@abbenm @starkatt
I think the study of semiotics has established that at least language is metaphor all the way down. At least if we accept Derrida's insights.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/met-phen/#H4

@Irick @abbenm I 🖤 postrstructuralism

@starkatt @abbenm
I <3 structuralism's structuralist meta-dialog too.
:3

@grainloom Scientific rationalism is a really, really useful tool for certain kinds of knowledge production. When it comes to say, medicine or moon missions, it'll be what I use.

But it cannot produce all knowledge. By saying "only knowledge produced via my means is real", scientific rationalism discards massive and important parts of human experience.

I used to be a rationalist (see "post-skeptic" in my bio) so I do understand where you're coming from.

@grainloom I guess I can sum up the last five or so years of my personal philosophic development by saying "Even through they're unverifiable, qualia matter."

@starkatt If it can't be verified, it is not knowledge, it is speculation at best. Tbh my very mean opinion is that you want to believe in something plainly because it is comforting. "Want to" might not be the right expression, more like "your brain is trying to fill in something whether you consciously like it or not".
That doesn't make you a bad person, it's probably what most people do, but it's not something I appreciate. Then again, my brain is also weird.

@grainloom point of curiosity: why come at me with that? You could probably guess that I've heard those arguments before. Hell, I've *made* those arguments before.

@starkatt I'm just stating my beliefs on the subject. I mean, we are talking about _your_ beliefs.
So, I'm curious, what do you mean by "knowledge" and "important part of the human expirience"? What convinced you to give up total rationalism?

@grainloom So, first off, how familiar are you with the concept of qualia? That's kind of the basis for a lot of my framework, here.

@grainloom Oh, and have you heard of the Mary the Color Scientist thought experiment? If you're unfamiliar with either of those, the wikipedia summaries are good enough for the point I'm trying to make.

@starkatt I've looked at the qualia article and I sort of get what it's supposed to be, I've also looked at the "criticisms" section and the first one pretty much sums up my problems with it.

Also, the article has multiple definitions so there is a reason why _I'm_ asking _you_. I want to hear _your_ explanation.

@starkatt I checked the Mary experiment and IMO... it's a pointless question. We cannot know what it'd be like to know everything about neuroscience and even a neuroscientist is subject to their own brain.

The problem with these experiments is that they ignore too much. Humans with brains capable of understanding the entire workings of other brains would think and feel very differently to us.

So far I think the notion of qualia is pointless. 😐

@grainloom Heh, all right. If you think the notion of qualia is pointless, then that basically stops cold the rest of the argument. I think we're coming from places different enough that I don't know how to reach across the gap.

Take care :)

@starkatt It seems so, I thought being a "post-skeptic" meant you originally had a similar enough viewpoint and could explain the logical steps from there.

Well, you still seem cool. Take care u 2.

@grainloom So, I've thought about it some more, and I think I have another way of explaining things that might make sense, if you're willing to re-engage :)

@starkatt Sure, I'm in.

@grainloom Cool :)
So, have you ever been to a really good live music performance? Was that a valuable experience?

@starkatt Yes and yes.

@grainloom Ugh, sorry I missed this earlier. Hope it's okay for this conversation to be asynchronous; I'm going to bed soon.

Anyway.

So, if you saw a really good show, would that experience still be valuable even if the band was regarded by almost everyone else as not very good?

To take it a step further, if you were alone with a friend and they played a really beautiful improvisational composition -- never to be heard again -- would that have value?

@grainloom If yes, the value of that experience has nothing to do with consensus opinion, or repeatability, or predictive power about your future actions, right?

@starkatt Well, not necessarily, in the first case it's more like:
"I have this subjective opinion that goes against the consensus, that might mean I'm wrong and I should re-evaluate it just in case."

Both have value but they don't override rational thinking.

@grainloom The value isn't a function of a rational evaluation though, right? Like, if you went to a rock show that you thought was great, but most people in the audience quietly thought was meh, you still would have had an amazing time, yeah? The subjective experience is what makes it worthwhile.

@grainloom Cards on the table here: me being trans *greatly* informs my thought processes on the value of subjective experience, and was one of the first really important steps in my movement away from strict rationality.

@indi I can see where you're coming from. I want to push back against that delegitimization, because so many people come from a framework where "literal" == "objectively, externally, and empirically verifiable"

@indi I remember getting into an arugument with a friend once because he was conflating "god literally exists" with "god materially exists", and that definition of "exists" is so boring and limited.

@starkatt I agree with you there, but in that case, maybe a good focus here is broadening the definition of 'literal' rather than reclaiming its antonym?

Maybe it's just me but:

When I hear "You're not literally a coyote" I tend to want to say "Okay let's talk about what you mean by literal"

When I hear "So you're metaphorically a coyote" I tend to want to say "Why the fuck did you need to put that extra word there."

