/sci/ - Science & Math

OP. The trick is to ignore them

Positive numbers don't exist either friend.

Numbers aren't real, math isn't real. It's a language we invented to explain quantities of things and we've become so proficient in it we're able to explain the universe which is made out of quantities of things

>>5121885

Yup, just like we can explain why we can not accurately measure pi.

>>5121885

Numbers aren't real? Are you a fucking joke? wow /sci/ has really gone to shit

Fuck Cantor. He corrupts young people by speaking logical insanities about the infinite. There is only one infinite. Everyone knows that. The man is a fool.

The traditional model of the number line is just one big clusterfuck. For one thing, its not a line, its a curve.

>> ...Zero is an arbitary point where we begin to count.
No, that's wrong. Zero is exactly the amount of fucks I give about most of the threads on /sci/

>>5121892
wait, you actually beieve numbers are, like, concrete objects we can sense in one form or another?

i'm interested...? what is real, to you?

>>5121903

Wow I can't believe i'm really going to feed the trolls but, if numbers aren't real how can I add 1 + 1 and get 2?

>>5121908

>If ghosts aren't real how can they be scary?

>>5121908
you didnt do anything you just typed this: 1 + 1 = 2

i can type this: 1+1=3

>>5121908
hey if ghosts aren't real how can i look to my right and see a ghost

when i go to the supermarket, i see a $1 item, and it says 20% off, so i calculated it to be $0.8. then i go to the cashier and it was $0.8. numbers are real.

>>5121910

What does being wrong have to do with anything?

...and so the fucktardery behins.

>>5121880
>...Zero is an arbitary point where we begin to count.
but thats wrong. Its not "arbitary." Its the way we represent nothing.

And negative numbers as a concept exist and are useful. For example in physics, if I'm going -5 m/s north, we know I'm actually going backwards(south) 5m/s

>Imaginery numbers are a clumsy attempt to put a band-aid upon a wound steeming from faulty concepts of number theory.
No. They're just a representation of something. No where in physics do imaginary numbers stay imaginary. They always square to cancel out.

>irrational numbers are nonsense
You come up with a nice base or counting system that can account for all numbers

>>5121913
you said you added 1 and 1 but what does that even mean? now a real thing that you could actually do would be like... adding 1 apple to another apple, then you have 2 apples. apples are real

>>5121912
the 8 is just a name given to pennies. pennies are real

but you cant have -1 pennies. unless its a dark matter penny

>>5121925
>but you cant have -1 pennies
What is debt.

Also negative numbers are just a fancy way of subtracting

>>5121928
well then you just have 0 pennies. yeah maybe some guy wants a penny from you but that has no effect on how many pennies you actually have

Define real.

>>5121928
Your debt isn't - 1 penny, it's 1 penny. You can't have a negative amount of money, and you can't have a negative debt.

>>5121930
able to be perceived

>>5121932
then numbers are real

>>5121934
numbers? or pixels on your screen, ink on your paper?

>>5121931
>Your debt isn't - 1 penny, it's 1 penny.
And the magnitude of a vector going -5 m/s isn't -5, its just 5.

The negative is used to represent direction. In money its used to represent debt.

This isn't a hard concept

>>5121936
numbers. just like how sadness is real.

Everyone who disagrees with OP didn't understand math.

Can all the highschoolers please leave /sci/?

>>5121938
....a chemical reaction that we call "sadness" is real yeah. but if you really break it down that word becomes useless

>>5121943
Show me that chemical reaction you call "sadness". I wanna see it. Is there like a "sadness" molecule that gets modified?

Holy shit OP!! You are so edgy, and cool, and edgy!!! You should get your own reality show or something.

>>5121942
Explain to me how using the concept of "nothing" as our starting point for counting is arbitrary.

Explain to me how using negative numbers to represent a lack of something, or an opposite of something is a bad thing.

Explain to me how irrational numbers make our otherwise well working number system shit, and more importantly even if it is shit, why doesn't OP make a new one.

