...well, sure, in some sense that’s true. Nothing in my brain has any intrinsic meaning, it’s all just a mechanism that influences my actions.
Of course. And indeed for most purposes gender can be identified with sex. However introducing reflection into the system, or keeping multiple variables all “representing” the same thing, introduces the possibility that the reflection can lose sync with what it is supposed to be reflecting, or that the various representations may lose sync with each other. If a human designed the system he’d call the resulting state “inconsistent”, but the program runs nonetheless. And so if we want to know what’s going to occur, at this point it no longer suffices to identify the reflection with the territory; we have to begin analyzing what the variable actually does; if there is more than one, we have to begin analyzing which representations the program uses for which purposes (which, if it were in a consistent state, would be irrelevant). If we are discussing gender in a context where transgendered people are relevant, we have to discuss what being set to “male” actually does, discuss the code rather than the comments. I agree though that this distinction can usually be elided.
As regards status, ISTM to just be a weird evolved system of social organization and not a reflection of anything in particular. Something like Morendil’s idea that it’s this thing that you can gain and spend, though that particular idea looks simplistic to me (ISTM high-status people can often get large things done without spending status). I’m not sure I’ve seen any proposal for what it might reflect that both avoids self-reference and is anywhere close to consistent with how it actually works. But like I said, I see no reason why self-reference need be avoided here (except that self-reference is not so good a way to state things); such systems seem to be entirely evolvable when you consider all the other complex systems of coordinated behavior that have evolved. I suppose we would expect the variables in such a system to initially correspond to real, outside, quantities, but once a whole community is using it for coordination I don’t see why such a correspondence would have to continue, especially as behaviors evolve specifically to take advantage of the system.
Of course. And indeed for most purposes gender can be identified with sex. However introducing reflection into the system, or keeping multiple variables all “representing” the same thing, introduces the possibility that the reflection can lose sync with what it is supposed to be reflecting, or that the various representations may lose sync with each other. If a human designed the system he’d call the resulting state “inconsistent”, but the program runs nonetheless. And so if we want to know what’s going to occur, at this point it no longer suffices to identify the reflection with the territory; we have to begin analyzing what the variable actually does; if there is more than one, we have to begin analyzing which representations the program uses for which purposes (which, if it were in a consistent state, would be irrelevant). If we are discussing gender in a context where transgendered people are relevant, we have to discuss what being set to “male” actually does, discuss the code rather than the comments. I agree though that this distinction can usually be elided.
As regards status, ISTM to just be a weird evolved system of social organization and not a reflection of anything in particular. Something like Morendil’s idea that it’s this thing that you can gain and spend, though that particular idea looks simplistic to me (ISTM high-status people can often get large things done without spending status). I’m not sure I’ve seen any proposal for what it might reflect that both avoids self-reference and is anywhere close to consistent with how it actually works. But like I said, I see no reason why self-reference need be avoided here (except that self-reference is not so good a way to state things); such systems seem to be entirely evolvable when you consider all the other complex systems of coordinated behavior that have evolved. I suppose we would expect the variables in such a system to initially correspond to real, outside, quantities, but once a whole community is using it for coordination I don’t see why such a correspondence would have to continue, especially as behaviors evolve specifically to take advantage of the system.