/sci/ - Science & Math

>strong AI

The fact that you are using this term tells us that you're an edgy pop sci kid without real education. You wouldn't understand any of the actual theories behind AI. Researchers in AI don't give a fuck about a distinction between "strong" or "weak" AI.

>>5577938
>edgy

Even though the rest of your post is totally right, this word makes you a retard.

>>5577938
Read this http://www.amazon.com/Conscious-Mind-Search-Fundamental-Philosophy/dp/0195117891

>>5577968
No, thanks. I prefer to read science and math books. Please take your dualism metaphysics book to >>>/lit/

>>5577938
Are you trolling? Why isn't the distinction important, Anon? Many problems in closed domains (medicine, board games, etc) have been solved with <span class="math">relative[/spoiler] ease; there's less for the researcher(s) to consider. Strong AI, in that sense, is a different kind of problem.

>>5577979
Consciousness != Dualism

Strong AI and Weak AI is stuff that philosophers think about.

>>5577982

"Consciousness = magic" guy is a well known /sci/ troll. Don't respond to him.

>>5577982
A soul / consciousness is the core belief of dualism and the author of that book is a self-proclaimed dualist.

>>5577980
The distinction is meaningless to AI researchers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room#Strong_AI_vs._AI_research
>Stuart Russell and Peter Norvig observe that most AI researchers "don't care about the strong AI hypothesis—as long as the program works, they don't care whether you call it a simulation of intelligence or real intelligence."[3]

Inb4 the edgy teenager claims to know more about AI than Russell and Norvig. He probably never heard these names before.

>>5578003
I wasnt talking about the book. Im not even that anon. You dont need Dualism for consciousness.

>>5578003
The philosophy of AI research is relevant to AI research. Russell and Norvig are anti-intellectuals.

>>5578012
You are wrong. Only under the assumption of dualism a soul / consciousness can exist. Otherwise it has to be dismissed because it is not testable, has no evidence and isn't needed for any explanation.

>>5578018
>metaphysics
>relevant
my sides

>Russell and Norvig are anti-intellectuals.
... says the high school dropout.
Seriously, these guys are world renowned AI researchers and wrote one of the most used textbooks on the topic. Come back when you achieved what they achieved. You never will.

>>5578023
Nope http://lesswrong.com/lw/7j0/human_consciousness_as_a_tractable_scientific/

>>5578039
A blogger without science education links to a philosophical publication? So what? Come back when you have science to post.

>>5578043
>http://www.cell.com/trends/cognitive-sciences/abstract/S1364-6613(11)00105-7
>Trends in Cognitive Sciences

>>5578003
>He probably never heard these names before
>mfw

I didn't use 'Strong AI' to mean the same as in AIMA; I'm not concerned with the philosophy of AI. When I say 'strong AI,' I mean it in the same sense as Wikipedia:

"Strong AI is artificial intelligence that matches or exceeds human intelligence — the intelligence of a machine that can successfully perform any intellectual task that a human being can"

This thread has gone to shit, anyway. I was a fool to think posting on /sci/ (instead of /g/) would yield better insights.

>>5578053
How cute, a pseudoscience publication. Why don't you link timecube as well? Seriously, claiming to have empirical evidence for something that cannot be tested is just too obvious hogwash.

>>5578033
Confirmed for having no idea what philosophy is or how it influences daughter subjects.

>>5578056
Pseudo science doesnt get published in Cell. Consciousness can be tested.

>>5578058
Then why use the term even though you know it's meaningless?

>>5578064
Tell me how "hurr durr muh qualia" is relevant to anyone but underaged kids.

>>5578070
You just linked to a pseudoscience publication. A magical soul / consciousness cannot be tested. It has no observable effects. Please take that nonsense to >>>/x/

>>5577989
>>5577989
>>5577989
>>5577989


Seriously guys, don't engage him.

>>5578079
You insist on using one particular metaphysical foundation that you have no argument for. You treat it like a religion. It isn't a godsend, it's a particular mindset that Western culture agrees upon. What you don't realize is that AI research exists is because of philosophy.

Moreover you don't care about knowledge, rather you care about one particular slice of knowledge because it resonates with your emotions. You might as well be a die-hard Christian babbling bible passages out to people who happen to not agree with you.

>>5578096
Shut up. You're just a butthurt dualist who is still mad because I corrected his nonsense in an earlier thread. Please calm down and stop spamming.

>>5578099
>What you don't realize is that AI research exists is because of philosophy.
Only insofar as you could say science or math exists because of philosophy. AI research has nothing to do with metaphysics.

>Moreover you don't care about knowledge
Dafuq? Knowledge is the thing I care about most.

>You might as well be a die-hard Christian babbling bible passages out to people who happen to not agree with you.
Haha, the old "science is a religion" troll.
Unlike a religionfag a scientist like me is open to changing his theories upon new observations. If you managed to provide evidence for your /x/ claims, we would consider them. But so far all you posted were fallacies, insults and trolls.

There is no robot that has ever achieved sapience. All robots are programmed to behave the way they do and they don't make conscious decisions, they only use observed information to make the best possible geuss. Some robots perform better than others, but no robots are truly conscious.

>>5578131
Please stop trolling and take that soul / consciousness nonsense back to >>>/x/

>>5578114
>AI research has nothing to do with metaphysics.
You should at least read the Wikipedia article on "Philosophy of artificial intelligence" before showing off your ignorance. You can't even name a single notable philosopher in this area to me! You seem to not even know the slightest of history of your own field. Very funny.

>Dafuq? Knowledge is the thing I care about most.
You don't if dismiss the works of philosophers who are surely more intelligent than you not by using logic, but using another set of works that you fail to understand.

>Unlike a religionfag a scientist like me is open to changing his theories upon new observations. If you managed to provide evidence for your /x/ claims, we would consider them. But so far all you posted were fallacies, insults and trolls.
You have just parroted your baseless biblical mantra again. How about instead of calling me a religion troll you respond to me in a well thought out manner?

>>5578141
>You should at least read the Wikipedia article
Is wikipedia your only source of education? That's sad.

>You can't even name a single notable philosopher in this area
This board is about science, not philosophers. If you're only interested in philosophers, then please leave.

>You don't if dismiss the works of philosophers
What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

>How about instead of calling me a religion troll you respond to me in a well thought out manner?
How about you stop posting religion trolling? How about you post an actual point that is worth a more elaborate reply?

>>5578153
>Is wikipedia your only source of education? That's sad.
What a petty insult.

>This board is about science, not philosophers. If you're only interested in philosophers, then please leave.
This board is about science, mathematics, and the philosophy of science/math. If the latter is not included it should be a religion board.

>What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Absurd levels of reductionism and a complete disregard for subjectivity. Oh well, can't expect much from modern science! How many Dawkins books are in your collection?

>How about you stop posting religion trolling? How about you post an actual point that is worth a more elaborate reply?
How about you stop reducing science to dogmatism and ideology? How about you go read up on some basic epistemology and formal logic instead of promoting this deeply flawed anti-intellectualism?

inb4 clever bot
inb4 watson

>>5578162
ELIZA

>>5577936
go read Weizenbaums " Computer Power and Human Reason" the chapter about AI.

