Thanks :)

Altered states of consciousness are induced by stress on teh body for sure. The actual 'harsh' experiences induced can either leave someone whole or shattered. I am not sure that path is a good idea for everyone. I was lucky.

Such things are not really of much use and most people woudl not go there willingly; nor woudl I recommend doing so.

Anyway, I have things to get to work on so will be avoiding this interesting distraction.

Would be nice if someone started a thread regarding what the future may hold in regards to defining humans in the eyes of the law, the social functions and how language may change. If no one does I am sure to eventually ... WAY too busy atm.

BYE :)

I think you have to understand this in the social context. As I mentioned, there are clear instances of social contagions among teenage girls; through eating disorders to self-harm. Currently we are seeing something like this with gender identity.

Anorexia and bulimia are undoubtedly highly concurrent with instances of body dysphoria. We could suggest here that this is related to gender identity in many cases too (ie. a woman shoud look like this or that). There is always going to be lesser and greater degrees of overlap in different cases across a whole spectra of aspects.

I would call gender identity a brain variation. It is pretty damn clear in the cognitive neurosciences that neurogenesis is HIGHLY dependent upon hormonal balance. It does not take a genius to figure out that teenagers go through a rather dramatic hormonal change. It is no wonder there are instances of social contagions in teenage girls. More so girls probably due to the general difference in hormonal balance between the sexes.

The main point Banno seems to be making here is there is a clear difference between stating something is logically true and making a judgement call. Ironically he agrees with Jordan Peterson here, but doubt he would like such a comparison! :D I am sure I would agree with Amadeus on many point too, but that does not mean I think they hold much weight in any conversation.

If someone says they are gay or transgender we have to have a really good reason to frame them as suffering from some form of mental disorder > which is a separate item to transgenderism or sexual orientation as far as we currently understand these phenomena.

The same issues prevail in so many aspect of human life. What defines a human life? Is a fetus 'human'? What is a 'human'? Will augmented humans in the future be 'human'? Along these lines I think we will see a whole plethora of problems arising that mirror this whole confusion around trans women as women. So it will be that 'augmented humans' (CRISPR and/or neural implants) will be 'humans', but there will be a difference we have to take into serious consideration.

Maybe many people here do not appreciate that this century people will very likely be able to literally switch their bodies from male to female. You can guarantee that some minority of transgender activists will denounce this for various reasons, because this is how humans behave. People care about their identity. Anything that makes people question their own identity is usually met with opposition (primarily negative). This all makes perfect sense in the greater picture of humanity and how animals interact and function in general. We are weird animals!

Some humans have brain disorders and others do not. I do not see transgenderism as a brain disorder.

Amadeus is like a magic eight ball. When he gets shook up he will just say shit. Most of it doesn't stick. I don't waste my time on them anymore.

There is something to be said for social contagions and teenage girls. This has no bearing on what interests me here though.

I am VERY interested in this kind of area. If you are still struggling to define what it is (in part or full) you wish to discuss then come back to me when you have found a way.

Pick one then. I see no issues raised atm just a vague gesturing towards something. If that is all you can do then there isn't much more to be said on my part.

The division between the secular and 'spirituality' is complex. Numinousity may involves the arts rather than what is perceived as 'religious experience'. Art may be the way in which the numinous is often expressed and experienced. — Jack Cummins

Sounds a little tangled. Can you pick one thread so there is something to get ohld of in amongst this. It is a very complex area with many nebulous concepts. Maybe start by substantiating what division there is between the secular and the spiritual? Expanding form Eliade maybe?

I was just referring to plain old freedom - to do as one wishes.

Human consciousness and culture involved a spiritual dimension and, after the developments of religions, science and philosophy I am wondering if spirituality will be significant in the future of consciousness — Jack Cummins

It will as long as we are human. Spirituality emcompasses secular activities too, like in dance or music. Art is a very significant part of what it is to be a human being. I cannot see any way in which humanity exists without such spirituality.

