tadmjones

No tuning implies a 'conscious' choice between alternatives.

What if it were that rational men instituted the idea of government due to a recognition of human nature, to keep those who couldn't govern themselves at arms length or at a minimum. It's a little less malevolent universie

well if you choose to live ,you would need a set of principles to guide your actions even if it was only;every time I feel hunger I will eat. But even just that one lone principle would be a morality. So the choice of life would require an ethical code.

There is no tuning, fine or coarse, existence exists. Tuning would suggest either a purpose or an alternative.

Rights are only applicable in a societal context. They are principles of action that apply to human interaction. Morality would still be operative. Morality deals with man qua man, an individual isolated would still need to act to sustain his life and would need at least to identify that which furthers his life.

The "societal context" is not the standard by which rights are jugded, man's life is. A man, say alone on an island, needs to act in order to sustain his life, his primary means of survival is his reason. If and when men live together or form a society , rights are the principles that define the freedom of actions that each individual possess by his nature. Any violation of those principles can only come from the use of physical force, which would only be applicable in a society.

Asking how a brain came to be is a valid question,yes? But theorizing why is invalid, yes(too)? The other parts of both WAP and SAP that seem invalid to me is when existence is somehow compared to an alternative.

How could any anthropic theory rest on anything other than primacy of consciousness?

I am then condemned

Jonathan 13 They don't have the right to forgive his destruction of everyone's property just because they are individually okay with his destruction of their own contributions to the project. Can't they just forgive the destruction of their own property, regardless if it happens to abut another's property? On the premise that the will of the people who are the jurors peers would have came to the same conclusion if it had it fact been their portion of the property that was destroyed?

And or if a person realizes that they are in such a society and they do not agree that that type of society is preferrable they should work to disassociate themselves from such a society?

I have just had an epiphany, I can actually tell my soul has been somehow redeemed. I realise now the true nature of existence, by God, IT IS.

just to the first part of your comment , what does "but" mean in that context?

dude you never heard of heaven?!

the rules or laws of evidence are pretty strict; either something is or it is not. there is always proof of the attributes of a thing(existent) , there is no reason to deny god simply because there is no reason to postulate god

On what basis could sensory evidence be negated? Just in a practical sense, if I get the whole internet,laptop,visual display, text thingy, then ultimately that view(sensory evidence is negatable) would have to mean that everything I 'see' is a projection(whatever the source) and that I am commenting to myself

three rights kinda make a left, for a different context

Why must objective law be discoverable like the laws of physics? To me the word 'law' has two different connotations in that statement.

In the original post, I don't think the 'laws of physics' and the idea of objective law in society are comparable. It seems trying to make this comparision and then trying to resolve the apparent problems is what leads to the inability to find the source of objective law. A rock can not violate the laws that govern it(in the sense of the use of the word law in this context), principles of human interactions can be violated by those who understand them and by those who do not. In the part of the OP that deals with the two laws, is this comment meant to explore whether the idea of jurisdiction can be objective within a specific society ? eg one state( in the US) may use capital punishment and another not?

Actually we are from Venus ah more blue blood then ?

There are various rights, can they be subsumed under one unified concept?

Was there any stipulation in a settlement with the government that Gates curtail his corporate activities? Honest question

You know I've always heard that Hungarians are really Martians.

Now I get it, that is the reason for such a forum as this ,reasonable discussion of ideas of O'ism, not a soapbox .

Just watched the debate. There seemed to be quite alot of a discussion of metaphysics. Which seemed to be not in accordance with the question at hand, though I think both parties deemed fundamental to the debate overall. I think Bernstein had some missed opportunities in that line of discussion to include that logically why a universe exists is not a valid question. Reason (big r) shows why, how the universe exists is a valid inquiry, but that even the suggestion of why the universe exists, denies primacy of existence.