HasMat

does he provide a moral basis for order or progress? I'm sure the Amish would like to have a word with him.

i dont think you are understanding the random nature of the universe, as being owned by the universe. Atleast not consistently. Simple chaos is a universal law. When selfs exhibit 'choice' are they following universal law of chaos, or an additional randomness only their matter enjoys? I would call this having your cake and eating it too. You are blaming randomness for free-will when you want to assert freewills existence, and calling randomness a property of the universe when you want to say its not metaphysical. Who owns the randomness in question? in the first half it seems attached to self, in the second half it seems attached to the universe. are there 2 distinct properties of randomness here? I dont see how universal law (part of which is chaos) could be construed as selfdeterminism, i dont see how a secondary nonuniversal selfonly property of chaos isnt metaphysical.

The 2nd part of my explanation went like this: physical laws are not owned by self (they are universal - electroweak, strong, 'gravity', quantum randomness) free-will = self ownership of personal causation so whatever makes a person 'free' must be OTHER than physical law. A only local (to 'self') violation of natural law is required, but not only that, it must be a force the self can legitimately claim it owns. Its not enough for god/FSM to violate physics in your matter for you to qualify for freewill, "you" gotta do it.

I havent watched the video, its an hour long. but i did listen to the podcast. I might watch it next. If you really want to understand my reasoning you need to explore the concept of self and the concept of independent causality. I reason that in a nonmetaphysical universe a self is fantasy, like the idea of santa claus. An arbitrary conception, whose borders are 100% elusive and without meaning. If you can provide a definition of self I would be more than happy to challenge it. My stance is that its literally impossible to define a logical self without metaphysics. So if you can do it, i concede defeat. My position is that you have no more intrinsic meaning than a rock (without metaphysics), and any cohesive definition of selfs will appeal to magic. if you cant the next step is exploration of independent causality. I define freewill as ownership of personal causality. (traditional) Individuals cant own universal laws. They go everywhere and have no personalized relationship. This includes all electroweak, strong, gravity, and it also includes the randomness constant. there are a few conditions I believe are essential for ownership, but the very first is dominion. If universal laws control your matter you are not the boss of said matter. So either universal laws are boss, or the self is (atleast intermittently). Self MUST by (my) definition suspend and subdue natural law for ownership to occur, and that property must be of higher order than the universe. Intermittent and recessive on conflict is not dominion. If circumstance 'wants' you to hurt someone, but your freewill does not, you can only have moral responsibility for your actions if you have the option to weigh in, and have real power to overthrow GUTs causality for your matter. this doesnt mean you have to turn water into wine or fly around, an underdeveloped freewill would scarcely be able to prevent an angry reaction if someone punched him. I would consider a definition of self to define its existence boundaries in both matter/energy and time. that means its 'body' and its birth/death. Im open to any kinds of selfs, even ones that don't exist in our current culture (futuristic robots, software, energy patterns) One limitation I would put on selfs, it cannot be the entire universe. my position is not that metaphysics is real, just that its essential for selfhood and thus morality. if no metaphysics, no selfhood, no responsibility, no morality. the universe must by definition get cheated for morality to exist for any selfs who are less than the [big Bang]. freewilll needs a self to attach to.

who owns this indeterminism? Ownership is key. If its just random background radiation of the universe it has no meaningful connection to a self. A 'life' with as much indeterminism as a quantum particle is the sum of its forces, nothing more, with no magic. Are you really gonna argue a self with as much randomness as inanimate matter is exercising free will and not merely a product of chance, just like everything else? what quality of randomness does a self have that a corpse doesnt? do natural laws suspend? the entire argument REVOLVES around selfhood and its personal causation giving the known universe the middlefinger IN A WAY ABOVE AND BEYOND WHAT INANIMATE MATTER DOES. either it gives the universe the bird, or it dutifully follows known laws. the randomness of basic matter provides no discriminating cover for selfs to hide a free-will. you need something that violates known law (causation) and operates outside the universe. it must be distinguishable from 'reality' as we know it. there is no way around it being metaphysical. either metaphysical or no free-will. there is no other option.