At this juncture in history there is so much to fear and is as if the gods have led humanity on the brink of despair and self-destruction. — Jack Cummins

Broadening he cognitive horizons of all individuals so quickly will result in an expansion of fears.

But, do we have the spiritual resources or imagination and potential consciousness to save ourselves, individual and collectively? — Jack Cummins

Individually? I have. I see more human freedom than ever before, perhaps it is freedom that kills people's spirituality more than anything. If there is no need to seek relief beyond the more mundane aspects of existence then people's capacity for art and culture may atrophy for a while.

As such, "Trans men are men" as of today and without any other context as implying that trans men are adult human men. — Philosophim

In logical terms it is just like saying "banana fruits are fruits". I see no big deal with this. The context is clear enough itis just that people have trouble with understanding the logic of sentences; nothing new there.

I only care about the logical use of language not the political baggage.

Of course. There are bad actor for and bad actors against. I do not really see what the big deal is, but can easily imagine how someone or more conservative values may react defensively to this just as they have to many other societal nuances they were previously oblivious too.

To repeat, I have never met anyone who annouced their gender to me upon meeting. I would find it strange if they did. If someone walked up to me in the street and said 'I am hetrosexual' or 'I am a cis woman' I would tell them to fuck off or perhaps ask why the hell they felt the need to announce this to me (probably the latter as it does interest me, but I expect I would probably end up walking away wishing I had just gone with my first instinct :D). The person's age, attractiveness and many other factors would effect how I engaged for sure!

For now I just see trans women as a category of women. They are clearly not polysemous linguistically or there would not be two terms. Bananas are fruit! Fine. So what? I don't really care. In legal terms 'banana are fruit!' may start to actually matter if a green grocer is insisting they are advertising they are selling a 'variety of fruit' meaning 'many bananas', or in the case where foods were listed as 'organic' because they were trying to pass of the use of 'organic' in chemistry as equivalent to what most people assumed when reading the packaging. NOTE: I am not equating either of these to trans women. I am just presenting a selection of difficulties and misuses of language.

I think we have made each other reasonably clear to each other on this? My contention is based in the use of language and how people attribute meaning in given contexts.

I admit i will never fully understand what it's like to be a woman, so the same applies to someone who's a man, but either doesn't want to be a man or doesn't feel like they should be one. — ProtagoranSocratist

I will never fully understand what it is to be a human. I still have views and opinions about humanity and humans though.

This is part of the reason why this is such a contentious issue. — ProtagoranSocratist

It is contentious due to bad actors or do gooders believing that are good actors. Where each of us fall is neither here nor there in terms of how language functions and how we ought to (normative logical sense of 'normative') use language in this or that given situation.

The deifition of what it is to be a human is going to become a serious concern in the near future. The whole issue of trans genderism will evaporate when people can genetically alter themselves to such a degree that they can become female.

I don't see any reason to do so, and indeed given that doing so would offend many of my friends, I won't be joining you. — Banno

Fine. I imagine in your circles people make a clearer distinction in speech between female and woman. If not, and when speaking to strangers, then I would still strongly contend that saying 'a woman in the woods' refers to the female meaning of 'woman'. If you spoke to me in my day-to-day life and talked about a woman I may forget this interaction and act on the convention.

The conventions of language were discussed . ↪Philosophim broadly agreed that conventions are insufficient to explain language use — Banno

I am not arguing his corner nor mine. I am trying to figure out what it is you mean and where you stand in your understanding of language use. The whole issue of transgenderism is academically interesting for hte reasons I stated earlier regarding how human will alter themselves in the future. This politically charged ground will likely form the foundation of how we cope with such incoming difficulties.

I may throw up a thread about this in the future if you wish to explore some possible problems with language and definitions regarding what humans are and human rights etc.,? (Augmented, implants and CRISPR).

Anyway,

Normative Ought can, and does, apply to conventions of speech. I highlighted that in the metaphorical context of 'elephant in the room'.

