Bob, I confess you've lost me at this point. Try as I can, I can't relate to the terminology used here and any attempt to grasp it just doesn't make sense to me. I feel like we have a fundamental difference in understanding that perhaps isn't all that far off from one another, but at the same time, somehow is.

One statement that I think we both agree on in layman's terms is that the perception of a 'thing' is real in itself, and that the perception cannot exist without the perceiver. But we seem to have a disagreement on how that happens. I say that the perception of a thing is done completely through the matter and energy of the brain, which is the scientific consensus. You believe this to be the hard problem, which to my knowledge, is not it. You also have ideas about falsification and science that I do not agree with, which again I think has been explored and is at this moment an irreconsilable difference.

As I noted early on, if we diverge here I do not believe I can adequately contribute to the conversation any longer. My line of thinking is too different from yours for us to be able to discus what you want to address. That being said, a wonderful commitment to your thread, and I respect the attempt! Best of thoughts in fielding the remaining discussions, I will likely be reading your other replies to see if I can understand your side better.

All ideological identities are subjective because they relate to thought processes and they will only correlate to objective criteria if the subjective ideology requires it. — Hanover

Incorrect. Definitions are of course constructed by human subjective observation of reality, but for them to be of most use, they must be able to be objectively used. For example, if I define a tree as a "Thing with branches and leaves", its not very useful for details in a world with brushes and shrubs. A botanist wouldn't hold to such a definition because clarity and accuracy of definitions are important when discerning between plants as a profession.

If a Reform Jew and Orthodox Jew have definitions for their own branch of Judaism, that is fine. But then this needs to be objectively matched to the definitions to say, "That person is a Reform Jew, and not an Orthodox".

Back to transsexuals. If gender, as you define it, is a subjective belief, isn't it also a subjective belief that that belief must correlate to an objective criterion like sex? — Hanover

What I am saying is if you have a definition of gender, and a definition of sex, gender does not change your sex. Vice-versa, sex does not change your gender. Thus if we separate people according to sex, and the limitations of the body that sex entails, saying you identify with a gender that matches another sex does not entail you entry into areas divided by sex.

To do so would be to have the Orthodox Jew say to the Reform Jew. "I identify as a Reform Jew, even though I don't meet your birth criteria for it." This is not a battle over authority. This is a battle over people trying to say that gender equates to sex. That because you act in a particular self-subjective gender, that this qualifies you to be treated as if you are the opposite sex in all authoritative matters. Gender does not override sex, just like sex does not override gender.

Think of it this way: if no one is looking at the tree, then it does not continue to exist in the manner that we perceive it, but it continues to exist in the sense that it is an idea in the universal mind that if we were to go perceive it we would expect to see the same tree (because our ability to perceive will represent the ideas the same manner it did before).
...

The substance of reality under analytic idealism is mentality and the universal mind is fundamentally the one existing brute fact, and we are derivatives thereof (i.e., priority monism). — Bob Ross

I understand this point, but how is this semantically different from just saying that reality is independent of observers? A tree is going to be what it is no matter if we observe it or not. Why introduce mind and mentality? Mind and mentality imply an observer, which always leads to the question of, "Then what is the observer?" You have an outside entity which needs explaining. Is it also just a mentality? If a mentality can have a mentality, what does the word even mean at that point? If being is reality, then all of reality is being. I think I just need a better definition of "mentality" and "mental".

Because what we observe is also real (i.e., a part of reality). When I imagine a unicorn, that unicorn exists as an imaginary unicorn. My concept of a car exists in my mind and is thusly a part of reality: humans and other conscious beings are a part of reality. — Bob Ross

I agree, but this isn't any different from a physical reality based model. Reality exists independently of what is observed. This allows us to short circuit the "Are you observing what you are observing?" issue that can come up otherwise. No one can observe you observing, yet you are part of reality. You do not need to meta observe your own observation, or have a God observer observing you. Your observation itself is also part of reality. I feel this model is much clearer while still conveying the essence of what you're trying to prove.

I suppose this really asks us to break down what "physical" means, as its only been implicit. "Physical" essentially means there is an existence independent from our observation. As noted, this eliminates infinite meta self-observation. You exist as a physical being. Despite your lack of observing yourself, you still exist physically in the world. Your mind does not float, it is located within your body. Try extending it outside of yourself. Try thinking in a location outside of the room you are in. You can't. It follows the physical rules of reality despite our best wishes.

If one simply calls what is real what is perception-independent (or something similar) than (I would say) it fails under more in depth scrutiny. For example, one cannot evaluate the concept of concepts as true (even in the case that it references what a concept is correctly) because it doesn’t correspond to something outside of perceptive-experience (which is what you would be calling ‘reality’). — Bob Ross

So in here, yes, a concept of concepts is also real. We do not need to have a concept of "concepts of concepts" to make it real. We only need a concept of "concept of concepts" if we wish to observe a "concept of concepts". What is real is not perception-independent. What is real is what exists, and does not need to be perceived to exist.

