Philosophy Now Forum

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Jul 05, 2021 3:44 pm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Mon Jul 05, 2021 3:38 pm Doesn't that anthropomorphize nature?

Which part of NOT giving me permission (like humans do) is the anthropomorphism exactly?

Answer my question and I'll answer yours.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Mon Jul 05, 2021 3:57 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Jul 05, 2021 3:44 pm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Mon Jul 05, 2021 3:38 pm Doesn't that anthropomorphize nature?

Which part of NOT giving me permission (like humans do) is the anthropomorphism exactly?

Answer my question and I'll answer yours.

You seem to be confused about the order of events. I cant answer a question I don't understand.

Towards understanding why you are asking me what you are asking me, I am asking you: "Which part of NOT giving me permission (like humans do) is the anthropomorphism exactly?"

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Jul 05, 2021 4:07 pm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Mon Jul 05, 2021 3:57 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Jul 05, 2021 3:44 pm
Which part of NOT giving me permission (like humans do) is the anthropomorphism exactly?

Answer my question and I'll answer yours.

You seem to be confused about the order of events. I cant answer a question I don't understand.

Towards understanding why you are asking me what you are asking me, I am asking you: "Which part of NOT giving me permission (like humans do) is the anthropomorphism exactly?"

It doesn't really matter, but saying nature does not give you, "permission (like humans do)" means either nature could give permission like humans do, but doesn't (meaning nature has the human [anthropomorphized] ability to give permission) or nature cannot give permission, in which case it would be absurd to expect it to.

If you do believe nature is capable of giving permission, how do you know it doesn't?

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Mon Jul 05, 2021 4:19 pm It doesn't really matter, but saying nature does not give you, "permission (like humans do)" means either nature could give permission like humans do, but doesn't (meaning nature has the human [anthropomorphized] ability to give permission) or nature cannot give permission, in which case it would be absurd to expect it to.

If you do believe nature is capable of giving permission, how do you know it doesn't?

Why is English confusing you?

I don't know whether nature is capable of giving permission. I am not saying anything about nature's capabilities.

I am saying that nature is NOT giving me permission - this is a fact. Whether nature is capable of doing so or not is not in point.

anthropomorphism is the attribution of human characteristics or behaviour to a god, animal, or object.

From the standard definition of "anthropomorphism" it follows that the non-attribution of such characteristics to nature is not an anthromorphism.

The definition of "steal" is "take without permission".

The definition of "steal" IS NOT "take without permission from an entity capable of giving it."

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Jul 05, 2021 4:07 pm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Mon Jul 05, 2021 3:57 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Jul 05, 2021 3:44 pm
Which part of NOT giving me permission (like humans do) is the anthropomorphism exactly?

Answer my question and I'll answer yours.

You seem to be confused about the order of events. I cant answer a question I don't understand.

Towards understanding why you are asking me what you are asking me, I am asking you: "Which part of NOT giving me permission (like humans do) is the anthropomorphism exactly?"

Skip my last then. Since you are apparently only saying nature does not give you permission, because it, "can't," [i.e. it has no stake or choice in what happens], it certainly suffers no loss from anything that it is used for or is done to it. There' can be no stealing from that.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Mon Jul 05, 2021 4:26 pm Skip my last then. Since you are apparently only saying nature does not give you permission, because it, "can't," [i.e. it has no stake or choice in what happens], it certainly suffers no loss from anything that it is used for or is done to it. There' can be no stealing from that.

Where did I say that ? I am not saying WHY nature hasn't given me permission. I am saying THAT nature hasn't given me permission.

Please learn to read! The definition of stealing mentions nothing about "loss".

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Jul 05, 2021 4:23 pm The definition of "steal" is "take without permission".

The definition of "steal" IS NOT "take without permission from an entity capable of giving it."

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Jul 05, 2021 4:23 pm The definition of "steal" is "take without permission".

