dream_weaver

I did see the smiley face. Then what is being described as,a "random event" is a pattern which has not yet been recognized and formalized causally, which would make it extremely difficult to add as a reliable subroutine within a computer program. Given that, the material side of the computer program is limited by our current knowledge. The aspects of dealing with consciousness still faces the hurdle of how to deal with two or more outputs available to the multi-variable input. This area lies at the crux of why artificial intelligence will not surpass human intelligence. At best, a computer program might be able to highlight a pattern we have not yet discovered based on known pattern recognition methods which can be coded for programmatically.

The principles of rational government that the constitution is founded on were the actual establishment of the possibility of achieving the existence of such a society. vs. And while it is not perfect, I doubt that any form of government will ever be. I also question the feasibility of converting current cities to another model.- since they are the creatures of a very complex legal system that has been in place for hundreds of years. Benevolent vs. Malevolent Universe Premise? A rational solution potentially exists i.e.: Capitalism, or existence/human beings are inherently flawed and a system such as Capitalism is idealistic at best?

As for most of the population, thinking it is so does not make it so. So if free-will, or the choice to think or not is not a random event, what is the "random event" referring to? Is a "random event" supposed to be a-causal?

Is free-will random?

To just chew over a bit on the idea of roads, they are already "paid for" via tax dollars. Roads in this country, America, started out being developed privately. Business underwrote them initially, understanding the benefit it provided through facilitating trade. In a sense, by the state imposing itself in this matter, I have to wonder if roads would have evolved differently under continued private ownership? Are they made safer or more dangerous by state intervention? In general, I have found private solutions far more innovative and desirable than any mandated by the prescription of law and edict not constrained or delineated to the exclusive domain of identifying and establishing the protection of individual rights.

Property cannot have rights. Only individuals can have rights. Rights are to be construed in such a was that applies to all (rational) individuals, that is, the right of the individual cannot negate the right of the individual. "Property Rights" deal with individual rights as the right of the individual with regard to or pertaining to property. Under capitalism, all lands would be private, but the sole discretion of the private owners does not extend to include the negation of the rights of others. This specious landlocked scenario tries to circumvent or obfuscate this by using the concept of rights while trying to ignore or brush aside what gives rise to the concept. Easement by necessity, while perhaps poorly worded, addresses this.

[Computer simulation] [g]ames are a way to "overcome the crow" - an interesting way to contemplate it. Computers allow us to model our current grasp of descriptive law. Descriptive law is derived from patterns we have observed and concretized, in short, causal law.. While the game - as such - is not reasoning, the lines of code are based on our current understanding of causal law. Causal law comes in two distinct realms; matter and spirit. The patterns produced by the material world are distinct from the patterns produced by consciousness. The objects of material world produce the single output available based on a multi-variable input. The objects of consciousness always have two or more outputs available based on the multi-variable input. While the computer may show us how things will unravel under various assumptions, the unraveling itself is computed from the various assumptions used in the program.

Actually, I grasped what you were saying back on post #31

That probably explains why you're bandying about terms like 'punshment', 'trespassing', 'restitution', 'private property', 'taking to court', and 'fines'.

The 'conflict of rights' was established by the OP.

The product of a thought experiment should never be confused with evidence though.

So in essence, you are saying that an individual who has the financial wherewithal acquires the right to imprison or establish "toll-roads" (note, also via governmental force) on other person(s) within their acquired domains. In short, property rights trump individual rights, neverminding that individual rights is that to which property rights is derived from under a capitalistic system.

I would have to have him verify what time the fishwife is supposed to be having us over for dinner.

Two types of attorneys come to mind. Those who adhere to and those who shun the principle of justice.

I wonder if Alex Jones picked that up from pirated Mark Scott shows. Mark Scott was a http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djcdnCmZw6o.

That's a nice introduction to easements. Every property I've ever owned, and the ones I've dealt with via a trust, have had various easements incorporated into them. The trust property began as a 40 acre contiguous property. We cut trees and laid a two-track access to drive from the public road. The two-track had a couple of turn-offs with a circle at their ends to loop around to return the way you came. After the appropriate length of ownership, the 40 acres were subdivided. All the lots butted up to the two-tracks hewn from the original 40 acre with the two track serving as an easement for access. It would not make much sense to try to sell a lot that a new owner could not access. If you had purchased all of the properties, you could have dissolved or altered the easement, As it sits now, the cooperation of all the owners of the easement would be required to change it.

You were addressed my question of "Can you identify the nature of the cause of free will? When you introspect, are you aware of something exerting a force on/in your conceptual faculty?" Causality is the law of identity applied to action. You state you are able to observe an "inner push". What is doing the "push"?

That is the point. To ask for proof, presupposes free will. Some facts can only be observed to be validated. To observe it, is to validate that it is. Another way to ask this is "How would you set about to prove a fact that is only available to you via observation?"

Can you identify the nature of the cause of free will? When you introspect, are you aware of something exerting a force on/in your conceptual faculty?

Intrade showed Obama with strong numbers for the better part of the last year (over 75% if memory serves). About a month ago, his numbers started to plunge toward 50% likelyhood with Romney showing a steady climb. The last two weeks reversed that trend with Obama holding a 65+% on the morning of the election.

Objectivism holds that the choice to focus one's consciousness is primary because it is what makes conceptual activity possible. The choice is considered "free" because it is selected from two (or more) courses of action possible under the circumstance. In "Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand" on page 69 Leonard Peikoff writes: "If man's consciousness were automatic, if it did react deterministically to outer or inner forces acting upon it, then, by definition, a man would have no choice in regard to his mental content; he would accept whatever he had to accept, whatever ideas the determining forces engendered in him." Volition is also considered axiomatic. Any attempt to validate or invalidate free will presupposes free will. I'm not sure what you mean by man being able to create something out of nothing. Every creative act of man is accomplished by rearrangements of the natural elements.

On 1, I'm a bit leary of, but leaning toward a yes. I think 5 deserves to be passed, the others should be tabled.

I usually only vote on the referendums, not the candidates, here in Michigan.

One more paragraph from the article linked in the preceding post. "The power of what we've done is to survey diverse organisms facing a similar problem and find striking evidence for a limited number of possible solutions," he said. "The fact that many of these solutions are used over and over again by completely unrelated species suggests that the evolutionary path is repeatable and predictable."

This was according to at least one Obama supporter: "Well he's only supposed to discredit it, not study up on it."