Science (proper) tells us how things relate and not what they fundamentally are. — Bob Ross

I am not sure I agree with this assessment. Science uses falsification to test hypotheses by trying to break them. When they cannot be broken, what is left is considered scientific fact. This does in fact describe what certain things fundamentally are.

Consciousness emanating from the brain is not merely a correlation, its is a causation. It is provable with a hypothesis that can be falsified. We can experience the color green because of our brains. How could this be falsified? Destroying the brain and still seeing green. Destroying certain parts of the brain and still seeing green. There is a physical claim that can be falsified, and so far in science, it has not. Therefore at this point, it is scientific fact that consciousness comes from the brain. It is scientific fact that matter can be conscious if organized in a particular way. Whatever your conscious experience, there is a physical brain state that produces that. All of this is falsifiable, but has not been show to be false.

It is a common mistake to believe that the hard problem is claiming physicalism cannot link brain states and consciousness together. It clearly does already. Just think about drugs, anasthesia, etc. If we could not accurately link the physical brain to particular conscious states, the science of all of the above would be incorrect. Yet its not.

What I am open to is seeing if you can prove that physicalism cannot link the brain and consciousness together. If you can come up with a falsifiable theory that it cannot, I can think about it and see if you are correct. But claiming that this is the hard problem when physicalism has zero problem doing this is just an incorrect understanding of modern day neuroscience. It's getting to the point where I'm starting to feel like "the hard problem" is as often mistaken as quantum physics! People seem to hear a vague surface level explanation, or people who want there to be more than just our brain misinterpret the hard problem to be something its not.

For example, if a person claims that this mental state X is strongly correlated to this brain state Y, there is still the valid conceptual question of “how did Y produce X”? The physicalist then has to explain this either (1) by another appeal to the same relationship (i.e., “because Y is correlated with Z”) of which the same conceptual question applies (i.e., “how did Z and Y produce X?”) or (2) by positing that “because strong correlation entails or implies causation” — Bob Ross

Not to belabor the point, but this is an example of this misunderstanding. The answer a physicalist gives is, "Because our attempts to disprove this claim have all failed". Neuroscience does not assert a theory that we are to buy into. It asserts a theory that we cannot buy out of.

I have a problem with the idea that we are separate from the body. To me that's an awareness function that has gone rogue. A point of awareness is that we are the body's steward.
— Philosophim
Doesn't saying awareness is our body's steward imply awareness is separate from the body? — Art48

Its just a figure of speech. In a fully correct definition of body, we are not separate from the body. But, our brain is a bunch of individual brain cells. Those are distinct cells. We exist as a conglomerate. So while there is togetherness, there is also separation. Taken as a whole though, we are all part of the same body.

Thanks Bob for some great answers.

Good question: no. Solipsism is the idea that everything is in my mind, whereas analytical idealism is the idea that both our minds are in a universal mind. — Bob Ross

I've heard something similar to this before. Its sort of a "God observer of reality" idea (does not necessitate a God). I've seen this type of thought as the idea that if we could have an observer that could observe and comprehend reality, that would be the true understanding of reality.

I don't necessarily have a problem with that idea, but I have a problem with saying the God observer is reality itself. Isn't reality itself the substance the God observer observes, while the entire rational interpretation of it all can be known about that substance? Even if that is not what you are saying explicitly, this is a competitive theory with the idea that the observation is in fact reality.

I'm going to repost your intro and now dive a bit deeper now that I've asked a few questions.

By analytic idealism, I take it to be that reality is fundamentally (ontologically) one mind which has dissociated parts (like bernardo kastrup's view). Thusly, I do find that there really is a sun (for example): it just as a 'sun-in-itself' is not like the sun which appears on my "dashboard" of conscious experience--instead, I think the most parsimonious explanation is that it is fundamentally mentality instead of physicality — Bob Ross

If I understand what you're going for here, its the idea that the "sun-in-itself" only has identity because of rational beings. Let us imagine a child who looks at a picture and see a sun in a sky. If the child has never been told that there is a sun and a sky, would the child necessarily see the sun and sky as separate? We identify it as separate, and so it is. But without a rational being doing the identifying, would the concept of the sun and the sky exist? Would there really be a separation, or would it just be a blend of atoms?

Taken one step less drastic, its like the air we breath. Its a combination of nitrogen, oxygen, carbon dioxide, and other gases. But since we cannot easily observe this, its simply, "Air". Its like the sun in the sky, except we do not see the sun as separate from the sky just like we don't, while breathing, see the nitrogen as separate from the oxygen.

