neeeel
-
Posts
826 -
Joined
-
Days Won
12
Posts posted by neeeel
-
-
I described self ownership already. I didn't assert it exists, I already defined it. It is very annoying to be told that I am making baseless assertions when you are the one ignoring my arguments.
Ok, is this the definition of self ownership?
Self ownership is an emergent property of a human being. The self awareness, self actuation, sentience, consciousness, objective intelligenceIm 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?
If you do not have a standard of proof, you also don't have a standard of disproof, which means any objection you make is what is baseless, not my arguments. You're just saying "I don't know how it can be true, but I am sure how it can't" and that's just not symmetric. I can't take that seriously.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?
-
It's not circular reasoning, it's A = A. You can't have "HUMAN" without the letters m, n, h, a, and a. That's not a tautology.
If the concept accurately explains reality, it's not just a floating immaterial construct. It's the truth. I am not positing a non existent property of magnets to explain magnets, because magnets are by definition that which has that property. A property which is described after it already is seen on the object. It's not an ad-hoc solution.
Since I've already explained this, and you're refuting it erroneously by equivocating it with something it isn't, I'll ask you to present your thesis of how you expect to prove self ownership? You don't seem to understand that just being vague and asking for "the way I see it" kind of fog doesn't get you any closer to the truth. It's not a productive exercise. What do you want? You keep making arguments, well, just obfuscations of arguments actually, and I am not going to keep repeating things over and over because you have no standard of objectivity. It's like boxing with a fern.
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.
You can't have "HUMAN" without the letters m, n, h, a, and a. That's not a tautology.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.
If the concept accurately explains reality, it's not just a floating immaterial construct. It's the truthok how does the concept "self ownership" accurately explain reality?
Ether was also thought to accurately explain reality, at least for some scientists.
I'll ask you to present your thesis of how you expect to prove self ownership?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 an emergent property of a human being. The self awareness, self actuation, sentience, consciousness, objective intelligence, all that jazz. A rock doesn't have any of that. A human does. A rock can't own itself. A human does because it can. The field is an analogy, I'm not saying it's actually a field. The field is what allows the magnet to a) be called a magnet, and b) stick to fridges. Without the field it can't be either a or b.
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.
-
Like a physical property. Imagine I say that magnets stick to fridges because they have a magnetic field. I explain and define the properties of the field and how it sticks to the fridge, and you say there's a possibility that the magnet could stick to the fridge without a magnetic field (glue or adhesive notwithstanding). Then I say that if it didn't have a magnetic field it wouldn't be a magnet in the first place. That's sort of where we are. A person is the magnet, a property of magnets is the magnetic field, and the sticking-to-a-fridge is an effect of the "self ownership" that causes the effects of people being responsible for their actions, their time, bodies, being able to self actuate on their own without being coerced, and so on. If you can remove a magnetic field from a magnet and tried to stick it to a fridge and it fell, it would prove that it sticks to a fridge due to the magnetic force. If you can remove self ownership from a human and still have it have sentience, and consciousness, and self awareness, and decision making, and moral capacity, and still have it be called "a human being" you could have an argument on how humans can exist as they are now and not have self ownership. But you can't, because that would be like taking the magnetic field off a magnet, and still call it a magnet even though it is no longer a magnet. It would just be a piece of metal or ore.
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?
-
Because you are making an argument without physics. It's not about whether it's true or false, it's about if it can even be false at all. You are asking someone to prove a statement against the possibility of it being false without proving the premise that it can be false, and still have a working human being.
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?
-
You are assuming that you can show self ownership from a space without self ownership. First, you'd have to have a being without self ownership, and then show how self ownership when inserted into it makes it a different being. Since we're talking about humans, you would have to show a human without self ownership, then reinsert it back, and show two different states of being. Because that is what it would entail to "show" self ownership, I don't see how else. But I also don't see how it would even be possible to have a human without it. Since we are treading the boundaries of what is possible and impossible, I simply refrain to stay in the "that which is impossible simply must not be considered at all" like gods.
No. Either self ownership is true, or it isnt. If its true, you should be able to show it.
I also don't see how it would even be possible to have a human without itNot 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.
-
Alright, hear me out if you'll be kind enough. I think I can logically derive an 'ought' from an 'is'
First I'll give some framing for it.
Any "is" is either a definition, or it is an instance and a definition. There is no such thing which is an instance, which is not a definition. A definition is simply something which is self consistent. A true definition is something which is internally and externally consistent, and it also ought to be consistent among other true definitions.
When I say I can derive an 'is' from an 'ought,' I am referring to the fact that all is statements are definitions, and all definitions ought to be consistent with themselves and with other definitions.
