claiming that “[w]hen particularly important individual interests such as a
constitutional right [is] at issue, the proper standard of proof requires more than a
preponderance of the evidence.” As noted above, the district court held that the
Electors proved their challenge by clear and convincing evidence. And because
President Trump chose not to brief this issue, he has abandoned it."

I'm not sure of this, but I think "abandoning it" means this particular point isn't subject to appeal.

ROFLMA! Trump's attorneys are almost certainly going to make that argument!

He was acquitted of insurrection in the impeachment process with the Chief Justice presiding. — NOS4A2

That is one of the Constitutional questions that SCOTUS will have to decide on. The question was evaluated by the DOJ's Office of Legal Council, in 2000.Their conclusion was:

"The Constitution permits a former President to be criminally prosecuted for the same offenses for which he was impeached by the House and acquitted by the Senate while in office."

Their conclusion seems well-reasoned (supported by 45 pages of analysis, considering both sides of the question), and deserving of more weight than the sort of armchair analysis we engage in around here. If you've seen something equally well-reasoned that draws a different conclusion, please share it.

Assuming the Romney/Manchin ticket does not materialize. If it does, all bets are off.

I would vote for them. — jgill

If only ranked choice voting were possible! That would make such a ticket truly viable - no one would fear wasting their vote on a candidate with virtually no chance of winning.

Not being logically contradictory just means it's logically possible. God's existence is logically possible, but no physicalist would consider God's existence to be metaphysically possible.

Here's my view:
Under physicalism, if it is truly possible for the speed of light to have differed, it would have to be because the speed of light is contingent upon some law that is more fundamental. We don't know if there is such a law, and therefore we don't know if the speed of light is truly contingent. Consequently, we can't say that an alternative speed of light is truly metaphysically (or physically) possible. We can only say an alternative is conceptually possible.

IMO, outrage is reasonable as an initial reaction, but it should be followed by analysis.

Legal processes have been followed. The legal bases for removing Trump in both Colorado and Maine are documented. Analysis ought to be based on the merits of the legal arguments, rather than the ad hominem attacks we see. The same will be true when SCOTUS rules. We may agree or disagree with that ultimate decision, but we should all accept it as the final word.

Why does it hurt so much to see a dissenting opinion? — NOS4A2

I love to see dissenting opinions, when the dissenter fully backs up his opinion with facts.

Yes, by possible world I mean for example, a world where the speed of light is less, the gravitational constant is 10 times greater, etc. Those are not necessary exactly because they could have been otherwise. — Lionino

Conceivability does not track metaphysical possibility. What makes you think the gravitational constant (or speed of light...) could have been different? Wouldn't that entail a deeper law that produces those values?

After doing some thinking, I am not so sure whether physicalism implies the equivalence of metaphysical and physical possibility. — Lionino

What do you have in mind as something physically impossible, but metaphysically possible?

You also refer to "possible worlds". There can only be non-actual possible worlds if there is contingency in the actual world. The only known, true contingency in the world is quantum indeterminacy. Do you have something else in mind?

Great article. I recall there were 2 outside consulting firms that were hired to search for fraud (Berkeley is the other). Political speech is generally propoganda, but in Trump's case - it was aimed at defrauding the public- hence the indictments.

NOS4A2 is still correct that biased media also produces propoganda. But all propoganda works only when we embrace it uncritically. Trump's base seems to fail at that.

. If we can't be sure that what is in our "maps" is also in the "territory," then it seems that our physicalism might reveal itself to actually be subjective idealism. All knowledge turns out to be about how the mind represents the world, not the world itself. It is impossible to know anything about the noumena, the world in itself. But then why posit the noumena in the first place? It seems to be a position based solely on intuition and dogma. But our intuition continually turns out to be bad, the world isn't flat, etc. Plus, the noumena's existing or not makes no real difference for us. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Very interesting post!

I disagree that "all knowledge turns out to be about how the mind represents the world, not the world itself". Our internal representations are just the starting point. Fundamental physics (e.g. quantum field theory; general relativity) are well beyond our intuitive frameworks and the success of this science is a basis for confidence that these models are a good approximation. Any ontology is speculative, but doesn't it make the most sense to extrapolate from such science rather than to abandon it?

