/sci/ - Science & Math

>>4611754
> very wise and knowledgeable.
> tripfag on 4chan

You're just comparing yourself with the wrong people.

sage

What is love?

does time exist as a actual force in the universe or is it merely the label we stick on a comparison between the velocity of bodies?

>>4611763
False.
I am comparing with 4chan, thus i am wise and knowledgeable.
>>4611766
I dont think you know how sage works.
>>4611768
An evolutionary trait that helped newborns have a better surviving chance by making a couple stick together.
At least thats the theory goes by so far.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_art_of_being_right

>>4611784
The latter.

Imagine time like a shadow.

Does shadows really exist?
No its an aftereffect of light.

Same with time, its an aftereffect of physical reactions.
By saying "time is relative" is no different than saying time doesn't exist, at least in the way most people have in mind.

>>4611790
>implying that isn't my superhero ability

>>4611786
>an evolutionary trait etc

That's not what he was asking for. He asked what IS love. He didn't ask for a possible explanation of where love originated.

Why are niggers so dumb?

Is peak oil gonna destroy all of civilization?

Is the real part of all zeros of the Zeta function 1/2?

>>4611786
i dont think you realize that sage goes in all fields

why does it hurt when I pee

>>4611805
I actually answered both what is love and how it is evolved.
Love IS a trait that was favored for better infant survival.
Thats why it usually lasts few years till mother/infant can stabilize.

Stay fundie, fundie.

>>4611812
Anyone who left africa:
1) interbreed with neanderthals (who had larger brains)
2) had to adapt to harsher climates such as winter, scarce food.

Having to store food for winter or places with scarce food required much forethought, planning and patience.
The ones that didn't, died out.

Though, evolution is never that simple but that was a major reason.

>>4611805

The correct answer was of course; "Baby don't hurt me, don't hurt me, no more."

Also, what the hell happened? I leave for like 2 months and /sci/ goes to shit, none of the old good tripfags are here, front page is magic, homework, and arrogance what the crap? Only good thing is the Planetary Resources thread.

>>4611837
You failed to define love. It being an evolutionary trait is a property that is independent of a definition. And listing an example of an effect love has is not a definition. Try again.

>>4611844
>none of the old good tripfags are here

Carl Sagan got banned.
Also I can't remember you ever having contributed anything of value.

>>4611851

If you thought Sagan was good, you probably wouldn't.

>>4611851

You are me, they are all yourself. You are all of them. The contributions from anons is made by all anons and do not belong to a specific person

>>4611815
No, adapt, alternative forms of energy and materials.

>>4611821
Ok, you have one unit of apple, you get another unit of apple.
How many apples you got now? 2.

No matter how you name the symbol that represents two units (II) it always gonna be two.
All math, if not all is applied counting, you can construct all of math with addition and negative addition (-,+)

Its biologically innate, even animals can count up to a point.
Its not a rule we make up, its part of physical reality, just like physics speak in a mathematical language, we are part of the physical world.

>>4611829
Its usually a fungus/bacteria

>>4611865

Count to i.

A old crt television with a 1024x768 screen with a 32bit color scheme gives the possible pixel configurations of 1024^768^(255^3) number of images, this set contains imagery of every possible shape that could exist it includes imagery of everything that exist in the universe from all the infinite possible angles and zoom depth and so on, yet yields a finite number. People often says there is a infinite number of shapes and variations, does this prove them wrong? After all the image sequence includes imagery of you raping every member of every species that have ever existed or could have existed and so on - from every angle, yet this is only a miniscule part of the sequence.

>>4611865
>naming an example that begs the question
>babbling some incoherent philosophy bullshit

That's not a proof, moron.

>>4611846
False.
That is the true objective integral definition of love.

Go back reading to your new age dualistic bs and novelas.

How can you prove someone wrong when his entire being seems to be centred on the belief that he is always right?

Who rules the sky?

>>4611875
No, it's not. I told you why it's wrong. Now it's up to you to improve your "definition" or to admit that you can't answer the question.

>using ad hominem
Cry harder.

>>4611870
i


>>4611871

tldr

>>4611874
>simple logic
>incoherent
There's your problem.

>>4611871
no it isn't
it's (1024*768)*(255^3)
fucking scrub
your question is wrong

>>4611894
This is getting better and better. You don't even know what logic is.

>>4611876
Being wrong implies that someone will support a claim that he hasn't thought it through.

Like it or not it is possible to be always right, with correct wording and only arguing and forcing yourself when you really have thought your theory.

Am always right when am not wrong.
Hence am always right.

>>4611882
The government that owns the aerospace.

>>4611883
Just because you convinced yourself that you "told why its wrong" that doesnt' make it so.
Get your shit together tyrone.

>>4611910
Yeah sure, keep avoiding an actual reply. You are embarrassing yourself.

>>4611898
Wrong.
I know what is logic.
You know what logic is too, but can't exercise it.

>>4611918
Then explain logic to me. I dare you. *prepars for huge load of lulz*

>>4611914
Says the guy who believes in magic.

>>4611927
Whatever you call "magic" has nothing to do with how I argue. I use proper arguments and logic. I address other posters' arguments and don't need any fallacies. And I expect everyone else to do the same.

Religion thread? Religion thread.

Physical reality in its elementary form is fractal and eternally cyclical. Prove me wrong.

>>4611932

You're a self-proclaimed dualist though. So technically you do believe in something that = magic.

>>4611955
Not technically. Literally.

>>4611851
The Carl Sagan tripfag is the same person as IQ Fundie.

>>4611955
Only by a very special definition of "magic". By that definition anyone believing in free will believes in magic.

>that feel when IQ fundie is so afraid of the fact that the mind is nothing more than physical processes and that free will doesn't exist that he resorts to dualist garbage, supernatural shit and mental masturbation to avoid reality

>>4611965
>anyone believing in free will believes in magic.

Exactly.

>>4611968
It has nothing to do with being afraid, it just doesn't seem plausible. I explained my reasoning in other threads (qualia, self-awareness, etc).

>>4611965
Well, counter-causal free will *is* a dualistic belief, so of course it, too, is a belief in magic. It's not a "very special definition" either, by the way. You'd be hard-pressed to find a definition of magic that would exclude dualistic notions.

>>4611837
Wrong, Neanderthals were notoriously stupid compared to Homo sapians but made up for it with physical strength, endurance, etc. Homo sapians living in Africa had to be innovative to store water, and hunt for already scarce food. The cold did not aid our intelligence, but rather hindered it. Its okay, you can't win em all

>>4611973
Your arguments were already destroyed, but you always resort to "You don't understand" "Why are you even posting?" and shit like that.

