Deteriorating piano rolls can’t be preserved due to copyright law – an irony because the 1909 copyright act was passed precisely to keep piano rolls from driving live music from the market.
If you go to link, prepare to click through to an interesting history of pressure group politics, luddite-style regulation, and state planning at the behest of private industry – all the interest of stopping progress and sustaining monopolies.
Ah the glories of copyright!
P.S. Manuel Lora gave me this idea for this post. I stole it from him. Oddly and inexplicably, he blogged the item too, strongly suggesting that ideas are infinitely reproduceable and, actually, therefore, unlootable in the traditional sense.
{ 109 comments }
Clearly Mr. Tucker is socialist scum. What a thief!
Actually I had this idea years ago. You probably only heard it through the grapevine, so it is you who are the thief. I merely took your idea of a link, which is worth far less, so you owe me the big bucks!
We need to solve this “dispute” by giving the state the power to redistribute the property of third parties. We’ll call it IP “rights” to give it a modicum of legitimacy. Ssshhh don’t tell anyone.
Outstanding suggestion! Think how much better off the whole of society will be!
I had the idea of leaving blog comments on a blog about 8 years ago. I can prove it as soon as someone invents a patented thought-prove-ometer. Then your ass is grass!
Manuel Lora gave me this idea for this post. I stole it from him.
Ah, ha! I’ve been following the IP debate here with interest though I didn’t agree. That simple statement has, I think, caused me to see the light. Well done.
Hm, I’m not sure I follow. How does this establish the stupidity of copyright per se, rather than a predictably stupid State version of it?
Sure, if you don’t mind the best future intellectual works being hastily written blog posts…
Me, I’m big on cutting-edge software packages, chemicals, and biomedical advances. Oh, and movies, too here and there.
Clearly you’ve never heard of the X.org X server, which is under the MIT (poor excuse for a)license, which has all but destroyed its competition(especially Xfree86).
experiencing the movie on a big screen is not a copyable proposition. as long as people enjoy going out and watching something in company, movies are safe. the production model would have to accommodate the lack of monopoly privilege, but financiers are creative sorts.
there may be more variety, as barriers to entry are lowered. i can put a sound track on my feature film much cheaper, and so compensate for the lack of monopoly rents.
anyway, what sort of value has an industry that cannot survive in any form (as the hyperbole suggests) without nanny?
Re: Silas,
Read more carefully – an organization or company is making a claim over property that does not belong to them, under the premise that the information in those rolls belongs to them. That’s undue taking of property. Which property? The rolls themselves.
Interesting, and irrelevant. IP is NOT a guarrantee for technological advancement, rather a hurdle. Improvements have to wait until patents expire.
I don’t see how that answers my question. It’s a stupid application of IP under an inefficient, unethical state. This establishes that copyright *per se* is flawed because _____?
And for the patented improvement to, um, exist in the first place. It’s not like it just fell off a tree, ya know…
Re: Silas Barta,
You’re now obfuscating the issue. The fact is that the current “copyright holders” are relying on already existing law that purports to “protect” property. Whether the state is populated by stupid people or not, the above is incontrovertible.
BECAUSE it allows the undue transfer of title from a possessor of an actual asset to another person under the pretext that the person is somehow the “original source.”
You missed the point, or are trying to look cute. A certain invention that happens to be patented (which in the end means that the inventor has now virtual control of other people’s property in that they cannot make a similar creation with their OWN resources) cannot be improved upon by others spontaneously. Either they would have to wait until the patent expires, or pay a “royalty” just for the privilege of transforming their own property into something that improves the original invention, or they would have to face retribution. In any event, the above translates into an undue transfer of title of someone’s property to an arbitrary “originator.”
@Old_Mexican:
You’re still not answering my question! Yes, (like we’ve gone over several times over the past years on this site), the *current* laws do stupid things regarding IP rights. But the *current* laws do stupid things regarding physical property rights too! How does that count as an argument against physical property laws *as such*? It doesn’t. And it doesn’t for IP either.
The question isn’t whether the state is populated with dumb people, but whether you can use ridiculous state action in some arena to prove that the whole arena is invalid. (Hint: you can’t).
Well, you’re missing the point too. It’s not the invention *happened* to be patented — it wouldn’t have been created if it couldn’t be patented! And without that creation, there’s nothing to “improve upon” in the first place!
Yes, the inventor may be restricting what others can do with their property, but then, had he not invented (and gotten the patent), they, um, *still* wouldn’t be able to do that with their property, because they wouldn’t even be aware of that point in designspace. So what exactly did they lose?
Re: Silas Barta,
Shifting the focus are we, again, Silas? What are we talking about here?
Actually, you CAN make a case against property rights if the validity of these stemmed exclusively from law. The case in favor for property rights stem from the self-ownership principle, which cannot be used for IP, since ideas cannot be HELD!
Silas, you CAN – precisely BECAUSE IP IS SORELY AND EXCLUSIVELY A CREATURE of the LAW. It is an artifice. Just because you call the law “dumb” does not diminish the argument against IP as a creation of the State.
BTW, stop saying that property rights are also a creature of the state – you own your body, despite the state, no?
You’re begging the question, Silas. Do you really want to argue that sans IP there would be no inventions?
what’s a non-state version of the Statute of Monopolies, Person?
General social recognition of the wrongness of “stealing” someone’s (novel, appropriately complex) idea without their permission, and all other non-state mechanisms for enforcing such social norms.
Do people need a state to recognize that stealing someone’s bread is wrong, and act to prevent and punish this? Then why do you believe that for intellectual works?
You are pathetic, really. You just moved your correlation from “recognize” to “prevent and punish”.
And why did you feel the need to pull this trick that *might* fool some children or the severely brain damaged? Why is the State necessary to protect “IP” but not bread? Oh, probably because of a few technical reasons, THAT YOU MAY HAVE SEEN POSTED HERE LITERALLY THOUSANDS OF TIMES FOR THE LAST FEW YEARS!!!
Anyone here think that was responsive to my comment?
[SIgh]
Do people need a State to recognize that stealing someone’s bread is wrong?
No.
and act to prevent and punish this?
No.
Do people need a State to recognize that stealing someone’s ideas is wrong?
No.
and act to prevent and punish this?
No.
Now,
Do people need to empower a State to prevent and punish the theft of bread?
No.
Do people need to empower a State to prevent and punish the theft of ideas?
Outside of exerting social pressures, YES, a One-World-State in fact, as per the THOUSANDS OF ARGUMENTS mentioned above!!!
Of course, it depends how you define “stealing”. You can, for example, use the physical aspect and define it as “undesired change of location”. Or, you can use causality and define it as “undesired consequence”. Or, of course, use yet another definition. As I tried to explain innumerate times, the main problem with IP is the use of metaphors and a lack of a proper definition.
No, people know exactly what they’re talking about when they’re referring to IP. It’s just that they haven’t defined it in a way that you deem suitable for your framework. But why should we care about that framework?
I know exactly what a primitive tribesman is talking about when he refers to me stealing his soul with my camera, and I respect both of you to a point.
(when he refers to me stealing his soul if I take a picture of him with my camera)
I’ve been seriously considering trying to translate all of my posts for Randroids.
No, they don’t. That’s my whole point.
It’s all jibberish, gobbledygook, trying to mask the point that they don’t have a proper argument. It’s basically a religion.
Besides, accusing a falsificationist of unjustifiably dismissing a theory is kind of weird.
I think mpolzkill explains it better than me.
It’s your obligation to show IP advocates (and IP *opponents* for that matter) how the arguments they use are ambiguous in some respect, and how that respect matters for purposes of justifying the argument.
It’s not their obligation to provide you with these (possibly irrelevant) distinctions.
Do you have a concise summary of where you’ve done this, or do you want to drop the argument?
“It’s all jibberish, gobbledygook, trying to mask the point that they don’t have a proper argument.”
Funny, I think that your framework of choices, causality, non-rivalry, etc., is mostly jibberish and gobbledygook. At least, I don’t understand it. And it certainly makes it harder to talk to you about such things, when you insist on talking about them in solely in terms of your framework, that nobody else seems to understand.
“Besides, accusing a falsificationist of unjustifiably dismissing a theory is kind of weird.”
No, it’s not. The emphasis should be on the word “unjustifiably”. If a falsificationist dismisses a theory, then it should be on a sound basis. In other words, he should actually have found a flaw in the theory. You, on the other hand, seem to dismiss any theory that does not fit into your theory (i.e. framework). Hardly the way a proper falsificationist should behave.
Hmm, so you have a theory you cannot explain, and expect me to fix it? Sheesh.
I presented my objections many times. They are all basically different ways of looking at the same problem and each of them is falsifiable. Here is what you can do:
- explain how non-rival goods can exist outside of people’s heads (i.e. provide a theory of identity of non-rival goods).
- explain how to determine boundaries where change is impossible, or how you can homestead or trespass that which cannot be changed
- explain how to exclude from usage of non-rival goods other than by excluding from usage of rival goods that are causally related to the non-rival goods
- explain how to divide causality into property and externalities
- explain how to divide similarity into property and substitutes
Since they are all about the same thing, explaining one should also provide you a way of explaining the other. See? Simple. Now, how about you provide a way to falsify your theory? Wait, for that you actually need to have a theory. Sorry, my mistake.
“explain how non-rival goods can exist outside of people’s heads (i.e. provide a theory of identity of non-rival goods).”
OK, I can sort of understand this one. The rest of your points, couched in the language of your framework, are still so much gobbledygook to me.
Digital media, literature, etc., do not just exist in peoples’ heads. They exist as patterns instantiated on some particular medium. If they could exist merely in peoples’ heads, then people wouldn’t need to download them, keep copies in books, etc. As for identity between different instances of such media, that’s pretty easy, too. You can simply do a bitwise comparison. If two files have long strings of bits in common, then it’s pretty obvious that one was probably copied from the other. Or, look for a digital signature/watermark, etc. That’s a dead give-away. For trademarks, if two marks are sufficiently similar that the average person would be confused, that’s a pretty good test (and if it’s not, then forging a signature is also legitimate). For patents, if a machine uses a mechanism described in the patent, then it’s illegal if the patent owner did not give permission. Etc., etc., etc.
In other words, as Silas said, it’s all pretty simple and easily understandable, unless you try to obfuscate the issue with an artificial theoretical framework. Attacking straw men, instead of taking your opposition’s ideas seriously, is no way to convince others that they’re wrong. It may convince you, and it may convince other true believers, but it doesn’t accomplish much else. It certainly doesn’t help the “cause”; in fact, it makes it look worse.
Please say what you don’t understand and I’ll be happy to explain. Having proper definitions is an important part of the process.
