03[09:36:02] * scoular ([email protected]) has joined ##philosophy
03[09:36:04] * Turingi (~devon@unaffiliated/devon-hillard/x-7250961) has joined ##philosophy
02[09:36:11] * chu (~chu@unaffiliated/chu) Quit (Quit: leaving)
[09:36:21] <sente> whether or not reality as we know is a merely simulation being run in a computer
[09:36:24] <sente> more or less
[09:36:58] <scoular> any philosophy here
[09:37:35] <scoular> reality is not a "simulation"
[09:37:45] <sente> there is no "god"
[09:37:52] <scoular> correct
[09:37:53] <sente> i agree with you
[09:38:35] <sente> so, here's a philo question
[09:38:44] <sente> what do y'all think about faith?
[09:38:55] <sente> is it legitimate
[09:38:57] <sente> /reasonable
02[09:39:46] * Antifides (~Antifidia@unaffiliated/antifides) Quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
[09:39:56] <scoular> that's unclear
[09:40:31] <scoular> a person has faith for the same reasons that a person has the ability to create scar tissue
[09:40:41] <sente> not really
[09:40:43] <scoular> it's a response to negative environmental experience
02[09:40:51] * SmoMo ([email protected]) Quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
[09:40:56] <sente> plants create 'scar tissue'
[09:40:57] <scoular> that's the origin of religious belief
[09:40:59] <sente> plants have no faith
[09:41:13] <sente> it's believing in something without evidence
[09:41:26] <scoular> huh
[09:41:27] <sente> fundamentally
[09:41:37] <sente> that's the definition
[09:41:43] <sente> brb
[09:41:51] <scoular> are you one of those clowns who knows everything already
[09:42:21] <scoular> and you're going to insist on telling everyone that your unlettered and false conjectures about stuff is just the way it is
[09:42:26] <scoular> no matter what anyone else has to say
03[09:42:27] * SmoMo ([email protected]) has joined ##philosophy
01[09:46:45] <ingx24> oh look its scoular
[09:46:57] <PARLIAMENT> creating scar tissue isn't an ability, it's a flaw.
01[09:47:02] <ingx24> the eliminative materialist in denial
[09:47:51] <scoular> why do people pretend to be smart
[09:47:57] <scoular> I'm not an eliminative materialist
01[09:48:02] <ingx24> why do you pretend to be smart
01[09:48:26] <ingx24> yes you are
02[09:48:59] * compwhiz797_ ([email protected]) Quit (Quit: *.banana *.split)
[09:49:07] <scoular> an eliminative materialist believes that all first-person reports of qualitative experience or "folk psychology" is meaningless and needs to be discarded in favor of heterophenomenological language
03[09:49:10] * Snardbafulator (~Snardi@about/philosophy/Snardbafulator) has joined ##philosophy
[09:49:29] <scoular> I don't believe that and neither do most sane people
[09:49:42] <scoular> try harder son
[09:49:57] <PARLIAMENT> WHY ARENT YOU PROUD DAD
[09:50:32] <Snardbafulator> Damn, through part 3 of the simulation argument.  My problem with it so far is that it writes blank checks on the future.  A more detailed critique to come.
02[09:50:51] * FathZippyZanny ([email protected]) Quit (Quit: Now take your Meds)
[09:51:48] <scoular> the simulation argument is a broken backed fallacy
03[09:52:01] * Dates ([email protected]) has joined ##philosophy
[09:52:06] <Dates> hi all dates here
[09:52:27] <Snardbafulator> I mean, if we assume that the laws of physics as we know them today will be radically different and we can attain computational power unimaginable today -- then why not assume any blessed thing?
[09:52:27] <silver> which ones?
[09:52:38] <Snardbafulator> !g broken backed fallacy
[09:52:39] <Title> Hoof Angle - Equine Podiatry | Dr. Stephen O'Grady, veterinarians ...: <http://www.equipodiatry.com/hoofangl.htm> ; Economics in One Lesson | Foundation for Economic Education: <http://www.fee.org/library/books/economics-in-one-lesson/>
01[09:52:40] <ingx24> well if youre not an eliminative materialist then that narrows it down to either radical behaviorist or analytic functionalist
01[09:52:53] <ingx24> either way i will make fun of you
01[09:52:53] <ingx24> :3
01[09:53:09] <ingx24> problem sir?
[09:53:09] <scoular> clearly however, it dupes teens and sci fi nurds who are unaware of their intuitive errors
[09:53:14] <Snardbafulator> !g Wikipedia broken-backed fallacy
[09:53:15] <Title> Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jackass - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Jackass> ; Parable of the broken window - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window>
[09:54:08] <Snardbafulator> Heh ... this googlebot is usually pretty good.
