Tell that to the protesters in Iran who are being shot, arrested and tortured. Maybe (just maybe) they think that the government is acting without their "consent". — Ecurb

As I mentioned, they are trying to change the law. And as I've further mentioned, we are talking about individual consent.

Your lack of humor about the dogs and cats is telling. Do you always take yourself so seriously? — Ecurb

When I'm addressing sexism and sexist people, usually.

Your point about top hats is merely silly, as the video of Judy Garland singing "Get Happy" demonstrates (OK, it's a fedora, not a top hat, but the point remains valid). — Ecurb

"Silly" is not a rational criticism. Whether you find it silly or not is a subjective opinion and irrelevant. Its not uncommon for sexist people to want to retain sexist outlooks, and they use derision and try to invalidate the person calling them out on it instead of presenting a good argument.

You seem to be stuck on misunderstood definitions, incorrect ideas about morality, and an inability to comprehend my arguments or examples. Therefore, I will emulate Elinor Dashwood, in Jane Austen's Sense and Sensibility.

"Elinor agreed to it all, for she did not think he deserved the compliment of rational opposition." — Ecurb

This is a philosophy board. You can state an opinion and leave, but that leaves me with points and definitions that you did not rationally challenge. Therefore, you leave with me having the rational view point, you leaving with a mere opinion. There is a good reason only new people to these forums have challenged the OP on this topic. Its because its solid.

We should all examine ourselves carefully and not fall into 'moral' social pushes that have no actual rational backing behind them. I don't think you want to be a bad person, but if you're not aware that you're being manipulated by a sexist ideology when you have the chance to really think about it, you are. We cannot stick blindly to ignorance when we have an opportunity to really think about what we're doing. And all you're doing is defending a sexist viewpoint.

Again, not only consent to laws, but the homeless person is violating the consent of the home owner. When I own something and you want it, morally you have to ask me and I have to consent to give it to you.
— Philosophim

Huh? Why is the law always right? If (as I pointed out earlier) Robin Hood thinks the law is unjust. The tax collectors are violating the consent of the Saxons by collecting taxes, and Robin Hood is violating the consent of the Normans by taking the largesse back. Do the protesters in Iran "consent" to be abused by the government by dint of being born there? The notion that we all consent to obey the law is silly. — Ecurb

You consent to obey the law, or petition for the law to be changed. But until the law is changed, you consent in the social contract between an individual and government.

As I have repeated: nobody is forcing you (or anyone else) to use someone's desired pronouns. Nobody is forcing you to say "please" or "thank you". But it's good natured and mannerly to say "please", "thank you" and the preferred "him" or "her". You needn't do so, and I needn't think you are a kind, well-mannered person when you refrain. — Ecurb

Yet you are trying to convince me that its immoral not to in some manner. My point is that you have no grounds to assert this. You have provided nothing but an opinion that I should use sexist language with others.

Gender is an idea (not more prejudiced than other ideas) about how people behave and how they are perceived. If someone wants to be perceived as a "he' or a "she", it's well-mannered to comply, just as it's well mannered not to dead-name people. — Ecurb

No, it is not well mannered to follow how someone wishes to be perceived. Sometimes its actually rude to ask that a person be perceived a particular way. If a wage worker tells their boss that they should be treated as the most valuable employee despite being a lazy person who shows up late to work all the time and doesn't do their job properly, the employee is out of line and being the rude one.

Someone who asks another to participate in sexist or racist language is rude, period. I don't participate in slurs against races despite being pressured to in the past, and I'm not going to participate in sexist language despite now. Societies and cultures come and go with ideas of what is right and wrong. Sometimes society gets it right, sometimes it doesn't. This? Society is getting it wrong.

it is not sexist. Sexism suggests that one gender (sex) and the behaviors associated with it are superior to another's. We all know that women like cats, and men lie dogs (sometimes). A generalization like that is not sexist, unless (as would be utterly reasonable) we say, "Only a moron would like cats better than dogs. — Ecurb

You only have a partial understanding of sexism. Sexism is also elevating the prejudices you have about their sex, over the actual person themself. The fact you said "Women like cats" is prejudiced at best, sexist at worse. Where did you get such a crazy idea? I've known lots of women that hate cats. That's why its sexist. It asserts things about a broad sex that are not true for every member of that sex. It takes individual personality differences and tries to say "Its because you're a woman."

Now, this is not to be confused with sex expectations. For example, its expected that women will bleed once a month. That's not a social expectations, that's a biological norm. Of course, if someone stated, "You don't have a period, therefore you can't be a woman," if the person is female this is of course sexist too. Prejudice and sex expectations in themselves are not wrong, they are only wrong if they assert their truth when it does not align with reality.

A generalization like that is not sexist, unless (as would be utterly reasonable) we say, "Only a moron would like cats better than dogs. That is denying the importance of relationships, which are far closer, more intense, and more reciprocal with a dog than with a cat." Although true, that would be sexist, if we used it to suggest that our girlfriends or wives are not interested in close relationships. Also, it might lead them to dump us. — Ecurb

I don't understand why you think its utterly reasonable to claim "Only a moron would like cats better than dogs." That's just an unfounded prejudice against people who like cats. I'm not even going to comment on how you treat your girlfriends or wife.

Gender is an idea (not more prejudiced than other ideas) about how people behave and how they are perceived. — Ecurb

To be specific, and in philosophy specificity in definitions is important: Gender: The non-biological expectations that one or more people have about how a sex should express themselves in public. For example, "Men are expected to wear top hats, women are not."

I put those definitions at the start of the OP so that you know exactly what I'm talking about. In this conversation, that is gender. This is backed by gender theory. Gender is a social belief that each sex should act a particular way in public because of their sex. It is socially agreed upon prejudice. And acting upon prejudice as if its more important than the person's reality of their sex is sexist. So again, if I tell a boy, "You like dolls, and the gender of girls is they like dolls. (Society has declared this without science, just group opinion). Therefore if you like dolls, you're a girl now." that's sexist. If you disagree, explain why this specific situation is not sexist please.

So it is not rude to ask a person to use preferred pronouns. — Ecurb

Asking someone to participate in racism, sexism, or any kind of ism is rude. You have not disagreed with this. Therefore you need to explain why the above situation I mentioned is not sexist. The situation I mentioned above is saying that because the boy acts in a way society prejudices that only girls should act, he's really a girl, we should treat him like a girl, and perhaps someone would also come along and say, "They should transition their body to align with their gender".

Do you even read my posts? Your position is not viable. Here are some (of many) examples in which violating another person's consent is perfectly acceptable:

1) "I don't want to go to school today, daddy," said Billy.

"You have to go to school," said his father. "It's a law and a family rule." — Ecurb

This is a parents responsibility to manage a child who is not mentally capable to not make effective decisions about their future. We are talking about consenting adults.

2) "You were going 55mph in a 30 mph zone," said the police officer.

"I wanted to go that fast," said Philosophim.

"Tough," said the officer. "You will pay your fine, and if you don't consent you will be dragged off to prison." — Ecurb

Already covered this earlier, but I'll state it again. If you choose to live in a state, you consent to its laws. That's the basic social contract of government.

3) "I want to sleep in your house," said the homeless person. "I don't consent to leave."

"Leave right now or I will call the police and they will handcuff you and take you to prison whether you consent or not," said the home owner. — Ecurb

Again, not only consent to laws, but the homeless person is violating the consent of the home owner. When I own something and you want it, morally you have to ask me and I have to consent to give it to you.

Why is it objectively good manners?
— Philosophim

Good manners are determined by social contracts. They are designed to facilitate social interaction and to make others feel more comfortable. ON that basis, it is good manners to call people by the names they prefer, even if those are not their birth names. Similarly, it is good manners to use their preferred pronouns. — Ecurb

Good manners are not always about making others feel comfortable, but enforcing culture and power structures. I have noted it is correct to state a person's legal name if they've changed it. But pronouns? You have not given an objective reason indicating why they are beneficial to social interaction. Let me give you an example.

In the bible it states that if a man lay with another man, that is abomination. It is so, because the book says it is so. Its good for society, God, and all that. I however don't listen to what a book tells me without good reason. And I saw no good reason to view it as abomination. Back when many were in arms against gay marriage, I was for it. Because I reasoned that objectively, it hurt no one else, wasn't really anyone else's business, and two consenting adults can and should have legal recognition for long term monogamous relationships. I was persuaded by arguments, not assertions.

I'll try one more time, but unless something new is stated, we are going to have to agree to disagree and I will have held up the OP.

