In this topic, I don't understand why we ignore the brain and mind differences between biological male and female. By this I mean nothing complicated. A body equipped with a penis needs a brain/mind that can 'drive' it, while one with breasts and a womb needs slightly different 'drivers'. If a person is physically equipped one way, but their brain/mind is configured for the other way, there will be a mismatch. There is a real sense in which the brain/mind must match the physical configuration of the body, or the person concerned may (correctly!) feel that they are trapped in the wrong body. Is that not so? :chin:

Your repeated use of "objective" bothers me, but (from the context of your words) I deem you mean 'unbiased' when you use the term.

So can you apply your recommended strategy to the brain-in-a-vat example? It's a good example because we must deal with it as it is. There is no more evidence to be found, nor will there ever be. It's possible, but we can't be more precise than that. So how do we apply your thinking to this example? :chin:

Questioning the likelihood of a thought experiment is a sure-fire way of signaling how far you are from the proper philosophical attitude. — Akanthinos

:sweat: "The proper philosophical attitude"? Please. :snicker: :roll:

You have spent an inordinate amount of energy and time researching something that is absolutely unlikely to happen in the history of existence. — Akanthinos

[My highlighting.]

You miss my central point, with your quibbling over terms and philosophical orthodoxy. :roll: Whatever this "something" is, can you quantify how "unlikely" it is? If not, how do you know it's "unlikely"?

But if we apply - and rely on - logic, we must follow it to its conclusion, even if we'd rather not. And logic says that a plausible possible theory that can't be falsified or disproven is (at least until the arrival of new evidence) acceptable for use, and may not be casually dismissed. — Pattern-chaser

[ Quote edited to use a more appropriate word. :smile: ]

On the one hand, I personally agree with your quote above. I think I do so because the possibility that incredible theories can turn out to be true is interesting, exciting. — Jake

:up: Yes. :smile:

On the other hand, some people will disagree with the quote. They may do so because, for them, it's more comfortable to live in a world where things are largely nailed down. — Jake

Well yes, I agree, and sympathise. But I'm not looking to spare feelings, my own as well as anyone else's. :wink: I'm trying to get around what we want to believe, and see whether we're kidding ourselves, unknowingly. And I think we could be, hence this topic.

Does it really matter whether we call it a thought experiment, a theory, a hypothesis or a fairy story? Quibbling over the label we use to describe it just distracts attention from the topic. Maybe I'm wrong; it's happened many times before now. :wink: But disputing the label is maybe avoiding the issue, and the topic here? Instead, can we wonder together about how we could/should treat theories/etc/etc that don't come with evidence? :chin: :smile:

You'll apparently be surprised to learn that when I make a claim, I do so with every expectation that I should be able to defend it. It seems we may differ in that respect as well. — Ciceronianus the White

Ah, it seems I have mis-spoken. Again. Oh well, let's try to put things right. :wink: You could be responding to one of two things, and I'm not sure which, so I'll reply to both, if I may?

The burden of proof thing has always annoyed me. It smacks to me of point-scoring, and 'winning' arguments even when my argument is wrong (and maybe even when I know it's wrong!). I consider our discussions here to be co-operative investigations, not fights. If there is any 'burden', it lies with all of us. But this doesn't mean that I cannot or will not respond to things I have said (or mis-said!), only that I don't acknowledge any 'burden'.

Alternatively, you might be referring to my pushing you to offer a logical justification for your preferred strategy of "moving on". In doing so, I am trying to get you to do one of two things. Either to admit that there is no logical justification, nor can there be, or (better! :smile:) to tell me where I've misunderstood, and explain how there is a logical justification that I have missed....

:smile: :up:

And logic says that a plausible theory that can't be falsified or disproven is (at least until the arrival of new evidence) acceptable for use, and may not be casually dismissed. — Pattern-chaser


I think the significant word in this otherwise absolute statement is "plausible." A plausible theory is one that is reasonable, probable, feasible. So, it would first be necessary for the theory in question--e.g., that we're brains in a vat--to be plausible. If you maintain that we're brains in a vat, you must establish that is a plausible theory before you can say it may not be casually dismissed. — Ciceronianus the White

OK, I chose the word unwisely. Instead of "plausible" I should've said "possible".

