Self-ownership

[Sociobiology]

sorry my bad, wrong soundness, it was the logic part that took me right to sound arguments.


yes, I know what axiomatic formalism is. do you know what deductivist formalism is?

Yes. It strikes me as irrelevant pedantry, to be honest. There is no significant difference between "statement X within system Y is true" and "statement X is true if we accept that the premises of system Y are true".

well yes thats why it always confuses me when people say mathematics is not science, it only works with an artificially narrow definition of science.

so all math theorems ever proposed are true? By your logic no scientific theory has ever been wrong because they are not proven to begin with.

No, every mathematical theorem ever proven is true. And always will be.

see deductivist formalism
there are testable assumptions here because there are more than one axiomatic systems.

Scientific theory =/= mathematical theorem. They are too entirely different concepts.

I know this.

why would you expect to see a proof in an experimental paper?
If you don't see a description of an experimental approach in that paper, I can only conclude you don't know what an experiment is.
And of course it is a paper about experimentation, what else would I show you?

A paper actually conducting experiments in the aid of establishing the truth or falsity of some mathematical result. (In other news: I just noticed that I know one of those authors). It even says it, right there in that paper:

Note that we do value proofs: experimentally inspired results that can be proved are more desirable than conjectural ones. However, we
do publish significant conjectures or explorations in the hope of inspiring other, perhaps better-equipped researchers to carry on the investigation. The objective of Experimental Mathematics is to play a role in the discovery of formal proofs, not to displace them.

It also speaks primarily about the best practices for teaching and disseminating mathematics and building intuition to allow you to do more mathematics, not for deriving it in the first place.

and?
I think you think I am claiming something I am not.
I never claimed mathematics did not need proofs.

proven through experimental means.

No, disproven by counterexample. That is nowhere near the same thing.

It is like the vast majority of experiments.

which is true of all experimental knowledge, and indeed all knowledge, unless you claim mathematics has never accepted any ideas that were later shown to be conjecture.

I claim precisely that: until it's proven, mathematics does not accept it, regardless of how likely we may think it is.

nor does science, but both accept it as worthy of future research.
although to be fair in science everything is various levels of likelihood. which will be true of any contingent statement.

like I said, I don't think you know what an experiment is.
exhaustive counter example is pretty common form of experimentation.

OK, for a weird and arbitrary definition of "experiment", sure.

for the empiric definition.
my own research in paleontology relies on exhaustive counter example.

which I never claimed they constituted proofs, they do however constitute evidence.

No they don't. There's no such thing as "evidence" in mathematics.

disregarding the paper I sourced and you quoted.

hence my statement about mathematics being one large theory.
It is one large hypothetical and logical deductivist construct.

No it isn't. It's not hypothetical. We make zero claims about our statements having relationships to things in the real world.

thats not what hypothetical means.

If scientists want to turn up later and find some way in which they can use them, that's their own prerogative.

not what I am talking about.

value being defined as?

Value in mathematics. Something that increases our knowledge of mathematics. A part of the body of the things that are known about mathematics.

I'm going to quote your own quote.

Note that we do value proofs: experimentally inspired results that can be proved are more desirable than conjectural ones. However, we
do publish significant conjectures or explorations in the hope of inspiring other, perhaps better-equipped researchers to carry on the investigation. The objective of Experimental Mathematics is to play a role in the discovery of formal proofs, not to displace them.

sounds like that fits your definition of value.

yes multiple axiom system, in other words there can be no one overarching set of axioms.

That's not a problem. There's no need for a single set of axioms, Hilbert just thought it would be neat.

there is a need if you want to eliminate the value judgment of which axiomatic set to use in a case.

specifically any one that includes 1+1=2

Yeah. There's plenty of maths that you can do without that.

I know, but you made it sound like it only applied to some obscure rarely used branch.

that would be called hypothesis construction and modelling in science.

No, it isn't. Because we don't then test to see if we can find evidence for it being true. We simply prove that they are true, within our own universe.

that is what a hypothetical construct is.

you can go further an see if it matches the real world, but that is testing the construct not creating it, and of course sciences measure of truth is different. And of course their was a time when science tried to be purely theoretical as well.

yet had applicable validity. meaning it had achieved the state of a law not a theory, scientifically. which is exactly what you should expect.

No, it didn't. It had no validity, at all, in any way, anywhere in mathematics. [/quote]

not according to your own quote.
but we may be running into a conflict of jargon here.

I realize now we are running to a problem of wording, Mathematics is the thing being tested not individual propositions.

