You will never triumph in the open market of ideas

whats wrong with hegel

Absolute keks.

One, science PHDs have to be the lowest tier of garbage not worthy of such title. "Scientists" of that level literally have nothing of knowledge regarding the philosophical understanding of science, nor of anything beyond their little autist projects (many of which are false results plugged through just to not lose time and funding because of shit university expectations and muh rankings). Philosophical Doctorate is one thing that stupid fuck Tunderturd is definitely unworthy of since he clearly knows fuck all about 1) logic and 2) reality.

Were you lobotomised at birth or just born this way?

So people who practice natural sciences are completely useless?

Also, who actually knows what "real" science is then by the way?

Go back to leddit.
youtube.com/watch?v=dNYf894ZM8U

Just because you swim, lad, doesn't mean you understand what swimming as a physical or cognitive phenomenon is.

Science is pragmatic. Its truths are functional, relative, relational for us and our place in the world. Empirical science can never get at Truth because Truth is not derived empirically, it's generated conceptually, and that's not empirical science's realm, it's philosophy's.

People like you are what is killing society. Are you a burger by any chance?

We're hitting idealism levels that shouldn't even be possible.

Calling out people with degrees for being retards isn't anti-intellectualism. In fact, it's you who is the anti-intellectual.

Retard just showed himself. Hey, retard :)

So your view is that science which was born of philosophy has been rendered irrelevant due to it?

What caused you to come to this realisation?

and you read

How did you manage that one?

My background is physics, though I'm interesting in rounding that out with a bit of philosophy.

But then I see tripfags like A.W disappearing up their own ass holes, and wonder if its even worth it.

So why can't people be natural scientist then?

What do you suggest natural sciences be replaced with?

Sad.

Natural philosophers > natural scientists. They often deal with the exact same content and interpret far differently. The Natural philosophers at least are aware of their bias and understand it as dogmatic.

Empirical science need not do anything different, you fucks just need to stop kissing its ass.

...

Don't let the retard put you off philosophy, you just need to read stuff keeping in mind a good reading order. A.W. turned out the way he did due to the combination of stupidity and only going through a philosophy 101 class before reading Hegel, instead of reading the prior German idealists and some of the Greeks before reaching Hegel.

...

So this temper tantrum about natural scientist not being scientist was because of some inferiority complex?
Isn't that a bit childish?

Anyway, I know this will make A.W mad as shit (good), but anyone who swims IS a swimmer.

Anyone engaged in the systematic aquistion of knowledge, though the scientific method IS a scientist.
Yep. That includes highschool kids in science class.

Look at how rational I am

dude science lmao

Literally too stupid to understand what I said.

Also,

Good job, everything that is empirical inquiry is "science" now. When a concept is so broad, it isn't anything special.

It isn't special you crypto-priest elitist faggot

Where did the scientist touch you A.W. what did they do to make you become so scarred?

Read "special" as "meaningful", and read "meaningful" as "determinately intelligible".

You sound mentally ill chummer.

Here, have a fat doggo to boost your self esteem.

Why do you keep doing this? Why?!

Because i know you like his fat belly :^)

Stuck in the prison of idea's destroys the man, especially when you try to have a conversation with insects who dont abide to your subjectivity.

With every post I see by A.W. I hate Hegel a little more.

Van is amazing
youtube.com/watch?v=unFcDoozcHM

Billy Herrington is the revolutionary leader we need!
youtu.be/k4Ssaut4cs8

Yep, they made fun of him.

…I can't even defend you on this one. I get the feeling you're just saying more and more arrogant stuff at this point to see how long it takes for you to get banned.

Is this what Einstein meant when he said not to read too much?

AW, you need to calm down, you're embarrassing yourself, people might be stupid but Christ if you want to teach them you need to tone down your arrogance levels.

How can you embarrass yourself if you allready feel more superior than the people you are talking about. AW his subjectivism is supreme and everything that doesnt go align with his idea's is wrong. Every prisoner is right and innocent in his prison cell.

Spotted the jellyfag.

He's a scientist because he's published quite a bit of stuff and he works for a university. As for his stance on feminism, I tend to agree.

No need to. Don't know why you quoted half of those.

This is is basic phil of science stuff. They don't want to learn, this board has made it clear since it was made that it doesn't want to learn anything other than cooked up arguments and definitions to reinforce their feels as "rational".

There is only so much patience i have for idiocy. This topic is one I have no patience for because it's such a simple move to stand back and ponder science as such, and realize that it's not what we think.

This is why I have very little hope for humanity.

Which is the coolest science? Can it get me laid?

You need to study Hegel. Once you understand dialectics you will literally not be able to keep the bitches off your dick. :^)

...

Name one fucking assertion you have made in this thread beyond you being an enlightened euphoric genius and everyone else being idiots.

Name one thing you or anyone has said that proves anything I've said wrong.

Pls answer:

It's working well so far for A.W.! He just can't hold all these replies…

What I think is important about people like Thunderf00t, sargon, molyneux isn't their message but their method. You can hate their beliefs but their communication style is something to be respected and studied. They're effective because they entertaining and have wit. They aren't assblasted in their whining and explanations. They're having fun with their subjects. That's what makes them appealing. I wish we had equivalent personalities who could do the same because this board proves the potential is there, at least by contrast with the hive mind circle jerk that is pol. This board is vastly more tolerant and willing to engage ideas than pol if not in responses then at least in the reluctance to ban happy dissent. Which is ironic because part of their schtick is muh free speech. Just my opinion.

Thunderf00t is not in the same category as Moleneux. I disagree with a lot, (a whole lot) of the bullshit Thunderf00t gets involved in, and he sure as hell made his political allies a liability to himself (look at how fast he had to shut up about Trump, a person he previously repeatedly made fun of (not that Clinton is a lick better)); Sargon isn't really in the same category, either.

Thunderf00t has some fairly objective views, tainted by his persona. (as we all do)
Sargon is 100% an entertainer looking for an audience.

Moleneux is a cult leader, intentionally manipulative and controlling.

This is not the same category, and I would not under any circumstances 'admire' Moleneux's "method". His style of manipulation is destructive, and incredibly damaging. He will ruin lives, as he has.

Neither thunderf00t, nor sargon, engages in that same kind of wretchedness, even if you disagree with them. (which I do too, by the way)

Fuck off faggot

Can you go into more detail on Molyneux? He keeps coming up but I don't know very much about him, and I'm not really in the mood to sit and listen to a balding rude man verbally fellate porky for any period of time. How is he a cult leader?

