I do not agree.

In what naive world do you imagine that the enormous political might of America and Europe simply stood back and said to Ukraine "it's your choice, we'll not try to influence you in any way"? — Isaac

Those are not mutually exclusive notions; influence and choice. Of course the west wanted Ukraine to join forces. There was something in it for the west as well as Ukraine, otherwise the west would not have been interested, nor would Ukraine.

Just because the US policy has a sorted history of hidden agendas and not so honest means, it does not follow that every US decision or policy has a hidden agenda and dishonest means.

In December 1991 Ukraine was a friendly state and co-member with Russia of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). This began to change after 1994 when Ukraine decided to get closer and closer to NATO, and America and its NATO Empire tried to bring Russia under their domination, with the result that US-Russia relations soured. — Apollodorus

'Empire', 'domination'...

Rhetorical drivel.

Key words:Ukraine decided...

Ukraine liked what NATO and the west had to offer it as a sovereign country. Russia did not. Some in the Ukrainian territory were/are unhappy about it. Others(it seems the overwhelming majority) were/are fine with it.

Why is it so hard to consider the possibility that it might actually be good for a country to ask Russia to take it under its wing? Or at least to see it as a matter of their own interest to be on friendly terms with Russia?
— baker

Wondering if you still think this way???
— creativesoul

Of course.

It's the notion that one can hate and despise someone and consider them their enemy, but still expect this party to be nice and harmless that is absurd. — baker

This is working from an emaciated set of morals. That all depends upon how we treat others, including our enemies(those whom we despise and hate), doesn't it?

Peaceful co-existence need only require that one sovereign nation respect another. The same is true of individual people. One can consider another an enemy on certain terms and in certain non violent, non harmful ways. These terms and ways do not cause harm. Nor do they seek any unnecessary unprovoked offensive violence towards this enemy. Seeing another as an enemy is in itself insufficient ground for the enemy to cause retaliatory harm. So, no it is not the least absurd to be able to expect to see another as an enemy(in nice and harmless ways), and completely expect the enemy to be and remain nice and harmless.

One can peacefully co-exist with one's enemy if both should so choose.




One can see another as the enemy of self-governance.

Here is the overlap Un and Isaac have been skirting around. There are some in all governments, I would suspect, who are such. Whether or not they are knowingly and intentionally against self-governance for the sake of being so(authoritarians), or whether they act in ways contradictory and harmful to such governments(too many to capture here), I would consider these people enemies of self-governance.

The hallmarks(actual results) of good self-governance are shown in the actual lives and livelihoods of the overwhelming majority. Good government produces quality lives.

:ok:

As Banno said... the problem is not that we believe, but rather it is what we believe. So, seems better to examine how we come to believe the things we do, and what sorts of belief are best to have/hold rather than make an attempt to convince ourselves that we ought not believe anyone or anything.

There's a whole lot of bullshit, falsehood, and truth being disseminated in society, and not all for the same reasons...

The New Man ceases to have beliefs, replacing them entirely with his "Model of the world"... — Banno

As if this model does not consist entirely of beliefs about the world and/or ourselves.

You may find this of interest...

I carefully avoid believing anything at all. — Ken Edwards

This rests upon the dubious presupposition that you have a choice in the matter.

You do not.

Have you ever lost something valuable enough to go look for it?

am I wrong? — GLEN willows

In more ways than one regarding what you think and believe about our 'conversation' here. You're confusing what I've said with what others have said. I've no time for this.

Be well.

Why is it so hard to consider the possibility that it might actually be good for a country to ask Russia to take it under its wing? Or at least to see it as a matter of their own interest to be on friendly terms with Russia? — baker

Wondering if you still think this way???

So you feel consciousness exists in all parts of the body? — GLEN willows

No. Crudely put, the body is one necessary part of consciousness.

I think it's more logical to say that taking out a chunk of your body other than your brain will affect your consciousness the same way seeing something sad does. It has an effect on it, but doesn't actually remove part of it. — GLEN willows

I'd be interested to see what you think count as all necessary parts of consciousness.

So are you saying it's "nowhere" or "everywhere?" And do you mean YOUR consciousness, or a general pan-psych kind of universal consciousness? — GLEN willows

Are those the only two options? On my view it does not make sense to talk about consciousness having a spatiotemporal location. As before, I think the notion is muddled to begin with. Consciousness seems to me to consist entirely of thought and belief. Thus, it emerges with individual creatures capable of forming thought and belief about the world and/or themselves.

Just realized, that that number is not right, but there are many many of them... unfortunately.

Not to mention committing fraud against the American people. This is unprecedented. Nearly two hundred active elected officials in congress have partaken in conspiring to commit fraud against the American people. The big lie.

Until the all the parties guilty of seditious conspiracy against The United States of America are charged and punished to the fullest extent of the law, that threat has no reason to diminish.

