I am 100% with you here. Parfit looms large.

"I sat all morning in the college sick bay
Counting bells knelling classes to a close.
At two o'clock our neighbours drove me home.

In the porch I met my father crying—
He had always taken funerals in his stride—
And Big Jim Evans saying it was a hard blow.

The baby cooed and laughed and rocked the pram
When I came in, and I was embarrassed
By old men standing up to shake my hand

And tell me they were 'sorry for my trouble'.
Whispers informed strangers I was the eldest,
Away at school, as my mother held my hand

In hers and coughed out angry tearless sighs.
At ten o'clock the ambulance arrived
With the corpse, stanched and bandaged by the nurses.

Next morning I went up into the room. Snowdrops
And candles soothed the bedside; I saw him
For the first time in six weeks. Paler now,

Wearing a poppy bruise on his left temple,
He lay in the four-foot box as in his cot.
No gaudy scars, the bumper knocked him clear.

A four-foot box, a foot for every year."

- Seamus Heaney, Mid-Term Break
------
Devastating.

It means what it says.

I love everyone. That doesn't mean I like everyone, accept their choices or think their self report is accurate. "tough love" is a real thing - I will not lie to someone i love, and I don't care much that its discomforting to them to tell the truth (and in Kirk's mind, tihs is what he was doing..so..)

I have two children. You can't play that game :lol: (this, should be clearly in jest).

Edit: This is bordering on fun again.

The story is that Kirk was killed because he spread hate, and we might assume perceived hatred towards transgender people was particularly egregious to Kirk’s assassin, being that he had a trans lover. So to me the quote I’m caught up on seems quite significant. — praxis

Yeah, that's roughly the story. It might have been. But if that person was thinking along the same lines you are, are we surprised? You are predestined to justify reactionary irrationality because you've bought the biased media narrative about Kirk. it is trivial, and that's the problem with why he was killed. It was a trivial issue, and yet some mentally unstable weirdo shot him over it. Just denounce it already lmao.

for offensive things Kirk may have sai name calling — praxis

Which weakens the video, but its best to be accurate. He didn't mention that becuase he was responding to a person claiming God loves trans people and trans people are covered in the Bible to dunk on Kirk's religious affiliation. He obliterated that claim without giving a personal opinion. That this isn't clear tells me you've not seen more than the six seconds you're relying on. That he knows the person was wrong about the bible and, yes, was a dick about it, doesn't really tell me anything except he's vehemently religious.

:lol: If he did it would be easy to find. — praxis

*sigh*. I have (there is a correction to your inference here below) given you ample explanation why you might not have found it - I am beginning to think its mostly on you, though.

You have manipulated that exchange. Here's what you said:

I did a search for "Did Charlie Kirk ever say that he loved transgender people?" — praxis

He routinely said he loves everyone. Are trans people not people?

Besides this, I've given two examples and have invited you to ask for the clip described. I see you are not quite willing to be honest about this now that I've begun presenting the evidence for my claims. Okay, but that's not very fun.

Would, if you see it, the clip of him speaking directly to a trans student, claiming to love, support and want the best for them, that change anything for you?

What indigenous group/person? I am extremely skeptical of a quote like that from a category of people known to be amenable to superstitions and creator myths.

I’m not assuming direct realism in order to know that there is error. What I’m rejecting is the assumption — which I take to be doing a lot of work in the IR picture — that error must be identified by comparing experience with either a mind-independent phenomenal property or an inner experiential surrogate. — Esse Quam Videri

Good charge, but I think misguided. In either theory there can be aberration - and generally, this would be represented by the exact 'error' you're pointing to - in perception precisely because it is indirect. Neither theory branches here - they both predict error with reference to shared experience - not external objects. That was what I took to be the claim for the DRist - error must be as held up to the "real world". Otherwise, we're not looking at error. We're just looking at disparate experience and error with this frame of reference is trivial. It seems you've given an IRist concept in support of rejecting IR. Perhaps not.

To me, the difference comes in where, for DR a mental event of perception could only be labeled an error for practical purposes - which is something I want to avoid. I want to actually know the relationship between my experience and the world - not other people's experiences. I just take it we can't know, or can't be certain. I don't see a problem with that conclusion unless its emotionally unsatisfying.