in the radiostream stefan requires the determinist pov to affirm 1. existence of truth (fine) 2. morality relative to truth (untenable for atheism) stefan needs to create proofs for this. sudden creation of morality is theocratic. if the determinist had taken the "morally defunk" position by denying the existence of morality (universally prefered state), which is the TRUE atheist conclusion...i think the discussion would have gone differently. as ive argued (by assertion) many times, a nonmetaphysical universe has no universally prefered state. 6 milion dying jews has the same moral value as 6 million happy productive jews. its the puritanical conditioning that makes opponents cede this important distinction. soulless rocks falling down the side of a cliff have literally zero moral content. what quality of a soulless person is above the rock? the distinction of life is meaningless. the life is subordinate to the same deterministic laws of science as the rock, to the same degree of strict obedience. no magic to overthrow sequential operation of natural law, destined by the stars. Without a divine creator (goals) and atleast 2 eternal properties of self (permanent duration, variability), without those, a being cannot have a non-zero moral existence. all of its everything was determined by forces outside its control and before its inception. its very distinction, as a self, is arbitrary without an extra-planar spark to bound and define it. life is a scientific process, not a self. For any kind of just duty to occur, the self needs a local power of causation that originates OUTSIDE and INDEPENDENT of the universe it acts in. otherwise they are just falling rocks. Morally bound selfs must have a property of defying the universe (breaking physical laws in relation to its 'owned' material self). A "1-way" causality on universe. otherwise no free-will, as the idea is generally thought of. im not positing the universe is metaphysical, im saying it can't have morally colored consequence without it. Its a both/none situation. for moral culpability, a self needs personal causation originating OUTSIDE its environments reach. it needs to sublimely OWN its behavioral causation in the deepest sense of the word. Here is what free-will atheism needs 1. concept of self 2. way for self to determine reality while a)being a distinct entity apart from natural law and not fully subservient to it b) not violating natural law i dont think A and B are possible at the same time. If you are not 100% governed by natural law then universes are (atleast intermittently) overlapping/interfering. I think most of the controversy is over the mass of a self. Who really 'owns' it? If its govered by solely physical laws, how does a solely physical self (no soul) break a chain of events? its only mode of instrumentation is domanated by a set of laws that can't abide ANY external (metaphysical) interference. that kind of selfs only discretion depends on and is based on physical law, it has no man-cave to hide in outside the system to plot anything, then return and act on reality. it cant break any cycles, only obey law with absolute obedience.

beauty cannot have any quality unless its utility based (has causation (or imitation of causation/signal:breast implants)). utility belies a goal. if goal is objectively desireable, and a beauty's causation has objective cardinality among alternates, then its quality will be objective at respect of its cardinality. 3rd best choice = 3rd prettiest form. if 2 physical traits have equal utility for all potential functions they have the same beauty. i know lots of guys who think tatoos are sexy on a woman. I find it repulsive. IMO the divergence is over goals, and how tatoos reflect on those goals. i would argue it has nonuniversal utility-based beauty, and therefore subjective quality. what that quality is depends on beholders goals, and his awareness/recalibration. a family man who used to be a biker might still like tatoos, but arguably its cuz he hasnt made the mental shift. nothing is forcing him and if his wife still has them he may want to hold onto that opinion. objective beauty can only exist where objectively desireable goals (for which beauty has a measure of causation) exist. The problem of objecitve goals can be resolved if you put qualifiers on the judgment (true only for a subcategory), therefore its objective. "As a potential reproduction partner her wide hips have objective beauty." Even gays can't logically dispute that. What I find most sad about modern culture is how powerful social proof is. Ppl arent very interested in objective beauty, and I dont think ppl are even as interested in subjective beauty as they are social acceptance/status. A potential companion's perceived beauty by circle of friends is more important that her forms causation on any goals you may have. bilateral symetry is different from general symetry. general symetry = sphere. bilateral symetry is a general reflection of healthy genes. potential mates have been seeking this trait long before there were mammals. its the norm. can you imagine dating a woman with 1 leg that was 6 inches shorter than the other? or missing 1 hand as a matter of genetic development? that is what bilateral asymetry is. not sexy.

