Self-ownership

[Arkolon]

Your self does not need to own the body to be sustained by it, but it owns the body because it is sustained by it.

Remember that you're arguing from the position that ownership is control. You said that when ownership was control and a person was owned, the self "wasn't" because it didn't own its body.

The self and the body are still inseparable. A body is not self-aware without a mind, and a mind "is not" without a body. The hylomorphic relationship would still exist even if we used ownership as control.

When it is possible, and encouraged, to use might and forcible control as means of legitimising ownership, life is nothing short of being brutish. Wouldn't this also justify rape? If I pin you down and control your body, isn't your body therefore... mine?

Yes. That doesn't make it less of a valid alternative, just one that most people, myself included, would favour less.

So it's safe to assume we can drop it now, then?

And of course, while rape is "justified" under that system, so are all attempt to prevent rape.

Naturally.

Egg span [d].

Took me way too long to get that. But I still don't know what you want me to argue against hylomorphism. You said "would you want to try and argue that against hylomorphism", but I don't know what "that" is.

I thought I'd make a joke. I have to articulate to produce anything remotely comprehensible when speaking or reading in English, and I thought that syllabic homonymity was a funny one. Regardless, "that" as in whatever it is you you said you believed.

The brick is a brick. When clay is hardened and correctly formed, it becomes a brick. It is no longer just clay. It has become bigger than clay. It has stopped literally being clay, but it now only "is" the clay as the two objects exist hylomorphically. Note that I'm assuming an analogy that the brick is a mind and the clay its body, as well.

How has it stopped being clay by also being a brick? A brick is a term for a clay construct, so all bricks, by definition, must be literally clay. It is "just" clay, with the qualifier of being arranged properly.

A brick is made of clay, but it is bigger than clay. It is more than just clay. It is a brick. I'm not sure how else to put this, I'm afraid.

[Arkolon]

The fact that it has been arranged to make a brick makes it more than "just" clay. You are more than just a collection of cells, you are your own individual.

And my own individual is a collection of cells. Literally.

"I" am the term used for cells organized into the right pattern.

The actual "you", however, is more than just cells. Your cells are organised to produce your body, and your body, when "functional", allows the existence of your mind-- your "you".

[Arkolon]

Ok, well "individual" is all I've got to go on.

Basically, do you believe that there is a distinction between the brick and the clay that makes up the brick?

Clay is a mixture of minerals.
"Brick" refers to a way of organising said clay.

Thing is the analogy doesn't work, because the clay doesn't constantly re-organise itself.

And a brick isn't a mind, so even if either of you agreed that brick is clay but clay isn't always brick, I would still have to make a logical jump and say "it's the same thing for the body and the mind". It's, actually, not all that good of an analogy.

[Flaxxony]

Am I the only one who thinks philosophy is worthless without a complete reverse-engineering of the brain? I guess that's just the chemical engineer in me....

[Flaxxony]

And my own individual is a collection of cells. Literally.

"I" am the term used for cells organized into the right pattern.

The actual "you", however, is more than just cells. Your cells are organised to produce your body, and your body, when "functional", allows the existence of your mind-- your "you".

Which is called Gestalt and, to be honest, the difference from 1 trillion salmonella in a giant colony and a human being is that the cell's actions and functions are dictated by the actions of other cells.

[Senyosu]

Am I the only one who thinks philosophy is worthless without a complete reverse-engineering of the brain? I guess that's just the chemical engineer in me....

You effectively spit in the face of neuroscience and AI research and engineering. Good for you.

---

We own ourselves by default. We simply owe debts to one another.

[Flaxxony]

Am I the only one who thinks philosophy is worthless without a complete reverse-engineering of the brain? I guess that's just the chemical engineer in me....

You effectively spit in the face of neuroscience and AI research and engineering. Good for you.

---

We own ourselves by default. We simply owe debts to one another.

Stop being a retaliatory drama queen and explain instead.

[Senyosu]

You effectively spit in the face of neuroscience and AI research and engineering. Good for you.

---

We own ourselves by default. We simply owe debts to one another.

Stop being a retaliatory drama queen and explain instead.

Look who's talking bro.

Anyways, the explanation, since I am obliged to explain after that less-than-kind... umm... whatever. Let's move on. I'm a being who laces their words with snark, and I'm sorry for whatever harm said snark has done. Mooooving on!

I like to think philosophy (especially about anything to do with the brain/mind/blah-blah) as an amalgamation of multiple hypothesis jumbled together. In the end, it's all just assumption after assumption. Neuroscientists, AI programmers/developers, and other like professions test those hypotheses and try to see what is viable and testable, and what is not. In the end, it is much more complex than reverse engineering a lump of meat that is definitely the most complex component in our body system. We do certainly have the basics on how it works (neurotransmitters, the effects of drugs in the brain, and basic programming in computers that allow them to teach other computers for instance), but really it is barely scratching the surface.