Gender is a prejudiced idea that a particular sex should act in a particular social way. I note that when you elevate prejudice past the person, it is sexism. If I told a little boy, "If you play with dolls, you're a girl," I would be sexist. When someone asks me, "Don't call me by the sex I am, call me by a sexist view of how people of the other sex should act," I see no reason why I should consent to using language in that way. I see the person's sex, I'm using pronouns for sex as I always have, why should I change to use sexist language?

You see, the real rudeness is asking another person to be sexist and/or use prejudicial language. "Yes, I see that you see my sex, but I'm a sexist individual who thinks that acting in a way I associate with the other sex, makes me the other sex. Would you be sexist with me?" I find that very rude. I don't care if a person transitions. But, I don't think it makes you the other sex because I'm not a sexist. You are. You have given me no reason to indicate you are not. It is not polite to be sexist, and I do not have to consent to be sexist because it makes you feel better about your sexism.

It would be the same if a black person asked me to call them the "n" word. I taught in inner city classes for a few years with minorities. That word was always forbidden from my class because I told kids we will not refer to racist language. Some kids hated me for it. "You're not cool. That's our culture." No, that's racist, and while in my class I will teach you to identify each other as human beings, not slurs and slangs involving race.

You have done nothing to indicate that you are not a sexist person asking me to participate in sexist language. Do you understand? You need to indicate why gender is not prejudice, and acting on it is not sexism. Or you need to persuade me that talking in prejudicial and sexist language is overall good for society. Kind of a "Old people curse, so you should too so they feel comfortable." I've had people try to make me curse or say things that I don't agree with many times in my life, and I've always stood my ground because I've felt its the right thing to do. Do you understand? You are not moral. I am. You are a selfish person who thinks some other stranger not even in this conversation's desire to use sexist language is more important than my rational explanations that I do not desire to use sexist language, and I have the right to not to consent to that. I rationally conclude my morality, you merely assert it with jeers and dismissals of my arguments.

So, it step up. Look at my points, and explain why the rationale is wrong. Not with jeers or appeals to social 'glue' as that's nonsense. You want my consent, you need to respect it, and respect my rational viewpoints by addressing them. If you don't, then just like the kids in my classroom, I will dismiss you as not having the intellectual capacity to know what you're doing, and will not take your words as having any validity behind them.

AS I've pointed out, your "consent" baloney is mere nonsense. — Ecurb

Let me be clear. In no uncertain terms is anyone's consent 'baloney'. Violating another person's consent is the definition of being a scummy person. It is the one commonality to every single immoral and evil act in this world. Your attempt to invalidate a person's consent is coersive and manipulative. its evil. It is one of the highest immoral positions a person can hold.

No one is "obligated" to use preferred pronouns, new names, old names, or to say anything at all (unless subpoenaed). Perhaps, however, some of us consider the good manners associated with complying with an addressee's wishes as to what name or pronoun he or she prefers a form of politeness and good manners. — Ecurb

Right, obligation means, "It is not up to the person to consent or not." If you personally consider it good manners, that is your opinion and choice. Not once have I shamed you or said your choice was incorrect for you. Do you see the difference? What you have not claimed is rationally why it is good manners for everyone else besides yourself. Why is it objectively good manners? You have not addressed the fact that to many others, you are asking them to lie. You cannot merely dismiss that with a hand wave. You don't get to tell others that preserving non-sexist language is immoral, when the opposite is more rationally considered immoral.

All judgements are "pre-judgements", because we fallible humans are never privy to all the relevant information. Therefore, complaining that using preferred gender pronouns is a form of "prejudice" is insufficient to demonstrate that it is reasonable and polite not to comply. — Ecurb

Pre-judgements are of course normal things everyone has. If a person thought, "That black person looks dangerous", its not in itself racist. If the person speaks to the black person and finds they are charming, kind, and great, but still insists, "They are dangerous because they are black," that's racist.

If a person wants to have a pre-judgement that "Only women wear dresses," that's fine. If a man puts on a dress then tells people, "I'm a woman because I wear a dress," that's sexist. Gender can only be prejudiced and sexist if acted upon. As such, asking someone to use pronouns to refer to gender is asking them to use sexist language. Its the entire focus of the OP, and I have not seen you present a single argument against its logic. Appeals to unproven politeness and dismissal of consent are not rational arguments, they are appeals to ignore rational arguments and just bend to a person's whims because you want them to.

I've already lived years of my life following a book that told me what was good because it said so. Give me good reasons, not simply assertions.

And although the energy is known to be transmitted as wave activity, the transmitted energy can only be measured as particles. This is not an issue of limited specificity, it is an issue having no understanding of the relationship between the material particle which is measured, and the immaterial wave which cannot actually be measured. — Metaphysician Undercover

Good clarity, thank you.

Note the use of “is” and "it" here — “if there is X,” “if there is something unknown.” In designating it as a something, the grammar is already treating it as a determinate entity, when the whole point of the discussion is precisely that it is not even a thing in that sense. (In fact, this is where I think Kant errs in the expression 'ding an sich', 'thing-in-itself'. I think it would be better left as simply 'the in itself'.) — Wayfarer

I get your point. I think the difference between ourselves is I see it as a known unknown. We're probably getting into the 'agree to disagree' territory. Its a fair debate, but you understand what I'm noting, I think I understand what you're noting, and that's the important thing here.

The deeper point is simply this: we are not outside reality looking in. We are participants within it. Treating the in-itself as a hidden object that either exists or does not exist already presupposes a spectator standpoint that the argument is calling into question. — Wayfarer

I think another thing here is that I believe both to be true. We are both participants, but outsiders also looking in. The 'outsiders looking in' part is a role we participate in, and in creating the model's we do we formulate terms and concepts that would themselves not exist. Let me paint a fun picture for you that we see an elephant walking around. Unknown to us, its an Eldritch horror of 6 dimensions. But since we can't experience 6 dimensions, our model is not contradicted by the 4D experiences we have with the animal, and it works objectively for us.

'The in itself' is a variation of the evil demon and the brain in a vat. It is the question of, "What is it like to be a bat?" It is the known unknowable that vexes some and creates wonderment in others. As I referenced above, I always wondered if HP Lovecraft viewed it as 'the forbidden knowledge that man was not means to understand, and would drive them mad if they did'.

To insist that “if there is an in-itself, then it must be utterly independent” is already to assume the very issue under question — namely, that reality must be a kind of thing standing over against a mind, describable in abstraction from the conditions under which anything becomes intelligible at all. — Wayfarer

I won't repeat in detail on this, just a brief mention that I think this is our main disagreement. Part of the wonder of human accomplishment isn't just knowing things, it is knowing the limits to things and logically putting together possibilities that apply to reality correctly. That's quantum mechanics and chaos theory. Its sitting on a logic puzzle and figuring out the last x,y check mark based purely on the fact that you've eliminated all other possibilities from the clues given. It is logically known only. We know where that election is, but we don't know what velocity it will travel in next. We know the limits of where a lightning bolt can land, but not exactly where it will. And sure, Jane has the walrus, but we've never seen Jane nor the Walrus.

Glad we have some points of agreement here and I appreciate the way you’ve framed this. — Wayfarer

Same. Also, you created a very well written essay and counterpoints.

Where I still want to be careful is about sliding from that logical indispensability to an ontological claim that what plays this limiting role therefore exists independently as some kind of determinate something — even if we immediately say it is unknowable or indefinable. My worry is that this quietly reintroduces the very reification the limit-concept was meant to address. — Wayfarer

This is a good point. For all we know, it could be an indeterminate 'thing/event'. That is why for me the only thing I think we can logically assert is 'independence'. It is something completely independent from us, and as such exists apart from us. It is 'the behind' of our observations. The temptation to add more knowledge claims than this is always there, but the bar is set high and rarely met by the inductions thrown at it.

I’m not saying there’s a hidden thing behind the world that we can’t access. I’m saying that the fact we’re always inside reality — participating in it rather than standing outside it — means that our ways of describing it are never final or complete. Reality keeps pushing back on our concepts and forcing revision, but that doesn’t mean there’s a separate metaphysical object called “the in-itself.” The limit shows up in the openness and corrigibility of our own understanding, not as a mysterious thing beyond it. — Wayfarer

I find it amusing that we both are using nearly identical language, but it is only a matter of perspective that separates. I find this to be a common thing in epistemology as people gaze into the 'known unknown'. I agree, when we assert 'the in itself' its not 'an object'. Its not a claim to "There's Jane in the flesh", its a claim that there is something with the quality of independence from ourselves, and that's the limit of what we can know.

