Mike10-4 Posted January 26, 2020 Author Share Posted January 26, 2020 11 minutes ago, dimreepr said: are You sure? Is not what is certain are, “death and taxes”? Another definition of life and death, according to constructal theory, you will find in the following article: Life and evolution as physics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted January 26, 2020 Share Posted January 26, 2020 50 minutes ago, Mike10-4 said: Is not what is certain are, “death and taxes”? Another definition of life and death, according to constructal theory, you will find in the following article: Life and evolution as physics. ! Moderator Note I am getting rather tired of you repeatedly linking to the same sources with no attempt to properly answer questions or provide any deeper explanation of their relevance. You have not established that there are inalienable rights, apart from quoting some claims by a dead, foreign politician. Just because Jefferson believed that doesn't make it true. On 1/24/2020 at 6:46 PM, Mike10-4 said: Today we explore the science of rights with the following correlation: For a flow system to persist in time (to live) [Life], it must evolve freely [Liberty] such that it provides greater access [the pursuit of] to its currents [Happiness (positive feedback)]. ! Moderator Note This is a truly appalling attempt to use metaphor as evidence. It is the linguistic equivalent to numerology. You need to do better. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike10-4 Posted January 26, 2020 Author Share Posted January 26, 2020 3 minutes ago, Strange said: ! Moderator Note I am getting rather tired of you repeatedly lining to the same source with no attempt to properly answer questions or provide any deeper explanation of their relevance. You have not established that there are inalienable rights, apart from quoting some claims by a dead, foreign politician. Just because Jefferson believed that doesn't make it true. We may interpret Jefferson’s “unalienable Rights” as life’s innate rights or bio-primitives, found throughout life down to the single-cell level. Primitives that are axiomatic in nature relative to a self-evident truth, transcending a proof, where organic Life must have freedom [Liberty] within its domain in the pursuit of survival [positive feedback a prerequisite for human Happiness]; otherwise, there is no life. Underlying the time and energy expended, or the work involved, in the pursuit of survival or any other objective, supports the notion that most accomplishments result in some form of chemical/electrical positive feedback or happiness for humans. The simplicity of life’s innate rights is the self-evident axiom lying within its logic. Relative to the flow of biological life, the formulation of these rights or bio-primitives defines the following logic, where ∧ represents conjunction, and ∨ represents disjunction: Flow = Life ∧ Freedom ∧ Energy, (1) No Flow = Death ∨ Tyranny ∨ No_Energy. (2) The bio-primitive term “pursuit” is dependent on energy. Equations (1) and (2) represent the ends of a spectrum driven by liberty and energy. In general, this spectrum maintains a direction of constructive flow towards (1) life, and liberty, and happiness (positive feedback), or an unconstructive flow in the opposite direction towards (2) death, or tyranny, or distress (negative feedback). Therefore, through symmetry, life’s innate rights are an animate version of the constructal law, as the constructal law is axiomatic in the animate domain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted January 26, 2020 Share Posted January 26, 2020 5 minutes ago, Mike10-4 said: We may interpret Jefferson’s “unalienable Rights” as life’s innate rights or bio-primitives, found throughout life down to the single-cell level. Primitives that are axiomatic in nature relative to a self-evident truth, transcending a proof, where organic Life must have freedom [Liberty] within its domain in the pursuit of survival [positive feedback a prerequisite for human Happiness]; otherwise, there is no life. Underlying the time and energy expended, or the work involved, in the pursuit of survival or any other objective, supports the notion that most accomplishments result in some form of chemical/electrical positive feedback or happiness for humans. ! Moderator Note Repeating the same assertions, word for word, does nothing to improve the quality of discussion. I can't see this thread staying open for much longer on that basis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimreepr Posted January 26, 2020 Share Posted January 26, 2020 you dont seem to understand what innate means. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted January 26, 2020 Share Posted January 26, 2020 15 minutes ago, Mike10-4 said: We may interpret Jefferson’s “unalienable Rights” as life’s innate rights or bio-primitives ! Moderator Note You might want to spend some time addressing the fact different people, at different times, have had different opinions of what natural rights were. For example, for Zoroastrians the most important natural right was to enlightened leadership (arguably the opposite of freedom). Locke said "life, liberty and property." Many others have said that natural rights only apply to certain people, or are secondary to the public good. So you need to provide a reason why we should take the opinions of Jefferson so seriously. So far your soapboxing shows a lack of awareness of the subject or how to convincingly present an argument. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike10-4 Posted January 26, 2020 Author Share Posted January 26, 2020 26 minutes ago, Strange said: ! Moderator Note You might want to spend some time addressing the fact different people, at different times, have had different opinions of what natural rights were. For example, for Zoroastrians the most important natural right was to enlightened leadership (arguably the opposite of freedom). Locke said "life, liberty and property." Many others have said that natural rights are secondary to the public good. So you need to provide a reason why we should take the opinions of Jefferson so seriously. So far your soapboxing shows a lack of awareness of the subject or how to convincingly present an argument. On the bleeding edge of research, as with many discoveries, take the introduction of Einstein’s work for example, the transition can be an issue relative to prior theories and those well-established philosophies of past ages; however, the conservative nature of historical acceptance of new paradigms will filter through a repository of one’s anecdotes to preserve the status quo. The new concept will not be forthcoming until scrutinizing historical issues, as it promotes philosophical reformation. Ultimately, such transformation has that effect, but not until the community has reevaluated traditional philosophies and theories, which it has long been familiar, and through symmetry, build on the foundation of those discoveries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts