(not a shot at you at all Mikie; you just happen to be the only post about this subject)

Weird that there's barely any mention of the most high-profile political assassination (though, i understand that's a weak phrase given he was not a politician) on a website which would normally have a lot to say about it.

I wonder if this is because association with the left's response is undesirable. At any rate, it is undesirable.

Now comment's on Mikie's post:

What will happen? Nothing. People will flail, and that’s it. — Mikie

It's already the case that the response has gone beyond this. Whether that is kept up remains to be seen (but i also posit the "nothing" you anticipate is the same 'nothing' we get from any other major political event... it can be applied to everything throughout the Lounge which is vaguely on topic).

world-is-ending tweets will finally be seen for what they are: the usual irrational, short term hysterics that are typical of the snowflake Right. — Mikie

It seems to me perhaps Twitter has gotten the better of you on this? The majority of responses have not been on Twitter, but even had they been (im not on it - i imagine it is rife) they are not 'the world is ending' tweets at all.

This seems to me a very similar bloviation as those who charge Kirk with what they do...racism, homophobia etc.. I didn't agree with Kirk on much but his approach - I have still yet to see anyone present anything (that isn't clipped in bad faith) that might be held up to prove his sins. Which is weird, because I can always find plenty to critique in those clips, even the good faith ones.

We're worse off without him, particularly on the right given literally no one on the left is willing to do the same. Many have taken up the job on the right. The left continues to simply pretend political violence is both inevitable and justifiable (perhaps only in this case, but that's all the most insane).
Ironic, considering a right-winger was shot to death and celebrated by the left. Even more ironic given the response to fucking Sydney Sweeney in a jeans ad was far more 'irrational' and had all hte hallmarks of 'short term hysterics' to the point that it could easily be argued that that response is exactly the type of ridiculous, divorced-from-reality thinking and posting that lead someone to think killing Kirk was justified. The ignorance continues to know no bounds..

I also note no denunciation of the murder. Just a pedastal from which you can bloviate. But, that is relatively expect. The penchant for political violence on the left is ... lets say peaking.

May 21 - Capital Jewish Museum
July 4 - Alvarado ICE facility
Sept 10 - Charlie Kirk
Sept 21 - ABC building
Sept 24 - Dallas ICE Facility
We don't even need to mention the LA bollocks or the numerous plans and plots foiled by law enforcement.
Hortmann I wont list, because its murky. Appearance is right wing, but further investigation indicates they were upset Hortmann voted against a left-wing measure. So, who knows.

Given that, Josh Shapiro's home is the only right-wing political violence we can name for the year conclusively. There's a big problem with these sorts of things though: right wing violence tends to result in more deaths. Left wing violence tends to be (quite a bit) more frequent and accetpable by more on that end of the spectrum. I suppose this concords with being more revolutionary, or whatever. But In a democratic republic, I know who I feel safer talking to.

This is also not to mention the (for practical purposes) endless social media which shows that leftists protesting or simply 'upset' will resort to violence, theft and property destruction at the drop of a hate. Toddler behaviour. Not hard to predict. But sad, nonetheless.

Perhaps I'm not grasping this, but if someone is perceiving "something" then that is "objects" broadly (and in the way i suggest it be used here - I'm not suggesting there are (or that we could know that there are) actual, physical objects beyond the senses). These could simply be that which is required as an assumption for hte perception to obtain. I content roughly that.

The problem as I see is is that objectors are trying to say religious thinking is metaphorical. It is best utilized as such but it is not, in most cases, actually how its utilized. Therefore, these criticisms are totally live.

Technically, no, because the choice was made and we're not able to ever review it in this way.

Theoretically, I think yes. But this involves agreeing that something billions of years ago would have to have happened differently.

:ok:

Again your claim is:

I've asked what suffering. You've not answered.

You receive information from my personal email account (clandestine, we assume). What have I suffered ? I shall short-cut this.

I haven't. Something more is required. Most Western Law even requires harm or damage to be established before a conviction or punishment will be metered out.
— AmadeusD

Which is simply obviously not true, and you obviously know that if I clandestinely hacked all your personal information I would be committing a crime. — boethius

It is though. You need to either answer the question, or stop pretending to have a point.

If you receive the information, and i don't know (you entered this later) what have a i suffered? Nothing. I don't even know it happened. You seem to think magic is occurring here.

This conversation is now over unless you can overturn that conclusion.

