Self-Ownership?

Jackson LaRose:

John James:

Does hunger exist?

In what sense?

What do you mean what sense?  Does it exist or not?

 

Hey man, you were the one yelping about the farcical distinction between "existing" and "existing in the physical world".  Ask a question that isn't so incredibly vague, and perhaps I won't have to request clarification.

Right, and you were the one who continously refused to make that distinction...claiming that you "were not aware of a presupposition that things can exist outside the physical world."

So, I ask you again...What do you mean what sense?  Does hunger exist or not?

 

Excuse me for not being a mind-reader. I inferred that you were arguing against the concept of legitimacy because it's arbitrary. You should know that I have no problem standing corrected if it turns out that an inference of mine was mistaken.

We all make mistakes.  The key is to learn from it.  I try to consciously not infer things from people's posts, especially those you disagree with, because it is usually wrong.

What do you mean by "valid"? It seems like you mean "capable of being asserted", which is hardly the same meaning as the one I ascribe to it.

No, I don't mean logical validity. 

No you don't.

Yes, I do.  But thanks for trying to read my mind again.  Do you purposefully not learn from your mistakes?

  Like I said, there is a thing within these cells and organisms that thinks and acts.  Where or what that thing is, I don't know.  What I do know is that it is heavily influenced by social conditioning, subject to social orginazation, and conceptually indistinguishable from anything else; it's just a part of the system.  I don't see you, a rock, or Omicron Persei 8 as any different from "me."  "I" am not a special snowlflake.  I'm not my friggin khakis.  There's a system at play here, of which this thing everyone calls "I" is an insignificant part. 

I reject private ownership too, even tho I possess and control things.  Tho I don't expect you to understand the difference.

 

 

JJ,

Straw man.  I am aware that some individuals hold a belief (presupposition) that things can exist outside the physical world.  The belief in the soul is an example.  I was not aware that you held this belief, since you had not mentioned it previously.

Jackson LaRose:

I wasn't aware that you presuppose that things can exist outside the physical world.

is different from,

John James:

"were not aware of a presupposition that things can exist outside the physical world."

Silly rabbit.

I meant in what condition of existence (since you had drawn the line in the sand between "existing" and "existing in the physical world") are you using to frame your question. 

"Does hunger exist?"

"Does hunger exist in the physical world?"

See?  Two different questions.

Jackson LaRose:

JJ,

Straw man.  I am aware that some individuals hold a belief (presupposition) that things can exist outside the physical world.  The belief in the soul is an example.  I was not aware that you held this belief, since you had not mentioned it previously.

Jackson LaRose:

I wasn't aware that you presuppose that things can exist outside the physical world.

is different from,

John James:

"were not aware of a presupposition that things can exist outside the physical world."

Silly rabbit.

I meant in what condition of existence (since you had drawn the line in the sand between "existing" and "existing in the physical world") are you using to frame your question. 

"Does hunger exist?"

"Does hunger exist in the physical world?"

See?  Two different questions.

So let me get this straight.  Multiple times I not only take the extra effort to type out that qualifying clause, but also (multiple times) point out how it changes the entire context when you remove it...yet you continuously remove it as if it still made no difference, despite my pointing out that it does.

Now when it suits you you want to claim you had no idea that I was making those statements and taking the time to write those clauses (and point out that they make a difference) because I was operating from a position that they make a difference. 

 

You are the one who multiple times, despite multiple corrections, assumed that there was no difference between existence in the physical world (again, have a physical presence) and existing at all.  So I ask you a simple question about whether something exists and now you want to jump to using the very distinction you refused to acknowledge the whole time.

I have to assume by this moving of the goalposts that you actually have no answer to my question without conceding the point I made the whole time...meaning you would in fact prove this entire back and forth about "exist" and "exist in the physical world" that you have insisted on playing, was in fact, a ruse.  You knew what I meant the entire time, you just pretended you didn't, and continued to play dumb and ask vague questions.  And finally when you get trapped in a corner, you switch positions and pretend that you are now operating from the very position you refused to even acknowledge the whole time.

I say again: ...and you wonder why people might call you a troll.

 

Steven Douglas:

The is-ought problem is another way of saying "normative".

I don't see how you could've gotten that from the is-ought problem.

Steven Douglas:

Morals, ethics, or the so-called "legitimacy" of property and ownership exists as an entirely separate construct, which I did not even address (yet).  My only point had to do with what constitutes property and ownership in a way that is fundamental and universal.

As far as I'm concerned, you did address it - or at least you started to. You wrote:

Steven Douglas:

The concept of property, in terms of pro-active dominion of both space and physical mass, stems from, and extends to, all life. And here I am not yet referring to normative concepts of "property rights", which is an entirely separate construct, since a priori, "what ought to be" can only be founded upon "what is". [Emphasis added.]

My point in bringing up the is-ought problem is to show the impossibility of the bolded claim.

Furthermore, if one defines "property" as "that which is owned (i.e. the object of ownership)", and "ownership" as "legitimate possession, use, and/or other control", then it would seem that legitimacy is fundamental to both. You're free to define "property" and "ownership" in differently, of course. The question I have is, how do you define them?

Steven Douglas:

Now let's get a little bit into that part - the age-old power vs. authority vs. moral and ethical legitimacy debate.

The snake, just like the mouse, has no concept of morals, ethics or legitimacy of any kind, and yet property and ownership relationships most definitely exist.  "Me hungry. Nice Hole. You food. Me eat. MINE."  All without an iota of consideration for fairness, deserving, legitimacy, contracts, honor, ethics, morals, or anything else.  Humans do consider such things, albeit inconsistently, almost never universally, and usually only with other humans, and not to animals or other life forms (some strange exceptions notwithstanding).

"Property and ownership relationships most definitely exist" in such situations only under certain definitions of "property" and "ownership". For you to make that claim logically, it seems you have to define them in non-normative (i.e. descriptive) terms. Another way of putting it, I think, is that the snake has taken possession or control of the mouse - most likely against the latter's will.

Steven Douglas:

Concepts like ethics, morals and legitimacy can be every bit as real ("what is") as property and ownership - but only because we said so, and then acted upon it to make it so. Even then, "real" is not to be confused with "right".  Whether we call something an "inalienable" or "God-given" right, or attempt to argue that there exists some kind of "intrinsic" or innate morality or legitimacy on anyone's part can only be asserted as a circular argument. This is irrespective of how many agree or disagree, respect or disrespect the boundaries asserted, invisible or visible, that stemmed from a commonly held or accepted paradigm.

This, in essence, is the is-ought problem. So how can "what ought to be" only be founded upon "what is"?

