AI Overview
The verse provided is from the poem "Paradise is not Lost", attributed to an author using the pseudonym Ecurb (which appears to be "Bruce" spelled backward).
The full poem was shared in a 2023 discussion thread on The Philosophy Forum:
The poem explores a reimagining of the traditional biblical narrative of Eve in the Garden of Eden. It suggests that when Eve was cast out of Paradise, she took with her not just the forbidden fruit, but also a multitude of plants and flowers from the garden, bringing the Earth's variety of flora into existence. The full poem can be found in the referenced document.
Paradise is not Lost - The Philosophy Forum
3m. PoeticUniverse. 1.7k. "The world was all before them..." Was paradise lost? Or gained? — Ecurb. With flora mystical and magica...

The Philosophy Forum
Paradise Lost | Summary & Facts | Britannica
Dec 1, 2025 — John Milton (born December 9, 1608, London, England—died November 8?, 1674, London?) was an English poet, pamphleteer, ...

Encyclopedia Britannica

Paradise Lost: Book 1 (1674 version) | The Poetry Foundation
O how unlike the place from whence they fell! Breaking the horrid silence thus began. In dubious Battel on the Plains of Heav'n, A...

Poetry Foundation

Show all

I guess the big elephant in the room I haven't talked about is immigration — BenMcLean

I have a non-socialist, non-leftist, non-progressive view: Sovereign states are obligated to control their borders. First, for the protection and security of its citizens, second, for the protection and security of its neighbors (also sovereign states). Uncontrolled immigration allows individuals from other countries to make policy on the hoof. A handful of unauthorized immigrants might have a negligible effect on society; 14,000,000 unauthorized immigrants is another matter altogether, having large consequences for citizens and governments at all levels.

Can they be removed? They can, of course. It's possible. The question is whether the citizens have the stomach for the kind of enforcement that would be required to expel large numbers of unauthorized immigrants from the country. I have no enthusiasm for mass roundups. So far, many Americans have found roundups, detention centers, and expulsions quite unappetizing when they shift from the abstract to the concrete. Then there are the militant pro-immigration groups who agitate against ICE enforcement. Besides that, ICE is hardly a sympathy-generating organization.

Besides removal, there is the matter of the economy. Immigrants become an important part of local and national economies--not altogether positive. A large number of unauthorized immigrant-workers willing to work at substantially lower wages than America citizens, undermines wages. It depends on whose ox is getting gored. Companies employing cheap labor don't complain.

On a global level, millions of people are already on the move, from areas of less opportunity and less favorable conditions to places where they can hope for better--like it or not. Managing global population movement is something that no government has tackled, other than to maintain tight borders.

I think real historical Communist regimes really were against the working class owning a car and a house — BenMcLean

I'm not going to defend the brutality of the USSR or China. But it is true that the Soviet regime did improve the lot of working people in the Soviet Union. However, the good has to be weighed against the bad aspects of Soviet / Stalinist rule, the gulags, purges, etc. The benefits that accrued to the higher tiers of soviet rule were nothing like the lavish rewards showered on the top tiers of American rule.

That's not just American society: that's every society. That's the Golden Rule: "Whoever has the gold, makes the rules." — BenMcLean

Generally, yes; but the concentration of wealth in the USA has few parallels elsewhere, especially in other democratic industrialized countries.

I'm not at all confident in utopian schemes which make grand claims that we can somehow get away from this near universal reality of human life. I would instead be inclined to look at policy to align incentives so that the reward of wealth stays linked to socially constructive and morally positive — BenMcLean

Sure. I don't know how old you are, but I found utopia schemes a lot more attractive when I was a young man. That's sort of the way of the world. Fizzy utopian cocktails are a drink of youth.

↪DifferentiatingEgg The Left has an ideological crisis right now too, but I honestly have difficulty articulating it in a non-polemic way, since I'm not one of them myself. — BenMcLean

Quite right. As an old-fashioned socialist, it's clear to me that "the left" lost its way when it turned from class (working class, ruling class conflicts) and toward identity -- all the woke crap of gender, race, etc. I am also an old fashioned gay, the sexual liberation era immediately post Stonewall. "We" (whoever belongs in that collective noun) weren't interested in gay marriage and family and trans identity (etc). I'm still not (though at 80 years old, it's now kind of irrelevant). Whether one is gay, straight, some sort of transgender, male, female, and so on is only personally important. Economics trumps identity.

It's somewhat disconcerting that the once clear certainties of the LEFT and the RIGHT have both been blurred and made difficult to decipher.

The true origin of American conservatism as we understood it in the first quarter of the 21st century starts with William F. Buckley and his National Review magazine in the 1950s. — BenMcLean

I thought your exegesis of the American Right was worth reading, even though it is a much longer post than I usually engage with. It's well composed. Is it gospel? Probably not, but the gospel truth is pretty hard to find.

When the adjective "true" is attached to some noun, like 'origin', it becomes suspect. I view "conservatism" as a fairly durable, on-going aspect of American history, along with its "liberal / progressive" opposite. Neither are static; they are rather, renewable from decade to decade.

The interests that opposed Social Security and Unemployment Insurance in the 1930s, opposed Medicare in the 1960s, ended "welfare as we know it" at the end of '90s, and oppose the Affordable Care Act, are pretty similar.

Is there really a right wing and a left wing in the US, or was Gore Vidal right when he said, “There is only one party in the United States, the Property Party … and it has two right wings: Republican and Democrat”? — Tom Storm

@BenMcLean: I think Gore Vidal was quite right. The "property party" isn't about the working class owning a car and a house (if they are lucky). It's about the rights and prerogatives of the wealthiest class who own and control capital wealth -- stocks, bonds, factories, income-producing properties, businesses, and so on. The 1% is not a new group in American society; the rich we have with us for a long time, generally calling the shots.

