Re: Is it right or wrong for a person to change the gender they are born with?
Posted: Sat Jan 07, 2023 9:46 am
Ego. And would you stop putting red circles in my notifications? It's bloody annoying, just like you.
For the discussion of all things philosophical, especially articles in the magazine Philosophy Now.
https://forum.philosophynow.org/
That's a non-answer...vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sat Jan 07, 2023 9:46 am Ego. And would you stop putting red circles in my notifications? It's bloody annoying, just like you.
Wrong again, Mr. Dick.
No shit, Sherlock!
And you keep conflating the consequences of my actions with my identity.Trajk Logik wrote: ↑Sat Jan 07, 2023 4:53 pm You keep making that distinction between your physiology and what you can do with it and the effects in the world as a result of those actions. The posts are the effects of your actions, which are part of you. After all, if you didn't post them, then who did?
That's a strawman. I am one with nature. But you aren't talking about me - you are talking about my identity.Trajk Logik wrote: ↑Sat Jan 07, 2023 4:53 pm You're the one compartmentalizing yourself as if you are separate from nature and what you do has no effect on the world. You're the one imposing illogical restrictions on your identity as if your identity has no effect on the world, and the way others perceived you.
You conversationally incompetent moron.Trajk Logik wrote: ↑Sat Jan 07, 2023 4:53 pm It was you that was saying that you just "use words", and didn't not clarify when prompted just what it was you were using them for, kind of like what the man in the Chinese Room would do.
There is such a thing as using words.Trajk Logik wrote: ↑Sat Jan 07, 2023 4:53 pm The problem with Searle's thought experiment is that 1) the instructions in the room the man has to follow are written in a language he does understand, so Searle undercuts his argument that the man does not understand a language right off the bat, kind of the same way you've been undercutting your own arguments with your inability to use words correctly
Preposterous how? AI language translators are written in programming languages yet translate just fine between natural languages.Trajk Logik wrote: ↑Sat Jan 07, 2023 4:53 pm , and 2) the rules in the room are not the same rules that Chinese-speakers use to learn their language, so it is preposterous to think that the man could understand Chinese the same way native speakers understand if they are different rules.
Which part of me showing you a vagina (NOT a penis) did you miss? Do you want another photo?Trajk Logik wrote: ↑Sat Jan 07, 2023 4:53 pm If you don't understand what a definition is, then try (using your own terminology) justify that your pictures inform anyone about what a penis is. If a picture is not a penis, then how does a picture convey to anyone what a penis is? Maybe then you might get close to what a definition is. After all, doesn't a picture tell a 1000 words?
So what do you do about people who do consider you to be a forum poster?
It isn't who you are, but how is it not what you are?Posting on forums is what I do, not who I am.
They are welcome to do that, but they don't get to define my identity.
The answer to "Who am I?" and "What am I?" (or any other questions pertaining to my identity) is exactly the same "I am me."
I don't. I simply ignore questions which pre-suppose and project an identity onto me.
Both forum posters and non-forum-posters can post on forums.
So you are very sensitive about what people think of you?
Yes, they can, but non-forum posters tend not to, for fear of becoming forum posters.Both forum posters and non-forum-posters can post on forums.
But what you do is part of your identity, isn't it?An identity doesn't determine what you do. You determine what you do.
Not in the slightest. If I cared what people think of me - I would let them determine my identity. That's what call "reputation", right?
How can you fear something that can never happen?
Is it? You build a thousand bridges and fuck one goat - are you a bridge-builder or a goat-fucker?
So if you cared what people thought of you, you would be happy to be thought of as anything they chose to think of you as?
Then I must congratulate you on your engineering skills.I am very sensitive to what I think of me - that's why I engineer my identity to be as vacuous as possible.
Would it be the case that someone who earns his living by playing a musical instrument would not regard musician to be part of his identity, do you think?Skepdick wrote:Is it?Harbal wrote: But what you do is part of your identity, isn't it?
Reality doesn't give a fuck about what you reject or accept. If you murder people, you're a murderer. If you rape people, you're a rapist. It doesn't matter what you think about yourself, or if you are ever caught and convicted. If you engage in these actions, you are these things.Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat Jan 07, 2023 7:16 pmAnd you keep conflating the consequences of my actions with my identity.Trajk Logik wrote: ↑Sat Jan 07, 2023 4:53 pm You keep making that distinction between your physiology and what you can do with it and the effects in the world as a result of those actions. The posts are the effects of your actions, which are part of you. After all, if you didn't post them, then who did?
Just because I post on a forum doesn't make me a forum poster. I reject your criterion for what determines identity!
We are not disagreeing. You just aren't comprehending.Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat Jan 07, 2023 7:16 pmThat's a strawman. I am one with nature. But you aren't talking about me - you are talking about my identity.Trajk Logik wrote: ↑Sat Jan 07, 2023 4:53 pm You're the one compartmentalizing yourself as if you are separate from nature and what you do has no effect on the world. You're the one imposing illogical restrictions on your identity as if your identity has no effect on the world, and the way others perceived you.
And in particular - we are disagreeing about what and who determines my identity.
If you didn't accomplish what you use the words for, did you use words correctly? To use anything, you must have a goal. What was your goal in using words? If no one understands you, did you use words correctly?Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat Jan 07, 2023 7:16 pmYou conversationally incompetent moron.Trajk Logik wrote: ↑Sat Jan 07, 2023 4:53 pm It was you that was saying that you just "use words", and didn't not clarify when prompted just what it was you were using them for, kind of like what the man in the Chinese Room would do.
You asked me to clarify HOW I am using my words.
You didn't ask me to clarify WHAT I am using my words for.
Obviously I am using my words for whatever purpose I am using them. That's precisely what determines HOW I am using them.
There is such a thing as using words.
There's no such a thing as using words "correctly" or "incorrectly"
Wittgenstein covered this already. No course of action can be determined by a rule because any course of action can be made to accord with the rule.
You must know the rules of two languages to then come up with rules to translate them.Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat Jan 07, 2023 7:16 pmPreposterous how? AI language translators are written in programming languages yet translate just fine between natural languages.Trajk Logik wrote: ↑Sat Jan 07, 2023 4:53 pm , and 2) the rules in the room are not the same rules that Chinese-speakers use to learn their language, so it is preposterous to think that the man could understand Chinese the same way native speakers understand if they are different rules.
Clearly a large portion of understanding and translating language while retaining large chunks of its original meaning is purely mechanical.
Which part of "If a picture is not a penis, then how does a picture convey to anyone what a penis is?" did you miss?Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat Jan 07, 2023 7:16 pmWhich part of me showing you a vagina (NOT a penis) did you miss? Do you want another photo?Trajk Logik wrote: ↑Sat Jan 07, 2023 4:53 pm If you don't understand what a definition is, then try (using your own terminology) justify that your pictures inform anyone about what a penis is. If a picture is not a penis, then how does a picture convey to anyone what a penis is? Maybe then you might get close to what a definition is. After all, doesn't a picture tell a 1000 words?