"a person may misjudge what one is perceiving, and this does not imply that the person perceives nothing."

Yes. They are perceiving something.

Good. That's all I needed.

No it isn't the end of the discussion. Your own cite's exact words are:

"SRY is an intronless sex-determining gene on the Y chromosome. Mutations in this gene lead to a range of disorders of sex development" — Mijin

Which, as I have quite clearly and distinctly laid out for you - does not have anythign to do with sex determination. Aberration doesn't change your sex. Please read this again: aberration does not change your sex. Now say it with me: aberration does not change your sex.
Either your SRY is active, or it is not. You are either male or female, and there is no in between or "not either" scenario. You could tell me, if there were, i'm sure.

I didn't say you had, I was saying it's the obvious implication of using SRY as the determinator of gender in society. If it's the wrong implication, then please explain why so, and also answer the actual question. Instead of, frankly, using indignation as an excuse. — Mijin

This is pure nonsense. You brought it up. You deal with it. I didn't suggest we do that and no where did I intimate it was reasonable to suggest so. Either work up something which indicates I might want to defend this, or put it down my guy.

I have a feeling you have both read past me, and not quite understood what you have read. Several parts of this response are quite odd..

We agree that, under PC, there is a continuation of "you" if the person at destination is the same as the person at source (was) — Mijin

Not really, no. "is the same as" is up for debate, and has been in this thread. 'success' for me does not require this. It requires only relation R (which is why, in actual fact, I don't think there can be success because personal identity does not obtain - but im trying to stick to your terms). Given that the atoms on Mars are not the atoms on Earth, i cannot grant that this is possible through the experiment we have at hand.

We agree that there are hypothetical situations where, under PC, there is no continuation of you -- e.g. Abraham Lincoln walks out at destination. Or a turtle. — Mijin

I can't quite grasp what you're asking me here. If PC is the theory we're testing, there are ways it can obtain and not obtain. I didn't think tihs was interesting. It was like saying P or not P. Tells us nothing.

If the person at destination has diverged a tiny bit, well, that's still a successful translation, the same as (1) above. — Mijin

To some degree, yes. But again, I don't think PC really can give us a 'successful' translation (as noted above) so its possible I can't answer this adequately. On it's own terms, though, I would say yes. If the idea is that at hte exact moment of the event, 'you1' dies and immediately (instantaneously even) "you2" arises with exactly the same dispositions, desires etc.. then that is as close as we could possibly get on my view, so i call it a success. But strictly speaking, I don't grant it either. Again, I may not be able to adequate engage this point for that reason.

Because, the only thing we can know for sure about PC, from the transporter problem as it is usually phrased, is that an identical copy is a continuation of the self. — Mijin

I don't think this is the case. The problem as it's usually phrase is designed to test your intuitions about what constitutes identity. Not whether one or other of those intuitions can actually withstand the experiment. This is why I ended up on PC, but rejecting identity all together. Zero of my intuitions work here, which leads me to believe no version of "identity" can be found in the experiment at "you2". I can only claim to accept that the PC argument gives us "as good as identity" because I don't think identity can be found even in "you1" in some significant sense. Any given moment might be able to be argued that way, but for the same reason this doesn't work for the transporter, it doesn't work for the original either.

Being identical and then diverging is answered with vanilla PC. Anything else is not. And that's why the distinction matters. — Mijin

I don't thikn either obtain. Perhaps I've already come the same conclusion you have and we've been working backward..

Thanks for this, but I cannot see how this is particularly relevant to the arguments, rather than a good go-over of what was put forward as commentary.

The fact remains, Kant's system *does not work* unless there is an assumption that something causes our sensations. That is all I've claimed, and it is literally required to get the system off the ground. This is not an argument from anything particular. His system quite obviously requires it. Kant knew this - which is why his later work treats the noumenon differently*. Here, we can say that Kant understood noumena to be intelligible, but not knowable. He couldn't have begun his first page without this.

You, and others, are quite right that the focus in the CPR, and one of the two fundamental aspects of the noumena is simply a limiting concept for the human understanding. I've not argued against that, either. *But it is quite clear (to me) that by the time he published the Prolegomena, he almost said outright that these 'objects' must be presupposed:

"And we indeed, rightly considering objects of sense as mere appearances, confess thereby that they are based upon a thing in itself, though we know not this thing in its internal constitution, but only know its appearances, viz., the way in which our senses are affected by this unknown something. The understanding therefore, by assuming appearances, grants the existence of things in themselves also, and so far we may say, that the representation of such things as form the basis of phenomena … is not only admissible, but unavoidable.”

