I think it would be impolite of me not to respond even though I said I wouldn’t do so given the extend of your post.

I was making the judgement from responses you’ve given to me and some others where you seem to be arguing against something that hasn’t been said or suggested.

Some of the names you mentioned do the same thing too, as do I and almost everyone at some point. I was pointing out that I observe this to be a consistent factor in your responses whilst even in other guilty parties there are lulls. — I like sushi

I asked you to show where I have done that consistently, but you won't, because you can't, because I haven't. Show me what argument in my previous post isn't against what was said, and is

plastering your impressions of people over their faces to the point that you can no longer see behind the mask you’ve made for them. Effectively you’ve ended up talking to nothing more than a mask of your own making — I like sushi

Show me and everyone else that you actually are trying not to be impolite by accusing me of things which aren't the case, but is the case for you and 180. Where's the evidence that I have consistently done what you say that I have?

I have asked for solutions to the problems the others have proposed. Under what other circumstances should we not be color-blind, and what should we do with the information we have about that person's race in that context? Should we hire black people over veterans? These are all valid questions that you simply want to avoid answering. Why?

You don't see people talking in full sentences in every-day life. At least, here, there's a demand for rigour and logicality, which is good and all. On the flipside, remarkably (rather), philosophers have been able to put into words existential issues that are deep moods, and feelings that go sometimes beyond the trivial and mundane of every-day life. Isn't that rather remarkable, given how much of communication is actually non-verbal? — Wallows

Then your either a closet pragmatist or simply lost your way into this forum, I believe. — Wallows

I don't see the reason to label people, especially from a standpoint of your limited interactions with me.

Like I said, information is everywhere - which is to say that there are things in the universe that can be talked about that would be irrelevant to the current discussion. That other information in the universe is relevant to other discussions, or would be useful in other contexts. So, what is useful is what is relevant to the current topic.

So I ask you, what percentage of information is lost when you write your posts and I read them? What information isn't getting to my brain that you would like to? And how is it that we can't get there simply by talking it out a bit more with relevant information?

We don't speak in full sentences when the context fills in those gaps for us. We use words to categorize our thoughts into bits for transmitting to other brains - kind of like how a analog-to-digital converter transforms analog signals (like the sound picked up by a microphone) into binary so the computer can use it. The context provides a template of what can be relevant to the current discussion. Those bits just fill in those fields of the template, so we don't need all of the information sent to us because we get that from the context (template).

Word-use is an action and all actions require energy, so it seems plausible that we would try to find shortcuts in using language to conserve energy.

More like a zoo in a box.

Or an X in a box. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Well, it's something that is in all of our boxes that is similar, or else we would never be able to get to a common understanding of what people mean when they behave a certain way - like when making sounds with their mouths and moving their hands in a particular way. As a matter of fact, our experiences and interpretations of each other's and everyone else's behavior when using language would have to be similar or else how could we all come to a similar understanding of how to use those words?

What you seem to be doing quite consistently is plastering your impressions of people over their faces to the point that you can no longer see behind the mask you’ve made for them. Effectively you’ve ended up talking to nothing more than a mask of your own making.

Hence, people will just stop responding as I did.

It may be easier to stick to exchanging with one person only. Frank seem game enough so offer some charity. I’m not game btw. I don’t see what I have to gain that I don’t gain by observing you try and find a resolution to your current problem in communicating whatever it is you’re trying to communicate.

Good luck. Hope it works out. — I like sushi

This is a joke, right? Show where I have "quite consistently is plastering your impressions of people over their faces to the point that you can no longer see behind the mask you’ve made for them. Effectively you’ve ended up talking to nothing more than a mask of your own making."

I think maybe you have me mistaken for Frank, 180 and the others. It is they that have "quite consistently is plastering your impressions of people over their faces to the point that you can no longer see behind the mask you’ve made for them. Effectively you’ve ended up talking to nothing more than a mask of your own making."

Here is a consistent summary of the responses I get to my arguments...

