My answer to the radical skeptic is pain, because it implies an objective reality in terms prior to cogito — karl stone

Why? Perhaps pains are an hallucination. Or, rather, perhaps they are not caused by a real fire in an external physical world but by a mad scientist prodding my envatted brain or by an evil demon?

Yet all this is missing the point that human beings survived, and evolved in relation to a physical reality - of which, we must be able to establish valid knowledge, or would have become extinct. — karl stone

Well this just begs the question. The skeptic questions the existence of the world-as-we-understand-it. Perhaps idealism is correct. Perhaps we’re artificial brains in a vat. Perhaps we’re being deceived by an evil demon.

So to put simply; perhaps we didn’t evolve via natural selection in a physical world in which “accurately” sensing our environment is a requirement for survival.

Of course I’m not suggesting that such doubt is warranted, only that your reasoning against it presupposes its own conclusion.

Aren't there two kinds of knowledge? — RogueAI

Or three?

I know that the bicycle was invented by Karl Drais
I know how to ride a bicycle
I know the feeling of falling off a bicycle

Sure, but 'seeing' is the ideal minimum sensory experience, employed for the sake of philosophical simplicity. If still in doubt, touch it, lick it, throw something at it - the screen can be shown to be real by the evidence of the senses. — karl stone

Clearly that’s insufficient as those suffering from
psychosis can see and hear and feel things that aren’t really there.

How do I know that I am not a schizophrenic hallucinating a world?

We (believe we) have rational grounds to trust our sensations.

So we might say that using a name involves a rigid designation — Banno

I wonder how we make sense of such claims as "if I were you then ...." (or to use proper nouns, "if Michael were Banno then...")

Strictly speaking if "I" and "you" are being used here as rigid designators then the antecedent of this conditional is a contradiction and so necessarily false and so the conditional always true. If I were you then I’d be a billionaire!

But this analytic interpretation of the phrase seems misplaced. It's not how we ordinarily understand it. Perhaps we're not using rigid designators, or perhaps rigid designators are not always that rigid.

It is not a coincidence or magical thinking you read my words and respond to them. That’s entirely up to you whether you do or not. It’s magical thinking to believe I cause you to respond. — NOS4A2

"Entirely up to me" and "causally influenced by you" are not mutually exclusive. See compatibilism.

It is a proven physical fact that my brain activity is causally affected by what some external stimulus causes to happen to my sense organs. That's what it means to sense things in the environment.

You're playing word games when you interpret "A causally influences B" as only meaning "B is the immediate effect of A's kinetic energy". It's ridiculous.

Physically speaking, speech doesn't possess enough kinetic energy required to affect the world that the superstitious often claims it does. Speech, for instance, doesn't possess any more kinetic energy than any other articulated guttural sound. Writing doesn't possess any more energy than any other scratches or ink blots on paper. And so on. So the superstitious imply a physics of magical thinking that contradicts basic reality: that symbols and symbolic sounds, arranged in certain combinations, can affect and move other phases of matter above and beyond the kinetic energy inherent in the physical manifestation of their symbols. — NOS4A2

Nobody is saying anything like this at all. It's not just about the immediate kinetic energy of an action. This is such an absurd strawman.

There's very little kinetic energy involved when I click the various keys on my computer, but clicking the appropriate keys begins a causal chain of events that influences the words that appear on your screen. There's no magical thinking or superstition involved in acknowledging this basic fact.

It's not a coincidence that the words that appear on your screen correspond to the words that I type. It's not a mere correlation. There is a very real causal connection between the two.

And there's a very real causal connection between sound stimulating an organism's sense organs and the subsequent neurological activity (which is a physical reaction).

That they are a man. Why else would they be calling themselves a man? And yes, many trans-gender people do not like the trans- qualifier. They actually consider themselves a man or a woman. — Harry Hindu

Yet again with the equivocation.

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

I assume that @Outlander is making the same mistake.

If gender as social expectations of the sexes is determined by sex and we aren't aware of other sex organs, then how can we learn the characteristics of gender at an early age? How does a toddler learn why some people where dresses and some wear pants if they aren't aware of other sex organs? — Harry Hindu

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

If an artificial human isn't a human then artificial penises aren't penises. — Harry Hindu

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

Then I don't see anything that has actually contradicted what I have said. — Harry Hindu

I wasn't trying to contradict you. I was just answering your questions.

That doesn't really address my point.