[09:54:20] <Snardbafulator> scoular: What's the broken-backed fallacy?
[09:54:41] <scoular> approval and identity-seeking teens are also fond of having labels for everything for peer validation
[09:54:42] <Dr_Neuroscience> !g logans run
[09:54:44] <Title> Logan's Run (film) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan's_Run_(film)> ; Logan's Run - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan's_Run>
[09:54:48] <scoular> any adults in this room
[09:55:04] <Dates> im here
[09:55:09] <Snardbafulator> Yeah, I am.
[09:55:31] <sente> scoular: no, i am not one of those clowns
[09:55:32] <Snardbafulator> And I'll advise you that gratuitous personal insults are moderated :)
[09:55:48] <scoular> The intuitive fallacy of the simulation argument is that it takes
[09:55:49] <scoular>   the fact that persons are physical with consciousness as a
[09:55:49] <scoular>   "special reason" to suggest that that person can be one thing
[09:55:49] <scoular>   and another thing simultaneously (in this case, a person and a
[09:55:49] <scoular>   not-person (simulation))
[09:56:04] <scoular> In virtue of the law of identity, I cannot be nonidentical with
[09:56:05] <scoular>   myself
[09:56:20] <scoular> since persons with consciousness are
[09:56:20] <scoular>   every bit as physical as any other physical object
[09:56:47] <scoular> For you to subscribe to the nonsense of a simulation
[09:56:47] <scoular>   argument, you're required to doubt the very sense and
[09:56:48] <scoular>   meaning of what "doubt" is, since you're required to doubt all
[09:56:48] <scoular>   of the meanings of terms you use to express things and
[09:56:48] <scoular>   objects with identity as here, or there, or in a place, and with
[09:56:48] <scoular>   certain properties, and as discrete and distinct from other
[09:56:48] <scoular>   objects
[09:57:03] <PARLIAMENT> oh god not this again
[09:57:06] <sente> a rational attitude towards a potential object of knowledge which arises when we are subjectively certain it is true even though we are unable to gain theoretical or objective certainty.
[09:57:08] <sente> ^--- faith
[09:57:13] <scoular> the appeal of the fallacy seems to be that It may be possible that there is a evil doctor with the ability to
[09:57:13] <scoular>   manipulate the physical states of the universe in an instant -
[09:57:13] <scoular>   he can turn glasses of water into television sets with a snap of
[09:57:13] <scoular>   his fingers, for example, or he can turn you - sitting in your
[09:57:13] <scoular>   room now - into a patient strapped to a bed in his lab and
[09:57:14] <scoular>   wired to a computer
[09:57:26] <sente> scoular: i was just defining faith
[09:57:33] <sente> as i undersatnd it
[09:57:33] <scoular> The mistake is the believe that you can be BOTH AT THE
[09:57:33] <scoular>   SAME TIME
03[09:57:44] * emmitt7 ([email protected]) has joined ##philosophy
[09:57:53] <sente> there's no point in discussing things if people have different meaning for terms
[09:58:27] <scoular> This believe that you can be both at the same time is the fallacy, stemming from the intuitive sense that there is a special reason to believe that this can be the case, which stems from intuitive illusions about the mind (Cartesian illusions)
[09:58:29] <scoular> it's that simple folks
[09:59:00] <scoular> It's like saying that you can't say for sure whether you're in New York or Los Angeles, because you just stepped off the plane from New York to Los Angeles
[09:59:09] <sente> no, it's not like that
[09:59:25] <sente> and you can say with a very high probability of correctness that you are in NY
[09:59:31] <sente> if you just stepped of the plane at the NY airport
[09:59:34] <scoular> because you can "imagine" yourself still in New York, because you can imagine yourself as a "mind/memory" that was somehow left behind back there
[09:59:39] <sente> absolutes are foolish
01[09:59:45] <ingx24> scoular your argument makes no sense
01[10:00:07] <ingx24> i cant even follow what youre saying
[10:00:10] <scoular> It all stems from this Cartesian illusion - of the mind as a "thing/stuff" that's over and above a physical body
01[10:00:12] <ingx24> try making more sense
01[10:00:24] <ingx24> ok mr eliminative materialist
[10:00:59] <scoular> so snerd is this how it works in your room them
[10:01:08] <sente> ?
02[10:01:39] * Snardbafulator (~Snardi@about/philosophy/Snardbafulator) Quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
[10:01:40] <scoular> someone throughly presents an argument and justification for it, and others just guffaw from under the bleachers and throw rocks for no constructive purpose whatsoever?