There have been (and thus there obviously can be) people who think they should have never existed to begin with. Here we have what looks like a clear-cut example of how "what is" and "what ought to be" have no necessary connection.

Steven Douglas:

Even so, I have no problem addressing moral or ethical problems, or even taking a stance. But I do not ever try to delude myself into thinking that I am dealing with anything but a human construct.  In addition, these are things that I approach in the same way as definitions; that is, to look only at whether the construct is self-consistent, with equal application, and not self-contradictory in any way (i.e., has no preference of persons, and makes no attempt to be a special application of a rule or a law). However, even there I recognize that this my own rule, my own stance, and my artificial construct, like all others, regardless how much it is shared by others, or cleverly, passionately or persuasively argued or applied.

I think I'm with you here. Just because morality is inherently subjective and arbitrary doesn't mean we must abandon it altogether.

Laotzu del Zinn:

We all make mistakes.  The key is to learn from it.  I try to consciously not infer things from people's posts, especially those you disagree with, because it is usually wrong.

What I fail to see is how, in pointing out that legitimacy is arbitrary, you were making any argument against self-ownership. After all, isn't self-ownership what this thread is about? That's why I figured you were using that as an argument against it. So, if you weren't, what was your point there? I think pretty much all of us involved in this thread recognize that legitimacy is arbitrary.

Laotzu del Zinn:

No, I don't mean logical validity.

Then... what do you mean?

Laotzu del Zinn:

Yes, I do.  But thanks for trying to read my mind again.  Do you purposefully not learn from your mistakes?

This time I don't think I'm making a mistake. My point was that, as far as I can tell, you're hypocritical here. Saying you reject the concept of "self", but then saying you don't really reject it (i.e. outright), seems to me like you're trying to have your cake and eat it too.

Laotzu del Zinn:

Like I said, there is a thing within these cells and organisms that thinks and acts.  Where or what that thing is, I don't know.  What I do know is that it is heavily influenced by social conditioning, subject to social orginazation, and conceptually indistinguishable from anything else; it's just a part of the system.  I don't see you, a rock, or Omicron Persei 8 as any different from "me."  "I" am not a special snowlflake.  I'm not my friggin khakis.  There's a system at play here, of which this thing everyone calls "I" is an insignificant part.

Translation: "I exist and I don't exist." Well done. You've removed yourself from the realm of logical discourse.

Laotzu del Zinn:

I reject private ownership too, even tho I possess and control things.  Tho I don't expect you to understand the difference.

You certainly consider your possession and control of those things to be legitimate, don't you? So you don't reject private ownership - at least not consistently, which to me doesn't constitute a rejection of the concept per se.

JJ,

By that criteria, we are both trolls.  Please see the false quote you inserted, and also, your complete disregard for the point of existence distinction that up until now was of vital importance, but is now just a tool of my trolling ways.

Jackson LaRose:

Where do you draw the line between "self" (ego) and "body"?

John James:

I would have to assume one exists in the physical world, one doesn't.

Jackson LaRose:

One what?  Ego?

John James:

You asked about the difference between two things.  My answer is, the difference between those two things is that one of those things exists in the physical world, and one of those things does not exist in the physical world.

Jackson LaRose:

Are you saying that the "body" actually exists, and the "mind" does not?

John James:

Did you miss the words "in the physical world"?  I repeated them at least 3 times.

Jackson LaRose:

I'm merely asking you which one (the "body" or the "mind") you consider to be "in the physical world", and which one is not "in the physical world".

John James:

That isn't what you said.  You removed the important qualifying words, changing the entire context of the statement.  I stated one exists in the physical world, and one does not exist in the physical world.  I never even implied that either one did not exist (period).  But your question implied I did, and to answer it in the way it was asked (as a "yes, or no") would be to concede a notion that was never asserted.

The notion that a person could honestly not see how asking between "the body" and "the mind" which one exists in the physical world and which one does not could be construed as trolling, is just baffling.

Jackson LaRose:

How am I supposed to know what you mean by that, you won't answer! ... It's equally as baffling you expect me to be psychic.

John James:

Seriously?

Jackson LaRose:

Yes, seriously.  I do not understand how either the "mind" or the "body" does not "physically exist".  Lest you are a disembodied soul, or some sort of monkey operated flesh puppet.

John James:

Then you're going to have to share this special definition of "mind" you have, because in the dictionaries I'm familiar with, "mind" describes a consciousness (brought about by brain function).  And those same dictionaries define "consciousness" as an "awareness", or a "quality" or "state" of being aware.  If you could demonstrate how a condition or state of being is a physically existing thing, I'd be much obliged.

Jackson LaRose:

So, you are saying that something that does not exist (Mind, ego, etc.) "owns" something that does (body, corpus, etc.)?

John James:

We're going through this again?  I say "does not exist in the physical world" (i.e. does not physically exist, have a physical presence) and you say "does not exist".

Jackson LaRose:

I wasn't aware that you presuppose that things can exist outside the physical world.  Are you claiming the existence of some supra-physical realm in which the "mind" exists?

John James:

Perhaps this will make it easier for you.  Does hunger exist?

Jackson LaRose:

In what sense?

John James:

What do you mean what sense?  Does it exist or not?

Jackson LaRose:

Hey man, you were the one yelping about the farcical distinction between "existing" and "existing in the physical world".  Ask a question that isn't so incredibly vague, and perhaps I won't have to request clarification.

John James:

Right, and you were the one who continously refused to make that distinction ... So, I ask you again...What do you mean what sense?  Does hunger exist or not?

Jackson LaRose:

I meant in what condition of existence (since you had drawn the line in the sand between "existing" and "existing in the physical world") are you using to frame your question. 

"Does hunger exist?"

"Does hunger exist in the physical world?"

See?  Two different questions.

Then you go on to accuse me of being rhetorically disingenuous, because I had misunderstood your position that there is a "phyisical world", and a "non-physical world", which looking back was weakly implied by tacking "in the physical world" over and over after "exists", but that was lost on me in the heat of the moment.  After I caught on, I began using the distinction, which you then claimed was intellectually dishonest, while simultaneously disowning it yourself, all the while failing to give any straight answers, just smarmy incredulity as my mental density.

If I'm a troll, you're just as much a troll.

Thanks for helping me completely derail my own thread, by the way.  Well done.

 

 

What I fail to see is how, in pointing out that legitimacy is arbitrary, you were making any argument against self-ownership. After all, isn't self-ownership what this thread is about? That's why I figured you were using that as an argument against it. So, if you weren't, what was your point there? I think pretty much all of us involved in this thread recognize that legitimacy is arbitrary.

There you go implying again.  Will you ever learn?  I was answering a question, nothing more, nothing less.  He asked "how could you deny x."  I responded "by saying 'I deny x."  It's that simple, nothing really more to read into.

