Self-Ownership is a meaningful concept

[eboyd32]

so are you ok with the transfer of ownership of the self, and/or do you condone using self-ownership as a justification for renting out one's body?

[dakshinamurti]

@eboyd32 I'd be ok with renting one's body yes :) Not the first one though. I don't buy the voluntary slavery thing. Not because you don't own yourself, but because the abilities that constitute/are basis of self-ownership are not (at least as of now) transferable, as it is a matter of direct control. In the future however, you could allow for the placement of some neurochip to bypass your will and allow direct control... that would be consistent. Hate it, but it would.

[eboyd32]

@dakshinamurti why would you be ok with renting out one's body on an ethical basis? how does that differ from selling it beyond simply the degree to which one is to be controlled? and logically speaking, assuming you are presupposing some Lockean LTP or derivative thereof, how do you justify renting one's body without justifying selling it? Locke believed that we own ourselves, so we could sell or rent ourselves to the profit of another. beyond ethics, how do you justify one and not the other?

[dakshinamurti]

@eboyd32 first off, in ethical matters I work on personal preference, and not logic. I am a nihilist. Check my latter videos. It is my preference. Something like a non disposable right. And I did point out my "rational", namely... "but because the abilities that constitute/are basis of self-ownership are not (at least as of now) transferable" so what you mention as a matter of degree, to me, personally is very much crucial, ie, makes all the difference. It is my criterium. And as such, it is

[dakshinamurti]

@dakshinamurti a personal preference. When I rent something, I still own it. I can revoke that priviledge at any time, and that makes sense because ownership is intact. Now transferring ownership over oneself is at the moment impossible, due to the "small detail" of you remaining in total power over your own body, and can revoke said transfer at any time. So I dont really care if you call it ownership recovery or not, because in essence, it has never ceased to be the case you remained in charge.

[eboyd32]

@dakshinamurti "in ethical matters I work on personal preference, and not logic."

as you should. that's why i kept the two separate myself.

[eboyd32]

@dakshinamurti "When I rent something, I still own it. I can revoke that priviledge at any time, and that makes sense because ownership is intact. Now transferring ownership over oneself is at the moment impossible, due to the "small detail" of you remaining in total power over your own body, and can revoke said transfer at any time."

that is completely logical, however, i think you are trying to base your ideas on a concept (self-ownership) without any justification for the concept first...

[eboyd32]

...in other words, while you can use that, in my opinion, round-about justification for self-ownership, you can just as easily base your ideas on self-being (i am myself and there is no ownership involved as 1. i am not a commodity, and 2. i do not actually have full control of my body and its functions) and simply say that i therefore cannot justify any ownership of my person. in addition, you yourself admit that, while detestable, by your criteria, future technology that bypasses one's will...

[eboyd32]

...would be sufficient for you logically to transfer ownership of the body. the idea of self-being bypasses this problem from an ethical perspective as it sees cognizant beings as what they are -- beings -- and not as commodities. through such ethical reasoning, while one would not be prevented by force from selling themselves as a commodity, as we are discussing libertarian ethics here, it would be unethical to do so as you are violating the very essence that makes you who you are. of course...

[eboyd32]

...this reasoning also precludes that renting one's body out then becomes simply different in degree from ownership (in your example, though you claim it is only a degree, your argument, in fact, distinguishes ownership from rental beyond that of simple degree) and so it negates body rental as an ethically sound concept as well. as for body rental, speaking solely from an ethical standpoint, while i see it as far less severe than slavery, it still puts one individual in control of another to...

[eboyd32]

...an extent, whether that extent is minimal or not. given that you are a libertarian, your ethics are based on minimization of outside human coercion. if this is the case, by being in favor of such control by means of human rental when it is not absolutely necessary, then you are violating libertarian ethics and therefore, it could be argued that your ideology is not, in fact, libertarian in nature (historical reference aside).

[eboyd32]

...on the concept of ownership. with that said, i could care less whether or not you believe in self-ownership, even though i feel your philosophy is naive. the only thing that i object to is that since the concept was first theorized by John Locke, it was used to justify the voluntary alienation of one's labor: "the grass my Horse has bit; the Turfs my Servant has cut; and the Ore I have digg'd in any place where I have a right to them in common with others, become my property".

