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

[Advocate]

[quote=FlashDangerpants post_id=673445 time=1697470381 user_id=11800]
[quote=Advocate post_id=673436 time=1697468690 user_id=15238]
Since y'all are kindergarden philosophers, let me spell it out for you. Here are the ways you might Legitimately attempt to overcome my prima facae argument:

a) legitimate ownership cannot reasonably extend beyond the physical possibility of actual ownership
b) there are some criteria for best philosophy that most be met which are not on your list
c) there is another philosophey that can meet all those criteria
d) there is a better philosopher by some other set of criteria that is more reasonable

None of those will pass muster but since none of you apparently has the ability to rationally deconstruct an argument anyway, i'll leave you to your ramblings.

I remain, faithfully yours, The Best Philosopher and Legitimate Owner of The Universe
[/quote]
e) philosophy at any quality level whatsoever grants ownership of nothing because it has nothing to do with owning things.
f) your work is garbage, your spreadsheet is childish, and your output doesn't meet the requirements to even be bad philosophy, let alone the best ever.
[/quote]

Trying to have-wave away my point about legitimacy of ownership as opposed to practical ownership just won't do. Try again. Here's what you missed:

Legitimate ownership falls most significantly on whomever is most likely to do good things with it, regardless of scale and independently of legal and actual ownership or any implications therefrom.

[Atla]

If there are, i haven't been able to find them in years of scouring the internet. I have several excel tables and various documents which present the information in various ways. That's not a negative.

A coherent set of answers to everything in metaphysics is mundane and not worth writing down? Get real, my dude. No one else is capable of it, not least of which is because no one else has meta-philosophy right.

Many have expounded most of it, like Kant, but none have done it as coherently or as completely.

As for AI, i've worked with a number of them and they're not intelligent largely because they're only fancy parrots. Still, the coherence of a typical AI philosophy conversation exceeds that of most people who call themselves philosophers. If one would be allowed to remember what it's told i could make it the second best philosopher.

Do yourself a favour. Instead of instantly trying to figure out i'm wrong, try to figure out how and why I'm right. Or not. Your loss.

But I didn't say you're wrong, I just don't see anything new in your philosophy that is not already known by some people.

[Advocate]

[quote=Atla post_id=673475 time=1697479565 user_id=15497]
[quote=Advocate post_id=673473 time=1697478998 user_id=15238]
If there are, i haven't been able to find them in years of scouring the internet. I have several excel tables and various documents which present the information in various ways. That's not a negative.

A coherent set of answers to everything in metaphysics is mundane and not worth writing down? Get real, my dude. No one else is capable of it, not least of which is because no one else has meta-philosophy right.

Many have expounded most of it, like Kant, but none have done it as coherently or as completely.

As for AI, i've worked with a number of them and they're not intelligent largely because they're only fancy parrots. Still, the coherence of a typical AI philosophy conversation exceeds that of most people who call themselves philosophers. If one would be allowed to remember what it's told i could make it the second best philosopher.

Do yourself a favour. Instead of instantly trying to figure out i'm wrong, try to figure out how and why I'm right. Or not. Your loss.
[/quote]
But I didn't say you're wrong, I just don't see anything new in your philosophy that is not already known by some people.
[/quote]

Ok, then the important part is it's scope.

[Atla]

Ok, then the important part is it's scope.

Well imo it's not uncommon for some people above say 140-150 IQ to develop consistent pictures of universal scope. They end up connecting everything.

[FlashDangerpants]

Since y'all are kindergarden philosophers, let me spell it out for you. Here are the ways you might Legitimately attempt to overcome my prima facae argument:

a) legitimate ownership cannot reasonably extend beyond the physical possibility of actual ownership
b) there are some criteria for best philosophy that most be met which are not on your list
c) there is another philosophey that can meet all those criteria
d) there is a better philosopher by some other set of criteria that is more reasonable

None of those will pass muster but since none of you apparently has the ability to rationally deconstruct an argument anyway, i'll leave you to your ramblings.

I remain, faithfully yours, The Best Philosopher and Legitimate Owner of The Universe

e) philosophy at any quality level whatsoever grants ownership of nothing because it has nothing to do with owning things.
f) your work is garbage, your spreadsheet is childish, and your output doesn't meet the requirements to even be bad philosophy, let alone the best ever.

Trying to have-wave away my point about legitimacy of ownership as opposed to practical ownership just won't do. Try again. Here's what you missed:

Legitimate ownership falls most significantly on whomever is most likely to do good things with it, regardless of scale and independently of legal and actual ownership or any implications therefrom.

If you walk down the street and somebody who could wear your trousers better than you walks past, you are now a thief in stolen trousers.

This game could be fun.

