I don't think that's quite true, anymore. I will resile, though, as I have given ample reason to take that seriously ("my truth").

So, what do the theists mean when they say that God or Heaven is real? — Janus

When I've asked, they mean what you go on to posit: it is an empirically real place one's soul ascends to after death (or, God, similar pseudo-physical terms get used). Not all, but that's the most common response I get.

Good luck trying to get everyone to agree on what's plausible. — Janus

I posit that thre is still going to be a 'pregnant middle'. Think of a balloon - pinch opposite sides, and stretch. The top and bottom tapers are those who hold views outside of what most consider reasonable, rational or indeed 'real'. That middle section (pregnant middle) is most people. I agree that getting everyone to agree is a fools errand. That doesn't mean that we can't at the very least, sort out which sense we mean to use the word in, and then discuss, based on that, whether we are making reasonable assertions. I do, also, agree, it's going to end up with "Yes, that's plausible" or not. This is a problem.

Can you imagine any context other than an authoritarian one, where everyone would agree — Janus

I presume the following was to indicate you want to ask about abstract, esoteric matters rather than "is gasoline running my car". I can. I can imagine a society in which there are less variant views generally. This is simply a temporal issue. in 2000 B.C it was probably quite easy, without force, to instantiate certain abstract beliefs in others, if you had a streak to do so. By that, I mean you are energized, articulate and willing to engage, no that you want to force yourself on others.

Liberal thought, especially in its modern egalitarian form, places a premium on equal dignity, autonomy, and the right to participate in discourse. — Wayfarer

This seems empirically wrong. As I see, and seems to be playing out, Liberal thought in it's modern, egalitarian form places a premium on equal outcomes and any disparity in outcome is automatically considered a result of unequal opportunity (this seems the 'woke' take though, so perhaps you're purposefully trying to shunt that off for discussion purposes. If so, that's good. Sorry I've wasted time).

then those without it may be depicted as less capable or qualified — Wayfarer

Definitely. Epistemic injustice is real, despite my extreme discomfort in ever applying it to a situation's description.

The idea of a “higher” truth here isn’t about exclusion but about cultivation — Wayfarer

You've hit the nail here. I think the problem is that there are dumber, and smarter people. Those dumber people who might actually be precluded from employing the mental techniques required for this type of refinement are going to argue that they aren't dumber, and it's you (whoever, whatever) who has prevented their achieving success. This is patent nonsense, but goes to the issues i'm speaking about I guess: If they think "real" means what they interpret their Lot as, then we can't argue with them. There's no refinement to be had.

Accordingly in a liberal setting, saying that an understandingor insight can be qualitatively better can sound like an assault on equality. — Wayfarer

I see you covered that already. :sweat:

Liberalism’s strength is inclusiveness and the prevention of abuses of authority. But Its blind spot can be a reluctance to acknowledge that some perspectives are not just different, but genuinely more coherent, integrated, or profound. — Wayfarer

Yes. I think further, though, it lends itself to not just not acknowledging this, but actively resisting any type of discussion which might describe, in rational terms, why it is true.

The idea that punctuality is racist, as an example. Fucking - no - arrive on time. Bigotry of low expectations seems the order of the day, for this particular mode of activity.

You have just said something unreasonable.

Or you're trolling. Either way, previous comments stand.

I have an answer, from someone else.

"The world is like a ride in an amusement park, and when you choose to go on it, you think it's real because that's how powerful our minds are. The ride goes up and down, all around, and it has thrills and chills, and it's very brightly colored, and it's loud, and it's fun for a while.

Many people have been on the ride for a long time, and they begin to wonder, 'Is this real, or is this just a ride?' And other people have gotten off the ride, and they come back to us and say, 'Hey, don't worry, don't be afraid, ever, because this is just a ride.'

And we kill those people. 'Shut him up! I've got a lot invested in this ride! Shut him up! Look at my [money]! Look at my [money]!' It's just a ride.

But we always kill those good guys who try and tell us that, you ever notice that? And let the demons run amok. But it doesn't matter, because it's just a ride.

And we can change it anytime we want. It's only a choice. No effort, no work, no job, no savings of money. Just a simple choice, right now, between fear and love. The eyes of fear want you to believe that there is an uncrossable line of separation. The eyes of love see that there is no line.

And now, here's the kicker: The choice to be in love, to be in joy, is already yours. The choice to be in peace is already yours. The choice to be in gratitude is already yours. This is your birthright.

So, let go of the fear. Be love. Be peace. Be joy. Be grateful. Be here now.

It's just a ride."

- Bill Hicks, while dying of pancreatic cancer at the age of 32.

in demanding good manners — Athena

This seems problematic. Your concept of 'good manners' is probably not close to universal, so 'demanding' anything along those lines is probably not going to help anyone. That's not to say I have a problem with your conception of 'good manners' though. Just pointing out that if someone disagrees that your demands are reasonable, that's up to them and not you and your demands to respond to.

I have found you rather curt and unimpressive as a polite interlocutor at times. This may be an example of why this is the case. I just don't consider that a lack of 'good manners'. We simply have different views and perhaps see each other in slightly-less-than-ideal lights for various reasons.

Where this gets interesting is when someone is being any number of things which are defined as impolite. I'm thinking here of things like trolling, obtuseness, personal attacks in a context that doesn't call for it, needlessly long-winded bollocks with reference to the Co-operative Principle of conversation (Grice), lying or other forms of deceit for instance.

Are they bad manners, bad nurturing, differences in culture or ignorance? It's quite hard to say in a lot of cases, when where those words are appropriate, because we only have our own view point to judge from.

When we are offended, what is the best way to handle this. — Athena

Unfortunately, I think the 'correct' way (and this in terms of living a happy life, avoiding conflict and all the rest) is to suck it up buttercup. Offense is taken, not given. If someone has said something that gives you a bad taste, either have a discussion and try to mitigate that taste, or walk away. I see no other options.

if you are harmed, that's a difference that matters. But being offended is not being harmed.

