dsayers

How do you know that consciousness emerges from brains, not matter? Are brains not comprised of matter? Can a brain without blood circulating work? Does this mean consciousness emerges from hearts? The whole reason it's called an emergent property is because we cannot explain WHY it comes to be, so of course we cannot say with any certainty that it comes from brains. Regarding the coal remark, "consciousness is an emergent property of matter" is different from "all matters exerts consciousness." The distinction between your consciousness, brain, or body being the possessor is not only untraceable, but not of use in any moral examination. From objective morality, to religious "morality," to utilitarianism... All proposed systems of morality have one thing in common: Enumerating behaviors that ought to be engaged in/refrained from. In other words, they all present themselves as binding upon OTHERS. In terms of property of self, examinations from within are useless because the discussion is examination from without. I apologize for being the one to introduce the distinction of self-ownership coming from consciousness or body. It wasn't my intention to side track the discussion.

*redacted* (wrong thread)

The only ambiguity I see in the definitions you put forth is the difference between an individual and an aggregate of those individuals. Kind of like how "man" can refer to humankind or the male of the species. I suppose since the universalization comes later in the case, human in the beginning would refer to the individual. However, the individual possessing reason is a product of humans in general having the capacity for reason. In fact, this was something I was thinking about this morning thanks to the challenge you put forth. Not trying to skirt the challenge at hand, but wanted to see what you think of this anyways. I was recently challenged with making the case for the personhood of children which is NOT EASY! One of the things I was challenged over is one of the things I've had the hardest time with myself. The fact that while a child isn't a moral actor, they will become one. And it occurred to me that the problem I was encountering was that I was using "possesses the capacity for reason" without differentiating it from "possessing reason." In light of this, I would revise my case to humans possess reason and the explanation for why we observe the extension of personhood to children is because they posses the CAPACITY FOR reason. What do you think?

This doesn't address any of the challenges I've offered. Also, what is the use of saying "an individual cannot buy that which is a description of the aggregate of individual choices"? It's like saying that a man sitting on the trunk of a car cannot steer that same car or that a man in his car cannot control the sum of all cars on the expressway. Whether by outside vs inside or singular vs sum of those singulars, all these claims all self-evident. Expressing them adds nothing. Speaking of adding nothing, can you ditch the role-playing? I can't speak for others, but it seems pretentious to me as well as an indication of somebody not trying to have a conversation with human beings.

You realize that calling something extreme and doing nothing to disprove it is itself not addressing what was said, right? I reject this oversimplification. If it were true, how would that fact of LIFE accrue to money, which is a concept, and came after LIFE? For that matter, how did anybody live before money? How do animals live without money? This is why having a closed mind while pretending to explore the truth is a waste of my time. Earlier, I specifically said "Describing it in that matter is taking agency away from that person, which is dangerous because that accidentally excuses them from any wrong doing they might engage in as a result of that belief." Just as I warned, by saying that "money" is responsible for controlling people, you are concealing the aggression of PEOPLE voluntarily initiating the use of force. Furthermore, you're conflating fiat currency with currency. Also, the concept of money pre-dates (and will likely post-date) the US empire. So making any matter-of-fact, broad claims about money based on observations relative to the US dollar is flawed methodology. Assuming that sort of thing is of any value to you. Earlier, I claimed that worshipping something is a voluntary choice. Here, you are asserting that it is not, with no acknowledgement that a competing claim has been made. I won't trouble you with the challenge of making the case since I've already done this with regards to the extraordinary claim that money controls people and you haven't begun to make a case. Regarding your Rothschild quote, an appeal to authority is not an argument. In the claim "controls," the burden of proof is rooted in choice. The quote assumes the answer while you use it to try and explain the answer. This is begging the question.

Your post didn't address anything I said. At least now I have my answer that no, you will not revise your theory, meaning it was never about the truth. Then you don't trade. If you are free to decline, it is a voluntary exchange. No. You don't need to trade with anybody. You could make your own food, clothes, medicine, and shelter. It's just WAY more efficient to trade with others (division of labor).

Way to avoid the first principle that a=a is true and a!=a is false. I'm done with you. I apologize to those who might find what you say convincing, as they were the primary reason I was bothering. Oh and governments aren't binding. And damages accrue to the responsible party. I can't swim. That doesn't mean I get to use my property to deny others use of their property. It would be like saying to you that language isn't useful.

