If you can find something that is lower than the mind that doesn't require a leap of faith then go for it. It is there in everyone's lives, it is learning, it is creating, and it is evolving and it is not only fundamental to existence, it is existence....

...Now we are entering into faith and religion. Using words like technology, CPU, etc. doesn't make it scientific, though it might make you feel like it does. As with all an anthropomorphic gods, all you have done is created one more - The Computer Brain, that determinists worship. It's a religious story. — Rich

There are mountains of evidence suggesting that if you damage the brain, you alter the mind. We know that thought somehow emerges from networks of connected neurons, so you might say "a neuron is 'lower' than the brain".

But you've been constantly projecting the "it's religious" angle here in this thread... You're free to believe in magical free will and all that, but you should be aware that possessing belief in something you have no (good) evidence for is exactly the kind of faith you accuse determinists of having.

Ironically though, democracy itself entails "talking about what our favorite policies would be".

Asking "what is the ideal form of government for America" must then entail a discussion about particular policies if we're to move beyond "a democratic one" as an answer.

"A government that serves the people, can adapt, and improve" is a great answer but it doesn't serve us much unless we're debating whether or not to defenestrate democracy. As I said, a useful answer to the question about what kind of government we should have (with useful specificity that is) entails addressing specific policies in the context of specific political, economic, and social circumstances.

I'll give you an example, what is the best government for the U.S.A? — Sigmund Freud

The "best" government is not knowable by us because America is too complex. If you ask a chess grandmaster what the best chess strategy is, they won't be able to tell you. They can only tell you what is the best strategy they happen to know.

The American government gets some things right and some things wrong. I can tell you where what what improvements can be made, but i cannot tell you what the very best economic path forward is, or what would be the best judicial/penal system, or exactly what electoral reforms would promote the health of American democracy, but here are some suggestions:

Overhaul the prison system and de-privatize it. Focus on rehabilitation instead of punishment.

Abolish the electoral college and ensure fair national coverage for more than just the two main parties.

Ensure universal healthcare.

Nationalize the energy sector and invest heavily in alternatives to fossil fuel based energy sources and delivery technology.

Eventually prepare to offer a universal income as automation and artificial intelligence begins to represent a greater and greater share of more and more of the overall wealth production.

Many of the above proposed changes are highly controversial and are fraught with dilemmas, but at the very least i think they represent better or soon to be better "forms" for the American government to take. These are only national policies though, as international politics (and it's moral ramifications) are an entirely different can of worms.

This does not answer the original question. Everyone alsready understands that morals affect how a government is run, you do not have to tell us this. What I am asking is which morals should we have, which ones are the best for a good government. — Sigmund Freud

There is no one best set of particular morals for all environments across all of time.

Different factors can render different policies and approaches to civilization more and less beneficial/potentially harmful, and unfortunately changes in circumstances can outright break our individual capacity to adhere to any particular moral position.

Hanging someone for stealing a cow in today's world is considered to be murder (and it is), but in, say, frontier America, killing a captured cattle rustler was in some senses necessary for survival on an isolated ranch with no safety net or prison system.

The allowance, and to what extent, of individuals to own and control vast swaths of land and resources is another moral dilemma that comes with varying moral weight given different circumstances. The degree of wealth disparity and resource scarcity seems to more or less determine how justified an individual would be in seizing the wealth of their economic betters. But in a world with more affluence and freedom than ever, ought we equalize all accounts in order to alleviate the pangs of the wealth gap in the same way that widespread starvation would justify?

Should we have capital punhishment? Which industries should be owned and operated by the government? Should our justice system merely seek to remove threats to society and deter others from being a threat or should it seek to reform individuals if we have the resources and capacity to do so?

The relevant question worth answering is "what is the ideal form of government for today's world?".

Off the bat I can tell you that since it takes so much debate and discussion to come to agreeable answers, some form of voting system would probably best to approximate our consensus. At the same time, we want to be very cautious not to have a gung-ho government who just rushes ahead with whatever idea pops into it's head, so we need to create some very basic and agreed upon set of rules and standards which the government itself cannot infringe upon (rationally this would include not interfering unfairly with our voting process, and some basic set of individual rights and freedoms we think we all can afford and deserve to have).

I've got host of more specific political views, but they take up too much space to lay out here. A democratic system with a constitution (a set of restrictions on government) of some kind is the closest thing we have to ideal largely because it can change according to our growing understanding and our changing needs.

Aren't they the same thing, you cannot run something without having restrictions, unless we are talking about anarchy. A government and the way it is run is defined by it's restrictions and the ways it applies it — Sigmund Freud

It's much easier to identify undesirable or "bad actions" (actions which morally we ought not perform) than it is to identify "good actions" (actions which we morally ought to perform).

I can tell you how to live a moral life (per my view at least) by giving you some basic ideas about what not to do, but I cannot give to you a set of positive actions which I think you are required to perform in order to remain moral.

I believe that economic and other policies of a government must adapt to the circumstances they exist in, and so even if I did have some bright ideas about the most moral governmental actions, I could not predict how changing circumstances might alter their efficacy.

