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>

Yeah, decent and absolutely worth discussing. I think there's a mistake being made though, where there's going to be a rejection of totally sound ideals because hte advertising machine is so ruthlessly careless.

Eg:

Or the way living at home with one’s parents is viewed as being a loser — Mikie

Fully agree that this framing is bollocks (though, i contest that this isn't quite what's presented most of the time - i digress, and am trying to avoid that which we already know we disagree on) but I don't think its a rejectable principle. Living at home with your parents does infer you may not be capable of surviving outside the family home. That's not to infer that anyone living at home would, but plenty of those living at home are incapable. Probably hte majority - failure to launch type of scenarios.

But I also know plenty who live at home for totally noble reasons (unrelated to caring for parents, lets say). So to say its one or the other seems rash, but there's some real utility in keeping some pressure on (particularly male) teens to grow up some. Not that this doesn't apply to females, but males appears to be more capable of relying on the women in their lives when younger, than women who rely on the men in their lives later on. And its that failure to launch that seems at issue.

No, but there are alternatives: pooling resources with friends or family is a common one. But that isn’t very profitable, so it’s made to seem “un-cool.” — Mikie

I agree, but i also think homesteading comes under the same banner. It's considered 'right wing' to be self-sufficient in a way that isn't directly social. I don't deny there's associations there, but it seems a pretty clear case of indoctrination to see a woman canning and assume she's racist or whatever yknow. Similarly, not everyone who volunteers for social justice-driven charities thinks sex doesn't exist, and private property should be abolished etc... So, its quite easy to notice this problem, but not really understand how it's affecting you, personally. I certainly don't quite get it (because that's the point) and i doubt anyone else does, either, so its a weird discussion in that sense. That which is made to seem uncool to you probably isn't that way to another demo.

I'm a material token, not a type? So not a soul botherer? — bongo fury

I have wrestled with Parfit, and his teletransporter for a couple of years now.

I think this is the correct answer to the branch-line case. Any "one" who is me, yet occupied different atoms and extracts difference resources from the environment to maintain homeostatis, and occupies a different "moment' in space, cannot be me.

Whether this is true of the original case, I am yet to decide, but in principle, the transporter cannot transport me without "taking" me. And I agree, this gets around the Soul (further fact) problem.

There is the “Ship of Theseus” — Fire Ologist

I think this is a really stupid 'paradox' personally. A ship is "that ship" because of what people call it. There isn't, that I can see, a physical boundary to the identity of a utility/object. The identity of a 'person' is what's interesting, and we run into all sorts of problems because almost everyone has the intuition that "they" are non-physical (or, a further fact, in Partfitian terms) and ride around in a physical substrate. This said, I think many sorities problems are also stupid:
A heap of sand obtains once at least once grain of sand is suspended above the surface in question by other grains of sand. I cannot understand why this isn't a totally adequate answer that shows that people are silly and like to argue.

Again, the metaphysical challenge to identity arises only if you are committed to the idea of sharp-edged essences of things. — SophistiCat

I'm unsure. Identity, by definition, has those edges baked in. If we want to jettison personal identity then i agree.

At any rate, Parfit treats this problem at length when talking about surgeries replacing molecule by molecule, a person's brain. The conclusion is that the x literally doesn't matter. What matters is the outcome, and whether 0 or 1 obtains. ***That is, for Parfit, as long as there's a 1 (for him, relation R) on the other side of whatever process, then identity is irrelevant. "you" will continue. This is unsatisfying, but appears to be hte logical conclusion***.

There's an argument that the you that is experiencing the middle of this sentence now is a different you than the one experiencing the end of the sentence now. — flannel jesus

But lets be real - its a really tortured and unhelpful argument I think. We can't explain much of anything without continuous consciousness. Unless we want to go Parfit's way and just say "this isn't important, look over here instead" (as do Austin and Searle) I can't see a way to argue that there isn't continuity in consciousness.

I pause there to note that I see a difference between "continuity of consciousness" and "continuous consciousness". There's a continuity in a Playstation Memory Card re-booting and providing continuing as to wherever the saved game was left off.

why would the universe decree that, say, X=12,371 means being transported with brain damage, and X=12,372 means you just die at the source? — Mijin

***

It wouldn't. That would 'merely' be the case, if so. This relates back to the starred passage above.

adding people to a board. — Antony Nickles

I don't understand what you're describing or trying to set up here. This doesn't jibe with anything we've said, that I can tell. The follow ons seems non-sequitur for that reason.

the ability to contribute to the board's goals — Antony Nickles

On our exchange, this is what's going on. The rest is window dressing. You could add something like "In a way that is not obvious unethical" going to things like corruption, deceit etc.. which are non-co-operative. But the rest seem illegitimate (or, baked into this one like history of leadership. That's a consideration of one's abilities in the present with recourse to statistical evidence supporting that claim of ability).

“Experience” — Antony Nickles

Is the question what's the difference between "experience" in the sense of a job interview, and "lived experience" in the sense of emotionalizing political issues? That seems... perhaps... not a reasonable question to ask. Experience is literally experience of success in a given field in the former. Usually, to extremely specific criteria which are necessary to assess one's potential. The latter has none of these features. The latter (in practice) categorically ignores any metric. It is not a criteria, other than a brute claim criteria. There is no nuance, there is no metric and there is no way to value one over the other (or, as I see it, reason to "value" it for policy purposes at all). We can take aggregate self-reportage somewhat more seriously as a indicator of what problems exist. I can't see it being useful otherwise.

having been part of the population the board is trying to help — Antony Nickles

This is used in two scenarios I'm aware of:
1. In certain law contexts so that hte committee at hand has a "lay person's perspective" but they are essentially ancillary to any decision making processes;
2. Where there is adirect, measurable relationship between this person's membersihp of some class (demographic?) and their ability to report an aggregate opinion of that class to the committee (or board, whatever). This seems problematic in plenty of ways, but at least has a basis to move from.

Otherwise, I cannot see how this could be helpful. The other criteria you posit are directly related.

aluing having people that are connected with the lives they are trying to change — Antony Nickles

This insinuates the board themselves would not have stakes of the same kind. That seems wrong. They are from the same demographic they are serving. Adding "lay people" for the purpose of lived experience seems to simply shift the rhetoric around a bit and have us feeling as if there's some "authenticity" in the decision making process, or "representation". I personally reject that rep. along lines of sex, ethnicity, nationality etc.. are actually helpful or give us much, socially but that aside, clearly the board themselves are representative. This, though, goes to some confusion about the scenario. Why would this be the way to discuss it? Surely it would make more sense to find an issue and discuss why lived experience might be helpful there. You're certainly more likely to find an example that could be agreed on. In broad-strokes, this seems, again, to be an exercise in saying quite a lot, but not going anywhere with it.

I had also mentioned earlier that if you are on vacation looking for something to eat, you ask a local — Antony Nickles

I treated that example. I don't think there is any value, other than to get directions. You could consult Google.

If things need clarifying, counterexamples, go ahead; if it’s broke, fix it—I suggest first trying to get at a good overall sight of all the grounds (get it). — Antony Nickles

I think I've done so, and responded in ways that, to me, seem totally reasonable. The scenario doesn't really move us toward anything helpful, and I'm unsure it addresses the issues we're talking about for lack of being specific enough to actually engage them. I make a suggestion earlier as to how we might proceed a little clearer.

