Nobody owns pure ideas.Nobody owns the idea of an equilateral triangle.
>>531175600Nobody owns anything
>>531175600all idea belongs to god, to conceive idea you must commune with god.
>>531175636I own your mom
>>531175636>>531175659>>531175671Dissipated clownposts. Contribute to serious discussion or kys.
>This dumb swede with his retarded takes againI see you abandoned the "you shouldn't get angry if others lie about you" stoicism cuckoldry and moved on to this
>>531175767post actual arguments or fuck off
thoughts on the marketplace of ideas?
>>531175847Can and shall never be commodified.
>copyright>patentsthose are power over physical manifestations of ideas, not owning pure ideas>lawyershaving the ability to withhold information is not the same thing as owning ideas>languagesnative speakers don't own their language, they don't own ideas>religionsno such thing as your religion or my religion, and religious authorities promote ideas and discard ideas, that's not the same thing as owning ideas
>>531175600ok Jacques Derrida
>>531175737why so serious? lets put a smile on that face. why so serious? wanna know how I got these scars. why so serious?
>>531175914should it be regulated and if so by whomst'd?
>>531175600I actually own that triangle, every post pays me 3c for it
>>531175600Wtf is pure that isnt gold or some other element?Why the fuck do some elements mix?1488 destroy oxygen
>>531175737I'm serious. You don't own land you don't own food you don't own ideas you don't own anything. Just because some government or IP group says you own sonething doesn't mean it is true
Coombrained shitposting clowns can fuck off.One thing that's interesting is the ambiguity of the word "change" as in when you say you change something, that can mean either that you swap it, replace it, exchange it for something else; or it can mean that you alter the thing itself, reshape it. So when we say for example that native Germans over time change their ideas of what the German language is this can be interpreted in either of these two ways. Either we think of old ideas as being discarded and replaced by new ideas, or we think of the idea as being positioned in someone's mind, fixed in position there and just changing its nature, being changed by people. There's really nothing that says one of these concepts is more valid than the other, and yet some will think of the first and others of the second of these two concepts when you're having a discussion and using these terms.
>>531175636>>531175600You own - that you can defend.
>>531176410Fuck off
>>531175600What if that idea is a string of exact words (like in a book) or code (like in software)? You could say that the exact chain of words of harry potter is a "pure idea" and that thing is actually owned by people. The same applies to software, lets say the exact c++ code used to create that game "undertale". It is also owned by people, and one could say that those are just "pure ideas" because are made out of pure words (or things word-like, in the case of software)
>>531177403Shut up you brown primitive monkey!
>>531175600if you zoom in you can clearly read "© Pythagoras"
no, I don't
>>531175636And everyone is happy
>>531176152Regulating the noosphere ... seems like a pointless attempt to me. And it would only ever be with questionable benefits, even if I see it from a risk avoidance side. If I want to create a bioweapon in my garage then nothing could hold me back from formulating a plan for example ... getting my hands on the necessary equipment would be a different matter ofc.
>>531176804Great chat thanks buddy
>>531175600As a matter of fact, a perfect circle - arguably even, a perfect equilateral triangle - only exist as pure ideas.Math is the living extension of all formal truth really, and life is about recollecting that truth.
>>531177403Nobody is exerting power over the pure ideas, they're exerting power over physical manifestations of the ideas. The electric current that passed through the first transatlantic telegraph cable in 1858 to deliver the first official message is not the same thing as the idea itself which was transmitted:>Directors of Atlantic Telegraph Company, Great Britain, to Directors in America:—Europe and America are united by telegraph. Glory to God in the highest; on earth peace, good will towards men.The same applies to Queen Victoria's 98-word telegram to President James Buchanan which was the next message to be sent.
>>531175636>>531176756Yeah, that's pagan ownership, but that's dead without purpose.There is living ownership in stewardship, productivity, progression, everything coming from virtue, and there is dead ownership of might makes right, or the company won't prosecute me if I borrow less than $5,000 so that means I own $5,000 per bank in existence
>>531178138>nothing means anything tihi, everything is meaningless and worthless, I'm so deepLearn argumentation.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iT4Y9Z3DlfI
>>531175600>nobody owns it>takes your free idea and abuses it
>>531175600I DO!THAT TRIAGNLE IS MINE!
>>531175600Actually that's mine. You can look but don't touch.
>>531178634>>531178819You're so funny. I'm dying with laughter.
>>531175600Are you logic question suede? If so, fuck off nigger, you're too ignorant to have discussions of this kind.
>>531179951learn argumentation
>>531180676You have no arguments. You can't think logically. You're a retard.
>>531178327>Nobody is exerting power over the pure ideasConcepts like eugenics or race realism would like a word.Essentially, the concept of the Overton window is the theory that media gatekeeping is basically the exertion of power over ideas through selection/exclusion/framing. Elon's "freedom of reach"-bs on X is, ofc, an example of exercising power over ideas.
>>531178432That, Anon
>>531175600nobody owns anything anon
>>531175600no shitit is only the EXPRESSION of an idea you can own.anyone can make cola, but if your cola recipe is the same as Coca-Cola's, then you are in trouble.
>>531175600>triangleI can see it lads, I can see them everywhere.
>>531181355Exercising power over which ideas people hold is not owning the ideas themselves. Most of influencing ideas is done through emotional conditioning — dog hears bell and starts salivating type stuff — rather than through reason.https://gutenberg.ca/ebooks/huxleya-bravenewworld/huxleya-bravenewworld-00-e.html#chapter02There are different ways it's done. One way is with valence, just emotional association of positive or negative with any concept. Another is in the domain of judgement, forming propositions, X is Y or X is not Y, having the mind always think "=Y" or "=/=Y" when it hears "X", operation two in picrel.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valence_(psychology)https://archive.org/details/logicorrightuseo00wattThey only control thinking with emotion, and learning to think with reason is how you break out of it, that's exactly what not being able to own pure ideas is about.
>>531182145
Most hilarious poster on /pol/, and probably the most naive.
>>531182241Kant:>It is because of laziness and cowardice that so great a part of humankind, after nature has long since emancipated them from other people’s direction (naturaliter maiorennes), nevertheless gladly remains minors for life, and that it becomes so easy for others to set themselves up as their guardians. It is so comfortable to be a minor! If I have a book that understands for me, a spiritual advisor who has a conscience for me, a doctor who decides upon a regimen for me, and so forth, I need not trouble myself at all. I need not think, if only I can pay; others will readily undertake the irksome business for me.
nothing but fucking coombrained retards on this board, I'm out, rot in hell losers
>>531182145>They only control thinking with emotionThey control discovery, without which ideas can't get shared, repeated and refined.Repetition, when coupled with institutional power, is enough to establish and normalize any idea, no matter how insane it actually is. Perfect example is racism (i.e. the paradigm that refusing to give the outgroup in-group treatment is a excommunicatable offense) which would make no sense unless repeatedly forced onto people as a dogma that cannot be questioned.As such, it does hardly matter if ideas themselves can't be owned when the power to overwrite or drown them can be.> valence, just emotional association of positive or negative with any concept.It's a bit more than that, I suppose. It's the manipulation of a navigational heuristic that allows people to execute their hidden contracts without friction. Basically, when you teach someone to react negatively to a racist, you teach them that the cost of interacting with that person is detriminal to their ulterior motives. That's kinda like being able to make a swarm of fish scatter at the sight of food - in the context of ideas, that's about as close as you can get to making communal ownership impossible..
