So now you're arguing that synonyms don't exist. I don't see any point in continuing this or any other conversation with you. You are impossible.

If time means nothing to a photon, should it mean anything to any of us? — Mike Adams

What does it mean to say that "time means nothing to a photon"? Is it to say that time doesn't pass, or that the photon doesn't change?

Are all things actually happening at once? — Mike Adams

So I am born, live and die all at once? Obama and Trump are president at the same time? If find this concept of everything happening at once impossible to understand.

Time is measured change. Change happens and is relative. Because it is relative, it allows us to measure it, which we call time.

Real Mind has Consciousness. Fake Mind has no Consciousness. But if we could give Consciousness to a Machine then it would not be a Fake Mind anymore, because Consciousness is the key. — SteveKlinko

What is a mind if not consciousness? To say that one has a mind is to say that it has consciousness.

Awareness that you have recognized a face is the difference. Even when the IBM Watson won Jeopardy it never knew it won. It could never enjoy that it won. Think about that. What is that difference? That is the answer. — SteveKlinko

So its aware of the face, but not aware that it is aware of the face? All we are doing is turning awareness back on itself creating a feedback loop. We can design a computer to be aware of it being aware. All that is required that we make its awareness another object to be aware of.

What is the difference between my ability to recognize faces and a computer's ability to recognize faces? When a computer uses a digital image of a face to measure the features, is not our minds doing the same thing? To recognize a face means that you compare a face to some preset parameters and if those parameters match then recognition occurs. What is missing?

All of these physical conditions go into the formation and operation of a human mind, Gelernter says, adding, "Until you understand this, you don't have a chance of building a fake mind."

Doesn't he mean "you don't have a chance of building a real mind"? We build fake minds all the time. This is the crux of the argument that most people have against computers - that they aren't real minds. That seems to be the problem we have - that we can build fake minds, but not real ones.

But then doesn't it say something that we can even build fake minds? We must be getting something right, but not everything, to even say that it is a fake mind. If not, then why even call it a fake mind? What is it that fake minds have in common with real minds to designate them both as minds?

No that's not true some words can be used in place of another, so they have one sense which is similar to a sense of another word, but no two words have the same meaning. So I refuse to argue whether two words have the same meaning, as I think that is a pointless exercise — Metaphysician Undercover

Actually, it is a pointless exercise to argue with someone who thinks that they are right and Merriam Webster is wrong.

The word "synonym" means two words that mean the same thing. So, we have a word for the thing that you say doesn't exist (words that mean the same thing).

What is the difference between a goal and a purpose? What is the difference between intention and goal? What is the difference between motivation and goal? They all seem to be the same thing to me. — Harry Hindu

I don't think that these are all the same thing, and that's why they are different words. For instance, the word "goal" implies something consciously aimed for. Non-conscious things can have a purpose, but they do not have a goal. All the components in my computer each has its own purpose with respect to the functioning of the computer, but I cannot say that these parts each has a goal. There is one goal here, the functioning of the computer, but that goal was in the minds of the people who built the computer. The purpose of each part is within the computer itself, within the relationship between the part and the whole, while the goal is in the minds of the people who built the computer. — Metaphysician Undercover

So what if they are different words? The English language has many different words that mean the same thing. We have a tendency to complicate things. The fact is that we use these words interchangeably. We often talk about "purpose" in our doing things. Saying that someone did something on "purpose" is the same as saying that they did it "intentionally", or that was their "end-goal".

Merriam-Webster
Purpose: something set up as an object or end to be attained: Intention

Intent: the act or fact of intending : Purpose

goal: the end toward which effort is directed

Per the Synonym Guide on Merriam Webster's dictionary:

goal Synonyms
aim, ambition, aspiration, bourne (also bourn), design, dream, end, idea, ideal, intent, intention, mark, meaning, object, objective, plan, point, pretension, purpose, target, thing, name of the game

Synonym Discussion of goal
intention, intent, purpose, design, aim, end, object, objective, goal mean what one intends to accomplish or attain. intention implies little more than what one has in mind to do or bring about. ⟨announced his intention to marry⟩ intent suggests clearer formulation or greater deliberateness. ⟨the clear intent of the statute⟩ purpose suggests a more settled determination. ⟨being successful was her purpose in life⟩ design implies a more carefully calculated plan. ⟨the order of events came by accident, not design⟩ aim adds to these implications of effort directed toward attaining or accomplishing. ⟨her aim was to raise film to an art form⟩ end stresses the intended effect of action often in distinction or contrast to the action or means as such. ⟨willing to use any means to achieve his end⟩ object may equal end but more often applies to a more individually determined wish or need. ⟨his constant object was the achievement of pleasure⟩ objective implies something tangible and immediately attainable. ⟨their objective is to seize the oil fields⟩ goal suggests something attained only by prolonged effort and hardship. ⟨worked years to reach her goals⟩

It seems clear to me and Merriam-Webster that they mean the same thing, or are at least more closely related than you seem to think. The fact that I can use any of these terms to get the same message across indicates that they refer to the same thing - the idea in your head that motivates you to act.

