Thanks for the cryptic bullshit your highness

Sorry, brain fart! I meant phase space.

something he wrote 25 yrs ago for popular science books? Be serious!

What are you talking about? He is not a philosopher nor a psychologist.

Have you read ‘Cycles of Time’? The way he explains matrixes is utterly breathtaking! Makes something so abstract almost tangible.

I have the feeling the Peterson had not even bothered to read anything Penrose had written or done?

The fact that Peterson didn’t seem to get that the tiles were not actual tiles but part of a mathematical problem made me feel embarrassed for him.

Penrose’s time would have been better spent if Peterson had actually done some research. Some of the questions were silly. Just goes to show how pretentious Peterson can be sometimes by suggesting x or y from outside his field of expertise can possibly back up any idea he has that springs to mind.

At least when he gets to talk to Dawkins it could be interesting. I have felt for a long time that Dawkins goes overboard a little and that Peterson has a pretty damn good point to make with the connection between memes and Jungian archetypes … I hope he stays on topic because it would do Dawkins a lot of good to look more carefully at this.

Anyway, always a delight to listen to Penrose. He is someone who probably won’t be appreciated more widely until after he has gone. One of the few living legends of physics still with us - far outshone Hawkings imo!

Fuck off … please?

It is basic physics - but hard to get your head around too so ‘basic’ does not mean it isn’t mind blowing!

Everything with mass ‘feels’ time/change. Things without out mass do not - time does not exist for them.

What is called ‘logical’ in common parse has only a small connection to logic.

Time is only a thing for mass.

Possibly. The general view as the concept of god growing from a ‘loss of parental guidance’ thingy theory is kind of along those lines too. I don’t buy that completely, but it likely plays a part in human psychology.

Cause and effect is quite distinct from logical necessity. One deals with physical reality (space-time), whilst the other cares not a jot for it.

Anyway, thanks for making your points. I think I am getting some idea what this thread is about now.

There seems to be a conflation of physics and mathematics mixed in with conscious experience. Messy, as it appears the OP is driving at a mixed question - conflating mathematics and physical reality - and trying to tackle it philosophically.

I might be wrong. If I am right it is going nowhere fast.

That doesn’t exist. It is an abstraction.

Time is not a thing anyway. It is just our poor human way of measuring something we don’t understand much about (something called entropy).

I still don’t get what is going on here?

Logical Necessity is not Physical Necessity. One deals in the abstract (where causality is of no consequence) and the other deals with, well, physical stuff (ie. Physics). In physics it is quite plain to see that causation plays a part … I am clearly missing something.

I will just read instead

The origin is probably little more than a physical craving for something and some belief that it can be obtained. Hunger/Thirst is likely the ‘first’ prayer to arise in a conscious being that had a reasonable enough appreciation of its place in an environment.

Our appreciation of change (‘time’) is a logical necessity for causal experience. That is a vague connection I guess?

For the empirical sciences ‘causality’ is a ‘logical necessity’. If not experimentation would be pointless.

What am I missing coming late to this discussion?

This seems to remind me of Penrose’s view that there are three main realms, mathematical, consciousness, and physical (physics). They all relate, but all have distinctive features.

Sexual preferences don’t necessarily have anything to do with gender dysphoria (or whatever you wish to label it). That said, it could be argued that societal demands play into this a little. Generally speaking many people have an ‘experimentational’ phase, usually when younger I believe? Children certainly mimic and role play as this is a great way to understand others and themselves.

All we can say with any certainty is that there is a significant minority that feel like they were born as the wrong sex and that this is just part of humanity and has been for as long as history has been written.

You will probably find this interesting:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAxDDqi2tBg

This turned boring quickly. Use your own judgment I really don’t care what you think or if you have weird interactions with your friends where you don’t ever use pronouns.

And fuck off.

Maybe you should read what I wrote again? Trans women are NOT women. But to use pronouns that correspond to how someone appears is what we do everyday.

To refer to them ‘as a woman’ is to use she/her. That is all. Maybe I am one of the few people here who is not obsessed with identity politics and just sees a human being trying to fit in as best they can.

I recommend travelling to Manila. You will see plenty of transgender women every day in every day jobs with everyone just going on about their business. For some reason there are hang ups about this in western society.

I’m bored talking about this so ignore me if I sound a bit short. I can only say the same thing so many ways.

Pretty sure the OP didn’t stipulate ‘philosophy books’ in particular or I would have answered differently.

For ‘must reads’ I have a fairly limited span in philosophical works but I would say:

- Critique of Pure Reason, because it is a challenge to read and requires concentration and study to get to grips with, as well as being one of the most important philosophical work ever produced.

- The Republic, because it is a great insight in ancient Greece and the origins of western philosophy.

- Being and Time, because it is awful yet a completely different and evasive style of writing that offers some nice points but ultimately outlines the border between meaningless drivel and brilliance.

