We have some reasons to minimize genetic influence: being controlled by genes (mere molecules) gets in the way of our determination to be whatever we want to be, however and wherever. — Bitter Crank

As a determinist, I don't see us being controlled by our genes, or trying to transcend our genetic coding. What we do or think is determined by our genes and development. Human beings are a highly intelligent social species. This is basically saying that human beings are a cultured species.

I would agree that our "wants" are socially constructed, but our "needs" our biological. In a sense, our wants are really cultural manifestations of our biological needs.

I'm somewhat persuaded (not going overboard) that our behavior is largely genetically directed. Since we have apparently exhibited cultural traits for a very long time, I think we can safely say that "some sort of culture" is a biological trait. The detailed expression of culture, though, is learned and can be innovated. Use of language is ancient and genetic; book publishing is a mere 700 year old innovation. — Bitter Crank

Yes, language acquisition is culture that has infiltrated our biology. In the previous Nature vs. Nurture debate I dropped the idea that the nature vs nurture debate is a false dichotomy, and is something that the scientific research article link I provided in the OP mentions as well.

The phrase "gender is a social construct" refers to the binary gender system. The criticism is that it excludes transgender people, who feel they should not have to conform to either traditional gender role, but instead their "innate" gender identity. — Echarmion

Yet their innate gender identity is conforming to the binary gender system. I pointed this out in the OP.

Well, you might ask, if not for pink over blue, how does a person determine their gender? If gender is a social construct, then the only way for a person to determine their gender is to choose one’s gender based on gender stereotypes present throughout a culture. — Harry Hindu

Gender is by definition a social construct. — NKBJ

Yes, yes. We've already moved past that part. This is the assumption that the OP challenges. It is now up to you to move the ball forward with a new argument that addresses the logical inconsistencies that such a definition entails.

The social experiment you link to is interesting, but it's just one case and thus not really proof of anything. It's impossible to tell what of his problems were due to the experiment itself, the tension of the experiment in relation to societal expectations, or just his own brain malfunctioning indepently of all that. — NKBJ

Wow. Just, wow. If I had posted anything like this about transgenders, my posts would be deleted and I'd be called a "bigot". You can take David Reimer's word for it if you'd like. He specifically blames Dr. Money for his problems and his gender dysphoria. Here's the link to the documentary that the BBC article summarizes:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUTcwqR4Q4Y

So where is the consistent benchmark that we use for determining the validity of someone's feelings and claims as evidence for the gender or their confusion as to what their gender is? Is a transgender's brain malfunctioning?

No.

It's penis/vagina logic; because homosexuals exist doesn't abolish the reproductive status quo.

Homosexuality is the abstract case, I don't care how sugar coated the topic is for their social security.

Penis's/vagina's are opposites that work in harmony, and this is gender. — kill jepetto

This is probably the result of your limited and subjective understanding of reproduction. Reproduction is more than just sex. It also takes the rearing of the child to a viable reproductive age. If the child doesn't survive to be able continue the existence of the species, then have you really reproduced (in the evolutionary sense)? Natural selection would promote any behavior by any member of it's species that improves the successful outcome of the propagation of the gene pool, which might include certain males or females abstaining from sex and instead focusing on the rearing of the children in the tribe. This not only promotes the survival of subsequent generations but also helps to minimize competition between heterosexual males or females for sexual partners.

Being honest, Baden, it's a stupid topic. — kill jepetto

That is your opinion. Others obviously don't agree with you. No one is making you participate.

Some people call themselves non-binary and genderfluid. So I guess those guys think gender is socially constructed and they can swap as they want. — Judaka

But if gender is socially constructed, then gender isn't something that they have a choice in swapping for themselves. It would only be within the power of society as a whole to swap their "gender", not based on their own personal choices.