So I’m not trying to remove the limit, but to interpret it differently: not as a hidden entity or substrate standing apart from us, but as a structural feature of our participation in reality — the fact that conceptual determination never closes upon itself, that experience is always constrained and corrigible without being exhaustively capturable in metaphysical predicates. — Wayfarer

Agreed. I do think there is a logical way to navigate through this uncertainty, and that logical navigation is proper deductive an inductive application. As such we can find logical models that work, but its understood that the logical models are not claims to understand independent reality 'in itself'.

And with that, I've said enough already, I need to log out for a few days to return to a writing project which is languishing for want of concentration. But thanks for those last questions and clarifications, I think the discussion has moved along. — Wayfarer

Yes, thanks as well Wayfarer! I wish you clear thoughts and limber hands.

I'll be quick on the quantum answer as I don't want to distract from your real point. The reason we measure as a wave vs an point is again a limitation of measurements. Lets go back to the waves of the ocean for example. We have no way of measuring each molecule in the wave, and even if we did, we would need a measurement system that didn't change the trajectory of the wave itself. I agree, its not all 'lumbering instruments', sometimes its just the limitation of specificity in measurement. Even then, such specificity is often impractical and unneeded. Fluid dynamics does not require us to measure the force of each atom.

Regardless, I feel that's not your true point.

What I mean is this: the “in itself” is what lies beyond our conceptual and sensory reach. It is not just unknown in practice; it is unknowable in principle insofar as any determination already brings the mind’s discriminations to bear. Even to say “it exists independently” is already to ascribe an ontological predicate to what is supposed to lie beyond all predication. — Wayfarer

Yes, I understood that was what you were going for. And it is very appealing and powerful the first time you encounter it. But what is the next step after that?

From that point of view, saying that the 'in-itself exists' is already a kind of over-specification — but saying that it does not exist is equally a mistake. Both moves bring in conceptual determinations into what is precisely not available to conceptual determination. We 'have something in mind'. That’s the sense in which 'it' is neither existent nor non-existent: not as a mysterious third thing, but because the existence / non-existence distinction itself belongs to the world as it is articulated for us. — Wayfarer

And this is the quandry. You are completely correct stating 'exists in-itself' is overspecification. But then we can't deny that it exists, and that is the 'independent' part. Independent in this case is pure independence. Undefinable, unknowable, and yet exists separate from us. From my view point, the only way we glean that things apart from us exist is the contradiction of our belief vs 'experience'. If we keep as you noted " What we actually encounter is constraint, resistance, regularity, surprise — all within experience and modelling. Independence as such is an abstraction we draw from that, not something we can meaningfully attribute to what lies beyond all possible description." we logically descend into solipsism. But we know that solipsism doesn't rationally hold in experience either.

What I'm trying to note is that the 'thing in itself' does not exist as a 'thing'. It exists as a necessary concept that leads to absurdity without it. Its the affirmative of the 'thing in itself' its the denial of it that leads to contradictions. Its a reducto ad absurdum. And that is how we know it. Not because we 'know' it, but because claims that it doesn't exist are known to lead to contradictions.

None of this breaks scientific models or the practical notion of an observer. — Wayfarer

Only if we note that the 'thing in itself' is a necessarily logical concept, and nothing more. We have to be careful here when we assert that the 'thing in itself' could not exist without an observer. The language and everything we speak in needs the 'thing in itself' as a logical necessity. Remove that necessity, and the entirety of language and observation falls apart. That's the part I'm hoping to hear your ruminations on. Is there an alternative way of us as observers even having reason without this necessary logical concept?

Bottom line: reality itself is not something we're outside of or apart from. We are participants in it, not simply observers on the outside of it. — Wayfarer

100% agree. I know I've asked a few times, and I'll stop if you want. :) But I would be keen to hear your thoughts on my knowledge paper. I think you and I would agree on much of it, but your unique passion for the way humans construct knowledge might point out something I've missed.

Do you have anything to say about the OP?

I'm not inclined to read it, now. — praxis

No worry, I'll be around when you're ready later.

Transatlantic as relating to the Atlantic. And Transpacific as relating to the Pacific. Sure, your topic is a bit more hairy (no pun intended) or complex than still bodies of water that are physically identical on the molecular level. But, at least this ONE facet of the OP (logical English phrasing) can be addressed using this much more simplified example that doesn't get people up in arms ideologically about timeless concepts such as human existence and what it means to be a (certain type) of human being. — Outlander

Yes, good point. Nice contribution.

Posting a video of cat silliness to distract a fellow debater after they requested distraction is trolling? — praxis

Of course it is. If someone tells you to steal from someone else, and you do it, is that not theft? Do you have anything to say about the OP?

The independent existent we are measuring, does not overlook the role of the observing mind.
— Philosophim

But it does! This is the basis of the major arguments about 'observer dependency' in quantum physics. — Wayfarer

We have to be very careful when analyzing quantum physics as lay people because the language is not the common philosophical or even basic English phrasing we are comfortable with. It is a mathematical phrasing.

The reason we have to take the 'observer' into account, isn't our eyeballs or consciousness. Its our measuring tools. The quantum realm is so minute that the measuring tools we use to monitor the quantum state affect the state itself. Non-quantum measurement is like rolling a ping pong ball at a bowling ball. We bounce the ping pong ball off, then measure the velocity that the ball comes back to determine how solid the bowling ball is. The ping pong ball is rolled to not affect the movement of the bowling ball.

Quantum measurement reverses this. We are essentially pitching a bowling ball at a ping pong ball. Our measurements are always going to affect the outcome. Its why you can't know the velocity and location of the quantum object at the same time.

Scientists generally have pushed back against quantum equations as it is essentially probability equations. There is a need to know the exact location and velocity of every electron circling an atom, and yet we don't have the tooling to get that. Some take affront to this, 'giving up' on non-quantum specificity. Perhaps one day our tooling will get better and we will be able to measure and calculate with greater determinency. But for now this is what we have, and we can manipulate the limited states with probability to get outcomes in theory and practical application.

Bohr stressed that we confront here an inescapable new feature of nature, to be welcomed because of the understanding it gives us.

This is Bohr's point. Its about the math and accepting our measurement limitations.

Notice this - the 'iron posts' are observations and measurements. But the shape of the R itself is a 'paper maché construction of imagination and theory'. That is what I mean by the way 'mind constructs reality'. — Wayfarer

Correct, I understand your view point. My point is that its not the mind constructing reality, its the mind observing and creating a representative that is not contradicted by reality. Removing QM for a minute, lets just talk about the idea that there exists an R, but our measurement and observation only allow us to see those points on the R. That is how we model reality to our purposes. But the R still exists as a whole.

In general, models are as good as the needs of the one creating the model. Lets say that for our purposes, we can only see the points on the R, so what do we do? We make sure the model only makes assertions about those points, and not the points we can't observe. This is what I meant earlier by noting that science takes the observer into account when constructing models of reality.

But the issue is, you can't stipulate anything about the 'independent thing' without bringing the mind to bear upon it. — Wayfarer

Barring one thing: That it is independent. Meaning you are saying it exists apart from your observation. How? Who knows really. That's the definition of true independence. It does not depend in any way on your comprehension of it. You know it can exist in a way based on your tested and confirmed model. But how does it behave apart from that model? At that point, you can glean certain qualitative logic that necessarily must be from the working model. One being, "That is independent". Meaning it exists apart from observation. How exactly? Who knows. Its the "Thing in itself" problem from Kant. And it is a fascinating topic. I like your exploration of it here. My point is that if it is not independent, what does that logically mean? Does that break our current model use, our definition of observer, and everything we comprehend? It would seem to. Maybe it doesn't, and I was curious if you had given it thought and could propose what that would be like.

I notice that you haven't actually commented on any of the philosophical arguments presented in the original post. — Wayfarer

Didn't I address your citations and give a summary? Its been a few days since we started, is there something specifically you think I've missed as I've attempted to answer all of your follow ups from that.

Scientific realism is based on conviction of the reality of the observed world, and to question it is really a difficult thing to do. — Wayfarer

Science is not based on the conviction of the reality of the observed world. Its about what hypotheses have not been falsified yet. Science does not assert what it has discovered is truth. It asserts that the models it uses have not been proven false despite repeated tests, peer review, robust debate, and application. Scientific realism that asserts what has been found is truth, is flat out false. No disagreement here. The problem is that some scientific realists also take the common science standpoint, that it is an approximation to truth. This is in general why I shy away from broad categories and focus on the specific at hand. If your beef is purely with scientific realism that asserts our models are true representations of reality, I agree with you this cannot be logically asserted.