 

This time I don't think I'm making a mistake. My point was that, as far as I can tell, you're hypocritical here. Saying you reject the concept of "self", but then saying you don't really reject it (i.e. outright), seems to me like you're trying to have your cake and eat it too.

I'll explain it again.  Yes, there is a thing inside these cells and organisms that thinks and acts.  I'm just not sure "self" "me" "I" are the best words to describe that.  "Being" seems to make more sense to me.  But the sentence "being needs to go to the store" doesn't really make sense in popular culture, so I am forced to continue referring to this concept Being doesn't recognize the existence of.

Translation: "I exist and I don't exist." Well done. You've removed yourself from the realm of logical discourse.

Ya, sort of how electrons are both particles and waves.  But yet again you've created another straw man; I hope you are getting paid for it.  A better translation would be "This body-mind acts, but I don't exist."

This "self" you refer to is very arbitrary, subject to daily whims, ever changing physically, and under heavy social influence.  I may be "selfing" but I don't have a "self." 

(You sure have gotten angrier over this last year bro.  Life is only as good as one percieves it to be.)

You certainly consider your possession and control of those things to be legitimate, don't you? So you don't reject private ownership - at least not consistently, which to me doesn't constitute a rejection of the concept per se.

Inferring my position for me again?  When will it stop?

No, I don't consider my possession and control of things to be outright legitimate.  Sometimes it may be, sometimes it may not; even if I acquired those things justly.  I don't consider my things part of myself (which means I don't beg the question on the right to property) and so I am not very attached to them; and feel community need to sometimes overwrite my claims to legitimate control.  I don't consider my things "mine," as much as I consider them "ours, I'm just holding on to them right now."

Any more inferences and straw men?  Everybody has to be good at something

Jackson LaRose:

which looking back was weakly implied by tacking "in the physical world" over and over after "exists", but that was lost on me in the heat of the moment.

You seem to be having quite a few problems stemming from this emotional sensitivity that evidently you have difficulty dealing with.  Perhaps it would be advantageous for you to actually take some of the advice I offered you earlier, instead of fluffing it off in a sarcastic manner.  Perhaps you should exercise a bit more caution in your Internet travels and maybe even take a breather from the net overall.  Take some time to calm down.  Maybe relax and wait half an hour before you post.  Perhaps do a crossword puzzle, and make a sandwich.  Then come back and write your post.  This way you will be less likely to end up having all these problems.

 

After I caught on, I began using the distinction, which you then claimed was intellectually dishonest, while simultaneously disowning it yourself, all the while failing to give any straight answers, just smarmy incredulity as my mental density.

a) I honestly do not believe it took you this long to understand that a distinction was being made.  It was pointed out to you in the very beginning, and every step of the way.

b) Even supposing what you say is true, it would be quite convenient that after all that back and forth, you would all of a sudden understand the distinction just as you were asked a question which, without such a distinction, would be difficult to answer without sounding foolish.

 

So, let's clear this all up.  Jackson LaRose, if something does not exist in the physical world (i.e. have a physical presence), does that mean it does not exist?

 

Laotzu del Zinn:

There you go implying again.  Will you ever learn?  I was answering a question, nothing more, nothing less.  He asked "how could you deny x."  I responded "by saying 'I deny x."  It's that simple, nothing really more to read into.

I don't believe you when you say it's that simple. You added: "They're both just assertions with no real meaningful basis". So I decided to ask you what you think a "real meaningful basis" would be. As far as I'm concerned, you still haven't actually answered me. You also haven't told me yet what you mean by "valid".

Laotzu del Zinn:

I'll explain it again.  Yes, there is a thing inside these cells and organisms that thinks and acts.  I'm just not sure "self" "me" "I" are the best words to describe that.  "Being" seems to make more sense to me.  But the sentence "being needs to go to the store" doesn't really make sense in popular culture, so I am forced to continue referring to this concept Being doesn't recognize the existence of.

What's the difference to you between "self", "me", and "I" on the one hand, and "being" on the other? How are you not free to use "being" instead of those other words?

Laotzu del Zinn:

Ya, sort of how electrons are both particles and waves.  But yet again you've created another straw man; I hope you are getting paid for it.  A better translation would be "This body-mind acts, but I don't exist."

Doesn't the body-mind have to exist before it can act? If one defines "I" as "the body-mind that is speaking", then what?

Laotzu del Zinn:

This "self" you refer to is very arbitrary, subject to daily whims, ever changing physically, and under heavy social influence.  I may be "selfing" but I don't have a "self."

What's the difference? Only language aesthetics, as far as I can tell.

Laotzu del Zinn:

(You sure have gotten angrier over this last year bro.  Life is only as good as one percieves it to be.)

Am I supposed to care about this at all? It seems completely beside the point - at best.

Laotzu del Zinn:

Inferring my position for me again?  When will it stop?

No, I think I'm telling you how it is. It'll stop when you decide to be logically consistent.

Laotzu del Zinn:

No, I don't consider my possession and control of things to be outright legitimate.  Sometimes it may be, sometimes it may not; even if I acquired those things justly.  I don't consider my things part of myself (which means I don't beg the question on the right to property) and so I am not very attached to them; and feel community need to sometimes overwrite my claims to legitimate control.  I don't consider my things "mine," as much as I consider them "ours, I'm just holding on to them right now."

So when do you consider it to be legitimate, and when do you consider it to be illegitimate? Surely you can break it down for me, can't you?

If you really consider your things to be "ours, I'm just holding on to them right now," then logically you won't complain when anyone else comes along and unilaterally decides to relieve you of that "burden" - for any reason or for no reason at all. After all, those things weren't yours, you were just holding onto them for the moment. Now you aren't anymore. Complaining about it is just making an assertion with no real meaningful basis.

Laotzu del Zinn:

Any more inferences and straw men?  Everybody has to be good at something 

Hang on a minute... wait, sorry, no, I'm still not intimidated.

JJ,

I tend to freak out when people talk down to me.  Maybe you should be less condescending?  That might help.

a) It's unfortunate you do not believe me.  Your point may have been obvious to you, but it was not to me.

b) Your point was besides the point, anyways.  You could've easily answered any of the following questions, since your position appears to be (just my interpretation, since you won't clarify by actually answering any questions),

Both the "mind" and "body" exist, but only the "body" (?) exists "in the physical world".

"Are you saying that the "body" actually exists, and the "mind" does not?"

How about, "No, that isn't what I'm saying."?  That seems like a reasonable, clear answer to the question at hand.

"Are you claiming the existence of some supra-physical realm in which the "mind" exists?"