This might be overly coarse, but I take the other option to be claiming/attributing/assuming a certain goal first and then perhaps treating “interests” as justifications for the goal, or motivations for the goal. Whatever that may be, I take it as the classic philosophical discussion to first determine what is right or what ought to be done — Antony Nickles

I think this is quite clearly wrong. The goal is essentially arbitrary, as all must be more-or-less. That's the point. If can't get a moral discussion of goals going there's no point moving to methods. If your position (one's position) is that white people need to be removed, by legislature, from some positions of power - okay, cool. We need to talk about how you're going to get there. One issue is convincing people. So we're off to a good start.

If we start with criteria about goals, we're looking for an objective moral. That seems a bogus endeavour, particularly around Woke issues.

Again, I take this difference as a matter of analytical philosophy, and not as some kind of proxy for woke/not woke — Antony Nickles

There does seem to be a semi-direct link between the Analytical/Continental divide and woke/non-woke arguments, though. I'm unsure that's an unfair connection to make.

I would also posit that the portion between these two quotes is again, using a lot of words to say not much. Rationality is not up for grabs. Rationality is a particular process. If we want to jettison rationality that's fine and we can discuss from there. I think what you're trying to do is to say "Well, what is rationality?" which is again, bogus. Rationality is a known process. Its place at hte top of hte hierarchy of deliberation may be questionable. But I doubt it, given these exchanges.

I don't mean to pick on Antony, as he has been very humble and intellectually honest (and he is not doing the same thing described in that quote). — Leontiskos

100%. Absolute gentleman.

I see both of these as an example of doing precisely what Antony is asking for here: — Fire Ologist

Yep, agreed. That's why I resorted to saying we're talking in Circles in my reply to Antony. It seems like no start point is acceptable.

What do you mean by "move forward with reasonable people in the discussion?" — frank

What i mean is that people who can provide reasons, and not either deflect (which, I think personally, Anthony is) or move on to epithets, threats, impugnings and irrelevancies should be included - those who do those things probably shouldn't (and this based on a goal-oriented metric, not some 'moral' framing).

Your final point is an example of the sort of unreasonable behaviours I'm talking about. Zegler's goal was obviously of a feminist/equity bent. She failed, entirely, and turned people off her, the film and the general thrust of her point. Its irrational in a way that (speaking to Anthony's point) is objectively damaging to the goal.

I worded this wrong obviously, as I conceded to Leontiskos; of course we can pass judgment at any point, and we must at some point — Antony Nickles

Ok, fair enough. Much better starting point.

I am merely suggesting that it might be helpful to look at what is at stake, how that is to be judged compared to now, etc. Not to judge the criteria (first) but as a means to see what the possibly unexamined interests are. — Antony Nickles

My initial charge on you still stands. This just kicks the can a bit. Fwiw, I understood this to be your intention to begin with, and felt the same sort of denial was coming through. As someone who was in that space for a decade, I find it (superficially and i do mean 100% superficially) insulting to be told perhaps I'm not looking at the underlying urges. I lived them. This doesn't butter your bread, but may explain why I've been a bit... tetchy.. on this particular point.

Although my (one) argument would be our society (not of course anyone here) jumps to judgment most of the time, and I only started because I thought I saw the argument framed as rational—emotional (a version of “objective”—“subjective”) which is one thing that gets in the way, philosophically, of getting at the criteria for the case at hand, thus the interests in it. — Antony Nickles

While I agree with the opener here (premise?) i disagree that the final point makes sense. This issue is frame and carried out as a tension between emotional and reason. That's largely hte difference between right and left. There's a reason "bleeding heart liberal" is a term, i suppose.

This would be traditional philosophy’s framing of a moral discussion as an argument over what “ought” to be done, or the justification for that, or principals, etc. I am suggesting a different discussion where we are talking about how to move forward in a situation where no one has more authority to what is right. I am suggesting that we may not see beforehand what the criteria are that we use in that scenario, and what new or different criteria would look like, as a method, a way in, to see what our interests are (as they are captured in our criteria for each thing). — Antony Nickles

A few things here, that, unfortunately, make it seem like you're not really hearing what's being said:

1. I disagree. That is not the framing of traditional philosophy given "traditional" philosophy has resulted in three distinct and essentially non-overlapping moral frameworks that virtually all philosophers adhere to. But I also thikn this is a red herring;

2. What you are suggesting is actually ignoring what i've said. What I've said is we need to establish goals. That way, what "ought" to be done is a clear, concise and able-to-be-discussed subject. The criteria are already laid out when our goals are sufficiently articulated. Goal is x. Discussion: How do we achieve goal x? That is the criteria. If being overly emotional is counter productive to the goal, then you have your answer. There is no tension.

3. The interests are our skin in the game of achieving the goal, not in carrying out the criteria. Criteria do not care how you feel, they care about what you want to achieve.

This continues to exemplify the exact tension stated above, between emotional and reason. Reason is getting us to move forward. Emotional is getting us to talk in circles. I very much appreciate your time too. Its a pity we werent' able to come to terms.

I should clarify that by "principle" I do not merely mean a mental construct. — Leontiskos

I understand. But if the principle reduces to "certain physical descriptions as between objects and processes are invariable" then it does hte same thing as I'm getting at. And, as I see, it can be reduced this way. Onward..

In general I see no reason to claim that causality is physical. — Leontiskos

I can't see that it could obtain if not. This is a really weird statement, for me. It's almost like saying "I can't see a reason, in general, to assume that heat causes hotness". I mean, causation happens in the physical world. We don't have other examples (ignoring some "hard problem" considerations that would beg the question on either side).

"physical process" and a "non-physical process." — Leontiskos

I'm unsure a non-physical entity can be a 'process' which happen in space and time, best I can ascertain.

But if one is not a physicalist then I don't see any grounds for claiming that causality is physical. — Leontiskos

This, also, real weird. It doesn't matter if you're a physicalist: If your thinking, from any angle, gets you no escape from the claim, then there's your bullet to either bite or set aside. You're right that hte physicalist, over others, wouldn't have any discomfort with this. Can't see that as particularlt relevant here.

and is situated in between objects — Leontiskos

I'm unsure it is, and I don't think physicalists at least would argue this. It is part and parcel of the relation between the objects, not between them. It only obtains upon the two objects (until we talk about physical trains like "hot from x causes particles in the air to heat and ferry that energy across to other particles which come into contact with y and pass on the high-energy particles etc.. etc.. et.etc.. but this would be to either ignore the problem, or solves it on a physicalist account lol). It doesn't obtain "between" the objects, in physical space. It only obtains "between" the objects in thought (like the "relationship" between two corporate entities. In reality, it is the "relationship of them - how the two relate).

If energy were a physical object just like the two billiard balls — Leontiskos

Hmm. I think this is both instructive, and confused. Energy is not a physical object, and no one claims it is. But this is instructive, in the sense that energy is a property. The concept describes several attributes that can variously be attributed to different physical objects and their ability to, what physicists call "do work". We don't understand this very well (in terms of the underlying establishing principles, but that's not here nor there for our discussion) but everything we have ever done to try to understand it, has reduced to the physical interaction between physical objects trading physical objects (particles etc..) between them. There doesn't seem to be any reason whatsoever to consider a non-physical basis for energy transfer yet. These are properties which we physically observe in physical objects.

The whole reason energy functions as a principle is because it is different from the billiard balls — Leontiskos

In light of the above, i think I need an elucidation here. It seems this has been answered adequately above: Yes, they are one-and-the-same but in concert, not considered individually. The energy of one ball is part and parcel of itself, and not something "other". The same true for ball 2. They then interact, physically, and pass physical matter between themselves causing "work" to have obtained. If the quibble is about "what about that matter passing between them causes that transfer to instantiate the result it seems to, then I think there's a fundamental misunderstanding. The matter, itself, is what causes certain excitations in the second ball (it has too much charge, which can be described physically) to stay in one place. Given it was acted on from a particular direction, it moves in te opposite due to its shape, and our medium of air, the felt, the cue tip etc.. etc.. but all can be calculated, as I understand. There doesn't seem to be a mystery.

