Reason is an absolute

Brendan, you pretty much explained my position, thanks! I couldn't have said it better.

If Marc Geddes does not agree that reason and logic are absolutes, is there any more to say here? [Edit: I've just noticed that in a post above, he states that he does agree to take reason as an absolute. But in a past thread, in defense of the same views we are discussing here, he explictly rejected the abolutism of logic. Since logic is integral to reason, this is a contradiction. But contradictions are what logic is about, and he rejects logic, so he is being consistent. Do you see how he is only "coherent" in the sense mentioned in my last paragraph?]

Rodney. Yes I do agree that reason and logic are absolutes; in the sense that I agree reasoning is likely the only route to truth and I agree the mind can fully know reality. But you've wrongly equated my probabilistic reasoning with radical skepticism (the idea that we can't anything) or mysticism. Of course, if my position implied either of these things I would be contradicting myself, but I don't think that my position implies radical skepticism or mysticism.

Let me ask you: Have you ever played a game of poker? Taken a bet? Listened to a weather forecast? Should you write-off the weather man as 'whim worshipper' because he can't forecast the weather with certainty? Should you despair of formulating any rational strategy when playing poker and simply do things on a whim? Would it be the case that you could say nothing at all about which horse will win the next race? The answer is: No, of course not. In all cases, probabilistic reasoning never implied radical skepticism or mysticism.

You may like to read the discussion on the other thread 'A Modest Proposal'. The mere fact I believe I can only assign probabilities to things certainly doesn't mean that I think the mind can't fully know reality! The probabilities are an assessment of the likelihood of an outcome given incomplete information. They are in the mind of the reasoner, not in reality.

If you toss a coin, cover it and ask me: 'Heads or Tails?�, I will say: 'I am 50% sure that the result is Heads'. This doesn't mean that I think that the reality of the result is half unknowable. The probability simply reflects my lack of knowledge. When my state of knowledge changes, I can then adjust the probability to reflect my new understanding of reality. When you uncover the coin and show me the result, suppose it was Heads. I would then change the probability to close to 100% for 'Heads' (although there remains a tiny possibility I'm hallucinating or some other weird delusions).

Let's come back to my claim that:

'I am 98% certain that certainty is impossible'

Of course I could be wrong. Perhaps Objectivists are right and contexual certainty is possible. Suppose I hear a convincing argument and I finally agree that certainty is possible. Then I would simply change the probability that certainty is impossible to 0. So you see, my probabilistic reasoning in no way implies that I can't fully know reality.

Certain about everything is impossible? Not even extreme skeptics accept that. I suspect you're certain about somethings (that bachelors cannot be married and squares cannot be circles) but not about others (Ice floats, the sun will rise in the sky tomorrow). Yes?

Jordan, no I am not certain of anything. As I've explained, this doesn't mean that I think we can't know reality. The probabilities simply reflect my current state of knowledge, and will change as new information comes in. They can be calculated in a rational way.

Even tautological statements such as 'All Bachelors are unmarried' cannot be regarded as certain, because terms have to be defined for such statements to be meaningful, and as soon as you attempt to define all the words you are drawing on empirical data which has uncertainties. Even mathematical truths are not certainties. Again, even the statement 1+1=2 is not meaningful until you precisely define all the terms. But the moment you attempt to define the terms you will make reference to empirical data which introduces uncertainty.

I should emphasize again that this is not radical skepticism. The probabilities we assign to things exist only in our heads and will change as new information comes in. The mere fact we can doubt everything doesn't mean that we can't know anything. We can know anything about reality with 100% accuracy. We just can't be sure that we know it that well. Doubts about truths don't make them any less true ;)

The value that wins out in any given situation is the greater in the hierarchical structure of ethics. The hierarchy might change based on context, but this doesn't eliminate the fact that ethics entails value hierarchies.

If the priorities we assign to our values change according to context (and I think that they do), then ethics is not a hierarchy in the sense that Rand thought. Rand seemed to regard survival (as a rational being) as the single root of ethics. All our other values were supposed to be derivatives of this. But if you imagine multiple competing values whose rankings change according to context, then there's a problem for Objectivism, because it won't be the case that survival as a rational being is the single root goal as Rand seemed to think.

The author of this article is all over the place. He doesn't understand Rand, but worse, he contradicts himself. If he understood Rand, he'd appreciate better why the strong guy won't pummel the weak guy.

I think the author understands Rand very well. Rand would say that the stronger party shouldn't violate the rights of the weaker because each person is an end in themselves and people should not initiate force or fraud. Of course I agree with her conclusions. It's her reasoning I doubt here. I'm asking why rational self-interest would lead to these conclusions. And I doubt that it does. So I doubt her theory of rational self-interest. Why is it not in the self-interest of the stronger party to violate the rights of weaker if the weaker can do nothing to hurt the stronger? Yes, I've heard the Randian conclusions that there are no conflicts of interest and people should trade value for value (and of course I agree that people should peacefully trade), but I'm asking for the reasoning leading to these conclusions. And I don't find the reasoning convincing.

Post 41

Saturday, May 15, 2004 - 7:36am

Mark,

I have been reading the debate, but not posting, because it occurred to me you are using a term that you do not define, and everyone seems to have a slightly different idea about what it means. Since it is your term, I would appreciate it if you would explain exactly what you mean by it.