One thing I know is he uses sockpuppets to astroturf his views and give himself praise.

What the fuck do you want me to prove? I don't even know what you're talking about.

Zoology. Nothing can get an autist laid though.

He advocates complete submission to his word, as law, and tells people to leave their families and friends if they disagree with his 'anarcho capitalist' thought experiement based principles. (he denies this, now, but this is how he built his fame and fortune)

He squeezes the last wealth possible out of the poorest, most easily manipulatable proles possible, and appears to them as their saviour - if only they cling to his every word.

Moleneux leads a cult, for money. A destructive one.

Is this why you like animals with big tummies, huh? I can see it, though…furry friends and all…
>tfw A.W. thinks you're an autist

You know what that's called? Demagoguery and charm. We have those kind of people, anyone who isn't into them considers them cancer.

You seemed to know full well in your previous post, you disingenuous snake.

Are you speaking from personal experience?

That would explain why one guy I used to speak to now and then one day suddenly started to record all his acquaintances' political views and then he told me to watch Molyneux videos when I told him I was a commie and declared me the enemy when I stood by the idea that taxation isn't equivalent to murder.

What a cunt this guy is!

I don't disagree, but I'd still like to insist that Thunderf00t and Sargon, regardless of my disagreements with them, are not placed in the same category (even amongst themselves for that matter), with Moleneux.

At a glance from a distance, by the words of others, you might have some kneejerk reaction in regards to them, but if you look closely, they're nothing alike.

You might disagree with Thunderf00t, you might think Sargon is a joke, but they are nowhere near something like 'freedomain radio' and its technically cultish behavior.

Do not put all your political enemies in the same basket, they rarely are.

I'd be pandering to you if I was.

I do, and what do you want? I've said that you people don't understand science, go read the fucking Stanford phil encyclopedia or even wikipedia for philosophy of science. I've said science PHDs don't deserve the title, and they don't since they have nothing philosophical or critical about them. I've called you idiots and retards, and you just keep proving me right.

Being a demagogue does not require any camp. It requires knowing one's target audience and pandering to them. Have you never met a religious apologist? One can make good arguments, use proper logic, use facts and data, even believe it, and still be a demagogue and fucking cancer. I don't like demagogues of any kind, "rational" or otherwise.

I wasn't trying to imply they're in the same category. I only lumped them together because they command large audiences by being effective communicators. I've watched most of Thunderf00t and about a dozen videos between sargon and molyneux. I'd agree with your opinion of Thunderf00t by comparison to them. I haven't seen enough molyneux to catch the cult aspect, but the ones I have seemed articulate and playful. That's all I meant really about disagreeing with the message but method.

That's just the way it is. Anybody with a large following is a demagogue. It's always a problem, even here with the quasi religious sacred infallibility some people apply to theorists

To post a followup: youtube.com/watch?v=-TPwjUmS7Vw

Sorry for no .webm

A.W. is the Hegel of our times.

I agree.

He's a lot meaner but at least he likes fuzzy aminals.

H-he does?? OwO

Only with a chromosome or two less.

Who doesn't like fuzzy animals?
If that's the qualifier to being the new thought dictator, I mean Hegel, then aren't we all Hegel?

That's not quite it though. Having a large following alone does not make you a demagogue. Being a demagogue is pandering to a demos, one that either agrees with you to back you up in numbers, or one you want to exploit.

Marx was not a demagogue (hardly anyone cared about him while he lived), Hegel was not (superstar philosopher famous for being unintelligible and weird), people like Cornell West (le honest x-tian black radical man) are not.

There is nothing to learn from AW, people should read material and come to their own conclusions, unless what you mean by teaching is indoctrination.

Guru-ism is absolute cancer and is detrimental to all of us, and has really shat this board up as of late. Everyone should take note of the article below on what we should and shouldn't do to avoid some of the BS that has been going on.

libcom.org/library/reading-theoretical-works-chris-wright

I do, and what do you want?
Prove this.
Not even an assertion, but a value judgment.
Why don't you look up the etymology of "PHD" faggot
All I see here is you sperging out unprovoked about muh PHDs, us laughing at you, and then you continuing to rave about muh spooky scientists

Guru-ism definitely is cancer. For every 1 responsible guru (or in the mundane language, 'charismatic leader'), there's 99 bad ones.

Hero worship and blindly following, is a disease.

Maybe that's a little too fuzzy..

With some additional qualifications, because if you became a real animal conservationist than you'd be no better than literally Hitler! JK
I think Hegel was more concerned with the consciousnesses of such organisms, the process that cyclically sustains and renews them, and about how they can be viewed as the immediate form of life in its externalities.

sauce for 2nd panel

HALE - FUCKING - LUJAH

You get it.

Disdain for rationalism

How are opiniontube idiots demagogues unless they are political leaders? The only ones that fit the bill are Milo and Stefan.

Is the Cheshire cat from the monster girl encyclopedia.

How are Milo and Stefan different? They pander for money.

Is it fan art? It looks different.

Yeah.
gelbooru.com/index.php?page=post&s=view&id=2437961

That would just make them a con artist, Milo is actual a political leader, driving from one university to the next in his Homo bus to preach awful populist politics.

You don't think that if the others weren't so autistic and unlikable to the common person they wouldn't do that as well?

I honestly hope you people only ironically like me.

What makes you think I even like you in the first place, hmmmn?

lol, an entire field of study for people who are wannabe scientists but too dumb to actually do it, but still want to feel superior, so they write books telling scientists things they effectively already know and use on a day-to-day basis.

Just kidding AW. I love you really.

...

Now post dogger with the big belly.

You're impersonating me tbh.

I'm just better at being you than you are. Now post big belly pup.

No.

Why're you being mean?

is this some cult-of-personality ploy by porky to get nerds to buy more trilbys or something

You shouldn't put words into peoples mouths.

you don't get to vaguely take shots at people on not expect them to do the same

and no sorry people who throw fits as soon as someone in any way questions muh ~science~ monolith are ALWAYS those types of people

Then maybe they should at least be constructive and not shitpost like a fox news conservative and then maybe people wouldn't call them a retard.

Yeah, basically. There's other shit there, but you've got the gist of it.
Yeah, that the world is as you see it, but other than that, nothing.
No, obviously not. I don't think he was raised religious, to be honest. Can you point to any religious behavior of his?
What things do you disagree with in science? Can you back up your disagreement with evidence? Yes? Then publish a paper. We need to know what is wrong. You have a duty to tell us so that society grows wiser.