As for "motivation""

motivation: a motivating force, stimulus, or influence

Here I have to ask what is it that is the motivating force, stimulus, or influence that gets you off the couch and walking to the store - specifically? If it isn't the realization of your goal/purpose/intent, then what is it?

The difference between motivation and goal is what we've been discussing in this thread. — Metaphysician Undercover

...and I have yet to see a clear distinction between the two be made.

If you say you have the goal of going to the store but not the motivation because you are still sitting on the couch, then what you are really saying is that you have conflicting goals. We often have conflicting goals and it is where we reach a state of indecision - of not being able to establish a clear goal over another. It seems to me that, because you are still sitting on the couch, your goal to sit on the couch is winning over the goal of going to the store, or else you wouldn't still be sitting on the couch. — Harry Hindu

Are you saying that having no motivation is the very same thing as having conflicting goals? If so, I disagree. A motivated person will proceed with the mental activity of attempting to solve such conflicts. The activity here is the act of thinking, and the motivated person is engaged in this act of thinking, while having conflicting goals at the same time. So the person is motivated, and engaged in activity, yet has conflicting goals at the same time. Therefore it is impossible that having no motivation is the same thing as having conflicting goals. — Metaphysician Undercover

No. I'm saying that they are all the same thing. In other words, I'm saying that where you have conflicting goals, you have conflicting motivations.

So the goal and process of moving your legs and arms are still there - it's just that you can focus on other tasks, not tasks you have performed over and over again. — Harry Hindu

No, the goal is not still there, and that's the point. To be "there" it must be in the conscious mind. I have no idea what goals I had in my mind when I was learning to walk, so whatever those goals were, they are definitely not still there. I now walk without having in my mind the goals which assisted me in learning how to walk in the first place. And the walking activity is "automatic". It occurs without those goals. — Metaphysician Undercover

How to walk isn't a goal, it is a set of instructions. If you didn't have the set of instructions for walking, talking, or things that we learned before and now do habitually, then how do you explain you knowing how to do it? Walking isn't "automatic". It's just that you don't have to pay much attention to it because you've done it so often that you your conscious mind doesn't need to focus on it. Notice how consciousness is only needed for the things you don't know how to do and are learning how to do it. When you learn well how to do it the task gets relegated to the subconscious.

Also notice that you can have a goal of changing your breathing - even holding your breath, and that happens when you focus on your conscious attention on your breathing. You breath without paying attention to it and it is only when you want to change your rate of breathing that it becomes part of consciousness. Consciousness seems to be all about one's attention.

The brain is capable of multitasking by leaving he goals and means of achieving them to the subconscious while the conscious part focuses it's attention (which seems to be the special thing about consciousness as opposed to the subconscious and unconscious. It has attention) on other things. — Harry Hindu

How do you suppose that the subconscious has goals? I don't see how this is possible. I can understand that a subconscious activity is carried out for a purpose, but this does not mean that the goal itself is within the subconscious. — Metaphysician Undercover

What is the difference between a goal and a purpose? What is the difference between intention and goal? What is the difference between motivation and goal? They all seem to be the same thing to me.

Of course the goal has causal power. How else do you explain your current state of walking to the store, if the goal of having tea doesn't have causal power? — Harry Hindu

As I explained, it is not the goal of walking to the store, or having tea, which causes me to walk to the store. It is the decision to "act now" which causes me to go. I could be sitting on the couch for a very long time, maintaining the goal of walking to the store, without actually doing it, if I am unmotivated. So clearly it is not the goal which has causal power. I must be motivated to act on the goal or else nothing becomes of the goal.

The goal itself dictates the actions you are taking now, or else you could never say why you are doing this particular thing now (walking to the store) as opposed to something else (looking for the remote control). — Harry Hindu

The reason why of a particular thing, is not the same as a cause of action. — Metaphysician Undercover

If you say you have the goal of going to the store but not the motivation because you are still sitting on the couch, then what you are really saying is that you have conflicting goals. We often have conflicting goals and it is where we reach a state of indecision - of not being able to establish a clear goal over another. It seems to me that, because you are still sitting on the couch, your goal to sit on the couch is winning over the goal of going to the store, or else you wouldn't still be sitting on the couch.

Apparently I am not making myself clear.

I will try again.