I think it might be worth dealing with a couple of common objections to IR that I think fail, and are being brought to bear here in complex discussion, instead of just stating them...probably because when stated just so, objection is easy.

Experiential transparency:
We must admit that the an anatomically indirect visual complex is at the base level of our descriptions (seems no one denies this part) and that we should not work backwards from psychological impressions to a theory. We need to work from the ground up to something which also fits our psychological impressions or we should adjust them. This is why experiential transparency is a red herring to me. It does literally nothing but say that humans tend to assume they are directly in touch with the world. So much is trivial. It doesn't help. Simply stating that it feels like that cat you see is "the cat out there" isn't anything so much as a lack of curiosity (or, ignorance).

Phenomenology of acquaintance:
There's no explanation of how this fixes the problems of content or accuracy. It just re-describes the above in a specific domain (felt sensation). It, also, seems to be a mere label in service of a couple other of the concepts below..

Disjunctivism:
In claiming that the object is constitutive of the veridical perception event, it accepts that there is a disjunct and cannot explain commonality in phenomena between minds without regression - which i find far less satisfying that "we can't know". Either way, its immensely underdeterminative and not supported by the neuroscience indicating common proximal causes of phenomenon. Also, what's the criteria for a disjunctive experience? Sort of begs the question..

Action-guidance:
IR predicts this just as well as DR. It seems to confused metaphysical structure with functionality/functional success. IR accepts the latter as well as DR.

Anti-skepticism:
Do I need to? LOL.

These seem to cover most motivations for clinging to DR:

- suspicion of representationalism or similar ruffle. The thing is, IR rejects antirealism, even if it accepts a basic framework from which it springs. Confusing these is poisoning the well I think;
- resistance to epistemic internalism and hte risks it presents;
- preference for ontological parsimony - not always the best answer. In fact, its only usually a good starting point, when we have conflicting data;
- desire to dissolve skepticism rather than answer it - fair, but again, about comfort not what's being argued.

Its just incredibly underdetermined. For me, far, far more questions arise from DR than IR. But more risk arises for IR than DR, epistemically. I understand that impulse, but it seems almost anti-philosophical.

Great to see you still around. And I agree. Love is not all there is.

Yep, definitely! :pray:

Oh, no I'm aware they aren't cranks. They aren't required to be cranks for it to be bollocks.

If it ever gets to Zero, you can eat my hat :)

HAving just charged someone with using weasel words this is ... astounding. As you were.

Personally, taking that seriously is a bit of a orange flag.

C'est la vie :P

Fair enough. I agree that the layperson expectation of such comes from there (aptly, reading Discourse on Method currently). I'm unsure the philosophical position is derived from that - I think its derived from the intuitions Gnomon is putting forward (though, having re-read a couple of substantive exchanges, but then I had to cringe at the use of Ghosts. There's a massive leap there that's unwarranted and probably unsupportable. Sorry for missing that in my initial response - I didn't quite see that the analogy was propping some of his claim up.

I don't have a problem with an in-concept dualism, but the problems it presents are as bad, or worse, than those strict physicalism faces imo.

Hm, With respect, from a third party, I don't think youve adequately addressed much of anything in his post/s.

E=mc2 doesn't help with bridging the material/immaterial gap. It simply remains.

You may as well stop. You are wrong. I have shown this to be the case. You continue to prevaricate and make unfounded claims. That's both uninteresting, and you cannot pretend that's being polite. It's you trying to get out of it.

I have provided you ample evidence for what I'm saying. You retreating in to the (mild) ad hominem of having to cope by saying it sounds like AI doesn't do anything.
It would be better if you could actually address the evidence i've given you. At this stage, you are wilfully ignoring that.

I responded exactly to what you said, Banno. These sorts of drive-by quips aren't helping :sweat: Let me clarify:

No. The content of my experience is the cat, the ship, the smell of coffee. Not my neural processes, and not my neural representations.

That, if we must make use of "content of experience". — Banno

Bold: I said, no it isn't..Direct reply.
Italics: I said there is no cat in your eyes or mind. Your experience is in your mind (i could have added this). Therefore, no cat in your eyes or mind. It is not the content of your experience. It remains on the mat, while your brain represents that fact to you (i.e neural representation). So also, direct reply there.

