Very simple. Senses are for info gathering, reasoning is for info processing. — Olivier5

What use is the brain without senses and what use are senses without a brain? What use is reasoning without anything to reason with or about?

The entire issue simply makes conservative men uncomfortable and is being leveraged politically to divide society. No one cared until they legalized gay marriage and needed a new point of leverage. The whole matter is under false context of causing anyone confusion or the sudden importance of women's sports. You know what they make in the WNBA? — Cheshire

This is exaclty the type of comment one would expect from those that see this issue through the prism of politics and not metaphysics. The metaphysics of this issue needs to be resolved and asking questions about how a man can claim to be a woman, and vice versa, and what that really means, etc. is how we go about that. Most people here just want to treat transgenders like the prophets of a new religion and simply accept whatever they say at face value. I thought part of practicing philosophy is asking valid questions and not simply accepting claims because it would offend the claimant if you did question their claim.

Again, comparing this to proper names is comparing apples to oranges. Its more like you're white but tell people you're black and you get annoyed that they keep calling you white. — Harry Hindu

Actually it's closer to proper names considering they often carry an implied gender. You might be right , but not for this reason. — Cheshire

You have no idea what you're talking about. Names are given at birth, or even before, when the sex of the baby is known. Only after the sex of the baby is known is when it is genderized (ways of expecting and enforcing certain behaviors) - based on the sex.

So, is gender something that is chosen and arbitrary, like a name, or something that is inherent, like your race, or species? I thought it was a sexist social construction. This is part of the problem. You have to define what you mean by "gender" and how it is different from "sex" for others to have clear idea of what pronouns to use and in which context.

If gender and sex are different things then how do you know if others are referring to your sex or gender when using pronouns?
— Harry Hindu
Context. If you are trying to stack people neatly then it's sex. — Cheshire

So why should a transgender get annoyed if someone uses pronouns referring to their sex and not their gender?

Philosophy is ultimately a way of socializing and impressing others with the artful use of big words, hence most of the problems of philosophy are derived from the use of language in this way.

The traditional distinction in philosophy is between reason and sensation - both central to knowledge, but separate faculties. Many animals have far superior sensory abilities to humans, but none of them can speak, or reason, as far as we can tell (leaving aside Caledonian crows and Paul the Octopus). — Wayfarer

I don't see how reasoning could be separate from sensation. Reasoning is a sensation, no? How do you know when you're reasoning and when you're not, if not by sensation?

Not only that, but what are you reasoning with, or about? What form does your reasoning take? And what is reasoning if not processing sensory information to achieve some goal?

As someone who identifies as non-binary, and understands that Gender is separate to Sex, — Bradaction

If gender and sex are different things then how do you know if others are referring to your sex or gender when using pronouns?

They tell you, just like they tell you their name. The post you were responding to was responding to the OP saying "the issue comes from when Person B is consistently informed of the correct pronouns and continues making the same error."

If you keep telling me that your name is Olivier and I keep calling you Oliver or Amy then it won't surprise me if you get annoyed by it. — Michael

Again, comparing this to proper names is comparing apples to oranges. Its more like you're white but tell people you're black and you get annoyed that they keep calling you white.

You know fine well, that to check some complicated conditions, the statements needs many lines of coding to check for all the possible conditions. The use of the variables are essential in the programmings. — Corvus

You can always use coding to restrict users to certain conditions and choices, thereby limiting the amount of coding you have to write that checks for "all possible" conditions.

Yeah, that was what I have been saying all along. If you get your staring definitions and also any of t he premises wrong, then you can end up with some crazy conclusions as Truth. Dangerous things for sure. — Corvus

Dangerous is not the word I would use. Strict and uncompromising are terms that I think of when reflecting on logic.

It was a demonstration OP for showing that logical arguments in philosophical debates do need solid sufficient definitions and premises so that they will arrive at infallible True conclusions.
Truth tables and Venn diagrams are great tools too. But more for the educational purpose, I feel. — Corvus

As usual, it comes down to what the scribbles point to, or how they are defined. — Harry Hindu

I like to solve these types of problems using a computer programming language. In every language, the variables need to be defined in order to use them. In every logical process the variables used refer to something in the world. They are pre-defined and their definition needs to be taken into account as part of the logical process. So for every logical proposition you need to remember that each scribble needs to be defined prior to the proposition like a=1, b=2, x=a+b, y=(a,b,x) (this is an array and is similar to a category in ordinary language) etc.

