ANOTHER TRANNY BASHING THREAD

[Gary Childress]

That is actually a bit of a lie. Humans are telepathic.

All I have to say is "apple" and this picture pops up in your head (even though the word "apple" looks NOTHING like the picture):

apple.png

The human mind is amazing!

Telepathy: "the supposed communication of thoughts or ideas by means other than the known senses."

Hearing is a known sense. Telepathy would be you causing me to think of an apple without even saying it or having said it.

[Immanuel Can]

The problem isn't vagueness.

Sure it is.

The problem is binary classification (classifying things into the two categories: harm band not-harm) and then there are the resulting errors.

But it's YOUR problem! 'Cuz you were the guy who said "Do no harm" was potentially informative. Now, you're admitting you were saying nothing?

[Skepdick]

Telepathy: "the supposed communication of thoughts or ideas by means other than the known senses."

Hearing is a known sense. Telepathy would be you causing me to think of an apple without even saying it or having said it.

Garry, I am not causing you to think of "an apple". I am causing you to think of this:

apple.png

When I say the word "apple". The picture of the apple is not in the word "apple".

[Skepdick]

Sure it is.

That's not very informative until you define "vagueness"

But it's YOUR problem! 'Cuz you were the guy who said "Do no harm" was potentially informative. Now, you're admitting you were saying nothing?

I've said "Do no harm". That's not nothing. But maybe it is to you? Define "nothing".

Your list of missing definitions is growing exponentially with every sentence you type. If one missing definition is a problem then surely 20 missing definitions are a 20-times worse problem?

[Immanuel Can]

I've said "Do no harm". That's not nothing.

It is utterly uninformative, if "harm" has no definite criteria.

You may as well have said, "The right principle is, 'Do no xcrbtly.'"

[Gary Childress]

Telepathy: "the supposed communication of thoughts or ideas by means other than the known senses."

Hearing is a known sense. Telepathy would be you causing me to think of an apple without even saying it or having said it.

Garry, I am not causing you to think of "an apple". I am causing you to think of this:

apple.png

When I say the word "apple". The picture of the apple is not in the word "apple".

You said it was telepathy. According to the definition of telepathy, t's not telepathy if you are using words and pictures of an apple to put the word or picture of an apple in my head. You're making no sense to me.

EDIT: BTW, there is only one "r" in my first name.

[Skepdick]

You said it was telepathy. According to the definition of telepathy, t's not telepathy if you are using words and pictures of an apple to put the word or picture of an apple in my head. You're making no sense to me.

And I agree with you if I was using words to put words in your head, or if I was using pictures to put pictures in your head. But I am not doing that.

My words are becoming pictures in your head. The word is not a picture. The word is completely different to the picture.

telepathy noun the supposed communication of thoughts or ideas by means other than the known senses.

So which sense turns the word "apple" on your screen into a picture of an apple in your head?

EDIT: BTW, there is only one "r" in my first name.

My bad.

[Skepdick]

I've said "Do no harm". That's not nothing.

It is utterly uninformative, if "harm" has no definite criteria.

Define "definite".
Define "uninformative".
Define "criteria"
Define "utterly"

You may as well have said, "The right principle is, 'Do no xcrbtly.'"

Until you define "define", you may as well be asking me to: Xcrbtly 'harm'.

Please practice what you preach.

[Skepdick]

It is utterly uninformative

This excuse doesn't fly in 2020. You live in the information age.

https://lmgtfy.com/?q=first+do+no+harm

[Gary Childress]

You said it was telepathy. According to the definition of telepathy, t's not telepathy if you are using words and pictures of an apple to put the word or picture of an apple in my head. You're making no sense to me.

And I agree with you if I was using words to put words in your head, or if I was using pictures to put pictures in your head. But I am not doing that.

My words are becoming pictures in your head. The word is not a picture. The word is completely different to the picture.

telepathy noun the supposed communication of thoughts or ideas by means other than the known senses.

So which sense turns the word "apple" on your screen into a picture of an apple in your head?

EDIT: BTW, there is only one "r" in my first name.

My bad.

So you are communicating with "telepathy" if you use the word apple and a picture of what the word refers to pops into my head? So if I use the word apple and the word pie pops into your head along (with the word apple), is that "telepathy"? Did I magically cause you to think of the word pie without using any of the known senses? When I think of telepathy I think of something like me causing you to think of something simply by thinking it myself without communicating it to you using any medium of the known senses.

Your example seems to set the bar very low for proof of the existence of "telepathy." But whatever I guess. I've lost track of what we were talking about now but I think it had something to do with language being "broken" according to you but your pre-linguistic actions are reliable and working correctly (going off a previous conversation we had over in the Philosophy of Mind forum where you stated that words or thinking are some kind of waste of time and that action is all you need and what really counts--or something along those lines).

[Skepdick]

So you are communicating with "telepathy" if you use the word apple and a picture of what the word refers to pops into my head?

That is the crux of it. The word (on its own) doesn't refer to anything. It's just a string of characters on your screen.

