NationStates Jolt Archive

It's a simple enough question.

Do you own yourself? And why?

It's a simple enough question.

Do you own yourself? And why?

No. I'm not property.

Hmmm, I would say no. I do not have "ring -1" access to all areas. sometimes, I feel as if the subconscious processes own me since they influence my life a big deal.

I mostly own myself, but my nose is mortgaged to Ripley's Believe It Or Not.

Seriously, though, I believe that I do own myself, because I am a singular being, with free will.

No. Owning one's self would imply a difference, and a separate self to do the owning. There is no such Cartesian Boss.

If you don't own yourself, then who or what does? And what qualifies them to own you?

I recently owned myself... by walking into a wall in the middle of the night...

I also own my d**k all the time...

No. Owning one's self would imply a difference, and a separate self to do the owning. There is no such Cartesian Boss.

Ohh, good call.

If you don't own yourself, then who or what does? And what qualifies them to own you?
Nothing, because one cannot own a person as a person is not property. We had that once... slavery it was called.

If you don't own yourself, then how are you controlling yourself?

By that I mean, if you don't own your own body, what gives you the right to control it?

Your actions may have consequences but you can make your own decisions, right or wrong. So yeah, you own yourself.

No. Ownership doesn't apply. It isn't applicable.

No. Ownership doesn't apply. It isn't applicable.

Can you explain?

Can you explain?

This is a great explaination:

Owning one's self would imply a difference, and a separate self to do the owning. There is no such Cartesian Boss.

If you don't own yourself, then how are you controlling yourself?

By that I mean, if you don't own your own body, what gives you the right to control it?

It's you. You have the right to take certain actions, if rights exist. You don't have the right to "control" your body, you are your body.

I'm a whore.

I'm a whore.

*spanks*

I'm a whore.

Nice for you to finally admit it.

I'd say no loved ones own huge chunks of me, there is slightly lesser parts that form the things I love to do and there is a tiny little bit for me

Basically if there is love there is part of me

No. Owning one's self would imply a difference, and a separate self to do the owning. There is no such Cartesian Boss.
Your mind, while reliant on your body, is still a separate entity. So who owns your body if not you?

Yeah once or twice.
The most famous was when Joe Smith was pretty high up on the nBA Draft List, two friends were talking about it.
I said 'He must be pretty dumb to have a name like that!'
Yeah indeed.
OWND.
-----------------------------
Harlesburg does own a few overseas possesions though.
Namely Branin's Elbow and someones Tracts of Land.;)

No. Owning one's self would imply a difference, and a separate self to do the owning. There is no such Cartesian Boss.

Complete BS.

There is absolutely no reason that the owning entity can not be the entity that is owned. There is no need for a Cartesian regress at all.

I am me, and I own me - in the sense that I am the individual that has the power of disposal over me - in the sense that I decide what it is that I shall do - in the sense that I am responsible for my actions.

Now where is this supposed other needed?

Your mind, while reliant on your body, is still a separate entity. So who owns your body if not you?

No. That is false Cartesian Dualism. Your "mind" is merely one of the things your body does.

I regularly own myself, hey Ive just owned myself by saying that. buh

Complete BS.

There is absolutely no reason that the owning entity can not be the entity that is owned. There is no need for a Cartesian regress at all.

I am me, and I own me - in the sense that I am the individual that has the power of disposal over me - in the sense that I decide what it is that I shall do - in the sense that I am responsible for my actions.

Now where is this supposed other needed?


But you are saying you are little more than property- "I own me" implies I can in turn 'be owned' by some one else.

You cannot 'own' another person, so logically, you cannot 'own' yourself.

I'm a whore.You get paid for it?

No. Owning one's self would imply a difference, and a separate self to do the owning. There is no such Cartesian Boss.

Why would there need to be a separation of identities?

Why couldn't someone be entitled to the rights of utility and disposal to themselves that are typical of ownership? It seems that a person can fulfill the qualities of what is owned and what owns.

It's a simple enough question.

Do you own yourself?

the question is nonsensical

But you are saying you are little more than property- "I own me" implies I can in turn 'be owned' by some one else.

Yes, true.

You cannot 'own' another person, so logically, you cannot 'own' yourself.

Why can you not own another person?

Nothing, because one cannot own a person as a person is not property. We had that once... slavery it was called.



they still have that in some places

But you are saying you are little more than property- "I own me" implies I can in turn 'be owned' by some one else.

You cannot 'own' another person, so logically, you cannot 'own' yourself.

My body is property. It is made of a tangible substance, unlike an idea, or a soul, or a mind, and is therefore, ownable.

You get paid for it?

When I feel like charging..

Complete BS.