Mathematics is a process. It is not the body of proven statements, much the same a science is a process, rather than the totality of all theories/laws/etc.

science is actually both, and I have always been told mathematics is the same.

[Sociobiology]

do you claim the liver owns the body because of this, because if not you have a major hole in your claim.

No, because the liver does not produce conscious experience.

which is called special pleading, because the factor you are using to support ownership changes from one to the other.

The liver doesn't produce any gestalt entity.

nor does the brain produce the body.

yes which is why it is not a gestalt of our whole body.
you are just proving my point.

The brain is just as much an important part of the body as any other part of the body. Conscious experience is just a gestalt of our brain, which is part of our whole body.

exactly it is like the engine of a car.

It is the whole body that make our conscious experience possible.

so does your parents, and the laws of electromagnetism.

If you replaced your bronchus with an artificial bronchus, you would be entitled to your bronchus (provided you didn't steal it, of course) because it makes your conscious experience possible.

except you just proved it doesn't.

which has what to do with this?

A single cell is not conscious, but lots of cells put together in the right way is conscious. The gestalt consciousness, the personhood, would be entitled to all of its components, because the gestalt consciousness is just a byproduct of all those cells being arranged in the right order.

but you have not justified why being made of it justifies ownership of it.
that is the unsupported leap in your logic.

because if cut off your arm, I have done nothing to your consciousness. but if I cut out part of your brain I have drastically changed your consciousness.
your arm is no more a component of your consciousness than your parents are.

You're taking a top-down approach to this, which you shouldn't do. Take it from an evolutionary, biological, bottom-up perspective instead: the consciousness came to be as a result of absolutely everything in our body.

actually the consciousness arose from the selective pressures, mutations, and bodies of our ancestors.
as I said "your arm is no more a component of your consciousness than your parents are

demonstrate this

Clump of cells creates consciousness, so consciousness is just clump of cells, but consciousness doesn't feel like just a clump of cells.

having you arm frozen feels like being burned, whats your point?

first demonstrate the above claim then you can try to demonstrate this one.

Same.

which demonstrates neither.

No, you

here is the problem you are using an ambiguous term, you have done this before. do you mean the you that is a consciousness or the you that is a body that has a conscious component.

The consciousness.
then you are your brain and not entitled to your arm by your argument, but you have not demonstrated even that much because you have not demonstrated how constituency creates ownership.

am I? or am I the engine of the entity labeled "car".

You are the entity labeled "car". The engine, chassis, and pipes belong to you.

why?

red does not follow from blue.
there is no reason the blues statement has to make the red statement true.
please demonstrate it is true instead of claiming it.

Ownership is an extension of yourself (this computer is "mine" without being "me" but it has linkages to "me"),

demonstrate this... no first define it better because this makes little sense.

and the body that makes my gestalt consciousness is me because I am the gestalt consciousness,

confliction of terms.
also your body does not make your consciousness, only a portion of it does.

whereas the body that makes me is an "extension" (in-tension?) of myself

you have it backwards, you are an extension of it.

[Salandriagado]

Yes. It strikes me as irrelevant pedantry, to be honest. There is no significant difference between "statement X within system Y is true" and "statement X is true if we accept that the premises of system Y are true".

well yes thats why it always confuses me when people say mathematics is not science, it only works with an artificially narrow definition of science.

Science: the method of gathering knowledge by making and empirically testing hypotheses against the world. Nothing narrow about that.

No, every mathematical theorem ever proven is true. And always will be.

see deductivist formalism
there are testable assumptions here because there are more than one axiomatic systems.

No there aren't. That only works if you are planning on stating that one axiom set or another is "correct". They are all correct, by definition, in their own universes.

Scientific theory =/= mathematical theorem. They are too entirely different concepts.

I know this.

Then kindly stop confusing them.

A paper actually conducting experiments in the aid of establishing the truth or falsity of some mathematical result. (In other news: I just noticed that I know one of those authors). It even says it, right there in that paper:



It also speaks primarily about the best practices for teaching and disseminating mathematics and building intuition to allow you to do more mathematics, not for deriving it in the first place.

and?
I think you think I am claiming something I am not.
I never claimed mathematics did not need proofs.

Notice that it explicitly says that the only use of these experiments was to get ideas for what to study, not to actually do any real maths.

No, disproven by counterexample. That is nowhere near the same thing.

It is like the vast majority of experiments.

Not really.

I claim precisely that: until it's proven, mathematics does not accept it, regardless of how likely we may think it is.

nor does science, but both accept it as worthy of future research.
although to be fair in science everything is various levels of likelihood. which will be true of any contingent statement.

