1191: The essence of Life....

Before beginningn this lecture I want you to watch the video from this Youtube link. It will only take 2:43 minutes and after watching it, I just want you to keep in the back of your mind what you have seen.

   

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meiU6TxysCg

   

In the previous lecture we discussed the difference between a belief or just an opinion and knowledge. We answered the question "What does it mean that I know statement p is true?".

   

A general accepted answer is, that the truth of p is based on our "Justified True Belief " of statement p which is ultimately based on reasonableness and rationality with logic as our tool.

    

In the discussion afterwards I said, that homo sapiens is not primarily a rational human being, but a moral human being. If accepting the truth of statement p is based on reasonableness and rationality,

  

it means that we have to decide every time whether or not we want to be  reasonable and rational. In other words, we face the question, what am I going to do, how am I going to be.

   

Since we are social animals, which is in our genes and not a personal choice, the essence of life is in fact our willingness to cooperate and work together with others.

  

We do not live in a vacuum with our own opinions. We live together with others and what I do always will affect other and in that process process it is not rationality, that plays the first violin. It is our values of good and bad, right and wrong.

   

That is why I asked yu to watch that short video of Frans de Waal. It shows that a sense of fairness is in the genes of primates. I even have seen dogs protest when the other dog gets a bigger cookie for the same task.

   

Fairness plays an important role in a situation where you have to choose between action A or action B. Action A will harm the other (and maybe yet benefit you) and action B will benefit the other.

  

Here you are confronted with the question "What is good or right and what is bad or wrong to do?" IN a biological sense this question boiils down to "What gives me pleasure and what gives me pain?"

  

Here again you have to decide what should prevail: your own pleasure or the pleasure of the other? This leaves us with two choices:

   

(1) Action A contributes to my pleasure but harms the other; (2) Action A harms me but contributes to the pleasure of the other.

  

With harming I do not mean dramatic pains or so but for instance the choice of taking the larger of the smaller piece of the cake if only two are left.

  

Being reasonable and rational will not help us with the choice between (1) or (2) unless we call for our willingness to cooperate with others and what is right or wrong to do in that context.

  

In onther words, in a way we need to KNOW what our values and standards are. To get to the truth of our values and standards a reasonable and rationlal argumentation is required.

   

In the following lectures I'll discuss with you the reasonable and rationlal argumentations behind current ethical theories about the question "What ought I to do?"

   

Thank you for your attention... the floor is yours..

 Main Sources:

MacMillan The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2nd edition

Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 1995

http://www.iep.utm.edu/

 http://plato.stanford.edu/contents.htm

Rens Bod:  Waarom ben ik hier? (2024)

Carlo Cipolla: The Basic Laws of Human Stupidity (1976)

TABLE OF CONTENT -----------------------------------------------------------------  

  1 - 100 Philosophers                                              9 May 2009  Start of

  2 - 25+ Women Philosophers                              10 May 2009  this blog

  3 - 25 Adventures in Thinking                               10 May 2009

  4 - Modern Theories of Ethics                              29 Oct  2009

  5 - The Ideal State                                               24 Febr 2010   /   234

  6 - The Mystery of the Brain                                  3 Sept 2010   /   266

  7 - The Utopia of the Free Market                       16 Febr 2012    /   383

  8. - The Aftermath of Neo-liberalism                      5 Sept 2012   /   413

  9. - The Art Not to Be an Egoist                             6 Nov  2012   /   426                        

10  - Non-Western Philosophy                               29 May 2013    /   477

11  -  Why Science is Right                                      2 Sept 2014   /   534      

12  - A Philosopher looks at Atheism                        1 Jan  2015   /   557

13  - EVIL, a philosophical investigation                 17 Apr  2015   /   580                

14  - Existentialism and Free Will                             2 Sept 2015   /   586         

15 - Spinoza                                                             2 Sept 2016   /   615

16 - The Meaning of Life                                        13 Febr 2017   /   637

17 - In Search of  my Self                                        6 Sept 2017   /   670

18 - The 20th Century Revisited                              3 Apr  2018    /   706

19 - The Pessimist                                                  11 Jan 2020    /   819

