Hugo

Where? Demonstrate. Allow me to refresh your memory: Nope! Looks like he only thinks post-secondary education is worth repaying. Are we sure, though? Let's take another look! No, that's definitely what he said! Perhaps we can ask Greg to bring the original post out of the archives, just in case IMR went back and edited his post after I told a "sh***y lie" about it to make his post match my lie, so that I wouldn't be embarrassed! Do you want to ask Greg, or should I? Any response to this, yet?

There's nothing distorted about my logic. Reductio ad absurdum is a perfectly acceptable strategy that has been used since classical Greek philosophy was being hashed out. I simply draw IMR's argument to it's logical conclusion to show that it is a nonsense. Sometimes people miss that because they haven't looked at the big picture.

Good. TWS proposes that life is metaphysical. You say it's physical. I don't claim the set is real, I claim the attributes are real. No, but I often find myself colliding with my 3 small children. The number "3" might be a metaphysical concept, but my 3 children definitely physically exist. That doesn't matter. Black always described something that reflected no light (or practically no light), and that's physical reality and always has been. The fact that only relatively recently have we discovered that this is the case does not change that it was always a physical reality. You're all confused again. If I see a black object, I see something that reflects no light. Whether or not I know that that's what I'm seeing is another matter. Don't get mixed up between the two. What's the point? It seems we both agree that life is physical. You are (I suspect deliberately) confusing two separate arguments. We are discussing your rather novel understanding of "creation", which you repeatedly fail to define. The rest of your post seems messed up. It's stuff I already replied to but it's verbatim, so I suspect there was some kind of error.

Oh. So he didn't deliberately exclude pre-secondary education from his proposition? Let's take a look: Nope! Looks like he only thinks post-secondary education is worth repaying. Are we sure, though? Let's take another look! No, that's definitely what he said! Perhaps we can ask Greg to bring the original post out of the archives, just in case IMR went back and edited his post after I told a "sh***y lie" about it to make his post match my lie, so that I wouldn't be embarrassed! Do you want to ask Greg, or should I?

Since he specifically states that only post-secondary education need be paid for, it seems that he is inferring that pre-secondary education is worthless, since only that which is worthless need not be paid for. If he did not feel that way, then why exclude pre-secondary education? Why not just say "education"? That's not what I am arguing. Let me put it another way. The state invests in the education of Canadians believing that they will get a return in the form of taxes. If they leave, they want that investment back. If that is fair, then it should also be fair that the state pay immigrants who have already been educated, since they are getting the benefits (taxes) without the cost (education). Otherwise, the state is freeloading, just as surely as those who get their education and then emigrate are freeloading. If freeloading is wrong, it shouldn't matter who does it since a crime is a crime no matter who commits it, which is why the goddess of justice wears a blindfold. Perhaps the immigrants can give the money back to their government who might be billing them for their education. We might end up with a situation where governments could bid for immigrants in such a way, and "buy" citizens from one another.

Pre-secondary education is worthless? I beg to differ. Canada's pre-secondary education is crucial to our economic state. As most of the third world knows, it's hard to have a modern economy when your population is mostly illiterate. Does that mean that if you stay in the country and never get a job that pays more than the income tax threshold, you don't have to pay for your education? That doesn't seem fair. Would it not be better to make every student pay for his own education up-front? And if he can't, then borrow? That way, everyone pays what they owe, and where you go is not relevant - debts are debts.

Shouldn't anyone coming to Canada with an education receive "at least 5 years" worth of tax cash? Furthermore, let's see if this scenario is accurate. The government mandates that anybody up to the age of 16 must attend school. Then when a person reaces 16, the government tells him that he must pay "at least 5 years of taxes" to repay them for the education they forced him to take? Sounds like a protection racket to me.

Ah, the "I am rubber, you are glue" strategem. You alluded to an understanding of creation that would attribute the act of creation to any entity at any point in the chain of causation leading to the created entity. I don't think this makes a lot of sense. So I ask you to define it. In this case, you would not know whether or not cars can fly. Then government is every human interaction. Law is a service like any other. People buy laws (in the form of subscription to various codes and rules, the pay of judges and enforcers, etc) in much the same way as they'd buy insurance: they pay for the service because they think it would be of benefit to them. Would you agree that insurance is therefore government? Then the two chieftains would have to negotiate for a mutually agreeable settlement. In reality, most chieftains stated in advance what their concessions would be in regard to other chieftains, so consumers knew this information going in. If monogamy was a stipulation of the marriage contract, then adultery would be regarded as a breach of contract. The contract would be voided and the adulterer would have to make compensation to his or her spouse. Laws are services. One buys and sells services, in the case of law, the services of those who write and enforce law. This is the same as membership in a business regulatory body. One pays for the service of rules in expectation of a reward (e.g. increased business due to greater consumer confidence). I cannot provide one that would satisfy you, because you define government as "all human interaction." Society is human interaction, therefore, society is government - which is rather different from "society creates government", your original point. And your definition of creation is also woolly, so what we end up with is: "Society is one of the things that may in part or full create government, which is society." Really useful. I understand "common" as "shared by all". How do you define it? Apparently, the early Santee tribes of the Sioux were distinctly mutualist. In fact, "Dakhota" (where those tribes come from) is a Santee word meaning "Alliance of Friends."

