Self-ownership

[Hindenburgia]

Your actions are the output of the neural network that is your brain, which has a finite (though very large) number of states. Because of this, if one were to model this neural network and the inputs to it, they could create a perfect representation of "you", and predict your choices with 100% certainty, simply because there is nothing there to cause it to differ.

100% certainty, first of all, is impossible. Secondly, my brain has not already chosen which cookies it would take if I was in the situation I described, so if you model a replica of my brain and put it in that situation, then try and put my actual brain in that situation, there is a 99.999...34464% chance that we will have differing patterns.

Why? What mechanism do you propose to cause the two to differ?

[Arkolon]

100% certainty, first of all, is impossible. Secondly, my brain has not already chosen which cookies it would take if I was in the situation I described, so if you model a replica of my brain and put it in that situation, then try and put my actual brain in that situation, there is a 99.999...34464% chance that we will have differing patterns.

Why? What mechanism do you propose to cause the two to differ?

Eenie-meenie-miney-mo, starting with a different cookie for each hour, would yield differing results 99.9% of the time.

[Hindenburgia]

Why? What mechanism do you propose to cause the two to differ?

Eenie-meenie-miney-mo, starting with a different cookie for each hour, would yield differing results 99.9% of the time.

Why do you think that would be random? You agree that your actions are entirely reliant on your brain, right? Logically, then, anything you do is the output of your brain, and therefore a perfect simulation of your brain would produce the exact same results, make the same choices, point to the same cookie for each stem along your eenie-meenie-miney-mo, and wind up on the same cookie when you are done.

[Arkolon]

Eenie-meenie-miney-mo, starting with a different cookie for each hour, would yield differing results 99.9% of the time.

Why do you think that would be random? You agree that your actions are entirely reliant on your brain, right? Logically, then, anything you do is the output of your brain, and therefore a perfect simulation of your brain would produce the exact same results, make the same choices, point to the same cookie for each stem along your eenie-meenie-miney-mo, and wind up on the same cookie when you are done.

Why? What mechanism do you propose to cause the two to differ?

Eenie-meenie-miney-mo, starting with a different cookie for each hour, would yield differing results 99.9% of the time.

[Hindenburgia]

Why do you think that would be random? You agree that your actions are entirely reliant on your brain, right? Logically, then, anything you do is the output of your brain, and therefore a perfect simulation of your brain would produce the exact same results, make the same choices, point to the same cookie for each stem along your eenie-meenie-miney-mo, and wind up on the same cookie when you are done.

Eenie-meenie-miney-mo, starting with a different cookie for each hour, would yield differing results 99.9% of the time.

...And? The simulation would also start with a different cookie for each hour - the same cookie, in fact.

But this is the important part of my post:

You agree that your actions are entirely reliant on your brain, right? Logically, then, anything you do is the output of your brain, and therefore a perfect simulation of your brain would produce the exact same results, make the same choices, point to the same cookie for each stem along your eenie-meenie-miney-mo, and wind up on the same cookie when you are done.

Do you have any objections to this?

[Arkolon]

...And? The simulation would also start with a different cookie for each hour - the same cookie, in fact.

???

Different =/= same.

But this is the important part of my post:

You agree that your actions are entirely reliant on your brain, right? Logically, then, anything you do is the output of your brain, and therefore a perfect simulation of your brain would produce the exact same results, make the same choices, point to the same cookie for each stem along your eenie-meenie-miney-mo, and wind up on the same cookie when you are done.

Do you have any objections to this?

No, not really Yes, is what I meant, as it assumes that my brain has a preset answer for everything. For the cookie I had to choose, I would have to make a decision on the spot, and so would the replica brain. Similarly, we could invite you to take a selection of sixteen cookies through sixteen hours with me, and there is still a 99.9% chance we will have different results.

[Hindenburgia]

...And? The simulation would also start with a different cookie for each hour - the same cookie, in fact.

???

Different =/= same.

Ah, so you mean that the simulation starts with a different cookie than you? But that would mean that it is under a different set of circumstances from you, and of course it would result in a different output. Output depends on both input and state, after all.

But this is the important part of my post:

You agree that your actions are entirely reliant on your brain, right? Logically, then, anything you do is the output of your brain, and therefore a perfect simulation of your brain would produce the exact same results, make the same choices, point to the same cookie for each stem along your eenie-meenie-miney-mo, and wind up on the same cookie when you are done.

