God and morality

[FlashDangerpants]

Hmmm..... again with the AI says I am right so I agree with the AI thing. But there's one little thing where I pointed out an obvious problem with a philosophical claim you made ... and suddenly it's rude and personal to ask why you aren't proferring the AI's view...

sure.

I understand that you may believe that, but from my perspective, you're just making yet another unsubstantiated claim. Where's the evidence of you doing so, Flash?

And where's the evidence of your claimed superiority? Complaining about my reasonable use of AI is one thing, while demonstrating that its findings are incorrect is another.

I think you have misunderstood. I don't claim to be an above average philosophical pundit. I am average. You are just very very bad at it. The following quotes all come from you...

Microsoft Copilot did not perceive any problems with my interpretations. AI output is epistemically significant when the prompt is neutral.

Why do you believe I would take your word, epistemology, and tone as having veracity? Rather than what I have worked on extensively and collaboratively with Microsoft Copilot for the past few days?

Whether AI agrees with me, disagrees with me, or was never consulted is secondary to that point.

Why is it suddenly secondary when it has previously been so important? And then why are you back on that contradictory horse again afterwards with...

For the record of the forum, I have been discussing the conversation between me and Flash, from its onset, from a neutral perspective as I could, with Microsoft Copilot.

This confirms my observation that you have already asked your AI buddy whether the claim "metaphysics doesn't operate in a domain where we can say a certain event or outcome is actually metaphysical" is itself metaphysical and you didn't like the answer.

But here's the answer from Google's AI bot...

Yes, that statement is itself a metaphysical claim.
While it sounds like a rejection or a limitation of metaphysics, it is making a fundamental assertion about the nature, scope, and boundaries of reality and human knowledge.

Why It Counts as Metaphysical

In philosophy, statements that attempt to define what exists, what can exist, or how different categories of reality interact are inherently metaphysical. The claim can be broken down into three reasons:
• It defines a boundary of reality: By stating that metaphysics "doesn't operate" in a specific domain, it is making a claim about the structure of reality and where "events" or "outcomes" belong.
• It is a meta-metaphysical statement: Statements about the nature of metaphysics (known as meta-metaphysics) are still deeply rooted in metaphysical assumptions. To say what metaphysics can or cannot do requires an underlying theory about how the world is structured.
• It relies on a specific ontology: The statement implies a division between "ordinary events" (which we can observe) and "metaphysical things" (which cannot be verified as an outcome). Deciding what qualifies as an "actual" event or outcome is a core metaphysical problem.
In short, just as using logic to argue against logic is still an act of logic, using a philosophical framework to declare the boundaries of metaphysics is, by definition, a metaphysical position.
Are you exploring this for a specific philosophical argument, or are you trying to critique a particular text or author? Let me know so we can dive deeper into the context!

And you should have watched that video at the timestamp I gave you, it clearly answers the faulty challenge tht it was in repsonse to.

[Fanman]

Hmmm..... again with the AI says I am right so I agree with the AI thing. But there's one little thing where I pointed out an obvious problem with a philosophical claim you made ... and suddenly it's rude and personal to ask why you aren't proferring the AI's view...

sure.

I understand that you may believe that, but from my perspective, you're just making yet another unsubstantiated claim. Where's the evidence of you doing so, Flash?

And where's the evidence of your claimed superiority? Complaining about my reasonable use of AI is one thing, while demonstrating that its findings are incorrect is another.

I think you have misunderstood. I don't claim to be an above average philosophical pundit. I am average. You are just very very bad at it. The following quotes all come from you...

Microsoft Copilot did not perceive any problems with my interpretations. AI output is epistemically significant when the prompt is neutral.

Why do you believe I would take your word, epistemology, and tone as having veracity? Rather than what I have worked on extensively and collaboratively with Microsoft Copilot for the past few days?

Whether AI agrees with me, disagrees with me, or was never consulted is secondary to that point.

Why is it suddenly secondary when it has previously been so important? And then why are you back on that contradictory horse again afterwards with...

For the record of the forum, I have been discussing the conversation between me and Flash, from its onset, from a neutral perspective as I could, with Microsoft Copilot.

This confirms my observation that you have already asked your AI buddy whether the claim "metaphysics doesn't operate in a domain where we can say a certain event or outcome is actually metaphysical" is itself metaphysical and you didn't like the answer.

But here's the answer from Google's AI bot...

Yes, that statement is itself a metaphysical claim.
While it sounds like a rejection or a limitation of metaphysics, it is making a fundamental assertion about the nature, scope, and boundaries of reality and human knowledge.