Hey on your point about him being religious, I'd say the hard atheism position he takes is religious. It's not based on proven fact. Agnostic rejection of faiths is reasonable but just frank assertion that there isn't anything is silly. I totally get the angle and understand why people say it. The word "god" is inseparable in most people's minds from dogmatic faiths.

What I'm trying to say is our consciousness is a product of our brains, which is an arrangement of matter, and that matter is indivisible from universe. So if we're conscious then by default the universe itself is conscious because we don't exist apart from it. A conscious universe is sort of… godly, you know?

I don't recall him saying that there definitely is no god. I do recall him saying that it's silly to believe in god, which it is.

No, one does not imply the other. We're alive. That's all we know. No need for gods.

But how doesn't it? I could have worded it better. I'm not implying the universe is a tree because trees exist in the universe. All I'm saying is.. atheism just doesn't seem logical. To my mind. It doesn't seem scientific either. Religion is pure fucking cancer though so I sympathize. I don't know man. I guess I've listened to too many alan watts lectures and I'm just meming

How does it? I don't follow your logic. Yes, we are a way for the universe to study itself, and? This does not imply god or anything supernatural. This is the natural, by definition.
Do you believe in god, then? I don't. I find the evidence for a god lacking. Now, there could be a god in some universe, but not so far as we're aware. This would make me an agnostic atheist.

Atheism is just lack of belief, bro, not a belief that there is no god. This is what I think is a source of misunderstanding.

Dogmatism is the essential structural form of faith, the root of all religious thought. The modern faith in science is just that, a >faith< without any fundamental grounding.

Any assertion made without an ultimate intelligible content is merely dogmatic, taken on faith, and therefore religious. Scientism is no less a religion than traditional religion, it merely has a different structure. Materialism, idealism, monism, pluralism, etc. are all dogmatic assertions that do not offer an ultimate explanation of themselves, they are taken at face value because people feel they are "obvious" when in truth they actually aren't.

Define "ultimate intelligible content"

Read this very slowly, lad.

reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/2za4ez/vacuous_truths_and_shoe_atheism/cs2qkka

And before you respond, this fucking guy is a professor who got fed up with this silly claim.

>Dogmatism is the essential structural form of faith, the root of all religious thought. The modern faith in science is just that, a >faith< without any fundamental grounding.
Except there is no dogma in science. That is the whole point. This just shows you don't understand science.

This is not how science works.

What is scientism? Define it, please.

You keep saying things without saying anything. Science is about building models of utility. Science does this, which is why you're typing on a computer now.

A self explanatory explanation. Explanatory in that it rationally explains itself, not because "it's obvious" or because you can't think of anything else that may explain it, but because it is rationally exhaustive and explains itself.

I'm not going to read all that. What do you call a lack of belief in god, then, if not atheism?

This is a stupid post. I don't care who wrote it.

Two Dogmas of Empiricism by Quine.

Read Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Khun (it's wrong, yet it's basically right enough).

The belief in empirical science as ultimate explanation.

Which are mental, theoretical, and when most successful, such as physics, almost nearly unempirical (relativity, standard model).

I already stated this in this thread, but I'll repeat, I'm not challenging science's functional truth. I'm challenging the belief that science actually knows the objects of truth or their real relations. It only knows apparent relations, and nothing more.

It's nothing. In a world without theism no one is fucking walking around claiming a lack of belief in gods just as cavemen did not walk around claiming lacks of belief in airplanes. It's a stupid idea. Atheism is the foil of theism and means nothing outside of it.

But A.W. I thought that one should not be dazzled by mere titles.

You mean that shit that got thoroughly debunked?

Science != positivism
Science does not seek to explain metaphysical concepts these are outside of its scope. Congratulations, you fail at understanding what science is. You also type like a fucking redditard.

I'm not going to read a whole book before I reply to your post. Either make an argument or kill yourself, you pedant.

Again, you fail at understanding the viewpoint of scientists and think that because someone values science, they must believe it to explain everything. You do not understand what science is and so are attacking a belief that nobody holds.

You're a complete dumbass. Theoretical physics seeks to form hypotheses using mathematics, however, you still have to make falsifiable claims. Relativity makes accurate, observable predictions. It just so happens that we have some observations that it does not fit. For this, we must formulate new hypotheses and test them against what we know. Congratulations, you still don't know shit about science.

Science doesn't into truth. That's for philosophers to masturbate over.

Which nobody holds, especially scientists. Science does not tell you how to be happy, how to love, or how to live your life. It just describes the world around you. You have failed to understand science and you're attacking ideas that nobody holds.

This is how we know you're a liberal arts major. You could have just fucking asked a science professor about this and he would have told you that nobody believes that shit. It took you this fucking long to realize that science is not about finding higher truths.

Can you give an example of this?

Dude, that last point you made.. I totally agree with. I don't understand why it's such an elusive concept.

It's something I've known without needing it explained.

Observations within Arbitrary frame of reference with arbitrary metrics does not magically transcend the subjective nature of a singularity and become an objective universal truth.

Or did I completely misread you?

Okay so you know nearly nothing about physics. Why am I not surprised.

Oh my fucking god. Look, I know philosophers are almost uniformly too fucking stupid for physics, but at least make an attempt to learn about these theories from a real (read: non-popsci) book.

Relativity came about from the empirical observation that light appears to travel at the same speed in all inertial reference frames, taken and face value, combined with the observation that Maxwell's equations and Newton's laws don't obey the same symmetry - Newton's laws obey Galilean symmetry and Maxwell's equations obey Lorentz symmetry.

I don't even know how you can begin to argue that the standard model is non-empirical. Are you totally unaware of electroweak precision tests?

It's atheism. That is what we call it in the human world. Kind of like calling you a fucking faggot isn't calling you a bundle of sticks.

Because there wasn't widespread belief in airplanes, you stupid idiot. People make up words to describe shit around them. Science this phenomenon did not exist, no word was invented for it.

No, it means what people use it as. This is how language works. We could even come up with another word for the lack of belief in god, but this is the word people have chosen. Stop trying to tell people that they're thinking wrong.

I wanna give you an award myself, hold on I'll go make one

not him but i know a lot of people who believe that

none of them are actual scientists but you know

Also, tripfag is claiming that these are beliefs TF holds. Does he? If so, I haven't seen evidence of it. Tripfag is just a faggot, as usual.

Well his original assertion was that every PhD in science holds this view.

well tf's obviously defensive about it. he definitely holds science as a Greater Truth

Whatever makes you feel good about your faith.

