Skyfall was also amazing, so James Bond has a knack for decent tunes even now.

but the best supported theory of consciousness right now is that there is no such thing as continuity of consciousness. — RogueAI

That does not seem right, at all. There is no cessation of consciousness during sleep. There is a dampening. Your pre-and-sub-conscious are all fully intact. It is only normal, waking consciousness which has been stymied. This butters no bread for the discussion. Suspension is not cessation is also worth noting.

I think that is an example of poor emotional intelligence. — Athena

Hmm, the problem with this is that it is not. What is a lack of emotional intelligence is thinking that someone else can say something which carries with it a reaction in yourself, and then that somehow that reaction is on the other person. This is immature, unrealistic thinking. It is standard for those who live in fairly land where the realities of life aren't quite landing and wishful thinking is the order of the day. Or, I guess, those who acknowledge all this and just wish it were difference, hence both possibilities of wishful, and delusional thinking.

In the real world, as I have clearly explained, offense cannot be given. It is not possible. There is no mechanism available for it. It isn't a move open to humans. The fact that you chose to not response to me, but to someone objective to me serves me quite well in understanding why you think the way you do: avoiding the point. A good way to illustrate how this is not possible, is discussing how being offended 'on behalf' is not possible. The same lack of thinking leads to both erroneous claims.

Offense is a reaction inside a person's mind, to something they have interpreted, yes? Yes. That's what it is, and we know this. Where in this discussion could there be room for A's actions to carry with it B's reaction? Causing offense? Yes, sure. But causes need not be related to effects. Quite often, social media users will be caused to be offended by something which was not aimed at them, isn't reasonably readable that way, and ultimately has nothing to do with them. It caused their offense, but the offense wasn't in any way attached to the cause. Tricky? Sure. So let's go over transitive offense to try to clear this up.

Now, I was thinking last night (and talking to my wife) about 'necessary and sufficient' conditions for something being 'on behalf" and took two criteria in mind

1) acknowledging an insult (I need restrict this to insults proper, and not something that is 'potentially insulting' for reasons that will become clear), and,

2) caring, in some fashion, about the effect it could have on the person/group it's aimed at.

Totally reasonable conditions, and there's the fact I cannot get around which is that despite any protests of language, talking about 'being insulted' is describing something which clearly actually happens. Again, I'm fairly sure it's not 'on behalf' but nevertheless, I accept that this phrase is standard (it just means the state of experiencing insult, not that you were acted upon as that is not possible, in this sense).

Now, in discussing the actual issue I still have two pretty glaring objections to the claim:

1: "On behalf" appears to be strictly transitive. To do something 'on behalf' of someone seems to mean "in place of" someone. Voting on behalf, acting on behalf, defending someone when they are not there etc... But this requires that there is something to be transposed through you. If party A is not offended, this is where I would say it is not possible for you to be offended on behalf as there is no offence for you to carry through. This also seems to imply that consent is required. Where someone doesn't even feel the thing, that doesn't seem possible.

2: On behalf implies you are conveying the person/group's view (which, if neutral, couldn't be offence - nb: when talking about groups let's assume there's a democratic consensus that could reasonably be conveyed)). If your view doesn't align, it would be very hard to say you were conveying the view of the group, rather than your view in light of the group.

However, if they were offended, and I wasn't, I could still convey their offense on behalf, whether or not I cared/understood/empathized. Lawyers do this constantly, as do several others types of people like parents, advocates to charity or similar.

I think what someone would say - that empathy is an example - unfortunately betrays this issue - if you're empathizing with someone's plight, that means you feel a certain way, and you are incensed/upset/whatever about the issue from a 3p perspective - not feeling their feelings. Not invalid, not unimportant or anything like that - but it seems that it's more akin to "feeling sorry for" or "feeling angry for" and not "on behalf" (which seems to be a conveying of the actual subject's view/feeling/intent).

I feel bad when I see a child laughed at for having no one turn up to their birthday (actually, i completely fall apart and become somewhat inconsolable for a time). But I'm not conveying anything about the child. I am expressing how i feel about it. It destroys me, because my view is that no kid should have to deal with that inter alia. I feel bad for the kid on my own account.

This then also shades into things that can be insulting rather than are insults. In those cases, I don't even think you can be reasonably become offended (though, clearly you can unreasonably become offended). If you read a sign that, in your mind specifically, without recourse to any other individual is "potentially offensive" to (lets just stick with, for ease) trans people then that is an emotion all of your own, based on your own views and your own internal circumstances, I should think.. Here, you, personally, think trans people should be referred to in X way, and that this isn't the case pissed you off. Those are your feelings of offence about that group, as I see it.