"We must therefore accept an immaterial being, a world of understanding, and a Supreme Being (all mere noumena), because in them only, as things in themselves, reason finds that completion and satisfaction, which it can never hope for in the derivation of appearances from their homogeneous grounds, and because these actually have reference to something distinct from them (and totally heterogeneous), as appearances always presuppose an object in itself, and therefore suggest its existence whether we can know more of it or not.”

There are several others of varying degrees of clarity (and from other works). But in any case, this shows a contrast to how he speaks in the CPR where he's essentially saying we are all necessarily agnostic, despite any other claims, as to noumena. We can't know. But later, he's saying we must pre-suppose them (despite, not being able to know them). This is how a shadow works, so is not conceptually controversial at all. For his moral systems, this is also required (with the same necessity - albeit, one which simply follows from concept-to-built-up-concept). The bolded passages are, for me, quite good enough to essentially say "No, thank you" to the objectors so far here.

I hope this clarifies what I'm talking about. It is an extremely discreet issue which, quite frankly, doesn't need much discussion. For my personal part (which is far more open to discussion) this was obviously to me from the first 30 pages or so of the CPR. There couldn't be anything further to talk about unless these objects are pre-supposed. His inability to admit this was the right thing to do in that book (though, i contend it was left open, not denied so this could be a weaker objection than I'm giving it anyway). His later ability to admit to this was the right thing to do in those circumstances.



I suggest I've responded to anything this underhanded post could be meaning underneath, above. Suffice to say this response shows me some pretty damn bad faith. Would you like me to send you a picture of me holding my copy which has obviously been read-to-death? Good lord.

My argument is that a person may misjudge what one is perceiving, and this does not imply that the person perceives nothing. That was to counter your claim that if a person is not perceiving objects one is perceiving nothing. It may be the case that the person judges oneself to be perceiving objects, but is not perceiving objects, yet still is perceiving. — Metaphysician Undercover

This doesn't touch the claim I've made, so I have to assume i did it clumsily. The above should clarify pretty well. Insofar as this can be treated, you've not adequately understood even what you've jsut said, it seems. Let me try to make that understandable:

"a person may misjudge what one is perceiving, and this does not imply that the person perceives nothing."

Yes. They are perceiving something. Things are objects. That fact we can't know what/which (and similar questions) doesn't change that part of the position. (and, as above, Kant knows this too).

Good. That's all I needed.

does it deserve to lose its young when the wind blows? — Nils Loc

Deserve seems the wrong word. It will. That's all we can say.

who helped you to help yourself in this way? — Nils Loc

My crippling depression, drug addiction and a glimmer of light/insight which came to me while i was bleeding out on a bathroom floor. It's a bit longer of a story than that, but there were no individuals but myself involved. It gets ... cringey... when told in full, so if you want to hear I'd prefer DM.

Why aren't you a meth addict now, half dead in gutter — Nils Loc

I was (heroin, then alcohol, but same-same).

Fear is the slave driver of human kind, it has great utility as motivation, but if it's excessive and unreasonable one can easily be destroyed by it, or rendered stupid. — Nils Loc

Absolutely agree with this.

I can't see this relating to my response much at all.

The preconscious and subconscious are not hte same. The subconscious cannot be made conscious, is hte position of those in the field. That is with whom you should argue that point. The preconscious does what you're describing, as best I can tell.

But, you'll note, none of this butters bread for psychonaughts trying to claim they hav retrieved previously-unknown information.

I predicted the comments that would follow Kirk's assassination, as well as the lack of comments. Didn't you? — Jeremy Murray

Not quite. I am quite personally really perturbed and unsettled by the celebrations and subsequent justifications of the same. This murder and its response seems like a Rubicon moment to me. I didn't see this coming. Kirk is just so ... middling...both the event and the response are out of all proportion (which doesn't surprise) and are explicitly hateful and violent. This, to me, was not predictable.

I also apologise to everyone for double-posts that will inevitably result from three-four weeks away.

I think we all know what is 'wrong' and 'right' but our intuitions and some deliberation. Whether that applies to another is a matter of chance (sort of).
We can't "know x is right" without recourse to something. We don't have a universal something. *shrug*.

I don't quite understand why, or why the search for advice, but yeah go for it. Filling out threads can only be good - just do not have an AI argument with yourself, or any else. Just be honest.

