Reason is an absolute

Hi Citizen Rat,

However, the fact that what is physical can manifest through the law intangible rights, does not mean what is inherently intangible in the first place, like an idea, can also be property – except by the positivist declarations of our legislators that it is.

Agreed. The reason that intellectual property exists (that I mentioned in my post) is: We want to retain the incentive for original creation, while not overly hindering competitive markets. Is there any way Objectivism can agree with this proposition? Rand clear thought it possible. You do not?

Jordan

Post 21

Thursday, May 13, 2004 - 4:06pm

Marc G,

Would you consider starting a new thread so that we don't muddle up this thread with multiple issues and so you might perhaps draw more discussers into the fray?

'I am 98% sure that certainty is impossible'

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

Ethics can simply be a network of competing values, which we rank according to costs/benefits in any given situation.

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

In fact the evidence points to 'Rational altruism' as the proper ethics: the exact opposite of what Rand thought.

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

All for now. Some of your objections more intriguing than others. I hope you will post some new threads.

Jordan

Post 22

Thursday, May 13, 2004 - 4:18pm

Rodney: “Marc is correct in saying his position of universal uncertainty is completely coherent/consistent.”

It’s true that universal uncertainty, or global skepticism, can’t be maintained with any consistency. But that’s not the same as being uncertain that absolute certainty can always be attained. Another way of putting this is to claim: “I am reasonably sure that absolute certainty in all things is not attainable”. This is by no means contradictory, because if it can be shown that absolute certainty in all things is indeed attainable, then I am merely mistaken.

But Rodney raises a pertinent issue in pointing out the title of this thread: “Reason is an Absolute”. At face value, this statement appears to be saying that our means of gaining knowledge or understanding is complete or perfect. But this is obviously false, since our understanding is neither complete nor perfect.

On the other hand, it may mean something more prosaic: that reason is the only means towards understanding. But in that case, a degree of uncertainty is not at all contradictory, since one can be mistaken even with the most careful use of reason.

Brendan

Post 23

Thursday, May 13, 2004 - 6:04pm

(NB: Brendan quoted only part of what I said, which leaves the impression that I think Marc's skepticism is coherent--what I actually said, and I am sure Brendan did not mean to distort, is that it is "coherent" in only a limited and invalidating sense.)

Brendan, global skepticism is indeed what Marc believes. See here for that previous thread I referred to.

I don't want to be unfair to Marc, so here is his exact paragraph on logic:

I accept the three basic laws of logic: I accept the law of identity, the law of the excluded middle, and the law of non-contradiction. I take these three laws to be foundational, just as Rand (and Aristotle) said. Unlike Rand though, I don’t take these three foundational laws as “certainties.” The law of identity is simply a law that I suspect is needed in order for reasoning to take place at all. I have reason to believe the 3 foundational laws are laws that are very likely something that we are “constitutionally unable to get rid of” (laws needed for consciousness and reasoning to exist in the first place). But I don’t know with 100% certainty that this is the case. (That is, although I accept the basic laws of logic, I can still display some degree of skepticism towards them.)

(Edited by Rodney Rawlings on 5/13, 6:12pm)

Post 24

Thursday, May 13, 2004 - 6:13pm

Michael, Bill,

Bill has again beat me to the punch, and his answer is essentially what I would have answered, if his jab were not so much quicker than my left hook.

I would like to add this, however. You frequently refer to those who choose to enter a market by producing something someone else first produced as parasites. A parasite takes something away from the host, which, having been taken away, the host cannot no longer use or has access to.

In my original post, I pointed out that the whole argument for so-called "patent-rights," is based on the false notion that someone could claim a right to a mere potential, something that does not exist, and may or may not ever exist.

I quote: ...The concept of theft is based on something being stolen, but if nothing is missing, just what is it the presumed violator of intellectual property rights stole? Ready for the answer. It is potential. In an entirely different context, Ayn Rand said, "Rights do not pertain to a potential." ["Of Living Death," The Objectivist, Oct. 1968] But, in any context, the principle is the same. In this world there are no guarantees and one of the greatest mistakes of all governments is the attempt to provide them. Patent and copyright laws are perfect examples of this folly.
A potential cannot be property. What does not yet exist cannot be owned. What cannot be owned, cannot be stolen. ...

