Rick Horton

She could have at least let the family have their own beds, even if the family offered. That's really bad taste. She should have said, no, I insist you all take your own beds since you're kind enough to have us for the night. THAT would have been a real message.

I'm not really interested in why, are what. Her presentation was annoying. She could have had a better way to sell the idea for the "average" joe. I've seen a lot of people like her and I know her type.

yeah, because she's a famous singer, so when she asks, she receives. Most regular people won't get, when they ask.

What do you want? Heroin? Coke? Meth? Weed? Acid? some angle-dust?

She is all about me me me me me me me me me me me me me. Must be nice.

How could you tell? I might be conscious. Or, I might be an organism with complex responses that are triggered by various stimuli, but has no awareness of anything. Externally, the difference is undetectable. Conventionally each of us reasons that we are conscious ourselves, therefore other humans are probably like ourselves. But that's no more than an assumption. Let me turn it around. How do you know that your spinal column (which is structurally quite similar to your brain) does not have a separate consciousness of its own? Your brain's consciousness wouldn't be able to tell. Even your stomach has as many neurones controlling it as there are neurones in a cat's brain. How do you know your stomach doesn't have a consciousness of its own? Consciousness is probably the least-understood aspect of life. Therefore, using consciousness to define life seems fraught with problems. That's good stuff. I think I have to agree, lol, based on that.

What I mean is, even if you meet me face-to-face you can't know whether I'm conscious or not. So how can consciousness be a useful test for life? I'd be more interested myself if you tried to answer your question for me. I have an argument, but maybe if you play devil's advocate you might reach it before I have to give my argument. That would be a good excersise. Of course if you aren't game, I'll give you my explanation, but I don't know if you can't anser that yourself, really.

What I mean is, even if you meet me face-to-face you can't know whether I'm conscious or not. So how can consciousness be a useful test for life? Why wouldn't I know you are consious?

Hmm. How do you know that I am conscious? I don't really know you're conscious. I do however know that my interaction with you affects my consciousness. You are an irrefutable subject of my consciousness in that way. Your importance to my reality is subtle, yet existent, therefore you exist, if for no other reason than your affect on my existence. You "could" be a computer program test AI algorythm for all I know, but the difference it would make is zero. Your impact in my reality is still quite minute.

I'd like to cut through the red tape that's going on right now in this thread because my guess is that it's boring everybody who keeps checking the progress in it. My proposition for what constitutes life is probably somewhat similar to a prochoicers definition, lol.... Anything that can impose will, and knows that it is imposing will. This would make plants, not alive. So to make the argument about what constitutes life much simpler I would argue that it's not enough that something grows, moves against gravity, etc... but that it knowingly imposes itself through force in an environment. So my idea of what makes something alive is a lot different than the accepted idea. I argue that something without awareness of it's decisions is not alive, thus any being without a consciousness isn't alive.

Yes. I see what you mean, now. I can see the seduction of the Social Contract, as it was sold. But it really doesn't have anything to do with freedom does it..... It's kind of a nice way to justify giving up your will under the guise of somehow increasing it. It doesn't make sense but it sounds so civil. The problem is that giving yourself to a contract doesn't have anything to do with morality. It has to do with duty, sure, but morality? No. Hitler's SS gave themselves to "that" social contract. I'd call that duty, but not individuality, nor morality. Being in a social contract makes it easier to survive and impose will, but that will isn't necessarily moral, OR individual. at, all... It's (in a big way) just any other gang. But I'm still watching the whole lecture to see what I'm not getting.

There may be contracts that are social, but that is not quite the same as the ethical theory developed by Rousseau that is incidentally called "The Social Contract". Rousseau's social contract refers to something much more specific that the kind of social contract you describe. I'm glad you enjoyed it! Thanks. I'm watching this now, and it looks like it may help this conversation:

I really like Rick Roderick. I have a lot in common with how he thought. If you are really into philosophy, you'll enjoy this presentation.