A reverse eg: I am pretty openly bisexual. I always have been. People used to point out to me things(or lack of things, i guess) which they assumed I would be offended by and I simply didn't read them the same way. I didn't see why It would be offensive and refused to pretend I did. In those cases, these people are definitely not offended for me. They are offended because of their personal view about how bisexuals should be represented/included/what have you. Granted, I think people are grossly oversensitive and find offence literally everywhere, but these examples aren't those. Perhaps it would be more stark to say in several instances, I was incensed by their intimation that I wasn't intellectually capable of being "correctly offended" or something.

So, to sum up: I think "offense" is a concept which is simply not what it purports to be. The problem of 'other minds' seems to imply we can't possibly feel anything on behalf of others and I would say that's true - you can't feel someone else's feelings, and even more thoroughly, cannot feel someone else's feelings if they don't have them. These are the exact same reasons why you(a) cannot package offense into an utterance and send it over the airwaves to (b). You can simply intend that the person becomes offended - given this routinely fails, it is obvious that there is no offense in the utterance.

Unless there is some explanation of how offence can be packaged in speech (i.e, the reactionary internal state of mind "being offended") and sent over the airwaves, the argument doesn't even get off the ground. It's just a neat way to jettison responsibility for our own emotional states. Reality doesn't really care about the witterings of self-help ghouls from the 90s.

We have been running on the belief that true science is amoral and has nothing to do with our feelings. AmadeusD is a man of his time. — Athena

Your underhanded attempts to insult are keenly noted, Athena. Ironic to the nth. Particularly when you do not have the gall to actually tag me or address me directly - addressing a third party with your thoughts about one is a sure-fire sign you are not emotionally intelligent.

not liking Dylan's appearance. — Mijin

Right, so what I've said is this:

Anyone who approaches me as overbearing, childish and intrusive will get the same response. Given the three words I've just used, you have absolutely no possible route to pretend this is trivial. These are negative traits whereever they are found. You seem to be obsessed with Dylan's trans-ness. I am not. — AmadeusD

You are either lying, or not reading my responses before replying. The latter is impossible, since you're quoting my comments. So you must be lying. That is a real shame. Luckily, there is evidence for what i'm claiming (in that I have been explicitly talking about traits which are not appearance).
You are utterly bereft of a sense of reality if you don't think this is an attitude people take with anything presented as such. The reason Marshall Appelwhite was so uncanny was similar: He came across uncanny, somehow performatively askance from what a human expects to see, behaviourally (not physically). He was wide-eyed, overbearing, intense and intrusive with how he presented himself. He wasn't trans, or female. Therefore, your claim is absolute bunk and an attempt to impugn reasoning you don't enjoy. I don't give a shit what you enjoy. These are reasons, and either you accept them and disagree with the conclusion, or you don't. What isn't open is lying about them. If that happens again, you will not get a response.

But yeah, I'll stop saying there are zero examples. — Mijin

You should probably just stop making claims, and asking 'gotcha' questions with sarcastic quips when you clearly are not informed on this subject. Those were links I could into that sentence. Besides this, as with preventing males from entering female spaces before this mass psychosis occurred, a single example is enough.

It's extremely misleading to depict them as predators — Mijin

You are simply making shit up to distract from the point made (though, i appreciate that your prior comments were very level):
Compared to non-trans male, trans women are fully four times more likely to commit a sexual offence. This has nothing to do with their status as victims. It has to do with their status as predators. Two things can be true at once. In any case, the last time I did a deep dive (I am not willing to do this right now, becaus this thread is inconsequential to my life) it turned out that the claim they are more likely to be assaulted that give out was actually minimally incorrect. I've just run a small set of prompts through chaGPT and got the following, though I don't suggest this is conclusive:

"Unofficial data, such as the Trans Murder Monitoring project, notes that in Europe only 8 cases of trans and gender-diverse people murdered occurred between October 1, 2023 and September 30, 2024"

That's all of Europe. Not trans women murdered in that period? Well, this is too many to give an overview. Spain alone:

"Here’s a clear and sourced statistic from 2024:

In Spain, there were 48 women murdered due to gender-related violence in 2024. Additionally, 9 minors were also killed in crimes perpetrated by their fathers or their mother’s spouse, and at least 6 additional femicides were committed by individuals who were not current or former partners. This figure marks the lowest number of gender‑violence‑related murders in Spain since 2003."

