Correct. But it has always been in reference to the fact one is a man by sex. "You are not acting to the standards that I or this group personally expect a person of your sex to act." And what is that? Prejudice and sexism.

Exactly. As you know. I'm conceptually clear on the difference between sex and gender and biological and other social contexts and potentially different definitions per context.

So yes they are refering to the cultural expectations they had for a sex. And I can imagine lesbian women getting annoyed. After hearing ''you're not a woman. You're a man''.

On tomboys and the separation from genitalia

Well given that a lesbian woman isn't a man. Sex wise. And given they (ordinary people) would be using on their own initiative and accord what we now call gender to identify them as man qua gender. Then they might have decided reasonably so that. ''if woman qua gender is not what I am. And I am also not a man qua gender (cultural wise or whatever) (the lesbian woman might disagree that she is a man qua gender). They might then conclude that they are neither. Or thus non binary. A -non binary qua gender- lesbian -woman qua sex-.

And some or many lesbian women were called ''tomboy''. Meaning the gender they (ordinary people) used. Was already separated from genitalia. (Not to say they didn't realize that the tomboy had a vagina to be clear). But clearly calling a person born with a natural vagina a tomBOY. Is ascribing a gender based on cultural expectations separated from the genitalia the person actually owns.

But given this fact. That it is ordinary People that invented or at least significantly used such genitalia separated definitions. It is then only reasonable that annoyed or analytic lesbian or ordinary people detected this pattern. And formalized it as we do all the time.

It would then be even more horribly unfair. If the same people that would use or create such terms such as tomboy for woman qua sex. Would then claim that it is unfair to define gender mostly in cultural aspects and separate from genitalia.

I am trying to communicate the idea that we should not be making special demands of society for individuals or pockets of cultures

I would say the opposite. We should help the less fortunate.
We should make roads more accessible and safe for blind people. We should make sure that disabled people have a large enough closed toilet. And if a person has gone through surgery to have a vagina. And they belief they have a soul or some brain composition that is female. Then I think we should take the option that takes less energy, we should choose joy and kindness over hatred or annoyance, inclusion over exclusion, creates more happiness and respect. And say "she" around them.

To my observations, the gender experiment has largely failed. People are angry."

That must be an internet echo chamber thing or a national thing. Most people I know are fine with it. They move on
— Jack2848

"Most people you know" is not a metric of judging people.

People are angry is universal claim. Technically i need only pick one person to prove it wrong. That would be me. But giving the claim some charity. I will take it to assume that most people in the world are angry that if they see a transitioned trans woman that if they meet them they would have to say "she" during conversation if they are near.

Well I can't speak for the world. But I can speak for every single company I have worked for so far. Most people wouldn't be angry. Additionally most people on the tv networks aren't angry. In fact. Most people that are annoyed , not angry with it. Would for far right. In my country. Yet only about 20% voted for the far right here. So again most people aren't annoyed enough let alone angry that they would vote for them.

I would bet you thousands of euros and we go on the streets to ask people. If you see a transwoman. Would you be angry that there's a social not official expectation that you call them she while they are around? And I would take your money.

Narcissism is the idea that oneself has the right to ask others special treatment for themselves, as an elevation of their own importance over someone else's time and energy. To demand another person give their time and energy is to assume one is superior to that other person. In some cases this is so, but it should not be asserted without strong reason.

On narcissism

If tomorrow you fully believed that you are a woman. For years you are depressed. You make a vagina where your penis is. You dress like a woman and you take hormones and so on. And you fully belief that your brain or soul or whatever is a woman. And that if you are anything that it is this soul or brain. Then if you truly can't be shaken from that belief because that's how the neurons work in your brain. Then given that you would be asking to be called what you are rather than what you aren't when people mistakenly call you what you aren't -in your reconstruction of the world-. Then it is not at all a special request. And not at all a request for special treatment. It is then a request for respect in their perception of reality. So to judge that situation you need an internal view. If a person truly believes that every single person on this planet wants to kill them. Then if that person in their delusion protects himself from something that isn't happening. Then as a judge I shouldn't just look at the external consequences. I should look at the internal experience to which they responded. And then I get understanding and of course empathy. And I would say a fairer judgment.

Again, wonderful. I'm glad you have the energy, mentality, and enjoyment to do so. That is not most people. And it is not a demand that we should make of most people.

On energy

The energy is easy. It takes less energy to say. "Hi woman" to someone wearing female clothes and who looks enough like one. Or to not mention woman or man at all and say 'hello''. Or to say "she". Then to do all we are doing here. That's a neurological fact. So if energy is what concerns you. It's an easy choice.

On enjoyment

If it's enjoyment. Then one can ask. Is it more enjoyable to make someone happy or sad? That will depend on character. So it's subjective.

On quantity

I would have to disagree that most people aren't fine to call a transwoman a woman when they meet them.
It might be that you're in an echo chamber or some country where my statement doesn't apply correctly.

