However, we also need to know Ukrainian soldier deaths as well. Even if Russians have lost a lot, if they can point to having killed twice or three time, etc., as many Ukrainians, then this can be some form of "military performance" measure (US uses this metric all the time to evaluate performance). — boethius

The ratio of Ukrainian soldiers killed per Russians killed would matter if Ukraine was actually any kind of threat to Russia and diminishing Ukraine's military capability somehow benefitted Russia. Since Ukraine is not a threat to Russia and never was (and is a much smaller country punching "above its weight class"), the fact that Ukraine might have lose 2 or 3 or 5 for every Russian killed isn't an "achievement" for Russia. Russia is on the hook for those deaths, since the war was not necessary and based on deceitful reasons.

In the war in Iraq, America killed tons of Iraqi's for every American killed, but since that too was an unnecessary war, it just made America look even more like a bully picking on a much smaller non-nuclear country for dishonest reasons.

The prediction is that Russia will simply end it's offensives at some point and declare it achieved its objectives; as, the land bridge, which it already achieved at that point, is already a major strategic achievement. — boethius

Achievements have to be measured against the costs. Russia will have wrecked it's economy, become a pariah state, suffered grievous military losses, and united the West against it for a security guarantee it didn't need and small amounts of land it already partially controlled.

:up:

I don’t know. I do know that everything displaying qualities I relate to consciousness possesses a brain (in order to ‘feel’).

I generally view a body as a requirement for consciousness too, but that is a whole other area. — I like sushi

As an idealist, I disagree, but I realize my position is horribly unpopular, so maybe there's something to this "matter" idea. Everyone seems to think it exists.

Why do you think they do? — Daemon

I don't know if they do or not, but if they do, panpsychism is much more probable.

A bacterium can swim towards a desirable chemical, say a food source. To do this it needs to able to tell whether the concentration of the chemical is rising or falling over time, which seems to require a memory, which is an aspect of consciousness.

However, we know in astounding detail how the bacterium does this, we can describe the process fully in terms of chemical reactions, without having to talk about the bacterium feeling, experiencing, being conscious. There's an explanation here: https://www.cell.com/current-biology/comments/S0960-9822(02)01424-0 — Daemon

That doesn't answer the question. We might not have to talk about bacteria feeling things, but that doesn't mean bacteria don't feel things. How do you know they don't?

Given that neurons seem damn important for thinking I’d rule out bacteria. Ants … they certainly do not appear to be conscious like I am and nor do dogs for that matter. Maybe they can be said to be ‘conscious’ in some rudimentary fashion and even have processing that could be called ‘thinking’ in some fashion? Who knows? Bees appear to be quite clever in some ways, btu appearances can be deceiving. — I like sushi

There's the rub. We can only infer consciousness in anything other than ourselves. There can be no direct evidence of any consciousness other than our own. That makes me think science is useful in discovering conscious correlates, but has utterly failed (and will continue to fail) wrt to causal explanations.

Also, if insects are conscious, then we're getting pretty close to panpsychism.

Something it is like to be that thing; having subjective experience; feeling things

After bacteria, before baboons. Maybe around 500 million years ago? Why do you ask? — Daemon

How do you know bacteria aren't conscious? Are insects conscious?

Why even assume matter exists in the first place? Idealism solves so many of these problems: minds don't come from matter, everything is mind. Life is but a dream.

Entities arise through biology. — Daemon

I don't see why robotic entities can't be created through non-biological processes.

Before single-celled organisms there was nothing with an inside and an outside, so to speak. — Daemon

This is unclear.

That "individuation" is a precondition for consciousness, which arrives later, as an evolutionary development of non-conscious "sensing" processes in the organism. — Daemon

When did consciousness first arise?

:up:

And because consciousness only happens in biological organisms, we can pinpoint it to that extent too. — Daemon

No machine consciousness?

OK, that's close to where my thoughts are. Appreciate the response!

Make a prediction, Baden. Where are we in a month's time? I predict Russia will have made little to no progress. What say you?

However, I may be totally wrong, I'll admit. — Manuel

You're not. Russia has committed a catastrophic blunder.

Very good analysis:
https://warontherocks.com/2022/03/a-new-phase-of-the-russo-ukrainian-war-begins/

:up:

Issac, you're not an honest debater.

For a start, the comment I responded to was...

