 Hans, congratulations. Your speech was a really good food for thought and because I want to hear more of it I'll try to challenge you and disagree a little bit. You made it seem as if Going from a state of no culture as human beings to the state of culture somehow was a conscious agreement between human beings to find tools or artifices to Reach the purposes and to me it seems like too much of separation between nature and Culture because we see among animals quite a lot of like complicated languages I'd call them languages of course nothing compared to the complexity of the human being We see tools Used by animals and of course by our ancestors So it looks more like a spectrum which emerged out of our nature and of course then complexities or At some certain level of complexity you can call it a more interesting culture and a more complex culture But I I think you focus too much on the gulf between the nature and culture I Would doubt that we can speak of animals using instruments We can give completely causal explanations for them doing certain things It has also never happened that animals were constructing something that they cannot do by nature men can construct instruments That make him Enable him to do things that he could not do by nature. We can construct a car. We construct an airplane Yes, we have beavers doing building dams, but no beaver has ever done anything else But building dams or come up with oh no We just divert the flow of the river or something of that kind So the explanation that we can give for animal behavior We would not need any reference to human or teleological vocabulary of Goals and means and ends and success and failure we can we do that because sometimes we like animals and Like to describe them in human terms, but we could easily explain all of that in causal terms just as much also when when animals learn something that they didn't know how to do before like Like circus circus animals or something like that that we can again this learning we can describe in a causal way reinforcement repetition Beating them or or not beating them giving them a piece of sugar and whatever it is. We never need Human terminology to explain their behavior, but in our case we do That is that would be my point Actually, the the naturalistic position can also be challenged that there are many natural phenomena that we cannot Truly explain without a teolo teolo geological Element right such a function of an eye for example, whenever we talk of a function Right an eye a liver any any human organ a cell right DNA information contents on You cannot just In the old terminology you cannot just explain this in term of of the material Characteristics and the so-called efficient causes right so what came before and then we'll come after you need to have a teleological argument I want to ask Whether you will agree and perhaps expand up upon this idea That another couple of good examples besides language are low in particular complex Legal systems that emerge spontaneously over time I think that these argument actually was was made by ayak and Suda Shenoy as well And also as a second example as a second additional example religion And in particular one aspect of religion that is liturgy different liturgies that embody sophisticated meanings that are transcendent. I think that these are Another couple of examples that that can work just as well as language Of course, I agree. I only took Language is sort of speak the most important meta institution that makes lots of other institutions possible So there's no disagreement here. I Last year I spoke here for two hours and I thought that might have been a little bit too much So this this time I wanted to be Short and sweet. I don't know if the sweet thing did occur, but short it was There's no there's no disagreement whatsoever. I just Didn't have time to go through all other aspects of culture besides the aspect of language I would like to take your example of law Which which interests me most By the way, I'm not that much on your line as you know Concerning this question nature versus culture or however you call it And I namely mean that the law could be an interesting example to To to make another viewpoint Many speak about natural law and this means something this means that these are principles that have to be found Not created by man Often one one says Human law is something agreed upon by man things like that but I would say it's more convincing or more consequent to approach that subject by by Trying to understand the regularities that are there in nature Regularities of behavior that in this situation this reaction will come up even though within So to speak in the inner View of such a conflict then there are arguments. There are purposes. There are Normative Goals things you are mentioning even though within these Procedures things like that happen. I would say from the outer view so to speak these are natural processes and they are Highly terribly high complex. They are So complex that we never will have any chance to get them so I think there we are not in in in in the In the argument or in the aspect you mentioned that maybe Some time but that will be later We will have the possibility to catch the whole picture something like that I would say we never will reach that possibility. It will always be beyond our capacity brain capacity or so but Never the less or I would say it's not a cause that it's not a natural a natural phenomenon fair phenomenon When we speak of natural law we of course Speak of something that has a purpose for purpose for the acting individuals When we speak of something being a conflict a conflict is something entirely different than banging this bottle against a glass