Prove you have any intelligence. — unenlightened

Ok. I get it now, you're just trolling. Basta! — 180 Proof

Riiiiiiiiight ... Ok, Shrek. :up: — 180 Proof

Stop being so incurious and intellectually lazy and google what you've asked me. Or make do with what I've already written on this thread. Or do neither. I'm done feeding trolls here. — 180 Proof

In other words: Don't feed trolls! Right on — 180 Proof

The fact that you are too lazy to scroll up and read is indicative of the pointlessness of dealing with you. You've earned Chrome ignore. Good luck. — Baden

Okay, Harry. Prove you're not a cunt. — 180 Proof

Poor little Harry — frank

...and these are basically the entire contents of their posts - just ad hominems without any kind of argument or consideration for what I actually have said consistently.

All frank needs to do is define his use of the term "fondness" because we can't move forward unless I know that we're not talking past each other.

You obviously haven't been reading my posts because you are just wrong in what I actually have been consistent about, so you're just pulling the same stunt they are and accusing me of doing it, so follow 180's advice and don't be so incurious and intellectually lazy and actually and go and read my posts just as I would encourage every other reader to do and see for themselves. Don't take my or I love sushi's word for it.

Once again without mentioning your name, Hindu, you don't keep anyone guessing and self-identify. That's mighty "colorblind" of you. :ok: "I bet you think this song is about you ..." — 180 Proof

The only reason I've mentioned my skin color is because this is a topic about skin color, and this doesn't contradict anything that I've said. I have consistently said that being color-bind does not entail being color-blind all the time. It only means that we should be color-blind in contexts where race isn't a factor, or doesn't follow from the context. When hiring someone, one's race doesn't play a role in that person's ability to do the job, so shouldn't be taken into consideration. Only in biological/medical contexts, which includes topics whose titles include the word, "race" on philosophy forums, should we not be color-blind. Doing otherwise is making a category error. I'm repeating myself, because this is one of the things I have said consistently.

I have asked for solutions to the problems the others have proposed. Under what other circumstances should be not be color-blind, and what should we do with the information we have about that person's race in that context?

I have acknowledged that racism existed in the past and still does in pockets and individuals today, but is not systematic. I have acknowledged that the effects of systematic racism linger today, but I have asked for solutions and then everyone starts with the ad hominems or no replies at all. I have offered alternate views and solutions to some of the statistics put forth, but then get consistently trolled and ignored. But, I'm just repeating myself again because I've said this consistently before.

Read the transcript.

You don't see people talking in full sentences in every-day life. At least, here, there's a demand for rigour and logicality, which is good and all. On the flipside, remarkably (rather), philosophers have been able to put into words existential issues that are deep moods, and feelings that go sometimes beyond the trivial and mundane of every-day life. Isn't that rather remarkable, given how much of communication is actually non-verbal? — Wallows

You're saying information is lost, but what I'm saying is that the information is probably irrelevant to what is being said. Information is everywhere but we only focus our attention on what is useful at that moment.

The singular feeling in common is that of an inability to communicate a portion of the content. The incommunicable content obviously varies.

The singular feeling in common (namely, "I'm having a problem communicating X") justifies applying a narrow definition to the expression. — ZzzoneiroCosm

So theres no beetles in our box when it comes to communicating uncommunicatible feelings?

Yeah, I may have overestimated. But, some large percentage of communication is non-verbal, and that's something you could use as an argument for volitions or intentionality existing, just throwing that out there. — Wallows

But when it comes to communicating philosophical/metaphysical or scientific ideas on forum like this, what useful information would be missing?

Perhaps there is some disagreement here. What I meant by volitions and intent, was not separate from words, otherwise, it would rather lead us to the sort of conclusions of a homunculus living in the brain of sorts. What I do think actually happens, is something creativesoul has been talking about for a great while now, about prelinguistic "content" or the 95% of communication that gets passed over on these forums because we can't see behavior or hear tonality. — Wallows

I doubt that 95% would be how much information is lost in communicating on these forums. Maybe when communicating with Banno you'd lose 95% of what he means, but what do you expect from someone who thinks language is a game?

I'm not sure what you mean by volition being seperate from words, unless you mean word-use. Like I said, if words are used then volition must be involved.