We are still far far away from what you call "strong AI"

>>5578161
>This board is about science, mathematics, and the philosophy of science/math.
Soul / consciousness metaphysics has nothing to do with the philosophy of science / math.

>If the latter is not included it should be a religion board.
Again the "science is a religion" troll. Please be more creative.

>Absurd levels of reductionism and a complete disregard for subjectivity.
Rationality is not absurd. There is no reason to believe in nonsense without evidence.

>How many Dawkins books are in your collection?
None.

>How about you stop reducing science to dogmatism and ideology?
I never did such a thing. Silly straw person is silly.

>How about you go read up on some basic epistemology
I know enough about the epistemology of science to tell you that it doesn't involve believing in untestable and unobservable phenomena.

>and formal logic
I have studied propositional, predicate, temporal, modal and fuzzy logic.

>deeply flawed anti-intellectualism
lel, projecting

>>5578177
>Soul / consciousness metaphysics has nothing to do with the philosophy of science / math.
It's related to the philosophy of neuroscience.

>Again the "science is a religion" troll. Please be more creative.
Again the refusal to address my points and instead calling me out as "troll".

>Rationality is not absurd. There is no reason to believe in nonsense without evidence.
All previous human thought amounts to nothing more than gropings toward my reductionist materialism and pseudo-empiricism. All hail le Science Spirit!

>I never did such a thing. Silly straw person is silly.
The fallacy is known as "straw man". And you did. You confused pop science reductionist explanations from the likes of Dawkins, Hawking, and Tyson that transliterate and misinterpret the layer of metaphor with which we see scientific phenomena with real science.

>I have studied propositional, predicate, temporal, modal and fuzzy logic.
And yet you illogically adopt a reductionist side of a narrow subject?

>lel, projecting
You take on a positivist reductionist worldview with many major flaws. It's a shame you aren't able to see them or study any of the works which point them out.

>>5578215
>It's related to the philosophy of neuroscience.
Nope. Neuroscience is about the brain (a physical organ). Untestable soul magic is not subject of neuroscience.

>Again the refusal to address my points
Which point? You didn't make any.

>All hail le Science Spirit!
"Ironic" shitposting is still shitposting!

>The fallacy is known as "straw man"
Straw "man" is gender biased. The correct term is therefore "straw person".

>pop science reductionist explanations from the likes of Dawkins, Hawking, and Tyson
I'm sorry to hear that these are your source of education. You should try to read a textbook or go to school.

>which we see scientific phenomena with real science.
I am still waiting for you to post evidence for your claims.

>And yet you illogically adopt a reductionist side of a narrow subject?
What does this have to do with logic? Do you not know what logic means? Reductionist thinking is the basis of many scientific theories btw.

>You take on a positivist reductionist worldview with many major flaws.
Name one flaw. Protip: Resorting to "muh irrational beliefs" is not a flaw the scientific method but a flaw in YOUR reasoning.

>>5578247
I really admire you, i notice how much effort you put in your arguments, even if you know they are made to troll.

>Straw "man" is gender biased. The correct term is therefore "straw person".

What about gender bias makes that term incorrect?

>>5578247
>Nope. Neuroscience is about the brain (a physical organ). Untestable soul magic is not subject of neuroscience.
Again you corral science into a limiting set of methods with a narrow definition of 'reality'.

>Which point? You didn't make any.
I guess you aren't competent in the English language. Not my problem.

>"Ironic" shitposting is still shitposting!
Prove it.

>Straw "man" is gender biased. The correct term is therefore "straw person".
Look up the origin of that fallacy and what "man" in this context means.

>I'm sorry to hear that these are your source of education. You should try to read a textbook or go to school.
>projecting

>I am still waiting for you to post evidence for your claims.
What claims?

>What does this have to do with logic? Do you not know what logic means?
Where is the basis to this argument that you've been given some esoteric knowledge and understanding of the world simply because you adopt reductionism? I don't see one.

>Reductionist thinking is the basis of many scientific theories btw.
Real science has almost nothing to do with your kind of reductionist attitude.

>Name one flaw. Protip: Resorting to "muh irrational beliefs" is not a flaw the scientific method but a flaw in YOUR reasoning.
Not my job. To start, you can go read Feyerabend.

>>5578262
>Again you corral science into a limiting set of methods with a narrow definition of 'reality'.
Cool story, bro. Sure I'm totally close-minded because I refuse to believe in non-interacting invisible ghosts.

>I guess you aren't competent in the English language.
What grammatical error did I make?

>What claims?
You forgot your own claims? Do you even know what you're arguing?

>esoteric knowledge
How is the scientific method esoteric?

>Real science has almost nothing to do with your kind of reductionist attitude.
Show me one example of "real science" being done with invisible unmeasurable and untestable phenomena.

>you can go read Feyerabend.
Haha, epistemological anarchism. So edgy. Go back to >>>/lit/

>>5578271
>Cool story, bro. Sure I'm totally close-minded because I refuse to believe in non-interacting invisible ghosts.
It's not my fault you lack the mental capacity to understand subjectivity.

>What grammatical error did I make?
None. Competence in a language is inclusive of many other things.

>You forgot your own claims? Do you even know what you're arguing?
I supported all of my claims. You are making a baseless claim that I did not.

>How is the scientific method esoteric?
The scientific method has many definitions and it is not the same thing as reductionism.

>Show me one example of "real science" being done with invisible unmeasurable and untestable phenomena.
The inductive extrapolation to the existence of macroevolution and the big bang.

>Haha, epistemological anarchism. So edgy. Go back to >>>/lit/
So you admit to having no argument? Scientific knowledge can come in many flavors. Reductionism springs from the same source as the worst religious dogmatism.

>>5578281
>It's not my fault you lack the mental capacity to understand subjectivity.
Without evidence there is nothing that needs to be understood. Your insult only underlines your lack of arguments.

>None. Competence in a language is inclusive of many other things.
Another vague and irrelevant statement.

>I supported all of my claims.
... with fallacies and insults. How about posting evidence instead?

>The scientific method has many definitions and it is not the same thing as reductionism.
Asking for evidence has nothing to do with reductionism. Without evidence your nonsense will never be science.

>The inductive extrapolation to the existence of macroevolution and the big bang.
Both have lots of evidence. How can you deny them? Are you a creationist?

>Scientific knowledge can come in many flavors.
Incoherent nonsensical drivel.

>>5578285
>Without evidence there is nothing that needs to be understood. Your insult only underlines your lack of arguments.
Science is not the collection of religious dogmas you make it out to be.

>Another vague and irrelevant statement.
I informed you that you lack the necessary competence in the English language to understand very simple statements. You once again demonstrate this. Look up the word "competence" in a dictionary.

>... with fallacies and insults. How about posting evidence instead?
That depends on what you mean by evidence. Show me where I have posted a fallacy.

>Asking for evidence has nothing to do with reductionism. Without evidence your nonsense will never be science.
It does because cogito ergo sum.