I can see you have no idea what you're talking about by the terms you use and the examples you give. Go jerk off about your ignorance elsewhere.

When in Rome, speak as the Romans do.

To be fair it is mainly, A.W. (the retarded redditor) who was claiming that TF was holding those beliefs.

...

youtube.com/watch?v=2k0SmqbBIpQ

For such a high and mighty """""'"""philosopher"""""""""" you sure are horrible at debate.

A. W. is not a philosopher. This is just insulting to real philosophers and extremely flattering to A. W.

Okay, tell me how quantum field theory and general relativity are actually unempirical.

Holy shit.

I've always found him to think that science is what has brought about modernity, and he's right. That's a reason to hold admiration of science, I think.

Yeah, tripfags are stupid as usual, even brought his retarded redditard habits with him.

You got BTFO because you're a scientifically illiterate pedant. Kill yourself, faggot, or better yet, go read a book and learn actual fucking science, then realize that the only one making unwarranted assumptions is you.

kind of? i'm kind of just sick of the the word science as a coverall. just seems like a way for people to sound smart without actually knowing what they're talking about

Some philosophers promote philosophy to get more people interested into it but that does not necessarily mean that they hold philosophy as a greater truth.

Still waiting.

what? have you watched his videos before he went full goobergate shill? all he does is defend science from christians and shit

i mean i always had more respect for him than other Internet Atheists cause at least he'd argue with actual science but still

True, but those people can be quickly put to bed when confronted with actual arguments. There are many things we can learn using the scientific method. We should not discount science just because some idiots use it as a shield for their stupid arguments. Let's leave the natural world to science, and leave the other questions to philosophers.

Why do you have a problem with gamergate?

He has made some pretty good videos in shitting on people that do this.
youtube.com/watch?v=RNFesa01llk

He always took the shit out of bogus things people say(dumb American Republican Christians tends to say a lot of bullshit), even other goobergaters and scientism tier bullshit.

youtube.com/watch?v=H901KdXgHs4

cus Holla Forums got bored and started making fun of zoe quinn en masse and then backpedaled once people realized she didn't actually fuck five guys or whatever and have been trying to pretend it's about other shit for like two years now.

This tbh. When GG happened I had to delete every social media account I had.

gaming journalism was shit way before zoe quinn didn't fuck five guys. it's overblown Holla Forumsshit using idiots to pretend to be neutral

Being a bit retard on one subject does not de-legitimise other stuff he is actually knowledgeable about.

Pretty sure she really did fuck those five guys.

The problem with gamergate is that it was co-opted by Holla Forums, but it had good goals and had some good results. I don't think TF ever went Holla Forums territory, though.

You should have done that for your own sake anyway. Social media is cancer and not good for your freedom or privacy.

not sure why there's so many gg defenders on here considering it's just as neoliberalist as agg and relies on lolbert values about the market

I think the reason is that many came here because of gg. I know I did. I think it was a good think, ultimately. SJW control over games and media doesn't please me. The more they can be ridiculed, the faster the true left will rise. It's time to dethrone the imposters.

le happy nazi.jpg

meant for

Lets not derail the thread any longer.

I don't think there's anything specifically right-wing about gg as originally intended. Ousting SJWs from our ranks is in our own interest. They make the left a joke.

lmao yeah pol/v's pretty left wing dude. why are we pretending it was co-opted there and not formed there?

you're not ousting essjay's, you're helping righties try to gain more control over the market. i'm not even saying you should be agg, i'm just saying fuck gamergate in general. real leftists should have nothing to do with that neoliberal bullshit

i dont know why i keep fucking up quotes

agg is bringing the average idiot to pol/breitbart/trp, not leftypol.

He said nothing about supporting the right

Because it wasn't formed by Holla Forums contrary to what they would like you to believe.

Against what? Why would I want SJWs to control the games market? It's a market. Let's do away with it altogether. I do not want SJWs trying to fight for social justice in games. I like games, no matter how bigoted they may be perceived.

Well, yeah, because it's basically over and taken over by Holla Forums.

It's an internet fight. I don't think we lose anything by exposing corruption and calling out bullshit like that. We should not support this in communism either.

Wat

Because I was there from the beginning? Are you one of those newfags who doesn't know 4chan used to be liberal?

..you shouldn't. why do you want nazis/lolberts controlling it?
who the fuck cares? i dont really understand why more brown people or whatever in games is such a travesty to these supposed neutrals. giving video game characters such importance is only helping porky
i don't care.
it is Holla Forums. even if it Used to be something else (lol) why are you still actively defending it now? you're actively defending pol.
it's a thoroughly right movement. stop pretending. stop being pol's bitch and perpetuating rightist market values.

LMAO right

i mean it's gotten a lot worse since but come on now

Did anyone ever actually prove that particular Quinnspiracy? To my knowledge it's bologna.

I was thinking about it before, for all the reasons you gave, but that was the straw that broke the camel's back, the threshold of my tolerance for shitty people. Anyway I think it's impudent when you can decry social media for barring particular freedoms, while at the same time commemorating the fact that the so-called "anti"-SJWs from Holla Forums won in bickering about what flavour of soma to be sold. Ultimately this is why I think GG failed, because it just allowed the "opposite" ends to the distortion of your causes and placed more subversive versions of the same shit into power (which is also why it never could fullly become against nor loot the market, when the people who started questioning the flow of $ got ostracised as commies or whatever the pejorative was at the hour). Unfortunately too the idealized freedom in games, especially in what was highlighted in GG, is illusory, and those who were even aware of it were quite keen on returning to it out of indolence and vanity. Allow me to just give an example of the actual thing, games: Fallout 4, where the dialogue wheel purports to have four re-ordained options but in actuality just conceals the banality of a response, or it's utter replication, verbatim, of the other options. There's even less freedom now in the game market than prior to that epoch, and I'm not just referring to the example I gave, but I mean when there are real limits that shape the horizons of our creativity, when we can only satisfy refabricated desires.

t h i s

Everything outside of Holla Forums was.

That not so subtle false dichotomy

They don't control it. As it is, it's quite a liberal place. This is neutral, rather than one way or another.
The problem is compromise of a good story for the sake of tokenism.
I'm saying it was a good thing. It's over by now. Holla Forums killed it.
How am I perpetuating rightist market values?

She fucking said she fucked five guys. The evidence is overwhelming even if she hadn't. Go look it up.

