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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

"Trying to give the campaign, particularly during the debate on Thursday, a talking point to push back on Trump on the issue."

https://justthenews.com/sites/default/files/2023-05/MorellBrennanEMailOct2020.pdf

Given this activity in light of their fake concern that "each of us believes deeply that American citizens should determine the outcome of elections", it appears they lied. It was clearly a political operation used to influence the election, to help the Biden campaign and cripple Trump. I'm interested to hear how you'll spin it.

I’m only arguing that if consciousness does not apply to the physiology, there is no other object to which it can apply. The circularity begins when you promise that “ when we describe ourselves as being conscious we're describing that non-physiological aspect of ourselves”, and when asked which non-physical aspect of ourselves we’re describing, you answer “consciousness”.

The reason I would say no such aspects exist is because there is no indication such aspects exist.

I was hoping the term could be used to describe an aspect of ourselves. The term "conscious" cannot describe "consciousness", I'm afraid.

What non-physical aspect of ourselves does the word "conscious" describe?

What non-physiological aspects are you speaking of?

When I describe John as being the winner of the race I'm describing John, but being a winner is not the same thing as being John. In fact, nothing about John's base biology has anything to do with him being the winner of the race. Of course, his base biology obviously plays an explanatory role in how he won, but they are still independent things.

When I describe John as being conscious I'm describing John, but being conscious is not the same thing as being John. And, like above, it may be that nothing about John's base biology has anything to do with him being conscious. Of course, his base biology obviously plays an explanatory role in why he's conscious, but they are still independent things

“Winner” is a noun. I was talking about the switch from adjectives to nouns, for instance “happy” becomes “happiness”. Try describing “happy” without referencing an object. It’s difficult. Luckily language permits us to make of the adjective a noun, treating it as if it was concrete and its own thing, where we can start to apply more adjectives to it. It becomes a “quality”, “state”, or “condition”. This raises the question: a quality, state, or condition of what thing? In the case of human consciousness, the answer is the human, which is physiological. If we cannot answer that question, we just start compounding adjectives, describing really nothing.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that anatomy is the reason why someone engages in activities. A full account of why I, let's say, go for a jog, seems to require consideration of the subjective conscious experience, not just my physiology. If asked why I did this, I wouldn't say "because I have functioning limbs" or "because of my brain states prior to and during the jog." Rather, the reason I went for a jog is because I wanted to get some exercise.

It’s the reason why such an organism can jog, and the reason why other organisms, like invertebrates, cannot. The anatomy determines the full range of motions and activities any given organism can do in any given environment.

That’s exactly what it means. The adjective describes the thing, which in the case of an organism is wholly physiological. It does not nor cannot describe anything else.

Adding the suffix “-ness” only serves to abstract the description away from the thing it describes, for whatever reason. At any rate, it cannot be shown that any such thing called “consciousness”, physical or non-physical, is produced or possessed by the organism.

I like that.

Personally I think the hard problem occurs only when we speak about the abstract. For instance, the hard problem asks how physiology (the concrete) gives rise to "conscious experience" (the abstract). Here the description "conscious" is lifted from the concrete and placed upon some abstract entity or substance, which we are then forced to think about. But how can "experience" be conscious? How can any abstraction be conscious? Further thinking proves this adjective is inapplicable and inexplicable to that noun, yet I'm supposed to wonder how such a phenomenon can be explained.

Chalmers often says that "conscious experience" "arises", as if it was the morning sun. He asks why these concrete things and concrete functions are "accompanied by experience", as if one walked in the door holding hands with the other. But concrete entities are never accompanied by, nor give rise to, abstract entites. So once the dualist switch occurs thinking is naturally muddled.

That a person is conscious for biological reasons isn’t necessarily that consciousness is physiological. Consciousness may be a non-physical product of certain physical processes. Disrupting those physical processes will disrupt consciousness, but they can nonetheless be distinct things.

The adjective “conscious” describes the organism, which is physiological. So why would we even approach anything non-physical with the word?

I believe turning the adjective into a noun-phrase does the heavy lifting for the dualist. But appending the suffix “-ness” to the word “conscious” doesn’t make a description of the thing a thing itself. Though an abstract noun, which gives it the air of extension and substance, allowing us to treat it as if it was a thing, the word still just denotes a quality of the organism, namely, that it is conscious. Given that there is no indication of any non-physical products, nor even the possibility of them, one needn’t even need to consider anything of the sort.

It’s evident, to me at least, that a person is conscious for biological reasons. For instance a strike to the head can render someone unconscious. The reason why he is conscious one moment, unconscious the next, is purely physiological. The anatomy involved, the action of the brain, the damage, the loss of functions, etc. are all physiological. You can literally point to all of it. There is no thing nor process involved that isn’t physiological.

So though an anatomical description of an organism may be unable to describe the activity of an organism (its full range of motions, for example), the anatomy is nonetheless the reason why it can and does engage in such activities. The anatomy of a rock is the reason a rock isn’t conscious.

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.

We found out from the laptop that Joe Biden met with Burisma executive Vadym Pozharskyi In 2015, something the Whitehouse has repeatedly lied about. We learned that Biden’s denials he knew anything about his son’s business dealings was a complete lie. Hell, it turns out he was in there like a dirty shirt.