>It has nothing to do with being afraid

It's fucking evident that it does.

>>4611992
Not to defend him, but I think no one has destroyed his "You can't communicate qualia, therefore, they're magic" argument yet.

>>4611944
I can't prove you wrong.
I can only add that there is a hint of infinite in the core of all things.
Because if you ponder the existance of everything(universe, multiverse, and everything beyond) you have two choices:
1) everything was created out of nothing
2) everything always existed

Which actually is only one option:
Everything always existed since if something was created out of nothing then nothingness isn't really nothing just something really weird, it is something.
The only sensible answer is that something always existed, not talking about big bang, but everything in general.
As there is growing evidence of the multiverse in the mainstream scientific community.

And if you realize that, you are left with the idea of infinity, which no one can grasp, since our brains can't intuitively work with it, as with other things.


>>4611955
I didn't realized he's actually a dualist, i said earlier that he was one, as an insult.

>>4611982
Then why are niggers so dumb?

>>4611999
He believes that everything we don't understand is made of pixie tears and unicorn semen.

>>4611992
Then please show me in the archive where my arguments have been destroyed.

When talking about dualism, the majority of responses are wild insults or repetitions of arguments I already disproved. There are a few posters sufficiently educated, but those usually don't disprove my arguments regarding dualism (on the contrary the realize that they can't), but derail the debate into other philosophical topics.

So please show me any refutation.

>>4611999
You still failed to properly answer the question. Ad hominem won't solve that.

>>4612003
Why so butthurt? Or do you genuinely understand nothing of what I posted?

>>4612013
Why so thin-skinned? Can't you even laugh at your silly beliefs?

>>4612017
His post was hateful and ignorant. I see no reason to post this way in a science and math board.

>>4611999
I like you. Kinda. You should acknowledge that the concept of existence is paradoxical, with the notion of an ultimate cause.

>>4611995
What do you call something that can be communicated, but not copied? Semimagick?

>>4611970
>>4611965

That is incorrect, it depends on how you define what 'free will' is. What kind of requirements you have on it to be considered 'free' and further by what you mean by a persons will. Even if the universe were utterly deterministic you could argue for a free will simply by observing that you wished things would have turned out different.

>>4612019
>His post was hateful and ignorant.
No, my post really was just a joke. Calm down.

>I see no reason to post this way in a science and math board.
And I see no reason for someone to prolong discussions on qualia and dualism on a science and math board, but that's never stopped you. Get off your high horse.

>>4612022
Don't see the logic in that, to be honest. Presupposing a deterministic universe, even one's wish for things to be different would still be perfectly deterministic.

ITT: A tripfag whom thinks they're an elitist, while using poor grammar, incoherent English and ad hominem attacks.

>>4612008
I am not going to turn another another thread into a 300 replies thread about your dualist shit.
The point is, you always dismiss every argument against your shit with "You don't understand" or simple insults ("Why are you even posting?" "You are a troll" etc)

>>4612020
Explain your reasoning behind asking that question.

>>4612022
>you wished
That's wrong. In determinism and physicalism there is no such thing as "wishing". "Wishing" would require conscious thought.

>>4611999
>I can't prove you wrong.
>debate me on anything and i'll win.
OKAY!

>>4612042
>"Wishing" would require conscious thought.

Which is produced by a fully deterministic system; the brain.
If you can show me that conscious thought arises from somewhere else, and how several experiments about free will (Libet's experiment etc) are wrong I'm all ears.

>>4612031
The only reason to discuss qualia and dualism here is because some posters incorrectly assumed them to be "disproved by science". I hope you see the absurdity of disproving something unfalsifiable.

>>4612041
That's not correct. I post these kinds of replies only then when someone genuinely shows that he is not interested in / not capable of keeping up an actual debate.
There are some simple rules I would expect you to follow in a debate. If I disprove one of your arguments, I expect you to not post it again. Posters who inanely repeat disproved arguments have shown that they genuinely don't understand the topic of debate.
Another important rule is to stick to debating by means of arguments only. If a post is full of insults or ad hominem attacks, it doesn't deserve any kind of reply.

Now I'd like to ask you again, where you think my arguments have been disproved.

>>4612042
>In determinism and physicalism there is no such thing as "wishing". "Wishing" would require conscious thought.
Motivations, thoughts, etc. are perfectly in line with physicalism and determinism. You can still experience consciously wishing for things, even if your urge to do so is merely part of an inescapable causal chain.

>>4612049
If conscious thought is an epiphenomen, then it has no effects. In your frame that means it doesn't exist. Such a view directly contradicts our daily experience.

>>4612042
The correct answer is QUANTUM, which as everyone knows is halfway between magick and hard science.

>>4612061
*epiphenomenon

>>4612059
You are wrong. See >>4612061

>>4612061
Cognitive processes have effects, but they also have CAUSES, and they work in a fully deterministic way. Can't you understand?

>>4612040
ζωαδακι μου γλυκο, φεγγε μου να περπατω.
>>4612046
It wasn't a debate only an agreement.
Well, i could win if i wanted to, but reasons.

>>4612056
Please, don't tell me about breaking the rules of a debate and ad hominem attacks, because you do that all the time. And what's important, you don't reply to actual arguments.

>>4612027
Existence?
All i see is matter and energy.

>>4612064
No, I'm not wrong. Your claim that something doesn't exist, if it's an epiphenomenon is completely unfounded. Of course epiphenomena exist, and the experience of consciously longing, or wishing for something is one of them.

>>4612070
In determinism cognitive processes don't have effects. Everything is determined by chains of electrical signals in the brain. A self-aware consciousness cannot interfer and thus is an epiphenomenon. Especially it has to be non-physical as an epiphenomenon, because anything physical would be able to interfer by means of physical interaction. Now that ephiphenomenon would need to have a cause. But nothing physical can cause something non-physical. Whatever is caused physically remains physically and thus has the possibility of physical effects. Ergo in determinism and physicalsm conscious thought is impossible.

>>4612074
So far I replied to any actual argument and I never insulted anyone. Would you please post an argument instead addressing my person?

>>4612077
>epiphenomena exist

In your physicalist view that would be "believing in magic". For a more detailled explanation see >>4612078

>>4612078
>In determinism cognitive processes don't have effects.

I already explained this. They DO have effects, but they also have CAUSES. Cognitive processes are part of the chain of physical causation. This is why one cannot debate with you, because you ignore everything that's said to you and you keep repeating your shit.

>>4612084
>So far I replied to any actual argument and I never insulted anyone.

You are delusional.

