/sci/ - Science & Math

If it cannot have physical evidence, it can be dismissed and considered non-existent. Hitchens' razor. That's why there's no rational reason to believe in things like invisible ghosts, luminiferous aether, souls, consciousness, qualia etc.

>>5525320

Congratioulations you have discovered why sci goes into extreme autistic overdrive when the word sentience is mentioned

It is very possible that something that cannot be measured does exist.

It's impossible to tell if it does or not though, so discussing such things is not scientific, and basically just pointless wanking off

>>5525323

In that case we can dismiss thoughts as nonexistant.

>>5525323

consciousness can be measured on an EEG you little flagolet

>>5525348

That is correct. And by his logic, we can safely say none of his statements have either 'meaning' or 'truth value'... can't measure them.. .. don't exist!

>>5525348

please rigorously define "thought"

>>5525389

please rigorously define consciousness
>the old greek gods can be measured because zeuss does the thunder.

>>5525348
Of course thoughts are existent, you can measure them just fine.

>>5525389
No, it can't. An EEG measure physical quantities. Physical measurements cannot justify metaphysical beliefs. Electricity doesn't prove the existence of a soul. On the contrary it proves that the brain can be explained physically without resorting to /x/ magic.

>>5525407

how?

>>5525409
Like this.

>>5525411

that might prove that there are electromagnetic waves inside our head. Doesn't prove we have consciousness

>>5525413
>Doesn't prove we have consciousness
of course it doesn't, i was talking about "thoughts", ie electromagnetic activity corresponding to ongoing activities in your brain.
As in, when you think about eating, we can detect that you think about eating by only looking at your brain. Same with all other kinds of activities.
this proves that your "thoughts" are physical entities, since they can be measured and recognized by looking at your brain

>>5525408
You really need to get a life. It's pathetic how many hours you spend on here, spreading your trolling garbage. You really have nothing better to do?

>>5525416
What does this have to do with soul / consciousness garbage? Absolutely nothing. Try harder, /x/tard.

>>5525425
I have no idea what you're talking about. Are you confusing me with a different poster?

>>5525427
>I have no idea what you're talking about. Are you confusing me with a different poster?
You know exactly what you're talking about because you suck at hiding it. You're pathetic, and you know it.

>>5525430
I'm "pathetic" because I'm scientifically educated? Cool story, faggot.

>>5525431
You're pathetic because you're not scientifically educated, and persistently try to troll people here. That makes you a faggot. A sad and lonely faggot.

>>5525427

this troll again

>>5525432
I can say with certainty that I'm more educated than you. Please point out where you think I'm "trolling". Everything I said ITT is correct.

>>5525437
>I can say with certainty that I'm more educated than you.
Yeah, you're not, but let's not turn this into a pissing contest. Fact remains that you're that faggot who keeps trolling about consciousness not existing.

>>5525439
Please point out where you think I'm "trolling". I am simply stating facts.

>>5525446
Facts are not "trolling". All science starts with facts and observations.

>>5525443
>I am simply stating facts.
this is where you're trolling.

>>5525449
Are you denying the scientific method?

>>5525447
>Facts are not "trolling". All science starts with facts and observations.
This is also where you're trolling.

>>5525452
>Are you denying the scientific method?
And this is where you're trolling as well.

>>5525453
What are you doing on a science board, if you reject the scientific method?

>>5525456
>What are you doing on a science board, if you reject the scientific method?
In this post you are trolling again.

>>5525457
Stop shitposting. You're wasting your time.

>>5525458
Oh the irony.

>>5525408

Words mean things... you Nominalist doofus:

"The ship wherein Theseus and the youth of Athens returned [from Crete] had thirty oars, and was preserved by the Athenians down even to the time of Demetrius Phalereus, for they took away the old planks as they decayed, putting in new and stronger timber in their place, insomuch that this ship became a standing example among the philosophers, for the logical question of things that grow; one side holding that the ship remained the same, and the other contending that it was not the same."

People put human consciousness on one line with ghosts, gods etc. garbage. Oh wow, so you're unconscious? Machines? No sense of self, no own thoughts?
>can't tell if schizotypal or torn from reality mathfags

>>5525759
Humans are biological machines like all animals. We evolved and our bodies don't contain any magic. Or do you deny evolution?

Please stop bumping this garbage thread.
>>5525759
If you look closely, you'll notice that it's just one guy who keeps insisting on that. It's one troll, always ranting about how consciousness doesn't exist, referring people to /x/ etc.

>>5525763
>Humans are biological machines like all animals. We evolved and our bodies don't contain any magic. Or do you deny evolution?
This is where you're trolling.

>>5525766
When people post /x/ crap on the wrong board, it's only polite to redirect them to where they belong.

>>5525768
So you actually do deny evolution?

No, it could mean that we do not possess the correct tools to measure it because it is beyond our understanding.

>>5525775
>argument from ignorance

>>>/x/

>>5525779
So you do not believe that there is a limit to human understanding?

>>5525773
This is again where you are trolling.

>>5525779
Right here, you're trolling right here.

>>5525780
If something exists, it has to have physical evidence. If you want to believe in irrational nonsense without evidence, do it on >>>/x/

>>5525784
In this post you are trolling.

>>5525784
I'm not saying there isn't physical evidence, I'm merely saying that we do not have the tools to do so either because we lack the technology to do so or the understanding..

>>5525794
OP was talking about things that _cannot_ be measured by definition. They can never have physical evidence.

>>5525798
here you are trolling

>>5525763
Who's talking about magic? A very complex neurological phenomenon. Emotions, self-consciousness, feeling of beauty, empathy, love etc. not only logic and definetly not strict machine logic.

Ad hominem time!
I know you're not a troll but a guy with inferiority complex wearing a mask of cold unemotional 100% rational True Scientist. What's so horrible happened some years ago so you turned like so? Hiding your emotions so no one could shit in your 'soul'? That was painfull in high school, right? Please stop posting your cries for help camouflaged as arrogant superiority in every thread.

>>5525804
>I know you're not a troll
Something's wrong here.

>>5525804
Your soul / consciousness garbage has no evidence, cannot be tested and isn't needed for any explanation. Take it to >>>/x/

>>5525814
This post would be an example of you trolling.

You can only fit a certain amount of autism into one thread before there comes a point after the thread no longer exists.

>>5525320
The act of measuring changes the thing measured. Because of that there is a limit, in reality, of how much information you can ascertain via measurement, and that limit does not coincide with the truth of the thing measured, so at some point we are going to have to just have faith that our theories work.

>>5525320
thats a huge fucking dolphin

>>5525320
As conjecture

This is one of the shittiest and longest threads i've seen on /sci/.

Not OP fault, it was a good question.

>>5526284
>Do you even see the shark

>>5525728
words *determine our examination of presence of things

>>5526295
>Do you even see the blue whale?

>>5526303
that's a o

If it cannot be measured, it's unfalsifiable. If it unfalsifiable, it does not necessarily mean it's not true, just that the Scientific Method cannot accurately test it. It's also possible that something may not be measurable with our current technology and knowledge, but this does not necessarily make it truly unfalsifiable, as in the future advances may be made that allow it to be tested properly.

>>5526312
Well said.

>>5526303
>that makes sense
p = not p