Self-ownership

[Twilight Imperium]

The brick house/bricks analogy was used to demonstrate hylomorphism alone, and the house owning its bricks falls short of being logical because the house cannot, in any way, "own", simply because it does not have that which allows it to own. I

I'll agree that it's silly to say that brick houses can own things. But it's the "simply does not have that which allows it to own" part that's really the key here. That's what your proof needs. What is the difference between a brick house and a human, and why does that matter?

[Salandriagado]

See any of the various small communes that have ever existed.

I'm looking for an issue with the logic I used in the OP, not "this society didn't agree with self-ownership". Any slave society would be an equally viable argument of yours, but we've been there and done that already in this thread.

Are you even reading my posts? I'm not arguing with your logic: I'm arguing with your axioms. Your logic has already been dealt with by others, but I'll repeat it if you really want:

Your "proof" amounts to the following:

1. MadeFrom(a,b)
2. ¬Exists(b)=>¬Exists(a)
3. Belongs(b,a)

There are so many problems with this that it's unreal. Line 3 in no way follows from lines 1 and 2, since you haven't bothered to construct axioms defining the relations between being made from something, existing and belonging. If you did add those in, you'd end up assuming your conclusion.

[Sociobiology]

no that is what makes the body you, it does not imply ownership.

It creates a dichotomous relationship. I'll use examples with objects that have minds for this instance: a master (mind) is only a master if they have a slave ( "functional" body). If there is no slave, then there is no master. A master is not a master if there is no slave. If a potential slave is not a slave (a non-"functional" body), therefore a metaphorical freeman, then they do not have a master. This is the relationship that exists between person and body.

which still in no way implies ownership. unless you are saying control equals ownership which you have already said you aren't.

also I don't think you know what dichotomy means, because the mind and brain are quite literally the opposite of a dichotomy. and mind and body is likewise not a dichotomy because of this.

which is still circular, because you are taking it as an assumption. you are defining a mind as something that conveys ownership.

We went over this. I said that defining a mind as "that which can own" was purposely circular, and we moved on to define a mind as that which is capable of being self-aware. You've seen this before because we're shifting to and fro dualist and monist argumentative vocabulary, and the distinction between a "mind" and a "body" is nonexistent in the monist's take of the world.

well mind and brain, and I won't be taking any dualist arguments seriously since it runs in opposition of all relevant science. having a argument based on dualism is the same as starting by saying "Because the earth is only 6 thousand years old..."

which is why I split it right where the circular argument starts.

Your point, sorry?

that you have a circular argument specifically begging the question, therefore you have no actual argument to support the claim for self ownership.
the entire rest of the string of logic is irrelevant because the first three points form a circular argument, and the rest is based on those points.

this is the only one close to useful, but still in no way implies ownership

It wasn't destined to.

Do you mean designed?
If so, then you are contradicting yourself since you claimed it was the presence of a mind that granted ownership, since hylomorphism didn't.
If not then I have no idea what you are talking about.

[Sociobiology]

I...

No. There's nothing to continue. Your big argument against him involved bringing up something he never disagreed with or argued against and attacking something vaguely connected to him that didn't specifically define his beliefs. My only intention was to point that out. The biology major in me just can't take the downright unscientific arguments that have been produced by you in this thread. So, have fun with that, I guess. I've made my point about your argument against Marx that really don't amount to anything. I really hope I don't have to repeat it again down the line.

1. You think, therefore you are.
2. If you are, therefore you have a corporeal mechanism.
3. If you have a corporeal mechanism, you can accumulate extensions of yourself through labour.

3 is not a given and does not logically follow from the former.
also you do not have a corporeal mechanism, you ARE a corporeal mechanism.

[Mavorpen]

1. You think, therefore you are.
2. If you are, therefore you have a corporeal mechanism.
3. If you have a corporeal mechanism, you can accumulate extensions of yourself through labour.

3 is not a given and does not logically follow from the former.
also you do not have a corporeal mechanism, you ARE a corporeal mechanism.

You know, I didn't even bother to click the "Display this post" because I was 100% sure he was going to make the SAME circular argument that's been repeatedly shut down through basic understanding of biology. And...well, I ended up being entirely right.

I will say this though:

6. Create your own thread defending your distortion of Marxist economics.
7. If you do so, it will allow you to think deeper and more critically.
8. If you create your own thread, I'll see you there, too.