If I have this right, this still does not eliminate the sun as an existence if an observer did not exist. An observer is necessary for there to be an identity; for "the sun" to be known. But the substance of existence would still be. I can very much agree to this, but this seems to me to be "known reality" while the idea of reality as "what exists" still exists whether a rational observer identifies it as such.

Truth, I would say, is a relationship between thinking (cognizing) and being (reality) whereof something is true if our concept corresponds to what it is referencing in reality. This can include concepts referencing other concepts as well. — Bob Ross

Perhaps our vocabulary is slightly different, but I believe you agree with this concept from your original post. If "being" is reality, why not just call it "being" instead of reality? In which case, why not simplify it to state that reality is what exists regardless of our observations, or our being, while what we know about reality is a combination of our rational identifications that aren't contradicted by what exists? What problems does your vocabulary and outlook solve that my above statement does not? How can your vocabulary and outlook solve all of the problems that would arise by removing the idea that reality exists independently of an observer?

They cannot understand what it is like to experience a green pen from your point of view.
…
This is where we run into the hard problem. How do we objectively handle personal qualitative experience when it is impossible to know if we can replicate it on ourselves? Is what I call green your qualitative green when you see the waves that represent green? So far this seems impossible.

They cannot explain why anyone experiences the color green. A strong correlation between a brain function and the qualitative experience of greeness does not entail that the latter was produced by the former. — Bob Ross

Bob, I'm fairly certain that neuroscience does explain why you experience the color green. There are certain areas of the brain that generate colors. Read the link about Cerebral achromatopsia I posted.

"Cerebral achromatopsia is a type of color-blindness caused by damage to the cerebral cortex of the brain, rather than abnormalities in the cells of the eye's retina. It is often confused with congenital achromatopsia but underlying physiological deficits of the disorders are completely distinct. A similar, but distinct, deficit called color agnosia exists in which a person has intact color perception (as measured by a matching task) but has deficits in color recognition, such as knowing which color they are looking at."

We clearly know that the brain is what allows us to produce color. The above is a provable statement, with several ways of proving it wrong. For example, if the areas of the brain associated on the cerebral cortex were damaged but a person could still see color. Yet this isn't the case. It is incontrovertible in neuroscience that the brain is the source of consciousness. Only philosophers are arguing otherwise at this point, and to my mind, not doing a very good job of it.

What neuroscience cannot explain is what its like to be a brain that "sees" the color green. We know they see green, but it is impossible for US to see that green the brain is experiencing, because we are not that brain. This is why I used the fire analogy earlier. We know that fire is caused by oxygen combusting. It is a physical process that can be described clearly. But we cannot know what it is like to BE that flame. Why do I say it this way?

Because once you realize the brain is the source of consciousness, you realize that matter can have consciousness if combined in the correct way. This is not philosophy, but known fact. You are your brain, and a your brain is matter and energy. Can a fire have consciousness? Unlikely considering how we have identified consciousness. But we can't observe what its like to be those molecules in the fire can we? Is fire simply the sun and the sky together, or are we missing an identity and there are more identities we could put if we could observe it more carefully?

And that's the hard problem that physicalism cannot solve. We can identify and know all of the mechanics behind what make a result, like the brain resulting in consciousness. Mechanics = outcome.
But we cannot experience what it like to be outcome from the viewpoint of the outcome itself. We cannot say, "According to the brain monitoring we've done, you are experiencing 20 microns of pain." Its currently impossible. We can say, "We see you are experiencing pain from your brain scan, how do you feel?" Then we have to take the experiencers subjective answer.

And in this way, that is the experiencers "observed reality" to lead back into your idea. We can't use physicalism to identify it. The only one who has that observed reality, is the observer themselves. Without the observer, pain as a sensation, a personal experience, could not exist. We could monitor a brain and see all the mechanical functions that result in pain, but we cannot measure the experience itself. This is like the idea of there being "zombies", or people who have the mechanical brains that should indicate they feel a certain way, but we can't really measure exactly what they're feeling. What if a person has the mechanical combination for pain, but their feeling isn't at all like what we would feel? What if there is a brain that has the mechanical function of denoting consciousness, but it doesn't feel to them the consciousness that you or I feel?

In sum so I avoid repeating myself, the hard problem is that physicalism cannot objectively identify and quantify a personal subjective experience of matter and energy. Can matter and energy have consciousness if combined in the correct way? Absolutely. Is the brain the source of consciousness? Unquestioningly. Can we objectively describe the sensation of experiencing the color green? It seems impossible at this point in time.

I don’t deny that we can manipulate conscious states by affecting brain states, this is also expected under analytic idealism. — Bob Ross

This is also expected under physicalism and direct evidence for why physicalism can prove that the brain is the source of consciousness. I'm usually open to different view points, but on this one Bob, its a hard fact that the brain is the source of consciousness. You'll need to show something in neuroscience that would disprove this to me. If we cannot agree on this fundamental issue, then we'll just have to agree to disagree. We can continue the conversation at your observer level, but I will respectfully bow out on the hard problem if that is your decision.