Causality: Mises explains it better than I can.
Non-rivalry: Consumption does not cause change of the object (or from economic point of view, decrease supply of the good).
Choices: You are probably referring to the problem of choices being mutually exclusive with rival goods, but not exclusive with non-rival. Which part of this you don’t understand?
Let’s say that you can spend the 8 hours by going on a motorcycle trip, to the theatre, or reading a book. These are mutually exclusive choices. If you spend your 8 hours on one of the activities, you cannot spend it on the other. The choices are rival. To determine which one is preferable, you choose the one with the highest utility. If they took different lengths of time, a businessman would calculate the revenue for of each of them and allocate the time spent according to the contribution margin (i.e. based on the cost per a unit of time).
If you could do all things, and still have 8 hours time available, that would mean they are non-rival. You can choose all of them or none, there is no difference. Also, a businessman cannot calculate anything, since contribution margin for each of them is infinity.
So, what you would do in the case of non-rival goods, you would use the contribution margin of the rival goods that are causally related to the non-rival goods. Now, what IP does is that it makes some rival goods that are causally related to the non-rival goods illegal, thereby allowing those that create them to charge higher prices (because of lack of competition). Of course, if you use a non-rival good covered by IP as your input, the price of it will be higher too, increasing your costs.
What else would you like to know?
Maybe then you can tell me what theories were presented to me? Because I cannot recall any. On the other hand, I presented theories to be falsified, which IP theorists didn’t succeed in, most of them didn’t even try.
“Maybe then you can tell me what theories were presented to me? Because I cannot recall any.”
Hah. Theories were obviously presented; I’m not going over them again. Just because they were not presented in terms of your preferred framework, and just because they may have flaws in them (I am anti-IP, BTW; I’m just playing the Devil’s advocate here) that doesn’t mean that they were not presented.
I would like to discuss your framework more, but now it’s time for dinner and “That ’70′s Show”. Later…
This does not address the problem. What you describe is causality and similarity. I don’t deny either of those. The problem is boundaries: causality extends to infinity and similarity depends on purpose. Even if you can say that a pattern exists, how do you know its metaphysical identity?
Maybe I’ll explain it differently. We can say that objects have attributes. But does that mean that the attribute has an existence separate from our imagination, understanding, and desires?
Let’s pick a word: fire. Everyone knows what that is, right? If you take a burning stick and light another stick, is it “the same” fire? Only metaphorically. If you abandon metaphors, it’s another burning stick, the burning of which is causally related to the burning of the former one.
So, if I transform it, e.g. compression or encryption, what then? Besides, the only thing you prove is the presence of causality (maybe, but that’s irrelevant), and that the copy has certain attributes in common with the original. Why should that mean they are “the same”? A child is causally related to a parent, and shares some attributes with them. Does that mean that a child is “the same” as a parent?
It is only simple and easy if your make a use of metaphors. If you use science, it’s hard.
It seems to be a common occurrence in discussion that assertions are being made without any reference. Maybe you are right and I missed something. If you can point to an example, I will happily revisit the issue.
I understand. That does not grant you any special rights though, I try to treat every argument equally seriously.
Peter Surda wrote:
“The problem is boundaries: causality extends to infinity …”
OK, I understand what you mean by “causality extends to infinity”; I just don’t understand why this applies to the subject at hand.
“Maybe I’ll explain it differently. We can say that objects have attributes. But does that mean that the attribute has an existence separate from our imagination, understanding, and desires?”
So if my neighbor steals my lawnmower (and destroys the part where I had my initials etched into it), that means that my neighbor can then argue that just because “his” lawnmower looks exactly like mine, that’s unimportant, because the “attributes” of my lawnmower are simply part of my mind, and have no metaphysical reality outside of it? Hahahahaha!!!! This is why we have courts of law. The court determines whether the identity of my neighbor’s new lawnmower is the same as the one that was stolen from my garage. Granted, this system isn’t perfect, but does that mean we should do without courts of law, or for that matter without laws against theft?
“So, if I transform it, e.g. compression or encryption, what then? Besides, the only thing you prove is the presence of causality (maybe, but that’s irrelevant), and that the copy has certain attributes in common with the original.”
Compression is easy enough to undo. Encryption is a little harder, but still, with a brute force attack, you can undo it. (Unless it’s a one-time pad encryption algorithm. That would give you plausible deniability, but only until the program is decrypted into memory.) Either way, you can still prove “causality”, and that is not necessarily irrelevant. You may consider it so, but I fail to see why I am obliged to. If a software license, for instance, stipulates that any reverse engineering, copying, derivative work, etc., is a violation of copyright, and if very obvious “causality” is proven (large segments of code the same, watermarks in the machine code, identical functionality re-implemented, etc.), then that is a pretty obvious violation of copyright, at least on the face of it. Then the issue goes to court, and the court and/or jury decides.
“It is only simple and easy if your make a use of metaphors. If you use science, it’s hard.”
But you’re not using science, you’re using metaphysics in an attempt to make it impossible. But I say again, try your impossible standard against regular property law. Is there any perfectly certain way that we can prove that an allegedly stolen item is identical to one that was stolen from someone? How can we do this in a surefire manner? After all, aren’t we only comparing “attributes” that merely exist in the mind of the stolen object’s owner? Since the former owner no longer has the stolen object to compare to one that is allegedly the same one, how is comparison to prove identity possible? And even if the item can be proven to be the stolen one, how can you prove causality of the item’s transferral from there to here; i.e. how can you prove that the item’s current owner stole it? If we can’t prove these things, shouldn’t we just get rid of property laws altogether? Isn’t this the only principled thing to do? If this all seems ridiculous, I think that is because it is. It’s equally ridiculous to apply such standards to IP. So, through reductio ad absurdem, I reject your framework.
Peter Surda wrote: “It seems to be a common occurrence in discussion that assertions are being made without any reference. Maybe you are right and I missed something. If you can point to an example, I will happily revisit the issue.”
I may have confused this thread with another one. They all tend to blur together after awhile (especially the IP threads, since there are so many of them). But having said that, you know what the standard arguments for IP are, just as well as I do. I don’t think we need to restate them in full in every new thread at this point. But to briefly reiterate: 1) the utilitarian argument (due to game theoretic concerns, we would all be considerably worse off without IP), and 2) the moral argument (a person who brings something new into the world that benefits other deserves some recompensation, and those who benefit from the creation without recompensating the creator are parasites). These are theories. As I have said, I do not really find them totally convincing, but I do afford them the status of theories nonetheless.
I think what you are doing is akin to telling a person you are arguing with that he has never presented any ideas at all, even though he obviously has. They might not fit into your particular conceptual framework, and thus might not be what you consider unflawed ideas, but that is not the same thing as not being ideas at all. And by being so pedantic, and so dismissive, I don’t think you’re exactly helping the cause.
You are correct to a certain extent, but you draw incorrect conclusions. I explained somewhere on the blog how it is possible to prove two objects are distinct, but impossible to prove they are the same (because the latter requires inductive reasoning). If someone steals a lawnmower, you can observe the absence of the lawnmower in your garage. Your lawnmower has changed. While that alone is insufficient to conclude that the lawnmower your neighbour possesses is the same that you had yesterday, you can nevertheless conclude that a change occurred against your will, and if it was caused by another human (rather than, e.g. natural causes), a violation of your rights occurred.
So, trespass of rival goods is determined by the presence of change of the good, while trespass of non-rival goods is determined by the presence of causality or similarity in two separate rival goods. These are distinct phenomena.
“Undo” is a metaphor, it is not an empirical phenomenon.
No, but there is a perfectly certain way to determine that the integrity or location of your property has changed.
Besides, why dodge my question about fire? It’s the same (hahahaha) problem.
Yes, I do, but I don’t know what the standard definition of IP is, because that was never presented to me, only in the form of metaphors (e.g. creation of mind, fruit of labour, rearranging patterns). That’s the main problem, without a definition, you can’t have a theory.
I don’t consider utilitarian arguments to “prove” anything, but see below.
The problem with both of these is that they neglect to define IP. Instead, I had to come up with my own theory about how IP proponents define IP. I came up with one, and that is that it is a mix of a chunk of causality and similarity. Since they do not provide a way to distinguish which chunks of causality and similarity are property and which are not, both of the arguments above can be equally well applied to externalities and substitutes. This refutes the latter theory fully (because it is inconsistent). The utilitarian theory still retains some merit, but without an actual definition of IP you can’t evaluate it.
Without a definition, you can’t have a theory.
Yes, they did present ideas. And I explained why they are too vague, and if accepted in the full extent, lead to contradictions.
One more thing.
No. What you reject by reductio ad absurdum is the theory that this argument explains a distinction between normal property and IP. I did not claim that however. I claimed it does not prove IP. By proving that it does not prove physical property either, you do not refute the refutation, you just show that you base your theory on false assumptions. A simple logic error.
To put this into math speak:
You: A implies B.
Me: C is a subset of B, and A does not imply C. Therefore, A does not imply B.
You: D is also a subset of B, and we both agree D is true, so you cannot claim that A implies not B.
Me: I did not claim A and B cannot coincide, but that the implication is absent. The expressions “A implies not B” and “A does not imply B” are not equivalent.
Elementary logic. For an explantion, look at wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entailment . If you scroll a bit down, there are venn diagrams which demonstrate it.
“But why should we care about that framework?”
Well, Peter’s framework is science didn’t you hear. And the rest is metaphor.
Like “red” being a metaphor.
So Peter would claim since “red” is only a metaphor and not a scientific it is impossible to say “You have to stop when it the light turns red”, since you can not establish boundaries with metaphors.
According to Peter we can only use scientific data as boundaries. Like you can only say “your boundary in this instance is wavelengths of light between roughly 630–740 nm”, but we can never use a metaphor and say “your boundary is the color red”
So what humans that has to be bound by those boundaries only have uses for “the metaphor”? So what that humans do not usually have a device that measures the scientific occurrences of wavelengths but only understand the metaphor called the color red?
Peter, I would like to get into some of your word usage itself, it does end up confusing occasionally, but I think what you are saying by “lack of definition” and therefore “not a proper theory” is that IP proponents never explain what level of complexity something has to have to be IP.
Is a book IP? Most would say yes. A chapter? Also yes. A sentence? Maybe?? A word? Definitely not.
On what basis do IP proponents decide to delimit that which is IP (and cannot be copied) and that which is not IP (can be copied).
This gets even more murky when you talk about similarity, such as you making a book about the zombie apocalypse and then someone else does the same with a much different storyline. The concepts were the same, and the concepts were certainly intellectual and at some point original, but… does that mean that the first person to create a zombie apocalypse book owns the concept? And if not why not? Because it’s not “complex enough”?