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.

The disinfo and censorship of this info was less a conspiracy as it was a confluence of stupidity, just like the Russia hoax. They actually believed it was Russian disinfo, just like they believed Russian bots won Trump the election and Trump himself was a Russian agent. They’re still trapped in that moral panic. But 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. It was even passed around on here in order to discredit the laptop. And Secretary Blinken and members of the Biden campaign have their fingerprints all over it.

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

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?

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.

Him dining with Burisma executives, for example, and this while he was heading U.S. anti-corruption initiatives in Ukraine. Hunter was jet-setting around the world on Air Force 2 while the deals were going on. Devon Archer testified that Biden was on at least 20 speaker phone calls with Hunter and his foreign associates. Biden's assertions that he never discussed Hunter's business dealings, or that they never profited off the Biden name, all turned out to be false.

It is relevant because Joe Biden knew about it all and lied to everyone that he did. He lied about it in the debates. Had that info not been censored, and had we not been kept in the dark about Biden's involvement, we might have made a more informed choice.

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.

Exactly. There was no point in censoring it. But besides the crack smoking and hookers, his laptop showed that from 2013 through 2018 Hunter Biden brought in about $11 million via his roles as an attorney and a board member with a Ukrainian firm accused of bribery and his work with a Chinese businessman now accused of fraud.

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

There is a reason the news, the politicians, the lawyers, the state, the experts, and the whole authoritarian gang are regarded as little more than something we wipe off our shoes. It’s because you’ve gotten everything wrong about every issue. Your reason is shit and we’re living in the results of it. That’s right; convicted felons are better than you.

We don’t have hungry, sad, or sleepy atoms either. These adjectives describe the organism as a whole. That’s what the word “conscious” does. We’re just describing the organism, the mode of his biology, what he’s doing, etc. It wouldn’t make sense if these adjectives, or any other derivative quality, can be applied to any other object like an atom.

Personally, I don’t think brains are conscious. But I do think organisms are. Organisms are conscious (or unconscious) because that’s what their physiology entails. The reason we cannot know what it’s like to be a bat is because we’re not bats. Closer than that, I believe consciousness and the organism are one-and-the-same. It is the object under observation in both cases, after all.

My understanding of the hard problem of consciousness is that it is a problem for a physicalist. Why is it a problem? Because the physicalist has not forwarded a physical account of why any physical system is conscious. Even if, as you suggest, some waveform of energy is responsible for consciousness, a natural question arises: why does that energy produce consciousness, while some other energy does not produce consciousness?

All the physicalist needs to do is point to the physiology and say: “that’s why”. The answer covers every question from “why is it alive” to “why is it hungry”. The answers are inherently and necessarily physical because the adjective “conscious” describes the physical system itself and nothing besides.

It appears to me that the problem for the dualist is much more fundamental: distinguishing between “consciousness” on the one hand, and biology on the other. What is the difference?

Pretty much everything and for its own sake. For example, I don’t need to posit spirits in a thing in order to find value in it.

You can start by valuing the things that are there instead of the things that aren't.

Well, we've looked and there is nothing of the sort. Where does that lead you?

Start from what is there and see where it leads you.

I’m aware of what he is being charged with, most of which has been brought by people who have campaigned on putting him in jail. I just want to know what he did that was illegal.

Advocates for consciousness have built a theory from the top down and then wonder why it is without grounding. Conscious experience, mind, the soul…it’s just there. But what is actually there, the physiology, cannot serve to explain it.

[There are legal and illegal ways to contest an election. Trump's way was illegal.

What did he do that was illegal?

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.

None of those are dictatorial, authoritarian, or anything of the type. In each case it’s a weird leap from one premise to the other. Unfortunately they resemble better the fever dreams of his enemies.

Submission to political power and the party is the domain of the establishment. The activities of the uniparty, from trying to frame the president for treason to the current persecution, is the reactionary force at work here. That’s your version of democracy and nobody really wants it.

One cannot be both his own slave and his own master.

There are too many fallacies of definition to rely on dictionaries. For instance, they sometimes use in the definition itself the word to be defined or a close synonym of it. Definitions are tautological, circular, either too broad or too narrow, the argumentum ad dictionarium, and so on.

Dictionaries are descriptive. The authors of dictionaries only attempt to record accepted usage of terms at any given time, at least according to them, so there is the inevitable difference in definitions between dictionaries, between editions, all of which is subject to the biases and faults of their authors. As such, it only has benefit as a reference, not as some definitive account of definition or meaning.

I said he was convicted of sedition.

He did get on Twitter and told them to be peaceful and go home, to respect law enforcement, etc.

Surely it does matter because you’re trying to conflate two different crimes and laws.

Seditious conspiracy is insurrection and rebellion? Then why didn’t they get charged for insurrection and rebellion?

Those cases also don’t show that it is self-executing, especially since that section has rarely (if ever) been litigated. What has been litigated and has been shown to be self-executing, thus nullifying state power, are the rights entailed within those amendments, one of which has been violated in the case of Trump according to dissenting opinions.

Look again

“No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.”

No sedition.

Trump has been found guilty of offering aid and comfort to people who are guilty of sedition. That disqualifies him from holding public office.

He has not been found guilty of any such thing.