Wonderful thinking as always!

Right. Knowing all the details of what is physically going on in a system (brain) is a different matter from having the experiences resulting from the processes which are occurring in that system.

But why should we find that even surprising on physicalism, let alone a hard problem? — wonderer1

Its a hard problem because we cannot currently objectively describe experiences. Pain for example. Perhaps we see a brain fluctuation that denotes pain, but we don't know the degree of that pain. What does their pain feel like versus another person's pain? Two people may be having nearly identical brain responses in our measurements, but one may be screaming in agony while the other acts pleasant. If we could objectively ascertain the subjective experience through objective means alone, we could tailor pain medication to the individual more easily.

The hard problem has nothing to do with whether consciousness resides in the brain. Its about creating an objective measurement for subjective experience. Its extremely hard, and perhaps impossible.

I wasn't under the impression that the hard problem was specifically about our inability to experience the experiences of another, but rather a question of how can conscious experience be explained in terms of physical interactions at all. — wonderer1

Its not that conscious experience can't be explained in terms of physical interactions, its the qualitative experience itself. Qualitative experience is subjective. Therefore it cannot be objectively captured in a physical model. Think of it like this: We know how a computer works within all physical laws. If a computer one day becomes sentient, will we ever be able to objectively know what its like to be that subjective sentient computer? Not with physical laws. We can know its sentient. We can even map out why its sentient. But we can never know what its like to be that sentient system.

By “reality” I am abstracting the entirety of existence under an abstract entity. I view it kind of like speaking of being as “substances” which are abstracted entities of kinds of existences (e.g., substance dualism is two kinds of being where monism says there is only one): similarly, I abstract the sum total of existence into “reality”. Reality is being (including all types one may believe in). — Bob Ross

So if I understand this correctly, reality is the total abstraction of an observer. Isn't this just solipsism? Because this seems to run into the problem of multiple beings each having a separate, and often times conflicting representation of reality. An observer also often times assumes an entity apart from reality. If the observer is doing the abstracting, what is the observer? Is that also an abstraction of itself? In which case, what is it?

The competition in your case is the idea that there is a world separate from our abstractions. This notion of reality solves many of the problems that a solipsism-like view has. For example, if I abstract that I can fly, but fall and shatter half of my body, while I am in the hospital I have to find an explanation for why my abstraction failed.

In the case of reality as being separate, the answer is clearly that one's interpretation of what would happen in reality was incorrect. How does your world view handle this example?

So there is no question that mechanical processes of the brain cause qualitative experiences.

-Philosophim

I disagree. For example, let’s say that you are holding and seeing a green pen. A neuroscience (and biologist) can absolutely account for how your brain knows that the pen is green (i.e., the reflection of wavelengths in sunlight in relation to what the object absorbs and the interpretation of it by the brain), but they cannot account for the qualitative experience of the green pen. — Bob Ross

We may be saying the same thing here in different ways. They cannot understand what it is like to experience a green pen from your point of view. But take brain surgery. Generally operations are done while the subject is awake. They'll stimulate a section of the brain and ask what the subject is feeling. The subject, us, knows what its like to have a qualitative state from a mechanical brain stimulation in that region of the brain. So for us, we have a direct experience from the electrical stimulus and suddenly hearing a dog bark.

The reason we cannot learn from one patient and apply it to others is because we don't know what the other person is objectively feeling beyond what they tell us. We could stimulate the same brain region in another patient and they tell us they hear a cat meowing. We don't know the pitch, or if it sounds like the dog bark of the other patient. This is where we run into the hard problem. How do we objectively handle personal qualitative experience when it is impossible to know if we can replicate it on ourselves? Is what I call green your qualitative green when you see the waves that represent green? So far this seems impossible.

There is absolutely no reason why you should be having a qualitative experience of the green pen even granted the brain functions that interpret it as green. — Bob Ross

This is an often times misinterpreted understanding of the hard problem. No, we know you're going to see green when a green wavelength hits your eyes and the proper signals go to your brain. The fact that everything you experience is from your brain is not questioned in neuroscience at this point, only philosophy.

The question is, how do you qualitatively experience it? What is it like to be a fire for example? You know what makes a fire, but you don't know what its like to be a fire. That's the hard problem. We could say, "But do we know the full underlying quantum process that makes that particular fire?" No. Just because we don't understand all the mechanics to the exact degree in a system does not invalidate the overlaying mechanics that we do understand about that system. Do we understand exactly how your brain states create your qualitative experience? No. Do we know that the brain is the source of your qualitative experiences? Yes, through years of scientific study.