Let's first acknowledge that final line - that's amazing. But you can see we're looking at probably 8x the number v trans women. Now, I am aware the comparison you're making is trans women: victim vs perpetrator. That's fine, but unfortunately, the claims that trans women are more likely be assaulted come largely from self-report as they are recorded by their identified gender. This means that no meaningful statement can be made about it. But we know that trans women are killed at a much lower rate than non-trans females, and that they commit sex crimes at a rate four times higher than non-trans male.

If this doesn't give you any pause, we're living on different planets my dude.

What I would say though is I have, and will continue to push back against the claim that sex is binary, because intersex is a thing — Mijin

But this is absolutely, objectively wrong. Every intersex person is either male or female. That is how intersex conditions work- they are categorised by which sex they affect. It is a misnomer, and misleading misinformation to claim intersex people are neither male nor female, or a third sex. That is plainly absurd.

Are you saying what you experience is made by you, yet you are not aware of how you make these experiences? That is a very odd position. — MoK

This is exactly wrong. You don't know how you produce your every-day experiences, let alone hallucinations. There is simply zero reason to entertain hte idea that these entities are real beyond my mind's creation. It is not an odd position in any sense of that word.

I cannot imagine how you could make these entities in your head, answering your question while you don't know the answers. — MoK

There has never been any evidence that this has occurred. That you can access your pre-conscious when in an altered state is very well understood.

There must be other real entities if they answer your questions, since you don't have answers to your questions — MoK

Which makes this, also, exactly wrong.

You are thinking in terms of bodily survival. — hypericin

I am, quite explicitly, not. On a psychological conception, it doesn't change anything about what i've said. Either you survive or you don't. The intuitions being tested are at what point, and under what criteria does the 1 or 0 obtain. There is no way ot argue for "partial survival" because one cannot be and not be.

To make this clearer, what I'm saying is that if you're wanting to give me a "0-0.1-0.2-0.3...1" spectrum, then you need to say at what exact point survival obtains. It cannot be part here, more there. Either the person survives at point A or not. I do not see there is another way for this to run. You simply cannot survive and not survive.

I guess strictly speaking, even if what that "something beyond" is is just a world of physical existents, it can be said that they are noumenal to us. On the other hand we perceive objects, so the objects are not unknown to us even though there may be things about them we don't or even cannot, know. For example it seems we could never be certain about the ultimate or most basic constitution of physical things. — Janus

I think this is well-worded. The noumena aren't necessarily esoteric, just as if they are in a room we can't access, so its not as 'mysterious' as one might think. But we can at least securely infer that they are there, or we'd not perceive anything.

Yeah, reading it back it's confusing. My point is the 'truth' seems to function the way I've described, anyway.
The example to give, which I think is more closely a description of the above, is Kant's noumena.
They are logically required for the system to get moving (and it seems, for us to have any interaction with anything). Consider:

P1 = I can see an apple(1), and I know (through other's observations) that my system of perception works in x way to produce the images I use to 'observe' anything (2).

P2 = due to my knowledge in (2), i can confirm that there is something beyond my scope to observe which must be there to cause (1) to obtain.

C = now that I know (1) and because of (2) B obtains, I have assured knowledge of B, without ever having assessed its possibility. It is inherent in the knowing of (1) and (2), but is not the same thing as either of them.

As best I can tell, this, but across fields we could theoretical observe, is how "truth" functions, particularly in science.

I've actually not seen/read Notebook. Possibly aging myself (downward...).

Yes, it's pretty difficult. I found it extremely hard to conceive of my dementia stricken grandmother as no longer there. There's no where for her to go, and she didn't become a new person. I can't see a way out of hte matrix other than discomfort with the person you know being different.

The difference between ages 15 and 65 might be the same as the difference between 65 and 66 for someone who hit dementia at that time. I don't see any real difference I guess, in those changes and how they might result in a different person.

Hmm. What else is there to truth? I can't see anything particularly special about observing directly something B which is logically required for A to obtain, and we know A obtains.

This seems to be hte method of truth-finding, in any case?

How do we determine the conditions that make either possible if not by observation and logic? — Janus

You're missing the point. We do this, and gain secure inferences which are not part of the logical or empirical assessments at hand. I don't quite see other examples among philosophers than with Kant, and if you reject his positions then you wont accept this argument anyway, as he's put it better than anyone before or since.

The fact (in concept) is when we make "truth" evident in situation A, we often are committed to accepting "truth" in some realm we have not assessed.

If A then B, but we've only assessed A. and A obtains. We haven't assessed B at all. If you see a transitive holding weight, that's fine. I don't.

Beautiful track. Chris is quite an underrated lyricist. Tbf, he has one of the most incredibly voices humans have produced, so can see why.. lol.