- Something by Nietzsche, but do not start with Thus Spake … as he, like Heidegger, introduces a different style of writing to the world of philosophy.

- Philosophical Investigations, because it tackles important issues about language and language use, as well as being an amalgam of of ideas/thoughts.

I think these five give a pretty nice map of philosophy in terms of approach and style.

I still think Critique of Pure Reason is an essential read for anyone serious about philosophy. Second in line would probably be Being and Time. Not that I am a fan of Heidegger exactly, I just think it is important to see how obtuse philosophical texts can get and where, more or less, things went a bit off the rails.

So you propose a whole new set of pronouns for trans women? You think it is somehow bizarre to refer to someone who clearly looks feminine as ‘she’/‘her’? That makes no sense, especially if your intent is merely to cause needless conflict over an issue that hardly ever arises.

Anyway, you don’t seem to have a sensible/reasonable thing to say so I’ll leave you to it.

Yes. A trans woman is referred to as her/she because it makes sense to say that not because I believe they are female nor would I say they are female. ‘Woman’ is not how we refer to people anymore than man is in general conversation other than to say that ‘woman’/‘man’. In such a situation, for clarification, I would say that trans woman.

It is really not that complicated.

It's only when the trans person is your socioeconomic equal that the trans issue comes up. — baker

That is a weird lens you have on the world. People are people. What the hell has economic status got to do with how you treat people?

Duck that! In that kind if situation I would strongly oppose any ‘demand’. As a basic common courtesy I am happy to refer to people as they wish to be referred to as long as a song and dance is not made about it (that would make me suspicious).

I don’t see any ‘falsity’? Why is referring to someone who has the outward appearance of a woman ‘she’/‘her’ a ‘falsity’ in your eyes?

I think the issue most people have with such statements is that ‘this domain’ is ‘existence’ and that there is no ‘outside’. At best it is not something we can talk about because it is beyond our comprehension and even pretending to talk about it here (like this) is contrary.

Anything might be possible. We don’t seem to know and work with the tiny window we have and that window is ‘existence’.

A percentage does not mean probability. He was just making clear that he is not all knowing just like they say bleach kills 99.9% of bacteria dead - because they cannot possibly test it on ALL bacteria but in reality it almost certainly does kill literally 100% of bacteria.

That is a disingenuous line of questioning. I never said anything about ‘sacrificing truth’ I simply stated I am happy to you a ‘cunt’ if you so wished or ‘king of the world’ … well probably neither of those in all honesty :D there are extremes I would stop at.

I don’t believe the delusion of being a king is comparable. I have not been anywhere in the world where there was a predominate minority of people believing they are kings. Correct me if I am wrong? Whilst when it comes to gender issues there is a very obvious minority stretching back through human history who ‘feel’ like the opposite sex of what their genitals say.

If you wish to offend people for nothing go ahead. I have no issue with it really. If said people are my friends I would though. Point being there are boundaries and a reasonable degree of friendliness is not writ in law but it will be judged by people nevertheless.

I don’t care for the ‘law’ tbh. I just use my own judgment because I think I’m old enough and experienced enough to dictate what I believe it right or wrong (reasonably well at least!).

If some radical politically charged trans woman came up to me and started ranting that I should always call her a woman I would tell her to get the fuck out of my face and stop disgracing herself by accosting me when I was out and about minding my own business. In the same light I hope you wouldn’t march up to someone you perceived as ‘a man in a dress’ and start lecturing them about how delusional they are and that they are bothering you by silently suggesting they are a woman when you know they are a man.

Is that a silly enough place you were hoping to get to in this discussion?

I the bigger picture I don’t think we create ‘equilibrium’ (let us call it) in order to ‘get comfy’.

I honestly see it that we do this simply to create a semblance of balance in order to measure from.

When someone creates a home and places certain things in certain places I see this as acting as a creator in order to knock it off balance and learn how regulation in one area can be transferred into life in general. A tidy home leads us to understand something about limited control.

At base it appears to all be about learning or, in mechanical terms, about collecting and regulating information in order to facilitate more of the same.

In terms of pure psychology I absolutely wish to get uncomfortable sometimes because the relief of comfort afterwards is quite nice to say the least.

This is not about you? Forget it. Maybe someone else has something to say even though it is off topic.

I think it was Schiller who said something like ‘if things work perfectly well humans will take them apart to see how it works/ give them something to do’.

Meaning, I think we are naturally inclined to explore and that ‘comfort’ (in too large an amount) can prevent this. Comfort and boredom have some thing some common - neither appears to be an initial state.

What mad man actually craves absolute liberation? Not me for sure! There is only so much one can carry on their back ;)

Animals that have evolved. Animals that are not exactly born ‘self-conscious’ as far as we know.

How the brain adapts to the environment in vitro and when exposed to the world may actually provide us with some insights into how we arrive at ‘boredom’ and whether it is viable to state that ‘boredom’ is the baseline for conscious beings.

