Even engineers and professors of technology (let's say networking) usually specialize and cannot possibly know every avenue in every part of that field, but they know enough. For example, I doubt the networking expert knows how to create a microprocessor from scratch, and if so, doubtful the kind for modern computing (in other words, knows the general concepts.. but not everything). — schopenhauer1

We need very clear definitions and the boundaries of the particular technology or field before claiming what constitutes knowing everything in that field. Even in this example though, I would not consider the knowledge of creating a microprocessor as within a networking expert's field. But others whose field it concerns will know such information and yet both are necessary to the much broader field of computing.

it is more the alienation for a large percentage (and I can argue even the experts) from knowing all of what sustains them — schopenhauer1

I certainly agree this can have an alienating effect, but thinking as such is by no means rational, given my earlier point.

Why would we bring people into a world of such limited efficacy of possible knowledge of what makes the "modern" world run? — schopenhauer1

Because each person's individual limited efficacy is necessary to achieve the much greater overall efficacy of everyone combined. The different perspectives you draw attention to should not be considered in isolation; combined, the overall knowledge is causally efficacious. Whilst each component is individually insignificant to the overall effect, each is necessary to achieve that purpose. In terms of the first point, I think it is perfectly possible in reality for an individual to know all the factual information about a particular technology. Sure, there are certain perspectives as stated which there are individually relevant facts towards but in terms of how a particular technology works itself it is evidently possible for one person to know how a technology works.

All in the name of 'interdisciplinarity'

Would those who are simulating us also be in control of us? I'm not familiar with the particular argument the original post is referring to however if the beings simulating us designed us, our human nature, the world we live in etc. then to what extent can we be held responsible for our actions? My understanding is that the purpose of hell is purely for retribution and therefore to hold humans accountable for actions which the simulators are responsible for defeats the purpose.

I think this point applies more generally without the simulation if you hold determinism to be true or considering how God creates humans and the world etc. but would be quire interesting to explore in this scenario.

In the first example it seems likely that a new language would be developed with elements of each individual's own languages. I am not entirely convinced that the different types of language stated are so distinct. Initially I think that the most easily transmissible language would develop which would most likely be basic hand gestures. At this early stage this language would also possess the greatest utility considering it would not yet be possible to develop a more efficient means of communication. For me it seems unlikely that the group would collectively decide to use a particular individual's language since they would have no basis to make such a decision. Therefore I don't think it would be possible to choose a group member to teach the rest their language.

In the second example, I think it needs to be specified that the group do not share a common language and that the teacher does not speak any of those languages. In this context, for me 'group' implies that they do share a common language which the teacher does not speak. If the group did share a common language, the process of learning 'Speakanese' would most likely be a lot faster given that the group could communicate with each other and reach some agreement on what the teacher is referring to. However I agree that no matter if the group shares a common language or not, the group's understanding of 'Speakanese' will always be imperfect.

Additionally, as far as I know in other languages there are certain words that are literally untranslatable in to other languages without losing meaning. I'm afraid I don't know any specific words but might be interesting to explore in this example.

As a philosophy student I completely agree with the original post. I find many of our assigned readings enormously hard to understand simply due to the way it's communicated, the basic underlying idea is often relatively simple. When writing essays our lecturers always say that writing philosophy is not about literary elegance, but about expressing the argument in the clearest way possible. And I think one of the best things about philosophy is the ability to engage in conversation even with others outside of philosophy. Many of the deep questions and debates we discuss can be developed just through pure conversation without knowing the relevant technical terms. That said, I think one of the purposes of philosophy is to take what initially seems like a simple concept and break it down revealing its complexity. I think many of the posts on here are not intended to be as refined or concise as say a journal article would be which makes it less accessible to newcomers like me and others not previously educated in philosophy.

Yes from an objective point of view or even any view beyond human I agree that our existence seems absolutely absurd and pointless since there is nothing beyond our own experiences to latch onto and take meaning from. But the fact is stuff still matters to us. We still take meaning in things and care about whatever is in our subjective experiences and that is as far as this argument needs to go. It's a similar position taken by the idealist; even if you accept that there is no external world beyond your own sense perception does this mean you can just live your life without acknowledging that there is anything beyond your own mind? No, of course not. Ultimately we can only rely on our own subjective experiences to take meaning in our lives and should not expect an answer to make human existence seem less absurd.

All physical objects have some kind of aesthetic value no matter if it is positive or negative or the object is intended to be an artform or not. An objective object can clearly invoke subjective experiences however it is difficult to see how there could be anything beyond this to make a subject experience 'right or 'wrong' with reference to an objective value. I don't think it is possible to make an argument for why something is beautiful other than merely describing the object, feeling beauty needs first hand experience.

What would a mind male + body female individual be appealing to in thinking that they are male? This would clearly not be on a biological basis unless you would say that they are simply factually mistaken. My understanding is that this would need to appeal to some kind of social construct about the typical qualities associated with sex i.e. a mind male individual does not relate themselves to the qualities typically associated with a body female. Admittedly I am finding it hard to distinguish between the social and psychological senses mentioned earlier.

My point was that talking about first and third person does not make sense in this context. Which perspective the mind is experienced from does not affect whether the mind can be considered as physical or not.

What do you mean by mind male/female/ambiguous? Is this referring to the psychological sense as discussed as in what an individual feels about themselves or socially as in whether they have typically masculine or female qualities or a combination of both?

I completely agree that no one should be required to address others by their chosen gender identity, individuals should be free to address others however they want nonetheless this still leaves a very wide scope about what you should and shouldn't do. It would be unreasonable to expect someone to accurately identify a gender identity (in the psychological sense) purely by appearance, however if an individual has explicitly expressed how they wish to be identified this creates at least some kind of informal social expectation on how they should be addressed. Anyone would be free to ignore this expectation and address them by appearance although this may lead to other social consequences.

I would describe gender purely in the psychological sense as has been described i.e. one own's feelings about the sexual characteristics of their own body. The 'social property' of gender as discussed seems to be referring more to the qualities traditionally associated with the male and female sexes or masculinity and femininity which does not necessarily need to have any bearing on gender. In the cleaner example the male could be said to have feminine qualities, as in those traditionally associated with females but this would not make their gender female.

I'm not sure I quite understand the distinction between first person and third person perspectives as neither would lead to a view on dualism or materialism. I take the first person view to mean the unique properties of consciousness (qualia) which cannot (yet) be described i.e. an individual cannot know what it is like to experience colour before they have experienced it themselves etc. Whether this experience can be described in physical terms seems like a separate question. A third person perspective would be removed from that experience. The dualist would however need to explain why qualia warrants departing from physicalism, which is my understanding of the 'leap' involved in answering the hard problem.

Surely they are different kinds of problem. The solution to the easy problem is at least in principle discoverable empirically i.e. there is a possible answer to explaining the biological and chemical mechanisms of consciousness even if we may never know it. Materialists assert that there is no reason to go beyond a physical explanation even though we are currently ignorant of exactly how a physical mind and physical body interact. However the harder problem presents a question that is in principle impossible to answer i.e. how does a non-physical substance (property etc.) interact with a physical object? And this presents further difficulties in how a non-physical mind would 'fix' onto a physical body etc. How difficult they are to answer is an entirely different question, my understanding is that the easy problem is a matter for empirical investigation whereas the harder problem would require a different means of enquiry.