This comes somewhat from the context (which is why I gave myself an out for misunderstanding) but I'll give it a go:

Partial survival would mean partly you survive, and partly you don't. That seems plainly absurd. Not that "part of you survives" in the sense outlined below. The way you've worded it seems to indicate you think you can survive, and not survive in parts. "you" is what's in question here, so that seems impossible.

Not all of you surviving might just mean you've lost your legs or some particular aspect of you like the memories which make you confident in x skill you supposedly have. The survival is vouchsafed, and we need only discuss what survived for us to still say "you" (or me, or whatever).

I think the key for my objection (its not really an objection proper) is that the concept of survival is a 1 or 0. The way you survive seems to be the ground of the intuitions we're testing (and this would lead to your claims of an arbitrary point at which someone remains themselves through different processes we're discussing). It could be that you didn't mean to say this at all, and that's fair - I will simply be on the wrong train here in that case.

Can you give me an example of any truth which is determinable in any way other than by observation or logic, and also explain just how that truth can be determined? — Janus

How I feel is not observable, but the truth of it exist only within myself and cannot be observed, even by me, because I am having the feelings. Direct experience is also a source of truth. It is clear that this is not logical or empirical (in the sense meant by "observation" anyway. Probably is empirical in some other sense).

To be honest, these standards, particularly the last, sort of do seem to be "the celebration of the novel and transgressive for their own sake." — Count Timothy von Icarus

I think it is quite clear that what's being pushed back on is the hijacking of progressive ideals within a non-progressive social framework. The controversy is over the fact that Number and I (and others) probably view the "left wing progressive" notions as the non-progressive, semi-bigoted versions of what to do.

That has been my biggest problem in some forums. I perceive this prejudice against feelings as shutting down our awareness of ourselves and others, and even our imaginations. That kills our creativity and wisdom. Does that statement seem right? — Athena

Not to me. These functions are optimized in different places. I don't think reading/crunching numbers is one where 'feelings' are helpful as opposed to hypotheses and conclusions (one will ultimately 'feel' things about, and throughout that process but the outputs should essentially be stripped of them, on this account).

However, something like politics often requires feelings along with good, robust critical thinking skills and often statistical understanding (these requiring a removal of feeling to be truly useful, on this account).

It is probably the case that in each fora there are over and understeps to these ideas (again, on this account) but the basic concept of separating feelings from factual (i.e universally presentable) findings seems useful and "the case", as it were.

And so partial survival is not some abstract construct, it is already part of everyday reality. — hypericin

I don't think this is right. Either you survive or you don't. How you survive certain seems up for grabs, but there you cannot be 'part there'. You're either an altered, different person, or you are you. That's how the concept of Identity works. Whether there could be two you's is more interesting. If what you mean is that not all of you survives that's quite a different claim and might bear some clarification.

A fair point. I can't say I'd think the same. I would also add that lucidity, at times, tends to come with all but end-stage degenerative mental diseases. That lucidity likely makes it impossible to say the person is no longer there.

Your reasons all boil down to you just finding her appearance "uncanny" to use your word. Yes, that is just you not liking the appearance of a transperson, you have not rationalized it at all. — Mijin

False. I have given you the reasons people are made uncomfortable. This occurs when anyone does it. I cannot grasp how you're missing what's being put down, unless you are so ideologically blinded that you cannot accept normal human reasoning like I've given you. Anyone who approaches me as overbearing, childish and intrusive will get the same response. Given the three words I've just used, you have absolutely no possible route to pretend this is trivial. These are negative traits whereever they are found. You seem to be obsessed with Dylan's trans-ness. I am not.

What victims? Let's see the cite for someone pretending to be trans to SA women in a public toilet. I'll wait here. — Mijin

I cannot understand what you think is going on here. The issue isn't anyone pretending to be trans. Males who are openly abusive (such as that would require) aren't botherd to pretend. The issue is trans women (whether 'legitimate' or not) abusing females. I don't care if you're pretending or not, if you're male, get out.

But here are a couple of examples anyway

One of these isn't a public bathroom, tbf. I personally know of two close friends (one is the mother of my child) who have had female-appearing males assault them in public.

We then have the multitude of problematic cases of males in female prisons, and the overwhelming concentration among those trans women who are prison, of sex crimes. IN the UK a trans women is fully four times more likely to be in prison for a sex crime than a non-trans male. We can calibrate that for non-violent crimes like exposure and sex work. Lets call it 50%. Which is utterly insane, but lets go with it. Still fully two times more likely.

I don't know why you're so hell-bent on reading genuine safety concerns as some kind of bigotry. I have no problem with people identifying a certain way, within reason, and I have no problem with people living their life as they see fit. That does not mean they are allowed to violate the norms, protocols and safety positions of wider society. You can just stop taking digs and being a dick while still vehemently disagreeing with me.