Physicalism is coherent: if we are produced from a world that is natural and physical, then our survival would require successful interactions with the actual world- thus implying our representations are functionally accurate- so it's a perfectly reasonable starting point to explore the world and to explain it. It's all about explaining the world to ourselves, so the starting and ending points are on the same basis. What I'm seeing in idealism seems somewhat defeatist:

Yet if we get rid of the noumena then we don't have a way to explain why all minds should work the same way, and if they don't work the same way and we can't know the intervening noumena, then we are basically all locked in our own seperate worlds. Or maybe we lose grounds for other minds existing entirely?

An ontology is a model of the noumena, is it not? So we aren't at all getting rid of it. Physicalism explains why all human minds work the same: they have the same physical construction, the product of the same evolutionary history- shaped by successful interaction with the world as it is.

I don't understand what you're saying. "Inference to the best explanation" is a form of abductive reasoning. It entails consideration of explanatory hypotheses (the explanations) and identifying the one that seems best in terms of things like explanatory power and scope, and ad hoc-ness.

Thanks. That sounds reasonable.

Inference to a best explanation is nothing if not a metaphysical process, right? — Mww

It's an epistemological process.

. All the evidence that is used to support the claim that "everything that has been discovered to date is physical," could equally be used to support the claim that "everything discovered to date has been mental." — Count Timothy von Icarus

The starting point, for a physicalist, is the basic, innate belief in a world external to ourselves, one that we perceive a reflection of through our senses .

What's the starting point for an idealist? Don't you have to adopt a position that is contrary to our innate noetic structure?

What about logical necessity? How is that 'necessitated by the physical'? — Wayfarer

Truthmaker theory (as explicated by David Armstrong, the patron saint of Physicalism) provides a grounding for logic.

If we define "physical" as what is currently understood by physics, the dilemma arises because our current understanding of physics is likely incomplete and may change in the future. As a result, the claim that the mind (for example) is 'physical' might be false simply because our current physics does not fully capture all physical aspects of the universe. And If we define "physical" as whatever a future, complete physics will include, the dilemma arises because this definition is too vague and open-ended. We cannot currently know what the future physics will encompass, making it difficult to make meaningful claims about the mind being physical based on this definition. — Wayfarer

A physicalist metaphysics is not dependent on what is known, or will be known. It is based on the axiom that everything that exists is physical. Physicalists accept this axiom because it is indeed all that's needed to account for everything known to exist - i.e. it's the most parsimonious ontology.

Consider me as one of those physicalists that won’t deny that the world might contain, as you say, many items that at first glance don’t seem physical.

Can I be a metaphysical physicalist? At least until convinced I can’t be? — Mww

So it's just the grounding for your worldview, right? You don't need an argument for it. — frank

I agree with Mww, but add that it's grounded by the fact that (IMO) physicalism is an inference to the best explanation for the known facts of the world. Most every aspect of the world is physical, the one possible exception being the hard problem of consciousness (which actually can be accounted for, but depends on a bit of hand-waving). But alternative metaphysical theories depend on more ad hoc assumptions.

Explain why you refer to Kirshner's tweet as "propaganda". (def: information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.)
Kirshner is an experienced former Federal Prosecutor who has examined the Trump cases (filings, rulings, etc), so it seems a plausible prediction, irrespective of the fact he's biased against Trump. FWIW, he correctly predicted the verdict in the Sexual Predator lawsuit.

By contrast, Trump wrote this on "Truth" Social:

It’s becoming more and more obvious to me why the “Crazed” Democrats are allowing millions and millions of totally unvetted migrants into our once great Country. IT’S SO THEY CAN VOTE, VOTE, VOTE. They are signing them up at a rapid pace, without even knowing who the hell they are. It all makes sense now. Republicans better wake up and do something, before it is too late. Are you listening Mitch McConnell?

I don't see how anyone could deny that THIS is propaganda. It's clearly misleading (at least), and intended to promote and publicize a particular political cause.

You parrott Trump's nonsense about a "Russia Hoax", unable to refute the facts I gave you. How is that an appeal to authority? Use of the term seems an appeal to an idiot.

As one of the few Trump supporters on this forum, you have the opportunity to show that a reasonable person could support Trump. But all you do is to repeat Trump's talking points, and deny facts when they're presented to you.

I've already shown you that the only "Russian hoax" was the one perpetrated by Trump. Understandably, you didn't respond, because deep down, you know the facts are not on your side.