20 - The Optimist                                                     9 Febr 2020   /   824

21 - Awakening from a Neoliberal Dream                8 Oct  2020   /   872

22 - A World Full of Patterns                                    1 Apr 2021    /   912

23 - The Concept of Freedom                                  8 Jan 2022    /   965

24 - Materialism                                                      7 Sept 2022   /  1011

25 - Historical Materialism                                       5 Oct 2023    /  1088

26 - The Bonobo and the Atheist                             9 Jan 2024    /  1102

27 - Artificial Intelligence                                          9 Feb 2024    /  1108

28 - Why Am I Here                                                 6 Sept 2024   /  1139

 

The Discussion

[13:21] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): Thank you Herman

[13:21] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): Sometimes it's very hard to know what to do

[13:22] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): i don't want to be selfish, but at the other hand i love the last part of the cake

[13:22] herman Bergson: Your choice depends on your values and standards...and rational deliberation might help to find an anwer

[13:23] herman Bergson: I agree Beertje:-)

[13:23] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): you can have the last part if you want:)

[13:23] herman Bergson: This can be very political...what to take ..the big part or the small part

[13:24] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): depends on the situation

[13:24] herman Bergson: yes

[13:25] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): 2 people you love need help. helping the first or helping the other first?

[13:25] herman Bergson: which point at consequentialism as ethical approach, for instance

[13:26] herman Bergson: IN such a situation you only can be reasonable...which immediately calls for your moral standards

[13:26] bergfrau Apfelbaum: Itake the smaller piece because I do not HAVE to go hungry.:::: A child in Africa might take the larger piece because theyre hungry

[13:27] herman Bergson: The child won't evenget close to the cake, Bergie :-(

[13:28] bergfrau Apfelbaum: ... :-)

[13:28] herman Bergson: I constantly have the feeling that we are biting ourselves in our tail......

[13:29] herman Bergson: To get to moral values you have to be reasonable, but to be willing to do so is already again a moral choice

[13:30] herman Bergson: Is it good or bad for me to be reasonable

[13:30] herman Bergson: It feels as if I reach the limits of our mind here

[13:31] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): you don't want to be TOO good, other wise some take advandtege of you

[13:31] herman Bergson: To stick to Socrates: oida, ouk oida..... I know that I don't know :-)

[13:32] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): we can't know everything

[13:32] herman Bergson: Can you too good?

[13:33] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): yes

[13:33] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): never say no to someone

[13:33] herman Bergson: If we go that way, I guess we end up in trying to define good here

[13:33] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): always say yes, I'll help or I do that

[13:33] herman Bergson: quite unreasonable to do so, Beertje :-)

[13:34] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): some act like that

[13:34] herman Bergson: Oh yes...but remember our lectures about stupidity....

[13:35] herman Bergson: Doing things that harm you that benefits the other.....not the smart move

[13:35] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): it's learning a lesson....

[13:36] herman Bergson: not to be stupid :-)

[13:36] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): ツ yes

[13:36] herman Bergson: Wasnt this the category of helpless people...?

[13:37] herman Bergson: stupid people acts in a way that they harm themselves and others both

[13:37] herman Bergson: plenty of examples of that these days

[13:37] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): names not to be mentioned...

[13:38] herman Bergson: put up tariffs....harms other countries and harms yourself

[13:38] herman Bergson: That is what I mean Beertje :-)

[13:38] bergfrau Apfelbaum: acting selflessly doesn't mean being stupid. only egoists see it that way, because they would never act that way themselves

[13:38] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): sometimes it's hard to make a choice

[13:39] bergfrau Apfelbaum: iknow people like that, too

[13:40] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): Lukkie made a choice to help an old man today, the price she pays it that she is very tired at the moment

[13:40] bergfrau Apfelbaum: ja Beertje, especially when you experience a situation for the first time. Grief, for example... it is like a black hole / black out

[13:41] herman Bergson: Ok....in the coming lectures we'll figure out what they have thought of, to justify moral choices

[13:41] Lukkie Sands: :-)

[13:41] Lukkie Sands: But it keeps mutual cooperation alife

[[13:42] herman Bergson: Unlees you still have an important question or matter to discuss....

