Eiuol

What's your point here? No one claimed that the Russian government isn't actually a government. Legitimacy as in moral legitimacy. If you haven't been following, the idea pushed by those who say Russia is illegitimate so far in this thread has been about autocracy being equivalent to dictatorship, not that Russia is "not as good". It's a kind of a pointless argument, because in whatever way you could interpret "military aid" (depending on how strict your definition is), it doesn't make Russia any more or less justified. Even if the US sent tanks to the Ukraine and they all stood at the border, guns loaded, military at the ready, waving the American flag to indicate who sent the tanks, Russia would have no moral right to say that "this is a threat that constitutes initiation of force, we have the right to attack!" It is the difference between saying NATO is acting aggressively, or acting defensively. Everything hinges on the moral legitimacy of Russia. Basically, I don't see a way that the wrongdoing of the US could surpass Russia in such a way that Russia is the good guy here.

Your example might have a point if there were continuity from Russian tsars, to the Soviet Union, to the Russian Federation. But it's all disjointed, as radically different forms of government, with each of them having no legitimacy in the first place. I mean, that Putin would make such a claim and act on it makes sense for this reason, but you used it as an actual valid justification. Even if you are right that Russia has a valid claim to the territory on a legal level, Russia's illegitimacy makes it moot. On a moral level, who cares? I pretty much agree, and with the way that Russia isn't a threat per se. And hope it stays that way. Seems to me that it's better off for me and everyone else if Russia doesn't grow in any way. Sending some arms to the Ukraine seems pretty cost-effective, and doesn't seem imminent that the Ukraine is going to become something worse than it was. If you think Russia is so weak that even that much money is pointless, it would also mean that Russia succeeding would make utterly no difference on American government. It wouldn't discourage anything in the American government that is imperialistic, it wouldn't discourage bureaucracy, it wouldn't discourage all the bad things about the US that you want to minimize and eventually destroy. At best, Russia's success would only create chaos in that region (arguably leaving room for American imperialism to get even worse), with a slight increase in Russia's power. That's only my best case scenario.

You know as well as I do that conflict goes even further back than that. It's not like problems with Putin's Russia started with Crimea.

Right, so you still need an analysis of what Russia gains. I've already given reasons why I think that Russia winning would be worse than any bad that the US is doing (bad for me, not bad for the Ukrainians or Europeans in general).

More specifically, that you are conscious is axiomatic, but you wouldn't say that consciousness exists prior to and separate from the entity that possesses it. Consciousness exists by virtue of the entity itself. The same goes with all characteristics of an entity; those characteristics exist because of the nature of the entity. It isn't as if there are entities, and then various characteristics are attached to entities, where characteristics are distinct or separate from entities. Not that "empty entities" are a thing in that case, but that what we recognize as characteristics would be merely correlations or that characteristics are incidental and not brought about by the nature of the entity (pretty much Hume). Or you might be able to say that certain characteristics exist without entities. You don't make airplanes and imbue flight into them. You make airplanes, and by virtue of what they are, they fly (with all the relevant engineering principles to make lift possible). (Existence is different, because it isn't a characteristic that an entity possesses or fails to possess.)

If any of the necessary characteristics are missing, it can't be that thing. If it has all the necessary characteristics, it is that thing. Consciousness is a biological function, it isn't something beyond or transcending biological functions. So, your question of "unlike a heart...", well, you didn't even mention what is different or special about consciousness as a biological function. Honestly, I don't understand what you're talking about. It sounds very confused. I'm not saying that because I think you're wrong. I'm saying that because it looks like you're having a completely different conversation. All I have said is that consciousness is a biological function, and that biological functions can be re-created. Address that if you want.

I suspect that there is a way to get the list, it really depends on why they said you couldn't. Most of the time, with medical things like this, I think people are willing to make exceptions - if you explain your situation to the right person. I don't think it would be wrong to submit inquiries with your name and phone number and what actually would be a potential employer. But how would you do that, get a list of every company in the world that meet a certain criteria, and submit an inquiry with each and every one of those? That would be very inefficient.

Have you asked for the list? Just because it's not public doesn't mean that you can't ask for it.

Biological functions are reproduced all the time, you can have artificial hearts that do all the same things that hearts do (except the ways that cells do things like cell repair, which are not essential to what makes something a heart). It isn't a "fake" or inferior imitation of hearts, and it isn't biologically produced. Indeed volition is a biological function, but just like anything else biological, you can intentionally re-create it if you eventually figure out what allows that function to operate at all. I don't mean that you disagree, but since you haven't really addressed the things I said, it seems like you don't follow what I'm saying.

