Self-ownership

[Arkolon]

(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.

Which society does not have functional individuals?

Look, this is an observation to outline the ethics and morality behind deontological libertarianism. You could say "oh, this society has slavery, therefore libertarianism is wrong". You've got the argument completely backwards. The evidence is more so "under a deontological libertarian ethical framework, what this society is doing (slavery) is wrong". And what this thread is, really, is a defense of deontological libertarianism.

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.

That's how axiomatic lists work. Axioms are assumptions that go supposedly unchallenged before an argument. Right now, I'm defending these axiomatic lists, not the axioms themselves.

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.

axiom
ˈaksɪəm/
noun
noun: axiom; plural noun: axioms

a statement or proposition which is regarded as being established, accepted, or self-evidently true.

I'm justifying my axiomatic list, not the axioms themselves. I'm defending my reasoning.

Every society has self-ownership.

incorrect, societies embracing slavery would be a good example.

See above.

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.

In case you want other words to refer to:

axiom
ˈaksɪəm/
noun
noun: axiom; plural noun: axioms

synonyms: accepted truth, general truth, dictum, truism, principle; proposition, postulate; maxim, saying, adage, aphorism; rareapophthegm, gnome

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.

Capable of knowing that one is self-aware.

By extension of being my self.

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

Yes, you "are" your brain.

Yes, it does.

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

That's good, because it means I was doing the right thing trying to, you know, defend my axiomatic list.

Would the brain be self-aware?

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

Would the brain be able to know whether or not it can think? Humans that aren't self-aware aren't considered "functional", by the way.

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.

They exist hylomorphically. That was my point.

[Arkolon]

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.

No, as evidenced from the OP, this is more closely tied to physicalist monism, although elements influenced by Cartesian dualism are, however, present. I use Greco-Cartesian vocabulary, if that's what you want to know, but I'm not exactly a dualist.

[Conscentia]

[...]Ownership requires minds.[...]

Ownership requires law.
Otherwise, you just have physical possession.

[Arkolon]

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

I don't know, but it helps solidify my position in the right: I can now say that there are more people that believe in an interventionist, all-encompassing God that owns their own body compared to people who disagree with what I have to say. That is saying a lot, especially on NSG.

[Arkolon]

[...]Ownership requires minds.[...]

Ownership requires law.
Otherwise, you just have physical possession.

Just law is an enforcement of the property rights aforementioned.

[Obeyistan]

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.

Might by itself may not make something right, but consider this: people need some sort of power to make something a right and something other a wrong. There are common morals that are kept by most people in the world, such as golden rule for example. People think that this is right, this is how things should be done, do unto others as you'd like others do to you, right? Now, why do the people uphold the golden rule in this case? Because others support it. It has the manpower to back itself up, and this is just in the world as a whole. In separate collectives, there are different morals that are held and they are held for the same reason. That reason is, that someone was bright enough to gather support behind them and their proposal for a rule and it was made into a law.

I'll say it again: There is no objective, definitive rules for morality that you could base your reasoning on why the golden rule, for example, is right. However, we can observe how exactly did these morals come to be and why do people keep them. Morals are right because people say they are and there's no deeper reason to that independent of humans and their will. What the will of the people depends on, however, is a question regarding metaethics and various answers such as emotion, supernatural, intuition and various others will be heard that explain the motivation for people to propose a rule, make it into a law and enforce it. No matter what kind of moral code you propose, you can't make it into a law and enforce it alone. You need the manpower for that.

[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.

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.

I decided to take a walk today, literally just to prove you wrong. I never take walks. I get home, sit here and write up replies, but I decided I'll allow myself some time to freely-- voluntary-- decide to go on a walk on my own accord. You didn't tell me to go on a walk. You didn't make me go on a walk. No one made me go on a walk. It was, entirely and absolutely, my own free will. It was my choice.

[Arkolon]

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

Since when do we have so many Molyneusians around?

[Conscentia]

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.

I decided to take a walk today, literally just to prove you wrong. I never take walks. I get home, sit here and write up replies, but I decided I'll allow myself some time to freely-- voluntary-- decide to go on a walk on my own accord. You didn't tell me to go on a walk. You didn't make me go on a walk. No one made me go on a walk. It was, entirely and absolutely, my own free will. It was my choice.

There are psychological reasons why you felt compelled to challenge me by doing an action you wouldn't normally do. My words were part of a web of causes that rendered it inevitable that you would take a walk today. It was never a choice. You just believed it to be a choice.

[Arkolon]

I decided to take a walk today, literally just to prove you wrong. I never take walks. I get home, sit here and write up replies, but I decided I'll allow myself some time to freely-- voluntary-- decide to go on a walk on my own accord. You didn't tell me to go on a walk. You didn't make me go on a walk. No one made me go on a walk. It was, entirely and absolutely, my own free will. It was my choice.

There are psychological reasons why you felt compelled to challenge me by doing an action you wouldn't normally do. My words were part of a web of causes that rendered it inevitable that you would take a walk today. It was never a choice. You just believed it to be a choice.

Define "choice".

[Zottistan]

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.

I decided to take a walk today, literally just to prove you wrong. I never take walks. I get home, sit here and write up replies, but I decided I'll allow myself some time to freely-- voluntary-- decide to go on a walk on my own accord. You didn't tell me to go on a walk. You didn't make me go on a walk. No one made me go on a walk. It was, entirely and absolutely, my own free will. It was my choice.

You took a walk because of the state of your brain. If your brain had been in a different state, you wouldn't have taken the walk. And you can't consciously control the state of your brain. Your brain creates what "you" are, and your decision making process. And as a physical thing, it is subject to causality.