But in my country. Almost nobody has a problem to say woman or man based on how they express themselves. Almost nobody. Except some people on the far right. But even most people that I know from the far right at my job. Or who I suspect to vote for them. Are fine with calling them that way. So again here I think we are not agreeing on the facts.

Again, wonderful. I'm glad you have the energy, mentality, and enjoyment to do so. That is not most people. And it is not a demand that we should make of most people.

On energy

The energy is easy. It takes less energy to say. Hi woman to someone wearing female clothes and who looks enough like one. Then to do all we are doing here. That's a neurological fact.

On quantity

I would have to disagree that most people aren't fine to call a trans woman a woman when they meet them.
It might be that you're in an echo chamber or some country where my statement doesn't apply correctly.

But in my country. Almost nobody has a problem to say woman or man based on how they express themselves. Almost nobody. Except some people on the far right. But even most people that I know from the far right at my job. Or who I suspect to vote for them. Are fine with calling them that way. So again here I think we are not agreeing on the facts.

When I get checked out by a cashier I don't tell them to address me in a special way. "No, that's DR. don't you see this lab coat that I'm wearing?" is out of line.

I'd initially give you this point. But a person's job title is an accidental property. Whereas a person's gender or sex is essential to one's identity.(Qualitatively). Additionally the example you give would be indeed uncalled for. As the person's job title is not important in that context, nor is he called a truck driver instead of lab researcher.

However. If a person truly believes they are a woman, And the cashier addresses them as a man although they dress as a woman and have undergone surgery and they look more female then male. Then although it looks irrational from the outside. From the inside it's not unreasonable that they ask to be called the sex or gender they believe to be or how they express. It's fine to politely ask. ''I would prefer you call me by my name or call me man'' or ''it's man''.
Or for the cashier it's also possible to take your example to not mention man or woman. Just like in the example they didn't mention the job title. And then the transperson won't ask "hey you didn't call me a woman" because there wouldn't be a reason to.

On politeness:
It would also be within the reasonably expected parameters of politeness to say "ok. Sorry there "x" if you said man to a person with an artificial or constructed vagina, makeup, long hair, feminine voice and what not. In the social context. I don't mind using a different definition then in a medical one.

So it seems here unless you accept these points. We will have to agree to disagree.

I have thought about this recently. There's nothing we can say that we have to do ethically. Agrippa's Trilemma shows that we will fail to prove it.

So I ask myself what's a good ethical metric. For me that's "everyone maximum wellbeing".
Which doesn't mean just happiness. It means potential for education, healthcare, truth and so on.

So when I catch myself saying I don't have to do something just because it's better relative to my own metric. As best I can definitely if the effort is small. I try to ask. "Given I don't have to do anything. What can help me create more people with maximum wellbeing. What helps me get closer to that"

And that's simple. It's like with the demented person. You try make the transitioned person feel as best you can. And you don't lie when asked. You thoughtfully share your view. You make sure that gender as a concept is about how one personally feels rather than biology. And you move on.

What should be owed is polite acceptance where one's deficiency is not overtly pointed out or lied about.

That's a personal definition of politeness.
Most would agree that calling them how they want to be called is more in line with politeness. I don't mind calling you Scarface if you ask me. Nor do I mind calling you Brad Pitt if you ask me. I'd love to.

Can you expect it of me? Expect in a sense that it must happen. No because 1. We can't prove anything must happen. I can't even prove you mustn't kill people. 2. As you say there's complex potentially deterministic I add network of stuff going on as we navigate the world.
But relative to the main metric I use to create wellbeing and happy people. I'd say yes you can expect in an idealistic sense. Not in a sense that denies the former. But more in a desire sense. Like I can't expect you not to kill me in one realistic sense. But in idealistic ethical sense I can. And for me this goes all the way down. I'd want you to not kick me for example. It's a social contract expecting.

When people start demanding things of culture that are more complex, problems start to happen.

I don't find it hard to call you Brad Pitt if you ask me to. As long as we all know who you are and how the world works. Then even thought I don't have to do anything. I love to give you that good feeling.

its an attempt to get society to treat you in a way that you personally desire, not accepting that the norms of society are not obligated to give you that. Again, this is either narcissism or mental delusion.

We have a very big amount of social contracts. Most abide by sat least some rules that in essence are ways that we try to get people to act in a way desireable to us. Not kill. Be emphatic. Not steal. Say true things. In that case we are all narcissistic.
So then one must show why a person is a narcissist if they do it with gender.


"To my observations, the gender experiment has largely failed. People are angry."

That must be an internet echo chamber thing or a national thing. Most people I know are fine with it. They move on

I feel it is perfectly fine to call out that a transitioned individual is not special in anyway, a human like everyone else, and should not expect anything more in society besides polite acceptance.

I think this is innately understood at some level, which is why gender was invented and used as it is.