>Both have lots of evidence. How can you deny them? Are you a creationist?
Induction isn't a unidirectional, one-way road. Explain to me why we have to introduce a "non-interacting ghost", known as inflation and the Big Bang singularity, when evidence clearly tells us that the universe began as a uniform plasma.

>Incoherent nonsensical drivel.
A baseless claim.

>>5578298
>Science is not the collection of religious dogmas you make it out to be.
What the fuck are you talking about? Science is the opposite of religion. Science changes its theories upon new observations while religion simply denies any contradicting evidence.

>I informed you that you lack the necessary competence in the English language to understand very simple statements.
What statement didn't I understand?

>Look up the word "competence" in a dictionary.
Okay.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/competence
"The state or quality of being adequately or well qualified; ability"

>That depends on what you mean by evidence.
Whatever definition you choose, "hurr u have 2 believe" is not scientific evidence.

>Show me where I have posted a fallacy.
Right there >>5578298 you posted an ad hominem fallacy.

>Induction isn't a unidirectional, one-way road.
It is.

>Explain to me why we have to introduce a "non-interacting ghost", known as inflation and the Big Bang singularity, when evidence clearly tells us that the universe began as a uniform plasma.
Why would I explain cosmology to you?

>>5578306
>What the fuck are you talking about? Science is the opposite of religion. Science changes its theories upon new observations while religion simply denies any contradicting evidence.
Kindly stop referring to science as reductionism. They are not the same thing. Do you even know what reductionism means?

>What statement didn't I understand?
It's not singular. You have misunderstood all of the points I have made.

>Okay.
You lack competence in the English language.

>Whatever definition you choose, "hurr u have 2 believe" is not scientific evidence.
"hurr u have 2 believe" is childish, subjective, and emotional. Can you formulate this into proper and coherent English?

>Right there >>5578298 you posted an ad hominem fallacy.
Where? Show me the sentence in >>5578298 where I have done this,

>It is.
Please go read a rudimentary philosophy text on the "problem of induction". How old are you?

>Why would I explain cosmology to you?
Because you clearly don't understand the evidence or any of the implications contained in cosmology. The universe beginning as a uniform plasma is arguably an acceptable model and only fails the ad hoc and dogmatic reductionist criteria. You tell me you know some topics in the epistemology of science yet you are ignorant of the basics, trolling, or both.

>>5578033
The withdrawal of philosophy into a "professional" shell of its own has had disastrous consequences. The younger generation of physicists, the Feynmans, the Schwingers, etc., may be very bright; they may be more intelligent than their predecessors, than Bohr, Einstein, Schrödinger, Boltzmann, Mach and so on. But they are uncivilized savages, they lack in philosophical depth – and this is the fault of the very same idea of professionalism which you are now defending

Wooho one tripfag destroyed thread. Nothing to see here folks.

>>5578907
>one tripfag destroyed thread.
>no tripfags itt

welcome to 4chan, now leave.

>>5578793
Why do you look towards physicists to give you 'philosophical depth'? That's not their task. To the physicist, the Why should be left alone, only the How should be answered.

>>5578321
>Kindly stop referring to science as reductionism.
No, that's what you are doing. I'm referring to science as science.

>You have misunderstood all of the points I have made.
Nah, bro. Not my fault that you are too incompetent to express yourself properly. I addressed whatever you posted ITT. If you meant to say something else, then do it.

>You lack competence in the English language.
[citation needed]

>"hurr u have 2 believe" is childish, subjective, and emotional.
Indeed. That's what I'm saying. You are childish and emotional.

>Can you formulate this into proper and coherent English?
Why would I rephrase YOUR non-argument?

>Where? Show me the sentence in >>5578298 where I have done this,
Your second sentence.

>Please go read a rudimentary philosophy text on the "problem of induction".
I know the problem of induction. What does it have to do with your claim that magic exists?

>Because you clearly don't understand the evidence or any of the implications contained in cosmology.
I admit that I don't know much about cosmology. What does it have to do with this thread's topic? We were talking about AI and you were claiming that a magical non-interacting soul exists.

>You tell me you know some topics in the epistemology of science
More than you obviously.

sage

>>5579003
>No, that's what you are doing. I'm referring to science as science.
You are cringe worthy. Have you paid attention to anything I've written? You're taking science as reductionism - for instance in >>5578023. There is nothing reductionist indoctrinated into the scientific method. Whatever is compatible with observations is acceptable. There are always alternatives. The Earth can still be flat. Evolution might not be true. Exploring alternatives is always valid scientific inquiry. There are always addenda. Materialism and Dualism are both not true a priori, either could be wrong. God could exist. Science can look at observational implications of these things but just because we can't observe them doesn't mean they are more right or wrong. What really separates science from religion is the blatant denial of facts.

>Nah, bro. Not my fault that you are too incompetent to express yourself properly. I addressed whatever you posted ITT. If you meant to say something else, then do it.
Then why did you comment in >>5578247 that I did not make any points? If are responding to me as a "religion troll", you aren't addressing anything.

>[citation needed]
See my above point.

>Indeed. That's what I'm saying. You are childish and emotional.
Stop dodging the question and tell me what you mean by "evidence".

>Why would I rephrase YOUR non-argument?
Because it isn't my argument. It's a question for you.

>Your second sentence.
That isn't an ad hominem.

Continuation of >>5580840

>I know the problem of induction. What does it have to do with your claim that magic exists?
You can always conjecture new theories with induction that produce the same observational consequences but are less "simple". You cannot dismiss any of them with some promiscuous reductionist conjecture, they are all valid. For example the interpretations of quantum mechanics. Occam's/Hichens'/whatever razors are not real fucking theories of knowledge, please stop using them like they are. Why should the simplest explanation be the right one? There is no reason why, beyond the anglo saxon desire for things to be simple. Simplicity is also not an objectively quantifiable characteristic, contrary to whatever dogmatic bullshit Dawkins told you in the "God Delusion".

>I admit that I don't know much about cosmology. What does it have to do with this thread's topic? We were talking about AI
It was one of many possible examples. Theories in science always contain non-physical and unfalsifiable elements, like the big bang singularity. All we can see are the effects of these things, and there can be other things with the same effects. The laws and funny pictures we write down are outside of what we can detect and are blind faith. Similarly, consciousness is not detectable. We only see the effects of consciousness.

>and you were claiming that a magical non-interacting soul exists.
I never did such a thing. I said that asserting the philosophy of artificial intelligence is irrelevant while talking about epistemological and ontological topics without cognizance is ridiculous. You brought up consciousness. The history of artificial intelligence speaks for itself. It arouse from philosophy and the unanswered metaphysical prospects are still highly relevant contrary to whatever appeals to authority you wish to make.

>More than you obviously.
Could we cease the insults and sidetracking?

Continuation of >>5580840

>I know the problem of induction. What does it have to do with your claim that magic exists?
You can always conjecture new theories with induction that produce the same observational consequences but are less "simple". You cannot dismiss any of them with some promiscuous reductionist conjecture, they are all valid. For example the interpretations of quantum mechanics. Occam's/Hichens'/whatever razors are not real fucking theories of knowledge, please stop using them like they are. Why should the simplest explanation be the right one? There is no reason why, beyond the anglo saxon desire for things to be simple. Simplicity is also not an objectively quantifiable characteristic, contrary to whatever dogmatic bullshit Dawkins told you in the "God Delusion".