"SRY is an intronless sex-determining gene on the Y chromosome. Mutations in this gene lead to a range of disorders of sex development" — Mijin

In differentiation, yes. I have explained that quite clearly too. Those aberrations don't change your sex. They lead to aberrant phenotype and sometimes (well, mostly) infertility. Again, you need to keep determination and differentiation separate. They aren't the same process, nor do they result in the same "facts" about the individual. I hope that with this clear, its less important to you that sex is a binary. I can't see why its important to argue otherwise for reasons both that it is quite biologically clear what's going on, and that I can't see any social/political benefit to ignoring that reality. Same with plenty of other issues like racial statistics too, but here it seems far more important given half the population is "at stake" if I want to be dramatic.

I didn't say you had, I was saying it's the obvious implication of using SRY as the determinator of gender in society. If it's the wrong implication, then please explain why so, and also answer the actual question. Instead of, frankly, using indignation as an excuse. — Mijin

I am indignant at your continued non-acceptance of facts I present, and continuously confusing concepts I've been at pains to delineate for your benefit. I am justified. If you appear to not be reading things I'm typing, I will care given we're trying to have a discussion.

I responded that way because your implication was a moral one. It isn't appropriate here. We're not discussing "what to do". That's why i asked for a good faith version of a similar consideration.

Humans are (in some studies) next-to-100% accurate in telling sex from facial features alone. What we need to do is trust that people will not lie about their sex. If that's a concern, then perhaps we do need testing. But that's not my position. My position is that we separate almost all private spaces by sex (for almost all of history). That is right. We should continue to do so. We understood there were bad actors before 2010 and almost every male weasling their way into a female space was promptly dealt with.

More males in female spaces is a bad idea. That's the headline. This isn't controversial. I don't care how people identify for this purpose. I only care how people identify when it comes to my personal interactiosn with them, and I am not obliged to affirm or participate in an identity. I don't expect that for myself.

I'm not following you. — Mijin

I know. I suggest to slow down a little and work through element-by-element - it's hard to keep hold on all the different concepts.

The transporter does not need to result in a you the way you are (relatively strictly) describing it. On a PC position, you can come out, and diverge immediately (becoming "someone else"). And this does not matter. The person, whoever it is, is continuing your psychological aspirations, desires, wants, needs and ambitions - perhaps, finishing a book you were working on.

On this account, it doesn't matter, whatsoever, that the machine failed to send "you" to Mars. The person will be you regardless (in hte sense of 'close enough'). This requires that we accept that "personal identity" does not obtain beyond numerical identity (which is logically secured). I understand from your responses, this isn't good enough. I basically agree.

If the copy is different to the original on creation, then it wasn't a successful copy, but if it diverges afterwards, that's fine; as our whole life is a kind of "divergence". — Mijin

This is more closely linked to the real issue than the previous question. I hope the above gets us somewhere close to understanding on it. I would add that if, at the moment of inception the person is not exactly the same psychologically, then continuity hasn't quite obtained. This then brings us to, as you say "how similar" one must be secure the line I've bolded above. Is this a little bit clearer?

Citations don't have a lot to do with this. For Kant's system to work (to transcend, that is) physical objects (or, a physical object) must be impressing our senses to achieve the impression of physical objects. Otherwise, its just idealism, right? That is, as best I can tell from anyone's commentary including hte several translators and other commenters like R.P Wolff, the most fundamentally implicit aspect of the CPR. Without this basis, it is not, in fact, a transcendental system.

Some commenters you could look at:

Henry Allison: Takes the dual-aspect argument on and imo compellingly.
P.F Strawson makes similar comments in Bounds of Sense
Lucy Alais doesn't commit, but is heading in this direction, from what I've read (but that could turn out to be embarrassingly unhelpful)
Schulting seems to presuppose the noumena as physical
the SEP on Qualified Phenomenalism seems to also support this, or at least run over why its reasonable.

Essentially, one of the 'limits' Kant seems to implicitly assume, and then explain, is that we must make this assumption about there being physical objects, even when we have literally no other reason to think so than appearances. They are required to ground the purpose of the entire Critique.

This could be wrong, but It seems to be entirely reasonable and a respectable, if not more compelling interpretation than one which says we must jettison the concept of the physical (required, if we reject Noumena as such - or at least, we are given no way to retain it).