[13:43] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): not at the moment..no

[13:43] herman Bergson: Thank you foro your attention....:-)

[13:43] herman Bergson: Class dismissed ....

[13:43] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): Thank you Herman

[13:43] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): brb

[13:43] bergfrau Apfelbaum: thank you Herman and class

[13:43] bergfrau Apfelbaum: yay

[13:43] 0rd: thank you!

[13:43] herman Bergson: I hope it helped you further, Ord

[13:44] 0rd: yes! i have to think more!

[13:44] herman Bergson: or didnt I meet your expectations?

[13:44] 0rd: I love this class!

[13:44] herman Bergson: Thank you :-)

[13:44] 0rd: ❤

1190: This is True...!

We live in uncertain times. Everything is being questioned or qualified as "fake news". You hear people proclaim the craziest things as if they were the truth.

How should we find our way in this? When can we say "That's just not true" or not let ourselves be pushed aside by the argument "That's just your opinion".

In other words: when can we present someone with clear language and hard facts that cannot simply be dismissed as "just an opinion" or "fake news"?

Perhaps the biggest problem is the concept of "truth". When can you assert with certainty that something is true and not just an opinion, belief, assumption or supposition?

That is of course one of the most important questions that philosophers have delved into. For centuries, there has been reasonable agreement about the answer to that question.

Of course, the Ancient Greeks, in the person of Plato, once again take credit for the preparatory thinking, resulting in the following proposition.

If someone says "It's raining outside... really" then the following three points are important: 1. The statement must be true. 2. The person making the statement must of course also believe in it,

and 3. the person making the statement has good reasons to believe in it. To describe it in technical terms "proposition p is a Justified True Belief".

The first question is of course: how do you determine that a statement is true? In the case of that rain shower the answer is: just look outside and you will see that it is raining.

In other words there must be a correspondence between the statement and the actual state of affairs in the real world. This is the most common and accepted view: the correspondence between the statement and the concrete, actual state of affairs in reality.

Of course all kinds of criticism can be leveled at this: hallucination, imagination, personal interpretation, biased view, etc. So more is needed to justify the truth of the statement.

That means that the one making the statement must have good reasons or evidence for believing that it is raining outside. And here the discussion starts again: what are good reasons?

Here we have reached the limit of what is humanly possible in determining the truth, because with "good" we can only mean, reasonable, logical and rational.

The question of "evidence" brings us back to square one, because this evidence is again formulated in statements, such as "What falls from the sky is water", "This water falls down on the other side of the window", etc.

The most interesting thing in this situation is that when we speak of reasonable, logical and rational, this adds an ethical dimension to the whole. As a human being, you must be prepared to debate in all reasonableness and rationality.

We will therefore have to use norms and values ​​to agree with each other on what we find reasonable and rational in an argument. To begin with, you will have to accept the rules of logic.

These are therefore the conditions for accepting that the statement "It is raining outside" is true and obliges you to uphold moral standards regarding reasonableness and rationality in the debate.

   

This is why we consider, for instance, the denial of the Holocaust not only as  false but also als immoral.

  

Thank you for your attention....

 Main Sources:

MacMillan The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2nd edition

Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 1995

http://www.iep.utm.edu/

 http://plato.stanford.edu/contents.htm

Rens Bod:  Waarom ben ik hier? (2024)

Carlo Cipolla: The Basic Laws of Human Stupidity (1976)

TABLE OF CONTENT -----------------------------------------------------------------  

  1 - 100 Philosophers                                              9 May 2009  Start of

  2 - 25+ Women Philosophers                              10 May 2009  this blog

  3 - 25 Adventures in Thinking                               10 May 2009

  4 - Modern Theories of Ethics                              29 Oct  2009

  5 - The Ideal State                                               24 Febr 2010   /   234

  6 - The Mystery of the Brain                                  3 Sept 2010   /   266

  7 - The Utopia of the Free Market                       16 Febr 2012    /   383

  8. - The Aftermath of Neo-liberalism                      5 Sept 2012   /   413

  9. - The Art Not to Be an Egoist                             6 Nov  2012   /   426                        