This implies gender was invented because transitioned people needed to be seen as special .
But whether or not that is what you meant.

Gender in some form has always existed.
In the movie the godfather the Don says to johnny Fontane "you can act like a man" . But he is a man so he is acting like a man. People might have said to lesbian women "she isn't a woman" .
So since they were women. They must have been referring to something else. Like cultural expectations and behavior that deviated from other people with vaginas.

So one can more reasonably argue that those people took the concept that ordinary people used to point out the specialness. And owned it. So then if the creator is narcissistic for pointing out specialness. It's ordinary people.

But what people tend to do is either believe that somehow it's possible or that possibly something is going on that goes beyond bad logic and actually touches on something about the brain that is yet unknown. And that we should have empathy for whatever this something is. Because if we are wrong and deny their claims, that's a moral horror. Whereas if we are right and their claims about being x in a not x body are wrong. Then it also feels bad for them.
— Jack2848

I suppose this is an issue for me. Someone feeling bad about other people's perception of reality just doesn't seem to be a viable argument of obligation. I want to be clear, I don't mean bullying abuse, or intentional disrespect. Its about feeling bad about reality. That's just life. Reality has its ups and downs, and there are many realities that are uncomfortable that we have to learn to deal with.

To show this is not an armchair claim, I have bad facial scars from years of acne. I have rolling scars not only over my cheeks, but my forehead. I take people's breath away.......

Sorry for the late reply. Your response was very thoughtful and effortfull and I'd love to reply.

We seem to agree technically. But I think you might have missed the case I was making in the quotes section. (Re-reading it, it was probably my lack of clarity)

What I meant was. Suppose that one day we find some configuration of a human brain (cocktail of chemicals and electrical signal tendencies or whatever) that correlate strongly with women. And a different configuration in the brain with men. And that some are born with a brain that usually correlates with women but is in a male body. As a result they would detect this.

If that were so, then our current non empathy while missing that knowledge would be horrible to say the least. That wouldn't be like people look at your scars and having various unpleasant reactions. That would be you being Brad Pitt and half the people gaslighting you into thinking that your scarred and burned and what not. And half the people saying "Don't mind those other people, you are clearly Brad Pitt. You're good as you are. We accept you"

Whereas if there isn't such a thing. Then it's one not being Brad Pitt and claiming one is. And half of the people agree to make you feel better and the other half doesn't. The question we could ask after laying out an analysis is. If we don't fully know what's what and if the goal is to produce more wellbeing for people alive and Future generations. How do we want to treat Brad Pitt and how do we want to treat Ugly Betty. Or anyone who is right or wrong about themselves?

Probably we want to not become delusional but we also want to be supportive. If a demented person truly believes they are in the 70's. And they won't reject that claim. That let them live in the 70's. While we obviously will recognize our modern day status.

But I get that ideally we would toughen up if we are the ones on the receiving end of difficult remarks. Because we have to survive. But I -wouldn't- say that you -can't- expect people to manage their emotions such that they could have this conversation in front of you without treating you like a monster. And it's relative to that prior ethical metric that we can expect that. To some degree it's reasonable to have some anger arise about the failure on their end. But an automatic response to a first sight of you is indeed unavoidable.

I haven't read everything you said after your OP. But if it remained as fair and civil. Then I can say I support your view mostly.

The thing is. In this discussion people often become less fair. They make assumptions about such an OP..and as a result they suddenly stop being philosophers. Deeply unfair offcourse. To be unfair and then not engage in proper discussion and project unfairness.

That said. If it is really so that I can be a woman (sex) in a male (sex) body. (I know one could define it as being a different gender role in a different body. But most people wouldn't fully be man or woman then if we strip the need for genitals, and additionally, eventually people often do they to assume they are truly more then just the societal role in a different body, they often tie it to hormones) Then some form of dualism must be true. then that's not so hard really. And how do we track this dualism? If it's a soul
Good luck. If it's property dualism arising from the brain also good luck. That will get messy. Because in the end the premises and logic used to derive one is a woman (sex) in a male (sex body) is likely to be very very problematic.

But what people tend to do is either believe that somehow it's possible or that possibly something is going on that goes beyond bad logic and actually touches on something about the brain that is yet unknown. And that we should have empathy for whatever this something is. Because if we are wrong and deny their claims, that's a moral horror. Whereas if we are right and their claims about being x in a not x body are wrong. Then it also feels bad for them.

The problem though is that there are many other cases where people believe something very strongly and if they are denied assent on their beliefs they can also feel very alone. Some even get institutionalized for other types of beliefs. Maybe they'd also feel better if we played along? I guess the key difference is the other beliefs (non gender or sex related) are usually less trivial more dangerous.

