Eiuol

Why couldn't you merely pick *any* element of the set by arbitrary standards? AoC presumes no empty sets, so it has some member at least, even if not measurable. I could say something like "the first member I happened to notice", or "the last member I happened to notice". My thought is that all you need to do is take some random members of any set, make a subset out of those members, then make any selection as you would with countable sets. Even a noncountable set has distinct members, right, even if the set has no cardinality or any distinctness to the set as a whole? That's my premise. I understand the "end [world] hunger" example, but that in some sense is an empty set. No choice is possible because there is absolutely no member of a set "actions that end [world] hunger". There is literally nothing to select. I find this rather interesting, because it's one of the few math topics that makes math sound really interesting.

A human being a "first cause" means the human mind would be causeless. It's basically a form of dualism. So, yes, free will as you described it is threatened. But that description is untenable with anything about how reality works. If one is capable of making *any choice at all* and even a first cause, it has no identity at all - capable of everything and anything without any particular identifiable attribute. The "causeless" mind is something Rand often addressed quite vociferously, so finding more on the Objectivist perspective is easy. To take some more modern philosophical arguments, free will describes a level of abstraction on something like an information processing level (similar to how one describes processes of a computer). Particle physics is a totally separate level of abstraction, there is no free will there, it doesn't need to be to describe how particles work. That's a lot like what you were saying about solidity in the first post. It doesn't make sense to talk about solidity with regard to particle physics, but it does at a level of whole entities. This is getting a little off-topic, so if you want, I'll discuss this in another thread. There is a thread like this side-topic already, but I don't recall the title of it.

What's wrong about it? What you quoted from SL seems exactly what a supporter of Oist epistemology would say. While intuitive understanding is useful to attain, trying to *make* everything intuitive is just a bad process of reason. To me, it's saying "understand reality as best you can, don't make assumptions based solely on intuition". It's necessary to use abstractions to get past being concrete-bound. Get past, not bypass. SL, the only thing I might disagree in is "with our limitations". Do you mean some things will never be understood, or do you only mean there is always more to learn?

Huh? It's not IP violation and/or fraud if they're not the same? You don't make sense. Also, I don't know what your point is about government and competitors discovering formulas. No way for a competitor to do what? I haven't found any of your posts in this thread very sensible. I've been meaning to do a big post on IP, but I lost steam on doing that after the previous thread ended badly.

Depends. What do you mean by (un)measurable? Is it the same sense Rand meant by measurable? To me, unmeasurable set sounds like a type of infinite set, which is valid. Also, to be precise, it is all abstractions that have measurements, and directly perceiving is not necessary on the level for abstractions of abstractions.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the axiom of choice suggest that any set will always have a function to apply to it in order to select something from that set? I'm not so familiar with math, but I did look into the axiom of choice a few months ago. One definition I found is this one: "Axiom of Choice. Let C be a collection of nonempty sets. Then we can choose a member from each set in that collection. In other words, there exists a function f defined on C with the property that, for each set S in the collection, f(S) is a member of S." http://www.math.vanderbilt.edu/~schectex/ccc/choice.html I don't see why it's problematic for infinite sets, unless you think even infinite set is an invalid concept. We sort of talked about this before. There is no metaphysical infinity, but conceptually there is. There are no metaphysical sets either. You could certainly validate it to the degree that you are always able to make some choice in any circumstance. If you mean validate as in seeing axioms of choice floating around, of course that is not valid. Can you give an example, in math-speak if you want (I'll try to understand), of when a choice might be impossible - a non-empty set where there *cannot* be a choice? The evidence that it is the axiom of choice itself, but if it is false, then what makes is a possible example that would mean it is false? Certainly, math is needed to demonstrate past intuition that the AoC is indeed true, but accepting it as true does not contradict my knowledge especially since I have a connection to choices, and from there I get a connection to actions.

The irony is killing me. The government is spying on us, they can't be trusted! Oh my god, Google is getting out of hand, the government must stop them!

Why don't you just explain how well it *works* though? Secondhander asked this. Just because someone is a critic and asks you a question doesn't mean the question is snide even.

I disagree with SecondHander a lot with regards to evolutionary psychology, but I agree that social norms and/or social programming are a big reason why someone being with another is painful. In other words, I disagree about where this all comes from. I'd say instead it comes from a lot of legal structure for people to maintain control over others, mostly about who can be with whom and laws to enforce that. Then it just becomes second nature to people, in a similar way altruism is just taken as basic morality. I don't feel the experience you described though. It's not merely human nature. If "someone else" has her, it would be jealousy if you feel you are being prevented from gaining a value - that's what jealousy often refers to. Envy is wanting what someone else has, which is treated negatively by many people, like destroying what others have. If you desire what someone else has but respect or admire it, then that is good. Anyway, you aren't being "denied" a person you fancy, because it must be mutual. You aren't prevented from pursuing anyone else, nor does it mean you are a bad person.