Not true. Space = The final frontier, lol

And, so we use dictionaries to clarify. If the person arguing uses a word wrong, we call them out on it, not let them use it. That's debating properly. Do you do a lot of live debating? Have you been in a debate club, or on a debate team that does this in front of other people? Because what happens is if you ask people to define words you'll lose credibility straight off. You should have a dictionary with you for all debates. When somebody argues something and uses a word wrong that their argument hinges on you believing the word means something, it's usually to get you to accept a premise differently than what the argument should demand. That's when you say, "says here" that the word you are using means "this". THEN the conversation can go forward clearly, and the person who was using the word wrong has to explain his deception, or look for a new term to use. I've been on several debate teams and there "are" things you don't do. One, is to use words in your own way instead of in the way they are defined. If you cant find a word in the dictionary that reflects what you are trying to say then you have to use an assembly of other words to paint your picture, OR propose a "new" term. Proposing a new term can be done, but it's not that productive either unless you can sell that term widely enough, fast enough, to become part of common lexicon, at least in the area of your expertise, otherwise you spend more time explaining the word than you would if you just used sentences to describe your point in the first place. And it's a frustrating game outside of real debating because so many people try and make words mean what "they" want them to mean. But in real, live debates, with an audience, HOMIES WILL NOT PLAY THAT.

I'll tell everybody my rule for communicating with me right now, and if it's too much to ask then you're not a person I want to communicate with anyhow. USE a dictionary to look up words that you aren't sure the meaning of. Period. This bullshit game, copout, distraction, diversion, that people use when they either think it's okay to define words themselves "apart" from the rest of the society that speaks the language they are choosing to speak, write, or type,OR that they can ignore the common lexicon to stifle a conversation to death is pure NONSENSE. Communication "requires" concrete definitions. If you look beyond a dictionary to define a word you are entering your own problematic areas and NOT MINE. There isn't one thread on this forum that hasn't been plagued with this stupidity. If you can't assemble an argument by using a choice out of the lexicon of the language, and need to start redefining things you lack creativity, and honesty.

Really. Harpal Brar would be entertaining.

Well, if you can source that "scientifically" accurate definition for the word then feel free. I'm going to go out on a limb and say you won't find that is the "definitive" meaning of the word. Dictionaries aren't an appeal to authority, btw, you guys. You can't just define a word any way you want. It has to be agreed on by a lot of people or you're not going to make sense. You can try but, it "aint" so. Saying dictionaries don't provide definitions that are usable in conversation is assinine.

What do you think about men in blue outfits arresting him, then men in black robes sentencing him to 11 years in prison? Is there a proper alternative for this scenario, and if so, what? This is a pretty good opportunity to give a position on something like this, and how this would be handled in a voluntaryist community.

This guy would be a great debate: Harpal Brar:

This man: Alain Badiou http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alain_Badiou

Tony Blair would be cool. Or Christopher Hitchens brother.

Thanks for the link to your article. I liked it a lot. I kind of think whenever 2 people confront each other, and decide to comprimise on a thing, a social contract is what that decision is called. So in a stateless society there would still be social contracts, thus there would still be a stifling of mobility of will.

I second this very good question I made a film explaining "my" position on "property". I've been thinking about this issue, like you, for a while now. Here is the link to the video. I think you'll NOT be bored by it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7KdfKzp6Ng

that's easy. Hold on. I have one of those things called a dictionary. I'm surprised you never heard of the word object before, but I'll help you out: ob·ject [n. ob-jikt, -jekt; v. uhb-jekt] Show IPA noun 1. anything that is visible or tangible and is relatively stable in form. 2. a thing, person, or matter to which thought or action is directed: an object of medical investigation. 3. the end toward which effort or action is directed; goal; purpose: Profit is the object of business. 4. a person or thing with reference to the impression made on the mind or the feeling or emotionelicited in an observer: an object of curiosity and pity. 5. anything that may be apprehended intellectually: objects of thought. file:///Applications/Dictionary.app/Contents/Resources/DisclosureDown.png [/anchor] [anchor=com.apple.dictionary.AppleDictionary]