>>5121937

It should be used as a direction, but it is not. If it were then the squareroot of -4 would be -2.

I wish I could pay the squareroot of my debt with imaginary money, but my landlord is too smart for that.

>>5121945
>doesn't understand biology

Every emotion is a hormonal reaction to stimuli.

Sure man.

Guys stop arguing with him. All he wants is to feel special thinking he knows something no one else does (because it's not true). He's not doing anyone any harm, so just leave him be.

>>5121957
Hey, you fucktard. You made a claim. Please back it up with evidence or GTFO. Most likely I understand biology better than you.

>>5121967
Not even him.

Are you seriously denying that emotions are purely hormonal?

Really? Observe your rage right now, all that anger and fury at me being right. Is that a thing? No, it's just a collection of hormones wizzing around your body.

>>5121971
That's not the problem. He was saying there was one chemical reaction we call "sadness". I'd like him to show me that chemical reaction. Shouldn't be too hard. He just has to name the reactants and the products.

Have you never taken a physics course before

Negative is used to indicate movement in the negative direction

>>5121975
Well, take all the combined hormones and chemicals, put them in a bottle with all the glands and organs and things they react with, and you have bottled sadness.

I guess.

>>5121984
So if I extract a bunch of hormones and put them in a test tube, the test tube will "feel sad"?

Care to show me a scientific source on this claim?

>>5121989

>So if I just put gasoline in a test tube i'll be able to drive it to work?

>>5121989
The test tube has no facilities to interpret the hormones as anything.

It's not alive. You fucking shitbrain.

Math babby here, is there any base (e.g. base 2, 10 etc) in which pi is a rational integer?

>>5121990
No need for inane off-topic posts. Answer the question.

>>5121992
What are the "facilities to interpret hormones"?

>>5121994
Uh, organs, maybe? You know, a body.

Stop being a shit head. You're just being ridiculous now.

>>5121996
That doesn't answer my question. Organs are just more chemistry. Cut out the important molecules and put them in the test tube. It's okay, if you don't know the answer. But then please don't make idiotic claims.

>>5121992
>>5121996
>doesn't know shit
>still thinks he's entitled to act condescending

How old are you? 12? GTFO

>>5121880

I read the wiki article. Just amazing that this kind of shit took place. Even more amazing it took place in the field of mathematics, I thought maths guys were above that kind of crap. Evidently not.

>>5121997
What are you even trying to say?

That the body is a system and no one part or chemical can stand alone?

Everyone already knows that.

>>5122004
You were making a claim. You claimed there was a chemical reaction we call "sadness". Please back up that claim by showing me that chemical reaction.

>>5122007
I'm not the original guy you're getting angry with.

You could easily isolate the chemicals that are 'sadness', but they're not sadness. They're the hormones that make you feel sad when they interact with your system in a specific way.

>>5121993

Anyone?

>>5122011
Big bunch of nonsene. If there was an interaction, then it had to be of chemical nature as well and by extracting all the relevant chemicals it has to be repeatable in a test tube.

>>5122007

>>5122015
Fuck off with your infantile /b/ image macros. This board is for intellectual discussion.

>>5122014
So you're saying that there is no chemical reaction that makes sadness? It doesn't exist, but we feel it regardless?

Are you even thinking about what you're saying, or is your cat walking on the keyboard?

There are those who understand maths as it is taught to them. Some of these monkeys can be actually quite clever at working in that maths.

Then there are those who seek to understand what maths actually means, they often have to endure the ridicule of the monkeys.

>>5122016
>shit flinging because you can't stand being wrong
>intelligent discussion

>>5122018
>but we feel it regardless?

Can you please show the evidence for this?

>>5122016
Now you're just being silly and hostile for no reason

>>5122021
That's what I'm telling him. When he recognizes that he was wrong or can't back up his nonsense, he should just stop posting instead of spamming stupid /b/ pictures.