The hard problem is that the reductive physicalist method cannot account for qualitative experience at all. — Bob Ross

To sum it up, it is not that reductive physicalist method cannot account for qualitative experiences being linked to the physical brain, it is that a physicalist method cannot account for what it is like to be the thing experiencing that qualitative experience, because it is purely in the realm of the subject having the experience. We cannot objectively know through the mechanics of stimulating the brain what it is like to have the experience of that brain, as we can never be that other brain.

In my opinion, consciousness is being best handled by neuroscience, and is outside the pure realm of philosophy at this point. Check out brain surgeries, or the case of the color blind painter who had brain damage that removed his ability to ever see or imagine color again. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerebral_achromatopsia

Good to see you Bob! I'm just going to start with some questions for clarity.

By analytic idealism, I take it to be that reality is fundamentally (ontologically) one mind which has dissociated parts (like bernardo kastrup's view). — Bob Ross

I did a brief look into Katrup, but I want to see where you're coming from. First, what is your definition of reality? How does the statement above differ from stating that the mind is simply an interpreter of reality?

Physicalism's conflation of the territory with the map is exposed (I would say) in the hard problem of consciousness whereof there is always an conceptual, explanatory gap between mechanical awareness and qualitative experience — Bob Ross

I'm not sure this fully expresses the hard problem. So there is no question that mechanical processes of the brain cause qualitative experiences. As our understanding of the brain grows, we will be able to map this out clearer. This is the easy problem. The hard problem is that we cannot ourselves know what it is like for another being to experience that qualitative experience.

For example, imagine that we are able to build a biological brain and monitor every section of it exactly. We've learned that a particular string of responses equates to the brain being happy. But do we know what its like to be that brain experiencing happiness? No. Another crude way of describing the hard problem is the act of trying to objectively experience another thing's subjective experience. We can only experience our own mind, we cannot experience another's. This is a problem whether you take a physical or mental view of the world.

So I'm not sure the three points you mention are accurate assessments of the way cognitive scientists view the brain. Of course, I'm not sure what you mean by "physicalism" either. I'm assuming we're speaking about the idea that everything is essentially reduced to matter and energy, so please correct me on this where necessary.

What does it mean to say that a statement is true? — A SeagullThat if people believe that statement and use it to inform their actions, they will be more likely to make useful decisions related to what the statement refers to.
— Coben

Yes, this is exactly right. Without this link words, statements and even philosophy are meaningless. — A Seagull

No, this is exactly wrong. Plenty of people believe in statements that inform their actions and these beliefs are not true.

Truth is reality. Our ideas can be concurrent with reality, or contradicted by reality. While we can never know if our concurrent beliefs with reality are just because we have not stumbled onto a point of reality that will contradict it, we can know when reality contradicts our beliefs.

If you replace the word "soul" with "body", I think this works better and is much more accurate to reality. I have a problem with the idea that we are separate from the body. To me that's an awareness function that has gone rogue. A point of awareness is that we are the body's steward. We make sure that its mix of desires doesn't get it into trouble. We're not trying to deny the body, we're trying to harmonize the body for its maximal expression and enjoyment without causing undue harm to ourself or others.

I wasn't passing judgment on you or anyone else, instead I was talking about some basic psychological principles that you seem to be completely unfamiliar with. — Jacques

Whether intended or not, when someone tells you how they feel, if you tell them, "No, you don't really feel that way. I read it in a book.", its insulting. That's basic psychology. You can ask a person why they feel that way, but telling a person that they don't feel what they are feeling will piss people off. Don't do it.

Second, I am familiar with the psychological and philosophical theories that there is no altruism, but that everything we do is for our own self-interest. This is not science. This is psychology and philosophy. There are also competing theories that claim we can be altruistic beyond our own self-interest. Just think of the example of a person leaping on a grenade to defend the rest of the men in their squad. If you believe your audience is unfamiliar with a theory you are referencing, actually reference it in your OP when a person seems to invalidate that theory that you would like to talk about.

By the way, try to remember when you were stuck in a traffic jam and were happy for the other side because they had a free ride. A true altruist in such a situation would say to himself, "I'm so glad it hit me and not them!" — Jacques

Another thing you shouldn't do is assume things of people without asking them. Not in traffic per say, but I have had situations in life where I had been in an unfortunate position over another person, and I was glad for them that they didn't have to handle it because I knew I would be able to handle it better. It still sucked, but it could have been worse. I am that type of human being. Assuming I couldn't be without asking first is ignorant and immature.

Fantastic that you've read. Keep reading. But don't think that reading a few books makes you an expert on the human condition. When you talk to someone and they seem to counter your theory, listen first. That's the step to becoming a real expert. You have someone in front of you that does things for moral reasons without self-benefit. I'm very real and someone you can learn from.

Ok. Off topic, but it sounds like control or autonomy is very important to you. I'm always fascinated by how different we are despite all the ways in which we are alike. — Tom Storm

Yes, its extremely important to me. It may be due to an upbringing where emotions were mostly punished and a lack of a feeling of control in my early life. I agree, its great to see the differences between us! Together we often can compliment each other in areas we personally lack.

