Self-ownership

[Arkolon]

I actually flipped a coin, between cheeseball, dog, vending machine, and "I'm Batman". The coin said "dog", but I didn't think it proved my point well enough, so I used "cheeseball". I chose it. Me. My self.

If there is no external mind deciding my actions bar my own, then it is, naturally, a choice.

so you choose to obey gravity?

That's a physical constant, and the only reason you use the word "obey" is because it is in reference to the "laws of gravity", but gravity is not a person. It has no mind, mostly because it has no functional body.

[Arkolon]

No, it could not. If I get you to choose between five different identical cookies once every hour for 16 hours, the cookies are, 100%, your free will and of your own choice. That's 152.6 million different patterns you can take,

in phase space, which is not real space.
in real space you only had one sequence, your choice was an illusion due to your limited access to information.
you have no more free will then a storm has free will. both are unpredictable due to the sheer number of variables involved, but that is not the same thing as saying the are not deterministic.
phase space probability can be anything between 0 and 1. but real probability is always 1 or 0.

since you like philosophy so much I suggest you look up, Laplace's Demon.

How does this refute any of my points, though? Self-ownership has nothing to do with free will or deterministic causality.

[Arkolon]

Doesn't an illusion of free will not function in the same way as actual free will? The impossibility of telling the future is close enough to 100% to be ignored.

The illusion of free will has the same real-world applications of actual free will. But it isn't actual free will.

So literally nothing changes?

[Arkolon]

Before the action.

After the action.
See: how time works.

The point was that what did happen is the only thing that could have happened, because there happen to be reasons why what happened did happen (ie. causes).

Cause: I chose it from a large variety of options.

You're being silly.

[Arkolon]

Self ownership is only a very small part of yourself, as society shapes a lot of how we act, dress, etc. We might not be completely controlled by external forces, but a large amount of our decisions are really consequences of the culture we live in.

You can choose how to dress, I should hope. You just have to bear the consequences on your own, that's all.

[Arkolon]

A mind is that which can think; which can realise that one is self-aware.

now define think, specifically a definition that does not rely on a mind as the part of the definition.
because many organisms we consider able to think are not self-aware.

think
θɪŋk/
verb
verb: think; 3rd person present: thinks; past tense: thought; past participle: thought; gerund or present participle: thinking

1.
have a particular belief or idea.

Then answer why something with a mind owns itself.

Minds are made possible by the existence of a body. As such, the mind owns the body. The mind has the rights to said property, which makes the body a hylomorphic extension of the mind.

and all of this must not use self ownership as an axiom or it is begging the question.

Self-ownership is an axiom for libertarianism. It's a logical conclusion in hylomorphic propertarianism.

A chicken is not made up of eggs.

but it is made from one.

So?

[Zottistan]

The illusion of free will has the same real-world applications of actual free will. But it isn't actual free will.

So literally nothing changes?

Our understanding of the world becomes more accurate.

If that's worth anything...

[Arkolon]

So literally nothing changes?

Our understanding of the world becomes more accurate.

If that's worth anything...

Not as much as I'd have hoped.

[Zottistan]

Our understanding of the world becomes more accurate.

If that's worth anything...

Not as much as I'd have hoped.

What do you mean?

[Arkolon]

Not as much as I'd have hoped.

What do you mean?

Well, it doesn't actually change much at all, does it?

[Zottistan]

What do you mean?

Well, it doesn't actually change much at all, does it?

Most people would take a deeper understanding of the world to be desirable in itself.

[Arkolon]

Well, it doesn't actually change much at all, does it?

Most people would take a deeper understanding of the world to be desirable in itself.

I guess.

[Sociobiology]

the state of the universe, and thus the state of your brain, gave you no choice, physics forced to do it.

I still had a choice. Physics gave me a choice, if anything. I could have taken a walk, a jog, a run, I could have stopped by in the shop on the way there, I could have run backwards, I could have thrown my shoes at a passing car. If I had done any of these other things, you would still be here trying to tell me that that was my destiny. That's ridiculous. That was my choice.

that is phase space not actual space. in actual space you had no choice but you had the illusion of choice (phase space) because too many (still causal) variables contribute to make an accurate prediction. you have no more choice than a rock has a choice in which path it takes rolling down hill, we may not be able to predict the exact path, but that does not mean the rock had a choice, it does not mean the rock did not follow a 100% causal path.

