Carl-Richard

Oh, you're Norwegian American? I just watched a documentary on Norwegian Americans Hearing them sing the Norwegian national anthem was so interesting 15:06 When the old guy speaks the language, it sounds like a TV program from the 1930s

Are you asking if God has its own meta-cognition (i.e. thoughts, feelings and perceptions like a person) or that God is more like a rock (pure being)? Isn't it interesting that in the highest states of consciousness (particularly during seated meditation), you kinda become like a rock? ?

You don't need a perfect definition, nor a consensus. Just find the one that works best for you. That said, when you're interacting in the social world, you're following different rules than those inside your own head. So just like you wouldn't be an asshole to anybody in particular, don't be an asshole to trans people.

@BenG And btw, the reason I don't like the social constructivist definition of woman is because when I say "I'm going to find myself a woman", I don't actually think to myself whether she "inhabits the norms, behaviours and roles associated with being a woman". It just doesn't occur to me. And if she doesn't like to wear dresses or doesn't have many feminine interests, I don't really care. The things that actually come to mind and that I actually care about is that we can have sex, maybe have children, and that she exudes feminine energy, and "adult human female" is a good enough proxy for that. If I didn't care about those things, I would just get a boyfriend ?

You're referring to one subset of academia. In philosophy and gender theory, you're talking about the "Ameliorative Inquirists" ("let's try to make the category of man/woman as inclusive as possible"), which spawned the self-ID definition. On the contrary, many trans-inclusive philosophers are in fact bio-essentialists, because they've concluded that the AI's mission is untenable while trying to adhere to the standards of analytic philosophy, which again, has to do with things like the circularity of the self-ID definition. That is why I say that your mission is actually not about changing the definitions of words, but instead about changing how words are used socially, because you don't want me to adopt a definition that tells me what the category of man/woman really means (because again, the self-ID definition cannot do that). You really just want me to talk to trans people a certain way, and I'm mostly fine with that.

Yes, but if we were to concede that we want to box something in for the sake of utility (which if you're a pragmatist, is what metaphysics is about in the first place), then you need some other criteria than just parsimony, because the most parsimonious option is actually the least useful option (it refuses to box anything in).

What if physicalism has more explanatory power than traditional idealism? You can argue that it does.

Ok, so we're back to the most parsimonious explanation being equal to no explanation. But again, is that really the best explanation though? I suggest not.

No.

Yes, the utility becomes obvious when you're presented with two very different examples within a simple context like establishing a single causal link. However, the interesting things happen when you have two very similar explanations within a complex context like establishing a metaphysics, and that is what I tried to show with the physicalism vs. traditional idealism example.

Self-ID definition: "a man is somebody who identifies as a man". It doesn't tell you what a man is. It then follows that a trans-man is somebody who transitions to somebody who identifies as a man. It doesn't tell you what a trans-man is.

If you're using the self-ID definition of man/woman, then trans-man doesn't mean anything.

Ok.

Oh, well in that case, if the explanations always have the same explanatory power, then that is a highly idealized interpretation of the razor. In reality, two explanations are virtually never equal in all ways but the amount of assumptions they deploy. That's why I pointed out the trade-off between parsimony and explanatory power when it comes to traditional idealism vs. physicalism.

Ok, so when you say it's the best one, you only mean best with respect to parsimony itself, not any other metric, right? I mean best with respect to the five aforemention epistemic values.

The title came off as dismissive and callous, like he should know better. That is the usual tone when Rupert Spira is mentioned alongside this forum's ideas about God.

Systems thinking, deep ecology and holism being applied in full force on the systems of humanity and nature. What the Game B guys only make animated YouTube videos about, Sadhguru does in real life: Rally For Rivers, Cauvery Calling, Project GreenHands etc. What Green generally only has a partial and intuitive understanding of (the importance of ecology, social inclusion etc.), Yellow manages to articulate and systematize into a coherent framework, and Turquoise manages to apply it in practice to its full extent.

I don't think having sex is an unrealistic hypothetical, but you do you.

@Ramu <-This mf really just conflated Gen X and Gen Z in a discussion about Baby Boomers.

LSD is weed^3 + clarity - retardation

Didn't you just make a topic on the distinction between words and concepts? The word "God" has been poisoned by thousands of years of history. You don't just use that word unapologetically unless you want to be certain you've been misunderstood.

If I were a girl and this guy asked me out and then invited me home and took his clothes off, I would be like "hang on..." That's how accurate the definition is.

I think the best definitions are the most restrictive ones. The inclusion sentiment boils down to social activism, not the soundness of definitions.

The goal of SD, as far as it's a developmental psychological model, is to map out levels of cognitive complexity. Tier 2 is complex enough to handle the problems that Tier 1 isn't able to solve, most crucially the exclusion of other points of view (and the pitfalls of that), by recognizing these views as parts of themselves (and not just retrospectively as a developmental arch, but as constituting their very being, i.e. Tier 2 is purple, red, blue etc.). It also understands the existential necessity of Tier 1 in all its forms as a means to its own development. In other words, there is a nurturing capacity analogous to parents for their child, where the ultimate solution to any problem regarding the child's behavior is clearly understood as adulthood, not annihilation. That doesn't mean that the only good parent is endlessly benevolent and lets their child devour them. That would go back to the importance of integrating the lessons from earlier perspectives (e.g. Red autonomy & respect, Blue order & restraint etc.). Yellow is when Tier 2 starts to take root in the individual. There may be aspirations to change the world, but the means are very limited. A good example of this is the Game B crowd and their various off-shots (e.g. the Consilience project). They're mostly stuck in a very one-sided approach to changing systems, e.g. writing articles, doing podcasts, conferences etc. On the other hand, a good example of Turquoise is Sadhguru, not because he is a mystic, but because he has managed to inspire and mobilize literally millions of people into taking action, changing government policies, talking at international forums, live TV interviews etc. And yes, Sadhguru is indeed a Tier 2 thinker (I can prove it ).

Are you a woman if you inhabit the norms, behaviours and roles associated with being a woman?