"Four" is not material. Like, so what? Concepts not existing is not proof the don't accurately describe the real world. Except that you're not! You are your consciousness. Since consciousness is an emergent property of matter, we couldn't even say (for sure) that you are your brain or you are the aggregate of the firings between neurons in that brain. The moment you die, your body is physically identical to the moment before, when you were still alive. So at the same time, you were claiming no physical tie to a chair based on the chair alone while claiming a physical tie to your body based on that body alone. If I say to you that all men are mortal and Socrates was a man, do you need for their to be a physical tie between Socrates and his mortality in order to accept it? No! It logically follows. Just as IF you own your body THEN you own the effects of your voluntary use of that body. If this means you invest your time and energy into fashioning a chair or trade with somebody who has, then that is your chair. It logically follows! Yes, if you set a random chair in the middle of the forest, there would be no way of knowing whose chair that is. So what? What does that matter? "Consciousness is an emergent property of matter" no less accurately describes the real world than "the gravitational pull of Earth is 9.8 m/s every second." It does look that way. Earlier, there were two identical posts. Perhaps there was a database error where trying to delete one deleted both. I'd ask staff about it. Right, which I already pointed out. You keep going back to "wrong" as if this is compatible with what I'm saying. Saying "theft is the simultaneous acceptance and rejection of property rights" isn't saying that it's wrong. I wish you could see that this is the beauty of objective morality: I am nobody to say that you are wrong; YOU are telling me that it's internally inconsistent You are choosing to use your property to declare that others cannot choose how to use their property. Hence unethical proposition as all unchosen positive obligations are. Please, check out alex's video on this. I already understood the ideas when I first watched it, but I think it does a good job of attaching a coherent description of it:

@RoseCodex: Sorry, I didn't mean to put forth narrative in lieu of facts. I know little of such things in a historical perspective, so I'll accept what you've described. I would submit that currency would still be an advance in technology. Not only does it allow you to settle your debt in the moment if you so desire, but it reduces the amount of trust or familiarity needed in order to be able to trade. And if you can trade with more people, you have greater potential for trading efficiently. @Very Ape, you didn't answer my question: If it was revealed that your belief was erroneous, would you relinquish and/or revise it? The answer is pretty important in knowing how much effort I want to put into talking with you about this. Your terminology is imprecise and has led to us talking about two different things I think (my fault since I was talking about something you had said). Money is a concept and therefore not an object at all. What was burned in the Weimar Republic were marks or cash (physical objects). So earlier, when you said what is money could not be answered but then provided a sufficient definition, I think you were instead answering the unasked question of "what could be considered as currency?" No. When a human being chooses to worship something, it is a voluntary choice (barring parents inflicting conclusions on children, but that's another topic). Their behaviors after that might be different based on their belief, but this cannot be described as their belief controlling them. Describing in in that matter is taking agency away from that person, which is dangerous because that accidentally excuses them from any wrong doing they might engage in as a result of that belief. If nothing else, if you mean to say that people worship money, that's different than saying it controls them. Finally, value is subjective so there is no such valid concept as "intrinsic value" (objectively subjective). Saying a US dollar for example has no value outside of what others will trade for it does nothing to offset its value in the fact that others will trade for it. Like, you describe yourself as a gold bug. Maybe you wanted a car and I had a car to sell. I have no use for gold, but I might make a trade for some of your gold if I understood that later on, I'd be able to trade some of that gold for things I DO have a use for. We could debate and discuss the way in which gold is or is not valuable or meets the standards of what can be used as currency. However, all that matters is that you and I are willing to trade for it and there's reasonable expectations that others will also. Makes you wonder why socialists haven't tried to use finger/toenails as currency considering we all have about the same amount "according to our needs"

Everybody has "economic power" and anybody can claim that which is false is true. Neither of which is a violation of property rights. So not only are you not addressing a problem, you're not even addressing a symptom. I tried to refute this line of thinking when I pointed out that Millionaire is a subset of Man (which you didn't address, curiously enough). My car was pre-owned in that somebody owned it before I did. It is not pre-owned in that it belonged to me before I acquired it. How did I acquire it? You are implying that because I have a car, I have power over somebody who does not have a car. As if my owning of the car is somehow unjust even though the previous owner voluntarily traded it to me based on the terms of our agreement. Same as all property that cannot be described as the spoils of aggression. Then, where property IS the spoils of aggression, as I pointed out already, it is the aggression that is the problem. Feel free to disagree or show me where I have erred. Repeating yourself as if no challenge was made only shows you are closed to any honest exploration of the truth.