That's only your definition. That would make everything anyone does with anything, "stealing." Using anything that causes no one else any loss is not stealing. A potential is not a possession, and a possibility is not a reality.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Mon Jul 05, 2021 4:32 pm That's only your definition. That would make everything anyone does with anything, "stealing." Using anything that causes no one else any loss is not stealing. A potential is not a possession, and a possibility is not a reality.

It's not "my" definition! I certainly do not claim ownership of it!

I certainly stole this definition from a dictionary.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Mon Jul 05, 2021 4:32 pm Using anything that causes no one else any loss is not stealing. A potential is not a possession, and a possibility is not a reality.

Oh, OK!

So if I take all of your patents/research/trade secrets/music records/movies/software and manufacture whatever your are making for half price in China (without paying you any licensing fees)- that's not stealing?

Because, after all, what have you really lost? I didn't take your work - I only copied it and your potential sales of your intellectual property are only a possibility and possibility is not a reality.

For somebody who claims to be a producer (or cargo cults producers anyway) you sure don't give a shit about intellectual property rights.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Jul 05, 2021 4:36 pm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Mon Jul 05, 2021 4:32 pm Using anything that causes no one else any loss is not stealing. A potential is not a possession, and a possibility is not a reality.

Oh, OK!

So if I take all of your patents/research/trade secrets/music records/movies/software and manufacture whatever your are making for half price in China (without paying you any licensing fees)- that's not stealing?

That's right. If you could do that with those patents/research/trade secrets/music records/movies/software, (and you could include books, art, electronic designs and chemical processes), so could I. If you do, and I don't, you haven't taken anything away from me. Patents and copyrights are nothing but government coercive monopolies.

Anyone who complains about someone reproducing their product and selling it cheaper is just counting on government force to keep the price of their product artificially high. Think, "big pharma."

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Jul 05, 2021 4:36 pm ... you sure don't give a shit about intellectual property rights.

Because there is no such thing. No one can, "own," an idea, especially if they intend to use the force of government to prevent anyone else who has the same ideas from using theirs. Patents, copyrights, licenses, and all other government enforced control of individuals using their own minds are government oppressions that cause nothing but harm.

I suspect you're all for that.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Mon Jul 05, 2021 6:16 pm That's right. If you could do that with those patents/research/trade secrets/music records/movies/software, (and you could include books, art, electronic designs and chemical processes), so could I. If you do, and I don't, you haven't taken anything away from me. Patents and copyrights are nothing but government coercive monopolies.

Anyone who complains about someone reproducing their product and selling it cheaper is just counting on government force to keep the price of their product artificially high. Think, "big pharma."

So you don't recognize time/effort/capital spent for Research and Development?

You don't recognize that some patents/technology/software/movies are the product of billions of dollars worth of input?

Because it doesn't harm you - I can take the output.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Mon Jul 05, 2021 6:16 pm Because there is no such thing. No one can, "own," an idea, especially if they intend to use the force of government to prevent anyone else who has the same ideas from using theirs. Patents, copyrights, licenses, and all other government enforced control of individuals using their own minds are government oppressions that cause nothing but harm.

I suspect you're all for that.

Yes but there is such a thing as PRODUCING an idea. Producing new stuff costs time/money.

You know - resources. The very thing we take from nature.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Jul 05, 2021 6:22 pm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Mon Jul 05, 2021 6:16 pm That's right. If you could do that with those patents/research/trade secrets/music records/movies/software, (and you could include books, art, electronic designs and chemical processes), so could I. If you do, and I don't, you haven't taken anything away from me. Patents and copyrights are nothing but government coercive monopolies.

Anyone who complains about someone reproducing their product and selling it cheaper is just counting on government force to keep the price of their product artificially high. Think, "big pharma."

So you don't recognize time/effort/capital spent for Research and Development?

You don't recognize that some patents/technology/software/movies are the product of billions of dollars worth of input?

I know people like you don't like the fact the real world is full of risks and there are no guarantees. There is never any guarantee any design or development will be financially successful, especially in the market. Acknowledging and planning on that risk is a necessary part of all successful business.