There is absolutely no reason that the owning entity can not be the entity that is owned. There is no need for a Cartesian regress at all.

I am me, and I own me - in the sense that I am the individual that has the power of disposal over me - in the sense that I decide what it is that I shall do - in the sense that I am responsible for my actions.

Now where is this supposed other needed?

Except you don't "decide" what you shall do so much as do things or plan things. It's not like there are a set of equally likely options for what you shall do that you choose between, you simply do whatever you end up doing, and barring quantum effects you wouldn't have done anything else. There are things you won't do, and some of these may be because you have thought about the issue and decided not to, but it's not like you could under the same exact circumstances have decided on a different decision, that's just the decision you made.

Owning oneself is either incorrect, or at best linguistically sloppy, as something owning itself implies a separate decider and actor, even if it doesn't logically necessitate it. If it's not by definition incorrect, than it's by definition correct, and is in any case a silly question.

Why can you not own another person?

What constitutes a 'person'? Their physical presence? Or something more complex and intricate than that?

You may 'own' a body, but beyond that it is impossible.

Why would there need to be a separation of identities?

Why couldn't someone be entitled to the rights of utility and disposal to themselves that are typical of ownership? It seems that a person can fulfill the qualities of what is owned and what owns.

I sorta answered this above, but here's another take on it: ownership rights involve the right to transfer ownership. If you can be said as owning yourself, then you cannot transfer that ownership: you own yourself because, and solely because, you are yourself, and nothing else can be yourself.

My body is property. It is made of a tangible substance, unlike an idea, or a soul, or a mind, and is therefore, ownable.

A mind is just something a body does.

Yes, in the sense AB Again and You Don't Know Me are using it. I have the rights of ownership over myself - I have the right to act ("use myself") as I see fit, and to not have my bodily autonomy violated against my will.

So, Vegas Rex, can anyone own anything?

Owning oneself is either incorrect, or at best linguistically sloppy, as something owning itself implies a separate decider and actor, even if it doesn't logically necessitate it. If it's not by definition incorrect, than it's by definition correct, and is in any case a silly question.

I don't think that you quite grasp the nature of property rights.

So, Vegas Rex, can anyone own anything?

Sure. A government says you own something, you own it according to that government. It's a legal state.

Except you don't "decide" what you shall do so much as do things or plan things. It's not like there are a set of equally likely options for what you shall do that you choose between, you simply do whatever you end up doing, and barring quantum effects you wouldn't have done anything else. There are things you won't do, and some of these may be because you have thought about the issue and decided not to, but it's not like you could under the same exact circumstances have decided on a different decision, that's just the decision you made.

Owning oneself is either incorrect, or at best linguistically sloppy, as something owning itself implies a separate decider and actor, even if it doesn't logically necessitate it. If it's not by definition incorrect, than it's by definition correct, and is in any case a silly question.

I never accepted the linguistic turn in philosophy - so being linguistically sloppy is fine with me. However - linguistically there is nothing whatsoever about the verb 'own' that requires that the subject and object be independent entities. Where did you get this idea from?

It is not a definition issue - it is an issue concerning everyday ordinary concepts. Do I own myself - in the sense that am I legally entitled to decfide what is done to me? That is the question being asked here. Your answer that I can not own myself as I am not a different entity to myself is flat wrong in these terms. (And also philosophically unsupportable - but that is a seperate issue.)

Asa to the question on decision - that is a matter of point of view concerning free will. I am absolutely convinced that I act as I do because I choose to so act. I am sure that I am typing this text because I choose to do so. Now you can argue that i am typing this text because x, y and z happened in my life - predestining me to write this. In which case I am also predestined to believe that I am doing so of my own free will - so arguing against that makes no sense. But you will anyway as you do not really believe the position you are putting forward. You believe that I can do other than I am doing, and as such you should convince me that I should think as you do, which is to claim that I can not do other than I am doing!

I don't think that you quite grasp the nature of property rights.

As far as I was aware, property rights is a rather arbitrary grab bag of various rights. This grab bag often includes right to transfer property, as that's why gifts for example are legal. It doesn't have to, but it doesn't have to include any of the other rights either.

As far as I was aware, property rights is a rather arbitrary grab bag of various rights. This grab bag often includes right to transfer property, as that's why gifts for example are legal. It doesn't have to, but it doesn't have to include any of the other rights either.

And I can gift myself to another if I so desire. I can transfer the ownership of myself to another individual. (Generally called 'falling in love')

Sure. A government says you own something, you own it according to that government. It's a legal state.
So, according to you, without the existence of government, no one can own anything, and by extension, no one can act, because action first requires owning your body. Is that what you're saying?

