/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11177640
>Don't post some like evolutionary explanation of consciousness or some other explanation that doesn't relate to the hard problem.
>By doing that you'd be signaling that you don't really understand the problem, and are unconscious yourself. Thus, it is moral for people to murder you.
Prove a proper definition of consciousness then and all related potentially ambiguous terms first. Otherwise there is no way of verifying if you understand this problem.
Let's all agree on one set of definitions to avoid pointless discussion.

>>11178309
Define subjective experience.
You definition of consciousness is not unambiguous.

>>9952068
>why are you blogposing about your miserable life in a thread where everyone blogpost about their miserable lifes
What is your problem?

>>8498003
True, it all depends on how you define intelligence.
I use intelligent person as someone who people usually call intelligent.
Is a person who lacks skills and knowledge but has great emotional intelligence or has good social status usually called intelligent?
Or someone who is just a great singer or draws beautiful paintings? They may be genuineness in art but they are not kind of people, people imagine when they are asked about "intelligent person".
But if you take people with 130+ IQ and people with 70-, then the former group in general will usually be perceived as intelligent and the latter will be perceived as not intelligent.
I used intelligence as ability to gasp new concepts, understand abstract ideas, quickly learn new things and IQ does correlate to these abilities.

>>8488417
I keep beening smart but lazy. But it doesn't mean I didn't accomplished anything.
It appears you can study at good uni, get a nice job simultaneously and have great opportunities without working too much, you just need to be smart.

>>8482933
Find API to access the universe framework or find some bug which will reveal some of that framework to us.

>>8448755
You can't confirm nor deny that there is something outside the observable universe.

/thread

>>8291337
Why wouldn't it?
There is no limit in how similar AI can be to human brain.

>>7953234
>Why the heck haven't we built a machine that can replicate itself?
Because there is no point. Assembling machine that can make machines will always be better at it's job than making similar machine that can replicate itself.
>Why haven't we made a machine that can make a copy of itself from dirt?
If you will build a machine from dirt using tools from dirt that can be made with the same tools from dirt, you could easily create this kind of machine. We haven't done that because dirt is shit at engineering.
>What are the technical challenges to doing this?
For normal machine there is no unsolved problems to make one.
For dirt one, we don't know how to make dirt useful in constructing machines.

This is so simple, why do you even need to ask?

>>7898011
>Numbers are more obvious than set theory to most people
The fact that time goes slower while getting closer to blackhole is more obvious than theory of relativity to most people.
The fact that you can use some theory to point things that can be understand without knowing it, doesn't mean that theory is bullshit.

>>7897914
definition =/= construction
It's an countable infinite set of objects with defined few operations on them.
It has total order, and we call the least element 0. The element that is larger than 0 and smaller than any other is called 1, etc. There is no greatest element in natural number set.
It also has defined +, -, *, /, mod, and many other operations.

>>7689765
I could not help but notice your png was not optimized anon.
I have optimized your png.
Your png is now optimized.