There's the difference: science has a concept of "various levels of likelihood". Mathematics doesn't care. It's either proven true, proven false, yet to be resolved, or proven unprovable in a given system (in which case we just construct a more powerful system and it reverts to one of the other cases). There's no "likelihood". If it hasn't been proven, it's worthless, mathematically.

for the empiric definition.
my own research in paleontology relies on exhaustive counter example.

No it doesn't. It relies on exhausting plausible cases, tested against a body of data supported by mere evidence. That is not the same as conducting a formal proof to narrow the possibilities down to a finite set, and then checking each of those possibilities to establish something that is certain.

No they don't. There's no such thing as "evidence" in mathematics.

disregarding the paper I sourced and you quoted.

Which says nothing to contradict my statement.

No it isn't. It's not hypothetical. We make zero claims about our statements having relationships to things in the real world.

thats not what hypothetical means.

Hypothetical: "of, pertaining to, involving, or characterized by hypothesis."
Hypothesis: "a proposition, or set of propositions, set forth as an explanation for the occurrence of some specified group of phenomena, either asserted merely as a provisional conjecture to guide investigation (working hypothesis) or accepted as highly probable in the light of established facts."

Does not describe mathematics. We do not explain the occurrence of phenomena, the phenomena aren't known until we establish the system within which they exist. The order is entirely backwards.

If scientists want to turn up later and find some way in which they can use them, that's their own prerogative.

not what I am talking about.

Then kindly say what you're talking about. A non-exhaustive list of things that you aren't talking about is not useful.

Value in mathematics. Something that increases our knowledge of mathematics. A part of the body of the things that are known about mathematics.

I'm going to quote your own quote.

Note that we do value proofs: experimentally inspired results that can be proved are more desirable than conjectural ones. However, we
do publish significant conjectures or explorations in the hope of inspiring other, perhaps better-equipped researchers to carry on the investigation. The objective of Experimental Mathematics is to play a role in the discovery of formal proofs, not to displace them.

sounds like that fits your definition of value.

Nope. That doesn't increase our knowledge. It increases the things that we are interested in looking into. The proofs later are what increase our knowledge.

That's not a problem. There's no need for a single set of axioms, Hilbert just thought it would be neat.

there is a need if you want to eliminate the value judgment of which axiomatic set to use in a case.

No there isn't. All of the axiomatic systems are equally valid. You use whichever one you want to prove the result that you're working on in.

Yeah. There's plenty of maths that you can do without that.

I know, but you made it sound like it only applied to some obscure rarely used branch.

In which case, I apologise. That was not my intention. It is true, however, that said result has no noticeable impact on plenty of working mathematicians - I mostly use the naturals for nothing more interesting than indexing sets, for example, and that isn't affected by that limitation at all.

No, it isn't. Because we don't then test to see if we can find evidence for it being true. We simply prove that they are true, within our own universe.

that is what a hypothetical construct is.

"Hypothetical", in every usage that I'm aware of, is something that you predict to be true in a given situation, and then test. Entirely different thing.

you can go further an see if it matches the real world, but that is testing the construct not creating it, and of course sciences measure of truth is different. And of course their was a time when science tried to be purely theoretical as well.

But mathematics doesn't make claims about the "real world" (whatever that's supposed to mean).

yet had applicable validity. meaning it had achieved the state of a law not a theory, scientifically. which is exactly what you should expect.

No, it didn't. It had no validity, at all, in any way, anywhere in mathematics.

not according to your own quote.
but we may be running into a conflict of jargon here. [/quote]

It would appear so. The fact is that the result couldn't be used for anything in mathematics until it was proven. It couldn't be used to develop more mathematics. Thus, worthless to mathematics.

Mathematics is a process. It is not the body of proven statements, much the same a science is a process, rather than the totality of all theories/laws/etc.

science is actually both, and I have always been told mathematics is the same.

I tend to use both words to refer specifically to the processes, rather than the outcome, but each to his own, I suppose.

[Sociobiology]

well yes thats why it always confuses me when people say mathematics is not science, it only works with an artificially narrow definition of science.

Science: the method of gathering knowledge by making and empirically testing hypotheses against the world. Nothing narrow about that.

which
"statement X is true if we accept that the premises of system Y are true"
certainly falls within.
absolute logic if it exists is a feature of the universe.

see deductivist formalism
there are testable assumptions here because there are more than one axiomatic systems.

No there aren't. That only works if you are planning on stating that one axiom set or another is "correct". They are all correct, by definition, in their own universes.

as is any well put together hypothetical construct, the test it when they are applicable

I know this.

Then kindly stop confusing them.