Parents own their sperm/ova. What is occuring in this process is transition from parent ownership of matter, to a new self. selfhood, btw, is a fantasy. its an arbitrary and meaningless concept in any nonmetaphysical universe. the achievement of a new life's selfhood does not change the mass of the universe, it does not change the informational quantity of the universe, it does not suspend any laws. it does not consume nor produce. its a fantasy creation outside the scope of physical law or the measureable universe. if it ever DID exert a force on the known universe then the laws of science would need revision. it would be proof of metaphysics too. its a metaphysical creation like hope, love, or any other idea/name. its coming or going (birth/death) is sheer opinion (ask an abortionist when life starts, or a spouse when their companion stops being themself and becomes a corpse) this stuff is raw opinion, you certainly wont be measuring selfhood with any science instruments. does this thing sound like a soul yet? selfhood and identity are fantasy without a discrete immortal soul to boundarize the existence from its subcomponents and greater environment, and an infinite property of choice to attain independence from physical reality, known as free-will. without free-will NAP has no moral claim on a creature. life and selfhood are not interchangeable, as we shall soon see with transhumanists. selfhood is the core of the question of ownership of offspring. contracts, which require consent (and thus identity) are at best secondary considerations. when the new self arises, all previous claims on the matter are destroyed. if you sell your sperm, any resultant babies own themselves and are not slaves to the buyer.

If it becomes negated then your prediction was wrong. This isnt about deciding earlier, its about predicting future behavior, and NOT making the choice now. I think the key here is to consider a simple device with clearly finite causality. For a thermostat the decision is to turn on heating. If you queried what it would do, in advance, with necessary variables, the answer would be accurate and sure. no doubts. free-will requires a property of self that is infinite and unknowable. you can discretely know all the factors in a thermostats choice pipeline. but you cant know the depth of a soul, and so can never predict its choice. if its property of choice was any less than infinity you COULD predict it. over time you could measure, grasp, model, and simulate. free-will means to be immune to predictable causality. it violates the known universe. as for the OP, i think 2 of the questions are completely meaningless. Are you a decider kinda answers itself if a response is detected. Recursive reasoning is a property of complexity, does that mean simpletons cant have free will? i think not. only questions that are relevent imo: Q3: Can I model and simulate — at least partially — my own behaviour and that of other deciders? Q4: Can I predict my own decisions beforehand Q3 has nothing to do with actual free will, only with ability to PROVE your structure of causality and its adherence to prediction. The ability to model your own behavior is simply known as 'rationality', definitions comes in discrete rations. modeling others is irrelevent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind) to whether you personally have choice, just whether you can produce your model for testing. The entire question boils down to Q4. Finite beings, with enough tech, will answer yes to Q4, with ATMOST as much impredictability as a quantum particle. IOW having as much 'free will' as a speck. if you wanna call that free will be my guest, but thats parity with microscopic inanimate matter. thats freewill in the nonmetaphysical universe for finite beings.