10  - Non-Western Philosophy                               29 May 2013    /   477

11  -  Why Science is Right                                      2 Sept 2014   /   534      

12  - A Philosopher looks at Atheism                        1 Jan  2015   /   557

13  - EVIL, a philosophical investigation                 17 Apr  2015   /   580                

14  - Existentialism and Free Will                             2 Sept 2015   /   586         

15 - Spinoza                                                             2 Sept 2016   /   615

16 - The Meaning of Life                                        13 Febr 2017   /   637

17 - In Search of  my Self                                        6 Sept 2017   /   670

18 - The 20th Century Revisited                              3 Apr  2018    /   706

19 - The Pessimist                                                  11 Jan 2020    /   819

20 - The Optimist                                                     9 Febr 2020   /   824

21 - Awakening from a Neoliberal Dream                8 Oct  2020   /   872

22 - A World Full of Patterns                                    1 Apr 2021    /   912

23 - The Concept of Freedom                                  8 Jan 2022    /   965

24 - Materialism                                                      7 Sept 2022   /  1011

25 - Historical Materialism                                       5 Oct 2023    /  1088

26 - The Bonobo and the Atheist                             9 Jan 2024    /  1102

27 - Artificial Intelligence                                          9 Feb 2024    /  1108

28 - Why Am I Here                                                 6 Sept 2024   /  1139

 

The Discussion

[13:15] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): Thank you Herman

[13:16] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ㋡

[13:16] herman Bergson: I hope this came across.....

[13:16] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): thought you were about to review the laws of logic

[13:16] herman Bergson: That did Aristotle already, Gemma :-)

[13:17] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): i mean for us!

[13:17] Max Chatnoir: But you can't just look out the window to judge the truth about the holocaust.

[13:17] herman Bergson: Would take another lecture.... the basics of logic and why we have to stick to it

[13:18] herman Bergson: No Max, that is not what I meant....

[13:18] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): and tho they have proof positive at the site of the deaths people stiilldont believe it

[13:18] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): still its obvious it happened, at least if u attended the history class in school

[13:18] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): + learn from history in genral

[13:18] herman Bergson: for that you have to go to Auswitsgh and look around

[13:18] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): they just had an event there and were still protested

[13:18] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): as not true

[13:19] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): sigh

[13:19] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): never happened

[13:19] herman Bergson: and that I would call immoral

[13:19] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): VERY immoral

[13:19] herman Bergson: and I even believe that this can be proven

[13:19] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): true

[13:20] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ah

[13:20] herman Bergson: just based on what I just have said in the lecture

[13:20] Max Chatnoir: Yes, I believe it because I've read about it, and there must be records about the camps.

[13:21] herman Bergson: The mountains of shoes and glasses are there....the photographs..the German reports.. and so on

[13:21] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): and then we have the ones believing in the likes of Trump, believes everything he says and everything else as fake news and lies, when the total opposite is actually true

[13:21] herman Bergson: Please n T in the debate today please Bejiita

[13:21] herman Bergson: no

[13:22] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): but thats the biggest issue i think in general, people completley disregarding facts

[13:22] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): that was just one example

[13:22] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): like the moonlanding is fake, earth is flat ect

[13:23] herman Bergson: My idea is that a human being is npt primairely a being that is defined by knowing the truth but by knowing that he is a moral being

[13:23] herman Bergson: The basis of our existence is not the truthvalue of statemens but our ability to discriminate between god and evil, good and bad

[13:23] Stranger Nightfire: My personal take. . Is that nothing is 100% certain.

[13:24] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): hmmm

[13:24] Stranger Nightfire: maybe? ninety nine point. string of 100 nines. certain. but never 100%.

[13:24] herman Bergson: Certainty is an equivalent of truth Stranger...same rules apply to it

[13:24] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): aaa i can agree to that i guess

[13:25] herman Bergson: is a statement true or certain....?

[13:25] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): can we know a thing to 100% to be true?