This ludicrous assertion demonstrates that the conspiracy theory continues, in minds of the cult members. — Relativist

Again, no conspiracy, just a confluence of stupidity. — NOS4A2

I'm impressed! You are actually admitting members of the Trump cult are stupid! We've gotten through to you!

The judicial malfeasance explains why few of the election fraud claims were heard—they themselves were in on the steal. And so it continues. — NOS4A2

This ludicrous assertion demonstrates that the conspiracy theory continues, in minds of the cult members.

He lied about his knowledge regarding his son’s dealings, he used the fabricated talking point in the debates. I’m not well informed so perhaps you can come up with quotes yourself. — NOS4A2

There are no quotes that depict Joe telling a lie. Sure, he used the talking points for his political benefit, just as Trump used the NYPost story, and made absurd claims about Biden getting Shokin fired to help Hunter.

Re the Politico story, it adds only one minor fact: some unnamed White House spokesman said something that wasn't true by saying there was no informal encounter with Pozharskyi. Let's get this person fired for failing to seek the truth on the matter, or lying - whichever it was. So what?

It was misinformation as developed by former spies, some of whom fumbled the Russia hoax and defrauded the United States electorate. Biden used it to lie in the debates. Media used it to suppress the story. — NOS4A2

Indeed, the letter was produced for political purposes, and it was used by Joe to dodge questions about the laptop - but he didn't tell a lie. Look at the transcript. . Hardly a unique practice by politicians. I acknowledged this long ago. You refuse to acknowledge the fact that everything in the letter was actually true. Here's a link to the letter. Being wrong does not mean telling a lie.

As I said several posts ago, there is absolutely nothing in the laptop that implicates Joe Biden of a crime or of doing anything contrary to the interests of the United States. The laptop was dirt, and was used as a basis for spreading false information about him - somehow, you overlook that point amidst your ranting about misinformation. It was mudslinging, irrelevant to Biden's qualifications to be President. You're just pissed that the campaign successfully dodged the mud. So please stop pretending to have some moral high ground.

The so-called intelligence experts, the whitehouse, and Biden himself, as I've already said. There is nothing vague about it. — NOS4A2

Everything you just said is vague. What lie did the inteligence experts tell? "The White House" was the Trump administration at the time. What specific lie did Biden tell at the time? Provide quote and point to evidence that shows he knowingly made a false statement.

Julian Assange denied the emails came from Russia. Shawn Henry of Crowdstrike admitted under oath that there was no evidence the information was exfiltrated. The US government dropped the case against the Internet Research Agency. It was a bunch of hokum, a hoax, and you're still falling for it. — NOS4A2

You are not well informed.

Assange denying it was Russia doesn't make it so. The leak was traced to phishing email sent by the GRU, and were posted first by the Russian Intelligence persona of Guccifer 2.0, at DCLeaks, a website created by the GRU.

Shawn Henry testified to Rubio's committee that they'd determined the DNC hacks were by Russian Intelligence. 12 employees of the Internet Research Agency were indicted, GRU officer Yevgeny Prigoshin was indicted. He's not being pursued because he's dead.

The only hoax was Trump's fiction of a "Russia Hoax".

The author of the letter, Former acting CIA Director Michael Morell, asking John Brennan to sign the letter in an email said that he wanted to give Joe Biden a talking point in the debate. — NOS4A2

You forgot to give me the evidence Brennan & Morrell knew the NY Post story was true at the time. What's wrong with providing talking points for a debate?

Given this activity in light of their fake concern that "each of us believes deeply that American citizens should determine the outcome of elections..." — NOS4A2

What makes you think their concern is fake? It's established Russia interfered in 2016, and that their efforts had been continuing.

You spend too much time reading right wing spin, and not enough time trying to distinguish fact from biased accusation.

I haven’t conflated anything. Serious analysis of the drive itself and the contents therein contradicted everything they claimed about it. That’s just a fact. — NOS4A2

Your vague reference to "they" suggests you are conflating actions by a variety of people and organizations. Point to an individual who knowingly stated a clear falsehood.

We found out from the laptop that Joe Biden met with Burisma executive Vadym Pozharskyi In 2015, something the Whitehouse has repeatedly lied about. — NOS4A2

Biden has consistently said he never discussed business with Hunter or his associates, and his attendance at a dinner doesn't contradict this. Joe did dodge questions about the laptop, such as in the debate with Trump when he referred to the letter by former intelligence officers, but his comment was factual - even though it was misleading. Are you so naive as to think being misleading is a novel thing for political candidates?

