Carl-Richard

There is no reason to confine yourself to one absolute definition of anything. You just have to learn to think using caveats, e.g. "according to this framework of thought and this set of definitions, one can postulate (...)"

Anything in particular you don't understand?

I can't live without music.

Whenever I listen to this song while lifting 530lbs rack pulls above the knee (5 second hold x 10), I get so pumped up I want to tear down the entire gym like a mad gorilla 5:15-6:12 is the moment (but 4:49 for context and build-up).

Yep, that is pretty standard. I'm speculating here, but I think that is your unconscious perceptual structures throwing a fit. Your mind usually works to create a cohesive and fluid experience, but since these are dynamic functions that have adapted to certain habitual patterns, when you focus on something static for longer periods of time, your mind starts overcompensating and creating disturbances. It's kinda like how looking at something bright makes you see an inverted after-image when you close your eyes.

@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