>I admit that I don't know much about cosmology. What does it have to do with this thread's topic? We were talking about AI
It was one of many possible examples. Theories in science always contain non-physical and unfalsifiable elements, like the big bang singularity. All we can see are the effects of these things, and there can be other things with the same effects. The laws and funny pictures we write down are outside of what we can detect and are blind faith. Similarly, consciousness is not detectable. We only see the effects of consciousness.

>and you were claiming that a magical non-interacting soul exists.
I never did such a thing. I said that asserting the philosophy of artificial intelligence is irrelevant while talking about epistemological and ontological topics without cognizance is ridiculous. You brought up consciousness. The history of artificial intelligence speaks for itself. It rouse from philosophy and the unanswered metaphysical prospects are still highly relevant contrary to whatever appeals to authority you wish to make.

>More than you obviously.
Could we cease the insults and sidetracking?

>>5580840
>Have you paid attention to anything I've written?
I have successfully refuted all your garbage.

>You're taking science as reductionism - for instance in >>5578023
Great lack of reading comprehension. In that post I'm not talking about science. The subject of discussion is outside the realm of science.

>There is nothing reductionist indoctrinated into the scientific method.
Haha, sure science is totally researching invisble ghosts. Try harder, /x/tard.

>There are always alternatives. The Earth can still be flat. Evolution might not be true.
My sides.

>God could exist.
No, he can't.

>If are responding to me as a "religion troll", you aren't addressing anything.
I am addressing your religion trolling. That's pretty much the only point you have within your walls of pointless and redundant drivel.

>Stop dodging the question and tell me what you mean by "evidence".
How about you take a high school science class and learn what the scientific method is?

>>>/b/
>>>/r/transhumanism
>>>/r/teenagers
>>>/r/futurism

>>5580871
>You can always conjecture new theories with induction that produce the same observational consequences but are less "simple".
This is a science board. If you want to promote irrelevant hogwash without basis in reality, you can do so on >>>/x/

>Occam's/Hichens'/whatever razors are not real fucking theories of knowledge
They are basic principles of rationality. If you deny rationality, you're wrong on /sci/. We don't want to hear about your paranormal conspiracy theories and schizophrenic delusions.

>Simplicity is also not an objectively quantifiable characteristic
If something has absolutely no evidence, it can be dismissed. Take your meds. Invisible spirits don't real.

>Similarly, consciousness is not detectable.
Then it doesnt' belong on the science board.

>We only see the effects of consciousness.
Name one effect. In your previous sentence you already admitted the opposite, i.e. that it cannot be tested and has no effects.

>I never did such a thing.
You did it right there, one sentence earlier.

>Could we cease the insults and sidetracking?
That's up to you, not me.

>>5581709

http://departments.bloomu.edu/philosophy/pages/content/hales/articles/proveanegative.html

http://scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts/2008/06/25/you-can-prove-a-negative/

dont take rules of thumb as arbitrary limits of science and thought.

>>>/lit/3526163

lel

>>5577936
Hey OP,
I still think it's neural networks, because I read somewhere (dunno link to the publication, but afaik it seemed very scientific), that "... there is nothing fundamentally wrong with neural networks..." considering quantum environment in a brain.
Afaik there havn't been proven anything like this in any other project, therefore NN it is.

>>5578043
Yudkowsky is a genius and will save the human race.

>>5581765
Soul / consciousness advocates are not geniuses; they are the epitome of academic illiteracy and mental defectiveness.

>>5581775
Says who?

>>5581746

I seriously doubt anyone here has actually read occam to know what the hell he was talking about exactly anyways.

Best A.I. atm -------> Watson IBM

>>5581775
Strong AI advocates are not geniuses; they are the epitome of spiritual ignorance and emotional defectiveness.

>>5581777

He was a Nominalist.

I don't cotton to that.

>>5581895
There is no such thing as "strong AI". There is only AI. The distinction is meaningless to any AI researcher and is only made by underaged sci fi tards with an affinity for dualism.

>>5582186

Nice opinion.

http://www.alanturing.net/turing_archive/pages/reference%20articles/what_is_AI/What%20is%20AI13.html

>>5582197
Jack Copeland is a self-proclaimed philosopher, not an AI researcher. Do you have any education at all? It seems you don't know shit about actual AI research and you're just babbling soft pop sci and sci fi drivel.

>>5582205

Do you have a vagina? You seem to mistake your opinions for facts and I've heard that people with vaginas do that.

>>5582222
>Do you have a vagina?
Yes, I do.

>You seem to mistake your opinions for facts
I'm just telling you the simple fact that professional AI researchers don't give a shit about your infantile sci fi fantasies. Unlike you I'm educated in the topic.

>>5582234
watch out we have a vagina in the house seeking attention.

take your wimminz rights elsewhere and go back to your slut parade

>>5582252
You're pathetic. Go back to >>>/r9k/

>>5582254
are your loins aching for me that badly, miss tits?

>>5582234
>Yes, I do.

Explains your irrational thoughts.

>>5582254

why do you make a big deal out of your gender? can't you just omit that part, for the sake of this (granted shitty) discussion?

could you also ignore this faggot and assume another anonymous identity, and stop being a faggot yourself? thanks.

>>5582255
>>5582256
>argumentum ad feminam

>>5582261
I was asked and I have no reason to lie. It's his fault that my mere presence means emotional discomfort to him.

>>5582254
why would you point out that you're a woman on 4chan if not for attention. nothing about being a woman on the internet makes you special. Let others respond to your thoughts as if you had no gender. Don't force it out. Intelligent women however few they may be, despise the fuck out of people like you.

>>5582234

women can't do computers.

It are a fact.

>>5581702
>Great lack of reading comprehension. In that post I'm not talking about science. The subject of discussion is outside the realm of science.
No, it’s not. Unfalsifiable theories are part of science and by definition they cannot be falsified.
>Otherwise it has to be dismissed because it is not testable, has no evidence and isn't needed for any explanation.
Is this a criteria for what you consider science? This doesn't account for the fact that every scientific theory includes unfalsifiable elements. Scientific theories are by definition scientific. A basic contradiction for your criterion. If you're going to believe in one thing without any evidence, then why not just believe in anything that could potentially exist maybe? This is your problem. You are completely incapable of even hypothetically exiting this contradictory and unfalsifiable framework for judging what science is and what it is not. You are a stubborn religious dogmatist baselessly and repetitively insisting that is correct.

>Haha, sure science is totally researching invisble ghosts. Try harder, /x/tard.
There is no reason why the more complicated explanation (everything + invisible ghosts vs. everything) shouldn't be true. Those invisible ghosts don't contradict any observed phenomena. Russell’s teapot could exist. That is the answer which is epistemologically satisfying and free of contradictions. There is no precise definition of what is allowed to exist, I think this is obvious, so why do you claim you have studied formal logic yet you are unable to see this? Do I need to write it down for you symbolically? Science should explore all possibilities. Tainting religious dogmas onto science is unnecessary.