@indi If someone asked me that last thing, I'd respond with "yes, metaphorically, but that doesn't make it any less real." Maybe that's me implicitly respectability politicking...

Feeling that invalidation is definitely understandable.

I feel like no matter what, we're gonna get dismissed as irrational and misguided by a lot of people. The dichotomy between "literal" and "metaphorical" is a crock of shit, and I fully think it should be broken down from both directions.

@indi IDK. At the end of the day, I don't really actually know *how* I am a fox, just that I definitely *am* one. The framework to me is a lot less important than the core concept, and honestly I don't feel like the core concept is something we have adequate words for as a culture.

@starkatt

RIghtly or wrongly, 'metaphorically' waters down that statement, based on how people understand the words.

I don't 'prefer' pronouns. These are my pronouns.

I don't 'identify as' a gender. This is my gender.

I'm not 'metaphorically' a metaphysical identity. It's my identity.

@starkatt And, it goes further: As I've seen folks discuss lately elsewhere, it's true in a sense that 'prefer', 'identify as', 'metaphorical' are useful constructs to use in discussion with how we relate to these descriptors. But I think using them in the core statement is giving something for no actual gain.

@indi I'd never use "metaphorically" in the core statement. I think "am" suffices, aside from any needs for "literally" or "metaphorically".

@indi But when people insist on saying "you only mean that as a metaphor!" I want to resist and say "even if it is, that doesn't make it any less real or true."

@indi You're saying I shouldn't concede that in the first place, yeah?

@starkatt Yep, was writing my previous post just as this came in. ;)

@indi Okay. The thing is, *I* don't feel like my statement "I am a fox" is literal, yet it's still something I want to reify and defend, and that's something I don't have a great toolkit for? I feel like an even expanded definition of "literal" still contains a statement of categorical equivalence, and that's not something I personally feel applies to myself.

@indi Heh, once again we posted parallel things at the same time.

@starkatt If 'metaphorical' is the right word for you, by all means use it to describe yourself. I'm not sure what word I would use there myself either, maybe I'm just not in the habit of talking to folks where I need to defend the initial statement against prescriptivist linguistics. If've found trying to defend this stuff to logical positivists is a fool's errand not even fit for this coyote. ;)

@starkatt Further thought on how I'd explain it: It probably goes back to (non-)falsifiability, subjective experience, etc. Which I guess means I'm talking in terms of qualia, or something like them. If someone's gonna argue that qualia don't exist (or "aren't a coherent concept"), we're probably living in worlds that are too different to effectively communicate about it.

@indi Do you have any reading suggestions that might help me better understand what it means to me to have a particular species identity, beyond it just being a costume?

@starkatt Not offhand, but I could boost this to see if anyone else does? :)

Lemme post a new OP and then you can boost that? Might be confusing in the context of the whole thread.

@indi @starkatt this is all a really good conversation, and I'd like to note that if I ever used these words, it is probably because I have a lack of understanding of this.
I'm also coming to realize that I often use such qualifiers out of the lack of self-assuredness in myself.

@starkatt @indi "metaphor" was how I broke my pragmatism enough to see the truth in myself, and I often still have that language in my vocabulary even though I know, or should know, better now

@indi @starkatt (( err pragmatism wasn't The term I was looking for. Incessant, logical part of my brain clinging to how I used to see things ))

@indi Funny enough, I seem to have had a logical positivist come at me over the post. I tried to genuinely engage, but when they got to the statement of "qualia are pointless", yeah, that's just too big a gap :P

@starkatt Wow, yep. I saw a bit from that convo yesterday and that's part of what I had in mind when I wrote that because I sorta expected it to go that way. :P

@starkatt Wait. Waitwaitwait. I just read through that again. Did they REALLY just say "Yeah I read all that but I want to hear YOUR understanding" .... and then immediately after that, say qualia are pointless? XD

@indi Yes, that is exactly what happened.

@starkatt I think having that conversation when one is saddled with the 'metaphorical' label is important.

I think some folks really do feel it as metaphor and find it valuable, and I want to make sure they're covered and supported too.

What I don't want is folks feeling like 'metaphorical' is _definitional_ for these sorts of identities.

@indi Also, may I boost this?

@starkatt Sure :)

@starkatt Yeah, I've had that same argument (Though in my case it's "Well, I don't, but even if I did, that wouldn't matter")

I'm just not sure going to bat FOR metaphor is actually winning anything. It feels like conceding ground.

@starkatt Oddly enough I was in the midst of writing something about the respectability question right when your reply came in.

I don't think that softening or broadening a metaphysical stance in the interest of getting respectability has ever worked. Did you think that when the therian community decided to talk about it entirely in psychological terms, everyone said "Oh gosh okay THAT'S reasonable, we fully accept you now." All it did was alienate the spiritual folks.

@indi Yeah, realizing while writing that that what I was really reaching for was respectability brought around my thinking a fair bit.