[eboyd32]

while i still remain unconvinced by your arguments (mainly because the brain is not responsible for every function of your body, and a high percentage of your bodily functions are beyond your conscious control) and hold self-ownership to be an invalid concept, i have been looking into this lately and have come to the realization that the arguments for and against self-ownership all boil down to syntax. in other words, any argument one could make is contingent upon his definition and philosophy..

[Aspetta17]

Why couldn't we replace "self-ownership" with "individual sovereignty"? Normally, "Sovereignty" is used to refer to the State, but if Statism is illegal anyway - an illegitimate concept altogether - can't we just apply or assign the term to the individual instead (avoiding ambiguity)?

It probably depends on whether or not they are interchangable. Do you think "self-ownership" and "sovereignty" refer to an identical concept, or are they two distinct words representing two distinct concepts?

[dakshinamurti]

@Aspetta17 I think they could be used interchangeably. I think one implies the other in such a close way that they blur to the point of being indistinguishable.

[Aspetta17]

Hmm... I think you're right, It's just one concept (we are all talking about the same Truth = Freedom) and we have the choice between two different words. One of those words is tricky and invites debate to undermine the Truth, the other clearly reflects the underlying Truth and disallows debate. Yes? :)

[dakshinamurti]

@Aspetta17 Well, I don't think so, because we are talking about the realm of values, and since they are subjective, to claim sovereignty is a claim of rights, rights being an ethical claim if you will, and you know... is/ought dichotomy and whatnot. As a libertarian I have accepted this "moral fiction" if you will, that we "ought" to be sovereign over the entirety of our being, inside the scope of the non aggression principle. I don't see this as "the truth" but as my personal values

[dakshinamurti]

@dakshinamurti that give me strong reasons to act in order to bring about the state of afairs in which my desires are fulfilled (desire utilitarian approach that I favor alongside libertarianism as my moral fiction of chosing)

[Sepero1]

I'm thinking about making a video on this right now. You have done it good. lol

[dakshinamurti]

You're 2 kind :) My back are killing me from sticking beads into chains and twisting pins, to think I could win more in 30 minutes by making a bet on some stock... lol what an unfair world :)

[breakofme56]

bom inglês xD ( mystics )

[dakshinamurti]

oh, és tão simpático ;) Espero que tenhas carregado nas 5 estrelas hehehe

[Sepero1]

Your brain frikkin' pwns you!

[dakshinamurti]

I hope that's a good thing :)

[philjdaniels]

You say "I am my mind" you have created two I's there, its like looking in the mirror and saying, I am that light refracting of the glass, you are just the awareness of your brain.

[Aspetta17]

"You are just the awareness of your brain" conveys the identical concept of "I am my mind"

You are = I am

just the awareness of your brain = my mind

If "I am my mind" has created 2 I's, "You are just the awareness of your brain" has created 2 You's. There are not 2 of you anymore than there are 2 of me.

The validity of "self-ownership" can only be determined by weighing the conceptual-linguistic differences between Actions & Verbs ("I own"), and States of Being & Copula ("I am")

[Mikesmonteiro]

Salazar in his best. x)

[springzor]

snoring...

[dakshinamurti]

Just take a nap and you'll be fresh in no time :)

[ccsstorm]

haha i own my single penuts and i own my eyes and i own my .. :p

[dakshinamurti]

Hahahah, good one! :)

[Signofthedollar]

Read "Objectivism: The philosophy of Ayn Rand by Leonard Peikoff?, I doubt you have. Because it clearly states that existence is a primary. Therefore consciousness can never be a primary. Thus the self-ownership concept fails. I think the self-owership idea will set one at war with reality. Thats bad.

[dakshinamurti]

Thanks 4 the comment. I know the book. I don't like the author. Agree with the primary of existence. Don't think I ever said consciousness was a primary. See a non sequitur in the "Thus self-ownership concept fails". That said, I totally respect it if you see things otherwise.

