When you do cluster analysis of the symptoms of psychiatric patients, the empirical clusters don't match the DSM entries.

Schizophrenia is at least 8 distinct diseases (see GWAS), so orphaned that they don't have a name.

Psychiatry is an epistemic mess, and medicine uses it as a garbage bin for the patients it doesn't understand (because blissful ignorance is the norm over there).

Do you understand the difference between feeling the pain in your toes when you shoot in a door frame and what you experience when you see someone else do the same.

Also not everyone can relate to these sensations, it is not universal. Some people don't feel any pain in their body (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congenital_insensitivity_to_pa...).

See also colorblindness as a common example, or tetrachromacy, which is posited in some individuals with at least two X chromosomes, and the norm in several species of birds.

Their color space has four dimensions.

People who lose parts of their brains can lose the ability to conceptualize the ability encoded by the region they lost.

If you zap your occipital cortex with electromagnetic pulses, you'll experience color flashes (phosphenes).

If a blind person who can read baille does the same, they'll experience tingling sensations in their fingers [1].

People can have visual experiences through somesthesic stimuli (you can give muddy waters divers sonar-based sight by stimulating their skin with an electrode array).

AFAIK, it is not however know whether someone who was blind at birth and whose brain didn't learn to see could have such experiences.

1. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00221-007-1091-0 full text: https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/50371662/s00221-007-10...

That being said the nature/culture duality is often not the right way to frame these issues. It's both, intertwined.

These are very good analogies (and possibly experiences for those who are natural synesthetes), but even then, that won't make the who doesn't have the corresponding perceptual modality person experience that exact sensation.

This reduces to the intractable mystery of existence. A more interesting question would be, as usual "how".

There are serious attempts at this, coming from both neuroscience and physics (e.g. for the latter https://pubs.aip.org/aip/adv/article/15/11/115319/3372193/Un... )

> Then he declared that there is another distinct problem — why the brain’s behavior is accompanied by experience at all — which he christened the “hard” problem of consciousness.

The hard problem isn't about "why", it's about "what it's like".

Try to explain what it's like to hear a major and a chord to a deaf person, or what it's like to see magenta to someone who's blind.

None of the things you say, sign or write will make them experience these sensations.

Ultimately no one but you can know what it's like to be you.

This doesn't mean that subjective experience can't be modeled. but the caveats that apply to models in general are relevant here too: none are correct, some are useful.

Dualism doesn't necessarily means that subjectivity is ineffable. Mind and matter could work like mathematical duals: platonic solids (cube vs octahedron, dodecahedron vs icosahedron, tetrahedron vs itself), Voronoi diagrams and Delaunay triangulations, etc... These are intimately linked, and you can generate one from the other and inversely, yet they have their own distinct properties.

Again and again and again. Psychiatry is an epistemic mess.

Psychiatrists are touristic guides of the Paris catacombs that orient themselves with a map of the subway.

This would translate as ~"eats pussy", where "broûter" is a verb reserved for animals feeding on grass, implying a hefty bush.

The latter had been designed to be a full OS but didn't have a functional kernel when Linux was released, and Torvalds adopted the GNU userland for his project.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Hurd

I'm trying to warn you about the implicit message your copy sends.

It will chase away the folks I mentioned, and some day you'll discover that one of your non-political core contributors goes by @zyklon1488 on twitter.

    - Why did you close your eyes ?
    - So that the room will be empty.

As it usually goes you'd then tolerate hateful, bigoted folks in the name of openness and Free Speech Absolutism™ (which is totally non-political /s) and chase away women, minorities and folks who care about them.

If this isn't your intention, a CoC is the way to go.

You regrettably can't make hate disappear by pretending it doesn't exist.

Bun users don’t care either.

At this point it is pure BS.

This endeavor had negative net value.