Just to confirm, this is more of a linguistic philosophical inquiry? If so, the specific subject matter chosen seems needlessly "messy" (prone to tangential discussion/distraction/etc.), per se. — Outlander

Feel free to point out what in the OP is messy and you feel needs clarity, improvement, or should be countered. A statement is not an argument.

"Is transatlantic the Atlantic? Is transpacific the Pacific?" — Outlander

How does this relate to the OP's points?

this set of questions seems to adequately cover any philosophical space or area the OP does, yes? :chin: — Outlander

I don't think so. The topic is about gender, trans gender, and language about what man and/or woman would best logically mean in English phrasing. Feel free to point out its relevance.

Therefore, as I interpret ↪Wayfarer's intent : we humans only know how Time seems (subjectively) to us star-gazing animals, who measure Change in terms of astronomical or historical events*2. But the universe is, compared to us earthlings, near infinite. — Gnomon

But we only know this within our frame of referents as observers. You're removing an observer, than adding something an observer would include back in.

Therefore, based on the incomplete information of our native senses, and our artificial extensions, we can only know how Time appears to us (subjective observers) from our ant-like perspective. Even methodical & mathematical Science can only approximate what Time is*3 for the practical purposes of dissecting reality. — Gnomon

Correct. Wayfarer and I are in agreement on this.

Consequently, quantitative scientific-measurements-of-appearances, and qualitative philosophical-inferences-of-meaning only tell us --- "late arrivals in the long history of the universe" --- how Cosmic Change seems to us, not how it absolutely IS, beyond the scope of our measurements or meanings. — Gnomon

Right, we are observers who measure what is independent of us. My point is that we cannot be observers without the notion of something independent that we observe. Under what logic can we say that if we remove observers, what is independent of us will also cease to be? The only logical thing we can conclude is that if observers were removed, that only the observer and the things they conclude would be removed, not the independent thing they were observing. Logically, time as a qualitative concept or 'change of states' would have to be as that is independent of us. Our measurement of that independent state would vanish, but not the independent state itself by definition.

So I am with Wayfarer on the concept of a universe without an observer being something that an observer cannot observe. That doesn't require there to be a lack of observers, that's happening now elsewhere in the universe. If nothing is independent of our observation, then there is nothing independent at all, and the notion of observation changes completely.

Behave and stop distracting the thread with antics. Keep the discussion on topic and engaging with ideas instead of petty insults
— Philosophim

If ever a thread needed distraction with antics, this is the one. Twenty-six pages worth of excusing rudeness and bigotry with silly justifications based on faulty linguistics! Please! Distract me! — Ecurb

You're new Ecurb, and Banno is not being a good example of how we behave here. Stick to the topic if you wish. If you have an issue with the OP or ideas in here, feel free to present them. Trolling is not encouraged.

↪Philosophim You are under no obligation to respond. or even to read, to my posts. — Banno

Correct. But as the OP of this thread I do feel obligated to keep it on course, prevent petty insults and trolling between members on it. I'm appealing to you proving me wrong on you being a troll. The cat video is enough to prove otherwise.

Distance does not disappear if no one measures it — but “distance in meters,” embedded in a metric geometry and operationalized by instruments and conventions, does not exist independently of those frameworks. Likewise with clock time. What exists is change, passage, becoming; what we measure is an abstracted parameter extracted from it. — Wayfarer

Ok, I'm glad we're on the same page there.

The philosophical claim is simply that it does not follow from the existence of something independent to be measured that reality itself can be specified in wholly observer-independent terms. — Wayfarer

I agree with this quantitatively. Its the qualitative aspect that I'm struggling with. We acknowledge that there is something independent we are measuring, but how does the removal of our measuring remove the independent thing we are measuring? It logically can't, because its independent.

Let me imagine

That further move is a metaphysical assumption, not something licensed by the practice of measurement itself. It overlooks the role of the observing mind. — Wayfarer

And this is the part I think you're missing. Its not a metaphysical assumption without basis. The independent existent we are measuring, does not overlook the role of the observing mind. It notes that it is independent of it. Its a metaphysical assumption based on our real, predictable, and objectively confirmed understanding of measuring time. Time as a measurement cannot logically exist if there is not something that would exist independently of our measurement. That's the part I'm trying to get you to look at.

The point is that this quietly undermines the assumption that what is real independently of any observer can serve as the criterion for what truly exists. — Wayfarer

The point is that what truly exists is independent of any observer. Whether I observe change or not, it happens. Whether I observe and measure length or not it exists. Lets take the opposite. Length does not exist without an observer. How does that even work? It would rewrite the entirely of measurement and physics. Its not an assumption that change exists independently of our observation, our observed outcomes could not work without this being true. It is a truth that has to be for the framework of an observer to even work.

You can absolutely logically claim that if observers weren't there, the measurements that they invented in themselves would not exist. But you haven't proven that what is concluded inside of the framework itself, that there is change which independently exists of our measurement, isn't necessary for the framework to work. That is why it is not an assumption that if you remove the measurement, that the independent thing being measured suddenly disappears. My point is that you get into a reductio ad absurdum, because then it means the independent thing we are measuring is not independent of us, but relies on our observation.

I think there’s a deeper issue lurking here. Absent any perspective whatever, what could it even mean to say that something “exists”? — Wayfarer

True, and I like this issue. Maybe you're just jumping to it a little too quickly or using an example that doesn't quite lead there. You don't need time to think about that. It applies to any observed concept. I think logically without language or thoughts, there can be nothing to say about existence.

Everything that we use is a model or representative of something independent of ourselves. And that independence is incomprehensible minus the fact that something contradicts us outside of our will, thoughts, and beliefs that proves something is out there that isn't us. But what we can't remove is the notion that there is something independent from us as an observer. If we remove that independence as an observer, our observations no longer work. And that is why it is not a presupposition that there is something independent of our observations. Its a necessary truth for us to be observers.

I feel I'm just repeating myself at this point. I largely agree with most of your premises.

Space and time are intrinsic to that discriminative capacity. Without spatial differentiation and temporal ordering, there could be no stable objects, no persistence, no comparison, no calculation — and therefore no measurement at all. Conscious awareness and intelligibility presuppose these structuring forms. — Wayfarer

Its just the difference of one small word. "Without spatial differentiation and temporal ordering, there could be no observation of stable objects...etc. ... Conscious awareness and intelligibility require these structuring forms.

Explain it then.
— Philosophim
26 pages of your obsession with the contents of other people's underwear and the supposition that those contents dictate which toilette they must use, shows that there is not much point. — Banno

You know, after observing you for a while Banno, you're just a bit of a troll aren't you? You pretend to uphold forum standards and good philosophical standards, then flail hard when called out on it yourself.

Behave and stop distracting the thread with antics. Keep the discussion on topic and engaging with ideas instead of petty insults. If you want people to view you as someone respectable and wise, act like it.

I'll chime in another time here as I've been following the topic still and seeing if I missed something. If you wish to discuss it, that's fine. If not, I'll bow out.

The philosophical point, however, is that the act of measurement itself cannot be regarded as truly independent of the observer who performs and interprets the measurement. — Wayfarer

I don't think this has ever been controversial. This is what we've always known.

The point is that this quietly undermines the assumption that what is real independently of any observer can serve as the criterion for what truly exists. That move smuggles in a standpoint that no observer can actually occupy. It’s a subtle point — but also a modest one. It doesn't over-reach. — Wayfarer

It is an over-reach. You have to understand that the act of measurement assumes something is there independent of the measurer. There has never been the assumption that we create what we measure, only the creation of the quantitative standard of the measurement itself. So we can create seconds, minutes, or whatz its, but they all have to measure change between two states. The act of measurement itself cannot exist without there being something independent to measure. You have to tackle that first. Use length. If we don't measure length, does the distance between objects disappear? If you can't say yes, then you can't say yes to measuring time and state changes.

I think this thought process assumes a virtue that has not been earned.
— Philosophim
You entirely misunderstood the argument. No surprise there. — Banno

Explain it then. How does a person knowing or not knowing a trans individual personally indicate in any rational way that this is why they are treating the discussion abstractly? Wouldn't it make more sense that people are treating the subject abstractly because its a philosophy board?

The implication is that treating the subject abstractly is somehow wrong, when in philosophy abstract thinking is the grounds of critical thinking and can aid in conceptual understanding where personal feelings can interfere. It seems to me that whether you know a trans individual or not, that the abstract analysis of this language topic would be the better intellectual approach to the topic.

