If Zelensky is so committed to fighting Russia, why does he have units in Africa?

The recursive nature of the mind creating a model of itself in order to reason about itself is very likely what we perceive as consciousness.

This is such a massive leap, though. Don’t you see that? Why is it very likely? What effects the probability? What aspects of recursion lend themselves to consciousness? Where have we seen analogs elsewhere that provide evidence for your probabilistic claim? What aspects of the nature of models lend themselves to consciousness? Same questions.

These constructs form the basis for the patterns of thought that underpin our conscious experience

Again, a significant ontological leap. As Hume would say, at best you have constant conjunction. There is no argument that patterns of thought underpin our conscious experience that isn’t inherently circular.

The same concept is mirrored in the realm of computing. The physical complexity of transistors within a silicon chip plays no direct role in the functioning of programs that it executes.

This is an entirely inappropriate analogy. The physical complexity of transistors is physically connected, contiguously, with voltage differentials. The functioning of a program is entirely expressed in the physical world through voltage differentials. The very idea of a program or the execution thereof is a metaphor we use to reason about our tools but do not bear on the reality of the physics. Voltage differentials define everything about contemporary silicon-based binary microcomputers.

the underlying technology can vary dramatically while still supporting identical computing environments

Only if we limit ourselves severely. Underlying technology varying greatly has a severe impact on what sorts of I/O operations are possible. If we reduce everything to the pure math of computation, then you are correct, but you are correct inside an artificial self-referential symbolic system (the mathematics of boolean logic), which is to say extremely and deleteriously reductionist .

it’s a process arising from the dynamic patterns formed by the flow of electrochemical impulses across synapses. These patterns, emergent properties of the system as a whole, are what gives rise to our thoughts, feelings, and experiences.

Again, incredibly strong claim that lacks sufficient evidence. We’ve been working on this problem for a very long time. The only way we get to your conclusion is through the circular reasoning of materialist reductionism - the assertion that only physical matter exists and therefore that consciousness is merely an emergent property of the physical matter that we have knowledge off. It begs the question.

These processes, much like the laws of physics or mathematics, can be described using a formal set of rules. Therefore, the essence of our minds lies in the algorithms that govern their operation as opposed to the biological machinery of the brain. Several lines of evidence support this proposition.

Again, I think this is entirely reductionist and human experience has plenty of evidence that runs counter to this, from mystical experiences to psychedelics to NDEs, there is sufficient evidence that is counter to that theory.

In physics, when we have such evidence, we work to figure out what’s wrong with the model or with our instruments. But in pop psychology, AI, and Western philosophy of mind, we instead throw out all the evidence in favor of the dominant narrative of the academy.

Scientific history shows us we’re wrong. Scientific consensus today shows us we’re wrong.

Before we understood the EMF, we relied on all the data our senses could gather and as a Western scientific community, that was considered 100% of what was real. We discarded all the experiences of other people that we could not experience ourselves. Then, we discovered the EMF and realized that literally everything in our entire Western philosophy of science accounted for less than 0.000001% of reality.

Today, we have a model of the universe based on everything Western science has achieved in the last 600 years or so. That model accounts for about 3% of reality in so far as we can tell. That is to say, if we take everything we know, and everything we know we don’t know, what we know we know makes up 3% of what we know, and what we know we don’t know makes up about 97% of what we know. And then we have to contend with the unknown unknown, which is immeasurable.

To assume that this particularly pernicious area of inquiry has any solution that is more or less likely than any other solution is to ignore the history and present state of science.

However, even more to the point, the bioware plays a massively important part that digital substrates simply cannot mimic, and that’s the fact that we’re not talking about voltage differentials in binary states representing boolean logic, but rather continuums mediated by a massively complex distributed chemical system comprising myriad biologics, some that aren’t even our own genetics. Our gut microbiota have a massive effect on our cognition. Each organ has major roles to play in our congition. From a neurological perspective, we are only just scratching the surface on how things work at all, let alone the problem of consciousness.

Therefore, the specific biology of the brain isn’t essential for cognition; what truly matters is the system’s ability to express computational patterns, regardless of its underlying mechanics.

This is the clearest expression of circular reasoning in your writing. I encourage you to examine your position and your basis for it meticulously. In essence you have said:

1. patterns of thought underpin our conscious experience
2. neurons are merely conduits for information, creating the patterns and rhythms that constitute our mental lives
3. any system capable of performing a certain set of basic logical operations can simulate any other computational process
4. Therefore, patterns of thought underpin our conscious experience

What are your thoughts on American and British reporting on China?

Wow. Immediately going to the myth of laziness right from the get go.

You’re wrapped in arrogance armor, placed there by propagandists. It makes you feel well intentioned, principled, correct, and most importantly, educated. The problem is that the propagandists ensured you were ignorant and dogmatic. Now you have the terrible curse of being ignorant and dogmatic but believing you’re knowledgeable and principled.

Just study more history. Read the people that you’re scared of like Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Mao. Just read more and seek after knowledge that contradicts your upbringing. Most Western communists were raised on the same propaganda you were. We all managed to defeat our training by learning more about what’s really been happening for the last 500 years and unlearning the lies we were raised with.

You can do it, too.

