/sci/ - Science & Math

bumps

I think you'll fit in here fine.

http://www.marshallbrain.com/manna5.htm

It''d be some kind of communism, government-controlled.
Because otherwise that robot and all others belong to someone, like, the CEO of where they work.
That someone won't give the money he gets from his robots to some random people just because it'd be cool and nice.
And that person also has tons of money to bribe the government and have them keep the system as it is.
The workers replaced by robots don't matter, they'll starve off and die or stop having children because they can't afford it.
But the workers are also the buyers, so there'll be less and less money and less and less activity and at the end everyone kills himself and the robots take over the world.

>>3559377

>in germany they are actually debating the "base income". they figured they are paying
so much for social security anyway that they might as well just give every citizen $1500/month, no matter who it is.

Really? Do you have a link where I can read more about this?

>>3559377
>is it possible to have an economic model where all people of a country are getting their jobs replaced by robots, thus they don't need to work anymore and can live happily for free without work?
Yes, but that wouldn't be the most efficient way a society to function, which is why we are generally trying to avoid it.

>in germany they are actually debating the "base income". they figured they are paying so much for social security anyway that they might as well just give every citizen $1500/month, no matter who it is.
Interesting, but I don't think any country in the world has the infrastructure to pull something off something like this right now. At any rate, you would need a radical re-education of the populace's cultural perceptions to ensure majority doesn't just leech everything without contributing.

>>3559390
>The workers replaced by robots don't matter, they'll starve off and die or stop having children because they can't afford it.
Not necessarily, the workers that lose their job can be to be educated in STEM fields. Remember that industrial output isn't reduced, just replaced by robots, so we could have a society that consists entirely of scientists, engineers, technicians and mathematicians (and the denizens of /sci/ will finally lose their god-complex).

>But the workers are also the buyers, so there'll be less and less money and less and less activity and at the end everyone kills himself and the robots take over the world.
>Implying we would still need capitalism if we could accomplish this.

>>3559377
That's actually called reverse income tax. google it, it's a pretty awesome tax system

>>3559398
>>3559398
>>3559398
>>3559398

>in germany they are actually debating the "base income".
No they're not.

First of all you can't replace all jobs unless a higher A.I. is achieved. But at that point all humans would be useless.

As more and more manual labor will be done by robots only educated and creative people will be able to earn money.

>>3559403
I think what OP is getting at is that eventually all the work that needs to be done can be done by a small amount of people, at that point how do you distribute goods among everyone.

Extreme simplification. Everyone needs 3 pieces of bread a day, each person can produce 9 pieces of bread a day, only 1/3rd of the population actually needs to work to satisfy the needs of everyone

>>3559398
can't find resources in english language.
google for "grundeinkommen" and translate what you find appropriate

>>3559414
>>3559414
>>3559414
OP here.. this exactly

>>3559418
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax

>>3559414
Well I don't really want to use the term "resource based economy" since it seems to be taboo on /sci/, but I can't really think of any other economic model that seems appropriate.

>>3559377
>they figured they are paying so much for social security anyway that they might as well just give every citizen $1500/month
And where are they going to get this money from when basically every country in the world has to cut spending?

Our current process of automatization/robotization is clearly too slow if the world's population keeps growing and all these fuckers still manage to find jobs.

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,1921600,00.html

This is utopian thinking.

Usually utopian thinking proceeds like this -- it cuts one domain of human activity from the rest and creates an idealised version in which everyone's problems are magically solved by introducing some perfectly ordered factor (technology or perfectly just ownership rules). Then everything else is ignored or discounted as a relevant factor in the final outcome. Examples: Marx - every social order is based on economics, once you solve the economic problem you solve all political and social problems; Plato - every human order must be based as closely as possible on the Ideas, so that the order in the human soul is re-established by how the city is organised by laws; French socialists - all of society's problems will be solved by science, including moral and political problems, everything else is irrelevant/religious; etc).