How about, "Yes, that's what I'm saying."  Or if it isn't, "No, that isn't what I'm saying".

See?  Not patronizing, nor confrontational.  It isn't hard not to be a jerk, you just have to try.

As for your question,

John James:

if something does not exist in the physical world (i.e. have a physical presence), does that mean it does not exist?

I'd have to say I believe the jury is still out on that one.

My turn. 

Are you saying that the "body" exists in the physical world, and the "mind" does not?

John James:

Does hunger exist?

Hunger, the actual condition of a body in want of nutrition (sense #1), is a condition of lack, brought about by the loss of one thing (certain types of mass) that is replaced by another (gaps, or "space").  Does the "lack of sand" in the top of an hourglass exist?  It does, in the form of space, and space, which is not insubstantial, even in a vacuum, does exist.  The physcial sensation of hunger, that which signals the brain that the body is in want (sense #2) , also exists, strictly speaking, in the form of the energy which is both substantial and required to create those signals.  In that sense, try to imagine something that does not exist. The moment you conjure it as an image in your mind, it will exist in that space and time, if only in you. Furthermore, it does not matter that what you imagined is conceptual, metaphysical, normative or anything else, and not tangible or external to you. If you imagined it, it does exist in that moment.

Jackson LaRose:

I would disagree that the concept of "property" is meaningful without a normative underpinning.  Rental is a good example of why.

Actually, rental is a perfect example of why property, possession and ownership, without normative underpinnings, are meaningful, albeit only in a temporal sense, as I initially qualified. I cannot conceive of a single example of ownership or property in the universe, even as applied to inanimates on quantum or cosmological scales, that is not temporal, very much akin to a rental. If there is a "you" that extends beyond the physical body, your ownership/possession/control of your physical vessel can only be said to be a rental.  

Autolykos:

"Furthermore, if one defines "property" as "that which is owned (i.e. the object of ownership)", and "ownership" as "legitimate possession, use, and/or other control", then it would seem that legitimacy is fundamental to both. You're free to define "property" and "ownership" in differently, of course. The question I have is, how do you define them?"

If we jump straight into standard definitions, we enter a vast, interconnecting web of other definitions, many of which are unqualified ill-defined in a universal sense, or are circular in meaning, and without necessarily exploring root fundamentals.

My first attempt was to get at the fundamental roots, or defining characteristics of each term, rather than the more common definitions, of terms like possession, property and ownership, by stripping away all normative assertions ("legitimate" being but one). This is what constitutes "what is", without respect to the normative "what ought to be".

Hume's point that an ought cannot be derived from an is was only intended to show that morality and ethics are not universal or innate to anything, and cannot be derived therefrom.  I have no quarrel with that, but that is not to say that oughts do not exist - only that the oughts which do exist are subjective, and constructed based on the basis of what is.  And that is not confined to morality or ethics, but any artificial construct. I see sand that "is", and envision it as a semiconductor substrate or a sand castle, both of which are oughts. In addition, I guard my sand castle, because I created another ought - one that said, "You have no right to kick my sand castle".  In the above examples, I did not derive my oughts from the sand itself. Rather I created them. They were founded on sand, not derived therefrom.

Every "ought to be" in existence is founded upon, and preceded by, a case of "what is". It is the "there" that cannot be arrived at except from "here". I cannot conceive of an example that is otherwise. Even in the seemingly impossible case of someone who thinks they should never have existed to begin with, they can only come to this conclusion based on "what is", and that is the wholly inescapable connection in that moment, regardless of their inability to "get there from here".

Autolykos:

Just because morality is inherently subjective and arbitrary doesn't mean we must abandon it altogether.

Yeah, I think that's a mistake people sometimes make when they see terms like "meaningful" in a philosophical or deductive sense, and apply it, apples to oranges, as synonymous to the same terms with their more familiar usage, wherein we assign weight, value, importance, usefulness and other subjective abstracts to a thing, based on philosophical or even scientific labels that were often never designed for use as synonyms in other contexts. (e.g., ignore what is meaningless, gather what is meaningful).  For example, I say that I want to argue a point, or present an argument, and comes the response, "I don't like to argue, can't we just discuss it?" They see the word argue, and think "quarrel, bicker, raised voices, conflict, confrontation, etc.,", and only because of their familiarity with the term is only from common usage. Likewise, "not meaningful" in a philosophical sense does not necessarily mean unimportant, not useful, can/should/ought to be discarded or disregarded.  

Autolykos:

Another way of putting it, I think, is that the snake has taken possession or control of the mouse - most likely against the latter's will.

Yes, and I deliberately keep separate the two parts of that sentence, to separate the descriptive (what is) from the normative (what should have been or ought to be).  The snake has taken possession or control of the mouse and the hole. That is the descriptive, non-normative, ever-temporal reality that describes both an act and the condition that exists as a result. We now have a case of possession, control and ownership, however temporal that might be, and regardless of any normative assertions or qualifications that might follow or have preceded.

Humans, who are capable of consciously thinking and planning well beyond immediate needs and wants, see that ownership, possession and control is desirable or necessary, and can plan and act to extend and expand the spacial and temporal relationships that naturally exist, even to the point of pushing away any temporal illusions. We don't want to exercise possession and control in just the moment. I want to be able to walk away from my possessions and return to them at will, secure in the knowledge that they will still be under my exclusive control, with or without my physical presence. That is my "ought to be" at work. We also have the capability of seeing that many others are in the same mode of thinking and acting, a fact which can be synthesized into usefulness (e.g., "You stay here and watch the property while I go out and hunt").



 

Jackson LaRose:

John James:

if something does not exist in the physical world (i.e. have a physical presence), does that mean it does not exist?

I'd have to say I believe the jury is still out on that one.

 

Are you saying that the "body" exists in the physical world, and the "mind" does not?

Can you honestly tell me you have no idea of the answer to that question?  After all this?  This entire thing began because you asked what is the difference between the two.  And I told you the difference between those two things is that one of those things exists in the physical world, and one of those things does not exist in the physical world.

Instead of asking "which one exists in the physical world?" (which, I believe a 9 year old would say is an asinine question), you elected to take out the qualifying clause and ask me if I'm saying one of those things exists and the other doesn't.  I correct you, pointing out that there is a difference between existing in the physical world, and existing (period).  You chose to ignore this distinction and go on as though you included the clause all along.  I point out that you were changing your statement, and then you decided to go off on a tangent discussing your status as a troll.  You wanted to discuss that, so I did.

I put up with your insults, your name calling, your childish sarcasm, and your profanity, all the while addressing virtually every single thing you said, never insulting you, never calling you names, never being childishly sarcastic, never directing profanity at you.