Regarding the rain, you would not be lying but you have certainly missed out a pretty important detail. It is perfectly reasonable that I would feel it was highly unusual you had not mentioned the nature of the rain.

Another obvious push back might be the convention of jobs. It is reasonable to assume someone who is a nurse is female; but it would be a push to say I 'ought to' assume a nurse is female. This has some relation to 'gender roles' but these are 'professional roles'. The difference being a 'nurse' is a 'nurse' and does nursing acts. It is historically associated with 'female' due to females being the ones who actually nurses babies and have commonly cared for children, etc.,. (there are caveats here, obviously, just making a broader point about the nature of 'job roles'). A teacher is a teacher, and it makes little sense to assume one over the other unless it is down to personal experience; even then there is no 'ought to' involved other than on a personal basis. Gender is descriptive not really based on actions or responsibilities. Meaning, a man or woman is not duty bound to perform this or that act or behave in this or that manner, whereas a 'job role' is defined on the basis of having duties.

So taking this to look at (A) 'doctor in the woods', versus (B) 'woman in the woods' we may easily confuse what is going on here as being identical when we hear these utterances because we may imagine a male or female, but this is not really the case at all. In (A) we can imagine a man or woman, but in (B) we imagine a woman.

If I asked you to imagine an angry man and a happy woman, you will undoubtedly imagine pretty much the same as me because conventionally men have a certain look and women have a certain look - sex is irrelevant. Convention here dictates that descriptively a man or woman almost always adheres to male and female. I can say a 'man in a dress' and 'woman in a dress' and this conjures up specific differences unless you also contend that a man is a woman. This is not a prejudice, it is just how language follows conventions. And conventions exist due to differences that are a combination of culture and innate traits.

I am by no means saying there are not grey areas anymore than I would say abortion at point x is better than point y by z amount, because we have to clamber through such messy problems in language and action to some lesser or larger degree everyday.

Pointing out an obscurity is not prejudice in and of itself. Assuming a prejudice is prejudice. We are all carrying prejudices to some degree or another. This is called being human. Pre-judging and prejudice are often hard to tease apart.

(Actually, let me add an example. Suppose, instead of imagining a wood, you are responsible for hospital admissions, and a woman presents themself for admission. Is it morally correct to assume that they are female? Or should you just ask?) — Banno

No. You should clarify sex for obvious medical reasons. You ought not assume 'woman' means 'female' in all given social contexts. This does not contradict what I am saying regarding 'woman in the woods,' as your example is a 'moral ought' rather than a 'logical ought' where clarity is sought out to prevent needless harm. I assume there are forms to fill in that cover this kind of thing? If not there should be.

I don't see why you think it not a fair analogy, unless you presuppose some form of essentialism. — Banno

Many chairs are plastic and many many chairs are wooden. Women almost always refers to females. I colloquial speech utterances like 'a woman in the woods' refers to a female. Where it does not it needs to be made explicit by context or literally uttered.

This is how basic communication works.

If I asked what is it like outside and you say 'it is raining outside' I imagine water is fallign from the sky. If I then go outside and find it is raining blood or orange juice I would feel that you neglected to make it clear what was going on.

This is precisely what is being contended. Conventions of language in the future MAY lead to people assuming 'woman' means practically anything in terms of gender and they may prioritse this over everything else. Then the word would likely become redundant or be converted into some form of trivial greeting like 'Hi woman!'.

If you wish for the use of language others do too. This is perfectly normal. I just do not see, in this particular case, the use. In fact, I see the opposite. I have no issue with saying 'trans gender women are women' in the context of gender. It is farcical to suggest that 'woman in the woods' vould rightly mean a trans woman. I think you will find the correct phrasing woudl be 'a trans woman in the woods'. The confusing point in amongst all of this is that I may very well see a trans woman in the woods and say I saw a woman. The very same could be said of many other items where I seea reflection and believe it is the actual item.