Why do you assume that there is an object which engagers a person's perception. Like I said, the perception is a creation of the perceiver. Therefore the perceiver creates the object. — Metaphysician Undercover

These are two different things. I'm unsure how best to to get this across, but you cannot have a shadow without a physical object physically blocking light, even if we can never access that object. This how noumena must work for perception to do anything which gives us a physical impression. It seems a bit "edgy" to argue otherwise, to me.

This is an unjustified conclusion. A person can be wrong in what they believe they are perceiving, and this does not produce the conclusion that they are perceiving nothing. So, a person can wrongly believe that they are perceiving objects, when in fact they are not perceiving objects, and this does not produce the conclusion that they are producing nothing. They might simply be perceiving something other than objects, and falsely believe that what is perceived is objects. — Metaphysician Undercover

This doesn't make much sense. A person is not perceiving if they are imagining, which seems to be what you're talking about. If you mean to make a delineation between perception-led impressions and imagination or ideas, then sure, that's highly relevant and complicates things. But it does not give me a counterexample to what I've said, that I can see.

As explained above, what appears to be clear to you is completely illogical. — Metaphysician Undercover

No. Sorry.

it's incredibly wrong to you, because you have an illogical thinking process. — Metaphysician Undercover

Again, no. Sorry. This seems a fairly standard response from people who like to argue about Kant and have rather precious interpretations. That;s not to denigrate you, or it. It is to say that I have come across this many times, and I am hearing nothing new.

Kant's COPR is fairly complex.

If you think noumena is physical though you are completely and utterly wrong. — I like sushi

1. Correct.
2. Not actually possible. If Kant is so complex, and I can find several notable and respectable writers who take the position I'm putting forward, you can't make this claim. Its exactly the same as I'm objecting to above. It is a standard response which is not actually capable of being made on the writings Kant left. The interpretive process gets us here, fairly squarely.

If you are still convinced your view is right then the onus is very much on you to reference and explain why, using his actual words; as the scholarly concensus on this is pretty much stacked completely against you. Note: When I say 'scholarly' I mean reputable scholarly work not amateur interpretations (which are rife with misrepresentation of Kant, due to his multifacted approach). — I like sushi

It seems you maybe have a twisted idea of what is going on in the work, and how people interpret it. I shall stick to reading those interpretations, thinking, and making reasonable inferences. Because this is simply not true. It is true, a consensus exists that the noumena act as a limting factor in human understanding. I've not argued this. There is a second aspect, though more fundamental to the system. I've been over this. It seems, from this, that you and others are not even understanding what's being said in my comments.

The fact is, if noumena do not represent, in an abstract phrasing, actual physical objects the system falls apart. That much is sound. I couldn't care less for quibbling over the fact there are two possible interpretations, and you think one is "flat out wrong" in the face of all I've said, and cited. I just can't take that all too seriously, though I appreciate the efforts everyone is making. You are simply not saying things that make my position incoherent, wrong on the words of Kant, or somehow way outside the reasonable interpretation window.

Is this right? — Nils Loc

I would want to ask a question: Do you not see a stark difference between a physical act, and spoken words? I am not suggesting words do not enter the ear and alter the physical system. But the subjective experience of offense is not analogous with the physical act of slapping someone resulting in a physical chain reaction.

That said, roughly speaking, yes. That's right. The pain is so much more closely linked to the act that we can't morally say this is 'true' but your description is correct. We know this because some people can train their minds not to experience pain (at least in some ways). My consideration would be that no amount of offense can lead to death, where physical pain leads to things which can, hence a moral difference.

but who is going to help them do that? — Nils Loc

This is probably my biggest (social, not philosophical) gripe with this issue: Why are you owed help in getting your emotions in check? There's a line in a Taylor Swift song "Life is emotionally abusive". This seems to be how many people think of their mental health. I suggest this is utterly absurd, counter to reality and a specific, modern reason people are suffering mentally. There is nothing about the world which makes sense of this, other than unreasonable expectation and blaming others. Something which modernity allows en masse. This is now a different sort of convo, so I'll bring it back...

Does a moral obligation spring from your argument/philosophy to help others to help themselves, if there is any normative prescription that passes from it. — Nils Loc

The normative prescription ends at "It's best for you to have your emotions in check" (and this is not "objective" - I've stipulated, and it seems you've leaned into, the idea that psychological health is likely what we're aiming for). I can't see an argument against this.