>>5122024
This is the science and math board. Trolling and shitposting are not welcome here.

>>5122022
Yeah, easily.

I can look at something sad, and feel what we call sadness. Simple as that.

>>5122027
>>5122025
Calm down man. I know you've got a doozie of a superiority complex, and you can't stand being wrong even once, but you don't have to get so angry.

>>5122018
What do we feel?

"The objections to his work were occasionally fierce: Poincaré referred to Cantor's ideas as a "grave disease" infecting the discipline of mathematics, and Kronecker's public opposition and personal attacks included describing Cantor as a "scientific charlatan", a "renegade" and a "corrupter of youth." Kronecker even objected to Cantor's proofs that the algebraic numbers are countable, and that the transcendental numbers are uncountable, results now included in a standard mathematics curriculum. Writing decades after Cantor's death, Wittgenstein lamented that mathematics is "ridden through and through with the pernicious idioms of set theory," which he dismissed as "utter nonsense" that is "laughable" and "wrong". Cantor's recurring bouts of depression from 1884 to the end of his life have been blamed on the hostile attitude of many of his contemporaries,though some have explained these episodes as probable manifestations of a bipolar disorder."

>>5122029
>I can look at something sad, and feel what we call sadness. Simple as that.

That's not a testable hypothesis. Keep it scientific please.

>>5122019
dude u so edgy. stay cool dude.

>>5122029
>and you can't stand being wrong even once

Please show me where I was wrong. I didn't even make any claims, so there's nothing I can be wrong about. You on the other hand made claims and I asked you for evidence. If anyone here is wrong, it's you and the fact that you have to go to such low levels of shitposting confirms it.

>>5122032
>billions of people have felt sad in their lives
>NOT TESTABLE! Sadness doesn't exist!

I'm done. You're clearly losing it. If being right means so much to you, then I submit.

Emotions don't exist. Nobody has ever felt angry or happy, hunger isn't a thing, you don't feel tired, and you can't see.

>>5122036
Science is about testable hypotheses and objectively verifiable evidence. Please show me those in your claims. If you can't, then refrain from immature shitposting and fuck off to >>>/x/

>>5122038
Show me the proof that I'm shitposting.

Where's the proof? This is entirely unscientific.

>>5122036
Are you really denying science and rationality by claiming there exists untestable magic? You're one pathatic little /x/tard.

>>5122040
You did it right now. Read your own post.

>>5122038
wat
http://dionysus.psych.wisc.edu/CourseWebsites/Psy804/Readings%5Charmonjones01.pdf

>>5122043
But that's not testable.

You're going on your own opinions of what shitposting is. It doesn't even exist, because it can't be verified in a lab.

Monkeys have been detected in this thread.

Anyone got a banana to keep them distracted?

Oh! Here's an interesting banana for the monkey! The Seifert-van Kampen Theorem!

Here monkey! Come get the banana!

>>5122041
Are you really denying the existence of emotions?

>>5122044
That paper doesn't provide an objective method of testing or measuring.

>>5122046
How about you do something useful instead of further shitposting?

>>5122049
It does, you should learn to read.
But you're right, an introductive book would be better for you.
What Is Emotion?, Jerome Kagan, Yale Press, 2007

Billions of people have felt sad in their lives, they can all report similar experiences with it.

That's plenty of proof that it exists. If more than a billion people can give a similar to identical account of something it exists and is testable.

>>5122048
Rationality tells us not to believe in something with no evidence. Please show me the evidence. All we can objectively observe is behaviour and there's no reason to assume any untestable nonsense behind it.

>>5122055
>no evidence = a load of poppycock

You really just typed that, didn't you?

>>5122051
If you have evidence, please post it here. I will not read books you post as red herrings.

>>5122053
>If more than a billion people can give a similar to identical account of something it exists and is testable.
Stop talking like a religiontard. That's not how science works.