This is not really about essentialism. I am not some -ist. I am simply pointing out that just because you feel there are some essential rules to grammar that make this all fine, you miss the semantic issue.

I am starting to understand the OPs frustration here now. It is far more complicated than it first appears.

Nothgn in the logic prevents this - so on what grounds would it be irrational? — Banno

Because this is not how language functions. Just because I can put together a logical sentence like "the turnip flew to Mars" it does not make it so. I imagine if I talked about an elephant in the room you may insist that it is worth considering that I am talking about an actual elephant in the room. In such a case I would have to say something like 'there is quite literally an elephant in this room; you know, the actual animal, I am not speaking metaphorically'. If I just say 'there is an elephant in the room' you OUGHT to assume I mean something is not being addressed because it is making us feel uncomfortable and we do not want to deal with it right now.

Just to be clear I have no issue with the phrase 'trans women are women' in a technical sense as gender is being refered too.

I am very much saying we ought (normatively) assume a woman is female in the sentence 'woman in the woods' because that is how language functions.

Thanks for helping tme refine that point btw. Sometimes it is hard to explicate what is obviuous wihtout push back!

The argument is on a par with "Since most people imagine a chair as wooden, chairs must be wooden, ought be made of wood, and it is irrational to imagine a plastic chair". — Banno

Not really a fair analogy. I chair must be wooden, plastic or made from a non-precious metal; and made from gold would be more fitting statistically.

Further, to carry your conclusion, it must bring with it a normative evaluation - that one ought not imagine a transexual woman in the woods. But of course, that's down to you and your pre-judging. — Banno

I think this is not the way to go at all. We can say we ought not needlessly conflate language. That is at the heart of what is being said here. If we worked with an alternative example, liek the chair, and dropped the whole Trans issue I think this problem would become clearer.

It would be pretty stupid to imagine a trans woman in the woods just as it would be to imagine a female in the woods if you said trans woman in its place. Such a colloquial example shows colloquial usage.

I can also that one ought not do X, and then create a scenario that shows that one could go against this rule. We ought not kill people > If someone is trying to kill me and my family and the only way to stop them is to kill them, I ought to kill them.

We should imagine a female when we say woman, but in many niche cases we should not. How is this difficult to comprehend? Just like if a say banana people should assume it is the yellow fruit I am referring to, yet if this is not the case and is unclear in the context of the discussion, the onus is on me to state something like 'the banana painting,' likewise if talking about a woman in the woods the onus is on the speaker to make explicit they are talking about a trans woman if they wish those listening to appreciate the person is a trans woman.

I am still kind of confused what you are trying to get out of this thread. A clear question. A hypothetical. Something to get our teeth into.

What kind of examples can you give that might highlight what you are hoping for and what would a possible solution look like?

Jungian ideas would relate to what you are talking about then?

Most of those who disagree with the OP therefore disagree with this claim or with its significance. — Jamal

So are you saying that most people around the world when someone says woman they do not imagine a female? This is clearly bogus.

I do imagine you mean that most academics around the world would disagree. Which is likely correct and definately correct in related fields of interest.

The main criticism I can see being directed at you here is that you are veering away from the usual academic usage of the term 'gender'?

That is main thing I can see.

In day to day speech people say 'woman' and refer to 'females' the vast majority of the time. I have come across scientists in the past who attacked people for even suggesting there were different 'races' because they could not think of anything else other than the biological definition of 'race' (where clearly they are correct). This is what I think may have happened in this thread. If not that I am not really sure what is going on :D

I have only engaged here because I can well imagine a whole bag of tirades on the horizon when it comes to altering humans (CRISPR, AI and Robotics).

The old idea of Theseus' Ship comes to mind in regard to how difficult it may be to define what a human is in legal terms.

This also involves the question of what is the significance of human consciousness in evolutionary processes? — Jack Cummins

Can you expand on this and offer up some kind of example (hypothetical if necesary).