Even on that conception, "space" is metaphorical not physical — Leontiskos

False, as I understand. We do not live in a vacuum. Space is made up of plenty of stuff. When I say space, I am talking about hte actual density of matter between object A and object B. Maybe this is naive? I can't see that though, seems to run in line with how we understand "space" at the highest levels of physics.

nd therefore a mathematical distance-measurement is not physical — Leontiskos

This is wrong as I see. The division is not physical. The division is artificial and, as you say, abstract. The measurement is entirely physical and rests on the actual physical limitations of point A in relation to point B and the physical space between them, along with our measurement methods which are also physical.

But according to what source do you claim that the transfer of energy is the transfer of particles? — Leontiskos

IN fairness, this was rough-and-ready and I'm technically misspeaking, even on my own understanding. Different forms of transfer require different descriptions, but something like this seems to work for your example. A version below:

"At the interface where the two objects meet, the faster-moving, higher-energy particles from the hot object collide with the slower-moving, lower-energy particles of the colder object."

At collision, "energy" which is read essentially as head or speed in this context, passes between the two objects, more-or-less replacing the hotter, faster particles in the moving object with colder, slower particles from the stationary object (again, not quite right - but the net effect is this).

An easier example is something like boiling (convection more broadly): less energetic particles are heated, move faster and spread about over a larger area, which causes them to move (as they cannot be as close to other particles when vibrating so fast, lest destruction occur) upwards and transfer that heat as essentially movement, to the more dense, less hot particles which they encounter. There's a purely physical explanation going on there.

Energy is just an assignment of value to the ability for a system to "do work" or affect other systems and objects. It's not claimed to be a "thing". Its a physical attribute, described very different across different media.

it is hard to see how gravity is itself supposed to be physical. — Leontiskos

I don't find it hard. But then, I include certain assumptions about "fabric" being involved in space-time. That there is a finite set of work that can be done within the Universe leads me to understand that all bodies will be affected by all other bodies. This will represent itself in a ubiquitous force exerted by everything, on everything else. I'm unsure its reducible in any way from that.

Even apart from mental causation, what would be an argument in favor of the thesis that causality is physical? — Leontiskos

I've made a couple above. And previously. I'll go with your example though:

1. Billiard ball1 causes billiard ball2 to move
2. Billiard ball1 and billiard ball2 are both physical
3. There is nothing else involved in the interaction
4. Therefore, the causation that occurs between the two billiard balls is itself physical — Leontiskos

Closer.

Are you claiming that when someone who is not committed to a physicalist account of causation talks about causation, they are "talking about things in totally incoherent terms"? — Leontiskos

Nope. I'm suggesting that running incoherent arguments about causation is possible. That's all that was on the table.

I would say that the majority of talk about causation is in non-physicalist terms. — Leontiskos

I agree. I think most of it is doomed to be self-contradictory, empirically untenable or down-right ridiculous (God did it, for instance).

without any material change in the two balls — Leontiskos

I do not think this is the case. This would be "empirically wrong" on the above ideas about people talking about causation in ways that wont work.

the capacity for doing work — Leontiskos

Physically deducible. If you want to get around this, you have to solve substance dualism.

I don't think there is any thinking nearly as black and white as wokism. — Leontiskos

Yes. Of course this one example - but one of plenty. (i'm also only trying to illustrate hte attitude - not decry all 'wokists' on the same basis).

Now I see you are using “irrational” as in a person’s actions are contradictory, hypocritical, that we have grounds to dismiss their argument (not factually correct Amadeus), etc., — Antony Nickles

I'm not entirely sure what the potshot here is, but if its that its incorrect to describe woke behaviour hte way I did, either we can agree to disagree or I can present examples for you (one above). They will number high, and be external links to the actors own words/actions. The paradox of tolerance (i.e, the patent intolerance of that which we subjectively deem intolerable ) looms large. If this isn't what you're getting at, I don't know what you are, so would appreciate and explication.

I am saying we have work to do apart and before that judgment about their claim. — Antony Nickles

This seems to rely on your underlying supposition that we(anyone making the noises we're making) don't understand enough to pass judgement. That seems patently incorrect, and exactly what I had classed it as: a cop out. It precludes any third party analysis until you're satisfied the speaker sufficiently understands things (i imagine, the way you do). This is not really doing the work, but instead saying that the work cannot be done other than on terms you agree with. I reject that entirely, so if this is your argument we're at an end to the discussion, i'd say. I imagine you've said more in the thread, so this isn't meant to be a dismissive statement, just explanatory.

Well, good question. I would argue that our goal is not “judgment”. In a moral situation like this, it comes down to whether we see that our (once drawn out) interests are more alike than apart, that we are able to move forward together, extend or adapt our criteria, reconsider our codified judgments, etc. — Antony Nickles

This is a perfect example. Its obviously about judgement. That is how humans operate. However, you've made a point I want to go into a bit, though in other ways:

For any discussion of this kind, we need to establish what goals are on the table. Something like "inclusion" is insufficiently clear. Inclusion of what, for what reason and to what end? But, if we at least have each other's goal in mind, we might be able to do something akin to what you've said above, but judgements will be there the entire way through. This is unavoidable. I cannot understand how you could make the statement above and expect to lead to anything but sitting about umming and ahhing.

each thing has its own standards for us to judge — Antony Nickles

Yeah, and those criteria all rest on a rational analysis of the state of affairs. If your analysis is not rational (i.e reasoned and logical) you will import falsities, assumptions and irrelevancies, making your actions disagree with your object. This is a full explanation of why this is the wrong way to think of "rationality". Wittgenstein is not impressive to me in this regard at all, and in fact, comes across as someone cowardly (take the dramatic-ness out of hte use of this word). I'm unsure relying on one or two thinkers to discuss something so fundamental is a good idea either.

This isn’t “subjective” but specific, thus the importance of understanding all the criteria and current judgments in a moral situation. — Antony Nickles

This doesn't move the needle. If you support a non-rational assessment of any state of affairs, we may be at an impasse. I don't accept that there are ways non-rational to achieve goals. I cannot understand any other motivation to act. If there is one, put it forward and let me know what criteria you think are relevant to it. That may solve hte impasse.

it helps to pick a local to ask — Antony Nickles

Usually not, no. This is a tradition that makes not a lot of sense. What would make sense, is to say "Hey, you live here, what's your favourite x". That doesn't give me anything but an opinion. This is not rational discourse and does not get me to my goal, unless it is to eat at a place this particular local person prefers. There is no good reason to accept a local's answer to the question "Where's good to eat"? They don't know anything more than you do about your apprehension and enjoyment of new food.

but they know their way around — Antony Nickles

This seems to reduce the question to one of "where are the restaurants". That's rational, aimed at a goal. Fits with my descriptions perfectly. The former does not.

they still need to be drawn out, made explicit and intelligible — Antony Nickles

Then (given the arguments you're running, but i admit this is somewhat an assumption about what you're trying to say) the Woke need to do this. Not everyone else. If they can't adequately articulate their urges, needs and goals without resorting to violence, insults and coercion i couldn't give a shit. Neither, I think, should I. The racist can't adequately articulate theirs. I dismiss them. I take a lot of Wokists to be racist anyway, so maybe that's a moot point.