What is complex enough, and what’s your basis for determining that which isn’t entirely arbitrary?
This is the reason you can’t even get to the utilitarian argument.
Kerem, could you maybe revert to the religous fanatic mode? That way I at least I’ll know the effort to educate you is pointless.
You are confusing the issue. “You have to stop when the light turns red” is a contractual condition for being able to drive on roads derived from historical development and standardisation process. It is not a natural law. If you build your own road and your own traffic lights, not stopping on red is not violating any rights or contracts. Now, if you claimed that it did violate them, that would be a proper analogy to IP.
You omit significant qualifiers in that sentence. Please actually pay attention to what I’m talking about. You cannot use non-scientific data as underlying criteria for natural laws. But nothing is preventing you from using whatever you want in contracts. Contracts do not require anything scientific. They do not even require that a third party comprehends what is going on.
Dear Matthew,
Yes, this is a part of my argument, the similarity question. Similarity is a subjective notion, it depends on the requirements, context and preceding knowledge of the person making the judgement. From economic point of view, goods that are similar are called substitutes, so why should the same argument be used to define property?
Previously, time ago, I made the argument that if a book is IP, why can’t one own the simplified storyline, or the genre, or literature, or art, or, in the final step, purposeful human action?
Peter Surda wrote:
“I explained somewhere on the blog how it is possible to prove two objects are distinct, but impossible to prove they are the same (because the latter requires inductive reasoning).”
Thank you for admitting this. So, it follows that although it is easy enough to “prove” that a theft occurred, it is impossible to prove that an allegedly stolen object is in fact the stolen object, and therefore impossible to prove who the thief is. Therefore, it is impossible to rightly award recompensation, since only the thief should have to supply this. Therefore, your theory has just rendered the concept of theft practically unenforceable. Therefore, your theory has just rendered the concept of regular property rights useless. Congratulations! A great job of falsification!
““Undo” is a metaphor, it is not an empirical phenomenon.”
Uhu huh. Are you by any chance related to Sheldon on “Big Bang Theory”? I am beginning to think that you are either suffering from Asperger’s Syndrome, or that you are purposefully trying to confuse the issue with pedantic nonsense.
“Besides, why dodge my question about fire? It’s the same (hahahaha) problem.”
I didn’t consider it important, so I didn’t comment on it. If somebody owned “FP” (fire property), that is to say, if somebody owned the rights to fire, then any time anybody started a fire, they’d have to pay him. Whether or not the fire is the “same” fire is completely irrelevant. Again, there’s nothing hard about the concept. It’s absurd, of course, but not difficult.
I am not going to go into what can be a valid contract and what can not be.
Even if we assume two parties can make any contract they want, still the issue is boundary.
If metaphors can not be considered boundaries as you claim, they can not be boundaries in a contract either.
What you seem to miss with your “Scientism” is that Ethics, and all its sub studies, is only relevant to human beings.
For example, we live in a deterministic universe. But since the humans are and always will be ignorant about all the causes that have an effect on the future, the future is uncertain for humans. Thus humans still have a freewill and act accordingly and the universe being deterministic doesn’t contradict this. The only thing that is relevant, the only thing that matters is the human perspective, because we are humans.
So physical boundaries are not all that matters.
We have been through this before.
If you as a human can determine if a thing is nature given, your doing, or doing of some other human, that is the boundary you need.
If copying took place, it took place. You, being able to determine this after the fact or not, doesn’t change the fact that copying took place. A perfect crime doesn’t make it so that the crime didn’t take place. It doesn’t matter if you can ever scientifically prove copying took place or not just as it doesn’t matter for the universe if some person can not ever be convinced of the fact that he even exists.
Property is, being a part of survival, a framework of ethics
When you say, “IP can not be property because we can not scientifically established physical boundaries and can not establish objectively is copying took place or not”,
you are actually making an ethical statement that says “copy all you can without worry since it can never be proven scientifically that you did and since this is the case IP can not even be considered as property”. You are actually saying “you have moral right to the product of some individual just because ….”
Russ,
” Therefore, your theory has just rendered the concept of theft practically unenforceable. Therefore, your theory has just rendered the concept of regular property rights useless. Congratulations! A great job of falsification! ”
Ha! Ha! Ha! Nice one. I had read Peter Surda’s blanket dismissal of inductive reasoning and was fairly disturbed by it (that’s the major reason I have stopped engaging him). Good to see someone sensible see a problem in that blanket dismissal.
“That’s the main problem, without a definition, you can’t have a theory.”
So what is your definition of regular property? Regular property is also just a collection of attributes. How do we determine which of those attributes actually constitute regular property? Do we do so on the basis that if you change an attribute that the “owner” cares about, you have violated his property rights, whereas if you change an attribute that the “owner” doesn’t care about, you haven’t? That seems arbitrary, based on “purpose”, and thus “unscientific”.
Again, I am using your own framework to prove that regular property rights are every bit as muddled as you say IP is. If we assume that regular property rights are valid, then that seems to demonstrate that your methodology is flawed. I have falsified your falsification.
I have no problem with falsification per se, but your brand of it seems unfair. You’re basically being such a complete skeptic that you could falsify any moral or political theory. This wouldn’t be so bad if you were fair about it; of course, if you were fair about it, your method would be obviously absurd, because it would falsify all morality and ethics. But your not being fair, because you don’t hold things that (I assume) you favor (i.e. regular property rights) to the same standard as things you don’t favor.
“The problem with both of these is that they neglect to define IP.”
Sure they do. You simply refuse to accept them as valid definitions, because they aren’t pedantic enough.
“Instead, I had to come up with my own theory about how IP proponents define IP. I came up with one, and that is that it is a mix of a chunk of causality and similarity. Since they do not provide a way to distinguish which chunks of causality and similarity are property and which are not…”
Yes, they do provide a way. That way is courts of law. In courts of law, people who, unlike you, possess common sense, will make the decisions.
Let’s take a practical, straightforward example. Somebody copies a DVD full of software. How is it so difficult to prove that the DVD was copied, and thus the IP owner’s “rights” violated?
“Ha! Ha! Ha! Nice one.”
Thanks, Bala.
I think it’s telling that even Polzkill, who’s about as fanatically ancap as they come, admits that he understands perfectly well what pro-IP people mean when they talk about IP.
I also agree with you that Peter’s dismissal of inductive logic is disturbing. Yeah, yeah, I know the logical argument against it as well as he does. But if you dismiss it, then you dismiss all empirical science, which seems rather drastic.
Exactly. In order to make the conclusion who the thief is, you need to make additional assumptions and perform inductive reasoning. We can, for example, assume that macroscopic objects do not magically vanish out of universe and new ones do not magically appear in the proximity. But let’s leave that for other time.
No, it didn’t. The only thing it did was to show that a theory of justice (i.e. how to deal with trespass) requires inductive reasoning. Only if one rejects the need for a theory of justice, one can conclude that the concept of property is useless. All the participants in the discussion seem to think that a theory of justice is desirable. So, even if it is an unproven assumption, it is not an assumption that we have a disagreement on. If someone claimed that he does not think a theory of justice is desirable, I would accept the conclusion that that would make the concept of property useless and would ignore his further arguments in this respect, since we lack common assumptions.
We all assume that there are concepts such as homesteading and trespass. This is not the point of our disagreement.
So how do you define it then? (Undo)
I consider it crucial, however.
Well, now you just shot yourself in the foot. If the reason for trespass isn’t using “the same” property that was already homesteaded by someone else, what is it then? Absent this condition, there is nothing left in the property theory. Then I can claim that I own the car that is in your garage. Sure, it is not “the same” car that I have, but that doesn’t matter.
You seem to be using two different meanings of “the same” interchangeably. One is the metaphysical identity, the other is sharing of certain attributes. You need to make a decision which of those two is relevant for your theory.
No, it isn’t. It is up to the parties involved to clarify the boundaries before the contract is being agreed upon. If they are unhappy, they do not need to agree to the contract and then they are not bound by the conditions stipulated in it. See, there already is a subjective element present in the contract: the desire of the parties involved. None of this affects third parties or requires their opinion.
That is an incorrec interpretation. What it actually says is that the validity of your premise requires to find a distinguishing factor for separating the concept of copying from other concepts which you do not deem immoral. My theory is that this is actually a false dichotomy. It is up to you to show how the dichotomy is real.
“If the reason for trespass isn’t using “the same” property that was already homesteaded by someone else, what is it then? Absent this condition, there is nothing left in the property theory.”
A reasonable justification for regular property rights is that regular property is rival, I agree. But it does not follow that rivalrous nature is the only reasonable justification for all forms of property rights. Just because IP is non-rivalrous, that does not mean that there is nothing left to the IP theory. In this case, what is left, of course, is the utilitarian argument that without IP there would be insufficient incentive for people to create IP, and we would all be worse off without it.
Do I really need to reply to this? Russ’ argument was actually a very nice example of falsificationism, one which I fully agree with, he merely drew incorrect conclusions from it.
It is probably inaccurate to call my arguments “blanket dismissal of inductive reasoning”. Inductive reasoning has its place, it merely does not prove anything.
Except there is no such problem. The problem is in drawing wrong conclusions.
“In order to make the conclusion who the thief is, you need to make additional assumptions and perform inductive reasoning.”
If we can do this with respect to regular property, then why not with respect to IP? Should IP be held to a higher standard than regular property? I, for one, certainly don’t think that is reasonable. If I am right, then if a person has a generic DVD that has the same exact bit pattern as one produced by Microsoft, is it not reasonable to induce that the person copied (directly or not, it doesn’t matter) a Microsoft DVD?
Changing something unowned is homesteading. If someone else changes it against the wishes of the owners, it is trespass.
Please note my definition is actually using the opposite concept, not sameness but change.
If an attribute changes against your will, it is a violation of property.
The problem I have with the metaphoric definitions is very simple. They are insufficient to determine whether a set of facts does or does not match the definition. Without that, the definition is useless.
I can accept this definition on its own. But that does not mean that the same definition is applicable to their claims for justification (the utilitarian and the moral arguments, for example)
No no no, you are diverting again. I accept that a copy is causally related to the original. I accept that a copy and the original share certain attributes. I accept that this specific instance is colloqually called copying and that if you do it without the permission of the author, you will be sued. What I however have a problem with is there is no natural way to distingiush between these acts and other acts which are legal. It’s kind of like why are alcohol, tobacco, tea and coffee legal while marihuana and cocaine are illegal.
Regarding inductive reasoning:
It is not about dismissal, it is about considering inductive reasoning proof.