I can't understand where from a moral obligation would spring that I, or anyone else, would be obligated to help anyone do this. But I think it is best that we do. The problem is plenty of people are either too stupid, stubborn or set in their beliefs to change anything. At some stage, we need to stop throwing money and accommodations at those people, I think.

Really? And you think that Jesus is made in your mind, too? — MoK

It depends exactly what you're asking - Jesus was created in someone's mind (at least, the character Jesus - I am alive to the fact that there was, most likely, an historical Jesus too - lets not split hairs. I certainly didn't know that guy). When I imagine Jesus, that is a self-created image. So, in my scenario, I have created the Jesus and more than likely created everything he utters too. Its not out of the question that my mind would import actual claimed utterances of Christ given I am 30-ish years deep into being acutely aware of those claims and claimed utterances.

Did I invent Jesus? No. Do I create an image of, and fill-in the character of Jesus whenever I personally imagine that character? Yes, definitely.

I would say that you get access to the content of the subconscious mind when you are on a drug. — MoK

That does not seem possible. The subconscious is not thought to be accessible. The pre-conscious, however, is. If that's all you meant, then I agree, but the chances that you can access anything you've not, at some stage, consciously come into contact with, is next to zero. I'm open, but no one's ever been able to show that they've gained information they couldn't have had previously on psychedelics. Despite claims of such.

Hmm, I don't think it changes anything. THe transporter need not 'work' for there to be an acceptable output. PC does that, avoiding hte problem of whether it 'works' entirely. That's why its the 'best' avenue for hte vast majority of people's intuitions.

So you're just going to double-down and say that you can analyze the data better than people who do this professionally? Better than the people who wrote the papers? — Mijin

No, i'm going to explain why this is a fallacy and that you are wrong, given that you can't present a single piece of information which goes against that which i've cited, in several places, to create a coherent narrative based on scientific information, and not my emotional response to uncomfortable realities. That you are ignoring all of htis isn't not my issue, unfortunately. I have given you the date. Not my interpretation.

In terms of using the SRY gene as the ultimate determinator, firstly your own cite indicates that that doesn't work in all cases, pointing out that mutations in that gene can lead to disorders of sex development i.e. the very thing we're talking about with intersex. — Mijin

You are clearly not reading anything I have presented. THe SRY gene determines whether you are male or female. That's the end of that part of hte discussion.

During sexual differentiation your phenotype can be aberrant. This does not, and cannot, change your sex. You are either not listening, or trolling me here. There are precisely zero humans who are not male or female. You have not even tried to claim otherwise.

Furthermore, it's just not practical; are we saying that if we find someone who looks cisfemale, and may have even lived her whole life as a woman, we must treat her as a man, insist she goes to men's toilets because of a DNA test? — Mijin

I've not said anything at all about a DNA test. If you could ask a non-loaded question on the back of a fairly confused response to some biologically crucial information, I would be happy to treat hte "what we should do" type questions in good faith.

In reality, the activities of the living being are caused by the being itself, not some external forces. Perception is an activity of living beings. Therefore, we have a very strong reason to "deny that physical objects cause perception of physical objects".

That is why your interpretation of Kant is like Sushi says, "flat out wrong". Kant proposes that the a priori intuitions of space and time are put to work by the human being, like tools in its production of the phenomenon you call "perception of physical objects", rather than perception being caused by what you call "physical objects". — Metaphysician Undercover

If you want to hold that we perceive physical objects without there actually being any objects to cause our perception to be involved in anything whatsoever, I can't understand how you aren't a full-on idealist hoping to one day become a disembodied mind. I can't get on with even the beginnings of such a clearly wrong-headed way of approaching phenomena. My response above clarifies that I don't even disagree with what you're saying, as far as it goes. But it doesn't go far enough. Below...

Your second paragraph is missing a crucial, unavoidable and clearly required aspect. That is the objects which engage our perception. Otherwise, we are perceiving nothing. That's clear. So, If the arguments are going to continue along these lines feel free to assume a W and leave me out of it. Have bene over this several times with several people and it is, to me, obviously and somewhat incredibly, wrong.

Kant is something of a cornerstone in philosophical history so it makes sense to point out mistakes when they occur -- especially when repeated by more than one person. — I like sushi

Then you would do well to actually do this; not make blanket statements not even (until after this passage) supported by even your own take on something.

This misses the mark because he does not talk of a noumenal world in any physical sense. Anything physical is phenomenonal, not merely known through out limited 'senses' as he uses the terms 'intuitions' and 'sensibility'.