Why It Counts as Metaphysical

In philosophy, statements that attempt to define what exists, what can exist, or how different categories of reality interact are inherently metaphysical. The claim can be broken down into three reasons:
• It defines a boundary of reality: By stating that metaphysics "doesn't operate" in a specific domain, it is making a claim about the structure of reality and where "events" or "outcomes" belong.
• It is a meta-metaphysical statement: Statements about the nature of metaphysics (known as meta-metaphysics) are still deeply rooted in metaphysical assumptions. To say what metaphysics can or cannot do requires an underlying theory about how the world is structured.
• It relies on a specific ontology: The statement implies a division between "ordinary events" (which we can observe) and "metaphysical things" (which cannot be verified as an outcome). Deciding what qualifies as an "actual" event or outcome is a core metaphysical problem.
In short, just as using logic to argue against logic is still an act of logic, using a philosophical framework to declare the boundaries of metaphysics is, by definition, a metaphysical position.
Are you exploring this for a specific philosophical argument, or are you trying to critique a particular text or author? Let me know so we can dive deeper into the context!

And you should have watched that video at the timestamp I gave you, it clearly answers the faulty challenge tht it was in repsonse to.

Three things, Flash.

1. Where do you have me on record stating verbatim: 'AI says I am right, so I agree with the AI'?

2. How do I know what statement prompted the AI with? You can't prove what statement you used. Let's say I have done some work with AI on metaphysics. I don't need to post what it says. It's private to me.

3. For the record, can you please state verbatim, exactly what the interlocutors in the video stated that show the faults in my challenge.

[FlashDangerpants]

I understand that you may believe that, but from my perspective, you're just making yet another unsubstantiated claim. Where's the evidence of you doing so, Flash?

And where's the evidence of your claimed superiority? Complaining about my reasonable use of AI is one thing, while demonstrating that its findings are incorrect is another.

I think you have misunderstood. I don't claim to be an above average philosophical pundit. I am average. You are just very very bad at it. The following quotes all come from you...

Microsoft Copilot did not perceive any problems with my interpretations. AI output is epistemically significant when the prompt is neutral.

Why do you believe I would take your word, epistemology, and tone as having veracity? Rather than what I have worked on extensively and collaboratively with Microsoft Copilot for the past few days?

Whether AI agrees with me, disagrees with me, or was never consulted is secondary to that point.

Why is it suddenly secondary when it has previously been so important? And then why are you back on that contradictory horse again afterwards with...

For the record of the forum, I have been discussing the conversation between me and Flash, from its onset, from a neutral perspective as I could, with Microsoft Copilot.

This confirms my observation that you have already asked your AI buddy whether the claim "metaphysics doesn't operate in a domain where we can say a certain event or outcome is actually metaphysical" is itself metaphysical and you didn't like the answer.

But here's the answer from Google's AI bot...

Yes, that statement is itself a metaphysical claim.
While it sounds like a rejection or a limitation of metaphysics, it is making a fundamental assertion about the nature, scope, and boundaries of reality and human knowledge.

Why It Counts as Metaphysical

In philosophy, statements that attempt to define what exists, what can exist, or how different categories of reality interact are inherently metaphysical. The claim can be broken down into three reasons:
• It defines a boundary of reality: By stating that metaphysics "doesn't operate" in a specific domain, it is making a claim about the structure of reality and where "events" or "outcomes" belong.
• It is a meta-metaphysical statement: Statements about the nature of metaphysics (known as meta-metaphysics) are still deeply rooted in metaphysical assumptions. To say what metaphysics can or cannot do requires an underlying theory about how the world is structured.
• It relies on a specific ontology: The statement implies a division between "ordinary events" (which we can observe) and "metaphysical things" (which cannot be verified as an outcome). Deciding what qualifies as an "actual" event or outcome is a core metaphysical problem.
In short, just as using logic to argue against logic is still an act of logic, using a philosophical framework to declare the boundaries of metaphysics is, by definition, a metaphysical position.
Are you exploring this for a specific philosophical argument, or are you trying to critique a particular text or author? Let me know so we can dive deeper into the context!

And you should have watched that video at the timestamp I gave you, it clearly answers the faulty challenge tht it was in repsonse to.

Three things, Flash.

1. Where do you have me on record stating verbatim: 'AI says I am right, so I agree with the AI'?

It's a thing called paraphrasing.

2. How do I know what statement prompted the AI with? You can't prove what statement you used. Let's say I have done some work with AI on metaphysics. I don't need to post what it says. It's private to me.