Do you have any objections to this?

No, not really, as it assumes that my brain has a preset answer for everything. For the cookie I had to choose, I would have to make a decision on the spot, and so would the replica brain. Similarly, we could invite you to take a selection of sixteen cookies through sixteen hours with me, and there is still a 99.9% chance we will have different results.

It doesn't assume that at all. You posted earlier that you aren't a dualist, so you would agree that one's actions derive entirely from the output of one's brain, right?

If that's the case, then why would a perfect replica of one's brain give different output for the same input?

[Arkolon]

???

Different =/= same.

Ah, so you mean that the simulation starts with a different cookie than you? But that would mean that it is under a different set of circumstances from you, and of course it would result in a different output. Output depends on both input and state, after all.

Eenie-meenie-miney-mo is predictable. If you start with A for "eenie", you will end up with D. If you start with B, you will have A, and so on. If I start the rhyme on A, then D, then C, then A, then B, etc, then I will continuously yield different results (assuming a choice of one of 4 cookies an hour)

No, not really, as it assumes that my brain has a preset answer for everything. For the cookie I had to choose, I would have to make a decision on the spot, and so would the replica brain. Similarly, we could invite you to take a selection of sixteen cookies through sixteen hours with me, and there is still a 99.9% chance we will have different results.

It doesn't assume that at all. You posted earlier that you aren't a dualist, so you would agree that one's actions derive entirely from the output of one's brain, right?

This has literally nothing to do with dualism. You would still be wrong, and the argument could very well be posed, with a dualist adversary in mind.

If that's the case, then why would a perfect replica of one's brain give different output for the same input?

For the very same reason that you would have different output, or my twin, were she to exist, would have a different output. Or my mum has a different output. Or a replica of my teacher's brain. My brain takes a random number between 1 and 5 when confronted with cookies A through once every hour. There's a 4% chance that both brains, even if it is a replica of my own, will yield the same results, the very same way that if we use this random number generator, and an identical replica of it, there is an equal 4% chance that the numbers are the same.

Come on, you're being ridiculous now. I feel like you're arguing just for the sake of arguing. This isn't even about self-ownership anymore. Would you care to start a thread yourself to prevent this one from being locked? I'll meet you there.

[Conscentia]

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.

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.

No. That doesn't follow at all. Your own mind is bound by causality. It was inevitable that you would decide to be "cheeseball" instead.

I never said there was an external mind, Strawman-maker.

[Conscentia]

That wasn't free will, that was causality, we've gone over this already with Arkolon.

He could have written an infinite different number of things. Because he wrote that, does that mean that that was his destiny? Was there another external mind that made that decision for him? If not, then it was free will.

No, he couldn't have because he didn't write anything else. He wrote that. He was always going to write that. It's physics.

The red is a strawman, and does not even logically follow - the absence of an external mind does not refute causality.

[Hindenburgia]

Ah, so you mean that the simulation starts with a different cookie than you? But that would mean that it is under a different set of circumstances from you, and of course it would result in a different output. Output depends on both input and state, after all.

Eenie-meenie-miney-mo is predictable. If you start with A for "eenie", you will end up with D. If you start with B, you will have A, and so on. If I start the rhyme on A, then D, then C, then A, then B, etc, then I will continuously yield different results (assuming a choice of one of 4 cookies an hour)

Except that just means you are picking the cookie that is three to the left of the cookie you are to eat, rather than the cookie itself, and the replica still picks the same starting cookie as you.

It doesn't assume that at all. You posted earlier that you aren't a dualist, so you would agree that one's actions derive entirely from the output of one's brain, right?

This has literally nothing to do with dualism. You would still be wrong, and the argument could very well be posed, with a dualist adversary in mind.

Perhaps we are misunderstanding one another. Would you agree that mind-body dualism is the belief that there is a non-physical component to our consciousnesses? And that the opposite belief is that our "selves" are entirely determined by physical interactions in our neurological systems?

If that's the case, then why would a perfect replica of one's brain give different output for the same input?

For the very same reason that you would have different output, or my twin, were she to exist, would have a different output. Or my mum has a different output. Or a replica of my teacher's brain. My brain takes a random number between 1 and 5 when confronted with cookies A through once every hour. There's a 4% chance that both brains, even if it is a replica of my own, will yield the same results, the very same way that if we use this random number generator, and an identical replica of it, there is an equal 4% chance that the numbers are the same.

