do I understand the definition of a woman?

[Markk]

No, specifically I am saying a robot is not a human…let along a man or woman, which are adult human beings.

I think you mean, "yes, I agree with your criteria, and per the criteria , a robot is not a human."

Turing Test -- how immersive is the simulation? A.I. is terrible so far. Likewise, trans surgeries aren't very persuasive in general. A very large number of people out there see physical trans as freakish. Even folks who are sympathetic have to ask themselves if they would have the same relations with trans as they would non-trans by this criteria. But there are two other criteria, and this criteria might take a back seat to those, for many people.

Provenance -- this is a vast category. For starters, a brilliant art critic can easily be fooled by a fake Van Gogh. In art, provenance is everything. Markk is all-in on provenance arguments. It doesn't matter how physically convincing trans ever becomes, where is the paperwork that shows the genetics, and everything about the history of the specimen? It's by provenance (brains being similar) that we consider that other people have internal worlds like our own. There is no way to prove somebody else has an inner life. There will never be a way to prove a robot or A.I. has (or doesn't have) an inner life. There are very good arguments against the Turing test as necessary and sufficient-- the Turing test is a behaviorist theory. It assumes there is no such thing as "inner life". Most people think it must walk like a duck, quack like a duck, and feel and think like a duck also. Computer hardware no matter how advanced for many if not most people is sufficiently different from a brain that we can't seriously entertain the thought of a robot being sentient. However, Markk probably doesn't object to a person's humanness on grounds of an artificial heart. What if, one day, parts of the brain can be replaced with prosthetics that have the same functional role? Or, what if neurons can be replaced with man made fabrications of different materials but holding the same functional role? Replace one neuron at a time with synthetic neurons until they are all replaced and is it still 100% obvious that the result isn't a human?

Changing sex at the genetic level goes way back. More recently:

"Expression of the Y chromosomal gene Sry is required for male development in mammals and since its discovery in 1990 has been considered a one-piece gene," he said.

"Sry turns out to have a cryptic second part, which nobody suspected was there, that is essential for determining the sex of male mice. We have called the two-piece gene Sry-T."

The scientists tested their theory and found that male mice (XY) lacking in Sry-T developed as female, while female mice (XX) carrying a Sry-T transgene developed as male.

The success rate for the experiments was almost 100 per cent

an xx that is a male phenotype and with the gender traits such as those are, follow suit.

Inner life -- There is no way to prove or disprove the contents of a person's reported inner life. If a person reports being female while having a body type that doesn't match, for some people that's enough to Trump the other two categories and say the person is female or even a woman. Others will just deny that the person is truthful or even if truthful that it has any bearing. If an A.I. reports having an inner life with feelings, that wouldn't be enough to convince most people that it's sentient. I can write a bash script that says it's sentient.

Does Markk believe God is male? Does God have a body? How about Jesus casting demons into the swine? Did Jesus take care to cast only male demons into male swine? Do demons have gender? Do souls separate from the body at death, and do they have gender? Markk is extracting a lot from biological determinism; something really at odds with Christianity for the most part.

No, I did not say I agree with your criteria, at all. Please do not assume that one bit.

Turning test…

Your premise is skewed, therefore your analysis is skewed. First, A.I. are just that artificial, and a creation of what you want them to be inclusive with, they they will always be exclusive with its “creator.” They will always be artificial in that that is what they are…artificial. Saccharine may be sweet, but it will never be sugar, even if you decide to call it that.

in my opinion…What you are basically saying or trying to get at is that gender identity, in regards to ones sex, is a choice, both personally and/or by society as a whole. And that choice, whether biologically factual, determines the truth? Please correct this statement if i am wrong.

Which begs the question…”is a Homosexual a Homosexual because they choose to be Homosexual, or do they have no choice? Often I have seen arguments from heterosexuals that say homosexuality is a choice, and the homosexual counters with “did you choose to be heterosexual?” Which implies no, it was not a choice.