Should a government be run by morals? — Sigmund Freud

Run by, no.

Constrained by, yes.

But is it efficient if people are opposed to that government, eg. Fascism. — Sigmund Freud

You mean, morally opposed?

Depends on your moral views...

On the other hand, again, those "means"--slavery, child labor, genocide, colonialism, cruelty to non-human animals, etc.--are almost never acknowledged, and on the rare occasion that they are acknowledged they are viewed as nothing more than hiccups on the march of "progress" and "liberty", not as necessary contributors to the outcomes that we congratulate ourselves for ad nauseam. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Do you honestly believe that slavery, child labor, genocide, colonialism, and cruelty to non-human animals were or are "the means of the enlightenment/modernity?".

This may surprise you, but all these things did not come about as a result of the enlightenment or modern ways of thinking, they have been occurring as a standard of human civilization throughout all of recorded history. But they were in fact reduced and somewhat abolished by it...

It was enlightened thinking that lead to the abolition of slavery in Europe and in the Americas. It was modernity that brought the idea of public school systems as a way to reduce poverty and the need for child labor. Full blown genocide has rarely occurred in the modern world and it certainly has not been the means of it's creation. Yes the modern world is still putting some of the pieces together from the old world which the enlightenment eventually broke (i.e: far flung colonies slowly developing their own governments and infrastructure), and so your sentiments make it seem like you're trying to blame the broad and tragic history of mankind on the very thing which altered it for the better, just because it did not do so perfectly and universally....

So I ask again. Are you suggesting we would be better off if the enlightenment never happened? If modernity never arrived? If not, what are you trying to say?

In the 1600's there were about half a billion living humans. Today there are over seven billion living humans...

Life expectancy in 1600 was about 40 years of age. Today global life expectancy is over 70- years of age, and over 80 in first world countries.

The enlightenment lead to an understanding of how to live healthier and longer lives, in much greater numbers. That's an important advancement. But I would also say that the enlightenment is in and of itself a resolution to a particular problem: "how do we reliably gain useful knowledge and discard falsity?". If you weren't taught by someone to explicitly and inherently question things, and if you were never offered an understanding of the material world produced by science, would you have ascended to your current state of avant guarde critical prowess?

I reckon you would be stuck in a rural farm, worrying mainly about this year's crops and whether or not your wife will die as a result of her pregnancy (or you from yours), and any notions of objective truth and meaning would remain mostly out of sight and mind and culturally moored by the authority wielded over you by your lord, and his lord over him.

I believe I've offered this explanation to you before, but the since the enlightenment we've come to realize that just because it fell out of a king's ass doesn't make it sweet. We learned to question things and test them for their validity and utility, and also to innovate in spite of dogma and tradition. Everything that you wave off as unimportant is to someone else priceless. Curing even a single disease is important, and we have cured many. The double edge of modernity causes some suffering and poses continuing risks, but the payoffs have been worthwhile and we've done more good than harm according to the statistics. We could go back to merely scrounging in the dirt to sustain our existence; would you like that? If it's not a return to some kind of hunter-gatherer primitive lifestyle that you envision, what is it you believe is the way forward?

How do we become more knowledgeable by blindly and emotionally discarding anything that is not perfect in every way?

the universe has habits — Rich

I would very much you to explain how the wave property of quantum particles causes "free" behavior in computers, OR, i would very much like you to explain how the wave property of quantum particles causes you to have "free will".

hint: "try making a decision and see what happens..." is obviously unpersuasive...

Do they fail or behave randomly because of quantum fluctuations?

No, only a quantum computer would be affected by this...

Hint: the human brain is not a quantum computer.

How come our computers work so reliably? Why don't quantum fluctuations cause them to exhibit free and random behavior?

The evidence for determinism is every physical law we have been accurately able to describe.

That's a fair enough distinction, although I don't personally see evidence that any (decent) writer is behind it all...

My knee jerk reaction is that I was never religious (spiritual yes) and no reason to start now just because someone has come up with a new story of how our lives are fated. Suits lots of people though, but usually they want God and not Natural Laws. It's a question of taste. As for me, I continue to make choices in my life as I bring creativity into my experiences. — Rich

But don't you cling to the notion of hard free will like a religious person when presented with evidence that diminishes it? (hormones impacting decision making for instance).

I don't actually claim to know that determinism is true, in fact I tentatively accept it not only because there is some good evidence for it, but also because there are several moral upshots in doing so (and with no apparent downside). Since I accept determinism I'm able to view moral failings of individuals as the fault of uncontrollable circumstances rather than applying some form of inherent moral guilt. What this does to moral reactions to crime (for instance) is to remove "revenge and punishment for the sake of punishment" as a reason or goal of incarceration. Incarceration then becomes a tool to separate dangerous individuals from society for our protection, and (ideally) a place which can rehabilitate them (remedy whatever factors it is that lead them to crime in the first place). Forgiving people is a very easy thing to do for a determinist because no individual can be blamed. In life we need to hold dangerous individuals pragmatically accountable for their actions, but we do not need to misunderstand their nature and torture them because of that misunderstanding as current penal systems tend to do...