Where do you live in a society with robot labour?
Does everyone live in the same type of home or some are better-off than you?
How many kids are you allowed to have without putting too much strain on resources/robots?
Who pays if you want to travel somewhere else? How far/long can you travel, if you're not working?
What do most unthinking people do with their time, if they're not working? Most people are neither creators nor thinkers, so this trite idea that using robots will "unlock the human potential for creativity" is pure shit. If given total free time, most people would read gossip press, watch reality shows, consume more, and have more conflicts, since nothing keeps them busy like work.

Utopianists don't realise that work has been used in history to keep people busy during the day, as a means for social control of the masses, not just because of economic necessity.

>>3559502

>>3559502
well you could leave EVERYTHING as it is and just hand over $3k/month to errbody.
then people can decide themselves wat do with that money.
and they can decide themselves if they want to take additional jobs to take in moar money.
no need for communism

=cont= since 4chan has a retardedly limited character limit

Obviously not all human problems are economic. Every economic system works on some underlying morality/teleological account which brings all the citizens under the same rules. So no, technology and science do not solve all of humanity's problems. Designing robots to replace humans does not solve the moral problems based on which society works.

Very few people can be idle and productive/creative. They will only live to consume, fuck, watch tv, and look for ways to trick the system to get more than the others (since it's human nature to be greedy and have more than your neighbours). And so there will be conflicts for more resources, since people will be hungry to differentiate themselves one from another, to increase their chances of mating, etc.

>>3559384
>"Eric realized that ownership, in the Western sense, is the problem. His solution was to turn ownership upside down. Eric used the corporate ownership model to create a civilization that accomplishes his goals."
So, hand over all your economic freedom to a benevolent dictator called Eric and you will achieve utopia? What disgustingly retarded utopia fantasy shit is this?

>>3559502
You were doing so well until
>If given total free time, most people would read gossip press, watch reality shows, consume more, and have more conflicts, since nothing keeps them busy like work.

>>3559525
lol, I love /sci/. it's so much different from "tl; dr"

It is inventivable. Robot tax will be a requirement to sustain the population and continue the economic system. Even the jobs that create the technology will be short bursts of research and development and once the object is created everyone gets fired. The era of the unskilled laborer is dead.

>>3559512

Where do you imagine this money would come from? And how many people do you think would continue to work their crummy 9-5 cubicle jobs if they had $3,000 a month coming in?

>>3559570

Not that fag, but why do you disagree? What do you think people would do with their free time? Not the small minority of creative, inventive people, but regular folk?

>>3559539
Created it, doesn't rule over it. Did you continue reading?

Newsflash: We already have robots in industry.
Newsflash: It has led to people being fired and companies cutting costs/CEOs making moar money/buying more boats.
Newsflash: the fired don't get any money for sitting home indefinitely.
Conclusion: more robots will cut more jobs, make more CEOs/companies richer and possibly force people to work for less money, since the robots are owned by companies.

>>3559601

I can tell you're American by your views of motivation.

>>3559612

It still has this Venus Project "Give 500$ to Jacques Fresco to make his vision a reality" vibe.

I'd rather have a Diamond Age-like system of phyles, but without the Feed Lines. Molecular assembly/disassembly (Or Micron-scale 3D printing, if the former is not available) is available to all, no exceptions. SKDB is used as a "sudo apt-get [real-life object]" and the phyles are all completely independet and run under their own laws. A Common Protocol dictates cross-phyle interactions.

>>3559377

I also thought about this, as jobs disappear from the bottom up, being replaced by robots, will it end up with money being even more concentrated in the hands of the robots masters and mass unemployment.

It's not a sustainable situation, and would naturally lead to some kind of basic income if it becomes simply impossible to get a job

>>3559633
In the short term, that is what happens.

Think long term.

Where do the CEO's get their money? By selling products. Where do the products come from? The robots.

So who is buying the products?

Oh whoops, it can't be the general population - none of them have any jobs!

