/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9984010
Micropenis detected. How does it feel?

>>9277466
>he fell for the yourbrainonporn.com meme
Imagine being unironically this retarded.
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/02/0222_060222_sex.html
>Some people believe the act of ejaculation draws testosterone, the hormone of both sexual desire and aggression, from the body.
>"This is a really wrong idea," said Emmanuele A. Jannini of the University of L'Aquila in Italy. Jannini is a professor of endocrinology, the study of bodily secretions, and has studied effects of sex on athletic performance.
>"After three months without sex, which is not so uncommon for some athletes, testosterone dramatically drops to levels close to children's levels," he said. "Do you think this may be useful for a boxer?"

>>9156295
>Creating a copy of your consciousness isn't you.
This is one of the worst philosophical misconceptions of all time.
It's not that a copy wouldn't be "you," it's that there's no such thing as continuity of "self" in the first place. The closest thing to a continuity mechansim that actually exists is just your memories (and existing habits and aptitude for new behaviors, although you can argue those are ultimately derivative of memory), which can exist in more than one container without any one of those containers being more genuinely "you" than any of the others. "You" from ten minutes ago doesn't magically teleport into "you" from five minutes ago any more than "you" before an artificial mind version is created would teleport into that artificial mind version. The artificial mind creation would result in two versions of "you" existing at the same time if you don't kill the source "you" as part of the process, which screws with our intuitions since there wouldn't normally be more than one version existing at the same time in the natural scenarios we're familiar with, but the multiplicity of the situation doesn't make the artificial mind any less legitimate or "just a copy," at least not in any way that's less legitimate than the countless many momentary versions of "you" that have already emerged from your birth to the present.
Replacing your brain with artificial components one neuron at a time wouldn't be beneficial at all, it'd just satisfy a superstitious belief that there's some special continuity of "self" module you need to preserve for an artificial "you" to be more than "just a copy."

>>8457811

>I don't believe abilify was a best selling pharmaceutical because the fact was reported on by rt

You know you can look it up in other sources too, right?

>>8313948

>Personally I think the "brain as antenna" view of consciousness is silly and bunk but we don't really have way to experimentally rule it out.

You don't need to rule it out because it's a non-statement based on a conflation of objects with abstract shortcuts of language. "Consciousness" isn't an object. "Consciousness" is a label of convenience used to speak in terms of a magical, non-physical catchall explanation for human behavior as an alternative to talking about the actual nervous system impulses making people utter sounds like "I'm angry" or "that hurts." The difference between it and the material reality of behaviorism is similar to the difference between the abstraction of "money" and the material reality of people interacting with pieces of paper and exchanged commodities or labor. You can build models with this abstraction (i.e. psychology) and make useful predictions with them, but this abstraction isn't an actual object with a location. Wondering whether "consciousness" is produced by the brain or channeled by the brain is exactly like wondering whether money lives inside paper or is merely channeled by paper, which is to say neither "answer" is right and the question itself is premised on a misunderstanding.