No, it does not follow, it only shows that some assumptions made by IP proponents are wrong. In fact, I would have no problem if someone came up with an alternative explanation for property, provided of course it would not be self-contradictory. Is non-self-contradiction really such a bold requirement?
We can, but we would need to agree upon it. We don’t. That of course does not make the asumption true, it just alters the scope of our discussion. See, inductive reasoning cannot prove anything. However, if we both agree on an assumption, what is preventing us from using it? Merely because it is not proved does not mean we cannot investigate the conclusions that follow from it. If we disagreed, it would be up to the one proposing an assumption to justify it, rather then the sceptic.
With rival goods, we can make a conclusion that theft occurred without using inductive reasoning. We only need to invoke inductive reasoning if we want to determine the answer to other questions. With non-rival goods, we cannot make a conclusion that theft occurred without using inductive reasoning (plus, making lots of assumptions and answering questions which IP proponents so far have not answered). So why should there be such a thing as theft of non-rival goods in the first place? For all we know, it can be completely fictional. It does not follow.
Why is it relevant that the DVDs share this specific attribute, while differ in the other attributes?
Russ wrote:
“How do we determine which of those attributes actually constitute regular property?”
Peter Surda wrote:
“If an attribute changes against your will, it is a violation of property.”
But will involves choice and is thus subjective. So, your definition of a violation of regular property rights is subjective. By your own standards, wouldn’t you have to reject that definition?
Russ wrote:
“Somebody copies a DVD full of software. How is it so difficult to prove that the DVD was copied, and thus the IP owner’s “rights” violated?”
Peter Surda wrote:
“No no no, you are diverting again.”
No, this is most definitely not diversion. This is fundamental stuff.
Peter Surda wrote:
“I accept that a copy is causally related to the original. I accept that a copy and the original share certain attributes. I accept that this specific instance is colloqually called copying and that if you do it without the permission of the author, you will be sued. What I however have a problem with is there is no natural way to distingiush between these acts and other acts which are legal.”
What legal acts are these indistinguishable from? Are you saying that copying somebody else’s IP is indistinguishable from copying your own?
“It’s kind of like why are alcohol, tobacco, tea and coffee legal while marihuana and cocaine are illegal.”
So alcohol, tobacco, tea and coffee are indistinguishable from marihuana and cocaine?
Peter Surda wrote:
“It is not about dismissal, it is about considering inductive reasoning proof.”
Of course inductive reasoning is not equivalent to logical proof, but so what? Who ever dictated that logical proof is the standard of proof necessary to prove that a theft occurred? If it is necessary, then since you’ve already admitted that proving a theft logically is impossible, then you’ve also just admitted that you’re setting an impossible standard of proof. If it is not, then you’ve just admitted that logical proof is irrelevant.
Peter Surda wrote:
“But it does not follow that rivalrous nature is the only reasonable justification for all forms of property rights.
Peter Surda wrote:
“No, it does not follow, it only shows that some assumptions made by IP proponents are wrong.”
What assumptions might those be?
“Is non-self-contradiction really such a bold requirement?”
No, but I don’t see any self-contradiction.
No, it does not. My theory does not require to divide attributes into relevant and irrelevant, any attribute that does not depend on human interpretation counts (you know, because those that depend on huma interpretation are by definition subjective). I can only do this because my criterion is change. If your criterion is “sameness” however, you need to select which attributes are relevant and which not. Because, obviously, some will always be different.
Other externalities and other substitutes, those which are no covered by IP rights, slander/libel, and all the other stuff that is in the legal system.
Of course they are distingiushable, but why are the distingiushing attributes relevant? Reminds me of Futurama:
Well, doesn’t that sound kind of important? Why can’t I fabricate any arbitrary crap and claim it is theft?
For example that theft of non-rival goods is “the same” as theft of rival goods. My argument shows they are distinct phenomena.
Man, you should check out how Jan Helfeld conducts interviews. So, benefiting from externality is ok, but when you relabel an externality as copy, it becomes bad. Selling substitutes is ok, but once you relabel them as copy, it becomes bad. Also, if a tailor does it, it’s ok, but if a writer does it, it’s bad. No contradiction my ass.
Peter Surda wrote:
“We can [make additional assumptions and perform inductive reasoning], but we would need to agree upon it. We don’t.”
If you believe it is permissible to ‘make additional assumptions and perform inductive reasoning’ with regard to regular property theft, but not with respect to IP theft, then I think you are guilty of arbitrarily holding IP theft to higher standards of proof. Basically, you’re committing a fallacy of special pleading for regular property.
“With rival goods, we can make a conclusion that theft occurred without using inductive reasoning.”
Really? How do you prove, using pure logic, that regular property has been stolen? Maybe my missing lawnmower just spontaneously teleported from my garage to my neighbor’s. *grin* Can you prove that it didn’t, using only deductive logic? (Note that the common sense assumption that things don’t just spontaneously teleport is one based on induction, not deduction.)
“With non-rival goods, we cannot make a conclusion that theft occurred without using inductive reasoning (snip) So why should there be such a thing as theft of non-rival goods in the first place? For all we know, it can be completely fictional. It does not follow.”
With rival goods, we cannot make a conclusion that theft occurred without using inductive reasoning, either. But if we use the more reasonable standard of allowing inductive logic, probability theory, etc., then we can come to the conclusion that the odds of a lawnmower spontaneously teleporting are vanishingly small. We can also come to the conclusion that the odds of somebody independently coming up with a DVD full of (somewhat *grin*) functional software that just happens to be bitwise identical to a DVD produced by Microsoft is also vanishingly small.
Russ wrote:
“If I am right, then if a person has a generic DVD that has the same exact bit pattern as one produced by Microsoft…”
Peter Surda wrote:
“Why is it relevant that the DVDs share this specific attribute, while differ in the other attributes?”
This question is simply too stupid to dignify with an answer, Sheldon. I mean, really, I am willing to tolerate your pedanticism up to a point, but you’ve just gone well beyond that point.
You are misconstruing my argument. I explictly said that concluding that theft occurred and concluding who did it are two different questions. It is perfectly normal to know the answer to the first one without knowing the answer to the second one. Why are you mixing them back again?
It would be a problem if we disagreed whether there is a need for determining who did it. But we don’t.
Maybe I was imprecise in some arguments. For theft, the need to determine the presence of human action is required and I neglected to mention that. That does not change the fact that the lawnmower is missing against your will and you are wondering where it is. The question of who is responsible is a separate one.
See above. We can conclude that something bad happened, and a subset of that is theft. But if it happened without human action (no theft), there is noone to punish, so the second question is pointless anyway.
Except that is not my argument. I do not deny causality, I merely consider it an insufficient criterion, and unless you deny the concept of externalities, so do you. So, you are inconsistent.
On the contrary, it is the crucial one.
How about instead of dragging the discussion away, you actually answer the questions that I posed at the beginning? You know, about the boundaries without change, the false dichotomy between IP and externalities/substitutes, and so on.
Peter Surda wrote:
“My theory does not require to divide attributes into relevant and irrelevant…”
Sure it does. If I change an attribute of your lawnmower that you care about (its location, for instance, or the level of the gas in the tank), then it’s relevant. If I change some attribute of your lawnmowever that you can’t even distinguish, then it’s irrelevant.
“If your criterion is “sameness” however, you need to select which attributes are relevant and which not. Because, obviously, some will always be different.”
Well, “obviously”, the attributes of IP media that are relevant are the ones that represent the IP, Sheldon.
Peter Surda wrote:
“So alcohol, tobacco, tea and coffee are indistinguishable from marihuana and cocaine?”
“Of course they are distingiushable, but why are the distingiushing attributes relevant?”
Why does it matter why we consider some attributes relevant and some not? Who gives a flying fuck? We do consider them relevant. Why do you consider the location of your lawnmower relevant, but not the atomic weight of the 1,238,764,598,235th atom in the handlebar? After all, they’re both attributes!
Russ wrote:
“Who ever dictated that logical proof is the standard of proof necessary to prove that a theft occurred?”
Peter Surda:
“Well, doesn’t that sound kind of important? Why can’t I fabricate any arbitrary crap and claim it is theft?”
But you can’t logically prove theft. You need induction.
Russ wrote:
“What assumptions might those be?”
Peter Surda wrote:
“For example that theft of non-rival goods is “the same” as theft of rival goods. My argument shows they are distinct phenomena.”
I for one have never argued that theft of non-rival goods is “the same” as theft of rival goods. That is why I make a distinction between IP and regular property. Otherwise, I would just argue “But copying information is exactly the same as stealing a lawnmower”. Nowhere have I done anything like that. The argument is not that they are exactly “the same”, but that IP rights violations should also be considered a crime.
“So, benefiting from externality is ok, but when you relabel an externality as copy, it becomes bad. Selling substitutes is ok, but once you relabel them as copy, it becomes bad. Also, if a tailor does it, it’s ok, but if a writer does it, it’s bad. No contradiction my ass.”
If benefiting from an “externality” without recompensating the producer of the “externality” takes away the producer’s incentive to produce the “externality”, then that is different from benefiting from an “externality” such as, say, proximity to a shopping mall. Selling a “substitute” that serves the same or similar function as a given product in a different way is different than selling a “substitute” that serves the exact same function in the exact same way. And there are laws against making knock-off clothing, handbags, etc. And even if there are inconsistencies in current enforcement of laws, that doesn’t disprove the entire concept of IP.
Russ wrote:
“…if a person has a generic DVD that has the same exact bit pattern as one produced by Microsoft…”
Peter Surda wrote:
“Why is it relevant that the DVDs share this specific attribute, while differ in the other attributes?”
Russ wrote:
“This question is simply too stupid to dignify with an answer”
Peter Surda wrote:
“On the contrary, it is the crucial one.”
The answer to your question is intuitively obvious to even the most casual observer. If you refuse to acknowledge such a self-evident point as this, then you’re either being purposefully obtuse, or you’re dense enough to become a black hole. Either way, there’s no use discussing this with you further.
*plonk*
Ah yes, the granddaddy of all fallacies. Let me tell you why you’re wrong. The conclusion is completely utilitarian. Unless you are a collector, want the nice booklet or a Microsoft hologram, a copy of a DVD has exactly the same usefullness to you than the original. It is a very good substitute. That is why it is “obvious” to you, yet that is also why you are wrong. Why are other substitutes legal? Stop dodging.
Wrong. If you change it in a way that I can’t distingiush, that does not mean trespass didn’t occur, it merely means I am unaware of it.
Sheldon Cooper wrote:
“Stop dodging.”
Not beating one’s head against a brick wall is not the same thing as dodging the brick wall.
