What do you mean? He expected sanctions as he said in his speech, but I suspect he had in mind sanctions for oligarchs, not being expelled from the international banking system. These sanctions came in waves after the invasion, not before.

What risk free option though? Ukraine in NATO would not be tolerated by any Russian leader, not only Putin, the question is, is it worth invading the country to this extent and causing so much damage? I think most of us would say "no".

But I'm not quite sure what you mean when you say risk free options.

Eh. I think he knew of certain risks involved in invading Ukraine, but I have doubts he would have done so had he known the extent of these sanctions, which are extreme.

He might have waged a much shorter war, perhaps confiscate the two "separatist" regions, but this is way too difficult to come back from.

I understand that Germany, Finland and many others are now increasing military or wanting to join NATO and the like, all things Russia would not have wanted. But, Putin won't live forever, so these short term strategies are not evidently good for Europe as a whole.

It isn't a good idea to isolate Russia from the world for too long, despite its criminal acts. It's a mistake, which can backfire big time.

This is true, almost always the case.

There is nothing but diminishing returns now. Obviously even beginning the war was pretty bad, but more than a month, is pretty intense.

Of course he cannot portray anything other than a victory of sorts. I'm curious to find out when this stops, how will the removal of sanctions proceed.

I was looking at just that. Here's the problem. I think most of us can attest to the extremely dubious record of US intelligence in the not too distant past, so if Putin had not launched this war, it's something I would laugh off and not even give a second thought to.

But they were right, and deserve credit here. The more extreme reports, verging on newspaper aisle tabloids, is that Putin may be in a bunker directing this war.

We have to take this information with several grains of salt. Given how the war is going, how close Ukraine is to Russia geographically and culturally and just how badly they assessed this war going, gives us sound reason to suspect that Putin is very much in his own "Trump world".

In either case, it's not good, even removing the bunker talk. If they don't finish this quickly, they will suffer enormously from sanctions, which further pushes them to the brink.

We'll see.

So Russia is setting up a service in which payments received for natural gas will be converted from Euros to roubles, because Germany and other countries refused to pay in roubles, as the original contract did not have this stipulation.

Russia can't really afford to not receive payments for energy supplies, nor can Europe gamble with its energy - this year anyway.

Russia’s Gazprombank is the intermediary for rouble gas payments, Putin order says

These terms, these terms... can cause a serious block in thinking. Whereas it is true that "naturalism" as commonly used in contemporary philosophy is very similar to "scientism", it need not be the case.

One can be a panpsychist, a non-dualist, a pluralist - whatever and be a naturalist, a real one. A real naturalist would limit itself to saying that everything that is, is natural, with no hint of scienticism or "verificationism" or eliminating mental objects and so forth.

This rejects supernaturalism - that there are other forces in the world that aren't natural. This includes much woo, though by no means all.

If God existed or if panpsychism were true or even dualism - for who knows the answers to ultimate metaphysical questions? - then they would be natural, but not for that reason limited to a laboratory, nor less special or extraordinary.

The onus is for someone to explain WHY there need be something other than natural stuff in the universe and provide, if not evidence, then good reasons. Then I might be willing to throw naturalism to the wayside.

In either case, it's not a problem for panpsychism.

They differ though. Goff calls himself a "Russelian Monist", or a "neutral monist", so the stuff of nature is neither mind nor matter.

Strawson, being provocative, though not necessarily inaccurate, calls his panpsychism "materialist panpsychism", as his materialism takes consciousness to be the thing we are best acquainted with out of all of nature, he adds that consciousness is physical, not physicScal.

Dennett certainly is no panpsychist, he uses the term "nifty" and argues, sure pansychism is fine, but if so, then why not pan-niftyism? And he has a point here.

Yes, there is a sense in which there are extremely rudimentary forms of experience everywhere. But it has virtually nothing to do with how we think or talk about consciousness ourselves, or at best, very little.

There are many forms and articulations of panpsychism. The one I know well is Galen Strawson's. The gist of it is that the basic constituents of reality are so made up that if they are assembled in a certain way, consciousness will follow. So we don't need to think in terms of "emergence" in this case.

Put it this way, given an extremely long period of time, odds are that at least once, this specific configuration of stuff will mix in such a way that its dormant experiential properties are given a chance to appear.

But the potential for experience was always there all along.

That's how I understand him anyway.

And Nature will win, she eventually always does. But we fight it for a bit.

Going back to the OP, it looks like Russia is now using mercenaries to fight. Unsure how significant this will end up being, or if it is more of a PR stunt, unfortunately, we'll find out based on how many people die...

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/3/28/uk-says-russian-mercenaries-to-be-deployed-eastern-ukraine-liveblog

All roads lead back to Hume on this one, with much merit of course, he gave the topic the fame it deserves and noted the massive issues involved.

So what is it causality? It's a good question and Hume would say that whatever it is, we can only see "constant conjunction", event B following from event A. There is surely more to causality than this, Hume unambiguously states, but that's not what we discover when we look at things happening in the world.