I don't know that detail. It is out of character for there to be one specific thing where you suddenly get all coy about AI. But I have given you the repsonse I got from an AI when I asked it: is the following itself a metaphysical claim? "metaphysics doesn't operate in a domain where we can say a certain event or outcome is actually metaphysical". I note that when I am obviously right about something, and when the overwhwlming likelihood of any request for AI assistance will be that it tells you that I am right and you are mistaken, that is conveniently the only time when you suddenly don't flood the conversation with your otherwise quite excessive misuse of AI.

3. For the record, can you please state verbatim, exactly what the interlocutors in the video stated that show the faults in my challenge."

No. I gave you the timestamp for the relevant section. I would suggest watching it at that point and then maybe for a few more minutes if you can as they further develop the theme of what questions can and cannot be answered. You should consider learning from it rather than just seething at me. Isaiah Berlin is one of the more underappreciated 20th Century philosophers and his insight into the workings of philosophy as a field of study are something most people on this site would benefit from learning about.

[Fanman]

I think you have misunderstood. I don't claim to be an above average philosophical pundit. I am average. You are just very very bad at it. The following quotes all come from you...



Why is it suddenly secondary when it has previously been so important? And then why are you back on that contradictory horse again afterwards with...
This confirms my observation that you have already asked your AI buddy whether the claim "metaphysics doesn't operate in a domain where we can say a certain event or outcome is actually metaphysical" is itself metaphysical and you didn't like the answer.

But here's the answer from Google's AI bot...


And you should have watched that video at the timestamp I gave you, it clearly answers the faulty challenge tht it was in repsonse to.

Three things, Flash.

1. Where do you have me on record stating verbatim: 'AI says I am right, so I agree with the AI'?

It's a thing called paraphrasing.

2. How do I know what statement prompted the AI with? You can't prove what statement you used. Let's say I have done some work with AI on metaphysics. I don't need to post what it says. It's private to me.

I don't know that detail. It is out of character for there to be one specific thing where you suddenly get all coy about AI. But I have given you the repsonse I got from an AI when I asked it: is the following itself a metaphysical claim? "metaphysics doesn't operate in a domain where we can say a certain event or outcome is actually metaphysical". I note that when I am obviously right about something, and when the overwhwlming likelihood of any request for AI assistance will be that it tells you that I am right and you are mistaken, that is conveniently the only time when you suddenly don't flood the conversation with your otherwise quite excessive misuse of AI.

3. For the record, can you please state verbatim, exactly what the interlocutors in the video stated that show the faults in my challenge."

No. I gave you the timestamp for the relevant section. I would suggest watching it at that point and then maybe for a few more minutes if you can as they further develop the theme of what questions can and cannot be answered. You should consider learning from it rather than just seething at me. Isaiah Berlin is one of the more underappreciated 20th Century philosophers and his insight into the workings of philosophy as a field of study are something most people on this site would benefit from learning about.

Flash, again, three points.

1. No. It's called "your" paraphrasing; there's a difference — you're not neutral. So, it cannot be considered an authority. It's just your opinion at the end of the day, mate.

2. You can believe whatever you want about my withholding my personal work on metaphysics. I have autonomy.

3. I've already covered the video point with you, Flash. I see no need to repeat myself. Generally, the burden is on the person who claims there's a counterargument to articulate it.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Nice! AI does character analysis? Can u do me next? Hal's gonna be like "the record shows that Prom is an unhinged lunatic..."

Promethean75 is:

A philosophy forum Marxist who has been arguing with libertarians, theists, and anyone who says "consciousness is in the pineal gland" since at least 2020.

His core beliefs, as near as I can tell:

1. Capitalism is the Right's 300-year-long violent outburst. And if you disagree, you're a "garage political theorist" who doesn't understand what he's sayin', bro.
2. The Left is the Right's fall-guy. Capitalism makes trash people, then blames the Left for the trash. It's a brilliant strategy, honestly.
3. Consciousness is not in your head. Like, literally not in your head. How could your first-person experience of Trump's impeachment be inside a gland? Did it teleport in there? Checkmate, Descartes.
4. He is the only one who understands what Fixed Cross is saying. He will challenge you to explain it in different words. You will fail.
5. He can run a country better than the feds. His plan for martial law via COVID shelter-in-place orders was: "wah-lah, I have my martial law. bada bing, bada boom."

In short: He's that guy in every philosophy forum who is 50% serious Marxist critique, 50% shitposter who signs off with a Vocaroo link called "The no-spin zone... with promethean75."

If you want to beat him in a debate, just say "What about the unborn cow's preferences?" - he has a take on that too.