Edit: But there is a serious point here. If the folk here objecting to trans folk do not know any, then that explains why they are treating real humans in abstract terms. — Banno

I think this thought process assumes a virtue that has not been earned. Personally knowing a person or group of people does not mean you have any more ore less virtue towards them. We talk about people in abstract terms all the time. Its a philosophy board. The implication that you personally knowing a trans person makes you more moral is as true as stating that the murderer of their own child killed that child out of love.

This particular thread has stuck to language and definitions without unearned appeals to morality. It should stay that way.

But I respectfully suggest that you haven't. You will invariably view it through the frame of scientific realism, and the only kind of arguments you would consider, would be scientific arguments. Let's leave it at that, and thanks for your comments. — Wayfarer

All good, appreciate the discussion Wayfarer!

Change — understood as physical variation or state transition — can perfectly well occur without observers.

If you think that is being denied, then you’re not engaging the point of the argument. — Wayfarer

I did note that you claimed you weren't denying science, and it seemed to me that you weren't denying change. My point as been that this means you also cannot deny succession and duration, at least with how I've understood your argument so far. Change implies an origin state then a successive state. Duration is the note that one thing remains in a particular state while other things around it change. We can measure this quantitatively with time, but the qualitative concepts still exist without our measurement or observation.

What I am questioning is whether physical change, by itself, amounts to time in the absence of an observer. — Wayfarer

If you are talking about the underlying qualitative concepts of what we are measuring with 'time', then yes. Succession and duration as unmeasured concepts would continue. I'll ask again, what would the world look like without succession and duration prior to consciousness existing?

The period prior to the evolution of h.sapiens can indeed be estimated and stated, but that estimation is performed by an observer using conceptual units of time that are meaningful to human cognition. — Wayfarer

They are more than meaningful to cognition, they produce accurate predicted results about the past and present. Again, time isn't just an invented concept, its applied with success. Just like length still exists if we don't use an inch to measure it.

The quantitative count of time could not exist without consciousness, true, and it shouldn't just apply to people. Bugs and animals have consciousness to an extent as well. They observe the world without a measure of their existence. I'm going even beyond this and removing consciousness entirely. Rocks in space still had change relative to themselves and other rocks in space. Its just unmeasured and unobserved.

It’s therefore important to see that this is not an empirical argument about what we observe, and hence not a question of empirical evidence as such. — Wayfarer

But it does require us to consider the empirical if we are going to include science. When you say, "Time does not exist without observers," you are making a claim about existence. So at the least, it can't contradict what we know about existence now without a good argument. My point is that our measurement of time, and the underlying concepts of succession and duration are proven in the very measurement tools we use. 1 second is both a sustained amount of measured change, and succession is the start of the second vs the end. There is no reason that if we simply stopped measuring or 'observing' time, that the qualitative concepts would suddenly stopped. You keep avoiding this portion, so I'll ask again. If succession and duration do not exist, how does change work intelligibly? This is conceptual, and not empirical.

A useful parallel is the long-standing problem of interpretations of quantum mechanics: all interpretations start from the same empirical evidence, yet they diverge radically in what that evidence is taken to mean. The disagreement is not evidential, but conceptual. — Wayfarer

The differences in concepts only has value in its clarity of understanding the evidence as is, and helpful in discovering new evidence going forward. There is a concept of quantum mechanics that our literal eyeballs looking at something change the outcome of what we're observing. This is factually incorrect. A misconception holds no value. My point is that your viewpoint seems to hold the misconception that the absence of an observer means the absence of the qualitative aspect of time. At most, it just means the absence of someone measuring it.

The relation we create is the thing we invent measurement for, given some difference we observe. — Mww

The relation we observe, not create. The creation of a relation is something independent of observation. I can create a related measurement of zorbools, which relates the existence of magical fluctations to farts in the wind. Does it mean I can observe zorbools? No. Magic cannot be observed, so neither can zorbools.

What 'thing' is being discussed? TIme is not 'a thing'. — Wayfarer

Time is the fact of change. When you say time doesn't exist prior to consciousness, you state change didn't happen prior to consciousness. Thus, I understand why you say time starts with consciousness, as change would start with consciousness. The primacy of consciousness. But there is no evidence that change doesn't happen prior to consciousness by your points presented. Only that we are observing and measuring change. Change happens whether we observe it or label it 'time'.

My claim is that time as succession or duration does not exist independently of the awareness of it. — Wayfarer

I understand this. The problem is you have no evidence of this. You haven't presented what it would be like if time did not have succession or duration. I'm not trying to put ideas into your head as I wanted to see what you came up with first. Since you haven't, the only state I could see reality being in prior to consciousness is a state of nothingness. The logical step would be that there was a state of existence in which no change happened, then suddenly consciousness came along and changed it. Basically the God theory of universal creation. Only in this case, the "God" is consciousness as a general point.

The problem of course is that this doesn't answer Ludwig's point, it presents an alternative view point without evidence.

Presuming anything is the act of a conscious being, so it is certain that presumption of the physical world presupposes a conscious being. But we know that the physical world existed long before any conscious beings existed (at least on this planet) and, since we know of no conscious beings that exist without a physical substrate, we can be sure that the physical world can exist without any conscious beings in it. — Ludwig V

You haven't presented evidence that the world did not exist prior to consciousness. The only thing you've observed is that humans have measured change with units we call time, and you think that if there isn't a consciousness measuring change that change cannot happen. That's a big claim with nothing backed behind it.

My claim is that time as succession or duration does not exist independently of the awareness of it. What can exist without observers are physical processes and relations between states. — Wayfarer

Ok, but what would that look like coherently without the idea that change happens as succession and over duration? What does a universe without duration mean or look like? What does an idea of change without succession look like? We use succession and duration in measuring time, because these are proven concepts. I'm willing to entertain a world that does not have succession or duration, but it needs to be coherent. What does that look like to you? Again, if you accept change existing prior to humanity observing it, then 'time' exists. If you're simply stating the 'measurement of time' doesn't exist, no argument there. But the lack of an observer measuring change does not mean change does not occur apart from observation.

It’s also worth noting that contemporary physics itself no longer treats space and time as fully observer-independent in the classical sense. — Wayfarer

Yes because that is how time is measured. You need an origin, because time is the measure of relative change between two states. Again, just because someone isn't there to measure relative change between two states, doesn't mean that it does not happen.

My point is not to deny physical reality, but to note that the naive realist picture of time as an observer-free container is no longer supported — even by physics. — Wayfarer

And again, all you've demonstrated is that "The naive realist picture of measuring time as an observer-free container is no longer supported." You have that 100%. Its the leap of you removing an observer's measurement to removing change prior to the observer that is missing a logical step.

↪BenMcLean
You're Bob Ross right? — frank

Hey, this is a new person on the forum. Inappropriate to go around publcally accusing people. Report a post if you suspect an issue, please don't make a hostile environment for new people. Reading their OP, they've posted absolutely nothing ban worthy.

Welcome Ben, this is a pretty good post. I often don't hear measured viewpoints from the right. Please ignore the trolls and continue discussion with those who want to engage with the OP. As I've mentioned before, I stay away from politics in philosophy, but I'm sure you'll find a few good people to engage with. I also agree with Banno that this is more political discussion than political philosophy.

My advice is to read a few more posts first and see what philosophy is. Your post is more of a fact/perspective viewpoint about the political right. But does it examine what it means to be conservative? Is the current Republican party conservative? More questions that either you build answers to with logic and facts, or questions that you use logic and facts to explore and leave open ended for others to provide their input.

Of course, no contest. But the point is, the observer is watching, measuring, deciding on the units of measurement. The relationship between moments in time and points in space is made in awareness. — Wayfarer

The measurement of relationships between moments in time and points in space is made in awareness.
That doesn't mean awareness creates the observed thing that we are measuring.

And the argument is that time has an inextricably subjective ground, that were there no subject, there would indeed be no time. — Wayfarer

Again, the argument that works is that the measurement of time (the rest of your quote). Again, just because I don't measure an inch, doesn't mean that space doesn't exist. Same with time.

Now obviously that's a big claim, but I've provided the bones of an argument for it in the OP. It can also be supported with inferential evidence from science itself. — Wayfarer

I was not satisfied that you interpreted science correctly. And as such I don't think you've made a good argument that time is merely a pre-supposition. I think you need to resolve the fact that measuring something doesn't mean we've created the thing that we've invented a measurement for.

I could never understand the obsession with the need to have a rigid definition of "man" and "woman." As if the fate of humanity rested upon it. Can't we just accept that we all humans, riddled with variation? — Questioner

We can both accept that we're humans riddled with variation, and accept what the normal use of man and woman mean in general language and culture. And do you know who cares very much about there being a distinct separation between men and women? Trans men and women. They see something fundamentally different from their own sex that they have an obsessive need to obtain for themselves. If there wasn't a difference, they woudn't care and transition would not be a thing.

