Self-ownership

[Arkolon]

nvm

[Arkolon]

If there is life, then the demand for life is superior to zero. The supply of life creates its own demand, much like supply creates its own demand in general.
[...]

You keep conflating subjective value with intrinsic value, when they are not at all the same. Stop it.

Value that is 0 is not value. If there is value, it is greater than 0.

[Arkolon]

[...] being conscious means that you own yourself, [...]

It does not. It just means that your body is capable of the higher level neural function necessary to allow you to have the experience of possessing a body.

A brick house is made of bricks; a brick is not a brick house...

[The Liberated Territories]

Intrinsic value can be subjective, but it doesn't negate that there is a general amount of value greater than nothing.

No it can't. By definition, intrinsic value would be inherent to the object, and independent of subjectivity.

That's impossible, and too literalist of a definition.

Gold has an intrinsic value as for the most part, it's rarity causes people to value it much higher on average. But it is also subjective, as different people may value gold differently.

[Arkolon]

If value is subjective, and there is demand (and we are sure of this), then life has value. Demand creates value, and you said yourself that demand exists (and is therefore greater than 0), thus giving life value objectively greater than 0. If life has all the characteristics needed to have value (scarcity, demand), how can you say it is valueless?

And life in a universe without life has no value because there is no life. Only life can give itself, its counterparts, or anything else, value, so a universe without life is a universe without value.

I didn't say valueless. I said it has no intrinsic value.
And you have everything backwards. Value creates demand, not the other way around. If I value something, then I am led to demand it. Demand is derived of value.
The value life has is subjective, not intrinsic.

Do you not know how supply and demand work? How subjective value is determined by the scarce resource's supply and demand? If supply is scarce and demand is greater than zero, then there is value. Oddly enough, you aren't immortal, and you are alive (which creates demand), therefore giving your life value greater than zero.

[The Liberated Territories]

The only possible way we could have no demand for life is if we lived in a world full of nihilists.

[Conscentia]

Except you were justifying self-ownership using the principle, so the argument is still a circle - it's just got a bigger circumference.

A labour theory of property justifies self-ownership. We were discussing why "finders keepers" isn't unjust or unfair, not self-ownership.

We were discussing it in the larger context of how you justify self-ownership.
Go back over the conversation, as you seem to have forgotten.

You've tried doing bad maths and circular arguments, how about you try something else?

Bad maths? I have never even met anyone who doesn't understand how dividing two sides of an equation by their equal coefficient results in a functional "dropping" of these coefficients. And yes, they are coefficients because we are assigning x a qualitative value, the coefficient. A blue ball in a set of objects where everything is, and can only be, blue would be as such that

blue • ball = blue • objects

becomes

ball = objects

and yes, I'm on my phone again.

I have explained this 3 times.
That expression wasn't a equation, and it contained no coefficients.
Learn how to read mathematical expressions.

1 + 1 = 2 means (1 + 1) is the same as (2).
1 ∈ ℝ means (1) is a member of (real numbers).

1 ∈ ℝ does not mean 1 = ℝ.

Additionally, an abbreviation composed of several characters (eg. fish -> fsh) does not translate mathematically to a multiplication of those characters.
fsh =/= f*s*h
Therefore, a division is not an applicable operation.

[Conscentia]

The only possible way we could have no demand for life is if we lived in a world full of nihilists.

It would be glorious.

[Conscentia]

No it can't. By definition, intrinsic value would be inherent to the object, and independent of subjectivity.

That's impossible, and too literalist of a definition.

Gold has an intrinsic value as for the most part, it's rarity causes people to value it much higher on average. But it is also subjective, as different people may value gold differently.

That value isn't intrinsic. It's subjective. People subjectively value rarer things more.

I didn't say valueless. I said it has no intrinsic value.
And you have everything backwards. Value creates demand, not the other way around. If I value something, then I am led to demand it. Demand is derived of value.
The value life has is subjective, not intrinsic.

