What does it mean to say that a statement is true? — A SeagullThat if people believe that statement and use it to inform their actions, they will be more likely to make useful decisions related to what the statement refers to.
— Coben

Yes, this is exactly right. Without this link words, statements and even philosophy are meaningless. — A Seagull

No, this is exactly wrong. Plenty of people believe in statements that inform their actions and these beliefs are not true.

Truth is reality. Our ideas can be concurrent with reality, or contradicted by reality. While we can never know if our concurrent beliefs with reality are just because we have not stumbled onto a point of reality that will contradict it, we can know when reality contradicts our beliefs.

If you replace the word "soul" with "body", I think this works better and is much more accurate to reality. I have a problem with the idea that we are separate from the body. To me that's an awareness function that has gone rogue. A point of awareness is that we are the body's steward. We make sure that its mix of desires doesn't get it into trouble. We're not trying to deny the body, we're trying to harmonize the body for its maximal expression and enjoyment without causing undue harm to ourself or others.

I wasn't passing judgment on you or anyone else, instead I was talking about some basic psychological principles that you seem to be completely unfamiliar with. — Jacques

Whether intended or not, when someone tells you how they feel, if you tell them, "No, you don't really feel that way. I read it in a book.", its insulting. That's basic psychology. You can ask a person why they feel that way, but telling a person that they don't feel what they are feeling will piss people off. Don't do it.

Second, I am familiar with the psychological and philosophical theories that there is no altruism, but that everything we do is for our own self-interest. This is not science. This is psychology and philosophy. There are also competing theories that claim we can be altruistic beyond our own self-interest. Just think of the example of a person leaping on a grenade to defend the rest of the men in their squad. If you believe your audience is unfamiliar with a theory you are referencing, actually reference it in your OP when a person seems to invalidate that theory that you would like to talk about.

By the way, try to remember when you were stuck in a traffic jam and were happy for the other side because they had a free ride. A true altruist in such a situation would say to himself, "I'm so glad it hit me and not them!" — Jacques

Another thing you shouldn't do is assume things of people without asking them. Not in traffic per say, but I have had situations in life where I had been in an unfortunate position over another person, and I was glad for them that they didn't have to handle it because I knew I would be able to handle it better. It still sucked, but it could have been worse. I am that type of human being. Assuming I couldn't be without asking first is ignorant and immature.

Fantastic that you've read. Keep reading. But don't think that reading a few books makes you an expert on the human condition. When you talk to someone and they seem to counter your theory, listen first. That's the step to becoming a real expert. You have someone in front of you that does things for moral reasons without self-benefit. I'm very real and someone you can learn from.

Ok. Off topic, but it sounds like control or autonomy is very important to you. I'm always fascinated by how different we are despite all the ways in which we are alike. — Tom Storm

Yes, its extremely important to me. It may be due to an upbringing where emotions were mostly punished and a lack of a feeling of control in my early life. I agree, its great to see the differences between us! Together we often can compliment each other in areas we personally lack.

Hey, I don't doubt that you are sincere and believe this. I guess I hold a view that all people, regardless of how they make decisions, are influenced by unconscious factors - biases, desires, etc. — Tom Storm

That's definitely true. Snap decisions are made with those factors for sure. But when you take time to really think on something, and you are a person that analyzes your own motives very carefully, you can minimize and even remove those underlying factors.

You sound very certain. You are talking about what you are conscious of. Can you rule out unconscious influences on your actions - guilt, duty, etc? — Tom Storm

Yes. I am a very introspective person who thinks on a major decision for a long time from multiple angles. I understand that the average person does not do this. You're going to have to trust me on this one despite it just being an internet conversation. There are people like me who choose moral decisions that do not directly benefit themselves because they know there is more to life than just themselves. No religion required.

I don't disagree with you, but I wonder if a soft form of self-interested altruism might be behind such actions? Any thoughts on this? — Tom Storm

No. I do plenty of things that offer me less satisfaction than the alternatives. My sister was diagnosed with bipolar disorder about two years ago during the Covid pandemic. She lost her job, she ended up making some poor decisions and moved to a place with no support. I recently got to the point in my career where I could work remotely where ever I wanted. I had been planning on moving up North because I hate the weather in Texas. I have a close friend I've known for 20 years, and I was going to move in to the area after visiting.