>>4612095
Then your definition of "cognitive process" is physical computation in the brain only. We weren't talking about this kind of process (I think everyone agrees on how it works), but about conscious thought.

>>4612102
That's another insult. Can you please put on a tripcode, so I can filter you?

>>4612076
You percieve matter and energy, it is there, no?
Even further, because you are a construct of matter and energy, you are here, no?
What makes information "here" and "there"?

>>4612078
You are equivocating "consciousness" with the libertarian view of a "free agent".

Physicalism, evidentialism, and all of neuroscience demonstrate that what we think is our conscious "decision" in the matter is completely determined BY the causative processes.

In fact, our awareness of having made the decision comes AFTER our brain makes it.

Matsuhashi, M., & Hallett, M. (2008). The timing of the conscious intention to move. European Journal of Neuroscience , 28, 2344-2351.

The misunderstanding is in the awareness of our perception and the illusion that our perception of the action we take is a matter of truly libertarian "choice".

This simply means we are part of the causal chain of events that leads to our decisions. The fact that we can't understand all of the causes (inputs) that go in to our brains to result in a decision, action, perception, etc (output) doesn't mean that it's not exactly what's happening.

>>4612103
Are you saying that conscious thought isn't part of the congnitive processes in the brain?

Also, explain the Libet's experiments according to your dualist view.

>>4612091
>In your physicalist view that would be "believing in magic".
No, it would be believing in byproducts of physical processes.

>>4612076
You percieve matter and energy, it is there, no?
Furthermore, because you are a construct of matter and energy, you are here, no?
What makes information "here" and "there"?

>>4612112
>>4612119
>You percieve matter and energy, it is there, no?
Yup
>Furthermore, because you are a construct of matter and energy, you are here, no?
Yup
>What makes information "here" and "there"?
Distance, usually.

>>4612103

He says that that is what conscious thought is, a phenomena that emerges from that process, from how the mechanics in the brain works. Think of it like playing a song on a instrument, the song doesn't really exist in physical reality it just a wave on a carrier, the carrier do the existing part and the song is the momentary structural interconnection of how the waves relate to each other on top of that medium.

>>4612113
But how and why should this non-physical byproduct that we call "consciousness" originate from the physical activity of our brain? That seems like dualsm in denial and by merely looking at it, we already see that it's another problem not amenable to science.

>>4612116
Obviosly brain activity is only brain activity and doesn't explain self-awareness. Before you yell "emegence", I'd like to remind you that that's nothing but rewording 'magic", i.e. a word describing nothing but our lack of understanding of how something non-physical should originate from something physical.

>>4612117
>non-physical byproduct of a physical process
In the words of physicalists: "unnessecary magic".

>>4612106
What I'm supposed to do when you are outright lying?
To take pics of every thread you have ever been to simply post them when you lie?
Fucking faggot.

>>4612130
Then we are back at dualism. "Emergence" doesn't explain anything. On the contrary it says "we have no idea". And it does not only sound unplausible but is even impossible in a physicalist view to create something non-physical from physical interactions only.

>>4612124
Dunno what you mean by that and now I don't like you

>>4612140
Why do you post here? You don't post arguments and all you contribute are immature insults.

>>4612136
Just because we don't know everything about the brain doesn't mean you have the right to invoke supernatural bullshit.

And again, explain how the Libet's experiment (and several other similar experiments that corroborate its results) can be compatible with your dualism and your free will.

>>4611754
> Debates
> A competition instead of a means to find the truth

This is the problem with the world

>>4612148
I was talking about stuff, you?

>>4612136

There is nothing mystical about emergence, it's just a word for how structural configuration give things aspects they have as a whole that isn't inherent in any one of it's parts. Like a wheel existing of spokes and a band, lay them down on the ground in any number of orders and they're just spokes and a band, but assemble them so they interconnect right and a wheel emerges, a wheel that exists of the spokes and the band but also of the space between the spokes. Nothing magical about it.

>>4612149

Can dolphin electrolocation solve peak oil?

>>4612136
>But how and why should this non-physical byproduct that we call "consciousness" originate from the physical activity of our brain?

You're making the false assumption that consciousness is "non physical". We know that consciousness, like all of our sensory perceptions, are produced by brain activity. The idea that it's somehow "non physical" is illusory and shattered by a simple examination of neuroscience.

But how and why should this non-physical byproduct that we call "liquid" originate from the physical activity of our matter? That seems like dualsmsmsmsm in denial and by merely looking at it, we already see that it's another problem not amenable to science.

>>4612152
It's not a matter of "we don't know yet" but of "we can never know". What I'm pointing out here is that scientific understanding is inherently limited to the physical world and that there are things that science can't explain.
The Libet experiment is quite meaningless. We can't really measure when the person actually consciously decided to do something, because that knowledge is only accessable subjectivly by the person himself.

It's not a matter of "we don't know yet" but of "we can never know". What I'm pointing out here is that scientific understanding is inherently limited to the physical world and that there are things that science can't explain.
The Libet experiment is quite meaningless. We can't really measure when the liquid actually changed, because that knowledge is only accessable subjectivly by the matter itself.

>>4612174
In physical context there is nothing magical. As long as emergence leads to physically testable hypotheses, it's alright. But that's not the case here. You were proposing a (not further specified) mechanism of emergence to be responsible for creating something that cannot be measured or observed anymore (i.e. non-physical) originating from physical interactions. That seems like magic or an abuse of the word "emergence".

>>4612178
not yet.

Then your definition of "melting" is physical changes in the matter only. We weren't talking about this kind of process (I think everyone agrees on how it works), but about the transmutation of matter.

>>4612185
If it is physical, it has physical effects. This is not the case in determinism. So it must be non-physical.

>>4612208
>this doesn't fit the arbitrary definition THAT I USE AND BELIEVE IN and since there's no way my fundamental assumptions can be wrong . . . !

Cool story bro

>>4612182
>It's not a matter of "we don't know yet" but of "we can never know". What I'm pointing out here is that scientific understanding is inherently limited to the physical world and that there are things that science can't explain.

This is ridiculous. Who the fuck you think you are to say something will never be known? You sound like a religious person.

>The Libet experiment is quite meaningless. We can't really measure when the person actually consciously decided to do something, because that knowledge is only accessable subjectivly by the person himself.

It seems you haven't read about the experiment then, because subjects were asked when the conscious desicion was made, a decision that could be known several seconds before they thought they made it.

>>4612216
What is arbitrary about what I posted? Show me where you think I'm wrong.

> people arguing with IQ Fundie

>>4612198

No I said nothing of proving this mechanism, but we know what can emerge from 5 notes on a guitar right, so it's a pretty small step to assume that something could emerge from a few hundred of trillions of synaptic connection - and since we're here there is a good chance we have a sense of just what that might be, this is all the materialist argue.