Do you not know how supply and demand work? How subjective value is determined by the scarce resource's supply and demand? If supply is scarce and demand is greater than zero, then there is value. Oddly enough, you aren't immortal, and you are alive (which creates demand), therefore giving your life value greater than zero.

The value is subjective was the point.

You keep conflating subjective value with intrinsic value, when they are not at all the same. Stop it.

Value that is 0 is not value. If there is [subjective] value, it is greater than 0.

Yes, subjective value can be non-zero, doesn't make it intrinsic.

It does not. It just means that your body is capable of the higher level neural function necessary to allow you to have the experience of possessing a body.

A brick house is made of bricks; a brick is not a brick house...

Yes, and?

[Arkolon]

A labour theory of property justifies self-ownership. We were discussing why "finders keepers" isn't unjust or unfair, not self-ownership.

We were discussing it in the larger context of how you justify self-ownership.
Go back over the conversation, as you seem to have forgotten.

No: you went off on a tangent. I said self-ownership would be in accordance with its appropriate principle of justice, and you said you didn't consider "finders keepers" (which is what you considered the principle of justice to be) just. It was a small threadjack about the Nozickian entitlement theory, not self-ownership.

Bad maths? I have never even met anyone who doesn't understand how dividing two sides of an equation by their equal coefficient results in a functional "dropping" of these coefficients. And yes, they are coefficients because we are assigning x a qualitative value, the coefficient. A blue ball in a set of objects where everything is, and can only be, blue would be as such that

blue • ball = blue • objects

becomes

ball = objects

and yes, I'm on my phone again.

I have explained this 3 times.
That expression wasn't a equation, and it contained no coefficients.
Learn how to read mathematical expressions.

1 + 1 = 2 means (1 + 1) is the same as (2).
1 ∈ ℝ means (1) is a member of (real numbers).

1 ∈ ℝ does not mean 1 = ℝ.

I did say I was on my phone. Best I can do is E and R.

Additionally, an abbreviation composed of several characters (eg. fish -> fsh) does not translate mathematically to a multiplication of those characters.
fsh =/= f*s*h

That's true, but isn't what I wrote. In 2x (2 • x), there are 2 x's. x has been assigned the quantity 2. For us, however, we would have assigned x a quality. Let's look back at our c (concept). The concept c was assigned the quality a (artificiality), as such that c • a, or ac. Where x in 2x has been assigned the quantity 2, c in ac has been assigned the qualitative coefficient a. Notice also that 'fsh' isn't an acronym of fish, by the way.

Therefore, a division is not an applicable operation.

2x = 2y
x = y

ac E aw
c E w

[Silicon-Labs Corporation]

Simply put, I own myself because

a. No large power of govournment claims ownership of me (Aka im not a slave)
b. There is no other mind or brain inside of me that claims ownership

tl;dr nobody else says they own me but me

You spelt "corporation" wrong in your avatar, fyi.

I did that on purpose because I made this nation before but messed up the ideology analasis so I had to misspell it to retry

[The Liberated Territories]

That's impossible, and too literalist of a definition.

Gold has an intrinsic value as for the most part, it's rarity causes people to value it much higher on average. But it is also subjective, as different people may value gold differently.

That value isn't intrinsic. It's subjective. People subjectively value rarer things more.

Subjective value can lead to intrinsic value. Gold's rarity and lack of reproducibility gives it an intrinsic value. Therefore, while people always have a different demand for gold, it'll always have an intrinsic value above 0.

[Salandriagado]

The part where the law doesn't currently recognise computers as persons. In the future, that may (and certainly should, once we manage AI) change.

So, hang on a minute, you're telling me to explain myself because my test for legal personhood is rubbish because it would allow computers to be legal persons, but now you say that in your test and definition of legal personhood computers could, and should, be legal persons? Why? Why did you argue against what I said in the first place, then?