[FlashDangerpants]

Three things, Flash.

1. Where do you have me on record stating verbatim: 'AI says I am right, so I agree with the AI'?

It's a thing called paraphrasing.

2. How do I know what statement prompted the AI with? You can't prove what statement you used. Let's say I have done some work with AI on metaphysics. I don't need to post what it says. It's private to me.

I don't know that detail. It is out of character for there to be one specific thing where you suddenly get all coy about AI. But I have given you the repsonse I got from an AI when I asked it: is the following itself a metaphysical claim? "metaphysics doesn't operate in a domain where we can say a certain event or outcome is actually metaphysical". I note that when I am obviously right about something, and when the overwhwlming likelihood of any request for AI assistance will be that it tells you that I am right and you are mistaken, that is conveniently the only time when you suddenly don't flood the conversation with your otherwise quite excessive misuse of AI.

3. For the record, can you please state verbatim, exactly what the interlocutors in the video stated that show the faults in my challenge."

No. I gave you the timestamp for the relevant section. I would suggest watching it at that point and then maybe for a few more minutes if you can as they further develop the theme of what questions can and cannot be answered. You should consider learning from it rather than just seething at me. Isaiah Berlin is one of the more underappreciated 20th Century philosophers and his insight into the workings of philosophy as a field of study are something most people on this site would benefit from learning about.

Flash, again, three points.

1. No. It's called "your" paraphrasing; there's a difference — you're not neutral. So, it cannot be considered an authority. It's just your opinion at the end of the day, mate.

2. You can believe whatever you want about my withholding my personal work on metaphysics. I have autonomy.

3. I've already covered the video point with you, Flash. I see no need to repeat myself. Generally, the burden is on the person who claims there's a counterargument to articulate it.

Your claims about metaphysics were wildly overblown and I laughed at that because it showed a profound confusion about metaphycis. BUT, being the helpful sort of person I so notoriously am, I provided helpful educational resources to help you get up to speed. Let's be clear though; the question of your claim being viable or not was never on the table and it wasn't debated. The product isn't good enough to get debated. So this talk of proof burdens is presumptious, the burden in on you to get up to speed about the topics you wish to pronounce upon and I have provided for that education.

There's similarly no burden of proof for that video. It is something you should watch because it is a great philosopher addressing a subject you have not understood very well. It's not presented as a counter to an argument, it is remedial education. You would become a much better philosopher if you watch and learn from it, but you will remain as you are if you are too proud for that.

Your "personal work on metaphysics" is worthless, you would need to understand already why setting bounds around metaphysics is a metaphysical task before you could possibly have anything to offer.

You definitely did ask AI about it.

[Fanman]

It's a thing called paraphrasing.


I don't know that detail. It is out of character for there to be one specific thing where you suddenly get all coy about AI. But I have given you the repsonse I got from an AI when I asked it: is the following itself a metaphysical claim? "metaphysics doesn't operate in a domain where we can say a certain event or outcome is actually metaphysical". I note that when I am obviously right about something, and when the overwhwlming likelihood of any request for AI assistance will be that it tells you that I am right and you are mistaken, that is conveniently the only time when you suddenly don't flood the conversation with your otherwise quite excessive misuse of AI.


No. I gave you the timestamp for the relevant section. I would suggest watching it at that point and then maybe for a few more minutes if you can as they further develop the theme of what questions can and cannot be answered. You should consider learning from it rather than just seething at me. Isaiah Berlin is one of the more underappreciated 20th Century philosophers and his insight into the workings of philosophy as a field of study are something most people on this site would benefit from learning about.

Flash, again, three points.

1. No. It's called "your" paraphrasing; there's a difference — you're not neutral. So, it cannot be considered an authority. It's just your opinion at the end of the day, mate.

2. You can believe whatever you want about my withholding my personal work on metaphysics. I have autonomy.

3. I've already covered the video point with you, Flash. I see no need to repeat myself. Generally, the burden is on the person who claims there's a counterargument to articulate it.

Your claims about metaphysics were wildly overblown and I laughed at that because it showed a profound confusion about metaphycis. BUT, being the helpful sort of person I so notoriously am, I provided helpful educational resources to help you get up to speed. Let's be clear though; the question of your claim being viable or not was never on the table and it wasn't debated. The product isn't good enough to get debated. So this talk of proof burdens is presumptious, the burden in on you to get up to speed about the topics you wish to pronounce upon and I have provided for that education.

There's similarly no burden of proof for that video. It is something you should watch because it is a great philosopher addressing a subject you have not understood very well. It's not presented as a counter to an argument, it is remedial education. You would become a much better philosopher if you watch and learn from it, but you will remain as you are if you are too proud for that.