That being said, I don't care if Quinn is a cheating slut. I'm just glad you shut down your soc media accounts. That shit is cancer.

>you will never be such a failure at life that you feel the need to tripfag on an anonymous alt-right image board to show people how smart you are

wow that's totally the point. it's not that it was apparently to shill her free internet game or anything (it wasn't.) thanks for continuing to prove to me how neutral and not Holla Forums gg is when its roots are making fun of some girl for having Too Much Sex and then pretending that's not why

It does not matter if corruption has always been there.
People eventually get fed up with by being treated like shit and if you take a good look at history, there has always been events that sprung them to action(Wars, activism, and revolutions etc).

That was used as a way to make fun of her, but the fact is that one of the guys she fucked posted about her game. This is not consistent with journalistic ethics.

We know that games journos are corrupt, but this just made it bare. At least now they don't write articles about games whose creators they have relationships with or they disclose those relationships.

and those events led to Wars, activism, and revolutions etc*

Did she really? I was asking just because, again iirc, from August to September in 2014 the number kept increasing, like Mr. Gjoni couldn't keep his story straight or started embellishing it for the crowd (C’mon Eron, how many was it, five guys or ninety people?). He's even admitted that some of the alleged "infidelities" occurred when they were broken up. So you can see why I'm sceptical…
Anyway, even had she fucked five guys, she is allowed to try to trade sex for positive press all she wants; it's up to the reviewers to have the integrity to say no.

Honestly, though, I don't care all that much.

on a list in an article made before they interacted at all

Also people were fed up with games journalism before the zoe event, kotaku and the rest did not care when the dorito pope thing was happening because you can't use a man as a shield in the way they did with zoe.

Kek

Tf happened

It was more than that, and her game would have never been mentioned otherwise. It's also not true that he didn't know her before the article.
forum.encyclopediadramatica.se/attachments/1408556729064-png.46673/

QT is actually the most empirical of the physical theories fyi. That's why it's so full of nonsense. That's why there is such a big drive to try to nail down an equivalent account through theoretical derivations from presupposed mathematical relations of posited forces.

What an argument.

And you're doing it right now.

But it does deligitimate others who believe him without knowing what he's talking about. The problem of "scientism" is that 1) people don't understand what science actually functions as 2) you kiss the ass of people you admire because, hey, they make shit work so they MUST know what they're talking about and can't possibly be confused.

There is one thing called respecting someone's authority on the details of what they do, and a different thing to just accept their understanding without question. Example: Bohmian mechanics.

I'll never argue the fucking FUNCTIONAL truth of science. What I will and do argue is against what it thinks it is observing. Know why? Because that shit is philosophical speculation that is completely open to critique.

No argument is required when you yourself haven't put one forth.

...

T. le ignorant mang who never read Schrodinger's views on the meaning of the wave function. Now there was a man who understood science.

Aw, can you respond to my post, please? I'm just dying to know if an illiterate idiot like me had a moment of intuitive clarity or if I'm still a hopeless idiot.
Thanks.

You got it.

If you want the ULTIMATE btfo of all dogmatism: Winfield's 1st lecture on the Science of Logic.

archive.org/details/LectureCourseInHegelsScienceOfLogic-RichardDienWinfield

Or, if that's too positive, Sextus Empiricus' "Dilemma of the Criterion".

You could just message me on twit-er y'know? I don't check these threads that often.

;_;

You keep referencing scientists but not making arguments. Nice damage control. Make an argument using your own words.

Somehow had missed

That's why it asserts them constantly, yeah. Mhhm.

Uh huh.

A priori. Are you aware that even Hegel makes such "models" (he calls them concepts)? That's not what is special about empirical science. Just where do these hypotheses come from? What framework do you get them from? From basic. Dogmatic. Understanding.

That's why they rail about how much of it they have while getting butthurt when called out. "Science" does not exist. Scientists, however, do, and oh they get assblasted, point in case, you.

Which is, if you read what I wrote, exactly my point against it. It does NOT know WHAT it's talking about, only that there are relations. Relations, and not what is actually really the object related, is all science knows. Functions with empty posited objects unintelligible to it.

Dear lord, child. Read some fucking Kant to wash the stupid out of your head. I haven't been talking about "higher" truths, I'm talking about just what you call "facts", things which don't really "exist". The truth of science is the observed relation, nothing more.

Thank you for responding. I'm the OP btw. Not that it's really relevant. I don't mean to go full autism here and be annoying but do you have an opinion on alan watts? He was the first philosopher I heard that spoke to this idea I had. The only one, actually. Because I'm an illiterate idiot like I said. Besides being that I was able to have a prior revelation on the subject years ago in my truck, staring at a tree and realizing what an arbitrary concept it was. Leafs, trees, roots etc. None of those distinctions exist beyond the symbolic. Anyways, cool beans. Thanks man.

haha what

Are you talking about nailing down an equivalent formulation of quantum mechanics, an equivalent formulation of quantum field theory, or what? Both have been well-established for decades except in certain limits (e.g. quantum gravity).

If you're talking about interpretations of quantum mechanics, none of the different "interpretations" provide any novel experimental predictions at this time, so you're free to choose whichever one makes you feel better. The vast majority of physicists do not give a shit about interpretations of quantum mechanics because the matter is considered resolved, it is just that some people are incredibly butthurt about certain features of quantum mechanics not being like classical mechanics and invent things like nonlocal hidden variable theories.

I'm still waiting to hear about how relativity isn't empirical.

AW happened

So why are you so butthurt by Bohmian mechanics, huh? Shows up your dogmatism too much? Why is it still an unintelligible theory, hmm? Oh, that's right, you don't think and just accept. "It jest werks" means "makes sense" to you.

Watts is good, I had a period of about a year where I listened to just about everything he's ever said. Left his kind of thought because in the end it didn't go anywhere, but fun while it lasted.

Because it is excellent to work spin into Bohmian mechanics, and even more excellent to extend to QFT, in which spin is fundamental. The standard formulation of QFT is far from a mess.

I'll definitely read up on on my day off tommorow with the sobriety to appreciate it fully. Could you share your twitter? I feel like an idiot for this.

I totally missed the point. It's a shame most people here are completely misunderstanding your argument. It's a bit ironic, as it's point is completely impersonal and their rage confirms the comparisons you've made to religion.

I realized years later it's the same point they tried to make, maybe intentionally, with the total retarded mindfuck plot of the matrix trilogy.

@AW_Hegel

Please tell me where science asserts these concepts. Not even going to read the rest of your retarded ass post before you answer this.