Such a good father was the elder Biden that he let his son accompany him to China in 2013, and days later Hunter is appointed director of a new investment boutique backed by CCP money. — NOS4A2

This was public knowledge, not some revelation from the laptop. We're discussing the 2020 NY Post story about the laptop and the contents of the laptop, not your general opinion of Biden.

The disinfo and censorship of this info was less a conspiracy as it was a confluence of stupidity, just like the Russia hoax. — NOS4A2

Sure, there was stupidity in the handling of the story, including the way Giuliani gave exclusive access to only one right-wing outlet. The inability for other outlets to verify the information was a factor in the story not being reported widely. The other factor you overlook is Russia's history of assisting Trump, and Trump's taking maximum advantage of that assistance.

The Russian investigation was not a "hoax", because it was initiated as a result of a clear crime (Russians stealing information from DNC servers). A Trump campaign had knowledge of the crime before the emails were made public, and he lied about it. Additional lies were told by other campaign officials during the investigation - it would have been derelict to ignore this. Russian active measures to help Trump were well known during the 2020 campaign, and this was a major factor in wariness of media outlets at reporting it, and in the judgement of the former intelligence officers. It's pretty ironic that Russia's assistance in 2016 backfired on Trump's desire to spread irrelevant dirt in 2020.

it was former disgruntled CIA director John Brennan who delivered the letter to a politico writer known for pushing the Russian hoax, and the writer served it up on a propaganda platter for unsuspecting Americans getting ready to vote. — NOS4A2

None of the signatories of the letter lied. The letter said they were "suspicious of Russian involvement", that it was "consistent with Russian objectives", and "We do not know whether these press reports are accurate". Of course the Biden campaign would use this analysis to maximum advantage, just like the Trump campaign would try to maximize the NY Post story to their maximum advantage.

This may be above board for you but to many it reeks of corruption, collusion, election interference, and fraud. — NOS4A2

Hunter's corruption was well known.

"Election interference"?! Activities BY a campaign can hardly be called "election interference". Campaigns sling mud, and campaigns try to minimize the impact of that mudslinging.

"Fraud"? Be specific as to who you're accusing of fraud. The laptop story was dirt on Hunter Biden that the Trump campaign tried to use against Joe by drawing false inferences from the contents. You lament the failure of this dirty campaign tactic to succeed. The worst action by Joe that it exposed was that he attended an informal dinner with a Burisma associate and that Joe was misleading when asked about it. That's it!

You clearly brush away Trump's public embrace of assistance by Russia in his 2016 campaign, and direct, intentional lies by Trump and members of his campaign. Your excuse: you dismiss the entirety of the events (including the very real election interference ny Russia) as "hoax", because Trump tells you so. Then you treat campaign efforts to minimize the impact of the the laptop as something insidious, and falsely claim it entailed election interference.

If we adhere to the idea of universal natural law and assume that what we understand about that law is valid and reflects necessary or universal invariances, then within that context, we can talk about physical impossibilities. But the caveat will always be 'given that the laws of nature are themselves invariant". — Janus

If naturalism is true, and there are laws of nature, I suggest the true natural laws would be invariant. The way they manifest might be contingent on local conditions. That's why I think its important to refer to laws of nature, as you have done, rather than the laws of physics- which are based on our current understanding, and subject to revision as we learn more.

I’m not sure why you’d defend misinformation and censorship of that sort unless it’s because you want to dismiss and minimize the information therein. Is there some other reason I’m unaware of? — NOS4A2

You've conflated actions by social media organizations, the BIden campaign, and former intelligence officials.There's no evidence of any conspiracy, despite the misinformation spread by MAGA media and Congressmen.

Whether or not social media organizations should limit access to suspected disinformation is debatable. But the Biden campaign didn't tell anyone what to do.

I've already given you the facts about the former intelligence officers letter, but you choose to ignore the details.

Trump was spreading disinformation ABOUT the laptop,including false accusations that Biden's efforts to fire Shokin were related to the "revelations" on the laptop. Does this concern you? If not, why would it concern you that Biden tried to diminish the relevance?