I haven't

and?
I think you think I am claiming something I am not.
I never claimed mathematics did not need proofs.

Notice that it explicitly says that the only use of these experiments was to get ideas for what to study, not to actually do any real maths.

and?

nor does science, but both accept it as worthy of future research.
although to be fair in science everything is various levels of likelihood. which will be true of any contingent statement.

There's the difference: science has a concept of "various levels of likelihood". Mathematics doesn't care. It's either proven true, proven false, yet to be resolved, or proven unprovable in a given system (in which case we just construct a more powerful system and it reverts to one of the other cases). There's no "likelihood". If it hasn't been proven, it's worthless, mathematically.

because it is one self contained S theory, given X, Y is true. the application of mathematics is whether X is true. That was what Godel wanted one unified set of axioms which would have made Y always true.

for the empiric definition.
my own research in paleontology relies on exhaustive counter example.

No it doesn't. It relies on exhausting plausible cases, tested against a body of data supported by mere evidence. That is not the same as conducting a formal proof to narrow the possibilities down to a finite set, and then checking each of those possibilities to establish something that is certain.

its exactly the same because you have no idea is your axiomatic set is correct.

disregarding the paper I sourced and you quoted.

Which says nothing to contradict my statement.

except describing its use is finding out what to study.

thats not what hypothetical means.

Hypothetical: "of, pertaining to, involving, or characterized by hypothesis."
Hypothesis: "a proposition, or set of propositions, set forth as an explanation for the occurrence of some specified group of phenomena, either asserted merely as a provisional conjecture to guide investigation (working hypothesis) or accepted as highly probable in the light of established facts."

which is completely in line with deductivist interpretation.
there is no reason to believe logic transcends the universe.

Does not describe mathematics. We do not explain the occurrence of phenomena,

sure you do, 1+1=2 is a phenomena.

the phenomena aren't known until we establish the system within which they exist. The order is entirely backwards.

so humans don't discover mathematics they create it? in which case it would just be another construct, kinda like thought experiment.

I'm going to quote your own quote.

Note that we do value proofs: experimentally inspired results that can be proved are more desirable than conjectural ones. However, we
do publish significant conjectures or explorations in the hope of inspiring other, perhaps better-equipped researchers to carry on the investigation. The objective of Experimental Mathematics is to play a role in the discovery of formal proofs, not to displace them.

sounds like that fits your definition of value.

Nope. That doesn't increase our knowledge. It increases the things that we are interested in looking into. The proofs later are what increase our knowledge.

conjecture is knowledge just not the most useful knowledge.

there is a need if you want to eliminate the value judgment of which axiomatic set to use in a case.

No there isn't. All of the axiomatic systems are equally valid. You use whichever one you want to prove the result that you're working on in.

so there is never a conflict in the answer?

I know, but you made it sound like it only applied to some obscure rarely used branch.

In which case, I apologise. That was not my intention. It is true, however, that said result has no noticeable impact on plenty of working mathematicians - I mostly use the naturals for nothing more interesting than indexing sets, for example, and that isn't affected by that limitation at all.

fair enough

that is what a hypothetical construct is.

"Hypothetical", in every usage that I'm aware of, is something that you predict to be true in a given situation, and then test. Entirely different thing.

it depends, a hypothesis can also be a construct, a set of relationships, it depends on whether you are describing law or S. theory. In this case all of mathematics is one huge theory, it is testable even if mathematicians are not interested in testing it, which is why I alluded to the earlier purely theoretical sciences.

you can go further an see if it matches the real world, but that is testing the construct not creating it, and of course sciences measure of truth is different. And of course their was a time when science tried to be purely theoretical as well.

But mathematics doesn't make claims about the "real world" (whatever that's supposed to mean).

if they beleive these things are logically true, they are making a claim about the real world whether they realize it or not.

It couldn't be used to develop more mathematics.

which is the exact opposite of what the quote said.

Thus, worthless to mathematics.

science is actually both, and I have always been told mathematics is the same.

I tend to use both words to refer specifically to the processes, rather than the outcome, but each to his own, I suppose.

[/quote]
I used to go over this for hours with an old flatmate of mine, she was deep in the deductivist school (which required her to describe what the difference was) while I was deep in the philosophy of science because paleo steps across so many branches you see the whole dearth of science some of which come so close ot being purely hypothetical constructs is can be really strange to see how well they work a prediction.

[Frisbeeteria]

Salandriagado and Sociobiology, I haven't taken the time to figure out what in the hell you're talking about, but it sure doesn't appear to be "Self-ownership". Either take it to telegram or a new thread, but KNOCK IT OFF WITH THE THREADJACK. NOW.