The term is foundationalism, and you are asserting it is the Objectivist position, but since you do not say what you mean by it, and Ayn Rand and Peikoff, as far as I know never used that term, it is difficult to know if your analysis of what Objectivism actually say is correct or not. It certainly appears that much of what you are arguing against is not something Objectivism holds to be true in the first place.

I earlier started some comments, before I decided to wait and see if you ever defined your terms. Since those comments mostly have to do with uncertainty, I include them, and a comment about the first of your so-called, "expert papers."

=========================================================

Epistemology:
Foundationalism: Logic doesn't need foundational laws. It can simply be an interconnected web of self-supporting non-hierarchical facts.

What facts? Are you certain there are facts? If there are facts, are they isolated, unrelated, and without any particular nature? Because if they have relationships to other "facts" and have a particular nature, that defines an order, a hierarchy. It is impossible to know facts without knowing the fact's attributes which includes their relationships.

Certainty: Since humans are always operating off incomplete information, we can't know whether we have properly specified a given 'Context' or not. Thus it won't do to try to dismiss some possibilities as 'arbitrary'. So there's no certainty, not even contextual.

I honestly do not find the above cogent. We to not, "operate off,' information, complete or incomplete, and, what exactly would "complete" information be? We certainly have information, and whatever information we have it is all of it that we have. Our reasoning only needs to be, or can be, about the information we actually have. We do not need to reason about information we do not have.

If you mean by "incomplete," we never have all the information possible, that is true, but irrelevant. To be certain does not mean to be omniscient. We do not have know everything to know something. We do not have to be infallible to be certain about some things.

This idea that we cannot be certain about anything always astounds me. Are your really not certain, vaccination works, wireless communication is possible, heavier than air flight is possible, painless surgery is performed daily, antibiotics kill bacteria (but not viruses), machines can perform millions of mathematical functions that no single human being could ever perform, and that man can (and did) walk on the moon?

These are all things once vehemently denied by "scientists," but now are certain.

Certainty is the normal attitude of the psychologically stable. It is pathological to doubt everything, which one must, if nothing is certain. Once you have identified something and understand its nature, without some particular evidence to the contrary, one can be certain that what has been identified is what it is, and has the nature it has. When you are not being a, "philosopher," this is always your attitude.

When you get in your car, you do not doubt that it will operate as a car, that turning the key will start it, that you must put gas in it and change the oil to keep it operating. All of these things you are certain of, because there is no reason to doubt them.

How could you possibly do anything if it were uncertainty, rather than certainty, that guided you. How could you go shopping, if you were not certain that beef is not sometime wood, lamb is not sometimes plastic, or that tomatoes and potatoes are not sometimes poisonous (something that was not always certain, since both are related to poisonous nightshade, along with egg plant.) How could you dare order shrimp in a restaurant if you were not certain they would not suddenly become scorpions?

Is there anything about which we are uncertain? Of course, there are more things about which we have no knowledge at all, or only partial knowledge, than there are things we know fully and well. Most of the things we do not know, in our own personal lives, do not matter, because people only expend effort to learn about those things they are personally interested in and are important to their own lives. Even those things we do not know are not without certainty. We generally know which things we do not know very well or at all, and often use that fact in making our decisions, because we are certain we must make allowances and preparation for possible unknown consequences of our ignorance.

Your expert paper Foundationalism, Skepticism, Coherentism starts with this absurd mistake: The foundationalist ... says, in essence, that certain beliefs or truths or bits of knowledge are specially privileged starting points for any further development of our knowledge. These are where we have to start in order to �get off the ground� in finding out about the world.

Knowledge is hierarchical, both because the nature of reality has a hierarchical structure (sub-atomic particles, atoms, molecules, substances entities, etc. for example) and because or knowledge of that reality is learned hierarchically (counting, first, then addition/subtraction, multiplication/division, fractions, decimals, etc. for example). Since all our knowledge is about whatever exists (whether anybody knows what exists or not) this hierarchical structure of knowledge must also be non-contradictory.

After we learn a great deal we are in a position to discover those concepts which are unstated (and usually unrecognized) but implicit in all our knowledge. Once these essential concepts are identified we give them a name. We call them axiomatic concepts, because they must be true (or nothing is true) and to deny them is self-contradictory. But axioms are not the, "starting points," for gaining knowledge and Objectivism never says they are. Many people gain a great deal of knowledge without ever identifying the fundamental axioms of existence and knowledge, even though they are implicit in everything they know.

Then there is this gem: The deepest appeal of foundationalism, I think, derives from an attempt to achieve certainty.

Since certainty is the normal and appropriate view of all things, it does not need to be achieved. The love affair with doubt comes from an unstated desire to get away with something, which an absolute reality and ruthless truth will not allow. But, if "nothing is certain," and, "everything can be doubted," well then, who can say we must always responsible for own lives and choices, and must always be rational; maybe, sometimes, we can violate our own natures and the nature of the world we live in, and get away with it. It is certain, you cannot.

The rest of the expert paper is an exercise in obfuscation.