All of this Marxism; liberalism; "progress"; conservatism; Enlightenment rationalism, autonomy of the individual, rule of law; empiricism/"science"; technology; transhumanism; postmodernism; feminism; queer theory; identity politics; neo-liberalism; "the logic of free markets"; globalization; populism; "democracy" vs. "tyranny"; dualism vs. non-dualism; overconsumption vs. prosperity; Malthus vs. Adam Smith; etc.; etc.; etc. needs to be stuffed in a box, bound with several layers of duct tape, and fired on a rocket as far out of our sight and memory as possible.

Garbage in, garbage out.

If we are tired of getting garbage then we need to grow up and throw away the garbage.

The garbage is gone, what do we do now?

How about listening.

Listening to each other.

Listening to non-human life

Listening to the Earth.

How about empathizing.

I said let's break the garage-in-garbage-out cycle, and you responded with more of the garage.

We don't need more politics, laws, philosophy, science, technology, etc. We need to get a grip.

We need to try, gasp, being nice. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

I can't help but laugh at this. You are saying that autonomy of the individual is garbage, as well as science. How does one express themselves for you to listen without autonomy? How do you listen to non-human life and the Earth without organizing that knowledge (science is organized knowledge) into something meaningful to even talk about for others to listen? You dictating what I can talk about is contradictory to your goal of listening, and thinking that such-and-such topic is "garbage" is subjective. Maybe others don't think that and you need to listen to that.

How do you expect to change people who aren't nice, into people who are without manipulating them? How do you expect self-centered people to listen to others without manipulating them - without giving them their right to express their self-centeredness and you listen and be nice? You are simply talking about how you'd like it to be and not everyone feels the same, which means that you'd have to limit what it is that they do or think that YOU don't like in favor of what YOU do like.

Also I like to listen to others except when they become nonsensical or hypocritical. After that, it becomes a waste of my time to listen to them. Once they insult my intelligence with what they say, being nice isn't part of my response.

Imagine that I am out of milk, and I need milk for my tea, so I decide to walk to the corner store. Off I go. I never develop the goal of moving my feet. The goal is what I want, to get milk. I have choices of how to achieve that goal, so I decide to walk to the store. Walking to the store is the means to the end. Once I've made up my mind, the habit kicks in, but the movements required for walking never enter my mind as part of the goal. — Metaphysician Undercover

Actually, isn't your primary goal, to have tea, not to get milk? Isn't getting milk and walking to the store SUB-goals of the primary goal? Isn't that what the goal of moving your feet would be too?

The whole first half of your post ignores what I said about learning how to walk. When you are in the process of learn something, then each step has to be focused on to complete the primary goal of walking. The same for throwing a football. I coach youth flag football and in teaching a kid how to throw a football requires all these other steps of positioning your feet, fingers, hand and arm, and the motion of your arm, fingers and hand, and even your body, as you throw the ball. A kid learning this often forgets each step and it takes practice to get it all. Once they've done it many times it becomes automatic. I don't think Tom Brady focuses much about how to plant his feet and positioning his fingers on the laces of the ball. All that information is in his subconscious. So the goal and process of moving your legs and arms are still there - it's just that you can focus on other tasks, not tasks you have performed over and over again. The brain is capable of multitasking by leaving he goals and means of achieving them to the subconscious while the conscious part focuses it's attention (which seems to be the special thing about consciousness as opposed to the subconscious and unconscious. It has attention) on other things.

I wouldn't say that it is the "initial goal of moving your body" which is the motivating factor, because you can hold that goal of moving your body, without ever moving. These people who have goals without acting on them, we call unmotivated. It is the impetus of "act now!", which we refer to as motivation. And this is separate from the goal, because it may be applied to any goal. That is why ambitious, motivated people may be motivated toward all sorts of different goals. What makes the person motivated is not the goal itself, it's the person's attitude toward the goal. — Metaphysician Undercover

Of course the goal has causal power. How else do you explain your current state of walking to the store, if the goal of having tea doesn't have causal power? If your goal was to watch your favorite TV show, then you wouldn't be walking to the store. The goal itself dictates the actions you are taking now, or else you could never say why you are doing this particular thing now (walking to the store) as opposed to something else (looking for the remote control).

This is so typical of the socialist/liberal logic of making oneself feel good about themselves by promoting the idea, "can't we all just get along?", "can't we just be nicer and more respectful to each other?". Sure, those are great ideas, but all I see are these ideas without any means of getting there. Is it because we already know how to get there but realize that the means would be the manipulation of others, which is what you all are saying you want to depart from? Wouldn't you need to start determining who gets born and how children are raised and wouldn't you need a deep state to do that (and it seems that is what we are heading towards)? People are the way they are as a result of their genetics and upbringing. To change that would mean that you'd need to manipulate them (their genes and upbringing).