What I do know is true as a determinist that it would make no difference whether or actions come from determined physical interactions in the brain and body or from quantum indeterminacy of particles in the brain, "free-will" such as you would like it to exist has not been established. Behaving according to some wave property or the changing spin of a quantum particle isn't free will, it's some kind of quantum-random will whose actual mechanics you cannot explain.

to say a choice is fated is to say its determined by what precedes it. "predictable" on the other hand is an entirely different sack of eels. We cannot make deterministic predictions because of the level of complexity that would be required to do so even if we could get our hands on those pesky hidden variables...

The main knee jerk reaction to determinism is to somehow feel that because our choices are predetermined they are therefore less valuable or important to perform well. Eating a bar of chocolate is a pleasurable experience for me, even if it's just a determined chemical reaction in my brain, and so more chocolate bars is what I'll try to get. It might be pre-determined how successful I will be, but I do know that if I don't try success is impossible.

Really really bad, and permanent (with no reprieve or reward of any kind).

Try to fly and see what happens. Try to make a choice and see what happens. — Rich

How can you know what choice you will make before you actually make it (hint: you can't). Once you've made a choice, how do you know that some component of hard free will could have allowed you to choose otherwise? (this differs from the compatibilist sense of having options and being un-coerced)...

But this is perfectly explainable when we distinguish between epistemological and ontological morality. As a theist I agree with many of the ethical habits, desires, and beliefs of my atheist colleagues. There is no problem here. The problem concerns how the atheist can appropriately ground his moral life in an objective (not universal) way. — Modern Conviviality

Is the human condition an objective authority?

I reckon it's not, but we ARE humans, and as such a morality which serves and pertains to the human condition is the best morality for us. I cannot open a window into some objective dimension and pull out some ultimate and necessary moral purpose. I know this isn't what many thinkers are looking for, but I can promise you that it's very robust when done right.

Take "the desire to go on living" for instance. When survival dilemmas arise coming to an agreement about how to work together in order avoid death is something that all humans generally will get on board with (and of the humans who do not desire to go on living, they generally don't pose any problems).

I can understand your invocation of a universal/collective type of human reasoning to apprehend and intuit morality as human persons, but it still seems unsatisfactory for our purposes. Our 'collective reason' is still human, and so by inference: imperfect and limited. Are you speaking of a Platonic 'collective human logic' which has a special ontological status similar to God's ontological status? Unless moral laws are somehow built into the logical structure of thought (in a Platonic kind of way), which is coherent but difficult to articulate. — Modern Conviviality

The "laws" I'm interested in are built into reality in the same way that an ideal chess strategy is built into a particular configuration of chess pieces on a chess board.

It is neccessary to have a starting value though; a goal. In chess the goal is winning capturing the enemy king. Reasoning allows us to come to positions about what is objective better or worse in terms of achieving that goal. In chess there are a host of known moves which are almost universally terrible to make (in almost every chess situation), and there are moves which are thought to be very strong. In real world moral terms gouging each-others eyes out is almost universally inconducive to our shared goals; a bad move. But it always depends on the circumstances...

The foundation is shared goals; what we humans want. The moral agreement that can exist between us encompasses the scope of our shared or non-mutually exclusive (life, love, happiness, etc...), and our physical capacity to actually follow a mutually beneficial strategy of cooperation (if physical circumstances make cooperation impossible or necessitates conflict (especially deadly conflict) then there can be no shared moral agreement between us relevant to the situation).

I never wanted to accept gravity. I always wanted to fly, but reality kept pulling me back down to earth.

In the end I accepted gravity because that's what the evidence pointed to, and because it's experimental reliability is unblemished.

Why do you reject gravity as made up?

P.S minds and natural physical laws are not mutually exclusive

You figure God/Laws of Nature did the writing and posting? — Rich

Do you think random/probabilistic quantum fluctuations did the writing?

I have everyday experience to support my views — Rich

Alack, alas. How could i ever compete with the ultimate standard of "your everyday experience".

If you wish to hold faith in the idea that your brain is exempt from causation, so be it. Until you put forward some evidence for your claims or address my criticisms, there's nothing left to say...

Forgive me, but is pontificating about faith and experience the best way to conduct this debate? If I have faith in determinism, then you have faith in in-determinism. So what? I've brought up some fairly specific points which I'd like you to address directly. If you don't want to continue this argument, that's fine. If you're unable to continue this argument, that's also fine.

If you wish to actually defend your notion of free will against my criticisms, please do so! Your argument that probabilistic collapse of the wave-function of quantum particles in your brain gives you free will is extremely weak given that you cannot show how this collapse leads to changes in brain states, and even if you could all you would be demonstrating is random/probabilistic will which you are not yourself in control of, which is the kind of free will that everyone seems to care most deeply about. Everything that science can demonstrate about the predictability of human behavior is not exactly a faith based argument, but the quantum bits of freedom you're grasping at in order to justify free will seems downright faith based to me...