Something uses the information in working memory (consciousness) to make decisions whether it be which route to take for work based on the current traffic conditions, or which sound to make with your mouth to communicate the information present in working memory - kind of like how computers use different protocols to communicate with other computers. I dont think "homunculus" would be the proper term for that something. How about "central executive"?

I think much of the problem lies in what people mean by, "use".

"It's indescribable" is indeed a description. But, in its non-specificity, it's a poor one. In connection to visuals: there would be no transfer of visualized content - more a confession of the inability to transfer visualized content. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Which is why I asked how others might learn to use the term when observing someone else use it.

Indescribable: too unusual, extreme, or indefinite to be adequately described.

If it isn't specific, then why does it have such a narrow definition? I mean, is there any way to misinterpret what someone is saying when they claim their feeling is indescribable? If so, then how can others learn to use the phrase?

Is it that they know the feeling, but there aren't words to refer to it, or is it that they don't know the feeling and therefore wouldn't know the words to refer to it? Would someone else who has the same feeling be able to use terms other than "indescribable" to describe it?

We developed the cognitive ability to point to things we can't properly express. — Marchesk

This is better.

Why can't we express them? Is it that the language is limited, or our cognitive grasp of the language we're using, or something else - like maybe a misinterpretation of what you are actually feeling?

When someone else uses the phrase, "The feeling was indescribable!", how would others learn how to use the phrase if it was truly indescribable? It seems that "indescribable" is a description. It has a definition in the dictionary.


I say that he did describe the feeling, and I say that your Nirvana post is a description as well.

In other words, at least in philosophical/scientific contexts, words are used to explain reality, and it is expected that others would come to the same conclusions given the same observations of reality. We are trying to use words to create observational sensations in others so that they might see the world as we see it. Most of our words are visual - meaning that they refer to, or initiate, visuals in someone else's mind - so that they can see things as you see them. If this wasn't the case, then why post anything at all on a philosophy forum? If you're just posting how you feel and it is only useful to you, then why post it? If it would be useful to others, why would it be useful to others if there wasn't some objective nature to reality?

But didn't he just use language to describe the experience? Saying it is indescribable is describing it with words, no? Is "indescribable" a description? If not, then how did it become a common saying? How did other humans learn to use the phrase? — Harry Hindu

"I finally achieved Nirvana this past Sunday."

"Oh yeah? What was that like."

"Truly Indescribable. Beyond words!"

"Ah, I see. That explains it perfectly. Thanks for sharing. So what's the meaning for life?"

"42"

"Of course! I understand fully." — Marchesk

I don't see how this answers my questions.

Is "indescribable" a description? If not, then how did it become a common saying? How did other humans learn to use the phrase? — Harry Hindu

Well. Firstly, why should everyone be expected to follow the rules of logic? That seems prima facae to be an unsubstantiated claim. To what end? — Isaac

Because if you didn't you wouldn't be coherent. No one would understand what you're saying, and you'd get a lot of questions asking you to clarify.

Secondly, what exactly are the 'rules of logic', and how would they have been derived if only logic can derive true models? — Isaac

"Thou shalt not commit logical fallacies" would be one.

Thirdly, how would you adjudicate in situations where two opposing positions claim to have been following the rules of logic? — Isaac

Which one has more evidence to support their claims?

But notwithstanding, the above is a distraction because I never said anything about logic at all, I was just saying that what SA identifies as incoherent and not substantive is exactly the sort of thing other people may consider coherent and substantive and that people (in my experience) actually seem more likely to resort to those accusations as a means to reject some discourse here than they do in professional circles. — Isaac

People think the same way about gods. Where has that gotten us? Absolutely nowhere.

Science is what has enabled progress in our understanding of how human beings fit into the grand scheme of things.

If nothing concrete or substantive can be said then why say anything at all? — Harry Hindu

Have you never read a poem? — Isaac

Poems don't have anything concrete or substantive to be said?