I don't know what this is supposed to mean. You aren't getting it. If you want to define machine as or including "non-volitional entity", then clearly if you build something that is volitional, it would not fit under the concept 'machine'. Or, you have to redefine 'machine'. Both would be valid. You seem to keep thinking about building a volitional entity in terms of how AI systems are built, but this is wrong. It wouldn't be artificially intelligent, it would be intelligent. It wouldn't be built like robots or AI systems we have today, they would be built in new ways. Totally new ways, not just improvements of the same thing. There are enough developments out there that we know it's possible to implement the necessary elements of consciousness.

Existence isn't something that is created, especially because existence isn't an entity or object. It is the sum total of everything that does exist. Of all the entities that exist, they all could be created again, or any attributes that they possess (supposing the necessary conditions are met). To be precise, it's not consciousness per se that is created, but entities which are conscious. It appears that the necessary conditions of consciousness could be established in a machine, that is, there is nothing in principle that prevents a machine from ever having all the attributes that make something conscious. It might turn out though that you would need to use biological materials (because of whatever properties those materials have) but in any case, it would result from a man-made method and a purposeful intention. And by that point, any questions about what this artificial (man-made) consciousness would do is the same as speculating about what an alien species would do, or a creature that evolves thousands of years in the future. The facts of reality are the same, what constitutes knowledge is the same (broadly speaking, in terms of things like contextual certainty), but the code of ethics for that creature and how it forms concepts would be different, meaning that their proper politics and aesthetic theory would be based on their unique cognitive nature or even unique biological nature. It wouldn't tell us the one and only true ethical theory that is absolutely true for all conceptual creatures.

Which is just an argument that the concept "machine" would not work. You can argue that something doesn't fit the definition, but that doesn't mean you can argue that the definition can't change as you discover more about the nature of the referent. You could have argued that dolphins are not mammals because they live in the water, many centuries ago, but the concept 'mammal' has been made better over time. In terms of what you're saying, if a "conscious machine" were ever created (since consciousness exists, you know that it could be created somehow) you would need a new concept besides machine, or you would have to change the definition of machine.

I wouldn't call that accelerationism. Withdrawing from society of course will cause problems to that society, but the strikers in the book were not pushing the collapse to go further and faster. Accelerationism could maybe describe Francisco, since he bought San Sebastian mines and deliberately ruined them by doing even more of the collectivist nonsense all around him. Accelerationism I see more like a communist amplifying capitalism to the furthest degree, because they would predict that this would lead to a collapse of capitalism from itself, as Marx predicted. I'm saying that accelerationism is about amplifying. Okay, this is why not supporting Ukraine would have benefits. But you are also talking about supporting Russia, which is different than staying out of the conflict. What would be beneficial about Russia's success?

I'm not sure that you're thinking about it in the right way. This is hypothetical thinking, that's all.

Right, so that's why AI would have to be made in a very particular way. Grames specifies some of the characteristics it would need. I agree with that. Well yeah, talking about a sufficiently advanced AI already implies something that doesn't yet exist. For the thread, the important point is that if any such AI came about, it would have a different code of ethics. It could say what is the correct code of ethics for a human, but that's about it.

It's not as if Russia is on another planet and there is utterly no impact on world affairs and spread of different ideologies. The fact that you say you support Russia in this conflict is enough evidence that you really do think Russia has some kind of impact, namely that America can be harmed by Russia. But then you would have to explain why supporting Russia's interests in the Ukraine is preferable to supporting America's interests. A general sense of American imperialism is not great, but on the other hand, how would Russia's success help you in any way? It seems like you support something like accelerationism, anything that would help hasten the collapse of America would be the best way to bring about the type of country you want to live in. I find that to be a very very bad method. If you don't support that, then how would Russia's succeeding in the Ukraine possibly bring you closer to a freer life for yourself? Escalation is not the same as starting a war. It's antiquated to think that world wars would get "started" anymore, because in a real sense, a world war has been going on for a very long time. If you are worried about a world war starting, you missed the boat. And besides, historically speaking, wars begin over specific violations of agreements or specific events. They don't begin because someone sent arms.

I mean, you could argue that you would need a different concept instead of artificial intelligence if you managed to create a machine that is conscious. But as I always say, that consciousness exists at all is proof that it could be created. Just because it's created naturally (through development) doesn't mean it can't also be created artificially and intentionally. "It's a machine" isn't an argument. If you want to get pedantic, then it just isn't a machine. Use a different concept.

...because it is sufficiently advanced. The kind that doesn't exist yet. Your premise seems to be that by nature, an AI system can only work in a deterministic way. That's true of how they are now, sure, but there is an incredible amount of research going on to make them even more advanced, even in terms of the ability to alter its own programming.