Its important to understand that wanting clear defiinitions is not an intention to hurt other people. The OP is primarily concerned with the language itself, and seeks to demonstrate that the phrasing is poor. All I'm saying is if honest trans gender people are trying to communicate accurately, they are best to avoid the phrase and instead modify it to be clearer. "Trans men are adult human females that act in gendered ways associated with men." What's wrong with clear language?

Paradigm shifts are difficult. We have to let go of old beliefs that no longer fit the new reality, and our instinct is to be resistant to that. But you risk nothing when you try to understand where someone else is coming from. — Questioner

You know I know very much about trans individuals. So that's not an argument against what's being posted here. I'm also not treating trans people like pedant's either. I help people speak more clearly and say what they mean in my daily life. Clear communication is important. And many people get confused on this subject. If we want trans and non-trans people to get along better, honesty and openness are the way.

OK, I can see how my argument won't seem constructive to you because it doesn't accept enough of your basic premises to help you refine it. But I think what you're really doing here is smuggling in the deeply, inherently political and pretending you can treat it as non-political, in order to establish norms which make trans political victory inevitable. — BenMcLean

No, I'm really just providing a discussion ground for people to think about this idea. If you've noticed, I've largely stepped away and let people discuss amongst themselves. Its important we talk about things like this in a different way from politics. Again, I encourage you to make a topic of your own on the subject if you would like. Just make sure that its well thought out, cites good evidence, and isn't merely an attack on a group of people.

Right - agree. But here we're discussing a philosophical distinction. This understanding of 'the mind's role in the pursuit of scientific understanding' is not itself a scientific matter, right? — Wayfarer

It is. It is also a philosophical one, but that philosophical role should consider the science known. The quote was to indicate that scientists are not purporting to describe things in themselves as you claimed. I meant nothing more than that.

I don't see that as a pre-supposition, but an observed reality.
— Philosophim

It's a measured reality - and that is a world of difference. 'One second' is a unit of time. As are hours, minutes, days, months and years. But (to put it crudely) does time pass for the clock itself? I say not. Each 'tick' of a clock, each movement of the second hand, is a discrete event. It is the mind that synthesises these discrete events into periods and units of time. — Wayfarer

Yet its a discrete event that has a start and an end. Lets broaden it out to one minute. You start at X second and end at Y second to get a minute. It is a discrete measurement that is broken down into smaller discrete measurements in order. When we measure a minute, we have to watch for 60 seconds. Time passing is baked into the discrete measurement itself. Its not a dot on an x, y grid. Its the passage of coordinates like velocity where the difference between 1 and 2 is one second.

Physics relates states to one another using a time parameter. What it does not supply by itself is the continuity that makes those states intelligible as a passage from earlier to later. A clock records discrete states; it does not experience their succession as a continuous series amounting duration. — Wayfarer

I'm not quite seeing this. As I noted, velocity measures continuity of speed and direction which necessitates time passing in succession. Even a clock has a setup that implies before and after. With 12 starting as the origin, 1 comes after 12, 11 comes before 12. This is a measured succession comprised of 60 minutes each.

The fact that we can say “one second has passed” already presupposes a standpoint from which distinct states are apprehended as belonging to a single, continuous temporal order. — Wayfarer

I don't see that as a pre-supposition, but an observed reality. Why is it a pre-supposition? For example, lets pre-suppose time is not a continuous temporal order. This would mean the future could happen before the past. But we've never observed this. I've never eaten my sandwich before I've made it. So the observed reality as we have known so far indicates there is a past, a future, and that the past always happens prior to the future.

So the claim is not that change requires an observer, but that time as succession—as a unified before-and-after—does. — Wayfarer

I mean, that's a fair claim to explore. Do you have evidence that its not? We have plenty of evidence to indicate that it is.

What I am suggesting is that, in your examples, the role of the observer in supplying continuity and relational unity between discrete events goes unnoticed. — Wayfarer

Wouldn't the observer be observing continuity and relational unity? I mean, if I observe an inch, I'm observing a length of distance. If I observe a second, I've observed a relational change of time from a beginning to an end. You seem to be relying on the observer for observing time, then switch it up and say the observer isn't observing time, they're just making it up. While I agree the relation of a second is made up, it is a consistent agreed upon measurement of observed reality, is it not? And that observed reality of time, the second, has a start and an end right?

Once this abstraction has been made, the subject — as the individual scientist — can indeed be set aside, creating the impression that objects and interactions are being described as they are in themselves. — Wayfarer

The scientific method is attempting to represent reality in a measurable and objectively repeatable way. Science in its fine print never claims it understands truth. It claims it has been unable to falsify a falsifiable hypothesis up until now.

What I do agree with is that we can make a form of measurement like the second, then retroactively apply it. So if a person discovered 'the second', they could then ask, "I wonder how many seconds it took me to finalize what a second was from the time I started work this morning?" There's a definitive answer in terms of representation. But not having this representation does not change the qualification that time passed since they started work that morning.

Now I may still be misunderstanding the point. So to sum, my big questions are, "Why is it a presupposition that time is linear, when the measurement of time requires linearity?" One second has a start and an end. The other is, if you presuppose that time does not require linearity, how does this result in anything coherent? Can you give me an example of what this would be?

You go over some ground here, so I want to summarize your points to ensure I understand what your OP is trying to say.

1. Ludwig has stated that reality can exist without any conscious beings in it, because consciousness relies on there being a physical world to exist. We know of physical reality that does not have consciousness, but we have not yet found consciousness that exists independent of physical reality.

2. You have no objection to modern day science and learning, so these are all free to consider as known and applicable.

3. You believe that the claim that there existed temporal progression before consciousness needs to be carefully examined and not taken for granted.

4. You believe time in physics does not have an order of progression and only measures a relation between states.

5. Because time is only an observable measurement to an observer, the lack of an observer means time is not observed.

6. You use Kant, Bergson, and Schopenhauer to support your arguments.

Conclusion: Because time is only observed by an observer, time did not exist prior to observers. Therefore, physical reality could not exist prior to observers existing.

A few counter points to consider.

1. Physics does follow temporal progression. Velocity is a measurement of direction and location over time. This seems obvious, so it may be that I'm missing some other implication you were trying to point out there. Now there may be some confusion in saying "Time" is an actual 'thing' vs the observation of change between different objects. I agree that 'time' is not a 'substance' like a cake mix you can run through your hands. It is simply an observation that change occurs.

2.

Time, he argues, is a pure form of intuition² - the a priori (already existing) condition required for appearances to be given as successive or as simultaneous. If we abstract from the subjective conditions of intuition, Kant writes, then time in itself "is nothing." This does not mean that time is unreal, but that its reality is inseparable from the standpoint of possible experience, and cannot be projected back onto things as they might exist independently of appearance. — Wayfarer

Your last sentence does not logically follow. If I measure 1 second forward, then one second later I have recorded and measured one second backwards. Again, follow the velocity of an object over time on a graph. If I set up a crash stunt, I have to measure the forces and time. Once the stunt is complete, I can see if the number of seconds that passed, did. To arrive at the point after the stunt is complete, time would have had to pass in the measure that noted, or else the current measure of time would be off. 1 minute past is what happened to be at the current time correct? Time is simply measured the change of one thing in relation to another thing. But to say time doesn't exist prior to consciousness is to claim there was no change prior to consciousness. An observer can observe and measure change, but an observer is not required for change to happen.

The appeal to a "pre-history" of the universe, taken as decisive against the primacy of consciousness, presupposes precisely what is at issue: a notion of temporal succession that is already meaningful independently of any standpoint. — Wayfarer

Well no, it is meaningful in terms of the measurement we created and observed. But it doesn't mean we've created what we observed. That's like saying length didn't exist before we observed it. Of course there had to be distance between two objects. Observation only adds the measurement of something in relation to our observation of it, so that's true. So the concept of an 'inch' would not exist without consciousness. But the 'length' that we are labeling as an inch would still exist despite that lack of label.

Time is the same. A second is a way we measure time, but that time would exist whether we measured it or not. At the most you can say, "Before there were observers of time, there was no observation and measurement of time." I agree with that completely. But this in no way indicates that prior to an observer of time, that time, or the relative change between objects, did not exist prior to its observation.

Bergson reserves the term durée (duration) for lived temporality: the continuous, qualitative flow in which moments interpenetrate rather than succeed one another like points on a ruler. Duration is not composed of separable instants, nor can it be exhaustively captured by clocks or equations. It is the form taken by inner life itself - memory, anticipation, and the felt passage from past to present.