Peter Surda,
” Me: C is a subset of B, and A does not imply C. Therefore, A does not imply B. ”
False. Appears to me like a very elementary logic error. I’m sorry I’m not able to draw the Venn Diagrams, but I am quite sure you are wrong.
The correct version is
Bala: C is a subset of B, and A does not imply B. Therefore A does not imply C.
I don’t know and have not bothered to study what effect this has on the rest of your argument. That apart, you said
” It is probably inaccurate to call my arguments “blanket dismissal of inductive reasoning”. Inductive reasoning has its place, it merely does not prove anything. ”
So what? Whoever said inductive reasoning is a means of proving something? It is a means of knowing. Life is not just about “proving”, you see. We need to “know” first before we “prove”.
Ever bothered to understand why the reputed Montessori Method of education focuses on inductive reasoning as the basis of their educational approach?
Inductive reasoning is the base of our faculty of concept formation. Induction is man’s ONLY way of learning from reality and even forming concepts of reality.
All I wish to say is that your obsession with deduction to the exclusion of inductive reasoning in an argument is unhealthy. IMO, arguments obtained by inductive reasoning from sound axiomatic foundations have far greater validity than those obtained from deduction. That is also why we will probably never agree.
That’s wrong, it’s not what I am saying. “A does not imply B” is what we are trying to determine, it follows from A not implying C, C being a subset of B. If A does not imply C, it also does not imply a superset of C.
Let’s say:
A: There are things which have wings and can fly.
B: All birds can fly.
C: Kiwi can fly.
D: Swan can fly.
Russ: There are things which have wings and can fly. Therefore, all birds can fly.
Me: Kiwi is a bird, but it can’t fly. So it is not true that all birds can fly.
Russ: Swan is also a bird, and we both agree that it can fly. So you cannot claim that birds can’t fly.
Me: I did not claim that bird’s can’t fly, but that having wings is not a sufficient condition for flying. Saying birds can’t fly and birds may not be able to fly are two distinct claims.
Bala: Kiwi is a bird, and having wings does not imply all birds can fly. Therefore, having wings does not imply that kiwi can fly.
(I did a few simplifications to avoid overly complex constructions).
The statement you provide is correct within the context of our conditions, it is just not very helpful.
If you cannot prove something within an context of certain assumptions, you cannot claim that the assumptions lead to that something. This is pretty important. On the other hand, if you can disprove something within an context of certain assumptions, the original claim is a contradiction. Surely I don’t have to explain contradictions to an objectivist?
Only a tiny fraction of education is not based on inductive reasoning. Actually, probably none. So what? As long as people know it is not “the truth”, it’s no big deal. Maybe deduction is more suitable for research than for teaching.
So, being unhealthy is a refutation of an argument? Hmm.
” So, being unhealthy is a refutation of an argument? Hmm. ”
No. It is not a refutation of the argument. You know I do not disagree on the position on IP (Objectivist though I claim to be).
I am just saying that there are limits to deductive reasoning that you are not realising or acknowledging. You are refusing to contend with inductive reasoning and hence are neither able to understand the arguments of your opponents, nor able to show the errors in their own reasoning.
An moral/ethical framework, for instance, is fundamentally a product of inductive reasoning. You, however, insist on using deductive methods to arrive at a moral/ethical framework. Your failure is evident. I will just take the simple example of your failure to define the concept “rights” and specifically “man’s rights”. (I have asked you before and repeat my request to you to define the above mentioned concepts)
As I understand it, only proper inductive reasoning starting from sound axiomatic foundations can help you define the concept “rights”. You fail to do that and hence, your entire theory comes across as a floating abstraction with no mooring to reality. Your conclusions are right, but more by chance than by the soundness of your thought process. As I have mentioned (and so has Russ), Argumentation Ethics is a poor joke.
I fully understand that there are limits to deductive reasoning. However, if you, in search for the same answer, starting from the same assumptions, pit against each other inductive and deductive reasoning, and deductive reasoning leads you to rejection of certain conclusions, that’s where you’re done. You can’t counter that with inductive reasoning.
Let us say we have a collection of facts, and you propose a theory to explain them. I will merely point out there are other theories which also explain the set of facts, and the proper method of discourse is to use deduction to eliminate those that are self-contradictory. Sure, this does not necessarily mean that you will be able to arrive to a satisfactory answer. But it also means that the truth is among those which you haven’t eliminated, and not among those which you have eliminated.
It is pointless to create additional assumptions as a method to “fix” theories that were refuted by deductive reasoning. That’s what I mean by logic taking precedence over morals. If something is false in the absence of moral rules, how can introducing morals make it true? It can’t.
Reminds me of a joke. During the times of Soviet Union, the US president calls the USSR president and asks him: Hey, Leonid, how much money does a worker in soviet factory earn? Leonid is quiet for a while and then bursts out: But you discriminate the black!
I actually am not a fan of AE.
” However, if you, in search for the same answer, starting from the same assumptions, pit against each other inductive and deductive reasoning, and deductive reasoning leads you to rejection of certain conclusions, that’s where you’re done. You can’t counter that with inductive reasoning. ”
Hah!!! How about if I turn around and say that you cannot counter with deductive reasoning, conclusions that are obtained though inductive reasoning starting from sound axiomatic foundations? For instance, my position on individual rights is derived through inductive reasoning. May I take it that you are in no position to refute it?
Thanks in advance for the acknowledgement.
What if I go one step further and say that inductive reasoning, if firmly based on sound axiomatic foundations, has greater validity than deductive reasoning? How will you counter that? Just curious.
Just saw this and thought it ought to be responded to.
” If you cannot prove something within an context of certain assumptions, you cannot claim that the assumptions lead to that something. This is pretty important. On the other hand, if you can disprove something within an context of certain assumptions, the original claim is a contradiction. Surely I don’t have to explain contradictions to an objectivist? ”
Yup!! Objectivists understand the idea that reality abhors contradictions. However, we also say that inductive reasoning is the only means man has to know reality and form concepts of reality. Man’s sense organs get him his percepts which his cognitive faculty processes using his power of reason into concepts.
At the risk of repeating myself, please note that inductive reasoning helps us “know” and not “prove”. It is deductive reasoning that seeks to “prove”. So, when we Objectivists face a contradiction between the “knowledge” developed though inductive reasoning from sound axiomatic foundations and the conclusions developed through deductive reasoning, we start with the point that axiomatic concepts cannot be proved or disproved. At least, not the fundamental axioms that Objectivists talk of – Existence, Identity and Consciousness. That which is “known” through a rigorous process of reasoning from a base of such sound axiomatic concepts cannot be wrong. Hence, we Objectivists conclude that it is the deductive reasoning that must be wrong.
That is, conincidentally, something you are actually doing. How I respond is that you are making unnecessary assumptions. You don’t seem to comprehend that. Unless we agree on assumptions, it is pointless to debate. Since I am making less assumptions than you, it should be up to you to explain why the assumptions are necessary.
This is one of the main problems of inductive reasoning. Clinging to axioms because they are “evident”. What kind of argument is that? It actually means that the person making that claim lacks imagination. I admit I also make some assumptions. Mises presents some nice ones, for example “causality exists”. It is difficult to imagine a world where it is not true, but if someone claimed it doesn’t exist, it would be up to me to persuade him it does. For example, I can say that unless I make the assumption, the reality are uncomprehensible to us. But, if he disproved part of my theory while having only a subset of my assumptions, that would mean that some of my extra assumptions are wrong (of course, assuming there are no logical errors between my original assumptions and conclusions).
It’s kind of like “If there is no IP, how would authors earn money? I can’t imagine how that will work. The necessity of IP is evident.”. Unless the person making the argument realises he is making too many unnecessary assumptions, they won’t be able to recognise they are wrong.
What the hell is “sound axiomatic foundations” and “greater validity”? Falsificationism divides theories into three types: unfalsifiable, falsifiable and falsified. The progress happens when the theories that are falsifiable become falsified, thus narrowing the scope of what can be true. If I show that A is false within a set of axioms, how can adding new axioms make that true? It can’t. You would need to eliminate some of the original axioms, i.e. exactly the opposite.
I know I am irritating the life out of you, but your anger betrays your inability to comprehend what I am saying.
” Falsificationism divides theories into three types: unfalsifiable, falsifiable and falsified. ”
Who said I subscribe to falsificationism or consider it the ultimate word in these discussions? How does repeating what you subscribe to ad infinitum convince anyone else?
” How I respond is that you are making unnecessary assumptions. You don’t seem to comprehend that. ”
This does not make any sense. There are no assumptions in my reasoning. I said I am starting from a foundation of sound axioms. However, since that phrase is irritating you no end, let me explain.
**********************
An axiom is a statement that identifies the base of knowledge and of any further statement pertaining to that knowledge, a statement necessarily contained in all others, whether any particular speaker chooses to identify it or not. An axiom is a proposition that defeats its opponents by the fact that they have to accept it and use it in the process of any attempt to deny it.
Galt’s Speech, For the New Intellectual, 155.
Existence exists—and the act of grasping that statement implies two corollary axioms: that something exists which one perceives and that one exists possessing consciousness, consciousness being the faculty of perceiving that which exists.
If nothing exists, there can be no consciousness: a consciousness with nothing to be conscious of is a contradiction in terms. A consciousness conscious of nothing but itself is a contradiction in terms: before it could identify itself as consciousness, it had to be conscious of something. If that which you claim to perceive does not exist, what you possess is not consciousness.
Whatever the degree of your knowledge, these two—existence and consciousness—are axioms you cannot escape, these two are the irreducible primaries implied in any action you undertake, in any part of your knowledge and in its sum, from the first ray of light you perceive at the start of your life to the widest erudition you might acquire at its end. Whether you know the shape of a pebble or the structure of a solar system, the axioms remain the same: that it exists and that you know it.
To exist is to be something, as distinguished from the nothing of nonexistence, it is to be an entity of a specific nature made of specific attributes. Centuries ago, the man who was—no matter what his errors—the greatest of your philosophers, has stated the formula defining the concept of existence and the rule of all knowledge: A is A. A thing is itself. You have never grasped the meaning of his statement. I am here to complete it: Existence is Identity, Consciousness is Identification.
Galt’s Speech, For the New Intellectual, 124.
*****************
Now on to axiomatic concepts
*****************
Axioms are usually considered to be propositions identifying a fundamental, self-evident truth. But explicit propositions as such are not primaries: they are made of concepts. The base of man’s knowledge—of all other concepts, all axioms, propositions and thought—consists of axiomatic concepts.
An axiomatic concept is the identification of a primary fact of reality, which cannot be analyzed, i.e., reduced to other facts or broken into component parts. It is implicit in all facts and in all knowledge. It is the fundamentally given and directly perceived or experienced, which requires no proof or explanation, but on which all proofs and explanations rest.
