StrictlyLogical

How we view a system is not anything about the system and certainly nothing about a process or a property OF that system… how we view something is about us and our capacities and knowledge.

response above

No one word can capture all "they" mean when they say selfish. It is a combination of a whole host of possible vices combined with appearing to act for oneself (at least superficially). There is a misidentification of what the long term self interest is, so it is self-sabotage, misguided selfishness, shortsightedness, ignorance, idiocy? How to sum up a simpleton's selfishness?... no easy task. Rather than try to come up with a different word, it suffices to point out that "selfishness" in not the proper characterization and the specific instance is better described by [insert particular short term vice here].

Relative motion is a property of an object's velocity or change in relative position. An object with the property of relative motion with respect to you or any other object is an identifiable and measurable property. It is both qualitative, closer ... versus farther, as well as quantitative 1 foot versus 3 feet, 1 mile per hour versus 10 miles an hour, and it is also directional in three degrees of freedom in space. There real identifiable observable differences in reality between objects which are moving or not (relative to something else) are the observations in reality which GIVE meaning to the concept motion in the first place. If there were no observable differences... such as the observation "hey that thing keeps looking bigger and bigger in my field of view as it 'somethings' in front of me" ... then there would be no reason to use the concept. Yes there are different processes, that goes without saying, falling, exploding, expanding, rolling, eating, breathing, shining, freezing.. and they all different, usefully different concepts which are governed by causation. The class of identified processes are different from things which are not falling, exploding, rolling, etc. and they identify specific kinds of processes which may or may not coexist or happen concurrently. The very necessity of concepts come from something recognizable, even something as universal as "existing" (although not technically a special property of a thing in addition to its properties and attributes). If I point to something and say 'now THAT exhibits "Ish de triddle de plunkeblub"', I better have a REASON for making such a claim. At the very BASIC level that is why I am asking: How would a causal process or property (exhibited by a complex system) which is not “emergent” differ from a causal process or property (exhibited by a complex system) which is “emergent”? EDIT: Added brackets for clarity

Seconded.

How would a causal process or property exhibited by a complex system which is not “emergent” differ from a causal process or property exhibited by a complex system which is “emergent”?

So we need some sort of Objective (rather than historical) Constitutionalist who actually believes in individual rights as against the mob or the State (not a leftist) and as against dogmatic religion (not a conservative)… from where could such persons arise in the political landscape?

“Emergence” does not exist as a separate process in reality in addition to causation. “Emergent properties” are nothing more than those properties of things caused by the identity and functioning of those things, no matter how complex those things are. Demonstrate the above is false.

There is a package deal both the far left and the far right are perpetrating here, it involves the following dogmatic assumptions by both camps: 1. The status and nature of a 10 celled human embryo IS equivalent in the ways that matter to an about to be born within minutes human fetus at 9 months 2. Abortion as conceived as the ceasing the functioning of that human embryo or human fetus is thus ONE KIND of THING 3. You are WITH US or AGAINST US as regards the SINGULAR concept of the "privilege", "perk" or "right" which are commonly known as "abortion rights" Objectively the two things in 1. ARE different kinds of things and require considered rational thought and separate analyses, and so called "aborting" each of the two is NOT doing the same kind of thing, as the doing is as different as the entities involved.

If the means to the ends were not proper, they are not justified. Such bad laws should only ever be properly struck down because they infringe basic natural rights to make things, sell things, put things in one’s own body… basic sovereignty of the individuals involved … not struck down improperly because of a purported special positive right to prevent a specific occurrence happening in one’s own body. Had osteoporosis medication been outlawed on some purported basis (in reality perhaps done as a favour to an Aluminum Walker Manufacturer) the decision to pronounce such an abomination as unconstitutional should be based on broad fundamental freedoms… and the negative right to prevent Government from interference therewith…. not some special interest group lobby positive perk/right/privilege that purported everyone should have ("universal access to" in the post-modern parlance) good bones. All special perks parading as rights should be overturned, AND broader fundamental freedoms should be ABSOLUTELY upheld to prevent government interference. I do not know if that would be the case if SCOTUS decided to act in the future on such issues as government interference in contraception or government interference in religious or cultural familial arrangements, but I sure hope it would.

