I didn't ask about your brain. I asked about your thought process
— Harry Hindu

Are they different? As I've mentioned several times, I am assuming that eliminative materialism is correct because NOS4A2 endorses eliminative materialism, and I am arguing with him. — Michael

You're arguing with me as well that does not assume that eliminative materialism is correct, so you're talking past me. NOS4A2 and I don't exactly share the same views when it comes to the reality of minds, so it would seem to me that an eliminative materialist would have a problem in explaining how there are different reactions to the same stimulus if you don't account for the working memory of the mind where sensory information is interpreted.

No the brain and a thought process are not the same thing. A thought process is one of the functions of the brain. The brain also regulates body temperature, hormone levels in the blood stream, etc. So I'm talking about a specific process the brain performs.

Everything that exists – including the "mind" – is physical. Human behaviour and "decision-making" is ultimately reducible to the movements of matter and energy according to natural, causal laws. If my arm moves it's because it was caused to move by electrical and chemical signals triggered by the behaviour of the neurons in my brain. And the neurons in my brain behave the way they do because they were caused to do so by other neurons and (sometimes) electrical and chemical signals triggered by the behaviour of my sense organs. And the sense organs behave the way they do because they reacted to some external stimulus like light or sound.

There's no immaterial thing like a soul that interferes with the natural behaviour of the physical matter that constitutes my body. — Michael

You're the one that keeps using terms like "material", "physical" and "immaterial", not me. I don't see any use for them. The world is neither physical or non-physical. The mind is neither physical or non-physical. Everything is process-relationships-information. So we're obviously not going to come to some agreement about free speech if we can't agree on the fundamentals of reality and the relationship between mind and world.

The personality of individuals varies a lot; it consists of many attributes, for example:
• Egoism -- ranging from low to high
• Credulity -- ranging from low to high
• Narcissism -- ranging from low to high
• Social intelligence -- ranging from low to high
• Emotional intelligence -- ranging from low to high
• Mathematical intelligence -- ranging from low to high
• Experience -- having learned from various specific stories
• Political taste -- ranging from right to left, and vertically from liberal to authoritarian
... and a zillion other attributes, scalable from low to high, from down to up.

A certain mix setting within a personality determines or causes a certain reaction; a reaction to certain inciting words or certain invitations or inspirations etc. pp.
— Quk

This is moving the conversation forward at least - something that seems adverse to.

Some people choose to live in a bubble and in doing so cut themselves off from alternate forms of information, or views. As a result, they end up being easily manipulated.

So, I asked you to take us readers through your thought process when you hear "inciting" words. How do these different things come into play for you, personally, when hearing any words? Why is it so difficult for you or to do this? Either you're p-zombies and have no idea what I'm talking about when I use the words, "thoughts", or you are being intellectually dishonest. Would it help if I went through my own thought process when hearing some words? I would, but I just need to know whether or not you're a p-zombie so I don't waste my time with my example, as you would never hope to understand it - if you're a p-zombie.

(But I'm not saying that everything is determined; I think that are random effects as well.) — Quk

Everything is determined and "random" is just a term that stems from our ignorance of the causal process that preceded some effect.

Different brains respond differently to the same stimulus.

Much like not every computer displays the letter "A" on the screen when you press the "A" key. — Michael

I didn't ask about your brain. I asked about your thought process, or are you a p-zombie?

The difference in take away messaging from the same message, at the same meeting, was astounding. To this day I have no idea how I should have phrased the message for equivalent positive uptake throughout the staff. That the take away was so immensely different still bewilders me. — Book273

I like to use the analogy of two cats. One cat has been a pet of mine for years and another is a stray I only recently adopted. When I use the electric can-opener to open a can of tuna, the pet cat comes running toward the sound. The stray runs away from the sound and only learns that the sound means tuna is being served after several instances of this happening. How can two entities of any species react so differently to the same sound and then change when new information is introduced (tuna is being served rather than something loud and dangerous is coming)?

Some reactions are common, some reactions are individual.

Every human likes to breath. Not every human likes garlic.