I'm not following you. You claimed that science(in general) ridiculed some other scientists(presumably a minority) who were "right". I asked if the ridiculed peoples' views were based upon repeatable peer reviewed information(experiments/papers/etc.) As shown below...

Views that are right are shunned, ridiculed, argumented to death, or banned...
— Hillary

Views that are based upon repeatable peer-reviewed scientific results? — creativesoul

The point is, that these exactly could be wrong. — Hillary

:brow:

Seems to be a gap in communication here... Only you can help me to understand what you're trying to say. I'm now thoroughly confused regarding that.

This confuses me. Prelinguistic ideas exist without language. They negate Rorty, who assumes these ideas are language dependent. So no problem for Rorty... — Hillary

Negation by contradicting reality is a big problem for Rorty(and anyone else for that matter). I would venture to guess that Rorty denies prelinguistic belief altogether, on pains of coherency alone, but I could be wrong.

Can't creation myths be understood without language? — Hillary

Not according to my understanding of human thought and belief.

So do you have a functional definition of truth? — Tom Storm

The term has several.

Prelinguistic belief is or becomes true by virtue of correspondence to what's happened, is happening, or what has yet to have happened but will and does(in cases of rudimentary 'prediction'; expectation)

I understand that some things are (or not) the case regardless of words. I also realise that to some extent this is situationally determined. A mouse runs behind a tree is an event. But how do we determine what is true when we talk about how we ought to live? Is this just a battle of perspectival value systems?

Those are two very different sorts of situations. Speech act theorists are helpful with the latter. The notion of direction of fit is relevant to moral situations such as promise making(giving one's word).

So far as it comes to how we ought live, and determining what is true regarding that, Banno's institutional facts thread has a link to a paper you may find interesting. How to derive an ought from an is.

When you chop out a piece of the brain, or damage the brain, it affects consciousness. When you chop out any other part of the body, it does not. — GLEN willows

That's based upon a notion of consciousness that I find is a bit emaciated.

Cut off the foot, it affects the nervous system, the belief system, etc. All of these are integral parts of human consciousness. Cut out the tongue and it will certainly effect/affect the individual's worldview.

the simplest explanation for consciousness is that it's in the brain — GLEN willows

Whereas, I personally find that to be a very poor example of an explanation. I would also argue against the idea that consciousness is the sort of thing that has such a precisely ascertainable spatiotemporal location.

If you're claiming that conventional academic/scientific understanding could be wrong, I would readily concur. However, that alone is insufficient ground for denying some particular aspect of it.

Sounds like I probably need Banno and some Austin... — Tom Storm

Neither would help here. Speech act theorists are not considering pre-linguistic belief. Banno's position holds that all belief is propositional in content. There are no prelinguistic propositions.

Views that are right are shunned, ridiculed, argumented to death, or banned... — Hillary

Views that are based upon repeatable peer-reviewed scientific results?

when we get to more complex beliefs like creation myths or morality how are these understood without language? — Tom Storm

They are not. But those are not problematic for Rorty. Nor are they prelinguistic. The prelinguistic true beliefs negate Rorty.

Well... it's not a 'mouse' or a 'tree' or 'running' if there is no web of linguistic relations operating. — Tom Storm

A mouse is a mouse. A tree is a tree. The spatial relationship between the mouse and the tree is the spatial relationship between the mouse and the tree. The cat, say, can watch a mouse run behind a tree. That cat will go looking for that mouse behind that tree because it believes it is there. If the mouse is there, the cat's belief is true. If not, it is not.

There is no web of linguistic operations necessary for any of these things to exist and/or take place.

Ironically I find the arguments against materialism similar to those for intelligent design. “The eye is just far too complex to have been developed naturally” — GLEN willows

No irony to speak of there. That's known and deliberate. As far as creationism goes. Occam's razor applies.

...if a natural process developed consciousness, it can be repeated. In theory, of course, but it’s not illogical. — GLEN willows

Whether or not it is logical depends upon the possible world in which robots develop consciousness. Saying it does not make it logical.

Logical possibility alone does not warrant belief. I remain unconvinced that we, as humans, can produce a biological creature replete with thought and belief out of inanimate material.

