As I understand, I asked what you meant by structure you told me:

"It's a general idea of form or configuration. Not qualia and shape is kind of abstract whereas structure suggest concreteness and boundedness (however loose). It could be thought of as a localised intensity of energetic bonding in a field that gives rise to chracteristic functions and interactions."

I replied by saying that I did not understand this as stated but guessed you could have meant a "microphysical structure".

Which you replied by asking: "Why not a microphysical thing? Must the physical be different than the metaphysical other than definitionally?"

I said I was not evaluating your claim in any manner, but merely wanted to know if the structure was microphysical. This then brought up a problem to my mind, namely that if we say there is a microphysical structure that exists which is common to all creatures, then there is a tension, which you anticipated by saying:

"I thought you were asking me to speculate as to what the structures we perceive as objects might be.It seems animals will not conceptualize structures in the ways we do or even conceptualize them at all. Perhaps I don't understand your question."

I agreed with this bold part, and I thought this meant we agreed on there being real microphysical things in the world.

But then I got confused when you said:

"OK cool it seems we agree. I think we and the other animals have access to the same basic structures."

Because for reasons you gave previously, animals can't access this microphysical structure.

In short, using Sellar's terminology, I am a realist when it comes to the "scientific image" (with important caveats), but am an idealist when it comes to the manifest image.

I don't know what part of idealism you know think holds true - if any of it. It seems to me you think qualia and other facets of the world are ideal, but others are real.

That's how I see it anyway.

What I explained is that it is the result of, a conclusion drawn from understanding the concept of matter. — Metaphysician Undercover

Who understands matter? What we have are theories of physics about matter in microphysical states. Once you enter biology, our understanding of matter decreases exponentially - we don't understand how matter could have the properties we experience in everyday life. That's lack of understanding.

That is because matter is a principle assumed to account for the apparently deterministic aspects of the world, i.e. temporal continuity, while mind and free will are things requiring exception to that, i.e. temporal discontinuity.

Matter cannot be configured in a way other than what is allowed for by determinist causation. This I believe is the importance of understanding the relation between "matter" and Newton's first law. Newton assigns to matter itself, a fundamental property, which is inertia, and this renders all material bodies as determined. So mind, which has the capacity to choose, cannot be a configuration of matter. — Metaphysician Undercover

Do you mean matter as in physics or matter as in everything that is? Because physics does not show determinism, it at best suggests probabilities, which are very foreign to our debates on free will.

If there is emergence - brute emergence, "magical emergence" - which I believe happens all the time, then there is no problem in mind arising from matter, any more than anything else arising from it.

It seems we are an impasse here for the time being. I propose to park the conversation here and we can pick it up in some other thread, maybe by then we could understand each other better,

But I suspect we agree on something like 70% of the main topics, that is, if you still maintain some agreement with some version of Kant (albeit modified), if not then we may have drifted apart, which is fine.

I'll leave the proposal for you to decide.

Because it's materialism, and I reject materialism. — Wayfarer

Because you equate it with scienticism. It does not need to be so equated.

If you reject the scientistic association, then many problems go away. The only remaining issue then, would be if matter came before mental properties, or if mental properties came before material ones.

that is, wherever there’s life, there’s also something like mind, even if it’s not conscious or sentient in the way we think of it. — Wayfarer

That's fine. I call the stuff that the world is made of "physical stuff" or matter, you can call it "energy" or "idea" if you wish. It could cause terminological issues down the line, but content wise, there's not much of a difference.

If so, then complex minds in higher organisms wouldn’t just be the product of matter—mind could also be understood as a causal factor. The fact that mind is not something that can be identified on the molecular level is not an argument against it - as everyone knows, identifying the physical correlates of consciousness is, famously, a very hard problem ;-) — Wayfarer

They could be correlative - maybe.

Yeah, the "hard problem" (which is misleading, imo) is real. Because our understanding is just way too to know how matter could lead to mind - Locke pointed that out many years ago, quite correctly as I see it.

It's something akin to asking yourself does a dog understand itself? Well, not very well. We know more about dogs that they do about themselves, as it were, and we still don't understand completely at all - far from it.

To understand how brain leads to mind would require exponentially more intelligence than we have. I just don't see why I have any reason to deny that experience comes from modified physical (world, immaterial, neutral, whatever you want to call it) stuff.

But that is a stipulation that mind is above matter. What does that mean? Why can't mind be a specific configuration of matter? Is there a principle in nature that prevents mind from arising from certain combinations of matter? Not that I know of.