You on the other hand pick and choose what to respond to, put words in my mouth (yes, technically you're asking questions, but when I say one thing, and your response is a question asking "so you're saying..." and then proceeding to say something not even close to what I said, it is in effect putting words in my mouth.)  When I say:

"you're going to have to share this special definition of "mind" you have, because in the dictionaries I'm familiar with, "mind" describes a consciousness (brought about by brain function)[...] If you could demonstrate how a condition or state of being is a physically existing thing, I'd be much obliged."

There is no way:

"So, you are saying that something that does not exist (Mind, ego, etc.) "owns" something that does (body, corpus, etc.)?"

is a sensible, logical clarifying question, let alone a proper response to the post prior to it.  You completely ignored my request to define the term you are using, and instead elected to just make more assumptions and keep asking questions that are do not even resemble anything I said.  (Are you keeping a tally of the troll-like characteristics?)

I finally ask you a simple question, essentially forcing you own up to your own position of ignoring any distinction between existing the physical world and existing period.  And what do you do, but of course all of a sudden acknowledge the very distinction you ignored the entire time.  I honestly cannot see how you could be so oblivious as to why anyone might consider you a troll.

Multiple times throughout this thread you have conceded the body is a physical object, speaking of "physical parts", and in fact specifically referring to the body as being "anything except the mind [...] every body physical parts."  This not only would imply that you agree with virtually the rest of the world that the body is a physical object — which, since I'm assuming you'll attempt to take this opportunity to pretend you don't know: a physical object means something exists in the physical world — but also it would imply that you agree with virutally the rest of the world that the mind does not...that it is "a manifestation of brain function".

Again, you not only know the answer to your question, you have known it all along, and have demonstrated as much.  You have pretended to not be clear and asked vague or purposefully suggestive questions so as to troll along, when you actually had a much better understanding than you let on.

I believe it is quite obvious when I say "one exists in the physical world and one does not exist in the physical world" that between the body and the mind, that body is not the one that doesn't exist in the physical world.  The only reason that someone would pretend as though a person could have been saying that the mind is has a physical presense while the body does not is if he assumed the person was an idiot, insane, or if he simply was trolling.

I find it hard to believe you would honestly think I was an idiot or insane.

 

But now that you have the answer that you were allegedly so clueless about this whole time, you have yet to answer my question:

Does hunger exist?

 

John (or Jackson), was there a problem with my answer to the question of whether hunger exists?

In fairness, asking "in what sense?", to qualify what you meant by hunger, was valid, since you could be referring to the condition of bodily hunger (lack of nutrients to the body), the physical sensation of hunger, desire in general, or perhaps even another commonly used definiton, any of which could change the way in which the question was answered.

And for the record, I don't think either of you are trolls, or trolling - I just see a lot of reactions to what appear to me to be miscommunication on either or both parts.

 

 

Man.. I typed out a long response.  And then my internet went out before I hit "post" and it's gone   You gotta hate that...

Anyway, the short story is:

Yes, very often people use the term "I" to refer to the mind/body... they also ascribe many other things to it, coming up with the concept "mine."  I find both of those to be insufficient definitions.  I do not consider my holdings to be de facto legitimate, simply because they are mine.  But I also will not simply hand everything over to anybody, as it has been entrusted to my responsiblity by the greater community at large.  I think that not only is common property the most justifiable form of property, private property is a myth that never has, nor ever will exist.  All property is subject to community oversight, in some way. 

Yes, it is "just language asthetics" which, regarless of how many sophists try to convince one otherwise, is very important.  Consider:

Light and matter are both single entities, and the apparent duality arises in the limitations of our language. It is not surprising that our language should be incapable of describing the processes occurring within the atoms, for, as has been remarked, it was invented to describe the experiences of daily life, and these consist only of processes involving exceedingly large numbers of atoms. Furthermore, it is very difficult to modify our language so that it will be able to describe these atomic processes, for words can only describe things of which we can form mental pictures, and this ability, too, is a result of daily experience.

~Werner Heisenberg (of Uncertainty Principle fame) (emphasis not mine)

Our language simply is insufficient in describing a systematic reality, as it relies far too heavily on nouns.  Hence, I refer to "I" as "being" or "selfing."

(And on the note of your apparent, to me, anger.  I'm just worried about your mental/spiritual health.  Perhaps its the leftist in me, but I just don't like to see people engage in habitual negativity.  Maybe I am just reading far too much into limited posts.  If so, much apologies.  But if you need somoene to listen, just PM me.  If not, please forget I said anything, and accept my apology.)

Still not seeing how that really makes sense, Autolykos.

So I reject one division that isn't there and I must throw out all of them?

My point is more that who I am has a lot to do with physical circumstance which has a lot to do with my body. Not sure how those two can be so separate as to believe that there is an inalienable entity that simply owns my body. I'm pretty sure, though I don't have the numbers in yet, that I am my body, or at least my body is part of me.

Laotzu del Zinn:

MaikU:

I am more interested about how you would deny the premise that only you have legitimate control over your body.

That's easy.  You say "no you don't.'  They're both just assertions with no real meaningful basis; that's why you have to throw in that arbitrary caveat of "legitimate" just like in the NAP you have to insert "legitimate force" rather than just force.

No.  Not so easy.  You did not say how you denied the premise.  You just said you denied the premise. 

The act of saying "I deny the premise that only you have legitimate control over your body." is not the same as the act of denying the premise that only you have legitimate control over your body.

 

Having said that, I personally have no problem denying that premise.  How? For me it is because I have witnessed nothing in the natural world that indicates what ought to be. 

 

 

There is a chance we are disagreeing on what we expect to mean from the word how. 

There is a chance we are disagreeing on what we expect to mean from the word how. 

I think so, because I agree with what you had to say there

JJ,

Let's just put this to bed, huh?  There is some really interesting stuff being said on this thread (props to Autolykos and Stephen Douglas, esp.), whereas our interaction has degraded into nothing more than rhetorical flanking in order to "win" an argument.  Not even a good argument at that, just a petty "troll hunt".

I think you have a know-it-all attitude, and a particular verbal swagger which makes me feel that I'm being treated like an idiot for not sharing your opinions, conclusions, deductions, superstitions, and beliefs, or at least treating them for what they are.

I went a little crazy after a couple interactions, for which I appologize.  But please do not play the innocent victim in this interaction, because you are certainly have been as much a jerk as I (even though you abstain from curses, you have certainly attacked my character several times, either by implying or outright claiming that I was either a troll or an idiot).

John James:

Can you honestly tell me you have no idea of the answer to that question?  After all this?