As far as I was aware, property rights is a rather arbitrary grab bag of various rights. This grab bag often includes right to transfer property, as that's why gifts for example are legal. It doesn't have to, but it doesn't have to include any of the other rights either.

We tend not to transfer ownership of ourselves, but we do rent ourselves to others - it is called employment.

I never accepted the linguistic turn in philosophy - so being linguistically sloppy is fine with me. However - linguistically there is nothing whatsoever about the verb 'own' that requires that the subject and object be independent entities. Where did you get this idea from?

It is not a definition issue - it is an issue concerning everyday ordinary concepts. Do I own myself - in the sense that am I legally entitled to decfide what is done to me? That is the question being asked here. Your answer that I can not own myself as I am not a different entity to myself is flat wrong in these terms. (And also philosophically unsupportable - but that is a seperate issue.)

Asa to the question on decision - that is a matter of point of view concerning free will. I am absolutely convinced that I act as I do because I choose to so act. I am sure that I am typing this text because I choose to do so. Now you can argue that i am typing this text because x, y and z happened in my life - predestining me to write this. In which case I am also predestined to believe that I am doing so of my own free will - so arguing against that makes no sense. But you will anyway as you do not really believe the position you are putting forward. You believe that I can do other than I am doing, and as such you should convince me that I should think as you do, which is to claim that I can not do other than I am doing!

Maybe linguistically is the wrong word (and I'm being "linguistically" sloppy)...what I meant was that you're using words that aren't really suited for what you're talking about, and that serve to give the wrong impression of what's going on.

Depends how we define ownership rights, they could simply have no even slight analogy in terms of "self-ownership", and I'd like to see what people in this thread think they are.

Yes, Cartesian Dualism is frigging attractive. We construct a "self" that sits around and makes decisions, even when there is no real central decision maker. Why? Probably for quite a few unconnected reasons. As for you being predestined to believe that you have free will, this is a silly argument. You are predestined to believe you have free will right now, that doesn't mean you are predestined to believe that you have free will five minutes from now. You can do other things in future differently from what you are doing now, of course, but your current actions are your only possible actions for that moment in time (again barring quantum effects).

So, according to you, without the existence of government, no one can own anything, and by extension, no one can act, because action first requires owning your body. Is that what you're saying?

Action has nothing to do with ownership. Ownership is a legal relationship. Action is a physical situation.

We tend not to transfer ownership of ourselves, but we do rent ourselves to others - it is called employment.
Actually, employment is more of a voluntary contract between two individuals that requires one to do what the other implicitly asks in the contract. Only if the contract implies that the employee do anything and everything the employer asks regardless within a set period of time does it become a rental of self and not just employment. Which is something that doesn't happen very often.

Action has nothing to do with ownership. Ownership is a legal relationship. Action is a physical situation.
Let me rephrase that: Without the existence of government, can no one legally act?

Maybe linguistically is the wrong word (and I'm being "linguistically" sloppy)...what I meant was that you're using words that aren't really suited for what you're talking about, and that serve to give the wrong impression of what's going on.
In what way? We are discussing the possibility, or otherwise, of self ownership. Which words were not suitable?

Depends how we define ownership rights, they could simply have no even slight analogy in terms of "self-ownership", and I'd like to see what people in this thread think they are.
No. Ownership does not depend on how we define ownership rights. It is the other way around. Ownership rights depend - in toto - on how we define ownership. I gave three clear statements concerning what ownership means for me.

Yes, Cartesian Dualism is frigging attractive. We construct a "self" that sits around and makes decisions, even when there is no real central decision maker. Why? Probably for quite a few unconnected reasons. As for you being predestined to believe that you have free will, this is a silly argument. You are predestined to believe you have free will right now, that doesn't mean you are predestined to believe that you have free will five minutes from now. You can do other things in future differently from what you are doing now, of course, but your current actions are your only possible actions for that moment in time (again barring quantum effects).
Who constructs this 'self'? We do - who are we? The self can exist without needing recourse to dualism. The self can be a phenomenon (or epiphenomenon if it suits you better - as it would) of a unitary existence of the person.
There are many possible actions open to me now. Which one(s) I do are a matter of my - vontade livre. (free will - Or why did I reply in English, not Portuguese - explain that one to me.)

I'm a whore.

How much?

Actually, employment is more of a voluntary contract between two individuals that requires one to do what the other implicitly asks in the contract. Only if the contract implies that the employee do anything and everything the employer asks regardless within a set period of time does it become a rental of self and not just employment. Which is something that doesn't happen very often.

Actually - it happens nearly all the time. Most employment contracts include a clause which states that the employee is contracted to 'perform these and all other reasonable and legal requirements of the employer'.

Let me rephrase that: Without the existence of government, can no one legally act?