Also, if you find that some logical proposition produces a false conclusion, its because some other logical fallacy was made. All logical rules have to be followed - no cherry-picking.

Sure, but are a, c and d categories?

If you re-wrote the first example as

All c's are letters . (true)
All d's are letters. (true)
Therefore d's are c's (false)

Then it would be a fair comparison to your second example. In other words, you're comparing different types of entities in each example, so what works for one fails to work with the other.

The problem is that you're comparing apples and oranges. You're comparing letters in the first example and comparing categories (animals) to elements of categories (cats and dogs) in the latter.

If a in the first example were a category, like animals, and c and d were elements of that category then c = d would be false too. Essentially, a, c and d are not being defined in the same way as animals and dogs and cats, so the relationship between the letters vs animals and dogs and cats are completely different.

As usual, it comes down to what the scribbles point to, or how they are defined.

Not all words are nouns. — Banno

True but trivial. Adjectives and verbs would be useless without nouns. To think that verbs and adjectives can exist on their own, without a reference to the nouns they are associated with is a mistake. Don't let the spaces between words fool you into thinking that each word could have a meaningful existence on its own. Spaces between words mark the ending and beginning of words, not necessarily the thing being talked about.

Do abstract objects exist? If abstract objects exist, are propositions abstract objects? If not, what are there dimensions? If abstract objects exist, can they be physically contained within space, or must we then concede to the existence of a non-spatial realm which is transcendent of space? — TheGreatArcanum

Do abstract objects have causal power? If so, they exist. To measure the dimensions, compare the size of the object to other objects. That is how we measure the size of anything - by comparing it to other objects with similar properties (like length, weight and duration). Are words any more abstract than the ink and paper they are composed of?

Why must we understand language to understanding being? If language points to meaning, and being has meaning (in itself), is not language reducible to meaning and therefore being and not to words? What is meaning and how does it relate to the mind and world? — TheGreatArcanum

Words don't denote/refer. People do. — Manuel

Meaning is the relationship between causes and their effects. Mind is as much a cause of things in the world as it is an effect of prior causes in the world. Words are scribbles on a page that were caused by some mind's intent to communicate. By reading words on a page (the effect) you can get at the cause - the idea that the writer intended to communicate. But humans are not necessary to establish this relationship between causes and their effects, or to point to causes with effects. Causes and effects do this as part of their very nature. The tree rings in a tree stump were not made by humans, but point to the age of the tree because of how the tree grows throughout the year. No humans are necessary for tree rings to point at the age of the tree, but humans are necessary to know that tree rings point at the age of the tree to be able to use tree rings to know the age of some tree.

This is best illustrated by and explained with examples, but for this, all the participants need to be fluent enough in the languages compared. It's a phenomenon that multilingual people can easily understand, but otherwise, it's tedious to explain.

But the point is that word X in one language translates as word Y in.. — baker

It's actually much simpler than this. Words in different languages can be translated only because they point to the same thing. If they don't point to the same thing, then they are not translatable. The fact is that most, of not all, words in any language are translatable in another. It just may be that one word in one language translates to many words in a another language, but this is no different than defining the single word in the first language, as the act of defining is translating one word into many in the same language, or at least pointing at the object or event you are defining.

Think of how you would translate/define "Christmas Tree" to an alien from another planet that doesn't have trees or Christmas, but has religions, holidays and bushes, and words in their own language that point to these things. What if you just pointed at a Christmas Tree?

If your article is correct, which it probably is (and brain plasticity in general is well established), it follows that ideas exist in some 'mental space', and that they are written down on neurons but not written forever, only they are written and rewritten and rewritten, always slightly differently, and (maybe) our ideas evolve as a result of this constant rewriting. — Olivier5

It's not just the act of "writing", but also recalling. From where do we recall our ideas/memories? Our memories are not composed of neurons, but colors, shapes, sounds and feelings. When you recall the visual of a neuron, is not the neuron composed of shapes and colors? So which is more fundamental - neurons or shapes and colors? And are not shapes and colors a type of information?