Perhaps it's better explained if we consider the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. Some might say that if the many-worlds interpretation is correct then there is a parallel universe in which I measured a different spin. And I would counter by saying that none of the people who exist in these parallel universes are me. I just am the person who exists in this universe, and any person who exists in a parallel universe and who superficially resembles me – in appearance and name and background – only resembles me and shouldn't be thought of as being me.

So does this same reasoning apply when we talk about possible worlds in modal logic? Does it make sense to say that a single object exists in multiple possible worlds?

From a strictly deterministic stance, how does the determinist account for the difference in output given the same input? — Harry Hindu

I already explained that with the example of the computers. Just apply the same reasoning to a human organism.

That is what I'm trying to focus on - what that difference is. — Harry Hindu

The physical differences between two different human bodies and two different human brains. Refer back to my example of the computers. Some computers might respond to someone pressing the "A" key by displaying the letter "A" on the screen, some might emit a noise, and some might do something else.

A human organism and a computer might each be constituted of different molecules, but these molecules obey the same physical laws regarding cause and effect. If eliminative materialsm is correct then there's nothing like an immaterial soul or mind to interfere with these (deterministic) physical processes.

Whether it is physical (whatever that means) or not is irrelevant. — Harry Hindu

It's entirely relevant. If materialism, and in particular eliminative materialism, is correct then libertarian free will does not exist. All muscle movements in the human body are a causal response to electrical and chemical signals triggered by the brain's neurons, and the brain's neurons trigger these electrical and chemical signals as a causal response to different electrical and chemical signals – some of which are triggered by the sense organs as a causal response to stimulation by light or sound or some other external stimulus.

Software is a physical thing. It's not some immaterial magic.

Is information physical? — Harry Hindu

If eliminative materialism is correct, then yes. What we call "the mind" and "mental processes" either don't exist or are entirely physical.

I don't know why you have to repeat that. I quite explicitly responded to it.

Maybe it has something to do with the information stored in their brains. — Harry Hindu

Yes, but if eliminative materialism is correct then this is properly understood as "it has something to do with the existence and configuration and activity of the brain's neurons".

And like every other physical object in the universe, the brain's neurons' behavior is causally influenced by prior physical events, and in this particular case these prior physical events are often the stimulation of the sense organs.

Yes, but why does each person respond to those same lights, sounds, smells, etc differently? — Harry Hindu

Slightly different biologies. Your eyes are not identical to my eyes and your brain is not identical to my brain.

Exactly - which means that because people respond to the same lights, sounds, smells, etc. differently there must be some other process between some speech being made and one's actions that manifests as that difference in actions after hearing a speech. — Harry Hindu

Yes, that thing being the body and brain of the listener/actor. But it's still the case that the action is a causal response to the stimulation (assuming that eliminative materialism is correct and so that libertarian free will does not exist).

How two different computers respond to their "A" key being pressed depends entirely on their internal mechanics. One computer may display a letter on the screen and the other may emit a noise. Either way, the computer's behaviour is a causal response to someone pushing the "A" key.

On rigid designators, what does it mean for an object in one possible world to be the same object as an object in a different possible world? Is it simply a stipulation?

The question is especially relevant if we claim that the same object can have different properties in different possible worlds. Does it make sense to say that there's a possible world where I'm a black man named "Barack Obama" and who served as the 44th President of the United States? What does it mean for this person to be a possible version of me rather than a possible version of you or a possible version of the actual Barack Obama?

From here you said:

Indeed, if we came across someone who said "I know that there is water in the tap", but became confused when asked to locate and turn the tap on in order to obtain a glass of water, we might well conclude that they said they knew but really didn't.

There seems to be a pretty good argument that "knowing that" is a type of "knowing how".

So given that I say "I know that in a few billion years the Sun will expand and consume the Earth" what is the "knowing how" (comparable to using the tap to fill a glass of water) that demonstrates that I do in fact know what I claim to know?

But on the example of the tap:

1. I know that the tap is working
2. I know that the tap isn't working
3. I know how to use a tap
4. I know how to prove that the tap is working
5. I know how to prove that the tap isn't working
6. I know how to assert the English sentence "(I know that) the tap is working"
7. I know how to assert the English sentence "(I know that) the tap isn't working"

It's entirely possible that (3)-(7) are all true but that (1) and (2) are both false. Therefore (1) and (2) are distinct from (3)-(7).

You just did. — Banno

You're going to have to elaborate. Otherwise it seems that you're just saying that knowing that p is equivalent to knowing how to write "I know that p". Which would be such a cop-out.

There seems to be a pretty good argument that "knowing that" is a type of "knowing how". — Banno

I know that in a few billion years the Sun will expand and consume the Earth.