Causal is not equivalent to deterministic. Bohm's quantum equations are causal and non-deterministic. They have to be, always, because quantum theory it's probabilistic. There is no definite outcome until the system is observed, and this is inherent in quantum theory. Whatever interpretation you choose to use, quantum stays that in the world we live in and experience, quantum events are probabilistic. This destroys determinism. — Rich

As I stated initially some sort of non-local hidden variable theory might be the case, which can explain the chance element in the spin and position of quantum particles, and it can also frame the collapsing wave function as a determined event in regards to double slit tests. Again, we are unable to know the orientation of the electromagnetic field of a quantum particle until we check it; prior to measurement all we know are the probabilities of finding various magnitudes of deviation from it's prepared state. This doesn't however mean that the results we get when we check for them are not subject to determinism, it could be we're just unable to know prior to checking.

If we suppose that unobserved quantum events are themselves a predetermined range of states, (i.e, in double slit tests the electron interacts with itself in a predictable manner when the particle wave is un-collapsed (unmeasured)) it's possible to view the particle-wave behavior as itself another causal aspect in a pre-determined universe. Which particle-waves collapse, due to some kind of measurement, could be pre-determined, and what they collapse to could also be predetermined (again, thanks to some sort of non-local hidden variable theory).

Unfortunately determinism cannot be destroyed. It cannot be destroyed because we cannot rewind time to conduct perfectly controlled experiments (i.e: negate hidden variables) and because we don't have enough data or understanding to test bona fide deterministic predictions. You would suggest that determinism is like a god of the gaps argument, but in reality free will is much more aptly so named. Everyone used to believe in hard free will (and god) as really nobody knew better or could present a sensical alternative. With the advent of neuroscience and psychology we've learned that what we think and how we think is actually due to how genes, hormones, and the environment impacts neural networks in our brains. What we used to ascribe to an impulse of free will now can be described to a spike in blood-sugar (for example). The more physics and science we discover the more we're able to predict; determinism grows and in-determinism shrinks back into any remaining gaps in knowledge. The more we understand about evolution and human behavior the smaller free will becomes, shrinking, like god and indeterminism, back into some darkened crevasse where it's naked absurdity cannot be shamed by the laughing masses.

You seem like you really want to believe in free will... Why else would you say "The choices our minds are making and the will it is generating to action its choices are causing tons of casual non-deterministic events every day" as if particle-wave behavior of individual quantum particles in your brain somehow constitutes your your free will...

You have recommended Calvinism, now allow me to recommend "compatibilism". You don't need to believe in indeterminism in order to make sense of things...

Why? I'm not religious.

I believe in the pervasiveness of causality because everything I experience seems to have an imminent cause. We experience causality everyday, and so it's actually quite easy to maintain belief in it.

I cannot recall encountering an un-caused event though, such as you suppose free will to be...

Quantum says that there is no determined outcome — Rich

It states that the outcome is not knowable prior to checking it, but also states that the results will tend to resolve based on a particular distribution of results (a particular probability).

The "observer getting in the act" doesn't determine the initial result, but it is necessary for us to have access to information about a particles spin...

If you compare belief in determinism to religion, then belief in free will must be like outright cult worship...

Equally so we may discover proof of God. Faith is something to cherish. However, zero evidence of snow kind and with contrary evidence pretty much the foundation of physics, let's just bury determinism and give it the funeral it deserves. — Rich

The evidence that refutes determinism must come in the form of evidence which proves some kind randomness necessarily exists, but again, quantum uncertainty does not equate to free will. Let's just bury free will and give it the funeral it deserves.

In 1920's 'they' found out that the idea of determinism is not right due to the discovery of quantum physics. So how do quantum physics give the Universe 'free will'? Or is quantum physics just an other thing we have yet to fully understand and is determinism still right? — FMRovers

In short: determinism might be right to due some kind of hidden non-local variable we have yet to discover. But, quantum uncertainty in the "spin" of quantum particles like electrons certainly does not give us free will unless you can presuppose some sort of connection between the inherent unpredictability of electrons and human behavior.

It would look something like this: a quantum fluctiation in the electromagnetic field of an electron changes, which triggers a wider re-positioning of particles, which then triggers a change in atomic states of the molecules within a neuron (let's say a neuro-chemical breaks down?) and then subsequently causes that neuron to not fire where it otherwise might have fired, which then has a small impact on the actual thought processes of the brain which contains the neuron. Is that free will? Seems more like random will to me...

or human reason (ultimately subjective, for whose reason are we speaking of? — Modern Conviviality

The most universal and coherent moral foundations are composed of shared sentiment (i.e: our shared desire to go on living and to live freely) and "human reason" (if you're asking whose reason we're speaking of, the answer is our reasoning; our shared human reasoning).

The social contact is a good metaphor for the form that my moral arguments tend to take. If we have similar goals in life then we may come to an agreement between us to abstain from certain actions and to accept the burden of performing some other actions in order to serve our end goals more effectively.

"More effective"... Some moral systems are more effective than others (although different moral systems sometimes do different things) at achieving their goals. How do you know there are objective rights and wrongs instead of a spectrum of better and worse?