Isn't it that simple? — Quk

Only if you're interested in effects divorced from their causes. Why doesn't every human like garlic?

Going by what some are saying in this thread, everyone that hears that garlic is delicious and nutritious should be eating garlic. But they don't. Why?

Why doesn't every human that hears inciting words participate in a riot?

If you hear inciting words and are not incited to riot, then why don't you or take us through your thought process when you hear "inciting" words and why you don't end up rioting?

The physical differences between two different human bodies and two different human brains. Refer back to my example of the computers. Some computers might respond to someone pressing the "A" key by displaying the letter "A" on the screen, some might emit a noise, and some might do something else.

A human organism and a computer might each be constituted of different molecules, but these molecules obey the same physical laws regarding cause and effect. — Michael

Then I don't see anything that has actually contradicted what I have said.

For computers to respond differently to the same input must mean that they are programmed differently.

For a human to respond differently to the same input must mean they were raised differently.

Those "physical" laws you speak of also say that different causes lead to different effects.

So thanks for agreeing with me.

If eliminative materialsm is correct then there's nothing like an immaterial soul or mind to interfere with these (deterministic) physical processes. — Michael

What made you think that I was proposing the existence of a soul? Nor am I speaking as an eliminative materialist. I am simply speaking as a determinist. I do believe minds exist by default as that is the only thing I know exists, so if you're saying eliminative materialsm requires that minds do not exist, then I am saying eliminative materialsm is wrong, but not necessarily that determinism is wrong.

Minds are as much a deterministic process as everything else. We have reasons for what we do -whether consciously or instinctively. The difference is the the way we interpret the input. So you can continue talking past me about neurons and molecules, while I am talking about what the billions of neurons and molecules are doing together - and that is interpreting sensory data.

From a strictly deterministic stance, how does the determinist account for the difference in output given the same input? A scientist would attempt to explain the discrepancy by explaining a process in-between that modifies the output given the same input. It must be that the input is being integrated with the information stored within the system, which is different for each system, that produces the different outputs, not the inputs themselves.

On rigid designators, what does it mean for an object in one possible world to be the same object as an object in a different possible world? Is it simply a stipulation? — Michael

I guess it depends on what one means by "world". If it's not a known world (or universe or dimension if that is what they mean by "world"), then it must be imaginary. All the other worlds we know of in our Solar System possess many of the same characteristics as our world. They have mountains, rocks, atmospheres, moons, etc. - these things exist on our world and other worlds in the same way. A mountain is a mountain on both Earth and Mars. Both worlds have things that match the description of a mountain.

I'm not saying anything about materialism or physicalism because I don't support either but neither am I an idealist or panpsychist. I simply accept that determinism is the case.

For determinism to be true means that when the same input goes in but you get a different output, something in-between is interpreting the input differently than in other cases. That is what I'm trying to focus on - what that difference is. I'm not denying determinism is true. I'm saying that if it is true, then there must be some difference in the way the two humans interpret the same input to be able to produce a different output. "Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome is the definition of insanity", is what a determinist would say. They would also say, "If you're doing something repeatedly and you get different outcomes, then you're not really doing the same thing over and over. Something different is happening."

If eliminative materialism is correct, then yes. What we call "the mind" and "mental processes" are reducible to some physical process. — Michael

Ok. So what I'm saying is that deterministic processes are not necessarily physical (whatever that means).


Whether it is physical (whatever that means) or not is irrelevant. It is the reason behind the differences in how people react to the same stimulus.

Say we both buy the same computer brand and model. Once we get home we install software on the computer. The software I install is going to be different than what you install. The data I store on mine will be different than what is on yours. As a result both computers, even though they are the same make and model and we interact with the computer the same way - via keyboard and mouse, both computers are going to function differently because of the software and data - the information stored within it.

Your response is an example of talking past each other.

You're the one using terms like "physical". Not me. Is information physical?