Was it intentional to ask about the individuals and the cause? They are separate questions, but as framed is begging for ad hominem. If you listen to Stefan you will probably believe there are real injustices and gender inequality AGAINST men. that's the cause. if you listen to MHRA you will probably believe they are jerks. Many believe in 'fuck their shit up' (their words not mine) as a basic quality of strategy. that's the ppl. Their POV and experience says demure language does not elicit basic empathy afforded to victims. Personally I agree with that position, but think its non sequitar. if you are the dad of a family, and a million savages are raining down on your village, and your wife and kids expect you to throw your life away, why resist? its not like you have a worthwhile home to return to. their cause is just, but its not worth fighting. if noone will stick up for the dads alongside them then there isnt a point. all the other classes have been championed by the white man. if those 'allies' dont give a shit then its not worth it. kind of an atlas shrugged moment. i dont think there has ever been a group of humans whose victimhood was ignored like this (total lack of empathy, hostility in fact, on society wide scale) that didnt end up extinct. Personally i think MHRA should direct their message more towards women. men cant win this war. socially they have no credibility when saying their needs arent met. that position is a nonstarter when non-men hear it, even if true. they need a 3rd party to notice and speak for them. the content or manner of their message is not the problem here (whether demure or hostile), its the identity of the voice. identity based response, IOW raw bigotry. if you think they are hostile its because you think their outrage is disproportion to their wrongs. Parsing victims proportion, when there are real wrongs, is the domain of appeasers who seek to excuse tyranny. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neville_Chamberlain for the record, MHRA's do not commit or advocate violence (as a movement). I think it would be hard to make a case that their response (free speech) is disproportionate, as the initiation of force is constantly applied to men in immoral way and they are just speaking about it. Calling them hostile is another way of saying you dont give a shit they are exploited and they should keep their mouths shut. Meanwhile there is a pretend "War on Women". misdirection much?

to OP: identity is a metaphysical construct. self as a concept is pure fiction unless we have souls. either living matter disobeys causality or it does not. if not then life is just a self perpetuating event, a scientific process, as natural consequence of static nonlocalized laws, no voo-doo included. a fire or hurricane is not a self, a war is not a self. events arent selfs. life is an event. it has no physical existence. other things have the physical existence, the processes are just ways to group it or describe what is already occuring physically. as per the course of the thread, the idea selfhood is based on full realization of highest emergent properties is new to me. usually single cell organisms are considered to have identities and be selfs. it seems to me this definition would make big bang highest emergent self but certainly a human couple (male and female) a higher self than the individual, (and subcomponents thus surender selfhood) and either gender just a cog without identity, such as a blood cell you sell to blood bank without violating NAP. Using this definition it doesnt violate NAP to kill your wife. The self (couple) disposed of its resources of its own volition. emergent property is not the way to go. reproduction (requires couple) is certainly a salient emergent property, spawning a galaxy seems like a pretty cool trick too. puts new light on a tiny human shaking his fist at god for allowing disease to wipe out his family. sounds like a squabble between The Big Bang's stomache and its bladder. those silly organs, wont they just get along? those squabbles are MORALLY INERT, as the participants arent selfs. selfhood is arbitrary and meaningless without a soul. kill this idea. kill free-will. the problem is that free-will is essential to responsibility for your behavior, and thus duty to follow NAP. you need a soul for self-> you need a self for NAP-> you need a soul for NAP to apply to you. burn it down.

Are you saying there is an additional property of randomness to causality within a self? I dont see how a person can disbelieve in metaphysics and believe a 'self' suspends causality in any way whatsoever, even infintestimally small. I understand inability to measure (the internal forces/outcome), but what is being proposed is not lack of measurement precision, but predictability based on same laws that 'external' universe is following. What does outside even mean? are there 2 sets of causality? where causal forces come from should be irrelevent if there is only 1 set of causality. If you could, please redefine the question with only a living self (no rock comparisons) and without references to internal and external. if you cant do that, explain why you need those things to frame the question. I think it will be an enlightening process, if not for you then hopefully me.

