no, my claim would be the one under "my notion." that is why it is called "my notion." > there's no evidence that "innate moral instincts" are in any way objectively true or moral, so we can bin that there is plenty of evidence about that. entire fields, even. > who says you have to control your body to argue? > theoretically you could argue entirely internally within your mind without any outward physical exertion your body includes your brain, which is relevant to your mind (be it by a relationship of emergence, synthonization, identic (with the objective elements), etc.).  > how are these two things related? > you haven't proven that arguing in and of itself has any connection to objective reality yes, i have. arguing happens in objective reality. this by itself already proves a connection with objective reality. you are making little sense.  > we can set up two ai chatbots to argue some position with one another, that does not mean they have self ownership you are misunderstanding the argument. chatbots do not argue. they simulate argumentation. hoppe's argumentation ethics pertain to interactions between conscious (as in self-aware), rational beings capable of intentional action and moral judgment. ai chatbots, while they can simulate conversation, lack consciousness and self-awareness. they don't understand or experience reason or are self-aware. therefore, their "argumentation" is merely a programmed exchange (or a stochastically emergent one), not a genuine engagement in the ethical sense. the same could be said of someone just actinjg in bad faith for another motive. they are not arguing. they are trying to get away with some other bullshit, but it outwardly appears as actual argumentation.
Peru