I constantly have to repeat myself with you:

Maybe it has something to do with the information stored in their brains. — Harry Hindu

Suppose there was no written language. And let's say the idea occurred to me. Why can't we represent the things we talk about visually, instead of audibly? No alphabets exist. How would I go about it? It's possible I would make symbols that represent the things I want to communicate to the reader (not that the word "reader" would exist yet). Simple drawings when possible. Likely also many symbols whose resemblance to what they are supposed to represent is not always terribly obvious. — Patterner

Why would you feel the need to represent things that you already observe and if some reader/listener doesn't exist yet? The whole point of representing things in the world is to communicate with others. If there are no others, then why would you feel the need to represent things - for who, or for what purpose?

I know that in a few billion years the Sun will expand and consume the Earth.

Not really sure how to make use of this information, but I know it all the same. — Michael

Information is everywhere causes leave effects. Which information is relevant is dependent upon the present goal in the mind. If you had the goal to ensure the human race continues to exist beyond the Earth being consumed by the Sun you might start building and testing rockets to make humanity a multi-planetary, or multi-solar system species.

Slightly different biologies. Your eyes are not identical to my eyes and your brain is not identical to my brain. — Michael

Yet people with different eyes and different brains respond similarly and sometimes not, so you haven't yet accounted for the difference in why some people are influenced by some speech and not others. Maybe it has something to do with the information stored in their brains.

Gender refers to the socially constructed roles, behaviors, expressions, and identities of girls, women, boys, men, and gender-diverse people. It's a distinct concept from biological sex, which refers to physical attributes like chromosomes, hormones, and reproductive organs. Gender is a social construct, meaning it's created and shaped by society and culture, with norms and expectations varying across time and different societies. — prothero

Which means that an individual's gender is determined by society, not by the individual like sex is.

Do you deny that there are social differences between men and women, independent of their karyotype and genitals? Are we are gender-blind outside of reproduction and reproductive health? — Michael

Yes because in speaking of social differences, we are speaking about differences in societies. When speaking about differences between a man and a woman, we are speaking about biological differences. To conflate the two would be practicing sexism.

Androids aren't people, they're machines. — Michael

If an artificial human isn't a human then artificial penises aren't penises.

What if a woman has a dildo (an artificial penis) in her purse - does she get to use the men's restroom?

Some dude who just woke up one day wanting different body parts for no logical reason, that's just not something that needs to be taken seriously.
— Outlander

It's also not something that actually happens. — Michael

Yet you say that there is no specific example of expressing one's gender:

It doesn't show anything specific, which is what I'm asking for.
— Harry Hindu

Because there is no specific thing. — Michael

You are the one that has created the circumstances of gender being this open-ended thing that can mean anything - as long as it's not sex, so it isn't a straw-man until you provide some concrete examples.

Martin and Ruble conceptualize this process of development as three stages: (1) as toddlers and pre-schoolers, children learn about defined characteristics, which are socialized aspects of gender; (2) around the ages of five to seven years, identity is consolidated and becomes rigid; (3) after this "peak of rigidity", fluidity returns and socially defined gender roles relax somewhat. Barbara Newmann breaks it down into four parts: (1) understanding the concept of gender, (2) learning gender role standards and stereotypes, (3) identifying with parents, and (4) forming gender preference.

How is 1) achieved if

In the very early years of human development – and in particular at a time when we're unlikely to even be aware of sex organs different from our own — Michael

?
If gender as social expectations of the sexes is determined by sex and we aren't aware of other sex organs, then how can we learn the characteristics of gender at an early age? How does a toddler learn why some people where dresses and some wear pants if they aren't aware of other sex organs?

You can't even stay consistent with your own arguments (oh wait, I forget, they are the scientists' arguments and scientists are prophets from on high and should never be questioned -which is how you distance yourself from your own contradictions).

So what does the transgender man falsely believe himself to be? — Michael

That they are a man. Why else would they be calling themselves a man? And yes, many trans-gender people do not like the trans- qualifier. They actually consider themselves a man or a woman.

Free speech absolutism clings to a libertarian ahistorical fantasy: — Benkei

Said by someone with a complete lack of understanding of what it means to be a libertarian.

A libertarian is not "every person for themselves" or "everyone can do whatever they want". That is anarchy, not libertarianism.