Most of the time, most of the decisions of government are controlled indirectly by the wealthiest class in their interests. Sometimes those interests match political party interests, sometimes not.

Blake is great, of course, but we have to give credit to Hubert Perry who composed the music which turned the poem as a favorite hymn in 1916 during WWI. I had not heard E L & P's version, so I checked it out on YouTube. It has a lot of merit, but I prefer it sung by an English choir or congregation.

I've not read the Book of Mormon, and it isn't on my list of books to read. It came out of the "burnt over territory" of up-state New York, where there was a lot of what one could call either religious innovation or religious lunacy, depending on one's feelings about it. There was a lot of religious fervor around that time -- the Second Great Awakening of religious activity in the United States.

contrary to Nietzsche's famous phrase (to wit: "There are no facts, there are only interpretations") — Arcane Sandwich

Are you more interested in the absence of Kenya, the US, or Mongolia in the Bible, or Nietzsche's denial of facts? Seems like the latter, since there wasn't any reason for biblical authors to mention places that didn't figure into the narrative. It seems like a non-issue to me.

Nietzsche was ahead of his time, I suppose--no facts, just opinions.

Did you know that the Mormon religion, founded in the United States, actually believes that Jesus Christ visited America on a spiritual plane? — Wayfarer

Here's another retro-edit placing a non-biblical country into the biblical narrative. You have mentioned this, but for others...

Jerusalem
source: William Blake

And did those feet in ancient time,
Walk upon Englands mountains green:
And was the holy Lamb of God,
On Englands pleasant pastures seen!

And did the Countenance Divine,
Shine forth upon our clouded hills?
And was Jerusalem builded here,
Among these dark Satanic Mills?

Bring me my Bow of burning gold:
Bring me my Arrows of desire:
Bring me my Spear: O clouds unfold:
Bring me my Chariot of fire!

I will not cease from Mental Fight,
Nor shall my Sword sleep in my hand:
Till we have built Jerusalem,
In Englands green & pleasant Land.

Good point about QR codes. They off-load various forms of labor (sign-making; menu-handling; in-person or point-of-sale information-providing, and so on) to a webpage . Of course, the organizations that use QR are not trying to disadvantage anyone. They are trying to be efficient and hip (up to date).

There are a lot of people for whom all sorts of barriers have to be navigated (if possible). Why is accommodation so hard to achieve? Well, money of course, the easiest excuse.

A 'deeper' problem is the dominant understanding of "embodiment" -- the manner in which human persons are physical beings. The preferred form of embodiment tends toward the ideal: (for men) tallness, athleticism, rugged features, deep voice, above average IQ, competitive drive, and so on. A real man; a man's man' etc. There is nothing wrong with having ideal embodiment; but not very many people actually meet the ideal, and it's perfectly possible for a person whose embodiment matches the ideal to be a total asshole.

The 'ideal' is a strong enough idea that even those whose embodiment involves missing limbs, poorly functioning sensory organs, failing hearts, degenerative diseases of various kinds, mental health issues, intellectual barriers, and so on have difficulty valuing their own and others' embodiment. They quite often feel not worth of acceptance and being valued, and they may view other persons like themselves in a negative way.

Persons who face barriers are sometimes viewed as "deficient people" rather than embodied beings like themselves and worthy of respect. Why spend so much money on all the accommodations needed? It's a waste of money, and able-bodied people have to put up with the ramps, large font signs, sign language, and so forth -- like the accommodations make their 'normal' lives living nightmares, or something,

Hate and love are not opposites; their opposite is indifference. Indifference is a lack of emotional / mental arousal. "I don't care" quite literally; I have no feelings about it one way or the other. I'm not motivated to engage.

Love and hate are different states of emotional arousal, each with different consequences. Neither are rational. Both have social consequences, but of the two, hateful arousal tends to have much stronger consequences, because hate can be harnessed to focus on individuals or groups with whom we have no personal connection.

As one wag said, love doesn't make the world go round, but it keeps it populated. That's eros. The Greeks have a taxonomy of love (eros, philia, agape, etc.), but not one for hate, as far as I know.

We like to be among our own kind (whatever that might be); it isn't so much "love" of our own kind as comfort. We tend to delineate "our own kind" by exclusion of others. It isn't that we hate everyone who isn't "our kind", it's that we don't find much comfort among outsiders. Discomfort with outsiders can slide into hate, or be pushed into that unfriendly state, by excessive social friction or deliberate manipulation.

I don't have confidence that love can be marshaled on behalf of the outsider, especially groups of outsiders. We are, according to religious preaching, supposed to welcome the stranger in our midst. That such action requires a command suggests that it doesn't just happen spontaneously.

Perhaps this is a pessimistic assessment. Humans have been manifesting love and hate for a long timed I don't expect any change. We are what we are.

Is there a defensibly “normal” human body? — Banno

Somebody once said that Germans tend to focus on how we are all alike; the French tend to focus on differences. I guess I am more "German" than "French" on this question.

What matters to the individual persons is that they are able to be physically, emotionally, and mentally participate in the particulars of their lives, whether they are "normal" or not. IF the individual is unable to be an active participant, then they are likely to perceive their body as disabled or not normal and problematic.

I was born with significant visual defects; I wasn't blind, but my vision was quite limited. Was it a significant limitation? It was, and the limitations have endured.