01[10:01:52] <ingx24> scoular: your argument rests on the assumption that this "cartesian illusion" is indeed false
01[10:02:04] <ingx24> and that the mind is nothing more than physical structure and function
01[10:02:12] <ingx24> yet you have said nothing to prove such a thing
01[10:02:19] <ingx24> you have rather assumed it from the outset
[10:02:23] <scoular> is this room for philosophy or is it for angry virginal teens to rage about the world which they don't understand and fail at
[10:02:43] <sente> scoular: how old are you
[10:02:56] <scoular> 42
01[10:03:03] <ingx24> apparently its the room for arrogant pieces of shit who think they know everything to act superior and throw their fallacious arguments at everyone expecting us to accept them as fact
[10:03:06] <sente> you're bad at random numbers
03[10:03:35] * bennla (beb912ca@gateway/web/freenode/ip.190.185.18.202) has joined ##philosophy
[10:03:46] <scoular> where's the channel manager
[10:03:51] <scoular> can we bounce ingx24 please
[10:03:58] <scoular> personal attacks are against the rules
01[10:04:00] <ingx24> scoular: if you hadnt been arrogant and hostile from the outset then i wouldnt be hostile to you
01[10:04:09] <ingx24> youve been personally attacking all of us since the minute you got here
01[10:04:20] <ingx24> its a double standard
[10:04:23] <sente> jesus
[10:04:27] <Dr_Neuroscience> lol
01[10:04:28] <ingx24> when you attack people, its "stating facts"
[10:04:29] <sente> this ##philosophy channel is a let down
[10:04:31] <Dr_Neuroscience> children please
01[10:04:33] <ingx24> when we do it, its "personal attacks"
01[10:04:53] <ingx24> you have the pre-conceived notion that all of your opinions are correct and that you are superior to everyone in every way
03[10:04:55] * Antifides (~Antifidia@unaffiliated/antifides) has joined ##philosophy
01[10:05:08] <ingx24> youre like DanFrederiksen except with the exact opposite opinions
[10:05:33] <scoular> You cannot have a functioning channel when you allow these insecure kids to have their hate meltdowns in the channel
02[10:05:43] * DanFrederiksen ([email protected]) Quit
[10:06:50] <sente> scoular: you're the one flipping out
01[10:07:19] <ingx24> ^
01[10:07:28] <ingx24> im just exposing your hypocrisy
[10:07:38] <scoular> either it's a channel for civil debate, or it's a therapy room for self-loathing teens to stamp their feet and express their inability to deal with the fact that other people are better, smarter and more accomplished than they are
01[10:07:46] <ingx24> granted, im doing it with some rather personal attacks
[10:07:46] <scoular> which is what ingx24 is doing
01[10:07:55] <ingx24> but no more so than you
01[10:08:36] <ingx24> scoular: you have the pre-conceived notion that you ARE smarter and better and more accomplished than anyone else
[10:08:43] <scoular> I would just like a channel manager to explain which of those two is the intended purpose of the room, that's all
01[10:09:26] <ingx24> yet all you have proven is that youre an arrogant ass
01[10:09:58] <ingx24> and you have continuously asserted that we are deluded under false intuitions without giving any evidence that these intuitions are false
01[10:10:17] <ingx24> certain intuitions are extremely strong and require vast amounts of evidence to debunk
01[10:10:52] <ingx24> yet you have done nothing to do so
01[10:11:01] <ingx24> you remind me of a more arrogant version of daniel dennett
01[10:11:45] <ingx24> note that, although i am in a sense attacking you, and am using some rather insulting terminology, i am still being more civil than you
02[10:12:02] * SmoMo ([email protected]) Quit (Remote host closed the connection)
03[10:12:37] * SmoMo ([email protected]) has joined ##philosophy
02[10:12:46] * emmitt7 ([email protected]) Quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
[10:12:53] <sente> note that i'm not no longer giving a fuck
03[10:13:09] * emmitt7 ([email protected]) has joined ##philosophy
[10:13:31] <silver> so you do now?
[10:13:53] <scoular> anyone have a question, comment or topic in philosophy
06[10:13:58] * PARLIAMENT licks finger and holds it up in the air experimentally
[10:14:00] <PARLIAMENT> nope
03[10:23:08] * Snardbafulator (~Snardi@about/philosophy/Snardbafulator) has joined ##philosophy
03[10:26:43] * Ari-Ugwu ([email protected]) has joined ##philosophy
[10:28:13] <scoular> hey snerd
[10:28:19] <scoular> snerd can you explain the purpose of the room