Perceiving value in your life is not a thought form of perception (awareness) at all. Rather, it is an emotional awareness. In other words, our emotions do not have some sort of mind control effect on us where they force us to perceive, through our thinking, our lives being good or bad to us. It is purely the emotions themselves that allow us to see values in our lives. Emotions are actually a sense like sight. They allow us to see the values that things and situations hold in our lives. It is only our positive emotions that allow us to see the positive qualities of life (i.e. the good values) while it is only our negative emotions that allow us to see the negative qualities of life (i.e. the bad values). Having neither positive nor negative emotions would be no different than a blind person. No value judgment can allow this blind person to see just as how no value judgment or mindset can allow us to see the values in our lives. — TranscendedRealms

It seems to me that our emotions are the result of what we already value in our lives. To value something is to love that thing and I can only love it after it proves its value to me. I can only be angry AFTER someone has cheated me out of something I value. So it seems more that emotions are responses to things we value.

I think a more interesting question is how are we aware of our emotions. What sense do we use to be aware of them? Emotions seem to more like a tactile sensation, which explains why we use the term, "feeling" in referring to them.

How and when do we often move without having the goal to move - when we have a nervous twitch or something? — Harry Hindu


Any time we do something habitual we move without having the goal to make that movement. When I'm walking I'm moving my legs without having the goal to move the legs. My goal might be to get somewhere, or just to wander, but each time I take a step when I'm walking, I do not form the goal of taking that step. — Metaphysician Undercover

But walking is one of those things that, as adults that have been walking since we can remember, we take for granted. As infants we did have to make deliberate motions to move our legs in specific ways to accomplish walking. This is what happens when we learn new things - it takes practice and concentration. Once we master it, we don't really need to focus on it. We do seem to have that goal of taking the first step. In order to get somewhere, you do initially have the goal of moving your feet from a resting position, just like having the goal to throw a ball, you need to send the signal to the arm to move in a particular way. It seems to me that you can't walk or throw a ball without that initial goal of moving your body to accomplish the primary goal.

I asked, can you be motivated without a goal and vice versa? — Harry Hindu

I thought the answer to this question is obvious from what I've been arguing. I've been arguing that you need to be motivated to create a goal, but motivation may produce things other than goals. — Metaphysician Undercover

How is one motivated to create a goal? Is it your discontent about the way things are currently that motivates one to create a goal? Once you create the goal, it is the goal driving you forward and no longer the discontent because the actions you take are directed towards that specific goal that you wouldn't take if the goal were different. There are many ways to alleviate discontent (different goals one could work towards in alleviating discontent) and each one needs a different order of actions to accomplish it.

I don't see where you're disagreeing with what I said. The goal would be to move. The difference between wanting to move and currently sitting still motivates us to move. The question we should ask is what comes first - the motivation or the goal? It seems that the motivation comes first as we notice the difference between our current state and the state we want. We then establish the goal and act. — Harry Hindu


My point is that we often move without having the goal to move. We need motivation to move but we do not need a goal to move. But I think we agree by and large anyway, because we both say that motivation is prior to the goal. I believe that a goal comes about from thinking, and thinking is an activity which requires motivation. — Metaphysician Undercover

How and when do we often move without having the goal to move - when we have a nervous twitch or something? When I move, I often have the goal to move. How can you be motivated without a goal?

You also cherry-picked my post. The last part you left out began to question the distinction between motivations and goals. It seems that both the goal and the motivation are the same thing. The goal is what motivates you to act. I asked, can you be motivated without a goal and vice versa? Was the question to difficult or something?

Scenario 1: This only proves that there is observer bias even further, because the researchers that discovered the observers bias suffered from it themselves.

Scenario 2: It doesnt, because the arguments that proved or came about suggesting that an observer's bias exists were flawed (due to the bias), so it takes all of the findings' validity.

Is this just me or is there something here? — rickyk95

There's something more. It's called peer review. Not everyone has the same biases. One scientist can announce their hypothesis, but it isn't doesn't change from a hypothesis to a theory until other scientists in the same field run the same experiments and get the same results. This is what makes scientific theories objective as opposed to the subjective hypotheses of say, religion. The problem you describe is more of a problem for religion than it is for science.

I think recognizing the different variables in experiments help to limit biases as well.

Since morals are the rules to live by in the culture you find yourself in, my morality comes from recognizing that like to be free and not in prison, so I follow the rules of the culture I find myself in.

As a member of a social species, I need others around me to be happy and recognize that to piss them off would be to possibly lose them and make me unhappy.