Regi

Post 42

Saturday, May 15, 2004 - 8:33am

Regi-

You have yet to show any reason why products made with little mental effort -- like the carving of a toothpick -- do qualify as property, but products requiring an enormous mental effort -- like the development of a design for a powered airplane -- do not.

Property is the product of man's efforts -- both mental and physical. When my effort creates a new design, it is MINE.

This is more of what I originally criticized. It is Marxism. Neither the value or nature of anything is determined by the amount of work or effort, mental or physical that produced it.

You are continuing to argue with a straw man. I did not say that the value of what I produce is a function of effort -- I said that what I produce is my property.

The essence of the issue is this: You say that some things I produce do qualify as property whereas other things I produce do not qualify as property. Why? On what basis is one included and the other excluded? I have refuted every basis you have offered.

You said that "so-called intellectual property" could not be property because an inventory of items before and after "taking it", would show nothing missing. I showed that:
1) Whether or not "items" are "missing" or "not missing" after an unauthorized use is not a valid criteria for determining property status. I gave the act of trespass as an example, and:
2) In fact, something is missing after an unauthorized use of property: the owner's exclusive right to its use and disposal.

You responded with the straw man claim that I would prohibit a competing toll road. I showed why that was, in fact, nothing but a straw man.

You said that patents are unfair to co-inventors. I have explained why that is not the case.

You said that patents have resulted in "thousands" of coercive monopolies. You produced two examples, both of which I refuted.

You said that since ideas are in one's head, no one can steal them because no one can get into your head. I have shown that ideas -- developed into designs -- most definitely have a physical existence and can be "stolen" in the form of unauthorized use.

You say that you cannot make out what I mean by design. I gave an example in my last post: the design of the Wright Flyer. The design is the arrangement of features, elements, details, etc. that achieve a particular objective or confers a particular benefit. Do you understand that not just any arrangement of features, elements and details will actually fly?

That arrangement of features, elements, details, etc. is what the Wright brothers produced. It is what they created. The Wrights figured out what had eluded all the others that were trying to fly. They developed an arrangement of features, elements and details -- a design -- to control the airplane in all three axis -- pitch, yaw and roll. This was the key to flight -- controlled flight. What they patented was what they produced: the design of a three-axis control system for airplanes.

Why is the design of this control system not property? What entitles someone like Glen Curtis to use it? All he had to do was take one look at the Flyer -- watch it make one circuit around the field -- to realize what the Wrights had accomplished. Curtis did not claim to have independently conceived of the same thing -- he just took their design and stuck it on his plane. And he is instantly in the airplane business.

You claim that intellectual property laws prevent others from using their own ideas. Which of his ideas was Curtis using when he copied the Wright's control system, other than the idea of acquiring wealth on the backs of someone else's achievement?

Who is initiating the use of force? The Wright brothers, who wish to maintain the exclusive right to the use and disposal of their control system design -- or Curtis, who wishes to profit from the Wright's efforts?

Some have suggested that copying is not necessarily easy. So what? The fact that it may be difficult to break into your home does not give me the right to do it.

I have answered every objection. And what do you do? You pick out one word at the end of a long and detailed post -- the word "effort" -- and from that you create the obviously false, straw man claim that my position is Marxist because I think effort creates value. Believe me, I understand that value is neither intrinsic nor subjective but rather objective.

Post 43

Saturday, May 15, 2004 - 4:24pm

Michael,

You said: You are continuing to argue with a straw man. I did not say that the value of what I produce is a function of effort -- I said that what I produce is my property.

Since I do not believe there is anything wrong with your reading comprehension, you must not be reading carefully. What I said was, "Neither the value or nature of anything is determined by the amount of work or effort, mental or physical that produced it." No amount of work or effort can turn anything that is only an idea into something that can be possessed. An idea has no ontological existence, only psychological existence--that is why it is called, "intellectual," property.

You say that some things I produce do qualify as property whereas other things I produce do not qualify as property.

Absolutely not. I say everything you produce is yours to use in any way you choose, including your ideas. You may even call your ideas your property, even though such property cannot be sold to, stolen by, or even shared with anyone else.

You said that "so-called intellectual property" could not be property because an inventory of items before and after "taking it", would show nothing missing. I showed that:
1) Whether or not "items" are "missing" or "not missing" after an unauthorized use is not a valid criteria for determining property status. I gave the act of trespass as an example, and:
2) In fact, something is missing after an unauthorized use of property: the owner's exclusive right to its use and disposal.

Well, you can't have it both ways, either an "unauthorized use" does cause something to be missing or it doesn't. In fact it does, even in the case of trespass. In the case of ideas, however, there is no way one can use someone else's ideas. An individual can only think about, choose, and act, on their own ideas.

You responded with the straw man claim that I would prohibit a competing toll road. I showed why that was, in fact, nothing but a straw man.

The toll road analogy was yours. I modified it, supposing you would not resort to dropping the context of our discussion, which is intellectual property, for which the toll road was being used as an illustration of theft, by you. When I suggest a competing toll road, I assume you would understand toll roads were a hypothetical new idea, of which yours was original. Your disingenuous switching of contexts surprised and disappointed me.

You said that patents are unfair to co-inventors. I have explained why that is not the case.

Not to me you haven't.