Capitalism (The current form, at least) is going to shoot itself in the head as it embraces autolabor. I've got the popcorn ready. It's going to be a wild ride.

>>3559662
it already has

we're at a point where 10% of the population can produce enough for 100% of the population

>>3559662
>So who is buying the products?
Other owners of robots. They trade among themselves, the rest can die. They also own enough weaponry to make sure you don't get close to their property.

>>3559672

>lower class dies off
>upper class are the only people left
>hyper inflation
>everyone becomes lower class
>balance is restored to the universe

>>3559680
>my robots produce everything i need
>why do i need money again?
>lol inflation

>>3559687

>your robots eventually breakdown
>nobody exists with the knowledge to fix it
>lol universal poverty

>>3559645

Nice ad hom. Also, wrong. And really, you think people will work their mindless jobs when they're being given $3,000 a month gratis? You must be from the Moon.

>>3559694
>robots can produce anything
>only need a staff of a dozen people to fix robots that produce thousands of units an hour

>>3559702

>staff demand shitloads of money/resources as they are then the most valuable people on Earth
>the upper class is now ruled by twelve homosexuals

>>3559698
Not the guy you quoted, but learn what ad hominem means.

http://plover.net/~bonds/adhominem.html

>>3559706
of course not because there's a billion other people who can do the job of those 12 people

you still end up with massive oversupply of labor no matter how you cut it

>>3559715

No, remember the lower class died off.

>>3559706
>the rich made sure they have robots which fix themselves and improve themselves
>the owners only only breed if they have to
>they replace their organs every few years with new ones, made by robots to prevent aging
>they building ships and fly into space
>get more resources, send more robots
>they never age, they explore space
>poorfags die of starvation

>>3559698

I AM the guy you quoted, and you're full retard. Also, don't try to deny that you're American. I'm American myself I just get a jolly out of spotting TAB (Typical American Behavior). I have found that a vast majority of Americans think that money is the largest, if not sole, motivator. I'm not sure why, but Americans think people only do things for money, which is obviously and demonstrably false. It would be leagues more accurate to say that people only do things for a reward, but people (Americans) don't realize money isn't the only reward. I'll cut my diatribe short and just link you this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc

>>3559612
>Created it, doesn't rule over it.
No, he does rule over it, he controls how the trillion dollars are spent.

>The upshot is that, by selling one billion shares of stock in 4GC, Inc., Eric accumulated one trillion dollars in the corporation."

If the corporations is democratic and everyone votes for who they want then it'll need a bureaucracy, politicians will arise and we'll end up with the same shit we have now. Is this where you split hairs and nitpick to put off admitting you are wrong until the opponent has to go? You will never come close to achieve anything, Edward, until you starting eating that humble pie.You are a worthless low intelligence fleshbag and there is a 99.99% chance your brain will decay into goop within the next 150 years and you will never be in this form again, your only chance is to ignore those primitive meaningless emotions and accept reality.

>>3559738
I think part of the problem is the $3,000 a month, any negative income tax scheme would only cover enough to put you just above poverty level

You'd still need to get a job to buy luxuries you want

No, remember the lower class died off.
Currently they are in expansion.
The reproduction rate of lower class > the lower age the die at.
Since the 1700's the world has been overpopulated, if we don't do something nature will. Bacterium have no emotions or sympathy for us. Once the water tables dry up and the food can't be easily produced the people will be bio-harzards to each other and disease will plague. Wars are already being fought for water. My hope is to increase humanities resources with science.

>>3559744

If you're the same person, you obviously replied before watching the video, so I'll give you a chance to do that and then reflect on your argument a little deeper.

>>3559784
What argument do you think I'm making? I'm saying $3,000 is too much and people are thinking it'll make people lazy. The real number would be lower and only be enough for food and housing.