But with my sister's recent diagnosis, I had a choice. No one was expecting me to help her and her kids out. I would have been very happy up North. I chose to move to the town she moved to for one year to help her out. Why? Because no one else could. Because I was the only one who could. And my belief is that the overall outcome of life on this planet would have been worse off if I had simply done what I wanted.

I would not have felt guilty. I have no particular feelings towards my sister or her kids. She's made her own choices in life. I still sometimes have pushes to just leave and go up North. But I don't because its not time yet. I choose my outcomes in life based on what is most moral, because I've spent a lot of time thinking on these things and not letting my emotions sway my decisions.

I believe that you get a good feeling about it, and a good feeling is more than NOTHING. It represents a value in itself, and not a small one. — Jacques

Then why are we having a conversation? I tell you how I feel and that I get nothing out of it over 3 times, yet you say I'm a liar. You know what you're finding out about your self? That you don't do anything except for your own self-interest, and you have the arrogance and stubborn ignorance to believe no one else can possibly do otherwise.

If you want to rant that everyone must be as selfish and run by emotions as you, then go ahead. There are plenty of us in life who work to overcome emotions because they understand that some outcomes are better for the world then their own pleasure or happiness. The fact that you don't believe it says everything about yourself. You need to go meet more people in the world. Go volunteer at a place you don't want to. Do something that you know is right, but makes you uncomfortable. Then think about it. You need to experience it for yourself before you start making judgement about other people.

One of my pet peeves. Newborns are identified as male or female, they aren't arbitrarily assigned a sex. — BC

This language may be used because in some cases the sex of the child isn't actually clear. There are a host of abnormalities that may arise. Someone who does not have an abnormality and states they were assigned a sex is misusing the language for their situation.

I agree that we should create a new word that describes a group of sexual individuals that vary from the norm. I propose "Variant Sexuals". Its seems an inoffensive way of demarcating differences without making them an alphabet soup.

According to the definition of transgender, drag queens are practicing transgender actions, but only focused on fashion. Perhaps transgender identity requires one to conform to the entirely one one's social construct of what the opposite gender is. This again my require better vocabulary.

Transgenderism has always struck me as seriously contradictory. — Tzeentch

I feel this is due to a lack of clear vocabulary. Transgenderism has not been studied by the broad public until now, and the vocabulary we are using may very well tie too many generalities together and become a muddled mess. I do not blame the transgender community for this. Clarity of vocabulary allows clarity of thought. With unclear vocabulary it can be difficult to communicate your thoughts effectively. The attempt in the OP was to cement some clarity to particular terms and come to a conclusion based off of those terms.

"It is better for me to donate, so I do."

Please decide whether you have benefited or not. You cannot have both at the same time. — Jacques

Maybe we're having a language barrier of intentions here. I've tried to make it clear that I do not benefit from giving my money away compared to using the money for myself. I am not contradicting myself. When I say, "It is better for me", translate this to, "It is more ethical for me". I do not receive ANYTHING for giving my money away. This should be clear.

Hi, Philosophim,

that's exactly what I meant: you donate because it's better for you. — Jacques

No, I mean I do it because its the right thing to do. I have the money, and its for a good cause. I decide to. Its not for personal benefit like going to the movies or something. Trust me, I can find far more ways to enjoy the money and I wouldn't feel a twinge of guilt. Not everything is about personal benefit.

I generally think practice or doing is more important than theory, but I hear you. — Tom Storm

I previously noted that I feel a goal of philosophy is to construct definitions that are useful. Theory is interesting, but practice is useful.

A useful definition I have gone by is a transgender person is someone whose gender identity or gender expression does not correspond with the sex they were assigned at birth. That's a standard definition. — Tom Storm

Yes, I am aware of this standard definition, and it doesn't make sense to me. If gender is a social construct, how can you have one that doesn't fit your body? It would make more sense that you don't have a social construct that fits your social setting, not your body.

I do not abide by insulting people for their sexual or gender preferences. I care about clear communication, and requests of people that make logical sense. Being afraid of being called a bigot or some other horrible word for wanting to explore this comes with the territory of philosophy. I understand your implications and your fears Tom. Such fears can be diminished however if the attitude going in ensures that the focus is on the logic, and not derision or insults. I appreciate your points and understand why you are bowing out.

