/sci/ - Science & Math

What I am saying is: awareness cannot be explained in terms of mental states without reaching infinite recursions.

The psychology definition for introspection is the observations of one's own mental states. This has some We assume that brain states give rise to consciousness. Therefore some of these mental states correspond with awareness of previous mental states. However these 'aware' mental states are themselves mental states. So to be aware of these 'aware' mental states we must have yet another mental state. But who gets to be aware of that mental state? And where does their awareness lie at?

science

Can it be, all the difficult to explain phenomena that's going on, on a subatomic level, is so, cuz there's a certain threshold, from where, if the objects have small enough mass, they aren't affected by time/gravity enough to fully exist in our timespace and so an electron can be in many places at once, coz from it's perspective, time doesn't exist and it has infinite time to hop around, etc

>>10772992
AND EQUALITY DAMNED BE
TO TAKE PRIVELEGE AWAY FROM ME

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEĘ

>>10772988
>WE WILL NOT BLINK
>UNTIL WHITEY IS EXTINCT
WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?
WHITE POWER FOR WHITE CLOUT

>>10772144
WE WILL NOT BLINK
UNTIL WHITEY IS EXTINCT

>>10772976
DAILY REMINDER THAT OCCAM'S RAZOR WAS FIRST USED TO PROVE THE PLAUSIBILITY OF GOD

>>10771859
>scientifically if your definition of god equates to 'old bearded man in sky throwing lightning bolts' (with optional quantum superposition with communist jew on stick who walked on water and magic birdghost) then it's scientifically just false. walking on water doesn't real. but if your definition is 'some nebulous mystical thingy out there' then you're not really talking science. it's not even wrong. so you're allowed to believe in that, just like you're allowed to believe in Peano's axioms, if you so choose. so the correct stance scientifically on this latter view is agnosticism

Bejan's constructional law claims that within thermodynamic systems there is a tendency toward configuration

the 'engine' component of the overarching flow system above the fundamental forces would certainly appear godlike

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_9Gc-78zp4

How Science Made Mewtwo

>>10575405
I'd rather watch Big Bang Theory, my favourite show

>>10578530
Remember 2007? Big Bang Theory? Bazinga

>>10576797
How so? I literally just said myself "this is not scientific".
How am I spreading misinformation?
Do I need to add this remark on every single post? Got an idea then

>>10554947
Yes.
The approach is based on aiding the brain in mnemonic efforts by sorting data you work with through association, visualized with a fractal. I‘m creating a UI for that.

Interface will be the effing air.
All in & output devices possible, preferably avoiding invasive procedures.

It will be the mass of educational efforts condensing into the most efficient learning technique.

A new curriculum will be the interface.

Grey goo is the great filter.

Prove me wrong.

Please.

As you guys already know..
CS is getting so popular for past 10 years.
Are normies likely to get good at this?.
I see on r/cscareerquestion (very good sub btw) that computer science isn't just for nerds, geeks anymore. And that normies can do it too. Likewise they are getting paid $250k+ yr. But still they insist that people need high 'iq'.
But they also talk about that industry is doing something propaganda like to hamper wages and bring in more workers?
Thoughts

>>10217420
Understanding physics means knowing that only outward field vectors and inward attractive vectors exist.

Lightning is "gaps" capillaries
filled with "space" Blood (AKA "electrons") that isn't held up in turnover.
So Earth, a giant "proton", takes it instead.

No, I don't.

I have a 2 shitters and they are both telling that Science is math but I keep telling them that math is related to science, yes but not the same. /sci/ How do I btfo these people?

So, I mean, like, you can buy like tshirts with e=mc2 but you can't buy p+p tshirts.

We science nerds gotta be able to show off more of our science stuff than just einstein if the proletariat is to continue to admire our intelligent's..

We know science defines racism as prejudice + power and it's a mathematical equation because nobody has ever even attempted to prove it wrong. But when I search p+p I can't find anything. p+p is taught on all colleges so it should be at least as famous as e=mc2.

What other scientific discoveries are really underappreciated?

>>9985042
you might seriously want to google quantum foam

>>9985014
this is going way of topic...