The nature of sense-data (or "qualia") is a difficult subject for both the idealist and the realist (e.g. the "hard problem of consciousness"). And, yes, both sides of the argument should provide a full account of it if they want to defend their position. But that's a separate issue to your claim that idealism entails solipsism, which is the claim I'm addressing. My point is just that one can claim that only mental phenomena exists without having to believe that only one's own mental phenomena exists, and that one can claim that there is direct (or indirect) evidence of other minds without having to believe that there is direct (or indirect) evidence of something like the material things the realist believes in. — Michael

Right, which is why I already pointed out in the same post (because I predicted that you'd make that argument and tried to head you off) that you seemed to have overlooked:

What does the idealist mean with their use of "other" as in "other minds", if not external, or apart from your mind? What is it that separates your mind from others? What is the medium in which all these minds exist, if not some external world? Aren't you confusing anti-realism with idealism? — Harry Hindu

It would help if you take into consideration the entire post when responding so I don't have to repeat myself.

The OP is the response to your claims. Because you didn't read it you don't get that. I would simply suggest that readers go back and read the OP in its entirety after reading your posts as that is how I would respond. Your contention is addressed in the OP.

and what you said is cherry-picking and incoherent, so I'm not interested.

and to think that you'd get a response is just a waste of your own time.

It's obvious that you didn't read the OP or any of the articles therein. Another rule in this thread is read the entire post before responding, and try to respond in a thoughtful, not rushed, manner.

That's your view as a direct realist but the idealist disagrees. The idealist will say that sense data occurs and that you incorrectly believe that this sense data counts as direct perception of some external-world material thing (and the indirect realist will agree at least on this point, though accept that the occurrence of sense data is a response to stimulation by some external-world material thing). — Michael

I never claimed to be a direct realist or indirect realist. I'm only showing what they would claim and how it really isn't any different than what the idealist is claiming. Does an idealist have direct access to their own mind, which is part of reality, and then indirect access to other minds? Would an idealist call the access to their minds and others, "real", as in the access is an actual property of reality and the knowledge the idealist has on this is completely and totally accurate?

But just as the realist can infer the existence of other minds from the things they experience, so too can the idealist. The only difference is that the realist infers the existence of other minds from what they believe to be the direct perception of some material body, whereas the idealist infers the existence of other minds from the occurrence of certain kinds of sense data. I don't see why this latter view entails solipsism.

One can think it valid to infer the existence of other minds from experience without believing that experience is the direct perception of an external world of material things (and so without believing that there exists an external world of material things).

One can believe that (many) minds exist, that sense-data exists, but that that's it; that there isn't also some external world of material things like atoms. One can be an idealist without being a solipsist. — Michael

Then the idealist needs to explain what they mean by "sense data", "perception", and "experience", if they don't mean what everyone else means when they use those terms. How does one explain "sense data" without using non-mental things like senses and objects that exist external to the mind.

What does the idealist mean with their use of "other" as in "other minds", if not external, or apart from your mind? What is it that separates your mind from others? What is the medium in which all these minds exist, if not some external world? Aren't you confusing anti-realism with idealism?

An atheist might say that it is incorrect to infer the existence of God or the afterlife or ghosts from some kind of personal experience (e.g. “revelation” or “light at the end of the tunnel” or “unexplained noises in the attic”) but that it is correct to infer the existence of mind-independent rocks from some kind of personal experience, whereas the idealist might say that it is incorrect to infer the existence of mind-independent rocks from some kind of personal experience but that it is correct to infer the existence of other minds from some kind of personal experience. — Michael

You're mixing apples and oranges. We don't experience god like we do rocks. We don't experience minds like we do rocks either. We experience rocks directly and infer gods and minds from the behavior of the things we experience. The religious point to the experience of rocks as evidence of gods. Idealists point to the experience of bodies as evidence of minds. That is different than using the experience of rocks as evidence for rocks.

No, I didn't. Go back and read and stop being in such a hurry. I'm leaving now and will come back and reply to a post of yours that addresses what I have asked and said on this page.

Again, one thing at a time. What do you want to start with? — Terrapin Station

No. How about you take the time to absorb what I asked and have said and then you take the time to write a response.

And I asked you to elaborate. You are the only one skipping things.

Can you please elaborate and answer the questions I posed.

