/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11360903
>Can science solve the hard problem of consciousness?
To me, that sounds just like a Christfag asking someone if they "believe in evolution".
Evolution is in the realm of facts and science.
Free will, the hard problem of consciousness and similar stuff are in the realm of theology, philosophy and semantics.
None of that shit involves facts.
QED: no, science can not solve the hard problem of consciousness.

>>11300784
>So you’re in the exact same camp as “religitards”, then.
No, I'm not claiming aliens exist, even though circumstances are certainly suggesting it's more likely than not. Instead I'm refuting the claim that we can know that they don't exist.
Proof of aliens is less likely than some assume, not "impossible because they want us to take it on faith".
That's also a poor argument for the existence of God, because the only reason to believe faith is required is because any hypothetical God has refused to show himself.
In Genesis, he used to come and talk to Adam and Eve, but nothing in the modern day?

>I actually provided some figures.
There are numbers in your argument, but I'll still stand by: > only supports my argument, or is based on your own unsupported nonsense.

I'm not even sure why you think we disagree about alien life probably going unnoticed.

>You copy pasted a fucking Wikipedia article.
I copied part of a single sentence to provide a source for my claim. And this was bad because?

>“Stop making me look stupid!”
Oh, I want you to go away because you're unreasonably hostile, and keep dragging the conversation about aliens into the realm of theology because you (apparently) have a chip on your shoulder about faith, not because you're casting anybody but yourself in a negative light.

>>11168787
>>If creating life is impossible for us
>Then God exists
If we can't do it, why do you assume God can?

>>9776224
>only because we can't know everything
>I only I knew everything, I'd know I was already right about my current assumptions.

Anon, the reason it seems like no-one wants to have sex with you is that nobody loves you as much as you love yourself.

>>9681337
>unconscious. Is the difference meaningful?
The real problem here is linguistics.
"consciousness" is almost unrelated to being conscious vs unconscious.
Don't forget the main problem with the "hard problem of consciousness" is being able to define consciousness (the human mind's state of being).
.

>>9658388
>Germs are found on other planets
[citation needed]
...also outOfVodka,jpg
post it quick if you want my drunk ass to believe you

>>9509547
>Does race actually exist or is it a social construct
Car insurance is a "social construct" but still exists,
Go back to /pol/ "race realist".

>>9483156
>Go back to /pol/
I'm from /diy/, /sci/ and /n/ in that order.

>is a "strawman argument" when it is actually a logical and true fact.
It's "truth" is debatable (I'm being generous), but either way, you're putting words in my mouth.
I never claimed time causes anything.
If I drive a hundred miles, the length doesn't cause anything.
You're so wrapped up in your own bullshit you can't see the forest for the trees.

If time isn't real, why is there so much relating to it in physics?

>Sorry you jumped in late at a failed attempt to troll
I'm mot the one making an extraordinary claim, I'm not the troll.

>>9463378
You miss my point entirely.
Saying "it's just chemicals" is a handy chant for the OCD tards among us, but the truth is chemistry is often so incredibly complex, it's a miracle people aren't more mysteriously complex and deep.
You can't hand-wave away a phenomenon because "it's all just protons, neutrons and electrons, I learned this shit in 9th grade".

>>9201628
>Even then you don't have to detect a planet to detect radio waves
AGAIN:
>>9200161
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox#We_are_not_listening_properly

>>9178411
Hey Opie, I'm new to the thread.

Your poorly punctuated word salad hurts my brain, but I'll bite.
If you have an algorithm, post it.
No, I'm not reading months worth of your ramblings.
Algorithms can be implemented in programming languages.
Post the Java version, or Perl, or PHP.
I'll settle for any major programing language.

>>9150551
>thoughts without a written language?
What????
Written language is just a way to represent spoken language.
How do you think people invented written language if they couldn't think in a verbal language?

>>9044476
Even MORE retarded.
"From Peru" isn't a race, any more than "left handed" is.
I'm "from Texas", does that make you gay?

>>9035672
>How long is this thing?
>>9035908
>Not very.
Compared to a real novel, yeah it's "short".
But compared to other stupid shit I'm doing instead of my job?
It's pretty fucking long.
And so far, it's all exposition.
Neat, but I couldn't honestly recommend it to anyone.
Oh, BTW: My wife saw me scrolling through the first page, and she thinks I've caught a "bug".
I assume she means a virus.
I'm kind of lost on why she would think that, besides being an ass in general.
But I suspect _anything_ she hasn't seen on TV is somehow automatically bad.

pic related. It's how the story makes me feel.

>>9019518
>but if you're suggesting the activity in the solar system here, isn't indicative of similar activity elsewhere
I'm not.
Are you implying our solar system contains a red dwarf with a closely orbiting planet?

>>9019518
>basic laws of mass on that scale aren't thoroughly proven to be predictive
The predictions lead to tidal locking.
Al best, you can suggest some other forces may overcome this in some cases, but you certainly can't claim that, in general, red-dwarf Goldilocks planets aren't tidally locked.

If we're going to get all speculative, I'd say the most likely scenario is that the standard for life in the universe involves an environment with a tidally-locked world orbiting a red dwarf.
...assuming the large number of red dwarfs offsets the handicaps that environment presents.

>>9013707
>what the fuck?
Never mind QM, the "Arrow of time" makes it clear the universe is non-deterministic.
If classical mechanics were as real as the average OCD, autistic neck beard would like, then cause and effect would work equally well backwards in time as well as forwards.
The future would be able to affect the past as well as the past effects the future.
And that's clearly not how the real world works.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laplace%27s_demon#Thermodynamic_irreversibility
> Laplace's demon met its end with early 19th century developments of the concepts of irreversibility, entropy, and the second law of thermodynamics.