Formally, that is all that is available to conscious experience. You seem to have accepted this formal reality at times**, bt continue to claim that your mental images are the items they are of. Very odd. However,

Rather, **having an experience is having that flood of electrical data. What you experience, if we must talk in that way, is the cat. — Banno

This is self-contradictory. I shouldn't need to point that out anymore. Its self-evident. It isn't the cat. In your own terms.

At risk of inviting vitriol, I don't think we're at risk of a catastrophe so its hard to use that analogy :P

But yeah, fair enough. These theoretics are so intensely out of reach that's a reasonable take.

LOL. Tbc, I am joking with both of these next lines as it seemed you were:

Thought we agreed to avoid each other? The condescension is a nice touch too ;)

Please bear in mind here, we're both on the "non Charlie" side of life. I do not, and did not, enjoy his rhetoric and tendency to become what would be called unprofessional at times.
I'm merely trying to sort out unfair charges (in my view). In this case, fairly egregious and used to support justifications for absolutely disgusting stuff like being ambivalent to his murder (or pretending his activities were anywhere in the same universe as his murder).

Well, you've shot yourself in the foot here I think. I'll explain that and then walk you through the rest (see? Nice touch).

You say that Kirk loved people regardless of what he thought of their choices and lifestyles. How could you possibly know the heart of another person? Have you even met Kirk? — praxis

Have you? How could you know his heart? yet you've claimed to know both his, and his followers hearts apparently. You now seem to reject that, but the consistency is a huge problem. For me, I take his words at face (see below). For what it's worth, No, i have not met Kirk - but i have, at least, listened to him outside of manipulative sound bites. You, self-admitted, have not (has this changed? Important if so). This makes it extremely hard to understand why you think you have a clue about this stuff beyond a 'impression'. Lets run through why.. (other than the obvious - you are uninformed by definition in this case). So, now that the (unintentional, i'm sure) hypocrisy is writ large, let's go through where you're simply factually wrong:

Kirk said, multiple times, God loves all people specifically talking to his detractors, or those he personally disagrees with. Here's another example, albeit I need to explain this one: There is a viral clip (i'm sure you'll be able to find it) in which a trans women (from memory) comes up to Kirk at one of his campus events and asks for advice (in good faith). Kirk responds in good faith and is quite emphatic that this person is loved, deserves respect and support - just not the support you would choose. He was extremely clear about this. If you continue to deny it, I will just ignore it becuas its counter to reality.

which means that God is disgusted by them and hates them. That's what 'abomination' means. — praxis

That's true, and an extremely awkward wording which does not sit with his personal beliefs. See how that works? He outlined the Biblical position, which is juxtaposed directly with his personal belief that God loves everyone and he was frequently vocal about that (there's also, though this is offtopic, tension between God and Jesus despite them being hte same guy. Fucking Bible). You are caught up on a matter which is trivial in the large discussion, uninformative and is honestly kind of a red flag in terms of your ability to see things clearly. You are holding on to a concept that seems both unimportant, and wrong about Kirk (rather than his take on the Bible).

If he loved them regardless of their choices and lifestyles then why didn't he say it? — praxis

He did. That you didn't find it in your search says potentially three things:

1. You aren't quite across how best to search specifics (no shade - most people aren't. I am trained in this due to legal work);
2. You ignore/avoid that which you're looking for in service of continuing an erroneous line of claim (I presume not, out of good faith); or
3. It is difficult, because of the biases at Google or whatever, to find information directly relevant - I've found this to be the case and it was proven, somewhat. Assuming these are accurate, it would be compounding on your resistance to accepting the (hypothetical) that Kirk didn't hate trans people. That's fair to think (particularly your insistence on using that one, context-less clip as support. It does push one that way - no shade. I'm just showing reasons you wont have found these things which clarify and contextualise).

I don't know which is true, but you have missed several crucial items. Two given above ( if you care, DM me I'll find the specific clips I'm talking about - unfortunately, even great search skills wont pull up instagram clips, partially due to the above but partially due to saturation of click-baity things creating supreme amounts of noise in search terms - But those clips lead us to their 'parent' sources, so just giving some lay of the land).