If those you call parasites actually take something away from the inventor or creator of a patented or copyrighted, "idea," you ought to be able to tell me exactly what the inventor or creator had before the supposed, "parasitic theft," they longer have afterward the "theft."

I make a prediction that you cannot do this without reference to a potential, (as opposed to an actuality) such as the potential profit the inventor or creator might make.

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

The fact is, there is no automatic right amount of profit, or any guarantee there will be, or even ought to be, a profit at all. Suppose, for example, in Edison's case, some very clever individual, like Tesla, because his scientific background was far superior to Edison's, immediately saw that tungsten would be a far superior filament to carbon imbedded in silk and patented the idea. Edison would certainly have been credited with inventing the light bulb, but it would have been a market failure, because of Tesla's superior product.

Tesla actually did beat Edison in another field, and Edison lost his shirt, because he failed to see the superiority of AC for the transmission of electric power. If the potential profit of an invention is reason enough to prevent someone else from entering the same market, why shouldn't Tesla have been prevented from using AC power transmission until Edison had made his mythical rightful profit?

In a truly free market, it is the best product at the best price that appeals to the most people that wins. It does not matter how much effort, money, or time you put into your product, either in creating or producing it; it does not matter if you were the first or the last to attempt to produce and sell the product. To compete in a free market one must be prepared to produce the best product, not relying on anything else.

Patents and copyrights are great devices for rewarding a certain class of individuals favored by the government, but they are inimical to a free market, because they attempt to guarantee market success based on coercive force, rather than market forces, the free interaction of all members of the market, producers, sellers, and buyers.

Regi

Post 25

Thursday, May 13, 2004 - 7:09pm

Hi Matthew,

Your suggestion: What would you all think to the idea of "copyright" being defended purely by contractual mechanisms?

Of course I think it would be great, and certainly one way a creator could attempt to protect the potential value of his efforts without resorting to the "guys with the guns." Your interesting illustration about Tolkien is practical evidence that if your work really has market value, the market itself will frequently protect you.

Regi

Post 26

Thursday, May 13, 2004 - 7:16pm

Bill,

Thank you for the comments.

You also said, But I haven’t thought out the possibilities of all this to persuade myself that copyright is nothing more than utilitarian. Your thoughts, as always, on what a non-copyright market would look like are of interest.

I do not mean this to be flip, but a market free of copyright and patent restrictions (barring other government interference) would be a free market; patents and copyrights are inimical to a free market.

Regi

Post 27

Thursday, May 13, 2004 - 7:27pm

Rodney,

In the passage you refer to Marc seems to be saying that the laws of logic are not truths, but are akin to rules that we need in order for us to reason effectively, or at all. This is a reasonable claim, and is not global skepticism, which is a claim that we cannot have any knowledge at all, that whatever we profess is mere opinion, habit, delusion etc.

As far as I can see, Marc has said nothing remotely like that. I quote from the thread you mention: “We hold beliefs with varying degrees of certainty, and update the probabilities as new info comes on. But no belief can ever be 100% sure.” That seems to be a statement that knowledge is possible, even though not certain. But I should really let him speak for himself.

Brendan

Post 28

Friday, May 14, 2004 - 5:47am

Brendan: Knowledge in the widest sense means awareness. To know something, three things are required:

You believe something to be true.
The thing you believe really is true.
Your belief is based on a valid cognitive process.

As you see, certainty is implied when you say you know something.

(Edited by Rodney Rawlings on 5/15, 7:07pm)

Post 29

Friday, May 14, 2004 - 8:52am

Fountain Head and Regi-

But let’s suppose the moron drew a diagram of his idea of a toothpick, initialled it, and then put it away for safe keeping. Now, suppose that I find said piece of paper, and give it a once-over, consequently supplanting the idea in MY head. How can the moron claim ownership of what exists in MY head? It’s my head! And so is everything in it (though it has been argued that there isn’t all that much in there).
What is interesting here is that I oughtn’t be able to bring into existence a design, that I did not create, but that I am able to bring into existence the product of (that which represents the design) design. That is to say, if it now exists in the non-design context, I can make my own.
It is as though you are suggesting that there is some difference in the means by which I know of both (a design and a product)?
I know both via sense faculties.