You obviously didn't notice, but I intentionally sabotaged this thread by using your tactics: failing to explain anything, posting arbitrary one-liners in place of arguments, and refusing to answer direct questions. I refrained from using your more unpleasant tactics, like blurting out "lies" when you aren't comfortable with the exposition of your own viewpoints, or the petty insults about insane apes and mysterious books of bald assertions. As you can see, when two people debate the way you do, it destroys all rational discourse.

Stop trying to weasel out of things. Apparently you have a definition of "creation" under which Albert Einsteins parents created the Theory of Relativity. So, let's hear it! But since that knowledge is not known to you, you cannot fault the conclusions. If I say that A equals B, you cannot say that A is not equal to B unless you know what A is. You don't. Therefore you cannot criticize. Basically, in Iceland you had a number of men whose title is usually translated as "chieftain". These guys made laws and arbitrated disputes in a certain way. Icelanders could pick the chieftain they wanted to follow, or even become one themselves. They didn't have to physically move to do this. All they had to do is announce, "From today Knut is my chieftain" and that was that. You paid the guy for his services so long as he dispensed them and you still wanted them. As I say, it's like buying groceries. Your choices are necessarily limited to what's on the store shelves, but within those choices you're free to get what you want, even if everyone else doesn't want the same things. This is different from coercive government, which forces one to have the food (or laws) that somebody else has picked, whether that is a whole crowd of people (democracy) or one man (dictatorship). Suffice it to say that your inability to conceive of these notions is because you are a statist-by-default, i.e. you are so used to the idea of the state that you can't comprehend society without it. There are no common choices and intentions in a society. There's always some measure of disagreement. Therefore you define government as a function that doesn't exist. If we narrow "society" down to a few people, as we would have to do to use your definition (since "society" in this way usually could not be more than two people), then I would ask how you define the institution of the Federal Government of Canada. If your argument is also that common choices and intentions can be picked by a majority and that the minority can be forced to follow, then government as you understand it basically encompasses all human interaction, mutualist and coercive, and is far too vague to be of any use. I would define "government" as something a little more precise than "all human interaction." Yet again, your argument rests on an unworkable and wholly useless definition - not to mention just being plain wrong. I have never seen a dictionary where "government" was defined as "human interaction." Some of them rejected coercive government and decided everything by mutual agreement and discussion.

According to you the definition of creation is important, so let's hear your definition! Are you ever going to answer the question? How many more needless obfuscations do I have to put up with before you do? So let me get this straight. You are purporting to tell me all about medieval Iceland. You admit don't know the first thing about medieval Iceland. And you think this fact, the fact that you are in no way qualified to even have this discussion, is "diversion"? Since you know absolutely nothing about the subject, I could tell you that the Icelanders worshipped bricks of cheese and you would not be qualified to say "nonsense." Utter nonsense. Why is that? It means that the people of Iceland chose, on an individual basis, the laws, policing and dispensation of justice they were going to have, and not according to geographical location but according to individual preference. Icelanders bought laws as we buy groceries, and as we can be said to govern our own food consumption, so the Icelanders governed their laws. To argue that the Icelanders were governed is to argue that we are governed in our choice of food. Then if 2-3 people are a society, according to you they must have a government and there is no way they cannot have a government. Explain further. Aboriginal Americans. You know, "Indians." You can also look at Australian aboriginals, who also had/have a mutualist, anarchistic society. Again, you are confusing symbols with reality. Life is a categorization of a set of objective, physical attributes. As such the word "life" is the label placed on something real. Don't confuse the label with the thing it labels. Yes, there is. Black is the physical attribute of reflecting no light. The word "black" is our label for that property. In French, "noir", in Spanish, "negro", but all these words or labels refer to the same objective concept. All languages have a word for black. I see an object that doesn't reflect light. Why do I have to define my terms when it was your proposition to begin with? Start by building an argument, and then I will build a response to it. But in debate it is traditional not to start with the rebuttal.