[Zerofire18]

"Only the self is the self." - Rama Mageesh from Three's Company

[dakshinamurti]

That's just 2 deep for a pragmatic soul like me :)

[dakshinamurti]

Keep the place clean and healthy if you wish to participate. Don't want to sponsor no F bombs.

[ProfesorSnape]

??? Lol

[dakshinamurti]

Well, thanks for commenting I guess

[rosannalucyamelia]

Heya :-) Sorry, I didn't mean to explicitly include you in that group I describe. I do however see you as a 'fence sitter' or perhaps 'hedging a bet each way'... because pure science is reductionism, you don't need 'emergence'. Sure, we look at the high level for the use of that reductionism (by 'high level' I mean a subset of all possible constructions of the the model reductionism results in.. the brain, for example, being one possible configuration of the atoms which compose it)... (cont)

[rosannalucyamelia]

... there is no new behaviour that emerges that could not already be described by the physical model that the reductionist system provides. Oh, sure, you can describe a VAST number of other structures with the very same reductionist components, but if you sat down and put them all together one of them would be this 'brain' thing (well, a whole bunch of them could safely be labelled 'brain').. (cont)

[rosannalucyamelia]

...in a VERY similar way we end up reducing to 'multi universe' theories in physics, describing not only our universe but others... within the same reductionist model. 'Free will' is an illusion... the idea that you have a centralised decision making centre (or locality) in your brain (or body) that can control the destiny of your physical presence outside the fundamentals of reductionism isn't possible. (oh, of course, append to all my writing 'in my opinion')...

[rosannalucyamelia]

...I suppose then it's fair to say that I don't beleive 'self ownership' is meaningful because I don't believe in the concept of 'self' outside the concept of an arbitrary label.

[rosannalucyamelia]

I suppose for the sake of our everyday lives we assert a context and go with that, as you say (and I do too... when I choose an icecream flavour for all intents and purposes I 'choose / have choice'... though if you want to split hairs I'm adamant I didn't really have a choice). However, in my view that context is ALWAYS based on the reductionist model. Sorry, this is probably going way off topic :-(

[dakshinamurti]

with saying that the whole can be reduced to the parts. That is a reduction, It's like like tearing down a car. It's useful in some contexts. No so much in others. So to me, emergentism, and reductionism are not incompatible, the same way as determinism and free will are not as well (see compatibilism).

[dakshinamurti]

a mug, a tree, or a dog. In the same way, like xomniverse puts it, a web browser is more than just a bunch of 0's and 1's, and it has a nature that makes it a different thing than a IM client, or a Keygen. So to me both a human being, a browser and a IM client can be reduced to zeros and ones, or to atoms if you prefer. So can the mind be reduced to the same thing. Saying the whole is more than the sum of its parts (when it achieves a distinct nature from its component parts) is not incompatible

[rosannalucyamelia]

Emergence is embraced by the crowd that have taken a half step retreat backwards to partially accept science... yet are uncomfortable accepting that they really are nothing more than the sum of their reducible parts. Sadly, this crowd will continue until a complete blue print of "awareness / the mind" is mapped out by reductionist science... kicking and screaming all the way.

[dakshinamurti]

I think you missed the point of the video. It's about the validity of the self-ownership concept, and how it is valid both from an emergentist AND from a reductionism view as well. I don't know if you heard it all the way, but I clearlt state that "it doesn't matter if it's the mind OR the brain doing the owning, one of them is". So it was not a video about philosophy of the mind.

[dakshinamurti]

I also don't consider anyone to be fair if they include me in a crowd that partially does not accept science (as this implies I partially do not, which is absurd to anyone who knows me). I am a strong atheist, a transhumanist, I believe solely in the existence of energy and matter. But I am not complexed either to the point of not realizing how the whole is more than the sum of its parts, in the same way as a human being is a bunch of atoms, still it has a nature, that makes it different from

[poweredbyvlad]

nice vid

[dakshinamurti]

Thank you very much 4 your encouragement. I would love if you subscribed to my humble channel. That's the best way I can conceive of showing appreciation :)