You have the burden of proof--Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat. — Ciceronianus the White

Don't start me off! I acknowledge no such burden. Like everyone else here, I submit my opinions for the consideration of others. But I am not required to prove anything. Just as you are not required to consider posts that you consider inadequately proven. "Burden of proof" disputes belong in the playground, where they should stay.

I may have a greater regard for considerations of utility in making judgments than you do. — Ciceronianus the White

Perhaps; perhaps not. My purpose in exploring this avenue of absolute and unbending logic is to justify my own pragmatism. The world is uncertain, so we need to find alternatives to relying on certainty. Hence my recommendation (elsewhere) that we choose theories (the ones that come without evidence) according to their utility or value (to us).

It seems to me your position is based on a logical fallacy, i.e. the argument from, or appeal to, ignorance. — Ciceronianus the White

Really? I can't see it. Perhaps I'm just being daft. It happens from time to time. :wink:

But how do we justify, logically, this "moving on"? — Pattern-chaser

I'm not sure I know what you mean, here. — Ciceronianus the White

I mean: how will you justify this "moving on"? I'm asking for a formal, logically constructed and argued, justification.

Are you saying that if something is logically possible, there is no reasonable basis on which it may be disregarded? — Ciceronianus the White

Yes, absolutely. But I'm not saying that any/all such theories must be investigated, or even considered. Only that they may not justifiably be disregarded or discarded, according to simple logic.

I have met intelligent people (couldn't say exactly how intelligent) that struggled with philosophical concepts. — Andrew4Handel

And I have met weak people who struggle to lift 100 pounds above their heads. I am one of them. Am I deficient? No, but like everyone else, I have a collection of abilities, some better than average, and some worse. My strength is less than average, as is my fitness in general. Some people can do philosophy; others are capable of protecting their families if attacked.... :joke:

Philosophy is not easy ... and it's not to the taste of many people.

Everything built over the last 500 years, and everything that could be built over the next 500 years, could collapse without warning at any moment. — Jake

Yes, it could, but we must just hope that the global financial system can be kept working, or that a better alternative to it can be found before disaster strikes. Today we (i.e. those of us who live in Western 'democracies') live in luxury; within a month we could be back in the stone age.

Your concerns are real, and serious. But nuclear war is just of of many possible hazards that we humans have invented. It probably isn't wise or rational of us to concentrate on only one. :up:

I'm proposing that addressing the primary threat to human civilization only here and there now and again is not rational. — Jake

To ignore serious threats is worrying indeed. But nuclear war is moving down the threat list, and has been for some years. Higher up are chemical weapons, biological weapons, human-created climate change, and human-created destruction-by-extinction of our supporting ecosystem. There may be others too.

Oh, and where do you get the idea that humans are civilised?

General interest in philosophy is low, but it has always been so — Pattern-chaser


Is that because it is hard? — Andrew4Handel

Hmm. I don't know. But I will also observe that general interest in politics is low, but it has always been so. Maybe all 'hard' subjects are unpopular, or maybe it's that some subjects are unpopular anyway, independent of how 'hard' they might be. I tend in the direction of the latter, but who knows? :wink:

Now that is a creative way of stating it! Harry has repeatedly denounced and condemned (I use those terms after careful consideration) trans-gender people as "deluded", and their feelings as "delusions". He has stated over and over his outrage at being 'forced' to pander to the delusions of others. I rather think it's this that brands him a bigot, don't you? :chin: :razz: — Pattern-chaser

No, not really. I've certainly no sympathy for his views in this regard — Pseudonym

:up:

...but I don't think anyone should be labelled a bigot for theorising that believing yourself to be a woman (despite being born a man) might be a delusion in the same vein as believing yourself to be fat when in fact you are thin. — Pseudonym

[My highlighting.]

When you put it that way, it sounds quite reasonable. But Harry didn't (put it that way). He did not and does not wonder if gender dysphoria might be a delusion, he asserts that it is, and that TG people are "deluded", which is used (as you know :up:) as a demeaning and contemptuous insult more often than it is used as a factual medical description.