That would have been really powerful, and it would have shown a loving spirit. He would probably have lost a lot of his audience and income, but it would have shown a loving spirit. — praxis

Yeah, I totally agree particularly in light of what you're taking from him prima facie. The thing is, he did. He did show a loving spirit. Constantly. You have admitted that you do not, and have not, made any effort to go through his material besides biased clips(pending above question on this). Do you really think its reasonable to think you have a line on Kirk's beliefs in this case? the answer is that you do not. You don't even have the resources to hand to intimate such. You have only the pre-prepared clips and attitude to come the conclusion you have. I could be wrong, but I am at least well-informed.

As I mentioned, I took another look at the Williams video and it's even worse the second time around. The first time I missed where he was defending Kirk saying that Michelle Obama and other black women — praxis

Careful - this one was extremely specific and has been broadly cut to make it look racist. It was about specific people - and not becuase they were black, but because DEI is not a good way to hire people. That much is true, but I was also uncomfortable with that exchange. However... You're making a gross, gross mistake:

Michelle Obama graduated salutatorian from High School, ... international law firm before moving on to public service. — praxis

None of this says much about intelligence. I think Kirk was wrong, anyway, so we're not arguing there. But his point, and it's a good one, is that credentialism is bogus. I know plenty of lawyers. Top flight lawyers. KCs; judges and general practitioners. Some are the dumbest people I've met in my life. I know judges who you would not believe were judges, given their inability to apply general logic or remove their emotional outbursts from their opinions. I am not decrying Michelle Obama. I am saying that his point was sound - he was probably talking to the wrong person. But I don't know Michelle Obama. I've seen her say some utterly batshit crazy stuff that makes me think she's probably not all that intelligent. Her degrees and job don't have a lick to do with this.

Kirk was a community college dropout and he's criticizing her intelligence?! Williams defends what Kirk said, saying that it was Kirk's opinion, and he then tries to support Kirk's opinion. — praxis

There's nothing wrong here. Not sure what you're getting at. Being a college drop out has nothing to do with intelligence. In fact, you could argue Kirk was more intelligent to drop out given the life he was able to lead after doing so. For him, that was an extremely good move. The fact he got killed has nothing to do with it - a crazy person shot him for his views. Not interesting or relevant to the intelligence issue.

Williams is talking about hte Newman effect as a tool critics use - assuming the worst in others.

You're doing that right now. He did not. I'm unsure what you wanted there.

P.S on the issue of deadnaming: I don't give a fuck. Deadname whoever you want. It isn't interesting to me. People call me shit I don't like all the time. There's a specific, identity-driven reason for this but it's a bit personal. I can tell you, I know what the fuck being deadnamed is like and how it feels. I seriously doubt you have a concept of it other than being told what to do. Kirk is more than welcome to say "I don't not believe you are a woman, and so I will refer to you as a man. Your name as a man was "x" and so I'll use that".

You disagree, clearly. That's fine. But it isn't an argument.

Thanks mate - good stuff. I understand the points of resistance - but they would have been present prior to those other leaps forward, as I understand. People refused to believe the Wright brothers succeeded for a long time (relatively).

But even so, the problems involved in travelling there, let alone setting up habitable environments, are enormous. — Wayfarer

They appears to be shrinking. Which is my point. As time goes on, these sorts of things will crop up, and eventually viable methods will be to hand. Its speculative, but based on prior patterns of human invention/progress.

But anything outside the solar system is another matter altogether. — Wayfarer

Definitely. The timeline I imagine here is more like 1000 years. Not say, 150 as I tend toward that range for Mars or even visiting Pluto tbh.

However, there are, as I understand, some theoretically reasonable attempts at an equivalent of a warp drive/wormhole/gravity drive type of thing. Clearly, not open to engineering currently so its fair to reject the concept. But again, with the passage of time I see them becoming so, given their consistency with theory. To be clear again, this is speculative and I think we have reason for hope.

human interstellar travel faces a fundamental biological barrier in the form of radiation exposure — Wayfarer

As above, yes, currently. I am speculating into the far future and don't see a reason to assume we will never overcome these challenges - particularly as it'll be incremental. If we've figured out how to populate Mars, this may not seem so far fetched by lets say 2300. Ultimately, this is just for fun really.