Whatever picture pops up in your head when you read the word "apple" that's the reference your brain is making for you.

The point is the word "apple" causes the picture of an apple in your head. Which sense does that?

So if I use the word apple and the word pie pops into your head along (with the word apple), is that "telepathy"? Did I magically cause you to think of the word pie without using any of the known senses?

You don't think it's magic how a bunch of characters on a screen can turn into pictures, emotions, feelings and past memories?

It's pretty magical to me! I have NO idea how it works! Its basically telepathy as far as I am concerned.

When I think of telepathy I think of something like me causing you to think of something simply by thinking it myself without communicating it to you using any medium of the known senses.

And yet you still can't tell me which sense turns the word "apple" into a picture...

Your example seems to set the bar very low for proof of the existence of "telepathy.

Oh yes! I have very low bar for "existence". Even more precisely - my bar for "existence" is non-existent.

I am happy to concede that If you are using a word (ANY word) - a referent for it exists somewhere, or in some form. Even if the referent is only in your mind and in the form of a concept/idea/emotion/feeling. To me - it still exists.

[Gary Childress]

So you are communicating with "telepathy" if you use the word apple and a picture of what the word refers to pops into my head?

That is the crux of it. The word (on its own) doesn't refer to anything. Whatever picture pops up in your head when I use the word "apple" that's the reference your brain is making for you.

The point is the word "apple" causes the picture of an apple in your head. Which sense does that?

In this case vision. If I were standing next to you and you uttered the word apple, then it would be hearing.

So if I use the word apple and the word pie pops into your head along (with the word apple), is that "telepathy"? Did I magically cause you to think of the word pie without using any of the known senses?

You don't think it's magic how a bunch of characters on a screen can turn into pictures?

It's pretty magical to me! I have NO idea how it works! Its basically telepathy as far as I am concerned.

It's fascinating but it doesn't sound to me like what is normally called "telepathy". I learn to associate a real apple with the word "apple" and so when you type the word "apple" or say it, I also visualize an apple such as what I learned to associate with the word.

[Gary Childress]

Skepdick, maybe I"m wrong, but you sort of appear angry or perturbed toward me from what I am getting from you, like you're just throwing up dust because you're upset at me (maybe over my conclusion that people suffering from gender dysphoria who are symptomatic, though maybe fit for many other jobs, just shouldn't have teaching jobs?). Otherwise, I'm not following the point of all this. I had assumed you were pretty knowledgable about philosophy and science, more so than I am but you seem to be talking a lot of irrelevant nonsense now as far as I can tell. But maybe I am incorrect. That's always possible also.

[Skepdick]

Skepdick, maybe I"m wrong, but you sort of appear angry or perturbed toward me from what I am getting from you, like you're just throwing up dust because you're upset at me (maybe over my conclusion that people suffering from gender dysphoria who are symptomatic, though maybe fit for many other jobs, just shouldn't have teaching jobs?).

You are wrong. I have no feelings of perturbation, anger or irritability towards you of any sort.

It's all on you.

Otherwise, I'm not following the point of all this. I had assumed you were pretty knowledgable about philosophy and science, more so than I am but you seem to be talking a lot of irrelevant nonsense as far as I can tell. But maybe I am incorrect. That's always possible also.

The point in all of this (as the point has always been) is about meaning-making. How to make words mean whatever you want them to mean. Constructivism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meaning-making

As a constructivist - I can make any word mean anything I want it to mean. I can make the word "apple" refer to anything I want it to refer to. Say, a computer manufacturing company in California. Or, if I so choose - it could mean "the little green book on my desk".

My point is that words can be pointed at anything you want them to be pointed at. Which is immediately relevant to the topic of "gender". I can make the word "gender" point at anything I want it to point at.

And the open question that remains (which is where all the arguments/debates stem from) is: What SHOULD the word "gender" point at?

[Gary Childress]

Skepdick, maybe I"m wrong, but you sort of appear angry or perturbed toward me from what I am getting from you, like you're just throwing up dust because you're upset at me (maybe over my conclusion that people suffering from gender dysphoria who are symptomatic, though maybe fit for many other jobs, just shouldn't have teaching jobs?).

You are wrong. I have no feelings of perturbation, anger or irritability towards you of any sort.

It's all on you.

OK. Well that's good to know.

Otherwise, I'm not following the point of all this. I had assumed you were pretty knowledgable about philosophy and science, more so than I am but you seem to be talking a lot of irrelevant nonsense as far as I can tell. But maybe I am incorrect. That's always possible also.

The point in all of this (as the point has always been) is about meaning-making. How to make words mean whatever you want them to mean. Constructivism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meaning-making

As a constructivist - I can make any word mean anything I want it to mean. I can make the word "apple" refer to anything I want it to refer to. Say, a computer manufacturing company in California.

My point is that words can be pointed at anything you want them to be pointed at.

OK. Supposing you can (though I'm not so sure that is true)? Therefore what? How does it relate to transsexuality or even to your view that language is "broken"?