You seem to be confusing the 'noumena' with 'transcendental objects'. That is my guess — I like sushi

I think you're wrong, because that is precisely what Kant does. He simply tells us we cannot assert any content to the conceptual objects logically required for the system to work. This is a distinction that it seems you're missing entirely, when thinking about 'physical'. Kant, you're quite right, never discusses noumena as physical objects. In this sense, they present a boundary case for human reasoning.

However, he is also quite clear that these objects are, in fact, required, despite holding for us absolutely no content or quality, for the system to make any sense. Noumena must be physical objects. That is what the system requires. Kant is just extremely careful not to say something he cannot support - therefore, these objects are beyond our ability to conceive. And that's fine.

LOL, you're getting much better.

I don't think I understand the anecdote. That person lacks discipline and clear understanding of what's been told to them. They are not incapable.

I can't see I see much in the second paragraph. Modern conditions are objectively better than essentially any previous period in history other than perhaps the late 90s.

Unless you're making an argument about simpler lifestyles, which is legitimate, but wholly irrelevant here. Besides, even granting what you've said my point stands fairly strongly.

That's nice dear. So have I. My description of the consensus is correct. I don't have much interesting in pissing on each other's shoes. Let's leave it..

Classic hasty generalization fallacy. — praxis

No. It is presenting a counter-example, only one of which is needed to unsecure a claim. This isn't a fallacy in any way.

If I am right, and people are capable of controlling their reactions to words, then the offense in not in the words. We're not at the whim of those speaking to us.

So a proponent of psychological continuity would typically say that there a period of time in which the consciousness truly exists in two places, but as soon as either entity receives stimuli from their new location, they've split into two entities. — Mijin

That doesn't seem entirely wrong to me, it just begs the question of how could that possibly matter, if all it obtains in is a single planck-length type moment. I realise it's not your position, I'm just kicking cans about now.

It seems there is nothing to be said here, then. But you are incorrect, my friend.

Yeah, I don't thikn you're making too much sense.

Kant, or Janus? I am addressing Kant's positions, not Janus'. If you disagree with my take, take me to task :)

The consensus is that Kant intended a "physical object" and "limiting factor" aspects to the noumenal. They couldn't do the former latter without hte former holding.

But only a one of them is having sex for money. And that is called prostitution. Not commodifying one's body. We do not call builders football players. Because they are builders. We don't call prostitutes football players. Because they are prostitutes.

That is also an extremely reductive way to describe most jobs that aren't having sex for money. A football player is commodifying their skills, not their body. Body is required, sure, but you could have hte exact same body, no skill, and no job. I don't personally care, it just seems patently wrong.

I don't think you understand what many of the phrases being used in this exchange mean.

My knowledge is based on the scientific explication of these conditions, consistent (over years) reviews of literature and plenty of rather terse challenges over that time. I am not a random person giving you my gut feeling. That is extremely disrespectful and fairly predictable in terms of a 'woke' response to facts. This is why the phrase 'facts don't care about your feelings' comes up (not a Shapiro fan particularly, i'm just noting this exact thing for the context we're in calls for it).

One does not need to be an expert to understand scientific positions and read papers. You are more than welcome to reject my positions, but I suggest if all you have is questioning me this is a form of poisoning the well, and doesn't touch the validity or accuracy of my positions.

Aside from this, humans have inbuilt expertise of certain kinds - we are more than 95% accurate in detected sex from facial features alone. Some sources show near-100% accuracy. This isn't specific to your query, but it shows that being a scientist isn't required for understanding sex and sex determination. SRY is the benchmark biologists use.

\

And from even just the Wiki page on SRY:



Or Sex Determination:



This can be hard to quite grasp - but it is obvious that SRY is hte determining factor. This is because you can have different arrays of chromosomal material, and be either male or female... depending on whether SRY was activated, present, or in some other way, aberrant to the point of non-activation in the subsequent cascade of sex differentiation.

They said somthing physical could be noumenal. This is flat out wrong. Noumenal cannot relate to physical in any other way than as a negative limiting concept. — I like sushi

Who did? Kant? Sure. There's no reason to deny that physical objects cause perception of physical objects. I think probably the distinction you want to make is far too close to a non-transcendental idealism for me.

As best I can tell, all Kant was trying to show was that the noumenal world is made up of objects which our bodies interpret through various sense organs and processes. That seems correct, on his explication of the human understanding.