Tell me what energy is, what electric charge is, what a particle-wave is, what a force is, why there are a (un)certain set of "natural" laws. And while you're at it, tell me what space and time are ;)

Now you can freely tell me each in-itself, or you can provide a progressive developmental derivation of each one from another. What I'm not going to accept is you dropping givens, things that we just observe as is, no appeals to experience and observation, no appeals to axioms, no appeals to postulates. Physical science asserts these as ontological realities, it must back them up and show they are intelligible.

Scratch an idealist, find a theist.

If you actually read the entire sentence you'd realize the point of what he said was asking you to produce an argument yourself.

Who am I kidding though, why have an actual debate when you can just sit back and smugly tell people to read books the entire time?

We do not know. We only know it as a property of matter we can calculate.
Same. All we know is that it is a property of matter.
Same answer. We only know that there is this duality, but we do not yet know everything. And so on for the rest of your questions.

But can you tell me any of these things, or could you have told me about any of them without science? The answer is no, you could not have.

Why not? Things that we observe and how they interact is what science is, so you're basically telling me that you won't accept science because you won't accept science.

This is also part of science. You are telling me to tell you the scientific explanation of something without using science.

No, science puts these forward as the best explanation for our observations based on experimentation and past observations. Just like Newtonian mechanics does not reflect the full interactions of matter, so too does one science not reflect the completeness of reality. This is silly and no scientist would claim this.

What do you mean by "intelligible"? The process of science has at the very least shown that it can produce models of utility. That's why we prize science so. Whether something is "truth" does not factor into it. We care about utility and predictive ability. This is what science is about, and it has brought forth more fruit than any of your pedantic remarks.

Let's say we have two massive particles, and the observed relation between them is Newton's gravitaional law. What does it mean to know the particles as "the object of truth?", or to know the "real relation"? Presumably, the real relation must be something inaccessible to scientific methods in principle for the distinction between scientific observed relations and real ones to be a meaningful one.

Here's my attempt to explain AW reasoning.

How old is the universe?
Now how old is it without an earth orbiting the sun to measure it's passage?

The "fact" that the universe is 13 billion years old isn't a fact. It's completely subjective, arbitrary and objectively meaningless beyond our point of reference.

What is the speed of light? What is the speed in relation to the ENTIRE universe without a frame of reference? NOTHING.
That's why at least despite being subjective physics is practical because it can't easily be given a moral interpretation. The distance between the earth and moon can be given a subjective value that can't easily be used as a basis to judge moral truth. That's the best I got. Science is based on metrics which are completely subjective values. That's why science dogmatism is essentially the same as religion. Both hinge on human consciousness being unnatural and seperate from the singularity (universe) they exist in.

Leafs contain chlorophyll is not an objective fact. Leafs and chlorophyll are subjective distinctions that do not exist beyond their symbolic value in our minds.

Tldr, you are not an objective observer. Your observations can only exist by their relationship to the same substance

"Beyond our point of reference" does not exist.

Why is that relevant to any discussion whatsoever?

Wrong. Arguing that only because we measure its age by multiples of 365 Earth-days makes that age subjective is moronic and meaningless

Pic related

Your whole post is intellectual masturbation. It keeps running in circles without ever stating anything of value. It can be summed as "since we can't separate ourselves from our reality, we can't observe it objectively", which is wrong. If you had an ounce of knowledge about the scientific method, its institutions and tools, maybe you wouldn't be such an idiot, but I doubt it.

We don't know exactly.
It's the same age as before. The scale we use for time is made-up and defined in relation to whatever we would like it to be. This scale does not change even if the sun and earth had never existed. We use it to form models. That is what matters.

It would ultimately make no difference if it were a "fact" or not. Science produces models of utility useful in prediction.

299792458 m/s

This is a meaningless question.

Of course not, science does not deal with questions of morality. Only an idiot would think that.

But they are consistent. This consistency is what gives science predictive utility. No other system we have come up with has that.

Except this is not what we know from scientific research. We have no evidence that your mind is not a physical thing. In fact, this is why the field of neuroscience exists. If we did not think the mind was part of the body, we would not do this. You are attacking a position that does not exist.

We assume that it is because we can observe it. This is the principal assumption of science, that the world is as we observe it.

No, chlorophyll is a readily identifiable thing that you can observe and interact with separate from the rest of the leaf. Just like you have hands and digits, so too do plants have substructures. We have given them name, but they can be observed either way.

Objectivity in science refers to the methodology of observation. Nobody said we see the world as it is exactly, but we form explanations based on what can be readily observed. It seems to be successful, as evidenced by all that science has built and brought us. Science is about utility. If you dispute this, then why do we have such good luck predicting the world around us using this method?

sometimes I get the feeling that idealism requires a rejection of naturalism, or at least solipsism.

And autism.

I don't know, but I get the feeling that the retards that insist science can't know anything have never actually put forth anything that increases the knowledge of mankind, as opposed to science which has brought on modernity. One has to be delusional.

...

but science itself is literally a philosophy

How?

And that's why the quasi-religious inability of science as an objective truth is bullshit. I should have added that none of this disqualifies science as a means of persuasion. It's the interpretation of the subjective measures being giving infallible status that's bullshit and dogmatic. My point of reference would imply extreme eugenic control of reproduction to be beneficial. My interpretation of what is beneficial by subjective metrics isn't objective truth. I can try to argue it's merits but they have no more objective value than holding a quran and proclaiming it's universal value.

Welp, I don't know how else to explain this. Your interpretation of subjective values as immutable truth is dogmatic. If you can't grasp this, it's fine and is actually a bit of the point, you're belief couldn't exist without disbelief. Faggots.

how is it not

Not saying it isn't. Never saw it being considered one before, though

None of this has anything to do with science. You keep writing words and masturbating to yourself, but you're not saying anything. You say nothing of value and provide no greater knowledge, something science does.

As for objectivity, as long as we maintain consistency, measurements are objective. A meter is a meter, as we define it. All measured against it are measured objectively. This is what scientific objectivity means. The fact that you cannot, or will not, grasp this just shows how fucking retarded you are.

Science is about producing models of utility with predictive ability. Nobody said science is "truth" or that it has anything to say on morality, existentialism, or god. We do say that it can tell us how our world works and how to make predictions based on these observations. This seems to work, so any argument you have against this method has to contend with the fact that we consistently produce models which seem to reflect the natural world. You're basically delusional.