I was also born gay. In 2025 this might not be viewed as a disability, but at the time I was born (1946) it was both a personality abnormality and (if performed) criminal. I grew up in a very small midwestern town; the resources that could have made my physical and emotional characteristics less problematic just didn't exist. (So yes, the human environment can make a particular physical feature more or less problematic.).

Many states have active accessibility rules. Ramps and elevators have to be reasonably convenient for people who can't climb stairs. Digital displays (like computers and tablets) make print much easier to access. Some (by no means all) public events include sign language. Civil rights legislations has reduced discrimination.

Transportation can become a major problem of anyone who can not drive. I have always had to limit jobs to places I could get to by public transit within a reasonable length of time. That ruled out a lot of possible jobs and social opportunities (particularly in a low-density metropolitan area designed for cars).

None of this is equivalent to being a paraplegic / quadriplegic. Poor vision beats blindness. I'd still opt for being gay had I a choice.

The major problem of "normality" is viewing "abnormality" as a degraded state. After all, having a very high IQ is abnormal, and so is being able to run a marathon in about 2 hours (averaging 13 mph). And there certainly are plenty of people who view abnormality as degrading--a quad can't be a real man, for instance, and like bullshit.

just find that Hume's sceptical account of everyday causality, very true in itself, doesn't really take into account the advances of modern science, say like theoretical physics. — hwyl

Hume died in 1776; he wasn't in a very good position to account for developments in physics (relativity, all that) which began around 1900.

You missed NOS4A2's retraction.

Thanks for the correction. To error is human, claiming the error as your own is divine. Sort of divine, anyway. The gods usually don't admit to error.

Here's another tidbit about Oliver Sacks: He was "face-blind". I can relate to the -- I'm not face blind, but I certainly have difficulty recognizing faces, sometimes. There is a back office in the brain that specializes in facial recognition, and if it's not working well, people's faces don't register in memory. That's a problem for social animals.

I just read a book about a man whose father had sexual contacts with him as a child (and did the same to numerous other children). The author's personality was quite screwed up, but did an exceptionally poor job of explicating a connection between what seemed like very limited sexual contact and a life of mental suffering. Father and son were both screwed up, but were otherwise successful men. Was the man (the subject of the book) screwed up because of the sexual contact, or screwed up for other reasons? Can't tell. I wish he had done a better job of explaining.

POINT IS: illustrating psychological or neurological disturbances effectively is apparently difficult to get right. Sacks was able to vividly [from Latin Vivere - to live] depict his patients internal reality. I'm grateful for that.

Well, thanks for the thread. It's been interesting reading.

Full disclosure: I too was duped by his writing, especially the apparent empathy he had towards his patients, who may or may not have existed in the first place. — NOS4A2

I don't feel duped at all. I do feel like The New Yorker article makes possible a deeper understanding of the way Sacks experienced and reported on the world -- which was perhaps unlike the way many of us do.

If we can't take Sacks word about his patients as fact, we probably can't take his word about himself as fact either. As one of his friends said [quoting from the article] “Come on, you’re extravagantly romanticizing how bad you are—just as much as you were extravagantly romanticizing what the patient said. Your mother’s accusing voice has taken over.” And you gotta wonder about a doctor who is so disturbed by a nighttime erection that he "cools his penis" in orange jello (from the article).

Being a homosexual physician in 1960 was certainly difficult -- being homosexual at all back then wasn't easy. Sacks mother managed wonderfully to screw up her son's sense of sexuality and selfhood. I can relate very personally to the act of maternal sexual shaming and condemnation. Such parental acts can really screw up gay sons's personalities.

I've read several of his books. One, about deaf people, "Seeing Voices: A Journey into the World of the Deaf," is a good example (as far as I can tell) of Sack's ability to deeply relate to others, and his observational skills. The group of deaf people that Sacks wrote about had sensory deprivation (deafness) but no other neurological problems. But sensory deprivation is a significant limitation to normal human experience.

How was Sacks a sexual abuser? Did I miss something in the article?

There is an important role in society for the "skilled detractor" who takes on the reputation of famous people. They do a good job of moderating tendencies toward hero-worship. A socialist I know who was a leader of local party activities, an insightful commentator, a hard working dedicated true-believer, was also a deadbeat father, never providing support for his daughter. I could write a book about him, depicting him as a personal fraud.

Such a book would be an unfair representation. It wasn't as if the guy lived a comfortable life with stable employment, a home, benefits like health insurance, and so on. His commitment to the cause pretty much demanded impoverishment, the same way a future saint committed to the poor demands impoverishment.

Some people might accuse this fellow of living in some sort of dream world; but he was a very hard-nosed realist.

There are any number of cherished figures who could be savaged by some skilled researching maybe axe-grinding de-constructor of reputations. Some of them deserve it. Some do not.

Any reaction this @Tom Storm

I'm a agéd leftist; my experience has been that very ideologically committed leftists (Marxists) can be intolerant of other people's statements, when they don't match the ideology.

I've been denounced for disagreeing with the idea that the working class must achieve class consciousness in order for the global warming crisis to be averted. "I never want to speak to you again", he said, and he hasn't for several years. It would be just great if the working classes DID achieve class consciousness this afternoon, but our enlightenment doesn't seem to be on the horizon, and at this point, the global warming crisis is becoming present tense, rather than future tense.

Defenders of embattled ideology (which Marxists are, pretty much, especially in rampantly capitalist economies) are reluctant to agree with the opposition on anything. That said, the opposite very conservative, ultra-religious types are in the same boat. They find it difficult to grant credit to dissenters on just about anything.