A libertarian understands that the right to do what they want stops when what they are doing infringes on the rights of others.

My free speech stops when it infringes on your rights, so threatening bodily harm is not speech a libertarian would support.

Free speech is not "Anyone can say whatever they want without repercussions", because other people have the same right to say what they want, which means they can disagree and criticize what others say - especially what people in positions of authority say.

So instances where people were manipulated by someone else's speech is where the people manipulated did not have the capacity to question or criticize what was said, or they were not manipulated at all and already had hate within them that they were waiting to use any excuse to unleash.

Light, sound, smells, etc. The very fact that we sense and respond to the external world is only possible because the external world causally influences us. — Michael

Yes, but why does each person respond to those same lights, sounds, smells, etc differently?

Yes. Determinism is the inevitable consequence of eliminative materialism. — Michael

Exactly - which means that because people respond to the same lights, sounds, smells, etc. differently there must be some other process between some speech being made and one's actions that manifests as that difference in actions after hearing a speech.

I just want to know if you accept that a transgender man with an artifical penis should use the men's bathroom.

It's a simple "yes" or "no" answer. — Michael

Define "artificial". Which bathroom should an android with an artificial penis use?

I've linked to various articles that explain gender, gender roles, gender expression, and gender identity. Do the reading. — Michael

It doesn't show anything specific, which is what I'm asking for. You were more than happy to provide specific examples of sex. Why so reluctant to show just one example of gender as something non-biological? Sounds like someone with a sex fetish that has no idea what they're talking about when it comes to gender and are just using it as cover for their real intention of being closer to women with their pants down.

I’m not conflating gender with biology. I am simply pointing out that if we separate bathrooms according on one’s sex organs, as you say we should, then it makes sense to allow those with an artificial penis to use the same bathroom as those with a natural penis and to allow those with an artificial vagina to use the same bathroom as those with a natural vagina.

Included in those with artificial genitals are trans people who have had surgery, intersex people who have had surgery, and cisgender people who have had surgery after an unfortunate accident with a buzz saw. — Michael

What if there was an android with an artificial penis, which bathroom should they use? Please don't bring up the slippery slope. YOU are the one that used the term, "artificial", so you should define exactly how you're using it. I'm the one saying it's not any kind of penis, artificial or natural.

No, I'm not. I am simply acknowledging the fact that some transgender people have genital surgery. — Michael

And some people that are not transgender have had genital surgery, as you have pointed out and apparently forgotten. So what does gender status have to do with using the bathroom if gender has nothing to do with biology? Why is it so important that trans people get to use the bathroom rather than the non-trans that have had surgery? It must be because you continue to conflate sex with gender in one moment then claim they are separate in another.

Also, you have been very happy to show specific examples of sex with your use of "penis", "vagina", "testes" etc., but have yet to show ONE specific example of gender as something social, psychological, cultural, and behavioral.

According to this, 25-50% of transgender men have genital surgery and 4-13% of transgender women have genital surgery. — Michael

Thanks for supporting my argument that the number of trans-people that conflate sex and gender are growing and you're just parroting this conflation (delusion).

No they're not. The transgender woman is fully aware that she is biologically male and the transgender man is fully aware that he is biologically female. — Michael

Aren't they saying they are psychologically and culturally male/female? Isn't that the point of contention here? I'm still waiting on specific examples.

Can someone be non-biologically female male? If not, then why the qualifier, "biological"? If so, then please provide a specific example.

There's no list of necessary and sufficient conditions. — Michael

Which is to say gender is anything other than sex. Gender = not-sex. That's helpful. :roll:


.

And what about trans people who have had genital surgery? — Michael

Your conflating sex and gender again. If I said that intersex people can use whichever bathroom they want, then why would their gender status matter - if sex and gender are separate?

In most cases one's gender is determined by one's sex, but given the existence of transgender people – and societies with more than two genders – this is not a necessity. — Michael

By having genital surgery the trans-person is asserting their gender is determined by their sex.

Now, what about trans people that haven't had surgery? Which bathroom should they use? And what are they saying determines their gender - which social, psychological, cultural, and behavioral aspects are they referring to - specifically?

Because that’s what we were both discussing. You said "we separate bathrooms by sex because it is an area where we uncover our sex parts."

I just want to understand how artificial sex parts factor into your separation. — Michael

I already said that intersex people can use whatever bathroom they want. People that have had genital surgery are effectively intersex because they still retain some of the sex parts they were born with.

So, just to be clear, in talking about people that have had genital surgery, we're talking about intersex people, not trans-gendered people.

It’s a very simple question, Harry. If you are in charge of deciding who is allowed to use which bathroom, then would you require that trans men who have had genital surgery and now have an artificial penis use the men’s bathroom or the women’s bathroom? — Michael

You see, you are the one going on about bathrooms when I'm talking about the relationship between gender and sex. You're putting the cart before the horse.

I’m not.

You claimed that the reason we have separate bathrooms for men and women is because men and women have different sex organs. And it is a simple fact that some trans people have genital surgery. So I’m asking you which bathroom they should use after having genital surgery. — Michael

You are.

You are contradicting yourself. If gender and sex are separate then why would genital surgery be called gender-affirming?

I’m simply pointing out that if we divide bathrooms by sex organs then it makes sense to allow trans men who have had surgery to use the men’s bathroom and trans women who have had surgery to use the women’s bathroom. — Michael

If you're not conflating gender and sex then why are you calling people who modified their sexual biology trans-gender?

In proposing unisex bathrooms you are taking away the trans-gender person's reasons for having surgery in the first place - to affirm their gender.

Men being physically stronger than women isn't a cultural thing. Neither is having more testosterone, which we know affects behavior. Has there ever been a culture where men have not committed more crimes than women? — RogueAI

Sure. I did mention that hormones are one of the determining characteristics of sexual differences, so you haven't contradicted anything I've said.

Let me just reiterate here that we're talking about sexual differences, not gender differences if sex and gender are not the same thing.

I am simply pointing out that if we separate bathrooms according on one’s sex organs, as you say we should, then it makes sense to allow those with an artificial penis to use the same bathroom as those with a natural penis and to allow those with an artificial vagina to use the same bathroom as those with a natural vagina.

Included in those with artificial genitals are trans people who have had surgery, intersex people who have had surgery, and cisgender people who have had surgery after an unfortunate accident with a buzz saw. — Michael

...but it would not include most trans-people as most trans have not had surgery. So you would still force a man wearing a dress into the men's bathroom.

And your proposal to have unisex bathrooms eliminates the trans-persons ability to affirm their gender by using a binary bathroom. Trans-genderism reinforces the binary gender social model and condones sexism.

So either you haven't thought about the consequences of your proposed solution, or you have an ulterior motive to actually eradicate transgenderism, not support it. Which means that you are acting like you care for the transgender movement but are actually opposed to it and are using it as a means to get men closer to women when their pants are down.

If you don’t trust what the experts have determined then I don’t see how I can help. As I alluded to before, I can no more prove that there are sex differences in psychology than I can prove that humans evolved via natural selection from single-celled organisms. All I can do is point you in the direction of the research. What you do with that is out of my control. — Michael

If you are dedicated to pleading to an authority that leaves out the necessary data that would actually show what they are claiming then I don't see how I can help.

You're moving the goal posts and also failing to understand how translation works. Sure letters can represent a sound, but I was talking about words and sentences. One could say the reverse could be true as well.

What is the relationship between some scribble, "sand" and the sounds you make when saying the word, if not what they refer to, which is neither a sound or a scribble. "Sand" is a scribble and a sound. Sand is not.

How do you translate the scribble in one language to another if not by learning what that scribble refers to so that you can know which scribble in another language it translates to?

Think about being in the same vicinity as me and being able to see, hear, smell, and touch everything in the same vicinity as me. If I were to describe the area we are in, wouldn't it be redundant because you are already here with me experiencing the same things? Why would it be redundant if scribbles and sounds don't refer to the things in the vicinity that you can experience for yourself? If you can see I have a pet black and white cat, why would I say, "I have a pet black and white cat"? Language is used to relay information to others when their senses cannot access what it is we want them to know.