Without government, legality has no meaning. Action is not legal, but it is also not illegal.

Actually, employment is more of a voluntary contract between two individuals that requires one to do what the other implicitly asks in the contract. Only if the contract implies that the employee do anything and everything the employer asks regardless within a set period of time does it become a rental of self and not just employment. Which is something that doesn't happen very often.

The terms are irrelevant. What matters is that I am granting an element of control over myself to someone - just as I might let someone use something I own for some purpose.

Actually - it happens nearly all the time. Most employment contracts include a clause which states that the employee is contracted to 'perform these and all other reasonable and legal requirements of the employer'.

But reasonable and legal requirements, in the society in which we live, does not include complete and total control over all of their actions.

The terms are irrelevant. What matters is that I am granting an element of control over myself to someone - just as I might let someone use something I own for some purpose.

True enough.

No I don't own myself.

I have obligations to my failed business enterprise that will keep me occupied for years to come. I have obligations to friends and family. I have habits and urges that I have never completely controlled.

I'm definitely a slave to the circumstances of life.

Without government, legality has no meaning. Action is not legal, but it is also not illegal.

Laws, and thus legality, do not depend upon government. They are commonly created in western culture by governments now, but they can derive from any body or institution that is perceived as having authority. In the past this has frequently been the church (And still is in some cultures - Sharia anyone?)

Laws, and thus legality, do not depend upon government. They are commonly created in western culture by governments now, but they can derive from any body or institution that is perceived as having authority. In the past this has frequently been the church (And still is in some cultures - Sharia anyone?)

Those religious laws are not recognised as 'legal' though ulness legitimised by a government- be it Muslim or Christian.

Those religious laws are not recognised as 'legal' though ulness legitimised by a government- be it Muslim or Christian.

Not now, but historically they were.

You may 'own' a body, but beyond that it is impossible.

Why?

And furthermore, are you not contained by your body?

In what way? We are discussing the possibility, or otherwise, of self ownership. Which words were not suitable?


No. Ownership does not depend on how we define ownership rights. It is the other way around. Ownership rights depend - in toto - on how we define ownership. I gave three clear statements concerning what ownership means for me.


Who constructs this 'self'? We do - who are we? The self can exist without needing recourse to dualism. The self can be a phenomenon (or epiphenomenon if it suits you better - as it would) of a unitary existence of the person.
There are many possible actions open to me now. Which one(s) I do are a matter of my - vontade livre. (free will - Or why did I reply in English, not Portuguese - explain that one to me.)

I am arguing that calling anything self-ownership is misleading, as it is phrased to imply dualism (whether or not it logically necessitates it).

Your form of ownership appears to be ability to decide the fate of something. This still implies that without the decider the thing would do something different. Ownership implies that there is a status of non-ownership. Also, the way governments deal with ownership of objects versus freedom of action is completely different, calling them the same thing is silly.

The self is something brains do. It's a tale they tell, and it's a program that operates upon them. It's not a decision maker any more than your computer is: it's simply a large and unwieldy group of if-then commands.
No, what you did was the only thing you would've done. Under the exact same conditions you would have done the exact same thing, unless there is some nonphysical component that you haven't mentioned yet. As for your language use, because you wanted to prove a point, perhaps? And yes, that's a simplification that uses the word you.

Laws, and thus legality, do not depend upon government. They are commonly created in western culture by governments now, but they can derive from any body or institution that is perceived as having authority. In the past this has frequently been the church (And still is in some cultures - Sharia anyone?)

Then that body is the government, at least in a loose sense. (Now here I'm again being "linguistically sloppy") Let's say that ownership requires law, whatever law happens to be.

As far as I was aware, property rights is a rather arbitrary grab bag of various rights. This grab bag often includes right to transfer property, as that's why gifts for example are legal. It doesn't have to, but it doesn't have to include any of the other rights either.

More importantly, property rights are obligations between people. The only separation in entities is needed to establish who has claim to the limited actions of others. In owning yourself, you aren't saying that you control yourself, you are saying that others are obligated not to control you, at least in the strictest sense.

Then that body is the government, at least in a loose sense. (Now here I'm again being "linguistically sloppy") Let's say that ownership requires law, whatever law happens to be.

Agreed.

No. I'm jointly owned by a house, 4 cats, 1 mouse, 1 snake, 12 tarantulas, 1 scorpion, my car and my 2 adult children.

No I don't own myself.

I have obligations to my failed business enterprise that will keep me occupied for years to come. I have obligations to friends and family. I have habits and urges that I have never completely controlled.

I'm definitely a slave to the circumstances of life.

A voluntary slave. Your obligations to your family and your enterprise were all chosen and perceived by you.

Why?

