These are exceptional circumstances calling for extreme measures. Ukraine is still supposed to be a democracy and hence is supposed to lift those measures in peace time. — Olivier5

I didn't say they weren't a democracy without reason, but the fact that they currently aren't simply renders you statement untrue. Ukrainians are not currently determining the course Ukraine takes. The government of Ukraine are, unilaterally.

US citizens have currently limited say on anything their federal government does, least of all in foreign policy. — Olivier5

And yet you say of Ukraine...

pollsters poll people. Supporters are people and so are funders. You are saying that the government needs the support of the people,and all that is true. — Olivier5

...and when I ask how the Ukrainians are going to get a say absent any democratic process, you answered...

Via polls, via their financial support, their discipline or lack thereof, and their physical engagement as soldiers. — Olivier5

Minus the physical engagement as soldiers, how are any of those factors any different in the US?

How is the UK fairing there, BTW? Would you qualify your current governance system as 'optimal'? — Olivier5

Far from it. Our government, as most others, is dictated to by lobbyists and takes shockingly little notice of any other advice. The point is, that compared to Ukraine, I'd wager it cares slightly more about the opinion of the people (if only in a self-serving re-election bid) than the Ukrainian government does, divested, as they currently are, of either the need for re-election, nor the need to counter opposition groups and media.

You've given no mechanisms for citizen involvement present in Ukraine, yet absent in the US/UK. But the US/UK have at least a veneer of democracy (needing re-election), so in any comparison their citizens would have (if measurable at all) a marginally higher chance of influencing events than the citizens of Ukraine do.

Add to this the fact that, if a citizen of the US/UK did manage to influence their government even to the tiniest degree, that government then has the power to multiply that influence on world affairs because they are a very powerful government. Ukraine is not.

I think the only exceptions here are the actual army which, by virtue of being the tools used for the jobs currently, have an enormous influence on the course of events, particularly the generals etc.

But the Ukrainian army might just about reach 300,000, maybe 1,200,000 including reservists. Their population is 40 million. A good sample size, but hardly representative.

I don't see any justification here for the claim that Ukrainians are dictating the course of events in Ukraine. The main actors are clearly the Ukrainian Government, The Russian Government, the armies of both nations, and the funders like the US, UK and EU. Next down would be the major influencers like the big media organisations and the main lobbying groups. I really don't see actual Ukrainians getting into the top ten even.

Because Ukraine is supposed to be a democracy. — Olivier5

In addition to my response above, Ukraine is not currently a democracy. Opposition parties have been banned, severe restrictions on free press are in place, and no timetable for elections exists.


I would definitely argue that the average citizen of the US has more of a say (via lobbying their politicians, who lobby the US government, who lobby/fund the Ukrainian government), than the average citizen of, say, Lvov. The Ukrainian government aren't currently listening to lobbying from citizens and have suspended normal democratic processes.

But maybe you have some other mechanism in mind. By what mechanism do you propose the average citizen of Lvov is going to take part in the decision as to what course Ukraine now follows?

I'm asking you, what reasons you have to hold such a moral prescription: "the location of the line dividing Russia from Ukraine ought to be considered irrelevant, and bearing zero moral weight". — neomac

Matters that have moral weight tend to relate to issues of humanitarian needs or virtues. Either the behaviour in question can be shown to lead to some material harm to human welfare, or it is non-virtuous in some way. Moving a border (in general) is neither.

I don't have a unique personal opinion on the matter. 'Moral' is a word in the English language, I don't have a private definition of it.

You might as well ask why the action of propelling oneself through water is 'swimming'. That's just what the word means it refers to a particular type of behaviour. If we were to disagree over whether treading water constituted swimming, we might have a profitable discussion. If you suggested that doing the tango constituted 'swimming' you'd just be wrong.

Directly, it's up to the actual soldiers, diplomats and support staff doing the fighting/negotiating (they could refuse).