The first and primary axiomatic concepts are “existence,” “identity” (which is a corollary of “existence”) and “consciousness.” One can study what exists and how consciousness functions; but one cannot analyze (or “prove”) existence as such, or consciousness as such. These are irreducible primaries. (An attempt to “prove” them is self-contradictory: it is an attempt to “prove” existence by means of non-existence, and consciousness by means of unconsciousness.)
Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, 55
[The] underscoring of primary facts is one of the crucial epistemological functions of axiomatic concepts. It is also the reason why they can be translated into a statement only in the form of a repetition (as a base and a reminder): Existence exists—Consciousness is conscious—A is A. (This converts axiomatic concepts into formal axioms.)
Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, 59.
Epistemologically, the formation of axiomatic concepts is an act of abstraction, a selective focusing on and mental isolation of metaphysical fundamentals; but metaphysically, it is an act of integration—the widest integration possible to man: it unites and embraces the total of his experience.
The units of the concepts “existence” and “identity” are every entity, attribute, action, event or phenomenon (including consciousness) that exists, has ever existed or will ever exist. The units of the concept “consciousness” are every state or process of awareness that one experiences, has ever experienced or will ever experience (as well as similar units, a similar faculty, which one infers in other living entities).
Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, 56.
Since axiomatic concepts refer to facts of reality and are not a matter of “faith” or of man’s arbitrary choice, there is a way to ascertain whether a given concept is axiomatic or not: one ascertains it by observing the fact that an axiomatic concept cannot be escaped, that it is implicit in all knowledge, that it has to be accepted and used even in the process of any attempt to deny it.
For instance, when modern philosophers declare that axioms are a matter of arbitrary choice, and proceed to choose complex, derivative concepts as the alleged axioms of their alleged reasoning, one can observe that their statements imply and depend on “existence,” “consciousness,” “identity,” which they profess to negate, but which are smuggled into their arguments in the form of unacknowledged, “stolen” concepts.
It is worth noting, at this point, that what the enemies of reason seem to know, but its alleged defenders have not discovered, is the fact that axiomatic concepts are the guardians of man’s mind and the foundation of reason—the keystone, touchstone and hallmark of reason—and if reason is to be destroyed, it is axiomatic concepts that have to be destroyed.
Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, 59–60.
It is only conceptual awareness that can grasp and hold the total of its experience—extrospectively, the continuity of existence; introspectively, the continuity of consciousness—and thus enable its possessor to project his course long-range. It is by means of axiomatic concepts that man grasps and holds this continuity, bringing it into his conscious awareness and knowledge. It is axiomatic concepts that identify the precondition of knowledge: the distinction between existence and consciousness, between reality and the awareness of reality, between the object and the subject of cognition. Axiomatic concepts are the foundation of objectivity.
Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, 57.
It is only man’s consciousness, a consciousness capable of conceptual errors, that needs a special identification of the directly given, to embrace and delimit the entire field of its awareness—to delimit it from the void of unreality to which conceptual errors can lead. Axiomatic concepts are epistemological guidelines. They sum up the essence of all human cognition: something exists of which I am conscious; I must discover its identity.
Since axiomatic concepts are identifications of irreducible primaries, the only way to define one is by means of an ostensive definition—e.g., to define “existence,” one would have to sweep one’s arm around and say: “I mean this.”
Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, 41.
************************
” What the hell is “sound axiomatic foundations” and “greater validity”? ”
Now that I have explained the first part, let me go on to the second
************************
The basic metaphysical issue that lies at the root of any system of philosophy [is] the primacy of existence or the primacy of consciousness.
The primacy of existence (of reality) is the axiom that existence exists, i.e., that the universe exists independent of consciousness (of any consciousness), that things are what they are, that they possess a specific nature, an identity. The epistemological corollary is the axiom that consciousness is the faculty of perceiving that which exists—and that man gains knowledge of reality by looking outward. The rejection of these axioms represents a reversal: the primacy of consciousness—the notion that the universe has no independent existence, that it is the product of a consciousness (either human or divine or both). The epistemological corollary is the notion that man gains knowledge of reality by looking inward (either at his own consciousness or at the revelations it receives from another, superior consciousness).
The source of this reversal is the inability or unwillingness fully to grasp the difference between one’s inner state and the outer world, i.e., between the perceiver and the perceived (thus blending consciousness and existence into one indeterminate package-deal). This crucial distinction is not given to man automatically; it has to be learned. It is implicit in any awareness, but it has to be grasped conceptually and held as an absolute.
“The Metaphysical Versus the Man-Made,”
Philosophy: Who Needs It, 24.
It is important to observe the interrelation of these three axioms [existence, consciousness, and identity]. Existence is the first axiom. The universe exists independent of consciousness. Man is able to adapt his background to his own requirements, but “Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed” (Francis Bacon). There is no mental process that can change the laws of nature or erase facts. The function of consciousness is not to create reality, but to apprehend it. “Existence is Identity, Consciousness is Identification.”
The philosophic source of this viewpoint and its major advocate in the history of philosophy is Aristotle. Its opponents are all the other major traditions, including Platonism, Christianity, and German idealism. Directly or indirectly, these traditions uphold the notion that consciousness is the creator of reality. The essence of this notion is the denial of the axiom that existence exists.
Leonard Peikoff, The Ominous Parallels, 303.
**************************
So, giving priority to the conclusions of deductive reasoning over the knowledge obtained through inductive reasoning is accepting the primacy of consciousness over existence. Hence, I consider it a fundamental philosophical flaw.
” You would need to eliminate some of the original axioms ”
Now tell me, which of my axiomatic concepts/axioms do I eliminate? Existence, Identity or Consciousness?
Peter Surda,
Your last response still does not address my primary and long-standing request – Please define the concept “rights” and explain where they originate from. Failing that, I see no point in future engagement.
” Clinging to axioms because they are “evident”. What kind of argument is that? It actually means that the person making that claim lacks imagination. ”
Wrong statement. They are “self-evident”. They cannot be proved or dis-proved but only identified. That’s what makes them axioms in the first place. Being committed to the primary facts of reality as presented to us by our sense organs is not a vice – it is the starting point of rationality. Being ready to depart from the primary facts of reality as presented to us by our sense organs and into pseudo-axiomatic foundations is not a virtue – it is the starting point of irrationality and the greatest vice imaginable to man.
Incidentally, how is “imagination” a proper starting point for a sound process of reasoning? Are you saying that any starting point I am able to imagine is good enough for reasoning?
That apart, you are also guilty of twisting the term “imagination”. When you use the term “imagination”, you cannot use it to refer to anything that does not (and cannot) exist or have an identity. All imagination is imagination of “something”. That “something” has to exist and have an identity. So, when you claim that you possess an imagination while I lack it and go on to use the products of your imagination, you are guilty of the intellectual offence of the “stolen concept”.
If you say that the products of your imagination do not have an existence or an identity but are worthy of consideration because they are products of your “imagination” (and weak me can’t do the same), you would be committing the folly of granting primacy to consciousness over existence. In Objectivist terms, that would qualify for being labelled “insane”.
So, your arguments appear to me to be utter hogwash.
Actually, what irritates me is my opponents’ inability to comprehend. I don’t mind revisiting my assumptions, that improves my understanding.
You don’t need to “subscribe to falsificationism”. You only need to recognise that contradictions do not exist. Wait, aren’t you supposed to do that anyway?
There are assumptions in any reasoning.
You are already making too many unnecessary assumptions.
So, if I make an axiom that you cannot earn money without IP, unless you agree with it, you are defeated?
I am sorry, but the quoted passages are in my opinion overly complex. Upon first look though, it appears I can accept them. I believe your errors are in the subsequent assumptions rather than these three.
I do not have a full answer, because that would require me to make unnecessary assumptions. There are multiple possible theories and I don’t consider it necessary to make a choice among them. I will however explain the axioms that I am willing to make for the purpose of the discussion.
First: There are rights in a society. If we do not agree on this, further debate is impossible.
Second: Rights are independent of human interpretation (or, to use a synonym, they are objective). Again, if we do not agree on this, then they are created rather than discovered, so our debate would shift from what they are to what they should be.
Remark: we might not always have enough facts to determine whether a right was violated or not, but that is an empirical problem.
For the time being, these assumptions are sufficient for me.
” There are assumptions in any reasoning. ”
False. Inductive reasoning based on properly chosen, i,e., sound axioms does not require any assumptions. Axioms are not assumptions. They are identifications of primary facts. “Existence exists” is not an assumption.
Your statement betrays the fact that you are incapable of engaging in anything other than deductive reasoning. No wonder you go hammer and tongs at it.
” So, if I make an axiom that you cannot earn money without IP ”
Arbitrarily chosen propositions do not make axioms or axiomatic concepts. This again exposes your utter failure to understand what axiomatic concepts and the role they play in the process of our concept formation.
Incidentally, the passages I copied included this
” An axiomatic concept is the identification of a primary fact of reality, which cannot be analyzed, i.e., reduced to other facts or broken into component parts. It is implicit in all facts and in all knowledge. It is the fundamentally given and directly perceived or experienced, which requires no proof or explanation, but on which all proofs and explanations rest. ”
After which you say this
” So, if I make an axiom that you cannot earn money without IP ”
It looks like you never even read, leave alone comprehended what I had said.
” I am sorry, but the quoted passages are in my opinion overly complex. Upon first look though, it appears I can accept them. ”
Good to hear that, but this unjustified assertion or rather accusation that followed was very jarring. The onus of that proof is now on you. Until you do that, nothing much is going to come out (at least for me) of my engaging you.
Now, could you please define the concept “rights”? It is indeed interesting to see to what lengths you are ready to go to avoid giving that definition.
“Please define the concept “rights” and explain where they originate from.”
“Rights” originate inside human minds, they are what we allow each other to do. In the matter of humans responding to others’ unwanted actions, I’m “fanatic” in advocating adequate responses. Russ advocates torturing what a healthy percentage of the world would call “freedom fighters” inside tax-funded Kafkaesque bureaucracies. Clearly not a fanatic.
Self-evident for whom? That’s the problem. “self-evident” is a matter of human interpretation.
When two axioms contradict each other, it is sometimes possible to bring this contradiction to light. Then you need to abandon at least one of them. That is what falsificationism does. While you cannot disprove an axiom per se, you can sometimes disprove the parallel validity of two axioms vis-a-vis each other.
Whether it is a “proper” one or not is irrelevant. It is an unavoidable one. You cannot come up with an axiom without imagination. That’s the problem.
Because you are making too many assumptions
.