It depends on the species. For most species, the female is the one that carries the burden of carrying the offspring to term and then caring for them until they can fend for themselves. This takes a lot of effort and energy. Natural selection has developed a strategy for females to limit the work they have to do by giving them the power to chose mates. This is how mating rituals and the like developed and picking healthy males. It shows the female that the male is willing to hang around and devote time and energy and his offspring will generally be more healthy. In some species, males have to fight each other and the winner is the one that gets the females.

Females are generally picky when choosing their mate. This is obvious when the female is the one that has to use most of the energy to raise the children. Males, on the other hand, are motivated to spread their genes around as much as possible and to minimize their time with a specific female. Males are therefore, the ones that have to develop tactics for winning over the females. This is why the male peacocks have the large decorative feathers. So it doesn't seem that males have all the power and influence over the females as one might expect. You don't see a male peacock raping a female because the female can just outrun the male with those large feathers weighing it down.

The opposite is true for seahorses. The males are the ones that bear the children and raise them and it is the females that compete for the males.

The difference between how we'd like it to be and how it is is what motivates us. We aren't motivated when things are how we'd like it to be. We are content. — Harry Hindu


I don't think so. Even when we feel content, we are still motivated to act. Moving is a physiological thing, and we are naturally inclined to move. You might argue that we move because we are not content to sit still, but then there are no goals, or "how we'd like it to be" which is motivating us, we are just motivated to move because we are discontent with being how we are. — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't see where you're disagreeing with what I said. The goal would be to move. The difference between wanting to move and currently sitting still motivates us to move. The question we should ask is what comes first - the motivation or the goal? It seems that the motivation comes first as we notice the difference between our current state and the state we want. We then establish the goal and act. But then it also seems that both the motivation and goal are established together and may actually be one and the same. Can you have a goal without motivation, or vice versa?

1. God is the greatest being imaginable [premise]
2. If God is the greatest being imaginable then I can't imagine a being greater than God [premise]
3. I can't imagine a being greater than God [Conclusion A from 1 and 2 modus ponens]
4. If God doesn't exist then I can imagine a being greater than God (a greatest being who exists) [premise]
Therefore
5. God exists [Conclusion B from 3 and 4 modus tollens] — TheMadFool

This seems to show that the greatest being can only be imagined.

BTW, what do you mean by "greatest"? "Greatest" is a subjective term. For some, God is egotistical, contradictory, and immoral.

I think it is necessary to distinguish between intentions, or goals, and motivation which is the ambition that aids in successfully achieving ones goals. — Metaphysician Undercover

Think of intentions/goals as the predicted outcome of some action. Our goals are like simulations of how we'd like it to be. The difference between how we'd like it to be and how it is is what motivates us. We aren't motivated when things are how we'd like it to be. We are content.

Well, that is an argument that I have made before in discussions of "meaning-is-use". If anti-realism is the case, then yes, our words don't refer to anything, and would therefore be meaningless. That is the outcome of anti-realism - that everything is meaningless (including your experiences), as there is no reference. If solipsism, then your words can "mean" anything at any time as there aren't others that you have to communicate with - or they are figments of your imagination which could understand anything you say as they are created by you - similar to how the programmer makes the simulated you understand anything he wants.

By "corresponding" you appear to just mean "causally responsible". That's not the kind of correspondence I'm talking about. Obviously things have a cause. Consider the correspondence theory of truth. It claims that a statement is true if it corresponds to some obtaining state of affairs. If "correspondence" just meant "causally responsible" then every statement would be true as every utterance is caused by something. — Michael

Stay on target. Your argument was that language can't be used to refer to things outside of the simulation. I showed that if language can be used in the outside world to refer to things in the simulation, then why couldn't it be the reverse? Both the programmer and the simulated Michael would both be referring to the things in the simulation with their words. The programmer created the language you'd be using, and how you use it, in the first place. Your whole example of a simulation and how "language is use" is nonsense when you get down to the root of it.

The "language-is-use" crowd seems to forget that language is used primarily for communication - for transmitting information from one head to another. Information is about things, so we are transmitting sounds and scribbles that refer to other things that are not sounds or scribbles. When you speak or write, it creates ideas in my head that are not sounds and scribbles, but mostly visuals of what it is you are referring to.

I'm pointing out that it would be wrong to look to some "corresponding" event outside the game, and so it would be wrong to say that the phrase "there's a cat in a cupboard" is true if there's a cat in a cupboard outside the simulation. — Michael

But there is a corresponding event in regards to your other example of playing Mario. The corresponding event would be the computer code. The same can be said about the "cat in the cupboard" There would be corresponding code for looking in a cupboard and seeing a cat. Not only that but there is also code for your use of language. How would you speak, and what language would you speak in, in the simulator? You'd talk about whatever the programmer wishes and in whatever language he wishes, when he wishes.

