A few thoughts on philosophy

RenaissanceMan  16:09:41
take your bible and preach the true gospel to them. And make sure you're wearing your plate armour.
and your kevlar underwear.
+ innit  16:10:30
He has a mental illness.
It is unethical to engage the delusions of the mentally ill as if they're the utterances of normal people.
+ doomed  16:11:23
I am mentally ill and not delusional.
+ innit  16:11:52
What is your mental illness?
+ doomed  16:11:54
Are you going to disregard what I say because of your belief that I am delusional?
Donco  16:12:37
What makes someone mentally ill? Does believing in invisible beings that talk to them count?
+ doomed  16:12:59
I ignore any bad advice they give me.
+ innit  16:13:00
doomed: I will answer your question in turn order.
Donco: Having beliefs that are contradicted by available evidence.
+ doomed  16:13:44
I have major depressive disorder and anxiety.
+ innit  16:14:15
The delusions associated with those mental illnesses pertain to the nature/role/value of the self towards their community.
Donco  16:14:16
innit "contradicted by evidence"? How about just not supported by evidence and contradicting what we know about reality?
+ innit  16:14:32
That is, they do not typically result in delusional perceptions not related to self.
So, those mental illnesses doesn't warrant much observation in this regard.
Donco  16:15:08
I don't hve evidenc econtradicting Santa Claus, but I think someone (an adult) who believes in Santa would be delusional.
+ doomed  16:15:23
Never assume that all mentally ill people are crazy or delusional.
+ innit  16:15:32
Further, this is about priors, but we also care about evidence in Bayesian inference -- you specifically haven't provided evidence of delusional thinking.
So, no, I have no play to disregard what you are saying.
Donco, you do have evidence contradicting Santa Claus, of course.
Hedrin  16:16:33
Trump is mentally ill and he's crazy and delusional.
+ innit  16:16:38
Correct.
Donco  16:16:45
I can't prove Santa doesn't exist.
+ innit  16:16:49
He has a messiah complex and is a threat to all of our lives.
Donco, I'm using scientific epistemology leveraging Bayesian statistics.
You appear to be using a different epistemology.
+ doomed  16:17:12
I think Trump has some form of dementia.
Hedrin  16:17:13
Does god talk to you? What does he say?
Donco  16:17:15
Things which don't exist don't have associated evidence.
+ innit  16:17:15
Can you name it or describe it?
It appears to be a 19th century Boolean derivative.
Donco, that is false in scientific epistemology.
Hedrin  16:17:38
Why do 'believers' expect everyone to tolerate their nonsense. Keep your beliefs to yourself.
+ innit  16:17:47
It may be true in other epistemologies.
Donco  16:17:56
innit what is the evidence for a nonexistent thing?
+ innit  16:18:05
There is a pending question.
Hedrin  16:18:06
"i have this special relationship with god" no, you don't
+ innit  16:18:12
Donco, I'm using scientific epistemology leveraging Bayesian statistics.
You appear to be using a different epistemology.
Can you name it or describe it?
Hedrin  16:18:24
CriticalPurple - are you 'born again'?
Donco  16:18:28
ok, innit
+ innit  16:18:30
Are disagreement is stemming from our different epistemologies.
We don't yet have a disagreement within a shared epistemology.
Donco  16:18:41
CriticalPurple that sounds like every theist to me
+ innit  16:19:19
Donco, have you lost interest already?
A lot of people have an attention span of a few seconds.
Donco  16:19:30
how many invisible beings that talk to us are out there in reality?
yes, innit
*  16:19:39
Ignoring Donco
+ innit  16:19:58
Okay, I wish you luck in you having that conversation with CriticalPurple that you've previously ha 347 times with other theists.
Hedrin  16:20:20
Why does it seem to me everyone who is "born again" had some sort of self-destructive behavior they were involved in prior?
+ innit  16:20:21
For the room, I'll now address Donco's question.
In scientific epistemology, we use Bayesian inference which posits uncountably infinite number of models of reality -- quantified at least through first-order logic.
Evidence is collected, Bayes' rule is applied, and the posterior of those models change.
This is one iteratively, with meta-processes to select which models should be tested.
*done*
Formally, this can be done with Gaussian processes, for example, but is usually done with an admixture of statistical and human reasoning as to the most likely models.
An experiment is designed that will sort several competing models.
In this epistemology, all evidence which lowers the posterior of a model is contradictory evidence.
Contradictions are defined probabilistically, rather than in a binary fashion, which Donco was alluding to, but couldn't articulate.
Binary notions of truth are extremely obsolete.
If you don't currently believe Santa Claus exists, which Donco stated, then that would be on the basis of historical evidence that made that model less likely than models in which Santa Claus doesn't exist.
Donco and I have no disagreements on Santa Claus.
← kissa has left (Ping timeout)
+ innit  16:25:50
Our disagreement was solely in which epistemology we were leveraging. Since I am a philosopher, I have awareness of which decision points are in my meta-models and I can construct contextual claims about reality by switching out schools of competing epistemologies, for example.
→ dr1nker23 has joined
 ⓘ BibleBot gives voice to dr1nker23
← Hedrin has left (Client closed connection)
+ innit  16:26:32
Donco indicated they do not have that awareness at this level, and probably aren't too interested in philosophy, and it's not 'practical' or something.
→ dani__ has joined
+ doomed  16:27:11
Hi dani.
 ⓘ BibleBot gives voice to dani__
+ dani__  16:27:12
hello doomed
+ doomed  16:27:12
How are you?
+ dani__  16:27:25
not bad ty Donco
not bad ty doomed
+ innit  16:27:59
And so they are in in a particular school of philosophy that they can't name. They probably think that's the 'regular way' to be, while 'fancy' philosophers say a lot of big words without meaning.
Then, when they encounter a person who obviously has more insight than they on these topics, they just get a vague sense of confusion and irritation as they don't seem to 'get it'.
So, instead, he engaged CriticalPurple to re-experience feelings of superiority they get by batting about theists who are less smart than they are.
So, they're sort of fixe at their current level of understanding while philosophers keep buzzing about with their non-practical thoughts.
That was my take.