Non-native English speakers would confuse “Bio Women” with “Bio Weapon” did you actually even read that part?
Your Latin rant was completely irrelevant in first place, you’re lucky I even humored it.
I’ll give you the latin origins bit but even so it’s irrelevant to the actual Non-native speakers point because I wasn’t referring to Latin speakers in the first place (why do you think English was bold text?). So in the end your argument was just a strawman.
Also the point of it being artificially introduced still stands because the vast majority of English speakers say and have basically always said “Women” in reference to biological women, and even gave you examples from this very thread.
The English definition of the word “Women” is “Adult female human being”, which clearly doesn’t work because “female” means a person with XX chromosomes. So you’d have to redefine the word; which is funny because I know why it hasn’t changed.
Because the pro-cis people can’t seem to come up with a consistent re-definition of the word Women.
You’ll never change my opinion regardless, it’s not a flex it’s a fact. You wasted your time writing all that.
Go ahead and write another paragraph about how “you’re right and I’m wrong” and waste more of your time, be my guest. I’ll sleep just fine.
I didnt address the bio weapon because honestly that is just insane. Like what is that argument? People with bad listening/reading skills will mistake words? Let’s not use the word word, world is too alike … but “enough” is fine, so is “nation” or “women”. Google “ghoti” and be honest to yourself, would you have been able to explain why “ghoti” isn’t read like “fish” in English. If you couldn’t, maybe words that sound similar, aren’t the biggest issue. And as you are against “artificially introducing” words, how do you fix the mess that is “ghoti”? How do you make it understandable to at least the average native speaker? Not with new words with understandable spelling rules, that is for sure, that would be “artificial”.
my point was, your whole native English speakers and non native English speakers thing is completely incoherent. In one section, you express that cis got “artificially” introduce into English, then you say that it is a word already in english to be specific scientific English, then you express how cis is confusing for non native English speakers. Like what? Make Up your mind. Was it part of English already or did it get “artificially introduce”? If it isn’t English as it got “artificially introduced” why are we worried about the non native speakers? They might speak a latin language like Spanish. If it got “artificially introduced”, are you also mad about its usage in scientific language too or just in “normal” english? Should we drop Latin words from scientific language? Or should we avoid scientific language in our daily life because it has latin in it? Also is scientific language not English? If it isn’t, again, why are we worried about non native speakers? Help me on that one.
The whole “definition of the word” thing is a stupid talking point of right wing reactionaries. The reality is that even without a complete and accurate definition of the word, the word could have utility and would work just fine in daily conversations. If you doubt me, give me a definition of the word “culture” and/or “consciousness” that everyone agrees with and without making it seem meaningless. And that is assuming that there isn’t a good definition that would work in every way.
Seriously, sit down and argue with yourself your own point. Like play the devil advocate to yourself, then see if your arguments even remotely work for yourself.
What? “Ghoti” is not a real word and it is famous for exposing the fact that for most people would pronounce it correctly as “goti” while they couldn’t explain why it isn’t pronounced “fish”. In other words, how e.g. most people don’t know why the “GH” in “enough” is pronounced “f” and not “g” like in “ghost”. So I am speaking about spoken English as I am talking about pronouncing words. So I don’t know what you are on about “going off topic and strawmaning”. Well if anything you are strawmaning me. My argument is clear if you are worried about bio women and bio weapon confusing non native English speakers than isn’t the fact that most native English speakers don’t know why “ghoti” can not be pronounced “fish” while “GH” in “enough” is f, “o” in “women” is “I” and “ti” in “nation” is “sh”. GH O TI => f I sh => fish. How confusing is that for non native English speakers? Or how you pronounce “bomb” and “womb”? I am pointing out how ridiculous “bio women” “bio weapon” is compared to real daily English, when talking about non native speakers confusion. My point being “what are you even on about?”