The idea that consciousness emerges as a functional overlay of the physical neurons is not settled science, let alone settled philosophy. It is just as likely, or perhaps more likely, that there are physical phenomena that we have yet to discover that explain consciousness in terms of a field such that emergence is unnecessary.

Further, the artificial substrates that we are designing are deeply inferior to biologics and it is far more likely that we will create biological substrates to replace our contemporary silicon substrates. It is generally understood (outside of European psychology) that it is preferable to participate in circular systems than it is to attempt to transcend them. Biological technology will take advantage of abundant resources and be infinitely recyclable, as opposed to the current mineral-based technologies that require mass destruction, are significantly non-recyclable, and have no world-scale ecosystems available to integrate with.

You should research Name.Space and Paul Garrin. He pioneered a lot of thinking around decentralized DNS and he was actually the guy that sued Network Solutions for anti-trust violations. Sadly it ended up creating ICANN. But he’s a very interesting dude

Well, at least we know where the Democrats’ priorities are.

Foreign policy: Escalation of global war.
Domestic policy: thoughts and prayers

Have we gotten any confirmation that DPRK forces are in Ukraine?

No, that belief is just a coping strategy. You haven’t studied history enough. England dominated over 80% of the world’s population at it’s height. The USA broke from England over economics, primarily the crown’s intention to reform or end slavery and the crown’s restraining the colonial genocide machine from killing everyone on the continent. For almost 700 years white, European society has been traveling around the world raping, torturing, enslaving, extracting, and exploiting all of the world’s people. Every story the white European society tells about some evil doer elsewhere is primarily propaganda (true or not) to justify its continued vile dominance.

There is no future for human society that doesn’t involve dismantling everything the Europeans built on the backs of the global majority. Every current and former colony, every economic system, every legal system, every social institution, every religion - it all needs to be dismantled and rebuilt by the world’s people in accordance with the needs of those people. There is only one empire and it traces its history all the way back to Rome. It must be ended. Anyone who pretends otherwise is an apologist.

The silliest point would be to die of old age and have Vance take over, now without limits. But the broader point would be setting the conditions for a future evolution of the program.

Wow, this presidency might actually be the next phase. I predict that he will attempt to convince Congress to remove term limits from the presidency.

Yes, they are mapping human networks because humans are the weakest link in any security. Once you know who’s talking with whom, when, where, and how frequently, you can essentially get anything you need by finding the weakest links and exploiting them.

Your own source says Obama rejected sending weapons, but approved other non-weapon aid.

The single comment you sourced says they didn’t want Ukraine’s conflict with Russia to escalate.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/03/when-america-toes-moscows-line-214970/

Ukrainian leaders told me that the only action that Secretary of State Kerry and other American interlocutors took was to insist that the government in Kiev should do nothing to provoke Russia, in particular strongly urging Ukrainians not to use force

So your insistence that my word choice is nefarious is only reinforced by your anemic attempt at what you pretend is “research”.

You’re misleading people, it did send weapons just not the one that was requested at the time.

No. This is not accurate.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/26/politics/donald-trump-barack-obama-ukraine-military-aid-sheets-pillows-fact-check/index.html

Facts First: Trump is being hyperbolic here. While the Obama administration was criticized for its refusal to provide lethal assistance to Ukraine, it did provide more than $100 million in security assistance, as well as a significant amount of defense and military equipment.

Lethal aid is weapons. Armored humvees are not weapons.

The idea that you think I’m a Trump supporter after reading my comment history is hilarious and says way more about you than it does about me.

LOL. Continuing the time honored tradition of believing that anyone who disagrees with you is an evil nefarious paid actor.

Let’s not forget that Trump was the first president in history to send weapons to Ukraine. All prior presidents including Obama said it was far to provocative to do so.

The CIA for the last 4 years has reported that Russia has neither the will nor the capability to capture and hold Ukraine. The only people who are saying it are people like you. Russia will not take all of Ukraine because it does not serve them to do so and it is not militarily feasible for them to do so.

Privatization, austerity, and dismantling systems of social safety are absolutely systems things. The problem is that they can’t be openly planned because of the public backlash. So they need a lightning rod character with the public perception of the necessary audacity, idiocy, and earnestness to make it happen. But I think OP is right that once it’s in place, it will be normalized by the establishment because they need to do this as part of managing the collapse of empire.

Remember, privatization was a word coined to describe the behavior of the Third Reich.

We have third party at home!

This is liberal arrogance. Don’t worry, most of us educated in the Western system were brought up this way. It took me years to get through mine.

The answer is: be humble, your trust is not necessary for you to learn about materialism, you have no place worrying about USING it yet when haven’t even spent the requisite time learning about it.

An ananolgy might be an undergraduate dismissing linguistics after a primer on Wittgenstein. They never read a full text of Wittgenstein, they never read the debate between and among linguists, and they never struggled to understand what was actually being said. They just used their naiive undergrad vibes to be like " that sounds dumb" and ignored it for years, or forever.

You don’t have the privilege of us trying to convince you because you haven’t bothered to spend the time reading and learning enough to even make a meaningful post on the topic.

Don’t worry about whether or not you trust it. Go in humbly, learn, evaluate it, get deep, keep questioning it, read the debates. Don’t ask for vibes to counter your vibes.

No investigation, no right to speak.