>>4612182
>there are things that science can't explain.
Therefore, God, demons, goblins, free will, dualism and Narnia.

>>4612219
So much this.
It's like talking to a wall.
A wall that can only reply by reiterating his own arguments in a slightly different way.
A wall that thinks that other people are wrong because they don't understand his argument, rather then admitting the possibility that people understand the argument, but have a valid counter-argument.

I advice to abandon this discussion, before it drains a year's worth of life energy.

>>4612200
Should we splice dolphin genes into our children so they can telepathically communicate with the dolphins?

>>4612208
>If it is physical, it has physical effects. This is not the case in determinism.
What isn't the case in determinism is that "consciousness" or our "self" or whatever has free agency. That's all determinism has to say about free will; that our decision-making processes cannot escape cause&effect.

>>4612217
This has nothing to do with religion. It's philosophy of science. Science can only examine what can be observed or measured. Things that can't be observed or measured, will stay outside of science forever.
To the Libet experiment: I know that and that's what I was pointing out as a fundamental error. Asking a person is not the same as being able to measure the exact time the conscious decision was made.

>>4612222
So what can emerge from a guitar? Sound that is physically measurable. You can't compare that to consciousness, i.e. things that according to your determinism have no physical effects and thus cannot be measured. That's not science anymore. Science requires TESTABLE hypotheses.

>>4612232
But he's right tho. If there were only brains we wouldnt be able to think! We would all wander about robotically like ants.

>>4612224
The only thing these have in common is their unfalsifiability. What you don't seem to see is that while the others don't have evidence, dualism has some and it should be obvious how any philosophical explanation accounting for consciousness has to be based on dualism.

>>4612236
Don't you understand your own hypothesis? Consciousness and free will are reduced to ephiphenomena. An epiphenomenon is that which has no effects.

>>4612218
To get back on track, you are wrong in dogmatically accepting the fact that consciousness cannot be "physical" and cannot objectively exist.

You are wrong in dogmatically assuming that any system in nature can somehow "transcend" physicality.

You are wrong in dogmatically assuming that "non-physical" means anything beyond "non-existent"

Computers can sense, remember, analyse and react.
What is it about consciousness that makes it magical? Certainly, the computer "experiences" everything that it experiences "Subjectively" from its own perspective too. Is it also magical and non-physical now?

How complicated does something have to be to qualify as magic? does it have to have an internal perspective? a brain?

What about complicated systems like Evolution. Is evolution also magic and "subjective" and "nonphysical" and somehow exempt from every other analysis we can objectively make of every other emergent phenomenon in nature?

Do you deny that complex and apparently novel systems can be the result of the interaction between the sum of the individual interacting parts of that system?
If you do not, then why can that not be the case with consciousness?

Don't answer with circular logic. If you're wrong, your problem lies within the definition of the terms you're using and if you're not willing to examine those, no-one can ever reach you and you will never be right or wrong. Just stupid.

>>4612208
>Our perception of the color red doesn't have an effect. Therefore it's not physical.

I'll end this by explaining how your premise is wrong. But first... your argument is invalid. Determinism never says that every effect produces another affect. For instance, the annihilation of matter and anti-matter in quantum fluctuations of so-called virtual particles. Even if they weren't measured, perceived, and left behind zero evidence (which they do with enough time) it doesn't mean the action doesn't happen. Not all effects are necessarily causes to a new effect unless it CAN cause an effect.

But our consciousness - our perception of reality and the decisions we make- does effect other parts of our brain, including but not limited to our short term and long term memory, amygdala, pre-frontal cortex, and our perception may actually inform parts of our sensory cortices to mis-intepret the data.

The reality is, everything that's going on in your brain has an effect on it, even if you think it doesn't.

I invite you to actually take a look at the article I posted as well as the articles suggested by:>>4612116

Your dualist view is inconsistent with the evidence. I recommend you discard it.

>>4612247
Dualism is pretty much proven fact bro, you can't think with a computer.

>>4612238
So if a decision is made SEVERAL seconds before a persons is aware that the decision is being made, how can there be any free will? You are basically saying that decisions are made in a magical place, in some contra-causal way, against all logic and that the person can't even know when such decisions are made, yet he has free will and a soul.
This is ludicrous. You are denying the most obvious conclusion; conscious thought is produced by cognitive processes which are deterministic, and the idea of an "I" making the desicion at the moment is nothing more than an illusion.

>>4612247
>dualism has some
Not any more than god.

By the way, I like how dualism is always outside of science in your arguments, unless you want to bring up evidence in support of it. Then it's all of a sudden an empirical issue. You suck at philosophy.

>>4612248
I skipped your post after the first sentence. You accuse me of "dogmatically assuming" something. If you fail to see that there is absolutely no dogma in my posts, I can't help you. All I do is taking definitions and applying logic. As long as we agree on the definitions, we have to agree on the consequences, because they were derived by logic. To make it easier for you and everyone else ITT I don't bring up my own definitons, but only use what others posted to show them how their definitions can be brought ad absurdum by the application of logic.

>>4612267
What if your definitions are fundamentally flawed you dumb fuck
has that ever occurred to you? God you're stupid.

>>4612247
>Don't you understand your own hypothesis?
I do, but you seem to conflate epiphenomenalism with determinism for no reason. I wasn't calling anything an epiphenomenon. I only said that, according to determinism, decision-making cannot escape cause&effect, which is true.

>>4612238

"So what can emerge from a guitar? Sound that is physically measurable."

Noise is sound, it is measurable. What emerges between five notes on a guitar is qualitatively different from random noise wouldn't you agree? Now ask your self in what part of reality does the information exist? same five notes over and over again, yet depending on what they are interconnected to they create a 'whole' that are different than just this pitch - that pitch - this pitch. I think you see what I mean by this example and are quite capable to extrapolate this onto what might happen in the brain. I believe you already realize this and just feel uncomfortable with the implications. As for science - we left science a long time ago we're debating philosophy of mind. Our 'Science' can't even start to address these type of questions yet, nor should it be required to.

>>4612267
You've never actually proven anything. I've seen several of your threads and you always end up at the point where people want you to examine your assumptions and definitions, then you refuse, then you return to your circular arguments that you are right because "assuming my fundamental assumptions are correct everything else follows, guys! Oh why don't you see how smart i am you're making no sense at all :D"

I can't believe someone with such a broad vocabulary can be so unbelievably retarded.

>>4612251
Your post is contradictory in itself.