>My sides.
Prove to me that the Earth cannot be flat. A flat Earth is compatible with all observations. Give me one observation that you consider incompatible.

>No, he can't.
And why not?

Continuation of >>5583606

>I am addressing your religion trolling. That's pretty much the only point you have within your walls of pointless and redundant drivel.
You haven't addressed anything, hence the vast amounts of repetition. You just insult me, dodge points, and call me a religion troll, as you’re doing right now. If you cannot explain to me how I am wrong or offer some commentary with substance there is no point in continuing.

>How about you take a high school science class and learn what the scientific method is?
"Objectively verifiable evidence", as you call it, is not the only kind of evidence and it is unquestionably not the only kind of evidence science is restricted to. There are factually hundreds, if not more, of philosophical works devoted to defining how "evidence" is used in the sciences. As mentioned before, a problem with defining evidence and even “objectively verifiable evidence” is that it requires a definition of existence. How do you define "existence"? If you think you can answer this question with such frivolities, you really have no idea what you're talking about.

>>5581709
>This is a science board. If you want to promote irrelevant hogwash without basis in reality, you can do so on >>>/x/
Your assumptions are yet again incorrect. How would a theory be "irrelevant hogwash without basis in reality" if it's compatible with all prevailing observational phenomena? Again, how do you figure in the unfalsifiable assumptions that every scientific theory makes? God created the universe and God wouldn't make things hard on my brain so the explanation with the least amount of unfalsifiable assumptions is the right one? Or something similar to this but replacing “God” with "feelings and intuition”? Science doesn't care about either of these emotive things.

>They are basic principles of rationality.
Let’s make it clear that this is nothing but your opinion. Why should “rationality” defy logic? I thought “rationality” should complement and support logic symbiotically. Why do you think “rationality” should be desirable? What is your criteria for something to be considered “rational”? Dismissing Russell's teapot using a reductionist technique is an epistemological fallacy. I already explained to you that reductionist principles are dogmatic theological nonsense found in the likes of pop science textbooks and the Quran. No real science makes use them. And again, they also came about from religion. Go learn some basic history. They are worthless in science and there is no real reason to apply them to anything.

>If something has absolutely no evidence, it can be dismissed.
I guess we can dismiss the big bang singularity. There isn't one scientific theory completely absent of unfalsifiable and unjustifiable assumptions. If you think there is, feel free to give me one.

>Then it doesnt' belong on the science board.
The big bang theory is untestable nonsense and don’t belong on the science board, right?

Continuation of >>5583664

>Name one effect. In your previous sentence you already admitted the opposite, i.e. that it cannot be tested and has no effects.
“Effects” and “detection” are not the same thing in this context. A theory will always include elements or assumptions which are undetectable. Yet the theory itself can have some effects which support its truthfulness.

Consciousness cannot be detected yet it can have effects. Similarly the big bang singularity cannot be detected yet it has effects. For consciousness, one consequence could be that humans admit to possessing a consciousness. Similarly for the big bang singularity, astronomers witness and report the existence of a cosmic microwave background. These are both observable effects. There are no experiments that will falsify the big bang singularity because it itself is unobservable. Likewise there are no experiments that will falsify consciousness because it itself is unobservable. The former you consider science, the latter not so. Why?

>You did it right there, one sentence earlier.
After you initially brought it up. Do you really not have any subjective portion of perception? You’re honestly unable to taste chocolate? You don't really know how to move your arm up and down? And you are being truthful? You poor, poor bastard. That isn't my problem.

>>5582186
>The distinction is meaningless to any AI researcher
Why do you make appeals to authority

>and is only made by underaged sci fi tards with an affinity for dualism.
Why do you insult him? Philosophy provides the foundation for AI research. That foundation is not strong and still has many unanswered questions.

>>5577946
Clearly you don't know what edgy means in this context.

>>5583606
>Unfalsifiable theories are part of science and by definition they cannot be falsified.
You mean assumptions, not theories, you uneducated douche.

>If you're going to believe in one thing without any evidence, then why not just believe in anything that could potentially exist maybe?
That's exactly your problem I don't believe in shit without evidence. You however believe in one thing without evidence while arbitrarily dismissing another one. You're the typical /x/tard, devoid of consistency and rationality.

>There is no reason why the more complicated explanation (everything + invisible ghosts vs. everything) shouldn't be true.
There is a very simple reason: Because it has no fucking evidence.

>Those invisible ghosts don't contradict any observed phenomena. Russell’s teapot could exist.
my sides

>There is no precise definition of what is allowed to exist
If something exists, it has to have physically measurable evidence.

>Prove to me that the Earth cannot be flat.
hahaha

>>5583624
>hence the vast amounts of repetition
Argument by repetition is a fallacy. Repeating wrong garbage doesn't make it true.

>If you cannot explain to me how I am wrong
I did it multiple times. Not my fault that you're illiterate.

>"Objectively verifiable evidence", as you call it, is not the only kind of evidence
But it is. "Muh belief" is not valid scientific evidence.

>>5583664
>How would a theory be "irrelevant hogwash without basis in reality" if it's compatible
Because it has no evidence. A theory about invisible demons is absolutely meaningless. It is lacking any explanatory power.

>God created the universe
No, he didn't. He doesn't exist, you silly troll.

>Let’s make it clear that this is nothing but your opinion.
Occam's/Hitchen's razor is not an opinion but a principle that is applied in rational thinking.

>Why should “rationality” defy logic?
It doesn't.

>Dismissing Russell's teapot using a reductionist technique is an epistemological fallacy
There is no fallacy in dismissing gibberish without evidence.

>I already explained to you that reductionist principles are dogmatic theological nonsense found in the likes of pop science textbooks and the Quran. No real science makes use them
Reductionism is vital part of most scientific approaches and has nothing to do with religion. Religion contradicts reductionism because religion resorts to supernatural explanations even though natural ones exist.

>The big bang theory is untestable nonsense and don’t belong on the science board, right?
The big bang theory is the funniest show on tv. If you weren't anti-intellectual, you'd understand the scientific references by Sheldon.

>>5583679
>“Effects” and “detection” are not the same thing in this context.
Effects are a prerequisite for detection. Without effects something cannot be detected and can therefore be dismissed.

>Consciousness cannot be detected yet it can have effects
Name one effect. Name one thing that requires us to resort to a magical soul as an explanation.

>For consciousness, one consequence could be that humans admit to possessing a consciousness
int main(void){ printf("I are conscious"); return 1;}
Oh look, my computer is conscious.

>Do you really not have any subjective portion of perception?
No such thing exists. Perception is a physical process of measurement and therefore objective.

>You’re honestly unable to taste chocolate?
My tounge has taste buds for bitter, sweet etc.

>You don't really know how to move your arm up and down?
Muscle contraction works on biochemistry and biophysics. No magic involved.

for fucks sake

the soul/consciousness troll(s) had his/their very own own 300+ post threat yesterday
do you guys really need to feed him/them again

Fucking damn, I thought this died. oh well sage.