So define it. Then I gave a second alternative: potential observability. And you will also note that both were ended with question marks, which really puts paid to your contention that I'm making infamous statements about you. Now, perhaps we can dispense with this elaborate display of smoke, mirrors and mock-wounded-pride, and get back to the discussion. How convenient. It is noteable that you still won't even begin to answer this question even though in your last post you had indicated that you were prepared to do so. Now you have decided it is irrelevant, in the twinkling of an eye. I suspect it is because you have no answer. You don't know the first thing about it, do you? As I said, the only identifiable form of government in medieval Iceland was self-government. If that fits into your idea of government, then government cannot be created from society because one can self-govern without a society. And if self-government does not fit your idea of government, then that destroys your contention that government and society are always correlated, since medieval Iceland was definitely a society, but only self-governed. I can see a further argument that you might pursue, and I do have an answer ready. However, I'm not going to pre-empt you since the only way you could pursue this argument is if you have any clue about medieval Iceland. So, we shall see if you actually know what you are talking about in your next post! We might also ask how big you need a group to be before you can think of it as a society. There are many autonomous groups in the world who have distinct societies and yet have no government. Explain. We can also ask what you make of Aboriginal American societies that lacked governments and based their societies on mutualism. I have already been over this several times. I refuse to further explain my position now until you at least argue against the propositions already made. Then perhaps you will quote your explanations here, because a quick review of this thread shows nothing of the sort. Most of your posts have been unsubstantiated, argumentative one-liners which, I might add, is in direct contravention of forum rules. Obviously I've thought about it. I posted it, didn't I? No, life is a physical reality. You are confusing ideas about a thing with the thing itself. No, you are confusing cause and effect. Our labels do not make the difference between life and non-life. The difference between life and non-life gives rise to our labels. Consider that life and non-life are observable without language, which defies your idea of labels since labels are only possible with language. Think about this: is the only difference between black and white our labels for them? Or is it the case that black and white have objective differences which give rise to those labels?

No, I don't think I do at all. It's really just what I've come to expect from you. That is a very different thing to saying that Albert Einstein's parents created the Theory of Relativity! I asked you a question. If you are willing and able to answer it as you claim, please do! And I never suggested that you did! I offered you two alternative interpretations of your theory, and rather than pick either or even suggest a third, you decided to try and weasel out of answering by claiming I had insulted you and beginning to preach to me about netiquette. Go ahead and argue it, then. I will listen to whatever you have to say on the matter. I've given you my opinion, so let's hear yours. What form of government did they have? I tell you what. I'll allow that a microbe has a metaphysical quality - life - but I still do not agree that the metaphysical can be created by something other than the physical. Perhaps you can demonstrate how the "life" of a microbe is created by something metaphysical.

You did nothing of the sort. You're just disputing definitions instead of logic. Why not? Because it's a non sequitur. If it weren't, then Albert Einstein's parents created the Theory of Relativity, since they created Albert Einstein and he created the Theory. Why? And apparently, one that you are either unwilling or unable to answer. You tell me! You're the one who's debating this. Observability makes something real? So before Roentgen, x-rays weren't real? Or is it just the potential for observability, in which case this criterion changes absolutely nothing? In any case, it's extremely difficult to argue that the metaphysical is "observable" so this doesn't get us anywhere. I can say that only that which has mass and energy is observable. Since this is your theorem, I'm going to make you do the legwork supporting it. Nope! Some societies have arisen without government. Medieval Iceland comes to mind. You might say they practiced self-government, but then society would not be a pre-requisite to government since one can self-govern without a society. Either way, it disproves your argument. Demonstrate that life is metaphysical.

Well, do you dispute these definitions? Are you suggesting the existence of God? Moreover, you're committing another fallacy. If A creates B and B creates C, this does not mean that A creates C. No, it's actually a separate theorem posited in Discourse 1. I think the Discourses are available online if you want to read them. Is it? Do you disagree or not? What are the other criteria? That only proves correlation, not causation. And what might that be?

You have yet to provide an argument to disprove it. Now you're confusing terminology with reality, i.e. you are having trouble telling the difference between things and the way in which we describe those things.

No, biology and psychology textbooks will do fine. Individuals are biological organisms. Self-awareness is a mental phenomenon. Or is that incorrect? Still waiting for a cogent argument from you on these things. Metaphysical things are ideas, thoughts, concepts, arguably even emotions. To create these you need a mind. As Descartes said, I know I am something because I am thinking, and nothing cannot think. Metaphysical things do not have minds. Therefore, metaphysical things cannot create other metaphysical things. In the physical world, it is a fact that something cannot be created from nothing. The metaphysical is "nothing" in the physical world since it has neither mass nor energy. If it does not exist in the physical world it cannot create anything physical, since that would be the creation of something from nothing, which is impossible. Therefore, the metaphysical can create neither the metaphysical nor the physical. By a "manifestation of society" do you mean a form of society or something created by society? Well, I have demonstrated that you were not restating my views with the illustration of the fallacy you were committing (the fallacy of non sequitur, literally, "it does not follow") with an analogy. Once again for the cheap seats, you assumed if A does not equal B, anything not equalling B must therefore be A. You forget that C might also not equal B. You often take a mathematical approach to things so hopefully this will get through to you. An organism is not metaphysical. There's nothing metaphysical about a microbe, is there?