Yes, I honestly do not have an answer.  Everything I have ever experienced before has been within the realm of the "physical world" (as far as I can tell).  To ask about something beyond it is essentially the same question as asking if I believe in existence beyond the "physical world".  I claim an agnostic viewpoint about such things as a realm beyond our own.  Hence, I believe that the jury is still out, or rather, "I don't know".

John James:

And I told you the difference between those two things is that one of those things exists in the physical world, and one of those things does not exist in the physical world.

But you never stated which was which!

John James:

Instead of asking "which one exists in the physical world?" (which, I believe a 9 year old would say is an asinine question), you elected to take out the qualifying clause and ask me if I'm saying one of those things exists and the other doesn't.

Yes, that is what I was asking.  That is why I re-asked it in that format the second time (which you never answered, just went on some rant on how I didn't include it the first time).  The reason I left it out the first time was because I did not work from your assumption that things could exist outside the physical world.  "Exist", and "exist in the physical world" mean the same thing to me, since I've never experienced anything beyond the physical world!  Hence these quotes,

Jackson LaRose:

I'm merely asking you which one (the "body" or the "mind") you consider to be "in the physical world", and which one is not "in the physical world".

Yes, seriously.  I do not understand how either the "mind" or the "body" does not "physically exist".  Lest you are a disembodied soul, or some sort of monkey operated flesh puppet.

See? That is certainly what I was asking the whole time.  I felt it was unecessary to include "in the physical world" because that seems redundant to me.  I'll be more careful next time.

Define the term?  The burden is on you, since you made the distinction between "mind" and "body" in order to demonstrate "self-ownership".  If that's the definition of the mind, then fine, but I don't understand how that does not exist in the physical world!  That is why, in order to clarify, I asked what I did, so I could understand your position.  Unfortunately, I'm not sure you do,

John James:

If you could demonstrate how a condition or state of being is a physically existing thing, I'd be much obliged.

Does not follow from

John James:

I would have to assume one exists in the physical world, one doesn't.

If we assume your premise that existence is not dependent on being part of our "reality" (i.e., the physical world), then it becomes a logical leap to assume that to "exist in the physical world" is to equate to being a "thing" (however you are defining it, I'm going with, "matter perceptable by the senses; tangible matter").  This begs the question of why it is impossible for "untangible existence", or "imperceptable existence" to occur in "the physical world".  Some real word examples include "dark matter", or maybe the manifold dimensions required for string theory.

John James:

between the body and the mind, that body is not the one that doesn't exist in the physical world.

Wow, that was painful huh?  I could almost see you squirming typing that one out!  OK, follow up,

Where do you think the mind exists?

John James:

The only reason that someone would pretend as though a person could have been saying that the mind is has a physical presense while the body does not is if he assumed the person was an idiot, insane, or if he simply was trolling.

LOL, how was I pretending!?  I asked you to clarify.  You know what happens when we assume, right?  Again with the veiled insults, too!

Jackson LaRose:

Does hunger exist?

Sigh, here we go again... in what sense?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Stephan Douglas,

Your "hunger" passage was essentially what I was driving at when I asked "in what sense".

As for "property" and it relevancy as a descriptive term, I think the difference is semantic.  Without the norms granting "legitimacy", "property" as a term becomes meaningless, or rather, so general as to become meaningless.  The rental example was meant to show that "property" is not a one-to-one equvalent of possession, since the renter is the possessor, yet not the "owner", i.e. the legitimate claimholder on the "ownership" of the "property".

If this is the case, than "property" without the "ought" (justified claim of rightful appropriation and/or implementation) can only equate to matter in general, a term that serves little purpose in the context of this discussion.

As far as the "rental" of ourselves, or anything else in the grand scheme of things, I would agree with you in the metaphysical sense, but since there is no implied quid pro quo in this exchange, I think a "gift economy" would be a better analogy.

Jackson LaRose:

Does hunger exist?

Sigh, here we go again... in what sense?

What difference does it make?  It either exists or it doesn't.  I don't care "what sense" you think it exists or not.  I want to know if you think it exists.  Period.

Does hunger exist?

 

I've experienced a sensation I believe equates to hunger.  I hope you don't ignore the rest of my post, because it suits you.  That would be hypocritical.

Brains telling stomachs they need food, exists.  But no, "hunger" is just a term we use to describe that.  In any other sense than as a descriptive term "hunger" doesn't exist.  There is no platonic world of ideals.

Jackson LaRose:

I've experienced a sensation I believe equates to hunger.

Does that mean hunger exists or not?  I did not ask what you think you've experienced.  I asked you a specific simple question.  Jackson LaRose, does hunger exist?

 

Since you never defined what you think it is to "exist", I don't have enough information to answer your question in a meaningful way besides telling you what I've experienced.  Seems like you are going to disregard any point I had made in the long recent post.  That's a shame.  Perhaps you should try "troll counseling", or perhaps some nice chamomile and valerian tea.  That might settle you down.  Poor thing.

>>>>Everything I have ever experienced before has been within the realm of the "physical world" (as far as I can tell).>>>> how do you define "the physical world"?

Jackson LaRose:

Since you never defined what you think it is to "exist", I don't have enough information to answer your question in a meaningful way besides telling you what I've experienced.

Why does what I think matter?  I'm asking you what you think.  Does hunger exist?

 

Seems like you are going to disregard any point I had made in the long recent post.

I don't see why I should address any of that if you continue to dodge my one simple question.

 

Perhaps you should try "troll counseling", or perhaps some nice chamomile and valerian tea.  That might settle you down.  Poor thing.

Huh?  What are you talking about?

 

Laotzu del Zinn:

Man.. I typed out a long response.  And then my internet went out before I hit "post" and it's gone   You gotta hate that...

Anyway, the short story is:

Yes, very often people use the term "I" to refer to the mind/body... they also ascribe many other things to it, coming up with the concept "mine."  I find both of those to be insufficient definitions.  I do not consider my holdings to be de facto legitimate, simply because they are mine.  But I also will not simply hand everything over to anybody, as it has been entrusted to my responsiblity by the greater community at large.  I think that not only is common property the most justifiable form of property, private property is a myth that never has, nor ever will exist.  All property is subject to community oversight, in some way.

All ownership is necessarily "private" in the sense of "exclusionary". Whether the exclusion is at the level of a single individual or a group of individuals (what you'd apparently call a "community") is irrelevant. This stems from the exclusionary nature of possession, use, and other forms of control.

What definitions do you find to be "insufficient", exactly? I can find no definitions in the above.

Also, what in the world do you mean by "entrusted to my responsibility by the greater community at large"? I hope this isn't just some phrase that you repeat when you find yourself confronted like this. So what exactly is this "greater community at large", how exactly does it entrust anything to anyone's responsibility, and what exactly does this responsibility consist of?