We can of course metaphorically also say there is a conflict between that bottle and And the glass that it is that we interpret Certain events as conflicts has something to do that we do have purposes and Our one of our purposes is of course to overcome Conflicts because conflicts are considered by us as some sort of problem that should be solved This is not something that either the glass or the bottle Consider as something that should be solved in some way, but of course I can say that But when I say that it is just metaphorically speaking so I completely agree with the importance of purpose and teleology and at the same time I think I'm more with Rahim and and Darfid about the continuum in within complex systems complex adaptive systems we see there's the central concept of emergence and That cannot be explained from the lower levels so you have a qualitative shift, but it's never nevertheless a natural process and To get more specific in animals in in the recent 10 15 years We've now discovered that they can not just use tools But actually even put together tools that are multi-stage tools so that they would have to see that if I do this Plus this plus this then it will enable me to get the banana of the tree I think that I think those are all metaphorical descriptions of things that can come can be fully explained in causal terms they aren't I Think the most important philosopher who does deals with this is Peter Janich I Those people who can read most of his books were only written in German But those people can read German I can recommend the book that deals most directly with is this issue hasn't written many books that deal with it more indirectly there was called For mention and for mention and other and here and Who also just shows that all of these interpretations that they use instruments, and so this is all bull to be to be drastic Yes, yes, you can of course Describe what they do in terms as if they Make an instrument and then they make another instrument in order to reach some Further further distant goal, but you can also describe that in a completely different simple simple way and What I said before no animal of any species has ever Construct constructed an instrument that was entirely new never happened in that species before Was mankind has constructed? Artifacts that That did not exist ever completely new things Which then all all of a sudden become common instruments the example of cars and Men cannot fly by nature, but we can fly Men cannot run very fast, but we can move in a very far fast way No animal has ever instrument Invented an instrument that made it do things that it couldn't do by nature One question for Guido and one for Stefan Guido at one point you mentioned that Primitive tribes have neither a concept of property nor a concept of gifts and I'm curious if this is really true and this is kind of in a continuation of the previous thread Because in the 1960s Robert Ardrey wrote this book the territorial imperative He was an anthropologist and he also studied animals and the subtitle of the book is the animal origins of property and nations and He looks at the territorial behavior and so on and I think this is actually a strong argument against the Socialists and so on that claim that Nate that property Etc. Is an unnatural thing that was invented by humans you can actually see the continuity of Where it starts with animals and we take it to a far more sophisticated level But the roots are there. So I'm just curious if you are familiar with With this work wait. Yes. I mean I had also 30 minutes. So I had to get to the essentials What I related was the the point of view of mouse, right? What he did so this this anthropological research you have people from the West scholars go to these islands They study societies with the objective that in mind, but of course we have to keep in mind that it was They were pursuing a cause right Malinovsky, but maybe less than than most but most definitely had a political extra grind, okay Now all of this is of course likely to to bias the result of your research and there is a huge literature especially in the past 30 or 40 years detailing how the results of that there are other researchers Going to this tribes and of course By interacting with the tribe right the the fiction is that they are just observing but by interacting with them. They are already modifying this Behavior another problem is that The researcher doesn't go there just I mean to to see these tribes in their state of nature These were all colonized Areas that is they wouldn't treat him exactly as they would in a state of nature probably that might have eaten him or at least Snacked a little bit on his teeth or something like this So all of these are huge problems. I was just relating from the argument is we go there We observe their behavior and there's always a tit for tat All right, so therefore the claim is in primitive societies There is no such thing as gift and of course it's related to the absence of property Private property as I explained Stefan the the key thing in your presentation was about ownership and I would love to see what the definition is of ownership that you consider the Like a good definition of ownership like what are the criteria? What are the elements that have to be present for something to be owned? one of the elements that you mentioned was scarcity and I just kind of would like to ask my questions and finish the questions here the the key thing I think with scarcity is that Historically scarcity was tied to a material component But with the invention of Bitcoin and and similar digital entities you now can have scarcity Even though there's no material component related directly to the