Wait, so you don't think that people are aware of meanings? — Terrapin Station

Of course I do. People are aware of cause and effect, and therefore aware of meanings. I'm the one saying that meaning exists in AND outside of minds. You say meaning only exists in minds.

You skipped this question:
What is the difference between "meaning" and "subjective" to you?

I use lots of synonyms/synonymous phrases for things like logical entailment (implication, following, etc.) versus irrelevance (non sequitur, doesn't follow, arbitrary, etc.) ,because that's a common topic in philosophy, too. Things we talk about all the time tend to have a lot of synonyms or synonymous phrases. — Terrapin Station

And that is what I keep pointing out - that you have a synonym to refer to the mind/not-mind distinction, but no equivalent synonym to refer to the planet/non-planet, and all the other is/is-not distinctions.

You might be reading that into it, but I can only keep repeating that I don't at all believe that there's anything "special" about it or anything to say about comparative uniqueness or anything like that. You don't have to believe me, but I'll keep telling you. ;-) — Terrapin Station

And what I'll keep telling you and you keep ignoring is that you are making a distinction that you don't make with all the other things in the universe.

What happened to this subthread, by the way:

"Employs it in any manner. However you want to think of it.

"Do you think that people do not use meaning in some manner?" — Terrapin Station

Right, so meaning is a tool, which is a non-mental thing, right?

What is the difference between "meaning" and "subjective" to you?

Not really. Just as the realist will say that our sense experiences are a response to stimulation by material things, and so evidence of external-world rocks, the idealist will say that our sense experiences are a response to stimulation by mental things, and so evidence of other minds. — Michael

Then I don't see how they are really saying anything different other than using two different terms to refer to what stimulates our senses - "material" and "mental". So it really comes down to what the distinction is between those two things. What makes "material" different from "mental" if they both behave the same way in stimulating our senses?

The idealist will say that using sense experiences as evidence of material things is as mistaken as using sense experiences as evidence of magic or supernatural things. I don't see any contradiction or inevitable solipsism in this. — Michael

You said that idealists use senses as well, so I still don't see a distinction. You're still using your sense experiences as evidence of "mental" things.

I'm not saying anything about comparative uniqueness whatsoever. — Terrapin Station

You imply it with the application of your terms and the fact that you don't have alternate terms that refer to planet/non-planet, star/non-star, rock/non-rock, human/non-human, etc. etc. ad infinitum distinctions.

This species is using an holographic or virtual AI computer reality on us whose purpose is to produce some sort of “vital energy” (prana, chi, reiki...) through human suffering.

How does this species know that they aren't part of some simulation themselves? What would a real world be like vs a digital world?

Another wild hypothesis is that we aren't the end of the evolutionary tree. As a matter of fact, humans are merely natural selections way of evolving computer/robots as the final branch on the tree. Organic life is inefficient in it's energy conversion and emotional which limits it's mental evolution. Machine life is the "purpose" of this reality where organic life is just a means to that end.

I'm not making the case that anything is "special" . . . the distinction comes up often especially in philosophy, though. — Terrapin Station

Yes you are. You are saying that mind's deserve a special term that distinguishes their uniqueness from everything else. Planets are just as unique as minds. Everything has special properties that distinguishes it from other things, yet you are only focused on the uniqueness of minds.

Philosophy, like your definitions, is often an anthropomorphic endeavor.

We could make a distinction for planets/not-planets, too. If people talked about planet versus not-planet things a lot, I'm sure we'd have a variety of synonyms for that. — Terrapin Station

We do all the time. Whenever you talk about something that isn't a planet you'd be referring to that property of reality that is non-planet.

Right, and we went over this in the previous thread where we discussed this. I thought you had something different for this discussion. You are making the case that minds are special in some way that deserve this kind of distinction. Why don't we use terms to make distinctions between planets and non-planets, specifically?

objective refers to the complement of brains functioning in mental ways. — Terrapin Station

I use the word "subjective" to refer to brains functioning in mental ways. — Terrapin Station

I'm not quite clear on your distinction here.

So "objective" is a relationship between brains and "subjective" is a property of an individual brain?