Physical things have different properties than other physical things, but they’re still all physical properties — Pfhorrest

Then what use is the term, "physical" if it doesn't distinguish from something else?

so pointing out properties that some things have and others don’t doesn’t establish the need for ontologically different kinds of properties. — Pfhorrest

Well, that all depends on how we define, "property".

I just find your use of the words "existence" vs "being" to mean about the same as "object" vs "subject" to be idiosyncratic and not in keeping with the usual way those words are used in philosophy. — Pfhorrest

If philosophy uses words differently than the every-day use of the words, is philosophy talking about a different world than everyone else when they use those words? If philosphy is an attempt to explain the world and our relationship in it, you would think that we would all be using the same words in the same way - philosophically or not.

That is, a proposition is just a static bunch of symbols on a page. Wittgenstein is incorrect in the Tractatus to say "I understand the proposition without having its sense explained to me" (4.021). This reminds me of the moral of the story of PI's opening quote. Obviously, we must be taught how to use and understand language, including propositions. — Luke

If a proposition is static symbols on a page, then how is that different than a picture on a page? Observing someone use the word is also remembered visually and reproduced from the visual memory. So I don't get this distinction between use and pictures, or between having and showing. The fact is that if the thing/event you want to talk about is right in front of you, then there is no need for words. Think about watching a ball game and the sports announcer is telling the play-by-play. Is the announcer showing you anything that you can't see with your eyes? Maybe it's useful for first time viewers that don't know the rules if the game, but for veterans, it's just redundant information.

I could ask the same thing about being and showing. In being a certain way, shows others your state of body/mind. Eating shows that you are hungry, or like the food you are eating. Scratching your self shows that you are itchy. How would I be able to interpret these behaiviors if I didn't have the same feelings of being hungry and itchy, the same morphology, and the eyes to observe others react to their states of being hungry and itchy?

Sex/gender is not a spectrum any more than being born with more or less than ten fingers, or with or without a tail is part of a spectrum. Being born with more or less than ten fingers, or with a tail is considered abnormal, or uncommon/rare. Rare events are not considered to be part of a spectrum, rather outliers of the spectrum. A spectrum would be differences that occur commonly, or at a similar rate as the other items in the spectrum.

Biological sex is based on a combination of traits:

- chromosomes (in humans, XY is male, XX female)
- genitals (penis vs. vagina)
- gonads (testes vs. ovaries)
- hormones (males have higher relative levels of testosterone than women, while women have higher levels of estrogen)
- secondary sex characteristics that aren’t connected with the reproductive system but distinguish the sexes, and usually appear at puberty (breasts, facial hair, size of larynx, subcutaneous fat, etc.)

Using genitals and gonads alone, more than 99.9% of people fall into two non-overlapping classes—male and female—and the other traits almost always occur with these. If you did a principal components analysis using the combination of all five traits, you’d find two widely separated clusters with very few people in between. Those clusters are biological realities, just as horses and donkeys are biological realities, even though they can produce hybrids (sterile mules) that fall morphologically in between.

Two widely separated clusters is not the same as a spectrum.

For example the English idiom bread and butter ('a person's livelihood or main source of income'; or
used in reference to something everyday or ordinary) doesn't automatically translate into the German Brot und Butter, for German has no such idiom with this meaning. — baker

Then it would be inaccurate to translate the literal meaning of the idiom to another language. It would be more accurate to translate the meaning of the idiom to another language. Just because there isn't another way to say the same thing in another language doesn't mean that the meaning can't be translated to another language. After all what the scribbles point to is more important than the scribbles used.

Just because we can be artful with language doesn't mean that we translate the art itself. We translate the meaning of the art. Only words that have the same meaning can be translated. If a word means another word rather than something that isn't another word, then we translate the other words until the words no longer point to other words but things and actions that are not other words.

Seems like just a different way of expressing the simple fact that effects mean their causes, of which words are just one type of effect of some cause. Rings in a tree stump mean the age of the tree as much a words can mean the idea some speaker intends to convey.