Choice isn't infinite, and there are only a certain number of possibilities to your actions, however that number is very large. You could say that there is a always a rational option, but to assume that humans are always 100% rational is just factually incorrect.

it has nothing to do with rationality, watch the strawmen, it has to do with how the brain works, emotional decisions are also 100% causal.

It's possible to narrow it down-- to have fewer cookies to choose from every hour, so to speak-- but there isn't always one action that I will always take.

in real space there is.

You're morphing time and space in your argument:

how?

Derk Pereboom seems to agree with me that "position 6" is one way to both accept and reject the neuroscience of free will. Sounds like we're going to have to modus vivendi on this one.

why would I care what a philosophers opinion is? Especially their opinion on the morality of legal prosecution?.

[Sociobiology]

in phase space, which is not real space.
in real space you only had one sequence, your choice was an illusion due to your limited access to information.
you have no more free will then a storm has free will. both are unpredictable due to the sheer number of variables involved, but that is not the same thing as saying the are not deterministic.
phase space probability can be anything between 0 and 1. but real probability is always 1 or 0.

since you like philosophy so much I suggest you look up, Laplace's Demon.

How does this refute any of my points, though?

because you don't seem to understand how probability works. Yet you use it as an argument.

Self-ownership has nothing to do with free will or deterministic causality.

and? You don't reply to the posts about self ownership.

[Sociobiology]

now define think, specifically a definition that does not rely on a mind as the part of the definition.
because many organisms we consider able to think are not self-aware.

...have a particular belief or idea.

which is different than being self aware.

Then answer why something with a mind owns itself.

Minds are made possible by the existence of a body. As such, the mind owns the body.

which in no way means the body is owned by the mind, you may see the connection, but you are not explaining or supporting it.

The mind has the rights to said property, which makes the body a hylomorphic extension of the mind.

no it doesn't that's now what hylomorphic means, it does not arise from ownership. also, you still have not demonstrated the mind owns the body so you can't use it to support other arguments, if is no different than someone using the bible as evidence for the christian god.

and all of this must not use self ownership as an axiom or it is begging the question.

Self-ownership is an axiom for libertarianism. It's a logical conclusion in hylomorphic propertarianism.

then it can't be used to defend, define, or support hylomorphic propertarianism or anything that uses it as a premise.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Begging_the_question
see example 2.

but it is made from one.

So?

so pay attention to which words you use. And this won't happen.

[Sociobiology]

The point was that what did happen is the only thing that could have happened, because there happen to be reasons why what happened did happen (ie. causes).

Cause: I chose it from a large variety of options.

no she means the causes for the supposed choice.

[Sociobiology]

so you choose to obey gravity?

That's a physical constant, and the only reason you use the word "obey" is because it is in reference to the "laws of gravity", but gravity is not a person. It has no mind, mostly because it has no functional body.

the electrical potential that comprises your "choice" is also composed of physical constants. Which is why gravity makes a perfect example, there is no difference in the choice between choosing to obey gravity and choosing to obey those action potentials.

[Sociobiology]

no a good one does not.

How many options do you have right this second?

in real space or phase space, in real space I have 1, in phase space I have many, including the ones you list below.

Get up, run, walk, move house, say "hello", say "hi", google whatever you want... it's practically endless. Now work out how many different options you have every minute, and then an hour, and then in sixteen hours. That's a ridiculously large number, and I doubt any good consumer calculator can work that out.

which is not what you said. stop moving the goal posts.

[Conscentia]

The point was that what did happen is the only thing that could have happened, because there happen to be reasons why what happened did happen (ie. causes).

Cause: I chose it from a large variety of options.

You're being silly.

That is not the cause.

You are being silly.

The particles he's made of felt a stimulus that rearranged them such that his brain sent a signal to his muscles to bash the keys. Newtonian physics pretty much determined which keys were pressed.

His brain controls his actions. His brain consists of particles whose motion and interactions he cannot control. In-fact, they control him. He didn't choose anything. He did the inevitable.

In-fact, neurologists can predict that you are going to act before you are even consciously aware of it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6S9OidmNZM

[Betoni]

I'd rather take the devils interpretation of the bible over your interpretation of Locke, if you're saying that his idea of self-ownership justifies even voluntary slavery. The fact that you are basing your argument on some strange mixture of Aristotelean metaphysics and Cartesian dualism only weakens it. Generally, the term self-ownership entails exclusive ownership of the self. I get the feeling that the OP is going for some political agenda and unfortunately mixing ideas centuries apart that do not have anything do to with each other, and for gods know what reason, justifying slavery in the process.