Not really sure how to make use of this information, but I know it all the same.

But information doesn't become knowledge until it's been verified and incorporated with our data base.

Truth is not the issue. The issue is the difference between belief and knowledge. When you say "justified true belief", that's the same as a belief that has been verified so that it can become knowledge. That's far beyond a simple fact "true information". — Vera Mont

I'm not sure if verification is necessary. It seems like a very strict requirement. If a stranger tells me that their name is John, do I have to verify this (e.g. by checking their ID) before I can be said to know their name?

Born something he (or she, I don't indulge or humor nonsense let alone keep track of such) wasn't. — Outlander

Which is what? Does the transgender man believe himself to be a fish? I need an actual example of a delusion.

All of that is fine, well fine enough, as there's more important things to deal with, up until the point that one considers it logical to permanently and irreversibly alter one's non-disabled and fully healthy body and form, most critically those under the age of what is socially considered a functional and legal adult.. That is what you're blatantly avoiding, my good sir. And I believe you are doing such intentionally for whatever reason that is again up to the public writ-large to determine why and perhaps what should be done as a result. — Outlander

Not every transgender person has gender dysphoria, and according to this, "in studies that assessed transgender men and women as an aggregate, chest surgery has been reported at rates between 8–25%, and genital surgery at 4–13%".

And whether you like it or not, hormone therapy and surgery can be effective treatments. You can't just pretend that gender dysphoria isn't real or can be safely ignored or can only be treated by psychotherapy.

As for "permanently and irreversibly alter[ing] one's non-disabled and fully healthy body and form", well so too is a salpingectomy, but if a woman does not wish to have children and opts to have one then that's her concern and nobody else's, and they ought be allowed to have one.

That you're something you're not. — Outlander

So what does the transgender man falsely believe himself to be?

Dude. That's literally what the whole discussion is about. — Outlander

No, it isn't. Transgender people don't just "wake up one day wanting different body parts for no logical reason".

I'm going to quote from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_identity both for you and for @Harry Hindu because it seems that neither of you actually understand the issue at all.

It is widely agreed that core gender identity is firmly formed by age 3. At this point, children can make firm statements about their gender and tend to choose activities and toys which are considered appropriate for their gender (such as dolls and painting for girls, and tools and rough-housing for boys), although they do not yet fully understand the implications of gender. After age three, it is extremely difficult to change gender identity.

Martin and Ruble conceptualize this process of development as three stages: (1) as toddlers and pre-schoolers, children learn about defined characteristics, which are socialized aspects of gender; (2) around the ages of five to seven years, identity is consolidated and becomes rigid; (3) after this "peak of rigidity", fluidity returns and socially defined gender roles relax somewhat. Barbara Newmann breaks it down into four parts: (1) understanding the concept of gender, (2) learning gender role standards and stereotypes, (3) identifying with parents, and (4) forming gender preference.

...

Although the formation of gender identity is not completely understood, many factors have been suggested as influencing its development. In particular, the extent to which gender identity is determined by nurture (social environmental factors) versus biological factors (which may include non-social environmental factors) is at the core of the ongoing debate in psychology known as "nature versus nurture". There is increasing evidence that the brain is affected by the organizational role of hormones in utero, circulating sex hormones and the expression of certain genes.

Social factors which may influence gender identity include ideas regarding gender roles conveyed by family, authority figures, mass media, and other influential people in a child's life. The social learning theory posits that children furthermore develop their gender identity through observing and imitating gender-linked behaviors, and then being rewarded or punished for behaving that way, thus being shaped by the people surrounding them through trying to imitate and follow them.

Large-scale twin studies suggest that the development of both transgender and cisgender gender identities is due to genetic factors, with a small potential influence of unique environmental factors.

...

Some studies have investigated whether there is a link between biological variables and transgender or transsexual identity. Several studies have shown that sexually dimorphic brain structures in transsexuals are shifted away from what is associated with their birth sex and towards what is associated with their preferred sex. The volume of the central subdivision of the bed nucleus of a stria terminalis or BSTc (a constituent of the basal ganglia of the brain which is affected by prenatal androgens) of transsexual women has been suggested to be similar to women's and unlike men's, but the relationship between BSTc volume and gender identity is still unclear. Similar brain structure differences have been noted between gay and heterosexual men, and between lesbian and heterosexual women. Transsexuality has a genetic component.

Research suggests that the same hormones that promote the differentiation of sex organs in utero also elicit puberty and influence the development of gender identity. Different amounts of these male or female sex hormones can result in behavior and external genitalia that do not match the norm of their sex assigned at birth, and in acting and looking like their identified gender.

