Is it incumbent on everyone else to fall into line with someone’s view of who they are?
— Malcolm Parry

If you want to be a decent person, then yes. Otherwise you're just an ass. — Michael

Yet you have described me in terms that I do not identify and I doubt that Malcolm identifies as an ass. Hypocrite.

So should the transgender man who has had genital surgery continue to use the women's bathroom because his sex is female?

Or should the transgender man who has had genital surgery use the men's bathroom because he has a surgically-constructed phallus?

Will you ever just answer the question? — Michael

I already did but you've been cherry-picking.

According to your definition of gender as a social construct, gender would be the agreement among members of a society that females use the women's bathroom and males use the men's bathroom. In other words, gender is an expectation, or an agreement, that the sexes, not gender, behave in a certain way. Gender would be the agreement - the social construct, and sex - the biological construct. So, I'm not sure that you really understand what a social construction is. To conflate the social construct with the biological construct would be sexism.

Which bathroom should a woman that had a double-mastectomy from cancer use? Did her sex change because she had a double mastectomy? Does having a double mastectomy change one's gender (society's expectation about which bathroom she uses)? No, so she uses the women's bathroom, but she can use the men's bathroom in certain situations, like when there is a long line at the women's bathroom or to assist her elderly father.

Gender identity is to gender as being a Christian is to Christianity. — Michael

Isn't this what I said before in equating trans-genderism to a delusion. Both trans-genderism and Christianity are forms of mass-delusion. So nice of you to finally get the point.

Even the middle-ground Clintons and Pelosi are nowhere near equal in self-service to Trump and Musk. — Vera Mont

Give me a break. The left was willing to accept money from Trump and accept Musk's electric vehicles until they decided to run for president as a Republican and supported a Republican president. The outrage is selective.

'Property' no. Animals compete and fight for things they need and want; they have no 'right' to them. But, according to libertarians,
the state is presumed coercive unless confined to protecting contracts and property.
— Moliere
Other animals have concept of 'state' and 'contract'. — Vera Mont

...which is a gross misunderstanding of what it means to be a libertarian. How easily one forgets that the state is made of up elitist individuals that have made their own contracts among themselves and write the laws to serve themselves. They maintain their control through favoritism and nepotism.

Because of the law. Guys who are stronger and better armed than the millionnaire still aren't allowed to take his stuff. — Vera Mont

Sure. That's why nations sign alliance agreements - contracts to protect the territorial integrity of other nations. There is nothing unnatural about individuals seeking alliances with other like-minded individuals or groups. The thinks treats everyone as a greedy criminal in that we need to control everyone's behavior when the reality is that most people respect each other and laws are really only needed for the select few who aren't happy unless they're telling other people how to live their lives. The right is no different. Both extremes love their Big Brother.

To be able to even understand the concept of language-use means that you have to be a realist. You have to have reached the stage of development where you obtain a sense of "object permanence". We are all born solipsists, and around 8-12 months we develop the idea of object permanence which is when we convert to realism. It is around this time when we start using words rather than just babble.

So language-use is dependent upon the idea of realism - that there is an external world that your senses only partially acquire. We use language to convey events and ideas to others whose sense's would not allow them to be aware of what it is we are conveying. This is why it would be redundant to convey something in which the listener was already aware of or knew.

There are words, and separately, there are what the words signify or mean. The context in which a word is used is helpful to know what the word signifies or means. Context helps define the meaning, but the word remains just the word, separate from its meaning. Like “bank” in one context clearly has nothing to do with a river. And words are just scribbles and not even words if we don’t speak the language; and rules of grammar and such are all part of the context which allows words to convey meaning. — Fire Ologist

There are scribbles or sounds, and separately, there are what the scribbles/sounds signify or mean. What makes a scribble/sound a word is the rules of interpretation you learned in grade school. Just look at, or listen to, the "words" of a language you don't know and you will only see scribbles and hear sounds. It is the rules of interpretation that turn those scribbles into words.

You didn't just learn vocabulary, you learned grammar - how to arrange a string of scribbles to convey an idea as opposed to vocabulary which is the rule for deciding which words to use. Both are used in unison to convey an idea. Think about it like this: a word by itself only conveys part of the meaning, whereas the sentence it is used in conveys the whole meaning. This is why you cannot always capture what someone means when they use a single word, but you can when they use more words, as in using the word in a sentence.

But the point is, words are not meanings, — Fire Ologist

I would need to you define "meaning", but honestly I'd much rather talk about free speech in a Free Speech thread.

I mean, if you have convinced a person to do something, you have clearly influenced that person. Yes, that person is responsible. But you are partially responsible too. — Quk

How so, when those same words spoken to a different person would produce a different result?

Yes, because bathrooms are divided by sex and not gender.
— Harry Hindu

Why? — Michael

I also said that women have used the men's bathroom and men have used the women's bathroom, but you keep cherry-picking. So generally speaking, bathrooms are divided by sex and using one bathroom or the other does not affirm one's gender. It doesn't even affirm one's sex. Social constructions do not affirm anything other than that you live in a particular culture.

Using one bathroom or another is a social construction. A social construction based on one's sex, not gender. The way you speak of gender as a social construction means that gender would be a society's expectations of the sexes - that they use the appropriate bathroom based on their sex. So the social construction states that males use the men's bathroom and females use the women's bathroom. The rules are only enforced when someone enters the other bathroom for reasons other than to simply piss or shit.

No, it's not. That's why we have such terms as "gender non-conforming". — Michael

What are they not conforming to if not the social construction? It is their feeling, or psychology that is not conforming to the social construction, and it is the social construction that you are defining as gender, not their personal feeling that is the anti-thesis of the what is accepted socially.

For me, meaning is the relationship between some cause and its effect. The existence of scribbles on this screen would be an effect with the cause being your idea and your intent to communicate it. The scribbles refer to, or mean, your idea.

The tree rings in a tree stump mean the age of the tree because of the way the tree grows throughout the year. So words are not the only way that meaning manifests, but is one way that it does.

Now, if you want me to understand your idea, you have to know certain things, like which language I speak, and the level of understanding I have with that language. You have to use symbols I understand, or else what is the point in drawing scribbles on the page? Do you think I am going to understand you, or do you think it is an efficient use of time and words to just yell, "fire!"?

If you want to know what I meant by those words, you would have to ask me for more words or better pointing. — Fire Ologist

And this proves my point, no?

These adjectives are supposed to describe a certain value range. What does "hot" mean? 30 degrees or 100 degrees? What is violent? A kick in the face or calling someone "idot"? How fast is fast? — Quk

Context is needed in all these instances. We only communicate in one word sentences when no other words are needed to provide context. Words that have more than one definition are used with other words to provide context.

This is like asking how can we learn a language when language is a social construction. — Michael

No, it's not.

I'm bringing it up because you object to transgender men using the men's bathroom and transgender women using the women's bathroom. — Michael

Yes, because bathrooms are divided by sex and not gender.

It's really that simple. It is you that is conflating gender as a social construction and sex by asking about bathrooms.

I have already pointed out that women use the men's bathroom in certain circumstances and men using the women's bathroom in certain circumstances, so it doesn't matter which one someone uses, as long as they don't believe that using one or the other is affirming anything other than humans need to take a piss and shit from time to time. Just as wearing long hair and earrings isn't affirming a gender either because both sexes can wear either, or both, and it has no bearing on their gender or sex.

Your bathroom argument is like you keep asking if it's okay for a man to have long hair and earrings. Sure it is, but doing so does not affirm their gender since both women and men wear earrings and have long hair. It's a red herring.

(When I say “bank” some might hear “river’s edge” and others might hear “building with money”. This is because words are distinct from meanings.) — Fire Ologist

Wrong. No one ever simply walks around and says, "bank". "Bank" is often used with other words and it the other words that provide the context of the meaning of "bank". The issue is in thinking that only individual words carry all the meaning when other words often change, or clarify the meaning of the other words in a sentence. So you probably shouldn't attribute meaning to words by themselves, but to the sentence they are part of. Just as a cell has no meaning on it's own. It's meaning manifests itself in it's relation with other cells, forming an organism.

Not sure I understand your question grammatically. Could you express your thought in smaller pieces?

I'm not saying that there is no internal force. I'm just saying that the internal force is not the only force.

In the first second of your life, did you already understand English due to an internal genetic program or did you learn English from external sources? — Quk

Of course not, but I did have the capacity to learn a language, and some have a better capacity than others, which manifests in the way they use a language. It could also be that some might have had better teachers than others. So, the issue is trying to discern which parts are external influences and which are internal, right?

I have never denied that there are external influences. It is the others that deny that there is anything internal that can process those external influences for its own purposes.