People will still work to purchase luxuries and entertainment

>>3559738

Again, I'm not an American. Sure, people like to do things with their time: But that can just as easily be collecting rocks as doing useful work. And if you take a look at the people who ARE idle, such as the retired, the unemployed, and the idle rich, what do you see? A hive of creativity and productiveness? The ONLY thing that motivates most people to work, is discomfort. Once they are comfortable, well-fed and housed, with ample means of distraction and self-medication, they cease to be productive.

Also, that other fag wasn't me.

>>3559794
>>3559804

Arguing with multiple people...?
NOPE

>>3559794

If money was removed as a problem people would be free to work the jobs they like and not the ones that afford them financial security.

>>3559804
So your argument is old people don't work? Wow, I must have taken an extra dose of Vitamin Duh.

>>3559822

No, my argument is that comfortable people don't work. And $3,000 a month sounds pretty damn comfortable to me.

Robots get artificial intelligence.
Robots notice that we only use them for work.
Robots want rights.
We're fucked.

Anybody thought about that?

>>3559893
>robots think

>>3559893
This is something that comes up a lot, but no one has ever given me a proper answer; rebellion might not be an issue of sentience, but of biology and the way our own human/animal brains are programmed. WHY would a robot rebel? Does it have an ego? Does it not like having masters? Why? Is this something that occurs naturally with sentience? If so, why is it unthinkable we could circumvent it?

>>3559897
>rebellion might not be an issue of sentience, but of biology and the way our own human/animal brains are programmed

>sentience =/= biology
Nigger u just went full retard.

>>3559897

We can only hope to make intelligences like our own, because we lack any knowledge of intelligence UNlike ours. Only thru mimicking nature, in this case, the structure of our own brains, can we hope to recreate something so complex.

>>3559913
>>3559906

>>3559916
Oh, I have a fan. How are you today?

>>3559913
I rather like your explanation, but it still doesn't rule out us modifying the programming a little bit to take out revolts, though that sounds far easier than it will be.

>>3559897
I don't think that people are smart enought to circumvent it. Humanity want artificial intelligence for a faster development. I don't think that robots are such stupid with their own intelligence to not want free time or rights like human have them. I'm not sure if you need sentience to see that other individuals are more free than you. Maybe a rational thinking suffices for that.

Well if robots rebel i guess whos winning in the fight humans versus Robots.

I don't want to argue with movies but maybe Matrix should be a warning to humanity. Besides we won't have someone like Neo.

>>3559906
We don't know enough about consciousness or neurology, computers that work on discrete 1s and 0s may be fundamentally different from analog brains.

>>3559924

Doubtful, and even if you do manage that, do you imagine the libtarded hordes of the modern West wouldn't protest and agitate for "civil rights" on the robots behalf? Slavery in Britain ended because British liberals whipped up a moral crusade against it, not because of any rebellion on the part of the slaves.

>>3559931
>I don't want to argue with movies but maybe Matrix should be a warning to humanity.

Pic related.

>>3559942
Personally I'd see three emerging classes from robots.
- The ones who are very intelligent and free thinking, these are the ones that get a labor rights movement
- The ones who are mass-produced with baseline intelligence for work, with very little support or desire for becoming one of the robot elite
- And later on the humans that become robots, who would largely fit into the first group.

>>3559944
wtf

>>3559931
But what if we program the robots to WANT to work for free and to be ordered and all that?

>>3559960
But what if the robots are autistic/have assburgers?

>>3559950

I'd broadly agree, though I don't think human cyborgs would ever be considered anything other than human. But that doesn't answer the question: What do you do when the advanced robots upon whom your society depends become emancipated? Why would they work to support idle humans?

ITT people who have never watched terminator

I wouldn't care is humanity was surpassed by super-intelligent robots, if they had some sort of motivational/evolutionary force in place to make them expand over the universe and wouldn't simply have no motivation beyond repetitive tasks or fail to maintain their energy supply and lay dormant for eons.

Oh robocomony thread?