How do you know what a "normal" Muslim is like? Just stop making wild assertions. Fine, racism isn't the right word. It's still bigotry. Mindless bigotry as opposed to rational opposition isn't acceptable. People can't always be equated to bad philosophies.

Fair enough, but I'll just say that even if it's just data, that won't change what I said. If it's just data about some phone number X calling phone number Y, I'd call that meta-data still because it says nothing about content, it only tells the phone numbers. I've heard of no evidence that anyone is looking for content and listening to everything you say on the phone. This is not a net - it's closer to just a police officer walking down the street observing people. I acknowledge the bit about "a camera on every corner", but a camera is a lot more intrusive than meta-data. The only difference is you use a computer. No one is presumed innocent or guilty even, since there is not anything intrusive in the first place. That is, unless you imagine it like some FBI people sitting around literally listening to your conversations. Data is useless until someone processes it quite thoroughly, and that's when your privacy may be violated. No one is listening. If there is no data collection, then the government is literally useless on the Internet. The problem is, while there is a degree of private space, there is also a degree of space that is just as open as a field in the forest. There's a difference between you as an individual and the pieces of data you send out. As an individual there are particular data points about your life, like birth dates or birth place, and information like the content of your emails, phone calls, etc. Then there is meta-data, like the time a call is placed, or how often a number receives calls. In a massive database, that says nothing at all, yet a database will establish a cyberspace landscape with which to traverse (it's digital space, not spatial territory though). If there is something really odd going on, perhaps calling to the middle of nowhere in Pakistan 20 times a day, then the data can be investigated further, as with any investigation. My only concern is if warrants are used to do further investigation. "The government has no business knowing such information." Part of my point is that *no one* knows information about you until and if you are investigated. Information is more informative than data, and requires analysis. As far as I've heard, there isn't necessarily any analysis (except presumably when a person is suspicious). Databases *have* data, but it doesn't follow that the government *knows* anything. Indeed, there is potential and scope for abuse, hence my reasoning to add an ammendment to the Constitution. I appreciate the text of the 4th Ammendment, DA. I have to think about that more. My discussion here has to do with if collecting meta-data qualifies as an unreasonable search. My position right now is that meta-data is not in any way a search, so I see neither violation of the 4th ammendment, nor any violation of rights.

Would it then be an initiation of force to disallow someone from entering you're house when you are gone? Property seems superfluous here, so I don't see how a discussion about IP could get anywhere.

Err okay. It's pretty easy to be racist. It's worse you say financially any Muslim supports violence, but really, I have no idea how you know that. One, in many places, it is illegal to do so, As in financially supporting terrorism is not acceptable and is illegal, unless you're talking about countries like Iran where it is perhaps the status quo. And secondly, you didn't back up what you said, making it as though it's plainly obvious. Again, it's easy to be racist. If you have a point, make it. Racism is no way to back up what you're saying. I don't like many religions, but "almost all" and "monster" indicates you're making a generalization without much basis to it.

Sure, if you don't want them to run through your yard, it is trespassing. What I'm getting at is that property is a right to action, not about whether a person is harmed or not. I'm simply asking if it is just for a person to wander around in your house when you aren't there while you're at work. We can't discuss IP until you point out premises about property in general! Yes, even pocketing money *could be* theft in many contexts.

Okay, so I can borrow anything without permission. If no objective harm comes to you, then I can walk into your house at my choosing. What's mine is yours and what's yours is mine. After all, if it doesn't affect you, I am not causing you any kind of loss if you aren't there. You might not "like" me walking into your house, but hey, I'm bored. Why do cops have to kick me out for climbing in through the window? I like equal access to wireless Internet.

Well, we're talking about normal people in normal circumstances. We can go to borderline cases later. Bear with me here! So, while you're at work, I can enter your house without permission, watch TV while using your wireless internet, and leave when you're back?

Okay, so would you say your rights have not been violated when someone uses your bike without permission even if you weren't there?

Then please stop arguing against the premise that IP is literally and only owning an idea. IP is neither a pure idea nor a purely material thing. IP existing is dependent upon a realizable product as well as the idea and means to make/produce/create that specific product. A mind exists, and a body exists, but it's nonsense to talk about either separately. Similarly, the intellectual end of property exists just as much as a tangible end of property, for all property. That's not just a metaphor, though. I really mean that there isn't an idea to touch, but it does not mean that it's just some illusion that results from the use of property. I hoped Nicky pre-empted all this on post #5. To consider being "ripped off", start with this. Say you're on vacation for a week and leave your bike at home. Someone uses your bike without permission while you are gone; you are being deprived of nothing, since you're on vacation. Suppose further that your bike is taken care of. You return home, find a sign on your bike that says "thanks for the joy ride". Were you ripped off? Why or why not?