What you call suppression I call sensible content moderation. Not really, that's how justice works. People do things. You judge them for it. Sometimes that judgment properly includes "these types of behaviors and beliefs are toxic, so I don't want those behaviors and beliefs in this community." I guess I'm saying that you might see this as bad business practice, but most evidence suggests that it's bad business practice to not bother with content moderation. That's all that's really going on, content moderation. And in fact, there are plenty of platforms that have utterly no content moderation if that's the way you want your social media. ...we do. Unsubstantiated claims like that usually should be deleted and this would be in the website policy. It would count as suppression if I knew that they figured out the truth, so then I decided to delete their posts. Depending on the way the post was written, I might even say it was promoting a toxic and irrational way of holding communication. Because the alleged suppression is separate from the investigation. Why might Twitter talk to the FBI? Investigation. Why might Twitter moderate content related to things that the FBI might care about? Because after talking to the FBI, they happen to be aware of what bad actors might exist out there that they didn't consider before. You can't rule out actual collusion, but you can't say that it did happen for sure either. Just because 2 events aligned doesn't mean that they had to be coordinated. Yes, I agree, but only if the attempted justification is preventing other people from being exposed to the ideas. I'm fine with banning the promotion of certain ideas in private affairs not because I want to prevent exposure that will corrupt the minds of the pure and innocent, but that the people who promote these ideas have intentions that I think are harmful and toxic to a community.

I'm aware, I'm also aware that those like Hamilton argued that not only was it unnecessary, but possibly a threat because in the future people might perceive it as "these are the only rights that exist, therefore the government has free reign over everything else". I agree with this. My point is that lacking a Bill of Rights doesn't mean not caring about rights. Sure, I feel the same way, but I also think that Russia puts the state of foreign affairs into disarray in such a way that the ideologies of autocratic governments are promoted even in the US. Here you sound like you aren't really addressing the reverberating effects of Russian policies in the long run, only addressing the immediate effects on American imperialism. I don't believe you, but if you are sincere, your interests seem to align with Russia in many more ways than just the Ukraine. A greater ideological commonality than with America.

Unless of course the form of government is itself operating by means of essentially initiating force. As far as I know from other discussions, you would say that imperialism in large part doesn't care about rights, and operates by initiating force. If the "American orbit" is alignment with American objectives, then I don't think that can be characterized as imperialism. America would have to dictate the way other countries operate, not just by expressing the minimum standards of forming an alliance, but forcing other countries to obey. I think this was the case in Afghanistan and Iraq, but Ukraine I really don't think so. This certainly happens within American foreign policy, but the idea that Russian imperialism harming America (in its entirety) is superior than other means of harming American imperialism (a specific piece of American foreign policy) doesn't make sense to me. Then again, I get the sense that you really do think that the current state of America is so bad and harmful that the autocracy of Russia appears to be helpful when it follows its interests.

I don't see what you would consider to be an achievement of the Constitution if you think that it was how the alleged American empire was designed. If you mean mean that it codified rights at least in name, I can see that, but if imperialism is essentially bad, and America is essentially imperialist, then America is essentially bad.

Is there a point in American history where you say the country finally descended into an empire? Clearly you are saying that there were no safeguards to prevent the US from becoming ideologically driven by imperialism, but when do you think that transition happened?

The notion of world wars is antiquated. There is a constant state of war, but mostly turning towards economic war these days. It's both stupid and hyperbole to suggest that sending arms would instigate World War III, as Biden did, because the reality is, sending arms doesn't start wars. So, I don't know what you're on about. Not to mention that of all conflicts to get worked up about, you pick one where the primary instigator is Russia? That somehow sending arms to Ukraine would start World War III, but that invading Ukraine in the first place isn't instigation? The fact that you don't write out "fucker" makes your post comical. This makes you sound like a confused leftist. A leftist at least knows that they are condemning capitalism. Workers of the world unite! The military-industrial complex!

If the people you are referring to are those who literally have no trust in reason whatsoever, sure. But those people have no issue with force anyway. What they could do privately with their own property is besides the point, what the government could do is besides the point, because force is a tool for them that is perfectly valid. I think it comes down to what you call punishment. All you did is put in scare quotes, but left it very vague. Judging people negatively and then punishing them by retracting employment or private privileges, this is good. If you mean punishing as in "sit in that corner until you say the words I want you to say, simply because I disagree" isn't good, but it's not the abandonment of reason such that they believe the government needs to be issuing that punishment. So, what kind of punishment are you even talking about? All you really said is "some people want to kick people out of restaurants for bad reasons which also could be used to justify government censorship!" True, but it's not insightful.