7th time Ive used this image

NOW JUST WAIT A FUCKING SECOND

>the working class dies off
>capitalism has no economic base

At this point, why are we even pretending that human economy as we know it even has value? If all capitalists control adequate production facilities to support themselves indefinitely, there is doesn't seem to be any reason why a major interlocking economic system should exist at all. The major defining features of this society will be rule through violence, which will mostly likely stagnate into a hegemony, which will most likely lead to the death of the rest of the human race

Amirite?

You still have to have redundant human workers that know how maintain them should they fail.

Or fight them off should we get a Terminator/Metropolis situation

"robot" meaning "slave"

Would it be any less ethical to alter the human brain so it no longer resents being forced to work?

Where is the resident sci economist when you need him?

Hello everyone, I am German, and i will vote for the a party that endorses the basic income guarantee.

For you information:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income_guarantee

In germany, we would actually save money under such a system. First we would save in terms of expenditure, as every german receives on average 6000€ a month in social benefits. This of course includes bureaucracy necessary to evaluate eligibility, scholarships, etc.

Reducing this to 1500€ a month would not save a lot of money, but would also enable us to get rid of the bureaucracy needed for oversight. Secondly, one could do away with all those subsidies to coal workers, farmers and the like, because we need not fear their unemployment anymore. They are well cared for. Then, workers protection, like paid sick leave, maternity leave, inability to fire people, all this could go away, because people are able to survive.

Of course, as people here have pointed out, who would go work in a cubicle if they had this kind of money? Well, the answer is, probably everyone.
How does this work? Marginal utility! For every single hour you work, you get extra money you spend. You can freely decide how many hours you are willing to work and enjoy the benefits for each and every one of them. People might not want to work 40h a week anymore, but who cares? Just hire another one and get rid of him when you dont need him anymore. In contrast to the current welfare system, where you receive 800€ a month, and as soon as you get a job for 900€, you lose the 800€. Basically, you have the choice of unlimited free time and 800€ or 900€ and a 40h week. This is why people don't want to work and rationally so.

There are other interesting aspects to this idea, but I guess this will generate enough questions already.

>>3560334

Im here. Hello.

>>3560310
For the moment, we have the technology for neither.

But, assuming we develop AI first, they would have no physical needs that human would have (food, water, rest, breaks due to fatigue, etc.) other than power and maintenance, and that would come out of the company/government's pocket.

>>3560345
late to the shitstorm...

>>3560334

I think I agree with the concept. That morally we are better off if everyone is provided for. I think people who say "People just wont work!" dont have a very good insight as to why people get employed to begin with. And I agree, if you are given money it doesnt mean the money you would earn at a job would be less valuable.

It seems similar in concept to the idea of Negative Income Tax, which, I and a few others on /sci/ seem to be fond of. The difference would be this policy says that we will just pay everyone X amount of cash. A negative income tax says, if you make no income we will pay you X amount, and that amount will get progressively lower as your income increases until it reaches zero and even becomes negative.

>>3560356

Yeah how did I miss this thread? Anyway, robot-economic threads are usually silly (I think). And usually I just sit around being like "Oh /sci/, you so silly."

>>3560287
Thats the rub. Once they get motivation, they are no longer robots. This is what most AI proponents fail to understand.

>>3560302
Anybody gonna critique this? ANYBODY?

>>3559738

>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc

This video has somewhat restored my faith in humanity. Thank you for this.

>>3560426
Maybe. But it's likely the rich will divide the territory among themselves and probably go into space for more resources.

>>3560501

I remember that video. I remember when I originally saw it I thought it was dumb.

My problem isnt so much that they are wrong. Behavioral economics is really great, and studying how people actually behave, I think is going to provide great insights for the field of economics.

My problem is every behavioral economist Ive ever seen seem to suffer from the same problem. They do a study, find something interesting and then somehow make some huge leap and say "Looks like the entirety of economics is bullshit!"