No. I'm not a Marxist, and I really don't care enough to make an entire thread solely because you fail to understand Marx's works. Someone else by the name of 4years already demonstrated that earlier in the thread. Ask him to make this thread you seem to so desperately desire.

[Sociobiology]

3 is not a given and does not logically follow from the former.
also you do not have a corporeal mechanism, you ARE a corporeal mechanism.

You know, I didn't even bother to click the "Display this post" because I was 100% sure he was going to make the SAME circular argument that's been repeatedly shut down through basic understanding of biology. And...well, I ended up being entirely right.

damn first flag of yours I didn't recognize.

[Mavorpen]

You know, I didn't even bother to click the "Display this post" because I was 100% sure he was going to make the SAME circular argument that's been repeatedly shut down through basic understanding of biology. And...well, I ended up being entirely right.

damn first flag of yours I didn't recognize.

Aha, my plan is a success!

[Sociobiology]

damn first flag of yours I didn't recognize.

Aha, my plan is a success!

stop making me feel old you monster!

[Liberaxia]

Good God, Arkolon. Your arguments have holes big enough to fly a Boeing 747 through.

[Mavorpen]

Aha, my plan is a success!

stop making me feel old you monster!

If it makes you feel any better, I'd never heard of it myself until like two weeks ago.

[Corumm]

Oh it's this thread again

[Sociobiology]

stop making me feel old you monster!

If it makes you feel any better, I'd never heard of it myself until like two weeks ago.

I'm guessing TV, which aside from pawn stars and the daily show I rarely watch.

right now I am reading vinland saga because it has an amazingly solid story with great art, plus crazy vikings.

http://ghostlightning.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/vinland_saga_v01_p044_045.jpg

[Mavorpen]

If it makes you feel any better, I'd never heard of it myself until like two weeks ago.

I'm guessing TV, which aside from pawn stars and the daily show I rarely watch.

right now I am reading vinland saga because it has an amazingly solid story with great art, plus crazy vikings.

http://ghostlightning.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/vinland_saga_v01_p044_045.jpg

It's from a 13 episode anime that took inspiration from a lot of Western style cartoons. And Vinland Saga is indeed really amazing. One of the best manga I've read, and it has one of my favorite story arcs in all of manga.

This probably isn't the best place to discuss this though, so we should probably take this here viewtopic.php?f=19&t=239918&p=21712244#p21712244

[Arkolon]

What do you want me to call it? I have previously stated that I use a dualist vocabulary that can be translated to one that is more monistic; the OP uses dualism, and as such hylomorphic relationships stand true in that instance.


The word "person" in the way I used it was meant to be interchangeable with "mind", "soul", "life", "individual", and so on.

So it isn't about ownership, it's about having a mind/soul/life.

Ownership of the self is a logical conclusion of having a mind/soul/life, yes.

[Arkolon]

The brick house/bricks analogy was used to demonstrate hylomorphism alone, and the house owning its bricks falls short of being logical because the house cannot, in any way, "own", simply because it does not have that which allows it to own. I

I'll agree that it's silly to say that brick houses can own things. But it's the "simply does not have that which allows it to own" part that's really the key here. That's what your proof needs. What is the difference between a brick house and a human, and why does that matter?

The quality of self-awareness, life, sapience-sentience, capability of thought.. A brick house does not have these human/live qualities.

[Arkolon]

I'm looking for an issue with the logic I used in the OP, not "this society didn't agree with self-ownership". Any slave society would be an equally viable argument of yours, but we've been there and done that already in this thread.

Are you even reading my posts? I'm not arguing with your logic: I'm arguing with your axioms. Your logic has already been dealt with by others, but I'll repeat it if you really want:

Your "proof" amounts to the following:

1. MadeFrom(a,b)
2. ¬Exists(b)=>¬Exists(a)
3. Belongs(b,a)

There are so many problems with this that it's unreal. Line 3 in no way follows from lines 1 and 2, since you haven't bothered to construct axioms defining the relations between being made from something, existing and belonging. If you did add those in, you'd end up assuming your conclusion.

The ownership is the connection between A, which is assumed to be something that is self-aware and possesses a mind, and B, which is assumed to be a constituent relative matter of A. If you exist directly because of something, then you own that something. My mind is only able to be a mind (or my life is only able to be at all) because of the existence of my body. Therefore, I own my body. It belongs to me. To whom would my mucus, organs, limbs, and systems belong to if they did not belong to that which they create: me?