Except that the reason that someone else's brain would give a different output is that they have a different brain. It has nothing to do with your brain coming up with a "random" number, because it is incapable of coming up with a truly "random" number (well, in the sense of a number that is not based on anything else, anyway).

Come on, you're being ridiculous now. I feel like you're arguing just for the sake of arguing. This isn't even about self-ownership anymore. Would you care to start a thread yourself to prevent this one from being locked? I'll meet you there.

It's actually very much on topic. A large part of your argument for self-ownership appears to rest on the fact that people have free will (am I mistaken on this?). The whole point of the line of discussion was to establish that free will doesn't exist in the manner you require.

[Sociobiology]

so it is cultural and emotional reaction, so subjective.

I'm not assuming any moral objectivity in this example...

but you are in your overall argument, correct?

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.

then we get back to why this is true and what a mind is.

but do you have a reason this must be true?

For what to be true?

why A is X is A is made from X.
a chicken is made from an egg but an egg is not a chicken.

[Salandriagado]

That's not a problem at all. For any given situation, there already exists a system that has total knowledge of that situation: the situation itself.

The situation is self-aware?

Where did I say that?

[Sociobiology]

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?

where did I call that in to question?
there is a reason I split it after 3 and not 2.

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 could, I'm not though. try another strawman.

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.

then you must be confused, the question is whether people own themselves, you cannot have that as an axiom, for anything in a debate about that.

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.

except you are showing it to be flawed, by begging the question.

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

since self ownership is the the thing in question, using it as an axiom is begging the question.
Circular reasoning ( a form of begging the question): "A is true because B is true; B is true because A is true."

Aristotle's advice in 'S.E. 27 for resolving fallacies of Begging the Question is brief. If one realizes that one is being asked to concede the original point, one should refuse to do so, even if the point being asked is a reputable belief. On the other hand, if one fails to realize that one has conceded the point at issue and the questioner uses the concession to produce the apparent refutation, then one should turn the tables on the sophistical opponent by oneself pointing out the fallacy committed. In dialectical exchange it is a worse mistake to be caught asking for the original point than to have inadvertently granted such a request. The answerer in such a position has failed to detect when different utterances mean the same thing. The questioner, if he did not realize he was asking the original point, has committed the same error. But if he has knowingly asked for the original point, then he reveals himself to be ontologically confùsed: he has mistaken what is non-self-explanatory (known through other things) to be something self-explanatory (known through itself). In pointing this out to the false reasoner, one is not just pointing out a tactical psychological misjudgment by the questioner. It is not simply that the questioner falsely thought that the original point, if placed under the guise of a semantic equivalent, or a logical equivalent, or a covering universal, or divided up into exhaustive parts, would be more persuasive to the answerer. Rather, the questioner falsely thought that a non-self-explanatory fact about the world was an explanatory first principle. For Aristotle, that certain facts are self-explanatory while others are not is not a reflection solely of the cognitive abilities of humans. It is primarily a reflection of the structure of noncognitive reality. In short, a successful resolution of such a fallacy requires a firm grasp of the correct explanatory powers of things. Without a knowledge of which things are self-explanatory and which are not, the reasoner is liable to find a question-begging argument persuasive.

—Scott Gregory Schreiber, Aristotle on False Reasoning: Language and the World in the Sophistical Refutations

circular reasoning cannot show a premise to be true, nor can it show a conclusion to be true. you cannot use the proposition being debated as an axiom.

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.

then you are using a rhetorical tautology, which means you argument cannot be treated as true. I am self aware because I am self-aware. It does not actually demonstrate you are self aware, it assumes it with no foundation.

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.

which that does not do, stating it is not defending it.

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.

but they are functionally alive, you are purposefully using vague terms so you can rely on equivocation. So from now on you must define any new term you introduce or I will treat it as another attempt at this and ignore it.

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

They exist hylomorphically. That was my point.

no they don't exist holomorphically, you ARE a pattern of neurons, a cube is any polyhedron that is a regular hexahedron, Cobalt is an atom containing a specific number of protons, you are a specific pattern of neurons.

[Sociobiology]

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.

in a hypothetical universe where your brain had not been in that state yes, in this real universe you could not have made any other choice.
phase space is not space.