>it CAN cause an effect.
Concious thought CAN'T have an effect in determism. Otherwise we had free will. That's the meaning of saying it is an epiphenomenon.

>But our consciousness does effect other parts of our brain
Then you discard determinism here and argue in favor of free will?

>everything that's going on in your brain has an effect on it
This is the physical reality and has nothing to do with self awareness.

>Your dualist view is inconsistent with the evidence
It's more consistent with the evidence than physicalism or determinism.

>>4612258
Design an experiment to determine when a decision was made. Keep in mind that neural activity is only the physical manifestation of the already made decision and that you can't measure or observe anything that happened in the consciousness prior to this activity.

>>4612265
The evidence we have are self awareness and qualia. No model other than dualism has the potential to account for them. All the other models can do is denying the existence of qualia and self awarenss, which obviously contradicts our experienced reality.

>>4612272
What if your reading comprehension is fundamentally flawed? I told you that I usually don't come up with my own definitions, but only show others how insufficient theirs are.

>>4612234
not yet.

Some faggots won't stop arguing about dualism.
Am not really worried about IQfundie, but for the others that try to convince him, i has been long since i stopped arguing fanatics, like dualists or religious people.

They are by definition irrational.
Also dolphins integral acumen.

>>4612279
Determism tells us that consciousness is an epiphenomenon, because every action is fully determined physically. We can't actively make conscious decisions, we just happen to perceive what is physically going on with our body, but without being able to influence it in any way. That means consciousness has absolutely no effects in determinism and it is therefore impossible to measure or to observe consciousness.

>>4612283
>Concious thought CAN'T have an effect in determism. Otherwise we had free will. That's the meaning of saying it is an epiphenomenon.

What you refer to as conscious thought (the state of the bio-computer system that we call the mind, which is a result of number of deterministic events) is a link in a causal chain. It isn't be the originator of a causality chain. so what?

Your argument can be reduced to something along the lines of; "because every series of actions in the universe don't originate out of nothing in the brain of humans, nothing can ever happen so determinism is flawed and I'm right!"

>>4612281
>is qualitatively different from random noise wouldn't you agree
No, I wouldn't. Where's the difference? Your whole post sounds like religious bullshit. A guitar makes physical measurable sound. That's it. No magic involved.

>>4612301
>They are by definition irrational.
Definition of what? If you say philosphy is irrational, then you might as well say rationality is irrational. You make no sense. Your emotional distress is one thing, but trying to disguise it as rationality is nonsense.

>>4612295
>No model other than dualism has the potential to account for them.
That's like saying "No model other than Harry Potter magic has the potential to account for them". You do realize that "dualism" doesn't actually explain anything, right? It's a meaningless term, a "model" without a workable definition, and it's only used to cover up an explanatory gap without actually closing it properly. You can't explain an unknown with another fucking unknown. You think physicalism is implausible? Cool beans. So is fucking dualism.

>>4612295

"Design an experiment to determine when a decision was made..."

Research into these sort of things show that we become aware of the choices we make, after we already made the choice. If you read neuroscience at all you'd be quite aware of these findings.

Am i correct to assume that you agree with the following statement, Fundie;

"If something can't be measured, it transcends science and is no longer physical"

If so, do you believe that to be an axiom?

>>4612295
Can't you read what I wrote? Can't you read about the Libet's experiment?
The physical manifestation of a decision was observed before conscious thought was, and before the person was even aware of making a decision. Is that too hard to understand?

>>4612310
>What you refer to as conscious thought (the state of the bio-computer system
That's not conscious thought. The state of a bio-computer has nothing to do with self-awareness.

>Your argument can be reduced to something along the lines of
FTFY: "Because it in determinism it is impossible to make conscious decisions (because everything is physically determined), consciousness has no effects and thus does not exist. Therefore determinism is flawed, unless you're a philosphical zombie"

>>4612327

"No, I wouldn't. Where's the difference?"

You must have a pretty interesting taste in music then ;D

>>4612331
I didn't say dualism can explain mechanisms behind qualia and self-awareness. But at least dualism is the only concept that doesn't deny their existence a priori. The only thing I meant to say is that dualism as a concept is more compatible with our experienced reality than physicalism and determinism.

You'd say that someone named IQ fundie would be against pseudo-scientifical babble, and have a hyperrational view upon matters.
Well, no.

>>4612327
poor lost boy.
You are scared shitless of the real world so you invent imaginary friends like free will.

Its ok to be scared but trying to label is as rational or anything near that is an insult to reason.

Please take your kindergarden philosophy and back to your nearest free will chapel.

>>4612345
"Has no effect and therefore does not exist"
Aha. Do you truly believe that anything that has no effect does not exist?

Let's take an example; a particle that can only be measured when it interacts with certain objects.
Does it only exist when it is measured, in such a fashion that it "springs into existence" when it interacts with certain objects and then disappears once it no longer interacts?

>>4612337
>we become aware
How can that be objectivly measured or observed?

>>4612338
It's a consequence of one of the axioms of science: "If something is physical, it can be measured / observed." This is one of the assumptions science is based on.

>>4612341
I told you what's wrong about it. Conscious thought cannot be measured. They made the wrong assumption that asking people is sufficient to read their consciousness. This is not the case.

>>4612283
Why aren't you actually interacting with the arguments themselves?

I'll happily rebut your claims. But how do your respond to the neuroscientific data that suggests our "free will" is simply an illusion? Please answer this before proceeding to other arguments I make.

>Concious thought CAN'T have an effect in determism. Otherwise we had free will. That's the meaning of saying it is an epiphenomenon.

This is exactly backwards. The inability to free an event from a chain of causality is exactly what determinism is.

The crystal lattice formation of ice reduces the energy required to stabilize hydrogen bonds of adjacent water molecules into forming solid ice themselves.

The activity of these water molecules has an effect on adjacent water molecules. The original molecules that formed ice were frozen due to a reduction in nearby temperature (whether its medium).

One caused the other caused the other.

Just because the ice caused nearby water to cool and freeze does not imply that it has "free will".

Our consciousness is not free of the chain of causation.

I think this point renders the rest of your arguments moot.

>>4612369
While dualism is outside of science, I am arguing in favor of science here. It is important to acknowledge the limitations of science.

>>4612372
I am not scared, I am a rational thinker and point out incorrectnesses. Please keep your emotions out.

>>4612345
>consciousness has no effects and thus does not exist
If I define a situation in pool where I hit a ball with a speed between 40 to 60 cm/sec, and an angle between 34 and 46 degrees as being a "dijfsle ball", then me defining the term "dijfsle ball" has no effect on the game. Yet, obviously "dijfsle balls" exist. Some balls are hit with that speed and angle.