[Iwannaplato]

A coherent set of answers to everything in metaphysics is mundane and not worth writing down? Get real, my dude. No one else is capable of it, not least of which is because no one else has meta-philosophy right.

They're not answers, they are opinions/assertions. Generally not justified.
You have lot of philosophical opinions. That's about it.

You really think the best philosopher in the world would be ignored by everyone? Amateur philosophers, academics, regular joes and janes...Everyone.

It's like saying that you have this quality that has zero effects. As if the ability to communicate with others has nothing to do with any of this.

[Advocate]

[quote=Atla post_id=673480 time=1697481317 user_id=15497]
[quote=Advocate post_id=673478 time=1697480863 user_id=15238]
Ok, then the important part is it's scope.
[/quote]
Well imo it's not uncommon for some people above say 140-150 IQ to develop consistent pictures of universal scope. They end up connecting everything.
[/quote]

Yes but.
a) most have one or more illegitimate assumptions, esp. at the base (JP, Kant) or,
b) extend themselves too far and go off the rails (Sidis, Wilbur, Carroll)

[Advocate]

[quote=FlashDangerpants post_id=673481 time=1697481629 user_id=11800]
[quote=Advocate post_id=673474 time=1697479264 user_id=15238]
[quote=FlashDangerpants post_id=673445 time=1697470381 user_id=11800]

e) philosophy at any quality level whatsoever grants ownership of nothing because it has nothing to do with owning things.
f) your work is garbage, your spreadsheet is childish, and your output doesn't meet the requirements to even be bad philosophy, let alone the best ever.
[/quote]

Trying to have-wave away my point about legitimacy of ownership as opposed to practical ownership just won't do. Try again. Here's what you missed:

Legitimate ownership falls most significantly on whomever is most likely to do good things with it, regardless of scale and independently of legal and actual ownership or any implications therefrom.
[/quote]
If you walk down the street and somebody who could wear your trousers better than you walks past, you are now a thief in stolen trousers.

This game could be fun.
[/quote]

A legitimate owner wouldn't want for themselves what someone else was already using unless there was a good reason they were More entitled. Being entitled to make that decision does not entitle someone to make it unethically as you suggest. Move along folks, just another straw man.

[Advocate]

[quote=Iwannaplato post_id=673497 time=1697485187 user_id=3619]
[quote=Advocate post_id=673473 time=1697478998 user_id=15238]
A coherent set of answers to everything in metaphysics is mundane and not worth writing down? Get real, my dude. No one else is capable of it, not least of which is because no one else has meta-philosophy right.
[/quote]They're not answers, they are opinions/assertions. Generally not justified.
You have lot of philosophical opinions. That's about it.

You really think the best philosopher in the world would be ignored by everyone? Amateur philosophers, academics, regular joes and janes...Everyone.

It's like saying that you have this quality that has zero effects. As if the ability to communicate with others has nothing to do with any of this.
[/quote]

An answer is a framework is understanding and my set of answers are not only the best but The Truth because they are necessary and sufficient for all use cases and both individually and together offer more than any other possible set of answers of similar scope. Deny it at your own peril bc you will have to reverse course to advance in your own intellectual journey.

Yes, because people respect only credentials and don't have the tools to discern Truth when they see it, on top of which those who are the exception aren't where i can have that conversation with them. Not everyone at all. That isn't a meaningful contention.

Regardless of everything you just said, everything ive continually said is rational and true. Take it or leave it.

[Atla]

Ok, then the important part is it's scope.

Well imo it's not uncommon for some people above say 140-150 IQ to develop consistent pictures of universal scope. They end up connecting everything.

Yes but.
a) most have one or more illegitimate assumptions, esp. at the base (JP, Kant) or,
b) extend themselves too far and go off the rails (Sidis, Wilbur, Carroll)

Well it goes further, all Western thinking and philosophy including yours is dualistic thinking based, which is an illegitimate assumption at the base.

[FlashDangerpants]

Trying to have-wave away my point about legitimacy of ownership as opposed to practical ownership just won't do. Try again. Here's what you missed:

Legitimate ownership falls most significantly on whomever is most likely to do good things with it, regardless of scale and independently of legal and actual ownership or any implications therefrom.

If you walk down the street and somebody who could wear your trousers better than you walks past, you are now a thief in stolen trousers.

This game could be fun.

A legitimate owner wouldn't want for themselves what someone else was already using unless there was a good reason they were More entitled. Being entitled to make that decision does not entitle someone to make it unethically as you suggest. Move along folks, just another straw man.

So if you have important philosophising to do but someone else has better philosophy trousers than you do, then you should take their trousers away because you are the 'legitimate' owner of the things that they bought.