And furthermore, are you not contained by your body?

You may physically 'own' my physical body (a la a slave) but you can't 'own' my thoughts. My 'mind' if you will, cannot be 'owned' as it does not have a physical manifestation.

You may as well say you 'own' the wind.

More importantly, property rights are obligations between people. There only separation in entities is needed to establish who has claim to the limited actions of others. In owning yourself, you aren't saying that you control yourself, you are saying that others are obligated not to control you, at least in the strictest sense.

So ownership is the right to tell others not to interfere with something? Not the right to control that thing?

More importantly, property rights are obligations between people. There only separation in entities is needed to establish who has claim to the limited actions of others. In owning yourself, you aren't saying that you control yourself, you are saying that others are obligated not to control you, at least in the strictest sense.

Well put.

You may physically 'own' my physical body (a la a slave) but you can't 'own' my thoughts. My 'mind' if you will, cannot be 'owned' as it does not have a physical manifestation.

You may as well say you 'own' the wind.

You can own any practical application of the wind, and you can own any practical application of ones mind. Rights to utility are perfectly compatible with rights to ownership.

My body is property. It is made of a tangible substance, unlike an idea, or a soul, or a mind, and is therefore, ownable.

except, of course, ideas are currently claimed to be ownable, while the atmosphere is not. so the fact that a thing is made of matter doesn't appear to be relevant.

You can own any practical application of the wind, and you can own any practical application of ones mind. Rights to utility are perfectly compatible with rights to ownership.

How can something that has no physical manifestion or presence be 'owned'?

So ownership is the right to tell others not to interfere with something? Not the right to control that thing?

Control over what is owned comes along with the package in most situations, but it is not the necessary quality.

except, of course, ideas are currently claimed to be ownable, while the atmosphere is not. so the fact that a thing is made of matter doesn't appear to be relevant.

Ideas exist only in the mind of whatever happens to be thinking that idea at the time. Therefore, you can't have private ownership over an idea. You can have an idea, but anyone else can also have that idea.

Control over what is owned comes along with the package in most situations, but it is not the necessary quality.

If ownership is simply an right to tell people not to mess with something, then sure, you own yourself. As ownership is a specific legal contract, though, subject to specific laws, I would argue that not all abilities to restrict interference are ownership, and ability to restrict others from messing with you is not one of them.

A voluntary slave. Your obligations to your family and your enterprise were all chosen and perceived by you.

And the Law. Don't forget the government, they have ways of making you pay.

Ideas exist only in the mind of whatever happens to be thinking that idea at the time. Therefore, you can't have private ownership over an idea. You can have an idea, but anyone else can also have that idea.

The government disagrees with you on that.

(And sure, ownership over the right to think something is not usually given out, but ownership over the right to act on it is.)

I can transfer the ownership of myself to another individual.

in any of the various forms that can take, it seems to me that it is a fundamentally different use of the term 'ownership'. mainly because barring some major medical issue, you would still be yourself, and have ultimate control over your self's actions. if it is fundamentally impossible to alienate something, it can't really be property.

The government disagrees with you on that.

The government often attempts to defy logic.

Ideas exist only in the mind of whatever happens to be thinking that idea at the time. Therefore, you can't have private ownership over an idea. You can have an idea, but anyone else can also have that idea.

ok, so we throw out intellectual property completely - i'm fine with that. but what about the other part of my post? are we now going to start homesteading the atmosphere?

I am arguing that calling anything self-ownership is misleading, as it is phrased to imply dualism (whether or not it logically necessitates it).
No it is not. It is phrased to be in opposition to ownership by another entity (be this the state, God, another person or whatever), or absence of ownership.

Your form of ownership appears to be ability to decide the fate of something. This still implies that without the decider the thing would do something different. Ownership implies that there is a status of non-ownership. Also, the way governments deal with ownership of objects versus freedom of action is completely different, calling them the same thing is silly.
Huh? Where did this come from?

That I have the ability to dispose of, or decide the fate of something does not imply anything whatsoever about that thing, other than it is owned by me.
When did I describe the way government deals with ownership (by this I take you to mean legal ownership) as being related to freedom of action?

The self is something brains do. It's a tale they tell, and it's a program that operates upon them. It's not a decision maker any more than your computer is: it's simply a large and unwieldy group of if-then commands.
No, what you did was the only thing you would've done. Under the exact same conditions you would have done the exact same thing, unless there is some nonphysical component that you haven't mentioned yet. As for your language use, because you wanted to prove a point, perhaps? And yes, that's a simplification that uses the word you.

Being a programmer, I can assure you that the self is not simply a program that operates on the hardware of the brain. The self cannot be taken from one brain and instantiated in another one as a programm can.
If you want to adopt the Mind-Brain identity theorem then please do so explicitly and drop this waffle about programs.