There is the experience of seeing red, and the corresponding event of a particular wavelength of light entering your eye. Natural selection is the process of improving our knowledge of the world by selecting organisms that see more truly than their competitors.

Do you have dyslexia, or something? I said that there has to be a programmer that made the simulator with the plan of what he/she wants the simulator to do (and his plan exists prior to the simulator and anything that happens in it), and part of what they want the simulator to do is "have Michael play Mario and use the Mario character to jump on a Goomba." That is what the programmer would say if someone asked him what that particular code means.

That is also what the programmer would have you say in this internet forum as an example of your position. The programmer would speak the same language as you. In other words, they'd be using language to refer to the happenings and things inside the simulator, the same way you'd be using inside the simulator.

Both you inside the simulator, and the programmer outside the simulator, would be using language to refer to what is happening inside the simulator, you both would be referring to the code AND what the code makes happen in the simulator. This is similar to how we refer to things in the world. By talking about the color red on an apple, we are talking about the color (which only exists in our minds (the simulator)) and a particular wavelength of EM energy that only exists in the outside world.

In fact, the reverse is true; those who successfully undergo the desired surgery have a better quality of life, given the improvements to their mental health. — Michael

This supports the idea that it is a delusion. The delusional get easily offended if you question the truth of their belief (both the religious and transsexuals share this trait) and if you act in a way that supports their delusion (such as agreeing with them and performing a sex change on them) then they believe that this supports their delusional belief. This is why the religious congregate together - to be with others that share the same delusion - which reinforces their belief in the truth of the delusion. When doctors share your delusion and the rest of society shares it, then that makes everything better.

Perhaps it's clearer if I use the example of Mario jumping on a Goomba. I see Mario jumping on a Goomba because Mario is jumping on a Goomba. To understand what I mean by the proposition "Mario is jumping on a Goomba" you have to look to the use that such a proposition is put. And that use is concerned with the video game I'm playing. It would be a category error to look outside the video game to determine what is meant by the proposition and to determine whether or not it's true. — Michael

But who made the simulator? The programmer would refer to this particular code that makes up the simulator program as "Michael playing a video game called Mario causing Mario to jump on a Goomba".

When I write a computer program I'm thinking about what I want to happen in the game (a simulator), and I need to write code, which isn't the image of what is going to happen on the screen, in order to make that happen in the game. In the outside world the happenings in the simulator is computer language and my idea and intent to make that happen in the simulator. A programmer can't even imagine, much less program, something that he/she has never experienced before. So their simulation will always include aspects and notions of the world outside the simulator.

There are two answers to the question 'why is the water boiling'. One is: it has been heated to 100 degrees celsius, and as the kettle is at sea level, that is causing it to boil'.

The other is: 'because I want to make tea'.

They're both valid answers. — Wayfarer

Yes, and they are both answers involving causation. It is your goal to make tea, which occurs prior to making the tea. The prepared tea in the future isn't what is causing the tea to be made. It is your will in the present, that is driving the body to make tea. After all, your could end up being interrupted in your tea-making and never end up making tea.

Asking "why" isn't a problem of science. It is simply a problem of having a mind that needs an explanation for everything - to keep on acquiring knowledge, even when there isn't any more knowledge to be had. I could keep asking "why" for any religious or philosophical answer, not just answers provided by science. Why does God exist?

Do I experience the scribbles as they really are? — Harry Hindu


What do you mean by "as they really are"? The scribbles are just patterns of light displayed by your screen.

If not, then am I really reading what you typed and posted to the outside world?


And what does that mean? I just press keys on my keyboard. Me pressing keys on my keyboard isn't anything like the patterns of light displayed by your screen. — Michael

I thought the answers to your questions should be obvious given your example of an outside world and a simulation of it. Are the scribbles only patterns of light displayed by your screen in the simulation or in the outside world? Is your post in the outside world, or only in the simulation? In your example, is the outside world meant to represent reality as it is, and the simulation meant to represent our minds?

Look at depression: the numbers of people diagnosed with depression is absurd (or tragic, I can't decide which). My sense of the world is that a lot of people are very unhappy because of their life circumstances, and if they could change their circumstances, they'd be a lot happier.

Antidepressants (prescribed by the train load) help people drag themselves through their drab, wretched lives, but they tend not to make people happy. That's because most of these people don't have a mental health condition which can be treated. It's because they have drab wretched lives which could be made better, but that means change, and change is difficult. Really difficult, sometimes. So, doctor, please write another Rx so I don't kill myself or somebody else. — Bitter Crank

Yes, the drug manufacturers are enjoying a golden age as doctors over diagnose depression, AD, etc. Anti-depressants are one way of dealing with life's problems, but so is creating delusions. People with delusions have them as a means of looking over life's bad parts. Delusions make the delusional feel better about life and allow them to continue on living. Religion is basically a mass delusion - one held by many as a means of dealing with the fear of death and the unfairness in the world. It is reinforced by the many who also hold the same delusion, and even popularized.