Less directly, the government of Ukraine will instruct those soldiers, diplomats and support staff and so strongly influence their actions.

Less directly still, the government's funders, supporters, lobbyists and pollsters will influence the government's decisions.

Absent a referendum or election I don't see how the Ukrainians en masse are going to get a say, certainly not above that third group of government influencers which, without doubt, includes the US and most major EU countries.

I don't think it's that simple. It is definitely up to the Ukrainians what course of action Ukraine follows. — Olivier5

In what way?

A priori, nothing. A poll is just not a moral statement.

I suppose one should also consult the opinion of the nearby Russians, the pro-Russian folks in occupied territories, etc. — Olivier5

Right. Then we're in agreement. There's no moral weight whatsoever to the opinion of the 'Ukrainians' over the opinion of anyone else with a stake.

So we can finally ditch all this bullshit about how it ought to be "up to the Ukrainians" whenever someone brings up some view as to what course of action is best.

The discussion here was originally, though, about territory. About who has a legitimate say over which government governs which territory. My point being that if one were to consult anyone other than the people directly living there, then those neighbouring the territory (on both sides of the border) would be the next most important people to consult - not people 600 miles away who just happen to share the same passport.

All of this is directed at the argument that there's no moral weight behind the location of any given border. The struggle to keep it in its current location is not a moral struggle, it's nationalistic, not noble.

Okay so there lies the answer to your question: in a democracy., citizens are expected to have a say. — Olivier5

What question do you think that's an answer to?

I asked what moral weight there was to consulting the citizen of Lvov and not the citizen of Rostov.

You've given me a reason why I might expect the citizen of Lvov to be consulted.

I didn't ask why I might expect them to be.

I asked why they ought to be - what gives their view greater moral weight than mine, or yours, or the nearby Russian's

So you ought to agree that there is no moral issue in consulting them. In fact, that would be expected in a democracy. — Olivier5

Yep, that's right.

Why should they NOT be consulted? — Olivier5

I didn't say they ought not be consulted (a moral proscription is very different to the mere opposite of a moral prescription), so I'm not sure why you're asking this question but...

We can only, pragmatically, consult a limited number of people (when using methods such as voting or polling, for example), so some people will have to be not consulted in that sense.

There are numerous reasonable candidates for what we might use as a threshold of elimination, but pieces of paper are pretty low down that list. I'd say geographic proximity, and economic and social connectivity might be near the top.

The question, however, was about the moral weight, not pragmatics. I don't see any moral argument for why anyone ought not be consulted. I suppose mental incapacity, possibly...

Define: "have a say". — Olivier5

It wasn't my quote. I was paraphrasing @Paine's "...be consulted", so the question is better directed there lest this whole discussion be based on a mistranslation.

That said, the notion of 'Ukrainians' being the morally appropriate group to decide what course of action ought be followed with regards to the progress of this war is a common enough one. I take it to mean, fairly simply, that in a case of disagreement, 'having a say' means that your view takes precedent in some way over someone else who voices a contrary opinion. That might be by way of voting for authorisation, or it might be simply the moral weight given to an opinion. I don't think the practical method by which the 'say' is implemented matters here.

How do you assign moral weight? — neomac

Do I have to explain morality, is the notion unfamiliar to you?

Some classes of human activities are 'moral', they concern a loose affiliation of behavioral types we've grouped under that umbrella term for various reasons (although some consider there to be only one reason, but that argument's irrelevant here)

When someone asks "what is the moral weight behind that?" they are asking for reasons why the behaviour in question belongs in that group and not some other.

If someone claims that choosing which hat to wear has moral weight, I'd expect an explanation by way of pointing to how the choice of hat is similar in either consequence or virtue to other classes of behaviour we call 'moral'.

Here's how this little subsection of the conversation started.

Should the Ukrainians be consulted over whether Russia is entitled to their lands? — Paine

So if your answer is, yes, anyone with the right piece of paper should be consulted, anyone without the right peice of paper doesn't get a say, then I'm asking why.