No, I think the issue is that if we don't even agree on what's 'real' then we cannot discuss anything other than speculations. That is absolutely a cultural problem. It's not an issue of having differing views, it's about having different standards for things like claims, evidence and rationality.

Consider the phrase "my truth". You cannot discuss with someone who claims this phrase. They are not open to discussions of what is real. They are hung up (almost literally) on their sense of self-hood, to the point that other considerations beyond "what I think right now" are not relevant.

Those of us who reject this are now in a different world it seems. That's a massive problem that faces anyone from any walk of life, if instantiated in their interactions with the world. The charge of this being conservative is unsubstantiated and possibly self-serving, me thnks.

Trollish? There is no chance you're here in good faith.

As noted, you could review the exchanges where i have said things like "I do not think this is a reasonable response". But, you could also continue on with your biases, reading things in and out of the comments to your heart's content.

If you've only skimmed them, bugger off and read them properly. That might explain why you're saying unreasonable things. And again, indicates you're not here in good faith.

causes suffering in itself — boethius

What suffering?

one cannot exclude the role of Divine intervention when it comes to life! — MoK

Sure, as night pointed out, rejecting does not mean accepting it as false.

However, we can absolutely set it to one side until something even vaguely indicative comes along. So far, it hasn't, so we're almost behooved to set it to one side, currently. This has been the case for about 200 years, best I can tell. There's simply no good reason to continue entertaining it on current knowledge. Given that this is a culmination of moving away from Divine intervention as a reasonable hypothesis, the indication is that the more we know, the less likely it becomes to the point of almost assured falsity (not assured - almost assured).

If someone does not think prostitution is a legitimate job, in the same way they do not think raising one's own children is not a legitimate job, that's fine by me. It's contentious.

I personally support the rights of sex workers and the autonomy that comes with engaging in it safely. That means I support the legal frameworks that protect and, at times, encourage sex work to occur.

That said, I am firmly in the camp that going to OnlyFans instead of getting a skilled job is absolutely a cop-out and not something we can sufficiently compare as "work". This seems evidenced by the lack of reasonable responses from OnlyFans models when questioned about their work.

And no. Being good at sex, or presentation of sex is not a 'skill' the way vocational skills are skills. Yes, one could learn carpentry to build only their own home. One can have sex purely in private circumstances. But doing carpentry for someone else is a massively different thing that selling your sexual content online. Particularly if it is essentially of your private sex life (couples who sell content, eg).

No, they just are not relevant to what I'm pointing out. I've bene over why some of your responses are unreasonable at the time i responded to them. It doesn't seem to bare repeating.. You can review if you'd like to.

Fair enough on the second comment :P

When they see ads that trade in implicit racism or sexism, they are disappointed by the choices made. — Tom Storm

That's fine, but generally when they see this in something or other, they can just be wrong, though. Usually are. That's the problem. The majority of those who Fire and I are referencing (to be sure, I am speaking about people who fit the bill. Not trying to fit people into the bill - I think that is what the Woke do).

The response to this ad campaign is just not justified in these terms. You have to be out of your mind to think that ad is championing White Supremacy. Utterly bereft of either sense, or cultural understanding. This is just as obvious with claims about misogyny among young people. Daily there are reels and reels of people confronting businesses or individuals over perceived slights that are plainly either invented, extremely tenuous or made-up for clicks. I'm sure you're aware of this. And that's what we're referring to. Those people are moving on feelings without any reasoning. Just some pre-recorded reaction of "hear word A, do x" I've been able to have a couple (including my wife, when we met) admit this. But it doesn't stop them from doing it (other than my wife) in my experience. That is a serious issue if we are ever to get along with one another. Given it's young people, it's an extreme worry for those of us who are not yet middle-aged.

I think having children usually changes this bent from Left to Right. And those who don't change when they have children tend to raise relatively unregulated children. A recent convert is Whitney Cummings, who was a pretty obvious darling of, at least, the non-card-carrying left. Once she had a kid, it all changed and she's been quite public about it.

Guys, let's just leave him to it. Nothing is going to move someone who is capable, in earnest, of responding to Fire's post with this:

"That, to me, is why you’re employing the bandwagon fallacy, as others have already. You think it does something to me; maybe it makes me feel lonely over here all alone. But it doesn’t. And it doesn’t do your little group any favors when you have to resort to such efforts."

This is not a person engaging in good faith, or with any reasonable basis. This is an embarrassed toddler saving face.

Double-edged. For some, surely that'll be the case. For most, they know what they know and that's all they can go on. In this way, most people probably just have more deep-seated and identity-forming notions of history, regardless of accuracy or holistic thinking.

It's probably better for institutions and worse for individuals, but I understand the opposite is the intuitive take, probably.

These same facts obtain at every moment of everyone's waking life. — hypericin

Generally speaking, we do not walk into or out of teletransporters. Can you perhaps make it a bit more explicit how those facts obtain in that way? And what of sleep?

Several things, but that wasn't what I was trying to point out. It seems, perhaps, my optimism was misplaced though: What you have quoted is my trying to have you notice that you are not getting what FireOlogist is saying. He is trying to get you to see your biases, and pointing out that AE's plan, if there was one, was to get you to do exactly what you're doing. Nothing to do with the right promoting anything. Again, you can reject this, but it seems clear to me and probably Fire.

Do you not see that what Fireologist is outlining is exactly the situation which would lead you to say this? Obviously, that doesn't close any books but I do genuinely think you're not reflecting in a reasonable way here.

Reacting to one's environment. Perhaps awareness isn't the right word, but my recollection of The Conscious Mind tells me those terms are used as noted here - where awareness is below self-awareness, or some such distinction. An amoeba can be aware, react to stimuli etc.. but has no concept of itself or "difference" more generally. It reacts, rather than responds I think is the move.
A being self-aware would be capable of both reaction, and response.

From a 3p perspective, one of those first beings does still experience. But none of them have an experience if you see the difference there...