Those things are not evident until we look at them. — Antony Nickles

On current status, we've been looking at them - dead in the fing eye - for a decade or more. I am beginning to think, again, that you simply deny that anyone has a handle on these things. This seems, as my example clip to Leon shows, to be a "You literally cannot question this" type of claim, because at no point that someone is critical, will you accept that they sufficiently understand the subject (it seems). I'm going to simply tell you, outright: I understand what I'm talking about. I was what I am talking about. I was embedded, and respected within Woke culture of a specific kind (drug policy, for clarity and i mean locally, though not entirely restricted in that way. You can find articles about me internationally). I understand these things, and my critiques are well-founded. It wont do to simply tell me "No".

I think we need a case — Antony Nickles

Could you be clear about what you mean by "a case"? It seems we'd only have two options:

1. Explicit claims;
2. Inferences

in 1, we have no work to do. In 2, we will just have the same back-and-forth about understanding.

I was only suggesting that, generally, people (and philosophers in particular) do not consider “the ways” in which they judge. — Antony Nickles

I suggest this is particularly, and somewhat perniciously (again, remove hte dramatics) wrong. Philosophers, over most others, do exactly this. This is probably why academic philosophy so intensely leans left (particularly public academic phil).

For the most part, the far right is not interested in reform. They believe the establishment has failed. — frank

Seems so for the far-left also. This is to be expected, and I'm unsure why there are discussions about understanding absolutist and destructive ideology (on it's face, anyhow) from either side. Why not ignore hte idiots and move forward with reasonable people in the discussion. But that's a pipe dream, I know, and not necessarily 'right'.

How are the critical comments about wokism in this thread not a form of activism — Joshs

They are not activating statements. THey are quibbles on a forum. Activism is taking intentional action aimed at social or political change. We're not doing that. I probably would if I had time, and I used to be an extremely "active" activist and routinely invoked "woke" tenets of inclusion, equity, racial disparity, sex discrimination to support my arguments. These were erroneous. There were rational arguments to be had. I stepped away from activism when I could no longer make any sense of what was happening around me, or what I was doing in response to it. I see exactly hte same thing in woke activists. The crash outs are monumental. I walked away quietly.

Most activists are drawing on commoditized , pre-packaged , dumbed down dilutions of the antecedent philosophies — Joshs

Yes. And it may be worth noting that this is what we're talking about. The mention of the antecedent philosophical thinking is futile, because it isn't involved in their thinking (or activism).

I think the only outstanding matter is Josh' assertion that all wokists run in circles that can be reduced to a few thinkers ike Adorno or Fanon. That is a wild challenge. I would say that the outright racism and wilfully misunderstanding things (like the current American Eagle controversy) is probably not in line, lol.

A totally fair position, imo.
For me, its hte underlying assumptions in even the use of the word "trans" in these contexts that has me thinking a bit further about these things. I do my utmost to jettison my personal negative experiences, but thats somewhat impossible to do entirely. particularly as they are in concert with overall reports.

As almost a joke, I note that the Manhattan shooter was initially reported to be "possibly white" with absolutely no reason whatso-fucking-ever other than to demonize young white men. That's woke as heck, in the terms I've discussed here.

Well, I'm not even quite sure what you mean by that so i responded in kind, there.

So yeah, not sure what you mean. You could mean a few things:

1. allow Bud drinking to move over to a different demographic (feminine men? Idk);
2. allow Bud's marketing strategy be taken over by the same group (aesthetically, not identity); or
3. allow Bud to go broke because its demo doesn't understand social justice properly.

Allowing for some case-specific nuance, the answer should be roughly the same:

Its disrespectful to the existing market demo, severs no economic purpose and obviously sews social division. It tells the demo the producer doesn't care to retain their custom, that they do not care to make money from their product particularly, and that they do not mind causing easily predictable social dis-ease.

You could say "yeah, that doesn't matter because 3." but this, again, leapfrogs the issue: Why would you even get into the headspace of wanting to run this experiment, other than to upset people? And hte answer, in context, is virtue signalling in order to pick up market share (so, we can probably both drop this example - it was cynical regardless).

And hind-sight is 20/20. The biggest reason is because it wont work. It'll either tank the company, or make people vastly more abrasive to the "trans agenda" such as it exists (i'm a happy to sya it does in terms of marketing, at least).

According to Anheuser-Busch most their market segment didn't care — praxis

They saw a 28.2% y on y drop in sales at the highest effective point in June 2023 and 20% stock loss by the end of May that year. That's about 26 Billion. That continued until quite recently, where sales have stabilized. I'm not sure how more disingenuous a statement could be made on that specific issue.

Fortunately for me, almost all mainstream beers are terrible (Miller, Bud, Modelo, chinese Corona (now that it's not made in Mexico) among others. But that's not the point. Neither is this:

Modelo Especial took the lead after the incident, if I remember correctly. It's good. — praxis

This leapfrogs the point and reflects a meme about liberal responses:

No, it didn't happen ->
Ok, it happened, but it's a good thing ->
Ok, it happened and is bad, but who cares?

Not saying you're doing this. Just getting a little meta about what's being discussed.

Does this sound like a palatable scenario to you? — Joshs

Hard to tell. Habermaas is one of the least-clear writers I've come across. In principle though, yes, that's fine and preferable.

It’s not irrational to reject another’s perspective, no. — praxis

The question was more to do with whether or not you genuinely held that view. I find it to be irrational, so I thought you were highlighting something you didn't hold to be hte case. All good.

I want to say that causality is not physical because causality is a principle and principles are not physical. — Leontiskos

That makes sense to me - and makes sense of many intuitions. I think properly, though, the word would simply be a description of a physical process (once fully understood). Currently, it seems to be as you say for lack of an actual descriptive grounding.

it does not follow that distance belongs to the same genus as points, lines, and curves — Leontiskos

You're right, it doesn't. But they cannot be left out of the discussion, lest you end up with merely overlapping geometric elements and no shape at all. The distance creates what we're observing as a 'curve' for eg.

One reason we know this is because distance is infinitely divisible whereas physical objects are not infinitely divisible. — Leontiskos

That seems superficial: distance exists as a relation. The space which the distance describes is physical and reduces quite well into the standard theory. The distance is a ratio of sorts between the the position of the points and the next-considered points. The space which creates that ratio is fully real, in a physical sense. There is no distance without a physical medium. I do not htink it right to consider "distance" as some kind of property in and of itself. "the space between" is probably better.

Likewise, we could say that kinetic energy is transferred from one ball to another, and given that kinetic energy is physical this is a physical phenomenon. — Leontiskos

It is, though. It describes the transfer of particles. The cause for your question has been ascertained in physical terms. What, exactly, causes those particles to move from one object to another, i'm unsure of but I understand it breaks down to physical forces we understand pretty well. If I am wrong, we have more to discuss, definitely.

I would again say that "energy" is a highly theoretical entity, and is not obviously physical. — Leontiskos

I cannot see another avenue to explore, even, so I have to reject this. It begins with light, i suppose, as fundamental. IT just goes upwards from there in terms of density. I am not a physicist, though. I'm not quite sure what gaps you're seeing in the descriptions above. You may have something with gravity, but (unknown to you, clearly) i've always been skeptical about gravity (not in a Bryce Mitchell kind of way, but in terms of "nah, you guys don't know what's going on at all").

I am saying that the proposition that causation is necessarily physical ought to be a conclusion rather than an assumption — Leontiskos

With this, I definitely agree. I am not entirely convinced against substance dualism, so I need to accept this line.

he very fact that we can talk about causation without committing ourselves to physicalism — Leontiskos

We can also talk about things in totally incoherent terms elsewhere (if that's hte case, I mean). That we can talk about causation without being committed to physical looks to me more like a lack of knowledge. It was a thousand years before we stopped thinking a giant guy dragged the sun across the sky. Or before we dropped the assumption that the Lord interferes, non-physically, in people's deliberative endeavours (changing hearts).