Saying that "all property is subject to community oversight" begs the questions of what oversight and what community.

Laotzu del Zinn:

Yes, it is "just language asthetics" which, regarless of how many sophists try to convince one otherwise, is very important.  Consider:

Light and matter are both single entities, and the apparent duality arises in the limitations of our language. It is not surprising that our language should be incapable of describing the processes occurring within the atoms, for, as has been remarked, it was invented to describe the experiences of daily life, and these consist only of processes involving exceedingly large numbers of atoms. Furthermore, it is very difficult to modify our language so that it will be able to describe these atomic processes, for words can only describe things of which we can form mental pictures, and this ability, too, is a result of daily experience.

~Werner Heisenberg (of Uncertainty Principle fame) (emphasis not mine)

Our language simply is insufficient in describing a systematic reality, as it relies far too heavily on nouns.  Hence, I refer to "I" as "being" or "selfing."

Heisenberg actually seems to agree with me, as he states that "words can only describe things of which we can form mental pictures, and this ability, too, is a result of daily experience". The fact that these things aren't special (i.e. meaningful) to the universe itself - so to speak - doesn't mean they can't be special (i.e. meaningful) to us.

You also apparently misunderstood what I meant by "language aesthetics". I was simply referring to word choice. Whether you use "I" or "being"/"selfing" makes no difference, as it seems you're referring to the same concept either way. So your argument boils down to "I want people to use this word for this concept instead of this other word".

Laotzu del Zinn:

(And on the note of your apparent, to me, anger.  I'm just worried about your mental/spiritual health.  Perhaps its the leftist in me, but I just don't like to see people engage in habitual negativity.  Maybe I am just reading far too much into limited posts.  If so, much apologies.  But if you need somoene to listen, just PM me.  If not, please forget I said anything, and accept my apology.)

Really now?

Laotzu del Zinn:

Brains telling stomachs they need food, exists.  But no, "hunger" is just a term we use to describe that.  In any other sense than as a descriptive term "hunger" doesn't exist.  There is no platonic world of ideals.

I'm almost positive that John James was using "hunger" to refer to "brains telling stomachs they need food" vel sim. And I'm almost positive that you already understand this.

Malachai,

"Physical world" to me means this plane of existence, perhaps the space-time continuum (although a definition even this broad may fall short).  John James introduced the term into the discussion, though, so he may have a better one.

JJ,

It matters because you are the one introducing these terms and distinctions into the discussion. 

"If you wish to converse with me, define your terms.” - Voltaire

I'm not dodging it.  You're asking a question I do not have enough information to answer.  Let me ask you a question,

Was it sad?

Answer, answer, ANSWER!!!  Ok, I'm going into parrot mode until you answer my simple question!!!!

 

Birthday Pony:

Still not seeing how that really makes sense, Autolykos.

So I reject one division that isn't there and I must throw out all of them?

My point is more that who I am has a lot to do with physical circumstance which has a lot to do with my body. Not sure how those two can be so separate as to believe that there is an inalienable entity that simply owns my body. I'm pretty sure, though I don't have the numbers in yet, that I am my body, or at least my body is part of me.

Read my post again. I outlined there that simply rejecting one division isn't the issue - it's the reason given for rejecting that's the issue. Either you don't understand logic or you're being deliberately obtuse here.

Jackson LaRose:

JJ,

It matters because you are the one introducing these terms and distinctions into the discussion. 

"If you wish to converse with me, define your terms.” - Voltaire

I'm not dodging it.  You're asking a question I do not have enough information to answer.

You had no problem discussing existence this entire time.  "In what sense" is irrelevent to answer this question.  In any sense, does hunger exist?

 

Steven Douglas:

If we jump straight into standard definitions, we enter a vast, interconnecting web of other definitions, many of which are unqualified ill-defined in a universal sense, or are circular in meaning, and without necessarily exploring root fundamentals.

My first attempt was to get at the fundamental roots, or defining characteristics of each term, rather than the more common definitions, of terms like possession, property and ownership, by stripping away all normative assertions ("legitimate" being but one). This is what constitutes "what is", without respect to the normative "what ought to be".

"Legitimacy" can be treated in a non-normative or descriptive way. An example of this would be to observe X considering Y to be (il)legitimate.

Steven Douglas:

Hume's point that an ought cannot be derived from an is was only intended to show that morality and ethics are not universal or innate to anything, and cannot be derived therefrom.  I have no quarrel with that, but that is not to say that oughts do not exist - only that the oughts which do exist are subjective, and constructed based on the basis of what is.  And that is not confined to morality or ethics, but any artificial construct. I see sand that "is", and envision it as a semiconductor substrate or a sand castle, both of which are oughts. In addition, I guard my sand castle, because I created another ought - one that said, "You have no right to kick my sand castle".  In the above examples, I did not derive my oughts from the sand itself. Rather I created them. They were founded on sand, not derived therefrom.

Yes, "oughts" exist in the sense that people think them. When you stated that "'what ought to be' can only be founded on 'what is'", I assumed you were talking about what Hume refuted - the notion that morality and ethics are universal and/or innate to some or all things and can be derived therefrom. The basis there was your use of the phrase "founded on", which I took to mean the same thing as "derived therefrom". Apparently you didn't mean that and I stand corrected.

However, I don't think I agree that envisioning e.g. real sand as a semiconductor substrate or a sand castle is an "ought". On the other hand, wanting to turn a pile of sand into one or the other certainly does involve that pile of sand. If that's what you mean by "founded on", then I agree.

Steven Douglas:

Every "ought to be" in existence is founded upon, and preceded by, a case of "what is". It is the "there" that cannot be arrived at except from "here". I cannot conceive of an example that is otherwise. Even in the seemingly impossible case of someone who thinks they should never have existed to begin with, they can only come to this conclusion based on "what is", and that is the wholly inescapable connection in that moment, regardless of their inability to "get there from here".

We're forever trapped in the present moment, and that moment is ever-changing. But that allows us to view both the past and the future as "theres" with respect to "here". Hence even a person who wishes the past had been different in some way (it doesn't have to be that they had never existed) is necessarily looking from "here" to some "there". So I think again we're basically in agreement.

Steven Douglas:

Yeah, I think that's a mistake people sometimes make when they see terms like "meaningful" in a philosophical or deductive sense, and apply it, apples to oranges, as synonymous to the same terms with their more familiar usage, wherein we assign weight, value, importance, usefulness and other subjective abstracts to a thing, based on philosophical or even scientific labels that were often never designed for use as synonyms in other contexts. (e.g., ignore what is meaningless, gather what is meaningful).  For example, I say that I want to argue a point, or present an argument, and comes the response, "I don't like to argue, can't we just discuss it?" They see the word argue, and think "quarrel, bicker, raised voices, conflict, confrontation, etc.,", and only because of their familiarity with the term is only from common usage. Likewise, "not meaningful" in a philosophical sense does not necessarily mean unimportant, not useful, can/should/ought to be discarded or disregarded.