I think your understanding here is a bit confused. There's gender and there's sex, and transpeople are quite aware that changing their gender does not change their sex. They don't believe that going from Robert to Roberta instantly gives them a uterus. — Mijin

You may need to re-read, clearly, what I've said, as that distinction is quite clearly made. Gender means nothing if it is literally a random spectrum with no actual points of interest on it. However, I think one of the biggest misconceptions/misunderstandings is that the pro-trans (i hate this term, I just mean the non-critical ) crowd tends to claim that gender varies independently of sex. It doesn't, really. This is why we see the same levels of aggression and violence in trans women as other males. Trans men? Not so much. Because females tend to not be as aggressive or violent as males. Unless overtly masculine, like lesbians who tend to experience more DV than heterosexual or gay male couples.

Sex is real, and it matters. Not sure how that became controversial... Discussions about dignity and what not come after safety. I actually couldn't give a fuck about misgendering a rapist. We probably should do that, consistently, to ensure their rehabilitation is personalized (quipping here, but point should be illustrated well).

If yes, why are you discarding them as unreal? — MoK

Because I am intelligent, and it is occurring inside my head. There is nothing to be explained. We understand how this occurs. We create entities constantly. Taking drugs just makes it easier. I cannot understand the question, in some sense, because it seems to reverse the general course of assessment.

How do you define mind? — MoK

Mental faculties, collectively.

Interesting, thanks for the clarification. That seems fundamentally way less off the mark :P

I suppose my point was more than, as a third party, we wouldn't say that. We still see the person we know, even if they don't behave the way we know (inconclusive and just banter, really).

Yes, very meaningful distinction (no sarcasm). Thanks for that.

Oh, i'm definitely with you. It was just a comment on the version put forward in the OP (i.e the world in which a mind exists - which is not hte external world).

Oh, word? Good shit.

Obviously not.

I wouldn’t know. I would guess “scholarly consensus” for Kantian discourse is an oxymoron. — Mww

I disagree, but i get the joke ;)

its also the general scholarly consensus, best I can tell.

So again you are just taking the position that woke = someone being trans and not hiding i — Mijin

No. This is clearly bollocks. I gave you several reasons, which have nothing to do with being trans. Please stop putting words in my mouth.

at least half of adverts have someone that needs a slap IMO, I don't see any reason to particularly focus on one transwoman. — Mijin

You may. Most people do not. Until we see something egregious. I have explained why that's the case. You're allowed to disagree. What you cannot do, is pretend I've said something else. Mulvaney being trans has nothing to do (i assume) with her overbearing and uncanny behaviour, which puts people off. Clearly, lots of people.

\\

ou've given no example of anything Dylan Mulvaney has done wrong apart from, apparently, making you uncomfortable. — Mijin

You didn't ask for that. You asked for why it's a problem for people., I gave you those reasons, Don't move the goalposts. You're simply allowed to disagree. You seem to think her behaviour is totally normal. Fine. I don't. Most don't. The situation is as it is.

Trans women in bathrooms is absolutely a non-issue; — Mijin

Right o, I'll tell that to the victims and the millions of females it makes unsafe. Cool.

Why would someone pretend to be trans to commit a rape when in America rapists are treated better? — Mijin

I think all 'being trans' is pretend in some sense: You cannot change your sex. It is utterly impossible. There is no version of 'transition' which means anything if gender is a construct/spectrum that means nothing to us as sexes (which is fine, I don't quite have an issue with tha tposition). With that out of the way, people are stupid and that claim is utterly fucking insane. Cummings rant is delusional, and i reject entirely the insulting, disrespectful and self-obsessive statement that rapists are treated better than trans people. Absolutely fuck off with that completley absurd horseshit (that's not direct at you, but this is an important issue for which I will not accept equivalences that puts the rape of females up against the challenges trans people face (which are mostly self-created, anyway).

your list of pinterest t-shirts or whatever totally — Mijin

You, not even bothering to look at the examples given, and then making an erroneous claim designed to denigrate and trivialise? Wow. Couldn't have picked it.

It's not a gotcha, it's a self-own. If you don't watch beer ads, what point were you even trying to originally make? That trans on TV is fine as long as you don't see it? — Mijin

This has nothing, whatsoever, to do with what we're talking about. This is now not a conversation but you ranting. Please stick to what we're talking about.

And again, is the solution here simply that transpeople should not be allowed on TV?
Is any public appearance "woke"? — Mijin

This is the exact type of stupid, bathwater-tossing response that makes this conversation almost impossible to have. We need an adult conversation with nuance, not ridiculous hyperbole as soon as anything gets contentious or is being discussed in "close quarters". We need to be real.