Fountain Head

I am not trying to ignore your example and question, I'm just not sure I understand it. Instead, let me clarify my position and answer Regi.

The right to property means the right to keep the product of one's efforts, mental efforts as well as physical efforts. If I design a new type of toothpick, and if I can prove to the patent office that it is unique, novel, and non-obvious, and if I "reduce the invention to practice", which means show that I can actually make the item and that it does indeed confer heretofor unavailable benefits, then I can be granted a patent on that design.

This may be obvious but let me point it out -- you cannot simply find some existing product, make a trivial change to it, declare it to be your "design", and then claim it as your property. Nor can the thing exist merely in your consciousness. You must create something new, i.e. some thing that is new, a design that confers or achieves something heretofore unavailable by existing designs.

If you do this, what has been created is the design. What is owned is the design. What is protected by patent law is the exclusive right to the use and disposal of that property -- that design -- just as the exclusive right to the use and disposal of all other forms of property are protected by other property laws.

Regi says:

If those you call parasites actually take something away from the inventor or creator of a patented or copyrighted, "idea," you ought to be able to tell me exactly what the inventor or creator had before the supposed, "parasitic theft," they longer have afterward the "theft."

I make a prediction that you cannot do this without reference to a potential, (as opposed to an actuality) such as the potential profit the inventor or creator might make.

What is stolen (destroyed actually ) by the parasite is my exclusive right to the use and disposal of the property involved -- the design. If he is allowed to use my design without my permission, I no longer have that exclusive right. It has nothing to do with potentials -- it has everything to do with ownership.

If you buy land and build a toll road on it, you have the exclusive right to the use and disposal of that road and that land, which means the right to charge whatever you wish to those that wish to use it. If someone crosses or attempts to cross without paying the toll, you have the right to have them stopped. They are attempting an unauthorized use of your property.

Are any items of yours missing after the unauthorized crossing? No, but that is irrelevant. Your property right is an absolute, exclusive right to the use and disposal of the property, even if the unauthorized use does not affect the property in any way.

Observe that this applies even if there is no toll road and no "loss of potential profits" involved. If you put up a sign on your land saying, "No trespassing", you have the absolute right to have that enforced. It is completely irrelevant that the trespassing does not affect your land, just as it is completely irrelevant that nothing is missing or gone from your land after the trespass. Your right to exclusive use and disposal is inherent in ownership -- it is the very meaning of ownership.

The same is true of my ownership of my design. I have the exclusive right to the use and disposal of that design because it is my property. The parasite's use of my design is an unauthorized use and is just as wrong as the trespass example. It is just as wrong as me breaking into your summer home and living in it all winter without your permission -- even though nothing is missing and even though my presence may be utterly undetectable after the fact.

Regi said ; You ought to be able to tell me exactly what the inventor or creator had before the supposed, "parasitic theft," they longer have afterward the "theft." What I had before the parasitic theft was the exclusive right to the use and disposal of my property -- my design. What I no longer have -- after your unauthorized use of my design -- is that exclusive right to the use and disposal of my design.

What is stolen is the exclusivity -- which means: the ownership -- which means: the property. Non-eclusive ownership is a contradiction in terms. If you have no right to determine who may or may not occupy your home, then in what sense do you own it? Will you be consoled by the fact that your are still free to go inside, provided there is room among the strangers? And if the strangers push you out, will you be satisfied with the explanation, "Hey, there is risk in every investment, there is no guarantee of ownership."

I do not justify ownership on the basis of potential profit. I justify it based on the act of creation. The toothpick created by the moron may be of little value to the moron or anyone else -- in fact, given that it was created by a moron it may be completely useless. But none of that changes the fact that it is his creation -- and therefore his property -- and therefore he has the exclusive right to determine its use and disposal -- and you have no right to use it without his permission.