What does he mean when he says that a feeling goes beyond what is sayable? — Harry Hindu

Perhaps that language can't fully capture experience, or do proper justice to how one feels on occasion. — Marchesk

But didn't he just use language to describe the experience? Saying it is indescribable is describing it with words, no? Is "indescribable" a description? If not, then how did it become a common saying? How did other humans learn to use the phrase?

No. I am under no obligation to you. — Banno

Oh yeah, this is when you clam up because you don't have any interesting comebacks.

This relation is such that if the agent acts in some way then there is a belief and a desire that together are sufficient to explain the agent's action. Banno wants water; he believes he can pour a glass from the tap; so he goes to the tap to pour a glass of water.

--This is very behaviorist and quite outdated. Rather, I posit that propositional attitudes, such as Banno wants water, are determined by not belief or desire, but a volition.

The logical problem here, the philosophical interesting side issue, is that beliefs overdetermine our actions. There are other beliefs and desires that could explain my going to the tap.

--No, disagreement; but, this is too simple. A volition is something that determines action, and beliefs need not even be mentioned here. — Banno's profile quizzed by Wallows

If words are used, then volition must be involved.

It seems to me that it requires volition to have a belief. Beliefs are constructed from observations. — Harry Hindu

Volition is prior and more fundamental than beliefs.

And if we can reach the same conclusions about reality independently without interacting with other human beings, then what does that say about reality and the human beings in it?

It's about the existence of God, not what God is. And as I've done now for a long time, I've tried to explain that existence isn't such a straightforward thing as it is to a physicalist / materialist. — ssu

What god(s) are these agnostics agnostic about? Are they agnostic when it comes to the ancient Greek gods?

What to do with you, Harry. — Banno

Answer my questions. I'm not asking for much really.

You do not inspre me to put in the effort needed to reply to you. Take: — Banno

But you skipped over the actual posts specific to your replies to take on a post that was asked in general of everyone. If that post was uninteresting to you, ignore it and address the others. I was simply trying to point out how we seem to take for granted how we use language to refer to reality in a way that we expect others to agree with us - as if they have the same view and that the same conclusions about reality can be reached independently without collaboration between ourselves. Take the theory of natural selection. It was reached independently by two different people - Darwin and Wallace came to the same conclusions independently by making similar observations.

I say what I say because it gives me pleasure to exercise my mind and imagination and interact with smart strangers. Why do you say what you say? — ZzzoneiroCosm

Is it the language use that exercises your mind, or the things you think about before you start typing that exercises your mind?

On a philosophy forum, I typically say things to try and get logical responses or criticisms to fine tune my understanding of reality.

I don't see how volition makes sense without belief. How can you will some act unless something is taken o be the case? How does one will oneself to get a glass of water unless there are glasses and water that one believes in? — Banno

If words are used, then volition must be involved.

It seems to me that it requires volition to have a belief. Beliefs are constructed from observations.

My point is a falsehood to say she is delusional about what body she has. If she already believed she existed with the body she ought it have, she would understand there is nothing which needs to change. One has to realise something is part of them to be have the goal of removing it from themsleves. My point is someone has to recognise how they exist, if they are to think something about their existence doesn't belong. — TheWillowOfDarkness

What does it mean for someone to think that they should have been born in a different body? It doesn't make sense to say that they recognize the part as being part of them and then removing it makes them more like how they are suppose to be. If they already recognize the part as part of them, then removing it would remove part of them.

A delusion is defined as:
characterized by or holding idiosyncratic beliefs or impressions that are contradicted by reality or rational argument, typically as a symptom of mental disorder.

The idiosyncratic belief is that they were born in the wrong body. What does that even mean? Are they saying that they have a soul that is female that was put in the body of a male? What exactly are they implying when they claim to be the opposite sex, or that their body parts are wrong, and how is that consistent with how we treat others who follow the same pattern - just with different body parts?

How is that any different than someone cutting off their legs because felt they didnt belong to their body? Is someone that cuts off their legs delusional?
Check this out:
https://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/22/health/psychology/at-war-with-their-bodies-they-seek-to-sever-limbs.html

Dr. John Money is even mentioned and the whole gist of the article is that this is a sexual deviation - an abnormality.