What you quoted doesn't claim they exist. I understand the distinction you are making and if I've ever said property rights exist, then you are correct that "property rights is a valid concept" would be more precise and accurate. People are responsible for their actions where they are voluntary and understood is true independent of individual consciousness. Hence objective morality.

No. She already told you that she believes what she believes and that's the way it's going to be. In fact, the way she said it wasn't even honest. I've seen people use the phrase "spoiled brat" to reference somebody stating their preferences or asking for something to be provided for them that they cannot provide for themselves. These people do things like recommend you let a crying baby cry itself to sleep. Can you imagine being trapped under a collapsed building and not only have the terror of maybe nobody will find you, but also the terror that nobody's even looking? Horrendous! I was assaulted as a child too, as well as threatened, and indoctrinated with religion (more threats and shirking of responsibility). I cut my mom out of my life a long time ago. Not long ago, I tried talking to my dad about his coercion and aggression. It was downright bizarre. When I went to mention being picked up by the throat and slammed into a van, he joined me in saying it, in a mocking tone. "I already apologized for that." Apology here meaning asking somebody to treat them like it never happened, NOT feeling bad for doing it because of X reason with Y treatment in place to ensure it never happens again, and Z effort to try and make it up to the wronged party. He also divulged that he believes its necessary in families. He even went on to point out that it's different with friends because they can choose to walk away. I think he thought he was supporting his own position. Anyways, my point is that he's demonstrated that he doesn't care if what he did was right or wrong. He was the parent, so that's that. It would be futile (and even a little damaging) for me to pretend that any amount of logic, reason, or evidence would convince him out of the conclusion he's arrived at NOT by way of logic, reason, or evidence.

Show me, don't tell me. I looked over what I said and I see no example of assuming the outcome of a question as part of my answer to the question. Again? Okay. Doctors centuries ago didn't provide antibiotics because they weren't aware of them. Somebody in a seizure doesn't assault your if their flailing limbs happen to contact you because they're not in control. Where we are aware and in control, we are responsible. We own our actions. Except it's not up to you. We exist within reality, so reality determines what is and it not true. When you're determining what is true and what is false, the only consideration is how accurately it describes the real world. The likelihood of the scenarios isn't the problem. The problem is WHY you're bringing them up. You're trying to reject reality because of the ways it makes you uncomfortable. It's not easy for you to admit that the guy on the flagpole is guilty of breaking somebody else's window and entering their home without their consent. I can't even figure out why because there's no reason to expect that he won't compensate them or they would try to punish him for it. Just like ending slavery doesn't mean you're not going to get cotton any more. The moment you say the person in the home HAS to consent, you are imposing an unchosen positive obligation. This is unehtical in proposition and cannot be universalized. It means that as soon as I am hungry, you must be compelled to feed me. When you say "I'm so afraid people won't help each other that I'm going to claim they are forced to" you're literally saying "I cannot make the case to rational people, so I'm going to pretend they don't have a choice." It's absolutely ludicrous because we are interdependent. Just sitting here on my couch, in my heated home, typing this to you on a computer, for you to be able to view it anywhere in the world, this process alone required thousands of people accomplishing various tasks just to be possible. Nobody's going to let the kid drown that has the ability to save him. So relax and be honest about what is true and what is false.