I however don't think that an entire society should lie. It's best we make a a clear difference between my mom who's born with a vagina and can have children and someone born with a penis who can't ever have children , who has to take hormones to bodily become more like a woman (sex). We can call them 'woman' (gender) in most social contexts (for empathy and reason). But we also should refrain from calling them genetic or biological women. (As to not become unfair, unrealistic, nor commit philosophical suicide)

You could tie it to hormonal levels. But most have to take hormones to change. Showing that they weren't already thanks to hormones other then their body. But yes. We can choose to call them whatever they like to be called. It's not a big deal. But let's be fair.

Hmm I think I was quite aware of your definition for consciousness as I stated it as subjective experience.
I just assume for now that we need neurons for a subjective experience.

But this is a reasonable conclusion. (For me as a non expert in subjective experience and what gives rise to it)

As organisms become simpler perhaps at some point the light of consciousness suddenly switches off, with simpler organisms having no subjective experience at all. But it is also possible that the light of consciousness never switches off entirely,

I think "to be now". Means to be aware of what you are doing currently mentally. Or to be acutely aware of your direct environment. But in any of these cases I think it's often important that you are alternating between these states of awareness. As to not forget where your attention is. (Which is what the salience network helps with , so I have heard).

But there's also your body. Which is always here and now. Your thinking, even if it is about the future happens here and now. You can be highly aware of potential future related thoughts and objects of awareness in the now. So since your attention can seemingly be elsewhere. Your body isn't. So in meditation circles they seem to define you as your attention or most intense awareness.

I would ask. Is it really a problem that your thinking about the past or the future? When thoughts about the future or past arise. They are an opportunity to analyze them. To revisit them and learn from them.

You could interpret your thoughts as an automatic mechanism. It brings up thoughts that are true or false. When memories arise they can be dug for knowledge. They shouldn't just come and go necessarily.

I see you're saying something similar as Nietzsche. He would probably say. "Platonists misinterpret their body".

I'm not a Platonist. I don't believe in a separate realm or magical dualism as far as I know.

But at the same time. It seems clear that when reality is configured as it is in you and me. And when it thinks of i.e. the idea of a dragon. Then it isn't just electrical signals and chemicals. A dragon doesn't exist. Yet these signals and neurons which do exist and are thus reality somehow create non reality. As if experience and neurons at this level almost create a new dimension in which this non reality is possible to exist. But it happens in that physical anchor somehow.

We can't say that ideas are merely a fiction and all that exists is those particles. Those particles re-arranged rocks willingly, intentionally to create the first pyramid out of an idea. It didn't do it by not imagining something that wasn't there.

It's just mind boggling.

To answer:
"What knowledge does my theory contradict?"

The knowledge we currently have. Which is tentative is that consciousness/subjective experience is not something that is possible without some neurons. A quark has no neurons hence a quark wouldn't have subjective experience/consciousness.
You could say that ultimately we don't know. But practically we can tentatively claim to know.
Just like ultimately we don't know whether five seconds from now the earth will spin. But practically and tentatively we do know.

.....

Ok so subjective experience is consciousness. And the quark would be experiencing that it exists. (Something you might hear in a meditation retreat. Especially a non dual one). The issue with that is. When we experience in meditation, the sense of just existing. We have quite the system to back it up. Neurons.

Now you mighty say that our non dual meditation successes are still taking in sensory data so it's not a good analogy. Fair enough.
So we should ask. How do we know that a chair which gives no sign of subjective experience has subjective experience? A human in a coma we might keep alive even if they aren't having any dream or anything. But a chair... Is not something we would consider having such an experience. In fact if they do. Then they become moral beings worthy of consideration. A chair would be a living being. Since to experience requires to be alive. By definition. It would mean quarks have to be alive. No such indications are there. They just move. So yes it's the more radical view given our knowledge.

To be honest I do ..like.. the idea. It would be beautiful it is true. If all energy and matter is alive and having subjective experience. Which through merging and complexity becomes able to increase its ability to experience with more complexity. It is a extraordinarily beautiful idea. And in some sense I even hope it's true. But I can't let that be a bias. With current knowledge it's more reasonable to tentatively hold that subjective experience requires neurons. Or maybe so with my current knowledge. Maybe AI experts would say something different. Maybe neural simulations can have a cognitive subjective experience. But then again because they would be simulating neurons (to a degree).
I'd say I am not entirely closed to the idea. But extremely skeptical.

A question. Can you have subjective experience without any kind of awareness? It seems unlikely. You would need to be aware of yourself existing if you are to be aware of the fact that you simply exist.

How would that work without some form of cognition or mind? How would that work without more complexity then just a quark? Where does the quark get it's self awareness? And wouldn't that contradict the more complex animals that aren't self aware but only outwardly aware even with their complexity?