Secondly…Transgender-ism as a whole carries a huge spectrum of variables. Some who identify as transgender do so out of necessity and because of disease, or unexplainable mutations, syndromes, and chromosome disorders, which would include AIS and Klinefelters. These would most often be termed as intersex people, even though many are either biologically male or female, while others carry both chromosomes and sexual organs and choose to identify as neither a male or female but as something like a intersex person.

Then there are those that just choose to identify as such, and even be surgically altered based only on feelings, when biologically they are 100% biologically a male or a female with no chromosomal disorders or differing sexual organs.

In other words…there are way too many variables in your statement and as I wrote your premise is skewed out of the gate. And trying to apply Turning’s theory, from A.I. to a Human is a total spin of what Turning was asserting. And in my opinion opinion it is an insult to a human that is struggling with their identity to compare them Artificial intelligence and a philosophers test which began as a game.

But at any rate this is a interesting discussion…I will check in and out when i can and finish up with the other two. Off to San Diego for a long weekend and a day at Lego land.

[Themis]

And we could say all words are used in a social way and there for their are no absolutes in any usage of a word in a specific context using that line of reasoning.

Sure context is important and there are no absolutes, but so what? It's not like you don't understand that when I used the term male and female in the context of biological sex you didn't understand what I am talking about. I think you are avoiding some unpleasant facts you cannot refute about biological sex determination that societies use to define who is male and female. You agree that some in the middle with features of both male and female are hard to classify as male or female, so it becomes more subjective in how they decide if an individual will be considered male or female.

What would be absolute word that we can define for the person that provides the sperm, and for the person that supplies the egg and gives birth to a child, naturally with any medical intervention making it possible?

I assume you mean without medical intervention and that define a person is meant as male and female biologically. While those who provide viable sperm would almost certainly be defined as male biologically, and those who give birth a female, the classification does not limit it to just those individuals. You know this and have already included some of those who cannot have children, but have been clear as to what those conditions are or why. This is why I have been asking some questions for clarification.

But anyways have you fathered a child? And can male and female be defined IYO?

As to the first question, I don't give out personal information and it's not relevant to the discussion. As to the second my posts have been covering this including this one.

Now would you consider an XX individual who has developed as male and fathered children a male or female?

[Themis]

The robot will never be a biological human man or woman…but just a man and woman fabricated devise, basically a computer that walks and talks, and maybe even displays human feelings programmed in its data banks.

Cylons in the story are so like humans that they can breed with a human. The end of the series has them finding earth of the long distant path and then having humans and cylons living and breeding with humans that were on earth naturally. So in our day we would be descended from both cylons and humans. So the robot/cylon in the red dress could have a baby with a human male. Would those children be human, half human, something else? How about over time when all the population has some of that cylon DNA. Would we need to redefine what a human is?

Another good story would be blade-runner and replicants.

[Markk]

Markk wrote… Markk wrote: ↑Fri May 13, 2022 4:33 pm
And we could say all words are used in a social way and there for their are no absolutes in any usage of a word in a specific context using that line of reasoning.

Themis wrote…Sure context is important and there are no absolutes, but so what? It's not like you don't understand that when I used the term male and female in the context of biological sex you didn't understand what I am talking about. I think you are avoiding some unpleasant facts you cannot refute about biological sex determination that societies use to define who is male and female. You agree that some in the middle with features of both male and female are hard to classify as male or female, so it becomes more subjective in how they decide if an individual will be considered male or female.

Well there are absolutes and in this context. Male and Females, Man and Women, or what ever you choose to call them are absolute beings and a reality. Without this absolute, we would not exist. I believe that is what you and others are avoiding. We have a benchmark and datum that is an absolute and a reality. And yet this wants to be ignored, and pretend that man and woman cannot be logically defined.

The “persons in the middle” are defined and many are either biologically male or female, yet because of what disease, syndrome, or disorder they might have, they have had to make choices as to what they want to identify as, or a doctor or parent decided that for them at a young age. Some decide to identify as neither.