if you cannot define identities (existence and boundary) you cannot give them properties and ownerships. you would be unable to own your body. ownership is only possible if you exist, as a thing (with participation in moral dimension). and once an identity is defined, what includes it in the moral dimension? AI are identities as much as humans, what are the ethical considerations here? triviality of current arbitrary definition of self finding the right place to make a boundary is essential. you could define each human cell as a closed identity. if you make a blood pact you would be violating the NAP when you sacrificed some blood cells. You could also define a 'self' as larger than 1 person, maybe a whole society. the whimsical destruction of 1 member of society would not violate NAP because the group, as an identity owned itself and could dispense with its resources by choice. life as "meaning" the deeper question here is why should life equate to a selfenclosed unique identity? its an honest question. then would a virus be an identity? would a nanobot enhanced corpse (zombie) be an identity? life is morally meaningless without a metaphysical worldview. its just a sequence of events (that happens to be selfperpetuating like a fire). does a fire have ownership of itself? what about nonperpetuating events? does a birthday party own itself? A War? if you want to pretend its 'consciousness' that bestows identity (and not life), then why is identity created and destroyed at birth and death? does a person in a vegetative state have no identity? of course not. consciousness does not create the human conceptiion of identity. life does. life only has significance on metaphysical level. here come the robots and transhumanists! is it life? here yall busy using concept of self which is an arbitrary designation unless inclusion of metaphysics. ive often suspected autistics are just rabid atheists who refuse to acknowledge the self, since it does not exist in atheist universe. it appear stefan's apple of religion was eaten much sooner than we thought. babies start believing in a self within the 1st year of life. RestoringGuy, your admission that emotions can be construed as internal or external (no objectively and singularly true locus of perception, all relative) is tacit admission that identity does not exist. without identity there can be no morality, no NAP, no right nor wrong, no ownership no initiation. free-will requires identity, human conception of identity requires life, sanctity of life is a metaphysical construct. life is merely a scientific process. processes have no moral significance. its the metaphysical implications of the term that magically sparks into existence and causes beliefs such as thinking its wrong to murder an innocent person. true unadulterated atheism cannot make that claim. there logically is no 'person' to begin with. its a conceptual thing like a forest, a govt, a fire, or a birthday party. put out a campfire and you violate NAP? There is some kind of metaphysical bestowal that the life process creates in the human mind, above and beyond 'sequence of events'. Yet its an arbitrary distinction. All the more so if you dont believe in a metaphysical aspect to the universe.

Anarchy, as a PR handle, should be discarded. If opponents can control the debate to focus on mischaracterized lawlessness they have won. NAP isnt lawlessness, its just a different kind (moral vs political). Anarchy, the connotation, is lawlessness.

I find this definition to be metaphysical. This impredictability you propose, arising from the self, is a property of endless value. Eternal spirit. We are made of like 10^50 quanta. Compared to infinity it might as well be zero. random jumps and jiggles arising from this self would of necessity be extra-planar. If you want this randomness to be authored by the 'self' you can call it free-will. If you want it authored by some background random number generator of the universe it cannot be called free will. personal identity is essential to any conception of freewill, and now you have a new problem, defining this spark of the self of infinite RND. This exactly. LIfe is a metaphysical concept giving rise to the idea of identity. No self-respecting atheist should succumb to the superstition of life having any intrinsic meaning. its an idea, a grouping/simplification of inanimate matter.

As I said in the other thread, I think the key to understanding here is identity. identity is essential to any concept of free-will, free-will is essential to any concept of control/selfdeterminism. the problem is that identity is a metaphysical concept, like string theory. define your personal identity against 1) AI 2) parallel universe version of identical you 3) space dust who happens to message each other just like your synapses 4) the 2100 A.D. version of you that was sewn onto supercyborg A25 flesh-monster, along with 100 other cyborg hopefuls 5) software version of your brain 6) software/hardware hybrid that models your body also identity is a mythology that only has meaning within the context of a metaphysical backdrop. When does identity emerge, when does it disappear? Life, as a process, has no more meaning or significance than a fire, a hurricane, or any other selfperpetuating process. yet we wanna say identity is bounded by life. stefan says there are trees (real) but no forest (conceptual amalgamation). but the tree is a grouping of cells, of molecules, of atoms, quarks, quanta. Who picks which amalgamation has meaning? he likes life, but scientifically life is a process. life is not matter, its not information, its a chain of events. reducing our identity to a process = determinism=real atheism. if no metaphysical, no identity. if no identity, no free will, just quanta doin' stuff. What does it mean to be you? that's what identity is all about.

