/sci/ - Science & Math

>>2943852
Why wouldn't machines be able to think abstractly? After all, WE are machines, albeit biological ones, and we can think abstractly. Why would flesh be that more special than metal or whatever?

Sure is tired old Douglas Adams in this thread.

>>2930426
I was under the impression that a Matrioshka was multiple layers of Dyson sphere computers, each one running off the waste heat of the next layer down.

I mean, the whole reason it's named after Matryoshka dolls is the nesting aspect, right?

>>2919450
>how does this fail to work
Those pesky laws of nature.

Stop trolling

>EDIT: OH SHIT

>>2914228
>>2914276

As I understand it:

Cooked food and meat = more energy from less, which made the growth possible. It wasn't really that that caused the genetic change, but when it came, we had efficient enough food-making processes to make it not be a cul-de-sac.

>>2909511
I'm not sure it has to be an active state. People who don't go to church or pray or anything can still say they "believe in something", without being able to specify or clarify. And those people never seem to let it affect their lives in any big way.

I mean, I can understand why some hardcore atheists are annoyed with theists, since theism can lead to dogmatic behaviour which hinders progress. But agnosticism is basically just people going "loldunno". It shouldn't then matter if they call themselves the "right" thing as long as they're not bad for society at large.

>>2909481
But whenever someone calls themselves an agnostic there are always people saying "you're an atheist REALLY."

>>2909417
>>2909432
I've never understood this need to make sure one considers agnostics weaksauce atheists and wants everyone else to agree. How is this any different from religious people calling atheism "just another faith"? It's both taking away the right of a group to define themselves.

>>2902908
Green Oval archives /sci/ too, nicht war?

>>2897454
Singed eyebrows.

>>2885689
Proper answer. If we don't know the colour anymore, then by the same logic we don't know if the car exists anymore.

>>2823889

Extremophiles won't care about that, living at the bottom of the ocean and inside rocks and shit.

>How is consciousness possible? What is the minimum number of brain cells required to have be conscious?
loldunno

>Does ants have a proper consciousness?
Not any type of self-consciousness, no.

>Is it possible for a mechanical being to be conscious?
Yes. Why not? We are mechanical in nature as well, just a bit squishier.

>Is it possible for a completely logical brain/machine to be conscious?
Perhaps.

>Will we in the future be able to engineer consciousness from scratch, machanically or otherwise?
Yep.

>>2820277

The same reason Sweden and Norway are called socialist by "the other side"; convenient shorthand to show where on the scale one perceives a nation to be. From a European viewpoint, America is far right and super capitalistic.

It's all relative.

>>2820087

How would a system that equates money with power ever free the poor? The rich use their money-power to stop others from gaining the same.

Seem solid bro.

>>2820055
>free choice

I don't really believe in free will, but even if you do, I'm guessing you would agree that circumstances influence the choice we make? Meaning that a sufficiently constricted environment pretty much forces certain decisions or sets of decisions to the forefront.

And when do you dump your morals? It's commonly held that killing in self-defence is excusable and even encouraged. When is it excusable and encouraged to steal for survival?

To me, putting the the burden of responsibility on the individual is misguided, since it's a failing of society that crime arose with ease. Of course crime can probably never be eliminated, but if certain environments are seen to promote crimes, then by building a better society, we could decrease crime.

>>2820025

So... using "socialist" concepts and ideas are fine until you obtained a certain standard of living/infrastructure?

>>2819980

Well of course not everyone will become a criminal if in poor surroundings with no prospects of help from society, but it sure as hell increases the chances. If you are born into wealth, you're born free from even having to make the choice of breaking the law. It's real easy having principles when one has no actual worries.

>>2819961

More generally speaking, crimes done by poor people are often out of necessity (poor surroundings; fuck else to become than a criminal), while crimes done by the rich are out of opportunity (let's trash the world's economy to be even richer u guise!).

Guess which type of crime is considered worse. Or hell, which type is even considered a crime in the first place.

>>2819944

But since no one is born with equal financial means, it contradicts any notion of freedom, since freedom in a capitalistic system is heavily dependent on wealth. And why would you premier power and strength? I thought the whole point of a society is to protect EVERYONE from lions eating our babbies and whatnot.

>>2819915
>which prizes individual worth

But does it in practice? From what I've seen societies leaning towards more "hardcore" capitalism are often the same ones who think an individual is only worth giving medical care/education/housing/whatever if that person can afford it.

Or do we mean different things by "worth?"

>>2819878

But isn't ALL property then arbitrary? Because who was the first owner of that piece of land and how did he obtain it? Just by saying it was his? How is that different from the government doing the same? Wouldn't whatever hypothetical social contract allowing you to live on that land of yours and be free from all the pieces of government you don't want be just as arbitrary?