The goals of my moral framework extend only as far as our shared human condition/experience/desire, but luckily there are some basic shared desires that are nearly universal in humans (the aforementioned two for instance). Many non-non-theists try and take issue with my moral framework by claiming that "it's not objective" even while they assent to my moral propositions because they share basic human desires. It seems ironic to me that this issue of non-universality is so important to so many thinkers even though it forces them to nest their moral foundation in some absurd claim to supreme truth which renders their moral system less persuasive and less useful overall.

In short, present me a set of circumstances with moral implications and I'll try to convince you of what I think is the best available moral decision to make. I won't convince you on the basis that a certain decision is good because it is universal, or contains a certain ultimate virtue, but because it demonstrably promotes/preserves stated values and ends that at the time you agree are morally praiseworthy or obligatory.

Of late I have found that morality as a mutually agreeable cooperative strategy designed to promote shared values and goals (and avoiding undesirable ends), is quite useful for convincing people of a particular moral course of action even while they reject it as "morality". For instance, one person might hold (or want to hold) that doing violence against another is universally immoral, but when presented with the right circumstances (such as the need to defend yourself when suddenly thrust into a violent prison system as an inmate) almost everyone would happily consent to do violence once it becomes clear to them that a strategy of mutual cooperation is not available and that doing harm to others is necessary for self-preservation. (if you're interested @Modern Conviviality, just say so and I'll happily paint such a circumstantial picture, as I would be happy to do for any other supposedly "universal" moral commandments). I sometimes call this a "breakdown of morality" in order to emphasize that when conflict is inevitable (when no cooperative strategies are available) the utility of typical intuitive moral positions can go flying out the widow...

Quite interesting, but qualms...

Little pre-school or kindergartener Camille (birth name Sebastian) is totally convinced she is a girl. She wears little girls clothing. Camille didn't drive to Target by herself and pick up her outfits. Someone aided and abetted the child's wardrobe selection. There was a lot of talk between interviewer and parent, therapists and parents, with Sebastian present. Was the child's self-narrative her own, or was she constructing her self-narrative from fragments of conversation with her parents?

No one asked her this, but I wonder what Sebastian's/Camille's parents wanted before they knew the sex of their child.

Sebastian's/Camille's future seems on track to be treated as soon as possible. — Bitter Crank

There's a tricky political minefield surrounding this subject (this doc was released in 2015 when the conflict was less pronounced) but I do tend to agree with your sentiment here. When the parents and the (well paid?) clinician were openly stating the facts about who Camille really is with her sitting right beside them I was somewhat disturbed by their inability to consider the impressionability and intelligence of their child. Kids might look like they are playing obliviously but if you mention their name they will certainly listen, and they aren't stupid enough for it all to go above their heads.

In the progressive rush to help children transition, we might be ironically limiting their freedom to choose by boxing them into a particular gender identity with constant reassurance, clothes, toys, etc...

It's worth noting that puberty blockers, estrogen, and testosterone have some known side effects in adults (not all of them desirable) and there has been very little research into the effect of administering hormones to adolescents that affect bone density, brain development for the last 10 years of neural completion age 15 to 25), or health in general. These drugs haven't previously been prescribed to adolescents (say 10 years ago) so the prescribers don't know what effect they might have. — Bitter Crank

The risk of unalterable change is what concerns me most in all this, especially since the desire to be socially progressive is perhaps leading to reckless over prescription...

The therapists think that they can identify children as early as 18 to 24 months age who think they are "the wrong sex in the body". Do they need their heads examined? — Bitter Crank

They're reaching so far beyond the cutting edge of behavioral and neurological scientific theory that it's astounding.

Dr. Rosenthal is an endocrinologist (appropriately in many ways) but not a psychotherapist. His psychotherapeutic side-kick, (name?) was asked about risks of encouraging, or assisting these young people to make the transition. Her response: “the one risk we have is holding them back.” I'm not so sure about that. — Bitter Crank

A meme circulating the debates on this subject is "the suicide rates stay the same" (although most people who post it don't know which suicide rates are being compared). What it actually refers to is the fact that bottom surgery (surgical alteration of the genitals) does not lead to a statistically significant reduction in suicide rates among transgender individuals. Whether or not transitioning on the whole leads to a reduction in suicide is utterly not known, as gathering statistics on people with gender dysphoria who choose not to seek treatment or act on it is far too difficult. What information we do gain in this statistic is clouded by the host of spurious factors that could cause suicide which are shared by all transgenders regardless of whether or not bottom surgery has occurred (it could be that what causes them to have high suicide rates doesn't have to do with the current state of their genitals, but instead their experience in society).

What the endocrinologist's sidekick certainly doesn't know is how much harm they might be causing by offering an authoritative prognosis of hormone blockers to a child who may come to change their mind. The younger the child is the less they comprehend about the long term ramifications of their decision (and about everything really), so they have less capacity to decide and consent for themselves.

I suspect that if you start treating a 1-2 year old as the opposite of their gender (regardless of which child) then there's a good chance they will conform to the identity thrust upon them...