That is his point to begin with, objective according to whom? You are making a regressive argument: it is objective because it just is, so shut up.

The notion that science is objectively true because it has to be is a logical fallacy, an appeal to adverse consequences.

And that's the first step of fucking it up. You can't just assume you have what appears before you. That it >appears< to be anything for you is precisely what science is getting beyond, not to what appears but what is, yet it cannot do this because it has no tools capable of this.

But it's right. If you can't give an account of itself without circling back to YOUR human intuitions and concepts, you indeed have no objective knowledge.

You've got good reasoning.

But I'm not arguing "science" doesn't know anything. It knows a lot of fucking >functional< relations, which is what precisely gives it its >functional< power. To know functional relations isn't, however, to know the objects of relation themselves.

Keep being in denial, boi.

I'm out of this shitshow.

← You, user, are mein camarade. Have this as recognition.

according to our models

our models predicted a bunch of things many decades before we actually observed them, leading is to believe said models are objective in its portrait of reality, i.e., the results are independent from the observer

Does not exist outside of your very meager central nervous system

According to the system we designed called science. Science is a methodology. It does not need to be "truth" as long as the method is consistent. Science is not preoccupied with "truth", only about the real-world predictive ability of the models and observations the it produces.

It's objective within the framework of the scientific method. We have defined something, and if we apply that something universally, then it is objective for all intents and purposes. We do not need it to be universal truth for it to be useful.

You keep bringing up "truth" and objectivity as if that somehow discounted scientific observation, all evidence to the contrary, though of course, you would argue that this isn't evidence against your argument because we can't observe the evidence "objectively".

Again, the scientific method is a framework in which we work, while seeking to produce models of utility. This seems to work so well, that in the last 200 years, we've gone from scarcity to plenty, from horses, to spaceships, and so on. Why, then, should we be preoccupied with whether something is absolute truth or not? Science has never purported to bring you objective, universal truth, but instead that it gives you theories that best explain the observations we can make.

Now, you say that we can't possibly make observations that are objective, and yet, these observations and methods have brought us real-world results. Unless you're willing to argue that we cannot truly observe the results of the scientific method, then you must admit you are wrong and that science can teach us something about the natural universe.

>But I'm not arguing "science" doesn't know anything. It knows a lot of fucking >functional< relations, which is what precisely gives it its >functional< power. To know functional relations isn't, however, to know the objects of relation themselves.
Then you don't understand science, because science is about utility. So yes, science doesn't know about your higher truths. It does, however, help us understand the real world.

But I'm not arguing "science" doesn't know anything. It knows a lot of fucking >functional< relations, which is what precisely gives it its >functional< power. To know functional relations isn't, however, to know the objects of relation themselves.
What does it mean to know the object of relation itself, here? If we experience the natural world only through observation, and you say that science cannot in principle tell us about objects themselves, then in principle "truths about the objects themselves" have no observable consequences and are unrelated to the natural world. How can one show such a proposition to be right or wrong?

You should keep your trip on AW

Fucking sad.

So I wasn't the only one to notice

So why are you so assblasted if you acknowledge that it has nothing on truth? "It jest werks" is good enough, there is no shame in admitting that you don't give a fuck so long as it fucking works.

THE TRUTH OF SCIENCE IS ITS PRACTICE=

We KNOW the theories of science are "true" by virtue of the power they give us over the material world. That which is purely theoretical necessity, yet is unseen and untouchable, is not yet part of this truth and is merely idealist babble.

But we don't. We never have. How do you think concepts come around? Did anyone observe gravity? No, they inferred it by reason. Why did they infer this at all? How the hell could you "observe" concepts when they are mental entities? Are you a Berkelyan idealist?

Because the whole time you've been attacking science as something that "hurr don't know nuffin bout x" when I've been trying to fucking explain to you that it has nothing to do with science, you stupid fucking idiot.

Add to the fact that you attacked TF for reportedly believing the shit you were attacking, in spite of no evidence for this.

You were basically bitching about science not being able to teach you x concept, when x concept is outside the scope of science, and yet you were attacking scientists and those that value science as being religious.

Nobody fucking ever said otherwise, you stupid fucking idiot. You fucking philosophy fags like to smell your own farts and state obvious fucking things. Nobody has ever claimed that science does anything other than provide models of utility with predictive ability. That is all science is, and yet it has infinitely more value than anything you've ever said or will ever say.

It doesn't matter. This is not what science is about. Kill yourself.

Sums up your posts nicely.

When have you experienced the natural world except through observation?

The fact that he thinks that no one would notice he has responded to himself without his trip on a few times in this thread already is hilarious.

What do you think thought is? What is cognition?

Are you aware that your perceptions are being filtered through cognitive biological functions which piece together the world for you? You're not seeing a "world as it is", you never have.

Then how do you experience the natural world?

Gravity is the name we gave to an interaction, you stupid idiot. This is like asking if anyone has ever observed speed. No, we fucking gave something a name. How fucking dumb are you?

Because it provided a model of utility with predictive abilities.

Gravity is the name of an interaction between matter. You can observe and study it by looking at matter interact. We do not yet fully understand matter and gravity, but for all intents and purposes it exists. If you don't believe me, jump off a bridge.

...

Are you aware that your perceptions are being filtered through cognitive biological functions which piece together the world for you?
Pure scientism!

You're not answering the question. How, other than observation, do you experience the natural world?

Your biological functions are part of the natural world. This is like saying that because you watch an object through a telescope, that you have never seen it.

You're grasping at straws at this point and focusing on banal details that don't actually matter. Should I punch you, then? After all, you are not really experiencing pain, but the feedback of your body reacting to something else.

You are a mental masturbating pedant that wants to make a big deal about things that don't really fucking matter. Your questions are irrelevant and have no effect on reality. Science does have such an effect, which is why you wish to drag it down to your level.

Maybe it would have been better to use "measurement" instead of observation. What is "the world as it is"?

Men never see the world as it is; they reason in and through the phallus. For men of the greatest abilities have seldom had sufficient strength to rise above the surrounding atmosphere; and, if the page of genius has always been blurred by the prejudices of the age, some allowance should be made for a sex, who like kings, always see things through a false medium. In this world the king is the lord of all the people. Thus, because of his authority, the people avoid actions that are improper and engage in actions that are proper in order to safeguard their lives and property. Because of the fact that the king experiences only pleasure, it is said that he has no teacher, no master, and that is what is meant by the expression "has no lord." That lack of a master is the basis for his falling into bad rebirth. Yet thus to give a sex to mind was not very consistent with the principles of a man who argued so warmly, and so well, for the immortality of the soul, but what a weak barrier is truth when it stands in the way of an hypothesis!