You said that patents have resulted in "thousands" of coercive monopolies. You produced two examples, both of which I refuted.

I mean by a coercive monopoly one in which only one individual or company produces a specific product because all others are prevented from producing that specific product by the threat of government coercive force. If that is not what a patent is for, if, after getting a patent, anyone else may merrily go about producing that same product, what the deuce are patents for?

Every patent is by definition a coercive monopoly, and there are not thousands of them, there are millions.

You said that since ideas are in one's head, no one can steal them because no one can get into your head.

That's right.

I have shown that ideas -- developed into designs -- most definitely have a physical existence and can be "stolen" in the form of unauthorized use.

The principle behind the fallacious idea of intellectual property is that ideas are property protected by patents and copyrights. If it is the ideas, "developed into designs," that is, the drawings, schematics, formulas, and process descriptions on paper, or stored in computer memory you mean, if someone takes or uses your paper or computer stored, "design," that would be unauthorized use. If someone looks up your patent at the patent office, or on line, and learns from that the idea from which you "developed your designs," and then he use those ideas he learned to "develop his own designs," he is not using anything but his own ideas and designs he developed, and no one has a moral right to use force to prevent him from doing so.

That arrangement of features, elements, details, etc. is what the Wright brothers produced. It is what they created. The Wrights figured out what had eluded all the others that were trying to fly. They developed an arrangement of features, elements and details -- a design -- to control the airplane in all three axis -- pitch, yaw and roll. This was the key to flight -- controlled flight. What they patented was what they produced: the design of a three-axis control system for airplanes.

Why is the design of this control system not property? What entitles someone like Glen Curtis to use it?

If Glen Curtis, or anyone else, understands the principle of a "three-axis control system," and is able to design a plane using such a system, what entitles anyone to use force to prevent him from doing so? There is no moral justification for such use of force. It does not matter how, when, or where Mr. Curtis learned the principle.

You claim that intellectual property laws prevent others from using their own ideas. Which of his ideas was Curtis using when he copied the Wright's control system

If I learn something, I have to use my own mind to understand it, it does not matter what the source is from which I learn it. Once I have learned something, the concepts and ideas that constitute what I have learned are mine. You seem to be suggesting that anything anyone learns from anyone else is not, once they have learned, an idea they then possess. Is that what you mean?

Who is initiating the use of force? The Wright brothers, who wish to maintain the exclusive right to the use and disposal of their control system design -- or Curtis, who wishes to profit from the Wright's efforts?

Nothing is stopping the Wright brothers from the exclusive use of their control system design. If Mr. Curtis creates an identical design and uses it, it is his design; nothing is stopping him from using his design exclusively either. What a patent does, however, is prevent some people from using their designs by force. There is absolutely no rational grounds for concluding that two or more people using identical things is an abrogation of anyone's property rights. No one has a right to violate anyone's property rights, even if they learned to create their own property by watching you create yours.

I have answered every objection.

No comment.

Believe me, I understand that value is neither intrinsic nor subjective but rather objective.

But, you do not seem to understand that an existent's nature is also objective, not something determined by government fiat.

Regi

(Edited by Reginald Firehammer on 5/17, 10:28am)

Post 44

Saturday, May 15, 2004 - 6:02pm

Regi,

I take great pride in my thinking. I've consistently thought that I've been consistent in my thoughts. I've tended to think that I think well (CS Pierce said everybody thinks this!). And when I first read in Damer's "Attacking Faulty Reasoning" that a panelist from a conference on critical thinking defined a critical thinker as:

"a person who by force of argument had changed his or her mind about an important issue at least once during the last year"

... I shuddered! I couldn't remember changing my mind on anything (did this mean I was uncritical?!). I began frantically searching for an annual "mind-changing controversy" (all the while implicitly realizing the dogmatic undertone of this behavior, however!). For someone "addicted to excellence" though, this can create a lot of existential angst.

The solution to this self-inflicted conundrum was to surround myself with geniuses, hence my gravitation toward SOLO - where intellectuals meet and converse in what I refer to as a "World Wide Gulch!"

Enough small talk - it's time for my announcement:

I am happy to say that I can now put my "angst" behind me (at least for another year!) because, you sir, have "by force of argument ... changed [my] mind about an important issue."

Congratulations Regi (this doesn't happen often!), you have just earned yourself another atlas point (though my deepened respect for you as a profound thinker may be construed as a bonus as well!)! I'm exuberant with glee on being aware of my own mind expanding (this must be what Rand meant when she spoke of having a sublime sense of what life - as a human - can be like to those who are self-consciously building up their awareness).

Thanks for all of your intellectual contributions Regi,
Ed

Post 45

Sunday, May 16, 2004 - 9:14am

Hi Ed,

Thank you so much for the interesting and flattering comments. I take great pride in my thinking. I've consistently thought that I've been consistent in my thoughts. I've tended to think that I think well.

Judging from your posts to SOLO, I am of the same opinion; you not only think well but articulate your thoughts well.

