here's why i'm the legitimate owner of the universe

[Iwannaplato]

The problem is called: severe autism. You can't comprehend the implications that are inherent in language, and obvious to almost everyone else.

It functions like a kind of aphasia, I'd say. And in practice a kind of infinite regression, where Age is constantly challenging and asking questions and expecting justification and LOL-ing and referring to 'you' people with blame, never actually managing to justify any of his implicit positions and sometimes explicit positions. So the whole thing becomes an exercise in experiencing condescension, a never ending dissolving of call communication. Of course, he's right to the extent that miscommunication can take place if one assumes things. But if one follows his process no communication happens, just the regress and contact with a pedant from the future who is not one of 'us' people. I assume some computer viruses function like this. Clogging up the hard drive by eating storage.

Selective questioning can be useful.

[FlashDangerpants]

I think it's fitting that Advocate had his stupid narcissism fest stolen by Age, they are both the single greatest philosopher ever to have lived and they have equally convincing claims to the title (along with the other greatest mind of all time Hedgehog7, VA, and more recently that Kropotkin guy).

They should all own this topic for 15 minutes each all at the same time.








Edit.... I completely forgot Roydop. I feel bad. Perhaps it's a profound thing though. Kropotkin could compose a 90 line prose poetry epic on the matter.

[Atla]

Edit.... I completely forgot Roydop. I feel bad. Perhaps it's a profound thing though. Kropotkin could compose a 90 line prose poetry epic on the matter.

That guy breaks my heart. Here are all these crazy types who can sometimes be kinda fun to interact with in small doses, and so they take turns in getting some attention. But Roydop is just crazy and boring, uninteresting. Even when he's there, he's more like a ghost, and once he's gone, no one remembers him ever again. Like he was never there to begin with.

And the poor Hedgehog.. I remember there was a time before he finally fully succumbed to his own psychosis, when he still had some semblence of connection to the outside world, to other people. He was still "there" somehow, he had presence. He was interacting. Now nothing at all anymore.

I guess the only person who got somewhat less crazy over time, is DAM.

[Age]

Again, teaching you how you can understand and mimic neurotypical communication better using your insufficient brain parts, is a massive undertaking. Alternatively you could try to fire up the anterior parts of your neocortex more, also a massive undertaking. Can't help you there sorry

Now, that 'you' have ALREADY SHOWN just HOW MUCH 'you' can DEFLECT, and thus DECEIVE some people, let us GET BACK TO WHERE 'we' BEGAN. That is; with 'you' "atla" SAYING and CLAIMING that there are some of 'you', human beings, who HAVE MORE OWNERSHIP of 'the world' or 'the Universe', and have MORE POWER than "others do. Which 'you' have FAILED, ONCE AGAIN, to NAME ABSOLUTELY ANY human being that 'you' think or BELIEVE has MORE POWER than "others" HAVE.

And, as I WAS SAYING and POINTING OUT 'you' WILL NOT WRITE DOWN ANY one BECAUSE if 'you' did, then just how STUPID and RIDICULOUS 'your' CLAIM REALLY IS would COME-TO-LIGHT, be SHOWN, and BE REVEALED to ALL of 'the readers' here.

You've 100% proven yourself to be a liar in front of everyone, by standing by the claim that power hierarchies don't exist.

But are 'you' UNDER some sort of DELUSION here "atla" that what see or believe, personally, is the ACTUAL ABSOLUTE Truth of 'things'?

'you' seem to be under the PERCEPTION that there is some sort of ABSOLUTE Truth here, right?

Oh, and by the way, I STAND BY MY CLAIM ABOUT how there is NO ACTUAL 'hierarchies' AMONG 'you', human beings. Unless 'you' are talking ABOUT and referring TO those ONLY 'IMAGINED' ones, OF COURSE.

WHY do 'you' 100% BELIEVE, ABSOLUTELY, that 'this CLAIM' IS A LIE?

Also, let us NOT FORGET that 'you' have NOT PROVIDED ANY ACTUAL so-called 'power hierarchies' here.

In fact 'I' HAVE BEEN THE ONE to PROVIDE SOME 'thing' here, which 'you' HAVE FAILED, so far ABSOLUTELY, TO DO.

We can only guess what your ulterior motives are.

And, 'you' can KEEP DECEIVING and FOOLING "yourself" here, and MAYBE SOME "others".