For better or for worse, societies tend to establish gender roles – norms of behaviour deemed appropriate or desirable for individuals based on their biological sex, but norms of behaviour which don't actually have anything to do with biological sex at all.

In the very early years of human development – and in particular at a time when we're unlikely to even be aware of sex organs different from our own – we come to identify as "belonging" to one of these gender roles. The particular gender role that we come to identify as belonging to is determined in part by our genetics, hormones, and brain structure.

And sometimes a biological boy comes to identify as belonging to the gender role typically associated with biological girls, and sometimes a biological girl comes to identify as belonging to the gender role typically associated with biological boys – and this is not wrong because these gender roles are a social construct that have no direct connection to DNA or reproductive organs at all.

But when you grow up and start physically and irreversibly altering your body over a delusion — Outlander

What delusion?

Some dude who just woke up one day wanting different body parts for no logical reason, that's just not something that needs to be taken seriously. — Outlander

It's also not something that actually happens. This is a ridiculous strawman.

Define "artificial". — Harry Hindu

The result of genital surgery.

Which bathroom should an android with an artificial penis use? — Harry Hindu

Androids aren't people, they're machines. So there's no "should" or "shouldn't". We can do whatever we like. We could make androids use bathrooms only for androids or we could make them use whichever bathroom is closest or we could make androids with an artificial penis use the men's bathroom.

Or we could just not create androids that need to urinate?

What is the point of this question?

It doesn't show anything specific, which is what I'm asking for. — Harry Hindu

Because there is no specific thing. Society and culture is complex. The social and cultural differences between men and women (or third genders) changes over time and from place to place. And again, there's no set of necessary and sufficient conditions even at a singular time and place.

Do you deny that there are social differences between men and women, independent of their karyotype and genitals? Are we are gender-blind outside of reproduction and reproductive health?

And some people that are not transgender have had genital surgery, as you have pointed out and apparently forgotten. So what does gender status have to do with using the bathroom if gender has nothing to do with biology? Why is it so important that trans people get to use the bathroom rather than the non-trans that have had surgery? It must be because you continue to conflate sex with gender in one moment then claim they are separate in another. — Harry Hindu

What are you talking about?

You claimed that sex parts dictate which bathroom one can use such that people with a penis use one bathroom and people with a vagina use another bathroom.

I just want to know if you accept that a transgender man with an artifical penis should use the men's bathroom.

It's a simple "yes" or "no" answer.

Aren't they saying they are psychologically and culturally male/female? Isn't that the point of contention here? I'm still waiting on specific examples. — Harry Hindu

I've linked to various articles that explain gender, gender roles, gender expression, and gender identity. Do the reading.

Your conflating sex and gender again. — Harry Hindu

No, I'm not. I am simply acknowledging the fact that some transgender people have genital surgery. According to this, 25-50% of transgender men have genital surgery and 4-13% of transgender women have genital surgery.

So, if bathroom usage is dictated by sex parts – which is your claim, not mine – then do you accept that transgender men who have had genital surgery should use the men's bathroom and transgender women who have had genital surgery should use the women's bathroom?

By having genital surgery the trans-person is asserting their gender is determined by their sex. — Harry Hindu

No they're not. The transgender woman is fully aware that she is biologically male and the transgender man is fully aware that he is biologically female.

The very fact that they identity as being transgender is an acknowledgement that their gender is not the typical gender of their biological sex.

Now, what about trans people that haven't had surgery? Which bathroom should they use? — Harry Hindu

Transgender women should use the women's bathroom and transgender men should use the men's bathroom.

And what are they saying determines their gender - which social, psychological, cultural, and behavioral aspects are they referring to - specifically? — Harry Hindu

There's no list of necessary and sufficient conditions. I've linked you to the relevant places that explain it in more detail:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_role
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_expression
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_identity

So, just to be clear, in talking about people that have had genital surgery, we're talking about intersex people, not trans-gendered people. — Harry Hindu

And what about trans people who have had genital surgery?

you are the one going on about bathrooms — Harry Hindu

Because that’s what we were both discussing. You said "we separate bathrooms by sex because it is an area where we uncover our sex parts."

I just want to understand how artificial sex parts factor into your separation.

I'm talking about the relationship between gender and sex. — Harry Hindu

And that's been addressed several times before.

Sex "is the biological trait that determines whether a sexually reproducing organism produces male or female gametes."

Gender "is the range of social, psychological, cultural, and behavioral aspects of being a man (or boy), woman (or girl), or third gender."