I understand what you're saying. And I'm sure the reason UPB is an entire book is because Stef takes the time to do all of this and more. It's meant to be the succinct representation, which we could discuss any aspect of that a person doesn't understand or agree with. However, I don't see how defining human would be useful. For one, it's something I'm confident most people have a grasp of. I don't think many people are going to stumble on the fact that dead humans don't engage in any behaviors or possess the capacity for reason. Secondly, because my use of the word humans here is temporal. If dolphins someday develop the capacity for reason, then they will become moral actors/people as well and pointing out that humans have the capacity for reason will no longer be accurate by way of exclusion. The point being that the capacity for reason brings with it an understanding of ourselves, others, our options, the consequences of behaviors, etc. By being aware, we are responsible. If it's an inaccurate summary, of course I'd like to revise it to be more accurate. When people get morality wrong, millions of people get killed, so it's very important stuff. Was there a particular part that you think might not fit? If I bothered with defining every term every time I posted something like that, I'd be putting theses and/or books everywhere. My intention is to make it more approachable by starting with the main ideas.

"Clinging to* reality... seems short sighted." This makes no sense. Violating property rights creates human suffering. *I know "clinging to" is manipulative language. I was meeting author at the standard he put forth. As if anybody who could swim wouldn't try to save a drowning person. You keep trying to work backwards to make utilitarianism fit instead of starting from first principles to see what accurately describes the real world. Source IF somebody who could swim (a factor your claim doesn't even address) chose not to get involved with somebody drowning, you could ostracize them and encourage others to do the same. However, unchosen positive obligations are unethical. Everybody suffers in our statist world every day. So I don't even know what "everybody is COMPELLED to help everybody else always" would even look like. And I said it's not its purpose, making this point meaningless. Your initial claim was You are saying that property rights are meaningless because they cannot physically stop violations of them, even though nobody has ever suggested that is its purpose. Not to mention that the moment you speak of property rights being violated, you are accepting property rights as valid. Which is interesting because by making these non-sensical statements, you're trying to rationalize your rejection of property rights while referring to rationalizations as if they are not useful. And there IS empirical evidence of property rights. You made these posts (you own your body). You chose to make them knowing full well what you were doing. You are responsible for them.

"Money controls us" is a claim, not an argument. You say it makes sense to you, but you haven't explained why, even when asked. If it was revealed that your belief was erroneous, would you relinquish and/or revise it? Humans have defined every concept that humans use. This doesn't mean that everything controls us. I don't see how a concept can control something that exists and "money" is a concept. So I could still use some clarification on how money controls us, as was your claim.

...is a phrase that some dead guy wrote down one time. I'm not talking about personal opinion, I'm talking about objective reality. Where your life IS your property. I wish you had told me sooner that you were pretending unicorns exist. Since you continue to defend gang rape (as it is a common good), I just assumed "higher concerns" was the crowd, not the bogey man. There's no such thing as "common good." People value things differently. As long as they're not violating property rights (theft, assault, rape, and murder), then their preferences aren't binding upon others and therefore not for us to decide.

I loved Ghosts of War when it was published. It was short, moving, powerful, made VERY important points, and had an excellent music track to go with it. You can still find it on youtube... just not on FDR channels. You can find an old direct link to the now defunct video here.

1) Not showing where they fall apart certainly does nothing towards proving them to be invalid. 2) "cherry picking" is manipulative language. You're arbitrarily saying that unless I respond to everything you say or nothing you say, you can just ignore the truth in whatever is said. That I am not free to choose what to respond to and what not to. 3) The entirety of my contributions in this thread have been to demonstrate where you either contradict yourself or put forth a standard for others and exempt yourself. If you'd like to me to respond to more or less, then provide more/less honest, rational ideas. If you say to me that Japan automated its auto industry when others were building by hand, to me it looks like you're talking about automation vs not (you know, the only variable that YOU included). I don't get that you're trying to talk about policies or xenophobia. Frankly, I don't get how somebody can look at an industry increasing their efficiency (natural process, happens every day) and presume it is the result of national policy. So what you're saying is that if you were an accomplished baker, who brought them an item that they didn't already sell, that was so good that your friends and family were willing to pay you to make more of, and knew how to make it on a larger scale, they'd turn you away because of your ethnicity? If you could provide that much value to them and they would turn you away, then that shouldn't be a place you'd want to work for because they clearly cannot run a business effectively. Actually all of what I've done is ask you to account for your own claims and/or clarify your own communications. Could it be that the Chinese bakery won't hire you because you lack good communication skills? That you become hostile in the face of correction? That you experience contempt for them as an "outsider" based on the color of their skin? I picked up on that in your opening post when you said "walks of life" when you meant ethnicity. The tragedy here is that you might very well be the victim of discrimination. When you contradict yourself habitually and lash out at anybody pointing this out or seeking clarifications, you lower your credibility. Also, skip the not caring shtick. At the very least, you are demonstrating that you care enough to try and convince others you do not care. Maybe it was modeled for you that caring (like efficiency) is inherently bad.