I see it as self-evident. Ostensibly, you don't.

[Twilight Imperium]

I see it as self-evident. Ostensibly, you don't.

Often it's the things that we see as obvious that are hardest to prove to others empirically, since it's so plain to us. You have part of a decent-looking proof, but this:

Ownership of the self is a logical conclusion of having a mind/soul/life, yes.

has yet to be shown by you here. The proof is incomplete.

[Arkolon]

It creates a dichotomous relationship. I'll use examples with objects that have minds for this instance: a master (mind) is only a master if they have a slave ( "functional" body). If there is no slave, then there is no master. A master is not a master if there is no slave. If a potential slave is not a slave (a non-"functional" body), therefore a metaphorical freeman, then they do not have a master. This is the relationship that exists between person and body.

which still in no way implies ownership. unless you are saying control equals ownership which you have already said you aren't.

No, it really is ownership. Where is it not ownership in the analogy?

We went over this. I said that defining a mind as "that which can own" was purposely circular, and we moved on to define a mind as that which is capable of being self-aware. You've seen this before because we're shifting to and fro dualist and monist argumentative vocabulary, and the distinction between a "mind" and a "body" is nonexistent in the monist's take of the world.

well mind and brain, and I won't be taking any dualist arguments seriously since it runs in opposition of all relevant science. having a argument based on dualism is the same as starting by saying "Because the earth is only 6 thousand years old..."

The dualist argument is easy to explain and a little harder to translate into relevant monism. If I start "because the earth is only 6,000 years old, that means I was born in the 6,000th -x year in time", the conclusion that y - x = year of birth since the beginning of the planet, where y = the age of the world, then "because the earth is only 6,000 years old" isn't objectively a wrong way to begin an argument. Similarly, my argument does work in this way. I began with dualist arguments, and have since translated them to to monist arguments for factual relevancy.

It wasn't destined to.

Do you mean designed?
If so, then you are contradicting yourself since you claimed it was the presence of a mind that granted ownership, since hylomorphism didn't.
If not then I have no idea what you are talking about.

We weren't discussing ownership. You confused posts. You asked for synonyms for "functional" so that we can define it for other arguments.

[Arkolon]

1. You think, therefore you are.
2. If you are, therefore you have a corporeal mechanism.
3. If you have a corporeal mechanism, you can accumulate extensions of yourself through labour.

3 is not a given and does not logically follow from the former.
also you do not have a corporeal mechanism, you ARE a corporeal mechanism.

... that is self-aware.

[Arkolon]

Good God, Arkolon. Your arguments have holes big enough to fly a Boeing 747 through.

Are you calling Sociobiology fat?

[Arkolon]

I see it as self-evident. Ostensibly, you don't.

Often it's the things that we see as obvious that are hardest to prove to others empirically, since it's so plain to us. You have part of a decent-looking proof, but this:

Ownership of the self is a logical conclusion of having a mind/soul/life, yes.

has yet to be shown by you here. The proof is incomplete.

1. We are.
2. Therefore, we think.
3. If we think, then we have that which is capable of thought (the mind).
4. if we have that which is capable of thought, then it must be supported by another corporeal mechanism (the body).
5. The relative matter of that which is capable of thought is the corporeal mechanism.
6. If there is no corporeal mechanism, then we are not capable of thought (therefore we are not).
7. "We" are that which is capable of thought.
8. The corporeal mechanism upon which we are supported is therefore naturally belonging to us.
9. If the corporeal mechanism upon which we are supported is therefore naturally belonging to us, we own our bodies.
10. Owning something is owning the rights to something, which effectively makes that something an extension of our own rights and of ourselves.
11. Therefore, we own ourselves.

Cut out what needs to be cut out for the monist's argument, and there you go.

1-11, the link between being (having a mind/body/soul) and owning yourself.