Like for instance, this video concludes that when an activity requires cognitive activity a larger incentive lowers performance. Well first of all, what the hell is "cognitive activity"? They never explain that. I feel like thats a very important detail. And then they say "Because we offtered people money to throw a frisbee and they didnt do it well, that means that money isnt an incentive" Really?

Anyway I could sit here and pick apart that video. I wont though.

>>3560551
I'd love to see the "cognitive tasks" they used to motivate rural Indians to achieve more. Maybe they gave up not because higher reward doesn't bring better performance on more complicated cognitive tasks, but because they would have settled even for a smaller reward if that implied not doing more mental work.
And of course, if you let them do what they want, they are more motivated, but that doesn't necessarily make products which can be sold. I'd really want to see that study.

>>3559377
so, turn niggers into robots?

BRILLIANT!

>>3559512
>yfw a cheeseburger costs $3,000

>>3560593

>I'd love to see the "cognitive tasks" they used to motivate rural Indians to achieve more

Nigger you're full retard.

>>3560625

>yfw
>no face

Goddammit this shit needs to stop. Seriously mother fuckers, shit's unacceptable.

>>3560636
That's what he said. They used the same experimental design in a rural area in India. You retarded or somethin?

>>3560684

They didn't use cognitive tasks to motivate them. They used MONEY to motivate them to complete cognitive tasks.

IDORT! HAO DUS IT FEL 2 B AUTISM?!?!?!?

>>3560593

Yeah, it seems like, nothing can be concluded from these studies. And certainly nothing can be extrapolated. /Sci/ seems to think that such studies imply that big rich guys are stupid dummy faces.

I saw Dan Ariely talk at my university and I asked him about how he can extrapolate information about people's careers and salaries based off studies that took maybe an hour for piece work. He didnt really answer my question, but thats okay becuase his answer was still interesting. He pointed out that sometimes its smart to incentivize activity that makes you better, instead of incentivizing the activity itself.

For instance, if you want good basket ball players, pay them to take classes, dont pay them for every shot they make. They are going to want to make the shot no matter what, you dont need to encourage them to do that.

>>3560636

You know what he meant.

>>3560334
what you would get, is what already happens in Germary, labor shortage, so people from Eastern Europe, Turkey etc, who are willing to work for less would come and take their job.

Also if you cut out the burocracy, you make tax collection way more difficult, and you end up with not enough money to pay for the 1500€

>>3560700
Uhm, if u paid attention to the talk, it said the experiment had two tasks. One was simple-algorthmic, the other required more difficult cognitive effort with uncertain results, but more reward. But he also said that they discovered that when given an environment in which they had a sense of purpose, the tested had more motivation to be creative than when given a reward. That's what I meant by cognitive tasks which would motivate. Because an Indian peasant is likely to have different cognitive interests that would motivate him/her compared to the educated folks that were tested in the US.

>>3560740

>Uhm, if u paid attention to the talk, it said the experiment had two tasks. One was simple-algorthmic, the other required more difficult cognitive effort with uncertain results, but more reward.

Uhm, if YOU paid attention to the talk, it said there were MULTIPLE tasks some that were mechanical and algorithmic, and some that required cognitive skill. The rewards for ALL OF THEM were equally based on performance.

>But he also said that they discovered that when given an environment in which they had a sense of purpose, the tested had more motivation to be creative than when given a reward.

This was never said and you are pulling random shit out of your ass.

SRSLY DUDE? WAI YOO B SO RITARD?!? GB2 GAYVILLE! UR DAD IS WAIT!

so what would be the class divisions of a predominately upper-class society? How would it interact economically?

>>3560843

>2011
>Being psychology dependent on class division

I seriously hope you don't do this.

>>3560771
I read the studies faggot. He says shit to promote his book. The evidence says they were all cognitive tasks, but the second type of task required creativity to find a solution in a situation with more uncertainty, but also more reward in case of success. Read the studies before talking like a retard based on a populariser's talk.

>>3560903

>The evidence says they were all cognitive tasks

Throwing a ball through a hoop is a cognitive task?