I am cis. I used cis multiple times by my own desire in this conversation. So… there are cis people who use the word cis. Also you can’t seperate your arguments like that. If you are concerned about non native English speakers having trouble with cis, then you probably should be concerned about how fucking weird English in general is, and my question was, as in your other argument that you are supposedly holding, as we can’t fix the language by replace “bad” words with confusing spelling with “good” words with easy to understand spelling, as it would be artificially introducing words, What are you doing to do about the weird stuff in English that is confusing to native English speakers too? You can’t seriously hold the position that English should be easy for non native speakers and in the next, not care about it at all, because then why do you care in the first one?
Based on your definition of culture, music and art is not culture, as those aren’t ideas, nor customs nor social behavior… i don’t think people will agree with your definition.
Based on your definition of consciousness, only covers the idea of someone being “awake” and “aware” and not the idea that while sleeping, we have an understanding of a “ourself” and the “door”. So do you mean “someone being awake” or “someone being aware”? If so, is an “ai” camera that can identify people based on their face conscious? It is “aware” of it’s surroundings as it is identifying people. So could you be more precise in your definition?
When did I say that someone shouldn’t try to give it a definition? I am saying that even without one, it has utility. We might not agree with what women means precisely but it probably would still work for daily conversations. In other words, having no precise definition isn’t really a problem. As if needed, you can always add information to express yourself more accurately.
I already disagree with art being a medium of express of ideas or emotions. Art might have been constructed with an idea and even with emotions but the artist might not try to express them at all. Additionally, if I would agree with you, then I have following question. if the art piece produced by someone in a society is expressing an idea, e.g. pedophilia is great, is that idea now part of the culture of the society? How many people need to agree? It should be irrelevant in your opinion otherwise art isn’t part of culture unless enough people agree with the idea in the art piece. Also if you want to argue that it is not art, there isn’t really an agreement of what art is. Famously so. So yeah, you can argue about that it wouldn’t be art but then you would disagree with yourself and you would have to provide a working definition for art.
So your definition of consciousness wasn’t precise enough and you had to express your actual idea more clearly. Strange, it is almost as if having a conceptual idea of something and being able to express it well are too different things. So you caught on to my point about ai but you failed to see it to the end. Yeah a current ai wouldn’t be understood by people as conscious but my point was to express that you have to draw a line about what is conscious and what is not. Which is why I picked a face recognition camera. It is literally like saying, “if you think animals can be eaten, then are you eating human?”, obviously the person doesn’t expect you to eat humans. It is a rhetorical question. The real question would be “what is the difference between humans and animals? And why does it justify eating them?”. In this case, At which position does the meaty neural network that is my brain become conscious and different than the neural network in a program? Where is the line? Without that line your definition is vague and people will maybe agree with your definition without agreeing with your conceptual idea that you try to express. In other words, your definition doesn’t work. I really had to spoon feed you that one? Using 🤦♂️when you aren’t even able to understand rhetorical questions.
If you think you have now defined the difference between an ai and a human, why humans are and ai is not conscious. Your Wakefulness definition isn’t making it clear when you would grant something the title of consciousness. I mean when is something wakeful or is actually perceiving the world. (I mean interact with the world is obviously already the case, chatgtp has written poor legal defenses and cause some good laughter, there are cyber security ai products that try to identify and report attacks on a network,…). At which point does “detecting Malware” become “perceiving Malware”? That was my point. So you haven’t answered it at all.
So culture is literally everything. Every human action within a society is part of the culture of the society. So I can say something like “the USA has a communistic culture” while the USA is by far more capitalistic than communistic and that sounds like your definition of culture makes the word mean nothing.
Yeah a good definition defines what is needed and not more, but your definitions don’t define the essentials.
You are confusing my challenge again. My argument isn’t that there aren’t currently no differences or that those differences will ever disappear. My argument is how and why do those differences matter in identifying whether or not they are conscious. Which is important and essential in understanding consciousness because it is literally about what is.
I am not confused but you seemed easily confused over my criticm of your poorly expressed views and ideas (and art).