Why do you posit (well, this is a negative inference, but still) that physical objects could not be noumenal? This suggests that everything we perceive is non-physical, other than in perception. To me, that is clearly and almost risibly a non-starter (with respect... It just seems ludicrous to me).

I am tolerant of commercial sexual behavior, but I don't think it is in the same category as 'normal work'. And I don't see the ardent advocates for the dignity of prostitution as a job ever being tempted to take one of those dignified sex worker jobs. — BC

Yes, good point.

there is a ready market for watching sex workers doing what it is they do — Banno

Now you're cooking.

For the exact same reason we call a burned CD pirated. Audibly indistinguishable, but one is original and one is note. These are facts that seem to matter to people, I don;t think there's any metaphysical reason for this, particularly, other than the brute fact of one be derivative of the other. We all prefer live music to recorded, for the same reasons (though, many of us don't, and wouldn't think this was an interesting point to make). Whether or not it matters is another thing, i'd say.

To be clear, I don't think 'valid' is a moral/ethical claim here as it can be elsewhere. It's just stating that one is derivative, and people would care about that. A clone of you isn't you, basically. It just might not matter that it isn't.

Right-- that's a standard argument against psychological continuity that we've discussed upthread. And we've discussed the standard response; that as long as the two entities' experiences have not diverged then they are indeed the continuation of a single consciousness. — Mijin

But at the moment immediately after B comes into existence, they have diverged. That's crucial, and being missed.

Then all physical jobs, of any kind, are prostitution. But that is obviously, and clearly ridiculous. If for no other reason than "prostitute" serves the same function as "builder" or "football player".

A prostitute is not a football player. Vice verse.

The post-cloned original isn't a descendant of anyone. They are the same person.

The clone isn't a descendant either. They are a copy. When you burn a CD it isn't a valid CD. It's a pirated CD. The pirated person isn't not a valid 'you' (as long as we know which is which at all times).

So, you are saying that you create those entities with your mind? — MoK

Yes, and that's the general consensus because we already create entities in our minds, in waking and sleeping consciousness. There is literally zero reason to think otherwise with drug use. Particularly as most of these drugs use either neurotransmitters themselves, or analogs thereof.

But the guy in the video mentioned intelligence in entities he encountered. — MoK

I could tlel you that Jesus spoke to me in a dream and told me 9/11 would happen a week before it did. Big whoopee.

I don't know about that. Do you mind elaborating? — MoK

Psychedelics reduce blood flood in many areas including the anterior cingulate cortex and hte amygdala. These have to do with emotional processing and "pre-recorded" responses. When these are dampened, we get access to thoughts we usually don't have access to, and information we usually don't want to see. This is why they are so good for exposure therapy - it helps drag up pre-conscious thoughts and ideas which, if understood, would allow us to transmute pain and trauma into better things. Note: Salvia doesn't fucking do this lmaooo. It hits an opioid receptor.

Why? — MoK

You do have answers to your questions. That's logically deducible from the facts at hand: You are the only person around. You answer your own questions. Presto!

That, again, ignores what matters here. I'm going to just leave it, because it seems like statistics aren't really working here.

Is that how human biologists define gender? Do you think that society would regard even someone capable of getting pregnant as male if they have that gene? — Mijin

They can't, as best as my knowledge goes. Any DsDs which occur after the activation of SRY result in an infertile female anatomy, if that develops. CAIS and 5a Reductase deficiency are examples. These people generally find out they are male (though, often not framed as such) when they go through puberty, or even later when they realise they have no fertility.

It is key to be clear about two things:
Sex determination
Sex differentiation

Differentiation is the non-binary aspect. We can talk about that all day long. But there is not a single human on this planet who is not male or female (though, I am aware of one published case study which was carried out in less-than-ideal circumstances and likely represents a lack of exploratory knowledge and resources as it was, i think, rural Africa - it is never cited for these reasons).

I don’t see the value as obvious — Fire Ologist

I think he's making hte point that the underlying concept of "review your structures for unfairness" is probably valuable. I think that's right, also.

Wish someone one would take up a defense of woke. Head on. What good is woke? This thread could use it. — Fire Ologist

I think Mijin is giving it a good go, to be honest. The stats are an issue, but they're trying to make points about protections where we see harms. You say the harm outweighs the benefit, but conceptually I don't think that's right. Its like religion - the priests are hte problem.