Then what is a Canadian other than an Earthling who is being told he is Canadian? All borders are artificial.

The individual and the self are not the same thing, and without that obfuscation you have no argument. The individual is a physical organism, the self is the concept of the unique identity of that organism. The individual is physical, the self is metaphysical. Termites are individuals, but they have no concept of self. They are individuals, though they don't know it. They certainly create things, though.

Which was decidedly not what you said from the very beginning. Isn't it? Let's go back to my very first post in this thread: Which I clarified two posts later with: Now, unless you have a point to make, get lost and stop wasting my time. If you want my viewpoints explored and clarified in depth, commission me to write a book. But this is a forum for debate, and you're not coming up with anything. Because anything that has a metaphysical prerequisite for existence also necessarily has a physical prerequisite, which is always demonstrably more important to its existence. Things can have purely physical prerequisites, but never only purely metaphysical prerequisites. Therefore, the physical creates both the physical and the metaphysical, and the metaphysical creates nothing. We have dealt with the notions of society and government, and I have offered the argument that rather than government being created by society, that both society and government are metaphysical concepts which are created by and dependent upon physical, thinking minds. Possibly one should think of society before thinking of government, but that does not mean that society creates government, any more than the advisability of understanding mathematics to design a table means that mathematics designs the table. They both exist - metaphysically. No, you weren't, because I already demonstrated that what you said did not follow from my theorem at all. Once again, until you refute this point it stands. Silence is not a rebuttal.

You can't prove a negative. If you can prove the converse positive, consider the negative disproven. But I cannot think of, nor have I heard, any example of a metaphysical thing creating something that it was not much more reasonable to attribute to a physical thing. It's the opinion of some. I don't share it, as you might have guessed - you know me well enough by now to know that I don't put my own concrete beliefs in such ambiguous terms. I say the concept of self is a metaphysical thing produced by an active brain. The concept of self cannot exist without an active brain, but an active brain can exist without a self. Are you positing that something can be its own creator? Or are you just being childish and annoying? Any response to my attacks on your theorems thus far, e.g. "anything that creates nothing must be metaphysical?" Or is your silence your concession?

I didn't want to be the one to tell you this, Thelonius, but... yes. Yes, they did. -- Dr. George JohnsonThis shows that there isn't really a scientific consensus on this. I also think you couldn't establish whether the physiological effects associated with love were love or merely the causes of the metaphysical concept of love. It's also a big leap between that, and finding out what chemicals are "society", "government", "hardship", "beauty" and so forth, which is what we are talking about here. Even if you could establish that love was a physical phenomenon, then that does not mean that other metaphysical concepts are also reducible to physical phenomena. I think you should have put the word "prove" in quotation marks, not "God". Also according to Einstein's theory, mass is energy. If light has an infinite amount of energy then it has an infinite mass.

I don't know, and for this argument it does not matter one way or the other. I'd say it creates the self. Let's say I don't remember. Please demonstrate this. If what you say is true, this should be pretty easy and gives you a golden opportunity to destroy my argument and humiliate me on this forum. Go ahead. Like I said - remedial Debating 101 awaits. How can physical phenomena also be metaphysical? That makes no sense! Something is either physical or metaphysical. It can't be both. Yes, the physical creates the metaphysical, which was what I said from the very beginning.

Love does not create babies. Sperm and ova create babies. No! Because an emotion can change does not grant it physical existence. Could you even establish that Love moves? It can't cause a change in direction of another entity. It is a metaphysical concept which can influence a physical object to do something - rather like the thoughts of society influencing human individuals to make a government. The physical is immutable, the metaphysical is not. A thought can be ignored. A bullet in the head cannot.

Yes, I did. I offered the argument that the "self" was physical electrical pulses running through the physical synapses of the physical brain. Where's your counter-argument? If it is indeed weak then I expect you would have no trouble refuting it. But you have offered no counter-argument. For instance: This is not an argument. It is just an unjustified opinion because there is nothing more to it. In my case, I say that the self could be physical or of physical origin because (see the argument coming?) it is generated by electrical impulses, which physically exist. That's an argument. You need remedial Debating 101, I think.