[Arkolon]

I still had a choice. Physics gave me a choice, if anything. I could have taken a walk, a jog, a run, I could have stopped by in the shop on the way there, I could have run backwards, I could have thrown my shoes at a passing car. If I had done any of these other things, you would still be here trying to tell me that that was my destiny. That's ridiculous. That was my choice.

that is phase space not actual space. in actual space you had no choice but you had the illusion of choice (phase space) because too many (still causal) variables contribute to make an accurate prediction. you have no more choice than a rock has a choice in which path it takes rolling down hill, we may not be able to predict the exact path, but that does not mean the rock had a choice, it does not mean the rock did not follow a 100% causal path.

In a practical sense, the illusion of free will and free will have no real distinction. It doesn't even change my OP at all.

Choice isn't infinite, and there are only a certain number of possibilities to your actions, however that number is very large. You could say that there is a always a rational option, but to assume that humans are always 100% rational is just factually incorrect.

it has nothing to do with rationality, watch the strawmen, it has to do with how the brain works, emotional decisions are also 100% causal.

It assumes rationality, that certain subatomic particles will do certain things because they are obliged to because physics, and that this means that only certain things can occur in the long run-- which effectively boils down to everyone has one option.

Derk Pereboom seems to agree with me that "position 6" is one way to both accept and reject the neuroscience of free will. Sounds like we're going to have to modus vivendi on this one.

why would I care what a philosophers opinion is? Especially their opinion on the morality of legal prosecution?.

It's a defense of my position. This is how arguments work.

[Arkolon]

...have a particular belief or idea.

which is different than being self aware.

I said being capable of thought, semi-colon, to be self-aware. Two requirements.

Minds are made possible by the existence of a body. As such, the mind owns the body.

which in no way means the body is owned by the mind, you may see the connection, but you are not explaining or supporting it.

The connection exists because of the property relation. The ownership is the connection.

The mind has the rights to said property, which makes the body a hylomorphic extension of the mind.

no it doesn't that's now what hylomorphic means, it does not arise from ownership.

Actually, that's exactly what hylomorphic means. It needs one other thing, a relative matter, to exist.

also, you still have not demonstrated the mind owns the body so you can't use it to support other arguments, if is no different than someone using the bible as evidence for the christian god.

I have, many times. That's the problem. You keep repeating yourself, asking for justifications, even though there's one justification I keep giving, and the best part is, it's in the OP.

So?

so pay attention to which words you use. And this won't happen.

And what won't happen? You're the one with the distorted definition of what constitutes components of a bigger item. Apparently a chicken is made from lots and lots of small eggs. Is that what you're trying to say? Is that what you thought I was trying to say?

[Arkolon]

Cause: I chose it from a large variety of options.

no she means the causes for the supposed choice.

The illusion of choice is still, practically, a choice.

[Arkolon]

That's a physical constant, and the only reason you use the word "obey" is because it is in reference to the "laws of gravity", but gravity is not a person. It has no mind, mostly because it has no functional body.

the electrical potential that comprises your "choice" is also composed of physical constants. Which is why gravity makes a perfect example, there is no difference in the choice between choosing to obey gravity and choosing to obey those action potentials.

If I'm being given a choice between five identical cookies, A through E, then I have a choice. It's entirely up to me. Gravity is a terrible example. There are no physical constants (directly relevant) in this choice. There is a limit to choice, and there's a very small chance you can accurately guess which cookies I'm going to choose after sixteen tries, but that is only by chance.

[Arkolon]

Cause: I chose it from a large variety of options.

You're being silly.

That is not the cause.

You are being silly.

The particles he's made of felt a stimulus that rearranged them such that his brain sent a signal to his muscles to bash the keys. Newtonian physics pretty much determined which keys were pressed.

His brain controls his actions. His brain consists of particles whose motion and interactions he cannot control. In-fact, they control him. He didn't choose anything. He did the inevitable.

In-fact, neurologists can predict that you are going to act before you are even consciously aware of it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6S9OidmNZM

So it's an illusion of choice, which disproves self-ownership... how?