scarcity and I think that is the key Innovation in Bitcoin is precisely that you can have digital scarcity which previously was not possible. So I'm thinking that your tying of scarcity to a material element is a historical accident because it didn't exist Previously but now you can have non-material scarcity. So I'm just curious about what you think there and And and the definition of property of ownership Okay, so on ownership. I didn't get into it here a Simplistic definition would be as As opposed to possession or control of a thing. That's a fact It's the legally recognized or socially recognized right to control, but I think even that definition is wrong and actually I've by analogy to Intellectual property which I opposed the law, but if you understand say patent law very well You understand that the patent right is not really a right to do something. It's the right to exclude other people So if I if I invent something new I can get a patent on it Which can block other I can use to block other people from doing that But it doesn't give me the right to do it because doing that very invention might Trespass on someone else's patent. So the essence of that kind of right is the right to exclude now I opposed the legitimacy of that particular right, but that's the essence of it It's a right to stop or the right to block which is why I classify Patent and copyright as what we call in the law a negative servitude It's it's it's like a restrictive covenant and the more I've thought about it I think all rights are like that and the all property rights are basically the right to stop other people from doing something Not the right to do anything and the re I've written on this in a couple of blog posts about There's a common argument used In defensive intellectual property, which is that I claim that a patent gives the owner of the patent the right to Prevent you from using your property as you see fit and that's a that's a restriction of your property rights And the response is typically but all property rights are rights to limit what people do And they give the example about my right to swing my fist stops where your nose ends this kind of thing so they use this common conception of property as the right to do something and Combine with the fact that it's limited by others property rights to say that well No property rights are or unlimited. So what's wrong with intellectual property? And so I think that Like owning your owning your body or owning a gun Let's say doesn't give you the right to do anything with it It simply means you can prevent other people from doing something with it And that gives you the practical right to use it as you see fit as long as you don't invade their property So I think ownership means really the right to exclude others from using the resource Which is why they have to get your permission to use it It amounts to the same thing, but it's a subtle Difference that clears up that And what was the other part? I think this is one thing I had to admit in the slides But scarcity is another word that has sort of dual meanings I think most people think of scarcity as some kind of limitation of supply because it's the lack of abundance What I think we mean in terms of human action is the lack of super abundance Which basically does mean a material thing in some sense something that could be a means of action now Bitcoin I think in a sense is not scarce in the economic sense. It's not it's because First of all, you could have many but bitcoin chains you could say that the digits The numerals from zero to nine. There's ten of those. They're scarce In that sense, there's a limitation of supply. There's only ten digits So therefore they should be ownable too if you go by that criteria So I don't think scarcity in the lack of abundance sense is a criteria of ownership I think it's basically what can be a scarce means of action The Bitcoins are useful and they're They're ownable in the first sense of me this right there. They're they're controllable But I don't think they're subject to legal ownership, which is the point of the talk Perhaps for that. I I wasn't 100% clear neither after after your Presentation mainly, but what is then the The outcome of the fact that you say it's it's not ownership I mean, what is the sanction so to speak? If it's not ownership while what would be the sanctioned in the other In the other case Yeah, so The consequence of considering bitcoin to be ownable would be simply this If I own this phone and I lose it the law would consider I'm still the owner even if or if someone steals it right someone steals this It's still my phone. So down the line if I find it I can I can retrieve it even by the use of force Even if it's in the hands of an innocent third party something like that I still retain ownership of it in the case of bitcoin In the most common cases you can think of where people would call it theft, which is a metaphor Which would be breaking into someone's home or hacking their computer and getting their key that way and then taking it It is a type of theft, but the it's a consequence of committing a trespass in the first place The only other case where you couldn't already consider it to be or a breach of contract If you give your accountant or your attorney the key that's a breach of contract So those two common cases where you could see a bitcoin actually being taken without the consent of the owner Or if the FBI arrests you and they coerce you into giving the key and there's coercion So all three cases there's some kind of breach of an already existing law that can be accounted for in in normal terms So the only other case would be if someone guesses or somehow uses a quantum computer or something