And when I first read in Damer's "Attacking Faulty Reasoning" that a panelist from a conference on critical thinking defined a critical thinker as: "a person who by force of argument had changed his or her mind about an important issue at least once during the last year"

I am very suspicious of the modern day, "critical thinking" movement. It is much more akin to skepticism than clear thought. Your quote is an example of what I mean. At some point, if a person is to have an integrated view of life, they must have all the important philosophical issues settled. (Obviously, most people never do have them settled.)

... I shuddered! I couldn't remember changing my mind on anything (did this mean I was uncritical?!). I began frantically searching for an annual "mind-changing controversy" (all the while implicitly realizing the dogmatic undertone of this behavior, however!). For someone "addicted to excellence" though, this can create a lot of existential angst.

I would be much more anxious if I always changed my mind than if I never changed my mind. While I am always ready to, "change my mind," if new evidence or an argument I never considered clearly demonstrates an error in my thinking, the essential principles are never going to change unless reality itself changes, which seems unlikely.

The solution to this self-inflicted conundrum was to surround myself with geniuses, hence my gravitation toward SOLO - where intellectuals meet and converse in what I refer to as a "World Wide Gulch!"

Oh yes!--that is exactly the right policy, and it is mine as well; to learn, to test one's ideas against the best objective analysis, but most of all, to enjoy the company of those who love ideas.

While I believe issues of fundamental importance need to be established, there are an infinite number of non-essential issues that we can always learn more about, and may frequently "change our minds on," because we are neither infallible or omniscient. For example, on this thread, I regard the issue of intellectual property non-essential; though important, it is a question of how fundamental principles (rights, non-initiation of force, property, values, etc.) ought to be understood and applied; but, the question of, "certainty," I regard as essential or fundamental.

If your "angst" about being certain (never changing your mind) is about fundamental issues, it is a mistake; but, if it is about non-essentials, it is not worth worrying about, so long as you continually learn and seek the truth.

By the way, I really like this idea, "...where intellectuals meet and converse in what I refer to as a "World Wide Gulch!" Maybe should call it, "Perigo's Gulch," where there is a true free market, at least in the field of ideas.

I can now put my "angst" behind me ...

Good! Permanently, I hope. I cannot picture you as a Peter Keating, to whom that kind of worry might be appropriate; I picture you more as Howard Roark. The last thing he would worry about is whether or not he ever changed his mind.

... you sir, have "by force of argument ... changed [my] mind about an important issue."

Thank you! However, if your mind has been changed, it is not I who changed it, but you. There may be some reasoning or argument I posted that contributed to your own thinking, but it had to be your own reasoning that actually changed your mind. If I helped you do that, I am gratified.

I regard all that you said, here and elsewhere as a bonus. So, again, I thank you!

[By the way, I am not criticising the rhetorical device (small talk) you used to introduce your, "announcement." On the contrary, I thought it was very clever.]

Regi

Post 46

Sunday, May 16, 2004 - 9:32pm

Regi,

"I regard all that you said, here and elsewhere as a bonus. So, again, I thank you!"

Thanks and you're welcome! Now, enough with all this back-patting consolation - or I'm liable to drift into a escalating spiral of teary-eyed sentimentality!

"If your "angst" about being certain (never changing your mind) is about fundamental issues, it is a mistake; but, if it is about non-essentials, it is not worth worrying about, so long as you continually learn and seek the truth."

Right! And, again quoting Pierce, I'd say that "...any man, if he have sufficient experience and reason enough about it, will be led to the one true conclusion." In my own words, given "all the time in the world," I suspect that I would have reached the same conclusion (you've just saved me "some of the time in the world" - and that's praise-worthy in itself).

So, what really went on "behind the scenes" was that your post brought the issue before my mind in such a clear, consistent manner, that I merely had to follow along through your chain of reasoning (a mental effort which you - showing literary talent - had made enjoyable, by the way) and subject your reasoning to my own critical analysis.

In analogous terms, as your words were passed through my "What does it all mean?"-machine, no red lights went off and I heard no buzzing sound (these things happen when ideas get rejected as unsound, uncritical, or downright contradictory)!

"Maybe should call it, "Perigo's Gulch," where there is a true free market, at least in the field of ideas."

Great idea! I really appreciate the seemingly paradoxical mix of idea toleration (Kelley-like) and the treating of unequals unequally (Peikoff-like) that Mr. Perigo seems to personify! The "idea market" really is free here, too (and Linz won't hesitate to comment on the "market-value" of a given idea if he's compelled to!).

"I picture you more as Howard Roark."

From what I hear "on the streets" about this man, I'm deeply honored to hear that - thank you, Regi. However, you may consider me strange, but I haven't read fiction in 20 years (including Rand's!). Truth is, I've been so overwhelmed with the rich excitement of facts, that I haven't been inclined to utilize mental effort to comprehend fiction (Aristotle is probably rolling over in his grave after what he said about poetry being more "true" than history!).

At any rate, I do watch movies - which I've discovered are "fictions" even if they are titled "documentaries" - such as Michael Moore's "Bowling for Columbine" (I have a short piece I wrote on this fiction-posing-as-fact shockumentory).

Again, it's always a pleasure to converse with a free-thinker such as yourself (one who respects the responsibility that comes with thinking freely),
Ed

Post 47

Monday, May 17, 2004 - 6:33am

Regi-

Let's see if we can simplify this.