> " DUUUDE NUMBERS DON'T EVEN EXIST MAAAN"

Wow, what a cliche. It's like I'm really am talking to a stoned, 18 year old, freshman Phil major. I suggest you take your "too deep for you" philosophy to /lit/ or another website. Here we like to talk about science and mathematics, and one of the first things you must do to venture into this world is BELIEVE IN and TRUST it's principles.

>>5122058
Exactly. If there is no evidence for a claim, we have no reason to believe it. If you want to believe in ghosts and magic, do it on >>>/x/ please. On /sci/ we follow rationality.

>>5122059
So, when an entire species agrees that something exists and can verify it by giving identical, yet individual accounts of this thing occurring, that thing doesn't exist?

Science everyone! Arbitrarily ignoring facts for billions of years!

>>5122053
And billions of people have felt a connection with god in their lives. Your point?

>>5122061
Just tell me now, in plain english, do you or do you not believe that people get sad? Have you or have you not experienced sadness, or happiness, or anger in your lifetime?

>>5121880

Darwin was also mocked for his ideas on Evolution.

I remember going off to University thinking that at last I would be joining a wide community of inquiring open-minded people who were motivated to discover truth.

I met a few like that, yes, but most of them were just so closed minded. I wouldnt have minded that so much if they just kept their mouths shut.

Honestly most of them werent actually that smart. They didnt question, they didnt want to discover new stuff, they just wanted a ticket to ride. They seemed to be more motivated to score cheap shots over their collegues than to actually learn things about how the universe works.

Yeah, well, I was very naive, I admit. Lost a lot of my faith in Humanity back then,

>>5122059
>Everything should be as short as possible.
That's not how it works. Publications and books are as short as they can be while still remaining precise and extensive.
Nobody owes you a summary.

>>5122063
Your premise is wrong. Not the entire species agrees with your pseudoscience. Don't make even more ridiculous claims to cover up your failure of providing evidence.

>>5122068
I do not believe in untestable claims without evidence. I have not experienced any metaphysical magic, no.

>>5122072
So you have no evidence? Then make no extraordinary claims.

>>5122076
>dodging the question

Have you ever felt an emotion?

Y or N

>>5122072
>>5122074

Nice derailment from OP's topic, thanks guys.

>>5122078
Please give a scientifically testable definition.

>>5122055
>neuroscience
>nonsense

>behaviorism
>objective

lel

>>5122080
>still dodging the question

Ok, I'll answer it for you. Yes, you have felt emotions in the past. This is a trait of your species, and every human above the age of 0 has experienced emotions.

>>5122080
You want a scientific definition?
"The set of processes happening to people claiming they experience sadness".
Someone saying something is an entirely testable, undeniable fact.
Then you test them and compare the results to people not claiming they experience sadness.

Here you go, that wasn't hard.

>>5122080

>>5122010
Base pi

>>5122081
Nobody said neuroscience is nonsense. Neuroscience is a valid branch of science researching the functions of the brain. Neuroscience does not research untestable metaphysical philosophy. Please educate yourself about what neuroscience actually is. You got a wrong impression.

>>5122088
>emotions
>not studied under neuroscience

Just stop.

>>5122083
Pleae back up that claim. You claim that I have experienced some form of untestable magic. Show the evidence for this. There is none and you're not entitled to make such claims.

>>5122090
Shhhh
>>5122084
no tears now

>>5122090
>emotions = magic

Wow. Just wow. The worst part is that you aren't even joking.

>>5122084
>"Definition of DERP: DERP is what happens when people claim to experience DERP"
>Therefore DERP exists

Go back to /x/ please. That's religious logic, not scientific.

Sadness test 1.

Show child a picture of their dead pet. When they exhibit signs of sadness, conclude that they are sad and move on with your life.

Sadness test 2.

Show child picture of their dead pet. Observe their brain chemistry for actions associated with sadness. Conclude that they are sad and move on with your life.

Take you pick.

>>5122096
No not "therefore".
You do tests, and if the results differ between the two groups, then it exists.
Your lack of knowledge about scientific research is astounding.