right to guess your private key and If you own the bitcoin that was taken by that means Then the only that would imply that you could use the legal system to give an order to all the 10,000 node operators on the bitcoin system You need to change update the ledger to unroll this transaction to give this guy his keys back So now you're giving an order backed by force against innocent property owners to tell them how to use their own hard drives And I think that's that's the difference. So if you don't call it legally owned you would never have that ability If you lose you lose you have to get insurance or something to prevent that or Choose a cryptographic system or a cryptocurrency that that is not hackable in that way So that's the reason to me it makes a difference Just because I don't think the law should be able to direct the third parties It's analogous to the trade secret problem. Most people don't understand why I'm opposed to trade secret law There's nothing wrong with keeping secrets But trade secret law allows the so-called owner of the trade secret to use government force a court order Not only against the employee who left and leaked the secret He was contractually bound not to but third parties to whom he's told it That's the problem. They didn't have a contract. They're not in privity of contract and the information is not property So that's unjust. So that to me that would be analogous to the problem with owning bitcoin I'm very interested in the In the controversy between humanism and naturalism in the opposite attitude to see a purpose Not only in animals, but especially in nature. We have it these days nature is superior some way to humans And nature should be conserved how it is. It cannot rise or fall in temperature and Man cannot meddle with nature Whereas the story of human civilization is exactly Meddling with nature and changing nature with purposeful action And so I'd like a comment on this nowadays common attitude to see nature as something superior to human beings Yeah, I agree with my you should let regard largely with my teacher muriel rosebard who said Nature As such is mostly yuck The what what we like about nature is of course precisely culture that is Gardens that are taken care of If you look if you compare for instance, let's say the the alps with the rockies I mean the alps are far more beautiful than the rockies because it is culture and the rockies is just Mostly yuck So I have But of course we have to We have to know something about nature to cultivate nature um, I mean every gardener knows of course plenty of stuff about plants in order to create out of something that nature provides Something that is more beautiful than than nature nature by itself So I I love cultivated nature but And in that regard I also think that That what the bible advises us to do is absolutely right all of these other things are there In order to be taken care of and cultivated by men for human purposes As far as far as climate climate is concerned we already talked about that regardless of how the Yeah, how's the explanation for Uh, the climate is concerned whether that is changing sunspots that do that or See or two that does that none of these questions are really Clarified up to this point to begin with even though Of course our brilliant politicians all claim that they somehow know how all these things work even though they cannot even build an airport in one in one year The the all decisive question in all of this and I think that In all of the discussions almost never mentioned is The fact even if we would now precisely how to influence the weather and What is the right temperature or a range of temperatures for the world population as a whole Was people living here and some people living near the north pole some people living Near the south pole some people living high up in the mountains other people living In in some river valleys What arrogance is it of people to say I know the right range of temperatures for the entire world population? I mean these people should be incarcerated to believe things like this Do you know by the way that musical camelot? Camelot and there is this beautiful song It's true. It's true the crown has made it clear The climate must be perfect all the year And then then comes a lot of beautiful examples precisely I do not recall precisely by end of september the first time snowflakes must come And at five o'clock in the afternoon the last cloud must disappear things like that You know precisely defined and this came my mind when I when I I hear these programs you're alluding to Nevertheless, I think it's it's an interesting question how libertarians do Deal with with this discussion. I do not say with these problems. Maybe there are no problems But with these discussions and I think We A consequent approach is if people have problems with some developments And if they articulate standpoints against them For instance do not fly that much around in in the world Then maybe there are other people that do not have this position And as always if there are conflicts One should treat it as conflicts are treated It is what What what what I would say as a lawyer is that that we have a conflict that must be solved that Some independent instance some independent procedures should take place to look at the case To maybe consider that if one side should reduce its activity for instance That the other side at the very least should compensate it for reducing it So all these victims of in my environmental pollution Are probably the payers in such a Litigation and not those that are just gets the advantage so Generally, I would say it's an issue to be judged Not decided that should be dealt with in a horizontal way Some