As an aside, let me address another point that has been brought up. There is a distinction between a design and a process. For example, the shape of an airplane's wings -- its airfoil -- is a design. The method of refining the aluminum used to make that wing is a process. Both can be patented and the same general rules apply. Now, alternatively, the property rights to a process can be protected by keeping it a trade secret instead of seeking a patent. One cannot simply look at a piece of aluminum and immediately know the process by which it was refined. But property rights to a design cannot be protected this way; it is easy to measure and copy the parameters of an airplane's wings.

Patents and copyrights are great devices for rewarding a certain class of individuals favored by the government, but they are inimical to a free market, because they attempt to guarantee market success based on coercive force, rather than market forces, the free interaction of all members of the market, producers, sellers, and buyers.

A free market does not mean the freedom to use other people's property -- to use their creations -- without their permission. Patents and copyrights are not "rewards" granted capriciously by government officials to "favored classes" of individuals -- they are like the deed to your house and the title to your car. They document ownership of property.

There is absolutely no justification for denying property status to the products of the highest form of man's creativity. Property is produced, and every act of production involves a mental and a physical component. There is no justification for the assertion that products made with little mental effort -- like the carving of a toothpick -- do qualify as property, but that products requiring an enormous mental effort -- like the development of a design for a powered airplane -- do not. And the fact that something like a design may be easily copied has no more relevance than the fact that your home may be easily broken into.

Post 30

Friday, May 14, 2004 - 9:27am

Hi Fountain Head,

Sorry to butt in, but to know if ideas exist we must first have a clear understanding of what an existent is. By your definition, only physical objects are existents. Buried within that definition is an assumption that permanency equals existents. An idea may be understood as a complicated process within the nervous system in which many extents interact with each other. This process is fleeting, occuring for a brief moment and in slightly different ways each time, even for the same idea.

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

Ideas are inescapable. We must employ ideas just to discuss ideas.

For this problem, and others like it, perhaps it would be useful for Objectivism to classify extents into two types: fleeting and permanent (to use a grammatic analogue, verb and noun). I can see how this would be confusing. If Objectivism has a good explanation for this I would be happy to read or hear it.

*I may modify this post later, because if I remember correctly Objectivism does explain this.

Post 31

Friday, May 14, 2004 - 10:08am

Mike:

You concede the utility of trade secret to protect “process” but not “design”. Your rebuttal: >>But property rights to a design cannot be protected this way; it is easy to measure and copy the parameters of an airplane's wings.<<

Design is readily protected by trade secret. Ask Coca-Cola. No one yet has divined the design of Coke despite the fact that it has been on the market for a century.

That is because the information gap between a finished product and its design can be huge. Sure you can measure a finished airplane’s wings (though it’s not as easy as you imagine). So what do you know as result? You have a series of measurements. Big deal.

You still don’t know the design of the wing. You do not know how to specify for production another wing. What's the curve running through those measurements? Just one fly in the ointment in figuring that out is what you have are actual measurements, which may or may not be within specification. You do not know the ideal spec or its tolerance. Can the finished product vary widely or must it be held to a tight tolerance? No small matter when it comes to the cost of building another one. You can waste a lot of time and money holding a tolerance tight that can be loose, or vice versa you can end up making lemons.

Then there are the issues of fit between components. What is the allowance between them? How about the finish of those components? Which finish is critical for function and which is aesthetic? What is the material specification? Aluminum ain’t an answer. Which particular alloy and which temper? Is it treated or untreated? Do you have to be concerned about not using aged materials, or must it be aged?

Get these answers from the finished product and you’ve only started to fill the information gap. You got to develop a helluva lot of information from these “easy” measurements of yours to create a design from a finished product that will let you: [1] Build multiple copies of the product; and [2] copies that will not fail after a few uses. And once you have created your design for a copy, you still have figure out how to produce it – i.e., that “process” you refer to, which is much more tightly bound with design than you indicate – e.g., work-hardening, corner radiuses, surface finish.

Now if it is easy, like you say, to fill this information gap between finished product and design & process, then that’s because most of the design & process behind the finished product is already common knowledge. So, the real question is why someone who incrementally adds to an existing base of knowledge should have the right to don the jackboot of the government to stomp out his competition – especially when self-help trade secret measures can provide effective protection of his new idea?