Hey, I don't doubt that you are sincere and believe this. I guess I hold a view that all people, regardless of how they make decisions, are influenced by unconscious factors - biases, desires, etc. — Tom Storm

That's definitely true. Snap decisions are made with those factors for sure. But when you take time to really think on something, and you are a person that analyzes your own motives very carefully, you can minimize and even remove those underlying factors.

You sound very certain. You are talking about what you are conscious of. Can you rule out unconscious influences on your actions - guilt, duty, etc? — Tom Storm

Yes. I am a very introspective person who thinks on a major decision for a long time from multiple angles. I understand that the average person does not do this. You're going to have to trust me on this one despite it just being an internet conversation. There are people like me who choose moral decisions that do not directly benefit themselves because they know there is more to life than just themselves. No religion required.

I don't disagree with you, but I wonder if a soft form of self-interested altruism might be behind such actions? Any thoughts on this? — Tom Storm

No. I do plenty of things that offer me less satisfaction than the alternatives. My sister was diagnosed with bipolar disorder about two years ago during the Covid pandemic. She lost her job, she ended up making some poor decisions and moved to a place with no support. I recently got to the point in my career where I could work remotely where ever I wanted. I had been planning on moving up North because I hate the weather in Texas. I have a close friend I've known for 20 years, and I was going to move in to the area after visiting.

But with my sister's recent diagnosis, I had a choice. No one was expecting me to help her and her kids out. I would have been very happy up North. I chose to move to the town she moved to for one year to help her out. Why? Because no one else could. Because I was the only one who could. And my belief is that the overall outcome of life on this planet would have been worse off if I had simply done what I wanted.

I would not have felt guilty. I have no particular feelings towards my sister or her kids. She's made her own choices in life. I still sometimes have pushes to just leave and go up North. But I don't because its not time yet. I choose my outcomes in life based on what is most moral, because I've spent a lot of time thinking on these things and not letting my emotions sway my decisions.

I believe that you get a good feeling about it, and a good feeling is more than NOTHING. It represents a value in itself, and not a small one. — Jacques

Then why are we having a conversation? I tell you how I feel and that I get nothing out of it over 3 times, yet you say I'm a liar. You know what you're finding out about your self? That you don't do anything except for your own self-interest, and you have the arrogance and stubborn ignorance to believe no one else can possibly do otherwise.

If you want to rant that everyone must be as selfish and run by emotions as you, then go ahead. There are plenty of us in life who work to overcome emotions because they understand that some outcomes are better for the world then their own pleasure or happiness. The fact that you don't believe it says everything about yourself. You need to go meet more people in the world. Go volunteer at a place you don't want to. Do something that you know is right, but makes you uncomfortable. Then think about it. You need to experience it for yourself before you start making judgement about other people.

One of my pet peeves. Newborns are identified as male or female, they aren't arbitrarily assigned a sex. — BC

This language may be used because in some cases the sex of the child isn't actually clear. There are a host of abnormalities that may arise. Someone who does not have an abnormality and states they were assigned a sex is misusing the language for their situation.

I agree that we should create a new word that describes a group of sexual individuals that vary from the norm. I propose "Variant Sexuals". Its seems an inoffensive way of demarcating differences without making them an alphabet soup.

According to the definition of transgender, drag queens are practicing transgender actions, but only focused on fashion. Perhaps transgender identity requires one to conform to the entirely one one's social construct of what the opposite gender is. This again my require better vocabulary.

Transgenderism has always struck me as seriously contradictory. — Tzeentch

I feel this is due to a lack of clear vocabulary. Transgenderism has not been studied by the broad public until now, and the vocabulary we are using may very well tie too many generalities together and become a muddled mess. I do not blame the transgender community for this. Clarity of vocabulary allows clarity of thought. With unclear vocabulary it can be difficult to communicate your thoughts effectively. The attempt in the OP was to cement some clarity to particular terms and come to a conclusion based off of those terms.

"It is better for me to donate, so I do."

Please decide whether you have benefited or not. You cannot have both at the same time. — Jacques

Maybe we're having a language barrier of intentions here. I've tried to make it clear that I do not benefit from giving my money away compared to using the money for myself. I am not contradicting myself. When I say, "It is better for me", translate this to, "It is more ethical for me". I do not receive ANYTHING for giving my money away. This should be clear.

Hi, Philosophim,

that's exactly what I meant: you donate because it's better for you. — Jacques

No, I mean I do it because its the right thing to do. I have the money, and its for a good cause. I decide to. Its not for personal benefit like going to the movies or something. Trust me, I can find far more ways to enjoy the money and I wouldn't feel a twinge of guilt. Not everything is about personal benefit.

