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

[Age]

Yes, their generally reasonable opinions. I probably disagree with a number of them and also there are posts that are too vague to be useful. We have a lot of abstractions here, devoid even of nuanced syntax. If we look at the first 'sentence' it's not wrong or right.
Information = data plus perspective context which is explained to be 'how it was collected'. That could mean many different things. I don't think it quite makes sense, though it could if one dug for a long time.

or He tends be rational, realist, monist (as far as I can tell). But his style is oddly guru/metaphysical assertion.

Looks like a minimalist, Occam's razor skeleton of Western philosophy to me. Colourless, tasteless instrumentalist stuff, but quite correct.

I just don't understand the fuss he's making about it. I'm pretty sure there are many thousands of geniuses and savants out there who also have this stuff worked out, but it never occurs to them to consider it spectacular, or even worth writing down, or worth mentioning even in its entirety. It's just something you work out and move on.

The value is in the total set of answers which answers every metaphysical question, every "unanswerable" philosophy question, and puts all knowledge in context of all other knowledge. If you don't see the value of that, how are you a philosopher?

'you' talk ABOUT 'answers' but do NOT provide ANY when I ASK FOR 'them'.

[Advocate]

[quote=Age post_id=673787 time=1697604654 user_id=16237]
[quote=Advocate post_id=673729 time=1697578078 user_id=15238]
[quote=Atla post_id=673686 time=1697561947 user_id=15497]

Looks like a minimalist, Occam's razor skeleton of Western philosophy to me. Colourless, tasteless instrumentalist stuff, but quite correct.

I just don't understand the fuss he's making about it. I'm pretty sure there are many thousands of geniuses and savants out there who also have this stuff worked out, but it never occurs to them to consider it spectacular, or even worth writing down, or worth mentioning even in its entirety. It's just something you work out and move on.
[/quote]

The value is in the total set of answers which answers every metaphysical question, every "unanswerable" philosophy question, and puts all knowledge in context of all other knowledge. If you don't see the value of that, how are you a philosopher?
[/quote]

'you' talk ABOUT 'answers' but do NOT provide ANY when I ASK FOR 'them'.
[/quote]

If you want to ask something that's not already answered and not hidden in a bunch of malarkey i will.

[FlashDangerpants]

Well I don't know about his social and political philosophies, not my area. The rest seems to be okay, all fairly correct I'd say, but also all fairly obvious I'd say. Philosophy as stating positions.

Yes, their generally reasonable opinions. I probably disagree with a number of them and also there are posts that are too vague to be useful.

a semantic taxonomy of epistemology
Post by Advocate » Sun Jul 30, 2023 4:26 pm

data = raw measurement
information = data + perspective context (how it was collected, epistemic)
knowledge = information + intent context (sufficiency, from what intent, for what purpose)
understanding = knowledge + practical context (pragmatism, necessity, restraints)
wisdom = understanding + accurate prediction

We have a lot of abstractions here, devoid even of nuanced syntax. If we look at the first 'sentence' it's not wrong or right.
Information = data plus perspective context which is explained to be 'how it was collected'. That could mean many different things. I don't think it quite makes sense, though it could if one dug for a long time.

or

(1) Is there anything that must be true of absolutely everything that exists?

For our purposes, everything is patterns, internally or externally (a critical distinction).

He tends be rational, realist, monist (as far as I can tell). But his style is oddly guru/metaphysical assertion.

Looks like a minimalist, Occam's razor skeleton of Western philosophy to me. Colourless, tasteless instrumentalist stuff, but quite correct.

I just don't understand the fuss he's making about it. I'm pretty sure there are many thousands of geniuses and savants out there who also have this stuff worked out, but it never occurs to them to consider it spectacular, or even worth writing down, or worth mentioning even in its entirety. It's just something you work out and move on.

Have you guys seen Handjob7's act? He has a base formula he uses to make himself feel like he is being all deep and clever. He selects a geometric concept such as a point, line or spiral, then he takes takes some universal or other such as justice or freedom or whatnot and an opposite for it such as tyranny, then he executes a switcheroo between the universal and its opposite via the arbitrary geometric object and he has the contents of a wisdom emulating fortune cookie that he crank out on a conveyor belt. But it's all specious bullshit about how Love reflected through a Point is integrally linked to Death blah blah blah.

Advocate just does the same specious thing. One of the sentences below is a quote from advocate defining how you should understand science, how would you tell which?

Science is repetition, and the body of knowledge thereby achieved.
Science is rigor, or the body of knowledge thereby achieved.
Science is method, not the body of knowledge thereby achieved.


If it helps, the rest of his "to Grok science" definition is here:
You can know this to be true because starting with only the first three words, one could recreate everything else that science is today.
The ultimate grounding of science is replication - to the extent our measuring sticks are stable, we can discern patterns within those relationships.

Do those other two sentences help you know which of the first three is a quote?

[Atla]

Yes, their generally reasonable opinions. I probably disagree with a number of them and also there are posts that are too vague to be useful.


We have a lot of abstractions here, devoid even of nuanced syntax. If we look at the first 'sentence' it's not wrong or right.
Information = data plus perspective context which is explained to be 'how it was collected'. That could mean many different things. I don't think it quite makes sense, though it could if one dug for a long time.

or


He tends be rational, realist, monist (as far as I can tell). But his style is oddly guru/metaphysical assertion.

Looks like a minimalist, Occam's razor skeleton of Western philosophy to me. Colourless, tasteless instrumentalist stuff, but quite correct.

I just don't understand the fuss he's making about it. I'm pretty sure there are many thousands of geniuses and savants out there who also have this stuff worked out, but it never occurs to them to consider it spectacular, or even worth writing down, or worth mentioning even in its entirety. It's just something you work out and move on.

Have you guys seen Handjob7's act? He has a base formula he uses to make himself feel like he is being all deep and clever. He selects a geometric concept such as a point, line or spiral, then he takes takes some universal or other such as justice or freedom or whatnot and an opposite for it such as tyranny, then he executes a switcheroo between the universal and its opposite via the arbitrary geometric object and he has the contents of a wisdom emulating fortune cookie that he crank out on a conveyor belt. But it's all specious bullshit about how Love reflected through a Point is integrally linked to Death blah blah blah.

Advocate just does the same specious thing. One of the sentences below is a quote from advocate defining how you should understand science, how would you tell which?

Science is repetition, and the body of knowledge thereby achieved.
Science is rigor, or the body of knowledge thereby achieved.
Science is method, not the body of knowledge thereby achieved.


If it helps, the rest of his "to Grok science" definition is here:
You can know this to be true because starting with only the first three words, one could recreate everything else that science is today.
The ultimate grounding of science is replication - to the extent our measuring sticks are stable, we can discern patterns within those relationships.

Do those other two sentences help you know which of the first three is a quote?

The first one I guess?

Looked it up, fail

Okay correction: there are probably many thousands of geniuses and savants out there who also have this stuff worked out, and many of them would do a better job not oversimplifying it, and presenting the material better.

[FlashDangerpants]

Looks like a minimalist, Occam's razor skeleton of Western philosophy to me. Colourless, tasteless instrumentalist stuff, but quite correct.

I just don't understand the fuss he's making about it. I'm pretty sure there are many thousands of geniuses and savants out there who also have this stuff worked out, but it never occurs to them to consider it spectacular, or even worth writing down, or worth mentioning even in its entirety. It's just something you work out and move on.

Have you guys seen Handjob7's act? He has a base formula he uses to make himself feel like he is being all deep and clever. He selects a geometric concept such as a point, line or spiral, then he takes takes some universal or other such as justice or freedom or whatnot and an opposite for it such as tyranny, then he executes a switcheroo between the universal and its opposite via the arbitrary geometric object and he has the contents of a wisdom emulating fortune cookie that he crank out on a conveyor belt. But it's all specious bullshit about how Love reflected through a Point is integrally linked to Death blah blah blah.

Advocate just does the same specious thing. One of the sentences below is a quote from advocate defining how you should understand science, how would you tell which?

Science is repetition, and the body of knowledge thereby achieved.
Science is rigor, or the body of knowledge thereby achieved.
Science is method, not the body of knowledge thereby achieved.


If it helps, the rest of his "to Grok science" definition is here:
You can know this to be true because starting with only the first three words, one could recreate everything else that science is today.
The ultimate grounding of science is replication - to the extent our measuring sticks are stable, we can discern patterns within those relationships.

Do those other two sentences help you know which of the first three is a quote?

The first one I guess?

Looked it up, fail

Okay correction: there are probably many thousands of geniuses and savants out there who also have this stuff worked out, and many of them would do a better job not oversimplifying it, and presenting the material better.

Any of them is as good as any of the others beause none of them really says anything. These little McNuggets of specious crap deserve nothing more than to be stitched into a cushion cover and sold on Etsy to the Eat Love Pray crowd. That's as good as Advocate will ever get.

[Atla]

Have you guys seen Handjob7's act? He has a base formula he uses to make himself feel like he is being all deep and clever. He selects a geometric concept such as a point, line or spiral, then he takes takes some universal or other such as justice or freedom or whatnot and an opposite for it such as tyranny, then he executes a switcheroo between the universal and its opposite via the arbitrary geometric object and he has the contents of a wisdom emulating fortune cookie that he crank out on a conveyor belt. But it's all specious bullshit about how Love reflected through a Point is integrally linked to Death blah blah blah.

Advocate just does the same specious thing. One of the sentences below is a quote from advocate defining how you should understand science, how would you tell which?

Science is repetition, and the body of knowledge thereby achieved.
Science is rigor, or the body of knowledge thereby achieved.
Science is method, not the body of knowledge thereby achieved.