Regards,
Bill

Post 32

Friday, May 14, 2004 - 10:30am

Jordan, Matthew, and Regi:

Jordan, you asked: >>The reason that intellectual property exists (that I mentioned in my post) is: We want to retain the incentive for original creation, while not overly hindering competitive markets. Is there any way Objectivism can agree with this proposition? Rand clear thought it possible. You do not?<<

I'm not an Objectivist, so I won't broach the subject of how the philosophy can be squared with the free market in this matter. But I don't think the government creation of intellectual property is necessary to provide inventors and artists the incentive to create, because if the free market desires the fruit of their efforts, it will figure out which incentives will work to obtain them.

Regi is right when it comes to patents. There is no need for them as a matter of justice. No one is entitled to an award for his bright ideas. He's got to make something of them, and then there's gotta be someone who then wants what he's produced from his ideas. That's the beauty of the free exchange of goods and services. Both parties think they're better off as a consequence. Government enforced patents only stifle (or worse) the process of the free market in bringing about such exchanges.

Having thought about it, I think Regi is also correct about copyright. (Though I think the creation of art is distinct from the discovery of ideas, and may merit different treatment in certain circumstances.) I already see how the free market would reward artists such as painters and authors. And I see how Matthew's idea about private contract would protect musicians and filmmakers. So where government is not necessary to bring about justice, we should dispense with it -- hence, chuck out copyright laws.

So that, in a nutshell, is why I don't think "intellectual property" is something to be protected by government fiat. The market will, if free to do so, justly award the innovators and creators among us.

Regards,
Bill

Post 33

Friday, May 14, 2004 - 11:08am

Mike:

You complain: >>There is absolutely no justification for denying property status to the products of the highest form of man's creativity. Property is produced, and every act of production involves a mental and a physical component. There is no justification for the assertion that products made with little mental effort -- like the carving of a toothpick -- do qualify as property, but that products requiring an enormous mental effort -- like the development of a design for a powered airplane -- do not.<<

You are conflating the idea for a product, a finished product, and the design of a product.

The fella carving the toothpick has an idea that he is immediately producing as a finished item. There is no design involved. Only a mental picture of what he wants, and his manual effort to produce it. If his neighbor sees what he's doing on his front porch and thinks, "hey, that's a clever idea", and proceeds to whittle himself a toothpick, he's taken nothing.

However, if the original carver first puts his idea to paper to specify a design for the toothpick, he has created property that belongs to him -- a blueprint. He has also, of course, created property belonging to him if he uses his blueprint to make toothpicks.

So his neighbor comes over to dinner, and afterwards he receives a toothpick from the carver. He thinks, great idea, and starts making toothpicks for himself. What has he stolen? Nothing. He still has to figure what to make and how to make it. However, if he grabs the carver's blueprint stashed away in a desk drawer on the way out, he certainly has stolen something. In that case, the neighbor should be denied any benefit obtained from making toothpicks from the stolen blueprint.

But if the carver keeps his blueprint left out in the open, then the neighbor sees it and remembers enough from it to make his own toothpicks -- once again, the neighbor has stolen nothing. You cannot equate the knowledge obtained through simply seeing the physical translation of an idea as theft. The original carver has lost nothing as a consequence of his neighbor's knowledge.

The lesson is: Designs can be valuable, because they are physical things embodying useful information. So protect your designs if you do not want them taken, just like you'd protect any other object you value.

Regards,
Bill

Post 34

Friday, May 14, 2004 - 11:36am

Michael,

First, you do not have to worry about patents and copyrights going away. There are too many people with a vested interest in that particular coercive monopolistic scheme.

Secondly, I do not intend to change your mind, and am only answering the questions in the interest of clarity about the issue and for the sake of those who really would be interested in both sides.

To my statement: You ought to be able to tell me exactly what the inventor or creator had before the supposed, "parasitic theft," they longer have afterward the "theft." ... you answered: What I had before the parasitic theft was the exclusive right to the use and disposal of my property -- my design. What I no longer have -- after your unauthorized use of my design -- is that exclusive right to the use and disposal of my design.