Geographic location is inconsequential. Bringing the fight to the enemy means engaging in the enemy in cyberspace, since there is a lot of activity online. It would be suicidal to just treat cyberspace as nonexistent or not a real place. Bad people inhabit the Internet, thus data should be used. It is not a though your presence online is all encapsulated inside a metaphorical car. Your presence online is more like walking the street, which is sensibly observable to anyone around you. If you do something suspicious, then all that observed data will be gathered and explicitly used. The only way to recognize suspicious activity is to gather data, whether it is a metal detector or an observation of strange and heavy bags. Seeing it is no violation of privacy, but opening the bags without a reason to suspect malicious intentions is. Meta data is no different than the mere observation of some action. It does not reveal anything unless someone investigates further "opening up" the meta data to make deeper conclusions that violate privacy. Understanding how data works is important to understanding how this isn't all that threatening. Indeed, guidelines and checks should be formalized and perhaps even written up as an amendment to the Constitution, but the government has a need and even justification to store meta data. The bigger question is, to what extent should the government gather information in order to be functional? If the government cannot store any data in the digital age, it is truly useless. At the same time, infinite storage is probably improper. What is the proper balance? I'm not sure.

Jeez, if you have nothing to post on the topic, don't bother posting, just PM the person you're addressing.

You lost me here. There is no central authority of Islam. The rest just follows like paranoia that Islam as a religion is inherently worse than every religion there is. Then it goes into paranoia that we now live in "1984". I'd leave this one to Glen Beck.

"You didn't need to mention "Das Kapital" to explore a position." I'm sorry for using literary flair when telling a story? No, I'm not sorry, you're just blowing it out of proportion, since it seems like we've had a misunderstanding. All I *said* is that I think anti-IP implicitly leads to a communistic standard of thought and creativity. I did not say *you* believe that the implications are *valid*. That is worlds apart from saying "DonAthos, you're a communist!". That's just saying "DonAthos, this is where the logical end goes!" If you take offense to that, I don't know what to say. And by the way, the name Sergei, it's not because it sounds Russian. I used the first names of classical composers. Same with Franz and Wolfgang. Regarding that link, how is it different, fundamentally, than what I am saying? Differences, yes, but there is more similarity with what I'm saying than what you're saying. So, I offer it to think about. And if I misunderstood it, explain it to me! I can't say anything else really, the other points you made are making it look like we've gone far off from discussion into a personal matter. Please presume my intellectual honesty here, I just can't respond to each quote bomb you make and satisfy all your questions even to my own satisfaction.

Yes, a very, very, very long time. It's really not that bad. I'm not going to address your points, but at least this case is an example of things going decently and perhaps even well. Even if you are right about how terrible the other things are (I really don't think you are right), you can't use that to show there is something wrong about punishing Bradley Manning. I understand you're point is that we've passed the Rubicon, so perhaps Manning was making a courageous decision in your view, but if that's the case, it sounds like you advocate bringing down the government indirectly right *now*. If it's not nearly as bad as North Korea, how can you say it's okay *right now* for how Manning went about this?

Uhh, no I didn't. I think overall, anti-IP is implicitly intellectual communism. That doesn't translate to you being a communist, but it does translate into you not being aware of the links between ideas in the same way I am aware. After all, I assume we don't have the same knowledge. The difference is the idea of anti-IP being bad versus you being bad. I think anti-IP is bad (in other words, incorrect as well), and for that reason, I want to dissuade you from that position. I used the "Sergei is a communist" thing to represent a position, not to represent you as some kind of communist. I do not appreciate though the sarcastic remarks about me being funny the post you made earlier. I read the link, yes. I reviewed it before I posted. There are points I disagree on - I think patents are legit, and I am undecided on perpetuity (I lean towards no perpetuity). I agree with the main idea. It's still at least agreeing that IP is legitimate, even if I disagree on what should fall under IP. That is in contrast to you saying IP is totally illegitimate.

Well, the people arguing for IP here aren't arguing for what you call IP. I tell you it's about embodied ideas, not ideas as such, then you say that it's just my version, and continue to argue against strawmen. Even then, the discussion is about the concept of IP, not about a particular theory of IP. Indeed, my version may be different than Tad's, for example, but Tad and I both believe that the concept is valid and good. I've said in simple terms that IP is about production of specific material values, and allowing the creator or inventor to have full control over how those methods may be used. Property in general is about maintaining and using what one needs for flourishing, as embodied in the world. It is also of a defined, reasonable limit, and monopolistic in the sense that one (some?) person (people?) has complete control over a piece of property. I do not think anyone here has disagreed with that, and it's really a basic framework of the concept. If I haven't said it before, I have now. Here is a link with a post I like a lot, in terms of supporting IP. I point you to 8, 12, and 13 for arguments you have made. By the way, I agree with the characterization of anti-IP as (implicit) intellectual communism. http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/13692.aspx A useful point to pique anyone's interest: "When a capitalist information industry undertakes to create specific information, it must do so with the expectation that it will be able to sell the information at a profit, and thus calculate the optimal supply of this information based on marginal revenue, from which it must subtract the costs that will be incurred during production. If it should fail, the capitalist will have to exit the information production industry. All of these prices are the result of marginal value, and thus marginal value theory is a foundation for intellectual property rights."