/sci/ - Science & Math

The conscious experience of sentient life is a part of the universe. It exists, it is a part of reality, it is just very abstract, complex, and difficult to study

Why do people dismiss consciousness as pseudoscience and relegate it to the level of horoscopes and crop circles, when in fact consciousness is the most immediate part of the universe we all access on a regular basis?

I don't see you guys outside manually re-deriving Newton's Laws of Motion, but I know that right now you are experiencing consciousness directly. How can you say it's not concrete and an aspect of the universe itself?

With it being established that consciousness is real, how can you furthermore claim that the psychedelic experience is simply a subjective personal experience and therefore unimportant and not "real"?

It's every bit as real as an electron, a waterfall, a bacteria, or a human body. It's just more abstract, more difficult to describe using the noun-verb paradigm of our languages

tl;dr
Consciousness is real
The psychedelic experience is real
All arguments otherwise are mistaking the map for the territory and a result of people confusing themselves with words

>>8996282
>https://answersingenesis.org/human-evolution/lucy/lucy-the-knuckle-walking-abomination/
Lucy's compact hip structure is conclusive proof that she was bipedal like a human, not quadrupedal like a chimp. your only response to this has been to repeatedly claim that all the evidence is fake.

>homo habilis isn't transitional
yes it is. by definition, literally everything is transitional.
>Lucy and Black Skull were apes
australopithecines were definitively human based on their dentition and their stance (foramen magnum at bottom of skull and rounded innominate are definitive signs of bipedalism). robust australopithecines just happened to retain some apelike features of the jaw, which you seem to think makes them automatically non-human apes.

>They don't count, as THEY were trying to know everything.
Scientists are also trying to know everything. You're coming up with a lot of excuses for why alchemy HAS to be settled, but the affinities of early hominines CAN'T be...and it all seems to boil down to "because I said so". pathetic.

>So I'm wrong because you want it to be an ape-man?
no, you're wrong because the sum of the evidence indicates a creature with a mixture of human and ape traits, but you don't have the knowledge of anatomy to understand this. you don't have the knowledge to be able to tell me whether Phacops rana was opisthoparian, gonatoparian, or proparian, but I don't imagine it would stop you from having an ignorant opinion on that.

>So it's a lie that there are no transitional forms?
precisely.

>Observation isn't historical.
yes it is. I can pick up a trilobite and observe that 400 Mya, it shed its shell. I can look at a bone and say that 70 Mya, it was bitten by a crocodile. I can look at a broken glass on the floor and know that ten seconds ago, the cat pushed it off the table. it's all about using one's brain.

>>8117690
ooh, good catch. the journal name checked out okay, but I didn't check up on the publishing company.
yeah, that brings the total in that list of actually skeptical papers published in legitimate journals to...zero, maybe? not sure, there might be one or two further down the list but I CBA to find them

Use the inner product <p,q>=p(-3)q(-3)+p(0)q(0)+p(2)q(2) in P3 to find the orthogonal projection of p(x)=2x^2+4x+1 onto the line L spanned by q(x)=4x^2-6x-8.

I keep on getting (246/2196)(4x^2-6x-8) but apparently that is wrong...