*Sigh*. I'm criticising your test for legal personhood on the basis that it cannot possibly be used as a test - as an example, it can trivially be passed by a simple (non-AI) computer. Given that a computer has achieved a level of intelligence, apparent self-awareness, etc., it should be considered persons. This is not difficult to understand.

You have no obligation to copy John Locke.

If I want to be taken seriously, yes, I do have to give sources, even in philosophy.

Legality does determine legitimacy, by definition.
Legit = Legal. They're synonyms.

No. Legitimacy and legality have different definitions. Legitimacy refers to natural law, or non-legal law (moral, personal, individual, natural), whereas legal specifically refers to that which is man-made law and that which is currently insitutionalised in the part of the world you are describing. Legality can be illegitimate, as can illegality be legitimate.

What question?
You didn't ask a question. You were responding to me, specifically with mathematically errors.

bx ∈ bd
x ∈ d, functionally.

That is not even remotely how set theory works in any way.

Confuse them as abbreviations?! They are abbreviations; "aw" stands for "artificial world", "ac" stands for "artificial concept".

They look like abbreviations. You're purposely avoiding actually answering the question. Why?

And yet you've entirely avoided explaining how whatever the fuck space you're working in (which you also haven't mentioned) is a cancellation space with respect to whatever operation you're using.

Except you were justifying self-ownership using the principle, so the argument is still a circle - it's just got a bigger circumference.

A labour theory of property justifies self-ownership. We were discussing why "finders keepers" isn't unjust or unfair, not self-ownership.

You've tried doing bad maths and circular arguments, how about you try something else?

Bad maths? I have never even met anyone who doesn't understand how dividing two sides of an equation by their equal coefficient results in a functional "dropping" of these coefficients. And yes, they are coefficients because we are assigning x a qualitative value, the coefficient. A blue ball in a set of objects where everything is, and can only be, blue would be as such that

blue • ball = blue • objects

becomes

ball = objects

and yes, I'm on my phone again.

That is not true, in general. For example:

0*2 = 0*1. Therefore 1=2?
4*2 = 4*4 in Z₈, so 2=4?

We were discussing it in the larger context of how you justify self-ownership.
Go back over the conversation, as you seem to have forgotten.

No: you went off on a tangent. I said self-ownership would be in accordance with its appropriate principle of justice, and you said you didn't consider "finders keepers" (which is what you considered the principle of justice to be) just. It was a small threadjack about the Nozickian entitlement theory, not self-ownership.

I have explained this 3 times.
That expression wasn't a equation, and it contained no coefficients.
Learn how to read mathematical expressions.

1 + 1 = 2 means (1 + 1) is the same as (2).
1 ∈ ℝ means (1) is a member of (real numbers).

1 ∈ ℝ does not mean 1 = ℝ.

I did say I was on my phone. Best I can do is E and R.

Additionally, an abbreviation composed of several characters (eg. fish -> fsh) does not translate mathematically to a multiplication of those characters.
fsh =/= f*s*h

That's true, but isn't what I wrote. In 2x (2 • x), there are 2 x's. x has been assigned the quantity 2. For us, however, we would have assigned x a quality. Let's look back at our c (concept). The concept c was assigned the quality a (artificiality), as such that c • a, or ac. Where x in 2x has been assigned the quantity 2, c in ac has been assigned the qualitative coefficient a. Notice also that 'fsh' isn't an acronym of fish, by the way.

Therefore, a division is not an applicable operation.

2x = 2y
x = y

ac E aw
c E w

That isn't true.

[The Joseon Dynasty]

2x = 2y
x = y

ac E aw
c E w

Nooo... Listen to Salandriagado. If you denote a set by A, then A is the name for a collection of objects, such as {a, b, c, d, ...}. a ∈ A is saying that a belongs to the collection of objects A. Unless you explicitly define the set xA as the set of objects in A which have been multiplied by some real number x for which the multiplication operator is well-defined, then it doesn't follow trivially that xa ∈ xA implies that a ∈ A. Even then, it's just notational convenience that the x cancels out. You could denote xA by B and the same property would hold.