The same we argue for consciousness. It's just a name for (extremely) complicated behaviour of (neural) networks. Defining the term has no effect on nature.

This whole debate would need to be monitored and moderated to get anywhere at this point, IQ fundie isn't even responding to the criticism with solid argument, he just asks a cloud of one sentence question and respond with one sentence dismissals at this point as he tries to debate the whole board at once.

explain tulpas

>>4612386
It's nearly impossible to debate with you because you deny all evidence, dismiss all counter-arguments and simply ignore entire posts, I will say it again:

So if a decision is made SEVERAL seconds before a persons is aware that the decision is being made, how can there be any free will? You are basically saying that decisions are made in a magical place, in some contra-causal way, against all logic and that the person can't even know when such decisions are made, yet he has free will and a soul.
This is ludicrous. You are denying the most obvious conclusion; conscious thought is produced by cognitive processes which are deterministic, and the idea of an "I" making the desicion at the moment is nothing more than an illusion.

To give you an example, if you choose to do something, and a neuroscientist can predict what you will choose by simply looking at your brain, several seconds BEFORE YOU ARE EVEN AWARE OF MAKING A DECISION, how can you have free will? How can you say that your decision wasn't simply a physical prosses?

>>4612373
>Do you truly believe that anything that has no effect does not exist?
I don't, but physicalists do believe that.

>a particle that can only be measured when it interacts with certain objects.
Then it can be measured and surely exists. I don't see how this is an example for anything related to what you're arguing for.

>>4612382
>But how do your respond to the neuroscientific data that suggests our "free will" is simply an illusion?
If you are referring to the Libet experiment, I addressed this issue in another post already after it was brought up by another Anon. I explained why this is NOT evidence against free will and why the interpretation is flawed.

>I think this point renders the rest of your arguments moot.
It doesn't. You failed to explain anything. Your ice example is unrelated to what I posted. Of course consciousness has a cause in determinism, but it has no effects. And this is what renders it non-existent or at least non-physical.

>>4612424
*process

IQ fundie, I think the biggest problem you are having is embracing unfalsafiability.

You are asking good questions:

-How do we know what awareness is?
-How do we measure it?
-How about consciousness.

Basically everything you can get here;
http://papers.cnl.salk.edu/PDFs/23%20Problems%20in%20Systems%20Neuroscience%202005-2921.pdf

But "unsolved" doesn't mean "unsolvable".
And much of what you think is "unsolved" *is* being solved. But for some reason when we present just a slice of the science of "will" (Matsuhash et al., Libet et al.) you don't address the arguments in the papers at all.

Instead, you apparently take the position believe that "unexplained" problems must be "unexplainable" because we don't yet have an answer for them.

I think this view is tragically flawed.

Of course there may be problems that are beyond our comprehension, measurement, and explanation.

However, unfalsafiable answers to these questions are useless because we have *no* way of knowing if they are right or wrong without evidence!

Please take a moment to consider this IQ Fundie.

>>4612402
>Please keep your emotions out.
You're a joke.
And i don't mean it as an insult.
This is how you are viewed.

Any educated man in neuroscience knows that dualism is for lower class masses or just stupid people.
While again any educated man knows that things like dualism arises from the same source as believing in a god and generally wishful thinking.

The reason why you are a joke is because all your case is based on emotions, you are going against all science and scientists, reason, logic, rationality, reality, objectivity and call it emotional, while you're supporting something using nothing but emotion.
The antithesis is so ridiculous.

Do you understand why everyone is trashing you?
Be thankful that some people here even have the patience to respond to you and pretend you're a full functioning healthy adult.

>>4612424
Well.
I can only partially agree with you.
You're right that if the state of two brains is fixed, and the input/output is identical, then they will undergo the exact same process.
However, the brain is chaotic. The exact state can never be determined (too many variables), even the smallest thing can have a big effect on the long run. Whether a neuron fires depends on several factors, a slight chemical difference can be enough for a neuron to not fire, fire earlier or fire later.
On a higher level, the concepts of consciousness, self-awareness and free will make sense.
Just like there is no table that is, on an atomic level, similar to any other table, doesn't mean that the concept of table isn't relevant (silly example, but you get the point).

Since we can, generally, not predict future actions of a person, and even if we can, the predictions are very limited in their power, we might treat them as if they arise from free will.

This is a common technique in computer science. A process may be fully deterministic, but it might be advantagous to model it (and reason about it) as a different, more abstract and (most importantly) non-deterministic process.

"If something is physical, it can be measured / observed."

Am i the only one who finds this absurd?
That can't be right.
Does the world of nonreligious science deny the existence of all things that we are incapable of measuring (for example, due to practicality) or things that theoretically exist but have no effect?
Sure, arguing about such things is moot and pointless, but that doesn't disprove their existence any more than anything.

I'm not trying to argue for any side here, but i simply can't believe that anyone could arrogantly state as an axiom that assumes "nothing pointless and isolated exists in the universe"

Sure, i can see the point of saying "it wouldn't matter" but to go so far as to say they can't exist...?

>>4612411
>It's just a name for (extremely) complicated behaviour of (neural) networks
No, it is a name for a collection of phenomena we experience like for example self awareness, conscious thought and qualia.

>>4612413
You can accuse me of many things, but not of having bad debating skills. Any actual argument gets taken serious and responded to.

>>4612424
>deny all evidence, dismiss all counter-arguments and simply ignore entire posts,
This is simply wrong. I fully explain my reasoning and address every argumnet. If I happen to ignore posts, then you should think about how you posted them. I inserted a list of insults in my filter script, so maybe some of your posts got auto-hidden. But if they were full of insults, nothing of value was lost.

>So if a decision is made SEVERAL seconds before a persons is aware that the decision is being made
>several seconds BEFORE YOU ARE EVEN AWARE OF MAKING A DECISION,
That's the huge problem. We can't say when a decision has been made. I told you already, that there is no way of measuring it. No one can measure or observe my awareness.

>>4612460
>No, it is a name for a collection of phenomena we experience like for example self awareness, conscious thought and qualia.
That's the same to us.
Two radically different definitions can be the same thing.
Lrn2basic logic

>>4612438
>But "unsolved" doesn't mean "unsolvable".
>you apparently take the position believe that "unexplained" problems must be "unexplainable" because we don't yet have an answer for them.
You misunderstood me. I was showing that some things are definitely not amenable to science, because it logically follows from their definition.

>Of course there may be problems that are beyond our comprehension, measurement, and explanation.
That was the point.