There are those that even have the issue of not getting enough attention. They didn't receive the necessary amount of attention as a developing child, or maybe received to much, and now, as adults, they crave it and will do virtually anything to get it. Some will even do unconventional or immoral things just to get attention. The attention transexuals receive is enticing to those with this problem. Some will do anything for attention. This may even explain the degrees of transexualism - where some actually go through and change their genitalia, while some simply cross-dress. Some are more gung-ho about their delusion, while some aren't willing to go all the way with their belief, as some are merely doing it for the attention it brings while some actually believe themselves to be the opposite sex than what they were born as.

That comparison might be apt if one was talking just about removing one's genitals, and not of changing one's genitals. In the latter case it's more comparable to rhinoplasty. — Michael

"Removing" falls under the category of "changing". The man that is uncomfortable with his arm can replace it with an artificial one.

But even if I were to accept the comparison, you have to look at why it is a problem to have one's arm removed, and whether or not this reason holds in the case of changing one's genitals. If it doesn't then it's a false analogy. I would say that removing one's arm is a problem if it would reduce the quality of your life (and, conversely, would be a good thing if it saves your life, as in the case of necessary amputations). Does this reasoning hold in the case of changing one's genitals? I don't think so. In fact, the reverse is true; those who successfully undergo the desired surgery have a better quality of life, given the improvements to their mental health. — Michael

...and this is why I asked earlier in the thread, "what do they mean when they say that they are uncomfortable with their genitalia?" You ignored the question which made me believe that you thought it was relevant. Now you seem to be saying it isn't.

Do they think that they are in the wrong body, or what? To say that you are uncomfortable with your genitalia as opposed to your arm indicates that you are uncomfortable with your gender/sex - which is a defining quality of who we are as a person and influences how we think (women and men have different amounts of various hormones as well as different sex organs). All humans have arms, but not every human has the same genitalia. Our genitalia is one of those things that distinguishes us from other humans and can drastically influence how we behave and think. So to say that one is uncomfortable with their genitalia is to say that they are uncomfortable with themselves as a whole and that they apparently wish to be someone else, not a different version of themselves, because if they were born with different genitalia, odds are that they would still have the same problem, because the problem isn't in their genitalia, it is in their brain.

I didn't say anything about them having the wrong genitalia. I said that they don't like what they have and would prefer something else, similar in kind (if not in degree) to not liking the colour of their hair, or the shape of their nose, or whatever. — Michael

It's not the same to compare not liking your hair color to not liking your genitalia and wanting to remove it. It's more comparable to not liking the arm attached to your shoulder and want to cut it off. Unfortunately, society has made it okay to cut off genitalia because you don't like it, but good luck in finding a doctor to cut off your arm that you aren't comfortable with.

Is there an internet forum in the outside world that appears on my computer monitor with the same scribbles on it that I experience? Do I experience the scribbles as they really are? If not, then am I really reading what you typed and posted to the outside world? Isn't the fact that I can read what you typed and understand it evidence that we can know the outside world as that is where your words reside for me to log in to the forum and read them.

I think what you're referring to specifically is body dysmorphic disorder. However, this doesn't seem like the correct diagnosis. — Michael

No. What I was referring to specifically was a somatic delusion as that was the words I used and is plain to see to anyone paying attention.

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

For one, those with body dysmorphic disorder tend to either imagine or exaggerate a perceived flaw. This isn't the same as, say, being a brunette but hating the colour and preferring to be blond. Of those transgender men who are uncomfortable with their body, it isn't that they're imagining that they have a penis or don't have a vagina, but that they recognise that they have a vagina but don't want one, and so it is more comparable to hating the colour of your hair (albeit there's likely to be more anxiety than in the case of hair colour). — Michael

What does it mean for them to recognize that they have the wrong genitalia? Do they mean that they were born in the wrong body, or that their mental state doesn't match their physical state? Which is it that is actually wrong - their mental state or their physical state?

I know that Harry Hindu has claimed that such people have a mental disorder, thinking that they're something they're not. But I think such a claim falsely assumes that the transgender man believes that he has a penis. For the most part, that's false. He recognises that he doesn't have a penis, hence identifying as a transgender man rather than a cisgender man. It must then mean that the transgender man doesn't believe that being a man means having a penis, which makes the accusation of having a mental disorder mistaken. At best you could claim that the transgender man is either misappropriating or misunderstanding the term "man", which really does just mean "a person with a penis", in which case the dispute is a trivial one over proper language use. — Michael

What I have said is that they have a somatic delusion - which is a delusional belief that there is something wrong with your body - as in you are in the wrong one - similar to believing that you have an alien arm that isn't part of you, or doesn't seem to obey your mental commands. A trans simply has the delusional belief that they have the wrong body as a whole as being a man is more than just having a penis, it is also a lack of breasts, less ribs, hair growing on the face, etc.