Why does having that piece of paper confer a say in global affairs denied to others?

My answer is that it's an administrative matter. We have (or struggle to have) representative democracies and to administer those we need, as a matter of pure pragmatism, to subdivide the population into administrative units.

But my answer fails to give any moral weight to the hierarchical arrangement of those units. So I'm asking, whence the moral weight being applied here?

The right of 'the Ukrainians' to be in charge of what goes on in Donbas seems to be being given moral weight, not just administrative pragmatism. I'm asking for the source of that moral weight.

Not "why do they have a say?"
"Why ought they?"

I don;t see the problem. — Olivier5

Then you should be able to answer the question. It's not a complex one.

Why does having the right piece of paper, or worse still, the right 'feelings' confer on a citizen of Lvov the right to have a say in the future of some land 600 miles away that they've never even seen, but denies that right to someone living and working within a stone's throw of its border? — Isaac

Was that an attempt at humouring me? — Olivier5

It was an attempt to show the stupidity of your response. We could identity Ukrainians by any means we like. The point was to justify that choice.

Why does having the right piece of paper, or worse still, the right 'feelings' confer on a citizen of Lvov the right to have a say in the future of some land 600 miles away that they've never even seen, but denies that right to someone living and working within a stone's throw of its border?

If I declared I now 'self-identified' as a Ukrainian, do I get a say?

Much of the Isreal-Palestinian conflict for the past half century has been about borders, those of 67 vs those orior 67. I.e. the status of the "occupied territories". — Olivier5

I didn't question what the war was about though did I. Try reading first and responding second. It's in the fucking quote you took the time to highlight...

I don't know of much condemnation of Israel that isn't about methods, not borders. — Isaac

...do you see it now?

Simple. One could use nationality, or self-identification. Eg anyone with the legal papers, or anyone self identifying as Ukrainian, gets to be seen as Ukrainian. — Olivier5

One could use headwear too. Anyone with a green trilby is a 'Ukrainian'.

Or we could use length of index finger, over 9cm and you're in.

why "more than a little distasteful"? Happens all the time, just check periodical condemnation of Israel. — jorndoe

I don't know of much condemnation of Israel that isn't about methods, not borders. But sure, it happens all the time. So does racism. Doesn't make either any less distasteful.

The point I'm making here is that the location of the line dividing Russia from Ukraine is utterly irrelevant, an administrative matter. It has zero moral weight. Yet maintaining it is adopted as a moral crusade by those for whom its location is meaningless, those who probably don't even know where it is right now.

Such affectation would be nothing more than pretentious were it not for the fact that these people are vociferously advocating the continuance of a bloody and devastating war to keep this arbitrary line where is currently is.

The idea that there's two immutable 'nations' and that it matters whose flag is over which bit of land is the cause of this war, not the solution to it.

Russia's problems aren't solved by reducing their territory at enormous human cost. They're solved by changing the government. Same goes for Ukraine, same goes for the US. How much land each one has is largely irrelevant. The quality of their governance over that land is what matters. It's insane to think that the best strategy for improving the lives of any given population of people is to engage them in a bloody war so that a slightly less awful government might govern the land they happen to be on, it's crazily inefficient, not to mention barbarous.

I didn't bring up the poll to argue for a proper resolution of the conflict but to point out that there are enough self-identified Ukrainians around to undermine your claim:

There's no such entity as 'the Ukrainians' to even ask. — Paine

That's exactly the claim I was addressing. The poll didn't rely only on self-identified Ukrainians it pre-stratified the sample. It didn't ask a random selection from the population of the world and then proceeded to identify jenks breaks or something. It determined in advance a group of people to ask on the grounds of their being 'Ukrainian'. It begged the question of whether such a natural grouping exists by asking only what they already thought that group was.

Notwithstanding the methodological problem. You've not addressed the issue of the ground on which any such self-identified group has a right to whatever territory it believes it possesses.