[13:25] Stranger Nightfire: Perhaps when you looked out the window and saw the rain that. particular window had been tampered with and had equipment put above it that made it look like it is raining outside That would be almost insanely unlikely. But not 100 per cent impossible. .

[13:25] herman Bergson: it is a tautology

[13:25] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): yes, indeed

[13:25] herman Bergson: That is th epoint Stranger....

[13:26] herman Bergson: that tampering canbe exposed....

[13:26] herman Bergson: there has to be a correspondence between reality and statements

[13:26] Stranger Nightfire: We cannot even be certain about the ultimate nature of reality itself.

[13:27] 0rd: to have 99,999999% of certainty, is the same as to have no certainty

[13:27] herman Bergson: true

[13:27] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): indeed, like if u walk outside u shoud see inside the house, unless u have a screen showing the inside perfect as well too

[13:27] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): a bit complex for anyone to attempt

[13:27] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): not practical

[13:27] herman Bergson: In that sense we better can follow Popper's idea....

[13:27] Max Chatnoir: As far as the Holocaust goes, why would anybody want to invent it?

[13:27] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): i think it has always been true that facts have been presented by some as lies but the internet makes it worse by moving information so much faster

[13:28] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): Denying the holocause is a way for neo nazis to justify their hate

[13:28] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): i thunk

[13:28] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): think

[13:28] herman Bergson: yes, flooding the scene, is the strategy.....

[13:29] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ah

[13:29] herman Bergson: But I'd rather stick to Karl Popper

[13:29] herman Bergson: say All swans are white....

[13:29] Max Chatnoir: and then find a black one?

[13:29] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): we have black swans too

[13:29] herman Bergson: if you want to proof the truth...you come up with another white swan...

[13:29] herman Bergson: No says Popper....that makes the truth only more probable....

[13:30] herman Bergson: that you can demonstrate with 100% certainty is the falsehood of the statement by showing me a black swan

[13:30] herman Bergson: and that is how our scientific method works

[13:30] Max Chatnoir: Yes, that's why scientific propositions may change over time.

[13:30] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): yes

[13:30] herman Bergson: ]right Max

[13:31] herman Bergson: And if you add to that Thomas Kuhn;s structure of scientific revolution, the circle is round

[13:31] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): i know CERN uses something called Sigma6 that when it is like 99.9999995% it is confirmed

[13:31] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): like the higgs boson

[13:32] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): 5 signma it is called

[13:32] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): found it

[13:32] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): a significance of five sigma is the 0.00006% chance the data is fluctuation.

[13:32] herman Bergson: SO, thuth and certainty are in this context equivaltn concepts

[13:33] herman Bergson: and only falsification leads to a next step

[13:33] herman Bergson: If you wna the truth...falsify the statement

[13:34] Stranger Nightfire: I like how people who are so called skeptics like to throw out occam's razor. As if it were some kind of proof that they are right.

[13:34] herman Bergson: Ihope there is no brain overload...?!

[13:34] Stranger Nightfire: when in fact sometimes It is the less likely explanation that turns out to be the correct one.

[13:34] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ㋡

[13:35] herman Bergson: yes entia non sunt multiplicanda sine necessitate...

[13:35] 0rd: I think this debate divides in two major subject: one is to verify is if what you say you are perceing is actually true or a lie; and the other, is that if what you perceiving is actually what you are perceving (like the "matrix" kind of debate)

[13:35] herman Bergson: A goood point of Ockham

[13:35] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): Rabbits are smart

[13:36] 0rd: XD

[13:36] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ㋡

[13:36] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ah

[13:36] herman Bergson: Yes, Ord.... in fact the basic debate between empiricism and rationalism....as old as history

[13:37] herman Bergson: the basics of epistemology, in fact :-)

[13:38] herman Bergson: Has kept me busy since I was 20

[13:38] 0rd: for the first, i think it is possible to verify, you just have to go and perceive the same thing the person is saying that they are perceiving

[13:38] 0rd: for the second, then that is something that can make someone go crazy haha

[13:39] herman Bergson: Yes Ord but verification increases only the probablility of the truth of a statement

[13:39] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): closer to 5 sigma but never 100%

[13:40] 0rd: but for the one that is verifying for themselves, they can verify. for example, they can see it is raining. that is 100%. now, if they are really seeing what they are seeing, if it is all an illusion and so on, then that is another thing

[13:40] Max Chatnoir: But you can also have a kind of interlocking consistency of our understanding of different phenomena.