In most cases one's gender is determined by one's sex, but given the existence of transgender people – and societies with more than two genders – this is not a necessity.

You are contradicting yourself. — Harry Hindu

No, I’m not.

It’s a very simple question, Harry. If you are in charge of deciding who is allowed to use which bathroom, then would you require that trans men who have had genital surgery and now have an artificial penis use the men’s bathroom or the women’s bathroom?

If you're not conflating gender and sex then why are you calling people who modified their sexual biology trans-gender? — Harry Hindu

I’m not.

You claimed that the reason we have separate bathrooms for men and women is because men and women have different sex organs. And it is a simple fact that some trans people have genital surgery. So I’m asking you which bathroom they should use after having genital surgery.

In proposing unisex bathrooms you are taking away the trans-gender person's reasons for having surgery in the first place - to affirm their gender — Harry Hindu

I’m not.

...but it would not include most trans-people as most trans have not had surgery. So you would still force a man wearing a dress into the men's bathroom. — Harry Hindu

I’m not the one claiming that we ought divide bathrooms by sex organs; you are.

I’m simply pointing out that if we divide bathrooms by sex organs then it makes sense to allow trans men who have had surgery to use the men’s bathroom and trans women who have had surgery to use the women’s bathroom.

Surely one’s karyotype is irrelevant, as are the gentitals one was born with (and no longer have)?

So women should stand aside as usual. — Malcolm Parry

I have no idea what you mean here.

I’m simply pointing out the fact that it is safer for everyone if trans people are allowed to use their preferred bathroom.

So either you disagree with the facts or you don’t actually care about people’s safety at all. Perhaps you’re just using that as a dog whistle to push an anti-trans agenda.

I'm saying (a) is false — Malcolm Parry

The evidence shows otherwise.

men should not be allowed in women's exclusive spaces — Malcolm Parry

Yet again with the equivocation.

The claim is that no bathroom should be exclusive to a single biological sex. If bathrooms are to be divided then they ought be divided by gender identity. As such, there are “female gender bathrooms” and “male gender bathrooms”, with “female gender bathrooms” exclusive to both cisgender and transgender women and “male gender bathrooms” exclusive to both cisgender and transgender men.

The studies show that this is the safer option for everyone.

Are you saying women are stupid to feel that they should exclude men from their exclusive places? — Malcolm Parry

I’m saying that:

a) cisgender women are not put at risk by trans-inclusive bathroom policies, and

b) trans people are put at risk of abuse when forced to use the bathroom contrary to their gender identity

Are you saying that (a) and/or (b) are false? Or are you saying that you don’t care that they’re true?

No link between trans-inclusive policies and bathroom safety, study finds

There is no evidence that letting transgender people use public facilities that align with their gender identity increases safety risks, according to a new study from the Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law. The study is the first of its kind to rigorously test the relationship between nondiscrimination laws in public accommodations and reports of crime in public restrooms and other gender-segregated facilities.

“Opponents of public accommodations laws that include gender identity protections often claim that the laws leave women and children vulnerable to attack in public restrooms,” said lead author Amira Hasenbush. “But this study provides evidence that these incidents are rare and unrelated to the laws.”

...

“Research has shown that transgender people are frequently denied access, verbally harassed or physically assaulted while trying to use public restrooms,” according to Jody L. Herman, one of the study’s authors and a public policy scholar at the Williams Institute. “This study should provide some assurance that these types of public accommodations laws provide necessary protections for transgender people and maintain safety and privacy for everyone.”

you wish to allow males into female spaces — Malcolm Parry

I wish to allow transgender women to use the women’s bathroom and transgender men to use the men’s bathroom.

playing down the concerns females have at males gaining access to to places where females feel vulnerable and uncomfortable in the presence of males. — Malcolm Parry

I don’t play it down. I just also acknowledge that trans women feel vulnerable and uncomfortable using the men’s bathroom, that trans men feel vulnerable and uncomfortable using the women’s bathroom, that trans people are at a greater risk of abuse when forced to use the bathroom contrary to their gender identity, and that despite the dog whistle, cisgender women are not put at risk by trans-inclusive bathroom policies.

You are denying this difference and wish to play down the woman's experience in modern society. — Malcolm Parry

I’m not playing down women’s experiences. I’m simply explaining that “women’s experiences” is not reducible to “the experience of humans with an XX karyotype, ovaries, and a vagina.”

Women as a gender is distinct from women as a sex, even if they almost always correspond. The fact that they almost always correspond has caused you to mistakenly conflate the two.