I use "they" in the hope they are reporting what they think in polls such as these.

I imagine you will dismiss it as fake news. But it is by means of gathering reports in some way that we will learn the answer. — Paine

They just beg the question because the polls already have decided who to ask and who not to ask.

Why did they not ask the Russians who live on the border of Donbas? Why did they ask the population of Lvov 600 miles away? What does it mean that a pre-stratified sample shows exactly the results you'd expect from the very act of stratification?

The point is not "If we pick an arbitrary grouping, what would they, on average, think?" the point is "why are we asking that arbitrary grouping and not this other?"

By what means does the view of the average citizen of Lvov gain any legitimacy whatsoever on the question of the future of Donbas, but the view of the average citizen of Rostov not?

That's the language of both attacker and defender though, and most others. — jorndoe

Indeed. But less commonly the language of unrelated bystanders, which is what's different here. We might expect those living in Ukraine to be nationalistic (it's a common enough narrative). We might similarly expect the attackers to be nationalistic in their desire to see the territorial lines re-arranged. What's weird (and more than a little distasteful) is the degree to which people who've never had even the slightest connection to either Ukraine or Russia are affecting this sudden passion for the integrity of either party's borders. On what possible grounds would we care?

They are loudly telling themselves. — Paine

'They' are not. Some people are, others aren't. It's you who are reifying such a situation into a 'they'.

Otherwise, answer the question. By what criteria are you identifying the Ukrainian from the Russian by such a means as confers on the Ukrainian a right to a say over the future of a piece of land they've never seen but denies it of the Russian living and working within spitting distance.

If the Ukrainians don't exist, you need to get out there and tell them. — Paine

And how would I tell 'them'. There's 40 million. Do you really imagine 'them' to be one homogeneous mass with a single opinion?

It's patently absurd to think that some lines on a map drawn by a few men in a gilt-laden hotel room decades ago somehow captures a gestalt that emerged from nature.

How exactly do you propose we identify a 'Ukrainian' in a way that isn't racist? Living there? That would strip citizenship of all refugees. Family there? That would strip immigrants of their citizenship in their new home. Passports? Accents? Feelings?

What criteria would you like to use to distinguish a 'Ukrainian' who has a right to be asked about the future of Dombas (even if they live 600 miles away and have never been there) from a Russian who has no right to be asked even if they live a stone's throw away on the border?

After the collapse of Soviet Union one could question that Chechnya was within Russian borders. — neomac

One could question that Crimea was in Ukrainian borders.

Are we really going to rehash the whole 19th jingoism? I suppose that would go well with our rush to world war three, rampant nationalism did a good job of warmongering back then, its got a good track record.

Using what exactly would one go about 'questioning' the properness of a border?

Ought we test the genetic stock of the population either side?

It would not be a redefinition of language to note an important difference between your examples and a "retention" involving the Massacre of Civilians in order to preserve this "entitlement." — Paine

Of course it would. Entitlement to the integrity of a country's borders is not predicated on the means by which they execute such entitlement.

Should the Ukrainians be consulted over whether Russia is entitled to their lands? — Paine

Which Ukrainians? The ones living in Lvov 600 miles away from Donetsk? Why the hell ought they have any say? Why not the people of Rostov, a mere 50 odd miles away? Nationalism is bullshit. There's no such entity as 'the Ukrainians' to even ask.

Various folks. — Olivier5

So why would you need any more specific an answer in the case of Poland, the Baltic states, Hungary, Slovakia, Romania, the Czech republic? Might the answer not likewise be "various folks"?

arguably a case also for "Russian imperialism" since the Chechen war was a war for independence against "Russian imperialism" — neomac

Brilliant. Russia was 'imperialistically' retaining territory already within its borders. Some of the stuff you come up with is priceless. But Ukraine, I take it are not 'imperialistically' retaining Donbas? Their right to their borders being different, of course, because they're the good guys.