But that begs the question. It is whether or not there is such a thing as, "intellectual property," for one to have any kind of right to that is being debated. In reality, you never have the "exclusive right to use and dispose of an idea."

But, you press on: What is stolen is the exclusivity -- which means: the ownership -- which means: the property. Non-eclusive ownership is a contradiction in terms. If you have no right to determine who may or may not occupy your home, then in what sense do you own it? Will you be consoled by the fact that your are still free to go inside, provided there is room among the strangers? And if the strangers push you out, will you be satisfied with the explanation, "Hey, there is risk in every investment, there is no guarantee of ownership."

You again start by begging the question, assuming that an idea can be property to prove it is property. That has not yet been established.

Both this example of the house and your earlier one about the toll road ignore the difference between tangible physical property and intangible ideas. No one can use your idea without your permission. To do that, they would have to get into your mind. This seems to be the thing you cannot understand. The correct analogy would be this: if you have a toll road and your neighbor, having property adjacent to yours, thinks you are charging too much for the use of your road, builds a road parallel to yours and charges less, by your view, the government ought to prevent him from using his property as he chooses, because you thought of it first.

It is those who want to enforce so-called "intellectual-property" rights that violate people's real property rights. There is no reason in the world why two or more people cannot arrive at a similar or even identical design idea entirely independently. (In fact, this very frequently happens.) If one of them obtains a patent, they can use force to prevent the others from using their own ideas. That is a true violation of property rights and the right of every individual to use their own ideas in any way they choose.

There is a very important philosophical principle violated by the idea of "intellectual property." When an individual has an idea, it is his idea. Ideas, like any other kind of knowledge, cannot be transferred from one mind to another. When teaching others, the best one can to is explain, illustrate, and demonstrate what one is intending to teach, but it is not possible to put the concepts and ideas into someone's else's mind. The learner must use their own mind to understand and comprehend what is being explained and illustrated, and once they have understood it, the concepts and ideas are theirs won by their own intellectual effort.

How someone comes to have the ideas they have is irrelevant to the fact that whatever ideas they have, they are their own ideas. Any ideas an individual has is exactly the same idea, requiring the same amount of intellectual effort, regardless of whether the individual is the only person in the world to have that idea, the first person to have that idea, or the last person to have that idea. The attempt to make ideas, "property," on the basis of when someone first announced they had an idea is totally arbitrary and without any factual (or moral) basis.

Ideas are property only in one sense; all the ideas any individual has are that individual's property, no matter where, how, or when they developed those ideas. If it is possible to violate the rights an individual to use their own ideas, it is patents and copyrights that do it.

Patents and copyrights can be transferred, sold, and inherited. But if a patent or copyright is the, "idea," without resorting to Platonic "real" universals, an idea has no existence apart from the rational minds that think them. Ideas do not have physical ontological existence, ideas only have psychological existence.

What is actually transferred, sold, or inherited is a government protected monopoly to produce a certain product. Ideas are non-transferrable, and cannot be property.

Regi

Post 35

Friday, May 14, 2004 - 1:02pm

Hi Eddie and Fountain Head,

This statement: An idea may be understood as a complicated process within the nervous system in which many extents interact with each other, is based on the emergent theory of consciousness, which equates consciousness, as well as the rational and volitional of consciousness in humans, to merely physical processes.

Life, itself, is a physical process, but it is not the physical aspects of life that consciousness, reason, and volition pertain to, but the living process itself. No doubt, there are real physical (chemical/electrical) events associate with those mental process involved with forming ideas, specifically, concepts, but that there is any particular physical event associated with, or that can be described as "being," a particular idea, is extremely unlikely.

As far as Objectivism addressing the "problem" you suggested, it does not, because it does recognize any such problem. It is possible I do not understand exactly what you are getting at, however. Out of curiosity, have you read Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology? (This is not a quiz, you do not have to answer the question literally. It's none of my business.) If you haven't, it might answer some of the questions you have.

Also, my post, "Cause, Determinism, and Life" on the Has life always existed? thread addresses the relationships of the physical and psychological, from another viewpoint. The question is essentially the same, however.

Now Fountain Head:

I have been remiss in answering you.