It at least seems fairly clear that energy is of a different genus than the two billiard balls. — Leontiskos

I am unsure this is reasonable. Sufficiently dense energy is physical matter, no? They are the same stuff on that account. ice/water/steam.

The energy is not physical; it is potential. — Leontiskos

Again, I don't think this is true. With all of that information (and some more whcih I assume you would allow) a correctly-trained physicist could give you the exact amount of force/distance/heat/noise etc... that car could make. It doesn't seem to me many of these objections are, in fact, theoretical.

That has nothing much to do with me. What I'm telling you is they are not synonymous (which is an empirical fact. Wokists do not play out hte tenets of legitimate critical theory. They play dress-up to justify shitty, incoherent moral points of view (on my view)). You can say that you think their actions are justified under CRT and Ill say no, they expressly are not. I'm not personally interested in that debate because it is clear to anyone who has a clue about CRT that things like BLM (2019-2021 type of BLM action, anyhow) were not part of the agenda. We don't need some theoretical approach to notice this. I assume you've read the basic texts. There is no debate here.

If, on the other hand, you are saying that the basis for what's called wokism is something legitimate, so we should trying to tease out what that is - yes, but that has nothing to do with understanding those wokist actors. To be clear about the type of things I'm talking about - Tiffany Henyard, Patrice Collours, Stacey Clarke, Corrine Brown, Tania Fernandes Anderson (i sincerely cannot find examples of males doing this same thing. If I had seen/found egs, I'd have balanced this list). These people are corrupt and justify a lot of their behaviour with recourse to the tenets of CRT - and no, not explicitly: that's sort of my point. I don't think you can say people who do not know CRT are carrying out urges based on those underlying theoretical considerations. The chances many of these people (beside maybe Collours) are particularly aware of CRT beyond the ways in whicih is emotionally agrees with them is very low.

Rather, your unwillingness to to employ CT expresses your anti-wokeness. — praxis

Is this to note an irrational position? This does seem to be a line towed by the Woke. It isn't reasonable, imo.

Another rejection is in limiting what counts as “rational” “argumentation”. — Antony Nickles

Perhaps. I am happy with my use of irrational. I think I outlined it? If it not, its to do with goal-oriented behaviour. If you have the information to know your action will not achieve (or, is unlikely to achieve) your current goal, but you carry it out anyway (without some special condition) this is irrational. I can't quite understand how we can use it in other ways without, as you, i presume, are getting at, falling into total subjectivity. Luckily, I need not comment on whether your goal is rational (because this would be hte latter).

I don’t think it is valuing one opinion over another, but valuing one person over another. — Antony Nickles

That's a lot worse, and less capable of a rational basis in my view.

We are not at this point judging their evidence in the decision but their value at the table. — Antony Nickles

Furthering my position above. If you are judging someone's worth based on either:

1. their claims;
2. your perception of them

I can't get on that train. If it's something else, please outline.

It is not the account of their lives that is valuable, it is their having lived in the context, been affected by the current criteria/practices, etc. — Antony Nickles

Where is the value going? If we don't actually care about the account they're giving, I cannot care about who they are. Because I can't possibly know.
The fact that people go through things isn't valuable at all, as best I can tell.

the interests and needs of young trans wasn’t in the cultural awareness — Antony Nickles

I think it's more accurate to say these "needs" weren't actually an issue. We treated body dysmorphia as it appears - a mental aberration. This isn't to deny that 'trans people' exist. But it is to deny that there is any legitimate basis for the claims made by trans people about themselves.
I would temper this, because different claims get made, but the ideas that one can change sex, or is born in the wrong body (one of these has to be true for the position to cohere) seem empirically dead wrong. The idea there is no sex binary, while auxilliary, is another reason I wont temper that claim ( it is roughly, universal among discussions of the fact of trans people). These are all of them banal and incorrect.

What if that theory appreciates, as Antony appears to, that ‘rationality’ can’t be separated from what’s being dichotomously treated as merely “feeling -based’ and emotional? — Joshs

This may be a reason why it can't be done. This is a cop-out and a dismissal of that which rationality points towards: Decisions made in accordance with reason and logic. These aren't superficial or subjective metrics. You can reject them as premises of rationality but then i suggest you're the new Sisyphus.

If this isn't how you view rationality, that's fine, but it explains my position at least. Unfortunately, and again, with the utmost respect, the rest of this post reads to me like standard prevaricative, deconstructionist discourse which has never helped anyone understand anything (it results in a series of questions that can't be answered, and generally run into each other). If i'm not getting something, I apologize. But it just can't be responded to in a way other than "What are you even talking about?" so I guess I'll just eat that and assume I don't get it.

Almost entirely as expected. A non-engagement.

You have experiences. Either argue against that, or argue that you don't know about them. IF you do know about them, qualia obtain in the very knowing.

I'm not against IP rights.

They don't sound sufficiently similar to get me to take up the case, even. I wouldn't have had the client back for a second discussion. Cat Stevens is a dick. Also, for full disclosure: He didn't win.
They settled. An extremely bad settlement borne out of Stevens having more, and more expensive lawyers.

Additionally, Coyne's response to this was the weakest, most blithering apology for a non-event I've seen in popular music.

Oh, i fully agree. I'm just putting forth what I think will prevent Banno from interacting with it sufficiently, and where I think that may be able to be overcome.

wokists who may or may not have made that claim), because critical theorists are realists, not radical relativists. — Joshs

I think you may be missing a trick wihch is implicit in all our comments here... These are not synonymous. At all.

Lewis or Pierce? If Lewis, Banno rejects the premise of what he was doing. There is no sense data. The only thing i see saving this, for the purpose of discussion with Banno, is that Lewis expressly noted that the "red" is still an objective physical property, and so "redness" does obtain in that domain.
Many anti-realists posit that it doesn't. I understand the discomfort with that. But Lewis just wanted to discus hte Given, rather than the investigated, part of 'red' (or, whatever). He assesses that you can be wrong, in that a qualia could appear as x, but the object causing it is actually y. This might help move it from "I don't get it" to "here's why that makes no sense".

think about them, consider whether I should bother responding, and do so according to my own whim and fancy. — NOS4A2

This happens prior to your whim and fancy. You can't read them without thought. That's a direct cause of activity in your brain and consequently, your relevant decision making. Additionally, your following thoughts and decisions are at the whim of all your prior thoughts and decisions (though, this one, I understand you will reject and I wont press it. But it is physically true, in some neurological sense - and thats ignoring Libet).

This is fun.

:up: Yeah. I think that's quite important though. Bad faith is the most common currency at the present time (maybe, always).

So I think that if we read such people according to their own hermeneutic, then we also come to the conclusion that their philosophy is a power grab driven by primarily emotional factors. — Leontiskos

Seems to me to be true, empirically. That is to say, not a comment on Joshs' position. There may well be underlying reasons that support that type of behaviour without it being a power-grab.

However, like Terence McKenna once said "There wasn't much Stalin could do about Stalinism once it got going".

Probably a lot of ground-team type personalities reject current "woke" but still stand ten-toes deep on the original concept. Which I think its "correct" morally.

I see that plenty of objections are being ignored. Such is life...

