methode in here pretending he don't wanna get his dick wet

wait, there's auto mod on ablism?

wtf

<:REEE:644893026165981184>

90 seconds of straight dialogue is long

SJWs <:REEE:644893026165981184>

Beliefs are not views 😴

Why do you guys still hold to philosophical language of "attitudes, intentions and propositions" <:Feelsok:643818539454562304>

The sentence / proposition distinction <:pepeLMAO:644901342216847388>

wtf

That's a general inference

Identify of indiscernibles ?

This is just sense/reference

Who is being spoken of?
Female noise troll in Tom's server... I assume Godless but

You turds should learn about attention economy and why you guys enjoy having the dopamine drip memers that give you the outrage

Oh no...

Why are dumpsters so against verificationism? ... because you can't verify the verification principle? 😴

This meme needs to die

There are circles at foundations..

is he like working out. Is this Der Einzige

I have to work out while I talk

It's be an endless shitshow of justification

You're just asking reductio of "I believe I believe"

I believe I have beliefs 😴

I don't believe methode when he says he doesn't believe in laws but ok

Physicalist = phenom is physical so you haven't escaped

I'm gonna need a definition of philosophy that escapes tautology
The same tautology that science suffers from

Morons that don't read smdh

Typing is more permanent, and you can see edits

IE: Harder to equivocate

Or at the very least, you can see that equivocation is happening, much easier...
Not that I care about equivocation

Because language is literally that

Word for this
X for that

If you dispense of equivocation, you've dispensed of equivalences of object to symbol

You're reading it <:Smug:643129431434461194>

Rationality is investigating your internal world of memories / stored sense data

I don't know if you guys like IdeasInhat, he's kind of a douche but
https://ideasinhat.com/2019/01/01/the-difference-between-philosophy-and-science/

This meme is basically what I agree with, it's a labeling error to distinguish the two

Linguistics are all trivial

I'm not a metaphysical or ontological trivialist though

That's ... too far

Liars Paradox
Modal realism
Characterization principle
And Via PSR

The LEM is merely a principle so it's neither true nor false

Everytime you use a deduction, you're also using the principle or Law of excluded middle

You're using Bayesian logic

All lemons are yellow (with a truth value of .99, false value of 01) <----- both true and false

If the laws themselves are not true, then you ought not even believe the laws of logic

When you correct Actual Communist Boy on meaning of words, you're inferring there's a ruleset of meanings of words
^ see rule following paradox

And when you're on equivalent ground for discourse, his definition is just as equal or true as yours

So you only want common ground on a definition

Pragmatic maxim or pragmatic theory of truth is that which is useful is true

But it allows a lot of things

I can't attack someone's belief in god, if they feel it useful

I accept all the theories of truth though...
Deflationary, correspondence, blah blah

There's no need to call people being able to interpret tones of voice and body language as ESP

ESP could be just be "senses outside of normative percepts" or some shit

But that naturalizes it

Like savants with savant syndrome able to do huge calculations normal people cannot

Would fall into a "sense outside of normativity"

Fucking modal semantics

it's time to stop

A concept is contingently true... why would someone say this

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-modal/#ModAxiConFra well

@Deleted User Type-F physicalism

Is still physicalism

@Deleted User Hempel's Dilemma

I accept a tautological definition of physical and natural

But reject dualism, because it's not parsimonious

You need not say there's some alternate substance called "the mental"

So... you just eliminate it and use that as a placeholder normatively... (because people have concepts of mental)

A la: people have mental illness (these are physical illness)

Abstracts are contingent on ... the subject or concept holder... unless you're talking about the referent of the abstracts

Impossible = still impossible in possible worlds

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-44111476

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/memory-transferred-between-snails-challenging-standard-theory-of-how-the-brain-remembers/

P1. Nothing comes from nothing
P2. There is something
C. There has always been something

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Crunch

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bounce

It's merely aesthetic and the baggage Inspiring Philosophy talks about

They're alternate cosmological models

A - > B -> A

Singularity - > Universe as it is today - > singularity

The evidence points to expanding universe though, that's still not a problem though

1 sec someone's talking to me

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Rip

the current evidence is the universe is still examnding, however, there are models of Crunch

There's also minor contradiction in the current model in the existence of supermassive blackholes that ought not be there

@AusFox Consensus is Big Freeze

You have a .00000000000000000000000001 / 7 bil theory

So you get your Big Dick Cosmo theory in the memes

👍

Good on you man

@Deleted User I mean... Hume's stuff "The wise man comports himself to the evidence"

But with addendum. What they attribute stuff to X with a mistaken name/label

Or the misattribute

The Liar's Paradox is fine

Destiny probably already believes this

Trivialism is true <:PEPELAUGH:643817011117424708>

@AusFox https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/6714/93693da32d0b9c38aad857672021a950486a.pdf on scholastics, it's fun(ny)
And a great meme to defend since people literally want you to justify anything and everything

And then also justify why anything and everything are also false