Ideology is a chunk of the problem, as is personality. Some people have rigid personalities who experience pain when they have to bend, even a little. Some informed ideologues, left and right, are able to be flexible enough to agree with opposing ideas.

Group think sets in, too. Social dynamics make it difficult to wander even a little from the party line, be that revolutionary or reactionary in nature.

Why the link to a video about not having children — Philosophim

Having children is in the basic animal design -- one doesn't need a manual. Raising children, on the other hand, is just very very complicated, maybe? I mean, you suddenly have an infant, and you're committed to about 18 to 22 years of careful oversight. By the time you have figured out how to properly raise a child, you have spent at least 5 to 10 years making major mistakes and the kid is doomed to a lifetime of self-help books and weird support groups.

Hey -- I'm 79 and still working out neurotic work-arounds.

Man - adult human male by sex
Woman- adult human female by sex — Philosophim

Yes. Men are men and women are women. Men have penises and testicles (that produce their genetically unique sperm). Men have XY chromosomes. Women have uteruses and ovaries (that produce their genetically unique eggs). Women have XX chromosomes.

Trans men are women, and trans women are men. As radical a drag act as might be performed involving the chopping off and formation of body parts, the sex of a person can not be changed.

Now, who wears oxfords and who wears high heels, who wears a bra and who wears a jock strap is more variable. High heels started out in Louis XIV France as a riding shoe for men -- the high heel made it easier to keep the foot in the stirrup. Men noticed that elevating the heel improved the looks of their calves. When women started wearing high heels, the same beneficial thing happened to their calves. Legs look nice in elevated heels -- without regard to the many disadvantages of walking around on high heels.

Even though men are men and women are women, and transsexuals are merely in drag, I don't see any reason to make life difficulty for them. On the other hand, I don't have to believe everything they say, either.

Don't leave me — javi2541997

Fear not. I will pretty much be with you till death do us part. Or, until something else happens, like bankruptcy and homelessness, having both hands cut off by Islamic extremists, or being run over by a gang of electric tricycle-riding senior citizens, putting me in a coma.

Change is the only constant.

Thank you for all of your time and talent that you have generously given to the current (and future) ThePhilosophyForum.

Whether they are appealed to or denounced, "traditions" are not static. The warm glow of Christmas tree lights, carols on the radio, and massive commercial pressure are largely contemporary. The traditions of Christmas have been repeatedly revised and edited extensively.

The tradition of hunting (deer, geese, pheasants, whatever) is collapsing -- enough so that in some midwestern states, at least it is a matter of concern. Deer populations were once regulated by wolves; we got rid of the wolves, a "traditional enemy of humankind". Without hunting, deer populations grow large enough to become problematic, both for humans and the deer. The tradition of hunting helped keep deer in check -- a perfectly rational management strategy.

Halloween (now in progress, 10/31/25) is another tradition whose roots may go back to Medieval times, but the contemporary experience is no older than the late 19th century, and what we have now is much younger than late Victorian times. And, in keeping with criticism of tradition, Halloween has been pretty much stripped of old meaning -- "all hallows eve" was the night before "all hallows day" or as we say now, All Saints Day -- a holy day of remembrance.

An Appeal to Tradition is fairly likely to be an appeal to something that is pretty much gone.

Reason and Rationality are good things, but they aren't much help when it comes to having an enjoyable and satisfying party or giving meaning to human interactions. Yes, we could celebrate "festivity day x3827.5" but only if a tradition of doing so had developed, and it actually meant something to people. Maybe tofurkey with an undressed kale salad will be the preferred food for your dinner that day. My condolences. I'll have a RESONATING traditional roast goose, thank you, and sides which resound with connections to the past and my past like cranberries, apples, potatoes, gravy, root vegetables like rutabaga, a crispy dark green leafy salad with tart dressing, maybe even canned green bean casserole with the traditional canned onion rings on top, and the like. And more! Wine, beer, and spirits. Several kinds of pie, thank you, and fuck rationality.

It's a "new" attitude for me. I used to accept many aspects of transgender / transsexual rhetoric, but over the last decade and a half, I've gradually changed my mind.

One reason for changing my mind has been reading a number of articles in places like Quillette which reject some of the claims of trans people as pseudo-science. I never thought there were more than 2 sexes, (I don't know of any species that are anything other than M and F. True, some fish can switch back and forth between the TWO sexes, and it works for their species. Fine. Unfortunately Jack, now Mary, is not a fish. Sorry Jack. You look great in those heels, hairdo, and all, but what you are doing is basically an elaborate drag act. Some drag queens seem a bit crazy, but they have enough sense not to get their balls and dick chopped off.

I am not sure what came first: the surge in numbers of trans individuals deciding to go beyond costuming to surgery and hormones, or the rhetoric of the trans movement. Like as not, there were men and women around before the trans movement picked up steam who wanted to BE the opposite sex. Christine Jorgensen, b 1926 in the Bronx, WWII vet, received gender surgery in 1952 in Denmark.

On the other hand, using drugs to suspend puberty in children who claim to be transgender seems like reckless medical practice, if not worse. Have clinics been too eager to aggressively gender dysphoria? I suspect they have.

Everyone has to work out their personal meshugganah. Lots of people manage to do so gracefully -- whatever their situation, and more power to them. And some people don't.

from HR RIGHTS CAREERS website: Sex refers to a person’s physical and biological characteristics. The most common are male and female, but there are variations.

I don't agree that there are variations. There are two sexes: male (xy) and female (xx). Period. Evolution invented these two sexes about a billion years ago, and has stuck with early success. Genetic or developmental defects may occur which produce hermaphroditism, for example, but these defects are not a different sex.

from HR RIGHTS CAREERS website: Transgender people identify with a gender identity that’s different from what they were assigned at birth.