What is at stake is a kind of relation between heat and water, and I don't see how such a relation could be construed as physical. — Leontiskos

The transfer of certain particles from heated air (or metal, i guess) into the water, ramping up the potential kinetic energy in the water until it cannot contain the energy, and must "boil" to let off heat which it cannot contain.
That seems a physical causation train. Is that not what you're looking for? Given the Davis quote and your response, I have to say there seems a trapdoor:

One could give a completely detailed and accurate account of the collision without any reference to energy whatsoever. — Paul Davies

No, they couldn't. Without explaining what's happened at the moment of impact, we have no reason to think that a collision would cause movement, descriptively (we obviously do practically). Explaining what's happened at the moment of impact would be something of the form of my (likely inaccurate) description of heat causing water to boil.

Δ-temperature caused the water to freeze. — Leontiskos

No, I don't think that's right. Δ-temperatured air (sic) causes water to freeze. The air, when in contact with the water reduces the energy in the water to the point that its constituents cannot move rapidly enough to remain fluid. These are all physical. Temperature is a way to notate the complicated relationship between mass and energy, right? Can't see the gap, myself, which you are trying to fill. But I also don't see the explanation I'm looking for either...

I mean, if causation were physical then Hume would have just pointed to it. — Leontiskos

Not if he was insufficiently resourced to do so. It may be that Hume didn't understand the transfer of energy sufficiently to understand that there are some non-trivial and non-variable ways in which that energy transfer occurs (and temperature seems to be one.. the ratios of mass/energy retention would act as a "cause" in this sense - that could, i suppose, be called non-physical but I presume you see how that's misleading and not what you're after).

To be clear, none of this is particularly intended to support a physicalist account of causation. As noted, I don't understand how it occurs. But it seems to me we can get much further on the physicalist account than you're allowing. I would suggest some of Kim and Chalmers chats about causation in the mind/brain complex could be instructive as they are extremely detailed and minute.

But energy is not physical. It is a property of physical systems. — Leontiskos

Which obtains, solely, in a physical, measurable domain. The premise seems wrong in this light... It is physical. We just can't grok quite how to describe that tension adequately.

if one remains at the surface level of ‘things wokists do that annoy us’, the baby is nothing but these arbitrary and wrongheaded actions — Joshs

I, again, am wholly convinced you're trying to have a different discussion, and save the term from what is clearly a current actuality under its banner. I do, fully agree with this, though:

There are legitimate points to be made from all different perspectives and directions. — Fire Ologist

The issue is that plenty of points on the 'woke' side are clearly illegitimate and I think that's what's being discussed. Even if we (those of us who are clearly critical) were to accept the underlying basis for "woke" as it was throughout the 70s and 80s, we can still make all of the criticisms we're currently making. That there's some coherent underlying idea doesn't change anything about these critiques. We're talking about what is/is happening - not what should be/be happening.

The responsibility to make that effort is each of our duty as moral agents, as citizens of a democracy, even the work of philosophy. — Antony Nickles

I do not thikn I agree there's any responsibility to interrogate prima facie irrational positions in hopes to find something interesting to the other person. But i understand that there's a moral/co-operative dimension to this which I agree with.

The fact that they are “underlying” is because we have not yet made the effort to look past our own criteria and (perhaps also unexamined) interests to see theirs, treat them with the respect of being able to be different but equally able to be considered once understood. — Antony Nickles

The seems to be hte exact opposite of what, in practice, occurs. I do not (almost ever) see rejections of calls for parity, equity, inclusion etc.. on emotional grounds.
I see the reverse constantly, in the face of rational argumentation.

The other problem is this(anecdote):

I have spent years trying to get rational, well-grounding and intelligible responses from the 'woke' about why they do what they do, or want what they want.

"injustice makes me feel bad" seems to be the bedrock of 90% of these people's thinking. I spent years (a decade maybe) in that exact headspace: My feelings matter. They are reasonable. They are important. Others need to take me seriously.

I then realised that was horsecrap. No one needs to take me seriously. No one has to respect my positions.No one needs to even hear my positions. If the urges are to be heard/seen etc.. then they are misguided. If they are to ameliorate ones emotional distress, they are misguided. If there are, in some sense, to do with a high-level discussion of justice, then they are misguided. Anecdote, definitely. But I have since then, approached the 'woke' with extreme sympathy because of my journey, as it were. I have never been met with reasonable discourse or sympathetic interlocutors. They notice I am not the same as them, and its over, in terms of respect. Its higihly ironic, hypocritical and gives the distinct impression the "underlying urges" are as irrational as the manifestations (wholly reasonable and expectable that they would be).

reform of wokist excesses can take place within the bounds of these philosophical ground — Joshs

They can't, it appears. Theory isn't particularly of any moment here. Those frameworks are what drives the more ridiculous of the manifestations some would critique (like a lot of University administration behaviour around DEI). I think it might a "You just don't understand" to take this line, myself. We are not ignorant to this and the surrounding development of thought - we just reject that this saves anything, i'd say.

This is to put the responsibility on them to meet our (society’s) requirements and criteria — Antony Nickles

Yes, and that is because we actually do understand

interests and reasons — Antony Nickles

by speaking to these people and reviewing what they cite as influences. This can easily be done, and regularly is done by critics. It is not a reflection of reality to suggest we don't understand their motivations, desires or needs. That is special pleading of a kind.

If we grasp at something like this with our terms for judgment, we only see what we want. — Antony Nickles

I disagree. You might. But besides this, I see no problem. That's their problem at this point of the journey. If they refuse to become either explicit, rational and intelligible, I can't do anything with that. I can only do something with what I am given. This isn't to dismiss the point you've actually made - it may well be hte crux of the tension. I just don't see this as at all incumbent on my or my "side" as it were.

It is not a matter of being a metric (a criteria for accuracy—which is judged differently), but an expert as a valued source of evidence of what matters, perspective on our current criteria. — Antony Nickles

I can't make heads or tails of this. It is a metric for valuing those opinions. And the metric is amorphous, indefinable and obviously impossible to arbitrate in that lane (lived experience). There is no way to value an opinion over another outside of actual expertise, as you then go on to outline. A "legal opinion" is not a personal opinion.

I believe the claim is that in certain situations (as I discussed), it matters to have input from someone who has lived through something. — Antony Nickles

Yes, i understand the claim. I largely reject it. It is almost entirely impossible to give a reasonable, helpful account of osmething one lived through because we cannot extract ourselves from the effects we are experiencing. People experience things so radically differently, there's simply no way to choose which opinions can be called "important" and to what end. I think.

Was it unconscious disdain for their own consumer demographic by an enlightened and awoken upper leadership? — Fire Ologist

Yet, a company like Jaguar has conscious disdain for their consumer demographic and reduced their sales by 90%. Because no one likes the product. No one wants a can of Bud with a clear male dressed as a woman(i'm happy to call Dylan she, I'm just making the point). That's odd, irrelevant and off-putting, even if you're fine with transwomen. Dylan, particularly, appears to be a mentally ill narcissist. Nothing to do with cisnormativity. That type of claim (made by praxis, not you) is tantamount to saying "the reason I need to support my position is the one which is true". But given praxis wasn't in the boycott group, that seems a little off. Someone in the boycott group can easily give explicit reasons, and they mostly amount to the above (when asked by me, or what i've seen online, anyway).

Those who want to utterly downplay and de-prioritize them (from the right) should not get away with it. — Fire Ologist

They don't. They say they are not the problems the Woke present them to us as. Is racism extant? Yep. Is it systemic?? Almost certainly not. The law doesn't allow it. Yet, any perceived disparity will be held up as an example of it. We can play that game in the reverse, and support hte idea that hte USA is highly sexist against Men, for instance.