>However, unfalsafiable answers to these questions are useless because we have *no* way of knowing if they are right or wrong without evidence!
I don't try to convince you of dualism. That's not my intention. But I showed that dualism works better with the evidence than physicalism.

>>4612449
You misinterpreted me. My example was pointing to a simple decision, like chosing to move the left hand or the right hand (which can be predicted). I know that the brain is deterministic, but not determinable due to its enormous complexity.

>>4612460
>We can't say when a decision has been made

It is apparent that you aren't going to take the time to read the scientific evidence that we've taken the time to offer you.

This isn't a matter of opinion, either. These questions may very well have answers.

And every neuroscientific study seems to indicate that everything from "will" and "consciousness" "qualia" and "perception" are all physical events in our physical brain, within the chain of causality.

You offer zero evidence to the contrary outside of "this phenomenon has no (current) scientific explanation".

Then you make an even more aggredious logical error which is essentially:

"Therefore it is not measurable, outside of the realm of science, and non-physical".

Argumentum ad Ignoratiam.

>>4612441
>no arguments
>insults

How's that kindergarten rhetorics working out for you IRL?

>>4612477
>logically follows from their definition.
because you chose to define it that way
what if I define "gravity" to be the unexplanable force that pulls us to the earth; and then continue to argue that you can't explain gravity, because of it's definition.

>>4612477
> I was showing that some things are definitely not amenable to science, because it logically follows from their definition.

That's fine. But that doesn't mean your definition actually comports with reality.

Internal consistency is fine, and you can demonstrate it.

But your arguments aren't justified because you haven't offered any means to judge the external consistency of them.

>But I showed that dualism works better with the evidence than physicalism.

Argumentum ad Ignorantiam.

>>4612460
>No one can measure or observe my awareness.

Not even yourself? You are not aware what's going on in your own thoughts? How can you say that you take decisions then?

>>4611865
"No matter how you name the symbol that represents two units (II) it always gonna be two.
All math, if not all is applied counting, you can construct all of math with addition and negative addition (-,+)"

Lol wtf? You are a stupid fuck when it comes to math. You didn't prove jack shit with your shitty apple example, and you cannot prove all math with the addition/subtraction operator. That's fucking stupid.

>>4612457
>for example, due to practicality
Then we can't say anything about the existence and it stays purely hypothetical.

>things that theoretically exist but have no effect
According to some posters ITT that would be "stupdid religious magic".

>>4612476
Exactly. That's why I was showing you that your "definition" was wrong and not compatible with how stuff is commonly defined.

>>4612478
I know we are basically on the same level, my good fellow, however, your retoric in >>4612424 seemed to reflect that you wanted to do away with free will altogether, whereas I was suggesting keeping it as a term for decisions from the brain.
Obviously, under such definition, free will does not contradict physical determinism.

>>4612506
If two definitions are equivalent, both are equally correct. Wtf?

>>4612481
You keep dogmatically repeating yourself.

>>4612492
No, not because I chose to define anything, but because for every term we have commonly agreed aspects that have to be included in a definition of said term.

>>4612493
When defining something, we have to think of what characteristics we want to include in the definition. The best compromise we can make is to only include those which most of us can agree on. This is what has been done and it's already enough to make the logical conclusions I made. Of course you are free to come up with your subjective and arbitrary definitions of things, but then you can't expect to be taken serious.

>Argumentum ad Ignorantiam.
It seems that you don't know that this expression means.

>>4612499
lol

>>4612517
FTFY:
>If two definitions are equivalent AND ONE OF THEM IS CORRECT, both are equally correct

>>4612535

>You keep dogmatically repeating yourself.

>>4612542
>Implying two falsehoods are not equally correct.

>>4612547
Why do I keep seeing that pic in every dualism thread?

>>4612549
So that's what you meant. How is it related?

>>4612535
>You keep dogmatically repeating yourself.

Strong rebuttal.

>Of course you are free to come up with your subjective and arbitrary definitions of things, but then you can't expect to be taken serious.

I'm not suggesting your definitions aren't internally consistent. But how do you justify that your conclusions are externally consistent?

You keep dodging the question.

In fact, you keep dodging most of my questions and instead suggest I'm "repeating myself dogmatically" or

>It seems that you don't know that this expression means.

How about explaining how you aren't committing the fallacy.

You're hand-waving and your inability to offer direct answers to my direct question is showing, IQ.

>>4612535
>but then you can't expect to be taken serious
Serious writing often explicitly defines terms that are subject to polysemy, and even allows some novelty here. So long as you are clear, there's nothing wrong with this.

>>4612550

I've been using it in every single thread I've ever seen you show up in. It's my favorite trollface, reserved for my favorite troll <3

>>4612542
>lol

This is your answer?
And you say that you give actual arguments?
That you use logic and reason to debate?
Are you fucking serious?

>>4612553
I said:
>It's [consciousness is] just a name for (extremely) complicated behaviour of (neural) networks.
You replied:
>No, it is a name for a collection of phenomena we experience like for example self awareness, conscious thought and qualia.
Then I pointed out that in a materialistic settings, they are the same (except for the qualia part, which we can replace by experience wlog).

>>4612558
*premises are externally consistent
not conclusions.

>>4612558
>Strong rebuttal.
It was merely stating facts. Not meant to be an argument, obviously.

>But how do you justify that your conclusions are externally consistent?
My conclusions are logically derived by means of deductive inference. The only way for them to be incorrect would be the incorrectness of the defintions we started with. But those are only determined by experienced reality, so they can't be wrong.

>you keep dodging most of my questions
I answered them. It seems to me that you don't like my answers. I'm okay with you having an emotional problem with them, but please don't label this "science".

>How about explaining how you aren't committing the fallacy.
Because it's obvious, if you understood my posts. Physicalism and determinism deny the existence of qualia and self awareness. Dualism doesn't. Therefore dualism is to be preferred, when we want to describe what we experienced.

>>4612559
That's not the same as arbitrarily redifining terms.

>>4612564
;)

>>4612570
Did you expect more? The poster found a small incompleteness in my wordings and pointed it out in a humorous manner. There's not much to comment on, unless you're what /sci/ calls "autistic".

You're not even capitalizing "I".

ITT tripfags ruin a tripfag's thread

>>4612578
These are not equivalent. Not even in a materialistic setting. You can't cancel out the qualia. They are part of consciousness.

>>4612610
Definitions are rarely arbitrary, and if so, so what? If I define "neutrino" as "largest extant cetacean", then i can still discourse meaningfully, so long as i am clear about this definition.

The string of letters "blue whale" is pretty arbitrary, and the connection between referent and reference is only a convention.