In this sense, radiation is not merely an engineering inconvenience but a hard biological constraint on human deep-space travel. — Wayfarer

Sure, among the present available options. But we could certainly come upon a technique for deep-sleep which overcomes the radiation issue. Other things have to work for that to be anything but ridiculous. Granted. Speculative...

It sounds at least feasible — Wayfarer

I think that is all we will ever see in our lifetimes. Something feasible but out of reach.

Wrong. Patently, inarguably wrong. There is no cat in your eyes or your mind. This move is unopen to you.
Try again.

First, when popular atheists say "religion" they just about always mean Christianity (usually right wing American Evangelical Protestant Christianity) and nothing else. — BenMcLean

Patently false.

Everyting they say or think about religion is filtered through an analogy to that specific demographic group who are their political enemies. — BenMcLean

Also, false. In the last 20 years Islam has been the focus of almost all anti-religious thinking. Christianity is a footnote to the harm caused by Islam currently.

When they want to pin all of humanity's problems on "religion" that is the specific religion they mean. — BenMcLean

No, they don't.

just like any other religion — BenMcLean

This explains you well. A-theism is simply "Not theism". It is not an ideology, it is not a belief, it is a reject of a positive claim. Not understanding this will make almost everything you want to say appear to be ignorant. Because it is, if your view is that atheism is a commitment. It is, explicitly, a rejection of a proposed commitment.

where there often seems to be an iron clad rule that a church cannot appear without somebody getting killed in or abused by it and a priest or minister cannot appear without their being some kind of a psychopath. — BenMcLean

Can you not see how self-absorbed this seems? You're making wide, sweeping statements about media which applies to maybe half of it. The entire apparatus of right-wing media outlets is Xtianity-positive. And almost always has been. You are making up this persecution narrative, and its really ugly in the context of trying to make your point. Don't be surprised if some responses are dismissive.

Their devotion to the atheist worldview is almost always rooted in two things: 1. the desire for sexual liberation and 2. deep seated resentment towards a father or at least parental authority figure, whether present or absent — BenMcLean

This is truly inane and made-up. You have absolutely nothing that could support this notion. And even if you did, sexual liberation is objectively helpful for the rising tide of humanity. Giving women control over their reproductive cycle has, in all places and times, improved the general good.

I think that converts to atheism are actually navigating a very emotional thing because a lot of these people really have been hurt by their life experiences. Nevertheless, I still think God exists. — BenMcLean

You may 'think' this but that is a result of the immense erroneous beliefs you hold it seems - it is a direct follow on from several objectively false claims you are making here.

Your comments on abortion are also totally made up. No one (and I mean this quite literally) treats an eight-month fetus as "a clump of cells" unless they're being provocative. But if you, personally, do not see the difference between baby and a blastocyst that is a moral failure on your part.

This is because any degree of restriction whatsoever on abortion -- even a careful one on completely secular grounds -- carries with it the cultural implication that somebody, somewhere should be able to pass moral judgements on sexual activity, which is something they just will not countenance. — BenMcLean

This is bananas. Almost all atheists accept reasonable restrictions on abortion. You you make this claim:

This propaganda is absorbed at an early age as just the baseline default description of the world so that sexual abuse scandals involving religious people are seen as the norm rather than as the aberations they actually are. — BenMcLean

And then do exactly the same thing to your opponents. This isn't going well...

It appears to me "old man shakes fist at sky" is occurring in the guise of an intellectual conversation. This conversation is far from intellectual.

I cannot understand why my reporting medical, and subsequently, legal reality has you claiming I'm either AI, or copy-pasting from some social media??
Here's the Wiki page. And a quote:

Biological material may refer to:
...
Organic matter, matter that has come from a once-living organism, or is composed of organic compounds
Biomass, living or dead biological matter, often plants grown as fuel.

I understand you're using your own reasoning. You can reject whatever you want, but dead bodies are biological bodies buddy.

Sounds like you just don't like getting it wrong?

