neeeel

right, but this is irrelevant as to whether self ownership is true or not. If its true, its true whether or not I claim its true. And if its not true, its not true whether or not I claim its true.

Ok, is this the definition of self ownership? Im not sure that this helps me, as most of these are more vague nebulous concepts. I guess I might be hung up on the words "self" and "ownership" and be thinking of them meaning something different to how you intend them?Are these things (The self awareness, self actuation, sentience, consciousness, objective intelligence) synonyms for self ownership? Or do they all together make up something that we then call self-ownership? What? My standard of showing that self ownership exists, would be the same as the standard for showing that magnetism exists, physical evidence.. I think I misunderstood what you were saying, and thought you were asking how I would prove that it exists. how does the concept "self ownership" accurately explain reality?

You are defining self ownership as something that humans have ( without saying what it is), and then defining humans as things that have self ownership. Magnets are objects that exhibit magnetism. You havent shown how humans exhibit self ownership. Magnetism ( or the effects of it) can be seen. this isnt supporting your argument. a human being isnt defined by the letters m,n,h , a. human, as a word, is a totally artificial construct. It points to an understood meaning, but the letters, in that arrangement, say nothing about the meaning. ok how does the concept "self ownership" accurately explain reality? Ether was also thought to accurately explain reality, at least for some scientists. I dont know. If I knew how to prove it, then I would already have done so, and so we wouldnt be having this discussion. You believe in it, therefore you must already have some way of proving it ( to yourself , at least), or else its just a baseless assertion.

self ownership is a concept, Its not a property. I agree that a rock cant have a concept of self ownership. you are doing some circular reasoning here. what is self ownership? its something humans have.. What makes humans human? Self ownership. The way I see it, you are positing some non existent property on top of magnetism, and using it to explain magnetism. kind of like how scientists in the 19th century posited ether in order to explain certain behaviours of matter.

Ok, are you suggesting that the self that has self ownership is some sort of field? I just want to get clear on what you are saying here?

Of course it can be false. I am not sure we are going to get anywhere with this discussion, and not sure how to proceed edit: you talk about "inserting self ownership into a being" in your explanation. Can you tell me what this means? like is it a physical thing that gets inserted? Or what?

No. Either self ownership is true, or it isnt. If its true, you should be able to show it. Not sure what you mean? If self ownership isnt true, then you are already seeing how its possible to have humans without it.

I think I am just repeating myself over and over in each post, so either I am not explaining it well, or you are not getting what I am saying. So I will bow out for now.

I dont understand how this is to do with what I am saying, so I am not sure how to respond. Did you read my example with "it is raining"? Edit to say : you arent logically deriving an ought from an is. You are logically deriving an ought, from an is PLUS A huge pile of other premises

"I wonder how you thought that would be interpreted" and "the way I intended to be interpreted" are (possibly) two different things.

All I am saying is, I cant logically deduce anything from a simple statement of fact alone. There is no conclusion I can logically deduce that follows from a simple statement of fact. As in my "it is raining" example. me saying "you are incorrect" does not allow you to deduce anything from that statement alone. You need to add in other premises in order to deduce anything. For example "neeeel cares about being correct". How you decide if something is true or not, is a whole different thing. What you deduce about why I said something, is not deduced from my statement about the rain. Its deduced from a whole load of other premises that you are adding in. yes, you have added in "because I want to achieve something by it". when we make a choice to do something, it is not based on a single fact (eg , "it is raining") yes, and this is totally separate from the statement of fact, and an extra premise you are adding in.

I dont think I expressed an ought in my point. I suppose you could say that , by the very expression of my point, I am expecting to be considered correct, I dont know. If you say "it is raining", that fact doesnt tell you anything about what you ought to do. so to put it into logical form P) it is raining c) I should take an umbrella. The conclusion C) doesnt follow from the premise P). You cant draw any logical conclusion from that premise alone. but if you have P1) it is raining P2) if it is raining, and I want to stay dry, then I should take an umbrella P3) I want to stay dry C) I should take an umbrella adding in the extra premises allows you to derive an "ought", conclusion C) Perhaps you are talking about something different. For example, making a statement about an "is". This would be different from deriving an ought from an is, or an is from an ought. perhaps it tells you something about what you should or shouldnt do , but it doesnt tell me ( the person making the statement) anything about what I should or shouldnt do. I think thats the point.

this is incorrect. A fact tells you nothing, in and of itself, about what you should, or ought, to do. A fact, in and of itself, also doesnt tell you that you should be empirical, consistent and rational. As has been stated by others, you need an "If" in order to get to an ought.

Of course, the kids were just perfect and nice before they got the consoles, and then suddenly turned into ungrateful little shits. Also,the implication that all you have to do to be a good dad is buy your kids expensive electronics. the kids tell the truth , "santa doesnt exist and youre a f**king idiot", and he gets upset. This really got my back up.

I dont think so. If you dont mind, then by definition, its not stealing. if you do mind, then its stealing. You might not pursue them to get restitution, but you still mind. If you do pursue them for restitution, then you do mind that they took them. If you dont care that they took your paper clips, then I dont see how it can be stealing.

Then its not stealing, by definition

I am in edinburgh

I take it you disagree with Hume then?

No, this is incorrect, unless you DO own your body time and mind. You have presupposed that it already is that way. That is, you are assuming that its true that you do own your body , time and mind, and using that as a fact to show that its contradictory to argue against self ownership Its like assuming that santa is true, and then using that fact to show that people who dont believe in santa are wrong. What you need to do is first show self ownership. For example, it is theoretically possible that there is no owner of the body, time and mind, and that an argument is STILL made. In this case, there would be no contradiction or violation,

I dont follow. your statement , written out in logical form is:- P) I own myself therefore C) I own my life, time , and effects of my labor the conclusion C) does not logically follow from the premise P), so its either incorrect, or there are some other hidden premises there that need to be stated? "own your life" and "own your time" also seem quite vague and undefined to me.

I read this. Im not sure its for real. It seems like it eliminates all women.

Its not clear, do you welcome anyone of any age? Or anyone who is within the ages 17-30?

what does this mean, and what is your definition of collective? .This doesnt confirm or prove anything. I am not sure what you are trying to say here.

yes, it was strange. Almost RTR, but something is missing? Perhaps because it was just a made up sketch, it feels like truth is missing? But I can imagine that peoples conversations could become like this, and thats not a good thing, for some reason

Github is something I need to learn about, so I wont be able to set it up, but I can use this project to learn it.