I agree that, in very crucial respects, we don't know what matter is. We only know a very specific configuration of it - the rest are postulates to make sense of the world.

I thought you were asking me to speculate as to what the structures we perceive as objects might be. It seems animals will not conceptualize structures in the ways we do or even conceptualize them at all. Perhaps I don't understand your question. — Janus

I thought you were saying that all creatures had access to same basic structure. If so, then I was going to reply by saying what you just said "animals will not conceptualize structures in the way we do...".

If so - then I think we are on the same page on this specific topic. Which may be good or maybe it's problematic, I dunno. :cool:

Why not a microphysical thing? Must the physical be different than the metaphysical other than definitionally? — Janus

I was not evaluating your comment, I was asking if this structure is what you think is the same for all creatures - as I did not understand your specific description.

Sorry I overlooked this. I am not following.

It could be thought of as a localised intensity of energetic bonding in a field that gives rise to chracteristic functions and interactions. — Janus

So, some microphysical thing?

What is important to note though, is that materialism is reducible to a form of idealism, not vise versa. This assigns logical priority to idealism over materialism. — Metaphysician Undercover

If experience comes from organized matter, then it comes from the brain of certain organisms.

I don't see these terms as polar opposites. I'm a scientific realist and a manifest idealist: I believe the ordinary everyday world of tables and chairs are mind-dependent. I don't think physics is, despite it being formulated through minds, it still exists absent us.

The only way a strict separation is possible is if you assume that matter cannot be mental in any respect, or that mind is above matter, which is not coherent until someone says what matter is, and where it stops.

It does not create the objective world, but then, what is 'objective' without there being the subject or observer for whom it is an object? — Wayfarer

The world. The actual world. The hard thing to tease out is what belongs to it absent us. That's a hard question. I think the evidence indicates that atoms, protons and so on existed prior to us. So, did planets and several other things.

But I will grant you that qualia did not exist absent a subject. I grant you that we give "meaning" to things. I grant that we individuate objects, and I also grant that we don't reach things in themselves. But I do not follow you in so far as denying objectivity without a subject.

Notice I understand the radicalness of what you are proposing. But I don't think it's true. Not to that extent.

One could be even more radical like Arthur Collier and outright deny that anything exists absent us and be perhaps the only full-blown idealist I know of. And it is very radical. But it's also not convincing.

Radicalness is not an indication of correctness. Not that you claim so, but it's worth pointing out.

That doesn't mean I don't see massive obstacles in making sense of these things. These are hard questions.

OK. Good.

We see something, right? This something triggers a reaction in our minds such that we call it a "tree". We don't see a tree first and then label it as a tree. We see things which we then interpret as so and so.

Their behaviors suggest they are interacting with something which is "concrete", something that can be touched and not passed through.

What does "structure" cover for you? Does it cover the shape of a thing or it's qualia or what? That's a bit unclear to me.

I mean, either the universe is 13.7 billion years old, or it is not. That's a factual statement.

If we never arose, there would still be something there. It must be assumed otherwise how could we exist at all? Something had to happen that led to us, which did not depend on us.

They don't bump into them, and they lift their legs and pee on them They don't try to climb them although they may use them to stand on the back legs and look up to see what's up there making a sound they are intrigued by. Cats climb them and birds land and perch in them. — Janus

They don't bump into something; we conceptualize that something as a tree. Cats "climb" something (as opposed to go up? or latching on?). Yeah, they surely do stand on something. We conceptualize it as a tree - we have that linguistic and alongside that, conceptual capacity to apply the label "tree" to this thing animals react to.

Nothing inside of us could determine the smallest details of what is seen. What is actually out there determines what is seen. Otherwise, you would have to posit that our minds are all somehow connected. — Janus

We are the same species - so we will have the same concepts.

Just as dogs are their own species. As birds belong to birds.

When neurologists study a brain, they assume that what holds for that single individual's brain, applies to all of us, minus abnormalities.

When vision scientists study how we see, they assume that the person's eye they are studying, applies to all people - again, barring abnormalities.

How do we know that and yet do not know that there are structured configurations of energy which appear to us as objects? Wayfarer won't agree with you about the human-independent existence of space and time by the way. — Janus

We know that because mathematics, somehow, seems to apply to mind independent reality. What physics studies are the simplest systems in nature, somehow, we are able to develop theories that describe regularities in nature.

That was Einstein's comment about the most surprising thing about science (physics) that it works at all.

If Wayfarer thinks this is problematic or wouldn't agree with me here, then I'd disagree with him here.

I don't deny mind-independence. I only think it becomes overwhelmingly complex above physics.