One word is not a description. We need the fullness of language to describe any one person's experience. We need the fullness of intricate meaning and understanding. — Questioner

This seems to me veering into totally irrelevant areas of discussion. We don't need that. If a person is an adult, human female, then they are a woman (under this view, I mean). There's nothing missing.

but it doesn't change what it is — Philosophim

That is totally fair, but when it comes to experiential reportage this probably does not apply. Though, I am relatively resistant to identity discussions of that kind - i would prefer to focus (and it seems Questioner is getting this) on the experiential aspects of things. That collapses into sexism pretty quickly here. You've done a good job of laying that out, imo, in the other thread. Gender is social expectation - if it weren't, there would be nothing to point to as Gender. Or, it's tied to sex, in which case we are objectively correct in using 'woman' to refer solely to females.

doing immense harm to the trans movement by insisting on a poorly worded phrase that ends up making them look out of touch with reality compared to the rest of the world. — Philosophim

Yes. And honestly, you saying makes me a little uncomfortable as you're not trans - but I've seen and discussed with many trans people that htis is their view too. Even on that ridiculous podcast Whatever, there's been a couple of trans guests who take this line and are sick and tired of being lumped in with the aggressive, reality-avoidant lot. Fair. I feel the same about white people.

Error arises when a judgment about the world fails to be satisfied by how things are, not when an inner experience mismatches an outer property. — Esse Quam Videri

Ok, fiar that's clearer. My objection then goes back to, how could we know unless we assume DR?

So the point isn’t that inversion is impossible or incoherent, but that it’s explanatorily idle with respect to the epistemic issues under discussion — even if it remains metaphysically possible. — Esse Quam Videri

Ok, fair enough - let's then just talk about colourblindness, which is extant rather than hypothetical. If the colourblind person judges what you see to be green as a red, what's the basis for calling that an error, in lieu of assuming DR?

Once truth and error are located at the level of world-directed judgment — Esse Quam Videri

This is what I'm having trouble with. There seems a huge leap being made to establish this - Part of hte IR commitment is that there isn't truly any 'error' in perception other than true hallucination. Even then, given it's not initiated by anything beyond the mind, 'error' is probably wrong. Its more the system drawing outside the lines. But that's a digression, so sorry if it distracts.

The colourblind person’s experience is not incorrect — it’s simply different. What can be incorrect is the world-directed judgment when assessed within those shared practices. — Esse Quam Videri

Very clear, good and answerable. Thank you. My view here is that if the former is the true (i think so) then the latter is arbitrary for our discussion. If its "within shared practices" when we're just discussing convention and not going anywhere - no?

I've been trying to make this argument for a long time. Banno does a good job of using this to his advantage. As it turns out, while I was drafting this, he came in clutch with a very clear description of this position.

It just seems utterly, inarguably clear to me it is prevarication. Specifically this:

You see the cat. Perhaps you see it in the mirror, or turn to see it directly. And here the word "directly" has a use. You see the ship indirectly through the screen of your camera, but directly when you look over the top; and here the word "directly" has a use. The philosophical use of ‘indirect’ is parasitic on ordinary contrasts that do not support the theory. “Directly” is contrastive and context-bound,
it does not name a metaphysical relation of mind to object, it does not imply the absence of causal mediation. — Banno

This muddles up two meanings and pretends that the explanation of the one commits the thinkers to using it in the other. "direct" here is contrastive, you're absolutely right.

In perception, it is not. If this is missed, there is no coherent discussion to be had by denying hte intermediary nature of perception (which Banno does not, awkwardly imo). He calls this parasitic - and it certainly is, if you are so tied to a concept of direct perception, in the face of all the above reasons to reject that label, that any information that decries it is an enemy to be rooted out.

You are both asking for dogma which runs the risk of invalidating and erasing transgender persons. — Questioner

No. Nothing could do that if trans people experience some real state of being**. I reject that, obviously, so it's cool for me, but just taking this a little further - calling a woman an adult human female is not dogma. Its a description. Most descriptions are entirely stable once accepted. We do not slowly change the meaning of "human" or "male". Interestingly, and I think tellingly, "male" has enjoyed an attempt to be altered to capture females (and vice verse). This is clearly incoherent.