[Sociobiology]

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?

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

[Sociobiology]

Except it does - everything in the universe is "finite and restricted" in ways we have formalized as scientific laws.

You get to choose between five actions every hour for the sixteen hours that you are awake during the day. That's 152,587,890,625 different choices you can make, and there is a 0.00000000065536% chance you take one sequence during that day. That's limiting it to hourly periods and ONLY five actions an hour. It's limited, sure, but how limited is it? If you plug it in a scientific calculator, the answer reads infinity.

no a good one does not.

[Sociobiology]

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.

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?

[Sociobiology]

Except that, given perfect information, one could predict with 100% certainty which choice one would make, since one's neurological patterns follow specific and finite rules.

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.

[Sociobiology]

Phase space is the hypothetical potential possibilities, created by a lack of information.

real space is what actually happens and is completely deterministics. If we knew the position and velocity of every particle and field in the universe, phase space would contain only one possibility, and we would know all future events with 100% certainty.

but we cannot actually get all this information, which is why we have phase space with multiple possibilities and thus probability.

[Zottistan]

...So? A clock's movement is the way its gears turn. A person's movement is the way their body responds to their brain, which in turn is based on the way their brain reacts to stimuli.

Our brains are physical constructs; they act as physical systems. Like computers.

EDIT: All the universe is just matter and energy arranging itself and rearranging itself. It might help to think of it like that.

SECOND EDIT BECAUSE I'M STRUGGLING TO DESCRIBE THIS: Put the exact same brain in the exact same state in the exact same situation, and it will respond in the exact same way. Because the same physical actions will occur. There is no element of choice; just a response to stimuli.

Give me a choice between two identical cookies. One to my right, and one to my left. I have to pick one. This is still my brain reacting to stimuli, and I accept that, but because there was no external force or mind making me take one particular cookies, there is a choice, and it is entirely up to me.

Give your brain the exact same choice between the exact same cookies, while it's in the exact same state, and it will choose the same cookie every time without fail. How could it not? It's processing the same information in the same way.

[Zottistan]

Except that, given perfect information, one could predict with 100% certainty which choice one would make, since one's neurological patterns follow specific and finite rules.

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, through sixteen different sets of cookies A, B, C, D, and E, but knowing exactly which cookies someone could take? Are you into palmistry and crystal balls, too?

If I could view the state of your brain before every choice, I'd be able to predict which cookie you'd choose every time.

[Dalcaria]

The options are not just starve or be a slave. Having government welfare benefits is preferable to both.

Part for that most slaves in a modern society would live relatively good lives. Much better than any slave of the last era, anyhow. And i don't see how not having a roof over your head is preferable to having a roof over your head. Not to mention that most homeless people don't have welfare benefits.

Oh this is the most imbecilic thing I've heard! It honestly sounds like this is just some fetish thing, I heard someone make the same creepy justification for voluntary cannibalism. "Well, if they have nowhere's else to turn, what right do you have to take it away from them?" You know that's basically forced slavery, right? Which counts as duress, meaning they did not make the choice "because it's their right", but because they were forced into it. There's no choice involved in this matter.

But what I find most hilarious about this is other nations have done considerably well at providing for most of it's people (including the poor) while still maintaining a healthy economy; ex. Norway. It's really not difficult to do, you just tax someone. And before you whine about "you're stealing their hard earned money!" I'd like to ask, who's land did they build their business on, hmm? If the government owns the land, why is it surprising that they should want money for what you do with it? How is this any different from renting a house and paying for it? Anyways, off topic.

It's not just an idea, it is fully possible to provide healthy accommodations for all people, all it takes is money in the right places. Slavery is completely unnecessary and would only lead to a less productive, and therefore less profitable, society. In the end, slavery is more of a waste than anything, both sides will inevitably lose something from it.

[The Nihilistic view]

Well it's Nihil point from me.

[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.

No. That doesn't follow at all. Your own mind is bound by causality. It was inevitable that you would decide to be "cheeseball" instead.

I never said there was an external mind, Strawman-maker.

That constitutes a choice. I had the choice to move my fingers to type whatever it was I typed. My fingers moved because of the reaction to stimuli caused elsewhere in the body, all originating in the brain, but what do you think caused the first domino to fall? Does it just happen magically? I had the free will to type what I typed, or anything else I could have typed.