Non-native English speakers would confuse “Bio Women” with “Bio Weapon” did you actually even read that part?
Your Latin rant was completely irrelevant in first place, you’re lucky I even humored it. I’ll give you the latin origins bit but even so it’s irrelevant to the actual Non-native speakers point because I wasn’t referring to Latin speakers in the first place (why do you think English was bold text?). So in the end your argument was just a strawman.
Also the point of it being artificially introduced still stands because the vast majority of English speakers say and have basically always said “Women” in reference to biological women, and even gave you examples from this very thread.
The English definition of the word “Women” is “Adult female human being”, which clearly doesn’t work because “female” means a person with XX chromosomes. So you’d have to redefine the word; which is funny because I know why it hasn’t changed. Because the pro-cis people can’t seem to come up with a consistent re-definition of the word Women.
You’ll never change my opinion regardless, it’s not a flex it’s a fact. You wasted your time writing all that.
Go ahead and write another paragraph about how “you’re right and I’m wrong” and waste more of your time, be my guest. I’ll sleep just fine.
I didnt address the bio weapon because honestly that is just insane. Like what is that argument? People with bad listening/reading skills will mistake words? Let’s not use the word word, world is too alike … but “enough” is fine, so is “nation” or “women”. Google “ghoti” and be honest to yourself, would you have been able to explain why “ghoti” isn’t read like “fish” in English. If you couldn’t, maybe words that sound similar, aren’t the biggest issue. And as you are against “artificially introducing” words, how do you fix the mess that is “ghoti”? How do you make it understandable to at least the average native speaker? Not with new words with understandable spelling rules, that is for sure, that would be “artificial”.
my point was, your whole native English speakers and non native English speakers thing is completely incoherent. In one section, you express that cis got “artificially” introduce into English, then you say that it is a word already in english to be specific scientific English, then you express how cis is confusing for non native English speakers. Like what? Make Up your mind. Was it part of English already or did it get “artificially introduce”? If it isn’t English as it got “artificially introduced” why are we worried about the non native speakers? They might speak a latin language like Spanish. If it got “artificially introduced”, are you also mad about its usage in scientific language too or just in “normal” english? Should we drop Latin words from scientific language? Or should we avoid scientific language in our daily life because it has latin in it? Also is scientific language not English? If it isn’t, again, why are we worried about non native speakers? Help me on that one.
The whole “definition of the word” thing is a stupid talking point of right wing reactionaries. The reality is that even without a complete and accurate definition of the word, the word could have utility and would work just fine in daily conversations. If you doubt me, give me a definition of the word “culture” and/or “consciousness” that everyone agrees with and without making it seem meaningless. And that is assuming that there isn’t a good definition that would work in every way.
Seriously, sit down and argue with yourself your own point. Like play the devil advocate to yourself, then see if your arguments even remotely work for yourself.
deleted by creator
What? “Ghoti” is not a real word and it is famous for exposing the fact that for most people would pronounce it correctly as “goti” while they couldn’t explain why it isn’t pronounced “fish”. In other words, how e.g. most people don’t know why the “GH” in “enough” is pronounced “f” and not “g” like in “ghost”. So I am speaking about spoken English as I am talking about pronouncing words. So I don’t know what you are on about “going off topic and strawmaning”. Well if anything you are strawmaning me. My argument is clear if you are worried about bio women and bio weapon confusing non native English speakers than isn’t the fact that most native English speakers don’t know why “ghoti” can not be pronounced “fish” while “GH” in “enough” is f, “o” in “women” is “I” and “ti” in “nation” is “sh”. GH O TI => f I sh => fish. How confusing is that for non native English speakers? Or how you pronounce “bomb” and “womb”? I am pointing out how ridiculous “bio women” “bio weapon” is compared to real daily English, when talking about non native speakers confusion. My point being “what are you even on about?”
