geordief

We are not at war with Russia.If we were , the assassination of its leader would not as far as I know be a war crime or similar. We were at war with Germany and so the assassination of Hitler would have just been part of the war. As we are not at war with Russia an assassination attempt by a Nato country would be both stupid and also very probably used as a casus belli (just what we all need)

I wonder what his list of potential assassin sponsors looks like. It might not just be Ukrainians. They may feel that this is his moment of weakness. It would be folly for Nato countries to touch the idea with a barge pole, although the intelligence services must need to communicate with those so inclined as they may provide human intelligence.

When it saw itself reflected back in the "mind" of a companion creature? Mind is a measure of sociability? (or rather , sociality?) The mirror test is only a first step to the test of inclusion in a social group? (Which would make minds the norm amongst animals)

Yes,I remember but I had to go back and refresh my memory. I am not sure the analogy it is as clear as it was with the free will scenario. Consciousness is even more fundamental than free will. But ,if you think the analogy still applies then maybe that shows that the sensations of freewill and of being conscious (of one's existence) are practically "joined at the hip" Someone has said that we ,as human observers and explorers perform the role of the universe looking at itself. Maybe to rephrase that dramatically we are the Consciousness of the Universe("the Universe" being a term that no longer seems easily defined-as it once seemed to in the not too distant past)

I just had in mind the determination an observer might make as to whether a second organism (or machine) exhibited behaviour that could be called "conscious " Perhaps a bit trivial,but it might serve as a contrast to the subjective consciousness we are all so frustratingly familiar with But I think you are right because I cannot actually come up with any criterion that would allow any such behaviour in another person or system as "conscious "as any behaviour might be just as easily interpreted in a purely reductionist way without recourse to any notion of consciousness at all. "

Yes perhaps we could coin the phrases "objective consciousness " and "subjective consciousness " (if they are not already in use)? The latter is as slippery a concept as you could wish for whilst the former would be a worthwhile and rigorous subject for scientific exploration. Unless it's a trap 🤔

Maybe so .That had always been my prefered stance but I thought I had become less enthusiastic about it. Are there any articles attempting to reject that viewpoint or is this a kind of "take it or leave it" idea that holds no real consequences whether it is valid or not?

Actually , -I think that has been my take for the past while.That consciousness is built into stuff and becomes more or less complex as physical systems evolve. The connectome,(which I have only just learned of from @Prometheus in this thread doesn't seem at first glance to contradict this idea.) .

I think others here have noted possible observations that would show if a subject was conscious or not. I initially had in mind to drill down into more basic and fundamental reactions of the subject with its environment that would show up the fundamental concept. But I have given up on that idea because I find the subject so difficult and ,perhaps defuse. I do like the idea of the connectome as mentioned by @Prometheus but note the apparently enormous practical difficulties in studying that concept. But perhaps my test might boil down to whether the subject interacts with its environment in an"interesting" way(as Peterkin has said we as the experimenters seem to have a priori defined a conscious system as "something like us" and so "interesting" may be the most we can or should hope for)

I see.Perhaps we might even devise a test to determine whether another person had a qualitatively higher level of self awareness than oneself? I am not being serious .I must admit the subject is a lot more difficult than I had imagined. The answers I got to the OP have been helpful and informative. It seems there has been a fair bit of research into the subject.....

Posting this in General Philosophy if that fits. My question is this: "Is there any kind of a test (perhaps along the lines of the Turing test) that we could administer to a sentient creature (or a machine) that would allow us to define or determine whether or not the said subject was actually conscious? I don't know,but it seems a central feature of my existence that I tell myself that I do possess consciousness but I cannot see a way to verify this other than to take it as a matter of a priori belief. Could there be any possible tests or is it just the Turing test that might be applicable? Apologies if this question has been asked before(said sarcastically as there is apparently no emoji for that)

Was that 1941 parade directly targeted in the way it has been suggested that the upcoming May parade might be? How are the two parades comparable? Personally I feel that such an attack might play into the hands of the Russian Disinformation Services(though their dirty work has mostly been done by now,I'd say) It could present a pretext for threats of nuclear attacks and so could conceivably even be staged for that purpose.

Well that is what immediately came to my mind when I noticed this. It felt just like when you are in the train station and there is a train alongside the one you are seated in Then you notice that the other train is moving,but there is no way of knowing whether it is really the train you are in that is moving or the train alongside (unless your train accelerates strongly or jerkily enough for you to notice that and so make a determination) In the case of looking through the windscreen of the car with a stream of water (ie the rain) running downwards the effect was to make an illusion of the scene the other side of the windscreen run upwards. But I, as the viewer was motionless, so it was not quite the same scenario as with the train -and also it was the first time I had ever noticed it.

I was looking through the car windscreen today as the rain came down (parked with the wipers off) Through the windscreen I was looking at a roughly painted white wall (a rendered finish which appeared as a collection of small pebbles-I think it may be called "pebbledash,actually) Anyway the visual effect was that ,as the rainwater ran down the 45° angled windscreen the "pebbles" seemed to move up the wall in an odd kind of opposing direction. Anyone noticed this ,or similar before?

Would you say that this "self coupling" of the gravitational fields demonstrates the very essence of relativity? Is it a very central property?( might sound a bit ironic ,put that way when the absence of centres is what I think I am trying to describe)

I don't think global destabilization would have been a conscious goal of his but I can see that he might welcome it and foster it if occurred "on his watch" as it were And yes ,very hard to juggle those balls but he might feel that his ineptitude has set a very low bar and so might ,if allowed be willing to roll the dice

What is surprising to an outsider is that Finland should have had any misconceptions about the character of the Russian political system. Indeed, notwithstanding those recent polls for staying out of Nato,I have heard that the memory of the last Russo- Finnish war has lain very close to the surface of the public's conscience there ever since. Perhaps the Fins like all of us were taken aback by the neck of Putin who imagined that the invasion of a neighbouring country could be undertaken almost for sport. The fate of his endeavour seems to pivot on some kind of a "success" in the Dombas. I wish him God speed to Hell this time around and a dose of smelling salts to his lackeys in the Russian political system.

Pissing in the bath?

I think I may be more worried about the idea that there may have been nuclear weapons on board the Moskva and that the Ukrainian missile had to somehow avoid hitting them directly. I am only just learning about this Is it routine for the major militaries to carry nuclear weapons into war zones?

You might send the Russians a few echo locators so you can be even handed about things.

Wonder if it sank in Ukraine's territorial waters.

Russia has a deployed a new submarine corps in the Sea of Azos https://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-europe-61101906

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antigonish_(poem)

Yesterday, upon the stair, I met a man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today I wish, I wish he'd go away... When I came home last night at three The man was waiting there for me But when I looked around the hall I couldn't see him there at all! Go away, go away, don't you come back any more! Go away, go away, and please don't slam the door... (slam!) Last night I saw upon the stair A little man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today Oh, how I wish he'd go away

With regards to the Taiwan part of the OP Stephen Sakur interviewed the Taipei representative to the EU on Hard Talk on the BBC last night. Quite pointed questions and relevant to this thread,which was started before the actual invasion. I imagine it can be found on satellite or the BBC player.(eventually youtube)