One must also take into account that the idea of the mind having a soul is prevalent in some religious philosophy. To take the agnostic side for simplicity's sake, who knows.

Hell, decoding human emotions is borderline confusing when one comes to think of it. How emotions are formed and why they exist is why philosophical hypotheses of the human mind exist. In the end, I treat them as mere hypotheses, as you should (by your background) as well.

As for why one owns themselves but effectively owns others (and vice versa) take a look at primitive societies and modern day banking.

[Flaxxony]

Stop being a retaliatory drama queen and explain instead.

Look who's talking bro.

Anyways, the explanation, since I am obliged to explain after that less-than-kind... umm... whatever. Let's move on. I'm a being who laces their words with snark, and I'm sorry for whatever harm said snark has done. Mooooving on!

I like to think philosophy (especially about anything to do with the brain/mind/blah-blah) as an amalgamation of multiple hypothesis jumbled together. In the end, it's all just assumption after assumption. Neuroscientists, AI programmers/developers, and other like professions test those hypotheses and try to see what is viable and testable, and what is not. In the end, it is much more complex than reverse engineering a lump of meat that is definitely the most complex component in our body system. We do certainly have the basics on how it works (neurotransmitters, the effects of drugs in the brain, and basic programming in computers that allow them to teach other computers for instance), but really it is barely scratching the surface.

One must also take into account that the idea of the mind having a soul is prevalent in some religious philosophy. To take the agnostic side for simplicity's sake, who knows.

Hell, decoding human emotions is borderline confusing when one comes to think of it. How emotions are formed and why they exist is why philosophical hypotheses of the human mind exist. In the end, I treat them as mere hypotheses, as you should (by your background) as well.

As for why one owns themselves but effectively owns others (and vice versa) take a look at primitive societies and modern day banking.

Well as of now, very little empiricism has been introduced into the field. Even the way that color is processed has been barely understood until recently.

In fact, that is a perfect example; so many people for so long looked at the color wheel as absolute - green and blue makes purple, etc. - that when we actually saw the spectrum of light, it was baffling to think of. Then the neuroscience came out that really our brain has these shortcuts to perceive color anyway. I simply reject the idea that one can even make the simplest assumptions on "human nature" in an argument, and that policy either better wait for the science to provide the theory, or operate on a pragmatic basis.

[Senyosu]

Look who's talking bro.

Anyways, the explanation, since I am obliged to explain after that less-than-kind... umm... whatever. Let's move on. I'm a being who laces their words with snark, and I'm sorry for whatever harm said snark has done. Mooooving on!

I like to think philosophy (especially about anything to do with the brain/mind/blah-blah) as an amalgamation of multiple hypothesis jumbled together. In the end, it's all just assumption after assumption. Neuroscientists, AI programmers/developers, and other like professions test those hypotheses and try to see what is viable and testable, and what is not. In the end, it is much more complex than reverse engineering a lump of meat that is definitely the most complex component in our body system. We do certainly have the basics on how it works (neurotransmitters, the effects of drugs in the brain, and basic programming in computers that allow them to teach other computers for instance), but really it is barely scratching the surface.

One must also take into account that the idea of the mind having a soul is prevalent in some religious philosophy. To take the agnostic side for simplicity's sake, who knows.

Hell, decoding human emotions is borderline confusing when one comes to think of it. How emotions are formed and why they exist is why philosophical hypotheses of the human mind exist. In the end, I treat them as mere hypotheses, as you should (by your background) as well.

As for why one owns themselves but effectively owns others (and vice versa) take a look at primitive societies and modern day banking.

Well as of now, very little empiricism has been introduced into the field. Even the way that color is processed has been barely understood until recently.

In fact, that is a perfect example; so many people for so long looked at the color wheel as absolute - green and blue makes purple, etc. - that when we actually saw the spectrum of light, it was baffling to think of. Then the neuroscience came out that really our brain has these shortcuts to perceive color anyway. I simply reject the idea that one can even make the simplest assumptions on "human nature" in an argument, and that policy either better wait for the science to provide the theory, or operate on a pragmatic basis.

One can still pigeonhole human emotions into the vagueness of 'human nature' as it is extremely hard to investigate through psychology or neuroscience. One can over-oversimplify that 'I play video game, I get reward [woosh dopamine rushes in], I feel good [the emotion], must do more' as a basic basic understanding of human emotion, and even then I'm not a neuroscientist or a psychologist so correct me as needed.

A way to reverse engineer the brain however, is through the study and development of AI. We don't have to go that far, as game development has shown us (mobile games are addicting because of that dopamine manipulation) but that is another topic all together.