Bear in mind definitions are tricky - we can't really define religion as Karen Armstrong and our own Wayfarer point out. — Tom Storm

In my view setting up definitions that can then be taken and applied to the world in meaningful ways is one of the major goals of philosophy. Its not that we can't define things, it is that it is difficult and many people are content with using what gets them through life without having to think too hard about it.

In your day to day interactions, I'm sure there's no issue with transgendered individuals. That is not what this discussion is about. There is an active portion of that community that is insisting, not merely requesting, that people call them particular pronouns or that they be able to play cross sex sports. That to deny this is transphobic. That doesn't make any sense to me. It doesn't make sense to a lot of people. Focusing on the vocabulary allows me to start a discussion for those who are interested in exploring the concept. If you are not, that's fine, but its not an impossible topic to think about.

My understanding is it's gender, which is separate to biological sex. But I'm not one for debating this minefield of a subject, I'm no expert and people understand it in different ways. I'm happy to support trans-people and I've never experienced any problems associated with the issue in the years I have known and/or worked with trans or gender diverse people. — Tom Storm

No one is disparaging you or hopefully taking this conversation as a measure of whether you support trans people. This is about exploring the terminology and trying to make a clear distinction of what is appropriate and right in regards to the use of gender vs sex. When I see the word "transgender" in popular culture it is currently unclear and confusing. I see certain requests being made that do not make sense to me if transgender is defined as I've seen it. To me, this asks for a discussion about how we as a society should interact with trans people's requests, like wanting to cross sports for example.

I don’t use the word “gender” anymore unless it refers to grammar. Better to abandon the term, I say, and stick to “sex”. It basically clears up any confusion. — NOS4A2

It is a useful word however if it accurately describes a cultural expectation for a sex to act or present in society.

What tradition? The sex/gender distinction doesn't have enough history to have a tradition. Pronouns were and are applied to a conglomerate of what we now consider sex and gender. — hypericin

I disagree with this. In cultures across the world there have always been cross dressers or people who took on cultural expressions of the other sex, but were always still seen as their sex. There are male and female cross dressers, but no one thought a cross dresser became the opposite sex of what they are. Please give me an example in which one a person's enactment of the opposite sex erased their actual sex in the culture.

They don't think their body matches their sense of self. — Tom Storm

Is this in the sense of gender, or sex though? If its sex, I think that has some actual merit. This would be a transsexual, which is different then being transgender.

There are some who argue that gender is pulley a social
construct, but I dont think you’ll find that to be a majority view within the gay community. My own view is that the biological and the social are inextricably, and for many who believe they were born with their particular gender already put in place, the idea that gender is strictly socially constructed is ludicrous — Joshs

If you believe that gender is not a social construct, then please feel free to offer the alternative, and how it is separate from sex. As for the definition of gender above, what if we have different gender viewpoints of how a man and woman should act? What if I believe wearing a dress is what women do, but then I go to Japan and see males wear kimonos or go to Scotland and see males wearing kilts?

The way the situation is usually presented is that the transgender community believes that transgender people who are biologically male should be legally and socially treated and named as women with the reverse being true for those who are biologically female. Is that not correct? — T Clark

It was my terms of gender and sex. Its difficult to address all members of the transgender community as different factions have different wants. I simply started with the terms "gender and sex" as to my knowledge, is generally agreed upon by the majority of the community. If some in the community with what you've asked above, my point is that this does not line up with the terms they've offered.

A lot of us do things that don't benefit ourselves because we believe in living more than an emotional life. This is not to brag, this is to inform, but I've donated to water.org for years. This helps bring fresh water and to places that don't have it in the world. I don't get a tax break from it. I don't tell anyone I do it (except you) and I will never meet anyone who benefitted from it or gain anything more than a slight emotional satisfaction from it.

My temptation is to stop donating. But I know I have the money and I know it goes toward some good somewhere else in the world. It is better for me to donate, so I do. Don't be so quick to paint all of humanity in a particular way. There are a lot of varied people out there.

Perhaps you could share with us some of the things that have set you off. You have a lot of well versed people on here, as well as those who would give great thought to your issues. One of the cures to any form of depression is to avoid isolation. Of course, you need to be with people that you feel comfortable sharing and enjoying life with. You might find a few here.