What makes it okay to cut off your penis, but not your legs? If one is a psychological disorder, why isn't the other?

But in the interests of furthering the discussion, here's a direct answer: Of course there is a distinction between "I feel like I need to vomit" and "I'm vomitting".

Now, show me what this implies — Banno

Are you saying the distinction lies in the pattern of scribbles, or what the scribbles symbolize - like the actual state-of-affairs of there being a feeling of needing to vomit, and the actual state-of-affairs of vomitting?

When someone makes a claim, are they making a claim that only applies to them, or applies to everyone, or what? In other words, are they referring to some characteristic of reality that is true, accurate, or that their words symbolize the true nature of reality, whether there is an observer or not, or whether someone believes it or not? If not, then why say anything? What would be the purpose? If the only purpose is to make sounds with our mouths, or scribbles on a screen, then is not that a true characteristic of reality - that the only purpose for using words is to make sounds and scribbles? Is that not a truth regardless whether anyone reads it or believes it?

Take this for instance:

The "view from nowhere" underscores an essential realism at the core of (reasonable or sane (as understood by the in-group)) human interaction. It's an antidote to armchair fables. But armchair fables are fun and fascinating and have a deeper purpose than the (generally fruitless and divisive) quest for Truth: obliteration of psychic boundaries and a suspension of dogmatic endstops. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Does the view from nowhere really underscore an essential realism at the core of human interaction? Is it really a fact that armchair fables are fun and fascinating and have a deeper purpose than the quest for Truth? Is what is being said here hold true for everyone whether they read this post or not, or whether a reader believes it or not? If not, then what is the point in saying it?

Is the above quote an armchair fable or a truth that is the case for everyone? If it is only applicable to some then, why? What makes a statement about some state-of-affairs applicable, or useful, to some but not others, and isnt that just another state-of-affairs that can be talked about and is the case whether everyone believes it or not?

Do you think that all words gain their meaning form the thing they refer to? Is that where we disagree? — Banno

I dont know where we agree or disagree because you won't answer my questions.

You're confused? You're the premier analytical philosopher around here and I was asking a question about what you said. I'm confused about the argument you are making, so don't worry about what I'm arguing for the moment and let's focus on what you're arguing. You can start by answering the question I posed.

What do you mean? Can you give an example? Googling logical entailment provides links like this:
https://gawron.sdsu.edu/semantics/course_core/lectures/html/logic_lecture/node20.html

Which don't define it as dubious, so any clarification of what YOU mean by "dubious", would be helpful in understanding your claim.

You know that is not what was said. — Banno

It was a question asking for clarification of what you meant not an assumption of what you said. If it was already assumed what you said, I wouldnt need to ask for clarification of what you meant.

It was said before they vomitted, so what are they pointing to when they use the word, "feeling" before they vomit?

And the more formal your argumentative context, the more likely the inference from general principle to specific instance in your warrant is likely to be challenged and solid evidence is more likely to be sought after (with the balance of hard evidence and reasoning required also dependent on the field in which the claim is made and the type of claim made).

Do not dismiss objections on the basis of what may seem obvious to you. Instead, work on the supposition that your reader will demand as much clarity as possible as to what your claim is and how you are supporting it and as much quantity and quality of support as you could reasonably be expected to give. — Baden

You'll see the vomit soon enough. No need for the feeling yet; but you will recognise that, too, when given the opportunity. — Banno

So there's no distinction between "I feel like I need to vomit" and "I'm vomitting"? One is pointing to a feeling and the other to a behaviour. Are you a p-zombie? How is what you're claiming different from what a p-zombie would claim about word use?

If you want someone's perspective, say something like: "Frank, what do you mean that a racist person can be fond of the oppressed and exploited? How can that be?"

Then you'll encourage a response. Don't assume anyone gives a shit about persuading you of anything. — frank

You're making it more complicated than it needs to be. All you need to do is explain how you are using the word, "fondness".

If you're not using words to express your ideas so others might share them, then what are you using them for? I have a feeling your not going to answer that question either. I predict that you will respond again with more vitriolic ad hominems.