In actual practice, the most successful designs and products are not easy to reverse engineer, or provide the processes and means of production for even with the patents are in hand, and the original designer or developer already has the means of production, giving them the jump on any potential competitors, unless they attempt to overcharge for the product. If someone else can produce the same product (or similar one) for less than the inventor, why should people be denied the less expensive version they would prefer, except to line the pockets of the one in bed with the government.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Jul 05, 2021 6:22 pm Because it doesn't harm you - I can take the output.

You can't just, "take it." No matter what one chooses to copy or reproduce, even something as simple as a CD or DVD. One cannot just hold it in their hand and magically reproduce it. There is all the equipment necessary to do the copying, the raw materials, (even if only blank digital disks), the time and labor of actually producing the disks, the packaging and shipping and overhead of the facilities where the work is done. There is even QC and testing, if the business is going to be successful.

Most companies also maintain their actual engineering designs and process as industrial secrets held in secure places which it would be necessary to, "break into," and actually, "steal," to even look at them, much less study and use. There is a real problem with industrial theft totally separate from patents and copyrights.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Jul 05, 2021 6:22 pm Yes but there is such a thing as PRODUCING an idea. Producing new stuff costs time/money.

You know - resources. The very thing we take from nature.

An idea only exists conceptually in someone's consciousness. Something tangible must be produced using that idea before there is any market value at all. Many ideas are around for years before any actual, "stuff," is produced, (consider geostationary satellites) and there are ideas today which have never resulted in any, "stuff," and they aren't worth a pickle. Creative thinking might, "produce," new ideas, but ideas, all by themselves, have no market value.

And you cannot just, "take from nature," any resources. You must pay for them with whatever effort it takes to extract them or make them useful.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Mon Jul 05, 2021 9:05 pm I know people like you don't like the fact the real world is full of risks and there are no guarantees. There is never any guarantee any design or development will be financially successful, especially in the market. Acknowledging and planning on that risk is a necessary part of all successful business.

The financial success of any product has nothing to do with the cost of researching/developing/manufacturing the product.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Mon Jul 05, 2021 9:05 pm In actual practice, the most successful designs and products are not easy to reverse engineer , or provide the processes and means of production for even with the patents are in hand, and the original designer or developer already has the means of production, giving them the jump on any potential competitors, unless they attempt to overcharge for the product.

I am not talking about reverse engineering. I am talking about taking your actual (forward) engineering.

Take your engineers. Take your designs. Take your processes.

You know, all those processes/production patterns/workflows you spent billions researching/developing.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Mon Jul 05, 2021 9:05 pm If someone else can produce the same product (or similar one) for less than the inventor, why should people be denied the less expensive version they would prefer, except to line the pockets of the one in bed with the government.

Because you can only REproduce it for less than the inventor, but you can't produce it for less than the inventor.

The pioneer pays the cost of development AND the cost of failure.

You sure seem to be a moocher - you want rewards without taking any risk.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Jul 05, 2021 6:22 pm Most companies also maintain their actual engineering designs and process as industrial secrets held in secure places which it would be necessary to, "break into," and actually, "steal," to even look at them, much less study and use. There is a real problem with industrial theft totally separate from patents and copyrights.

Everything's digital now. Hack them - copy it. Nothing lost - only copied.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Jul 05, 2021 6:22 pm An idea only exists conceptually in someone's consciousness. Something tangible must be produced using that idea before there is any market value at all. Many ideas are around for years before any actual, "stuff," is produced, (consider geostationary satellites) and there are ideas today which have never resulted in any, "stuff," and they aren't worth a pickle. Creative thinking might, "produce," new ideas, but ideas, all by themselves, have no market value.

Ideas are conceptual. Working designs are not.

mRNA vacines - digital.
Software - digital.
Patents/designs - digital.

Welcome to the digital age where everything can be copied without destroying the original.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Jul 05, 2021 6:22 pm And you cannot just, "take from nature," any resources. You must pay for them with whatever effort it takes to extract them or make them useful.

Once I take them - you can't take them. Who gets dibs?

If I claim Mars and you claim Mars - whose is it?