I am cis. I used cis multiple times by my own desire in this conversation. So… there are cis people who use the word cis. Also you can’t seperate your arguments like that. If you are concerned about non native English speakers having trouble with cis, then you probably should be concerned about how fucking weird English in general is, and my question was, as in your other argument that you are supposedly holding, as we can’t fix the language by replace “bad” words with confusing spelling with “good” words with easy to understand spelling, as it would be artificially introducing words, What are you doing to do about the weird stuff in English that is confusing to native English speakers too? You can’t seriously hold the position that English should be easy for non native speakers and in the next, not care about it at all, because then why do you care in the first one?
Based on your definition of culture, music and art is not culture, as those aren’t ideas, nor customs nor social behavior… i don’t think people will agree with your definition.
Based on your definition of consciousness, only covers the idea of someone being “awake” and “aware” and not the idea that while sleeping, we have an understanding of a “ourself” and the “door”. So do you mean “someone being awake” or “someone being aware”? If so, is an “ai” camera that can identify people based on their face conscious? It is “aware” of it’s surroundings as it is identifying people. So could you be more precise in your definition?
When did I say that someone shouldn’t try to give it a definition? I am saying that even without one, it has utility. We might not agree with what women means precisely but it probably would still work for daily conversations. In other words, having no precise definition isn’t really a problem. As if needed, you can always add information to express yourself more accurately.
deleted by creator
I already disagree with art being a medium of express of ideas or emotions. Art might have been constructed with an idea and even with emotions but the artist might not try to express them at all. Additionally, if I would agree with you, then I have following question. if the art piece produced by someone in a society is expressing an idea, e.g. pedophilia is great, is that idea now part of the culture of the society? How many people need to agree? It should be irrelevant in your opinion otherwise art isn’t part of culture unless enough people agree with the idea in the art piece. Also if you want to argue that it is not art, there isn’t really an agreement of what art is. Famously so. So yeah, you can argue about that it wouldn’t be art but then you would disagree with yourself and you would have to provide a working definition for art.
So your definition of consciousness wasn’t precise enough and you had to express your actual idea more clearly. Strange, it is almost as if having a conceptual idea of something and being able to express it well are too different things. So you caught on to my point about ai but you failed to see it to the end. Yeah a current ai wouldn’t be understood by people as conscious but my point was to express that you have to draw a line about what is conscious and what is not. Which is why I picked a face recognition camera. It is literally like saying, “if you think animals can be eaten, then are you eating human?”, obviously the person doesn’t expect you to eat humans. It is a rhetorical question. The real question would be “what is the difference between humans and animals? And why does it justify eating them?”. In this case, At which position does the meaty neural network that is my brain become conscious and different than the neural network in a program? Where is the line? Without that line your definition is vague and people will maybe agree with your definition without agreeing with your conceptual idea that you try to express. In other words, your definition doesn’t work. I really had to spoon feed you that one? Using 🤦♂️when you aren’t even able to understand rhetorical questions.
If you think you have now defined the difference between an ai and a human, why humans are and ai is not conscious. Your Wakefulness definition isn’t making it clear when you would grant something the title of consciousness. I mean when is something wakeful or is actually perceiving the world. (I mean interact with the world is obviously already the case, chatgtp has written poor legal defenses and cause some good laughter, there are cyber security ai products that try to identify and report attacks on a network,…). At which point does “detecting Malware” become “perceiving Malware”? That was my point. So you haven’t answered it at all.
deleted by creator
So culture is literally everything. Every human action within a society is part of the culture of the society. So I can say something like “the USA has a communistic culture” while the USA is by far more capitalistic than communistic and that sounds like your definition of culture makes the word mean nothing.
Yeah a good definition defines what is needed and not more, but your definitions don’t define the essentials.
You are confusing my challenge again. My argument isn’t that there aren’t currently no differences or that those differences will ever disappear. My argument is how and why do those differences matter in identifying whether or not they are conscious. Which is important and essential in understanding consciousness because it is literally about what is.
I am not confused but you seemed easily confused over my criticm of your poorly expressed views and ideas (and art).