>>5122089
Neuroscience examines biochemical reactions and electrical signals in the brain.

>>5122092
By that circular (pseudo-)definition I did not experience your untestable magic, because I never claimed I did.

>>5122100
>biochemical reactions and electrical signals in the brain

So, in layman's terms, thoughts, emotions and the workings of the brain.

>>5122097
None of this proves the existence of a metaphysical phenomenon. One observes the behaviour, the other observes neuronal activity. Those are the observations and claiming them to be proof of an untestable metaphysical phenomenon is a baseless interpretation and goes beyond what is scientific.

>>5122100
>anecdotal evidence
Now you're going full retard.
Those studies are done on a large number of subjects. Once you identify the processes, you can know if someone is sad without their input.
Also it's not a circular definition, but I'm not surprised you can't into logic.
>religious logic, not scientific.
Logic is not "religious" or "scientific". It's logic. Provide a logic rebuttal or shut your layman mouth.

>>5122103
>metaphysical
You're the only one thinking emotions are metaphysical here.

>>5122103
>two different methods coming to the same conclusion
>no proof

Please, just stop. You're making the species look bad.

>>5122099
Except that your proposed tests do not test what you want them to test. They test behaviour and neuronal activity, not metaphysics.

>>5122102
No. Do not mix up serious neuroscience with layman terms, pseudoscience and untestable philosophy.

>>5122107
I'm really not sure anymore.

Is this one long winded troll, or are you really this stupid?

>>5122104
>Once you identify the processes
Except that these processes have nothing to do with your faulty interpretation of them.

>Logic is not "religious" or "scientific".
The right word would have been "reasoning" instead of "logic". I apologize.

>>5122109
That or a delusional autist, but you know he's in every thread of the sort.
It could also be a lot of different people with a /b/ sense of humor.

>>5122106
Untestable claims outside the realm of science are metaphysical.

>>5122108
They do not come to the same conclusion. They do not come to any conclusion going beyond the observation at all. You listed two different observations and somehow you believe you are entitled to interpret them in favor of your magic claims This is wrong and unscientific.

>>5122109
How is scientific reasoning and asking for evidence "stupid"? Please educate yourself in the matter of science.

This is the worst thread in the world.

Emotions exist, get used to it. If you've lived this long and haven't gathered enough proof that emotions exist, well I really don't know. You're probably not a human.

>>5122117
So your nonsense (still not backed up by evidence) serves the purpose of keeping up the belief that humans are somehow special? Go back to >>>/x/ please.

>>5122113
My interpretation is not faulty, or metaphysic.
People claiming things is a very material fact.
You cross two different methods and see if you get the same result, that's how good scientific research works.
Since the subjects claiming of "being sad" corresponds to measurable physical experiments done on them, we know we can call the common cause of both things "sadness".

>>5122122
>>5122118
Oh, ok. It is a troll.

>>5122123
People can claim alot of things. That doesn't make their claims real.

>>5122124
You are the troll. You are the one making extraordinary claims with no evidence.

>>5122128
lel, you troll me good! XD

>>5122128
>People can claim alot of things. That doesn't make their claims real.
Crossing them with another method and finding they fit does. This is how scientists work.

>>5122129
Please go back to >>>/b/. On /sci/ we discuss in an intellectual manner.

Why do I get the feeling that this whole "you can't prove emotions are real hurr durr!" is nothing more than a troll hiding behind semantics?

>>5122131
>intellectual
>you

HAHAHAHA such a good troll!!

>>5122133
I hope it is.

I've been on /sci/ before, and I've never seen someone like this.

Please tell me not everyone is like this. Please.

>>5122130
You didn't provide any method of testing their claims, only a method of showing the neuronal mechanism behind the fact that they make the claim. Note the difference. When people claim to see ghosts, you can scan their brains and see the neuronal patterns that make them say this. Nonetheless ghosts are not real. You didn't prove their existence this way.

