tadmjones

"A is A" , the explicit statement, is a man made fact based on the nature of existence. The 'law' of identity as an explicit philosophic premise or axiom is a product of consciousness, an abstraction that refers to the nature of 'things'. The red of the pen is metaphysical, though purposefully arranged to be part of the pen . No?

I like the sight analogy. You can not see your seeing , the experience of sight is not observable by the seer. Introspection does not give us a perception of awareness , it focuses on the products , mental contents of awareness. We can not perceive our own awareness , but we are cognizant of the fact that we are aware.

Da Vinci was 62 a paltry 500 yrs ago, I think he would have been able to fathom some of those notions. Emergence is a rather cumbersome and perhaps non-useful concept, and invalid when its use obliterates the law of identity. In the analogy between carbon atoms and molecules of carbon atoms plugging emergent properties 'into the mix' illustrates the point. Firstly, unless I am mistaken, carbon doesn't exist as single atoms floating around such that they would have properties in isolation. If that were the case, would not the properties of the carbon atoms 'emerge' from its constiuent parts of sub atomic particles ect ect.. Diamonds are diamonds, graphite is graphite. If you change graphite's crystalline structure to diamond , its a diamond , not diamond somehow nee graphite. Properties don't emerge from or come into being within a system, as if the system made of its constituent parts, is someow in limbo or quasi existence prior to the assembly of the parts into said system. The system has the properties it has and not those it doesn't, yes?

Next someone is going to say I should get rid of my Devo albums too!

I think I like the "Art of Psychology"

It certainly seems that the OP was either a setup to lead to a discussion of IP , or has become the organic springboard into a discussion about the basis for IP being invalid, because ideas aren't physical matter. There are lots of threads devoted to that/those arguments. Search the forums jump in one and prove your points.

howardofski in #28 There is no such thing as a study of "the" mind. You can study yours, no one else's. The field of psychology is, I think, a field or subject capable of study but I do agree that given the subjective nature of experience and volition a huge monkey wrench is thrown in when trying to determine behaviour of individuals when ' applying the science' of psychology.

1,2,3,6 the competitors are using information improperly 4 would depend on the jurisprudence of doctor / patient confidentiality of arstan 5 would have to ask AR 7 deals with child pornography 8 not sure anyone other than Pete would know anyone was wronged

DA In #317 you said you didn't think rights were delimited to a societal context. Would an isolated man be a political animal or a moral animal , or neither or both? I would call a thief a man who takes the unearned property of another man. Predators end the life of their prey , I don't believe there can be a normative description of that fact. It is outside the sphere of ethics. Man is the only animal capable of cruelty and given the volitional nature of action does fall within the sphere of ethics. Cruelty or wanton disregard for suffering toward non human animals is immoral and therefore wrong, imo . That said rights as I understand the concept only pertain to human animals in societal contexts. The concept of rights as you apply the term just doesn't make sense to me.

what exactly entitles them to reach outside of that society to impose duties on non-humans? want, desire ,need?

I didn't realize this thread was meant to be a futher discussion of discovering 'animal rights'. I thought it was intended as a 'chewing' of the concept 'rights'. So I will bow out of participation( unless I jump back in )

DA Does your position suggest that animal rights are similar to human rights? Or is it(are they) the sole 'right to life'?

Is capitalism of the laissez faire variety , or the completely free market anything other than a description of mutually beneficial voluntary trade en masse? Or is there a point in or level of societal complexity that requires control to ensure that individuals are aware of the differences between the services provided by an excavator and a proctologist? Ya know somehow to make sure we keep the ideas of a hole in the ground and our asses seperate?

Anoher answer to #12 , along with the context of Hairnet's quote, is the explicit idea of mutually beneficial trade. Not pointing to a contradiction , just nitpicking, but in #7 reason is a faculty , logic is a method. An analogy would be the inherent ability for walking, the skeletal, muscular 'system' is there(reason) using it for sucessful bipedular locomotion and position change is the sucessful outcome of taking individual steps(logic). It maybe just syntax or semantics but nuances can have large effects further down(up?) the line of integration.

The distinction I would make , would be between species with conceptual consciousnesses and those without. As far as I understand humans are the only members of the club, at least so far proven. That is the basis of my bias. As far is 'rights' and 'rights-like-things(compassion, regard, empathy for living)' and applying them to other species I grant those per species or individual creature ad hoc , because I find them to fail to meet the criteria of having rights inherently.

If liberty rights are valid and inherent to human animals, how do human animals secure these rights amongst wolves, proverbial or otherwise? Rights only belong to a species whose nature makes them possible.

DA Isn't the logical end game of that reasoning basically janism? When to stop the designation until one only discriminates between animate and inanimate ?

Achievement should be celebrated by all means, and national pride can certainly be misplaced. But I will take all the jingoistic propaganda you can muster whose nationalism is found in a nation of "laws not men." USA! USA!

Heh, I saw the opening ceremonies of the Olympics. I didn't know Russia claimed credit for the invention of television, and Einstein ! It kinda breezed over the whole uncle joe thing, let's just say I loved the rings, the guy in charge of the non opening one is probably looking for work.

I think the fictional characters you chose as examples aren't O'ists, their existence predates O'ism technically. Secondly I was honestly curious about how you would define the terms. I was wondering specifically how you would view' authority'. In the context of this discussion I see 'authority' grounded in rational moral principles of how a government (or the law) should function. I tend to like the US Constitution as a framework and consider it' an' or 'the' authority and any actual people that perform government functions as having the right to exercise authority as long as their actions are consistent with the principles of government. Is this a definition you could be comfortable with?

ilya : 4. You do not believe that there should be managers or any authority. I can't answer for SN, though from his comment I do not think he believes what you impute to him, I am curious to see your answer to this item. Managers and authority, exactly what are 'they' and why are they needful, in a free society, or is it that the need for them proves society can't /shouldn't be free, or that individuals should only have a certain level of freedom within a society?

Greed for values, nice

I very never seen the movie, but based on your review I feel like I may now. I really enjoyed Ed Cline's Sparrowhawk Series , the characters and their motivations were wonderfully presented and not very subtly at that

That fact that cyanide is poisonous is what makes the action of knowingly ingesting it an immoral act, if one wants to stay alive. If morality (and or values) were subjective , in the context of this thread, an individual would be able to change the nature of cyanide in order to act.

I would not purposefully cause undue pain to a creature that I recognized as capable of experiencing pain. So your dog is safe from me ,and lucky just like the second slowest impala in a herd.