So it seems your saying:
1. Consciousness is fundamental.
2. Subjective experience is fundamental.
3. Both are thus an essential property of fundamental particles or whatever is fundamental in the universe.
4. The fundamental particles have no mind even though they have consciousness and subjective experience. And this is because at that level , consciousness is simple existence.
5. When fundamental particles become a process, from its configuration emerges one shared subjective experience and consciousness (i.e. in an apple or a chair or a human or a bacteria).
6. At some point such a configuration can bring about a mind and as a result necessarily thoughts.
7. If there are thoughts there must be a mind. If there is a mind there must be a thought.
8. Thoughts aren't necessarily ideas, nor necessarily abstract (i.e. don't necessarily are in language form)
9. So what you say are thoughts isn't necessarily in word form
10. Chat gpt has an emergent shared subjective experience and consciousness arising from the fundamental particles. And because it takes inputs from the environment and outputs data in order to sustain its usefulness and thus its existence. And because it has cognition (thoughts) it's said to have a mind.

It was definitely interesting. So a few things came to mind. The first is obviously that you're attribution of consciousness to fundamental particles contradicts current knowledge and not just current knowledge but also expectations of future knowledge, possibly even up until eternity. So it's almost a religious move.

I think you sense this. And this is why the second issue arose. Namely the definition you use for consciousness and subjective experience for fundamental particles and everything else as a result. No longer requires the usual abilities. Such as a living real-time changing awareness rather than a dead one.
You even define consciousness at the fundamental level as 'just existing'. Which makes sense because there's not much there at that level.

But that means that consciousness and subjective experience now mean ''existence''. Later when a more complex thing forms like a chair or a human. Given that subjective experience and consciousness arise from the fundamental and are merely existence. Then when they combine. Their consciousness and experience is also merely existence. It's then mind that emerges from the human configuration and the configuration that gives rise to awareness and so on.

So since consciousness and subjective experience are always present and are just existence. And chairs have consciousness and subjective experience. So in other words chairs exist.

But animals and humans have respectively cognition, and high level cognition (mind activity, thoughts, abstract or not abstract) such that they can feel pain and enjoy pleasure. Which we used to call subjective experience. (Which now is deemed existence). We then need a new word for this activity. When animals and humans feel, and laugh, or cry and so on.

.....

But then we are just changing words but it won't change the content. It won't change that a fundamental particle doesn't feel pain or pleasure.
If you were to make a new claim that fundamental subjective experience isn't merely existence, but rather that it is really feeling, sensing. Then how can we prove this? That would mean my chair is hurt by my sitting on it?

So I said if you have the image of a marble in your head. It's the image form of the idea of a marble.

You said there's an essential difference between other round objects and a marble. Ofcourse. I agree. And doesn't the image of a marble differ from the image of a ball of dough? It's true that the blind person only understands the difference between a small ball of dough and a marble after some sensory experience. (and given their lack of vision they would see a resembling image of a marble rather than the full image of a marble. But close enough to make one) and for all of us the experiences help us understand the meaning of the words used to describe such an image. And once these words translate into the image of a marble vs the image of a ball of dough + they "feel" that way when observing the image in our mind.
Then do they have the imagage form of the idea of a marble or ball of dough.

In other words. Yes the marble image is the idea. And only when you understand what a marble is through experience and reason. Does that idea become the full or really close to idea image of a marble. Before that it would be the image of a round thing. And if you never saw or felt a material substance then it would be the image and idea of a non material round thing.

I think if you imagine a marble. It is the image of the idea of a marble. One could say the image is the idea in image form.

The relationships are probably internal/external.

So the relationship of the roundness of a marble. And it's texture or substance.

I'm not sure there's a difference between mind and ideas. What mind exists when there are no ideas?

Thank you for posting this here. It's interesting.

I doubt the first three bullet points are so controversial?
So I'd like to move on to the fourth.
You said mind is the activity arising from an object. In this case a brain. But a mind exists only if there's subjective experience (which you deem to be consciousness). So a computer calculates but doesn't have a mind. Agree? If so. Now when you say that mind is not different from ideas. Then if they are the same then they are co-referential. As in they have the same properties all the way through.

Argument:
Suppose that mind is the same as ideas
If something is an object or process and has subjective experience then it has consciousness or a mind.
Chat gpt is an object or process but doesn't have subjective experience.
So chat gpt doesn't have consciousness or a mind.
If the mind is the same as ideas then a mind is required to produce old or new ideas.
So chat gpt could not produce old or new ideas since it has no mind. But
Chat gpt can produce old or new ideas.
Therefore it's not so that mind is the same as ideas.

I have to agree with @wonderer1 who challenged your view that man exists and breaks the rules and is not bound by its rules.

In this case rules are most fairly interpreted as 'laws of nature or laws of the universe' or something similar.

Basically meaning. There's things that are possible and there's things that aren't possible. Doing the impossible would be breaking ''the rules''.
In your response to the other person who replied to you. You change the definition/interpretation. Creating an equivocation fallacy. By method of a shifting the goal post fallacy or so it seems.