All men are mortals. Socrates was a man. You don't have to have met Socrates (or even face the reality that you can't meet him) to take those claims, smack them together with rational thought, and come up with the conclusion that Socrates was mortal. Tie a woman up to a chair at the table of a candlelight dinner and you will achieve the opposite of endearing her. Abduct the child of a man and threaten that man with harm to the child if he doesn't give you a job and you will achieve the opposite of job security. Simply put, coercion achieves the opposite of your stated goal. The Aztecs breathed air and look at where their civilization ended up. Are you now prepared to hold your breath? You mean harsh realities like there are people out there willing to assault them "for their own good"? The problem with the word discipline is it assumes that the person wielding it is absolutely right. To hold that position, you would have to demonstrate how simply by reproducing, humans fundamentally change in such a way that they no longer have the capacity for error. Saying "never hurt me" is insufficient for providing this case. For that matter, I reject your claim that it never hurt you. You've grown up normalizing the assault of defenseless, dependent, not-there-by-choice children. Seems harmful to me. We've seen here that you are able to hold competing beliefs without cognitive dissonance. And when it is pointed out to you, rather than welcoming the correction and using it as an opportunity for self-knowledge, you lash out at the observer, who had no part in the formulation of those beliefs. Seems very harmful to me.

Before providing a sufficient definition, you said asking for that definition is pointless since it couldn't be answered. As somebody who accepts free will and that the initiation of the use of force is immoral (not the motivation behind it), I think this is a false claim. Could you tell me more about how money controls us?

Hang on, you don't get to just repeat yourself as if valid counterpoints haven't been made without demonstrating in what ways they're flawed. If you think only certain people should be hired, then only hire those people. In fact, in your opening post, you looked down your nose at people who were doing just that. It's none of your concern who OTHERS hire. Then where's the problem? If you don't care for people being displaced by automation, and automation is highly inefficient, then those using it will be put out of business by those who only use people, just like you want. "I am questioning things and providing an alternative commentary as I see it. Sheesh. Save me the psychoanalysis. You are completely unable to hold a discussion without resorting to personal jibes and staying on topic." It seems you cannot help but put forth standards for other people and exempt yourself. laowai is instantly transmitting his ideas to a global audience via the internet when options of taking longer to record and transmit to a smaller audience are available. It just seems unusual that he would do that. Do you use a horse drawn carriage to travel more than a couple miles? Am I evil because when I wanted to clean my floors earlier, I grabbed a broom instead of picking up every speck by hand? Did you toss your food into the over or a microwave or did you grab some flint and tinder after gathering a bunch of kindling? You cannot claim efficiency is bewildering or problematic when since birth, your every impulse has been to do things with greater efficiency... still.

No, you said that property is an invalid concept because it can be violated. Saying that morality doesn't physically prevent violations is like saying that a shirt doesn't keep your feet warm. It's not its purpose.

I think so, yes. I've made the case many times (even here). It remains unassailed. Here goes: Humans possess the capacity for reason. That is the ability to conceptualize self, the other, formulate ideals, compare behaviors to those ideals, and calculate consequences. Therefore we own ourselves since we are in control of and understand our voluntary behaviors. Humans are not fundamentally different, so this means everybody owns themselves. So theft, assault, rape, and murder are the simultaneous acceptance and rejection of property rights. That's it! You asked for sentences or words. Well the case is just a few sentences. The words are "do not steal, assault, rape, or murder." Anything else is aesthetic and therefore not binding upon others. What do you think?

This is like saying that airplanes are proof that gravity is not objective and universal. Even though while flying, the airplane is under the same gravitational forces (adjusting for proximity). If you own yourself, you own the effects of your labor, you own whatever you trade for. For somebody else who owns themselves to take that from you without your consent is the simultaneous acceptance and rejection of property rights. The fact that they can still physically do it doesn't make it any less of a performative contradiction.