It's our intelligence that forms the basis of our understanding. We must get it right prior to attempting to attribute it or something like it to something else. Wouldn't you say?
— creativesoul

No. I never really understood what Aristotle meant by "art imitates nature." But he considers nature to be a process so art imitates that process. So, nature exhibits intelligence. The modern preoccupation with subjectivity obscures this idea. — Jackson

Artificial intelligence is not even close to being the same sort of thing that human intelligence is. Not even close. The point here is that it is a misnomer that renders the term intelligence meaningless.
— creativesoul

How is AI different from human intelligence? — Jackson

...consciousness is a muddled notion to begin with, Boolean logic consists of all true statements, inanimate objects have no emotion, emotion is part of thought and belief, and consciousness includes an ability to suspend one's judgment as well as change one's mind about things previously held true. That's just skimming the top of the problems involved with any claims of artificial 'intelligence'(scarequotes intentional). — creativesoul

I don’t see that at all. Do you mean that only humans can have the kind of intelligence you’re talking about? I remember a time when people thought that computers would be unable to do many things that we now know they can. — GLEN willows

Of course AI intelligence is different from human intelligence. What we’re debating is whether AI will eventually develop consciousness and I say why not? It could take hundreds or thousands of years of course. I just believe history is littered with the bodies of men who said “your ‘science’ will never explain ….” — GLEN willows

Sure, I suppose we could say that it is logically possible. That there are certain conditions and/or circumstances that would lead up to robots developing consciousness. Logical possibility alone is insufficient for justified and/or warranted belief. It is logicallly possible that we are the creation of the Flying Spaghetti Monster too. Logical possibility plus adequate explanation is better.

So, what would it take for an inanimate object that operates on Boolean logic to form, have, and/or hold thought and belief about the universe and/or itself?

This requires already having a good ontological understanding of thought and belief, in terms of what it consists of as we know it. Anthropomorphism is popular... and mistaken. WE tend to personify things prior to grasping what sorts of features, qualities, and/or characteristics are uniquely human and which sorts are not. This is the measure of consciousness. This is what informs our viewpoint with regards to which sorts of things can be conscious and which sorts of things cannot.

I am interested to know how you can hold a true believe in things that require language to understand, without that language — Tom Storm

You cannot. What makes you think that non(pre) linguistic true belief is about things that require language to understand?

Belief that a mouse ran behind a tree does not require language. If the mouse is there, well... Surely you get the point.

Science is philosophy. Methodological naturalism.

I believe that we will eventually build robots with consciousness. Do you really think that's impossible?
— GLEN willows

I do. It's not because consciousness is something that lies outside purely mechanical processes, but rather it's because consciousness is a muddled notion to begin with, Boolean logic consists of all true statements, inanimate objects have no emotion, emotion is part of thought and belief, and consciousness includes an ability to suspend one's judgment as well as change one's mind about things previously held true. That's just skimming the top of the problems involved with any claims of artificial 'intelligence'(scarequotes intentional). — creativesoul

We are part of nature, aren't we?
— creativesoul

Exactly. So, "artificial" intelligence is just an extension of natural intelligence. — Jackson

Artificial intelligence is not even close to being the same sort of thing that human intelligence is. Not even close. The point here is that it is a misnomer that renders the term intelligence meaningless.

Hey my man! Hope all is good is peach country. Get rid of that effin lunatic Taylor Greene... Phew!

nature exhibits intelligence — Jackson

We are part of nature, aren't we?

"Truth is a property of sentences, since sentences are dependent for their existence upon vocabularies, and since vocabularies are made by human beings, so are truths."

Richard Rorty — Tom Storm

Rubbish. Effin' Rorty...

True belief is prior to language. Either true belief does not require truth or truth does not require language(vocabularies).

It's our intelligence that forms the basis of our understanding. We must get it right prior to attempting to attribute it or something like it to something else. Wouldn't you say?

Some think intelligence is a function of human biology — Jackson

If the term means anything at all, it must include biological machinery. Our intelligence is most certainly a result of our biological machinery including our physiological nervous system, of which the brain is just one part.

For the record...

I'm quite fond of Dennett's paper "Quining Qualia". Quite indeed!

...if consciousness and the material brain are not literally the same thing, how do we avoid dualism? — GLEN willows

Mind/body dualism? Internal/external dualism? Material/immaterial dualism? Mental/physical dualism? Another, perhaps?

Which dualism?

I believe that we will eventually build robots with consciousness. Do you really think that's impossible? — GLEN willows

I do. It's not because consciousness is something that lies outside purely mechanical processes, but rather it's because consciousness is a muddled notion to begin with, Boolean logic consists of all true statements, inanimate objects have no emotion, emotion is part of thought and belief, and consciousness includes an ability to suspend one's judgment as well as change one's mind about things previously held true. That's just skimming the top of the problems involved with any claims of artificial 'intelligence'(scarequotes intentional).

Making the problem of our slave history, and prejudice, forbidden school subjects will for sure promote the problems, and here is where Germany has far surpassed the US. Germany teaches their immoral actions against others in schools and publically makes everyone aware of the wrongs with signs and monuments. Shame on US for making change impossible. Like it is okay to make a person of color feel terrible but we must not say something that makes Whites feel uncomfortable? Perhaps a philosophy forum can deal with this better than our nation has? — Athena

We're in complete agreement here. American history textbooks are a joke. An injurious one at that.