Wow, this is one of the worst threads I've ever seen. I'm going to squeeze in one post that is actually about the topic: experiments with "deep learning" are pretty cool. Basically successive layers of neural nets get trained to reproduce their own input, and in doing that they learn to represent patterns in the data. E.g. eventually you'll get "face detector" neurons if your training data is images with faces, etc. This site has info and Matlab tutorials:
http://deeplearning.net/
Also google the paper about "Spaun" for another cool neural net result.
I'm pretty certain that I have just cast pearls before swine though, so I'm going to stop and go to bed.

ok so let me get this straight, you guys duked it out because one guy suggested a concept that is out of the boundaries of empiricism?

>>5584761

I don't believe I'll be letting you tell me what is outside the boundaries of empricism.

Do you guys think in the 2020s, 2030s and beyond we will have AI?

Say like by 2050, will we have AI?

>>5578039
Get that lesswrong shit off /sci/.

look at:
numenta.com
vicarious.com

>>5579003
>>5578321
>>5578306
>>5578298
>>5578285
>>5578281
>>5578271
>>5578262
>>5578247
>>5578215
>>5578177
>>5578161
>>5578153
>>5578141
>>5578114
HOLY FUCK STOP IT BOTH OF YOU. YOU ARE BOTH TERRIBLE.

This is not how you have an argument. As soon as you devolve to the point of sniping at individual, excised sentences, you have both failed at having a coherent argument. You are both just jerking off to yourselves at that point. Your argument will never actually lead anywhere or have any effective conclusion.

>>5584933

>>5584611
>You mean assumptions, not theories,
No, I meant theories. Dualism and physicalism for example can be formalized into many diverse forms of unfalsifiable theories.

>you uneducated douche.
I thought we agreed to cease with the insults.

>That's exactly your problem I don't believe in shit without evidence.
You haven’t defined evidence yet. Please give me a definition so I can know what you’re saying.

>You however believe in one thing without evidence while arbitrarily dismissing another one. You're the typical /x/tard, devoid of consistency and rationality.
Where did I do this?

>There is a very simple reason: Because it has no fucking evidence.
Just because something lacks evidence, it doesn't mean it can’t exist.

>my sides
>argumentum ad passiones
So you have no argument? Looks like I win.

>If something exists, it has to have physically measurable evidence.
Why should it?

How do you explain the measurement problem? What counts as a measurement? What counts as something being physical? What is “evidence” exactly? How do you explain errors/inaccuracies in experiments? What if something isn't measurable now, but it turns out to be measurable in the future? You’ll grasp at straws if you try to answer any of these.

> hahaha
> argumentum ad passiones
So you have no argument? Looks like I win.

>>5584616
>Argument by repetition is a fallacy. Repeating wrong garbage doesn't make it true.
There wouldn't be any need for repetition if you could simply respond to it without insulting me as a "religion troll".

>I did it multiple times. Not my fault that you're illiterate.
Show me where you did.

> But it is. "Muh belief" is not valid scientific evidence.
Yes it is. Scientific theories use induction and other logical devices. You have to deal with incompleteness and competing formalizations. There is no logical device to pick one theory over another, which reduces all of this to “muh belief”. It is your belief that the simplest theory should be correct.

>>5584623
> Because it has no evidence. A theory about invisible demons is absolutely meaningless. It is lacking any explanatory power.
No, it’s not. It has explanatory power in that it explains all observations the particular theory deals with. Any theory can be made compatible with any empirical observation by the addition of a sufficient number of suitable ad hoc and unfalsifiable hypotheses.

> No, he didn't. He doesn't exist, you silly troll.
How do you know? Why can’t he? Don’t give me a circular “there’s no objectively verifiable evidence”. Where is the proof that there is no evidence? Why does something require evidence to exist? Because it’s rational? Why should it be rational? You have no idea. You just believe in it. You’re just another adherent of a reductionist cult.

> Occam's/Hitchen's razor is not an opinion but a principle that is applied in rational thinking.
Why should this aspect of what you call “rational thinking” be desirable in science when scientific theories clearly make no use of it?

> It doesn't.
Yes it does. You lack a proof to demonstrate that the domain of discourse of “existence” must only include the vacuous “physically measurable evidence”. Your criterion is circular in that you have no “physically measurable evidence” that existence must have “physically measurable evidence”. It’s an opinion of yours, and it’s wrong to apply it to science as I've already demonstrated in previous posts.

>There is no fallacy in dismissing gibberish without evidence.
You are committing a “reverse” argument from ignorance fallacy. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. You have no idea whether or not these things can exist and you can never know. They are still part of science nevertheless.

>>5586331
>No, I meant theories
Theories have to be falsifiable. Dualism isn't a scientific theory.

>You haven’t defined evidence yet
How about you go to school, if you don't even know what evidence means?

>Just because something lacks evidence, it doesn't mean it can’t exist.
It means we can dismiss it. What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

>Why should it?
By definition.

>How do you explain the measurement problem?
No such problem exists.

>What if something isn't measurable now, but it turns out to be measurable in the future?
That's not what we're talking about. We were talking about something that can by definition NEVER be measured.

>>5586335
>without insulting me as a "religion troll".
How about you stop with the religious trolling? "Hurr durr you can't disprove god" is the lowest form of religion shitposting on /sci/.

>Yes it is.
No, it isn't. /x/ is not science. Try harder.

Continued from >>5586337

> Reductionism is vital part of most scientific approaches
It’s easy to see that “scientific approaches” do not make use of reductionism. The big bang singularity isn't physically measurable. The quantum waveform isn't physically measurable. Macroevolution isn’t physically measurable. Newton’s laws aren't physically measurable. The equations of electromagnetism aren't physically measurable. Chemical conservation laws aren't physically measurable. Induction has no evidence. Thought experiments have no evidence. I take it you don’t believe in any of these things? Why then, are they considered science?

See also an AI paper that explicitly dismisses reductionist claptrap with experimental evidence http://arxiv.org/pdf/cs/9605101.pdf

>Religion contradicts reductionism because religion resorts to supernatural explanations even though natural ones exist.
But that’s erroneous. Religion resorts to “God did it”. That is objectively simpler than what you call a “natural” explanation and offers you the same predictions.

> The big bang theory is the funniest show on tv. If you weren’t anti-intellectual, you’d understand the scientific references by Sheldon.
We’re talking about the scientific theory, not the funny man of Zimbabwe. Stop making such an effort to dodge the question.

>>5584624
> Effects are a prerequisite for detection. Without effects something cannot be detected and can therefore be dismissed.
That doesn't change the fact that a theory may have some effects but the theory itself is always unfalsifiable.

> Name one effect. Name one thing that requires us to resort to a magical soul as an explanation.
Nothing requires us, but there is no good reason that we should dismiss it. Why do you call a soul “magical” when it is just as “magical” as those totally arbitrary physical laws?

> Oh look, my computer is conscious.
It could be. You’ll never know and neither will I. Just like we’ll never know if the big bang singularity actually existed.

> No such thing exists. Perception is a physical process of measurement and therefore objective.
Hasty generalization.

> My tounge has taste buds for bitter, sweet etc.
What does this have to do with the fact that you can never experience the sweetness of chocolate?