It proves they are not afraid of public opinion. — FreeEmotion


Nonsense.
— RogueAI — Isaac

The entire quote was:

Nonsense. Leaders in democracies are obsessed with public opinion and constantly monitor it through public and internal polling. — RogueAI

Next time, quote the whole thing.

...or we could just make shit up instead. Your choice — Isaac

Leaders in democracies DON'T monitor public opinion through polling? Is that what you think?

It proves they are not afraid of public opinion. — FreeEmotion

Nonsense. Leaders in democracies are obsessed with public opinion and constantly monitor it through public and internal polling.

It's pretty bad.

You can also play Scrabble. With equal effect. — Isaac

:brow:

Only in a democracy can you complain about your own government without fear of reprisal.

This only seems just because the conflict roughly ended at that point. History is written by the winners, as is morality.

The Western colonialists won the wars against indigenous peoples, but we generally don't think of the colonialists as the good guys (even as we know that the indigenous peoples were doing horrible things to eachother). — baker

I think it's objectively true that in WW2, America was fighting for the good side and Germany was fighting for the bad side.

Ergo,

3. We're not (really) thinking. — Agent Smith

(3) should be "we're not really thinking about the world."

Let's make some predictions, Baden. I predict in a month's time Russia will be just as stymied as they are now and will control no Ukrainian cities, as befitting the military disaster the Russians are experiencing. If you think everything is going so swimmingly, Where do you predict the Russians will be in a month's time?

Was that stalled convoy also part of the plan?

:up:

To get what? — baker

To put the fire out. Do you really think there was some kind of moral equivalence between Nazi's using violence to round up and kill Jews and Americans using violence to stop the Nazi's?

People love to say they are against "authoritarianism and imperialism", and they do so in an utterly authoritarian manner. — baker

You often have to fight fire with fire.

Interesting read:
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/afghanistan/2022-03-24/putins-afghanistan

Similarly, the impression I get is some here get the same type of pleasure out of this they get out of rooting for the underdog at a football game and that's not something they want to give up. Tell you what guys, get your own asses down to Ukraine, do without food, clean water, and heat in the freezing cold while being fucking shot at and then tell us how you want this to go on and on until bad man Putin gives up. — Baden

Maybe take a break from this for a little bit.

"Russian warship featured on Pro-Putin "RT" network one day prior to its explosion"
https://www.cnn.com/europe/live-news/ukraine-russia-putin-news-03-24-22/index.html

Like I said, why bother with propaganda when you've got CNN reporting this stuff?

Yes, well, if Ukraine was 80% mountains it would be a little more difficult to get those tanks through. — Baden

The Russians lost 15,000 men in Afghanistan after years of fighting. They've lost 10,000+ in one month fighting Ukraine. Ukrainians don't seem to need mountains.

I don't know why you think it's so outlandish that Ukraine can hold Russia off, especially since it already happened in Afghansitan. We know this particular playbook.

The question is can they win and at what cost. — Baden

Yes, they can win. We've seen it happen before with this particular country bullying a smaller one: Afghanistan.

The figure you site may very well be true. But surely there are significant losses on the Ukrainian side, soldiers and civilians alike. A lot o material damage Is being inited by the Russians. Even if they flat out lose, leave with tails tucked between their legs, the damage Russia has inflicted on Ukraine's structures will have to be repaired. The damage done to Ukrainian society will, of course, be more difficult to repair. — Bitter Crank

Ukraine is not going to emerge from this unscathed. Their losses will be considerable. But they have rich friends in their corner, and they're going to end up in the EU, if they hold Russia off. They'll be the darlings of the free world, if they pull it off. They'll be rebuilt.

Russia, on the other hand, is fucked. That's all there is to it. They miscalculated so badly on this. Even if they beat Ukraine into submission, the world will look at them as pariahs and their economy will sink down to something like Iran's.

We're not in a Bible movie. Discuss this like an adult or don't discuss it at all. — Baden

Seriously? David (Ukraine) fights until the bigger country (Russia) cries uncle and leaves. Even if David breaks a couple arms (damage to Ukraine), who lost that fight?

I am sorry gentleman but the rot is deep. If we ever want to be of help to anyone, the first responsibility is to a cool and detached look at reality. Without that we are useless to them. — Baden

Like Wayfarer said, there aren't two sides to every story. Climate change is real, and the reality of the Holocaust is not "Western Propaganda". This is a disaster for Russia, from any perspective.