Let's say that we are each put in a shared simulation that may or may not represent the world outside the simulation. We assume that the simulation is an accurate representation of the outside world, and so assume that when we talk about it raining when it rains in the simulation we are talking about it raining outside the simulation, and that our claim is true if it is raining outside the simulation and false if it isn't. — Michael

You seem to be forgetting that language itself would be part of the simulation. Language is sounds and visual scribbles - no different from any other sound or visual that we would categorize in the simulation. Language means things because we have established a new category for these particular sounds and scribbles as referring to the other kinds of sounds and visuals we experience. We can even use a sound or scribble to refer to itself when we use quotes around a word.

And how would you know that the words you read on this forum (which would be part of the simulation) accurately represent the words on the forum in the outside world (that they actually mean the same thing in both the simulation and reality) - unless you are saying that language isn't part of the outside world but then that would answer the question about whether the simulation is an accurate representation of the outside world.

Your argument seems to only state that our words only mean something if they refer to what is happening in the simulation, and that they would be meaningless if they didn't. It is irrelevant that the simulation does or doesn't represent the outside world. Either the words we use mean something because they can refer to things that we all experience in the simulation or not. Our words would still be true in referring to the true state of the simulation. Whether or not the simulation accurately represents the world outside is something different. That is where we would discuss how our visual system evolved (or was designed in the simulation) and how better visual systems tend to leave more offspring.

There are the physical features and/or reproductive organs one has which is not always binary (true hermaphrodites, psuedo-hermaphrodites and other variations of nature for example). — prothero

These are abnormalities, not the norm. The same can be said about being gay or trans. We can always find exceptions to the norm in pretty much everything, but this doesn't take away from the fact that there are norms and that we owe our specie's continued existence to the norm. These conditions don't mean that they should be categorized as a separate sex or gender. They are simply mutations that crop up as a result of faulty gene copying and one's upbringing. We don't categorize other people as normal based on them missing toes or fingers, being born conjoined, or any other abnormality that one can be born with, and we even attempt to fix people born with abnormalities. What makes one's sex/gender abnormality different?

You need a brain to reveal. The mind/memory might still be there without awareness.

So, the question is what might it feel like when someone is brain-dead? This is an interesting philosophical question. For me, it is that point in that sleep state, when there is nothing. Quiet. What in Taiji is called Wuji state. And then POP!, one is awake. So memory/mind persists through the sleep state and somehow reawakens itself, only to go back into it. — Rich

Then the soul can never be self-aware on it's own? The soul needs a body to be self-aware and even then we aren't even aware of our soul - we are only aware of our bodies. So much for the "after-life". It wouldn't be much of a life if you aren't aware of anything.

Adam Ruins Everything - Climate Change
http://www.trutv.com/shows/adam-ruins-everything/videos/climate-change-is-already-happening-now-what.html

If the brain is reconstructing memory with a specific wave then damage to the brain caused by toxins which the brain becomes less and less capable of dealing with (e.g. foreign chemicals or drugs) will disrupt the brain's ability to correctly construct the wave. This would be analagous to damage to the TV tuning function. — Rich

Then I need a brain to be conscious? If I were just a soul without a brain then there would be no difference in the experience of me being physically dead in a world with no souls, and me being a soul disconnected from a brain. Can I only be aware of, or know, that I am a soul when I am connected to my body?

What is the point of a soul when that makes me (my body) a faulty copy of my self (my soul)? Why is the body necessary? Can souls exist independent of bodies and still possess knowledge and memories and a sense of self? If not, then how is that any different from non-existence?

It gets its data from numerous sensory organs, yes, but is "presented" as a single part like a movie. — JupiterJess

Again, I don't see it as presented as a single part. There are many different parts, or distinctions, I can make out. I know these are different parts as I can experience each one by themselves without the other parts. I can close my eyes and focus on a sound only and make that the only part, or close my eyes in a quiet room and think of only one color. The different sensory experiences are themselves the fundamental parts of consciousness. Consciousness itself isn't fundamental. I can imagine different consciousnesses filled with different data and that data represented in different ways based on the kinds of sensory organs an organism has. We can even communicate the different parts of our experience - communicating only parts and leaving other parts out. If consciousness were fundamental and presented as a single part, we wouldn't be able to communicate those different parts to others and they know what we mean.