>every word is described by more words, those words themselves requireing more descriptons on and on, until eventually every word eventually describes itself, therefore definitions are fictions.
>concepts do not have physical structures or counterparts and therefore do not exist outside of mental fictions. Concepts are internal fictions the mind uses to model the world.
>the ego is constructed by conciousness as a representation of itself.
>all things which exist go through an "algorithmic" like process, Algorithmic Ontology is a theory of being which proposes that all existence, anything that exists, on in other words what he refers to as substance, is defined not by static essence, but by intrinsic properties, that generate structure and order through self interaction over time. Rather than reality being built upon eternal, pre given laws, the laws themselves emerge from the interaction of substance's inherent behaviors or intrinsic properties. These behaviors function like rules or tendencies or "abilities" embedded in each portion of substance, not imposed from outside, but arising from what each thing uniquely is. Through continuous interaction, repetition, and reinforcement, stable patterns, or routines, form, which we come to recognize as The laws of physics, Biological evolution, Consciousness, all emerge from the process of all the various substances and their inherent properties self interacting over time
>the properties of conciousness are self created, or at least they seem to impose their own rules or intrinsic properties onto reality, such as qualia or conciousness. The properties of conciouness come into reality along side their creation. Being isn’t static essence; it’s processual, recursive, and algorithmic.
>Consciousness generates its own inherent properties, by definition, everything does, same as how particles which come into reality bring too their own instrinsic properties and impose them on reality. There is an "algorithmic" chain of events, coming about from the interaction of substance and its various parts unique inherent properties, the results of their interactions, which form the patterns and routines which constitute laws of physics, evolution, ect...
>conciousnesses can design and redesign their fundamental structures and functions, or at least everything about conciousness except the universal scaffold of conciousness, the universals of cognition.
>the world is inherently purely physical but physicality is inherently mystical. Everything is purely physical, but physical reality itself is inherently mystical.
Anyways, pic unrelated, what do you think of my philosophical system so far?

>>24533607 (OP)
How do you explain nouns?

>>24533612
they are words that attempt to define a physical thing, the definition of the thing, and the idea the thing is seperate from anything else, all fictions, arbitrary distinctions made by the mind for ease of descriptions.

>>24533607 (OP)
>every word is described by more words
Word: "cocksucker"
Description: *points at the OP*

Word: "mouthrape"
Description: *mouthrapes you*

Feel free to use Algorithmic Ontology to describe the fictious and separate quality of a cock in your mouth.


>substance, is defined not by static essence, but by intrinsic properties, that generate structure and order through self interaction over time
If there are intrinsic qualities, then they are intrinsic even if object is considered without time as a factor - otherwise they are not intrinsic qualities. If these qualities are evident even when the object is considered regardless of time then they are no different from "static essence". So ultimately it's not saying anything.

>>24533660
It doesn’t aim to describe eternal, Platonic essences, but rather the inherent structures or capacities that define what something is, even as it persists through time. So your argument doesnt really phase anything here. Also if we're going by functionality over agreed upon definitions of words [which term actually sucks cocks vs what is described as sucking cock.] then youd be a good candidate matching a *functional* description of "cocksucker"

>>24533619
>they are words that attempt to define a physical thing, the definition of the thing
Yeah I don't think I agree with that at all.

>>24533688
why not?

>>24533607 (OP)
read a book

>>24534303
I read quite a few actually. Why dont you read the post you're responding to?
>DUH HE POST WORD? NO NO NO, ME NO LIKE DAT! ME TELL HIM GO REED BOOK 4 NO RAISON.
lol

>>24534309
hmm maybe kill yourself

>>24534317
I will later on and already planned on that, so you post is inneffective. Want to try throwing out more random insults because you're intimidated by the prospect of reading a full paragraph in the OP?

>>24533607 (OP)
>water's wet

>>24534321
gonna cry about it?

>>24534333
No, im actually kinda chucking because you're just another example of a randomly bitter poster who starts shitty arguments over nothing. Keep posting, retardation can be very entertaining, so keep on posting nonsense irrelevent from the thread, trying to insult random people for no reason. Go on, clown. Dance for us. Put on a show!!!!

>>24533612