Last point, to return to the relation between meaning and words. If words don't have meaning, but can nonetheless express meaning, this puts us very close to the Wittgenstein of the TLP. For Wittgenstein, what he calls 'propositions' do not so much as have meaning, as they show it: "A proposition shows its sense" (TLP 4.022). — StreetlightX

What's the difference between "having" and "showing"? How can you show something you don't have?

True, I suppose it could be argued that the mind and brain are distinct but that both are physical, so it would be neither substance nor property dualism. — Michael

Or that the mind and brain are the same thing but from different views. In this case, we can dispense with the term, "substance", and talk about dualistic views. How is a view different than the thing being viewed? Can a view be viewed? In other words, can the mind view itself? Can a brain view itself? Can an apple?

Has "substance" and "property" been defined for this thread and an explanation provided as to why there would be specifically two substances/properties, as opposed to one or a thousand?

The large array of superposition forms results in the wide variety of perceptual types: visual, auditory, olfactory, gustatory, tactile, interoceptive and introspective. — Enrique

I thought the large array of senses results in the wide variety of perceptuall types. What purpose do the senses have if perception doesn't require senses? Why is it if I cover my eyes, not my form of superposition,, that I loose my sense of sight?

Ok, we can agree on that much that wanting others to suffer is morally wrong.

Do you acknowledge that transgender folk alleviate their own suffering by their actions? — Cheshire

In the same way that a person with anorexia alleviates their suffering. They may alleviate some mental suffering at the expense of their body suffering. Having a hole created between your legs to imitate a vagina and having to keep a stent inside to prevent the wound from closing isn't my idea of alleviating one's suffering. The body knows better than the mind what it is as it attempts to heal the damage done to the body by the mind.

Sometimes (often), the insulting party expects that the insultee will infer the intended argument, based on the discussion thus far. People usually don't speak in concise syllogisms, but use other forms of discourse, often skipping some steps (under the assumption that the reader will be able to correctly infer them themselves). When a discussion begins to contain insults, this can be taken as a clue to infer what argument is actually being made prior to that, it tends to be possible to (re)construct it. — baker

Not sure what you mean. Examples?

An ad hominem argument does not have to be an insult. Here's one of my favorite ad hominem arguments. "But you're a cashier." Fairly long ( minute 30 seconds), so you might want to skip it. — T Clark

This could be a genetic fallacy - where the argument is rejected purely based on the source from which the argument is made. Some fallacies seem to overlap - the point being attack the argument, not the person making the argument.

First off – the term “ad hominem” refers to an argument. An insult is an insult, not an ad hominem attack. — T Clark

The ad hominem is using the insult as a reason to not accept the argument being made as a valid argument. So why cast an insult as a response to an argument being made if it's not an attempt to invalidate the argument that they made?

You're confusing simply casting insults at people with casting insults at people as a response to an argument that they made. As such, insults of any kind simply don't belong on a philosophy forum.

You need a court to change your name on legal documents, but you’re free to change your name in everyday life just by telling people that that’s your name. Pretty sure that’s the same with gender. — Michael

Proper nouns and common nouns are apples and oranges when it comes the ease of changing the nouns that are used to point to things. Common nouns are what we are talking about in this thread and this is addressed in my prior post that was a reply to you, but instead of addressing that, you'd rather grab at the low hanging fruit of another's post? :sad:

Probably, because people interpret the lack of empathy for transgender folk as a willingness to hurt others for some type of self-gratification. Which is morally wrong. To answer your question directly; it's invalid argument because it equates some ones identity as being as significant as an internet insult. Which it isn't. — Cheshire

Casting insults at anyone is exercising a lack of empathy. Your distinction between calling people names for which they aren't doesn't make any sense. Again, your making sex/gender out to be some special case that should be protected against mis-identification. Why?

Your repeating a false equiveillance, but using an extreme example. It is a dishonest argument and you know it, because it's ridiculous. — Cheshire

It was once considered ridiculous to claim the be a woman when you were born a man. That's the point you don't seem to get. What makes identifiying as a Dark Lord of the Sith less plausible than identifying as a woman when you aren't?