"As the darkly cloaked druidic figures encircled the arcane obsidian altar, the tallest among them stepped forward and opened the DSM that lay atop it's jagged surface..."

It actually bothers me how commonly people will just appeal to "it's in the DSM!" right before they compare transgenders to war-amps and "otherkin".

It's a somatic delusion they say, "you wouldn't indulge someone who wanted to chop their arm off would you?".

Where are they getting this from? I've heard the same things repeated so many times I'm convinced they all share the same source...

Indeed transsexuals have been around, and indeed they were a good deal more rarefied in the past (at least it seems this way) than they are today. Most transsexuals throughout history probably would have kept their heads down and went completely under the radar though, so it's really hard to even say how common gender dysphoria is outside of our current social norms. The stakes were much higher in the past of course; the possibility of being lynched would have prevented many would be cross-dressers and transsexuals from even attempting it. But, in modern times, we seem to be lauding the phenomenon to such a degree that I think a few too many folks are wandering or being ushered through this newly widened social orifice.

When adults make decisions about their future, even if those decisions come with significant risks, we don't always have ethical grounds to intervene (especially if there is reason to believe that as a treatment transitioning can improve their quality of life) but how might our ethical considerations change when it comes to children who desire to transition? Since many (perhaps most) children cannot grasp the full extent of what it means to transition, how can they possibly consent? (personally, I'm of the position that prior to puberty children should be allowed to express themselves, but the seriousness of prescribing hormone blockers must require some sort of robust medical assessment to accompany it, and I'm not so sure that our clinicians are up to snuff yet). Here's a fascinating documentary about the subject (I really love Louis Theroux's documentaries). Hormone blockers at very early ages and eventual hormone doses at the age of puberty can drastically increase the efficacy of a person's transition, but the younger the decision is made for a child to transition, the greater the risk that, as Louis puts it, "they get it wrong".

I understand what you mean when you say "they haven't changed their sex or gender", but isn't that really only relevant if we're going after a scientific understanding of human biology?

There's a huge perceived controversy over what the definition of gender is, and it all stems from a very simple and misunderstood issue that gets conflated with many others: ought we refer to transgenders with the gender they present as?

One side is confused into thinking that in order to refer to a MTF transsexual as a woman (or to convince people to do so) we need to alter our scientific understanding and definition of what gender is. A typical reaction to this is to then point to things like chromosomes and bone density in order to preserve our current scientific understanding. (sometimes they go further and say things like "suicide rates stay the same among pre and post-operation trannys, therefore they should not transition" or "would you indulge the delusions of someone who thought they were Napoleon Bonaparte or who wanted to cut their arm off?").

The way forward between sides is for the reactionaries (aside from the realizing that they're not doctors licensed to issue medical prognoses for gender dysphoria) to point out that they don't have an issue referring to people by the gender they present as (which would adequately assuage any/all bleeding heart liberal types). Jordan Peterson got famous not because he refused to use people's preferred pronouns, but because he refused to use people's made up pronouns (ze, xey, quay, etc...). The SJWs simply need to clarify their argument (it's about ethics, not biology): we can formally and informally refer to transgenders by their preferred gender without actually impacting our scientific understanding of sex/gender.

The truth here seems simple to me: people with gender dysphoria who transition aren't able to change their chromosomes, genetics, and many of the gender specific features which genes predefine, but genes do not necessarily predefine what gender someone desires to be (which is what gender dysphoria involves). "Catering" to transgenders by referring to them as the gender they're presenting as is a politeness, a courtesy, and a laudable effort not to emotionally injure someone who already has enough emotional hurtles before them. (Although, of course, at all times we reserve the right to just insult people).

Like professor Peterson I do also draw the line at made up pronouns (if someone cannot be happy with "they" then they can fuck off)...

There is one additional point of confusion that I think should be acknowledged:

For some reason (and you might be well aware of this) it's politically correct to hold the position that "gay people are born gay", and it seems to stem from some twisted and backward attempt to not hold gays inherently accountable for being gay (i.e: if it's genetic then we cannot balme them). While it's true that people can be born on a spectrum of hormonal predispositions, it is still necessary to be exposed to and learn about the objects of our sexual desire. Essentially what we become attracted to is learned rather than genetically programmed, but there is this myth out there that basically would suggest there is "gay gene". When it comes to gender dysphoria, a popular meme states "I am a male/female who was born in the wrong body" and similarly this could lead to the incorrect assumption that gender dysphoria is genetic and therefore it is the chromosomes themselves which are "disordered" rather than the rest of the genome. Our misguided fear that our environment might impact our sexual development in these ways has us shoving our head in the sand in this respect...

But yes, I'm talking about the negative of pain being greater than the positive of pleasure. — Agustino

How can we reliably say this is true? Perhaps in our modern age so filled with comforts, and since pain and trauma are infrequent, they seem more significant to us when they do occur. It could be true that for people enduring lives of hardship and pain, the rare moments of comfort and happiness they are able to find become more defining or longer lasting as you suggest trauma is for westerners.