Remove the question mark and switch the order of “is” and “emergence”. This is a correct assessment of the definition which was provided.

what the heck is a right "to" contraception or the right of ANYONE "to" marriage for that matter? The whole modern concept of so called special "rights" is doubly dangerous, 1 because it sets up an obligation on the State and then by extension by others to positively provide somethings for someone, rather than to refrain from interfering with the freedom of the the person(s) with respect to that that thing, which paradoxically 2 emboldens the state to think since it had authority to "grant" or "permit" such perks as rights, they can take them away, and end up actually inhibiting freedom associated with such things. Rights as "perks" become "permissions" and then the opposite of rights. Pharma and medical practitioners and their dealings with me are (or would be) covered by our natural freedoms as would be my natural freedoms to live with whomever I wish according to and celebrated by whatever religion or cultural equivalent there is. But not having a specific right to deal with pharma or live according to a certain culture does not mean the State can properly violate the freedoms associated therewith. Overturning the establishment of false rights would be fine if the State had not perverted them into things which could be used to take away freedoms... I am not so sure we are safe from that.

The volunteering does not change the "viability" of any child whether outside or defined as such in utero. Someone volunteering to help care/pay for/feed a child after it had been born does not change its viability nor define any related term. All children under a certain age will die if their parents refuse any care whatever e.g. denied food water and shelter, unless they somehow escape (perhaps to be raised by wolves or strangers). Children are simply not capable of providing for themselves. Do you hold that neither parents nor relatives nor society have any moral obligation to their children? IF there are obligations what is the order in greatest to least obligation? But responsibility for care is a separate issue from the bare right to life (not be killed). The question is not viability but when do rights attach... i.e. when begins personhood?

So quickly a discussion of politics loses all sense of principle. Getting it wrong on either end violates rights of one or more humans, and the most important rights. Getting it right for those persons is more important than any amount of personal political posturing of any kind.

For the sake of argument: Assume we do not know when a fetus does becomes a human and although not knowledgeable, is as conscious of sensations and sounds and the environment as a new born, but without the benefit of a clear unobstructed interaction with the environment. Here I do not mean a potential to become a human, but one which we are only in ignorance of its existence. Is one's approach to the rights to life of that entity not complicated and a nonetheless serious matter for consideration and investigation? I have no answer, but I posit this is not a simple issue one can determine without further scientific study.

So now abortion is up to the States. If I remember correctly, Rand's positions were: An absolute right to life after birth. Violating a doctor's freedom to act for anyone (without harm to anyone) is a violation of the doctor's rights. No special positive "rights" for anyone to get any medical procedure or any funding for anything health related. I cannot recall any specific position on people who are in a coma, or on life support, at varying levels of cognitive function, and whether the level of brain activity is operative in extinguishing rights to life or in defining when a person ceases to be a person for the purposes of determining rights e.g. to life. I would assume Rand would have accepted the concept of "brain dead", specifically in the medical sense.

I do not dispute the various behaviours and actions that do occur in different contexts. Things are and they act (interact) contextually according to their natures. I propose the term “emergent” and its conceptualization to be redundant, afoul of Rand’s Razor, and in the end indicative of nothing additional to be identified out there. When speaking of existence, Identity and the corollary of causation, suffice.

Someone please point out my error(s) (please ignore the triangle metaphor)

I also have observed this. I believe the only consistent thread running through instances of the invocation of emergence, is "ignorance", it is not anything about the referent being referred to, but only in the mind of the invoker. When a scientist sees an effect which he or she cannot understand how it flows from the causes, a black box of something magical and which cannot be explained, is invoked... and the label is "emergence". I think this stems from a false conception of reduction and analysis, and on the other side of the coin, a misunderstanding about synthesis and integration. Reduction and analysis does NOT assume or require that any number of coordinate causes acting together, can be, even in theory reduced to interactions of pairs. Many thinkers already know this assumption is false, some do not. There are those that would see three points making a triangle as somehow magical. Points have no triangleness about them, neither do lines or relationships between two points... but three points, with three lines, and relations therebetween do exhibit triangleness. This is a statement of fact requiring three points, an actual property of the triangle, not an emergent property of individual points and three separate lines.... The way things are and how they function have nothing to do with (i.e. do not in any way depend upon) how we think about them. Emergence is NOT a valid concept which identifies any property or attribute of a referent to which we direct our attention, when invoked it is an identification of our difficulty in conceiving those referents, that they exist as they are and act as they do.