[Conscentia]

That value isn't intrinsic. It's subjective. People subjectively value rarer things more.

Subjective value can lead to intrinsic value. Gold's rarity and lack of reproducibility gives it an intrinsic value. Therefore, while people always have a different demand for gold, it'll always have an intrinsic value above 0.

No, it can't. By definition, intrinsic value is independent of subjectivity.

Gold's rarity doesn't give it intrinsic value. Many rare things are not valuable.

[Arkolon]

Value can only be value if it is greater than zero, so it doesn't matter whether or not value is subjective as long as the value is greater than zero. If the value is greater then zero, then it is valuable, by definition, because it has value.

For gold, it may be, because gold can't assign itself value. Life, however, can assign itself value. Life is scarce, and having life gives life value by creating a demand for it. In a universe devoid of life, life cannot have value because there is no life to value and there is no life to value itself. Seeing as how life does exist in our universe, and we are living proof of it, life has been given value.

The bricks belong to the brick house. The same way the cells that make you belong to you.

[Zottistan]

No it can't. By definition, intrinsic value would be inherent to the object, and independent of subjectivity.

That's impossible, and too literalist of a definition.

Gold has an intrinsic value as for the most part, it's rarity causes people to value it much higher on average. But it is also subjective, as different people may value gold differently.

Gold does not have intrinsic value in any way. Value is assigned to it.

[Sociobiology]

except demand is subjective therefore so is value based on it.
the intrinsic and objective demand for life is zero.

If there is life, then the demand for life is superior to zero. The supply of life creates its own demand, much like supply creates its own demand in general.

I already showed this was wrong way back with franklinite,
supply does not create intrinsic demand.
scarcity does not create intrinsic demand
subjective =/= intrinsic

Objects in mirror may be closer than they appear.

also we don't know how scarce life is, it may not be scarce at all.

Which religion do you have to be to immortalise yourself, again?

life =/= a human life.

[Sociobiology]

Your reasoning is circular.
Your little scenario was meant to demonstrate how the principle is just, and just now you explained that your acquisition was just because of the principle.
ie. The principle of justice is just because of the principle of justice, which is just because of the principle of justice, which is just...

The principle of justice is just because individuals have rights independent of their governing body, which is backed by none other than self-ownership itself. This isn't circular because I was not justifying self-ownership in the desert-island scenario.

except you have to justify self ownership, because your argument relies on it being objectively true.
So if you are not doing it in this scenario then your argument is based on an unfounded assumption.
so you get to pick is your argument unfounded or is it circular.

[The Liberated Territories]

That's impossible, and too literalist of a definition.

Gold has an intrinsic value as for the most part, it's rarity causes people to value it much higher on average. But it is also subjective, as different people may value gold differently.

Gold does not have intrinsic value in any way. Value is assigned to it.

Yes, and that's what gives it it's intrinsic value.

[Arkolon]

So, hang on a minute, you're telling me to explain myself because my test for legal personhood is rubbish because it would allow computers to be legal persons, but now you say that in your test and definition of legal personhood computers could, and should, be legal persons? Why? Why did you argue against what I said in the first place, then?

*Sigh*. I'm criticising your test for legal personhood on the basis that it cannot possibly be used as a test - as an example, it can trivially be passed by a simple (non-AI) computer. Given that a computer has achieved a level of intelligence, apparent self-awareness, etc., it should be considered persons. This is not difficult to understand.

A computer that that parrots the words "I am conscious" do not make it conscious. My test is that the subject has to be able to question its own consciousness and its own existence-- "are you self aware?"; "do you exist?"; "are you?". A computer that is told to answer this with a certain string is not a person. A computer that answers this itself, however, as you say, would pass this test.

You've tried doing bad maths and circular arguments, how about you try something else?