I've thought about it a lot, for a couple of years now. Kant is talking about noumena as assumed objects. Pretyt clearly.

Maybe this is more toward the restrictive version Wayfarer has made sure I stick to. That meaning, what i've said relates to the fact that for humans the "world" is irrelevant, but our perceptions are. So in "our world" our perception differentiates to create entities.

Yes, I do. One of several related works.

I agree, maybe. But I think it's likely, rather than a coin toss.

And, why do you think that your encounters are not referring to real entities? — MoK

I am on drugs. What kind of logic is it that says you alter your consciousness in a way that reliably causes hallucination, yet you take hte entities as real?? Seems utterly bizarre to think they are real without further.

What is interesting in my experience is that my hallucinations are coherent—my conversations, my visions, my other experiences that I cannot explain with words. Therefore, I believe my experiences may refer to other beings, unless my subconscious mind is deceiving me. — MoK

Your imagination is also coherent. This is an absolute nothing in terms of supporting a view that they might be real entites. I have full-blown conversations with my dead dog in my dreams sometimes.

I've actually had one dream where i was with Graham Hancock on a vine-covered river cruiser speaking at length about the possibility that psilocybin mushrooms graduated through ancient Welsh ceremony to the Druids. Two days later, I fell asleep and hte dream picked up in the exact same place. I was able to report hte entire conversation. This simply means my mind is agile.

I appreciate you attempting something of hte kind. Unfortunately, they factually, objectively have not answered this. They have claimed I said something I didn't., and responded to that. Then hid the ball on another issue. I'll explain.

I have asked specifically, in the scenario I gave (with no further elements involved), what I suffer by him receiving my information. This hasn't been answered. What happened was boethius then did two things:

1. Lied and said I claimed it "was nothing" that they have my information. I clearly, objectively did not say this. To claim I did is a literal lie. This is, i'm afraid, not debatable. The words are there to be read, and i did not say the ones he claims i did. q.e.d.;

2. Snuck in the "and you know about it" element. This is, quite obviously, what I had been pushing toward as a flaw in his initial statement. It took about six exchanges, and him sneaking that factor in, as if it were present in the initial claim, to get us anywhere. So, I pulled him back to my initial scenario. Since then he's been extremely immature and unbecoming for a philosophy forum. q.e.d.

My question has not be answered, unless the claim is that I am supposed to do some boat-building and figure out some esoteric position from statements that clearly do not answer the question, despite my attempting to bring it back several times.

Answering my question qith a question, I also note, is absolutely ridiculous, given how easy it would have been to answer.

To be even fucking clearer here are some responses that would have made sense:

"You are psychologically harmed because you feel your privacy has been invaded"

Ok. And this required the element snuck in later in the exchange: I know about it.

Why don't you answer the question, directly, so boethius has an example of the same:

In a scenario (without you adding any further facts) where you have received my personal email information, what do I suffer?

Please do not:

Claim i've said something I haven't.
Answer with a question
Pretend you've already answered it.

If you would suffer nothing, if it was "nothing" to you, as you claim, then you'd just do it to show that. — boethius

You are lying, as I have clearly explained above. I don't need you to agree with me. The facts sit in this thread. I already conditioned out that I know about it - yet you continue to lie, lie, lie.

Inheriring memories is how the persistence of consciousness is accomplished. It's not an illusion. It's just not what people generally think it is if they haven't thought or read/heard much about it. — Patterner

Are you totally sure? I've not read the proceeding conversation, but this seems to be a little bit off the mark to me.
We don't, generally, look at a person suffering from Alzheimer's or similar as lacking consciousness. Is that the take you go for? Not a problem if you say yes - legit position, I just don't see it.

I'm not so sure anymore, I'm moving away from that toward the bodily continuity camp. The kind of argument that is swaying me: suppose the original wasn't dematerialized, by accident. The original would have no clue what was going on with the teleported person. From the original's perspective, the copy is a completely separate person that just so happens to resemble them, like a supremely close identical twin. Then, the mistake is realized, and the original is subsequently killed. Why should killing the the original change that the copy is a separate person? — hypericin

This is, almost exactly, the Branch Line case. The machine malfunctions causing a terminal heart deterioration in you, while beaming your blueprint to be printed on Mars. It gets printed. You2 walks out on Mars with your exact memories up the moment you walked in. You get to live three days while your clone on Mars goes about their business. Which one is you, tends to be the question. I think they are both "you" without need for identity, due to Relation R being what matters. The second part of this is figuring out whether you care that You dies. If someone will continue to be your children's dad, the exceptional lawyer you are, will continue to write that book you're working on etc... You wont be missing from the world. But still - as Mijin noted - You - the exact phenomenal outlet - will cease. That's terrifying to me, fwiw.