In the end, you can very well still pigeon hole the very notion of self and 'self awareness' into the vast vagueness of vague that is human nature, especially since (if we were to wait for science to explain such concepts) it is very much the case (if we are STILL grasping at strings)

[Arkolon]

Am I the only one who thinks philosophy is worthless without a complete reverse-engineering of the brain? I guess that's just the chemical engineer in me....

Philosophy is important to those in a thread about philosophy. If you're not interested in philosophy, why are you posting in a philosophy thread?

[Arkolon]

The actual "you", however, is more than just cells. Your cells are organised to produce your body, and your body, when "functional", allows the existence of your mind-- your "you".

Which is called Gestalt and, to be honest, the difference from 1 trillion salmonella in a giant colony and a human being is that the cell's actions and functions are dictated by the actions of other cells.

A giant colony of one trillion salmonella does not produce a "mind", mostly because it has no "body" to create such a "mind".

[Sociobiology]

And my own individual is a collection of cells. Literally.

"I" am the term used for cells organized into the right pattern.

Except the cells in your body are constantly dying, being replaced, replicating, growing, shrinking, etc.

well thats true on average, some cells may not die or be replaced for decades. neurons for instance have very little turnover. "you" are a pattern of cells, like a lace pattern is a pattern of threads, if we could accurately recreate the pattern we could recreate you.

[Sociobiology]

yeah you did
http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=21571118#p21571118

or do you not know what social context means.

I said it was objective within all social contexts. Much like the existence of a mind, or the existence of people (as a society is made from people).

actually you did not say all, because I would have called you out on that, it is not true in all societies.

I exist therefor I own you, wow, you're right, that is easy.
care to try an actual argument this time.

1. I think, therefore I am.

am what?

2. My existence [of the mind] can only be if I have a body to support it.

well a brain to support it.

3. My existence is made from my body.

your existence IS your brain.

4. I "am" my body without "being" my body.

false, you are your brain

5. I own my body.

which does not nessisarily follow from any of that even if they were true.

You're alone on that one. The self IS itself. You ARE the self. The body is the property of the self, which makes the body an extension of the self. The self physically "is" the body without literally being the body.

except the self literally IS the body, or particularly the brain.

The self is not the body. I am not my arm. I am not my leg.

so missed the entire second half of the sentence there.

My leg, however, "is" me

actually it is just part of your body, it is not you, I can remove it without changing you, the change in input will eventually change you but it is not you.
your brain in a jar would still be you.

so your argument boils down to does the brain own the brain.

Nope.

it really does, because that is you, everything else is accesories.

you are your brain.

Your mind is dependent on the existence of your brain, yes. A brain can "live" in the biological sense without actually having a mind, too.

not really, not unless you are talking about something simple enough to longer be called a brain. until we invent a way of copying a brain reproducing it, you are just your brain. you are a pattern of neurons.

so by your logic you can't own yourself because selfs can't be owned.

Nope.

so a self can be owned then?

[Sociobiology]

Which is called Gestalt and, to be honest, the difference from 1 trillion salmonella in a giant colony and a human being is that the cell's actions and functions are dictated by the actions of other cells.

A giant colony of one trillion salmonella does not produce a "mind", mostly because it has no "body" to create such a "mind".

no it does not create a mind because salmonella do not interact like neurons, a trillion neurons in a vat could very well be a mind. hell we already use vat grown neurons to produce simple minds. neurons organize themselves.

[The Liberated Territories]

simple minds

Yes.

[Avenio]

Which is called Gestalt and, to be honest, the difference from 1 trillion salmonella in a giant colony and a human being is that the cell's actions and functions are dictated by the actions of other cells.

A giant colony of one trillion salmonella does not produce a "mind", mostly because it has no "body" to create such a "mind".

A giant colony of Salmonella does communicate in amongst itself, coordinate its actions throughout the colony and engineer their environment to protect the whole.

[Sociobiology]

In the end, you can very well still pigeon hole the very notion of self and 'self awareness' into the vast vagueness of vague that is human nature, especially since (if we were to wait for science to explain such concepts) it is very much the case (if we are STILL grasping at strings)

that one is actually easy, does your brain model a version of its own decisions making process, yes, bam, there is self awareness. Self awareness is not really that hard, now can you model someone elses mind seperately, not that's tricky, there are only a few animals that can do that.

[Sociobiology]

all the people would be the body. a society is made up of a lot of people just as you are made of a lot of cells.

It doesn't work like that, I'm afraid.

I'm afraid it does.
a society is in many ways a simple mind.

[Sociobiology]

because you think altering the subconscious cannot negatively impact someone?

I never said that, and if you took it as implied then I apologise. If it directly negatively impacts someone, then it is bad, no matter how small the infraction is.

ok, now define negatively, because that itself is a moral position.