In the response you suddenly hold 'rules' to have a definition closer to it's original meaning. Man made things. Or (if he exists) God made things. Suddenly to break to rules means to do things that some being didn't want us to do. (As seen in your use in the analogy of us polluting the air)

But this isn't the most reasonable interpretation of your original comment. Which seemed to imply ''humans do what can't be done" which is a contradiction. (Which the other responder noticed)
So afterwards it's redesigned to mean ''humans do what God (if he exists) didn't want us to do" but was possible to do. Which is vastly different. In the former we have a contradiction. In the latter we're just being independent and disobedient.

Instead of thinking if X exists, I am thinking, does a safety pen exist? Safety pins did not exist until a person created one. So X can begin the mind. But if X is the rules of physics, then it exists outside of the mind until the mind becomes aware of it.

Hmm. To be honest, I'm struggling to fully grasp your view. But it seems in the final stage of your response.(As quoted).

You seem to posit that some mind activity discovers something about the world. (I.e. laws of physics). And some mind activity creates something. I.e. the idea of a pen or the idea of a circle.

My question is. When we have the idea of a pen or the idea of a circle. Is there a specific way that the brain interacts. Such that it'll neural activity if reproduced would bring about the idea of a circle or the idea of a pen. In any subject where that neural activity and structure can be reproduced?

Probably not. But. That would be something

Nothing really is eternal, possibly not even atoms, given enough time.

I guess you could say that ideas are accidental , non essential, fleeting properties of the universe. In that way your original claim can be true.

However on the quoted claim.
If nothing is eternal. Then the truth value if that claim is equally non eternal. Such that at some point it is false. Meaning at some point it would be such that some thing(s) is eternal.

Ideas are just intelligible parts/properties of the universe as represented in the mind (as everything is).

How are they properties of the universe? If all beings die. Where are the properties?

The only form that genuine reasoning can take consists in seeing the validity of the arguments, in virtue of what they say. As soon as one tries to step outside of such thoughts, one loses contact with their true content. And one cannot be outside and inside them at the same time: If one thinks in logic, one cannot simultaneously regard those thoughts as mere psychological dispositions, however caused or however biologically grounded. If one decides that some of one's psychological dispositions are, as a contingent matter of fact, reliable methods of reaching the truth (as one may with perception, for example), then in doing so one must rely on other thoughts that one actually thinks, without regarding them as mere dispositions. One cannot embed all one's reasoning in a psychological theory, including the reasonings that have led to that psychological theory. The epistemological buck must stop somewhere. By this I mean not that there must be some premises that are forever unrevisable but, rather, that in any process of reasoning or argument there must be some thoughts that one simply thinks from the inside--rather than thinking of them as biologically programmed dispositions.
— Evolutionary Naturalism and the Fear of Religion

Is this saying that: Inside reasoning is non meta reasoning. And must be used to determine truth of an argument generally. Rather than using a meta lens like psychology or sociology or genetics. Applied to the argument for analysis.
I.e.

Socrates is human. Humans are mortal. Therefore Socrates is mortal.

Inside reasoning would be, checking whether humans are mortal and Socrates is human? And the validity of the logic.

Whereas outside reasoning would be:
An analysis of why we make the claim. What psychological drives make it so. Or how our senses effect us?

So are you saying that an idea is just our nature. It's not separate. Just like if I feel annoyed about a customer standing in my way. And if I then am confused about the way things work I would say. The customer is annoying.

Similarly we say the idea of a circle is something separate. But it's not. It's just a part of you at the time it arises and until it disappears?

I agree with you. The brain likely works more like a quantum computer then classical computers, quits then binary. I was asking the question "Do you think an idea x has a specific structure or activity in the brain or what arises from it?" So as to take your qubit brain suggestion and apply it to the original topic...

Thanks

Yes currently it doesn't seem like there is a neural correlate or specific way reality acts when the idea of a circle arises. What would happen if down the line it turns out that this is so? That there is a specific way reality acts, when the idea of a circle forms. Such that when we let it form on a computer using binary code or as a drawing. It really is the binary and drawing, near equivalent of the idea of a circle. What would that imply?

Our brains are not binary-coded. This is being debated, but I think we should hold the idea that our brains function like quantum cubits, giving them the experience of consciousness and making it possible for us to hear a song and instantly remember the first time we heard the song and all the memories associated with that moment in time, and even the feelings we had then and now.

Do you think an idea X is a specific configuration X in the brain?

An idea is an irreducible mental event that is meaningful and is distinguishable from other ideas.

So it's a fleeting activity in the mind which can be exported and recalled (if we are lucky).

The content of the idea will be some relationship between objects?

Thanks. I'm sure you recognized that English is not my native language. I sure hope to increase my clarity. (Did you use chat gpt?)

And what your thoughts on the nature of ideas?

You say that metaphysical statements can't have a truth value. Because they can't be verified nor be falsified.

Do you really mean to say that. We shouldn't give a truth value to a metaphysical question for this reason? Or do you mean that they truly can't be true or false. In the sense that i.e. free will exists and doesn't exist and doesn't (exist and not exist) and so on?