And back to you are the victim here. All I hear is I'm threatened by these people and I want them to suffer so I feel better about myself. I've never felt threaten or burdened by transgender people so I don't understand why you do. To me they seem like an easy target and you have got something driving you to take shots at them. Am I missing something here? — Cheshire

I'm not wanting anyone to suffer. Talk about mis-judging people... Look in the mirror.

I'm asking questions that no one is willing to ask. Questioning people's deep-seated assumptions about themselves and the world can often make them feel offended, but their feelings and emotional attachments to their assumptions shouldn't prevent people from asking honest questions.

It's the same reason you ask some one their name; instead of give them one. You aren't really in a position to say what is justified to alleviate other people's suffering. You treat people like the gender they appear to be all day long. It takes zero effort on your part to allow some else to live their life the way they choose. Have you ever spoken with or known anyone that's transgender? If your only knowledge is the adverse reaction to their personal medical needs, then your over looking quite a bit.

What if I don't approve of your lifestyle? What right do I have to judge it? — Cheshire

People are given their name when they are born, and if you want to change it you have to get it approved by a court.

Why does sex/gender get special treatment when it comes to being able to control other's speech? I don't identify as a racist or an idiot, but I am called these names on this forum. Why are we not raising hell to stop everyone from calling people names for which they do not identify with and are offensive? What makes sex/gender so special?

What if I identify as a Dark Lord of the Sith and expect you to address me as "My Master" and get my feelings hurt if you don't comply? Again, what makes sex/gender so special in this regard?

The other side could use the same argument and ask why you are judging them for exercising their right to speak freely.

I can sort of understand that objection, but I don't think that that's Harry's objection. His objection seems to be that his definition of "woman" is the correct one, and so people who use the word differently are incorrect and even delusional. — Michael

Not that it's the "correct" one, but the consistent, non-sexist one.

Imagine that we are surrounded by dogs and cats. Imagine that I point to a cat and say, "cat". I point to a dog and say "dog". Then I point to another cat and say, "dog" and at another dog and say, "cat". Now, imagine your confusion as you attempt to understand the similarities and differences I am trying to draw your attention to.

My definition of "man" and "woman" is so narrow that it excludes many behaviors that most people associate with men and women, like wearing dresses, make-up and long hair as opposed to wearing pants and not wearing make-up and having short hair. These are not behaviors that are dependent upon one's sex and would therefore be sexist to expect one sex or the other to adhere to those expectations.

Systemic sexism exists as those behavioral expectations that cultures have of each of the sexes. Those expectations are not what makes one a man or a woman. Biology determines what makes one a man or a woman. So when a trans-person declares that they are a man or a woman because they engage in those behaviors that their culture expects of men or women, they are reinforcing the systemic sexism that exists. You can still wear pants and be a woman and wear a dress and be a man.

I can't seem to do any work with my thought about Aphrodite. I mean my thought about Aphrodite can't seem to deflect even a single air molecule off its path let alone do anything else physical. — TheMadFool

Then you typing this post about your thought of Aphrodite isnt a physical action? What about the statues and paintings of Aphrodite? Those were not produced by physical actions? How can one produce a statue or hit keys on a keyboard spelling out Aphrodite without first having the thought of Aphrodite?

Sex is a compound attribute.

Chromosomal sex is not the entirety of sex. There’s also hormonal sex and anatomical sex. If anything, anatomical sex is the original referent of the word, from before we knew anything about hormones or chromosomes. And there are some people naturally born with a chromosomal sex that differs from their hormonal or anatomical sex (women AFAB but with XY chromosomes), and everyone has always referred to them by their anatomical sex (as we usually don’t know anything but anatomical sex about anyone).

Hormonal and genital sex can be changed already, and it’s only a matter of time before chromosomal sex can be changed too (hello CRISPR). — Pfhorrest

Biological sex is based on a combination of traits:

- chromosomes (in humans, XY is male, XX female)
- genitals (penis vs. vagina)
- gonads (testes vs. ovaries)
- hormones (males have higher relative levels of testosterone than women, while women have higher levels of estrogen)
- secondary sex characteristics that aren’t connected with the reproductive system but distinguish the sexes, and usually appear at puberty (breasts, facial hair, size of larynx, subcutaneous fat, etc.)