The second problem with your concept of the self as a set of conditional statements is that this implies that each of us has an inbuilt set of priorities that condition our responses to ALL possible situations. Unfortunately this does not stand up to scrutiny as the number of possible circumstances is significantly higher than the number of possible pathways through the brain.
There has to be some set of stable and guiding values and principles that allow the conditionals to be resolved under any possible circumstances. This set is the self. (Simple really).

No what I did is what I did - true. It is not the only thing that I could have done. Placed in the same situation again (identical - although this is physically impossible I know) I could do other than I did. You are simply asserting a belief in free will being illusiory, and I am asserting a belief in it being real.

We will have to agree to differ - as this argument has not been resolved in the last 4,000+ years.

The government often attempts to defy logic.

If the government determines ownership, how is it defying logic?

in any of the various forms that can take, it seems to me that it is a fundamentally different use of the term 'ownership'. mainly because barring some major medical issue, you would still be yourself, and have ultimate control over your self's actions. if it is fundamentally impossible to alienate something, it can't really be property.

But we do not control any of our property in that sense, though. I can own a piece of paper, but I can't stop it from being blown by the wind. I can own land, but I can't control the exact manner in which things grow in it. I can own a rock, but it will still move if it is kicked, whether I want it to or not.

Being a programmer, I can assure you that the self is not simply a program that operates on the hardware of the brain. The self cannot be taken from one brain and instantiated in another one as a programm can.

Two words: hardware conflict.

That being said, there are a lot of theological paths that any of us, as individuals, could take. Perhaps, though, it's just the makeup of our brains and conditioning that make us take those theological paths.

*wanders off aimlessly, talking to himself*

Ideas exist only in the mind of whatever happens to be thinking that idea at the time. Therefore, you can't have private ownership over an idea. You can have an idea, but anyone else can also have that idea.

The point being that property rights need not be restricted to intangible things, regardless of how shaky the justification.

It's a simple enough question.

Do you own yourself? And why?

Yes.

If ownership is simply an right to tell people not to mess with something, then sure, you own yourself. As ownership is a specific legal contract, though, subject to specific laws, I would argue that not all abilities to restrict interference are ownership, and ability to restrict others from messing with you is not one of them.

Certainly ownership is a varying bundle of rights, but limited ownership rights does not mean no ownership rights.

The point being that property rights need not be restricted to intangible things, regardless of how shaky the justification.

Can you repeat that in simpler english, please, I can't tell if you're agreeing with me or not. Sorry.:confused: :(

ok, so we throw out intellectual property completely - i'm fine with that. but what about the other part of my post? are we now going to start homesteading the atmosphere?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_rights

I am owned slightly by everyone who makes demands on my time.

But we do not control any of our property in that sense, though. I can own a piece of paper, but I can't stop it from being blown by the wind. I can own land, but I can't control the exact manner in which things grow in it. I can own a rock, but it will still move if it is kicked, whether I want it to or not.

that's the opposite of what i was getting at, actually. i probably explained badly. what i mean is that even when you sell yourself into slavery, the situation which is used to 'demonstrate' self-ownership still exists. for example:

If you don't own yourself, then how are you controlling yourself?

I am me, and I own me - in the sense that I am the individual that has the power of disposal over me - in the sense that I decide what it is that I shall do - in the sense that I am responsible for my actions.

It's a simple enough question.

Do you own yourself? And why?

Let me get back to you on this when I haven't been drinking. It is an honestly fascinating question, but I prefer to phrase it as 'who owns your body?'.

No it is not. It is phrased to be in opposition to ownership by another entity (be this the state, God, another person or whatever), or absence of ownership.


Huh? Where did this come from?

That I have the ability to dispose of, or decide the fate of something does not imply anything whatsoever about that thing, other than it is owned by me.
When did I describe the way government deals with ownership (by this I take you to mean legal ownership) as being related to freedom of action?



Being a programmer, I can assure you that the self is not simply a program that operates on the hardware of the brain. The self cannot be taken from one brain and instantiated in another one as a programm can.
If you want to adopt the Mind-Brain identity theorem then please do so explicitly and drop this waffle about programs.

The second problem with your concept of the self as a set of conditional statements is that this implies that each of us has an inbuilt set of priorities that condition our responses to ALL possible situations. Unfortunately this does not stand up to scrutiny as the number of possible circumstances is significantly higher than the number of possible pathways through the brain.
There has to be some set of stable and guiding values and principles that allow the conditionals to be resolved under any possible circumstances. This set is the self. (Simple really).