Gender "refers to the characteristics of women, men, girls and boys that are socially constructed. This includes norms, behaviours and roles associated with being a woman, man, girl or boy, as well as relationships with each other. As a social construct, gender varies from society to society and can change over time." — Michael

Which is to say that gender as a social construction is sexism. Which also means that to change gender, or to be gender fluid, would mean you would need to travel to different cultures or through time.

And children identify as belonging to one gender or another at this very young age, most often before they have any understanding of biological sex. — Michael

How do they identify with one gender or another when gender is a social construction? Wouldn't it be society that determines their gender?

Should transgender men who have had genital surgery use the men's bathroom or the women's bathroom?

You have two very simple answers to choose from, so just choose. Stop with the tiresome deflection. — Michael

Talk about hypocrisy. I'm not deflecting. You are as well as cherry-picking. If gender is a social construction them having genital surgery has nothing to do with gender. You keep conflating the two. Using one particular bathroom or the other does not affirm one's gender, so I don' know why you keep bringing up genital surgery in a thread about gender as a social, sexist construct.

They're not firing the same neurons. — Michael

Ok, Michael the Eliminative Materialst.

I agree. This principle is compatible to mine. There is always at least one option, so the will is not entirely unfree. And the number of options is limited, so the will is never entirely free. So it's not a binary yes-no-question as to whether the will is free or unfree; — Quk

That's why I spoke about freedom in degrees - as in more options the more freedom. I would say that having only one option isn't an option. An option is a relation between two or more responses. To have an option means you must have an alternative response that you can run through the algorithm and compare the predicted outcomes and choose which outcome one prefers.

Now that's the specific freedom regarding the options. I think there's another specific freedom which refers to the causes and reasons that influence my decisions. I'd say, this specific freedom doesn't provide a free will since I'm always influenced by something that is not part of my Self. — Quk

Interesting. So do other selves have an influence on you and you on them? How does one claim that others have an influence on others if the selves are themselves some nebulous and vague concept that only exists as a result of "external" forces?

What is property? The concept doesn't exist in nature; — Vera Mont

Most sentient organisms. Grass, not so much, although it can be 'invade' the artificial domains of mankind. — Vera Mont

I other words the concept does exist in nature. Mankind is a natural outcome of natural processes. Everything humans do is natural for them, which includes staking one's territory.

Defending one's home, feeding grounds and cache of winter supplies against rivals and enemies is not much like holding the deed to an estate - or ten estates - stocks and bank accounts, a vault full of fur coats, pictures and diamonds to which the government is expected to guarantee your absolute right, including the maintenance of legal institutions in which to squabble with one's mate over them. — Vera Mont

But it is like a nation using it's might to protect it's territory. Why wouldn't the same concept hold true for individuals too?

Of course it has nothing to do with ideology: they believe in nothing but self-enrichment, self-aggrandizement. They just proclaim that it is in order to get people to obey them. I agree that Peterson was an inappropriate inclusion. So, could you please name two of the contemporary examples from the American left who are equal to them in self-centered manipulativism? — Vera Mont

There are many to choose from. The fact that you are asking me just shows the scope of your bias. Nancy Pelosi, the Clintons and all those that kept Biden's condition from the American people as well as those that manipulated the Democratic primary in 2016 sidelining Bernie Sanders. The fact that I need to point these things out to you just shows how easy it is to forget the bad behavior of your own side.

The only reason one would continue to support one side or the other would be because of some emotional investment they have in supporting the party. Political parties employ group-think and group-hate. People would much rather blame people they never met or spoke to for their problems.

Institutions inherently allow individuals to do what their fellow men on a level playing field would not. — Vera Mont

Not always. Competition is what allows a level playing field, not using government to artificially prop up one group or another, or one institution or another.

That's pretty much the point. Institutions brought them fortune, power and fame and they're busily attacking and tearing down those institutions, in order to deprive other people of the protection they offer. — Vera Mont

It seems to me that Musk and Trump have created their own institutions. Do institutions inherently endow individuals with fortune, power and fame? Which ones do and which ones don't typically have much to do with one's political persuasions but with favoritism and nepotism.

What you are describing here looks like an algorithm to me. So your comment here isn't so much different to mine — Quk

Exactly. So isn't the algorithm (thought process) the difference in output here? It is the reason we have a difference in how many people respond differently to hearing the same speech.

I am a Libertarian, but my concept of "free will" is probably different than most. To me, freedom = options and will = central executive. The more options one has, the more freedom one has. And you only get more options by having more information - by being informed, and not living in a bubble.

In having more options means that your central executive can make more informed decisions.