So, no argument for idealist logic so far, just Terrapins fallacious attempt to shift the burden. — S

That is a common tactic of his, but at least he is trying to defend his definitions with me at the moment.

Per how I use the terms, how I define them, it's what you said. — Terrapin Station

Right, and I said:

Why would it matter how many brains? We don't make that same distinction when it comes to planets and how they function. — Harry Hindu

and you didn't answer.

That isn't what I said. Remember how I defined the difference between objective and subjective for you in another thread? I'm one of the few people on this forum that is consistent between threads.

Again, I use the word "subjective" to refer to brains functioning in mental ways. — Terrapin Station

And "subjective" would be an objective feature of reality being a function of minds, which are an objective feature of reality. How is that I am able to be aware of your mind and your meanings without using my senses in some way?

Meaning is not an objective feature by my definition, because objective refers to the complement of brains functioning in mental ways. — Terrapin Station

Why would it matter how many brains? We don't make that same distinction when it comes to planets and how they function.

We've already had this discussion and it didn't end well.

There are things that at least creatures with brains do, mental things--"mental" being a property of those brains functioning in particular ways, where those phenomena only occur in brains functioning in those ways (or perhaps in some other materials functioning in particular ways, too--but we're not aware of any mental activity outside of brains yet). Not everything is just a brain functioning mentally, but some things are. Not everything that brains do when they're functioning mentally is identical to some other phenomenon in the world, either (which is what some people who seem to want to insist everything is objective seem to believe). If we (and other creatures with similar brains) were to disappear, those sorts of phenomena would disappear. Just like if planets were to disappear, then phenomena unique to planets--like plate tectonics, for example--would disappear. — Terrapin Station

Right, and planets are objective things that exist independently of not just minds, but everything else. Your mind is external to mine and is therefore as real as a planet and it's unique phenomena. If plate tectonics are an objective feature of reality, then meaning (by your own definition, not the definition I use) would be an objective feature of the reality too.

My definition makes meaning objective without contradiction

Do you mean that Joe uses meaning like a tool - something that exists independent of his mind?

I don't understand the question. Can you rephrase?

So your challenge would be to point to the objective properties that are meaning. — Terrapin Station

Meaning is the relationship between cause and effect. — Harry Hindu

Why can't it be a blend of realism and idealism like there are real objects but our minds modify their appearance to us? — TheMadFool

That's indirect realism.

Some people, however, believe that there isn't a rock, because that would be a contradiction. — S

The contradiction is believing that their are external minds, but not external rocks when we basically have the same access or information to both. Idealism inexorably leads to solipsism. Solipsism is basically direct realism as the mind IS reality. So idealism defeats itself and realism has the final word.

However, no one is there to understand what this word means, because we all died an hour previously. Does the word "rock" mean anything? Does it mean what it means in English? — S

Archeologists are able to determine what long dead civilizations meant with their words, so the words still carry meaning through time - just like everything else. It is this meaning that scientists are getting at - the meaning of the scribbles on this vase, or the meaning of the vase itself. Just like everything else, it takes time and observation to come up with a consistent explanation of what some phenomenon means, or is caused by. With the necessary tools, like a Rosetta Stone or a microscope, scientists can get at reality and it's meaning. Meaning is the relationship between cause and effect.

The mods are oppressing trans people. I am a trans person and they are using definitions that oppress me and blocking my free speech rights to say so.

Because I don't make up my own definitions of words, but rely on authorities such as dictionaries, social institutions etc. — Baden

and that, Baden is pleading to authority. Again, I ask you to use lay your emotions aside and use your logic.

Scientific definitions aren't written in stone. Haven't you argued that on this forum? More inconsistencies. [mod deletion - one sentence]

Which do you think is more likely, really, that a nonpartisan international collaboration of scientists and policy researchers has a research topic which is completely incoherent and they've somehow not noticed it or that you have an inadequate understanding of the issue? — fdrake

Did I not point out the inconsistency? Why can't you defend it? You posted it and are agreeing with it so you must know how to defend it.