This distinction matters because it sharpens the point already made in connection with Kant. The time parameter of physics can order states and define relations, but it does not, by itself, yield temporal passage or succession as such. Bergson's claim is not that physics is mistaken, but that it necessarily abstracts particular values from what makes time what it is for a conscious being. In doing so, it substitutes a mathematical schema for the reality of temporal existence. — Wayfarer

Well no, a measurement is not the same as the act itself. Its an observation, and if done accurately and completely, results in an expected outcome in the future, as well as an expected set up in the past. Wayfarer, you aren't experiencing the 'now' of typing your OP, but you did right? You aren't immediately conscious of your typing the OP in the past, but you surely did. What if you bumped your head and didn't remember typing it? Even if you couldn't measure it in your memory, it still happened in the past as we're reading it now. Even if you died tomorrow and no one read your OP ever again, it would still exist.

The 'now' is still the act of change. You can't even observe the 'now' without change happening, as 'observing itself' is change. Can we quantify it as a 100% understanding of what is actually happening? No. We can quantify it within an accurate enough measure to both predict and result in real observable outcomes. But our inability to completely represent the qualification of time into a perfect quantity does not invalidate the qualification that time exists prior to the now. Whether we sleep through our observation of time or not, change still happens.

To recap: on the one hand, scientific explanation requires us to say that conscious beings emerge only after a long causal sequence unfolding in time. On the other hand, time itself - understood as succession or temporal sequence - exists only as a form of representation, and therefore presupposes a knowing subject. — Wayfarer

To clarify, time as an observable measurement only exists as a form of representation and can only be understood by a conscious subject. That doesn't mean that what is being represented does not exist independent of our ability to measure it.

In the final analysis, reality is not something from which we stand apart. As Max Planck remarked:

Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are part of the mystery that we are trying to solve. — Wayfarer

Unless we also use science to figure our ourselves. I'm not sure how this counters Ludwig's point either.

The appeal to a "pre-history" of the universe, taken as decisive against the primacy of consciousness, presupposes precisely what is at issue: a notion of temporal succession that is already meaningful independently of any standpoint. — Wayfarer

There is no pre-supposition though. We have concluded that time passes, and we express this quantitatively through measurement. If you pre-suppose there is no temporal succession, you can get invalidated by your very reading and addressing of the just recently made pre-supposition itself. Qualitatively, time still exists independent of our direct observation. The point that time existed prior to humanity is not a quantitative specific claim, but a qualitative one. Nothing in your points indicated that consciousness existed apart from physical reality, nor did you indicate that physical reality cannot exist independent of consciousness. So as I've understood it, what has been claimed is that observers are the only things that can observe time, and if observers don't exist, time is not observed. I don't disagree with this, but I don't think it invalidates Ludwig's claim.

Transwomen are people, deserving of our love and kindness and respect, and equal rights as fellow citizens. That all really has nothing to do with this philosophic question. Women people deserving all of these as well. And men. A few people (and a political ideology) don’t get to hijack the function of language and repurpose the word “women” just because they think that is the only way equal rights and respect can be distributed to the people who distinguish themselves as “trans”. — Fire Ologist

Good post Fire.

This needs to be understood clearly from all involved in this discussion. If at any moment anyone thinks raising this issue is about being bigoted, hateful, or 'against trans people', please correct that notion or at least provide a clear reason why you think any of those apply. We want to avoid the problems we have seen prior in discussions. "You don't believe in God? You must be evil and hate people." "You don't believe in our president? Well you must be a commie and hate America." "You're against using language to state a trans woman is a woman? You must hate trans people." Its the same pattern, and we as people who participate in philosophy have the responsibility to not fall into these same patterns.

If language didn’t contain the static, ever, the notion of “shared understandings” is silly. How can two people share the same understanding if not even words can be fixed?
— Fire Ologist

This is a bizarre take. We know language isn't fixed. Surely you know the language you're speaking now didn't exist 2000 years ago. And after it did come into existence, it was spoken very differently from how it's spoken now. — flannel jesus

I think the issue is that language cannot be a purely rule less enterprise. Its like saying, "Since every human is slightly different, a pig can be a human." Of course it can't. The entirety of philosophy is based on defining language and rules to create logical outcomes. If you use language to 'prove' language has no rules, you've just created a rule about language and contradicted yourself. Its not that rules can't change over time, but that doesn't mean the rules and outcomes of today are suddenly invalid or trivialized.

Lots of words involve "prejudice" (as you define it). "Kindness" suggests a prejudice for certain varieties of action. "Morals" suggest a prejudice in favor of ethical rules. ""Prejudice" is a form of "judgement" -- sometimes an inaccurate one based on incomplete data, sometimes an accurate one based on incomplete data. — Ecurb

If you read the OP, prejudice is literally a 'pre-judgement'. Determining kindness and morals are not pre-judgements, they are judgements.

Gender-based norms have been prevalent in every human society. However, they differ from culture to culture. This suggests they are not based on sex, but on "gender", which is culturally constituted. — Ecurb

Prejudice and sexism have been prevalent in every human society. However, they differ from culture to culture. This suggests that prejudice and sexism are very easy to fall into if we aren't diligent about it.

Using titles is also prejudiced. We think (with insufficient evidence) that someone calling herself "doctor" is well-educated about treating disease. Should we refrain from using "doctor". — Ecurb

That again is not a pre-judgement. Its an earned title based on education and life accomplishments to indicate a person who has gone above and beyond to master skills beyond most people's capabilities and efforts.

Debating with you is like shooting an unarmed man. Victory is easy, but there's not much glory in it. — Ecurb

You can only talk like that if you leave the debate on strong footing Ecurb. I hope you learned another viewpoint. That the trans gender language and approach is not kind, it is demanding of another person's consent. And no one is obligated to speak to another in a prejudiced manner.

I think you may be describing some aspects from the transwomen side, but not all. And I still think only addressing trans women ignores the commonality between them and trans men.

More importantly for my purposes, I think there is a clear division between trans gender individuals and trans sexuals. I do believe that trans gender is inherently prejudicial, and ultimately sexist if it rises above the fact of the person. However trans sexual individuals simply desire the body of the other sex. While they can also be trans gender, I want to isolate specifically the trans sexuals who still understand they aren't going to magically change into the other sex, but have a deep psychological desire to do so anyway.

The trans gender issue takes up so much bandwidth, its rare I can think or discuss about this particular issue with another. Do you think there is something potentially different about trans sexual individuals? Even in societies where women are oppressed, there are trans sexuals. Its a very rare occurrence, but they exist across all cultures. Should the desire be entertained if the technology is available? Is the separation of trans sexuals and trans genders something viable to consider?

"And, doggone it, I'm not about to change with the times." Any of us who have seen emails where people list their pronouns and identification forms where people list their pronouns must be aware that the pronouns are meant to relate to gender, not sex. — Ecurb

And as I've noted in this thread, I consider gender prejudice. So no, I'm not going to start using prejudicial language. You have not indicated why the OP is wrong on this. This is not a 'times' issue. This is a linguistic and ethical issue.

Therefore, it is not a "lie" to use someone's preferred pronouns. Of course you are free to do so, but your excuse that complying would be a "lie" is mere silliness. Therefore, there is no moral excuse for your rudeness -- your excuse is simply that you don't want to change the way you speak as the language changes. That's not a matter of morality -- it's a matter of stubbornness. — Ecurb

Is it more moral to use language without prejudice and sexism, or more moral not to? Its more moral not to. Since I use pronouns to refer to sex, its not a matter of stubbornness but ethics and integrity. Since I use pronouns to refer to sex, by fact, it would be a lie to call them a sex they are not.

Yes. Every single criminal act, every single violation of another human being involves violating their consent. Its not something to be taken lightly
— Philosophim

First of all, that's not true (or only trivially true) — Ecurb

How is it not true? You don't just get to hand wave that away. Again, your dismissal of consent is highly questionable.

many legal acts violate people's consent. The murderer who is hauled off to prison doesn't consent to being incarcerated. — Ecurb

In society and government, to live within that government you consent to following its laws. If you don't like it, leave or change the laws. A government like a democracy allows more voices involved in what laws society crafts. So no, it is not a violation of consent if you choose to live within a civilization.

"Its ok to steal five dollars because he has a lot of money and won't miss it.
— Philosophim

Well, Robin Hood is a revered hero. — Ecurb

You're excusing petty theft by referring to a fictional character? Present an actual moral argument please.