Bala, I read it and I understand it, but it is wrong. You are equating two separate claims. Let’s take a look at the definition.
Merely because there is a reality, it does not follow that the assumptions (axioms) we make based on our observation are true. Merely because one person can’t analyse something does not mean that it is unanalysable, it can also mean lack of imagination. It can also simply mean that we haven’t analysed all the facts. The wealth of facts is infinite. You always need to divide them into relevant an irrelevant. There is always a subjective element involved in the process of creating axioms. That does not mean it is completely arbitrary, it just means that there is always a margin for error. That is my point. The only valid reason a falsificationist sees for making assumptions is when we cannot move any further without making one. I don’t make assumptions merely because I want to prove a theory.
Or, to put it in another words: the existence of reality does not mean that reality is knowable. The realisation of this dichotomy between imperfection of knowledge and existence of one reality is what gave birth to falsificationism.
Let me ask you this: you have a set of facts. How do you come up with an axiom that explains them without invoking imagination?
mpolzkill,
” “Rights” originate inside human minds ”
All concepts are formed inside human minds. “Rights” are a concept. So they have to be formed only in a human mind. While this is not incorrect, it is incomplete. All concepts have a link to reality. This response does not address that. It almost sounds like something random that popped up in people’s minds.
” they are what we allow each other to do ”
Wrong. No one “allows” anyone else to do anything. Man is free. He does not need anyone’s “permission” to act.
The rest of your post appears quite irrelevant and hence I choose not to respond to it.
” Self-evident for whom? That’s the problem. “self-evident” is a matter of human interpretation. ”
That which is and can only be perceived is what is called self-evident. Take the concept “Existence”. You cannot “prove” or “disprove” existence. You either perceive it or you don’t. There is no human “interpretation” in this. Existence exists whether or not you are ready to recognise that it does. Which part of this is a matter of human interpretation?
” When two axioms contradict each other ”
Meaningless statement that reveals that you haven’t understood one word of what I have said. Two axioms cannot contradict each other because an axiomatic concept is an identification of a primary fact of reality. Reality does not permit contradictions. So, axiomatic concepts cannot contradict each other.
You are still extremely confused about what “axiomatic concepts” are and are insisting that any arbitrary propositions that you choose to label as axioms are indeed axioms. The error is entirely yours.
” Then you need to abandon at least one of them ”
The one(s) you always need to abandon is(are) the one(s) that is(are) not axiomatic. That does not need falsification. It needs a proper understanding of what can be an axiomatic concept and evaluating what you have chosen on the criteria thus evolved. If it is not “self-evident” and a primary fact of reality, it is not axiomatic.
Take the simple statement “…. any two points can be connected by a straight line”. It is self-evident and does not require proof. Can you prove it? I don’t think I can. I can however identify it.
” While you cannot disprove an axiom per se, you can sometimes disprove the parallel validity of two axioms vis-a-vis each other. ”
More expression of your lack of understanding of the very meaning of axiomatic concepts. The day you stop living under the delusion that any proposition may be an axiom, you will understand what I am saying.
” Whether it is a “proper” one or not is irrelevant. It is an unavoidable one. ”
Utter nonsense. An axiom needs to be recognised. To know that it is axiomatic requires you to be rigorous. But imagination?????
” Because you are making too many assumptions ”
Empty statements. Show me the assumptions.
Bala, you turned your argument into a religion: you have to believe, otherwise you’re wrong. You cannot comprehend that the subjective element is an unavoidable part of the process. The process of development of human knowledge is an sequence of people who thought something was “self evident”, but a new guy came around and showed it is not. What makes your “self evident” distinct? Nothing. Always a new guy can come around and demonstrate it is not. But of course, you would accuse him of heresy.
Peter Surda,
You are taking evasion to an entirely new level. The more you try to respond, the more you reveal that you have no clue about the idea of “axiomatic concepts” or about inductive reasoning.
You accuse me of being “religious”. The fact, on the other hand, is that deductive reasoning has become a religion for you. You have taken the position that any proposition, however weird, may be an axiom and that it is only contradictions thrown up by deductive reasoning that can help you understand the mistakes you have made.
Utter nonsense.
” you have to believe, otherwise you’re wrong ”
Complete gibberish. Please show which of the 3 axiomatic concepts I have mentioned requires you to believe.
” The process of development of human knowledge is an sequence of people who thought something was “self evident”, but a new guy came around and showed it is not. What makes your “self evident” distinct? Nothing. ”
This is as stupid as it can get. I have given a clear and categorical definition of axiomatic concepts and the 3 concepts that I consider axiomatic. Please try to show which of these is not self-evident. If you can’t, at least have the honesty to admit it rather than accusing me of being “religious”.
” You cannot comprehend that the subjective element is an unavoidable part of the process. ”
Oh please!!! What is the subjective element in axiomatic propositions such as “Existence exists”, ‘Identity exists” or “Consciousness is conscious”?
And to boot, you still haven’t bothered to define the concept “rights”. mpolzkill at least had the decency to attempt it even though I had not asked him. You, however, insist on evading it.
Bala: I have answered your question about rights, you must have missed it. I also insist that it is you who does not understand me, rather than me not understanding you. I understand you, but argue that you are wrong. I don’t think I can explain the issue in a different way. Maybe it is your turn to explain how something can be “self evident” without the subjective aspect of human imagination.
And I explained that although I am not 100% sure due to the complexity of the quotations, I can provisionally accept the axioms for the purposes of our debate. However, you make tons of other assumptions which cannot be derived from these 3 axioms. For example that “self evidence” is an objective phenomenon, rather than something that happens inside human mind.
Maybe I’ll mention one more thing so that you can have a better picture. A falsificationist is the ultimate sceptic, never sure about anything and doomed to infinite regress. Lack of certainty is the price we pay for our desire for understanding.
Peter, this thing is too gigantic and sifting through Bala’s genius makes me gassy. Could you tell me again or point to your definition of “rights”, I’m very interested in that part.
And: “Man is free. He does not need anyone’s “permission” to act.”
We just can’t help but be reminded of a religion, Bala. If this is so, that we are free to act, where are we today then, hell? The founder of your…whatever…sure spoke of our tormentors as if they were supernaturally evil. Are they just naturally evil, a race of evildoers? What is to be done? Give us the Good News.
[And yeah, the last part of my last post was a response to a dig I dug up about 56 posts back.]
” I have answered your question about rights, you must have missed it. ”
If so, could you please restate it?
” I also insist that it is you who does not understand me, rather than me not understanding you. I understand you ”
Claims. Claims. Claims.
” , but argue that you are wrong. ”
Assertions do not make arguments.
” I don’t think I can explain the issue in a different way. ”
I don’t think so too. I don’t expect anything better from a person who has absolutely no clue about inductive reasoning.
” Maybe it is your turn to explain how something can be “self evident” without the subjective aspect of human imagination. ”
That’s because there is no “subjective aspect of human imagination” in identifying that which exists. It is only further reasoning that involves the human mind. That is the essence of axiomatic concepts. I am not surprised that you are taking this long to grasp this simple concept. That sort of behaviour is common among religious fanatics. In your case, deductive reasoning is your religion and you insist that your deductive reasoning can disprove conclusions reached by inductive reasoning.
” However, you make tons of other assumptions which cannot be derived from these 3 axioms. For example that “self evidence” is an objective phenomenon, rather than something that happens inside human mind. ”
As I have said above, grasping/identifying does not require the “subjective aspect of human imagination”. Either you perceive it or you don’t. So, what you are claiming as an assumption is non-existent. But I agree. 0 Tons is also Tons.
Peter Surda,I forgot to mention 1 point. When I use the phrase “self-evident”, it is as part of thr DEFINITION of axiomatic concepts. This definition, when applied, will tell you if a concept is axiomatic or not. “Self-evident” means that it can only be grasped/perceived/identified. It cannot be “proven” or “disproved”. Since when did including an attribute in a definition become an assumption?
And mpolzkill,
A lot of things make gas bags go gassy. There is nothing anyone (not even the gas bags themselves) can do about it.
So you won’t help me?
[Comic Book Guy Voice]
Worst religion ever!
@Bala & mpolzkill, repeating my answer regarding rights:
———————————————————————-
I do not have a full answer, because that would require me to make unnecessary assumptions. There are multiple possible theories and I don’t consider it necessary to make a choice among them. I will however explain the axioms that I am willing to make for the purpose of the discussion.
First: There are rights in a society. If we do not agree on this, further debate is impossible.
Second: Rights are independent of human interpretation (or, to use a synonym, they are objective). Again, if we do not agree on this, then they are created rather than discovered, so our debate would shift from what they are to what they should be.
Remark: we might not always have enough facts to determine whether a right was violated or not, but that is an empirical problem.
For the time being, these assumptions are sufficient for me.
————————————————————————–
@Bala:
Of course there is, it is an inseparable part of human thought processes. We need to interpret all the inputs that arrive through our sensory organs. We need to divide the inputs into relevant and irrelevant. We need to come up with an idea about what criterion is common among the relevant. We need to imagine what would happen if that criterion was not fulfilled. We need to imagine how to fill the gaps of our knowledge. Not realising how the process of human thought works is a grave error. Merely because there is one reality, it does not follow that it drawing conclusions based on a limited perspective of it leads to truth.
Can you tell me an example of someone who was wrong and knew he was wrong? You can’t. Because the process of search for knowledge is not equivalent to knowledge itself. Defining axioms as “self evident” is a circular definition. Merely because something is wrong does not mean that people are able to realise that at a specific time. It can mean however that we can realise that in the future.
When Einstein came up with theory of relativity, it turned out that Newton made unfounded assumptions. For two hunderd years, these assumptions were “self-evident”. Or even better, how about non-euclidean geometries?
So let me reiterate: you are conflating knowledge with the process of obtaining knowledge.
Oh man, Peter, you brought up the Black Magician of Princeton. This thread might get long now.
Peter Surda,
That’s not a definition. That’s just some religious blathering based on some attributes of that which you have decided to recognise as rights.
On the “subjective aspect of human interpretation”, you are completely confused. Where does “relevant” and “irrelevant” come in when your mind processes percepts received by our sensory apparatus? I have never seen such utter tripe. When I perceive an existent, my mind only tries to identify the attributes that distinguish the entity from its surroundings and the integrates all the identified attributes to form the concept of that entity as distinct from its surroundings. The process is mental, but not subjective.
Of course, to conflate “mental” with “subjective’ is something I should expect from you.
What is not a definition?
What are you talking about? What attributes? Where did I decide to “recognise (something) as rights”? I didn’t.