Your bold position seems to allow for a transplanted brain, with entirely different biography, to become someone they have literally no concept of in the brain. Is that right? I realise you're not set on it, just exploring things.

In reverse:

That's true and entirely uninteresting and changes nothing about what Meta and I have said. You're right - there could be no differentiation. But if there were no differentiation, we(acknowledging the absurdity of 'we' in this context) wouldn't know different. So it's irrelevant.

I'm not quite understanding the import of the first bit directed at me. I understand, and I think I agree. But as above, that doesn't change anything being noted here.

Remember, our perceptions of, and the actual world are not the same. In the world of a perceiving being, the outside, un-perceivable world means nothing at all.

At the moment of death, you agree the body is identical to the body immediately before death.
Yet, personhood is extinguished at the moment of death. — hypericin

"possible". I certainly give that some air, but I do not think that's right. We lose weight at the moment of death, certain functions cease, capabilities of the body essentially extinguish etc.. etc... and so there is (to my mind) no way to uphold identity of the body through the death process (again, this matters not to my takes here, im just working through things). I think I can see where this was going, but I don't agree with the premise so I'm not sure I need to go further.

You are, again, importing an intuition. Personhood may not be extinguished at death. That "person" remains in the annals of history for all time, once they have existed. For many, that's enough. You need to test these positions rather than assume them, and charge other positions with them as challenges, I think. I'm not even saying you're far off the mark or anything like that - you might be right. But plenty of people will disagree with you, and it is in fact working out which of the possible answers is most reasonable that we're doing.

Moreover, the moment of death is the relevant time. It is the time when personhood drops to zero, while bodily continuity is still intact. What happens months later is of no interest. — hypericin

You will see as clear as day that this is not a workable response in light of the above. It is several of your intuitions presented as an objective timeline. I will comment, thought, that the bold is clearly the wrong answer. If this were true, any changes that happen to the body during life have nothing to do with personal identity, and yet the retention of one singular state of the body at death somehow indicates personhood, and its extinguishment. This is absurd (in the way of being essentially senseless, not that you're being silly or anything). In any case, it is obvious that the body does not remain as it was at the exact moment of death for any time. It is a literal instant. Again, i see where that's going, but in light of the above explications this is either just a description of what you like, in terms of an answer to the personal identity problem, or you are perhaps not quite accounting for some of the empirical facts about the body at death. Either way, your position is fine, but its your position. Not something whic is evident, and usable as reasons for other people to abandon theirs. There answers will simply differ from yours, and then you'll need to test them. I do, roughly, agree that what happens months later isn't of interest - but it is, given its the same processes occurring as in life, as regards 'changes' being relevant to identity.

I would find it as useless as any other discussion of Ship of Theseus criteria. — hypericin

Then you are refusing to test your intuitions. I can't do much with that...

Given that 1:1 is our actual, default experience, the fact that people also believe that personal identity is intrinsically 1:1, despite the quandaries in the TE this entails, carries vanishingly little weight. — hypericin

Its a perception, i can grant that. It is not an 'experience'. If that were the case, we would have clear lines about what constitutes identity. We don't, and your positions don't get us closer. This is why i reject that identity obtains at all. There's no argument under which is survives scrutiny. To illustrate what this means, Parfit's final tome/s was called "On What Matters". This refers to what he calls 'Relation R' which is just the psychological continuity. It could be your mind implanted in another body, but if your wishes, desires, dispositions, goals and ambitions are all continued on, unabated, by someone, then that someone may as well be you. "may as well be" seems the best I can trace up to. Relation R matters, rather than identity. THe problem is this is some pretty damn cold comfort.

The TE shows us that on pretty much any intuitive conception of identity, it is absurd when challenged. I am unsure that anything you're saying changes that.

:ok: Good encapsulation

Selection on someone's part is required for there to be more than one thing. — Metaphysician Undercover

This too.

Thanks for that! I was aware of some of this, but not in any detail. Good reading - thank you!

If we are talking numerical identity, then clearly not. But personal identity is obviously not numerical identity. — hypericin

I think perhaps, like many, this leapfrogs what we want to know: You believe personal identity can be 1:x. That's a big, big concession (not a negative one) in terms of reaching some conclusion. If you take this position, several outcomes of the transporter can be acceptable.