>>4612610
So, you admit that you cannot refute the results of several experiments in neuroscience (like the Libet's experiment)? That you cannot explain how can a neuroscientist can know a person's decision before the person knows, without dismissing dualism?

You focus a lot on your conclusions, but they are irrelevant if your premises are flawed.

>>4612643
We don't want to discuss for the only purpose of discussion, we want to find truth. That's why we need meaningful definitions.

>>4612655
I told you why these experiments are flawed and that it is impossible (for everyone except the person himself) to observe someone's awareness.

>>4612660
If you think they are, show me.

>>4612655
And I forgot to mention that the capability of the "I" to know it's own decisions it's vital to Free Will and your "qualia", which is the part of your post that I was addressing.

>>4612666
>That's why we need meaningful definitions.
Any definition is meaningful so long as it is unambiguous and well defined.

>>4612678
Nope, that's not enough. We could make up a lot of shit definitions that represent nothing. The definitions we are talking about ITT are representing existing things.

>>4612666
>I told you why these experiuments are flawed and that it is impossible (for everyone except the person himself) to observe someone's awareness.

Are you joking me? You are dismissing the ENTIRE discussion we were having, and now we are at the start again.

>>4612687
We are not back at the beginning. At least I showed you that your arguments were wrong. So I think we both learned something from the discussion.

I'm tired, so I will leave the thread now. I hope you learned something. Gonna address more arguments tomorrow.

>>4612685
That's what "well defined" means. We could be talking in another language where different strings of symbols refer to different real things, and it would still be valid.

A definition is just assigning some shorthand to some meaning. How we do it isn't to important, the meaning referred to is what must be examined, not the choice of shorthand.

>>4612685
That's what "well defined" means. We could be talking in another language where different strings of symbols refer to different real things, and it would still be valid.

A definition is just assigning some shorthand to some meaning. How we do it isn't so important, the meaning referred to is what must be examined, not the choice of shorthand.

>>4612685
>We could make up a lot of shit definitions that represent nothing.

Like "qualia is defined as something that exists non-physically"

>>4612711
IQ Fundie always wraps arguments in definitions, as a defence against the argument being examined.

>>4612691
>At least I showed you that your arguments were wrong.

How can you manage to exist with all the cognitive dissonance in your person is a mystery.

You NEVER showed that my arguments were wrong, because you said that no one can observe awareness, and then I told you that the subject has to know his own awareness of his own decisions, and that in the experiment the subject himself was asked when he made the decision, which was always after the neuroscientists predicted the decision, so we have two options; all the subjects were lying, or, the subjective experience of making a decision is after the decision itself is being made, because there is no "I" taking decisions. After that you simply said "lol" and the discussion went nowhere.

>>4612595
>It was merely stating facts. Not meant to be an argument, obviously.

Do you wonder why I repeat some of the same questions and information? Because you don't respond to them.

When your response is, "Why do you keep repeating yourself" I think it says a lot.

>The only way for them to be incorrect would be the incorrectness of the defintions we started with.
Or the premises. Which is my point.

>But those are only determined by experienced reality, so they can't be wrong.

Our experience of reality and reality itself aren't always consistent. Calling your perception "qualia" and suggesting that science can't account for perception (which... it does) is a bad argument because you :

1. Ignore the scientific evidence to the contrary. e.g. hand waving Libet's study as "not knowing when decisions happen" without reading his explanation. The paper does account for this argument. Your repetition of answered questions tells me that you aren't actually reading the arguments.

2. You aren't justifying your premises. How do we know "what we experience" is itself independent of the physical world? How do you justify this argument?

>>4612759
> It seems to me that you don't like my answers. I'm okay with you having an emotional problem with them, but please don't label this "science".

I'm pointing out the error in your answers. It seems to me like you are projecting.

>Physicalism and determinism deny the existence of qualia and self awareness.

This statement is erroneous.

>Therefore dualism is to be preferred, when we want to describe what we experienced.

That's exactly what Argumentum ad Ignorantiam is.

Period.

You seem to be unaware that you are commiting it.

"I can't explain qualia or self-awareness."
"Physicalism/evidentialism/science can't account for it"

"therefore dualism"

The premises are not only flawed, but the argument itself is fallacious.

>mfw IQ Fundie leaves.

I guess logic burns when it hits.

>>4612759
>You aren't justifying your premises

They aren't premises, they are definitions.

>>4612766
*You aren't justifying your definitions.

ITT:
People being mad.
IQ fundie trolls.
10/10 for perseverance, day in, day out

>>4612775
I don't need to, they are well established.

>>4612785
Ladies and Gentlemen,

I give you the Logic of IQ Fundie.

*bows*

>>4612766
If your definitions are flawed, they cause your premise to be flawed.

Splitting hairs to avoid the point of the argument, i see.

>>4612791
I'm not actually IQ Fundie, just satirising him. Check the trip.

>>4612797
The impersonation was spot on. I was fooled.

Okay, let's sage this thread away now.

>>4612785
We disagree that they are well established. Bring them out so that we can examine them together.

Unless of course you have an interest in them not being examined, which is of course fully consistent with every single time it's been brought up in every thread ever since the very beginning when you first posted here.

In case you think what i just said was strange, I am not insinuating anything.

>>4612808
Got me too.
And appearantly >>4612813 too.
Trolololo

>Say something retarded
>Everone believes you're IQ fundie
congrats

*coughs*

>>4614650
>Let's bump an old shit thread.
nope.avi.jpeg.exe

>>4612078
you are looking at this way too narrow-minded sir.

a conscious thought is a reaction to a stimuli (which could even be another thought) in which another reaction or event is triggered because of the thought. its not just "oh its a thought so I win cause i say so". Actually think outside your little happy dualistic bubble and consider the facts without writing them off.

huh

Mornin.

Thread is still alive from yesterday? fine.
Anyway, omnitemplar is here.

Ask away.

>>4614980
Should uncontacted people be protected from contact unless they initiate it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncontacted_peoples

So, magic and free will exist?

>Debate me on anything and I'll win
Let's debate on how you're worthless. I'll be on the side that argues that you aren't worthless. You can start.

>>4615009
yes and no, but probably maybe.
>>4615033
not in these lands you old chap
>>4615046
Lets debate/analyze the meaning of worth

, how is such an infinitely detailed object an intrinsic piece of pure mathematics? Why geometry?

Is math interwoven with physical reality? Or will it forever remain imaginary? The discovery of the Mandelbrot makes one consider the former.

>>4615279
You can describe the universe using addition, multiplication, division, subtraction, etc.

What does this tell you?

Fuck off.

Can you extrapolate into infinity to get pantheism?

>>4615926
>>4615887
no to both