I generally think practice or doing is more important than theory, but I hear you. — Tom Storm

I previously noted that I feel a goal of philosophy is to construct definitions that are useful. Theory is interesting, but practice is useful.

A useful definition I have gone by is a transgender person is someone whose gender identity or gender expression does not correspond with the sex they were assigned at birth. That's a standard definition. — Tom Storm

Yes, I am aware of this standard definition, and it doesn't make sense to me. If gender is a social construct, how can you have one that doesn't fit your body? It would make more sense that you don't have a social construct that fits your social setting, not your body.

I do not abide by insulting people for their sexual or gender preferences. I care about clear communication, and requests of people that make logical sense. Being afraid of being called a bigot or some other horrible word for wanting to explore this comes with the territory of philosophy. I understand your implications and your fears Tom. Such fears can be diminished however if the attitude going in ensures that the focus is on the logic, and not derision or insults. I appreciate your points and understand why you are bowing out.

Bear in mind definitions are tricky - we can't really define religion as Karen Armstrong and our own Wayfarer point out. — Tom Storm

In my view setting up definitions that can then be taken and applied to the world in meaningful ways is one of the major goals of philosophy. Its not that we can't define things, it is that it is difficult and many people are content with using what gets them through life without having to think too hard about it.

In your day to day interactions, I'm sure there's no issue with transgendered individuals. That is not what this discussion is about. There is an active portion of that community that is insisting, not merely requesting, that people call them particular pronouns or that they be able to play cross sex sports. That to deny this is transphobic. That doesn't make any sense to me. It doesn't make sense to a lot of people. Focusing on the vocabulary allows me to start a discussion for those who are interested in exploring the concept. If you are not, that's fine, but its not an impossible topic to think about.

My understanding is it's gender, which is separate to biological sex. But I'm not one for debating this minefield of a subject, I'm no expert and people understand it in different ways. I'm happy to support trans-people and I've never experienced any problems associated with the issue in the years I have known and/or worked with trans or gender diverse people. — Tom Storm

No one is disparaging you or hopefully taking this conversation as a measure of whether you support trans people. This is about exploring the terminology and trying to make a clear distinction of what is appropriate and right in regards to the use of gender vs sex. When I see the word "transgender" in popular culture it is currently unclear and confusing. I see certain requests being made that do not make sense to me if transgender is defined as I've seen it. To me, this asks for a discussion about how we as a society should interact with trans people's requests, like wanting to cross sports for example.

I don’t use the word “gender” anymore unless it refers to grammar. Better to abandon the term, I say, and stick to “sex”. It basically clears up any confusion. — NOS4A2

It is a useful word however if it accurately describes a cultural expectation for a sex to act or present in society.

What tradition? The sex/gender distinction doesn't have enough history to have a tradition. Pronouns were and are applied to a conglomerate of what we now consider sex and gender. — hypericin

I disagree with this. In cultures across the world there have always been cross dressers or people who took on cultural expressions of the other sex, but were always still seen as their sex. There are male and female cross dressers, but no one thought a cross dresser became the opposite sex of what they are. Please give me an example in which one a person's enactment of the opposite sex erased their actual sex in the culture.

They don't think their body matches their sense of self. — Tom Storm

Is this in the sense of gender, or sex though? If its sex, I think that has some actual merit. This would be a transsexual, which is different then being transgender.

There are some who argue that gender is pulley a social
construct, but I dont think you’ll find that to be a majority view within the gay community. My own view is that the biological and the social are inextricably, and for many who believe they were born with their particular gender already put in place, the idea that gender is strictly socially constructed is ludicrous — Joshs

If you believe that gender is not a social construct, then please feel free to offer the alternative, and how it is separate from sex. As for the definition of gender above, what if we have different gender viewpoints of how a man and woman should act? What if I believe wearing a dress is what women do, but then I go to Japan and see males wear kimonos or go to Scotland and see males wearing kilts?

The way the situation is usually presented is that the transgender community believes that transgender people who are biologically male should be legally and socially treated and named as women with the reverse being true for those who are biologically female. Is that not correct? — T Clark

It was my terms of gender and sex. Its difficult to address all members of the transgender community as different factions have different wants. I simply started with the terms "gender and sex" as to my knowledge, is generally agreed upon by the majority of the community. If some in the community with what you've asked above, my point is that this does not line up with the terms they've offered.

A lot of us do things that don't benefit ourselves because we believe in living more than an emotional life. This is not to brag, this is to inform, but I've donated to water.org for years. This helps bring fresh water and to places that don't have it in the world. I don't get a tax break from it. I don't tell anyone I do it (except you) and I will never meet anyone who benefitted from it or gain anything more than a slight emotional satisfaction from it.

My temptation is to stop donating. But I know I have the money and I know it goes toward some good somewhere else in the world. It is better for me to donate, so I do. Don't be so quick to paint all of humanity in a particular way. There are a lot of varied people out there.