Bad maths? I have never even met anyone who doesn't understand how dividing two sides of an equation by their equal coefficient results in a functional "dropping" of these coefficients. And yes, they are coefficients because we are assigning x a qualitative value, the coefficient. A blue ball in a set of objects where everything is, and can only be, blue would be as such that

blue • ball = blue • objects

becomes

ball = objects

and yes, I'm on my phone again.

That is not true, in general. For example:

0*2 = 0*1. Therefore 1=2?
4*2 = 4*4 in Z₈, so 2=4?

2 is not a part of 1, so your example does not relate to what I wrote. A concept, however, exists in a world (a world can exist without a concept but a concept cannot exist without a world), and an artificial concept exists in an artificial world as such that, functionally, a concept exists in a world. A 2 does not exist in a 1, as 1 and 2 are very distinct numbers. Going back to my blue ball in a blue world example, a ball can only be blue in a blue world, which makes "blue ball in a blue world" redundant and tautologous. An artificial concept that exists in an artificial world means that the concept can only be artificial and the world can only be artificial, as such that the concept exists in the world.

[Arkolon]

2x = 2y
x = y

ac E aw
c E w

Nooo... Listen to Salandriagado. If you denote a set by A, then A is the name for a collection of objects, such as {a, b, c, d, ...}. a ∈ A is saying that a belongs to the collection of objects A. Unless you explicitly define the set xA as the set of objects in A which have been multiplied by some real number x for which the multiplication operator is well-defined, then it doesn't follow trivially that xa ∈ xA implies that a ∈ A. Even then, it's just notational convenience that the x cancels out. You could denote xA by B and the same property would hold.

Conscentia called the concept of propertarian ownership artificial, and as such deduced that it doesn't exist, or at least in the way that I supposed. I reminded them that we live in a world that is built in the same way: as we live in a society, we have social constructs and artificial concepts, but no part of this qualitative coefficient, so to speak, makes them nonexistent, and they exist very veritably in our artificial world. It follows trivially, then, of course, that, assuming a concept can only exist in a world and that a concept is artificial in an artificial world, an artificial concept in an artificial world is very much the same as a concept existing in the world, because a concept can only exist in the world and the world can only support certain things with its own quality. When I say "world", by the way, I don't think of the physical Earth, but rather the abstraction that is society and its interacting parts within it.

[Arkolon]

If there is life, then the demand for life is superior to zero. The supply of life creates its own demand, much like supply creates its own demand in general.

I already showed this was wrong way back with franklinite,
supply does not create intrinsic demand.
scarcity does not create intrinsic demand
subjective =/= intrinsic

In which conceptualised world are we imagining "intrinsic" to relate to?

Which religion do you have to be to immortalise yourself, again?

life =/= a human life.

You're right, it's any life at all. Life has a beginning and an end. An alien species may not have to die of natural causes, but if we put them in a blender or cut them into microscopic pieces, it would be hard to say that they can survive it. If there is life, there is death, because there cannot be death without life just as there cannot be life without death. Immortality has to stay a scifi phenomenon, and not a serious hypothetical.

[Arkolon]

The principle of justice is just because individuals have rights independent of their governing body, which is backed by none other than self-ownership itself. This isn't circular because I was not justifying self-ownership in the desert-island scenario.

except you have to justify self ownership, because your argument relies on it being objectively true.
So if you are not doing it in this scenario then your argument is based on an unfounded assumption.
so you get to pick is your argument unfounded or is it circular.

The desert-island scenario is an example of how the entitlement theory's principles of justice work, and how going against them (theft, violence, aggression) would be unjust as a result. It is true that it is backed by the notion that all individuals have rights, which is itself backed by self-ownership, but in no way do the principles of justice justify self-ownership. That would be circular.

[Twilight Imperium]

I'm still having issues with using economic theory to describe the value of life. It's not like I can go out and buy more of it.