That's the supposed paradox. Switching doesn't increase our expected return, but the reasoning given suggests that it does. So we need to make sense of this contradiction. — Michael

Yeah, I don't see that as a paradox, just a misunderstanding of what the math is representing. The average represents the outcomes if you select one of the outcomes. It doesn't apply in any way to whether you should switch your decision before you see the reveal.

This can be easily seen by simply swapping money with a card that say 1, and then 2. Over the course of several selections, the average result will be X. But that's irrelevant to if we want a particular outcome. Lets say we start with wanting "2" to be selected. The calculated average of outcomes is the same. Now lets say that another person wants "1" to be selected. The calculated average of outcomes is the same.

The average of outcomes is irrelevant then to what we want to pick. It tells us no information regarding whether we should switch our choice or not. The addition of money does not change this, it only changes that everyone wants one of the 50% chance outcomes. But wanting a particular outcome has nothing to do with whether we should switch our choice before the reveal. Its always 50/50 no matter if there is money or a simply cards with numbers in them.

Finally, you have to calculate the average using the idea that each is 1/2, or a 50% chance of being selected. Meaning its hard set that its only a 50% chance. It is impossible to go from having a 50% chance, to then telling someone they have a greater chance of winning what they want if they switch their initial choice. Its still 50/50.

Thanks Michael.

Ok, I think I see a little clearer what this is trying to do, but it still doesn't quite line up.

So it makes sense to use an average here in our decision whether to play. But it doesn't say anything about us switching between heads and tails repeatedly as our guess before we see the coin, which is the situation with the envelope.

All the average return on the envelope tells us is that if we keep playing over the long term, its going to average a return greater than one. But we actually have to play. It doesn't tell us anything about our indecision or which choice we should finally land on.

Then you should read this and this. — Michael

Thank you, I missed your link in the original OP as well.

I still don't understand how they apply their math to this situation.
The 5/4 is an expected value, which is an average. But the situation doesn't call for an average because its either or. You either get A, or 2A.

Numbers and their outcomes need to match the representative realities they are equating. Applying an average to a situation in which an average is not in consideration is not a rational application of math. Its like saying people have an average of 1.5 kids and then betting that you'll have half of a kid born. It doesn't make any sense.

You've clearly done your math wrong. I'm not sure how you're getting the equation that you are, not only in what you've done, but by what the equation stands for.

The amount of money in the envelope is irrelevant, so I'm not sure why that's part of your equation. You have two envelopes, and one is an intended outcome. If you pick randomly, its a 50% chance that you get the intended outcome. If you switch, its the same odds. Your x's, y's, and z's are irrelevant to this outcome.

To fix violence we need a culture of empowerment. Hate makes you feel powerful. A gun in your hands murdering people that you despise makes you feel GOOD. But if you already have success, power, and basic respect from the people around you, it doesn't. Hate is the easy go to for the person starved of empowerment. When there are less starving people to sell it to, it doesn't take hold as easily.

I am claiming that there is a reason he is imagining a “subjective experience”, the evidence being that he says it. That he wants it to be “explained” by a “mechanism” is not me “reading intentions”, it is the implications of his getting to his reason from those means. — Antony Nickles

Having written several complex and complicated papers that examine every angle before coming to a conclusion, I have some background to note that this is actually terrible writing. Writing should narrow in on a point so the reader has clarity. After the point is written, let the reader expand from there.

He is right to use the terms and points he is so that even a reader not well versed in philosophy can understand his point. That's fantastic writing. His reference is to sight blindness, and he's attempting to use medical and scientific terminology to explore a concept. Nothing wrong with that. His lack of exploring Locke is not an intention we can fairly make.

He has a problem. He has certain knowledge and vocabulary. From there he constructs an idea that is simple, relatable, powerful, and succinct. That's fantastic philosophy. Critique his main conclusions, the idea of solving the hard problem. If he chooses to sprinkle meaning behind it, why is that relevant to his main point at all? It sounds like you're more upset with where you think this can go than with his immediate idea.

I feel your reading intentions into the article that are not being insinuated. I would re-read it once more. This is proposing a mechanism to explain how the subjective experience occurs within the brain. That's the crux and really nothing more.

