/sci/ - Science & Math

>>5632727
It's funny you say that, cause science is a correlation based method.
Maybe you'll understand when you get out of highschool.

>>5632441
then i stand corrected seeing all the anger and motivation to prove eachother wrong in the 0.999.. threads.

>>5632396
Depends on your definition of "irrational".
It's a different facet of motivation imo, embrace it as a challenge.

Where did u found that pic?
On topic:
Yeah, you should pump your testosterone levels and smash intellectually the hell out of it, cause this is what we do, this is men stuff.

>>5631910
also this.
Welp not entirely but this is the general rule.

>>5631906
Clarification:
Brain stores like a RAM(executable memory in the brain), and Hard Drives (internet) are more like static data*

>>5631801
>>5631822
>>5631833

Well, not quite.
Sure the ability to "apply" as you put it is superior to just knowing facts.
Its another thing to have something in your memory and another thing to "look up" something on the internet.

If it's already on your mind you mold that knowledge into a technique.
A soft comparison would be like RAM and HD, brain stores like a ram, executable memory and HD(internet) is just static data that you can't process.

Ofc you can turn the static data into executable but that is actually the learning process, which is why memory is important.

>>5630635
>effusive
>i don't like nice people

Well he does get a bit estrogeny but he looks like a brainier james blunt, which is ok.

>>5629517
>>5630155
I tried Keto for cutting, extremely effective but also very taxing in many ways, i couldn't even think straight or stay above minimum plus if u don't take any kind of supplement you're fucked nutrition-wise.

Now am doing plain intermittent fasting, 20h fasting.

To OP, i think you're watching too much futuristic animes or smth.
Anything with DNA is far fetched currently unless you're deep in that shit.

The only acceptable way to "biohack" is to take cognitive enchantments.
Limitless here i come.

Nihilism is just the negative emotional interpretation of stimuli.

But then people jumped the bandwagon and now you have nihilistic optimism, post-nihilistic, etc.
I like naming things too.

>>5625540
did you impregnate a chicken?
Welp, try making an omelette.

>>5625506
At which point one would expect* and cease being conscious?

You're not really providing any argument here so i could counter-argue.
>part of all things

Try being more coherent, i mean its fun all this jazz but give me something tangible to shit on.

>>5625527
>being this mad on the internet

>>5625467
Not a debate.

But since it's a topic that bugged me when i was tryhard edgy teen i'll bite.

First, "selfishness" is a stupidly arbitrary word, like most of em anyway, i don't wanna disappoint by the cliche "you're asking the wrong questions" because you do.
You must stop thinking in those terms, the best and clearer way to identify any kind of pattern in human psyche is to view them in a thermodynamic way.

I'll put it as casually as i can:
All acts, everything you do is caused by your brain.

1)If you do x that benefits you and everyone around you= you are regarded as a good person
2)If you do x that benefits only you and no one else= you are regarded as a normal person
3)If you do x that benefits only you but affects negatively somehow the others = you are considered as a bad person.


Needless to say, the intuitive and intracultural way of profiling a person as "evil" "good" "indifferent" is based on his level of "selfishness".
A mass murderer dictator is helping himself feel strong/carrying out his beliefs, so he thinks he's righteous, but he affects most people negatively, so he is regarded as evil by most people.
A person who does excess good to his community does it to gain the favor, thus securing himself, he might even do it subconsciously, doesn't matter.

True selflessness is not only unrealistic but it just wouldn't make any sense in any way, not intuitively nor physically since it implies a reaction without an action, an action without a source of any kind of energy.

>>5625424
>>5625424
It was a 'debate', he tried to prove that the earth isn't flat and i merely showed that he couldn't prove it, at least so far, i didn't deny anything else on that part.

>No, it can't.
Doesn't matter what Goose said, my antagonist used the word "flat", if later he tried to use the geodude proof(i wouldn't wanna sound 99edy9^99u by discrediting the "arbitrary nature of math in relation to reality", maybe later) i would simply say to him that:
He could be making circles on the flat earth thinking he was going "around" the earth.

Unless he could prove that he was indeed going around the earth ,his reasoning would be inefficient in proving his case.
If he could top it again i'd present another counter argument.

>>5625359
No it doesn't make it false by default but also doesn't prove it.
You stated something and couldn't prove it, in that sense you're false, the earth might or might not be flat, that is irrelevant.

Another thing, you said if you travel around the world you'd be able to prove it, but that doesn't prove anything because you only said "the earth is not flat", the earth could be flat like a plate(bottom/top) and i could just walk the plate-earth and get in the place where i started without noticing anything.

>>5625351
You're making a statement: The earth is not flat.
How do you know it?
Have you measured it yourself?
No, you take the word of others.
You cannot prove it yourself.

Thus your statement is false.

/sci/ daily misc.
For things that dont deserve a whole thread.

Also am always open for a debate hence the tripfaggotry, i have never lost, argue everything with me and i'll prove you wrong, no bs(srs)

>this thread
>my face


"Life form" is an arbitrary concept officialiazed more than a half century ago by some plebes.

If you consider life anything that exhibits very sophisticated electrochemical reactions like DNA does, then i must say that in theory there is nothing that forbids that.

But that is as arbitrary as the definition of life, which is the very problem in your question.

To me your question sounds like: is a bagel a true bagel or a false bagel is faker than lies?