** the word "trans woman" is sufficient. IF you could explain how "trans woman" is insufficient to refer to, encapsulate, and validate the existence of trans women (or men, just being short) that would help us understand your resistance to the language argument i think. At the moment, it seems fully emotional. However,

Language is not used to 'shape' reality. That's manipulation. — Philosophim

I think this is naive in a way I find it hard to overstate. Language absolutely, 100% shapes our reality. This is very well documented and understood and is, in fact, the basis for this conversation. Your OP implicitly assumes this, by arguing for clear language to describe reality. If you were happy with ambiguous, unhelpful language your world would be different. Excising my clear opinion in that previous line, because its subjective as hell, that's what Questioner presents us with: a world in which language has created different concepts and institutions for that poster (and, i presume, many others who agree - largely, because of the language they have been exposed to).

This is different to an argument about descriptive realities and best practice. I think that's the available argument for the OP. Clear, precise, and helpful language is best practice for human communication and policy. Currently, its a fucking mess in this area and personally I'm 100% behind the project to clear it up - but that's because parsimony is good imo, ambiguity is bad imo and it makes me feel like i'm not engaging honestly with the world when i muddle language about description. To you point about accuracy over comfort, I have a good (but ultimately extremely controversial example)

(@Jamal, if you don't like this next part, please simply tell me to remove it. It is clearly not racist and clearly has some import to the discussion. I am happy to do without it, if it jeopardizes the thread or my standing with you).

It is an absolute fact that black Americans disproportionate harm themselves, and other Americans. The rates of violent crime between black Americans and all other groups show a propensity in only one direction. And it is quite alarmingly significant - for instance, homicide data shows that there is more than 2x higher rate of Black->white homicide than the reverse and nearly exactly 10x more black->black homicide than white->white). It is a little complicated by how the data is collected, or assessed but the margins are high enough that we're safe in hte basic claim.

This is extremely uncomfortable to talk about because It is an accurate description of events in the world. That some people might use this to bolster or justify their personal bias is not a reason to ignore it, or skew it, or avoid it. Avoiding uncomfortable realities has never helped anyone and generally, allow terrible prejudice to fester and become either overt racism, or bigotry of low expectations (i.e white saviour protecting others from the facts about themselves, lets say).

But this is conceptual to illustrate only. Back on topic, whether trans people do in fact experience a true "state of being" or not, the basis for the state is being a certain sex. The only criteria, it seems, for claiming to be a trans woman is being male (yes, I understand that diagnoses happen. That's not quite the point being made - that's considered transmedicalisation by activists and rejected as illegitimate gate-keeping). For robust, accurate and compassionate discussion, this shouldn't be avoided. It should be represented in the language, not hidden by skewing how we use "woman". "trans woman" does the job, and I'd need to know why this isn't good enough to entertain the further arguments.

Error arises when a judgment about the world fails to be satisfied by how things are, not when an inner experience mismatches an outer property. — Esse Quam Videri

Ok, fiar that's clearer. My objection then goes back to, how could we know unless we assume DR?

So the point isn’t that inversion is impossible or incoherent, but that it’s explanatorily idle with respect to the epistemic issues under discussion — even if it remains metaphysically possible. — Esse Quam Videri

Ok, fair enough - let's then just talk about colourblindness, which is extant rather than hypothetical. If the colourblind person judges what you see to be green as a red, what's the basis for calling that an error, in lieu of assuming DR?

Once truth and error are located at the level of world-directed judgment — Esse Quam Videri

This is what I'm having trouble with. There seems a huge leap being made to establish this - Part of hte IR commitment is that there isn't truly any 'error' in perception other than true hallucination. Even then, given it's not initiated by anything beyond the mind, 'error' is probably wrong. Its more the system drawing outside the lines. But that's a digression, so sorry if it distracts.

I've been trying to make this argument for a long time. Banno does a good job of using this to his advantage.

Perception is interpretive, mediated, and embedded in the world — and none of that entails indirectness. — Banno

I have my objections, but the position, i take it, is that the mediation is not manipulative or deceptive so gives a 'direct' indication of that object one has cast their eyes too.

I don't quite have an issue with this other than calling it direct. That seems patently unavailable to me, along your lines. The cat example you give later is a good one. Also, babies do not see colour the way they do later.

I went to reply to something on the first page and realised this hahaha. And unfortunately:

This comment shows nothing has changed.

I see some skepticism about in regards to establishing anything outside of Earth.

Can i put to those people: The long stretch between the wheel and the engine, the engine and the aeroplane, and the aeroplane and the Moon landing.