>>5122133
It is.
>>5122138
Really? I've been here for a week and I've seen that guy every day.

>>5122133
It's an epistemological issue. Everything boils down to semantics. That doesn't make it trolling.

>>5122134
>ad hominem
>an argument
Choose one.

>>5122143
Ignoring basic scientific testing processes and claiming that we're the idiots is trolling.

Just read his posts, it's not possible for someone to be this bad at science.

>>5122141
In your example, you actually have a result, you showed that people really see ghosts. They are experiencing an illusion.
In mine, you show that they are experiencing sadness. Which is the definition of sadness.
You keep forcing an unscientific definition while there is a perfectly scientific one: the neuronal mechanism behind the fact that they make the claim.

Every neuroscientist in the world uses that definition.

>>5122147
The only ones not understanding science ITT are the ones who cite scientific research while mistaking the actual results with their own (faulty) interpretation. There are observations and they are gained scientifically. None of them proves the validity of metaphysical claims though. Do not abuse science to justify /x/ nonsense.

>>5122150
Oh, you're the troll.

Ok then, I wasn't sure for a minute there.

>>5122148
That's not an accepted definition. You're making up your own definitions. This doesn't constitute science. There is a difference between the subject of a claim and the mechanism behind the claim. The latter is examined in neuroscience, the former remains untestable nonsense.

Alright, I'm out.

I can only take so much nonsense in one day. Have fun with him guys.

>>5122151
Stop accusing me of trolling. You are the troll You are the one abusing science to justify pseudoscience.

>>5122138

Not everyone, but most of them.

>>5122143

It is trolling because there does exist a concept of emotions. People do actual research about it. It is in fact YOUR definition of "sadness" that is flawed. Sadness, as I would define it, is a physiological reaction to a perceived loss of something valued. It has an onset and an offset. It is correlated with certain patterns of physiological measurements.
All this can be tested. Sadness even appears in animals ffs. It's why Paul Ekman called it a "basic emotion". But you wouldn't know anything about that, would you? No, instead you just come here and shitpost your uneducated opinion.
And that is what we commonly call "trolling".
Quod erad demonstrandum.

>>5122154
>That's not an accepted definition. You're making up your own definitions.
>Open the last issue of Journal of Neuroscience
"Interleukin-1
Causes Anxiety by Interacting with the Endocannabinoid System"
Silvia Rossi, Lucia Sacchetti
The Journal of Neuroscience, October 3, 2012 • 32(40):13896 –13905

Well fuck son, it seems like scientists don't agree with you and actually use those terms.

>>5122159
>a physiological reaction
Now that's an acceptable and testable definition. Thank you. Now please help educating all these /x/tards who mistake it for magic / subjectivity nonsense.

>>5122159
>And that is what we commonly call "trolling".

Nope. Trolling means intentionally provoking a reaction. Expressing your opinion is not trolling.

>>5122169
>implying he isn't doing it to get a reaction

>>5122166
Oh for fucks sake!

>>5122165
I do not have access to that publication, so I cannot check whether it supports your claim.

>>5122169
Neither is insisting in keeping it scientific. This is a science board, so claims need evidence to back them up.

1/10 Made me rep--
>152 replies
10/10 this board is full of idiots

>>5122166
So, next time you won't barge in a thread claiming emotions are untestable metaphysical bullshit?
If you did, that would be obvious trolling and warrant a ban, right?
Nah, who am I kidding.

>>5122173
So, the only way you'd admit anyone was right about something is if you had a text supporting their claims?

Well, better get to collecting some scientific texts, because everything you say is bullshit.

>>5122175
Nobody's even talking about numbers anymore.

>>5122173
>I do not have access to that publication
That has never ever been a valid argument, get out.
Besides, you can read a title, can't you?

>>5122176
I never made such claim. I was merely correcting those who misunderstood how science works.

>>5122177
>ad hominem
>again

>>5122173
>I do not have access to that publication,
Why do we keep accepting laymen in here?