I said:

That arrangement of features, elements, details, etc. is what the Wright brothers produced. It is what they created. The Wrights figured out what had eluded all the others that were trying to fly. They developed an arrangement of features, elements and details -- a design -- to control the airplane in all three axis -- pitch, yaw and roll. This was the key to flight -- controlled flight. What they patented was what they produced: the design of a three-axis control system for airplanes.

Why is the design of this control system not property? What entitles someone like Glen Curtis to use it?

You responded:

If Glen Curtis, or anyone else, understands the principle of a "three-axis control system," and is able to design a plane using such a system, what entitles anyone to use force to prevent him from doing so? There is no moral justification for such use of force. It does not matter how, when, or where Mr. Curtis learned the principle.

The point is that Curtis doesn't have to "understand" anything. He doesn't have to "design a plane using such a system". Nor does he have to "learn the principle". He simply gets a third party to purchase a Wright Flyer, he takes it into his shop and tells his workers, "Start building copies of this." And then he starts taking orders.

That is reality. It is not fantasy or exaggeration. Even with intellectual property protection, it happens. Hence the number of infringement suits.

Do you believe that Curtis should be allowed to do what is described above: sheer, blatant copying of someone else's creation?

Post 48

Monday, May 17, 2004 - 9:26am

Smith:

You complain: >>[Curtis] simply gets a third party to purchase a Wright Flyer, he takes it into his shop and tells his workers, "Start building copies of this."<<

If the purchase of a product entitles a buyer to the possession of that product, how then does that transaction exclude from his possession all of the information contained in that product?

Is the buyer to be forbidden to measure what he has bought? If not, then how is that not knoweldge he acquired by his own efforts? And if that is his knowledge, upon what principle is he to be prohibited from acting upon it?

Regards,
Bill

(Edited by Citizen Rat on 5/17, 9:28am)

Post 49

Monday, May 17, 2004 - 12:29pm

Hi Michael,

You asked, Do you believe that Curtis should be allowed to do what is described above: sheer, blatant copying of someone else's creation?

Well, of course! I know of no moral or physical law the prohibits "copying." We make machines that have no other purpose. There can be no grounds whatsoever for preventing one from copying anything.

You said, He simply gets a third party to purchase a Wright Flyer, he takes it into his shop and tells his workers, "Start building copies of this." And then he starts taking orders.

I have no idea why Curtis would get a "third party" to by the plane, he could just as well buy it himself; but, whether the plane is his own (because he bought it) or belongs to a third party (because they bought it), if he chooses to copy it or the third party is willing to let him copy it, it is their property to dispose of and use in any way they choose, bought and paid for, fare and square. Anyone who attempts to prevent them from using their property in any way they chose is violating their real property rights, not some government invented property rights that do not exist.

Regi

Post 50

Monday, May 17, 2004 - 2:56pm

Regi-

So what you said in your earlier posts is not true? Earlier you defended Curtis on the following grounds:

If Glen Curtis, or anyone else, understands the principle of a "three-axis control system," and is able to design a plane using such a system, what entitles anyone to use force to prevent him from doing so? There is no moral justification for such use of force. It does not matter how, when, or where Mr. Curtis learned the principle.

Now you say that Curtis does not have to "understand the principle", Curtis does not have to "design a plane using such a system", Curtis does not have to "learn" any principle.

He is not required to make any intellectual contribution whatsoever. And the Wright brothers act of creation is entirely irrelevant, it entitles them to nothing versus Curtis.

If that is what you believe, then you are correct. We will never agree.

Post 51

Monday, May 17, 2004 - 3:15pm

Michael,

I do not mean this unkindly, and I'm not trying to offend, but you seem to have a problem with some kinds of logic.

Here is what you said:

So what you said in your earlier posts is not true? Earlier you defended Curtis on the following grounds:

If Glen Curtis, or anyone else, understands the principle of a "three-axis control system," and is able to design a plane using such a system, what entitles anyone to use force to prevent him from doing so? There is no moral justification for such use of force. It does not matter how, when, or where Mr. Curtis learned the principle.

Now you say that Curtis does not have to "understand the principle", Curtis does not have to "design a plane using such a system", Curtis does not have to "learn" any principle.

Saying that Curtis does not have to "understand the principle," does contradict "if Glen understand the principle" he is free to use it. He can do either. If he understands a principle, he can use it, if he buys a product, he can use. There is no contradiction. They are both true.

He is not required to make any intellectual contribution whatsoever. And the Wright brothers act of creation is entirely irrelevant, it entitles them to nothing versus Curtis.

If that is what you believe, ...

It is exactly what I believe, because it is exactly true.

... then you are correct. We will never agree.

Well, we agree on that, anyway.

Take heart, Michael. Most people agree with you, and neither patents or copyrights are going away any time soon. You have done a good job defending your position.

Thank you for the interesting discussion.

Regi

Post 52

Tuesday, May 18, 2004 - 12:50am

Marc

Let me ask you: Have you ever played a game of poker? Taken a bet? Listened to a weather forecast? Should you write-off the weather man as 'whim worshipper' because he can't forecast the weather with certainty? Should you despair of formulating any rational strategy when playing poker and simply do things on a whim? Would it be the case that you could say nothing at all about which horse will win the next race? The answer is: No, of course not. In all cases, probabilistic reasoning never implied radical skepticism or mysticism.