> Muscle contraction works on biochemistry and biophysics. No magic involved.
Hasty generalization. How do you initiate muscle contraction? I know for a fact that I am more than biochemistry and biophysics because I experience qualia.

>>5586337
> It has explanatory power in that it explains all observations the particular theory deals with
Circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works. If a theory doesn't refer to anything in reality, it is meaningless.

>Any theory can be made compatible with any empirical observation
Plain wrong. A hypothesis that doesn't refer to anything observable cannot be empirically tested.

>Don’t give me a circular “there’s no objectively verifiable evidence”
That's not circular, that's simply a fact. Fuck off with your shitty "lol u can't prove god doesn't exist" trolling.

>Why does something require evidence to exist?
By definition.

>You have no idea. You just believe in it.
Science is not belief. Science is based on facts.

>when scientific theories clearly make no use of it?
They do. All science is based on rationality.

>Your criterion is circular
... says the guy who believes in a sky fairy without evidence.

>as I've already demonstrated in previous posts.
my sides

>They are still part of science nevertheless.
No, fairy tales are not part of science.

>>5586340
>Theories have to be falsifiable.
The big bang theory isn't falsifiable. It's considered a scientific theory.

>Dualism isn't a scientific theory.
Yes it is. Dualism is compatible with observations and explains why people claim to have a consciousness.

>How about you go to school, if you don't even know what evidence means?
I already explained this in >>5583624.

>It means we can dismiss it. What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
This is going around in circles. I have already addressed how ridiculous this is. You have no reason to believe in it.

>By definition.
Parts of the theory that are considered immeasurable today may be measurable in the future. There is no way of knowing. Definitions can change.

>No such problem exists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement_problem

>That's not what we're talking about. We were talking about something that can by definition NEVER be measured.
See my above point.

>>5586344
>How about you stop with the religious trolling? "Hurr durr you can't disprove god" is the lowest form of religion shitposting on /sci/.
I'm not trolling. "Hurr durr you can disprove god" is also a low form of religion shitposting on /sci/.

>No, it isn't. /x/ is not science. Try harder.
You're just repeating yourself and ignoring the points I've made.

>>5586345
>Newton’s laws aren't physically measurable. The equations of electromagnetism aren't physically measurable
oh wow, my sides

>Religion resorts to “God did it”. That is objectively simpler than what you call a “natural” explanation and offers you the same predictions.
10/10

>>5586370
>oh wow, my sides
>argumentum ad passiones
So you have no argument? Looks like I win.

>10/10
Explain where I am wrong.

>>5586351
>That doesn't change the fact that a theory may have some effects but the theory itself is always unfalsifiable.
That's not even a response to the sentence you were quoting.

> but there is no good reason that we should dismiss it.
There is. It has no evidence.

>when it is just as “magical” as those totally arbitrary physical laws?
Physical laws aren't arbitrary.

>Hasty generalization.
Nope, scientific fact.

>What does this have to do with the fact that you can never experience the sweetness of chocolate?
What are you talking about? My tounge has taste buds for sweet.

>Hasty generalization.
Nope, scientific fact.

>How do you initiate muscle contraction?
Muscle contraction is a deterministic process initiated by certain stimuli.

>because I experience qualia.
Prove it. Post the evidence.

>>5586362
>The big bang theory isn't falsifiable.
It would be falsified if it turned out that Sheldon was wrong.

>Dualism
Is not falsifiable and has no evidence.

> I have already addressed how ridiculous this is.
You didn't.

>Parts of the theory that are considered immeasurable today may be measurable in the future
We were talking about somehitng that can never be measured.

>Definitions can change.
Then the meaning changes as well.

>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement_problem
Nice link to Schrodinger's cat.

>See my above point.
You mean the fallacy I just disproved?

>>5586381
>That's not even a response to the sentence you were quoting.
The sentence I quoted has no relevance to the points I've made.

>There is. It has no evidence.
There is no reason why something should have evidence to exist.

>Physical laws aren't arbitrary.
Yes they are. Again, "any theory can be made compatible with any empirical observation by the addition of a sufficient number of suitable ad hoc and unfalsifiable hypotheses."

>Nope, scientific fact.
Define scientific fact.

>What are you talking about? My tounge has taste buds for sweet.
You claim to not have any subjective perception of sweetness. You're probably lying so I won't argue with you.

>Nope, scientific fact.
Define scientific fact.

>Muscle contraction is a deterministic process initiated by certain stimuli.
Explain that deterministic process.

>Prove it. Post the evidence.
I have. I experience qualia. There is nothing more objective I can communicate.

>>5586386
>It would be falsified if it turned out that Sheldon was wrong.
Who is Sheldon? How would he be wrong?

>Is not falsifiable and has no evidence.
Which are irrelevant criteria to judge something as science vs. non-science.

>You didn't.
I did. Read my posts.

>We were talking about somehitng that can never be measured.
No, we weren't. There is no way of guaranteeing something can never be measured. That's an irrelevant hypothetical.

>Then the meaning changes as well.
What are you implying?

>Nice link to Schrodinger's cat.
What?

>You mean the fallacy I just disproved?
What fallacy? You haven't disproved anything.

In this kind of situation there is but one solution. Everyone, ready, aim, sage !

>>5586425

why? we had over 340 comments on the last one.. it will go away

So instead of discussing AI, people insult each other and argue about semantics and definitions.

>this thread

>>5586694
Come on, anon. Sage, Sage bravely !

>>5586360
>Circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works. If a theory doesn't refer to anything in reality, it is meaningless.
What do you mean by "reality"? Give me an example of a theory that doesn't refer to anything in reality.

>Plain wrong. A hypothesis that doesn't refer to anything observable cannot be empirically tested.
Every scientific theory in existence is a hypothesis under your distasteful standards.

>That's not circular,
Yes it is. Where is your objectively verifiable evidence that I need objectively verifiable evidence?

>that's simply a fact.
It's not a fact, windfall, or godsend at all. It's a self-contradictory and dogmatic reductionist phlogiston that has no use in anything. You have no idea what a fact is.

>Fuck off with your shitty "lol u can't prove god doesn't exist" trolling.
You can't prove that he does or doesn't. That's the point.

>By definition.
Why should that definition be the correct despite the flaws I've shown?

>Science is not belief. Science is based on facts.
I agree. Too bad you don't have any facts. You have abderian-esque beliefs.

>They do. All science is based on rationality.
Nope. No scientific theories use your awful criteria. You couldn't name one.

>... says the guy who believes in a sky fairy without evidence.
I never told you I believe in anything. That's a straw man. My point is that you shouldn't (reverse) argue from ignorance.

>my sides
>argumentum ad passiones
So you have no argument? Looks like I win.

>No, fairy tales are not part of science.
We're not talking about fairy tales. Those contradict empirical observations. If your intent was different, your sentimental and tautegorical infallibilism is just wrong. Argument by repetition doesn't work.

bump
bump

>>5587031
sage

>>5587035
:3

>>5586388
>The sentence I quoted has no relevance to the points I've made.
Pouteria obovata is a tree in the Sapotaceae family.

>There is no reason why something should have evidence to exist.
If it has no evidence, then it can be considered non-existent.

