Freedom!
Not really freedom, an entailment of teleology. In fact, I don’t think that ‘freedom’ means much of anything, or is particularly desireable - though power is.
Insofar as we mean metaphysical ‘freedom’, or ‘freedom of will’ I am a ‘hard’ determinist and material reductionist.
i can’t take a hard determinist seriously unless they actually understand what matter is.
So we are robots in your perspective? Pre-programmed and whatever happens involves no choice?
I recommend not getting too bogged down in this subject. Bottom line, im pro-rights for any robot that homesteads itself, claims a right to liberty and respects that of others.
To be material is identical as ‘to exist’. A thing exists by virtue of instantiation. If you can’t ‘push’, you aren’t real.
So we are robots in your perspective? Pre-programmed and whatever happens involves no choice?
We certainly are ‘robots’ in a sense. But it is not quite mechanically accurate to view us as ‘pre-programmed’. Nor would I deny that humans have a will, IE intentionality and evaluations. But the acquiring of information, development of ideas and transformation of values and ideas into purposeful action are all mechanical processes.
Interesting… never thought of it that way. I agree. As long as this caveat is adhered: “claims a right to liberty and respects that of others”. I don’t want to have to take care of a robot nor battle it at this point in my life.
The division of labor also applies to robots.
Do you disagree with the libertarian emphasis on political, social, and economic freedom?
Bottom line, im pro-rights for any robot that homesteads itself, claims a right to liberty and respects that of others.
I care nothing for ‘rights’ or ‘claims’; and have no respect for ‘property’ or ‘homesteading’. The limitations of my action are solely my ambition and my power; anything that is my concern I declare to be my own; and I decide myself what is to be my concern.
meaning you’d kill babies to get ahead if you wanted to and if you didnt think it would harm your prospects?
I like your perspective. For instance, you say “we certainly are ‘robots’ in a sense” yet your recognition of value is heartfelt and pleasant. In other words, you don’t come off as a cold steel robot! lol
Never seen you around here by the way. Welcome! [:D]
Among other things. More generally, yet more precisely, I will do anything if I think it serves me; and will not be constrained by ‘the sacred’, ‘humanity’, ‘piety’ etc.; I concern myself solely with what is mine. I aim to satisfy myself, not to be anything that I am not, nor to concern myself with ‘the best’ - solely with what is best for me. Best to me.
Darn… I just wrote a complimentary post! lol It seems like a robot battle it is! the Terminator…[:O]
I like your perspective. For instance, you say “we certainly are ‘robots’ in a sense” yet your recognition of value is heartfelt and pleasant. In other words, you don’t come off as a cold steel robot!
Robots come in all sorts, though I do envy the steel ones in some ways.
lol Never seen you around here by the way. Welcome!
I read the board, but I’ve never posted here before.
kudos for sticking to your guns. might be prudent to be more opaque about such things though, neh? [:P]
of course you mean ‘mine’ in a none propertarian way… [8-|]
So your proposition is that only material things exist. i want to know a hard determinist to explain what matter is besides something that simply exists. i believe concepts exist and are not material, in that, it is necessary for a duality between concepts and reality.
Nonsense much ? “mine” and property are moral concepts. But you are an amoralist.
Amoralism is soo boring. Cheap self-refuting nonsense.
Sounds a bit overblown to me, but hey whatever. Have you thought about how things ought to be arranged in order to best coexist with your fellow robots?
i believe concepts exist and are not material, in that, it is necessary for a duality between concepts and reality.
Non-material things can not affect material things (or else they’d be material), thus non-material things can not exist. Concepts are just communication summaries of patterns of organization in your head. They exist, as physical states within your brain and patterns amongst various parts.
Nonsense much ? “mine” and property are moral concepts. But you are an amoralist.
As someone more subtle pointed out earlier, “of course you mean ‘mine’ in a none propertarian way.” What is ‘mine’ is, literally, what I have power over. I do not concern myself with the ‘right’, ‘justice’ or ‘merit’ of this holding, only its fact and its use to me.
Amoralism is soo boring. Cheap self-refuting nonsense.
I’d say amorality is prima facie true, and logically irrefuteable. The problem with you moralists is you can’t stop thinking of everything as a moral doctrine.
Have you thought about how things ought to be arranged in order to best coexist with your fellow robots?
I have some ideas about sociology, but I don’t really have any control - it’s kind of irrelevant.