It would be more accurate to call it a case of imperial retention — Paine

Why 'imperial' retention. Are the UK 'imperialistically' retaining Northern Ireland?
Are Spain 'imperialistically' retaining Catalonia?

Is Russia entitled to any land at all? Or are we just going to say anything more than a shed outside Moscow is just rampant empire building?

It's frightening how easily narratives get shored up against all odds, even to the point of redefining the language to make it fit.

So, anyway, what avenues remain possible? — jorndoe

Fewer and fewer, thanks mainly to the war cheerleading we're seeing such shining examples of here.

As I said before, I think unsanctioned back channels are our main hope now.

Then you asked me for evidences about Georgia ... which case BTW presents -similarities to what Putin is doing now in Ukraine — neomac

You mean the war in which;

1) European and US envoys were dispatched to negotiate peace within just three days of fighting.
2) The President of France negotiated a ceasefire
3) Russia and a number of other countries recognized Abkhazia and South Ossetia as separate republics

...which tentatively ended the war.

The exact solutions currently being vociferously rejected with regards to Ukraine.

Oh, and do you even reslise how absurd it is to include Chechnya in your list of evidences of imperialist expansion?

Because they sought some amount of protection against possible aggressions, I suppose. — Olivier5

From whom?

Do you have the slightest idea why Poland, the Baltic states, Hungary, Slovakia, Romania and the Czech republic all joined NATO, then? — Olivier5

Do you have the slightest idea why Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan joined the Collective Security Treaty Organization?

Arguments based upon authority are the weakest kind. — Paine

You're right, of course, but to back up @Mikie I did also have 'a bit of think about it' from my armchair and reached the same conclusion.

Ukraine would be subject to transparency and standards to join the EU, for example. — jorndoe

How's that going...?

Greece: Pushbacks and violence against refugees and migrants are de facto border policy

Croatia: Damning new report slams systematic police abuses at country’s borders

Slovakia: Hate crime against refugees and migrants widespread but unreported

Refugees crossing Channel tell of beatings by French police

... You know, had I not just been so thoroughly educated here on this thread about the true enlightenment values of the West, I might have been confused into thinking these countries were encouraged to join so that they could provide the richer states with a source of cheap labour, rather than to help them improve their benighted Eastern attitudes... but that would be crazy, right?

it just seems like that ship has sailed long ago; the Kremlin (and Putin) appears to be on a wretched warpath. — jorndoe

Did you read about the recent shitshow in the US? The ship didn't 'sail'. It was burnt down, smashed and then sunk - without any assistance from the Kremlin.

It's exactly the kind of warmongering rhetoric we see repeated here that's preventing progressive politicians from even talking about peace-talks. All we can hope for is something through one of the back-channels, something away from the baying blood-lust of the social medal frenzy. Maybe there are a few diplomats still working on both sides who aren't either kleptocrats or more concerned about their Twitter profile than avoiding war. I think we have to hope that there's someone in the Russian cabinet and someone in either Ukraine, or one of the NATO governments, who are prepared to risk their necks speaking to each other against the wills of their respective leaders.

That's the West. And also that's the West: Human Rights Watch (HRW) is an international non-governmental organization, headquartered in New York City (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Rights_Watch). — neomac

https://humanrightshouse.org/human-rights-houses/moscow/

https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/peace/2022/press-release/

I'm struggling to think of anything more dumbfoundingly bigoted than thinking the fight for human rights is a 'Western thing'.

Good to know the 10,000 dead didn't die for nothing. Take that Russia! Perhaps we throw some Lithuanians at them next, see if we can't put a dent in their precious metals exports too. Fingers crossed we don't annihilate civilisation in nuclear holocaust first, but hey, can't make an omelette without breaking eggs...

https://jacobin.com/2022/10/ukraine-war-letter-diplomacy-progressive-congress-caucus-foreign-policy/

Latest step in our descent into absolute fucking lunacy. Well done everyone.