More as I get a chance, thanks for the conversation

[Markk]

Themus wrote…I assume you mean without medical intervention and that define a person is meant as male and female biologically. While those who provide viable sperm would almost certainly be defined as male biologically, and those who give birth a female, the classification does not limit it to just those individuals. You know this and have already included some of those who cannot have children, but have been clear as to what those conditions are or why. This is why I have been asking some questions for clarification.

LOL…I am sorry but come on...this is a new thing we are discussing, and what you are presenting …have you for gotten what you use to call a biological male.

What shall we call the traditional Man and Women if those words not longer apply. Do you prefer “birthing person” for the woman and maybe “sperm injector” for the man.

[Chap]

Every time I look at this thread I seem to see the same post.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Every time I look at this thread I seem to see the same post.

Markk is the stubborn donkey bit from Family Guy:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cg_8knBHEyw

- Doc

[Gadianton]

No, I did not say I agree with your criteria, at all. Please do not assume that one bit.

Interesting. As you'll see, you are very much so working within my criteria.

Your premise is skewed, therefore your analysis is skewed. First, A.I. are just that artificial, and a creation of what you want them to be inclusive with, they they will always be exclusive with its “creator.” They will always be artificial in that that is what they are…artificial. Saccharine may be sweet, but it will never be sugar, even if you decide to call it that.

As I've stated, Your primary framework is provenance, not the Turing Test. I'm thinking you merely read item number 1, skipped the rest, and assumed you knew what I'm getting after when you don't. Here, you argue saccharine is fake no matter how convincing the sweet illusion is because what makes sugar sugar is the chemical formula for sugar. As I said, no matter how convincing the painting, without provenance nobody will think it's a Rembrandt. You're arguing neatly within my criteria #2 Mark, provenance. Thus, admitting that I'm right as far as the framework for the discussion goes. The fact that you trash criteria 1 in favor of criteria 2 is also exactly what I said happens in these ruminations.

in my opinion…What you are basically saying or trying to get at is that gender identity, in regards to ones sex, is a choice, both personally and/or by society as a whole. And that choice, whether biologically factual, determines the truth? Please correct this statement if i am wrong.

That has nothing at all to do with anything I've said. I'm pretty sure you just read item 1 and then filled in the blanks from there with your prejudices about "liberals". I've never said anybody "chooses" their gender identity. I don't think very many people believe we can choose our gender. What I am saying is each of us reason within the framework of the three criteria I listed when coming to grips with what makes a woman a woman, and so on.

is a Homosexual a Homosexual because they choose to be Homosexual, or do they have no choice? Often I have seen arguments from heterosexuals that say homosexuality is a choice, and the homosexual counters with “did you choose to be heterosexual?” Which implies no, it was not a choice.

no. People don't "choose" who they are attracted to physically. I mean, can you "choose" to be attracted to a guy? I know I can't. It wouldn't matter how many hours I would spend listening to a transvestite reading stories at a public library, it's not going to make me attracted to other dudes.

Secondly…Transgender-ism as a whole carries a huge spectrum of variables. Some who identify as transgender do so out of necessity and because of disease, or unexplainable mutations, syndromes, and chromosome disorders, which would include AIS and Klinefelters. These would most often be termed as intersex people, even though many are either biologically male or female, while others carry both chromosomes and sexual organs and choose to identify as neither a male or female but as something like a intersex person.

Sure. There's a lot going on when trying to establish the biological provenance for womanhood.

Then there are those that just choose to identify as such, and even be surgically altered based only on feelings, when biologically they are 100% biologically a male or a female with no chromosomal disorders or differing sexual organs.

Sure. In identical twins, one can be gay and the other straight. And now we're talking criteria 3 -- the realm of the inner lives of others, which we'll never have direct access to. On the topic of homosexuality, with twins, you have a conflict between criteria 2 and criteria 3. Do you accept a report irrespective of biological provenance? If I swear I love vanilla ice cream and hate pecan, to what extent do you need a biological foundation to accept that? Is it only a choice? Do I choose to hate pecan?

And trying to apply Turning’s theory, from A.I. to a Human is a total spin of wha....