No matter how hard you try, you will never shitpost as hard as AW. You can't make yourself that retarded. Nice zootopia pic, tho.

Are you saying I'm not retarded? I find that very offensive actually…

Was that an actual post by someone here?

Yes,
RIP

yes and I thought hoped it was Yui

I'm sure the feeling is unrequited.

bumping an amusing thread.

It's amazing how much of fucking nothing AW manages to be arrogant over.

No seriously. Nothing in that line of reasoning contained any value whatsoever.

No fucking shit.

I don't see how this backs up AW original claim that scientists aren't real scientists, or at the very least know nothing about science, even if all of this is true.

Its funny because that is AW

Because he realized he fucked up with trying to make indefensible claims so he went back, moved the goalposts and tried to attack the concept of empiricist evidence by denying it the axioms its built on to then prove a somewhat different point.

what you said is pretty retarded. you should read a book

I'm going to take one more stab at it, mostly because I just like you guys, and if being your foil makes you giddy I'll do it, masochist that I am.

Your interpretation of subjective metrics is not an objective statement of reality.

The key word is interpretation. You are not an impartial observer. Your metrics have no objective value.

I can declare a tree to be god, point at it and say there's your proof. It would not be invalid, because my subjective interpretation of a tree are based on meaningless distinctions.

This is why something so impersonal and self evident as this totally assblasts you. It's simplicity insults your ego and the beliefs it clings to. All right, lemme have it now. Stomp my balls.

Ever the pedant, you forgot your trip. Nothing you say has any value whatsoever.

Fuck off back to leddit A.W. , none of your posts are worth reading.

Im not AW. I never tripfag. Neither of us own or created this idea. It's fucking ancient and simple and was arrived at without a gigantic fucking telescope to arrive at realization that the universe is one big fucking singularity can only be observed subjectively, and any distinctions made aren't real. Stay mad :^)

See:

Everything you say is worthless. Science brings the goods and your pedantic ramblings do absolutely nothing for the world. Kill yourself.

The only one who is butthurt with a damaged ego is you AW. Seriously, the fact that you were replying to yourself in this thread was down right pathetic.

...

Daily reminder that there is an objective universe, which exists whether it is observed or not, and will continue to exist long after you kill yourself.

If you're going to be all existential about it, you need to separate those thoughts and observations from practical matters. In any test environment you're always told to not trust your own senses, no one disputes the subjective observational shitfest we live in. You can't build a model, off of it, for practical matters though.

To use another post as an example:

Yes, a tree can be declared a God. When I walk away from that tree, though, this attribute will not stay with it to a second, a third or a fourth disconnected observer, what we all mutually observe however is the physical realm it resides in, and its manifestation.
There are commonalities, even if we're all flawed in our observations of them. I could create a cult, and out of our shared belief in a common 'God Tree', the tree would infact - be a god to us, and affect our actions. That enters into a different realm, and again requires constant affirmation and continuation of practice.

The physical, does not. We could make a model, within our cult, and predict our own behavior and actions within our society on this Tree God, but it would not be universal or even applicable to anyone outside our cult.
One model would, though, regardless of our cults existence or not. That of a tree, being a tree, and acting - like a tree would, as we have witnessed, observed and tested and seen grown throughout thousands of years.

You are applying observations of an entirely different category to the basic reality as we have been able to map out so far - amongst ourselves, in writings and in studies of the natural sciences.

You're right, in so far as dogmas can exist and cultish almost religious like forms of thought can reside in fields of science, but this is a failure of the ideal scientific method of investigation. It will, hopefully, self correct (corruption and propaganda, capital control and say BP oil pushing their own 'cadre' of 'scientists' - verifying each other and trying to form an insular opinion where merely authority of their names and stature is what is taken and seen as truth by people who are shielded off from an understanding of its language by technical terminology - makes all of this harder) and it will do so by applying the scientific method.

Not by continuing to insist that the tree, is a God, and reinforcing its own cult.

There is a place for the observations you've made, but as an application to the physical realm it's fairly useless.

No. This isn't true. The SI second is defined as "the duration of 9192631770 cycles of radiation corresponding to the transition between two energy levels of the caesium-133 atom at rest at a temperature 0K".

As the temperature of deep space is ~0K and chemical elements can be identified by their spectrographic emission peaks, we now have a method to express the age of the universe outside our own terms of reference.

So do idealists view the external world as having a true nature completely hidden from all forms of measurement? That's what I am getting from this thread.

Can an objective metric of reality exist, then? What hidden properties does reality have that are, in principle, not accessible to scientific investigation?

Oh my fucking god is this person real? I'm not sure if I want to believe it or not

The philosophical understanding of science is the scientific method retard. Also, acknowledging that reality is subjective does nothing to help the subject of interest. Hell I'm sure plenty acknowledge this fact but that doesn't make them any better at being a scientist.

Not the user you're replying to but his autist responce will be something along the lines of

Literally no scientists claim this. The foundation of the scientific method relies on observable information, and anyone who is even slightly familiar with it knows this. What this means is that because of this axiom there is an implicit caveat to all scientific findings which goes something like "finding x is true SO LONG AS OUR OBSERVATIONS ARE CORRECT" Of course if you reject sensory information you can't view scientific truths as absolute truths but there are literally zero scientists that believe that their findings transcend the realm of observation.

I swear at this point we're just going in circles here.

I reference you back here.

This is garbage. It's worthless. It offers us zero, and i mean zero, useful information. All you're doing is denying frame of reference which just denies any level of information to be gathered. Thanks, we didn't need a sophist telling us that.

Its funny that this kid has not only shown that he is both dumber and a worse debater than even Muke, but that he is also a pseudo-intellectual LARPing ledditor that loves spending his time making himself appear likes he knows what he talking about. This is exactly why he can't argue or explain anything because he doesn't understand shit himself.

my fucking sides.

well at least you're being honest

It would not be invalid because your definition of "god" is arbitrary. You could say something completely objective like "the electron has e charge" because if it were otherwise you would either be wrong or talking about something else entirely.

...

Us existing in reality is why we CAN observe it objectively. This is what allows us to observe and piece together events and results of events through chains of cause and effect.

We might not triumph, but once the AIs have finished studying the human mind they'll have loads of fun exploits they can use to manipulate people's decision-making ability. As in any market, the best way to conquer the market of ideas is to cheat.