[13:41] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): here comes perception

[13:41] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): perception of reality

[13:41] 0rd: you can see with 100% certainty "i am perceiving it is rainning", but you cant say for sure that "it is rainning"

[13:41] 0rd: you can say*

[13:41] Max Chatnoir: For example, when the first genomes were sequenced, it was supportive of the evolution hypothesis.

[13:42] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): if its raining outside and i go outside i feel im getting wet

[13:42] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): might be some other chemical falling from a plane

[13:42] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): another proof

[13:42] herman Bergson: oops two things here

[13:42] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): hahaha the infamous toilet dump

[13:42] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ㋡

[13:42] herman Bergson: Max intruduces the coherence theory of truth

[13:42] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): but planes dont do that

[13:42] 0rd: but gettiing wey is another perception, you can say you are getting the feeling of getting wet, but maybe it is an matrix illusion of a virtual world, and you are not really getting wet in real life

[13:43] herman Bergson: And Ord seems to make knowledge a subjective matter

[13:43] 0rd: but getting wet*

[13:43] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): well

[13:43] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): sigh

[13:43] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): then my Unreal 5 worlds and also here is just a simulation within a simulation,

[13:43] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ir what is it called

[13:43] herman Bergson: The coherence theory of turth is accepted theory...

[13:44] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): an in game game

[13:44] herman Bergson: Yes Gemma it is getting complicated :-)

[13:44] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): but again, can a computer percieve feeling?

[13:44] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): its just 1 and 0

[13:44] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): and we are analog beings

[13:44] 0rd: we can doubt everything, but we cant doubt that we are doubting

[13:44] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): it can simulate them but

[13:45] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate) GIGGLES!!

[13:45] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): ...LOL...

[13:45] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): well

[13:45] herman Bergson: Ok...let's wake up Descartes too :-)

[13:45] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): YAY! (yay!)

[13:45] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): lol

[[13:46] herman Bergson: But Ord, you are right....there are paradoxes deep down....

[13:46] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): aha,

[13:46] herman Bergson: I guess we have had enough for today...

[13:47] herman Bergson: Unless you still have a hot issue....:-)

[13:47] 0rd: it was great! i love i have found all of you!

[13:47] Max Chatnoir: OK, for example, I'm pretty sure that most of you are backed up by a different human.

[13:47] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): aha

[13:47] Lukkie Sands: True...most of us are :-)))

[13:48] 0rd: i need to run! see you all! ❤

[13:48] Max Chatnoir: I haven't had enough interaction with Ord yet to be sure he isn't an alt.

[13:48] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): not all...

[13:48] herman Bergson: Bye Ord...nice to meet you

[13:48] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): bye Ord

[13:48] Lukkie Sands blushes......

[13:49] Stranger Nightfire: i suppose there there might be that 0.0000000000000000000000000000000001 percent thance that one person is runnin a lot of alts here

[13:49] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): ツ

[13:50] herman Bergson: Well...thank you all again for the nice debate....

[13:50] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): aaa

[13:50] herman Bergson: Clas dismissed ...

[13:50] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): this was good

[13:50] herman Bergson: Well Stranger...

[13:50] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): and now some cards i guess

[13:50] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ㋡

[13:50] Max Chatnoir: That was intriguing!

[13:50] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): it was very interesting as usual Herman

[13:50] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): yes good topic

[13:50] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): indeed what is truth

[13:50] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ?

[13:50] herman Bergson: the nationalities here present are American, Dutch, Swedish and Austrian at least :-)

[13:51] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ㋡

[13:51] herman Bergson: Thanky you, Beertje

[13:52] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): graag gedaan

[13:52] bergfrau Apfelbaum: that was very interesting again and I am 100% sure that i am here with you

[13:52] bergfrau Apfelbaum: :-)

[13:52] bergfrau Apfelbaum: yay

[13:52] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ㋡