parties fighting together and then trying in some Objectivizing procedure to find the solution and not in a vertical way It is to create some imaginary Instance of course the state or a conglomerate of states That then decide Just because those up there are of this opinion they do not They do not Balance a conflict they decide according to their ideology and I think that's the problem It's the way how we deal with it that we do not make it in a horizontal way But instead unfortunately in a vertical way I have a question for professor hopper and anyone else who would like to add anything to it The reflections with which you began your lecture Made me think of similar but related Perhaps slightly different questions It seems one way of describing the reflections with which you began the lecture a different way is that man is in nature But not of nature He is part of nature, but is not quite the same. He is if you like imminent, but also transcendent and this This makes me curious About if you would curious whether you would be willing to offer a metaphysical Some metaphysical reflections on the the subject matter Would you as many earlier philosophers Some idealists Or platonists or what have you would you say that the things that separate man from nature are essentially Supernatural or exist in a different realm in some sense that man is always In nature. Yes, but also trying to grope towards something outside of nature or something purely spiritual Or in any at any rate something different that only metaphysical Philosophy can explain Yeah, I'm not quite sure if I Understood the question right. I'm not quite sure how to Answer it. I I try to make the point that there are different aspects Yes, of course, man is part of nature Um, I mean who would who would deny that? Uh In that in that regard we are no different from whatever plants and Animals. Yes, we are animals too as I mentioned that that title of book by peter janich from mention and And other end here of men and other animals. Yes, we are animals, but there is an aspect to it That cannot be covered by By the natural sciences in the same way as we can cover and fully explain The behavior and the emanations of Of animals and plants we can Metaphorically speaking we can use all terms that we apply to men also to other objects I mean I can I I can describe the behavior of a stone as if it wasn't teleological phenomenon Why does a stone fall to the ground because the stone Wants to fall to the ground First it wants to fly a little bit And then it takes a certain curve and then it decides To to fall to the ground There's nothing wrong with describing that in this way, but we should be aware of the fact that it is a metaphorical way of speaking So I'm pleading in favor of a of dual A dualism of aspects when it comes to treating Treating men and and human human history Both things do play a role Lots of causal events influence how people act Lots of Causal causally explainable things change how we behave When we Explain historical events Yes, it's not only purposes of Of people who explain historical events not only the The choice of means That they make in order to Reach the answer. There are also external events that have a causal explanation That define what the situation is in which we then Have purposes and choose certain means in order to to reach our Our ends I don't know if I said that answers your question. It was a complicated the complicated one It just reminded me when I was reading a patent one time and the claim that defined the invention was It was a computer related invention with a processor and it defined things that did took measurements And then there was a step in the claim that said wherein the computer believes x to be true And of course that patent office allowed it. I mean so metaphors are rampant I was wondering Let's say that if we Are allowed to leave the club as you said Of the state for example, um since there is a need to pay compensation in most cases Is there Is there not a possibility that we will be extorted by the state like that they will make us pay A immense amount of compensation and is there a way around this or what do you think if you understand you correctly What are the the principle of that compensation? in Yeah, for example, if they make you pay, um immense amounts of money in order to cross in order to keep you back and or Yeah, exactly Well, I mean Let's say within these these private law Provisions that that I presented Stemming from roman law ultimately These these Compensations developed out of these processes the compensation to be paid against getting or against Um Getting this right to to passage There you have you have actually a first question. Is it Just a compensation for the marginal costs created to your neighbor Um in case he has some more work to maintain this this this way or so Some additional cost to the cost he had anyway So this marginal cost this is usually in these private law legislations. This is the case Namely in the so-called emergency rights of way Not right a not way gerecht in german So that if if there are no other ways that you have to have there You cannot choose anywhere you have to choose the suitable way and then you have to compensate for the additional costs So when you have the chance that there is already a street or a way Um fitting to your needs then Then actually usually then you have the possibility just to pay this this relatively small Usually a small amount There is you can look at it from a other point of view too when you combine it with the other question I I came back then at the end of my presentation Where so to speak you have a choice either being a member and paying the full membership tax of course