I assume you mean the former. Which I would agree with. But that would be a prescriptive claim in the form of a descriptive one. Which caused confusion.

What is real?" is a metaphysical question. It doesn't have a correct answer

Would you say the question ''what is real?" Doesn't have a correct answer because it is a metaphysical question?

As in for all x if x is a metaphysical question then the answer to that question can't be true or false?

If so why?

I would say that people have used gender terms in some form or other across time and culture. Without necessarily being aware of it in that way.
Quite some people across the political spectrum from the one extreme up to the other occasionally or at some point have used a gender term that they believe exists.
Some of these are, woman, man, beta male, alpha male, "not a real woman", "not a real man" and so on.
And some people even extremes that would call themselves alpha male. Probably are alpha male in terms of gender expression. But gender fluid (going from beta to alpha) internally.

For sex you can choose to define it as
woman (sex) = person with xx chromosomes
man (sex) = person with xy chromosomes

Definitions can't be true but they can be useful. So for different uses we can have different definitions. Surely for medical and scientific and epistemic reasons the old definition is useful.

For social reasons a different is also useful. However if we use the same word. We are begging for equivocation fallacies and for the opposite of what language is meant to do. Namely to help us navigate and understand each other clearly. (any person less likely to exert thoughtful cognitive effort show the effects of this and I don't want to be condescending either since it is understandable)

Feminine is now often woman (gender).

Now the chromosome based definitions is strong it for example explain why a woman (sex) is still a woman (sex) if she loses her breasts. And why a man (sex) is still a man (sex) if he becomes a eunuch. A eunuch would be a man (sex) without a penis.
Additionally
Gender was used way before we used it.
When a lesbian or "masculine" or just neutral woman was told to act more feminine. Or to act as a woman (even though she obviously was one). Or when the Godfather told Johnny Fontane to "act like a man". Even though Johnny obviously was a man.
Clearly The Godfather didn't mean that Johnny was not a man (sex) but they did mean that Johnny wasn't acting in line with the cultural/personal idea of how a man (sex) should act. But he does say it in a descriptive way. So he wasn't acting like a man (gender).

So this is important. It's nothing new really. We just became more aware of it. But there's a potential drawback in defining gender without ant reference point.
Ofcourse if one were to say that a man (gender) is someone that wears pinks clothes with lace thong and has a vagina and was born with a vagina. Then that wouldn't really be in line with the common idea of what a man is. Neither sex not gender.
We can accept someone saying this for moral reasons. But for other moral reasons we must recognize that if this is how we generally used language we'd be in the dark. And so most people don't use language in that way.

Some frame of reference is helpful. Surely we can dismiss of genitals in the gender concept and focus gender on secondary or some primary traits. And we can cherry pick them as we please (meant in a good and respectful way). But the less we have some kind of essence the more likely people will be confused.

I mean a person born with xy chromosomes and a penis (man sex). Who feels they are a woman (gender). And wants to express as such. In general will not want to express and transition to become a person that looks as what most people would call an alpha male. So some essence (be it without the need for genitals) is helpful and very reasonable.

So to conclude. Gender can be filled as we want but some essence is healthy.
Some would try to mingle sex and gender and I have noticed that this happens on either side of the debate. (Which we luckily can still have).
I think it's useful to recognize that at some point we have to draw a line somewhere such that we can point to things in reality with words such that we understand eachother.
Even if hormones are ultimately what makes us man or woman (sex). Since that is what DNA ultimately is meant to bring forth. And even if it is difficult to detect exactly where the distinction is. Especially then it is helpful to use genetics as a way to resolve it.

Surely if a virus breaks out that requires a different vaccine for people with xx chromosomes and XY chromosomes we would want to be safe enough to use such words. And equally we should be safe enough to have words for how one feels or wants to express.

However I do think it is possible to be wrong about oneself. If I were to say that I have two legs. Then the only thing that makes that objectively true is me having two legs. If I have one leg then the proposition is false.
If I a man (sex) were to say that I am a woman (sex) that's not possible. Given the definitions with chromosomes.
If I a man (sex) were to say that I am a woman (gender). Then it's reasonable (even a duty by clinics?) to perform a Socratic questioning method.

If I were to say that for me woman (gender) is someone that wants to wear female clothes. Someone that wants to be with men. Wants to wear makeup. Wants to have breasts and so on.

Then whether I am a woman (gender) depends on whether I am the person that wants those things which I just gave as my hypothetical personal definition that aligns with the words in the proposition.

But if I were a man (sex) and I were to say that I am a woman (gender). And when asked what is that for you? I respond with. A woman (gender) is a person with xx chromosomes, with a vagina.
Then if we are equally epistemically virtuous we can recognize that if my statement is to be true. Then it would require me to have xx chromosomes, and a vagina. So in that hypothetical the statement would be false.