How do we know that, by the way? — Wayfarer

Well Eddington confirmed that space and time were actually one thing, spacetime, experimentally confirmed in the early 20th century.

think the fact that we all see the same things and can agree down to the smallest detail as to what we see and that our observations show us that other animals see the same things we do, suggests very strongly that these things are not just mental constructions. — Janus

Can they? Do dogs see trees? They see something for sure, they don't have the concept "tree", nor do we know how they individuate objects. When it comes to other animals, one could assume some of them don't individuate things at all.

There's no necessary law that states that the way we pick out a blade of grass is the way it must be. One can easily imagine another species or an alien not being able to individuate a blade of grass as one thing, but rather several parts.

That we all agree down to the smallest part on how objects appear to us, simply tells us we are all human beings.



Based on what you quote here, I agree with a lot of it, maybe most.

I was no intending to defend you or attack Janus, it's just that the point he made was interesting to me.

As I said I think most of us have thought hard about our positions, and we'd only be willing to change them given extremely strong arguments and even then, it's not a guarantee.

Yes, I think Kantian (or Neo-Platonic) perspectives are very much headed in the right direction. I only add that we must take into account that Kant literally shaped his Critique around Newtonian natural philosophy, which stated that space and time were absolute.

That's a massive reason why Kant says that they are a priori forms of sensibility. This is very frequently overlooked.

Now we know that there is such a thing as time and space absent us, which are quite different from our intuitive understanding of them.

So, it's tricky, as I see it, but it's an important issue in general.

I agree, for the most part. I would even venture to say that experience itself is not ontologically different from matter and energy, but epistemologically different. I don't think we can make metaphysical distinctions. Descartes could, given the state of knowledge back then, but we know more than he could have dreamt.

Yes, I am also a realist in so far as I think science tells us what belongs to the world (mostly physics). But apart from that, I think ordinary objects, so called, trees and apples and river and laptops, are mental constructions. And how much of science is a construction is tricky.

Physics seems to be much more grounded than biology, one could make a case that a different species might have a different biological science, but it's hard to imagine them having extremely different physics.

As to why science works - who knows?

Yes, some versions of idealism do lend themselves for religious/spiritual matters. But it need not be exclusive to one's personal philosophical beliefs, though it often is.

Ah. Fair enough. To be clear "idealism" covers a lot of ground, as does "materialism". It's a matter of what one emphasizes, it seems to me.

Apologies if this is a forced intervention, but you brought up something interesting.

Isn't this the case with most of us? We have a certain view and after having read and thought a lot about something, we choose an option. We will tend to defend that view, unless a very strong reason is given as to why one's view is flawed.

What's always puzzled me about questions such as these is that they tell us almost nothing about goodness.

We should do what is good, granted. Why? Because it is fair, just, correct (good). That says virtually nothing about what goodness is.

We can point to specific acts of doing good things, but it's always been very obscure to me. Kind of like we lack the capacity to scrutinize what goodness is, other than pointing out instances of it.

I feel there is much more to this, but we can't say much about it.

Sorry Anthony I can't participate at the moment. Don't have the capacity to focus too much on W now. But will return soon to this thread hopefully.

Not sure about degrees, but of amount of confidence. As Russell said (forgot where) the highest degree of confidence belongs to my percepts. The second "lower" confidence would be the report of other people's percepts. The last would be our confidence in our theories about the world.

Yeah. As the much cliched quote goes, war is politics by other means. What can be done through war, can also preferably be done through political negotiation - for the most part.

There are a few neocons here and there. That's life.

It's a condemnation of the species that after so many pointless, savage wars we still continue to wage them...

And yet what is the alternative? A principled stance for peace will not prevent someone else from pursuing their goals through war, and always avoiding escalation just hands all the cards to the other side. It's not a practical strategy if you care about the outcome. — Echarmion

I understand that. But we are speaking about nuclear powers. You have to measure if your principles stack up against the real possibility of nuclear annihilation, not just in this case, but many others.

It's not pretty, much less fair.

That seems like a very bleak outlook. What makes you so pessimistic about this? — Echarmion

What they've said, what they've sacrificed in war and national pride. Doesn't help they changed official nuclear doctrine. Remember The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists has changed from hours to minutes to midnight about two years ago. These are serious people.

And thus they should give up? Or what is the conclusion you're arriving at here? — Echarmion

It's about measuring how much they're going to lose. 52% of Ukrainians now want negotiated settlement, that should count for something.