on the one side or Being a customer and paying only what you what you take and There there is a completely different principle which has nothing to do with what I explained today I had a presentation on that two years ago Um when I made an analogy to rules of cooperatives One could say your membership with the state. That's like being member of a cooperative This is also a bit the ideology of the state, you know, schweiztriche eidgenossenhaft Which means swiss Cooperative so to speak Um and there you have in this Also old rules not that old rules. That's not roman law. These are rules developed mainly in the 19th century When this cooperative movement came up in europe and in united states There you had a very high principle that you cannot be forced to to Remain in the cooperative you have a right to To leave it and the cooperative is not allowed to hinder this too much For instance by claiming too high Contribute you know to leave and then to to use the The service as a customer So from these both sides, there are certain reluctance to To have too high prices for that You know that the time dimension You had not really included but the time dimension also should play a role I mean for instance in in damaged cases So I Establish a certain property I have no immediate neighbors I emit smoke from the place where I live then later on somebody moves into my vicinity Should I should I have the right to continue Polluting the air because when I established my properties there There was no neighbor The neighbor who moved into my property into my neighborhood Knew that what he appropriated Was polluted does he have the right to stop? I would say he doesn't I have Acquired my right to pollute earlier So in this We get a problem I would also think somehow The time dimension would have to be included in solving In solving the problem People who had the right to move to certain places when there was nobody there before and now somebody moves into my neighborhood They should continue to be able to move through there obviously With some sort of marginal marginal cost considerations Whatever he adds to them To in cost in terms of maintenance of that property But if he was earlier there it is different than he came later I see the point I Could not now comment more precisely what these rights of way is concerned But but generally this aspect that the situation becomes denser Dichter denser Which is quite often the case in urban situation that Earlier he was far away and in the meantime they come closer Interesting example I can make here is a Situation like that in Switzerland around the The airport with with the noise And pollution perhaps but mainly the noise from the airport In the time when People bought a house relatively near that airport Depending on the time there was no such noise yet But later it it it became more and more and then there there was a big Big litigation with many many parties around this This airport I think not all cases are finished So far, but there came in a principle that that court said Apart from a certain date It was if I recall correctly the date when it was known that this airport was going to build some additional Runways or so that From that time point on if somebody buys a house Or just moves there. He knows that this kind of additional nose will arise and therefore These do not have a right of compensation or a lower one while those that were there earlier They have a higher Compensation Maybe it has to do a bit with such situations Let me uh, I think the common law addresses your idea with what's called the the doctrine of coming to the nuisance So if someone pollutes that can be a nuisance it can be stopped But if you come to the nuisance the nuisance was there first So it's the it's already in the law. I think at least in the common law I was just trying to Bring up the question How that would apply to ways of Ways of right or rights of way Um, and obviously we would have to take This coming to the nuisance somehow into consideration in order to solve also this problem And focusing more specifically on where he claims that the state has an obligation To provide a living for the man with some assistance from himself Does mouse give any indication of what that proportion of self effort versus communal effort should be And secondly, does he identify the state as being something completely different from man? Who is the state and does he recognize where the state acquires resources? Thank you. No, so he doesn't really address these questions at all. I think it was a matter of principle, right? He takes an Opposition against against what he seems to be the the libertarian societies Society built on private property rights on individual decisions that are made at the margin and so on he says Well, actually that's an unnatural situation As we can see by reference to The study of primitive societies which are natural All right, so we are nature distorted And they are nature pure. So these are the good guys We are looking at them and say, yeah, there's this tit for tat All right, there's always a claimant obligation. Everybody has somehow a little claim there and it's all sorted out by custom You don't decide these things and probably there there shouldn't be There is no one single institution that makes these these decisions, right? So it's it's completely vague Right. The whole point was to attack the the principle that there are decisions of this sort You can judge these things only by considering the totality of all situations, right? So there's a full-blown attack on methodological individualism as a scientific procedure you analyze partial relationships and then Take into account more and more partial relations come to a