[Arkolon]

I decided to take a walk today, literally just to prove you wrong. I never take walks. I get home, sit here and write up replies, but I decided I'll allow myself some time to freely-- voluntary-- decide to go on a walk on my own accord. You didn't tell me to go on a walk. You didn't make me go on a walk. No one made me go on a walk. It was, entirely and absolutely, my own free will. It was my choice.

You took a walk because of the state of your brain. If your brain had been in a different state, you wouldn't have taken the walk. And you can't consciously control the state of your brain. Your brain creates what "you" are, and your decision making process. And as a physical thing, it is subject to causality.

I could have still chosen not to take a walk.

[Zottistan]

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.

Which still doesn't explain why it owns the body, since we're arguing from a hypothetical in which control and not hylomorphism is the basis for ownership.

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?[/quote[
Do you acknowledge it as a valid alternative, whether or not most people are opposed to it?

Naturally.


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.

I wouldn't have guessed you weren't a native English speaker. Your English is really good.

Well, that's what I've been doing. You said you felt like you were being asked to choose from a basket with one fruit, but I've presented another fruit. Remember I'm just arguing that your reasoning is ultimately "just because" at a fundamental level.

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.

I understand why you'd make the distinction for practical purposes, so you can have a shortcut to the concept of brick instead of going through the particles that make up the atoms that make up the clay that makes up the brick, but in a literal sense, the brick is literally the term for the organization of particles into the atoms into the clay into the brick.

[Zottistan]

You took a walk because of the state of your brain. If your brain had been in a different state, you wouldn't have taken the walk. And you can't consciously control the state of your brain. Your brain creates what "you" are, and your decision making process. And as a physical thing, it is subject to causality.

I could have still chosen not to take a walk.

I'd hardly call that a choice. There's no agency in it, just reactions to stimuli.

[Conscentia]

There are psychological reasons why you felt compelled to challenge me by doing an action you wouldn't normally do. My words were part of a web of causes that rendered it inevitable that you would take a walk today. It was never a choice. You just believed it to be a choice.

Define "choice".

Choice refers to a range of possibilities from which one or more may be chosen.

In reality, there is only one inevitability, not a range of possibilities.

[Conscentia]

You took a walk because of the state of your brain. If your brain had been in a different state, you wouldn't have taken the walk. And you can't consciously control the state of your brain. Your brain creates what "you" are, and your decision making process. And as a physical thing, it is subject to causality.

I could have still chosen not to take a walk.

No, you couldn't have. That's why you did take a walk. The walk was inevitable, Mr. Anderson. (You won't get that joke because you haven't seen the Matrix, but maybe someone else will like it.)

[Arkolon]

Define "choice".

Choice refers to a range of possibilities from which one or more may be chosen.

In reality, there is only one inevitability, not a range of possibilities.

So if I write "cheeseball" in this post, that was not a choice? Someone forced me to do it? Did I "force" myself to do so? Doesn't that make it ... a choice, then?

[Conscentia]

Choice refers to a range of possibilities from which one or more may be chosen.
In reality, there is only one inevitability, not a range of possibilities.

So if I write "cheeseball" in this post, that was not a choice? Someone forced me to do it? Did I "force" myself to do so? Doesn't that make it ... a choice, then?

No, it wasn't a choice. You were compelled to do it. A chain of causes and effects resulted in your brain signalling your muscles into writing the word "cheeseball".

[Arkolon]

So if I write "cheeseball" in this post, that was not a choice? Someone forced me to do it? Did I "force" myself to do so? Doesn't that make it ... a choice, then?

No, it wasn't a choice. You were compelled to do it. A chain of causes and effects resulted in your brain signalling your muscles into writing the word "cheeseball".

Doesn't that constitute making a choice? Making a choice is a chain of causes and effects resulting in my brain signalling my muscles to write the word "cheeseball".

[Zottistan]

Choice refers to a range of possibilities from which one or more may be chosen.

In reality, there is only one inevitability, not a range of possibilities.

So if I write "cheeseball" in this post, that was not a choice? Someone forced me to do it? Did I "force" myself to do so? Doesn't that make it ... a choice, then?

If you wrote "cheeseball" in that post, you were always going to write "cheeseball" in that post.

[Arkolon]

So if I write "cheeseball" in this post, that was not a choice? Someone forced me to do it? Did I "force" myself to do so? Doesn't that make it ... a choice, then?

If you wrote "cheeseball" in that post, you were always going to write "cheeseball" in that post.

Says who?

[Zottistan]

If you wrote "cheeseball" in that post, you were always going to write "cheeseball" in that post.

Says who?

Causality.

[Conscentia]

No, it wasn't a choice. You were compelled to do it. A chain of causes and effects resulted in your brain signalling your muscles into writing the word "cheeseball".

Doesn't that constitute making a choice? Making a choice is a chain of causes and effects resulting in my brain signalling my muscles to write the word "cheeseball".

As I've already said, choice refers to a range of possibilities from which one or more may be chosen. In reality, there is only one inevitability, not a range of possibilities.
You writing "cheeseball" was an inevitability, not a option among possibilities.

[The Liberated Territories]

aghnapiugbae[9bnae9tbnetgae[9ubneat9[ubnatugbjnateoubnauoenbaeobneatoibnaeboaenb

^Free will right there slamming my fingers on a keyboard. Beautiful, isn't it?

[Morganutopia]

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

Since when do we have so many Molyneusians around?

We're here get used to it.