Y'know, I'm done mocking you. It's not fun, or funny, when the person you're mocking is ACTUALLY retarded.

>>3560853
>2011
>thinking class can ever be abolished
human beings naturally organize themselves into hierarchies. The question is what the hierarchy would look like

>>3560934

Well it definitely requires cognition, as in it requires the brain to do stuff. What does "cognitive task" mean exactly?

>>3560957

>2011
>thinking all human desires & urges should be indulged

Human beings naturally have a strong sex drive, doesn't mean we should allow rape. Sometimes I want to punch people in the face, but I don't because I know it has negative consequences. Our natural desires don't take precedent over common good.

>>3560934
Thinking about an abstract concept is a cognitive task if it activates the cerebellum, you idiot? I bet you don't even understand the question :)).

>>3560987

Simply inducing brain activity is not cognition. It has to be behavior that utilizes conscious thought. Eating food is not conscious because you don't think to yourself "Okay, close your jaw, now open it, absorb the flavor molecules on your tongue.". We don't do that. That would be conscious thought. Just like we don't think to ourselves, "Lift your arm, rotate your wrist, project your arm outward." We don't do that. We UNCONSCIOUSLY move our body to complete the task.

>>3561011

As for you, just shut up. You have no clue what your talking about. Thinking about an abstract concept would likely activate the prefrontal cortex and the occipital lobes. The cerebellum co-ordinates movement. In fact, employment of the cerebellum would explicitly indicate a non-cognitive task.

>>3561038

I play basket ball, I have been doing so for the last 4 years. Im not bad, and I would consider a free throw (just shooting a ball) as an activity that requires cognition. NBA players dont just go up and shoot a free throw. They contemplate what they are doing, and they are successful at it because that are consciously aware of the motions they are making.

If cognition just meant "you have to think about it" everything is cognitive. In fact, to imply that someone could get better a task which doesnt require cognition, is an oxymoron, because to get better would have to imply some conscious thought.

That unless, thats not how we define cognitive activity. Which I believe only Dan Ariely and the researchers involved can do, since they were the ones who did the study. There is no amount of assumptions we can make that will tell us how that study went.

>>3561075

>In fact, to imply that someone could get better a task which doesnt require cognition, is an oxymoron, because to get better would have to imply some conscious thought.

Jesus christ... I'm done. I cannot argue with twelve year olds. If you seriously think this to be true I would suggest a topical mineral supplement. It's applied to the head via gun.

>>3561038
>>3561038
Dude, stop it, you're making a fool of yourself. Cognition is a mental process. That includes attention. Some reseachers even use the term "affective cognition" to suggest that cognition is not necessarily self-aware.

The cerebellum is involved in abstract thinking:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19524048
For your education, something simple, at your level of understanding the mind:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_cognition
http://brain.oxfordjournals.org/content/129/2/290.full

this troll-economics comic seems relevant
pic related: what we may have to end up doing

>>3561119

Ok, You got me. Recent research shows that the cerebellum is not exclusively for motor control. Congratulations. However, the distinction between conscious and unconscious still remains and I will not be engaging into a semantic argument with you about cognitive tasks. Throwing a ball through a hoop is not cognitive. Regardless of anything anyone has said, that fact remains true. Just because you googled cerebellum doesn't make you right about that. Your fundamental arguments are still flawed.

As for me, I'm done, because I stopped caring about five minutes ago. Keep believing what you want to believe, but know that it is wrong and if you do so, you are just as retarded as theists.

Peace nigga.

>>3561096

What I mean is if you pay someone to screw screws into a wooden board. And you say "I will pay you dependents on how well you manage to do this." For them to want to do it better would imply them to consciously consider their methodology, and alter it.

Oh, also, for whatever its worth. I am 20 years old. I am majoring in economics.

>>3561157
You're replying to the other guy. I'm this guy >>3561011

>>3560990
>2011
>trying to win arguments with off-topic shit