This is a persistent and annoying untruth. Children are not "assigned" a sex; their sex is recognized on the basis of physical characteristics. A trans person may not like it, but in 99.9% of births, sex is not ambiguous at first (or second) Dglance.

Cis sexual rights concern the right of the sexual identity of one’s sex. Trans sexual rights concern the right to the sexual identity of the opposite of one’s own sex. — Philosophim

Was there such a thing as "cis sexual rights" prior to the trans movement claiming "trans sexual rights"? For instance, did men and women have a "right" to a male only / female only toilet? Or was it a cultural given, backed up by laws against indecent exposure and the like, that men and women used separate toilets? I think it was a given.

A person who was born as a male or female may not claim rights that are unique to the opposite sex, in my opinion. Any person may claim rights based on their personhood, which specify numerous specific rights. The numerous subdivisions of humanity (intelligence, height, left handedness, etc.) generally do not have specific rights attached to them, do they? Inequality if endemic and it is up to the individual to deal with it. Individuals are burdened by all sorts of disadvantages (just as they benefit from all sorts advantages. Life does not distribute good and bad outcomes in life evenly. There is no "right" to have a great outcome.

A person may believe they will be happier if they can live like a person of the opposite sex. They can make the attempt, and may succeed. But they must do so within quite reasonable limitations. The limitation is that they are still the sex they were born as.

So, are trans gender rights human rights? — Philosophim

When I think about "rights", human or legal, I find it helpful to think in terms of "actual" rather than abstract. Tonight when I went to the neighborhood grocery store, the homeless trans panhandler was at her usual place. She's been there many late afternoons and evenings, since last spring. I've talked with her several times, as have others. He's had M--->F surgery (male genital removal) and when he has insurance (medicaid) takes female hormones. He sleeps outside if he can't find acceptable indoor shelter (too much risk of rape in the adult shelters). He's polite, friendly, and somewhat (reasonably) guarded.

So, are there human rights specific to her, as a trans person, that wouldn't apply to me, a gay male?

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, UN 1945, lists the human rights. The WHO declaration, Alma Ata 1978, addresses the specific rights to health, which is defined as "a state of complete physical, mental, and social well-being".

The listed rights in the declarations are 'universal'. Everyone is entitled to these rights, but the rights are by no means guaranteed. For instance, a person has the right to practice the religion of their choice and to vote the politics they believe are good. That doesn't mean they can actually do either one in any number of places.

This trans person has the same right to express her sexual desires as I have. My homosexuality isn't universally approved of, so there are limits--legal and extra or non-legal. Transsexuality / transgenderism isn't universally approved of, or even recognized, so there are again, limits. If I develop a disease related to gay sexual activity, I expect to receive the same expert, nonjudgmental care that someone would receive for a non-sexual disease. On the other hand, if I want medical care to achieve a physical body that is closer to the current-social-media ideal, should I expect social programs or insurance to pay for that? No. It is also reasonable for a transgender person to find some limits on what kinds of plastic surgery will be performed, or what and when some medications will be prescribed.

Why would my health, shelter, food, clothing, medical, or educational requirements receive less social provision for me than her? I support myself; she doesn't. But dependence of social programs cuts across racial, gender, age, and other categories, and a distinction is not made. People don't lose human rights because they have exceptional needs. (They may not receive needed assistance, but that's a different issue.)

I have some doubts about the legitimacy of some transsexual / transgender claims and demands, as do others. But whether they are entirely legitimate or not, they are still entitled to pursue personal fulfillment and social acceptance. I have never been enthusiastic about gay marriage; that doesn't mean that gay people are not entitled to pursue socially recognized marriage.

"Rights", after all, are not the same as approval.

I am cautiously in favor of closing down AI operations for two reasons:

It's not just a crutch -- it's a motorized wheelchair. Othopedists want injured patients to get up and walk ASAP, and the sooner they do so without crutches, the better. They certainly don't want modestly (even moderately) injured patients to resort to wheelchairs, powered or not.

Asking AI for information is a far too easy solution. It pops back in a few seconds -- not with a list of links to look at, but a complete answer in text and more. Seems convenient, but it rapidly undermines one's willingness to look for answers one's self -- and to use search engines to find sources.

We know that gadgets like smart phones and GPS navigating systems undermine one's memory of telephone numbers (and maybe names too) and people who constantly use GPS have more difficulty navigating with a map or memory. The "reptile brain" is good at finding its way around, if it exercised regularly.

That's one line of reasoning against AI.

The other line is this: We do not have a good record of foreseeing adverse consequences of actions a few miles ahead; we do not have a good record of controlling technology (it isn't that it acts on its own -- rather we elect to use it more and more).

We are prone to build nuclear reactors without having a plan to safely store waste. We don't save ahead for the expensive decommissioning of old plants. We built far, far more atomic bombs than were necessary to "win" a nuclear exchange, and plutonium doesn't compost very well.

The automobile is an outstanding example of technology driving us.

We are smart enough to invent a real artificial intelligence (not quite there yet) but we are clearly not smart enough to protect ourselves from it.

So, what happens here on TPF is a drop in a favorite bucket, but still a good example of what happens.

I'm not sure how much difference philosophy makes to psychiatry. Doctors treat diseases, and the (apparently) the most effective treatment psychiatrists have is medications. They are diagnosers and prescribers. Most psychiatrists do little psychotherapy (it's too time consuming, given the number of patients, the number of psychiatrists, and insurance payment systems). I've always felt that my psychiatrists were on the same treadmill that my internist, orthopedists, or dermatologist were on.