If I am correct, I think you might agree with what I am beginning to realize, which is that 'is' and 'ought' mean the same thing, but they are used semantically to refer to the "is" relationship between the nature of consciousness, and reality. There can be no such this which is, which is not consistent. If something is not consistent, it isn't. We label these contradictions, sure. So they are not valid. But they also are not true, since anything which isn't valid ought not be true.
I think the proper way to derive an 'ought' from an 'is' is to say that anything which "is," ought to be verifiable. It ought to be verified as self consistent. And it ought to be verified empirically. And it ought to be consistent with other instances which are verified empirically. If you deny this, then you are deny what it means for something to exist, either as a concept or an instance. For something to be an "is," it ought to fit at least some of these standards.
Try denying that any "is" ought to be self consistent. You will immediately fall into contradiction.
Let me know if I have solved this problem and can go collect my prize from Hume's grave, or if I am being batshit arrogant about my argument let me know. Either way I'd appreciate a fact check, since I really want to get to the bottom of this, and I will hand out upvotes to those who do reply
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
-
1
-
-
Does it make sense? Well that answer is simply no, but I do understand what you are saying - so allow me to expand on the holes in your reasoning.
In her own words she states, "I wonder how you thought that would be interpreted". Therefore, your opinion that you don't think she wanted to be told the way I intended to be interpreted is invalid.
"I wonder how you thought that would be interpreted" and "the way I intended to be interpreted" are (possibly) two different things.
-
"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."
Well yea aren't you correcting me? You said I was incorrect. If you don't even expect to be correct when you say something to me, then please spare me, I care not what you say further. I don't mean to be petty but if you don't expect to be correct, I don't see what I can gain from a discussion
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.
Any time we make a choice to do something we are saying, "I think I ought to do this, because I want to achieve something by it"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")
There is a premise for why they are saying ityes, and this is totally separate from the statement of fact, and an extra premise you are adding in.
-
Neeel,
I think I get what you mean, I was trying to apply WasatchMan's point about how to make a statement about an is, you need an ought, which is epistemology. For instance, the ought you expressed in your point is that you ought to be considered correct, and to consider you correct we need some methodology. So your statement that a fact "tells you nothing about what you should, or ought, to do" I think is incorrect because you are asking me to be consistent and rational, and not arbitrary, when you ask me to consider your point as true. Does that make sense?
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.
So your statement that a fact "tells you nothing about what you should, or ought, to do" I think is incorrect because you are asking me to be consistent and rational, and not arbitrary, when you ask me to consider your point as true. Does that make sense?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.
-
I really like how you summarized that. Good stuff, guys. Also, you can deduce an opinion from a fact, the opinion is that we should be empirical, consistent, rational, and this is contained in the premise of what it means to state a fact. So we can get an ought from an is. The ought doesn't exist "out there" but it is a logical deduction from what it means to accurately state about the "out there" from the standpoint of human consciousness. A fact ought to be empirical, logically consistent, falsifiable, and if it's not then it doesn't fit the category of a fact. Then it is an ought without an is, which is the ultimate no-no. At least I think so..... I still have a bit of learning to do
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 thought that at first but realised that someone can steal something from you and you not mind. Think paper-clip!
* I own some paper clips.
* they are rightfully my property that I paid for.
* someone steals a paper-clip from me.
* It's worth less than a penny. I don't mind!
It's still theft though as they took my property without permission.
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.
-
If no one minded when you stole, why not steal?
Then its not stealing, by definition
-
I am in edinburgh
-
This is obviously a turning on the head of the Hume statement that "you cannot get an ought from an is", which is used by moral relativists to try to say that you cannot derive value statements from facts about a reality.
I take it you disagree with Hume then?
-
What cannot be violated is the objective reality of having caused an argument. When you argue against self ownership you are using your body, mind, time, to argue that you don't own your body, mind, and time while at the same time being the -sole owner/person in charge/responsible agent- for your body, mind, and time
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,
-
if I own myself, that means I own my life, time, the effects of my labor,
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.
-
Relevant to this thread:
I read this. Im not sure its for real. It seems like it eliminates all women.
-
Men and women from ages 17 - 30. We welcome anyone of any age to the conversation
Its not clear, do you welcome anyone of any age? Or anyone who is within the ages 17-30?
-
1
-
-
We as individuals are a part of a collective.
what does this mean, and what is your definition of collective?
So therefor an individual we can count as "1" and a collective we count as "2", confirming there is a duality "2"..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
-
1
-
-
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.
Stef's argument for self-ownership = Tu Quoque fallacy?
in Philosophy
Posted
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.