Carl-Richard

@Bobby_2021 "Definition" is a concept too. "Circularity" is a concept too. The type of conceptualization you're pointing to is completely irrelevant. The definition is still circular.

I'm starting to think more and more that the saying "once you get the message, hang up the phone" applies to these kinds of models. Like, let them inform your general understanding of reality, but don't ruminate on them. But that is just me being FiTe I guess

@Bobby_2021 I fail to see what anything you just said has to do with what you quoted from my post.

A dude in high school almost knocked himself out running full speed and banging his forehead into a poorly placed horizontal plank in an outdoor bike shed. He suffered a slight cut to his forehead, which weirdly enough I also had at the same time in roughly the same place (I don't remember how I got it). We kinda bonded over that for a second, looking like we just escaped from brain surgery ?

I mean, I can obviously infer that, but based on a purely analytic interpretation of what he wrote, it's unclear whether he is talking about LOA or some kind of deeper metaphysical inquiry. Maybe the most embarassing thing about this is that anybody with a tiny bit of psychology knowledge should understand how LOA works at a basic level. It doesn't require any woo-woo.

Is he even talking about LOA? The "article" is so vague that I can't tell.

Does this apply cross-culturally?

I think it's because women and transwomen generally face more social challenges than men and transmen, so a lot of trans issues tend to naturally revolve around that side of things.

My understanding of the self-ID view is that you're a woman if you identify as whatever you think a woman is, which as a general definition (in strict analytical terms) tends towards circularity. If the definition contains some explicitly defined word that limits what you're able to identify as (like "adult human female"), then it's not self-ID, thus your definition is not the self-ID view. For example, somebody who calls themselves a woman because they identify with the social roles associated with being a woman, is actually not a woman under your definition, despite self-identifying themselves that way. The reason people don't care about the self-ID view being circular as a general definition is because, again, they don't care about viewing language that way. They don't approach language in strict analytical terms. They merely use it as a tool, and tools are imperfect. Even analytically consistent definitions are imperfect in their own ways.

What is a woman and what is a female?

Interesting meta-theoretical analysis of the statement "all trans women are women" (from the philosopher who debated Vaush recently): I think this shows that the trans-inclusive movement should generally move away from appealing to academic standards of argumentation and simply focus on promoting social acceptance, especially on the language issue, as laymen language is mostly pragmatic anyway.

Story behind the song:

Nope

Can you guys behave? Jesus.

With such a conservative position, we'd need a pretty radical discovery in order to challenge it. I have no idea what that would be, other than the discovery of abiogenesis and the deconstruction of the human-machine dichotomy.

True. You've simply been confusing terms and conflating different discussions.

Nope. Again: correlates on the screen of perception. The brain does not cause the screen to arise, but brain activity correlates with certain perceptions, i.e. emotions and thoughts.

No. I'm saying that neural correlates can be used to predict the experience of thoughts and emotions specifically. I'm not saying that neural correlates produce the basic experience of qualities. Like zurew is saying, it's more of a scientific statement than an ontological one. I'm talking about correlations on the screen of perception, not the screen itself. It's like "here is an observation: birds flying correlate with bird shit falling on people" and you answer "I think you're mixing up birds with qualia".

Depends when I wake up

It's perfectly fine to think that the most basic types of phenomenological experience (like the experience of red and blue) simply exist "out there" in the aether so to speak, independent of any structural-functional configuration of stuff. Panpsychism (which is most likely what the paper refers to when it says "ontologically pansentient universe") and idealism are both compatible with that position. However, again, the question about AI sentience is not really about that. It's about very complex experiences like emotions and thoughts. When people say that the AI writes like a human and therefore is sentient, they're claiming that it also feels or thinks at least somewhat like a human, and this claim goes way beyond any discussion about the most basic levels of phenomenal consciousness, to the point that it's frankly irrelevant to the discussion, unless you claim that emotions and thoughts generally arise independently of any structural-functional configuration of stuff (which is patently absurd). According to our best current knowledge, we know that emotions and thoughts are somehow tied to a certain structural-functional configuration of stuff known as biology, and that therefore, to start to question whether AI is sentient or not, you have to talk about the plausibility that these complex inner experiences are able to arise in a medium that is not biological. Again, to mention any discussion about basic phenomenological experiences is simply a red herring.

I had some lower back sensitivity particularly last year, and the times I would go into a spontaneous no-mind state (which scares me to death), I would first sense it through my spine. The only thing that helped was to stop all meditation for a couple of years and eat regularly and a lot

Haha no. "Western values" is just as much an Orange slogan as a Blue one. It just means modern techno-democratic values instead of traditional Christian values. The war against terror was and is a modernistic intervention in the "regressive" Middle East. The Ukraine war is in a broad sense similarly a clash between Orange and Red/Blue. Hello? Ever heard of "punch nazis"? You'll rarely ever find a Green that doesn't let standing up for the oppressed derail their perspectival nuance.

That the things that were previously thought of as universals and absolutes had in fact a level of relativity to them, e.g. the idea that language, cultural values and even scientific knowledge is more nuanced and complex than to give such clear-cut answers (you mentioned positivism and the contracted perspective of the traditional dogmatist). It opened up to a more pluralistic and self-aware worldview, which is a necessary step to create a greater unity (socially, spiritually and epistemically), but it then manifested at the extremes in naive skepticism, nihilism and crippling self-criticism. Those are up to the metamodernists to figure out, i.e. "granted or even despite a level of relativism, how do we proceed?"

Let's turn it down a couple of notches, or what guys? ☺