It seems to me all we need is time to solve thsee problems (obviously, that ignores what happens within that time - but using hte above as a reference, surely we can be relatively confident humans, over time, will solve problems we are set to solve).

Yeah, overall I agree with your sentiment - on defamation, that's a bit nuanced - I think publishing embarrassing pictures of someone is entirely legal, where they do not enjoy an expectation of privacy right? Paparazzi can publish nude photos of public figures, if taken in public. But for AI, there's nothing 'real' to adjudicate in that normal way the legal system would. There as no public v private, or any real privacy concerns. So one could claim to be embarrased by an Ai image getting into the public, but I highly doubt this would be the same "embarrassment" meant by that claimed when the image is a real, private image.

I think Musk, at least, is clumsily trying to point out the amorphous nature (and this is somewhat corroborated by the history of common law on the matter) of 'defamation' and the various ways that can be claimed. He's just both autistic and has a huge ego so it's difficult to parse anything that specific publicly.

This really is a lounge thread, Athena.

a corpse is biological material. It is a biological body, as opposed to any other type of body. Dead matter is biological matter. That's just how it is my man. This is confirmed, as noted, by the forensic system of naming any material (fingernails, hair, flesh, blood, semen etc...) biological material, regardless of its 'living' status.

This is why I call your utterances largely poetics. They are en-flowerizing concepts we already have down. Nothing wrong with that, other than that it is wrong lol.

And there needs to be some real point to establishing these bases. If we can't manage to survive on a planet to which we are suited, it seems even less likely that we would survive or thrive on a planet to which we are NOT suited. — BC

That's a great point, but then I think of things like Frontiersmen and think - we'll make it work. Very sanguine, to be sure.

I have all the time in the world to point out mistakes in logical and semantic error :)

I don't know what you're intimating. I'm simply reporting something I've seen - feel free to elaborate :)

If the same person saw a person with long hair, breasts, wearing a dress walking in the woods, he or she might say, "I saw a woman walking in the woods." Or if he saw such a person entering a men's toilet, he might say, "Huh? Why is a woman entering a men's toilet?" — Ecurb

I think this is a little tortured: Humans are, apparently, more than 99% accurate at determining sex from facial features alone. It is an extremely rare and aberrant situation that someone see's a 'woman' in your description and doesn't think 'male' even if their social tickertape says 'woman'. It takes effort.

Once truth and error are located at the level of world-directed judgment, private inversion possibilities become explanatorily idle, even if they remain metaphysically conceivable. — Esse Quam Videri

Forgive me, but I think I need some clarification here. It seems to be saying that once we ascertain that errors can be made in world-directed judgements, the underlying possible explanation of inversion and private aberration is then irrelevant? I think that's jumping to a conclusion.. We need not call a spectrum inverted person erroneous unless we already assume hte premise of colour being a property of objects rather than wavelength reflection.

I've seen several videos from prominent indigenous Greenlanders who want it annexed due to the disgusting treatment by the dutch over time. Interesting...

I've watched it several times - I'm not quite understand how this plays into the things about Kirk, though. Again, please DM if you'd like to continue this one. Talking past each other is, imo fine, if we're doing it privately with some faith.

That is not what a biological body means, my man. To use your "death" logic, one meaning of "biological" is simply "a substance of biological origin". Are we saying a corpse is not that? There's a reason that "biological material" can refer to dead hair, blood, skin cells, finger nails etc.. etc..

You cannot extract DNA from rocks, per se. You can extract other organic material in the rock pores. Di you mean to indicate that Rocks have DNA?

I do like poetry. But I don't think it's the right way to approach this type of thing, outside of writing poetry.

The point is most people don't do this. Most people probably don't quite understand the concept. You're right, that there is an attempt to change the meanings of those words, but equally there is resistance so I think its totally reasonable to look at the last, say 500 years, and say "well, until about 1990 this was how it was so let's start there and discuss the journey to where we are, picking up on mistakes along hte way).

Yeah definitely, those are the 'up in the air' concepts.

I think, personally, that clarity is best for communication. My support for that is the universal, time-tested theory that less-clear communication almost always results in worse goal-oriented results than clear, unambiguous language.

I agree about they/them although in practice I find it fine enough to use in the small number of cases its asked of me.