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...

Bombs thrown in Russia and the US will spill to China. It will likely set off a chain reaction, in either case, the radiation and change in temperature would kill off almost everyone.

Being passive is one thing, racing towards WWIII is beyond words.

All of them are mega criminals, all of them. What a way to go…

We are lacking in leaders worldwide. These folks are insane.

Man, yes, Russia has legitimate historical grievances w/ West. This Ukraine invasion is a war crime. Both are facts. The problem that I see, is that these sanctions are going to fuck up MANY countries that have nothing to do with the war and are leaving less room for Russia to negotiate without them having to rely on nukes. That’s my worry.

This is INSANE wtf, they want a European war with Russia!?!?

US works with Poland to provide Ukraine with fighter jets: https://www.ft.com/content/2f1f0944-ceab-4042-93bd-63c2d863a75f

:up:

He's very sharp.

Was looking for this, came out two days ago, but, worth a read. He's the best one of them all, but I'm quite biased.

Chomsky's take on the issue:

https://truthout.org/articles/noam-chomsky-us-military-escalation-against-russia-would-have-no-victors/

Yes, it was fake news on my part, can't find a source. Very sorry about posting that.

Thanks for pointing it out.

Yes, the fallout of the nuclear weapon use would be what would assure most of us would die.

Anything can happen in this war though the brunt of the sanctions will be felt in a few weeks. Either the Ukraine "mission" is finished or they're going to be extremely squeezed. NATO is not going to apply a no fly zone, they know what this would entail. But if they send more troops to the Ukraine border, or close to it, it's very risky.

Save for China mostly, and perhaps India, Russia is very isolated. It's going to have to be a kind of "Cuban Missile Crisis" solution - each side can claim "victory" of some sort. If that's denied to Russia, or they can't find a way to turn the situation into a "success", then it will be very dangerous. Heck, it's already dangerous now.

Let's cross our fingers we can avoid catastrophe.

Well, given human psychology, it's simply not possible to always call or even interpret a bluff. You may get it right, say, 10 times in a row, but not always - it's not sustainable.

My view would be to get rid of all of them, we already have plenty of ways of destroying each other with good old fashion bombs.

But that's not the reality of this situation. Heck, if this war weren't being done by a nuclear power, I'm almost certain that it would not be making huge news all over. But it is, so, it's what we've got to deal with when talking about this issue.

Yes. The usual argument is well X person (or country) wouldn't want their families killed.

Sure. But then why even have nukes at all? Surely X wouldn't want some accident to happen that would kill their family.

It's irrelevant. Reading one move wrongly or confusing a bluff with something else suffices.

That's a great film.

If something good can come out of this disaster, it's that people are once again aware of the threat of nuclear war and how we could all perish with the push of a few buttons.

But - and this is important - if Russia is not given a way out, in terms of diplomatic "saving face" gesture of sorts, we could be in real trouble.

Many people (not necessarily here) often take talk of this kind to be silly or extravagant or fantasy, but it isn't, the MAD nuclear policy is still here and very dangerous.

All it takes in one mistake.