Aww, that's lovely. Shame not every refugee is equally as 'Ukrainian' as this pretty young Arian TV bait you've dredged up for the virtue-hungry masses.



Still, I'm sure all that will change on Ukraine's path to Western enlightenment...

20 Years of Immigrant Abuses

...oh.

I think your unreasonableness and propensity towards destroying another’s property is a silly ruse. — NOS4A2

Ah, back to the old "you agree with me really" argument. Your inability to imagine how other people might hold different views to you is your problem alone.

Even your “system of representatives” would laugh in your face about your claims to my property. — NOS4A2

As they would yours. Our current “system of representatives” tends to assume the holder of the appropriate legal document is the owner.

You know I would choose peaceful resolutions because I suggested peaceful resolutions — NOS4A2

You've suggested nothing of the sort. I asked you how the 7 billion people with a legitimate interest in the use of the rainforest might peacefully resolve their differences with the legal owners who are currently destroying it (by cultivation, ironically), you've given me absolutely zip.

You would prefer a third party, the monopoly on violence, to fill in where your own morals and conscience and deliberation wouldn’t. — NOS4A2

It's not my morals and deliberation they're standing in for, it's the strength of my arm. I'm 56, and though I'd give you fair clip round the ear, I'm going to need some backup to take your garden.

So...

The agricultural companies in the rainforest till the land and claim it thereby as theirs. 7 billion people, preferring oxygen to soya, claim "hey, we were using that just as it was". Now what?

Surely it’s difficult to assess the overall global impact of a war that is still ongoing, with short and long terms effects, considering also that war can inflict direct damages on any material and social dimension. But also in this case the internet can help: https://news.un.org/pages/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/GCRG_2nd-Brief_Jun8_2022_FINAL.pdf — neomac

Your argument requires a comparison, it cannot be supported by the provision of only one side. You argued that the effect was greater than... that requires two sources showing that one is greater than the other. Providing one source and saying "wow, that looks really big" is not sufficient.

it is precisely the geopolitical significance of this war to the global order that magnifies the importance of any material and human damage caused by this war, especially from the Western prospective. — neomac

So I was right with "...you reckon" then, since none of that can be quantified and rests entirely on your subjective opinion.

I see. And who are the “experts in their field” arguing that “Western countries should ‘mount a multi-billion dollar campaign’ to counter the risk of famine, pollution and diseases around the world without meddling in regional conflicts”?
Who are the “experts in their field” arguing that Ukraine would NOT have a better chance to grow in terms of civil rights within the western sphere of influence (e.g. by joining NATO and EU) than within the Russian sphere of influence?
And by “arguing” I mean employing actual cold-blooded “experts in their field” arguments, not expressing wishes or voicing propaganda slogans. — neomac

I'm simply not playing this childish game.

1) Look back through my posts. I've cited dozens of experts, yet still this cheap rhetorical trick is trotted out every few pages "where's your evidence", as if it hadn't already been supplied in droves.
2) You cannot expect to keep shifting the burden of proof and act as if that was a counter argument. If you think there are literally no experts advising multi-billion dollar campaigns against poverty, famine, pollution, and disease, then you're the one who needs to supply evidence to back up such a wild claim.

Well, we might still disagree on how to asses experts. And even on how one cites experts. — neomac

I don't see how. The qualification of experts is pretty standard, as is the method of citation. But sure, if you think there's some non-standard method you want to employ, I'm all ears.

you didn’t offer any argument showing that the same fixed pool of evidences can support both the claim that Russia is military performing well and failing to perform well on the battlefield, or both that surrendering to Russia is better for Ukraine than to keep fighting and vice versa, or both that Ukraine wants to keep fighting and it doesn’t. — neomac

As I said, you need to meet a minimum threshold of comprehension to take in part in discussions at this level. If you seriously don't understand how evidence underdetermines theories then I can't help you (not on this thread anyway - feel free to open a thread raising the question and we can discuss it there).

there are still rational requirements that could constrain the number of possible theories — neomac

There are, yes. That's the nature of the subsequent discussion. If you have any arguments from those measures then crack on, let's hear them. "I doubt that" is not an argument.