If it helps, the rest of his "to Grok science" definition is here:
You can know this to be true because starting with only the first three words, one could recreate everything else that science is today.
The ultimate grounding of science is replication - to the extent our measuring sticks are stable, we can discern patterns within those relationships.

Do those other two sentences help you know which of the first three is a quote?

The first one I guess?

Looked it up, fail

Okay correction: there are probably many thousands of geniuses and savants out there who also have this stuff worked out, and many of them would do a better job not oversimplifying it, and presenting the material better.

Any of them is as good as any of the others beause none of them really says anything. These little McNuggets of specious crap deserve nothing more than to be stitched into a cushion cover and sold on Etsy to the Eat Love Pray crowd. That's as good as Advocate will ever get.

I somehow can't be as harsh on him as on some others here because he's clearly suffering

[Iwannaplato]

I somehow can't be as harsh on him as on some others here because he's clearly suffering

What's the giveaway?

[Atla]

I somehow can't be as harsh on him as on some others here because he's clearly suffering

What's the giveaway?

Well looks like he really spent years thinking about "everything" and putting into a coherent thing and writing it down. Looks like he even had some good intentions (aside from also being kinda narcissistic and irrational). Too bad his work is useless as some others already know this stuff or know even better, and the rest certainly won't learn this stuff from an excel table.

[FlashDangerpants]

I somehow can't be as harsh on him as on some others here because he's clearly suffering

I think he should be encouraged to seek professional medical assistance with what are clearly serious issues, but I don't intend to help him recharge his batteries with an online boastathon to psych himself up to manipulate and abuse the people who have to suffer with him IRL.

[Advocate]

>FlashDangerpants -blah blah blah.

>Advocate just does the same specious thing. One of the sentences below is a quote from advocate defining how you should understand science, how would you tell which?
[i][color=#8040BF]
Science is repetition, and the body of knowledge thereby achieved.
Science is rigor, or the body of knowledge thereby achieved.
Science is method, not the body of knowledge thereby achieved.
[/color][/i]

Rigor and repetition and replication are the same basic scientific idea, and the "not" is a typo for "and", but the bigger problem is that you cherry picked because i've said the same thing many times and the second one is vastly more common. That's a straw man.

[Advocate]

[quote=Atla post_id=673850 time=1697633523 user_id=15497]
The first one I guess?

Looked it up, fail :(

Okay correction: there are probably many thousands of geniuses and savants out there who also have this stuff worked out, and many of them would do a better job not oversimplifying it, and presenting the material better.
[/quote]

a) Guessing is fail.
b) Nope, as evidenced by the fact that no one has or is doing so.

[Advocate]

[quote=Atla post_id=673972 time=1697685056 user_id=15497]
[quote=Iwannaplato post_id=673971 time=1697684339 user_id=3619]
[quote=Atla post_id=673970 time=1697684226 user_id=15497]
I somehow can't be as harsh on him as on some others here because he's clearly suffering
[/quote]
What's the giveaway?
[/quote]
Well looks like he really spent years thinking about "everything" and putting into a coherent thing and writing it down. Looks like he even had some good intentions (aside from also being kinda narcissistic and irrational). Too bad his work is useless as some others already know this stuff or know even better, and the rest certainly won't learn this stuff from an excel table.
[/quote]

There is nothing either narcissistic or irrational about my work. You're talking about the inside of your head, not my philosophy. I challenge you to find any philosopher anywhere in history or current who can hold a candle to any of my explanations about anything in Truth Wisdom. Go on. Let's see it. You throw accusations of narcissism so easily yet there's literally no philosophy that has ever been better in any respect.

[Advocate]

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. Talk about the attributes of legitimacy. Talk about ownership. Talk about the attributes of the best philosophy. If you're not addressing those points you have nothing to say about the me at the bottom of the well.

[Atla]

There is nothing either narcissistic or irrational about my work. You're talking about the inside of your head, not my philosophy. I challenge you to find any philosopher anywhere in history or current who can hold a candle to any of my explanations about anything in Truth Wisdom. Go on. Let's see it. You throw accusations of narcissism so easily yet there's literally no philosophy that has ever been better in any respect.

Philosopher? Alan Watts had superior ontology and metaphysics to yours. I do too for that matter but I'm just a troll. Don't know about the rest of "Truth wisdom".

[Advocate]

[quote=Atla post_id=674990 time=1698086460 user_id=15497]
[quote=Advocate post_id=674986 time=1698085420 user_id=15238]
There is nothing either narcissistic or irrational about my work. You're talking about the inside of your head, not my philosophy. I challenge you to find any philosopher anywhere in history or current who can hold a candle to any of my explanations about anything in Truth Wisdom. Go on. Let's see it. You throw accusations of narcissism so easily yet there's literally no philosophy that has ever been better in any respect.
[/quote]
Philosopher? Alan Watts had superior ontology and metaphysics to yours. I do too for that matter but I'm just a troll. Don't know about the rest of "Truth wisdom".
[/quote]

It's one thing to be a troll and another to be Only a troll.