Using genitals and gonads alone, more than 99.9% of people fall into two non-overlapping classes—male and female—and the other traits almost always occur with these. If you did a principal components analysis using the combination of all five traits, you’d find two widely separated clusters with very few people in between. Those clusters are biological realities, just as horses and donkeys are biological realities, even though they can produce hybrids (sterile mules) that fall morphologically in between.

If sex were purely a social construct, sexual selection wouldn’t work: males would look identical to females. That difference itself suggests that there’s a biological reality to sex, and that this biological reality—the correlation of chromosomal constitution with reproductive traits and with secondary sexual traits—is what has caused both behavioral and morphological differences between the sexes. If sex were purely a social construct, then male deer wouldn’t have antlers, male peacocks wouldn’t have long tails, human females wouldn’t have breasts, etc.

"Woman" and "female" are words and can be redefined any time standard usage changes. If enough people accept people born as biological males who identify themselves as females as women, then they will be. — T Clark

When enough people defined the Earth as flat, did that make the Earth flat? When enough people use the word, "god", does that make god exist? The words you decide to use does not make it so. It just makes it the words you use. If not, then there would never be such things as lies and mass delusions.

So you can't answer the question: "What you mean by "objective" and "subjective"." I'm merely asking you to define the terms you are using. Asking to define the terms you are using is a very common question to ask on a philosophy forum. Asking questions is an effort to understand what you are actually saying. Not answering them is not making an effort. Just so you know.

It's not an ad hominem if it's a statement of fact. Your reply, as usual, was a misrepresentation of what I said and a personal attack as well. It, like your latest, doesn't deserve my time because arguing with an idiot etc. Etc. — Benkei

Hilarious. Go back and look at my reply and you will see that there are no ad hominems - only questioning your crazy assertions. But that is expected from you - that any questioning of your assertions is a personal attack because you are deeply emotionally invested in your assertions. Why, Benkei, are you so emotionally invested in diversity in America when your own country lacks the diversity that exists in America? Keep posting your unfounded claims about race relations in America (where you don't live) and I will be there to personally attack you with questions. :roll:

BS. They are an oppressed minority regardless of any lies the majority tells itself about those they oppress, and regardless of any anecdote (Obama?) they can point to. — James Riley

Blah, blah blah. In other words anything that is said that contradicts your assumptions just isn't true and you don't have to prove it. What does systemic racism look like in America? What would the absence of systemic racism look like in America if not an elected black person as President? Sounds like there is no end to systemic racism so what is the point?

They aren't saying all whites are racists any more than they are saying all blacks are racists. Sure, everyone is racist, even if subliminally, blacks included, — James Riley

Wait...what? They aren't saying that all whites are racist, but you are? Who is "they" and why are you contradicting them? Which is it? Are we all racists or not? Are you a racist? If so, why should we be listening to you? What have you done to offset your racism?

When you ASSume you are making an ass or yourself, not me. I never said or even implied "that because some whites are racist, they all are." It's just the racists themselves, and their enablers, who want to move on without having done the hard work. The first step is to admit you have a problem, Harry. Then and only then can the hard work begin. All whites benefit from systemic racism, even those who are not racists. — James Riley

But you said everyone is a racist, including blacks. If you are claiming that even blacks are racist, then BLM is racist! You whole post is riddled with contradictions and you're telling me to stay focused? Puh-leeeze.

Are you denying the current consequences and vestiges leftover from the days of American slavery? — creativesoul

This is like asking if I deny the existence of god without having defined god. What consequences and vestiges are you taking about? Surely these consequences existed for 40-50 years after the Civil War, but 150-160 years after the Civil War? How long do the consequences of any racism in the history of the world last? At what point in history did the consequences and vestiges of white oppression in human history cease to exist? At what point does the consequences of what the Germans did to the Jews cease to exist?

h, the idiot speaks again by calling anti-racism racism. That skit is getting old. — Benkei

Ah. More ad hominems. That skit is getting old.