One can still discriminate between rational and irrational — neomac

To paraphrase Van Inwagen, if you and your epistemic peer disagree, you must accept the possibility of your epistemic peer group being wrong, and that includes you. You cannot resolve a disagreement about what is rational by appeal to what is rational.

If you want to talk about war crimes for the war in Ukraine, there is an entry in wikipedia that summarises the situation better than that single Amnesty article could, that’s all. And if your objective was to provide a source without “a moral condemnation of Russia”, I’m afraid that article isn’t a big help once you read it carefully. — neomac

I want to do neither. The argument was about whether Ukraine had committed war crimes, I posted an article proving they had. That's it. It does not need to further caveats to remind everyone that Russia has too, and the suggestion that Wikipedia is a better source than an actual published paper is too absurd for further comment.

Anyway, in the present case (different from the example above), millions of Ukrainians have fled, and many are fighting, apparently with notable unity/cohesion/direction. Can we easily say what the right thing to do is? — jorndoe

I don't think we can. Contrary to the strawmen I'm not arguing for any particular solution. I'm arguing that just such an uncertainty as you paint here genuinely exists (I'm doing that by showing alternatives are plausible). The right course of action is not clear, it's not ludicrous, insane, or Putin-apologist, or whatever the latest...to advocate an alternative strategy than 'feed Ukrainians weapons until they win'.

As to the issues in question, my twopenneth...

• saving lives (perhaps minimize suffering / maximize well-being) — jorndoe

I think it's a very hard sell, given the fact that Ukraine are no angels themselves, to say that more lives would be lost ceding territory than by continuing war. Another year of war is likely to produce another few hundred thousand casualties. There's simply no reason to think anywhere near that number more would arise from Russian peace-time occupation than from Ukrainian.

• giving in versus standing up to attackers (perhaps courage versus cowardice) — jorndoe

I don't see the argument here. Clearly a successful Ukrainian defense isn't going to send any kind of 'message' about the morality of attacking foreign countries. The US attacks foreign countries all the time and gets away with it. The world's moral compass is hardly on the line here (as opposed to elsewhere).

• dis/allowing offenders/thugs to continue/escalate offending (compromise, future) — jorndoe

In war, clearly some invasions are successful, others aren't. It's always been that way. The fact that some invasions fail doesn't seem to have acted as a deterrent before, I don't see why it would suddenly start doing so now.

• doing the right thing — jorndoe

This is where the most interesting argument is. What is the right thing that isn't already covered by your first point? What legitimate moral interest do we have aside from the humanitarian one?

if, on my next day off, I wandered over to the Life Sciences building at the local state university, and asked everyone I met there about biosemiosis and Friston and Salthe and all the rest, they would all assure me that it is universally accepted — except perhaps for a handful of dinosaurs on the verge of retirement — and as well-supported as, say, evolution. — Srap Tasmaner

Neuroscience is oddly divided, in my experience. If you did take such a survey, you wouldn't so much get a dozen different meta-theories as you'd get one or two meta-theories and 90% shrugs, or a muttered "we poke X, Y happens - we're now developing a drug to poke X".

Neuroscience can be incredibly, frustratingly mechanistic. Mainly, to be fair, because the brain is so fiendishly complicated that trying to distil it into any kind of meta-theory is a nightmare whereas treating it like a mechanical 'black box' can yield a surprising amount of well-cited papers along the "we poked X and Y happened" lines.