What concerns some people is that the conviction one 'is' something which requires surgery to realise might be a harmful delusion. I don't share that belief, but I don't see how it's bigotry. — Pseudonym

It's the words chosen that are bigoted, I think. Harry is not sympathetic, or any other friendly-type thing, he is offended and angry. His words do not betray philosophical curiosity, they seem hateful, ill-meaning and contemptuous. What word(s) would you use to describe such sentiments? :chin:

Social pressure is not reasonable or rational. It's red in tooth and claw, if I can steal a phrase from elsewhere. :wink: If we approve of it, we call it one thing, and if we don't, we call it another. In your case, mandation (??? :smile:) "by threat of ostracisation and insult". If we disapprove of the way our children are raised, we call it brainwashing, but if not, we call it education. It's the same thing. And social pressure is not subject to courtesy, sadly. :meh: — Pattern-chaser

Now you seem to be throwing up your hands to ethics. Which is it to be? Are we talking about they way people should behave, or they way they do? You can't argue that people should use the preferred terms of reference and then respond to my concerns about inappropriate social pressure with a shrug. — Pseudonym

I am attempting, in my own small way, to encourage courtesy. But I can't force someone else to be courteous, and I can't force anyone else to think courtesy is as important as I believe it to be. I observe that humans en masse act as they see fit, perhaps as lions (say) might do? What should people do? Well you know my opinion, because I've been stating it here, but there are plenty of other opinions, mostly different. What do people do? You don't need me to tell you that, you only need to look at the TV or Twitter or.... I argue that people should (IMO) be courteous, but I observe that they aren't, especially en masse. :sad: So I see no contradiction. :chin:

No, not me! :smile: :smile: :smile:

they are being mandated (by threat of ostracisation and insult) — Pseudonym

Social pressure is not reasonable or rational. It's red in tooth and claw, if I can steal a phrase from elsewhere. :wink: If we approve of it, we call it one thing, and if we don't, we call it another. In your case, mandation (??? :smile:) "by threat of ostracisation and insult". If we disapprove of the way our children are raised, we call it brainwashing, but if not, we call it education. It's the same thing. And social pressure is not subject to courtesy, sadly. :meh:

Because you said it was common courtesy to call someone by the term they prefer. You brought courtesy up and now your complaining that I'm focusing on it? — Pseudonym

Not because you're focusing on it, but because you're trying to break it.

When someone like Harry comes along and says, "no thank you, I'd rather not" and is labelled a bigot for doing so. — Pseudonym

Now that is a creative way of stating it! Harry has repeatedly denounced and condemned (I use those terms after careful consideration) trans-gender people as "deluded", and their feelings as "delusions". He has stated over and over his outrage at being 'forced' to pander to the delusions of others. I rather think it's this that brands him a bigot, don't you? :chin: :razz:

don't do it if you don't understand Wittgenstein. — Sam26

Does anybody understand Wittgenstein? :wink: :razz:

I'm using the term to describe someone who is deserving of that rank — Pseudonym

Then they are entitled to be addressed accordingly. ... As long as they really are "deserving of that rank". :chin: :chin: :chin:

Also, I note you still haven't answered the question about what you would do if I asked you to refer to me by a word you found deeply offensive. — Pseudonym

I probably wouldn't do it. But why do you concentrate so heavily on breaking courtesy? It's not a difficult thing to do. But it is counter-productive. Courtesy is a two-way, co-operative, thing. It can't and won't work if all you want to do is to break it down. Courtesy is something we all must work at, because the alternative is a lot more violence, which achieves nothing.

If I ask you to refer to me as 'she/her', it's not like I'm demanding or mandating that you must call me "Pseudonym-is-a-fucking-prick"! I'm not looking to attack you, only to reflect the 'real' me, as I understand it. Will you not do me the courtesy, the favour, of doing as I ask? I will try hard to accommodate your needs in return, if that will help you decide? This is what courtesy is about, and this, I think, is what this topic is about.