Anything negative i've said about you personally(though, i take it I haven't, just being funny here) can be rescinded and in fact, reversed, based on this. Well done LOL

how unwoke is is. — Fire Ologist

I think it's a bit worse, though I definitely take Praxis' point (however buried it might be) that it is probably not a majority of people 'on that side' doing this, but...

The 'woke' reaction is to jump straight to 'Nazi', 'eugenics' etc.. and actually, genuinely talk about a society-wide conspiracy to ... do what? Kill all blacks? What hte heck are they even pointing to?

Turns out, its white supremacy. Which is, prima facie, an after due consideration utterly fucking preposterous to the point that I am willing to laugh in the face of the social incels who make this claim.

Is it not possible they - knew - and decided to not react to what might happen, and run the ad campaign anyway? That would have been my position on the matter. It's a good ad, and one which reflects certain trends (the Beyonce ad was extremely similar) but instantiates a return to "mainstream" images. I can't see that there is any way to impugn that tactic from a company called American Eagle without some further indication.

That it went this way is great, for them. I can't understand that they would have planned it. Shes hot, young, popular and wants to work with them. They need naught else to pull the trigger.

It seems far more likely that a company would use impugning white, blonde young women as a strategy to rile up the public, given that is:

A. More likely to piss off the right-wing and cause much more of a up-roar than that found among the slowly-declining Woke messaging mechanisms; and

B. Grabbed a demo (Woke, such as it is) that they probably had no real hooks in previously, other than by habit.

The CNN "possibly white" debacle sort of shows that companies will make utterly ridiculous, un-sound and irrational decisions in service of the above tactic. It is not possible anyone, in good faith, thought that shooter was white.

I can’t name even one wokeist or liberal that helped to promote it. — praxis

You can find compilations of wokists, including a handful of celebrities decrying the campaign, most notably Lizzo, Colbert, Doja Cat. But it is mostly non-celebrity figures. There are compilations of people breaking down calling it eugenics, calling it Nazism, facism etc.. etc.. all over the place. I cannot be bothered finding the source videos, but there's only a couple in these links I haven't seen in their natural habitat. That said, I recognize these videos are heavily biased, overall. I don't care abou the commentary, just that it brings together several examples of what I'm talking about.

AE manipulated the right into promoting the campaign — praxis

No, I don't think that's right. Besides the fact that all advertising manipulates its demo (i.e, that is not disparaging and is, in fact, a success of the campaign if so) i find it hard (as explained above) to conceive of AE caring about that particular division among the public.

But you could be right. And if so, i don't see the issue. That is what advertising does. And it worked.

Something like that strikes me as highly plausible. I think that's roughly the Chalmersian take too - but he calls awareness without experience consciousness too - I find that a hard sell, but all else about panpsychism attracts me so .. I could just be wrong LOL

I cannot help a horse put its snout in the water. I explained in extreme detail why this is the exact wrong description of what's happened. Onward, i suppose...

You are saying my slapping you across your face did not cause you to feel and hear a slap. You are saying your own brain caused these things and it is fully up to your free self to feel the slap, and/ or slap me back. Me, I am utterly not responsible for what happens in your experience. — Fire Ologist

An absolutely excellent encapsulation of the issue. Thanks for that.

I think awareness and consciousness differ, but they might be hte same genus. In that way, I can see how panpsychism could be illusory purely in the sense that we want to relate to other objects, so their "being aware" the way a eukaryote is (responds to environment etc..) is enough for us to all be on the same page, even though we do not share experiences at all.

But, I also agree with Patterner that it's going to be one or the other. Then again, I feel the same about sense data, so perhaps I'm missing a trick..

Have you had a look through the previous pages? I think much of what you might want to canvas has been brought to the table and discussed. Have fun :P

Neither response addresses why it needs to be your atoms — Mijin

I've addressed this twice. You can either review the exchange, where I noted that numerical identity bakes this aspect in (i.e there isn't a question. It is ridiculous. Why is water wet, mate?). It shouldn't be my responsibility to repeat myself over and over for you to get a point.

what if we create a mind using partially your atoms and partially others (I make a brain — Mijin

A brain isn't a mind, or at least we cannot assume that for the purposes of the discussion., You are making plenty of fundamental assumptions and then getting confused when these are up for debate. This may explain a lot. Please try to notice where you've made an assumption. I will try to b clearer when I think tihs is what's on the table.

if the only consideration is that it is the same atoms, what if the transporter does use the same atoms, however, those atoms need to spend T time unconnected. When they get reassembled afterwards, did you survive that? What if T is 1 million years? — Mijin

This would simply be the same question as "are you the same person when you awake?" Those atoms are still those atoms, and still constitute you (on this account - you still seem to be under the impression this is my position i'm defending. It is not. Please calm down). So, yes, you would, under almost all accounts that aren't further fact accounts.

Crucially, can this position be used to answer any of the questions related to the transporter that I have posed? — Mijin

It answers them all. I've been explicit about this. The only possible "interesting" change is the idea that the transporter literally beams the exact same atoms to Mars. There's questions here about whether or not unity of your atoms create anything of significance, but most people are going to assume only the brain is relevant to that consideration - thus leapfrogging the entire question of what constitutes identity (or whether it obtains at all. I say not, so most of these questions don't make sense to me). To be super, super, un-debatably clear:

If the position is that my atoms make me then there is no version of the transporter in which I survive, without your ad hoc adjustment about taking my atoms and sending them across space (note, this is not the thought experiment, but an interesting adjustment for sure). The TE postulates that a blueprint is sent and 3D-prints another body that supposedly can carry your consciousness. You'll note (and i don't reply to this later, so do take note) that intuitions about consciousness is only one aspect of what this experiment draws out of us. It also draws out intuitions about "selfhood" generally, bodily continuity, time, space and the possiblity of "multiples" given certain theories on might take up. It is certainly not as simple and restricted as you contend.