The reason WHY 'you' can ONLY 'guess' here IS BECAUSE 'your' ASSUMPTION and BELIEF here is MADE UP FROM NOTHING but 'you' OWN IMAGINATION, ONLY.

The end

We WILL have TO WAIT, TO SEE.

[Age]

The problem is called: severe autism. You can't comprehend the implications that are inherent in language, and obvious to almost everyone else.

It functions like a kind of aphasia, I'd say.

Is 'aphasia' the REASON WHY 'you' can NOT COMMUNICATE and COMPREHEND sometimes "iwannaplato"?

Or, do 'you' FAIL in COMMUNICATING and COMPREHENDING always for some OTHER reason?

And in practice a kind of infinite regression, where Age is constantly challenging and asking questions and expecting justification

1. Do 'you' NOT EXPECT CHALLENGING of CLAIMS, especially in a philosophy forum?

2. I found the BEST WAY to UNDERSTAND "another" is by OBTAINING and GAINING AS MUCH CLARIFICATION, and CLARITY, FROM 'them'. It is OBVIOUS 'that 'you', adult human beings, WERE NOT REALLY that INTERESTED in Truly UNDERSTANDING "each other", "yourselves", NOR even "your" OWN 'self', but this does NOT MEAN that I DO NOT.

3. If one can NOT STAND BY, back up, and support their OWN CLAIMS and BELIEFS, then 'they' do NOT BROADCAST 'them' PUBLICLY, especially in a philosophy forum.

4. There is NO kind of 'infinite regression' AT ALL HERE, as I ALREADY KNOW WHERE 'the end' IS, EXACTLY.

and LOL-ing and referring to 'you' people with blame, never actually managing to justify any of his implicit positions and sometimes explicit positions.

'you', "iwannaplato", STILL HAVE NOT IDEA NOR CLUE AT ALL as to what 'LOL' even MEANS and REFERS TO here, EXACTLY.

If 'you', adult human beings, ARE DOING what 'you' ARE BEING BLAMED FOR, then what, EXACTLY, IS supposedly Wrong WITH 'this'?

Also, I WILL REPEAT ONCE MORE, 'I AM NOT NECESSARILY here TO JUSTIFY ANY OF MY POSITIONS'. BUT, ONCE AGAIN, if absolutely ANY one is Truly INTERESTED, then 'you' OBTAIN JUSTIFICATION.

And, let us NOT FORGET how AS SOON AS 'you' CAME-TO-ACKNOWLEDGING AGREEMENT with just one of MY 'definitions', it was 'you' who THEN BLAMED 'me' FOR NOT CONTINUING in JUSTIFYING MY CLAIM, even AFTER I EXPLAINED A FEW TIMES that 'you' HAD TO COME-TO-AGREEMENT and ACCEPTANCE WITH 'the definition' PROVIDED.

ALSO, I CAN and STILL WANT TO CONTINUE 'that JUSTIFICATION', or ANY OTHER 'one', WITH ANY one who IS Truly INTERESTED TO, BUT it IS 'you' who DOES NOT WANT TO.

So the whole thing becomes an exercise in experiencing condescension, a never ending dissolving of call communication.

The REASON there IS a FEELING of 'experiencing condescension', within 'that body', is BECAUSE 'you' LOOK AT and HEAR MY WORDS WITH Assumptions based on 'your' OWN personal Past Experiences. Or, what I like to call APE like thinking.

Of course, he's right to the extent that miscommunication can take place if one assumes things. But if one follows his process no communication happens,

But I have YET TO EXPRESS 'my process'.

So, if ABSOLUTELY here thinks or BELIEVES that if one follows 'my process', then NO communication happens, then 'that one' is just SHOWING and PROVING NOT just HOW OFTEN 'these people', BACK THEN, WOULD ASSUME 'things', but just HOW ASSUMING 'things' can and DOES AFFECT GOOD or EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION.

just the regress and contact with a pedant from the future who is not one of 'us' people.

Are 'you', people, in the days when this is being written, one of 'the people' FROM, 'earlier people', BEFORE?

I assume some computer viruses function like this.

Okay. So, 'you' AGREE and SAY that miscommunication can take place if one ASSUME 'things' in one sentence, BUT, in the very next sentence, to go AND ASSUME some 'thing'.

Clogging up the hard drive by eating storage.

And, as I have ALLUDED TO BEFORE. If there IS NO ASSUMPTION NOR BELIEF IN 'there', in 'the brain', the computer, then there is NO CLOGGING UP AT ALL, other than BY the views and perceptions being had.