We've been over this previously, and it's a bit of a side issue, but I don't agree with your theory that words are all proper names, that all they do is refer. — Banno

The fact that you can co-opt something for a different purpose is trivial and does not mean that the original and primary use no longer exists or is useful. When communicating you are using scribbles and sounds to refer to things that are not scribbles and sounds.

I don't find this very useful, since "causal power" is not as clear a concept as "real". Indeed, I doubt that the idea of causation can be made all that clear. But there is a clear use of "real", which I've explained previously - it is used in opposition to some other term, that carries the explanatory weight - it's real, and not a counterfeit, not an illusion, and so on.

It doesn't help us if we explain one unclear idea by using another idea that is even less clear. — Banno

But is it a real counterfeit bill or a real dollar bill? Is it a real illusion or a real observation? The fact is that a counterfeit bill and illusions can make you behave as if they are "real" until you have more information as to the causes that preceded their existence. If you don't understand causation then I don't see how you can claim a difference between a counterfeit bill or a dollar bill as different processes went into creating them (causation).

Going by what you have said, counterfeit bills appear randomly without counterfeiters creating them and there would be no crime in creating counterfeit bills.

The conclusion was that for information to be used, it has to be stored somewhere first.

I agree with the first sentence. With the rest of it, you lost me a bit. — T Clark

If you understand the relationship between rationalism vs empiricism then all I am saying is that knowledge is supported by integrating both rather than treating them as a dichotomy. Beliefs are supported by only one or the other or neither.

I'm sympathetic to this, but when we label someone as "man", along with a physical description of a male (genitalia, chromosomes, etc.) that label also denotes that, on average, men are stronger than women and more violent and predatory. Would you agree? — RogueAI

There is some research that suggests that on average, in European populations women are twice as likely to be blonde than men, but we don't say that blonde hair and not-blonde hair are sex differences.

Biological sex is based on a combination of five traits (chromosomes, genitals, gonads, hormones and secondary sex characteristics). 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.

Women can be violent and predatory. So the question is, what is the threshold by which we define which characteristics are sexual differences, and which aren't? The fact that we even have a 99% ratio of different characteristics occurring naturally together must speak to what it means to be a woman or a man independent of our use of language. Everything else would be decided by one's culture.

The key word here is "communication" and not "gaming". We use scribbles to communicate, not to play games - although we could play games with words and but that isn't the primary use of language.

The scribbles do not refer to the sounds of a spoken language. It is the sounds and the scribbles that refer to the same thing that is not another sound or scribble, just as the different sounds and scribbles of different languages refer to the same thing and is what makes it possible to translate languages in the first place. Because we often learn the sound before the scribble, we are actually translating the sound to the scribble when writing, but the sound refers to something else that is neither a sound or a scribble.

"Leia is my seven year old pet cat." is a string of scribbles that refers to something that is not another string of scribbles, but a living entity that both the sounds and scribbles refer to. Choosing to say it vs write it is dependent upon your intended audience, as you have explained, which is no different than choosing which language to say it in, which is dependent upon your audience.

The scribbles and sounds we use to refer to things that are not sounds and scribbles are arbitrary so we need rules for which string of scribbles/sounds refers to which things and events in the world. That is what we are agreeing on - the rules of reference.

Manage what - talking past each other? Sure.

Which is why I said it makes sense to let trans women who have had bottom surgery use the women’s bathroom and trans men who have had bottom surgery use the men’s bathroom. — Michael

Here we go again with conflating gender with biology, which leaves out those that have not had surgery.

It’s both, which is why the article on gender that I directed you to says “gender is the range of social, psychological, cultural, and behavioral aspects of being a man (or boy), woman (or girl), or third gender.” — Michael

But you just spoke about gender as biology (by having surgery) and now it is back to gender as non-biological. You are being inconsistent in your use of the term, "gender".