I would guess that the experience of practicing psychiatry is different for doctors working in busy clinics, seeing one depressed, anxious patient after another, and doctors working in forensic psychiatry where their patients are in locked wards where some patients have barely contained murderous impulses. For that matter, the experience of being a depressed anxious patient isn't the same as being one with those with murderous rages.

It seems like we tend to talk about "mental health" as an absence. I haven't heard people say "she is really mentally healthy" -- just the reverse. Well, how crazy is she? Most people must be reasonably healthy mentally, else societies would be in far worse shape than they are. And even people who have episodic illness (like bipolar) may be described as "mentally healthy" a good share of the time. And then there are lots of highly functional, effective, people who have traits that are surely pathological.

Philosophy comes in handy here to explain some of the glaring contradictions humans exhibit, and for generalizing about how contradictory we are as a species, with our often uncoordinated and/or contradictory cognitive and emotional traits constantly screwing things up for ourselves.

A little too in depth for what was needed here I believe. — Philosophim

To hell with it, then.

what we do isn't "pure" (by that I mean for the benefit of someone else) but rather is ultimately just rooted in selfishness. — Darkneos

Even anonymous sex in the dark has meaning to the two (or more, I suppose) people sexually engaged. When one masturbates alone, it's for the benefit of the self. Masturbate with somebody else at hand, and it is no longer exclusively for the self.

When two people who are fond of each other, or in the initial heat of new love, sex is reciprocal. One's gratification is enhanced by the others' responses, in a pleasurable spiral.

Of course, relationships can become desiccated and chilled; ordinary nurturing acts (like preparing food) can become onerous--never mind sex which might continue as a perfunctory routine close to masturbation with nobody present.

What humans do is never ("Never?" "no, never!" "Never?" Well, hardly ever.") pure anything. No pure good, no pure evil, no pure selfishness, no pure generosity...

First we need to define man and woman. — Philosophim

1) A man is a male person because they had an xy chromosome, testicles, a penis, and a prostate gland at birth. His mature reproductive sex role is to eject sperm during sexual intercourse.

2) A woman is a female person born with an xx chromosome, ovaries, a uterus, a vagina, fallopian tubes, a cervix, etc. Her reproductive role is to produce an egg for fertilization by sperm after sexual intercourse, and harbor the developing fetus for 9 months.

3) Men and women both have sex roles which can function separately from their reproductive roles, so that they can engage in sexual activities for the purpose of pleasure. Men and women can engage in solitary sexual stimulation for the purpose of pleasure, and they can engage in non-reproductive sexual activity with same-sex partners.

# 1 and # 2 provide the minimal definition of male and female. Humans share this definition with the at least all vertebrates, but with many invertebrates as well. Plants also have sexual characteristics.

Men are males and women are females. I hope no one heard it here first. Men and women have biologically driven sex roles, and socially / culturally driven gender roles, which are considerably more plastic than their actual sex roles. However, a female heavy equipment driver and a male nurse are not less woman and man because their occupation crosses gender roles. A woman can be the breadwinner in a family and a man can be the nurturing parent and home maker, again without violating the standard sex role. That said, a very large share of the world's population follows gender roles typical for men and women in their society.

For the vast majority of the world's population, genitals and genders match. Sometimes individuals opt to perform the opposite sex's gender role as "drag" theater. Drag acts may be remarkably entertaining and convincing, but at the end of the show, the man in a dress or the woman in a cowboy's outfit return to whatever their "day-time" gender role is.

So, Philosophim, is this the sort of content you were looking for?

Granted, some people think "man" and "woman" refer to stereotypical roles normally performed by one or the other gender. In their view, something is wrong with both the female truck driver and the male nurse. In Archie Bunker terms, the woman is a dyke and the man is a pansy. Still, it probably IS the case, that the woman driving the semi may be a little different; like maybe more mechanically oriented than the typical woman. And it may be that the male nurse is a more capable nurturer than many males, as well as having the technical skill to perform in a hospital setting.

However much some people may be confused by men and women working in the opposite gender's field, my guess is that their actual sex role performance is completely conventional.

So are transwomen women? Are transwomen men? No. The terms man and woman indicate a person's age and sex, not gender. Are transwomen men who act with a female gender? Yes. Are transmen women who act with a male gender? Yes. — Philosophim

My thinking has changed over the years. 50 years ago, I accepted the concepts of transsexualism as a valid explanation for a profound personal dissatisfaction with life as they had experienced it. As "trans ideology" has developed, I have no confidence that it is a valid concept.

Trans men and women are engaged in an elaborate "drag" performance. Usually, drag is performed on a stage of some sort, for a short period of time. Afterwards, the performer goes back to their customary style in life. Drag can be quite elaborate, or relatively simple. I can understand extending one's man/woman drag act into one's whole life, and announcing that one is now a woman or a man. I don't know why, but some people find the opposite sex's roles and ways of being far more attractive than their own sex's ways of being. BUT, the person performing a drag act, for 10 minutes or 10 years, remains the sex he or she was born with, and no amount of costuming, hair styling, cosmetics, surgery, hormones, occupational change, etc. can change that.

I don't want to suggest that there are all kinds of drag acts that everyone is engaged in. However, many people conduct themselves in roles which are quite at odds with their everyday life. Otherwise quite conventional people may be members of political groups whose programs are incompatible with their conventional life (whether that be far right or far left). Some people's sex lives are wildly inconsistent with the sort of life they lead during work hours. Some people's literary or musical preferences are a complete mis-match with their expected choices--75 year old women performing punk rock, for instance (an actual thing).