Your "personal work on metaphysics" is worthless, you would need to understand already why setting bounds around metaphysics is a metaphysical task before you could possibly have anything to offer.

You definitely did ask AI about it.

Is it, now? You stated (verbatim) "In other news, the fact that you ask for something like a 'conclusive answer' from any branch of philosophy at all indicates that you are not really all that well informed about what philosophy is or what it does, let alone a specific branch such as metaphysics."

In repsonse to that I posted:

"Regarding my previous post, my thoughts touch on the omnipotence paradox. Is it a question of metaphysics? I think that is debatable, but it certainly is a philosophical question. I created the following formulation, which I feel is a conclusive answer if we define omnipotence as unlimited power (maybe someone can provide a substantive counterargument).

My formulation assisted by ChatGPT
The omnipotence paradox semantically limits omnipotence by suggesting that omnipotence cannot exceed itself. My formulation follows the mechanics of omnipotence when defined as unlimited power: omnipotence can always exceed any proposed level of power. Therefore limitation is incoherent.

I did not arrive at that conclusion through metaphysics. I used logic, conceptual analysis, coherence, reason, and the assistance of AI. So, it seems, based on this example at least, that while the purported category of metaphysics can be used to ask questions or frame questions as metaphysics, producing answers that can be categorised as metaphysical is challenging.

Update: Please note that my formulation strictly applies to the wording of the omnipotence paradox."

I received no responses. That's conclusive, at least, and this is philosophy. Look, no responses; that's conclusive within philosophy—a conclusive answer using philosophy. Who would have thought?

[Alexis Jacobi]

That's something so common as to be unremarkable. Most worldviews attempt to persuade people of "a higher dimension," but don't mean at all the same "higher dimension," nor anything close to the same terms of attaining contact with it.

You've said, essentially, nothing. Many religions also have books. Many religions have symbols. Many religions have followers. Many religions have ethics...all of these things are "similar," but at such a superficial level as to be utterly uninformative.

"Higher dimension."

Next you'll be telling us they're all the same, because all the participants have noses, "similarly to the NT evangelists."

No, in fact the “terms” are precisely and exactly the same, insofar as all the advanced religions are made up of people who are situated in the same world and reality. Human concerns are precisely the same all across the world and throughout history, insofar as humans are largely the same. Their cultural accomplishments, and their failings, are certainly to be noted, but the fact is that all people fail (when higher values have been defined as the objective). What I say here is definitely a result of a mature outlook and can easily be achieved by those who study religion comparatively. But to say “all religious approaches” are equal, is absurd. And it is not something I would say. So much time is lost correcting your misconceptions.

No religion, or people, or culture that we can refer to, should be roundly condemned in broad terms by one who is attempting to evangelize them. And too, each people, every culture, have cultural, religious, philosophical and spiritual values and perspectives that can be, should be, appreciated and understood.

I do not think what I point out is “unremarkable” but I will agree that it is pretty basic and commonsensical.

What should be pointed out is a peculiar and rather ugly tendency among Occidentals certainly, which induces them to take an arrogant, judgmental attitude toward other people and cultures. It starts in Hebrew supremacism where the basic stance is judgement and condemnation. It is amplified in Christian forms where foreign gods are described as “demons”. That view is foundational to Catholicism and Protestant Christianity. It is of course a vestige of an old metaphysics that identifies chthonic representations which it distinguishes from a celestial power that Jesus Christ represents.

The “act of dismissal” or of condemnation is not precisely wrong (in some cases), but the attitude held requires being handled wisely and by a mature man. Again, it seems all to hinge on metaphysical concepts. So for example if you had in front of you the worst representative of a vulgar, opinionated Christian Evangelical zealot, and then say a very developed and mature Buddhist man who had practiced his religious modality for a lifetime, you would easily distinguish the Buddhist as being among a higher order on men. And if you were not a vulgar man yourself and a self-centered narcissist, you would be able to make that distinction. Again, so much depends on the status and condition of the one looking.

I think that if you (“one”) examine(s) the “class” of religionists of which you IC are a part, and indeed a representative of, you would find a multitude of self-centered and arrogant men like you who are quick with broad condemnation but slooooow with careful self-examination. It is in my view a “defect of character”.

Can you be cured? Can a narcissist be cured? You see here is the “ad hominem” problem. Are you paying attention? We all carry our defects along with our ideas.

Have I indeed said “essentially nothing”? I think that this assessment falls into the category and attitude of those men I describe. It is an attitude of far too broad dismissal that as I suggest must be at least considered to be pathological.

Therefore: a cure for such provincialism must be considered and developed.

[FlashDangerpants]

Flash, again, three points.

1. No. It's called "your" paraphrasing; there's a difference — you're not neutral. So, it cannot be considered an authority. It's just your opinion at the end of the day, mate.

2. You can believe whatever you want about my withholding my personal work on metaphysics. I have autonomy.

3. I've already covered the video point with you, Flash. I see no need to repeat myself. Generally, the burden is on the person who claims there's a counterargument to articulate it.

Your claims about metaphysics were wildly overblown and I laughed at that because it showed a profound confusion about metaphycis. BUT, being the helpful sort of person I so notoriously am, I provided helpful educational resources to help you get up to speed. Let's be clear though; the question of your claim being viable or not was never on the table and it wasn't debated. The product isn't good enough to get debated. So this talk of proof burdens is presumptious, the burden in on you to get up to speed about the topics you wish to pronounce upon and I have provided for that education.

There's similarly no burden of proof for that video. It is something you should watch because it is a great philosopher addressing a subject you have not understood very well. It's not presented as a counter to an argument, it is remedial education. You would become a much better philosopher if you watch and learn from it, but you will remain as you are if you are too proud for that.

Your "personal work on metaphysics" is worthless, you would need to understand already why setting bounds around metaphysics is a metaphysical task before you could possibly have anything to offer.

You definitely did ask AI about it.

Is it, now? You stated (verbatim) "In other news, the fact that you ask for something like a 'conclusive answer' from any branch of philosophy at all indicates that you are not really all that well informed about what philosophy is or what it does, let alone a specific branch such as metaphysics."

In repsonse to that I posted:

"Regarding my previous post, my thoughts touch on the omnipotence paradox. Is it a question of metaphysics? I think that is debatable, but it certainly is a philosophical question. I created the following formulation, which I feel is a conclusive answer if we define omnipotence as unlimited power (maybe someone can provide a substantive counterargument).

My formulation assisted by ChatGPT
The omnipotence paradox semantically limits omnipotence by suggesting that omnipotence cannot exceed itself. My formulation follows the mechanics of omnipotence when defined as unlimited power: omnipotence can always exceed any proposed level of power. Therefore limitation is incoherent.

I did not arrive at that conclusion through metaphysics. I used logic, conceptual analysis, coherence, reason, and the assistance of AI. So, it seems, based on this example at least, that while the purported category of metaphysics can be used to ask questions or frame questions as metaphysics, producing answers that can be categorised as metaphysical is challenging.

Update: Please note that my formulation strictly applies to the wording of the omnipotence paradox."

I received no responses. That's conclusive, at least, and this is philosophy. Look, no responses; that's conclusive within philosophy—a conclusive answer using philosophy. Who would have thought?

That is utter doggerel. Nobody has any use at all for your analysis of that paradox. Your analysis doesn't change anything and you don't know what metaphysics is so your claim to have not used any is worthless.

You do like to award yourself lavish praise though don't you? I would never tell you I used "logic, conceptual analysis, coherence, reason" partly because it is so apallingly boastful, partly because it seems redundant, but mainly because only the most absurd onanist would make any such claim.

Nobody responding to that argument isn't a sign that it's good.

[Fanman]

Your claims about metaphysics were wildly overblown and I laughed at that because it showed a profound confusion about metaphycis. BUT, being the helpful sort of person I so notoriously am, I provided helpful educational resources to help you get up to speed. Let's be clear though; the question of your claim being viable or not was never on the table and it wasn't debated. The product isn't good enough to get debated. So this talk of proof burdens is presumptious, the burden in on you to get up to speed about the topics you wish to pronounce upon and I have provided for that education.

There's similarly no burden of proof for that video. It is something you should watch because it is a great philosopher addressing a subject you have not understood very well. It's not presented as a counter to an argument, it is remedial education. You would become a much better philosopher if you watch and learn from it, but you will remain as you are if you are too proud for that.

Your "personal work on metaphysics" is worthless, you would need to understand already why setting bounds around metaphysics is a metaphysical task before you could possibly have anything to offer.

You definitely did ask AI about it.

Is it, now? You stated (verbatim) "In other news, the fact that you ask for something like a 'conclusive answer' from any branch of philosophy at all indicates that you are not really all that well informed about what philosophy is or what it does, let alone a specific branch such as metaphysics."

In repsonse to that I posted:

"Regarding my previous post, my thoughts touch on the omnipotence paradox. Is it a question of metaphysics? I think that is debatable, but it certainly is a philosophical question. I created the following formulation, which I feel is a conclusive answer if we define omnipotence as unlimited power (maybe someone can provide a substantive counterargument).

My formulation assisted by ChatGPT
The omnipotence paradox semantically limits omnipotence by suggesting that omnipotence cannot exceed itself. My formulation follows the mechanics of omnipotence when defined as unlimited power: omnipotence can always exceed any proposed level of power. Therefore limitation is incoherent.

I did not arrive at that conclusion through metaphysics. I used logic, conceptual analysis, coherence, reason, and the assistance of AI. So, it seems, based on this example at least, that while the purported category of metaphysics can be used to ask questions or frame questions as metaphysics, producing answers that can be categorised as metaphysical is challenging.

Update: Please note that my formulation strictly applies to the wording of the omnipotence paradox."

I received no responses. That's conclusive, at least, and this is philosophy. Look, no responses; that's conclusive within philosophy—a conclusive answer using philosophy. Who would have thought?

That is utter doggerel. Nobody has any use at all for your analysis of that paradox. Your analysis doesn't change anything and you don't know what metaphysics is so your claim to have not used any is worthless.

You do like to award yourself lavish praise though don't you? I would never tell you I used "logic, conceptual analysis, coherence, reason" partly because it is so apallingly boastful, partly because it seems redundant, but mainly because only the most absurd onanist would make any such claim.

Nobody responding to that argument isn't a sign that it's good.

Boo-hoo, Flash. You can't argue with the factual record, nor can you speak for everyone else. You are entitled to your opinion, though.

[FlashDangerpants]

Boo-hoo, Flash. You can't argue with the factual record, nor can you speak for everyone else. You are entitled to your opinion, though.

OK. I guess you can join the crowd of undiscovered geniuses waiting for their special day to happen at this forum for some reason. Enjoy the echo.

[Alexis Jacobi]

IC, my child, here is a clip from a man who, I think it can be fairly said, distinguishes himself from the sort of fanatical, narcissistic brutality one notices so terribly strongly in you. It is from Belief Unbound by Wm. Pepperell Montague (Yale, 1930).

One such meaning of Religion there is; and from the welter of usages it leaps out to meet us and challenge our minds and our hearts. It is the meaning that applies neither to the primitive nor to the sophisticated instances of religion. Religion as we shall use the term is not a traffic with demons and the dark forces pertaining to them. The belief in such objects is almost certainly false and quite certainly without moral significance. Nor is religion merely a belief in an ultimate reality or in an ultimate ideal. These beliefs are worse than false; they are platitudes, truisms, that nobody will dispute. Religion as we shall conceive it is the acceptance neither of a primitive absurdity nor of a sophisticated truism, but of a momentous possibility — the possibility namely that what is highest in spirit is also deepest in nature, that the ideal and the real are at least to some extent identified, not merely evanescently in our own lives but enduringly in the universe itself. If this possibility were an actuality, if there truly were at the heart of nature something akin to us, a conserver and increaser of values, and if we could not only know this and act upon it, but really feel it, life would suddenly become radiant. For no longer should we be alien accidents in an in-different world, uncharacteristic by-products of the blindly whirling atoms; and no longer would the things that matter most be at the mercy of the things that matter least.

These ideas: fight against them if you wish. Allow yourself that Lutheran rage so inherent in you! Jump up and down. Bark! But allow just a small particle the size of a mustard seed to grown in your stunted mind — and you will have progressed on step in this life!

[Fanman]

Going back to the actual discussion... For transparency purposes, I will share some of the work I did on metaphysics with Microsoft Copilot.

I can see why that post would provoke discussion. It's making a challenge, not merely asserting a conclusion.
My honest thought is that the strongest part is not the comparison to "witch or wizard" (which will likely attract attention), but the challenge you pose afterward:

"Can any of the interlocutors provide a sound example of a distinctly metaphysical conclusive answer?"

That's a serious philosophical question.

However, I suspect a trained metaphysician would push back in the following way:

They would argue that metaphysics is not primarily about identifying "metaphysical events" or "metaphysical outcomes." Rather, it concerns questions about the fundamental nature of reality, existence, identity, causation, possibility, necessity, time, and being.

For example:
•Do objects persist through time?
•What is causation?
•Do universals exist?
•Is free will compatible with determinism?
•Why is there something rather than nothing?

A metaphysician might say:

"The answers themselves are metaphysical because the subject matter is metaphysical, even if they are reached through logic."

This connects directly to your omnipotence example.

You seem to be operating from a different criterion:

For an answer to qualify as metaphysical, it should involve something uniquely metaphysical in its method or evidential basis.

Under that criterion, metaphysics can appear elusive because many proposed answers end up relying on:

•logic,
•conceptual analysis,
•coherence,
•reasoning,
•linguistic clarification.

From that perspective, metaphysics risks becoming a container for questions rather than a producer of uniquely metaphysical answers.

I think that's the real issue you're circling.

In fact, your challenge can almost be reformulated as:

"Can anyone produce an answer that is recognisably metaphysical rather than logical, conceptual, theological, religious, spiritual, scientific, or linguistic?"

That's a much sharper challenge than asking whether metaphysics exists.

If I were a respondent, one possible counterargument would be:

"The answer 'causation is a real feature of reality rather than a psychological habit' is a metaphysical answer."

But then you might reasonably ask:

"What made that answer metaphysical rather than philosophical?"

And the debate would continue.

So I think your post is strongest when read not as an attack on metaphysics, but as a request for demarcation criteria:

What makes an answer metaphysical rather than merely philosophical?

That's a surprisingly difficult question, and I suspect many participants will find it harder to answer than they initially expect.

I haven't arrived at a sufficiently clear conceptual analysis to describe where I land, based on how Copilot responded to my prompt. However, I do plan to share something about it when I eventually form an opinion or perspective that I feel is both coherent and cogent.

[FlashDangerpants]

Belief Unbound by Wm. Pepperell Montague (Yale, 1930).

There's a special subreddit for names like Pepperell Montague

https://www.reddit.com/r/ToastNames/

[FlashDangerpants]

Going back to the actual discussion... For transparency purposes, I will share some of the work I did on metaphysics with Microsoft Copilot.

I can see why that post would provoke discussion. It's making a challenge, not merely asserting a conclusion.
My honest thought is that the strongest part is not the comparison to "witch or wizard" (which will likely attract attention), but the challenge you pose afterward:

"Can any of the interlocutors provide a sound example of a distinctly metaphysical conclusive answer?"
That's a serious philosophical question.

However, I suspect a trained metaphysician would push back in the following way:

They would argue that metaphysics is not primarily about identifying "metaphysical events" or "metaphysical outcomes." Rather, it concerns questions about the fundamental nature of reality, existence, identity, causation, possibility, necessity, time, and being.

For example:
•Do objects persist through time?
•What is causation?
•Do universals exist?
•Is free will compatible with determinism?
•Why is there something rather than nothing?

A metaphysician might say:

"The answers themselves are metaphysical because the subject matter is metaphysical, even if they are reached through logic."

This connects directly to your omnipotence example.

You seem to be operating from a different criterion:

For an answer to qualify as metaphysical, it should involve something uniquely metaphysical in its method or evidential basis.

Under that criterion, metaphysics can appear elusive because many proposed answers end up relying on:

•logic,
•conceptual analysis,
•coherence,
•reasoning,
•linguistic clarification.

From that perspective, metaphysics risks becoming a container for questions rather than a producer of uniquely metaphysical answers.

I think that's the real issue you're circling.

In fact, your challenge can almost be reformulated as:

"Can anyone produce an answer that is recognisably metaphysical rather than logical, conceptual, theological, religious, spiritual, scientific, or linguistic?"

That's a much sharper challenge than asking whether metaphysics exists.

If I were a respondent, one possible counterargument would be:

"The answer 'causation is a real feature of reality rather than a psychological habit' is a metaphysical answer."

But then you might reasonably ask:

"What made that answer metaphysical rather than philosophical?"

And the debate would continue.

So I think your post is strongest when read not as an attack on metaphysics, but as a request for demarcation criteria:

What makes an answer metaphysical rather than merely philosophical?

That's a surprisingly difficult question, and I suspect many participants will find it harder to answer than they initially expect.

I haven't arrived at a sufficiently clear conceptual analysis to describe where I land, based on how Copilot responded to my prompt. However, I do plan to share something about it when I eventually form an opinion or perspective that I feel is both coherent and cogent.

So... copilot told you the conclusion of your argument is overblown - which I told you also.
It told you to ditch the challenge you issued - which I told you also.
And you seem to have it delicately sidstepping the issue if whether you have worked out what counts as a metaphysical question at all.

But you are still conspicuously not providing its answer that question for which I provided both a prompt and an AI's answer. I know you have asked, you couldn't possibly not given the way you depend on AI.

You should consider just swallowing the pride that threatens to drown you, admit to overreach with this whole line of argument, and watch the video I gave you.