But just A view or A perception, WHEN WHERE 'they' ALL COME FROM, EXACTLY, HAS ALREADY BEEN DISCOVERED, and KNOWN, does NOT THEN HAVE TO CLOG the COGNITIVE WORKINGS of 'the brain'.

Selective questioning can be useful.

YES, VERY True, and that is WHY I SELECT the ACTUAL SPECIFIC CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, which I pose, and ASK here.

[Age]

I think it's fitting that Advocate had his stupid narcissism fest stolen by Age, they are both the single greatest philosopher ever to have lived and they have equally convincing claims to the title (along with the other greatest mind of all time Hedgehog7, VA, and more recently that Kropotkin guy).

BUT I have NEVER CLAIMED to be ANY such IMPOSSIBLE 'thing' as ANY so-called 'single greatest philosopher' EVER, NOR A 'legitimate owner' of the Universe.

They should all own this topic for 15 minutes each all at the same time.


Edit.... I completely forgot Roydop. I feel bad. Perhaps it's a profound thing though. Kropotkin could compose a 90 line prose poetry epic on the matter.

I wonder how OBVIOUS it IS to "others" here how it is 'the ones' who JUDGE "others", the MOST, and who ARE 'the greatest critiques' OF "others" here, who are ALSO 'the ones' who make the LEAST CLAIMS ABOUT 'things'?

Sure 'they' LOVE to MAKE CLAIMS ABOUT 'people' and "others", and LOVE TO 'try to' RIDICULE and HUMILIATE 'them', but do NOT provide much AT ALL in regards to what they COULD nor even WOULD STAND BY, and ARGUE nor FIGHT FOR, EXACTLY.

Now, WHY would 'you', "flashdangerpants", SAY and CLAIM that 'I' am the so-called 'single greatest philosopher ever to have lived'?

What would even MAKE 'you' TO BEGIN to think or BELIEVE such a 'thing' as 'this'?

[Age]

Edit.... I completely forgot Roydop. I feel bad. Perhaps it's a profound thing though. Kropotkin could compose a 90 line prose poetry epic on the matter.

That guy breaks my heart. Here are all these crazy types who can sometimes be kinda fun to interact with in small doses, and so they take turns in getting some attention. But Roydop is just crazy and boring, uninteresting. Even when he's there, he's more like a ghost, and once he's gone, no one remembers him ever again. Like he was never there to begin with.

And the poor Hedgehog.. I remember there was a time before he finally fully succumbed to his own psychosis, when he still had some semblence of connection to the outside world, to other people. He was still "there" somehow, he had presence. He was interacting. Now nothing at all anymore.

I guess the only person who got somewhat less crazy over time, is DAM.

Coming from the 'one' who IS NOT 'crazy' AT ALL right "atla"?

'These people', back then, REALLY would BELIEVE some of the MOST INSANE and Truly NONSENSICAL and ILLOGICAL 'things'.

As soon as 'they' BELIEVED some 'thing' WAS TRUE, then it would NOT matter ONE IOTA just how INSANE, ILLOGICAL, or NONSENSICAL 'that thing' REALLY WAS, 'they' would SILL just BELIEVE that 'it' WAS TRUE.

As SHOWN and PROVED True throughout this forum here.

[Atla]

I think she's overloading

[Advocate]

[quote=Atla post_id=675607 time=1698378034 user_id=15497]
[quote=Advocate post_id=674988 time=1698086059 user_id=15238]
What's really telling here isn't anything i've said but the fact that others seem incapable of talking about the ideas instead of the person who said them.
[/quote]
Well since FDP pointed out this funny one:

[quote]Science is rigor, or the body of knowledge thereby achieved.

You can know this to be true because starting with only the first three words, one could recreate everything else that science is today.[/quote]
How does that make sense? Science is rigor.
You can be a person who is
- rigorous in adhering to your religion's holy book, down to the letter
- rigorous when it comes to memorizing all the available information about the 1976 Winter Olympics
- rigorous when it comes to persecuting people who are too much into physics, biology, engineering
- rigorous in checking your kids's grades and beating them accordingly when they bring home bad grades

Is it true that the body of knowledge achieved by the above is what we generally should identify as science?
[/quote]

Yes, you can rigorously study imaginary things in-so-far as they have a real manifestation. In fact you'd be studying the way people use the fiction, not the fiction itself. That's still a scientific study, to the extent it's rigorous.