The idea that, for example, some notion is incoherent, or nonsense, or just plain wrong in an objective sense seems pretty much limited to forums like this, and further, to people with some basic knowledge on a subject annoyed that their 'superior grasp' of it is not being given what they consider to be due respect. — Isaac

The rules of logic are the same for everyone, and everyone should be expected to follow them, not just some people, when they feel like it, or when it supports their position and abandon it when it doesn't.

I've found debate among professional philosophers to be mostly open, accepting of the fact that no concrete or substantive things can really be said, and that most alternatives have their merits to at least some extent — Isaac

If nothing concrete or substantive can be said then why say anything at all?

I feel as though the issue is resolved if we disregard the behaviorism. One must resort to talking about intentionality and volition, which come before words? — Wallows

Exactly.

When we use the words, "what did you mean?", we are asking about the relationship between what was said and the idea that they intended to convey, not how what was said is defined in a dictionary. If that is what we meant then we would go look in a dictionary and not ask about the intention or the idea that was in the person's head. But do the words in the dictionary adequately portray, or exhaust, what the user meant when they used the words? Of course not. Words in the dictionary are just ink scribbles on paper. The ideas in someone's head aren't composed of ink scribbles on paper. They are composed of colors, sounds, shapes and other sensations, of which words themselves are composed of. So we don't think in words. We think in colors, shapes, sounds, etc. and pointing to shared sensations is how we use words.

Bannos explanation doesn't seem to allow us to do that. If you heard someone say, "I have an upset stomach. I feel like I need to vomit." for the first time in your life, how will you understand how those words are being used, and then use them yourself correctly, if you can't see what the words are pointing to - their feelings. All you can see is their behavior of them holding their stomach and then that is how you use the words by emulating their behavior without associating it with a feeling. You would be misusing the words or be lying.

Think of the man who just is infatuated with love. He says that it goes beyond what is sayable.


Paradox? — Wallows

But he just said how he feels, and then he goes on to say that what he feels isn't sayable? It's a contradiction, not a paradox, no?

What does he mean when he says that his feeling goes beyond what is sayable? I mean, this is a common saying. We say things like "it is indescribable" or "words can't describe it". How is it that it has become a common saying (it has a meaning in its use) if the listener/reader can't ever get at what it is that they are talking about? What does anyone mean when using those words and how can it become commonly used?

Is it that he doesn't have the vocabulary and that there are words that do describe what he is feeling, but he just isn't knowledgeable enough in the language to explain it? Is it that the language he is using doesn't have words to describe the feeling, and maybe another language does? What does he mean when he says that a feeling goes beyond what is sayable?

"The way things are going... they're going to crucify me."

-Poor little Harry — frank

So, you're not going to answer the question, then? You're going to stick to committing logical fallacies? Thanks for giving me the chance to treat you like a child. I'm sure it was pleasant for you.


I used to be a theist. As I developed, my curiosity made me question my beliefs. When I asked questions of those that were more learned than I was and they couldn't answer the questions, avoided them, or gave vague or incoherent answers, it made me believe less and less.

If they took the time to answer the questions in a coherent manner that didn't contradict what was said earlier, or didn't call me a hater or sinner for asking those questions, then maybe I'd still be a theist today.

So if you expect others to align themselves to your way of thinking, you need to answer their questions in a honest and meaningful way. Avoiding the questions, calling them names, or providing incoherent and vague answers is how you make them align themselves with the opposite of what you are trying to claim. What is your goal in this thread?

By the way, what are the minimum necessary concepts to derive the concept of colors? — Zelebg

I don't see how a color is a concept, or how it could be derived from prior concepts. It is a brute sensation. Actually, concepts are composed of colors. In this sense, colors are one of the basic building blocks of concepts. Every thought you have isn't composed of words. They are composed of colors, shapes, sounds, tactile sensations, etc. Words are themselves composed of these things. You can't use words without having eyes and ears, or the sense of touch for braille.

The form our knowledge takes is dependent upon the types of senses we have. The types of senses we have is dependent upon the process of natural selection.