We may as well go with the "mojo" explanation for consciousness and declare no follow-up questions about mojo are permitted. — Mijin

That is, roughly, what a further fact account will do, unfortunately. But that is canyons from what I've said, and explained. You can reject it, but I have made the position consistent enough that it is logically discreet. Its brute, as noted.

It is both true that I am me. And that I am Mijin. — Mijin

So, hang on mate - you've accepted my premise wholesale. Yet you opened with:

What the hell? — Mijin

Please have a think before posting these comments. The inconsistency will turn me and others off pretty quick, if they are personal like this. Onward..

I am not interested in the trivial question of whether I am still me if I lose a pinkie. — Mijin

You asked me a question under which that is a direct, relevant and telling response. If you do not want to talk about Identity, the transporter and all its implications, you could have said that instead of stringing this exchange along to an end that tells me you are not open to discussions that challenge your presumptions. If my position is that the transporter problem tells us that consciousness is not hte most important aspect of discussions on identity, then that's what it is. You can't just say "nah, not that kind of reply". That is... ridiculous my dude.

in reference to the Kids in the Hall skit. — praxis

Answering the question was apparently a struggle. — praxis

Likely, because non-Woke don't suppose to tell what others should do most of the time. But yeah, it's better for their mental health if they ignore it. That isn't hard at all.

in reference to the Kids in the Hall skit. — praxis

I don't know where you are in the conversation but this isn't where i am. You explicitly stated "Andrew Doyle" in the comment I linked from. Earnest critique is not mockery still stands, and I'm not sure why you thought I was talking about the Skit as I linked from your comment about Doyle and mockery.

it needed to apologize and correct the record — Mijin

No, that is not what I said. The paper noted that the "uproar" was a myth. It was. Entirely. I was there. There was never any significant issue around Winterval, unless you were not paying much attention to anything else. It seems the Daily Mail got you with this, and now you're upset over something which didn't actually happen.

But oh it was just a momentary thing in 1998 — Mijin

This is not a good faith exchange, it seems. Moving goalposts wont work too well around here.

Deeply ironic that you can’t say “white supremacy“ anymore. — praxis

Who can't? It's all over the fucking place. What are you talking about?

Its essentially an urban myth that Winterval caused any uproar. What actually happened was, initially, nothing at all. In 1998 a Bishop made some stupid comments and less than 4000 people signed a Petition that went nowhere. I lived in Worcester at the time.

The hang-over is the resulting myth you've outlined above, which is not supported by the actual history of the matter. The Daily Mail itself outed it's behaviour as click-baiting in 2011, labeling the issue as a myth. It was never interesting, beyond the original comments by the Bishop. It has remained as some kind of distorted catch-all for PC gone mad, though.

ham-fisted attempts at diversity in some cases, but they are few and far between — Mijin

Is this to be troll-ish? There are plenty of ham-fisted attempts at diversity. One only need look at cinema for plenty. Those are trivial, to be sure, but illustrates that hte above is a bit naive.

I would suggest "beyond me", for you at this stage.

*facepalm*.

And the examples write themselves.

Thus to say that causality occurs between physical objects does not seem to prove that causality is physical, unless by "is physical" we only mean, "occurring between two physical objects." — Leontiskos

I think this is entirely wrong. We're looking at something observable, not abstract. We need to look at what actually happens in the world. Causation happens between physical objects, in a physical world with no evidence of any non-physical attribute involved. Philosophers don't seem to even think this is a coherent claim of a possible reality. I again want to bring in Jaegwon Kim and his pretty tireless arguments around trying to ascertain a non-physical mode of causation and landing on Supervenience of something undescribed as the only way out of hte physicalist corner. I tend to think no one has gotten further. I can't understand how you're getting yourself off hte ground, yet, though I find all of the discussions interesting. What we have to 'fall back on' as it were, is not something that points to causality being non-physical. And we don't seem to have much better than a fall-back. I do not know of any example of non-physical causation (mental causation is likely physical, reducible).

If there is no reason to claim that causality is physical, and there is no reason to consider a non-physical basis for energy transfer, then why not simply abstain from affirming either of those things? — Leontiskos

I disagree with the former, so maybe we are on different pages here. I've not affirmed either, though. There is reason for the first claim, and no reason for the second, both of which support the first. That's as far as I'll go.

Note though that if you think energy transfer is the transfer of physical matter, then it seems that you do think energy is a physical object, even though you said, "Energy is not a physical object, and no one claims it is." This is a large part of the difficulty. — Leontiskos

Its not difficult. I had assumed this would be intuitive.
"energy" is a description of effects gained by the interactions of bits of matter. That "energy" is not an object, or a "thing" at all. But it obtains in the transfer described (i mean, it could be that "charge" is what transfers as, in that way, if its not the particles themselves, we may have more to discuss and might be hte page you're on).

The concept of "capacity to do work" (energy) is not physical matter, and yet you think the transfer of energy is the transfer of physical matter. — Leontiskos

The above should sort this out. The capacity to do work is exactly represented by hte physical attributes of the matter in question.

It is a Cambridge property. — Leontiskos

Very hard disagree, which should but paid to that part of the discussion. Something's position in space and time are properties of it. An apple has to be an apple at a certain time, in a certain place. It cannot simply be 'an apple'. That doesn't exist, anywhere. If you take away the spatio-temporal description of a physical object, you lose the ability to claim it as extant (on our current knowledge). This doesn't seem at all unusual or controversial to me.

Does the physicist see the "spacetime fabric" as physical? In what sense is it said to be physical? We can surely stretch the word "physical" far beyond what we ever generally mean by it, but I am not much interested in that approach. — Leontiskos

This is interesting. I think, yes, they do. I think intuitively, most would. I cannot understand the underlying strata of the universe not being physical. We are in a physical universe. If you're going to posit otherwise, You need to explain how to get from that, to this physical universe. No one can do that. So it doesn't make any sense to me to go down that route (at this time) despite it being interesting, to some degree or another. We don't live in a non-physical universe. Its actually hard to even point to a non-physical thing in it (Though, i understand a few good candidates about). I guess, on similar thinking to some of your replies, I'm not prepared to look at some physical force like gravity and entertain that it isn't physical, yet. We have zero avenue to explain try to explain that. The other option is weird and difficult, but i prefer that currently.