I like to be as informed as possible. I read the NY Post story when it came out, and felt there was a sufficiently good chance the laptop contents were true, and felt it important to consider the implications if it were.The letter from the former intelligence officers indicated they didn't know if it was true, so it was a non-factor. The only thing I learned from the laptop materials was what a lowlife Hunter had been, and what a concerned father Joe was. There was nothing that indicated Joe had done anything wrong. I'm pretty confident that anyone who understood the full facts would have agreed. You haven't even pointed to anything that should be a concern to anyone, so I question your posturing about misinformation. It looks like you're simply upset that the right-wing spin on the laptop didn't dominate the public debate at the time. Sure, if those half-truths had been reported by all news outlets similarly to the spin by FOX, OANN, and NEWSMAX, it might have turned some fringe Biden voters off - but that would have been more a product of misinformation, not of full facts.

I would also raise that if physicalism is true, metaphysical possibility = physical possibility. — Lionino

100% agree.

Testimony has also confirmed, as have multiple news outlets and forensic analysis, that the laptop was legit, contradicting what has been said by so-called intelligence experts, the whitehouse, and Biden himself. That’s some dirty dirt. — NOS4A2

The laptop was dirt on Hunter, and contained nothing that impugned Joe's integrity. That his campaign would seek to minimize the relevance of that dirt during the campaign should be expected. Similarly, one would expect the Trump campaign to do as much with this dirt as they could - and they did. Does greater access to dirt really lead to more informed voting, as you suggested?

Nothing the former intelligence officers said was false. They merely expressed a judgement, and acknowledged that they didn't know if it was legit or not.

Biden denied involvement with Hunter's business. You may choose to consider a dinner appearance as business involvement, and label this a lie, but it's a pretty innocuous involvement. Why should this affect anyone's vote? It seems disingenous for you to suggest it relevant, since you excuse thousands of falsehoods that have streamed from Trump - many of which are pertinent to his qualifications to be President.

The laptop contained one email that indicated Biden had met one Burisma executive. That's all it said, and there's been no evidence since then of it being anything more. There was, and is, no evidence of Joe taking any actions favorable to Burisma, before or after. It was well established that Hunter had been capitalizing on his name. The laptop was used as dirt, pure and simple.

What "involvement" are you referring to? What information relevant to the election was the public unaware of? The laptop was dirt.

Exactly. There was no point in censoring it. — NOS4A2

It would be interesting to discuss what was actually done, why it was done, and what mistakes (if any) were made. However, it contained no information relevant to the election - so the complaint seems vacuous.

Your lot censored the NY post in the lead up to an election because they were so scared of the truth. — NOS4A2

What "truth" was there to be afraid of? The NY Post article was available, and I read it at the time. It made Hunter look terrible, but he wasn't running.

I think the mistake is overthinking elections. — Mikie

My view is the exact opposite. Too many people underthink the consequences of their vote and who is elected.

But I agree with most of what you wrote.

I feel safe in predicting that Biden will again win the popular vote... But it remains to be seen if he can carry the swing states he needs to win. Biden's unpopularity may lead many to stay home rather than vote. Biden barely won some states in 2020, so it wouldn't take much of a shift.

What worries me more are those who believe it doesn't matter who wins, because both candidates are flawed. They may sit out, vote for a 3rd option, or vote to kick out the incumbent.

It’s a good thing contesting an election is part and parcel of democracy. At least they didn’t furiously change election laws in the lead up to the election underneath the noses of voters. — NOS4A2

Changing the law is part and parcel of democracy, just as is contesting elections through legal means. What's not part and parcel is trying to overturn an election through election fraud after all legal avenues have been exhausted.

It's not mere insufficient knowledge of neuroscience. It just doesn't seem possible to account for certain aspects of consciousness through natural means Qualia are the most glaring. We can envision how to program things like belief, deduction, and intentionality - but not the actual experience of pain, sadness, pleasure, etc.

GOP do not consider Trump a "proven loser" (70% believe he won in 2020), a majority are delighted Roe was overturned, and Trump's indictments just fire up the base. A conviction might hurt him, but I doubt one will occur in 2024.

On the plus side: Trump "only" has about 50% support among GOP. If the field narrows down to 2 (e.g. Trump vs Haley), early enough, there's a fair chance Trump won't get the nomination. Then, I agree, he'll run as a 3rd party and doom the election for the GOP.