/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10874452
Fpbp

>>7315984
It's not possible for you to understand English even when you are spoonfed the issue. You know how I can tell?

You were told his post was about ambiguity, that my post was about ambiguity, even the link connecting the two posts and you STILL failed to understand it.

This is only compounded by the idiotic "You're claiming you're the same person" in response to a post that made it clear to FOURTH-GRADER with a basic grasp of personal pronouns that I wasn't.

>You still have failed to explain how your previous posts are relevant.
Get a load of this summerfag! He can't grasp what is an issue even when spoonfed and he think he can tell what is and isn't relevant!

>>6946820
>http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#Experiments_not_consistent_with_SR

"None of these experiments come anywhere close to making a convincing case that they are valid and refute SR. "

Try harder kid. At least read what you try to source next time.

>>6701268
So your perceptional awareness is the same as a symbol for perceptual awareness?

So when you say "perceptual awareness" that is exactly the same as the actual processes that comprise perceptual awareness?

And when you have a large knowledgebase that describes the movement of a hand (3,000,000+ words), is that the same as the moving of the hand?

How can you be so confused? The symbols aren't reality. The best symbols can do is approximate reality. And they don't do a very good job at it, either. Otherwise please go find a blind person and explain to them how things look like. Since symbols are the same thing as reality, you won't have any problems with that, right?!

I don't think anyone on this board is even capable of having a unique thought. Judging by the replies in this thread, I guess you are just really naive about the world you live in.

You confuse symbols for reality and when someone reminds you that you're doing this, what you say is "symbols ARE reality". This is not funny or sad, this is bloody tragicomic.

Whatever. Enjoy your symbolic world. Confuse it with reality until the day you die. Maybe in those final moments before your death you will finally realize that the world is not a symbol.

Idiots.

>>6687487
>physicist are only responsible for the transistors

You realize the entire notion of electronics is build on the principles of physics. The work done by physicists. All technology is. Yes, in order to have a functional computer you need some basic logic, but that is about it.

You could actually build a primitive computer without any knowledge of chemistry or engineering or software development. However a chemist/engineer/whomever could never build computer without the work of physicists.

The problem is you are thinking like a small retarded child. You are thinking in the immediate. The technology and concepts needed to build a computer came from centuries of study of electromagnetism (physicists). You needed physicist building the first motor, generator, circuit, receiver, as well as explaining the relationship between electricity and magnetism. When this shit was first done, idiots like you thought "it didn't have any practical application". Get your head out of your ass. Good research takes time, and good technology takes even longer.

You should get that physics envy in check

>the philosophers need to correct articles of physicists and chemists

did anyone ask for proof? like a past corrected article by a philosopher or even a peer reviewed study