I still don't see that (4) follows. There is no sufficient reason to believe that the (causal) interaction is itself physical. — Leontiskos

There is no reason to think it isn't is my position(and good reason to think it is). It obtains within a physical system, between two physical objects in a physical event with no indication anything else is involved. When you adjust any physical parameter, the result differs.
At the very least, this should be accepted as the best explanation we have. Speculation abound, for sure. But there's nothing here that makes me think its even reasonable to start looking for an non-physical answer (except perhaps impatience, which isn't the worst reason, tbf).

This form of reasoning does not seem to be valid. — Leontiskos

Because it isn't. I didn't mention material. I mentioned mode. Theres a gulf between the two "reasonings" you've put up, which are non invalid, but essentially tautological (or self-evident in some other way). The reasoning I gave speaks about mode not content. If the lines in the previous paragraph I've written above about why we have no reason to think about non-physical causation occurring go through, then the content is irrelevant. Any event which can described on that term would adhere to that reasoning. I would want to say calling something "human" is hugely different to calling something "physical". Largely, because in your examples, everything reduces to the physical explanations underlying those words.

Causation is not ... physical — Leontiskos

But that begs the question. I can't quite wrangle something helpful out of this explicative section..

If we just assume that everything is physical, including causality, then we lead ourselves into absurdities. In this case it is the absurdity which makes interactions the same kind of thing as that which interacts. — Leontiskos

Evidenced by this (out of order, sorry) making no sense to me. We don't "assume". We investigate and find nothing but physical interaction surrounding all change we see in the physical world. We are given no material on which we can explore a non-physical basis (descriptively) of causation. We may not have good answers, but we certainly don't have any reason to move off the line currently. Again, it's interesting to entertain and may well at some stage become something we can adequately explore, but we have nothing on which we can do so currently but speculation.

but it is still improper to say that the collision is itself phenolic resin. — Leontiskos

I am unsure it is. But its not saying the same thing as calling hte collision physical. They are asking different things. The collision between two balls of phenolic resin is clearly phenolic resin (they are just in contact with each other - changing nothing about the material we're wanting to name). The mode is different, as I see it and requires a different answer.

I think its possible you are just flat-out wrong about what physicists would say about a collision. I also don't think that has much to do with our discussion. Whether a physicist says x y z doesn't quite change anything in the world. Unless you're a total Continental.

is a strange and ambiguous phrase. — Leontiskos

Not at all. You just picked up something wrong in it. It means to deducible entirely in physical terms, from physical activity, assessed in physical terms against other physical activity. If you want to say the deduction isn't physical (because mental) I put the conversation down, as that's a very different thing for another time imo. Fraught, and something I'm only really getting into currently (that is, why it seems mental causation is a misnomer.

How many of your atoms, and why does it matter? — Mijin

You really need to re-read this exchange. This is no longer a relevant question, and its one I've directly answered in two different ways. Please review.

just spitting your atoms across space and reassembling them — Mijin

I can't understand what you're trying to describe here. This doesn't seem to say anything that could result in the experiment we're talking about. Can you please be clearer?

i am just saying that bodily continuity (or identity...I didn't really follow the distinction) is not as straightforward
an answer as might first appear — Mijin

This makes the preceding far more perplexing then.

I think its entirely straightforward and have given you the reasons why. Its an air-tight reason. You can reject it though. It doesn't bare this sort of scrutiny because its a brute claim. Numeral identity is what is required for bodily continuity to be the source of "me" along all the constituents of "me" at any given time. This is not a logical claim, other than that "if true" its a logical dead-end for identity discussions. In any case I don't think this constitutes Identity so not sure where you're going..

Right now I am Mijin, and Mijin is me — Mijin

Hmm. Unfortunately, I think logically, No. This instantiates that you are two people. Unless you hold that are, in fact, two people (you seem to rejecting that) at all times, all the follow-ons from that position fail immediately. Mijin is all of the things you see as "yourself" at the same time as they are one-and-the-same thing. That is exactly why it's so hard to sort this stuff out. If we had two aspects to ourselves, it would be much easier to talk about because we could have criteria for each. But Identity is, by definition singular. (this is out of order, because the next reply is hte meatier)

It doesn't solve the problem, it avoids it. — Mijin

I cannot understand what you're talking about. The analogy is that it is not relevant how many ,or which atoms are involved. For two reasons. Both of which make this an utterly ridiculous question (to me... it may be entirely reasonable on your understanding of what i've said). These are:

1. It had nothing whatsoever to do with consciousness. You questioned me the position that to answer to bodily continuity claims which get murky, we can say 'You are not the exact atoms I am, therefore you are not me'. There isn't wiggle room. "the exact atoms". It is now incoherent to ask the questions you're asking; and
2. It is 100% true, without any possible discussion, that people lose limbs, multiple limbs etc... and remain exactly the person they were (i.e John Smith, of 134 Arden Street, Baltimore, Maryland (or whatever.. Just making clera I do mean that person before and after the loss of limb/s)).

Therefore I don't know what you're asking me to clarify. The answers are baked in to the position outlined. And again, to be clera (because this doens't seem to be landing) this is not my view of identity. I am answering the questions posed.

I've not insulted you once. I've laid out exactly how incoherent your utterings are. They are, patently, out of step with reality. Everyone can see this but you. It is not incumbent on me to assuage your unregulated system of reason into thinking it makes any sense.

You have continually side-stepped everything important to hold on to an obviously, demonstrably false belief in the face of overwhelming examples of both of those claims. This is no one's problem but yours. If your feathers are ruffled (they clearly are) its becuase your beliefs are absolute nonsense and you are perhaps realizing it. This is no one's issue but yours.

Could you perhaps refrain from not answering anything, and just throwing these sorts of things out? I'm trying to understand you, but you seem to want to do nothing at all but smear responses..