I'm going to give praxis' challenge a go from the post below also:

I would say that the only "woke" way of looking at this is that there's a tension in language, and that the cis-normative men were threatened by a feminine spokesperson, and particularly a male who is so feminine, she's a woman, representing them. That discomfort must be borne of homophobia and transphobia because there aren't other rational reasons (or, alternately, they are all what's called "dog whistles").

Just so you're aware, this is what I was told. Not what I am imagining.

I see some, what I take to be, confusion in the direction of how these things work, so forgive if something seems out of step...

There are physical facts that are simple enough to be modelled by an equation — flannel jesus

I do not think causation is one, though. Predictability obtains, sure, but no explanations can be found. We can model effects from causes, but we can't model mechanisms sufficiently low-level to explain the causation. So I take your point that these are separate considerations, but..

We can predict, with 100% certainty, that a conscious thought will alter the body (or, vice verse.. we can't know, or even know if its' a reasonable question at this stage). That we cannot explain this doesn't seem to do much. We can't explain (properly) why momentum of body+another body = movement (inter alia) ). I entirely accept that these are things we can objectively model and that this sets them apart from what I'm suggesting. But I do not think the framework for understanding how to react to these facts changes. We know this thing happens, and we can't access even the right realm to figure out why (i presume you would nneed to not be a human mind to do this). Similar with physical causation, you'd need to be askance from it to explain it fully from without.

The issue for me here, and this goes direct to Kim i guess, is that we need not then fall into a "physicalism of a kind" to explain the oddities which physicalism proper doesn't seem to grasp fully.
We could just as well say well, the mind interacts with the body because that's how it is. We can't explain it, but we have literally endless evidence.

worthy of being taken seriously — Antony Nickles

It's this part that I think falters. For the person who rejects your moral position, you wont be taken seriously. There are plenty of 'woke' 'commands' (land acknowledgements, pronoun use etc..) which are routinely not taken seriously on expressly moral grounds. Again, i'm not saying anything moral about the two possible outcomes, but I'm trying to show that most 'moral' positions cannot be made to be sensible to others who don't intuitively get the point of the moral claim being made.

I think you may be using “irrational” as in something like unpredictable, but also claim reasons are “irrational” when maybe they are just not understood. — Antony Nickles

I see that this is something I've not accounted for, but I wasn't using it that way. When i say 'irrational' I mean not something "the right-thinking person" would actually engage in (vigilante justice is a good example here, where there's good self-interest and perhaps even community interest, but it is irrational to put one in the position of potentially facing life in prison for front-footing the law). Rationality would be something where you've assessed your goal and made a good faith deliberation about what might get you to your goal. This speaks, again, to the inability to legitimize one's moral positions to others. Some would say vigilante justice is 100% rational and its worth a life in prison to, say, remove ten child predators from the world. I can't understand that, but I don't call it irrational, once I know the person's position. I have no place to judge it that way, unless their actions expressly forego achieving their goal.

Analogously, everyone can have an opinion, but there are actual reasons we prioritize their value. — Antony Nickles

I agree, but our reasons are incoherent (when read acorss several avenues of application). We do not accept that 'lived experience' is a good metric for an accurate appraisal of anything, until it comes to how one has been victimized. But this may be the most skew-able reactionary device in the human mind. Over-reacting, post-hoc rationalization among other things seem to make this type of data-crunching immune to being helpful.

I pause here to make a carve-out for what's called Epistemic Injustice. In those cases, the lived experience and the reportage thereof is all we could possibly use to move ourselves forward in the sense wanted by the one reporting. This isn't the same as taking D'3'Vyon (de-tray-vee-on) at his word when he claims he found a noose on his school desk and that's why he robbed a store and punched a pregnant woman (or whatever - many such stories) and requires much more of, I think, what you're getting at. The former concept (i.e policy considerations, or instantiating social norms) doesn't seem to accept this type of assessment without falling into totally irrational nonsense in fairly short-order.

The final thought there, is that "valuing" opinions is insane, on a policy level, unless we're talking expertise. Life Experience is not expertise, in any sense, to my mind. Maybe there's a disconnect there.

There is no equal opportunity or equal productivity or equal pay - these are specific particular, diverse conditions that will never be equalized, and it is to the detriment of all of us to pretend otherwise. — Fire Ologist

This is the nail being struck, I think. The wishful thinking about wanting to remove disparities has been, and I think will continue to be, wholly destructive. People do different shit. Grow up.

You've done much more which I commend in the post below this one (not all, but I don't want this reply to go on and on).

Its been at least a year, and that's just since i've been here. I'll take a crack.

If "qualia" is a collective noun for "red", "loud" and so on, then I've no great problem with it. That seems ot be how it is used in the research named in the OP. — Banno

So far so good... That's one use (but much research is equivocal as to whether they mean an intangible entity of mind (i.e the "liking" aspect of your Hanover sentence used between this i've quoted post, and my reply) which no one would argue with. This could easily be reduced to describing a class of shades, though. "red' being a collective for anything from deep, crimson red to some kind of off-pink. Not anything about sensations. That could simply be a deeper consideration in the use of hte words. Anyway... generally, yep. That's fine.

If it is a name for an otherwise private sensation, then I can't see how to make sense of of it. — Banno

"otherwise" than..? A hotch-potch catch-all for we-really-know-not-what? That nit-pick aside, I'm unsure what's insensible. We all "sense" red as it were, and discuss our sensations. If we label that collective pool of agreed sensations "red" then we're doing something different than your first, accepted, use of the word 'red'. And it is clearly sensible. We can think about it, then chat about it and compare notes. We just cannot know ever, if when we say "I see what you mean" we actually do. An unfortunate reality of other minds existing, i suppose.

That is how it is used by some philosophers. — Banno

Yes, certainly. I think all that those philosophers are doing is noticing the difference in use I did earlier in this reply.

U1: A collective noun for all that humans report that they perceive as red (this being hte spectrum of shade/hue etc..)
U2: The various perceptions of red (this being not a spectrum, but a pool of closely-related reports (though, some will not be that closely related, tbf).

Colorblindness for instance matters to the first, not the second. "Where most see red, you see green" is not a discussion about sensations. The correlated qualia occur when taking U2 seriously, whether or not they fit into the labels used for U1. But if the correlated quale does not obtain in U2 terms, then that subject can't discuss it in U1 terms.

I just can't understand what you can't make sense of. Trying to layout how it makes sense...

So by, "Making guns scarce," one actually means, "Making guns scarce for one group while making them readily available for another group. — Leontiskos

I don't think too many people would shy away from this. It's the underlying justification and detail that makes people squirm.

Who holds the guns? You can name several classes that, prima facie, seem up for the job (as OP did, i think).
IN reality, they are all humans. Back to square 1. I'm unsure this is the biggest problem with modern political sophistry, but it is probably hte one popular discourse trips up on hte most (and why most discourse turns into yelling matches).

Morality can be rational, but there is absolutely no non-telelogical way to make it 'legitimate'. I think this is the majority of the problem people are having - substituting something rational for something irrational in order to legitimize moral behaviours (in this case, obviously we're going to be referring rationally immoral behaviour, say violently attacking ICE agents who are, at the time, doing nothing). The irrational substrate of the supporting framework for such behaviour is what's driving much of 'woke' moral discourse. This is irrational. If you then say "lived experience is the only true source of information one can rely on" we get a corner in which irrational behaviour is hte only justifiable behaviour (this is rather simplified, to be sure).

That said, I'm not standing behind that - it just explains, I think, what's being unseen in the exchange above this.

This said, i think the most intuitive problem is that, generally, the 'woke' claim that morality is rational, but relative. If so, they have absolutely no place to make moral commands of others, even in their own culture. That is to say: one ought not throw stones once one denounces stone-throwing.