Thanks :)

No, I think that's just logic. If spaces are divided by sex, then only sex should be considered for those spaces. — Philosophim

Yes. There are degrees where spaces are open to trans women that are open to women. There are contexts where trans women are not allowed in spaces (as in competitive physical sports) women occupy.

I think it is pretty ordinary to allow someone who looks and acts like a woman into a woman's space, just so long as they are not gaining an unfair advantage (hence how sports are beginning to handle this issue).

As with every area that involves personal freedoms there are bad actors and good actors. I do think this topic has kind of started to level off now, but maybe not. It would be nice to see people not acting on blind prejudices and just discussing in a reasonable manner. It can be hard sometimes though if the topic concerns yourself personally and there is an emotionally charged vibe in the room.

The biology is incidental to the social grouping, not constitutive of it. — Banno

Your choice of words. I was just rehashing what you said. I originally said:

Socially they are women and treated as women. The* (amened) simple fact that women give birth to children is not intrinsic to what it means to be a woman. My point was that over all human history (regardless of whether you use the specific term 'woman') people with breasts and people with penises are generally divided socially into reasonably clear cut groups. — I like sushi

Hopefully you now understand what I mean above. That biology does play a key role into how we socially divide people, because biological traits effect our roles in society. The role of giving birth is not one open to men. This is actually a rather significant part of how groups of people live together and various traditions arise due to this.

If you think the concept of 'woman' is more a social construct than something that exists more due to biological traits then we could probably go back and forth several times on this matter.

I am saying that due to biological traits people are neccesarily ordered into social categories. Males fight because they are stronger, and thus a social group that defines this activity is created. Likewise, females are the ones who give birth, and thus a social group that defines this actviity is created.

This also ties into my question:

You would not consider that biology is actually far more constituitive to social grouping than you currently believe it is? Incidental sounds weak to me. — I like sushi

If you believe what you said then clearly this is one major difference in how we are looking at this. Fair enough.

What do you think I was saying here? Use your head. Be charitable in how you interpret what is being argued.

This is not a guessing game. I imagine both yourself and the vast majority of people reading what I wrote within the context I wrote it understand perfectly well what I am getting at.

You know what I am saying. You are just playing an evasion game now.

The biology is incidental to the social grouping, not constitutive of it. — Banno

You would not consider that biology is actually far more constituitive to social grouping than you currently believe it is? Incidental sounds weak to me.

Yes, literally. If "woman" is seen as a gendered role rather than merely a sex role, the trans women are women. — Banno

Do you think men fighting rather than women is a 'gender role' that has nothing to do with biology? It is clearly a biological difference we are talking about here that groups men as fighters and women as non-fighters.

Interesting comment about historicism. The idea that women are historically bound to certain biological interpretations of that term sounds historicist...? — Banno

A boy is a young male, and a man is a mature male - not based on social constructs.
A trans boy is a trans boy, and a trans man is a trans man - these are social constructs.

I have no huge issue with conceding that a trans man/woman falls into a broader social category of what a man or woman is. Legally there are differences between a woman and a trans woman. If the law is understanding there are underlying biological conditions that group trans women differently to women then it is not really about some linguistic nuance.

Issues may arise if people start saying 'I am a man' instead of saying 'I am a trans man'. In day to day life this has little to no bearing though. No one I know has ever declared their gender to me upon first meeting and I would find it kind of strange if they did.

Post-menopausal women are women. Infertile women are women. A woman does not cease to be a women by having a hysterectomy. Women have chromosomal or gonadal variations. And trans women in many social, legal, and linguistic practices are women. Demonstrably, the term “woman” is coherently used in ways that do not involve reproductive function. — Banno

I think you missed the point I was making.