Absolute bullshit. Earnestly critiquing something is not mockery. If you feel its mockery., maybe just notice how earnest critique makes it look. Silly.

You're alluding to bodily continuity, so I am asking follow up questions of why bodily continuity is critical. — Mijin

I am not. I am alluding to bodily identity. It is subtle, to be fair but distinct issues, imo.

A perfect replica is still a replica. Is that a bit clearer? If you are not the exact atoms that make up my body, you couldn't be me. You could be a replica.

Consciousness coming along with it is a bit of an "in the weeds" thing for this specific claim. It was a response to one of your own comments and why I think the spatiotemporal consideration is strong. I think it is correct that even if the replica has your psychology, they cannot be you because of this. They occupy different space (and time). Also, immediately after they become conscious, their memories no longer mirror yours (again, that's partially "in the weeds").

Hard disagree. — Mijin

Hold up (because your explication doesn't touch on this). You disagree that someone who loses their legs (or other body parts) is still hte same person? If you don't disagree with that, then my argument goes through wholesale. Disagreements about "where the line is" aren't quite on the table yet, as i've resiled into a larger context to make the point I'm making. There is no specific point. People lose atoms and gain atoms constantly, with no change to their (intuitive) identity. If you disagree with that.. onward..

But if we have a good model of personal identity we shouldn't need to dodge; we should be able to apply our model. — Mijin

I don't think we do. I think all non-further fact models fail entirely. I am not arguing that bodily continuity constitutes identity. I am suggesting that:

1. Bodily continuity is thought about wrongly (i.e without the spatio-temporal aspect here noted); and
2. That all this does is defeat certain claims (bodily continuity ones).

Perhaps you've misunderstood me.

arguably Mijin but not me — Mijin

But if you are identical with Mijin, then no, that's not possible. I understand you to be saying that the qualifiers you're using make this possible. But that means there are two identities, which is again, intuitively hogwash. There can't be two yous. There can be two Mijins which are not identical.

Do you believe that I am not my cardiac and nervous systems? — NOS4A2

You don't control it. And no, you are not that. It is something which happens in your body without your knowledge. Unless you believe you consist in simply your body. In which case you've an uphill battle to prevent me from laughing at how dumb that response was.

You're now arguing with ghosts. That is uninteresting, deceitful and far below you. The next comment seems to prove that. You do not grasp reality, and these facts we're discussing. You're just making claims. No one takes it serously. We're trying to help you. It's like talking to my seven year old.

I should have said “as we are imagining”, but I thought I made it clear that what the board wants was to add another member, and we were considering the criteria they would use, the traditional ones and what would be the criteria to judge how lived experience would have value for the board, how they would decide whether to choose the new member based on it. — Antony Nickles

I really don't think you're grasping the responses to your point. This one is a prime example. Why are they adding a new member? And if there's no particular reason (perhaps there's simply an empty space) then we need to know what hte board intends to do. You are removing any possibility for motivation, and hten asking for motivating criteria. This is nonsensical, as best I can tell.

what it applies to — Antony Nickles

This is the closest to something we've seen, I think. But all I could put under this head is that "lived experience" is worthless unless directed at some pre-existing intention, generally, an informational one. Without a pre-understood goal, aim or purpose for the experience to inform, there is nothing to be spoken about.

I’m sorry if you didn’t get anything out of it, but I stilI appreciate your participation — Antony Nickles

I very much appreciate the exchange too. I'm just finding it genuinely really, really really hard to see how this impasse even exists.

Do we agree we need reasons to do things? Those are goals
Do we agree that those reasons can be understood? These are motivations.
Do we then agree that any methods need be aligned with motivations, in order to achieve goals?

If this is hte case, it is patent that you started a step above the ground, but wanted a view of the ground. Maybe we can just sort that out, and the rest will fall into place.


I can't understand that either of those lines are responses to the issue, other than to again attempt to make a principled approach to separating male and female sports seem silly. But it's intuitively, and reasonably not silly. Could you maybe make clearer what it was you were trying to say here? The logic is the same.. That one is a contact sport doesn't make a difference to that.

I don't know what scenario you're talking about. If you mentioned one, I would have purposefully ignored it because the content is irrelevant. I think Jesse Lee Peterson is one of the most outrageous commentators out there. But he is obviously correct about some things.

That was a bad move, but thanks for hte clarification.

But why? What is it that your specific atoms contain that hold your "essence"? — Mijin

I didn't content they did. Not sure where this is coming from.

And how many such atoms need to be moved across for you to still be alive? Will 95% do it? 99%? — Mijin

This doesn't have much relevance to my position, or the claim, to be clear. For sake of discussion, there will be no specific amount. You can lose both legs and still be alive, and you. It's a silly question, in context. That's not the belittle it. It just has no reasonable avenue to a response.

Whether my first-person perspective still exists or not matters a hell of a lot to me! — Mijin

Yes, indeed. And this is why my response to the branch line case is attractive to me. It removes the potential for my first-person to disappear, but someone to still be me. Which seems ridiculous and intuitively hogwash.

If anything else in the universe that is not me can be shown to beat my heart I will concede. But if it is the case that the cardiac conduction system controls the heart rate, or branches of the nervous system, you’ll be left trying to prove how I am neither my heart or my nervous system, advocating some sort of dualism. This is why I always repeat that free will is often an issue of identity — NOS4A2

You have explicitly moved the goal post. It is not under your volition. That is the point. You have no control over it (other than by brute force, which is present among all these arguments). You simply don't. It isn't even connected to your brain, so there's no way for you to control it. What's called the "intrinsic pacemaker" is what's making sure your heart keeps beating. You have no knowledge or control of this.

Like I said before, you both control the amount of light that enters your eyes and direct the sounds that enter your ear — NOS4A2

I see you don't grasp reality. That's fine.