[ Edited to add: I'm actually a cis male, and quite happy with being addressed as 'him/he', in line with the penis I carry in my trousers. But not everyone is happy with this, hence this topic. ]

Yes, so why do the conclusions from one dictate language use and the conclusion from the other must be ignored because they're 'unhelpful' ? — Pseudonym

To start with, almost nothing dictates language use. In this topic, we are (I think) discussing how people request others to address them in a particular way. It is not helpful to list possible objections that others may have, as you have done, and are doing. Such things are not, and should not be, "ignored". But you are extending a discussion before its fundament has been properly understood, which just makes the whole thing a lot more difficult.

When we are clear on how people should be addressed, and under what circumstances it is reasonable for them to ask to be addressed in a particular way, maybe then we can proceed to considering whether others might have difficulties with this, and whether this is reasonable of them?

How would philosophy "cause" independent thinking? — Bitter Crank


Because that is its fundamental methodology.

I don't see how philosophy can develop from parroting other peoples ideas and indeed that is responsible for the stagnation of philosophy.

Adhering mindlessly or subserviently to someone else's philosophy is not being a philosopher. You have to critically examine ideas for their substance and validity. — Andrew4Handel

A lot of points in few words. :smile: Let's start on replying to them:

Does philosophy have a 'methodology', as science does (the scientific method, and so on...)? I don't think so. Unless we want to think of using logic and structured thought as a methodology?

No, philosophy can't develop if we only parrot the ideas of others. But I don't, and most people here don't either. I don't research my answers using DuckDuckGo, I write from my own understanding, such as it is.

Oh, and I'm not convinced that philosophy is stagnant or stagnating. General interest in philosophy is low, but it has always been so. Thinking for its own sake is something that few people enjoy. I think that has always been so too.

So we few do examine our concepts, and think about them, and discuss them, as you recommend. One of the things I have thought about is your introductory quote. Philosophy does not cause independent thinking; independent thinking causes philosophy. Or at least it leads to philosophy, as the means and techniques of structured thought are developed, and maybe recorded on papyrus, or whatever comes to hand. :smile:

We deal with theories without evidence by testing them. If they can't be tested, we move on. — Ciceronianus the White

But how do we justify, logically, this "moving on"? Please quantify your emotional assertions with some logic. Place a numerical value - and justify it! - on the probability of (say) being a brain-in-a-vat. And if you can't, then please admit that you choose to dismiss this particular theory for emotional, and not rational/logical reasons. :smile:

It was a big shock when I admitted this to myself, some time ago, and I fought against it. But if we apply - and rely on - logic, we must follow it to its conclusion, even if we'd rather not. And logic says that a plausible theory that can't be falsified or disproven is (at least until the arrival of new evidence) acceptable for use, and may not be casually dismissed.

Simply put, the question whether we're brains in a vat, and similar questions or claims, are frivolous. — Ciceronianus the White

Oh, I agree. :smile: But probably not for the same reasons you do. :wink:

But that's only according to your definition of 'lord'. Mine is someone who is lordly as in 'our lord Jesus Christ'... — Pseudonym

So we both use the term to denote a "particular rank (or similar)", as I wrote. :up: But you are no more God than you are a Lord of the land, so you would still be seeking to deceive or mislead, n'est ce pas? :wink:

I meant 'that part of a person's world-view which relates to sex and gender' I just didn't feel it was necessary to write the whole thing out, but secondly I also note you've still not explained how it was unhelpful. What is the task we're trying to achieve here, and how does mentioning world-views make it less likely we'll succeed? — Pseudonym

As for the task we're trying to achieve; ask @Banno, whose topic it is. :up: :smile: Bringing worldviews into a small and (one might think) contained discussion like this one is unhelpful because it's such a widely-applying thing. It applies to (nearly) everything. You might as well try to link-in living in a Western 'democracy', which would muddy the waters even further. :wink:

The 'fact of the matter' is that worldview is an external view, whereas I think we're discussing self-image here (or something pretty close to it), an internal or introspective viewpoint. The two might be seen as complementary, but that's their only relationship. On the one hand, we have the way someone sees themselves, and on the other, you introduce worldview, which is the way everyone else sees them. Two quite contrary perspectives, as I'm sure you agree. :up:

Do you have to be of above average intelligence to engage seriously with philosophy? — Andrew4Handel

I don't think so, no.