I find it hard to understand causation, properly, in physical terms. I've been reading a bit of Kim lately and "near enough" seems the best level of explanation we can get for causation of any kind, really. Practically, there are inarguables: heat causes X, speed causes X and so on.. But how? *sigh*.

I'm not sure what you're talking about/referring to/wanting to clarify. So, maybe something below will help lol.

Only my first couple of lines were aimed at you, personally and are pretty banal. Besides that, my comments are general (though, I have edited in a response directly to you at the bottom). The bulk is, on reflection, a pretty clear attempt at understanding what in your thinking seems bogus to those of us on the other side. Wanting clear, simple descriptions of difficult circumstances of existence(sight, emotion, interaction) seems a good reason as any to go in those directions. That's all. Descriptions can be wrong, so simply, intuitive descriptions don't seem to give reason to assent to theories that rely on those descriptions (and in very large part eg "..the damn thing goes up.." )

The final, edited-in responses to you seem clear enough. Can't see what you're not getting there.. Your post hoping that it (the post itself) clarifies why you're skeptical on qualia doesn't, in fact, clarify why you're hesitant about qualia. I give reasons for that being so. I tried to find a connection in your post, and traversed a couple that didn't seem to do anything..

Yes, I agree with that. I think that's possibly where you and I have fallen out on this topic previously. We don't agree on what's also going on there. There's reportage happening, and I think we disagree on what's being reported.

Regarding Chalmers and the couple of notes above, its clear that Qualia is the Hard Problem (or, explanation thereof). I think what's happening is similar to with Austin(with sense-data) - we want to ignore the Hard part, instead opting for descriptions that don't require them. That is often hard (i.,e you need to be truly clever to make sense) and takes some seriously doing in terms of getting others on board (from outside, it looks a little like hiding the ball, but I know that's not the intent, or the claimed result). But simpler descriptions with less room for disagreement or error are generally preferable so those two outcomes (i.e removing Qualia ala Dennett and removing sense-data ala Austin) are totally reasonable, and almost certainly preferable intellectually speaking. If the case is that consciousness is somehow magical, we're kind of fucked, intellectually, in understand much of anything from there.

The problem is descriptions can be wrong. In these two cases, there seems no adjudicator. So I think what Outland is asking might be the correct way to go about theorizing on this subject.

Compare: What is it like to be in love? Well, it's not any one thing. In a very real sense there is not a thing it is like to be in love. — Banno

Hmm interesting. I'm unsure this says much about the premise there though. I'd say "What it's like to be..." something is a bundle of sensations which cohere, in some way - rather than a specific state that can be distilled into a direct description. "What it's like to be in love" for Amadeus Diamond is, presumably, quite qualitatively different to "What it's like for Sir Bannock to be in love". I don't think that tells us anything besides our qualia differ, and have common features. Its common for several, unrelated films to include explosions, but they occur very different depending on the whole of the preceding detail.

This is all to say: Its not clear to me how that post (or, from memory, related comments elsewhere) supports hesitancy around Qualia. Not that there aren't good reasons, It's just not clear to me how this does it for you.

Embarrassingly just picked up Spinozas Ethics

My basic objection is that if they are private experiences then they are unavailable for discussion, and if they are available for discussion then they seem to be just what we ordinarily talk about using words like "red" and "loud".

So not of much use. — Banno

I'm not really making an argument here, but comment (and on the two parts of the above quote separately).

If qualia are private experiences, we can still talk about them. It is a total non-sequitur to suggest otherwise. Pain is a private sensation, differing almost universallly between subjects. But we discuss it ad nauseum. Usually to our detriment (this comes into play in a moment..). We can discuss our private experiences. That qualia is the category in which these occur (presuming they are 'some-thing'). Doesn't seem to change this. We can discuss pain the abstract too. What's the difference with catch-all qualia (as opposed to more specific internal sensations) that you're seeing to preclude us from discussing it (if private)?

If qualia are available for discussion, it just means someone brought up their internal sensations. Approximation is a pretty nifty tool.

But that's all we get. Approximation. Might even be quite close approximation, but ultimately, qualia is not helpful for understanding consciousness. It is helpful for presenting which questions are(might be?) apt for exploration. Facts are no one has solved these problems, so on we go..

One of their best.



I'm-a gonna go,
Gonna load my shot gun
Point that barrel right where it hurts
Ain't no telling where I'll go after;
Might not be better but it can't get worse

And I could tell you but you can't imagine,
The first breath on the edge of this chasm (sometimes "After nothing happens)
You ain't cried like that since you come out your mother
Only thing holding back the great hereafter

Is bad primers
With good timing

I'm-a gonna go,
Gonna load my.....

Random. Big fan - saw them in a little club here a few years back.

Please try to say something relevant instead of drive-by emotional outbursts, lest ye be hypocrite #1 :)

Hmm. Having read several of the more substantial responses, I think I am further pushed into my position: Guns are necessary to level the field, whether between or intra-species. This seems enough.

Control, though, is tricky for one reason only: The enforcement of gun control requires gun use. I'm unsure I need to explain why that's tricky.

Very much enjoying most comments here.

The only thing I'd say is that it seems to me we're still in the middle of all this. We're not really past, or prior to 'peak' anything. Things are just moving as they always have, in hte face of both the increase in technology (this could mean reporting, live-streaming, accessibility issues, presentation issues, networking issues, misinformation... anything technologically-driven that relates to our topic) and in turn, the increase in leisure (as mentioned earlier in the thread).

These both lead to people capable of doing things out of boredom and becoming convinced it's meaningful. This, it seems, hasn't peaked.

So, I have three points. Please take hte first one gently, as I conclude somewhat different to how this reads (also, ignore the bolds until the conclusion which references them):

1. I think much of the above is self-involved wittering in the style of the Continentals, and I do not think you will be surprised by my position; HOWEVER;
2. You are not wrong. This, for example:

rejects the Kuhnian implication of critical theoretic approaches to objective truth — Joshs

and

languaged concepts hook up to objective truths which transcend cultural dynamics — Joshs

I think are true, regardless of Kuhn (though, obviously one of the best to articulate it). I think you're simply over-playing the hand this gives you, I guess. Not a massive objection but I think it means our approach to what Doyle is saying will necessarily come apart.

I suggest that Doyle’s rejection of this crucial philosophical underpinning of wokism motivates his rejection of it. — Joshs

To some degree that's going to be unavoidable: If we do not believe language creates structures "in the world" then we cannot assent to an ideology which takes this as fundamentally inarguable (which it is - Iand thats the main problem I have with Wokists. There is no discussion to be had. Its a brick wall. Contrary to their fundamental positions). I think Doyle is grokking this and it is almost impossible to see from inside the bubble. From, i expect, your perspective, these are simply "the way things are" type of statements you're making. I don't take them as such when considering them. They are arguable.

he would still find it wanting in comparison with his non-relativistic liberalism — Joshs

That is also, possibly, true, but something peculiar to Doyle and his own outlook - not his reasoning and research skills. I think I, too, would probably want to critique many views and beliefs thought of in this category despite not being asked to participate (which is what wokists do, generally usually with threats) the way I used to critique Vera constantly. Not because she wanted me to believe what she did, but because much of what she had to say was patently irrational, historically inaccurate or incoherent within her own worldview. These aren't critiques of a category, per se, but critiques of bad thinking. I suggest this is what Doyle is doing, but his current purpose is firmly embedded in taking to task the bolded items above as they appear to be features of those carrying the Woke ideology currentrly