Fine. That's what makes life interesting and meaningful for people. And it is valid as long as their preferences are not claimed to make them "different kinds of people". In my own case, I could have pretended to be a member of a revolutionary cell, committed to violent regime change. I could have pretended to be an academic scholar, committed to (oh, some standard field of study... whatever). I could have pretended to be a radical sexual renegade, engaging in wild sexual activities. So, in my case, I was a peaceful leftist, kind of academically oriented but not an academic, and a conventionally promiscuous gay guy. I have led a sober, conventional life as a gay man. My "drag act" was very tame.

So yes, trans men and women are performing an extensive drag act. I am sure this view is rejected by trans people. But it isn't so unusual for ordinary men and women to occupy unconventional roles: women who drive heavy construction equipment; men who raise children by themselves; men who are nurses; women who are soldiers. They perform these opposite sex-roles without being confused about their own actual sex role.

People can and do form relationships with objects: a car, a house, a plant. It seems to be a natural habit of humans, say, early on with the little child's comfort blanket. Objects, however, do not simulate; a car and a geranium are the real 'it' thing. Artificial intelligence is designed (manufactured) to simulate a pseudo, false, 'thou', or at the very least, a glittering, lovely, seductive, difficult-to-resist 'it'.

The 'AI it' has all the loveliness of a snazzy new car, a new up-market house, the latest and greatest gaming system--whatever it is that turns one on. But, no matter how much we invest ourselves in various glittery, seductive, irresistible objects, they are still objects.

Companies are no more (and no less) to blame for making an 'AI it' seductive than a car company is for making a vehicle sexy. Making goods and services attractive is one of the critical pieces of maintaining GDP. AI is, after all, nothing but a product offered by corporations hoping to profit enormously, just like Google Search or a chip maker (thinking AMD, not Lays).

Consumers, users, dupes? make the mistake of interpreting intelligible machine generated text as thoughtful writing. Or they interpret the approximation of caring language for actual caring. Or, interpreting whatever they get as whatever they are seeking. The 'AI it' is a capable imitator, an impressive simulation, certainly. AI can make a better picture than I can; it can find far more relevant information far faster than I can; it's better and faster at summarizing acres of text than anyone I know. I like using the service an 'AI it' provides.

Still and all, it's just another product from a market-creating, market driven industry.

I like the term "simulated" as opposed to "artificial". The two terms are not very far apart, but (in my mind at least) "simulated" emphasizes 'the creation of an appearance which is not real'. Something that is artificial may be real; artificial sweeteners are real substances. A simulation only appears to be real (but may be quite convincing).

"AI" isn't real intelligence, as you explained.

We've all seen that SI produces remarkable output, once it is triggered. So has the Google algorithm or the Amazon algorithm, once it is asked a question. Navigation guidance algorithms are pretty impressive too - recognizing that you missed the turn, then automatically figuring out how to correct your error. These all seem "intelligent", until they don't.

Perhaps the reason why so many people are excited, impressed, and/or fooled is that they think that the SI programs ARE real, just not human.

One of the reasons why Japan and Korea are experiencing population decline, and the United States is not, is that they are very reluctant to allow immigration into their countries. They have strong ethnic identities which is fine--as long as the people are reproducing. Americans would face declining population problems as well, but for the steady stream of young immigrants who bolster our population.

There are enough people younger than 25 in the world -- 42%, +/-, to solve the problem of declining population, at least for a period of time. However, Europe and China would have to be open to admitting ethnically diverse people.

I have no idea how population will be distributed by age, location, and income in 100 or 200 years, under future conditions at least as good as the past 1 or 2 hundred years. "At least as good" is unlikely to prevail, if it hasn't already come to an end.

Global warming, rising and warming oceans, more irregular climate behavior, declining supplies of fresh water, changing disease patterns around the world, problems with food production, etc. ALL make future conditions probably very challenging and possibly catastrophic. Specific populations and economies may not just decline, they may crash. These will all affect demographic disorder.

So individual human lives being a crap shoot doesn't seem incompatible with panspermia. — wonderer1

Of course not. Seriously:

One of humankind's problems with seeding life on other planets is that our lives, our civilizations, are too short to know how such an experiment turned out and to improve on our methods. Let's say that we have already (accidentally) seeded Mars with some bacteria. It might well be at least 10,000 or 50,000 years--who knows--before the innoculation could have achieved visible success. 1000 years is a very, very long time for us; 10,000,100,000, or 1,000,000 years is too long for us to pay attention to something so slow, even if we still exist for a million years more. (Now, if seeding bacteria turned Mars green in 50 years, that we would probably notice.)

Presumably an intelligent designer of planetary life would have the longevity to monitor results over the very long term.

More likely, panspermia was/is/would be an unguided process without intelligent agents.

I do not know how far ejecta from a planet in our solar system can travel. We know rocks from Mars are on earth, and maybe visa versa. Farther out in the solar orbits? I have not the faintest idea. I don't know how likely it is that ejecta from another solar system planet could travel to even a close by solar system and bear intact biological material.

I don't think life on earth (and elsewhere) required a primer, like a batch of organic chemicals. It seems like earth had the wherewithal to generate basic amino acids, for instance. All the elements (O, FE, N, etc.) which could be used were here. Given time, given a reasonably rich soupy environment, life will develop. It might have happened more than once (maybe many times) right here. It also might have failed to achieve a toe-hold (no toes yet) in the existing environment, and that also might have happened more than once.