Ownership is the connection that ties a mind and an object that exist hylomorphically.

so a hammer owns the iron in its head and wood in its handle.

thats two different definitions of functional in the same sentence.

then it owns itself. That is what I mean by "legally alive", as it is a present-day substitute for "functional".
then say functional, I'm not a mind reader, then you get to define function because you have two different definitions.

I said "functional", then I said "legally alive", ie "functional". "Self-aware", "conscious", "properly alive", "has a soul", "has a mind", "can think", take your pick. They all mean the same thing in what I'm trying to say.

except they don't mean the same thing.

because "brick house" does not mean the same thing to everyone.

An X house, made from X, then.

the problem is not the word X, the problem is the word "house" which is a name for a pattern not a substance.
you are a pattern in a specific substance.

example, no bricks were used in this brick house.

(Image)

That's arguably not a brick house, because it is not made from actual bricks, nor is it actually a house.

actually it is a house, it is just made of fiberglass and plastic. but many people would still call it a brick house, many cultures put less focus on substance and more on form than ours do. just trying to point out the flaw in using a brick house as an analogy.

I would argue societies can think, also possibly certain computers.

You know that Johnny Depp film "Transcendence" or something?

no never seen it.

Where they can't get the smartest AI to realise whether or not it is self-aware? If it can answer whether or not it is self-aware (ie, if it is "functional", "conscious", "capable of thought" etc), then it owns itself.

glad I did not see that then, we have self aware AI's (called MC's) already. Thought is even easier. We have had functional ones since at least the 90's.

[Death Metal]

glad I did not see that then, we have self aware AI's (called MC's) already. Thought is even easier. We have had functional ones since at least the 90's.

Indeed. And in June a computer was able to pass the Turing Test.

Plus there's IBM Watson, which is capable of winning a game of Jeopardy against two of the show's greatest players. Granted it's not perfect (Catergory US Cities, answer "What Is Toronto") but that's still a feat that's proof of how advanced we've gotten with AI, and we've yet to hit the ceiling.

[Sociobiology]

glad I did not see that then, we have self aware AI's (called MC's) already. Thought is even easier. We have had functional ones since at least the 90's.

Indeed. And in June a computer was able to pass the Turing Test.

Plus there's IBM Watson, which is capable of winning a game of Jeopardy against two of the show's greatest players. Granted it's not perfect (Catergory US Cities, answer "What Is Toronto") but that's still a feat that's proof of how advanced we've gotten with AI, and we've yet to hit the ceiling.

memristors will be a huge change, multistate instead of binary is how neurons work, so you can actually build something that operates like a human mind instead of just a simulation.

[Death Metal]

Indeed. And in June a computer was able to pass the Turing Test.

Plus there's IBM Watson, which is capable of winning a game of Jeopardy against two of the show's greatest players. Granted it's not perfect (Catergory US Cities, answer "What Is Toronto") but that's still a feat that's proof of how advanced we've gotten with AI, and we've yet to hit the ceiling.

memristors will be a huge change, multistate instead of binary is how neurons work, so you can actually build something that operates like a human mind instead of just a simulation.

Well I for one welcome our new robot overlords

Seriously though, given what we can do with just binary now, there's no doubt we will have true-to-life cyber-consciousnesses.

Hopefully this high tech future will be less Shadowrun and more GITS.

[Sociobiology]

memristors will be a huge change, multistate instead of binary is how neurons work, so you can actually build something that operates like a human mind instead of just a simulation.

Well I for one welcome our new robot overlords

Seriously though, given what we can do with just binary now, there's no doubt we will have true-to-life cyber-consciousnesses.

Hopefully this high tech future will be less Shadowrun and more GITS.

of course the most important thing to remember is the more a mind is capable of creative thought the more it is capable of error, because creativity is just an error you like. so the more like us we make computers the more error prone they become.

always wanted to play shadowrun, sounded like a fun game.

the real barrier is my brain does not see like your brain sees, so sending a signal directly to the brain does not work. unless you train your brain to "see" that way as well. your brain learns to see through your eyes, and hear through your ears, so images will be distorted and incomprehensible for months before your brain learns to see with those new eyes, but we know that causes it to have problems with the old eyes. You won't get real cyberspace until you have a generation raised with such implants which may never happen, because doing so will actually harm their visual acuity, Your brain only has so much space to spend on vision and if it has to learn two sets of eyes it ends up with close to half as much acuity with each. virtual reality interface is far more likely, things like goggles or holograms.
by the time we get codes that can compensate for the differences in brains our bioengineering will be so good, nobody will have bad eyes, so they can just use the holograms.

fun fact people with one eye have better visual acuity than people with two, they just have a smaller range and no depth perception.

[Lalaki]

I combine the second and third options on the poll. I believe God gave us free will. We are free to live our lives the way we wish, free to take the actions we take. Therefore, we own ourselves.