Concerning the scenarios in your questions, I answer with: certainly so.

I answer with a certainly so as I cannot (honestly) doubt that I have not played poker, placed a bet, or listened to a weather report. In order to doubt that I have, I would have to be convinced via a doubt-inspiring argument, or be presented with doubt-inspiring evidence.

Merely stating that I might have been hallucinating is not a doubt-inspiring argument, nor is it doubt-inspiring evidence.

I am certain when I cannot doubt.

I would like to clarify my use of honest doubt: personally, I take my use of honestly doubt as being redundant, as I cannot lie to myself concerning what it is that I am doubtful of. If I hold the ability to doubt through a method of rational introspection, then I cannot be dishonest with myself, and, while in doubt, be certain concerning the doubted subject.

This is not to say that I cannot be incorrect, but, at that time, I either doubt or I do not.

If you toss a coin, cover it and ask me: 'Heads or Tails?�, I will say: 'I am 50% sure that the result is Heads'. This doesn't mean that I think that the reality of the result is half unknowable. The probability simply reflects my lack of knowledge. When my state of knowledge changes, I can then adjust the probability to reflect my new understanding of reality.

You are not 50% sure of the outcome�you are certain that the outcome will be one or the other. It is your odds of being correct with your guess as to what the outcome will be, which are 50/50.

Look at it this way: were you not certain of the potential outcomes, and the concepts involved with tossing a coin, then from where are you assigning odds from, and to what? Your certainty in the act of coin tossing--and all that goes along with it--is implied when statistical analysis is applied.

'I am 98% certain that certainty is impossible'

For you to, not only state certitude concerning what is impossible, but also assign how percetage-ly sure you are as well, you would need to demonstrate, with certitude, the conditions by which would render it impossible.

Even tautological statements such as 'All Bachelors are unmarried' cannot be regarded as certain, because terms have to be defined for such statements to be meaningful, and as soon as you attempt to define all the words you are drawing on empirical data which has uncertainties

As to married bachelors: You may be uncertain as to whether a person is a bachelor or not, but not that there can be married bachelors, as marriage and bachelor are concepts that humans invented concerning the contractual state of a male in relation to some other female/male.

Without putting too much thought into this, human inventions, such as marriage and bachelor, are not empirical, as the moon is perceived, but are constructed/invented to indicate a state of relationship with another person. You seem to be confusing the two.

Eddie

Interesting. I did not take what I said as permanency equating to existents. I�m not so sure that any thing is permanent? Save a permanent process, perhaps.

Ideas are fleeting, in that they do come and go, but are �retrievable;� were they not existing, though, then how is it that I am retrieving them, as I cannot retrieve that which does not exist?

I take it that you take it that ideas exist in a physical, although mental context?

I actually don�t know what objectivism�s position is on ideas, and whether or not ideas are concepts. I�ll have to look into that myself.

An idea is real in the sense that any other fleeting process is real, like "driving" or "smoking". "Driving" encapsulates the process by which my persons, an extent, manipulates my car, also another extent. So the idea of an idea is "a fleeting process where the nervous system interacts in a certain way." While it may be self-referencing to state it quite like that, it is not, more importantly, self-negating.

I�m not sure what is being said here? Are you saying that the act of driving is an idea? I would not have taken it as an idea, but the acting out of an idea, and an idea being an intellectual action.

It's a terrible thing to think about, isn't it? Terrible in that just how to come to terms with how ideas (physically) exist in our neural networks (brains), as we are having them, and then how they are stored for retreival at some later date.

Is it nutty to take it that, since our neural networks are finite in extent, that ideas are also extent within our neural networks?

I give up.

Anyway, it�s late, and I�ll have to give it some more thought another time.

Post 53

Tuesday, May 18, 2004 - 9:12am

Regi-

Saying that Curtis does not have to "understand the principle," does contradict "if Glen understand the principle" he is free to use it. He can do either. If he understands a principle, he can use it, if he buys a product, he can use. There is no contradiction. They are both true.

I was reacting to the term if in your statement. I realize that the two positions -- "does have to understand" or "does not have to understand" -- are both possibilities. I merely wanted to clarify what you were saying. In earlier posts, it seemed you were defending the right to copy on the grounds that the copier had to go through much the same mental process as the creator -- that is certainly the impression created by starting the sentence with "If".

But now you have clarified your position. In your view, nothing is required of the copier, beyond the mere physical labor of building the copies. And the act of creation entitles the creator to nothing versus the copier. And if enough copiers get in on the act to bankrupt the creator, well, tough luck.

In your view, the copier is not simply entitled to the same thing as the creator, he is entitled to it without going to the expense of creating it. Your view does not merely obliterate the distinction between creator and copier, it penalizes the creator and rewards the copier.

The last time we got to this point in the discussion, you said the following.

I can certainly understand the sense of unfairness, even injustice, one feels when thinking someone who has expended their time, money, and effort to create something of value, might be deprived of making what seems a reasonable profit on their efforts. Who defines what that reasonable profit is, of course, is problematic, and a question those who defend patents and copyrights do not answer.