I find this an odd question. NATO has been very successful. There have been no overt attacks on any NATO member. Who would dismantle a successful system of mutual defense? What possible interest could that serve? — Echarmion

What have they done? Help in tearing apart Yugoslavia? Destroy Libya? Support Israel? Intensify tensions in China?

I don't see why Europe should need the US to pay for their defense. Europe should have its own foreign policy, independent of the US.

Now if that European Defense organization wans to ally with the US for something - they should do so.

I'd be curious as to what your source of information on this is. As far as I know there were informal talks behind closer doors, the details of which aren't public. Reportedly Russia asked for some kind of special status within NATO.

Perhaps NATO could have been more accommodating. But perhaps also Russia should not have made demands at that time. — Echarmion

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/04/ex-nato-head-says-putin-wanted-to-join-alliance-early-on-in-his-rule

If they wanted to "isolate" China, this could have been a smart move. But alas, it was rejected.

What qualifies as a "threat to the world"? Was the Soviet Union a threat to the world? Was Germany in 1914?

On the one hand, most people just want peace and prosperity. On the other hand there are clearly different visions as to how the future world looks, and they're not equally appealing from where I stand. — Echarmion

Good question. As far as I see, anything that the West doesn't like. China, Iran, North Korea, Russia.

Hence Ukraine can get / could have gotten a better deal like Japan or Poland. Why is this so difficult to understand? Why the defeatism? There'd be no Finns, we'd be basically Russians just like the Mari people or other Finno-Ugric people in Russia if we would have that kind of defeatist attitude, if we would never had fought for our independence. — ssu

52% of Ukrainians now want a negotiated settlement. Historical parallels are interesting and potentially informative, but each conflict is new and brings unique difficulties to the table.

There are no forever wars.

All wars, even the Hundred years war, came to an end. The longest conflict that are going are the Kurdish insurgencies. Another long conflict is the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Even they aren't active all the time. But nothing close to forever. — ssu

I was replying to your comment. Of course, literally, no war is forever. But they can be very long, like Korea, which is still ongoing.

Yet winning never has been that Victory Parade on the Red Square for Ukraine. — ssu

Winning is stopping the killing. What other winning is there? That Russia is defeated- that they go back pre-invasion days? That's not going to happen.

I don't like Putin; I don't like the current Russian government. That has nothing to do with winning or losing.

Yet it is important to remember that strategic decisions still happen. If there was an inescapable spiral of escalation, then the soviet union would have attacked the US navy ships blocking the shipping lanes to Cuba. They did not though. — Echarmion

Correct. But NATO is making it worse, not better. We will see how it pans out shortly.

As you probably already know, we were literally one word away from nuclear war in the Cuban Missile Crisis.

We can't keep playing tightrope forever, eventually someone will fall and by extension everyone else will.

And negotiations will happen. Everyone is aware that the war must end with negotiations. How else could it be? The question is how one-sided the negotiations will be. — Echarmion

I don't see a world in which Russia retreats from the territories they conquered in this war. They would rather commit collective suicide. I just don't see them doing this.

Maybe I am completely wrong - maybe they will in some future scenario, swap land for peace. But then Ukraine can never be a part of NATO.

No option here is one in which Ukraine has a favorable hand. It's a question of how much they will lose. They can lose more or lose less. That's how I see it.

A situation where either Russia or Ukraine are building up for the next round to address their grievances isn't stable. A situation where the West leaves Ukraine by the wayside to be absorbed in the Russian orbit would badly damage the cohesion and credibility of NATO.

On the other extreme a destabilised Russia would be volatile and cause all kinds of future security risks. Again it's a strategic calculation. It's not simply about a binary win/ lose outcome. — Echarmion

But why does NATO exist? It's stated goal was to defend against the Soviet Union. That collapsed and NATO remained.

You are probably aware that Putin asked Clinton is Russia could join NATO but was rejected. Had Russia been in NATO, this war would not have occurred.

They only remaining "threat" is China. They're a threat to Taiwan. Not to the world.

Yeah, they will take more land. It might be a forever war. But negotiations have to happen.

Ukraine simply cannot beat Russia now the numbers don't add up.

Are you implying that's not what they have been doing? — Echarmion

Last I saw Kiev was functioning. It wasn't like Baghdad was left.

I mean full and total devastation of Kiev.

Why though? They don't actually "have to" do anything. This really reminds me of the talk about the invasion itself. Oh Russia "had to" do it because of provocations X, Y and Z. But we're talking about strategic decisions and countries are very well able to take a loss and roll with it. — Echarmion

Yeah, in an ideal world they would just take hits and not do anything. This is not that world.