Having achieved a cell of some sort containing biological functions, life could take off in any direction and proceed forward as long as the environment was reasonably stable and rich enough. The last time I looked at drawings based on Precambrian fossils was too long ago to say anything about it, but it seems like "weirdness" was a feature of earlier life forms, compared to later life forms. Weirdness should be expected.

The initiation of life processes was a crap-shoot, and organisms have been rolling the dice ever since.

"Scientists are now seriously asking if humans were seeded by aliens. Here's why" — RogueAI

I don't care whether life on earth was seeded or just happened in a warm little puddle. In either case, life is here, as likely or unlikely as that may be in the universe. Most likely there is life elsewhere as well, perhaps very different than the life in which we are participants. Whether we are the only life in the universe, or whether the universe is crawling with life--either way is amazing.

should guided evolution also be taken seriously — RogueAI

I reject intelligent design and guided evolution because, at least in the case of humans, we seem to have various problems that the ever-so-wise agents of intelligent design and guided evolution should have been able to avoid. (Or the intelligent designers and evolutionary guides were sons of bitches who knew damn well they were putting bad code in the Big Plan.)

Also, @RogueAI this isn't a sorry, sorrier, or sorriest thread.

Both of you raise well reasoned objections to my post about hate speech which I have referred to the Department of Opinions to be Reconsidered. In the meantime, I'll try to avoid hate.

My problem with hate speech laws is based on just what I see here in the United States. It isn't a "hate speech law vs unlimited free speech" problem. It's a problem of using "hate speech" as a lever (or hammer) against individuals or groups who have offended others, or expressed unacceptable political opinions. Being offended by speech is not the same as being injured by speech. There should be little to no protection against being offended.

The problem of unambiguously hateful speech (as opposed to offensive speech) is that it inflames other people and can lead to harmful, injurious behavior. Keep it up long enough and it will lead to harmful, injurious results.

So hate speech laws are appropriate for unambiguously hateful speech. It's ambiguously hateful, offensive, annoying speech where hate speech laws are inappropriate.

According to Google Ngram (a word/phrase frequency application) "hate speech" did not register as a phrase used in print until 1990. Its rise to prominence follows the classic "hockey stick" pattern -- slow at first, then straight up.

It's a phrase I find unusable, and I don't like "hate-speech laws" and "hate crimes" either. Their meanings are far too vague, which makes them useful for suppression of speech that someone doesn't like.

Thanks for the video. That San Cristobal is a high crime / dangerous neighborhood doesn't jump out at one. One would need to hang around the place at night, but there are signs that are problematic.

The housing looks like "public housing", as opposed to privately developed residences. Public housing in itself is a social good, but if it isn't managed carefully, it can turn into concrete jungles. For instance, it's critical to have a balance of adults and children in the buildings. Too many children and too few adults spells trouble. It's important to screen out problematic tenants. The buildings have to be maintained in good condition. Etc.

Chicago's public housing turned into a nightmare and the most of the buildings were torn town. New York City's public housing didn't. It stayed good. Why? Better management and a commitment to long-term maintenance.

San Cristobal has a lot of repetitive concrete/brick buildings located in close proximity. It isn't brick and concrete per se that are problematic. It's the way the buildings either support community or impede it -- or even destroy - it that matters. Again, New York is a crowded city. There are some very desirable and crowded neighborhoods made out of repetitive brick and concrete.

It is difficult to tackle all the problems that make up "high crime" neighborhoods. There just aren't enough social workers, enough jobs, enough public programs, enough therapists, enough of everything. Glad you are not living there -- you were just visiting, right?

Javi's "walk on the wild side"...

In 1625, Francis Bacon famously wrote, "Reading maketh a full man; conference a ready man; and writing an exact man". In order to be a well rounded man, one needs to read, engage in conversation (speaking and listening) and in writing.

I would emphasize practice: One needs to write, receive criticism, and judge one's own work, again and again, If one doesn't read and converse, what would one have to say? Well, there is one's experience to write about, or one's imagination to spill out in ink, but that should be informed by reading and conversation.

Here's a poem I think is "classic" by John Donne, poet, scholar, soldier secretary and priest. It partakes of the routine misogamy and double-standard of his time (16/17th century), but what's true for a woman is/was even more true for a man.

Go and catch a falling star,
Get with child a mandrake root,
Tell me where all past years are,
Or who cleft the devil's foot,
Teach me to hear mermaids singing,
Or to keep off envy's stinging,
And find
What wind
Serves to advance an honest mind.

If thou be'st born to strange sights,
Things invisible to see,
Ride ten thousand days and nights,
Till age snow white hairs on thee,
Thou, when thou return'st, wilt tell me,
All strange wonders that befell thee,
And swear,
No where
Lives a woman true, and fair.

If thou find'st one, let me know,
Such a pilgrimage were sweet;
Yet do not, I would not go,
Though at next door we might meet;
Though she were true, when you met her,
And last, till you write your letter,
Yet she
Will be
False, ere I come, to two, or three.

George Herbert's Love III is another classic from around 1630.

Love bade me welcome. Yet my soul drew back
Guilty of dust and sin.
But quick-eyed Love, observing me grow slack
From my first entrance in,
Drew nearer to me, sweetly questioning,
If I lacked any thing.

A guest, I answered, worthy to be here:
Love said, You shall be he.
I the unkind, ungrateful? Ah my dear,
I cannot look on thee.
Love took my hand, and smiling did reply,
Who made the eyes but I?

Truth Lord, but I have marred them: let my shame
Go where it doth deserve.
And know you not, says Love, who bore the blame?
My dear, then I will serve.
You must sit down, says Love, and taste my meat:
So I did sit and eat.

It's about God's love and I won't quote any more 17th century poetry for a while.