My understanding is that the exploitation is not based on occupation. I read a review of a book, I believe its called "The Game". Its about how to systematically destroy a woman psychologically. Its presented as the pimp's bible. If women could produce something of financial quality/demand besides sex, in the same quantities, while living under same conditions (no self-esteem) then The Game would florish to that industry also. Sex is ez money for no competence, small time, and you dont need any psychological health/wellbeing. "Bitch get in there and screw that guy or I'll blow your head off!". customer is still getting the quality he paid for, product doesnt suffer in large ways. who knows, maybe that increases it? the idea is quite interesting. abusing vulnerable victims until their own sense of personal progress detaches, and is then re-attached to the pimp's goals. hookers stop caring if they make money and start caring if her pimp is getting his due respect from others. its a drastic re-wiring of a person's psychological structures. what makes this kind of exploitation so heinous in many ppl's eyes is when the victims have a belief in sexual purity beforehand, and are coerced to act against that belief. break them down psychologically until they violate their moral code. this type of 'coercion' and 'fraud' are not essential elements of prostitution, its just commonplace in that industry. arguably because its illegal. its a systematic gambit mixing invitations to believe mythologies, intimidation, real violence, and gifts. these are things taht really only work on 1 type of group: the vulnerable. ofc other types of prostitutes exist, but this is the side where real undeniable exploitation is occuring.