First thank you for the interesting comment. I have not been trying to convince anyone, and certainly hope if you change any of your views it is because you are convinced by your own best reason, and not by my bad influence. (Mr. Danger, aka Lindsay Perigo, calls me, "the anal Mr. Firehammer, the Saddamite." I am certainly a bad influence, so be careful.)

Q: In what sense do I take ideas to be physical?

A: I’m not sure? I just can’t get over the idea that an idea is, in some way, shape or form, not physical. My reasoning: if it exists, it’s physical :-). I take it that ideas exist, as I do have them.

Ayn Rand says that ideas, (or more specifically, concepts), exist, but they exist psychologically, not physically. Ideas cannot exist independently of the human consciousness. But ideas certainly exist.

The distinction is very important. Physical existents have physical qualities, and their identity is in terms of those qualities, such as their mass, size, shape, chemical make-up, pH factor, etc. Ideas or concepts have no physical qualities and are identified by psychological qualities, which are fully delineated by Ayn Rand in the chapter, "Concepts of Consciousness," in Ayn Rand's Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology.

The whole subject of consciousness is a very large one. The Objectivist, David Kelley, wrote an entire book on just one small aspect of it. (Entitled The Evidence of the Senses, it is actually about the essence of consciousness, which is perception.) My point is, it is a subject to large to address adequately in this forum, probably.

Regi

Post 36

Friday, May 14, 2004 - 2:01pm

there seems to be an odd effect of rand's formulation of intellectual property that i've noticed. namely, in her view, discoveries cannot be claimed as intellectual property, but constructs, man made ideas, can. if we apply this to philosophy, it seems to leave open the bizarre interpretation that bad philosophies are protected (they are fictions, after all), but good ones are not (they are discoveries). comments?

Post 37

Friday, May 14, 2004 - 3:55pm

Regi-

To my statement: You ought to be able to tell me exactly what the inventor or creator had before the supposed, "parasitic theft," they longer have afterward the "theft." ... you answered: What I had before the parasitic theft was the exclusive right to the use and disposal of my property -- my design. What I no longer have -- after your unauthorized use of my design -- is that exclusive right to the use and disposal of my design.

But that begs the question. It is whether or not there is such a thing as, "intellectual property," for one to have any kind of right to that is being debated. In reality, you never have the "exclusive right to use and dispose of an idea."

Nothing has been begged. Before giving this example, I demonstrated that a process of human creation can result in a unique, novel, non-obvious design. That design is the product of my efforts and thus qualifies as my property. The only basis that you have offered for excluding these things as property is the notion that nothing is taken from me when you use my design. I answer that when you use my design without my permission, you have "taken" -- or violated -- the very essence of property: the exclusive right to its use and disposal.

Both this example of the house and your earlier one about the toll road ignore the difference between tangible physical property and intangible ideas. No one can use your idea without your permission. To do that, they would have to get into your mind.

They do not have to "get into my mind." They only have to copy my design. And it is done -- or attempted -- all the time. Within weeks of the Wright Brothers first flight, Glenn Curtis was busy building an airplane using the Wright's design -- without their permission.

This seems to be the thing you cannot understand. The correct analogy would be this: if you have a toll road and your neighbor, having property adjacent to yours, thinks you are charging too much for the use of your road, builds a road parallel to yours and charges less, by your view, the government ought to prevent him from using his property as he chooses, because you thought of it first.

This is a straw man argument. I have said nothing to suggest that one should be able to patent something that has been around for thousands of years, as toll roads have. To be patentable, an idea must be new -- among other things. Have you not read my posts? The mere fact of being the first to build something in an area is certainly not the basis for a patent -- and thus is certainly not the basis for the government to stop the next guy from building his competing toll road.

It is those who want to enforce so-called "intellectual-property" rights that violate people's real property rights. There is no reason in the world why two or more people cannot arrive at a similar or even identical design idea entirely independently. (In fact, this very frequently happens.) If one of them obtains a patent, they can use force to prevent the others from using their own ideas. That is a true violation of property rights and the right of every individual to use their own ideas in any way they choose.

Two independent minds arriving at exactly the same idea at exactly the same time happens rarely. But guess what? When it does happen, the patent office would make the two parties co-owners of the patent. Nobody would lose anything.