Perhaps you could share with us some of the things that have set you off. You have a lot of well versed people on here, as well as those who would give great thought to your issues. One of the cures to any form of depression is to avoid isolation. Of course, you need to be with people that you feel comfortable sharing and enjoying life with. You might find a few here.

That's the supposed paradox. Switching doesn't increase our expected return, but the reasoning given suggests that it does. So we need to make sense of this contradiction. — Michael

Yeah, I don't see that as a paradox, just a misunderstanding of what the math is representing. The average represents the outcomes if you select one of the outcomes. It doesn't apply in any way to whether you should switch your decision before you see the reveal.

This can be easily seen by simply swapping money with a card that say 1, and then 2. Over the course of several selections, the average result will be X. But that's irrelevant to if we want a particular outcome. Lets say we start with wanting "2" to be selected. The calculated average of outcomes is the same. Now lets say that another person wants "1" to be selected. The calculated average of outcomes is the same.

The average of outcomes is irrelevant then to what we want to pick. It tells us no information regarding whether we should switch our choice or not. The addition of money does not change this, it only changes that everyone wants one of the 50% chance outcomes. But wanting a particular outcome has nothing to do with whether we should switch our choice before the reveal. Its always 50/50 no matter if there is money or a simply cards with numbers in them.

Finally, you have to calculate the average using the idea that each is 1/2, or a 50% chance of being selected. Meaning its hard set that its only a 50% chance. It is impossible to go from having a 50% chance, to then telling someone they have a greater chance of winning what they want if they switch their initial choice. Its still 50/50.

Thanks Michael.

Ok, I think I see a little clearer what this is trying to do, but it still doesn't quite line up.

So it makes sense to use an average here in our decision whether to play. But it doesn't say anything about us switching between heads and tails repeatedly as our guess before we see the coin, which is the situation with the envelope.

All the average return on the envelope tells us is that if we keep playing over the long term, its going to average a return greater than one. But we actually have to play. It doesn't tell us anything about our indecision or which choice we should finally land on.

Then you should read this and this. — Michael

Thank you, I missed your link in the original OP as well.

I still don't understand how they apply their math to this situation.
The 5/4 is an expected value, which is an average. But the situation doesn't call for an average because its either or. You either get A, or 2A.

Numbers and their outcomes need to match the representative realities they are equating. Applying an average to a situation in which an average is not in consideration is not a rational application of math. Its like saying people have an average of 1.5 kids and then betting that you'll have half of a kid born. It doesn't make any sense.

You've clearly done your math wrong. I'm not sure how you're getting the equation that you are, not only in what you've done, but by what the equation stands for.

The amount of money in the envelope is irrelevant, so I'm not sure why that's part of your equation. You have two envelopes, and one is an intended outcome. If you pick randomly, its a 50% chance that you get the intended outcome. If you switch, its the same odds. Your x's, y's, and z's are irrelevant to this outcome.

To fix violence we need a culture of empowerment. Hate makes you feel powerful. A gun in your hands murdering people that you despise makes you feel GOOD. But if you already have success, power, and basic respect from the people around you, it doesn't. Hate is the easy go to for the person starved of empowerment. When there are less starving people to sell it to, it doesn't take hold as easily.

I am claiming that there is a reason he is imagining a “subjective experience”, the evidence being that he says it. That he wants it to be “explained” by a “mechanism” is not me “reading intentions”, it is the implications of his getting to his reason from those means. — Antony Nickles

Having written several complex and complicated papers that examine every angle before coming to a conclusion, I have some background to note that this is actually terrible writing. Writing should narrow in on a point so the reader has clarity. After the point is written, let the reader expand from there.

He is right to use the terms and points he is so that even a reader not well versed in philosophy can understand his point. That's fantastic writing. His reference is to sight blindness, and he's attempting to use medical and scientific terminology to explore a concept. Nothing wrong with that. His lack of exploring Locke is not an intention we can fairly make.

He has a problem. He has certain knowledge and vocabulary. From there he constructs an idea that is simple, relatable, powerful, and succinct. That's fantastic philosophy. Critique his main conclusions, the idea of solving the hard problem. If he chooses to sprinkle meaning behind it, why is that relevant to his main point at all? It sounds like you're more upset with where you think this can go than with his immediate idea.

I feel your reading intentions into the article that are not being insinuated. I would re-read it once more. This is proposing a mechanism to explain how the subjective experience occurs within the brain. That's the crux and really nothing more.

Yes, the properties of matter are not adequate to produce or explain subjective experience. — Eugen

This is entirely incorrect. Currently not understanding exactly how matter and energy interact to create a subjective experience does not negate the observed fact that matter and energy can interact to make a subjective experience.

Fantastic article! This is where philosophy gets exciting.