I think free-will has 2 basic meanings, both are direct assertions about identity 1. (universally accepted--atleast as foundational-- but definition disputed) your matter is your own, your identity is your body, this space-time version of you belongs to you and you alone, your behavior is controlled by your matter. since you own your matter you are culpable for the behavior of that matter. (this starts getting hanky when atheists and homosexuals think this thru: obviously only omnipotent beings would have true culpability in a purely physical universe) 2. (reality disputed but definition understood) your identity exists independent/simultaneously with your matter. you have another existence on a different level than the physical universe, and your other plane of existence has causation (atleast partly) over your behavior in this locale identity is a metaphysical concept. for an atheist to even consider the question he leaves home turf. If you believe in #2 you are automatically 'religious'. Which is why it can be confusing that non-theists can disagree on this subject being as there is only 1 other defintion after ruling out metaphysical. Stefan believes in free-will of category 1. Predeterminism believes in category 1, but they think they have different positions about physical reality. they dont. the different is about fancy ideas, aka metaphysics and modalities like shouldawouldcoulda. Stefan's disagreement with theists is over physical operational content, Stefan's disagreement with determinists is over definition/semantics. They both think causation is physical universe based, they just disagree whether that constitutes moral responsibility. Stefan hasn't thought thru the (non)omnipotence angle of gays yet i suppose. who supposedly simultaneously 1) exist (as beings with identity who is responsible for actions) and 2) not culpable (cuz victims of own nature/nurture). i would think getting down to the nuts and bolts of what uniquely identifies you as yourself would be quite unnerving for an atheist. when the mystery is gone maybe we will be able to prove we don't actually exist. Ever see Arnold Schwarzeneger's movie "6 days"? what an bizare identity to wake into. In one of Stefan's books he says a tree exists, but not forests, cuz a forest is just a collection, a theoretical construct. could it be that we are the same thing? that the perception of existence, conscousness, is just an illusion? if trees but not forests, why not cells but no trees? why not atoms but not cells? why not quarks but not atoms? why not quanta but not quarks? it seems very arbitrary to say trees but no forests. which theoretical grouping has any real meaning? the conception of identity DEMANDS mystery or some property of infinity. an extra-planar spirit/ghost satisfies this, but a whimsical identity as "quantum-group known as Joe" does not. i think the average person is considered to be made of less than 10^50th quanta/strings. its a lot, but basically the same as the number zero when compared to infinity. this is the atheist version of reality. but they wanna just call the grouping of matter 'Joe', as a discrete unambiguous identity. if no forest, no joe either. not to say the matter doesnt exist, just no identity joe. obviously the forest's matter is still there. The communication of neurons in your brain creates a perception of mind. would it be possible for some atoms on the surface of the sun to message each other, and bounce off each other with the exact same data you are thinking right now? would that constitute emergent life? would that qualify as identity? its a grouping of matter, just like a tree, just like you. say it was able to do this, from random chance, for 3 seconds. Would that change anything? what if that collection of atoms modelled your thoughts, exactly, with exact same stimuli/choice, for your entire lifetime? would it be you? would your identity no longer be unique? what if there is an identical parallel universe with ofc you in it. is that you? if identity is not information based (sun replicant), it must be matter-based. so then what happens to the notion of identity when you meet a self from an identical parallel universe? identity goes flying out the window once more. the concepts of free-will, consciousness, culpability, and identity are all wrapped up together. without metaphysical constructs its all hogwash. some atoms on the sun have as much identity as you. how we interpret reality doesnt say so, but remind me again why our view has any intrinsic worth...we're not the offspring of god right? how is your life any more meaningful that an inert rock on the moon who day in and day out exerts forces, reflects light, etc. Is the left side of the rock an identity? what about the whole thing? the conception of identity in a purely physical universe is pure fantasy. without identity no free-will. without free-will no morality. identity needs a property of infinite quality. quanta groupings in this reality do not suffice. joe the atom group is just a basic chemical robot aka autonamaton, which is itself a fantasy collection. he needs identity to be anything more. imo identity is itself a metaphysical conception. free-will definition #1 is the scientific method applied on that fantasy. THIS is the rabbit hole of atheism. straight to nihilism and oblivion, which is cool, just dont get raised on the remnants of puritan fanaticism during childhood and then tell me atheism leads a person to NAP or kindness or anything except nihilism. thats your upbringing talking. determinists position has the intelligence of the implications behind [being no more meaningful than a moon rock], [having no more identity than a sun spot]. stefan doesnt have this wisdom. i guess he is just convinced "tree but no forest" is a sane logical distinction for an atheist to make. why? cuz he believes in life as a meaningful and discrete thing. awesomely funny. tell me more about identity when life begins or ends. no metaphysical eh? but identity is real...haha not saying he is wrong on metaphysical, but he cant be right on both metaphysical and identity. identity is a metaphysical concept. in short: if no god, no us. imo a type of indestructibility is also essential to identity. consider the case of a souled being visiting a soulless planet of the apes. is there any immorality in murdering everyone? they were all gonna die anyway, old age, whatever cause. BUT if someone was to murder the astronaut, it causes a change on an others permanent existence. infinitely more immoral than killing a robot. thus, only actions on eternal beings can have any moral implications. hurting a finite being will cause at most 100 years of personal suffering and shorten their life by at most 100 personal years. i would suggest atheists abandon this topic, but if not look into the system of accountability. its 3 subsystems are control, duty, and consequence. control is impossible without freewill. duty is impossible without awareness. The story of Adam and Eve deals with these concepts, and every time a blank slate baby grows up to be an accountable adult their freewill and knowledge grow. The concepts of NAP are not dependent on the existence of any identities with free-will, but its moral jurisdiction can only claim those types of beings: NAP isnt exactly meaningless without free-will or knowledge of good and evil, it just has no moral claim/application. if a baby is 6 foot tall and 300 lbs and beating you to death you have a right to kill it in selfdefense, just not with moral prejudice.

