Self-ownership

[Arkolon]

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)
1. A mind is made existent by the body.
2. The mind is not literally the body, but "is", by extension, the body.
3. The mind owns the body.
4. Without a body, there is no mind.
5. Without a mind, there is no ["functional"] body.

(II)
1. A society is a collection of individuals.
2. Individuals satisfy (I).
3. Individuals own themselves.
4. If individuals do not own themselves, then 2 is wrong, and the individuals must be dead.
5. If 4, then there is no society, as it would not satisfy 1.

Every society has self-ownership. If a society doesn't have self-ownership, then that is not a society.

1. I think, therefore I am.

am what?

I think, therefore I am-- I exist, I am self-aware, I am an individual, I am a person.

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

well a brain to support it.

Sure.

3. My existence is made from my body.

your existence IS your brain.

You ought look back at the clay/brick analogy for the body and mind. A brick is clay, but clay is not necessarily brick. A brick, the mind, "is" clay. A brick is not just clay. It is a brick. Note that you have to actually replace brick with "mind" and clay with "body".

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

false, you are your brain

By extension of being my self.

5. I own my body.

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

Yes, it does.

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.

Would the brain be self-aware?

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.

I am made of patterns of neurons. I am bigger than just a pattern of neurons. A pattern of neurons is not an individual, but an individual both is and "is" a pattern of neurons.

[Arkolon]

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.

If they perceive it as negative, then it is negative.

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

Since when is the hammer self-aware? Is there functional life within the hammer?

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.

An XY, made from X. The XY is or "is" (if it is self-aware) the X.

[Arkolon]

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.

Free will can, and does, exist without the existence of a Christian God. Or any god, for that matter.

[Conscentia]

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.

Free will can, and does, exist without the existence of a Christian God. Or any god, for that matter.

It doesn't exist at all outside of fiction.
It is not compatible with causality.

[Arkolon]

Free will can, and does, exist without the existence of a Christian God. Or any god, for that matter.

It doesn't exist at all outside of fiction.
It is not compatible with causality.

Free will does not imply that you can do anything and everything you want. It is the opposite of deterministic crystal-ball palmistry pseudoscientific "fate" or "destiny".

[Calisu]

I am not an object therefore I cannot own myself. Though if I were able to be alive at the same time my body was dead then yes I could own my corpse as it is an object.

[Arkolon]

I am not an object therefore I cannot own myself. Though if I were able to be alive at the same time my body was dead then yes I could own my corpse as it is an object.

Yet your self and your body exist hylomorphically...

[Calisu]

I am not an object therefore I cannot own myself. Though if I were able to be alive at the same time my body was dead then yes I could own my corpse as it is an object.

Yet your self and your body exist hylomorphically...

I'm a human being slavery is illegal therefore I cannot be owned.

[Conscentia]

I am not an object therefore I cannot own myself. Though if I were able to be alive at the same time my body was dead then yes I could own my corpse as it is an object.

Yet your self and your body exist hylomorphically...

And that means what?

[Conscentia]

It doesn't exist at all outside of fiction.
It is not compatible with causality.

Free will does not imply that you can do anything and everything you want. It is the opposite of deterministic crystal-ball palmistry pseudoscientific "fate" or "destiny".

To the red: Yes, yes it does. That's exactly what it implies. Free will is the ability of agents to make choices without being constrained by causality.
To the rest:
Determinism isn't psuedoscientific - it is the consequence of causality.
Free will is as pseudoscientific as crystal-ball reading and palmistry - it spits in the face of psychology, neurology, biology, physics, and virtually every other major field.

[Arkolon]

Yet your self and your body exist hylomorphically...

I'm a human being slavery is illegal therefore I cannot be owned.

If the state made slavery legal, would that legitimise whether or not you can be owned?

[Arkolon]

Yet your self and your body exist hylomorphically...

And that means what?

One is made possible by the other.

[Arkolon]

Free will does not imply that you can do anything and everything you want. It is the opposite of deterministic crystal-ball palmistry pseudoscientific "fate" or "destiny".

To the red: Yes, yes it does. That's exactly what it implies. Free will is the ability of agents to make choices without being constrained by causality.
To the rest:
Determinism isn't psuedoscientific - it is the consequence of causality.
Free will is as pseudoscientific as crystal-ball reading and palmistry - it spits in the face of psychology, neurology, biology, physics, and virtually every other major field.

You're confusing the two types of "free" in "free will". Positive free will would be, I agree with you, totally wrong. I cannot do whatever I want, when I want, or why I want it. Negative free will, however, is that I am free to choose what to do, even if my options are severely limited. Right now, I can't grow wings and fly, but I can choose to go Icarus on it and see how far that'll get me.

Determinism is hugely pseudoscientific deistic religiosity. Causality affects your [negative] free will.