Rigorously memorising is pre-scientific until you use that information for something. If you're not using it, whether it's scientific is irrelevant

You seem to have lost the script. Yes, you can be rigorous about anything. Being rigorous about some aspects is being somewhat scientific. The entire endeavour isn't scientific unless you're being rigorous about how you gather information and how it's applied. You've brought up instances where a scientific gathering of information isn't matched with a scientific application of that information or vice versa. Assuming, without probable cause, that you're being ingenuous, how would you get around the prima facae truism that you could recreate everything else we understand science to be from the three words "Science is rigor"? But i think you're being disingenuous because you've missed rational rigor with arbitrary morality.

[Advocate]

[quote=FlashDangerpants post_id=675727 time=1698400635 user_id=11800]
I think it's fitting that Advocate had his stupid narcissism fest stolen by Age, they are both the single greatest philosopher ever to have lived and they have equally convincing claims to the title (along with the other greatest mind of all time Hedgehog7, VA, and more recently that Kropotkin guy).

They should all own this topic for 15 minutes each all at the same time.


You haven't been paying attention. My philosophy is vastly better in every discernable measure that matters.





Edit.... I completely forgot Roydop. I feel bad. Perhaps it's a profound thing though. Kropotkin could compose a 90 line prose poetry epic on the matter.
[/quote]

[Advocate]

[quote=Advocate post_id=675782 time=1698420925 user_id=15238]
[quote=Atla post_id=675607 time=1698378034 user_id=15497]
[quote=Advocate post_id=674988 time=1698086059 user_id=15238]
What's really telling here isn't anything i've said but the fact that others seem incapable of talking about the ideas instead of the person who said them.
[/quote]
Well since FDP pointed out this funny one:

[quote]Science is rigor, or the body of knowledge thereby achieved.

You can know this to be true because starting with only the first three words, one could recreate everything else that science is today.[/quote]
How does that make sense? Science is rigor.
You can be a person who is
- rigorous in adhering to your religion's holy book, down to the letter
- rigorous when it comes to memorizing all the available information about the 1976 Winter Olympics
- rigorous when it comes to persecuting people who are too much into physics, biology, engineering
- rigorous in checking your kids's grades and beating them accordingly when they bring home bad grades

Is it true that the body of knowledge achieved by the above is what we generally should identify as science?
[/quote]

Yes, you can rigorously study imaginary things in-so-far as they have a real manifestation. In fact you'd be studying the way people use the fiction, not the fiction itself. That's still a scientific study, to the extent it's rigorous.

Rigorously memorising is pre-scientific until you use that information for something. If you're not using it, whether it's scientific is irrelevant

You seem to have lost the script. Yes, you can be rigorous about anything. Being rigorous about some aspects is being somewhat scientific. The entire endeavour isn't scientific unless you're being rigorous about how you gather information and how it's applied. You've brought up instances where a scientific gathering of information isn't matched with a scientific application of that information or vice versa. Assuming, without probable cause, that you're being ingenuous, how would you get around the prima facae truism that you could recreate everything else we understand science to be from the three words "Science is rigor"? But i think you're being disingenuous because you've mixed rational rigor with arbitrary morality.
[/quote]

[Advocate]

[quote=Atla post_id=675637 time=1698386405 user_id=15497]
[quote=Advocate post_id=671100 time=1696167069 user_id=15238]
•I am the legitimate owner of the universe.

•Ownership is certainty of access and control and legitimate/ethical, legal, and actual ownership must be understood separately.

•The legitimate owner of the universe is the best philosopher. (..who is most likely to do the best things with it if their ownership was actual.)

•The best philosopher is whoever has the best philosophy.

•A philosophy is a coherent set of answers/solutions to a set of philosophical questions/problems.

•A philosophy must be internally coherent to be rational and externally coherent to be useful.

•There are three distinctive areas of philosophy, each with its own tools and aims; Truth Wisdom is the most universal answers to the most universally important questions, Practical Wisdom is custom answers to individual problems, and Academic Philosophy <spit> is about social acceptance as proven by credentials earned primarily through compliance - neither meaningful answers or solutions are required. My scope is Truth Wisdom.

•Within this scope, i can meet the following criteria;
a) cohesive, coherent, conclusive
b) expressible in ordinary language
c) compatible with scientific consensus
d) no gaps, special pleading, appeal to authority, or woo

•Any philosophy that can meet this list of criteria is at minimum better than most.

