That's unlikely. The Chinese are fine with just putting their own muslims, the Uyghurs in concentration camps. And there are high mountains between Afghanistan and China, so the idea of a huge influx of Taliban to China is absurd.

Has anybody seen the The War Machine? I think it portrays extremely well just how the US has handled this war (even if it likely takes some artistics freedoms). Out of sight, out of mind — ssu

It's easy to criticize the US; but, let's not loose track of Iraq, which was a spectacular victory for the US, yet with casualties estimated in a million people.

There's no doubt in my mind that the Taliban exist and are doing well. They're actually the only uniting theme for Afghanistan if nobody intervenes, and it just might be jihad against foreigners in the country.

The correspondence theory of truth is only part of the story. In common with all expansive theories of truth it's misleading. So there are folk who accept the correspondence theory of truth, and accept that 12/6=2 is true, and hence conclude that there are things to which 12/6=2 corresponds. That's one of the excuses offered for Platonism. — Banno

To be honest, I haven't seen many arguments for Platonism with regards to the correspondence theory of truth. It seems to me that the best we got is intuitionalism with regards to mathematics.

However, it seems more pertinent to say that intuitionalism is related in part to logicism with regards to the correspondence theory of truth.

With that sentiment, Hilbert set out to formalize mathematics according to logic, which failed with Godel's Incompleteness Theorem. So, then we have topics like yours about "logical nihilism"; but, no alternative is provided after that.

So, whence does logic end and mathematics begin, could be a short way of asking another person...

@Banno?

And, kind of hammering the point home, if logical simples, logical atomism, and even logical monads are how we can describe the correspondences of reality through the mind's eye, then does it follow that intuitionism is true, rather than saying that reality is mathematical.

Compare:
1. Intuitionalism is true.
2. Reality is mathematical.

2 is evaluated by 1 at all times, no?

But, then intuitionalism, accordingly to the correspondence theory of truth, is mainly composed of a correspondence of truth bearer's (propositions) being able to mirror state of affairs, situations, tropes, or utilized nowadays truth apt models of reality, yes?

Mathematics corresponds to the structure of reality — litewave

But, the proponents of the correspondence theory of truth lauded it as composed of logical simples, logical atomism, and even logical monads.

How do you dispell this discrepancy between your assertion and the logical positivists or even reconcile it?

So, what is going on there can become an invitation for the next
Power (China) to get involved. — Number2018

@ssu, what's Russia been up to with regards to Afghanistan?

So, Taliban is back mostly in Afghanistan. Anything new changed or is it same old?

There is no such thing as a steady state system in computing. What exactly are you talking about? Non-volatile memory? Give an example of a 'steady state system'. — emancipate

Where user input is minimal. Such as high security databases, government computers, or computers for critical infrastructure...

Alternatively, simply use a dedicated IDS rather than software designed for a completely different purpose (rollback functionality). — emancipate

Well that would work in tandem. Again, you can make sure that root is unhackable with this potential application of TimeShift...

’Normal processes' with the appropriate privilege level must and do have constant read/write access to root. — emancipate

Last time I used Debian, that wasn't true. I might be wrong. But, either way with a system that doesn't do any user input, such as a steady state system, then TimeShift would simply nullify any intrusion attempts and modifications to the kernel or root folder.

If some processes need to have access to root, then I don't see the issue with making exemptions for TimeShift not to alter the directory or file class they would need to operate in.

It wouldn't be useless as long as an normal processes wouldn't try and alter the root folder. You can obviously design a config that would not allow reversions as long as chron allows it to happen.

@Michael, may I ask for your opinion on this idea?

Thanks and sorry for the bother.

Yes, I know, and hence a configuration file for all allowable operations would be necessary, otherwise the issue you pointed out.

Meaning that as long as the same programs are running and are not tampered with in root, then all system files can be reset to default values once tampering is noticed by timeshift.

Well if you want a perfectly unhackable root, this idea might suffice.

You could have the kernel monitor whenever write operations are attempted on root, and report them then. — darthbarracuda

That's, not really the goal with this approach. It's kinda set it up and leave the system alone. No hassle or issues with that.

Processes can't open files without going through the kernel, which checks the permissions of the user against the permissions of the file. — darthbarracuda

Yeah, I don't think I have anything to say about this. If timeshift just has one operation to execute with sudo privileges, then it's not an issue then, no?

How? — darthbarracuda

Because the way it's designed is recursive. Root can monitor itself through timeshift operating in the background. So, yeah, the system monitors itself for example by checking matching hashes or even a repository of completed hashes hypothetically...

If this TimeShift program gets hacked, it could have its revert abilities removed. — darthbarracuda

I don't think the way the OS for Debian would allow elevated privilege before the OS would restore default vales and the administrator informed of a hacking attempt on root.

So the point is, how would the computer function if every time the OS needed to modify the kernel's data structures, you backed those changes out?