I have also asked for examples of gender as something psychological. I have already shown an example of gender as something cultural (sexist tropes). So I'm still waiting on you to provide an example of what you mean. Just tell me what you mean when you assert you are a man or woman? Why can't you do that simple thing?

It’s not my argument. It’s what the experts in psychology and psychiatry have determined. If you think that they're wrong then the burden is on you to explain where they’ve gone wrong. — Michael

I'm not even saying they're wrong. I'm asking a question about how they can they reach the conclusions they have when the evidence they provide doesn't include necessary information to reach that conclusion and is contradictory. I asked how it logically follows that these distinctions qualify as sexual differences if they occur across both sexes. This is required information and the fact that it is not included is suspicious. The fact that I cannot find the information is also suspicious - kind of like how that study that showed the negative effects of transitioning children was swept under the rug. I have shown evidence that scientists are not always truthful and can be manipulated by politics as much as anyone else, yet you keep pleading to authority when I have shown that the authority you are pleading to has not provided all the necessary information and has been caught keeping necessary information out of the public view.

And when we live in an age of disinformation propagated by the authorities on both sides of the political spectrum, why would you not at least question authority than hides necessary information to claim what they are claiming?

I'm thinking mutual agreement. — Patterner

Mutual agreement about how to use scribbles, or what the scribbles refer to? If the former, then what exactly are we agreeing on using the scribbles for - to accomplish what? If the latter then we use scribbles to refer to things.

Then there's Kripke's suggestion, that if we must think of essences we can think of them as the properties had by something in every possible world in which that thing exists. This has the benefit of being formalisable and reasonably clear while keeping to a minimum any metaphysical consequences.

Then you may be suggesting that we can be rid of essences by doing some sort of Bayesian analysis that allows us to conclude that tigers are real. Maybe.

But you and I might agree that essences have little to do with what is and isn't real. — Banno

For me, things are real if they possess causal power. Rocks and ideas are real because they possess causal power. You can use your ideas to change things in the world and rocks can make you feel pain when you drop one on your foot. Essences would be akin to how different things interact with each other. For instance light is either reflected or passes right through objects depending on what the atomic structure of those objects, and which wavelengths of light are reflected or absorbed is dependent upon the same atomic structure.

When we go to the Moon and Mars we find rocks and mountains. So rocks and mountains seem to be supported by what Kripke is proposing. We also have something called convergent evolution where similar traits arise in similar environments. On Earth, having eyes is very useful as the atmosphere allows visible light to pass right through it. On similar Earth-like planets with a transparent atmosphere we would expect organisms to have eyes.

Yep. Notice that reference remains intact despite the failure of each description. Hence reference is not achieved by using descriptions, nor by essences. — Banno

There is no reference if the scribbles refer to something that is not the case. One can only confirm there is a reference by making some observation about what the scribbles refer to. If there is no reference then they are just scribbles and not words. It's just that we often trust people are not lying when having a conversation with them so we don't feel a need to confirm everything that is said.

Scribbles are just scribbles unless they refer to something. What makes a scribble a word and not just a scribble?

You can draw any scribbles on this page but what makes some scribble meaningful? You might say it depends on how it is used. And I will ask, "used for what? - to accomplish what?" To use anything means you have a goal in mind. What is your goal in using some scribbles?

Although "99.9%" probably undersells things. Do ants, or trees, or ducks, or men every give birth to tigers? Has anything but a tiger ever given birth to a tiger?

Even in hybrids, the hybrid's traits are an admixture. Horses and donkeys give birth to mules, not cats and frogs, etc.

Note that this also defines what humans find "useful." If one tries to breed one's male pigs to one's female sheep, the family will starve. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Sure, usefulness is dependent on what is real or true. For something to be useful means that there is some sense of truth attached to it.

I used 99.9% to represent the fact that species evolve and species cannot evolve unless the present species mutates in some way.

I think that when we speak of "essences" and "substances" we are referring to those distinct clusters of shared characteristics that occur together 99.9% of the time. Species that share some characteristics of others, or where characteristics overlap are typically the descendants of the other species, or share a common ancestor with another species.