Yes, the properties of matter are not adequate to produce or explain subjective experience. — Eugen

This is entirely incorrect. Currently not understanding exactly how matter and energy interact to create a subjective experience does not negate the observed fact that matter and energy can interact to make a subjective experience.

Fantastic article! This is where philosophy gets exciting.

Its not a supreme being, but a supreme identity. We could call it the summation of all sub identities. Thus talking about a multiverse still boils down to the summation of all multiverses being the supreme universe.

Monism is essentially foundationalism. You're trying to find a foundation that has no prior identity, and it is not a sub identity of anything else. Ice = water = H20 = molecules = existence. Existence is the final identity that basically describes everything that all entities can simplify down to.

Because we are the one's who essentially create identities, creating an identity that is supreme is not only possible, but logically inevitable.

Is there any reason using that logic we cannot group all the universe's entities together and call the grouping the one supreme entity? — Art48

That is exactly what I am stating. Identities are mental constructs that we as humans can create. There is no limit to what we can identify. As such, it a logical allowance to do so.

Monism: the idea that only one supreme reality exists. Why posit monism? — Art48

Because logically identities boil down to that. Lets say there were two realities. We can now group them together into the one supreme reality that exists. Monism per your definition does not exclude breaking that monad into parts, it simply observes that everything can eventually be grouped into a fundamental identity.

The careful difference is that the statement, "A triangle is a three sided shape" does not mean such a thing actually exists apart from our own definitions or imaginations. It is a blueprint and nothing more. Many of the mistakes in epistemology come from thinking that because we can define a word, it somehow makes it real apart from the definition we created.

Another thing to consider is why would God care if you believe in him? If God is an all powerful knowing being, what does it matter to him? And if it DID matter to him, why would he not just show everyone? The idea that you have to believe in God despite there being a massive lack of evidence for God sounds like a cruel game from a divine being.

What determined the beard as masculine rather than feminine? — Benj96

Just a fun discovery they found recently. It turns out that a beard absorbs impact from blows from fists or other blunt attacks. Since men fight more, those with beards had a slight advantage in fights. You could also conjecture that since they took less damage to their faces, they remained more attractive than those without beards.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/14044/knowledge-and-induction-within-your-self-context

My answer here.

In sum, we create identities through our experiences of the world, then try to match those identities either deductively or inductively to later experiences. When you can deductively match that identity to an experience, you know it. When you inductively do so, you believe it. However, different ways of inducing can result in beliefs that are more logical to believe in than others.

Meaningless to whom" because 'whom' is the object of the preposition. 'Who' is subjective. In the vast meaningless mess of the cosmos, grammar rules abide. — BC

Grammar evolves. 'Whom' is largely outdated at this point when speaking colloquially. If you're going to be dumb and nitpick someone's grammar instead of the content of their post, at least be smart about it.

Edit: Saw you edit in a compliment to the post after I mentioned this, thanks.

Because in the grand scheme of things, nothing matters. Everything that we do, all that we do, just seems so minuscule & insignificant, when seen from the bigger picture of everything. — niki wonoto

I want to ask you a very simple question. "Meaningless to who?" You see, there's an implicit undercurrent in your statement. You're looking to some sentience that will clarify meaning for you. Lets say your mother tells you she had you so you can mow the lawn. So you get up everyday and mow the lawn, knowing that is your purpose in life. But that's your purpose in life to your mother, not to yourself.

So the question is, why do you feel you need to have a purpose for someone other than yourself? Barring that, there are people in your life who see purpose in you by associating with you. Why do you feel that that's not meaningful? When you save an insect in your house by putting it outside instead of stomping it, you've created meaning to that insect. Same as if you terrify and stomp it.

Lets say something told you your meaning was something that you hated and seemed purposeless to your personally. For example, mow your mother's lawn. Would you feel satisfied? Likely not. Perhaps because what you really aren't looking for is meaning, but a feeling that you've somehow associated with the word "meaning".

Perhaps what you're looking for is finding a feeling for yourself that gives you a feeling of satisfaction when you accomplish something. Let me tell you, its out there. Maybe its your job, your family, or even questioning the meaning of life on a philosophy board. The feeling of being satisfied for accomplishing something is rarely going to be handed out by someone else, but must be found from within. Explore your interests. Take risks. Take chances on things you've wanted to do if you can. Your every attempt won't always find it, but keep at it and you'll find success.