Most do not take this to be the situation. Most take personal identity to be, fundamentally, a 1:1 entity. I don't even think that obtains, but i digress. Whether or not personal identity requires identity is the open question. Once you have an intuition, the TE tests it.

This is most clear in death. When someone dies, their body is the same body as (numerically identical with) the body that was alive. — hypericin

There's a lot to unpack here, but possible. The dead body is not the same body from three months or so prior to death. So, that wont hold. This is how it works - you give an intuition, and we test it against examples and empirical facts. In this case, a dead body is not identical to the body previously known to be the alive person (other than at the moment of death, but clearly this isn't relevant as the change occurs while alive to give us a different body at times t1, t2, t3 etc.. etc.. if we pick sufficient distal times (three-four month increments should do).

We would then discuss whether it actually takes seven years to disclaim identity, as hte skeleton takes longer to be replaced. Which change matters? At what point? To what degree?

In any case, it is not clear at all that the body is self-same across time.

What is relevant is personal continuity, not numerical identity. And it is (logically) possible for two people to be both non-identical with each other and personally continuous with the same ancestor individual. — hypericin

Again, it might be. There is no clear answer. Pretty damn self-evidently.

Now you are contradicting what you said earlier. Differentiation just refers to the existence of more than one thing. So "selection" on our part is not logically required for there to be more than one thing. — Janus

Probably stepping in it a bit, but this seems clearly wrong to me. If differentiation is literally just things existing aside from one another (at all), then our perception does logically require selection into categories of those things. Otherwise, we would not perceive any differentiation. We select for object types, within the confines of a priori time and space. That seems pretty uninteresting or controversial if you take the premises on (I get that you may not, I'm just saying within the framework, this does seem required).

Perhaps. I also didn't get into that misgendering is considered a discriminatory crime in California, if don't deliberately. That is ridiculous, but I 100% understand I misspoke on that. I do believe it can be considered a hate incident, though, within the California framework.

I'd say they amount to the same. 'preachy' seems like its leaning toward education, which I don't think the point is. It's more like saturation or, at worst, brow-beating. But I think we're talking about either the same or very similar and related phenomena.

You still have not said what was wrong with her behaviour, or why it is automatically "woke" (and how any trans person can ever appear on TV in a way you wouldn't label "woke"). — Mijin

I have. It's overbearing, disingenuous, somewhat indicative of sociopathy (the dead eyes, faked emotions, bad acting and overall bad faith display of 'Look at me be feminine!!!!!!!! WAASDIHGS{NVO'. Its preening, over-wrought, transparent and utterly perplexing. Advertising beer to adult men as though you were presenting sesame street is either extremely sexist, or unbelievably stupid.

Your claim now seems to have shifted to just saying it was a bad fit for the brand. — Mijin

Both. But they actually are the same thing here - the opinions meted out by those critical are what's bad for the brand. These don't come apart, really. Both are bad, by my lights, and to some degree all I am doing is distilling the country-wide reports of opinion. I don't drink Bud and never have.

Who is being those things? Do you have an example? — Mijin

Dylan Mulvaney, trans women in bathrooms, the ubiquity of violent threats and entitlement among trans activists. These are random examples off top of my head, but there are literally thousands. This has been going on quite a long time.

You just said you "wouldn't be surprised" if we had been buying beer advertized by trans people without knowing ‍:confused:
If your point was that those people were just behind the camera, out of sight, then you're reinforcing my point, not yours. — Mijin

I don't watch beer ads. This is not a gotcha. You have overstepped wildly to try to make a point not open to you.

I wouldn't be surprised. That's all I said. Not "I've never noticed, while watching beer ads...". Because I don't watch beer ads.

I am not an expert in this field, and I just report what an expert says. — MoK

There is literally a surge of brain activity during NDEs, typically gamma waves. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4576755/ - this paper is a mishmash, and gives us almost nothing to move the field forward. It is someone employing wishful thinking - trying to lump together psychedelic experiences, NDEs and several other notions. These fall apart at the level of basic scrutiny, given the lack of homogenaiety in any of them.

h, that is interesting. So, you used DMT. Have you ever used it in such a dosage to encounter the Elves mentioned in this video? — MoK

I have. I have also spoken at length with Terence's brother Dennis, who is a friend. I have encountered entities. The Elves noted in this video appear in the reportage after Terence became popular. It is not likely, in any way, that these are actual entities. Dennis accepts this, for what that's worth. I have also encountered entities with Mescaline, Psilocybin and Salvia (I do not recommend the latter, at least smoked. It is meant to be chewed fresh).

Some of my experiences are interesting. — MoK

That's fair, but not what I was getting at - it is not interesting to the field. People hallucinate and image things. Wow. Yknow?