Note: I don’t think we strive to be comfortable at all.

It has nothing to do with your ‘definition’. No one calls me ‘man’ they refer to me by name or with he/him. If someone prefers to be called he/him and dresses like a man I’m down with that.

If a guy is wearing make up and a dress, and appears to be conveying the general outward aspect of ‘woman’ I would refer to them as she/her because that is CLEARLY what they are conveying. I know they are NOT a WOMAN because I can see they are a TRANS WOMAN but I need not be a dick about it and refer to them as he/him.

Politeness in this circumstance has nothing to do with some weird inner dictionary definition of ‘woman’. Undoubtedly, as mentioned, it is possible I am unsure about whether someone perceives/conveys themselves as x or y, in which case I would just probably ask if necessary and suffer the consequences of potentially offending them (they would be rare cases).

Maybe being exposed to trans women more often than many in the western world has coloured my view? I have no idea? It just seems pretty obvious to me how to behave in a reasonable manner to people who are different to me in terms of how they perceive their own identity. God knows we all have some kind of identity crisis at some stage in our lives, that is just the way things are.

I’m not crossing over into sexism here. The same basic rules apply.

That is why I mentioned youth and novelty before. I have read some of his stuff.

I’ll have to look into what neuroscience has to offer about boredom and the brain one day.

I am not convinced ‘boredom’ is our natural state. I think humans, and most life as far as I can see, are at base about exploration of a sort. I think boredom hits when we have been exposed to too many or to few options.

Starting from the beginning of a human life we are inundated with sensory data and our neurons start to fade away in order to shape the brain into an efficient machine rather than waste maintenance on unused neurons. Maybe homeostasis as a regulatory device is where ‘boredom’ stems from? But homeostasis is not static obviously!

I think we’re roughly on the same page.

Regarding ‘happiness’ I can only say I managed to get into a certain state of consciousness (by fluke) and realised that to be ‘happy’ (as a goal) was kind of besides the point. It was like looking down on emotions as some weird facade but I don’t mean this in a non-feeling way (detached), I mean it in a ‘being happy is not important’ way because there is WAY more.

I think it goes without saying that work is required to live? I guess the transition from ‘animal nature’ (based on hand to mouth living) has always felt rewarding because ‘not dying’ is pretty good.

Projecting that into the modern world and humans I don’t quite understand your tone or what your reply means/says?

My point was just that a life of luxury and abundance seems hard to enjoy for anyone who does not believe they deserve it. Granted, many people exist that feel like they deserve everything for nothing … they usually grow up at some point though or turn to crime. Generally a price is paid no matter what.

I still view ‘boredom’ as psychological warning. Sometimes we react to it in the wrong manner. During lockdown a great many have felt the mental strain because they come to realise that they have been ‘working’ from day-to-day without thinking (maybe that is your ‘guilty’ group?), and having to face up to what they consider important underneath causes existential angst.

I do believe the whole existential question is one that comes more easily to some than others. It may even be better for some to ignore it best they can because they might simply end up miserable overall? Hard to impossible to say?

I don’t want to show anything.

In western society (where most people are bothered) there just aren’t that many ‘sexual predators’ to worry about. Plus, on the continent unisex is common enough already.

It mainly an issue for Americas, UK, Aussieland and NZ I expect.

Once CRISPR makes a little headway it will be possible to literally convert sexes. As for pregnancies … would need to do some wiggling around to produce eggs/sperm ‘artificially’ most likely. The whole procreation problem might not be so easy to overcome (at least for converting to female!).

We create the distinctions in language and the social significance of these differences. Be this for political reasons or simply down to low resolution analysis/laziness.

As a species it seems we cannot help but bifurcate everything we come across then clumsily categorise as this or that kind of antonym.

When there is a genuine paradigm shift what seems to happen is the usual ‘black and white’ attitudes come into conflict with a fresh perspective. From them arises a new term that is just as quickly cut in two, because it seems we just feel more comfortable with yes/no answers/views rather than having to deal with nuances.

Nothing wrong with this, it is just what humans do and it has been damn effective - even with the problems it carries along.

As for ‘happy’ it something we say but it is such a general term that if you try to get to the bottom of what it means there is little to no conclusive substance to it. Many people will say they want to be happy, but they ignore everything but the idea of this false goal. To be happy is more for children, and it is a fleeting and pointless feeling compared to everything else that happens to us before and after some insignificant little ‘inner glow’ we get (or however else you care to define ‘being happy’).

Happy is not something you do, not something you feel, it is an after thought to glimpse of something that touches us in a way we cannot really articulate.

Note: I admit I was fishing to see if you were curious, but I cannot explain something like this well because I experienced something that made me realise how the idea of being ‘sad’ makes no sense whatsoever and is more or less a delusion of sorts. I don’t mean this as a positive or negative point, it just is what it is and human emotions seem to me to be a confused bundle of issues covering up … words fail :D