>>5122180
It wasn't an argument. Please learn what an argument is. And no, the title doesn't give a definition, it proposes a mechanism.

>>5122182
>who misunderstood how science works

So multiple methods producing the same result isn't science?

That's paranormal hocus pocus and has no place in the lab!

>>5122189
As I explained none of your methods proves your claim.

>>5122193
I've had enough.

Have fun wallowing in shit and claiming emotions are magic.

>>5122194
You are the one who mistakes them for magic. Please see the correct scientific definition that has been posted ITT.

>>5122196
Oh, now you're claiming that I was the one saying it's unverifiable magic?

Well how about that. I could have sworn I was saying it was a real thing that could be tested. Funny how these things work.

Thanks for correcting me though. I could have gone my whole life thinking I was saying what I was saying.

>>5122187
It doesn't matter, they use the term.
You were denying the existence of emotions.

inb4 "But I never did".
>"Are you really denying the existence of emotions?"
>"Rationality tells us not to believe in something with no evidence. Please show me the evidence. All we can objectively observe is behaviour and there's no reason to assume any untestable nonsense behind it."

inb4 "But look at my sentence, I never explicitely stated "emotions are untestable nonsense"
Yeah, yeah, you're so clever.

>>5122193
>As I explained none of your methods proves your claim.
Can you formulate my claim?
And also formulate yours?

If everything in our universe is rational, how do you explain irrational numbers?

>>5122205
They're on their period.

You can't expect them to be rational.

>>5122154
>>5122173
>Claims shit about what is an accepted definition or not in neuroscience.
>Has no access to the Journal of Neuroscience.
With a real moderation, you would be banned for that shit.

>>5122200
You were implying that there's more than a physiological mechanism. You were promoting the existence of a magical metaphysical phenomenon. You got corrected in a scientific manner. No need to deny it now.

>>5122202
By "emotions" you were referring to something different, with an implication of dualism. Now that we have a scientific definition posted ITT, you'll have to admit that you were wrong.

>>5122203
You know your claims. I don't need to explain them to you. I didn't make any claims, I was merely telling you why you were wrong.

>>5122210
Are you really saying just because I do not have access to that one specific journal, I am not qualified to talk about the subject? You are clearly trolling.

>>5122212
When did I imply that?

That was the first thing I said. Emotions are contained entirely within the body and are physiological in nature. Nothing but hormones.

>>5122223
Tell me the name of the institution were you have access to neuroscience journals, but not the Journal of Neuroscience.
If you have access to none, you still can post your opinion, but not to make claims about what is an accepted definiton or not.

>>5122219
>avoiding questions
If you knew what you were arguing, it would be simple for you to formulate my claim.

>>5122226
Where does it say I need journal subscriptions to talk about a topic? The discussion wasn't about a highly specific research topic published in one of your journals, it was about a fundamental definition and the scope of science in general.

>>5122227
But I'm not arguing in favor of your claim, I'm arguing against it.

This thread was supposed to be about numbers ;-;

>>5121880

I see your problem OP.. the word 'exist' doesn't mean what you think it means. Try taking that graduate level logic class again. Stay awake in class this time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14JavH4Rk7k
jump to 8:38 and learn something...

>>5122010
base 64 gives an rational number

>>5122440
You mean troll..
Rational means a number can be expressed as the ration two integers, changing base doesn't change that.

>>5122445
Hey I'm just parroting what someone else said

>>5121880
>basic high school argument pointing out some non intuitivley natural comcepts, saying they are useless.
>Quote Cantor, whose main achievement was proving there are infinities greater than other, (wich is utterly useless in the physical world), and also created a very formal and abstract way to do math, permitting the existence of objects that any non-mathfags couldn't even dream of believing in them, let alone understand them.

>>5122452

Oh. Ok. I don't know what a Math Babby was doing in here anyway. I've been peeling lead paint off the walls all day, and he might eat the chips.