Markk, I'm pretty sure the main problem is you read item 1, you didn't really get it, and then just assumed item 1 was the foundation for the rest of what I wrote, and that the rest of what I wrote equated to some hairbrained invention of your own about what you think liberals believe.

The Turing test is not wholly original. It comes from a long line of thought experiments grappling with the nature of reality. It's rooted in behaviorism, which is similar to scientific pragmatism and instrumentalism, which reject criteria 3 altogether, and accept reality is only what we can measure. Since Alan Turning was gay, and chemically castrated for breaking laws forbidding acting on that, I'm pretty sure he wouldn't object to me using his ideas to inquire about the world of sex and gender.

Off to San Diego for a long weekend and a day at Lego land.

my condolences. I lived around the corner for a long time, and it's the worst amusement park ever. Half my childhood was spent with Legos, and it's great to see some of the creations for the first time, but after 15 minutes of that -- ?

[Markk]

Provenance -- this is a vast category. For starters, a brilliant art critic can easily be fooled by a fake Van Gogh. In art, provenance is everything. Markk is all-in on provenance arguments. It doesn't matter how physically convincing trans ever becomes, where is the paperwork that shows the genetics, and everything about the history of the specimen? It's by provenance (brains being similar) that we consider that other people have internal worlds like our own. There is no way to prove somebody else has an inner life. There will never be a way to prove a robot or A.I. has (or doesn't have) an inner life. There are very good arguments against the Turing test as necessary and sufficient-- the Turing test is a behaviorist theory. It assumes there is no such thing as "inner life". Most people think it must walk like a duck, quack like a duck, and feel and think like a duck also. Computer hardware no matter how advanced for many if not most people is sufficiently different from a brain that we can't seriously entertain the thought of a robot being sentient. However, Markk probably doesn't object to a person's humanness on grounds of an artificial heart. What if, one day, parts of the brain can be replaced with prosthetics that have the same functional role? Or, what if neurons can be replaced with man made fabrications of different materials but holding the same functional role? Replace one neuron at a time with synthetic neurons until they are all replaced and is it still 100% obvious that the result isn't a human?

Again you have my argument wrong, and your premise is wrong.

A fake Van Gogh is not a real Van Gogh…just as A.I. is not a real person…no matter how good the painting looks and performs to ones senses, or an A.I. has deep “inner feelings”…they are neither a true Van Gogh or a real biological Human being.

You are talking about appearance and feelings, and I am talking about being. And I can define what a woman is based on being. A woman is an adult Human being…an A.I. will never be that, it will always be a A.I. in being. You can’t even explain your theory without identifying it as a A.I.…if it were a woman just as a biological adult human being is a woman you would not have to use the term A.I..

As far as a Humans having and artificial heart does not change the fact that they are human. In fact that just reinforces my argument if anything.

I agree about lego land…Knott’s on a Winter week day is by far my favorite park, having been to Disney land uncountable times, it is just not worth it any longer given the price and unmanageable crowds, it is not even fun any longer…but it will be priceless spending the day with my grand daughter at Lego Land.

I’ll catch up when I can.

[Themis]

Themus wrote…I assume you mean without medical intervention and that define a person is meant as male and female biologically. While those who provide viable sperm would almost certainly be defined as male biologically, and those who give birth a female, the classification does not limit it to just those individuals. You know this and have already included some of those who cannot have children, but have been clear as to what those conditions are or why. This is why I have been asking some questions for clarification.

LOL…I am sorry but come on...this is a new thing we are discussing, and what you are presenting …have you for gotten what you use to call a biological male.

What shall we call the traditional Man and Women if those words not longer apply. Do you prefer “birthing person” for the woman and maybe “sperm injector” for the man.

What I use to call a biological male? You seem confused. My quote is quite clear other then I forgot the not in saying you have not been clear in who can and who cannot be considered biological male or female. My post you quoted only brought up a particular group which does not limit any others who can also be defined as biologically male or female. The definition of biological male or female has always included more than just those who can have children.