No what I did is what I did - true. It is not the only thing that I could have done. Placed in the same situation again (identical - although this is physically impossible I know) I could do other than I did. You are simply asserting a belief in free will being illusiory, and I am asserting a belief in it being real.

We will have to agree to differ - as this argument has not been resolved in the last 4,000+ years.

Exactly. Abscence of ownership (or for that matter ownership by another entity) would by your definition of ownership (i.e. control over actions) imply dualism. It would mean that, despite you still being you, something else (or nothing) is "controlling" your actions.

Programs can't be "taken from one thing and put in another". You can have one computer write down a description of a program, and another computer use that description to change its own programming to match the previous computer, but nothing is transfered. Similarly, certain higher level human programs can do this, with limited degrees of accuracy. In any case, transferability is certainly not necessary for something to be a program. If that were the case, what would the first computer have been doing?

This set of general principles would also have to be if-then statements, that's what principles are. If [set of general conditions] takes place, do x repsonse, tailored to circumstances by other if-then statements. A free willed self would be independent of such if-then statements.

Again, if you did something different in the exact same physical circumstances, then there would have to be some nonphysical aspect to your decision. Are you proposing a soul?

And most of the understanding of brains that contributes to this comes out of the last 30 years or so. Read Daniel Dennet's "Consciousness Explained", if you have the time. It's a very good explanation of the problems with the user illusion.

Certainly ownership is a varying bundle of rights, but limited ownership rights does not mean no ownership rights.

But again, ownership rights are only ownership rights if that's the term the legal system uses for them, and that's not the system they use for "self-ownership". That's the point I'm making.

Can you repeat that in simpler english, please, I can't tell if you're agreeing with me or not. Sorry.:confused: :(

Only that the government has established private property rights for ideas, even though they are intangible. It is the practical utility that is most often the justification for property rights, especially in capitalism.

that's the opposite of what i was getting at, actually. i probably explained badly. what i mean is that even when you sell yourself into slavery, the situation which is used to 'demonstrate' self-ownership still exists.

Yes, I misunderstood you. I agree with that; a right to self-ownership involves quite a bit more than recognition of mere self control.

But again, ownership rights are only ownership rights if that's the term the legal system uses for them, and that's not the system they use for "self-ownership". That's the point I'm making.

explain

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_rights

that's actually different than what i meant by homesteading the atmosphere - you might have claim on physical space off the ground, but you have no claim on the particular molecules that occupy it from time to time.

that's the opposite of what i was getting at, actually. i probably explained badly. what i mean is that even when you sell yourself into slavery, the situation which is used to 'demonstrate' self-ownership still exists. for example:

That only assumes that one cannot be forced to fulfill another's wishes.

explain

If ownership is merely legal, then whether or not you own something is decided by the legal system. Not every contract that gives the right to tell others not to interfere with something would be an ownership right, only those that the laws designate as such.

Exactly. Abscence of ownership (or for that matter ownership by another entity) would by your definition of ownership (i.e. control over actions) imply dualism. It would mean that, despite you still being you, something else (or nothing) is "controlling" your actions.
Not at all. The options are much less philosophical than that, and much more related to the legal circumstances. Absence of ownership would simply mean that nothing had the right to dispose of me - not that nothing can dispose of me. etc.

Programs can't be "taken from one thing and put in another". You can have one computer write down a description of a program, and another computer use that description to change its own programming to match the previous computer, but nothing is transfered. Similarly, certain higher level human programs can do this, with limited degrees of accuracy. In any case, transferability is certainly not necessary for something to be a program. If that were the case, what would the first computer have been doing?
Sorry but you are completely off base here. All computers are turing machines and a program can be taken from one and instantiated on any other. It is difficult if the language used by the processing units involved is not the same, but possible. What you have written here simply does not make any sense.

This set of general principles would also have to be if-then statements, that's what principles are. If [set of general conditions] takes place, do x repsonse, tailored to circumstances by other if-then statements. A free willed self would be independent of such if-then statements.
Why would a free willed individual not be influenced by the circumstances?


Again, if you did something different in the exact same physical circumstances, then there would have to be some nonphysical aspect to your decision. Are you proposing a soul?
No. There would not have to be some non physical aspect - there would simply have to be a non deterministic universe.

And most of the understanding of brains that contributes to this comes out of the last 30 years or so. Read Daniel Dennet's "Consciousness Explained", if you have the time. It's a very good explanation of the problems with the user illusion.
I have read, and disagree very strongly with Mr Dennett.

I am 21.

My mother owns me. She uses guilt to control me. Some favorites include me sharing responsiblity for the children because she didn't want to disappoint me by not having another girl (I wanted a baby sister when I was 3, I got one when I was 17). Another is, without my help you wouldn't be where you are today (clinically depressed).