In my scenario, the US would eviscerate Cuba and attack Russia.

But I am not here to debate this topic with you or anyone else. After nearly 3 years, what would be the point?

All I'm saying is that I think this is extremely reckless behavior. You disagree. Fine.

How is Russia without options? The russian state is not remotely threatened. They're facing more difficult logistics and aerial campaigns which might eventually degrade their capacity to fight in Ukraine but not immediately. Even if Russia's offensive momentum is completely halted it would be able to negotiate, given how difficult it has been for Ukraine to make any headway against heavy fortifications.

This is bad for Russia but not "mutual suicide is our only option" levels of bad.

Why do you think Russia might use a nuclear weapon? What would be their goal? — Echarmion

That's right this does not threaten them. But it is US and UK soldiers using US and UK machinery firing into Russia.

Imagine Russian missiles being shot with Russian technology from Cuba into the US. What would happen?

That's direct involvement. What are they going to do take it?

They probably will hit Ukraine very hard. But if these attacks continue, they have to reply in kind to the US or Britain. And then what happens? You can imagine.

So, unless you really believe they will just take attacks without retaliation, I don't see how you don't see this as being dangerous in the extreme.

Yes sure, that may well be the case.

But we know that "limited nuclear war" cannot be fought with those two countries. It's a total fiction.

The current situation doesn't seem remotely close to those situations. — Echarmion

I don't know how much more evidence one needs to know that Russia is being serious. It is being left without options.

This is horrifying. Worse that many American and some Europeans think this is a good idea - not all of them to be clear.

I don't understand how people think this is good. We are standing at the precipice of annihilation.

Is Sartre worth reading? I've only ever read his novel Nausea, which was really good.

I find his phenomenology (the bits I've read) dubious, but you've quite likely read more than me.

Yeah it was very quick and as far as I know, not very effective.

Just not a good idea. But I believe we have different takes on this war.

And now Ukraine can send missiles into Russia.

Great.

And honestly, this isn't necessarily bad thinking when you consider some particularly dangerous policies that have been recommended, such as Trump's push to make almost all federal employees with any decision making authority political appointees who can be fired based purely on political loyalty. This would be an unmitigated disaster, easily the most damaging policy proposed in recent memory. Many Republicans know this is idiocy, and the filibuster keeps them from having to actively switch sides to vote against it. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Ah sure. I mean the way I see it, is that Republicans keep going further to the right (than almost any other developed country on Earth) dragging Dems to the right as well. Look at what happened with Build Back Better, Sinema and Manchin gutted it. So, can the 60 rule be changed or modified? I think Dems might want to consider this, the Republicans have too much influence.

than the general electorate. Think about it, who is going to get themselves to the polls in the spring or winter, long before the general election (particularly for off years when there is no presidential race and much less media buzz)? Who is going to want to actively declare themselves as a member of either party? On average, these people tend to be more ideologically motivated. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I see your point. I agree with a good deal of it. But outside of the Culture War stuff (and now immigration), I don't see how actual Republican policy would appeal to anyone other than the 1%. It's just deregulation and tax cuts, but they then add abortion and minority rights, etc., as the red herring that's how they get votes. I think those who profit from the Republicans know this, hardcore followers and more casuals too.

With Dems it's somewhat different. I mean compare them to what FDR did, it's hard to believe they even have the same name. I believe a populist Sanders social-lefty message would resonate with a lot of people. By the time it reaches the mainstream (the National stage), then you get issues about deficit and political feasibility thrown in to make the whole platform sound like Soviet Russia.

Yes, the 60 votes rule is now a serious problem. I don't know what it will take to get the Constitution amended again. I don't quite follow what you mean by "more radical". Do you mean politicians who promise public good but then don't deliver?

I remember who good Palin did when they tried ranked choice voting in Alaska. Great stuff. I agree with what you list, for sure, those would be welcome changes. I also assume overturning Citizens United would be good - but with this Supreme Court, it's not happening.

As for the Culture War. Yeah. That's a problem. Or better, it is presented as a bigger problem instead of focusing on much more serious stuff: destruction of the Earth's climate, raising inequality, etc.

That one is also difficult to navigate.

:100:

Well.

Let's hope we make it out alive during these 4 years. Maybe we will have a good strategy by then.

Yeah - this view is wild to me. Sanders is too far left damn,,,

Sanders would fit into right wing political parties in Europe. The American people must somehow not want healthcare and social services.

Or people in positions of relative privilege, don't want to sacrifice a bit of income, for a better country...