In order to draw conclusions, you need to divide the data that you gather into relevant for that conclusion and irrelevant for that conclusion.
Let me guess, this is again one of those “self evident” things, right?
In addition to this, you also need to completely filter out those data that are unrelated to the question. Indians (the american ones) for example, when they first saw horse riders, didn’t immediately realise that the horse and the person sitting on it were separate entities. Until then, they never saw anything like that, and incorrectly categorised their inputs. At that moment, of course, it was impossible for them to realise they were wrong. We may laugh at them now and say how it is “self evident”, yet when dealing with something new, one cannot realise that an assumption is wrong in advance of making it. The process of human thought does not work backwards. The only way to avoid the problem of making wrong assumptions is not to make any.
For centuries, people thought that earth cannot move, because things would slide off. There is a simple test which shows that the assumption is wrong, and is doable with the equipment available at that time, yet for a long time it didn’t occur to anyone to question the assumption.
You can twist it all you want. “self-evident” is the equivalent of “arrogantly confident”.
Bala, it occurred to me that maybe you were asking me for the meaning of the word “rights”. I would say that rights are rules of conduct that are enforceable even in the absence of consent of some of the parties involved.
” What is not a definition? ”
Whatever you had said about “rights”. You then realised and attempted a definition, but that too is not a definition.
” In order to draw conclusions, you need to divide the data that you gather into relevant for that conclusion and irrelevant for that conclusion. ”
This is your problem. For you, everything is about drawing a conclusion. I am talking about “knowing” starting from nothing.
” Let me guess, this is again one of those “self evident” things, right? ”
You are still missing the point. “Self-evident” does not mean “should be obvious to anyone and those who miss it are numbskulls”. I presume you are repeatedly interpreting it this way (that’s the only thing that explains your accusation of “arrogantly confident”.
“Self-evident” means that they are just what they are and cannot be “proved”. Analysis can only reveal more features, but not any proof.
” In addition to this, you also need to completely filter out those data that are unrelated to the question. ”
What question? There is no question. There are only percepts that we are trying to integrate and differentiate to form traverse from entity to identity to unit and finally to concept.
” Indians (the american ones) for example, when they first saw horse riders, didn’t immediately realise that the horse and the person sitting on it were separate entities. Until then, they never saw anything like that, and incorrectly categorised their inputs. At that moment, of course, it was impossible for them to realise they were wrong. ”
Good example. I was about to give the example of children making observations and classifying objects in their environment, but this is just as good. The problem here is indicated by your use of the phrase “incorrectly categorised’. There is nothing “incorrect’ in this. A concept is being formed of an existent. The Indians have no way of knowing that the rider and the horse are distinct existents. They always see them together in the same configuration. So, there is no conclusion they can draw other than that they are one entity.
To draw that they need more data. That includes observations of the rider and the horse when the rider has dismounted and it is possible for the observer to see the rider and the horse as distinct entities. It is then, when they differentiate and integrate the characteristics of the 2 objects, that they are in any position to recognise them as separate entities.
The other problem with your use of “incorrectly categorised” is a pre-supposition of perfect knowledge. It is almost as though for you, knowledge is something floating out there in an abstract realm and we somehow grasp it. Only that is knowledge to a human mind that it has grasped.
” We may laugh at them now and say how it is “self evident” ”
Not if we understand that “self-evident” means that it can only be perceived and not proved or disproved. Only he will laugh who assumes that “self-evident” stands for “it’s so obvious he must be a dork to fail to see it”.
” , yet when dealing with something new, one cannot realise that an assumption is wrong in advance of making it. ”
You are mistaking the act of relating the newly received percept with previously formed concept with the act of “assuming”. All a person is doing while encountering a new thing is to recognise it as a specific entity distinct from its surroundings and identifying its attributes. There is no assumption.
” The process of human thought does not work backwards. The only way to avoid the problem of making wrong assumptions is not to make any. ”
You are the one who has it all backwards. You are assuming that knowledge has to be perfect. You are therefore placing on the human cognitive apparatus, the unjustified burden of perfection. This implicitly assumes that the knowledge is already out there and that our task of learning is to grasp it. Sorry. That is a huge epistemological blunder.
” For centuries, people thought that earth cannot move, because things would slide off. ”
People can only form concepts based on what they have perceived. So, there is nothing strange in this. It is easy to laugh at them in hind-sight. You are sitting on the shoulders of giants and hence do not realise that you too would have made the same mistakes but for the giants who walked this earth between those you laugh at and you.
” There is a simple test which shows that the assumption is wrong ”
The error here is completely yours. The statement “The Earth cannot move” is a conclusion and not an assumption. It is arrived at by observation of the behaviour of various entities including living and non-living entities in the observer’s surroundings, the observer himself and the Earth.
What later observers (scientists like Copernicus) did was to bring in additional observations (of the stars and other planets) that showed that the conclusion was erroneous. Proper inductive reasoning (which included new facts gleaned by careful observation) led them to the conclusion that the sun was at the centre of the solar system and not the earth and that the earth revolves around the sun and rotates about its axis. Further observation and further inductive reasoning led them to the revised conclusion that the sun too is not stationary. This is the path of science.
” and is doable with the equipment available at that time ”
It is possible that it could have been done, but it was not. That it why we call some people “intellectual giants”. That is why we respect them.
” , yet for a long time it didn’t occur to anyone to question the assumption. ”
Yeah! So what?
” You can twist it all you want. “self-evident” is the equivalent of “arrogantly confident”. ”
So, the only one who is “arrogantly confident” is you who arrogantly claims that perfect knowledge is impossible. Who the hell is talking of perfect knowledge (other than you of course) in any case? As I see it, there is no such thing as “perfect knowledge”. There is just “knowledge”. The only question is whether the “knowledge” derived from inductive reasoning will lead to expected results and make it possible for human action to be successful, i.e., make it possible for the acting human to attain his goal as a result of the action.
p.s. Thanks for helping me figure out how human beings came to create mythical characters such as minotaurs, centaurs, mermaids, narasimha, etc. I now see the epistemological significance of these myths and will explore how I can use them in furthering my knowledge.
Bala,
What is wrong with my definition? Don’t you realise the reason why I am not making it any more precise is that it would require additional assumptions? What is your definition of rights then?
I didn’t say that part of the claim was an assumption. I did say the reason for their error was that they made a wrong assumption.
What you don’t realise is that assumptions eventually turn into conclusions. People assumed that when two things move simultaneously, unless they are attached, they will “slide” out of each other, because that is indeed what sometimes happen. They didn’t realise that the variable that influences this behaviour is relative rather than absolute speed, and inertia is involved. They didn’t realise that an assumption was in fact a conclusion of another, incorrect, assumption.
It explains that “self-evidence” is an insufficient condition for a correct axiom, because understanding is not retroactive. Self-evidence is a product of human thought.
In a way, you could say that. It is a price we pay. Let me ask you this. How come you appear to be the only Randian who rejects the notion of intellectual property? The only explanation is that the others are making a different (or an additional) assumption. How come it is not “self-evident” to them? Isn’t it true that until you realise you are wrong, you think you are right?
Silas,
“Do people need a state to recognize that stealing someone’s bread is wrong, and act to prevent and punish this?”
Arguably, yes. If someone can point to even one solitary existing non-state solution that actually works, then arguably no. If not, then it is at best only a wishful, theoretical, and hard to defend based on the evidence, no. If yes, then could that someone please disclose how I may join.
Cordially,
Don
Come and get the bread out of my kitchen without my permission, Don, I’ll provide you with a convincing argument.
This history thing is always a red herring. The protection rackets can’t prove *their* case because with good reason (for their comfort) they have never stopped running their rackets.
“This history thing is always a red herring.”
Tell it to the ones who use it to support their shaky arguments with it. Like Tucker.
Actually, IP producers also invest significant sums in self-defense mechanisms such as digital rights management. By this very act they are declaring their information to be property, much like the act of defending your kitchen makes the bread your property.
When anyone can copy the film and put it on *their* big screen, facilitating the group-viewing experience, it certainly most certainly is!
Make sure to account for the full implications of a lack of social acceptance of IP when you make your arguments.
Except that even a monopolist has an incentive to economize on production costs.
Perhaps the same ones that can’t survive without nanny protecting their factories from looters?Seriously, quit assuming that one kind of property right that you don’t like (or non-property right, whatever) requires the state to exist, while a kind that you like doesn’t. That’s kind of circular.
physical property doesn’t need the state. looters cannot protect against looting. no state needed, thanks.
Interesting challenge, easily answered. Historically, there was no IP before the state made it come into existence. Real property rights exist prior to the state.
That just shows it wasn’t historically done, not that it’s fundamentally impossible. Note that for most of history, the importance of new ideas relative to physical goods in the production process was less significant.
Re: Silas Barta,
Who argues about the possibility? The argument is that IP is immoral and unethical, since it is nothing more than the forced transfer of title from a person holding a physical asset towards some arbitrary “first originator”. That’s thievery.
And, ergo, thievery should be sanctioned?
The person I was responding to, before you changed the topic to whether IP is immoral and unethical, maybe?
This is what I have to deal with when trying to have a reasoned discussion about IP.
10,000 years ago…
Old_Mexican: This whole “owning land” thing is thievery. Where have people *ever* owned land without a chieftancy being involved?
Me: Well, for that entire history, there wasn’t really any point because people didn’t know how to farm and so they had no reason to settle and claim a spcific plot…
Old_Mexican: Uh huh. Right, and ergo, this thievery of “oh, you can’t use this land, it’s mine forever” should be sanctioned?
Re: Silas Barta,
Again, you’re trying to look cute. Nobody mentioned the impossibility of IP sans the state, only that IP followed the State (which is Jeff’s point)- you brought the possibility/impossibility issue up as a focus-changing scheme. And I did not change the topic, but indicated that the argument against IP is based on moral and ethical grounds, not on its possibility or impossibility.
Ah, so back to misconstruing IP as property rights. By the way, people *have* owned land without a chieftain.
Don’t try to look cute, Silas. Only babies and puppy dogs look cute.
@Old_Mexican:
Could you please, please read threads before you try to reply to them? THis is what I had initially said:
And that’s what Jeff was replying to. That’s what the topic was. That was the assumption his initial post made. That’s why I was talking about it. That’s why it’s non-responsive to reply by reference to IP being unethical or what not.
That’s why you’re going to apologize for wasting my time to make up for you inability to follow a thread before replying.
No, back to showing how you’re assuming the opposite, therefore assuming what you’re trying to prove.
And people *have* owned EM spectrum rights and IP rights without a chieftain. Now what?
Historically, there was no book printing either. There was no paper money either.
Comments on this entry are closed.
{ 1 trackback }