Post-menopausal women are women. Infertile women are women. A woman does not cease to be a women(a) by having a hysterectomy. — Banno

Irrelevant to what I was saying. Women give birth to children. If someone loses all their limbs we do not cease calling them human. There are cases where there are circumstances where male chromosome people present physically in many ways as female due to congenital hormonal issues. Socially they are women and treated as women. That simple fact that women give birth to children is not intrinsic to what it means to be a woman. My point was that over all human history (regardless of whether you use the specific term 'woman') people with breasts and people with penises are generally divided socially into reasonably clear cut groups.

To be sure, the argument here was that there are multiple ways to use "woman",[u]all of them well founded[/u]; and that "A trans woman is a woman" is true in several of them. And this is all that is needed to show the issue with the OP. — Banno

Well, not literally. Saying "A trans woman is a woman" is as true as saying something like "Hunting elephants can help prevent their extinction". Both are true. The problem is in both cases they need to be explained beyond ordinary assertion and in very specific circles of understanding. No doubt many would assume that hunting elephants does nothing to prevent their extinction.

Your main concern is the Truth of the statement? Is so it makes better sense to say trans 'women are women, but ...'. Bracketing out the common linguistical ground for how terms are used in colloquial circles does not seem to help highlight the Truth of the statement.

The most common term I can think of in the English langauge that carries with it a tonne of baggage is 'race'. I am in a rush so will just say that 'race' is a term that has straddled scientific and common parse alike. Now we have muddy waters that cause a lot of problems and needless obfuscation. It appears that is precisely where genders studies is going to (already has to some degree) land us.

Etymologically, it's a combination of wif and man, the need for the addition of "man" showing how "man" was neutral - "person". Wif might be from a PIE term for pudenda,(*ghwibh-) hence "pudenda-person", or "*weip", to wrap, a reference to face scarves. All a bit uncertain. So it's not clear that it originally has a sexual tone. — Banno

You will have to explain further why this matters. I was refer to the concept of woman in societies. Not a huge fan of historicism other than as a curiosity. Please explain why you see it as relevant.

I think what the issue may be is stating the intpretation is binary. Clearly not.

What I would contend is that 'woman' is inexably used as a term that presents sexuality in regards to actual sexual acts and reproduction.

To say that the term woman is purely a gendered term is blatantly wrong. To say that the term woman is purely a biological term is blatantly wrong.

It is impossible to follow up on the claim that the term 'woman' is not inexcractibly linked to female and sexual reproduction (both biologically and socially). It is not reasonable to say that 'female' is inextractibly linked to the purely gendered use of 'woman'.

You have to be really careful when reading what I have said above. They are not saying the same thing. Sexual activity (society) with reproduction leads to the existence of the term woman in the first place.

You are not reading my statement with a charitable outlook then. — Philosophim

I was reading it critically. What you wrote is what you wrote. If you meant something specific then be specific rather than rely on charitable interpretations.

Pointing out how your words may be read is a 'charitable' act. If you wish I can stay silent in the future.

You have an oddly hostile response here. — Philosophim

Perception.

I was discouraged every step of the way to 'stay in a lane', 'find what was popular' and just comment on old works to meet publishing quotas. — Philosophim

This kind of context helps. The reason for this is if you want to get papers published you are more likely to get published in areas that are hot topics. This is generally sound advice to someone pursuing a Phd.

Both Phd and Masters are about showing method rather than creating any ground breaking work.

If I had to guess its because questions from children are often simple to answer while questions from adults are not. — Philosophim

I think this is backwards. The simple questions are often mistaken as insignificant. Th ekin dof questions adults ask are relatively stupid and ideologically charged. The purity of innocence that children possess leads them to cut through the slop of so-called 'maturity'.

Children's statements and questions cut to the bone more so than most adults.

I left because I worked more than 40 hours a week in a thankless job. I taught math and constantly told kids to get a good math based degree to make good money. Took my own advice eventually. — Philosophim

I have never suggested to a single student that they should choose their degree based on what income they may be able to make. Any independent businessman I have ever spoken to states one key point in their success: Do something you care about. The reason being when the shit hits the fan you stick to it because you care.