Yes, it could be easy to leave but I am a tool.

I am 21.

My mother owns me. She uses guilt to control me. Some favorites include me sharing responsiblity for the children because she didn't want to disappoint me by not having another girl (I wanted a baby sister when I was 3, I got one when I was 17). Another is, without my help you wouldn't be where you are today (clinically depressed).

Yes, it could be easy to leave but I am a tool.

Still... a voluntary tool.

Yes. I bought myself from a man, who also happened to be me. I can only hope the government doesn't find out, lest I be jailed for slavery..

It's a simple enough question.

Do you own yourself? And why?

No, I don't. I've never paid anything for me, and I'm not for sale (even to me) anyway.

No, I don't. I've never paid anything for me, and I'm not for sale (even to me) anyway.

You don't have to buy something to own it. If someone gives you a gift, you then own the gift, even though you didn't pay for it.

Not at all. The options are much less philosophical than that, and much more related to the legal circumstances. Absence of ownership would simply mean that nothing had the right to dispose of me - not that nothing can dispose of me. etc.

So abscence of ownership means cause and effect does not have a right to act? Gravity doesn't have rights, etc? If not, then how can you say that physical processes within your body don't have the right to act, when they're just as natural, etc?

Sorry but you are completely off base here. All computers are turing machines and a program can be taken from one and instantiated on any other. It is difficult if the language used by the processing units involved is not the same, but possible. What you have written here simply does not make any sense.

All functioning, current computers are Turing machines, but people are already working on parallel processors, for example, they're just hard to design. Humans are more like parallel processors, with programming that makes us behave a bit like a von Neumann machine without being one. In any case, as I said, programming does not require any level of transferability, otherwise the first computer would have had no programs. Programs are simply a type of abstractions of otherwise very, very complex behavior.

Why would a free willed individual not be influenced by the circumstances?

From your description, they would not be determined by circumstances.

No. There would not have to be some non physical aspect - there would simply have to be a non deterministic universe.

Which means either quantum effects, or nonphysicality. Quantum is not free will in any way shape or form. Everything works by cause and effect because that's simply how physical events work. There are no events that happen without causes.

*doesn't read the topic*
No... No... The Voices own me... :p
*rocks back and forth on his heels*

That only assumes that one cannot be forced to fulfill another's wishes.

the only way that doesn't involve you going along with it in some fashion involves them physically manipulating your body. and if it goes beyong mere restraint, then you are going to have to be incapacitated in some way. but even in that case, you haven't really alienated your self/property - you are still there, you didn't go elsewhere.

the only way that doesn't involve you going along with it in some fashion involves them physically manipulating your body. and if it goes beyong mere restraint, then you are going to have to be incapacitated in some way. but even in that case, you haven't really alienated your self/property - you are still there, you didn't go elsewhere.

Maybe I am not seeing the difference, but can we own pets?

Sometimes when I'm clumsy, I wind up pwning myself.

Maybe I am not seeing the difference, but can we own pets?

maybe?

do non-human animals have self-ownership?

No, the government does, or will next month.

Yes, I own myself. And I feel the interest rates are too high.

do non-human animals have self-ownership?

No, but they cannot concieve of the legal claims and obligations required to utilize ownership.

No, but they cannot concieve of the legal claims and obligations required to utilize ownership.

and they seem to get on fine.

what confuses me about the whole self-ownership concept is that it appears to be used as both an axiomatic is and an ethical ought, but it doesn't even appear remotely necessary or even all that useful. and it certainly isn't self-evident.

what confuses me about the whole self-ownership concept is that it appears to be used as both an axiomatic is and an ethical ought, but it doesn't even appear remotely necessary or even all that useful. and it certainly isn't self-evident.

Oh, I agree, I don't see it as axiomatic or self-evident, I doubt any property is.

I do see some property, including self-ownership, as utilizable from a standpoint of granting a level of human dignity.

Indeed. My mind has supreme authority over my body. *maniacal giggle*

If I did own myself, it stands to reason that I could sell myself.

Not only is this illegal in the US, but so far I've never even gotten close to my asking price. :(

It's a simple enough question.

Do you own yourself? And why?

"I am not a number! I am a free man!" - "The Prisoner" on BBC.

I don't believe in this concept of self ownership, because If i won myself, i must therefore be able to sell my self, and may be forced to do so to pay a debt. So at that point, I'm either a whore or a slave. I don't want to be either, and I don't think anyone does.

I do see some property, including self-ownership, as utilizable from a standpoint of granting a level of human dignity.

wouldn't denying that human are the sort of thing that can be owned serve just as well?

G.W.Bush-

I own myself everyday with boxcutters and plane tickets.

.