How is that an answer to my question? I need an answer to show that we aren't talking past each other and that we are both using the same definition for the term "fondness". You don't want to answer the question, or respond to my post because you know it will be a detriment to your previous claim. All you can do is resort to ad hominems. An ad hominem is when you avoid the claim being made and attack the person rather than their claim. I'm sure you, I like sushi, Baden, fdrake, and 180 know this, but you don't care because you have a political agenda that you've been indoctrinated with.

You know you've adopted your political ideology as a religion when you get to the point where you don't question it and everyone who does is a hater.

If my questions are irrelevant, then show how they are, don't resort to acting like a child (in calling you a child, am I exhibiting fondness or a dislike - I don't know because you won't answer the question about what you mean by "fondness").

How can one be agnostic of the existence of some thing when that thing hasn't been adequately defined? It seems to me that "agnosticism", "theism" and "atheism" are only coherent terms when there is a consistent definition of the thing that one can be a theist, atheist, or agnostic about. This is why all discussions about g/G are pointless unless someone can provide a consistent and coherent definition of what it is that they are talking about. — Harry Hindu

Theism/atheism and gnosticism/agnosticism purport to be views about the same thing though: God. If they’re talking about different conceptions of God, then someone could simultaneously be a theist and an atheist, a gnostic and an agnostic, all of them at the same time in different senses. Before one can say which of these positions one takes on the existence of “God”, one had to decide what “God” means. And if you take “God” to mean something different than what theists and atheists disagree about, then you’re just going to confuse everyone when you state your position on it. — Pfhorrest

Exactly what I said.

Christian theists are atheists when it comes to the definition of g/G provided by the ancient Greeks and Romans, but theists when it comes to the definition provided by Christians - hence they are Christians. Atheists are atheists when it comes to both definitions. We need definitions of what it is we are taking about, or else we'd just be talking past each other, and never be able to make a coherent claim of our belief or disbelief of that thing. Any discussion about belief/disbelief of g/G, without a definition of g/G, is a pointless discussion.

One example I like to use is that of the dictionary. Even if we all used the exact same dictionary, with all the exact same definitions for each word, we would still have zero guarantee that we would understand one another, because there is a missing link between the words and what experiences the words refer to. A dictionary relates words with one another, not with actual experiences, feelings, perceptions. — leo

If the meaning of words were how they are used, and the the way we are taught the meaning of words is by using them to point to things in the world, not to point to things in our head, or our experiences, then when we use words we would be using them as we've seen others use them and how they taught us to use them. There would be no pointing to our experiences in using words, only pointing to the world outside of our experiences.

When someone says, "I have a stomach ache and feel like I'm going to vomit." How does one to learn how to use those words if we can't see what it is that they are pointing to when using them? I can't see their feelings. I can see their behavior, and it is that I would associate the meaning of the words, not something I can't observe, like their feelings. So when I use that same phrase, would I be pointing to my behavior, or my feelings? How would I know that a person is pointing to their feelings if I can't see their feelings?

If we say that those words point to their actions when using them, or the meaning of the words are how they are using them along with their actions, then I could say I have a stomach ache and hold my stomach as if I appear to be protecting my upset stomach, then I could do that without having the feeling of having a stomach ache, and I'd be wrong in how I'm using it, or I'd be lying.

It seems to me that we all have similar feelings or experiences and it is those similar experiences and feelings that we understand others as having an are pointing to when they speak. Meaning isn't use, or else there would be a lot of misuse going on because we can't always see what a person is pointing to when using them, as in the upset stomach example. Meaning is the relationship between some idea in your head and the words that others know that point to that shared feeling or experience.

How can one be agnostic of the existence of some thing when that thing hasn't been adequately defined? It seems to me that "agnosticism", "theism" and "atheism" are only coherent terms when there is a consistent definition of the thing that one can be a theist, atheist, or agnostic about. This is why all discussions about g/G are pointless unless someone can provide a consistent and coherent definition of what it is that they are talking about.

You're missing the point. She is her body. She (the woman in question) recognises it.

She moves to alter her body (a penis, we'll be reductive for simplicity) because she recognises it is a part of her.