To tell you the truth, I've been reading this thread, and haven't yet figured out exactly what disidentification is. — Metaphysician Undercover

I had to DuckDuckGo it before I worked it out. :up: :smile:

a solipsist's world is one full of absolute certainty — Posty McPostface

It is? I imagine this certainty applies to about the same degree that your impression of living in objective reality does. A solipsist believes some very queer (to me) things, but does certainty figure in solipsism any more than it does in any other belief-perspective, I wonder? :chin:

My reason would be that 'lord' means something important to some people and I am not that thing. It would therefore be offensive for me to ask them to use the term in my way. — Pseudonym

And I might observe that, as you say, lord describes a particular rank (or similar), and you don't hold that rank. It would not be offensive for you to ask to be called "lord", but it would be deceptive and misleading, and that's why it is unreasonable. Nothing to do (directly) with anyone's worldview.

Beliefs about gender and sex are part of one's world-view. I don't understand the distinction you're making between the two. — Pseudonym

Beliefs are part of one's worldview, just as sex and gender are. So are political persuasions, loyalty to football teams or one's employer, animal rights, environmental issues, and so forth. Worldview embraces a huge amount of stuff, of which sex/gender are just one small component. It isn't helpful trying to use such a big term in such a small arena as this one. I'm not making a distinction, I'm arguing that the inclusion of worldview, something that applies to half the universe, in a small and contained discussion like this one, is unhelpful.

First, it is not clear to me that "experiences lacking in conscious awareness" are "simpler". Do you offer any justification for this assumption? — Pattern-chaser

>I assume conscious experiences are more complex, partially based on my understanding that conscious experiences are still considered unexplained, yet experiences without consciousness are mostly explained... — Tyler

I asked for a (logical) justification for your beliefs, but you have just explained what they are (again), and - with refreshing honesty :smile: - been quite clear that you "assume" these things. OK, on what logical basis do you assume these things?

I believe simpler experiences, which don't involve conscious awareness, are currently explained (to a sufficient degree), because as far as I'm aware, all the steps involved in a simple experience, are scientifically explained. — Tyler

Where? By whom? What are these explanations? You assert they exist, without saying where, and without saying what they are. :roll:

"I believe a lot of the elements involved in the experiences, are explained.
-Here's a video of how te eye measures light: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KoUyMuMVJQY
-Then here's an explanation of the next step, of transfering that information to the brain: http://discoveryeye.org/the-brain-and-the-eye/
-then the next step of storing information as memories: http://www.human-memory.net/processes_storage.html" — Tyler

I read the second link quite carefully. The way it describes the eye, you'd think it was a high-res colour camera. In fact - according to our current understanding - it is mainly monochrome, and its shutter speed is 0.25 s. That is, it 'takes' approximately four pictures per second.

These pictures are mainly low-res monochrome; the high-res colour part occupies the same area in your visual field as a full moon does in the sky! The snapshots are taken by the brain, and used to construct a picture. Most of the result is fabricated by the brain, although this fabrication is based on previous snapshots, and so on, so it's not random. But it is 'made up'. What we see is what we expect to see, to an alarming degree, and this is not even hinted at in the link. Human perception, from sense-organ-input to an 'image' presented to your conscious mind, is an incredibly complex thing, and I suspect our understanding of it is at a very early stage.

Your third link describes our memories, but offers nothing specific to vision or seeing, that I could see.

After the portions are explained, it can be reviewed where those portions came from. Then, in the same way that each portion was likely understood by cause and effect, the portions can be understood by cause and effect, in their relation to each other. — Tyler

So we destroy the information inherent in the connections between the portions. Then we analyse the portions. And finally, we try by guesswork to reconstruct the data we destroyed by applying a reductionist approach. Don't you think we could be more successful if we applied a different process, and retained the interconnection-information instead of throwing it away?

After reductionism, taking the next step of placing the portions back into the original combination, it should be discernible how all the portions interact with each other, to understand the overlap, and explain the overall function. — Tyler

It should (be discernible), maybe. But is it? And how does this discernment work, exactly? You're offering wishful thinking in lieu of explanation. I don't think you have a choice though: our understanding of all of this is, I think, far behind where you think it ought to be. :chin: :smile:

I think there's a certain lack of sensitivity to the actual subject of philosophy in this OP. — Wayfarer

I'm sorry, but I don't see it. And your words don't seem to be helping me do so. What we do with no-evidence-theories is an element of the logical and structured thought which is the only factor (I think) common to all schools and disciplines of philosophy. The brain-in-a-vat theory is a good example because it can account for all available evidence, but our knee-jerk nonconscious-mind response is to dismiss it without further consideration. In this example, there is no logical justification for this. In the everyday world, this human ability is more useful, and more often correct, if only pragmatically so.