Sometimes it is morally justified, sometimes it isn't. — Ecurb

Thank you, this is more honest. Of course I am not comparing petty crime to revolution, which is the overthrow of a government that has gone beyond the normal rights and uses laws to violate its citizens instead of protecting them and keeping order. What I'm not seeing is any justification for violating a person's interpersonal consent, which is what the topic is about.

As I've clearly pointed out, using preferred pronouns does not constitute a "lie". — Ecurb

You have not pointed out that if I'm using pronouns to reference sex, that it would not be a lie. You have tried to insist that everyone should use pronouns to refer to gender. But you have not given a moral reason why. I have indicated gender is simply prejudice, and I think its immoral to support it in any official capacity. Meaning I have a moral right to not use pronouns to refer to gender. So far, I have the moral right to call you unethical for pushing prejudicial language. You should work on that next.

You have a "moral right" to misuse the language, to behave rudely, and to ignore the preferences of others. — Ecurb

You are misusing language by attempting to turn a sex descriptor into a tool of prejudice. To me, that is rude. You ignore my preference to use pronouns as mere descriptors of a person's sex, and without providing any serious moral reason why I should not.

And I have the moral (and correct, and logical) right to say such behavior is rude. — Ecurb

I have seen only assertions, no logical argument why you can say your behavior isn't prejudicial. History is full of people who assert moral certainty without rationality as a means of control. That's you. You are logically in the wrong so far here. That may change if you present a better argument, but as of now, you have nothing but statements and beliefs, not accurate facts or logic.

Would you object if people misgendered you? If you would, why would you want to misgender
others (now that it's clear that this involves no "lying")? — Ecurb

No, I don't object to misgendering because I don't believe in using 'correct' gendering either. Gender is a prejudicial way to talk to one another. You see, in some actions I could easily be observed as having the gender of the opposite sex. In their eyes, because gender is simply a subjective prejudice, they would see me as the gender of the opposite sex, and would not be misgendering. And yet if I decided to think gender was important, I can very likely have a different idea of how my sex should act, and thus it would be a difference of opinion and not fact.

I see my behaviors as irrelevant to my sex. Subjective communication asserted as objective reality does not lead to clear communication. That is why I use sex references and not gender to other people. Act and live as you want. It doesn't change the sex that you are. And in no way does anyone have a moral right to assert someone is rude if they aren't using prejudicial language.

You're really losing this one Ecurb. Try less mocking attacks. Try addressing my points more clearly. And give a serious look at consent. You're coming across as a kid, not a serious debater. That can change, but you need to shape up a bit.

Thus the transgender discourse in inherently misogynous. — Throng

It is also can be equally masandrist when trans men are involved. This is all too often forgotten in the conversation, but rans men exist too. There are trans men who think because they've transitioned, they're now gay and can hit on gay men. Which is incredibly homophobic. I don't think transitioning is innately misogynist or mysandrist, but much of the rhetoric around it is.

The tenor of your discussion may be heading more towards the idea of gender as having any credible import in laws. I have another one here that may be more along the lines of what you're thinking about. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/16313/gender-elevated-over-sex-is-sexism/p1

Oh, bunk. "What planet do you live on" was shorthand for saying language evolves and most educated people are now aware that pronouns refer to gender, these days. — Ecurb

Ok, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. I've come across the wrong way before as writing lacks non-verbal. To your point, its unknown how many educated people use pronouns to refer to sex. I'm educated for example, and I've always used pronouns to reference sex, not gender.

So you are agreeing with me that its a lie, and that people are being asked to lie for someone else's feelings.
— Philosophim

No. As should be obvious from my posts. — Ecurb

With regard to lies: I'm a fan of Mark Twain, who said, "Show me a man who don't lie and I'll show you a man who ain't got much to say." Generous, good-natured lies harm no one, facilitate happiness and lubricate social interaction. Lies in and of themselves are not wicked; they are wicked only if harmful or malicious. — Ecurb

Then why did you mention the above if there are no lies involved?

If your 'good natured lies' make my consent trivial, then you share the same mentality as a thief.
— Philosophim

Oh, no! Horrors! — Ecurb

Yes. Every single criminal act, every single violation of another human being involves violating their consent. Its not something to be taken lightly. Notice how I'm not mocking a trans person's request for pronouns. I'm listening, I'm considering it, and stating its up to every individual to concede whether they wish to do something against their nature for the other person. I just ask the same consideration and respect back.

Your consent is irrelevant because it would be a trivial favor on your part to use the gender pronouns people desire. — Ecurb

"Its ok to steal five dollars because he has a lot of money and won't miss it." "Its ok if I copped a feel quickly, she'll get over it." These are the excuses of people who do wrong to others. They discount other's personal boundaries, their viewpoints for personal benefit at another's expense. That's what being a terrible person is.

I do not mind if a trans person asks me to partake in the implication that transition has made them the other sex. I clearly do not see any moral justification for me to partake in this besides its what they want. And my decision not to should be just as respected as their decision to be on hormones and dress in a manner associated with the opposite sex.

You yourself have discounted and not listened to my clear points in the last posts as to why its important to me that I refuse to go along with their view of themselves. If I went and told a trans gender person, "I don't care if you feel like a woman, just suck it up for social cohesion," you would have an issue wouldn't you? Then why do you not have an issue telling me to suck it up for social cohesion? Morality seeks equal rational treatment between parties. You have not proposed that.

Do you see your moral certitude lacks consistency? Instead of an ask for a group, this seems more like a power play. That's not anything good or moral. My viewpoint is morally consistent. I simply ask that my consent or lack thereof to not lie to someone else be respected and understood as my moral right. From my view point still, I hold the moral view point while you seem to want to violate consent for the emotions of a particular group of people.

Trans people (about whom I know very little) are probably obsessive about their gender (why else would they bother becoming trans).. So I assume it's more important to them than it would be to you (if you have normal sensibilities). — Ecurb

What an inane assumption. I just told you why its important to me. And consent is not about whether someone thinks its more important. If a man raped a woman because he thought his desire was more important than her desire not to sleep with him, that makes it right? And you don't even know any trans people. I do. And I know a few who agree with everything I've posted here. Trans gender people are not a monolithic hive mind.

So instead, of making naive moral assumptions and assertions, take a step back and go step by step. Why is consent not important? Why is a trans person's request more important than the consent of someone who does not want to give it? How is this something moral, and not just the complaining of a child like mind that wants control over others?

Pronouns for most people represent sex indicators, not gender.
— Philosophim

What planet do you live on? These days, for most people pronouns represent gender indicators. — Ecurb

Incorrect. Most people do not even understand gender as used in gender theory. And you did not invalidate my point that there are people who do use pronouns to refer to sex. The "What planet do you live on?" is an indicator of your frustration in realizing you can't counter that point. I have not been disrespectful towards you. Initial disrespect is always an indicator that you are losing the discussion.

We have freedom of speech. That includes your right to misgender people, and my right to disparage you for it. I'm not threatening to throw you in prison, or fine you. — Ecurb

And where did I say I would be thrown into prison or fined? That's irrelevant. If you want to disparage my consent, that's fine. But then I hold the moral high ground, and you don't. There's one common thing among all criminals: The disparagement of consent.

With regard to lies: I'm a fan of Mark Twain, who said, "Show me a man who don't lie and I'll show you a man who ain't got much to say." — Ecurb

So you are agreeing with me that its a lie, and that people are being asked to lie for someone else's feelings.

Generous, good-natured lies harm no one, facilitate happiness and lubricate social interaction. Lies in and of themselves are not wicked; they are wicked only if harmful or malicious. — Ecurb

And yet you disregarded my entire point above that these are not good natured or harmless lies. You are claiming they are good natured, you have not given any points indicating they actually are. I find your request quite evil at this point. This is coming from an atheist as well.

Your "consent" is trivial. — Ecurb

If your 'good natured lies' make my consent trivial, then you share the same mentality as a thief. Your argument essentially says my consent is irrelevant, and I should just lie for social cohesion. You have not yet given a good reason why my consent is irrelevant, or why the request for another person to lie isn't itself a violation of social cohesion. I would say a much better social situation is to be among people who can be honest with each other and trust each other to speak honestly.

I'm not seeing a very good moral justification from you, and your disregard of consent puts you at being morally suspect at this point. Please take your next post seriously and put some effort in giving some substantive reasoning and even a little willingness to consider the importance of consent. If you don't do that, I don't think there's a single person who could reasonably confirm that what you're saying is good.

Fantastic then! I'm glad we both got somewhere. You made me look at my own theory critically as well, and that is very much appreciated.