[Twilight Imperium]

1. We are.
2. Therefore, we think.
3. If we think, then we have that which is capable of thought (the mind).
4. if we have that which is capable of thought, then it must be supported by another corporeal mechanism (the body).
5. The relative matter of that which is capable of thought is the corporeal mechanism.
6. If there is no corporeal mechanism, then we are not capable of thought (therefore we are not).
7. "We" are that which is capable of thought.
8. The corporeal mechanism upon which we are supported is therefore naturally belonging to us.
9. If the corporeal mechanism upon which we are supported is therefore naturally belonging to us, we own our bodies.
10. Owning something is owning the rights to something, which effectively makes that something an extension of our own rights and of ourselves.
11. Therefore, we own ourselves.

1-11, the link between being (having a mind/body/soul) and owning yourself.

D'oh, missed that. How do you get from 8 to 9, though?

[Salandriagado]

Are you even reading my posts? I'm not arguing with your logic: I'm arguing with your axioms. Your logic has already been dealt with by others, but I'll repeat it if you really want:

Your "proof" amounts to the following:

1. MadeFrom(a,b)
2. ¬Exists(b)=>¬Exists(a)
3. Belongs(b,a)

There are so many problems with this that it's unreal. Line 3 in no way follows from lines 1 and 2, since you haven't bothered to construct axioms defining the relations between being made from something, existing and belonging. If you did add those in, you'd end up assuming your conclusion.

The ownership is the connection between A, which is assumed to be something that is self-aware and possesses a mind, and B, which is assumed to be a constituent relative matter of A. If you exist directly because of something, then you own that something. My mind is only able to be a mind (or my life is only able to be at all) because of the existence of my body. Therefore, I own my body. It belongs to me. To whom would my mucus, organs, limbs, and systems belong to if they did not belong to that which they create: me?

I see it as self-evident. Ostensibly, you don't.

None of those things are in your axioms, nor are they proved anywhere in your proof. They are thus entirely irrelevant to your proof. "It's obvious" is not, in any way, acceptable in a proof. If I'm marking anything that includes the word "obvious", "self-evident" or anything of the kind, I'll immediately try to break it, and usually manage it. That's how a proof works: either its in your axioms, or it doesn't exist. There's no reference to a "mind" anywhere in your "proof" - it should work just as easily in a system without minds at all.

[Arkolon]

The ownership is the connection between A, which is assumed to be something that is self-aware and possesses a mind, and B, which is assumed to be a constituent relative matter of A. If you exist directly because of something, then you own that something. My mind is only able to be a mind (or my life is only able to be at all) because of the existence of my body. Therefore, I own my body. It belongs to me. To whom would my mucus, organs, limbs, and systems belong to if they did not belong to that which they create: me?

I see it as self-evident. Ostensibly, you don't.

None of those things are in your axioms, nor are they proved anywhere in your proof. They are thus entirely irrelevant to your proof. "It's obvious" is not, in any way, acceptable in a proof. If I'm marking anything that includes the word "obvious", "self-evident" or anything of the kind, I'll immediately try to break it, and usually manage it. That's how a proof works: either its in your axioms, or it doesn't exist. There's no reference to a "mind" anywhere in your "proof" - it should work just as easily in a system without minds at all.

The proof was given context. Read up one paragraph from where my proof appeared. Sounds like you skimmed through and looked for a different format, one comprised of more bite-sized text, to replace reading through my actual posts.

[Zottistan]

That's not logical consistency, that's lining up with reality.

Remind me, what are the axioms connecting "we are" to "we own ourselves"?

1. We are.
2. Therefore, we think.

That doesn't work both ways. The fact that I think proves that I am. The fact that I am doesn't prove that I think. A tree is. Does it think?

3. If we think, then we have that which is capable of thought (the mind).
4. if we have that which is capable of thought, then it must be supported by another corporeal mechanism (the body).

Not all of the body is necessary for supporting thought. You don't need hands to survive and support your thinking mechanism, for example. Does that mean we don't own our hands? They aren't part of the relative matter of that which is capable of thought.

5. The relative matter of that which is capable of thought is the corporeal mechanism.
6. If there is no corporeal mechanism, then we are not capable of thought (therefore we are not).
7. "We" are that which is capable of thought.
8. The corporeal mechanism upon which we are supported is therefore naturally belonging to us.

But that's not what "belonging" means. Being a constituent of something doesn't mean it owns you.

9. If the corporeal mechanism upon which we are supported is therefore naturally belonging to us, we own our bodies.
10. Owning something is owning the rights to something, which effectively makes that something an extension of our own rights and of ourselves.

"Owning" something is only owning the rights to something under certain artificial institutions of owning.