I also think it is a characteristic of woke - if the other party doesn’t appear to agree with you, they must need to reevaluate their whole approach so let’s talk about that instead of whatever thing we both disagree with. — Fire Ologist

This is, expressly, the problem I am having (and one I wanted to highlight within 'woke'). That is ironic, unfortunately as I think it is what's happening. I can't understand Antony's intention anymore, given the responses which have been directly on point and either claiming we have done his dance, or that it is not really what we want to do. It seems the circles continue, but I have two further pages to read before hitting Post Comment.

BTW - I do appreciate the effort, and I am working on a response. — Antony Nickles

Entirely reasonable, thank you.

There was a big controversy about a transwoman being allowed to compete a couple years ago. Last year the world surfing league tightened up the requirements though, to appease the anti-woke. All that over 1 surfer, and a longboarder at that. — praxis

I take issue with trying to frame the opposing side as unreasonable in this particular way (its not always a sin). A single male surfer taking a female accolade is enough, on the "anti-woke" side (though, that's misleading of a label). A single harmed child will have us looking at child abuse law. A single dead engineer will have us overhauling H&S. A single female being abused or harmed by a male in the bathroom should have the same response, to be consistent, or discuss why they aren't similar. That last bit nveer gets done... And i can see several powerful responses (they just happen to not land for me). So, I think these sorts of arguments need to engage why that position is so reprehensible. "Oh its only x no. of people". Yes. But what those people are doing matters (and this isn't akin to an argument I am liable to make about prevalence causing alarm. We can ignore that, and assume its 1:1000000 for hte above to still run well, imo).

Thus the importance to imagine a context in which people are trying to decide what to do where the value of those criteria (above) for deciding what to do, in that situation, is up for grabs. — Antony Nickles

I would suggest for myself, and I think Leon is on this page, that this is just ignorant (not in a personal sense). We do understand these things, and we do not need to reinvent the wheel. The tension is between competing arguments (not even interests. I've tried to make this clear but if not: If you aren't willing to state your goals then I can't get on with your arguments. If you wont give me your arguments, I can't assess them against anything. Your 'interest' wouldn't help because getting there is what's at stake, not "having interest" in x y or z policy for a, b or c reasons) and we can't assess arguments without knowing the goal the argument is meant to support.

You have to make a proposition: Lived experience is a valuable aspect of a person's exploitable wisdom.

We can get on with that. But you'll notice most arguments I have made (and, from what I see, Leon) address this squarely, and this is why we cannot understand why you're asking us to slow down the horses. If there is some significant different between "interest" and "goal" for you here, please make it explicit. I see the difference broadly, but for our purposes it just seems to be a difference in clarity:

Interest (in): Not being subject to arbitrary search and seizure
Goal: I am not liable to arbitrary search and seizure.

The former is a desire which isn't particularly apt for policy. The latter is a goal which absolutely is (as the constitution will evidence). If you mean interest in a more legalese sort of why, I do not know what (extending hte metaphor) estate you could be claiming an interest in, to get this discussion off the ground, without creating a scenario of expressly competing interests in the way that "life" and "death" are express competitive notions. They cannot co-exist. The way I see this playing out is that if we had this discussion first we'd all be looking at similar things:

For all to be treated with respect;
For legitimate power to be wielded in the face of arbitrary disparity/force

and all the rest that underpins most concepts of "policy". Once we have all this on the table, we can discuss what methods might get us there. The interests, themselves, don't tell us muc because we must break them down to this priors. If you're not looking for equality of opportunity, you can support many bigoted policies. If you're not looking for equality of outcome, you must drop some policies of force, as examples.

How is talking about a board going to help us get to where we want to go? — Leontiskos

The veil of ignorance, i suspect, is at play. And its not the worst premise for a discussion of this kind. I just think Antony is importing (maybe unconsciously) plenty of goals which he/they (others, not a gender joke) implicitly carry, without these base discussions. I'm doing my utmost to ignore those voices and discuss with zero on hte table, to begin with. What do you want seems the right question.

As a courtesy I will say in summary (though I will not argue it here, as I have spelled it out in length above), wanting to first decide what we are going to do, or imposing criteria for how to decide that, is to skip over examining, in a sense, how the world works — Antony Nickles

Do you not notice that this fizzles out into a total nothing by the end? "how the world works" is not a reference we can make any sense of in this context. What about it, are you referring to? Besides that, I think you're wrong.

or draw in a certain demographic. — Antony Nickles

I think this is hte best argument for bringing in lived experience. The problem is that if that person is a dick, or a moron, or dishonest or any number of things, the board wont take their ideas on board very readily. If they are clearly bad economic ideas, or are typically irrelevant to the goal of the Board (quite common for DEI-type hires as best I can tell) then that person is ignored, and their complaints ring true to their politically-aligned based in that "See, they only hired me as a token for looks - they don't even take me seriously" where, you'll notice, there isn't even room for discussions of hte merits or relevance of the person's experiences.

This is why goals are far, far, far more important than criteria.

gets in the way of a broader practice of assessment. — Antony Nickles

I think this is the same mistake my would-be board member above is making: There is no reason to think that your descriptions here are in any way helpful to the goal you're after (coming to terms, it seems). But again, a perfect example of why not stating your goals clearly has muddied these waters. Your goal is "a process", not an end-point, so there's nothing we can adequately hold to the light for assessment. Your position seems to ruin the potential for a valid assessment.

I think this fairly clearly sorts a couple of things out, but makes the above comments (immediately above) all the more apt: you are shying from an assessment by continually trying to bring our attention to that which we have already gone over. Perhaps this is not to your satisfaction, and so FireOlogist's comment I've quoted above comes in. If we don't agree, we must not understand. That seems wrong.

This one is confusing. You seem to be saying that you posited a method, which I then carried out, while arguing against it. That's not the case. I ran with your example because you gave it. It should be clear I think its unhelpful and a bad example that leapfrogs the fundamental, base-level function of decision making: Goal orientation. If you're tlaking about how we decide on goals, that's really not what this thread or discussion are about. But it would explain the disconnect.

hat would be valuable to get clear about before judging how the board would go forward and what that looks like here. — Antony Nickles

Without a clear, articulated goal, this isn't helpful and there is no meat. it is window-dressing for a show we're not part of.