Stop attacking me and attack my argument. Why are you so concerned with what happens in the U.S. when you have such a lack of diversity in your own backyard? If the more white you are means the more racist and privileged you are, your pale white skin means your're the worst of them. :rofl:

Because it's a tone-deaf dog whistle used by morons who couldn't read a room if their lives depended on it. No one said only BLM. They said BLM. They said BLM because blacks are an oppressed minority. Once whites become a minority, are enslaved, have all their property stripped away from them, their families torn apart, a war fought to free them, their former owners reinstated to their black privilege after the war, are subjected to Chad Crow, lynching's, burnings, beatings, ghettos, voter suppression, white-on-white violence due to lack of opportunity brought on by black privilege, then we can talk about WLM. But in the mean time, to paraphrase a meme, you don't walk across the street and interrupt the fire fighters while they are fighting a fire in your neighbor's house and say "Hey, what about my house? All houses matter!" — James Riley

They are not an oppressed minority when they have held the reigns of power in the very system that is defined as being systemically racist.

And what about all the other countries in this world with worse records than the U.S.? What is all this focus on the U.S. when the utter lack of any diversity in Western Europe and Asia is itself systemic racism?

You speak as if whites are the only race in the world that has never experienced oppression in history. Your whole speal just reaks of a lack of perspective.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_by_country

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2013/05/16/a-revealing-map-of-the-worlds-most-and-least-ethnically-diverse-countries/

All lives may matter but only an idiot would say that in the midst of a conversation about some lives. That's how "All Lives Matter" is an opposing view to BLM. It's a dummy interrupting a conversation with an irrelevant truth. "BLM!" "Really? How about them Broncos! Did you see that rain last night?" — James Riley

It's that the some lives' message is that everyone that is white, or wears a cop uniform is racist. It's an accusation that all whites are racist and need to be told that black lives matter, when it is already assumed by most that all lives matter. If all lives matter is already assumed to be the case, then why even say, some lives matter? You're simply assuming that because some whites are racist, they all are. THAT is racism in a nutshell.

I think you're confused. Your argument here is that subjective experience is proof that subjective experiences are objects. — Kenosha Kid

I'm asking a question, using your examples. You can clear up the confusion if you weren't trying so hard to be obtuse. Again, I'm asking what you mean by "objective" and "subjective". You're using the terms, not me. We don't have to use faces and apples as examples. We could also use racism and democracy as examples, which aren't objects but we can talk about them like we talk about experiences and perspectives. So, I'm waiting for you to clear up the confusion by simply answering my questions.

While you're at it maybe you could explain what you mean by "direct/indirect" as well, and what and where the "you" is in relation to your perspectives and experiences.

So within a week from each other a yearbook was cancelled because it had an article about BLM but not its "opposing" views, blue lives matter and all lives matter and in Florida critical race theory was prohibited in school.

These are the same people who cry "cancel culture" every other day right? :chin: — Benkei

Here we go again. Another Western European crying about how things are in America, when the country they live in is less diverse and has more whites in positions of privilege percentage-wise than the country they are whining about. What are you doing to fight white privilege in your own country, Benkei?

How is All Lives Matter an opposing view to BLM? It includes the idea that black lives matter, not opposing it, but doesn't make a distinction about race or skin color, like racists do.

Funny how BLM got all bent out of shape when others asserted that All Lives Matter, but when Asian Lives Matter and Jewish Lives Matter started, no one said a word. So it turns out that not only black lives matter, but others do as well. Leaving out certain people because of the color of their skin, as if their lives don't matter, is racist, period. It's the very idea that BLM is supposedly fighting against. It's fighting racism with racism.

I still don't understand how the fact that we all have points of view is subjective rather than objective, when you are making the case for how it is for all humans. What makes some fact objective? What makes some fact subjective? If the changes you talk about cause changes in other places (ie if you switched minds with Biden, Biden and your bodies' would not behave the same). There is a difference in the effect the mind would have on the body because a different mind is in the body.

If what you are saying is the case whether anyone from any point of view agrees or is aware of it or not, then does that not make it an objective fact?