If she was delusional about her body, she would have no motivation to alter her body. She would believe she had a vagina and no penis (again, I'll be reductive for simplicity's sake), so she would not hold her body (with a penis) needs changing. — TheWillowOfDarkness

If "she" (so much for steering away from gender-binary terms) recognized that the penis is part of "her" then why would she want to remove it? Why would someone want to remove something that is part of them. It seems to me that people would only remove things that they think aren't part of them. Both can recognize the existence of the part, but one thinks it doesn't belong, or isn't what defines them, yet they go about transforming themselves into the opposite binary entity, even though they claim it's non-binary.

Dude. a construct in that sense isn't just a mental thing. It's a way of splitting up a phenomenon into components that have measurable aspects. I linked to what I meant by construct. Here it is again. Then I gave you the definition I was using in my own words, they were: — fdrake

Dude, you're entire post is a red herring.

From your own link:
A construct is a hypothesized cause for a certain behavior.

It is a mental category that is causally connected with the observation of biological realities. The biological realities exist before the construct, and the construct is based on the observations of those realities.

Therefore, when you made the following statement:

The entire point of that argument strategy is to get us talking about biological sex, as if it's relevant to gender at all... — fdrake

I showed, and it appears that you now agree with me, that your social construction of gender IS about sex, because you admitted that:

The crucial thing about a construct is that it should indicate patterns in the studied phenomenon. That is to say, it should change when the phenomenon in question changes. Differences in the phenomenon should be observable in the construct. One should track the other. — fdrake

I asked you:

Can you have a shared expectation about what a willy necessitates and what it doesn't if there weren't willies and non-willies? — Harry Hindu

Answer the question.

The differences in the biological sexes should be observable in the construct - meaning that any change in the assortment of willies and non-willies would change our construct of sex, or our shared assumptions of what entails gender. If we're not agreeing on what gender is, how is it a shared assumption (a social construction)?

If transgenders are non-binary, then why do they keep using those binary terms of "woman" and "man" to refer to themselves. If gender is non-binary then shouldn't they be using different terms to refer to themselves, and why would they be changing their sex if gender has nothing to do with sex?

If the British treat grown Indian men like children that causes harm. — frank

Ask the grown Indian man. How would you feel if I referred to you as something that you aren't? How would you feel if I called you a child?

How is "fondness" a type of harm, or unjust action based on some preconceived notion that isn't based on reason?

I went into this kind of topic more vigorously on a predominately ‘scientific’ based forum and nearly every one of them attacked me and claimed there were no ‘races’. Scientifically of course there aren’t. The issue was that in sociology, and the humanities in general, ‘race’ is used quite openly to refer to cultural/ethnic differences (it’s even on most surveys). — I like sushi

What types of cultural/ethnic differences?

That's a misconception. Racist people may have fondness for an oppressed group which they see as child-like.

That is not inconsistent with the definitions you provided. — frank

Sure it is. How is "fondness" a type of harm, or unjust action based on some preconceived notion that isn't based on reason?

How is seeing a group of people as child-like not based on your belief that you are superior?

(1) "People without a stable family environment in their childhood generally do worse in their later lives (as measured in income)" is exactly the same kind of statement as: (2) "People with black skin from poor neighbourhoods generally do worse in their later lives (as measured in income)" — fdrake

It's not the same. (1) is about people in general regardless of race, while (2) is implying that only blacks do worse in their later lives when not raised in a stable family environment. (2) would be racist and ignore all the non-blacks who do worse as well.

You can be white and come from a shitty family environment. Not everything is racism. I would never argue that all disparities come from racism, that would be silly. — fdrake

Exactly. Isn't that what I've been saying? So now isn't incumbent upon you to show how certain aspects of our society or system are racist today as opposed to just being the effects of racism in the past that are now present today. Does the effects today that are the result of racism in the past still qualify as racism today? If so, then what do we do about it that doesn't make us go back to doing the same thing that we are saying is wrong? Why is it soooo difficult to answer this question? It needs to be answered, or else all you're doing is complaining without providing any solutions to what you're complaining about - which makes me think that there really isn't a problem, or that you're fine with problem existing.