Boydstun, I think the only way EC cannot have a contradiction is if "determinism" is not actually determinism. or if volition or "free will" is actually merely illusory. The Soul-Body dichotomy identified by Rand, that false dichotomy that teaches Man is a misfit struggling in a battle ground of his own nature, the body without a soul - the Corpse - and the soul without a body - the Ghost - is the VERY same explicit dichotomy in the claim: that the universe is deterministic BUT minds are not, that All there is (the Body) somehow does not include the Minds (the Ghosts?) that are in it. We ARE the consciousnesses of the universe, the "manmade" are its works, and those things, all those things which could have been otherwise, from your choice of cereal this morning, to that fateful assassination causing the first, and then the second World War leading to the Cold War and thence the current Global political scene... actually could have been otherwise.

Human Minds exhibit free will. “Free” will necessarily means you “could” have chosen otherwise. For that freedom to be real and not merely an appearance of freedom due to complexity and ignorance, that “could” must be taken seriously. Seriously enough that the universe, of which that mind necessarily is a participant, cannot be said to be “deterministic”.

This is a naked contradiction.

I agree with tadmjones. Your wages and time away are automatically considered when they suggest and or allow you to use FMLA. This indicates agreement, and as such in complete accord with the trader principle. As for the government paying for it, if you compare how much in taxes you should pay in a proper society versus what you (and your parents) have paid, and account for what kinds of goods and services you would have gotten in a free society versus the mixed economy one you actually got.... unless you and your parents had been truly needy through all your lives, you will find that the State owes you big time, that you paid far too much for far too little in return... and if anything FMLA helps to balance the ledger a little bit.

Perhaps it is as basic an issue as the following. Observe the ability to "think" rather than merely "feel" or "intuit" or impulsively "decide" requires a particular mode of mental function which, is similar to any physical muscle or capability, in that: 1. it requires some training and discipline to strengthen and develop, current capacity being dependent upon of past practice or exercise, and 2. when used, is subjectively felt as effort (and correctly so). Choosing to think is like choosing to act (also, mental labor is an analogue for physical labor) and if the activity is beyond a person's current capacity and even if it only requires a substantial portion thereof it will be "difficult" to do. The answer to: Why don't some unfit people exercise? is arguably the same as Why don't some habitually unthinking people, avoid rational thought?

Here is a succinct and slightly different take for newbies (meta-paraphrased from various sources): An individual has a nature, and his flourishing requires among other things the ability/freedom to act in accordance with those ethical principles which are consistent with, and both necessary and sufficient for that flourishing. A like-minded group of individuals who wish to flourish, recognizing those freedoms/abilities to act are necessary for flourishing and what actions would constitute their violation, undertake to uphold the protection of those freedoms as against actions which are to their detriment, undertaken in kind (as an agreement... and as a trade) with those like-minded others. Each realizes that any breach of the above, violates not only the agreement, but must stem from a violation of the very freedoms of action which were so recognized as necessary for flourishing. A person who chooses to violate the freedoms of action (rights) of any other has chosen to be no longer trusted as recognizing the freedoms of action (rights) of all others, and must understand that in accordance with sound judgment all others are now no longer bound by agreement to recognize his rights...(unless shown sufficient reason to forgive and re-enter an accord, i.e. payment of restitution, proof of remorse and rehabilitation) when one picks up one end of the stick one picks up the other end also... one's choosing not to act reciprocally in favor of individual rights, asks quite frankly, for war. a person who chooses war risks far more death, injury, and hardship, and is therefore far more "selfless", than one who chooses merely to recognize (in a reciprocal fashion) for others, what oneself should be free to do. Recognizing individual rights, for everyone, is decidedly selfish.