[Salandriagado]

I'm a human being slavery is illegal therefore I cannot be owned.

If the state made slavery legal, would that legitimise whether or not you can be owned?

Yup. If you are operating in a system in which slavery exists, then a person can, indeed, own themselves. There, however, inlies the problem with your axiom set: it requires slavery to work, and is, therefore, a shit set of axioms to pick.

[Hindenburgia]

To the red: Yes, yes it does. That's exactly what it implies. Free will is the ability of agents to make choices without being constrained by causality.
To the rest:
Determinism isn't psuedoscientific - it is the consequence of causality.
Free will is as pseudoscientific as crystal-ball reading and palmistry - it spits in the face of psychology, neurology, biology, physics, and virtually every other major field.

You're confusing the two types of "free" in "free will". Positive free will would be, I agree with you, totally wrong. I cannot do whatever I want, when I want, or why I want it. Negative free will, however, is that I am free to choose what to do, even if my options are severely limited. Right now, I can't grow wings and fly, but I can choose to go Icarus on it and see how far that'll get me.

Determinism is hugely pseudoscientific deistic religiosity. Causality affects your [negative] free will.

While determinism can be deistic in nature (and for much of history, was dominantly so), it can also arise simply from a reductionist view of the world. Basically, since you are the sum of the neurological process occurring in your body, and those processes occur in the way they do because of a finite set of factors (external or internal), it can be said that there is only one way that a given person would react to a given set of circumstances.

[Arkolon]

You're confusing the two types of "free" in "free will". Positive free will would be, I agree with you, totally wrong. I cannot do whatever I want, when I want, or why I want it. Negative free will, however, is that I am free to choose what to do, even if my options are severely limited. Right now, I can't grow wings and fly, but I can choose to go Icarus on it and see how far that'll get me.

Determinism is hugely pseudoscientific deistic religiosity. Causality affects your [negative] free will.

While determinism can be deistic in nature (and for much of history, was dominantly so), it can also arise simply from a reductionist view of the world. Basically, since you are the sum of the neurological process occurring in your body, and those processes occur in the way they do because of a finite set of factors (external or internal), it can be said that there is only one way that a given person would react to a given set of circumstances.

That is assuming humans are always 100% rational, which simply is not true. You're trying to add a praxeological dimension above human thought processes, and praxeology is as narrow-minded as 19th century economics can get. If there is an incident and there is one, blatant, obvious course of action for one person to take, that person still has the free will to "fuck that" and run the opposite direction.

[Sociobiology]

To the red: Yes, yes it does. That's exactly what it implies. Free will is the ability of agents to make choices without being constrained by causality.
To the rest:
Determinism isn't psuedoscientific - it is the consequence of causality.
Free will is as pseudoscientific as crystal-ball reading and palmistry - it spits in the face of psychology, neurology, biology, physics, and virtually every other major field.

You're confusing the two types of "free" in "free will". Positive free will would be, I agree with you, totally wrong. I cannot do whatever I want, when I want, or why I want it. Negative free will, however, is that I am free to choose what to do, even if my options are severely limited. Right now, I can't grow wings and fly, but I can choose to go Icarus on it and see how far that'll get me.

Determinism is hugely pseudoscientific deistic religiosity. Causality affects your [negative] free will.

well choose there is a bit of a misnomer, your choice is entirely determined by electrochemistry and neurology, its complex enough to be difficult to predict to the point of near impossibility but then so is a lottery number drawing.
Your choice is no different than your computer choosing to run a program.
Thats why we talk about the illusion of free will, our minds our complex enough to be beyond our ability to predict in real time, but that is a technological limitation not an innate one. The real fun is when we found out most of our decisions are not made consciously but subconsciously and then our conscious mind justifies the decision after the fact.
you have free will to the same extent the weather has free will.

[Sociobiology]

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

If they perceive it as negative, then it is negative.

so it is cultural and emotional reaction, so subjective.

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

Since when is the hammer self-aware? Is there functional life within the hammer?

hylomorphism does not require life or minds, and your definition makes no mention of them.

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.

An XY, made from X. The XY is or "is" (if it is self-aware) the X.

[/quote]
but do you have a reason this must be true?

[Sociobiology]

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

(I)
1. A mind is made existent by the body.
2. The mind is not literally the body, but "is", by extension, the body.
3. The mind owns the body.
4. Without a body, there is no mind.
5. Without a mind, there is no ["functional"] body.



(II)
1. A society is a collection of individuals.
2. Individuals satisfy (I).
3. Individuals own themselves.

which does not necessarily follow from anything before this. This is the subjective cultural part.

4. If individuals do not own themselves, then 2 is wrong, and the individuals must be dead.

only if you assume your assumption is correct, which is circular reasoning.