Where are you getting this idea from in the first place though? Who told you that "the negative of pain is greater than the positive of pleasure"?

I'm still not quite sure what this necessarily means...

Don't assume that everybody has happiness as a goal.

Don't assume that everybody has happiness as a high priority or thinks that it is important.

And "happiness" is no less ambiguous and abstract than "meaning/purpose of life". — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Happiness can be a kind of purpose, and in case you haven't noticed, people tend to do what they think/feel will make them happy. When we achieve our goals, we often expect happiness to be a direct or indirect result...

That sounds a lot like what Ken Wilber calls "Flatland". — WISDOMfromPO-MO

What's that and why is it relevant? Is it because I'm not using the magic of imagination?

These people who shun logic and care only about how their beliefs make them feel, where are they?

I doubt than any such people exist.

Speaking of evidence-based, no evidence has ever been presented to me to make me believe that such people exist.
— WISDOMfromPO-MO

Humans are emotional beings, and when it comes to metaphysical beliefs which will never be verified or falsified in this life there is little risk of actually being proven incorrect. As such many of us emotional humans opt for metaphysical beliefs which cater to our emotional sensibilities. The idea of an eternal soul, reincarnation, a paradise afterlife, these are all metaphysical beliefs which do not appeal to people because they are logical, but instead because they are emotionally comforting. The whole concept of a perfect and all loving creator god who has a plan and has our backs is the invention of emotion, not logic.

Again, happiness is not necessarily a universal goal or universally desirable.

The same could be said about longevity and "being surrounded by those you love".

It could be a narcissistic, narrow, crippling image to some people. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

The things we value and desire are the objects of our individual happiness.

You wouldn't say "I want to be unhappy" or "being happy makes me unhappy"...

Mental, physical, and emotional fulfillment in this temporary life is the best end goal that I can offer. Compared to our greed for eternal paradise and other such grandiose ends, this portrait seems small and humble, and yet it is infinitely more achievable... — VagabondSpectre

Or maybe we should give people the benefit of the doubt and not call it "greed".

Maybe mental, physical and emotional fulfillment is not enough for some people. Maybe some people need more. I would not call the longing or effort to satisfy a need "greed". — WISDOMfromPO-MO

We don't actually need much, but we do want it.

Everyone is greedy by someone's standards...

And how are we defining "eternal"? Ken Wilber defines it not as time with no beginning or end, but as no longer being in the stream of time. Maybe the latter, not the former, is the object of that aforementioned "greed".

Finally, instead of small, humble and achievable, it may seem narcissistic, prideful and repressive to some people. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Ken Wilber is free to chase imaginary butterflies like "exiting the stream of time" and call it humble, and you're free to chase after him. If you or him wishes to substantiate that with evidence though, unfortunately it's got to exist temporally.

If you think trying to live a long happy and love filled life is narcissistic, how do you view trying to live a life of objective and ultimate purpose? Wouldn't that be full blown egomania?

That makes worldviews sound like the work of a used car salesman or a spin doctor.

More importantly, it sounds extremely disrespectful and condescending.

And if a worldview is worth having, it should speak for itself. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

A worldview speaks for itself the way a sunday school teacher speaks to young impressionable minds about god and morality...

If you find your worldview disrespected then grow up and defend it. Some worldview's are shitty, and sometimes they're worth dismantling.

Anybody who is secure in his/her own worldview should not care what other people think.

And anybody who is going to disrespect others based on their worldview is probably not secure in his/her own worldview. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

How have I "disrespected others"?

"What other people think" is the only reason we exchange ideas on this forum

Anybody who comes to a philosophy forum and starts moaning about how worldviews are being disrespected is probably not secure in their own worldview.

Don't you think we've outgrown the ''survival of the fittest'' principle? Math, philosophy, music, art, etc. aren't necessary for survival. Yet, they're legitimate human pursuits at appreciating the universe and/or understanding our universe.

It's good to have a realistic worldview but isn't the meaning of life I painted also realistic and includes our greatest faculty - the mind? — TheMadFool

We have out-paced mere survival concerns yes (although they trail us very closely), like Tolstoy's life of luxury, it's this fact that affords us the time to consider the various arts and to contrive and confront these dilemmas in the first place.

I find some notions of pantheism and pan-psychism interesting, but since we've got no evidence to validate or invalidate them I must consider them as one hypothetical possibility of many.

I have always found the concept of learning for the sake of learning to be highly appealing, but existentially I value learning because it serves my own mind (or the minds of loved ones) not because it might serve some other mind of which I'm not aware. (a universal mind of some kind)...

If you're satisfied with it, fine but many aren't. They decry the meaninglessness of life. It leads them down the path of depression, pushing them over the edge into death's embrace. Such men/women seek objective and grand meaning - the meaning of life. How do you deal with such people? — TheMadFool

By "deal with such people" I presume you mean "convince them to be happy without ultimate and objective purpose"...