We can't; there is no such book. You can point to a book full of information on some subject, if you like, or an encyclopedia that contains information on many subjects. I believe that the contributors to such a book had knowledge of their subjects. But they didn't pour the contents of their minds into the book; they wrote words that convey information.

In order to answer the question what is knowledge. We could point to "books of knowledge" and check what most aligns with how the word knowledge was used. To get closer to a more essential definition.

You can go such a book. You claim the sentence "I, John, think therefore I, John experience thinking" if written down is no longer knowledge, it seems. (No longer JTB). But just becomes information. And so a book filled with such sentences you say isn't a book of knowledge to begin with.

If that was so then the information "I, John, think therefore, I, John experience thinking" wouldn't also be a justified true belief. And yet it is. Now such a book would also contain. Justified false beliefs and non justified true beliefs.

And yet if the beliefs would be assumed to be true. Then that is the kind of book we would have to look at in order to see what essentially knowledge is. But because "belief assumed to be true and assumed to be justified" would cause trouble as a definition. We choose JTB.

Who says you can know a true belief just because it is deemed justified? But not know true information if one has good justifications for believing the true information is true?

Anyway. That rethorical question makes it clear that we are just arguing on how to use words. And what to paste to those words. Sure it's helpful to have some stability. And I am for practical reasons leaning back towards JTB. However one can't prove that the way you use the word is the only correct one.

If we point to a book with knowledge.

We won't find justified true beliefs. We will find justified beliefs assumed to be true
Nor would you find in the book of knowledge true information for which they had justifications.
But rather information assumed to be true for which it was assumed they had good justifications.

Anyway this won't be productive beyond this. I recognize the common usage.ninhave already shifted back the common one. However I recognize its constructed nature. And the non objective nature of the current description. Which this nuanced view I have all I need and more.

Many physicists and philosophers argue that time might emerge from relationships between events rather than existing as an independent entity.

yes I agree. I think time isn't a thing part of space. It's just what we use to explain motion across extension (space). And motion and the natural ability to move is affected by the lack of or presence of other matter and forces. So if nothing moved at all, no time would exist.

Without events (in a completely empty universe) what would the meaning of space be?
Without events in relations to each other how would we measure, experience or conceive of space?

The meaning of space if there was no matter? Meaning as in what it IS. Or what the purpose of it would be? If purpose. Does it need a purpose? If you mean what would space be without matter. Space. Rather than the three-dimensional thing we would point to in which matter is. It would be that same thing without matter.
If it is possible for it to exist without matter. As I said I would assume space to be primary or interdependent to matter (including quantum fields and so on) But not secondary.

Time I find to be harder. I don't know. Is it really some "thing" part of space or is it just something that helps us explain motion across extension. And which only emerges because of motion conceptually. And is there in some ultimate sense no time. That sounds very stupid even if I say it myself. But I don't know. Maybe our intuition is just of. Maybe we are bringing something to reality. Maybe everything just happens at the same moment. On the other hand it feels not intelligent to think that even though I am currently home. That when I was at work that it was just happening at the same moment and any notion of past and present and even moment is just arising from motion but isn't really there.

If there was no motion anywhere in the universe. Does time still exist? (Remind yourself if you imagine that scenario that you observing that state assumes motion and you'll probably assume as a result that time would still exist. But does it really since there would be no observer?)

So I walk. My friend walks two meters away from me..the space we occupy and between is. Is secondary to my friend and I?
What would that mean. That first matter existed and space is just something that existed afterwards as a result from matter existing and changing?

I get that there is a relationship between them. In the traditional sense. in space exists matter and it changes. But I can't imagine matter existing first. It seems more that the relationship is interdependent or that space is primary.

But what can we say about the difference between these and justice? Or information?

Justice initially arose as a feeling reflecting a sense of retribution. But later we started to feel that maybe retribution isn't so fair. Definitely if our will is not free or could be not free.

So some will say justice is an eye for an eye or an eye for a lifelong prison sentence or a humane death penalty or something like that.

And some will say justice is whatever you say it is (but does seems to forget the initial foundation completely)

And some might say justice is trying to find a middle path between humane retribution, avoiding future immoralities, teaching better beliefs and skills to change harmful beliefs (if said immoral behavior comes from habits that are engrained and we aren't so free than that is more just than mere retribution).

So I think there's an essence that we should respect. Not sure what it is. I sense I am on the right track going from the foundation to the more advanced notion of justice. "Solving problems related to morality in order to get a better society while doing so fairly and taking into account a lot of data and understanding"

Maybe that's the essence.
So how is justice different from knowing?

Knowing is an experience of conceptually being in line with reality in a minimalist way (p if p). And having good reasons for claiming you are and being certain you are beyond any serious doubt.

Whereas justice starts as an experience. But is more of an ideal to strive for.

(Sidenote. May I ask. Are you a professional philosopher or student or professor or autodidact?)