[Arkolon]

No, because the liver does not produce conscious experience.

which is called special pleading, because the factor you are using to support ownership changes from one to the other.

No, it's always been about gestalt conscious experience.

The liver doesn't produce any gestalt entity.

nor does the brain produce the body.

The sum of the body produces gestalt conscious experience.

The brain is just as much an important part of the body as any other part of the body. Conscious experience is just a gestalt of our brain, which is part of our whole body.

exactly it is like the engine of a car.

The engine doesn't make a car a "car". What we are is really the gestalt conscious experience from our body: an engine on its own is not "a car". A gestalt conscious experience without a body (although impossible) would be a person: the sum of all the components of the car make the car a car.

It is the whole body that make our conscious experience possible.

so does your parents, and the laws of electromagnetism.

Those aren't components of our conscious experience.

A single cell is not conscious, but lots of cells put together in the right way is conscious. The gestalt consciousness, the personhood, would be entitled to all of its components, because the gestalt consciousness is just a byproduct of all those cells being arranged in the right order.

but you have not justified why being made of it justifies ownership of it.
that is the unsupported leap in your logic.

Because what makes you IS you. This is similar to asking "are you you?". Well, how are the components of my body not me? How am I not me? Remember that there is only perceived difference between consciousness and body, but consciousness really is a very crucial, for our purposes, bodily function.

Clump of cells creates consciousness, so consciousness is just clump of cells, but consciousness doesn't feel like just a clump of cells.

having you arm frozen feels like being burned, whats your point?

My point is that our conscious experience allows us to be perceived as more than just a walking bag of meat and bone. Consciousness really is the gestalt production of our body.

You are the entity labeled "car". The engine, chassis, and pipes belong to you.

why?

Because we are the gestalt entity (the conscious experience) produced by the sum of our components. An engine isn't a car. A chassis isn't a car. A pipe isn't a car. All of these things together make more than just a mess, but an entity labelled "car". Remember also that this is in reference to a human being; cars don't produce conscious experience.

whereas the body that makes me is an "extension" (in-tension?) of myself

you have it backwards, you are an extension of it.

I wrote, in brackets, "in-tension?".

[Arkolon]

Not "ownership"; "self-ownership": "Self-ownership (or sovereignty of the individual, individual sovereignty or individual autonomy) is the concept of property in one's own person, expressed as the moral or natural right of a person to have bodily integrity, and be the exclusive controller of his own body and life.", Wikipedia.

Ah, now you see, that's talking about ownership of your body, which I absolutely agree that you have. You are talking about ownership of your self.

Ahem, please allow me to read aloud your next phrase to you, because it is an apt response to the above.

You are your brain. There is no difference between you and yourself. There is no evidence for this dualist bullshit.

So I guess, if you agree with me that we own ourselves, there isn't much else to say? It's Christmas time soon, too, so which one do you want, Nozick or Rothbard?

No, the brain is not the person. The person is the gestalt consciousness. The brain is part of that "rest that keeps it working". The brain is a body part. Conscious experience is a byproduct of a certain body part. The brain is very much part of the so-called "life support machine" you were talking about: the "life support machine" doesn't support the brain. The brain makes the life support machine a life support machine, and on a basic level it is just as important as any other major organ.

You are your brain. There is no difference between you and yourself. There is no evidence for this dualist bullshit.

I never made any notions to dualism. Firstly, I have said time and time again that consciousness is physical. The conscious experience, the physical, bodily function from our body, is what "we" are. Dualism is something almost completely unrelated.

[Brandenbourg-Anhalt]

My opinion is the following:
I agree that every person owns themself in the sense that they must each be allowed to do what they want with themself and with their own body without intervention from the state or other public authorities.

This self-ownership however does not necessarily extend to your outward actions. As a Social Democrat I strongly believe that certain degrees of state regulation are necessary in order to ensure that the actions of the individual do not have a detrimental impact on society as a whole and one's fellow citizens and their opportunities, or at least limit said detrimental effects caused by the actions of individuals - in other words, state intervention in order to maintain basis social cohesion in said society and ensure equal opportunity in life for all citizens regardless of their social background

[Morduchia]

By definition, yes. You are yourself. But until all concepts that reinforce tribalism - industrialists, communism, fascism, capitalism, God, morality, and nationalism -- are destroyed, man will never be truly free.

[Prosorusiya]

Long story short and sweet, yes, due to the labour you either consciously or unconsciously preform on your own body and mind to create the self that you are currently.

[Old Tyrannia]

Who owns the undead, I wonder?

Gravedig. iLock.