So it would be in a Libertarian's best interest to educate the rest of society in critical thinking and encouraging questioning and criticizing authority that tries to limit our options by limiting our access to all information.

We focus on three figures: Elon Musk, Donald Trump and Jordan Peterson. — Moliere

Your focus is biased. There are plenty on the left that are just as self-centered and manipulative. It has nothing to do with political ideology.

What is property? The concept doesn't exist in nature; — Vera Mont

You obviously know nothing about nature. Most organisms are territorial.

Yet again with the equivocation.

You are correct to say that the transgender man is not a biological man but you are incorrect to suggest that the transgender man believes himself to be a biological man. So your claim that he suffers from a delusion stems from a fallacy. — Michael

The point is that they think that they are a type of man. I have been asking you what type of man do they think they are? You might say trans-man, but what does that mean? How is a trans-man different than a biological one - specifically. We keep going in circles because you fail to provide a specific example of what it means to be a sociological-man or psychological-man (even though psychology is rooted in biology), as opposed to a biological man.

I don't quite understand your question. Are you suggesting that 3 year olds do in fact know that some of the children in their class have a penis and some have a vagina, and that this biological difference dictates social differences? Or are you suggesting that 3 year olds don't understand that some of the children in their class are called "boys" and some are called "girls", and that those who are called "boys" and those who are called "girls" tend to wear different clothes and play with different toys and are referred to using different pronouns? — Michael

I'm not suggesting anything. I am taking your own suggestions as if they are true and trying to reconcile them because they are contradictory.

Sure, children can form a concept that gender is based solely on what one wears and the pronouns that are used to refer to others, but then they would only be getting part of the story. This would be like a child hearing a curse word and then using it without a full understanding of how and when it should be used.

Why do some people wear dresses and why do some wear pants? Children are curious (I'll show you mine if you show me yours). They will eventually figure it out.

It doesn’t matter what you call it. Which bathroom should the transgender man who has had genital surgery use? The women's bathroom or the men's bathroom? Given that you mentioned sex parts to explain why we have separate bathrooms for men and women it’s a pertinent question. — Michael

You're the one denying something from entering a bathroom based on whether that something is artificial or not.

I think so too -- almost. I don't think the processes are 100 % deterministic as they are accompanied by a lot of particle noise, especially by fuzzy electron paths or locations. A tiny random electron path deviation may trigger a big decision that possibly would be different if that same electron occured at this location a nanosecond earlier or later. I'm not saying our brain is pure chaos. Obviously, it's not. But it's not a plain deterministic computer program or formula book either. — Quk

You don't even seem to be aware that you are supporting non-random determinism in explaining how differences in causes (a lot of particle noise, especially by fuzzy electron paths or locations, a tiny random electron path deviation, etc.) can lead to different effects (may trigger a big decision that possibly would be different if that same electron occured at this location a nanosecond earlier or later).

Reason and cause are two different things.

• Reason is a logical condition.

• Cause is an event along a timeline. — Quk

Reason is a type of cause. One could just as well say that a cause is a logical condition as well. Reasoning is an event along a timeline that precedes the conclusion as well as supports the existence of the conclusion.

The sum of all angles within a triangle is 180°. For this there is a reason, not a cause. The reason is independent of time and events. It's not a story. — Quk

The sum of all angles within a triangle is 180° is the conclusion of measuring the angles of a multiple triangles. If you never measured the angles of a triangle, then how can you even say that the sum of all angles within a triangle is 180°?

Rain makes the road wet. Rain occurs, then wetness occurs. This is a story. Rain
causes wetness. Rain is not a reason; rain is a cause. — Quk

One could just as easily say that the road is wet because it has rained. A conclusion supported by a reason.

In making a distinction between causes and reasons is to contribute the the dualist's mind-body problem.

Do you hear sounds, or simply experience neurons firing?
— Harry Hindu

Hearing a sound is the firing of certain neurons. — Michael

Then how do you determine the differences in some sounds if they are all just firing the same neurons?
You're relying to much on Wikipedia to the point where you are failing to think for yourself.

The idea speech does not affect the world and that all these sovereign individuals can just ignore it, is devoid of fact. Speech can be abusive and cause harm. Child abuse can consist of solely verbal abuse. There are plenty of examples of bullied kids committing suicide. To then have people argue words don't harm and that it is apparently the person's choice to commit suicide is a prime example of victim blaming. — Benkei

No one is saying that speech cannot affect the world. What we are saying is that there are often times where there are other more immediate causes to one's actions than hearing some sounds made my someone's mouth.