I ask students what they want to be. Those who say 'rich' often have no idea what they wish to do once they have 'money'. Pressing this question I feel is the most relevant question to ask students in regards to their future. Goals without reasons are empty dreams.

Correct. I feel philosophy is uniquely fitted to take this on and yet it has no brave pioneers pushing it to address current events. A large part of this is the field I feel, is set up to stop pioneers and original thinkers. It is ironically a very conservative and traditional field. — Philosophim

Be brave. Tell us.

Every field of interest is full of people who are apathetic to some degree or another. Philosophers at least tend to be more self-reflective than in other fields I have found. There is a built in scepticism as it is clear to see how many commonly held views can seem like they lie on a solid rational foundation.

If anything, there are faults in philosophy (as well as science) due to how outsiders misrepresent and misuse what is being said.

A lot of people are just plain stupid. This is probably mainly due to poor education and being told to prioritise 'money' above personal passions and intrigue ... but some a re just plain dumb. No way around that until neural implants take off.

I can recommend something to read?

Popper's 'The Open Society and Its Enemies'. I think you would find it an interesting read judging by what you are questioning here.

Probably best to think of it as fundamental elements. It most certainly is an annoying term!

When it comes to ethics I am interested in metaethics, which is more or less looking at the fundaments of what ethics means, how valid it is and what alternative perspectives there are of looking at behaviours and ideas considered as ethical that can be framed as something apart or a part of ethics.

Think of it as what aliens would do if they came across a TV for the first time. They would explore its function, purpose and what it consists of. They may never figure out its use doing so but they would certainly be able to discover a lot about the object before them.

There is a lot of jargon across academia. I think when it comes to the sciences and philosophy it is often needed. Beyond that it is just pure obfuscation used in an attempt to make something look intellectual-- Foucault, Heidegger and Derrida are some examples of this in philosophy. That is not to say just because people do it they mean to always fool the reader, but some do, and themselves too just as often.

It is a lesson in being concise so as not to trick youself. If you find the term useless do not use it and question it when you see it used. I have struggled with the very same issue as you too. Just stay alert and keep questioning what people mean and if they are really saying anything at all :)

With a simple smattering of charity you could just have offered that they are maybe trying to say that phenomenon is all we have via sensibility?

@Corvus I think that is all that is being said?

I'm not being stubborn, but I just don't see how it follows. If you said, "Anything beyond is not anything for us," I'd see your point. But why would you assert that "for us" encompasses all there is? — J

Have you read Kant? If you have then refer to what he says about negative and positive noumenon.

Nothing more to say (you can search this very site to find examples of myself and others pointing out this difficult obviousness).

Because what 'is' for us is all there is for us. Anything beyond is not anything. (again, Kantian noumenon).

We cannot even speculate about what we cannot ever comprehend; therefore, there is nothing we cannot speculate about or comprehend. — J

I think you made a mistake there.

Because we can only experience what we experience. We can discover only what is availble to us via experience-- because that is all there is for us.

We cannot even speculate about what we cannot ever comprehend. This is basically Kantian Noumena (a term which defies itself!). Obvious, but confusing if you get hold of the wrong end of it.

If someone is satiated then they must experience something negative. Furthermore, someone who does not feel any negativity prior to some pleasure feels the pleasure in a more muted manner than those who have suffered somewhat for said pleasures.

It is probably here where we can claim that a 'bad' pleasure would be overly harmful negativity. The key is to balance and find the sweet spot. This is more of less where Aristotle ended up.

Does the article actually show modelling and probablity though? No. It is simply a far flung hypothetical. Next week they will be running something like 'What would happen if we were hit my an asteroid?'

Nothing wrong with speculating about all manner of things. There is something intrinsically wrong with pushing an agenda when the facts do not align with the data though. I cannot read the article so no idea what it says or what it concludes. I like the New Scientist because it does cover some more niche ideas so I hope they did a decent job of it?