As to the 10% remaining (probably less, to be honest) - would they all agree with Friston? Well, in my experience (which is limited to a couple of British Universities and the journals I read, so not representative), there'd be little disagreement about the fundamentals such as the basics of predictive modelling in general. The hierarchy of ascending cortices Friston uses is disputed - some take a more multiple equal processing approach. The degree to which cellular-level uncertainty avoidance manifests in behaviour is often swamped, not by competing meta-theories, but by a 60 year-old obsession with the role of neurotransmitters in affect (low on Serotonin, anyone?). So I think basically you'd get little disagreement at the neural network level, but a lot of muddy water when extrapolating out into behaviour. Once the super-stardom of neurotransmitters fades, I think we'll see support more in line with the bigger theories, but it's like convincing music aficionados that other bands are at least as good as the Beatles. Hard work.

One of the aspects fo the free energy principle that's often misunderstood is that it describes the consequences of self-organisation as much as it models reality. As such, although there are predictions and experiments such as this one to support them, there is also a big chunk of the theory that simply not disputable - not because of the weight of evidence, but because, like mathematics, it's just re-arranged the equations to say something interesting. You can dispute that it's interesting, but you can't dispute that that if Y=X then also X=Y, if you see what I mean. Friston's basic free energy gradient equations are just re-arrangements for Bayesian optimisation of entropy gradient climbing expressions. It's more a description of what it means to avoid entropy (remain organised) than a modelling assumption, in that sense.

The resolution to the dispute between you and I is inevitably violence. Your claims to my garden are unreasonable — NOS4A2

Well there you have your answer. You, apparently, do not need to be governed, but I do because my behaviour is unreasonable. As you said...

It’s always someone else. — NOS4A2

The utter stupidity of the question (as @Mikie has already pointed out) is that of course you don't think you need to be governed because you have your ideas of what right and wrong are and hopefully do what's right. The question of government is what you do with everyone else. Do you just (as you would) fight them, or do you come up with more peaceful ways of settling differences?

Most opt for the latter, using a system of representatives and agreeing that enforcing the will of the majority of those representatives is grim but necessary alternative to us all just fighting it out.

Your thread seems nothing more than another "wouldn't the world be great if everyone just agreed with me"

I think it worth recognising a difference between our language around cause and effect and our language around intent and responsibility.

Hence my preference for something along the lines of anomalous monism, in which our intentions are not reducible in any direct way to physical states. — Banno

I agree with the anomalous monism, but I think where I might be slightly more sympathetic to @Joshs's position is that, if I've understood it correctly, anomalous monism allows for this overlapping layer of language (and associated consents) measured by felicitous usage rather than correspondence with some physical description of the world. Here your quibble about 'intent' as used in law is valid as it doesn't matter one jot what the neurons of the defendant are doing, it matters only what the defendant, as a person, is doing.

My counter-quibble is that sometimes it does matter what the neurons of the defendant are doing, cases have bee acquitted on grounds of mental incapacity and the expert witnesses in those cases are often neuroscientists attesting to exactly the kind of reductionism about intent that Dishbrain is the extreme end of "He cannot have intended to murder X because the neurons forming that intent were disrupted in their activities by a tumour".

So there is, I think, an uncomfortable leak in the otherwise watertight irreducibility of our terms like 'intent'. What to do about that leak, I don't know, but I think those acquitted of crimes they had no 'intention' of committing are probably grateful for it.

As to Dishbrain, I'm personally quite comfortable in saying that it didn't intend to play Pong, having no concept of 'playing Pong' toward which to direct its actions.

For me, the idea of Dishbrain 'intending' to avoid uncertainty is the exact opposite of what the experiment shows (and what Friston predicted). The experiment, insofar as it supports the free energy principle, demonstrates that it is a physical necessity that self organising systems such as a cortex of neurons will act on the world to avoid uncertainty. That's the beauty of the theory, they can't not (and remain self-organised). I don't think such a physical necessity matches they way we normally use 'intent'. It might show that there's no physical basis behind our word at all, but that's fine, I don't see there needs to be.

Most people avoid tense situations. Repo man spends his life getting into tense situations.

I'll take obscure 80s crime flicks over Freud.

no instant-karate-brain-chips in the next year or so, I suppose — Moliere

No, but they might progress to pac-man.