And if you are aware that someone else is working on the same design as yours, you are required to disclose that fact to the patent office at the time you apply for a patent. Failure to do so is grounds for invalidating the patent in subsequent litigation.

And when two parties independently develop the same idea at close to the same time, the patent office will generally require the first inventor -- the one who gets the patent -- to license the second inventor at a reasonable cost.

There is a very important philosophical principle violated by the idea of "intellectual property." When an individual has an idea, it is his idea. Ideas, like any other kind of knowledge, cannot be transferred from one mind to another. When teaching others, the best one can to is explain, illustrate, and demonstrate what one is intending to teach, but it is not possible to put the concepts and ideas into someone's else's mind. The learner must use their own mind to understand and comprehend what is being explained and illustrated, and once they have understood it, the concepts and ideas are theirs won by their own intellectual effort.

How someone comes to have the ideas they have is irrelevant to the fact that whatever ideas they have, they are their own ideas. Any ideas an individual has is exactly the same idea, requiring the same amount of intellectual effort, regardless of whether the individual is the only person in the world to have that idea, the first person to have that idea, or the last person to have that idea. The attempt to make ideas, "property," on the basis of when someone first announced they had an idea is totally arbitrary and without any factual (or moral) basis.

You cannot possibly say that there is no distinction between the mental process of creating a design from scratch and the mental process of copying a design that already exists. You are ignoring the distinction between merely having an idea versus creating a design. Pointing at a bird in the sky and saying, "Hey, lets make a flying machine" is having an idea. Working out the shapes of airfoils through wind tunnel testing, developing a wing warping mechanism for lateral control, hell,even realizing that lateral control is necessary, putting airfoils on the propellers instead of merely making them like ship's screws, having the pilot lie prone to reduce aerodynamic drag, figuring out how to get the engine light enough -- this what is involved in creating a design.

It took the Wright Brothers 10 years to create all of the science and engineering involved. It took Glenn Curtis about 10 weeks to copy it. And you see no distinction?

Ideas are property only in one sense; all the ideas any individual has are that individual's property, no matter where, how, or when they developed those ideas. If it is possible to violate the rights an individual to use their own ideas, it is patents and copyrights that do it.

Patents and copyrights can be transferred, sold, and inherited. But if a patent or copyright is the, "idea," without resorting to Platonic "real" universals, an idea has no existence apart from the rational minds that think them. Ideas do not have physical ontological existence, ideas only have psychological existence.

A design most definitely has a real, physical existence. If it did not, it would not be so easy to copy it.

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

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

(Edited by Michael Smith on 5/14, 3:58pm)

Post 38

Friday, May 14, 2004 - 7:28pm

Michael,

We're not going to agree. You have made good arguments, I think all the arguments that are usually made in support of patents and copyrights. You, and most others are convinced by those arguments. You are in the majority. Be satisfied.

You are not going to convince me, and I have no intention of convincing you.

I have one comment to make after I respond to this one thing you said:

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

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

This is more of what I originally criticized. It is Marxism. Neither the value or nature of anything is determined by the amount of work or effort, mental or physical that produced it. The value of anything is determined objectively by how well it meets the purpose it is produced to meet, and market-wise, by how many people are willing to exchange how much value for it. The nature of a thing is determine by its identity, what it is, and no law and no way of looking at things changes what a thing is. An idea is purely conceptual with no physical qualities. It cannot be property.

I cannot make out what you mean by, "design." If you mean the idea for how a thing should be made, such as what shape it should have, that is not physical, and cannot be property. If you mean, after the idea is implemented by someone, and the resulting product has the shape conceived in the idea, the product itself is the property of whoever created it. The "shape," itself is a quality, and does not exist except as a quality of an actual existent. The shape itself has no independent existence, and cannot be property.

I agree, When my effort creates a new design, it is MINE. And you are free to use it in any way you choose. But when you choose to use it as an argument for initiating force against someone else to prevent them from using their own ideas, that is immoral. I will never accept any argument for the initiation of force, which is what all arguments for so-called intellectual property are.

Regi

Post 39

Friday, May 14, 2004 - 9:22pm