5. If 4, then there is no society, as it would not satisfy 1.

I'm gonna go ahead and underline the problem there, it also includes IF 3, neither of which have been demonstrated.

Every society has self-ownership.

incorrect, societies embracing slavery would be a good example.

If a society doesn't have self-ownership, then that is not a society.

only if you assume your assumptions are true, which is circular reasoning.

am what?

I think, therefore I am-- I exist, I am self-aware, I am an individual, I am a person.

good, now define think.
because by the scientific definition of think, not everything that thinks is self-aware.

your existence IS your brain.

You ought look back at the clay/brick analogy for the body and mind. A brick is clay, but clay is not necessarily brick. A brick, the mind, "is" clay. A brick is not just clay. It is a brick. Note that you have to actually replace brick with "mind" and clay with "body".

well first those bricks are not made of clay, they are made from clay, bricks are actually composed of an artificial shale or mullinite, but I digress. A brick can be made of many things and still be a brick, because a brick is a culturally identified pattern like a house or a legal, it is a category based on some characteristics but most importantly one of those characteristics is intended purpose, which is culturally variable and not objective.
Worse "mind" is not well defined, at one of the spectrum it includes pocket calculators, and at the other excludes many humans.

false, you are your brain

By extension of being my self.

no you are your brain, if anything "you" are an extension of your brain.

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

Yes, it does.

then demonstrate it, because what you posted above does not demonstrate it, it assumes it.

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.

Would the brain be self-aware?

not all human brains are self aware, so the answer is probably.

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.

I am made of patterns of neurons. I am bigger than just a pattern of neurons.

see thats it, you're really not. You are just a pattern of neurons.

[Hindenburgia]

I have a very essential question for the OP - do you believe in mind-body dualism? Basically, do you believe that there is something "other" that makes up a person's self than simply their material components?

I somewhat suspect that this question has been causing a bit of confusion in this thread, so I would like to clarify it.

[Benuty]

Define reasoning behind option three if someone would be so kind .

[Lift]

I was recently introduced to the non aggression principle from a philosopher named Stefan he states it a million times better than I can.

Property Rights and the Non-Aggression Principle: http://youtu.be/OsvFYBZr7QE

[Freemopia]

Yes. Just because you can steal something from someone, or physically control something, doesn't make it yours. Just because the government never phased out of the "mine" stage, doesn't mean the government owns the universe.
If a non government person robs a bank, do they own the $ they robbed? No, they get thrown in jail, if the bank is lucky they might get the $ back if the government doesn't take it. lol
Might doesn't = right.

[Conscentia]

To the red: Yes, yes it does. That's exactly what it implies. Free will is the ability of agents to make choices without being constrained by causality.
To the rest:
Determinism isn't psuedoscientific - it is the consequence of causality.
Free will is as pseudoscientific as crystal-ball reading and palmistry - it spits in the face of psychology, neurology, biology, physics, and virtually every other major field.

You're confusing the two types of "free" in "free will". Positive free will would be, I agree with you, totally wrong. I cannot do whatever I want, when I want, or why I want it. Negative free will, however, is that I am free to choose what to do, even if my options are severely limited. Right now, I can't grow wings and fly, but I can choose to go Icarus on it and see how far that'll get me.

Determinism is hugely pseudoscientific deistic religiosity. Causality affects your [negative] free will.

No, i'm not, you've misunderstood me.

There are no options. There can be no options. Options are an illusion, and part of a greater illusion of control. There is no control. One does only that which is inevitable. One never had a choice.

Determinism is not pseudo-scientific.

[Arkolon]

If they perceive it as negative, then it is negative.

so it is cultural and emotional reaction, so subjective.

I'm not assuming any moral objectivity in this example, so good and bad are entirely subjective. The bad of one may be the good of another, and vice versa. If it is "bad" and it directly affects the "you" or any extensions thereof, then you won't like it. If I drop a present on your property, and the present is destined for you and it makes you very happy, then you would excuse me stepping on your property, would you not? If I vandalised your property, you wouldn't be very happy (I suppose), and you would not excuse me stepping on your property.

Since when is the hammer self-aware? Is there functional life within the hammer?

hylomorphism does not require life or minds, and your definition makes no mention of them.

That's good, as it means I didn't wrongly describe hylomorphism. Hylomorphism is the idea of "relative matter", and that some things are made from others, but not all things are made from the very same thing. X is made of Y, but Z is not made of Y, and so on. The idea of property over the self comes more from Locke, and hylomorphism is an introduction into a bigger defense of Lockean self-ownership. Of course hylomorphism doesn't require minds. Ownership requires minds.

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.

An XY, made from X. The XY is or "is" (if it is self-aware) the X.

[/quote]
but do you have a reason this must be true?[/quote]
For what to be true?