•My philosophy can easily meet all of those criteria, which none other can, and is therefore the best philosophy, making me the best philosopher therefore the legitimate owner of the universe.
[/quote]
As long as humanity exists or isn't at least heavily genetically modified, the most ownership goes to the people with the most power. It has basically nothing to do with doing the best things.

Also, one could say that the best philosophy starts with acknowledging the above, so how does one tear down the whole world / let it tear itself down, so then it can be rebuilt, or how does one at least trick the world into creating a superior species via gene modification?
[/quote]

The answer is rather than to tear down and rebuild, subvert. Formalize best practices to create underground systems that replace existing systems by simply working better. Whatever the solution cannot be from within or above - that's where the problems come from. Technological options wouldn't be enough on their own. The problems are systemic.

[Atla]

What's really telling here isn't anything i've said but the fact that others seem incapable of talking about the ideas instead of the person who said them.

Well since FDP pointed out this funny one:

Science is rigor, or the body of knowledge thereby achieved.

You can know this to be true because starting with only the first three words, one could recreate everything else that science is today.

How does that make sense? Science is rigor.
You can be a person who is
- rigorous in adhering to your religion's holy book, down to the letter
- rigorous when it comes to memorizing all the available information about the 1976 Winter Olympics
- rigorous when it comes to persecuting people who are too much into physics, biology, engineering
- rigorous in checking your kids's grades and beating them accordingly when they bring home bad grades

Is it true that the body of knowledge achieved by the above is what we generally should identify as science?

Yes, you can rigorously study imaginary things in-so-far as they have a real manifestation. In fact you'd be studying the way people use the fiction, not the fiction itself. That's still a scientific study, to the extent it's rigorous.

Rigorously memorising is pre-scientific until you use that information for something. If you're not using it, whether it's scientific is irrelevant

You seem to have lost the script. Yes, you can be rigorous about anything. Being rigorous about some aspects is being somewhat scientific. The entire endeavour isn't scientific unless you're being rigorous about how you gather information and how it's applied. You've brought up instances where a scientific gathering of information isn't matched with a scientific application of that information or vice versa. Assuming, without probable cause, that you're being ingenuous, how would you get around the prima facae truism that you could recreate everything else we understand science to be from the three words "Science is rigor"? But i think you're being disingenuous because you've missed rational rigor with arbitrary morality.

The only point I was making is that, obviously, you can't recreate everything that science is from three words. But yes rigor is a needed basis.

[Atla]

•I am the legitimate owner of the universe.

•Ownership is certainty of access and control and legitimate/ethical, legal, and actual ownership must be understood separately.

•The legitimate owner of the universe is the best philosopher. (..who is most likely to do the best things with it if their ownership was actual.)

•The best philosopher is whoever has the best philosophy.

•A philosophy is a coherent set of answers/solutions to a set of philosophical questions/problems.

•A philosophy must be internally coherent to be rational and externally coherent to be useful.

•There are three distinctive areas of philosophy, each with its own tools and aims; Truth Wisdom is the most universal answers to the most universally important questions, Practical Wisdom is custom answers to individual problems, and Academic Philosophy <spit> is about social acceptance as proven by credentials earned primarily through compliance - neither meaningful answers or solutions are required. My scope is Truth Wisdom.

•Within this scope, i can meet the following criteria;
a) cohesive, coherent, conclusive
b) expressible in ordinary language
c) compatible with scientific consensus
d) no gaps, special pleading, appeal to authority, or woo

•Any philosophy that can meet this list of criteria is at minimum better than most.

•My philosophy can easily meet all of those criteria, which none other can, and is therefore the best philosophy, making me the best philosopher therefore the legitimate owner of the universe.

As long as humanity exists or isn't at least heavily genetically modified, the most ownership goes to the people with the most power. It has basically nothing to do with doing the best things.

Also, one could say that the best philosophy starts with acknowledging the above, so how does one tear down the whole world / let it tear itself down, so then it can be rebuilt, or how does one at least trick the world into creating a superior species via gene modification?

The answer is rather than to tear down and rebuild, subvert. Formalize best practices to create underground systems that replace existing systems by simply working better. Whatever the solution cannot be from within or above - that's where the problems come from. Technological options wouldn't be enough on their own. The problems are systemic.

Philosophy is easy when we ignore human nature, of which those defective systems are symptoms of