I would concede to suggestions from the group for agreement on a different example as long as it is a situation (not an “issue” abstracted from any sense of a possible context) about how to decide what to do in a particular case, i.e, with competing, say old vs new, criteria. — Antony Nickles

Then, unfortunately, I do not think you are here in good faith. That is specifically not what's at stake in the discussion, and exactly what we've been saying is problematic in your responses/approach. It comes across like you are not getting the joke, and trying to explain the pun in terms other than whimsy. The issue is what needs discussion. The 'situation' is entirely ungrounded and unable to be approached without a stated issue/goal for which someone's experience might be relevant. This cannot be talked about without specificity (as you seem to acknowledge, but in a different place).

Appointing someone to a board based on "lived experience" is not relevant? — Antony Nickles

What board, for what purpose? Otherwise, no, clearly not.

But I think your idea that we will be able to decide what to do without a goal is simply incoherent — Leontiskos

I agree. I think the discussion is evidence in itself.

They should just enjoy it, like all of us who acquiesce to be advertised to.

They did the same thing (the advert) with Beyonce for Levi. The woke (such as you are referring) should just stop making shit up to get upset about and call people Nazis. It just shows us how bored and uninteresting you are. Its utterly fucking bizarre that anyone is making hte kind of comments they are about htis advert. Its selling sex. Not fucking Eugenics. You've got to be so bored - so incredibly bored - to find stretches that Mr Fantastic would be impressed by - to call people bigots.

I"VE RUN OUT OF TIME BUT I INTEND TO ADD TO THIS POST. IF YOU CAN, HOLD OFF ON RESPONDING UNTIL IMARK IT COMPLETE

EDITED IN FURTHER RESPONSES:

Though they might just not be granted certain authority, maybe of a final kind, but saying they “should not” or are unimportant, is perhaps to say they do not or should not have value (in deciding), which flies in the face of considering how they might or do in this case (or what case), if we imagine the board is considering adding lived experience as a criteria for appointment. — Antony Nickles

This is a really good example of you importing some assumptions on the part of your own scenario: We don't know what the board wants. There is absolutely no basis to say the bolded without first giving a reason why, Nothing is valuable tout court. What is it valuable for? I can only surmise you want lived experience to be informative. About what??? This is the basic problem with your entire approach. You want to have a discussion about nothing, and still make it substantial. It looks as if you're not willing to do the ground work here, or truly believe it isn't ground work. But that is logically unsound. If you do not state an end, criteria for what will get us there are impossible. That's the impasse.

To date American Eagle is being tight lipped about it. — praxis

They've responded.

“’Sydney Sweeney Has Great Jeans‘ is and always was about the jeans. Her jeans. Her story. We’ll continue to celebrate how everyone wears their AE jeans with confidence, their way. Great jeans look good on everyone.”

Good on them. Ridiculous reaction to the advert.

It was to try to offer a different way than just a philosophical framework which tends to overlook things based on the terms we bring to something. — Antony Nickles

Yep, but what you missed from my quote was "now" that I/we have addressed that squarely several times. I can't see why you would run the same stuff when it's been dealt with.

And I will leave y’all to that, because I hadn’t even figured out: “valuable” how? — Antony Nickles

This is because you wont do what I'm charging with being unwilling to do. We have brought that point up to you several times in these pages. You seem to now be figuring out that this is an extremely important aspect which you had initially wanted us to forego.

Y’all think I’m trying to sandbag you, or set a trap — Antony Nickles

No. I think you're trying to have the discussion with having your own arms tied behind your own back, and not knowing it. There's no charge on you here, morally. It's about what you're not grasping in the discussion (from my perspective, naturally). I would also suggest I am not a 'y'all' :)

I see; sorry I wasted your time with all this. — Antony Nickles

This is an unfortunate deflation. If this was your position throughout, then you clearly are not reading very well. I (and we, on my account) have explicitly gone over what we're talking about and why. I've even pointed out that goals must, at some level, be arbitrary because they are prior to criteria on achieving them. You have proceeded as though boht that hasn't been said, and isn't the case. This is why I/we cannot understand what you are getting at anymore. It seems to be purely ignoring hte relevant responses you've been given.

It seems like a stretch to compare longboard surfing, something that doesn’t even qualify for the Olympics, to child abuse, industrial safety, and sexual assault. — praxis

It would be a stretch to say I was doing that. The comparison is the logic, not the content. You don;'t seem to be disagreeing that a single instance of trouble in the kitchen should have us investigating and preventing that trouble. And there's far more than one instance in all three areas people care about here (bathrooms, prisons and sport).

I don’t mind discussing the philosophy. — Antony Nickles

But your responses are making it clear you are avoiding this. Whether this is conscious or not, I don't know (or care, tbh). You're focussed on something utterly incoherent, and we've pointed that out to you explicitly. You do not respond to that, and continue on your journey to talk about criteria void any goal. Which is incoherent. Unfortunately, the posts Joshs' and yourself have been making have reinforced a sense that Continental and "deconstructionist" philosophy is almost entirely useless, other than for people who already agree to speak in some private language. That is certainly a shame, but not one i'm uncomfortable with. It's a "you don't get it" type of situation.



Obviously this wasn't to me, but it was ancillary to something which was so I'll chime in: 4. doesn't require rescuing. They shouldn't ever have been in that position. Had you said an MMA match, there's probably no gulf between 4 and a couple of the others. Its a male beating on a female. These are clearly irrelevant considerations though. The logic of why we have rules around adults access to children is the same logic as why we restrict male access to females. There is no force of reason which sets aside that presumption, currently. Yet here we are, arguing about it. If you care about safe spaces, this is quite ironic (not that you do, but it's a woke thing so worth mentioning).

You have almost no control, whatsovever, over your heartbeat. It is separate to even your brain's control center. You do not control the vast, vast, vast majority of what happens in your body. You couldn't possibly...