judgment of the whole and he says well, this is all baloney We need to look at the whole from the outset and only if we look at the whole at the whole picture Can we understand or hope to understand what truly counts? David, I actually have a question for you. I was wondering If you would win this and they actually the people can actually you know sort of hand in their metaphoric membership Would the idea be that since there would have been a precedent created for Voluntarily leaving that there also should be voluntarily entering Or is that not So you mean my daydream of this class action against yeah, yeah, why not? Yeah, so it's it's Without illusion but but but serious um I would say the approach is that This organization in switzerland for instance so-called schweizrische eidgenossenschaft this confederation is just an organization It's it's like a firm. They have 40 000 employees like quite a Considerable firm, but a firm they do not have a right to To allegedly represent all eight million people in switzerland, but what they do Um, but it's it's a firm and this means and and mainly because it's a cooperative The aspect I mentioned before You have the right to To leave it. This is one of the arguments and of course those who want to remain there Um, naturally they they have the right to remain there. They they can maintain and they can They can continue This organization if they like to be ruled that tightly for morning to night and to pay heavy taxes Okay, that's if it's voluntary I would not object again Now you ask your question is is also a right to to enter into and there again I would say it's again these cooperative traditions This is really not just an analogy. I think really a fundamental element of structure of the state is a cooperative one And there in these rules I mentioned before where you have this right to leave whenever you want There is also a principle that once you are ready to Follow the principle of this organization Then you have a right to be admitted if you comply with all these rules they have so that should be I think The rule they will then have If they don't well, that's their problem then I was thinking more in the sense of If It should be decided that if that people can immediately leave that that would actually imply that they would also not necessarily By default in the sense of they are born and they remember They also should not be by default remember just because of being born in a certain area So that in fact that then would imply also that they would have to actively enter sort of like you have to actively say Yes, if you want to be an organ donor So so mean that the formalities to meet so to speak Well, actually it's it's anyway it's within this this daydream and And there I would say The most consequent approach would be really to handle it like a cooperative and And and perhaps what one should should then first articulate the will to leave this this organization and and then to to to To send it there and then depending on the reaction to To make more steps I agree that animals instinctively act in a way in line with the fact that Natural laws are time invariant and universal Yet they do not understand this fact They simply act In this way and therefore that animals can be fully Explained or their behavior can be fully explained in scientific terms Yet men have experiences and they They can use non Contradictory discrimination that is they can use logic To discover this fact that natural laws physical laws Are time invariant and universal And I would argue that it is this ability of men to recognize this fact and to Have and and and to be logical Which sets him apart from all other other animals But uh this capacity to uh non discriminatory Contradictory discrimination is also possessed by artificial intelligence And so if if a man is an animal But an animal which has a capacity For non contradictory Discrimination that is logic which is also possessed By artificial intelligence and artificial intelligence can be fully scientifically explained Then doesn't these two Things together make that man As an animal and as The the thing that artificial intelligence also has can be fully explained in scientific terms No, I said look artificial intelligence is not intelligent Um You see that when when machines break down Can a pocket calculator Calculate and the answer is no it doesn't calculate Because it can break down and it doesn't know that it breaks down We know that it broke down because we know what the result should be according to our purposes so Talking about that machines are intelligent or something is all nonsense is all this metaphorical speech They are not intelligent. We are intelligent. That's why we can build them and we can recognize if they don't work what they are supposed to do All machines can somehow break. How do we know that the the machine doesn't know even if the machine breaks That can explain can be explained in causal terms There are processes going on within the machine that explain so to speak why it broke um But only we can because we designed them with a certain purpose can determine whether they do what they are supposed to do Or whether they fail But in any case, so I think we should just now stop this Question and answer session what you noticed here is that there are vigorous disagreements sometimes among us here Even though most people think that all these libertarians are all of the same mind and they're completely intolerant when it comes to deviating opinions I tell you I'm I'm very very intolerant But certain people I'd tolerate even though I see that they don't they don't agree with my opinion So long live the libertarian movement. Thank you very much. We see each other