Again, this is a antihacking toolkit for example on low desktop use, such as government computers or servers. And yes, you could backup the configs and folder structures after a process completes.

What if a friendly actor needs to make a change to this root folder for legitimate reasons? — darthbarracuda

The idea is that this is for high fidelity operations to be utilized in such as servers or government computers.

What if this TimeShift program gets hacked in some way? It seems like a major security vulnerability for a program other than the kernel to have access to this sort of thing. — darthbarracuda

That could be an issue; but, the kernel would simply revert itself back to a default state after an intrusion attempt.

Couldn't you get a crypto hash of whatever files you're worried about and then set up a cronjob to periodically calculate the hash and compare it to the stored one? If the hashes don't match, time to restore a backup. That's an oversimplified idea that is already in use. — darthbarracuda

Could you point out where this is in use? Still once root is protected (in real time) by TimeShift then accessing root files couldn't result in anything since the system would restore too quickly... It would be more difficult once chron and other root files would back up on a cloud for example to retrieve work done.

I'm confused, the kernel is already "mounted" in RAM if you mean that it already has its code in some location in RAM. The kernel (and OS in general) needs to be in RAM so context switching to kernel space and subsequent kernel operations is as fast as possible. After all, the OS is just another process which happens to have been given special privileges by the CPU during the boot sequence. — darthbarracuda

I'm not going to muddy waters by talking about what I'm not good at explaining.

Are you proposing that the operating system monitors itself? — darthbarracuda

Yes, and that would be done by TimeShift. If you can set as default to have the base root folder with the kernel not altered by hacking attempts, especially rootkits, then if any attempt was made on root, then TimeShift would automatically restore the system when a hacking attempt on roots configs or filesystem folders.

So are you proposing to speed up computers, or detect unauthorized intrusions? — fishfry

Well, as a direct outcome of having TimeShift running on the go, it would be a safer system by default. The root folder would restore itself once any alteration would be attempted on it by monitoring any attempted change to values on the kernel.

The part about speeding up the system would be in manner of speaking by running apps in refreshing in sync with the RAM and CPU. But, I don't have all the details on this hashed out...

So, think about it like this. System Restore on Windows saves the configuration of the OS, and when something goes wrong you can restore your OS to a previous state.

But, the thing I'm trying to do is have this being a real time process by mounting the OS onto RAM and directly monitoring it (in Linux) by a program called TimeShift.

For example, when a hacker tries to alter the system, he would not be able to do so because the OS is predefined to always be restored to default settings when a change is detected by System Restore in Windows or TimeShift in Linux.

ECC Ram is just error-correcting memory. It wouldn't offer any functional difference from any other kind of RAM. So I didn't understand that part. — fishfry

In basic terms it would simply mean that the CPU could directly input values into the OS mounted on the RAM. But, that's irrelevant if you can workaround the issue by implementing direct control over the OS values (definitely not for a Windows OS) into the mounted OS on the RAM, where the OS would operate.

How would it be able to "predetermine the state of a computer?" Are you talking about branch prediction? This is a 20 or 30 year old idea as far as I know. — fishfry

No, not the latter. In basic terms it means to implement any changes in the OS , by directly imputing those values, for example through a application like TimeShift into the integer values of the RAM.

TimeShift saves the config file of a precious restore point of an OS in Debian Linux into a config bootable root tree folder of all applications and current settings into a root file, and then reimplements them when requested to. Now, with a booted OS on the RAM you can do that on the go, and potentially upload values to the OS from another computer to predetermine it's state.

What does it mean to directly interact with the OS? Of course the software directly interacts with the hardware. So I'm afraid I couldn't make sense of this line and kind of got stuck here. — fishfry

The CPU would simple directly input integer values into the OS by having mounted on the RAM and bypassing slow hard drives through an application like TimeShift.

Here's a link to TimeShift:
https://github.com/teejee2008/timeshift

@fishfry, may I ask for your opinion?

*Pig nods knowingly*

If you choose to be consistent, you would have to say that choosing and pragmatism and highlighting and posting on philosophy forums are also just neurotransmitters and chemicals in da brain. — unenlightened

As long as it fits the scope of being pragmatic.

Part of this thread isn't only about how moods are affected by neurotransmitter levels or some.

It's also about why we choose to say things this way, and, for that reason I'd like to highlight the pragmatic use of language when speaking about the topic, which I bolded in the OP.

Let me reiterate my point or specify it in a different way for the sake of discussion.

Is there anything wrong in stating that neurotransmitters are scientifically assumed to play a role in the regulation and experience of affective behavior?

Yes, we can delve deeper and state that there are obviously more factors at play in the way we experience moods, but, that's not relevant to how we can talk about moods in an ordinary manner that (as I see it) is pragmatic.

The fact that they occur together suggests a relationship, sure. — bert1

But, the correlation is strong enough that we can establish a relationship. This relationship is strong enough that we even have drugs that treat imbalances in the brain of neurotransmitter levels. So, what's wrong with that?