I don't think we even need to use the word consciousness to poke some serious holes in materialism. For example, if scientists come up with a theory of consciousness and claim that some machine is conscious, instead of worrying about what consciousness means, we can just ask the scientists, "Is it capable of feeling anything, like pain or pleasure?" If the scientists say "yes", then they are still on the hook for proving that that machine can feel pain, and then we're back to the verification problem. People can throw up language barriers to questions like "Are you conscious?", but if they try to do so for something like "are you in pain?" it's not going to work. We all know what is meant by "are you in pain?"

For example, Kenosha Kid thinks it's possible for consciousness to arise from different substrates, like rocks or ice cream cones (I think he used that example). So, instead of getting bogged down in questions like, "How could a collection of x produce consciousness?", we can ask "how could a collection of x feel pain?" The same absurdity arises (e.g., a collection of rocks feeling pain), there's the same explanatory gap and hard problem (e.g., how could a bunch of rocks feel pain? How does that work?) and we don't even have to mention consciousness. — RogueAI

All you are doing is moving the goal posts. Now we need to define pain. What if I defined pain as being informed that you are damaged. Can a machine be informed that it is damaged to then take action repair the damage? What form does the information take? What form does the information "damage to the body" take in you, if not pain? Feelings, visuals, smells, tastes, sounds, etc. all take forms which are all different due to the different sensory organs that are used to acquire the information. You can be informed that you are injured visually as well. Both vision and pain inform you of the same state-of-affairs, but in different forms.

How would you detect consciousness in a machine, even in principle? How would you go about determining that a substrate other than neurons can generate the sensation of pain? I think this is, in principle, impossible to verify. — RogueAI

LIke I said. We first need to define what it is that we are looking for. If I define consciousness as a sensory information structure in memory, does this include machines with memory and sensory devices as having consciousness?

I'm sympathetic, and I think things are easier if we ditch physicalism altogether, but physicalism's central claim is that there is this non-conscious stuff that exists external to us and that it either causes consciousness or is consciousness. I don't think there's a problem understanding what physicalists mean when they say that. It's a pretty straightforward theory: mindless stuff exists and everything is made of it and it causes all phenomena. That's easy to understand. I happen to to think it's wrong, but I don't think there's a meaning problem there. — RogueAI

Again, they are using the terms consciousness and non-conscious as if they know the relationship between consciousness and non-conscious stuff (ie the relationship between brains and minds). How does a non-conscious thing cause consciousness? How does something cause it's opposite? That is a serious problem. It's like asserting that something comes from nothing, or that good can come from evil acts.

In monistic idealism, there is only one cosmic mind, and we are dissociated aspects of it (think dissosciative identity disorder, which used to be multiple personality disorder). So, would my feet be conscious? There's an assumption there that there are these things separate from us called "feet", and that they might be conscious. I don't think anything is separate. I think that separation is an illusion. There's only one thing that is conscious: the one mind. Our own focuses of awareness are, as I said, dissociated aspects of this one cosmic mind. — RogueAI

Why would there be dissociated aspects of one mind? Are you saying solipsism is the case and we don't know that our minds really aren't conscious in and of themselves, rather there is only one consciousness - this cosmic mind?

It seems simpler to just say everything is information, or processes.

I am privy to experiencing Halle Berry's face. Nothing in that experience suggests a particular neuron firing in my brain. So, no, I do not have access to the objective reality underlying my experiences.

By analogy, when I see an apple, I don't see the full apple. I cannot see the reverse side, or the inside. It's not that the objective reality of the apple is missing my experience of it, rather than my experiencing it is an incomplete and particular perspective. — Kenosha Kid

In other words, you have "direct" access to your experience of Halle Berry's face and your perspective of apples. In other words, your experiences and perspectives are part of "objective" reality. If not, then how can you talk about your experiences and perspectives like you can talk about faces and apples?

So I'm confused as to your use of "direct" and "objective". You have direct access to your experiences and perspectives and your experiences and perspectives are part of the objective world.

Like I said, if you can't explain the relationship between your experiences and perspectives and what they are about, then how do you even hope to explain the things your perspective and experiences are about, or of?