argument by assertion /too ignorant to know better scarcity is not applicable to information. neither harm nor expenditure. information also has no intrinsic worth. if you tell someone the world is round they will likely say 'Duh!'. If you start talking about your astrophysics degree when a mugger stabs you it won't help. info's entire value is context based. its only ever activated by intention. Who knows about it, who has access to it, what situations does it apply to. information is nonlocalized, universal, and independent. If its forgotten or remembered, its still the same. If its discovered or arcane, its still the same. Its constant. if its true, false, or dont not compute, it still doesnt even care. 1 + blue = unicorn. its scarcity and existence lie outside the bounds of human control and/or causation. applying basic concepts of theft to a 100% non-scarce, non-consumable, non-harmable commodity is immoral. applying concepts of theft to metaphysical assertions is immoral. why info is metaphsycial: its existence or non-existence is PURELY in the eye of the beholder. atoms exist, the color purple does not. a purple shirt exists, and its existence has zero dependence on anyone recognizing or copying that data. if we were to argue on whether the color purple existed I submit it would quickly diverge to a metaphysical discussion, like string theory: its core is untestable assertions. there are only TWO real situations where a person can claim info is 'owned'. that is privacy (access) and reputation (fraud). these considerations simply dont apply to commercial products (in the context of IP law). why IP law is a misguided recoup attempt I understand the motive behind it, its based on a desire for society to progress via artificial enhancement of self-interest. so obviously IP law has no moral basis, it modifies a means which justification is derived from an outcome frame of 'social progress' (iow ends justify means). In Stefan's Real-Time Relationships he says that a girl who dates you to look good to her friend does not value you, she values a fantasy (social recognition). you are a means to an end. It causes all kinds of problems when you negotiate with her with a belief that she values you. She doesn't. This is what IP law is doing, trying to negotiate with 3rd parties with a false assumption of value. They have no scarce product to offer once the cat is out of the bag. the thing in question is immune to scarcity. What they are selling has no instrinsic property of scarcity, consumability, harm, or even quality. its quality is derived from conditions, not itself. if better ubiquitous software was released it would have zero value. This is the philosophical problem with IP. its an attempt to create voluntary contracts on uncontainable "means" with no inherent value, and with persons who arent even party to the said contract. the containment is the real product being offered, and that containment has no inherent quality to MOST buyers. in fact negation is being artificial applied, all in the name of personal greed. trying to extract $ from ppl who value only an end, in exchange for the means, is fraud UNLESS you can objectively assign connection from means to end. Example: You hire me as bodyguard to keep yourself safe. A sniper shoots at you, missing, and you run away. Later you complain I didnt act and was nowhere to be found, I say I was doing a voodoo dance of safety at the local pub. It worked. Now you owe me $1 million. trying to extract $ from ppl who value only an end, in exchange for the means, is fraud UNLESS you can objectively assign connection from means to end. artistic beauty and information are subjective metaphysical commodities that arent able to connect means and end. Access to info can morally be sold (see linux), but information cannot. information is of a different quality or fabric than goods and services. IP law is a foolish attempt to apply brick-and-mortar concepts of theft to a different category of animal. in a different vein, i would also argue IP law is highly suspect because its an attempt to keep ppl from information/convert others lack of information into $. that doesnt feel like a humane cause to get caught up in. sure you can mine for info just like you can mine for bitcoins. but is there any inherent value produced by farming a bitcoin? you are a squatter, and value is 100% based on context. did you discover that bitcoin first? if not there is zero value to discovering it. doesnt sound like value is being produced, even on initial discovery. this is one of the things i find troubling about bitcoin. it creates an informational universe of scarce quantity and assigns resources via opportunity and effort, and the entire system is artibrary and elective. feels like a pyramid scheme. information is a theoretical property of the universe, humans exacting value from each other for being squatters is fine IMO, but only for the first sale. thats called access.