Who was in the wrong here?

Give us a quick rundown or fuckoff

t. humantiesfags incapable of comprehending what is being said

it's hilarious how vacuous Yea Forums's comments on this podcast are compared to /sci/'s

>I FOOOKIN LOOVE SCIENCE

>humantiesfag
just look at the equations on that fucking whiteboard coombrain

>baseless

I see bostrom has the PHENOTYPE

Attached: 1502673108078.jpg (747x1120, 161K)

Hes right about shia

youtube.com/watch?v=AoBK1_ixiro

Well, this is off-topic, so why take your question or Toe seriously?

I listened to it while playing Blood. The main problem was that Joe genuinely just doesn't understand the simulation hypothesis. You can tell from his repeated remarks, and especially how he kept getting stuck on it even when Bostrom corrected him, that he thinks "simulation" means "the real you exists, in some real world; and then, anterior to that, you are being deluded by a simulation of some kind." Whereas the whole point of the simulation hypothesis is that entire local "worlds" could be simulated, meaning, your "real self," whatever its material or metaphysical composition actually is, would be INTERIOR TO that reality's locally simulated laws.

So, in the simulation hypothesis, Joe's mind is (somehow, presumably) constituted by Joe's brain; Joe's brain is constituted of atoms; the atoms are constituted of quarks or whatever the really elemental entities of the reality are; and those really elemental entities are all simulated. Joe doesn't get this. At one point he asked how someone could dream inside the simulation, presumably because he is thinking "Wouldn't that be like a dream in a dream?" because he clearly thinks simulation = a kind of dreaming or illusion to begin with. Bostrom is retarded, because instead of going "Oh, you don't understand at all, if you're saying that, let me correct you" he instead said in his autistic fucking Swedish monotone "euuuuhh euuurhh uehhhhh, dat's not.. you could dream, i-in simulation" and allowed Joe to continue being mistaken for another two hours so that real conversation could never get off the fucking ground.

It was a waste of time because of this. The simulation hypothesis is one big idiot trap for people who make fun of Neil deGrasse Tyson but are in exactly the same demographic as his target audience. Bostrom recited surface-level Reddit plebberies about this stupid shit for 3 hours and answered near-miss questions from Joe who didn't even understand the premise.

You can clearly tell Bostrom has a powerful mind in certain respects which is why it's so confusing he would bother turning such a sophomoric thought experiment into a sprawling fanfiction theory. The experiment begins and is over in a single paragraph. It's not something to be seriously thought about unless you are a retard who gets his philosophy from Youtube videos. Laplace's demon for a new generation of dilettantes.

Sorry, I'm a retard. I wrote anterior when I meant the exact opposite, posterior. Always great to say the exact opposite of what you mean in a phrase that's supposed to be CLEARING UP a confusion.

>Dude what if ae live a simulation
This is absolute freshman philosophy go read real philosophy. Shit like this is why philosophy is made fun of.

What is real philosophy?

good starting point: not whatever shit is presently trendy on reddit or gets you hired in an analytic philosophy department

marx, adorno, benjamin, deleuze, foucault, whitehead, nietzsche, spinoza, kant, and so on

gnosticism, vedanta, actual buddhism

whether or not we live in a simulation is a theological question, and all of those metaphysical systems have the answer to that

>nietzsche
>philosophy
he has virtually no ethics, no metaphysics, no ontology. only self-help claptrap for idiots/pseuds.

>gnosticism
unironic kys

Attached: IMG_20190916_131442.jpg (2596x4028, 2.94M)