[Iwannaplato]

An answer is a framework is understanding and my set of answers are not only the best but The Truth because they are necessary and sufficient for all use cases and both individually and together offer more than any other possible set of answers of similar scope. Deny it at your own peril bc you will have to reverse course to advance in your own intellectual journey.

More assertions. You have a lot of opinions, some related to philosophy, some related to yourself.

Yes, because people respect only credentials

Really? That's not my experience. There are lots of people who distrust experts of all kinds. There are lots of people who distrust some experts and some credentials. There are lots of people who are open to lay experts. This is is a big planet and as far as I can tell you haven't found any fans/supporters, amongst lay people, amateur philosophers, regular joes, academic philosophers, people with a general interest in ideas.

You're the greatest philosopher, but you can't manage to convince anyone. That doesn't make any sense.

It's like someone claiming to be the best teacher where no one agrees with the assertion.

The best boxer whose never been in a fight.

and don't have the tools to discern Truth when they see it, on top of which those who are the exception aren't where i can have that conversation with them. Not everyone at all. That isn't a meaningful contention.

Well it's a falsifiable assertion. You haven't found a way to convey your ideas such that anyone finds them interesting or special. Being a philosopher includes communication. And you clearly agree since you keep trying and failing to convince people.

Regardless of everything you just said, everything ive continually said is rational and true.

The person claiming to be the best philosopher in the world asserts that his opinions are correct. Another assertion.

[Advocate]

[quote=Atla post_id=673512 time=1697487481 user_id=15497]
[quote=Advocate post_id=673503 time=1697486200 user_id=15238]
[quote=Atla post_id=673480 time=1697481317 user_id=15497]

Well imo it's not uncommon for some people above say 140-150 IQ to develop consistent pictures of universal scope. They end up connecting everything.
[/quote]

Yes but.
a) most have one or more illegitimate assumptions, esp. at the base (JP, Kant) or,
b) extend themselves too far and go off the rails (Sidis, Wilbur, Carroll)
[/quote]
Well it goes further, all Western thinking and philosophy including yours is dualistic thinking based, which is an illegitimate assumption at the base.
[/quote]

That dualism is called ontology, the distinction between inner/metaphorical and outer/physical and it is central to any rational mode of thought.

[Advocate]

[quote=FlashDangerpants post_id=673516 time=1697488119 user_id=11800]
[quote=Advocate post_id=673504 time=1697486327 user_id=15238]
[quote=FlashDangerpants post_id=673481 time=1697481629 user_id=11800]

If you walk down the street and somebody who could wear your trousers better than you walks past, you are now a thief in stolen trousers.

This game could be fun.
[/quote]

A legitimate owner wouldn't want for themselves what someone else was already using unless there was a good reason they were More entitled. Being entitled to make that decision does not entitle someone to make it unethically as you suggest. Move along folks, just another straw man.
[/quote]
So if you have important philosophising to do but someone else has better philosophy trousers than you do, then you should take their trousers away because you are the 'legitimate' owner of the things that they bought.
[/quote]

Ideas are not trousers and The Truth belongs to everyone.

[Advocate]

[quote=Iwannaplato post_id=673519 time=1697488947 user_id=3619]
[quote=Advocate post_id=673506 time=1697486736 user_id=15238]
An answer is a framework is understanding and my set of answers are not only the best but The Truth because they are necessary and sufficient for all use cases and both individually and together offer more than any other possible set of answers of similar scope. Deny it at your own peril bc you will have to reverse course to advance in your own intellectual journey.[/quote]More assertions. You have a lot of opinions, some related to philosophy, some related to yourself.

[quote]Yes, because people respect only credentials[/quote] Really? That's not my experience. There are lots of people who distrust experts of all kinds. There are lots of people who distrust some experts and some credentials. There are lots of people who are open to lay experts. This is is a big planet and as far as I can tell you haven't found any fans/supporters, amongst lay people, amateur philosophers, regular joes, academic philosophers, people with a general interest in ideas.

You're the greatest philosopher, but you can't manage to convince anyone. That doesn't make any sense.

It's like someone claiming to be the best teacher where no one agrees with the assertion.

The best boxer whose never been in a fight.

[quote]and don't have the tools to discern Truth when they see it, on top of which those who are the exception aren't where i can have that conversation with them. Not everyone at all. That isn't a meaningful contention.[/quote]Well it's a falsifiable assertion. You haven't found a way to convey your ideas such that anyone finds them interesting or special. Being a philosopher includes communication. And you clearly agree since you keep trying and failing to convince people.

[quote]Regardless of everything you just said, everything ive continually said is rational and true. [/quote]The person claiming to be the best philosopher in the world asserts that his opinions are correct. Another assertion.
[/quote]

Appeal to popularity is a logical fallacy. GTFO. My contentions stand for themselves and are still standing.