Consciousness is like steam rising from a train—generated by the engine but doing no work of its own. — tom111

I would say that the steam has the potential to do work if it were to come into contact with something else. At the very least the steam would merge with the water vapor in the air and become part of the air we breath. Everything is a causal process, including the mind. The relationship between causes and their effects is information.

But this harmony makes no sense under epiphenomenalism. If consciousness cannot influence behavior, then there’s no reason for our experiences to be useful, well-calibrated, or even coherent. — tom111

Exactly. Is consciousness like eye color in that it is just a by-product of accumulated mutations that have no beneficial or detrimental effects on survival? Eye color could play a roll in sexual selection as some might prefer a certain eye color in a mate. It seems to me that many of us select mates that match, or add to our mental lives as well. One might add that we also select mates based on their mental states as well.

If we were to explore what makes consciousness useful I would point to learning. Whenever we learn something we are fully conscious of what it is we are doing. When learning to walk or ride a bike, you are fully conscious of every movement of your feet, legs, balance, etc. Your attention is focused on these things and the effect it has on walking or riding a bike successfully and efficiently. You observe how others do it and try to duplicate the action and then observe the effect and repeat until you eventually get it right. After that the task of walking and riding a bike is handled subconsciously, You no longer have to focus your attention on the task of walking or riding a bike, which is why you can focus on other things while doing these things. It's as if consciousness is training the brain and muscles what to do so they can handle the task on their own in the future so that the conscious mind can tend to other, more important things.

I would add that the notion of what it means to be "physical" is a mental abstraction. The brain processes sensory information at a certain rate relative to the rate of external processes that it observes. This will have an effect on how we perceived certain processes compared to other processes. Slow processes would appear as static "objects" and what we tend to think as physical. Faster processes will be perceived as actual processes and even faster processes might not be perceived at all, or as blurs of motion. The point is that a physicalist is confusing the map with the territory and trying to reconcile the "physical", static, solid object of the brain they perceive with the "non-physical" (dynamic and unbounded) aspect of the mind. The brain is not a physical object. It is a process and consciousness is a sub-process of the brain.

Then let's try to keep it simple.

Are you a compatibilist or an incompatibilist? If you are an incompatibilist then do you believe that we have libertarian free will or do you believe that we don't have free will? If you believe that we have libertarian free will then do you believe in interactionist dualism? — Michael

How is that keeping things simple? What's with all the labels?

Just answer the question about what happens when you hear some sound. Do you hear sounds, or simply experience neurons firing?

According to Kant, causality is just a category of our reason that enables our perception. This theses may be wrong, but it sounds pretty plausible to me.) — Quk

Then Kant didn't have reasons for his conclusions? It seems to me that thinking is inherently a causal process. This just pulls the rug out from under the premise that sounds cause certain behaviors in others, like rioting. By asserting that causation is an illusion of the mind means that we can't be sure that some speech caused some behavior.

I could show you a sample algorithm of a decision process that leads to the acceptance of an incitement. But that sample would be beyond the scope now and tedious. I just want to say, that there's more involved than just an abstract thought process. There are special tastes and certain emotions and individual temperaments. A flat earther, for example, cannot be convinced by rational arguments. Flat earthers insist on their dogma because it's an emotional conviction. Ratio cannot beat emotion. Similarly, certain tastes are open to certain offerings. "Thought processes" are just a part of the game. — Quk

I was asking for something much simpler - and you keep avoiding it. I'm not asking for a sample algorithm. I'm simply asking you for you to explain the process of how you interpret political speech.

I'm a-political, so when I hear political speech I don't accept it at face value, no matter which side of the political spectrum it is coming from. I do research. I listen to what others of varying political persuasions say and then form my opinion about the veracity of what was originally said. I do these things because of my learned history that politicians and those persuaded by them lie. Notice I'm taking about experiences and memories and how they integrate with what is heard or read in the present moment. I don't experience neurons firing and hormones raging when I integrate sensory data with my stored memories. I experience colors, shapes, (of which neurons and brains are composed of and is what we are referring to when we talking about brains and neurons) sounds, feelings, etc.

What you refer to as abstract, I refer to as fundamental. Objects like brains and neurons are the abstraction as everything is process. These eliminative materialists like to talk about brains and neurons without acknowledging that they are using their mind to view them and they are referring to how they appear in the mind. It's like they're saying that the view through the window is true, but the window does not exist.

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.