But an identity is not right. The two things have different properties — bert1

I don't quite see how this is comparing apples to oranges. They need not be identical...

Well that is part of what "moods" are but certainly not the entire story. — prothero

I don't see this as a reason why I should give the entire discourse into the what moods are composed of. It's almost commonsensical to state nowadays that moods are neurotransmitter levels working in the brain.

Limits of both language and scientific description probably apply. — prothero

But, in normal everyday language, I don't need to describe the mechanics that neurotransmitter levels play in every part of the brain, unless it is useful to do so with someone else in discourse. So, those limits are not hard or the description normally is adequate.

Scientific laws are really mostly just uncontested theories. — Outlander

Or more adequately scrutinized through the scientific method to render them as "valid"?

The modulator on a guitar amp is not the sound it simply has a large amount of control over it. — Outlander

Well, sure, but unless there's some specific reason to say so this doesn't really mean anything unless we have some reason to investigate the workings of a guitar modulator on the sound of the guitar as a whole.

For example, if I have phenylketonuria, I will be concerned with how much phenylalanine (104mg) is in my diet coke. Thus, there's some reason to state this, pragmatically.

If a rule is detrimental to the thread then it can be dismissed.

I posted this elsewhere but was wondering what you think about this, @Fooloso4?:

In exploring the theme of Wittgenstein's view of solipsism, G. E. M. Anscombe describes his contrast between what can be expressed (or thought) through language and what can only be shown but not expressed. Language is a mirror of reality: (page 164)

All the logical devices - the detailed twiddles and manipulations of our language - combine, Wittgenstein tells us at 5.511, into an infinitely fine network, forming 'the great mirror' - that is to say, the mirror of language, whose logical character makes it reflect the world and makes its individual sentences say that such-and-such is the case. — Anscombe, G. E. M. An Introduction to Wittgenstein's Tractatus. 1971. G. E. M. Anscombe, pg. 164

This mirroring suggests realism. Something is being mirrored. However, the mirroring not only expresses statements about reality but also shows what cannot be expressed: (page 166)

Thus when the Tractatus tells us that 'Logic is transcendental', it does not mean that the propositions of logic state transcendental truths; it means that they, like all other propositions, shew something that pervades everything sayable and is itself unsayable. — Anscombe, G. E. M. An Introduction to Wittgenstein's Tractatus. 1971. G. E. M. Anscombe, pg. 166

What is unsayable is in the "limits" of logic which are the world's "limits" (5.61) and the world is "my world" (5.62 and 5.63). This is where solipsism comes in: (page 166)

So, it comes out that it is illegitimate to speak of 'an I'. 'From inside' means only 'as I know things'; I describe those things - something, however, I cannot communicate or express: I try to, by saying I speak 'from an inside point of view'. But there is no other point of view. Suppose others too speak of the 'inside point of view'? That is my experience of my supposition of spoken words. — Anscombe, G. E. M. An Introduction to Wittgenstein's Tractatus. 1971. G. E. M. Anscombe, pg. 166

This leads to Wittgenstein's paradoxical view of solipsism expressed in 5.64:

Here we see that solipsism strictly carried out coincides with realism. The I in solipsism shrinks to an extensionless point and there remains the reality coordinated with it. — Anscombe, G. E. M. An Introduction to Wittgenstein's Tractatus. 1971. G. E. M. Anscombe, pg. 166

This can be seen as coming from Wittgenstein's view of language as saying what can be said about my world and showing what cannot be said about my world.

Yes, the solipsist is not an object but rather a subject. The only extension in this world of the solipsist is his or her mind.

But, his or her behavior is governed by logic that permeates the world.

So, think about that for a moment... As to whether the subject even has a psychology?

SO, give me some indication of having read the relevant bits. Tell me what you think they say. — Banno

I'm going to piggyback of what Fooloso4 has already said in this thread. What do you think can be said about Wittgenstein's Tractarian solipsist?

Who's that, then?

Tell me about him. — Banno

I might have to write a book about it heh. I thought you might help out more with this. @Fooloso4 what do you think?

I'm tempted to say, as I usually do, that behavior determines everything in the world of the Tractarian solipsist, but, what is this behavior responding to might be of greater importance.

I'm asking if Wittgenstein's solipsist from the Tractatus even had a psychology? If he or she did, then what was it based on?

What is the notion of psychology to a Tractarian solipsist, Banno? It seems somewhat difficult for me to say that it's all behavior...

If what you are saying is true, then psychology of the self is what it means...?

How do you reconcile this with everyday deeds and ethics?

It's very peculiar that Wittgenstein ends the discussion in a decade or so with the private language argument, no... Where the limits are drawn, distinctions are made and what's left to say is where semantics and meaning starts and possibly ends.

So, your basically saying that one's psychology is in part a private language? Am I reading you right on this?