Why is it unreasonable to ask that I'm addressed as 'lord'? — Pseudonym

If you don't know the answer to your question, there's little point in my explaining. Courtesy is a two-way thing, as I said, and it requires a little tolerance and flexibility on all sides.

Words like 'him' and 'her' are used in different ways by different people and their use reflects the world-view of the people using them. I think you're mistaking 'not helpful' with 'not agreeing with me' — Pseudonym

I hope not. :up: But the topic here and now is gender/sex, not worldview. There is no agreement here on how worldview relates to gender issues, or whether it's helpful in discussing them. You have introduced it as an external (to the OP) comparison, but why?

Some people's worldview leads them to want to address people with skin darker than their own using terms that are universally accepted to be offensive. In this case, worldview does not decide the matter. Perhaps this is also the case for gender issues? :chin:

If I asked people to address me a 'lord' because I felt I was a god, it would not be common courtesy to comply with that request. Absolutely no one would comply. — Pseudonym

Courtesy is a two-way thing. It requires 'decent' behaviour from all parties. So you, being courteous, would not make such an unreasonable request of others as to address you as "Lord". Courtesy allows plain speech without (?) it leading to violence. That's what it's for. And when someone makes a request - such as "please address me as she/her" - which harms no-one, there's no reason to refuse, is there? :chin:

Do we need to know if a theory is nonsense? If there is no pressing need to answer the question, I'd vote for wide ranging open mindedness. — Jake

That would get my vote too. :up: I only used the term "nonsense" because @timwood used it first, and I repeated his term. I am questioning several posters who seem to think that an assertion (unjustified!) of 'nonsense' is sufficient reason to discard a theory which accounts for all available evidence.... :chin:

It's about how we treat theories when there is no evidence. — Pattern-chaser


Basically "theories" without evidence are not theories. The lack of the evidence would take the speculation as a thesis at best... :) — Damir Ibrisimovic

OK, theses, not theories. But you have not answered, just quibbled about terminology. :roll: Can we justify - logically - dismissing theses which account for all available evidence, just because we don't like them? :chin:

To tell them that they are no longer allowed to express that world-view requires a discussion about relative harms, not a slagging match. — Pseudonym

To expand the discussion to "worldview" is making matters murkier, I think. To respect the way an individual chooses to be addressed is common courtesy. And each individual chooses that for themselves (although their parents give them their names when they're born, as has been noted). That's how it works. I determine how I would like to be addressed, and you respect this. In return, you decide how you wish to be addressed, and I (and everyone else) respect your wishes in return.

Worldview is a separate matter, and does not (IMO) have the same force as someone asking us to address them in a particular way. The latter is much more personal than the former, I think. And this discussion concerns the latter, not the former. I'm sorry, but I don't believe that introducing 'worldview' is at all helpful here. :joke:

The precedent is long-established. When I fill in a form, real or online, it asks me what title I prefer to use. It's for me to decide, not Mary.

It's the difference between John choosing the title she is addressed by, and Mary choosing the title by which John must be called. Would Mary be happy for me to choose to address her as he/him, I wonder? :chin:

So I can't be called by the title of my choice if Mary objects? What business is it of hers? I'm not harming anyone with my request, so what's the problem? :chin: So Mary would prefer to address me as "freak" or "pervert" if she chooses (for this also follows from what you write)? :roll: Hard luck for her, I'm afraid.

[ Disclosure: I'm not one of those people who claims to have "transgender friends". I know one transgender woman, quite well. ]

Claims without evidence can be invitations to talk nonsense — tim wood

So, in the context of this discussion, how do we tell what is nonsense and what is not? That's rather the core of this discussion. How do we tell, logically and rationally, whether a topic is nonsense? :chin: