Really? Was a personal attack necessary?
This isn’t Twitter
Not what Dan Brown was doing. The opposite.
Dan Brown’s material was misleading and inaccurate, self-proclaimed fiction. It was marketed for profit.
I’m sharing more accurate and more coherent information, as the details themselves should illustrate.
By your suggestion I should market the material for money, for a “paycheck”, and then you will talk to me. It’s about monetary worth, it’s about complying with established business practices, not my ability, talent or value. It’s about the system, money, business practices, not genuine quality, ability or care.
I’m not obsessing over Dan Brown or his work. In fact, I only discovered this symbolism in 2019, and began contrasting it with Brown’s work thereafter.
To note, I discovered the integer line symbolism around 2011, with negative and positive aligning with evil and good, etcetera, however did not associate it with Leonardo’s work until later.
I will be posting a revised version tomorrow in the Art Music and Entertainment section.
Number one I don’t think you should market it for money. Number two I don’t think you should market it at all. Number three… I’m talking to you right now, so what are you even talking about? Conversation over.
posted and deleted some random songs
more randonness
All of those notions, statements, ideas of love, some positive, some weird, some lewd and crude, injected into the environment like automobile exhaust, polluting and manipulating the fertile minds of the youth. The mish-mashed, random barrage of assorted conceptions and misconceptions of love directed at the masses yielding record sales and all sorts of artificial results. Does he love me? Does she love me? What does that mean? What is this disease? Are we doing it like the song?
Imagine what decades of media, all kinds of conflicting views and statements and nonsense, has done to the species. No wonder 99% of posts here and elsewhere are scatter-brained fragments of thought. The minds have disintegrated. It’s the media mind.
I can see how ‘existence exists’ is stabilizing in this confusion.
Is the above statement inaccurate? Farfetched?
The ontology I’ve presented isn’t mere tautology. It isn’t merely declaring “existence exists”.
In fact the philosophy takes specific measures to avoid tautology and circularity.
For example, standard definitions of existence are often ambiguous and circular. They provide no means of substantiation. Existence is defined as simply being, being defined as simply existence. The terms form a vacuous loop of abstraction with no substantiation in concrete, real world instances.
The definition presented with the ontology resolves that issue. The definition is functional and operational. Existence is defined; existence is that which is perceived or interacted with, at least in part. With the definition provided one could see a tree, touch a leaf, hear a bird or smell a flower and declare existence. It isn’t mere tautology.
The ontology establishes testable criteria allowing substantiation of existence and rejection of nonexistence. That which is perceived or interacted with indicates existence. Nonexistence fails because nonexistence cannot be perceived or interacted with. The rejection of nonexistence is not merely definitional but grounded in the inability to substantiate nonexistence.
A less-biased source:
“With the definition provided one could see a tree, touch a leaf, hear a bird or smell a flower and declare existence. It isn’t mere tautology.”
One can do that without any philosophical contraption as well.
And indeed, non-existence does by definition not exist. That’s actually tautological.
The philosophical question has been: why/how does existence exist? Why/how not rather nothing? How exactly does existence stand out against the void?
Your ontology as Ive seen it is tautological, that isn’t altered by the fact that you add the attribute of existence being perceptible. Also, you haven’t explained why existence needs necessarily be perceptible, or interacted with. Why can’t a thing exist in perfect isolation?
Please don’t ask people to rely on the judgment of an LLM to accept your theories as valid. People can think. LLMs don’t. They just show correlations between terms as these commonly show up in human discourse. They hallucinate frequently, too. One of them recently said that Beethoven published his 9th symphony on Blu-ray at the end of the 19th century. Another showed a penis on a pregnant woman and called it a rectum.
Yes, based solely on perceptual experience. That’s precisely what makes the definition so intuitive. I’m glad you pointed that out.
However with a philosophical or ontological framework parameters must be established in order to have an intelligible and functional system.
As expressed, the rejection of nonexistence is not merely definitional but grounded in the inability to substantiate nonexistence. Testable parameters are provided.
I offer you a challenge. Simply locate nonexistence. By doing so the ontology is refuted.
I’m declaring nonexistence cannot be as every attempt to reference or describe nonexistence concerns existence. If existence cannot come from nothing, if nonexistence cannot be then existence is infinite and eternal.
The definition turns the discussion into more than semantics as it allows us to discern existence in a meaningful and testable way, unlike many alternative frameworks.
“Why” or “how” suggests something beyond existence to make existence that way.
All things, all whys, all hows, are [part of] existence.
Existence is infinite, existence is not limited. Existence is not limited to any particular, existence is all. There is no cause or reason beyond existence as any cause or reason would be existence. Thus, existence simply is.
Questions of “why” or “how” are complexities concerning conscious beings and limited perspectives.
It doesn’t. Void is a concept, a part of existence.
Perceptibility is not an ontological requirement. As conveyed in the Epistemic Ontological Distinction section of the essay, existence is not dependent on perception or definitions however perception and definitions are significant tools for conscious beings to substantiate and understand existence. The definitions concern us, our knowledge and substantiation, not the dependence of existence on them.
I’m not. I’m simply presenting it as additional information to consider, something a bit less-biased than myself.
Besides, the A.I. itself stated “It doesn’t mean everyone must accept it as the ‘truth of reality’”. As with any philosophy.
Some can.
is this insinuating “when he is old enough” or wealthy enough 
Brief Bullshit AI Overview of Feminism and love
No, feminism does not cancel out love between men and women, instead, it aims to foster healthier, more equitable relationships built on mutual respect and understanding, which can lead to greater emotional intimacy and long term stability for both partners.
Somewhere along the way feminism took a sharp left turn where “liberation” now looks suspiciously like more work, stress and zero return on investment.
Women were being told they were winning, but unbeknownst to most women, the ideals pitched by feminists ended up making women believe in and act upon certain ideals.
A trick so good, it convinced an entire gender to give men everything they want… on a silver platter.
Of course, love requires all the things that some might find intimidating. Vulnerability, need, want, rejection.
1 Like
You were, yes. Very perceptive self-insight.
That ain’t philosophy.
Either way “when you have a paycheck” is condescending to say the least.
Very perceptive self-insight.
Yes. She is so sweet, isn’t she?
What are you referring to?
Employees are competing against me and everyone else for money, for survival. Those people are simply scrambling for resources. Is that really respectable? Scurrying for materials and toys? Is that really such righteousness?