I'd add that whatever it is, is crucially determined by the creatures we are. We frame events so as to say that one follows the other, it's an open question if this is what nature does.

Sometimes it may. But we can't get out of our bodies to verify it.

EDIT: After reading the OP's request, I think the meaning of the word is more or less straightforward, we want to know what matter affects this other matter is such a way as to be able to state that one phenomena is intimately connected in the rising of another phenomena, which would not occur absent the preceding event.

Well it's gone pretty badly if he had this in mind - having so many soldiers killed must be embarrasing.

At this point, I don't know what he may have in mind, with lowering population levels, a mismanaged economy, Russia does not look good. Having nukes is what sets them apart now.

But I do agree that they will be much closer to China than ever before, not only in the economic domain, but also further military partnerships of one kind or another (down the line).

I haven't heard this mentioned too much, but I suspect that part of the reason why China is hesitant to call out Russia internationally, has to do with the issue of Taiwan.

If any issue sparked in that region of the world, Russia would back China as a thanks for this situation.

Europe won't be able to get enough supplies for its energy demands this year if Russia stops the flow. Next year, perhaps, very hard to imagine that happening beforehand.

If Russia continues to bomb Ukraine, it's somewhat safe to assume they still have more demands they want met, which aren't being given. Otherwise, it's pointless to continue this war.

Well, by now, I think it's not relevant to science really. Most scientists simply do experiments without assuming any metaphysical stance.

There are exceptions, but not too many.

It is a good question, one would think they would be more readily admitted here, which in a sense they are, but not as much as one would expect.

Of course, the problem very soon arises as to what you mean by "idealism". Berkeley's notion is not Kant's or even Descartes, etc.

Well, if we put aside Berkeley's context - which I frankly have to re-read - and simply take the phrase as is stated, it's a problem.

To be a human being entails having perception. If you do not have perception - say are in a comma, you can't well categorize or think of anything.

On the other hand, obviously others things "are", irrespective of us in some manner, rocks, water, etc. So far as we know, they don't have perception but exist. We happen to give them the characteristics (automatically, not a choice) of "hardness", "wetness", etc.

But having a perception does not entail that one is being perceived. The best one can do is assume another person perceives you - or another animal. But we can't go beyond this assumption to proof.

Why is Russia attacking Lviv? It doesn't make sense. I thought they would go to Odessa next, based on captured territory, going to Lviv completely thins them out.

To be clear, No, I do not want more deaths. I want this assault to be over quickly - if it lengthens, more people die and everything gets worse for everybody.

I mean, it's pretty clear or looks clear, that Russian intelligence completely botched whatever analysis they made of an invasion of Ukraine. Pretty shocking given these countries share a border.

It surely points to a serious lack of organization within, which raises questions pertaining to strategy.

I think it's quite rare for general to be killed. This many dead generals is far from good news from a military perspective. But if I were Ukrainian, I'd be cautious in assuming this means that "we will win".

That's still a very tall order.

I exaggerate a little. I'm actually worried here, prospects don't seem to good from what I'm seeing. Not saying they will use nukes, but they might. I think we should be worried here, despite people saying nobody is crazy enough to use them. Nationalism combined with defeat, much less humiliation, do not bode well for crazy actions.

I've heard of several instances in which we were often a word away from total disaster - hard to believe. But thanks for sharing that lecture, will check it out.



Awesome. Will follow. :ok:

That five Russian generals have been killed in combat since the beginning of the invasion has. It's being attributed to snipers. — frank

That's an insane amount of generals. One is already pretty bad, 5 is a disaster.

Jeez man, this is the bs I was talking about. :meh:

With news like this, the risk of a fatal miscommunication really rises.

But I'll stop with my paranoid nuclear scenarios.

I'll sub to his channel, good stuff. :up:

So who the heck does have this info on the situation of the Russian military on the ground?

I've really been wanting to find it, but it's not easy in this media environment. All I can get are reports from "sources", almost always unnamed.

Thanks for sharing that, very interesting. But it's been almost three weeks since that interview happened - based on the date. What he says makes sense.

The problem is that there's conflicting info on the state of the Russian military. It's somewhat low on morale, have lost many troops and allegedly have problems with supplies. On the other hand, they clearly haven't used the airplane arsenal they have, which could flatten any city in Ukraine.

I don't think Ukraine can win, despite these heroic narratives. The problem is going to be how long can Russia sustain this assault, while the sanctions bite.

They still have energy money coming in, but that could change. I don't think it helps that all the West has basically "cancelled" Russia. Not that they don't deserve some sanctions (oligarchs and the like) or condemnations, they sure do. But the way this is shaping out makes them extremely isolated and more dangerous too.

I don't know how they'll be given an opportunity to save face and declare a victory of sorts. Meanwhile, more civilians are just getting slaughtered....

What I meant to say that if you believe in or think there is something to the "law of attraction", then it should work like a law of nature. So, you say that you've had instances in which having a certain mindset produces good outcomes. The problem is that you may have a positive mindset for a large stretch of time, and only "attract" some positive goal in one instance of that temporal duration.