Seldom do I bother with an attempt, but when I do it's not always so difficult. If my interlocutors care deeply about having a rational and empirically sound view of the universe and the things in it (including ourselves) then I will make strong appeals to the evidence based merits of science, skepticism, and atheism (read: "soft-atheism"; colloquial agnosticism; refraining from belief where there is no evidence or indication). In concert with showing the incredulity of the metaphysically gnostic (read: those claiming knowledge beyond the scope of what physical evidence can show) this approach can be very effective. If a person doesn't care so much about the logical consistency of their beliefs as they do about how it makes them feel (all of us do care how our beliefs make us feel even if to a small degree) then I will paint a picture which emphasizes the value of empathy, joy, and shared experience. Living a long and happy life with few regrets, surrounded by those you love can be a powerful image. Mental, physical, and emotional fulfillment in this temporary life is the best end goal that I can offer. Compared to our greed for eternal paradise and other such grandiose ends, this portrait seems small and humble, and yet it is infinitely more achievable.

The real trick of it is to paint a sufficiently vivid and detailed worldview which then becomes more appealing to them than their own (generally an easy thing to do if they have no pre-existing grand narrative I must compete with). It can require a lot of ground work, especially when to bereave someone of a grand narrative might also bereave them of their moral/value system. Most of the time I prefer to not deal with ideologues driven by grand existential narratives in this way, but if I become seriously committed to doing so, then because so much of their world view might need replacement, the discussion becomes broad and long.

Some people might be happier in the long run with their personal grand narratives, and so long as they cause no harm, why should I rebuke them? (ironically they're still living long happy and love filled lives, so they check my existential boxes; why not let them check their own imaginary boxes too?)...

Take the analogy of the movie. You seem to be saying that each person has his/her own role to play. However, if there's no overarching organization to these roles, the movie, play would be absolute nonsense. What then of subjective meaning? Surely, it too is nonsense — TheMadFool

Each of us is the main character in our own movie, and sometimes life is nonsensical as we haphazardly traipse into each other's lives. But the epic tale of all life on earth is hideously long and follows no compelling arc; the human vignette is far more satisfying...

I'm not implying that pain and pleasure are symmetrical but that they have a relationship between them. Severe trauma ~might~ have longer lasting effects on us than say, marriage or procreation, but that doesn't mean "the negative of pain is greater than the positive of pleasure".

It's my suggestion that experiencing one changes your experience of the other...

Suffering is more negative than pleasure is positive. — dukkha

This is not true in m experience...

I believe that the more suffering someone experiences, the more sensitive they then become to the alleviation of suffering or the presence of comfort. Like a cold beer at the end of a hot day, the struggles we undergo actually seem to sweeten and enhance the temporary plateaus of pleasure and relaxation which we continuously strive toward.

Leo Tolstoy wrote about his suicidal thoughts later in life as an existential and mental crisis which he scrambled to alleviate. He was rich, highly famous, had a family, was an accomplished writer, had servants, and was well liked and respected by all accounts. Why then, should he of all people, be the victim of recurring thoughts of suicide? He could see no grand meaning in life; especially compared to his personal accomplishments, the small things in life no longer offered any satisfaction and he was left suffering because of this...

When he asked his servants about suicide, who he reckoned must idolize it even more than he due to their more difficult day-to-day existence, he was flabbergasted to learn that they held suicide to be the most sinful of all actions. In my opinion, it was not just because they were Christian that suicide was seen as a bad thing, but rather that to them life was precious and an abominable thing to waste.

In one of his late essays (I forget the title) he expresses that the reason these peasants were so content with life must be due to their religious faith, and over time he came to embrace ascetic Christian ideals. I submit that it was not the ideas themselves which most helped to alleviate Tolstoy's thoughts of suicide, it was his scramble itself -- hard work and suffering -- and his embrace of a more ascetic lifestyle, which would have been more beneficial to his day to day mental satisfaction with life.

A contemporary example of how too much success can be a bad thing (mentally) would be Tom Cruise. Rich, famous, and idolized, he fell prey to Scientology which to him seemed like the thing which offered the most meaningful and satisfying path forward in life. Having himself already reached the plateau of his conception of western success, he had nowhere else (that was sane) left to go, and so buying in to Scientology seemed natural.

There's an underlying reality about the human psyche that makes this an enduring fact of life; we tend to want what we don't have. When we have everything, which seems a wholly unnatural state of existence, our drive to constantly get more doesn't go anywhere. I think that evolution afflicted us with this, and that we should all constantly have to struggle toward a next achievement is a good thing at times and a bad thing at others.

Pain and pleasure are linked in a strange and similar way. A pleasure which becomes too familiar loses potency as does a familiar pain, and when there is contrast between pain and pleasure (including emotional pain and pleasure) we feel them more powerfully. To me this paints a kind of "crack-head model" of the human condition: we willingly endure suffering in order to temporarily rid ourselves of it, and in this cycle we find balance. Perhaps this can also offer some interesting insight into the phenomenon of "masochism" (wanting to be harmed); when we experience pain, some connected aspect of pleasure is affected, and perhaps normally, or if an individual is comfort laden, merely the alleviation of suffering itself is a desirable and pleasurable end.