Right, semantics is fundamental to the nature of language and discourse. With that in mind, what do you think "not meaningful" can mean (no pun intended) in a philosophical sense?

Steven Douglas:

Yes, and I deliberately keep separate the two parts of that sentence, to separate the descriptive (what is) from the normative (what should have been or ought to be).  The snake has taken possession or control of the mouse and the hole. That is the descriptive, non-normative, ever-temporal reality that describes both an act and the condition that exists as a result. We now have a case of possession, control and ownership, however temporal that might be, and regardless of any normative assertions or qualifications that might follow or have preceded.

Humans, who are capable of consciously thinking and planning well beyond immediate needs and wants, see that ownership, possession and control is desirable or necessary, and can plan and act to extend and expand the spacial and temporal relationships that naturally exist, even to the point of pushing away any temporal illusions. We don't want to exercise possession and control in just the moment. I want to be able to walk away from my possessions and return to them at will, secure in the knowledge that they will still be under my exclusive control, with or without my physical presence. That is my "ought to be" at work. We also have the capability of seeing that many others are in the same mode of thinking and acting, a fact which can be synthesized into usefulness (e.g., "You stay here and watch the property while I go out and hunt").

The only issue I have with your use of the word "ownership" here is that, because my definition of it involves the concept of "legitimacy", whether one thing "owns" another is necessarily observer/subject-dependent. Going with your example, what I mean here is that the snake certainly thinks it now "owns" the mouse after it captures it, but the mouse would likely think otherwise in spite of being captured. In the interest of succinctness, if you're treating "possession" and "ownership" as synonyms, and I'm not, would it work for you if we both use only the former word in situations like the snake-and-mouse example?

Otherwise, I again basically agree with you here. It seems to me that we think much the same way, but with somewhat different semantics.

JJ,

This is a waste of time.  We are talking on two levels here.

Yes, I was discussing "existence" because you had brought "existence" up, so I was querying you about it.  I assumed that to bring it up, you must've had some internal definition for the term. 

I think that I have experinced the sensation of hunger.  To assert anything beyond that, is to beg a myriad of questions I do not have an answer to,

Do we think hunger is the same thing?

Was that a delusion, or genuine "hunger"?

Do I exist?

What is existence?

Do we agree on the definition of "existence"?

And so on.

That is the best answer I can give you for that question.  We can start working on the next layer of the onion though, if you prefer.

Jackson LaRose:

JJ,

This is a waste of time.  We are talking on two levels here.

Yes, I was discussing "existence" because you had brought "existence" up, so I was querying you about it.  I assumed that to bring it up, you must've had some internal definition for the term. 

I think that I have experinced the sensation of hunger.  To assert anything beyond that, is to beg a myriad of questions I do not have an answer to,

Do we think hunger is the same thing?

Was that a delusion, or genuine "hunger"?

Do I exist?

What is existence?

Do we agree on the definition of "existence"?

And so on.

That is the best answer I can give you for that question.  We can start working on the next layer of the onion though, if you prefer.

You're completely sidestepping the issue.  Whether we agree on what "existence" is or if we think hunger is the same thing is completely irrelevant.  All I'm asking you, all I've been asking is, in the way you understand and define those terms, does hunger exist?

 

All ownership is necessarily "private" in the sense of "exclusionary". Whether the exclusion is at the level of a single individual or a group of individuals (what you'd apparently call a "community") is irrelevant. This stems from the exclusionary nature of possession, use, and other forms of control.

I'm not going to engage in us talking past each other all day.  Private, in the sense of property, to me means monopoly control based on title.  Property is naturally exclusionary.  Private property is monopoly control of property; and no private property can ever be truly private (except maybe on Crusoe's imaginary island, before anybody else shows up). 

This whole "I'm just going to make up my own definitions" thing is largely the reason I stopped posting here for a while.  It turns into neverending obfuscation and talking past each other.

What definitions do you find to be "insufficient", exactly? I can find no definitions in the above.

"I/me/my/mine"  Those words don't make sense to me.  Where do I begin and where does social condiitioning end?  Am I the same I that existed 5 seconds ago?  Why do "I" belive many of the same things as my parents and friends?  Why does empathy ignite the same regions in the brain as those ignited in the person facing the problem; meaning is empathy any different than experiencing hardship? 

I'm not flat out denying the I, as such.  What I am denying that "I" is a an accurate description of the mind/body phenomena Being experiences.

Also, what in the world do you mean by "entrusted to my responsibility by the greater community at large"? I hope this isn't just some phrase that you repeat when you find yourself confronted like this. So what exactly is this "greater community at large", how exactly does it entrust anything to anyone's responsibility, and what exactly does this responsibility consist of?

Saying that "all property is subject to community oversight" begs the questions of what oversight and what community.

I possess and control things, and at any moment if I use them "incorrectly" they can be taken away, legitimately.... not just by a theif.  I may or may not have created it, and I definitely didn't create the things that created it.  It has been a long process of individual actions, which has collectively allowed me to possess and control these things.  It has been entrusted to me by society, the abstract reflection of individual wills, for good use and safekeeping; as defined by whatever community that is.  I'm expected to keep it safe and refrain from using it to harm others.

What community?  Whatever community.  What oversight?  Whatever oversight that takes place within that community.  For Ohioans, Ohio, Americans, America, etc, etc.  In any society there will be certain rules you cannot use your self or property to break, or you will suffer some kind of negative consequence.

I brought up Heisenberg not for whether he agreed with me or you... and I don't see why you thought that had anything to do with it..?  I brought up the quote to illustrate that semantics are important.  How you describe things defines how you understand them.

(If you think I was insincere, that is no matter to me.  I wasn't.  And I said, if you can't accept that, leave it alone.  I do care; but I don't care if you think I care or not.  This is the last I will speak on the issue as you obviously don't want people taking an interest in your well-being.)

I'm almost positive that John James was using "hunger" to refer to "brains telling stomachs they need food" vel sim. And I'm almost positive that you already understand this.

No I'm pretty sure he is using it to illustrate a point that things can exist in other places than the physical world.  Are you paying attention, or just don't like me because I'm me? 

Hence why I said "there is no platonic world of ideals."  Please stop inferring my position for me; it's intrusive and annoying.

OK, but I bet you aren't going to like it.

I don't know whether or not hunger exists.  I think I've experienced it before, that's about all I can say.