If it were a law, then any time you had a positive mindset, positive things should immediately follow. Or it is not a law as is understood in nature. So bad days or good days don't serve as a way to show whether such "law" works.

Destiny is also tricky. I think it has a poetical use which can be powerful, but I wouldn't take it literally. I do agree however, that will is fundamental to the determinism debate.

You see it work when you pick put an instance of it "working", but you don't count the many, many, many instances in which it does not work. In fact, I'd wager that, strictly speaking, the "law of attraction" has been falsified many more times than shown correct in your own experience, but you aren't registering that.

I don't think this has much to do with determinism, honestly. They are separate issues. I think it is false but don't have to go so far as to put forth "positive thinking" as an argument against it.

Total superstition. It could be argued that on select occasions it can be used as a heuristic , but it guarantees nothing and realistically does nothing. But even here, it's worse than a placebo, as it distorts reality and may make you think something is working when it's just stuff happening.

Welcome to Night Vale by Joseph Fink and Jeffrey Cranor

The True Intellectual System of the Universe Volume I by Ralph Cudworth

The only (somewhat) intelligible formulation of "physicalism" is whatever physics says, is all there is. So we should stick to what physics says about everything.

That has the unfortunate tendency to leave out almost everything that is of importance to human beings, once we introduce much higher levels of complexity than things seen in physics. It's also important to remember that what physics says now, will not be what physics says in a few years, if the field continues growing that is.

In any case, I don't see why "physicalism" has to be associated with physics. It can be a monist claim which states that EVERYTHING is physical, including consciousness. This doesn't force physicalism to physics, it merely points out how baffling physical stuff can be.

But that's not sticking here. So whatever the debate is supposed to be about, is not of much substance, in my opinion, unless one considers eliminitavism seriously, which is hard to take as being plausible or even coherent.

No actually, revelation and empirical investigation are often at odds. One issue here is that the word "revelation" can be used in several ways, I have in mind two of them.

One meaning of the word is tied with religion, which is what I think you are hinting at. If used in this way, then we would still be using Aristotelean physics.

The other would be more ordinary usage of the word, in such a manner that you have a sudden insight into a problem you previously struggled with. How or why this happens is not at all clear, but, it doesn't signal the existence of divinity in any way.

You'd have to provide some criteria which could be applied to God alone (and not something else) which could be investigated.

If our intelligence were God given, as you say, this would have to be treated as an empirical fact about the world, but I don't see any evidence as to why this should be believed.

I think we have to assume there are things absent us, otherwise we take up radical solipsism. Nevertheless, it's still a very difficult problem to think about clearly.

:roll:

Well, I mean, replace "Russia" with "USA" and you can find very similar claims by the US concerning Iraq.

But it's clear propaganda. Of course, the US is a real super power in terms of military might and global reach, but Russia is a regional power and has the most nukes.

Chomsky has condemned this Russian war clearly and unequivocally.

That's true, "objectivity" isn't really attainable - I perhaps meant to say somewhat less propagandistic.

It's been a while since I've read the New Yorker, I'll check it out.

NPR... ehhhh, I'll pass. But still, many sources it's appreciated. :up:

I have been seeing Al-Jazeera for this reason, but you've given me a few more.

I wish I could access different channels, my country offers CNN, FOX and BBC.

The BBC has really gone downhill quality wise these last two decades or so, a real shame.

Thanks!

It's the same issue again. I have serious doubts concerning Western coverage of the war, certainly Russia has committed serious war crimes in Ukraine, but in so far as the advance to Kiev or how the Russian army is doing - I believe not too well - I'm unclear.

Of course, RT and Pravda are pure propaganda now, very easy for all to see.

Anyone here recommend a source for this?

Great post :up:

I'd only add that, so far Europe has said that they aren't planning to sanction energy coming from Russia, doesn't mean they won't some time down the line. Unlikely, but not impossible.

The issue is one of time: how long can Russia withstand the sanctions before Ukraine surrenders?

Also, this dragging on will kill more and more innocent civilians, which is morally corrupt and also very bad PR for Russia, as if they need any more.

Every single hawk right now is salivating at the prospects of selling more weapons and some in the US are even considering implementing a no-fly zone. Which can't happen, unless they want to die.

If they take Kiev, either the West escalates even more or it will have to negotiate.

Plans to send war planes to Ukraine from the US are spine chilling.

To be crystal clear, Ukrainian's are more than justified in defending themselves and are doing so very bravely.

It's just hard to say how Russia will interpret such actions - if they are carried out. They obviously simply cannot have a conventional war in Europe, they can't handle Ukraine, so...

It's somewhat difficult to find accurate info amid this mess. I assume that the reason Kiev is not yet taken has to do with its resistance, but, what whatever happened to that long Russian convoy that was supposed to arrive?

It's unclear how long Kiev will last, any info on this topic would be appreciated.

One lacks a proper vocabulary in these instances...