The fact is, there is no automatic right amount of profit, or any guarantee there will be, or even ought to be, a profit at all.

There is an injustice here. But it has nothing to do with getting a reasonable return.

This defender of patents and copyrights will answer the question of who defines "a reasonable profit." The market defines it. And it is true that there is no guarantee that anyone will be willing to pay anything at all. The value of an idea may turn out to be zero.

But whatever value an idea has, whether it is large or small, it exists only because of the action of the creator. The copier adds nothing. Without the act of the creator, the copier would have nothing to copy.

Objectivism defines justice as the virtue of judging men's character and conduct objectively and of acting accordingly, granting to each man that which he deserves.

The copier contributes nothing -- therefore he earns nothing -- therefore he deserves nothing. Justice, therefore, demands that the copier get nothing -- and that the creator get whatever the market is willing to give, be it a fortune or be it zero.

Post 54

Tuesday, May 18, 2004 - 10:18am

Fountain Head:

Thanks for your reply. I'll try to clarify.

I was refering to the physical act of driving as analogus to the physical act behind idea creation. Essentially, I'm denying that ideas are extents in themselves, but are consequences, effects.

But now I'm starting to wonder off into the realm outside of philosophy, into psychology and neuro-biology, which I am no expert in.

Post 55

Tuesday, May 18, 2004 - 10:39am

Smith chastises Regi: >>In your view, nothing is required of the copier, beyond the mere physical labor of building the copies. And the act of creation entitles the creator to nothing versus the copier. And if enough copiers get in on the act to bankrupt the creator, well, tough luck.<<

Competition.

In the free market, there is nothing wrong with it. The first guy out with a product will typically benefit from competition. If he is as good at manufacturing as he is with coming up good ideas, then he will welcome the efforts of his competition to persuade the market of the need for his product -- i.e. missionary sales. Once a competitor creates a new customer, he can seize the opportunity to satisfy that customer by providing that product better or faster or cheaper (at which, as the inventor, he should have a natural edge).

Generally competition will increase the size of the market for his invention faster than he could have done on his own. This is good, period. Opportunity is increased by competition, not reduced, because the market is dynamic, not static. Furthermore, the inventor of a product also benefits from the improvements his competition makes to his invention and its manufacture, servicing, and marketing. Again he comes out ahead because more minds rather than fewer are contributing to the success of his idea.

Because these are in fact the benefits one usually accrues from competition in the free market, a patent is not justice for the inventor. Perversely what it is does is protect him from that which is beneficial to him, assuming it is his objective to earn a market for his product rather than have the government secure one for him. If he lacks the competence to exploit the benefits of competition in his chosen field of endeavor, what business is it of the government to shield him from failure?

Protecting businessmen from their incompetence by prohibiting competition is socialism ala pre-Thatcher Britain, which I understand all proper Objectivists abhor.

Regards,
Bill

Post 56

Tuesday, May 18, 2004 - 10:45am

Smith states in defense of patents: >>But whatever value an idea has, whether it is large or small, it exists only because of the action of the creator.<<

False. The creator's new idea is inextricably a product of other ideas which he has "copied".

Smith: >>The copier adds nothing.<<

You mean other than a product, as opposed to an idea, that a customer can buy?

Smith: >>Without the act of the creator, the copier would have nothing to copy.<<

False. He would have other ideas to "copy", including his own.

Regards,
Bill

Post 57

Tuesday, May 18, 2004 - 11:03am

In defending the patent, Smith states: >>Objectivism defines justice as the virtue of judging men's character and conduct objectively and of acting accordingly, granting to each man that which he deserves.<<

Well, I don't think Objectivism actually puts it that way. Objectivism takes a transactional view of our interactions with each other with the self-interest as the guide to what is just. Therefore, I don't see how an Objectivist would take into consideration what the other fella "deserves" when it comes to deciding what to exchange. Would not an Objectivist place first and foremost what is in his own interest?

In this case, how is it in the interest of any Objectivist to give an inventor what Smith thinks he "deserves" -- i.e., a 17-year monopoly on the market for his invention? What does the Objectivist get in return? Quite possibly an over-priced product that takes too long to delivery and may have a host of quality problems -- you know, what someone usually gets from a government-protected monopoly.

I'm not as sharp on what Objectivism says as is Regi and some others around here, but somehow I don't think it ranks what the other guy deserves above what is in my self-interest.

Regards,
Bill

Post 58

Tuesday, May 18, 2004 - 3:19pm

Fountain Head: �You may be uncertain as to whether a person is a bachelor or not, but not that there can be married bachelors, as marriage and bachelor are concepts that humans invented � Without putting too much thought into this, human inventions, such as marriage and bachelor, are not empirical��

Hi Fountain Head,

Perhaps you should put a bit more thought into this, since your comments support Kant�s analytic/synthetic dichotomy. In claiming that concepts such as bachelor and unmarried are conventional rather than empirical, you would be agreeing that the statement �all bachelors are unmarried males� is analytic, or true by definition of the terms involved rather than by appeal to experience.

But Ayn Rand claims that all knowledge is empirical, that is, true by appeal to experience, so I doubt she would agree with you.

Brendan

Post 59

Tuesday, May 18, 2004 - 4:45pm