/sci/ - Science & Math

>>3006162

Nah, I'm actually still at uni, studying biotechnology.

I just bought it because it was cool.

>>3006030

Supposedly such a sage would be an individual who is not bothered by destructive emotions (peace of mind), has great intelligence and wisdom (will), is of moral perfection (virtue), and knows that there's no point in wasting resources on futile struggle if there is no way
to achieve his goal.

I actually have a brain-computer interface designed for gaming purposes. A Nia. Never got around to learning to use it properly though.

>>3005928
>>3005960

That's the modern usage and does not refer directly to the school of philosophy, which is what I assumed you were asking after. It's similar, but not quite the same. The Stoicists didn't just think that you could cover up your emotions, they thought that all destructive emotions were irrational, and thus a sage could avoid experienceing them at all.

>>3005959

No, the whole thought experiment disregards evolution, and that's why it's rubbish.

>>3005941

Imagine a spherical cow in a vacum.

>>3005860

Because not knowing the mechanism or saying it happens randomly is more interesting if you chuck a giant brain in there?

>>3005888

Can't help you there I'm afraid.

>>3005887

Don't bitch to me, take it up with Zeno of Citium, I'm just paraphrasing.

It does work to a certain extent though. Of course you can't control your own emotions, but if you ask yourself if your emotional response is a rational one in regards to reaching the goal of being a happy and productive individual, and find out that your response is fairly irrational, it does tend to disipate to some extent.

Or perhaps I'm just a closet aspie.

What's that? Is it similar to energy accounting?

It's the philosophical concept that a person of sufficient intelligence and wisdom can surpress or manipulate his own emotions if he understands that they're not working to his benefit. He understands that sorrow is a an expression of being in an non-optimal situation, and a motivation to change it, and thus, if he understands there's nothing he can do to alter the situation for the better, he does not feel sorrow. Or at least not as much so.

The system recieves a great amount of friction, and has a greater amount of mass. I don't see how that'd be a benefit.

>>3005836

If it is possible to get a new universe from one that has suffered heat death, which I don't quite see how is possible, then it's far more likely that that will happen autonomously, than for a sentience to randomly arise that also happens to have the capabillity to do jack squat about it.

>>3005818

How much mining and transfer of mass between do you think we would need to have a statistically significant effect on the orbital path of either Mars, the Earth, or their moons? Besides, the mass of all the planets change over time due to space dust and things like that. The earth gains 100 tons each year, which isn't much, bit still worth considering over the scale of geological time.

The again, atrophysics isn't my field of expertise, but I have a hard time seeing how we'd perform a change in mass that's more statistically significant than that in any reasonable time frame.

>>3005821

The whole basis of the idea is that any high concentration of order in the universe is a random fluctuation in a larger system with lower entropy, and their existence, despite their improbability, is explained by the great size of the universe.

>>3005802

No the point is that it's more likely for your brain to spontaniously appear with fake memories and sense impression and all that solipsist dodah, that for all the sentient minds your experience around you to also exist. Of course, that ignore the possibility that there is a mechanism from which order may arise from disorder which explains the existence of our species, which is more likely that a single mind appearing randomly from the chaos.

Awesome principle though. But are they only availible as cat's ears?

Also, what the fuck did that guy have in his ear?

>This ignores the possibility that the probability of a universe in which a brain pops into existence, without any prior mechanism driving towards its creation, may be dwarfed by the probability of a universe in which there are active mechanisms which lead to processes of development which (given a starting state that is unlikely but not as unlikely as the spontaneous appearance of a brain with no precursor) offer a reasonable probability of producing a species such as ourselves.

Also

>The Boltzmann brain paradox is that it is more likely that a brain randomly forms out of the chaos with false memories of its life than that the universe around us would have billions of self-aware brains.

inb4 "Brain in a jar" solipsism.

Does anyone know the current best estimate for when we will start colonizing Mars?

>>3000228

>mfw I have an F13 key on my keyboard.

>>3000160

Besides, even if the singularity doesn't happen, surely the technological research and innovation spurred by the pursuit of such a goal is useful regardless?

>>3000160

Cheer up man, it's just a webcomic and a game. If it's not your cup of tea, no one's forcing you to read it.

>>3000141

http://dresdencodak.com/

>>3000117

>Implying the only people who care about the get aren't people who come from other boards to troll us.