>Yes they are.
No. Physical laws are not arbitrarily made up, they are observations.

>You claim to not have any subjective perception of sweetness.
You claim to have magical qualia. Please show us the evidence.

>Explain that deterministic process.
I'm not here to teach you the basisc of biology. DId you never go to high school?

>There is nothing more objective I can communicate.
"Muh belief" is your only argument? Sad. Now please leave the science board.

>>5586398
>Who is Sheldon? How would he be wrong?
He's the smartest physicist alive and the only time he was wrong was when he incorrectly considered the possibility of ever being wrong.

>Which are irrelevant criteria to judge something as science vs. non-science.
"muh epistemological anarchism"
gb2>>>/lit/

>I did. Read my posts.
I won't read all that delusional gibberish again. So much condensed ignorance might hurt my brain.

>There is no way of guaranteeing something can never be measured.
There is. It's part of the definition.

>What are you implying?
That you are too illiterate to understand what you're talking about.

>What?
Thanks for showing that you didn't even read your own wiki link. Is Schrodinger's cat too hard for you? Can't you into quantum physics?

Can we please let this shit die already

>>5586928
>What do you mean by "reality"?
Fuck off with that solipsism retardation.

>Give me an example of a theory that doesn't refer to anything in reality.
consciousness, non-interacting invsible ghosts, deities

>Every scientific theory in existence is a hypothesis under your distasteful standards.
What the fuck are you talking about? Of course scientific theories are a subset of hypotheses.

>Where is your objectively verifiable evidence that I need objectively verifiable evidence?
huehuehue

>dogmatic reductionist phlogiston that has no use in anything.
Science isn't a dogma.

>You have no idea what a fact is.
my sides

>You can't prove that he does or doesn't.
argument from ignorance

>Why should that definition be the correct despite the flaws I've shown?
You didn't show any flaws in a correct definition. You only expressed your irrational butthurt.

>Nope. No scientific theories use your awful criteria. You couldn't name one.
Are you seriously denying that science is based on rationality?

>My point is that you shouldn't (reverse) argue from ignorance.
Then why do you do it all the time?

>We're not talking about fairy tales. Those contradict empirical observations.
We are talking about the irrational fairy tales you believe in and you are promoting on the science board. They don't belong here, exactly because they contradict empirical observations.

>>5587421
>Pouteria obovata is a tree in the Sapotaceae family.
Why do you deliberately post irrelevant hokum?

>If it has no evidence, then it can be considered non-existent.
Why should it? Prove to me that it should.

>No. Physical laws are not arbitrarily made up, they are observations.
You don’t observe physical laws. You observe observations. The observations fall into a data set. You use inference or other logical tools on the data set to conjecture potential physical laws, for which there are infinitely many of. Again any theory can be made compatible with any empirical observation by the addition of a sufficient number of suitable ad hoc and unfalsifiable hypotheses. Any of the infinitely many possible physical laws that match the data set could be right.

For example there are many “popular” theories that fit all the observations associated with quantum mechanics, Copenhagen, Many Worlds, Bohmian, etc. Any of these could be right or wrong. They all include unfalsifiable elements, like parallel universes and invisible non-interacting 0-dimensional points. You can’t dismiss any of them without proof.

>You claim to have magical qualia. Please show us the evidence.
The fact that I claim to have magical qualia is my evidence for a possible theory. It is up to you to infer I have magical qualia. The fact that you observe the cosmic microwave background is your evidence for a possible theory. It is up to you to infer a big bang singularity exists. The magical qualia and singularity are both non-observable and immaterial.

>I'm not here to teach you the basisc of biology. DId you never go to high school?
So you admit to making a basescles claim? I dId go to high school, thanks for asking.

>"Muh belief" is your only argument? Sad. Now please leave the science board.
“Muh belief” is your only argument for a big bang singularity? Sad. Now please leave the science board. The science board bans all discussion of scientific theories.

>>5587434
>He's the smartest physicist alive and the only time he was wrong was when he incorrectly considered the possibility of ever being wrong.
We’re talking about the scientific theory, not the television show. You’re really bad at this.

>”muh epistemological anarchism"
Appeal to ridicule and no real argument.

>I won't read all that delusional gibberish again. So much condensed ignorance might hurt my brain.
So because you baselessly believe I’m ignorant and delusional you dismiss me? Argumentum ad hominem.

>There is. It's part of the definition.
We’re dealing with scientific vocabulary. That isn't clear-cut, you need to use a probabilistic logic. Maybe it is clear-cut in a universe where time doesn't exist. In this one things can change over time and you have almost no idea of what can happen in the future.

>That you are too illiterate to understand what you're talking about.
Nice projection.

>Thanks for showing that you didn't even read your own wiki link. Is Schrodinger's cat too hard for you? Can't you into quantum physics?
Schrodinger’s cat is a thought experiment only obliquely related to the measurement problem. It’s just as pertinent as any other measurement.

>>5577936
>Aggressive greentexting
>Taking point/counterpoint refutation this seriously
>Insulting your discussion partner
>Believing you are right ever and not constantly reevaluating your opinions and what you consider as facts
>Not enjoying enlightening people to what you see as true, instead being upset when people don't automatically comprehend things that come easy to you
Why can't we all just get along and share knowledge peacefully?

>>5587448
>Fuck off with that solipsism retardation.
I never said anything about solipsism. Kindly define reality or I’ll be unable to conclude anything from your squabble.

>consciousness,
Explains claims of possessing qualia.

>non-interacting invsible ghosts,
Explains claims of paranormal events.

>deities
Explains claims of spiritual connections.

>What the fuck are you talking about? Of course scientific theories are a subset of hypotheses.
I didn’t use subset. I used equality.

>huehuehue
Appeal to ridicule and no real argument.

>Science isn't a dogma.
I agree. Reductionism conversely is a dogma.

>my sides
Appeal to ridicule and no real argument.

>argument from ignorance
No. An argument from ignorance is of the following form:

X is true, because you cannot prove that X is false.
X is false, because you cannot prove that X is true.

I never made any claims of truthfulness or falsehood. You however are obliging to the ladder. If the only evidence for something's existence is a lack of evidence for it not existing, then the default position is one of skepticism and not flat out credulity or rejection.

>>5588812

I suspect...
It is a team of TWO trolls who know each other.

>>5588819
>>5588806
>>5588796
>>5587448

Stop fucking arguing with yourself you fucking MPD Scots git.

Continued from >>5588819

>You didn't show any flaws in a correct definition. You only expressed your irrational butthurt.
I've shown that you're wrong with several arguments and examples, as if one wasn't enough.

1:
If there is no proof that X is true, it does not follow that X is false. An inability to disprove does not prove. Consequently reductionist principles are by definition not theories of knowledge. They are inconsequential ontological guiding principles, not epistemological necessities.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

2:
Reductionism asserts what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. Science uses the above reductionist principle. Scientific theories are a subset of science. The big bang theory is a scientific theory. The big bang theory contains a non-interacting, unobservable singularity that doesn't explain anything. By reductionist principles the big bang theory is dismissed as unscientific. But the big bang theory is by definition a scientific theory. A contradiction.

3:
Rationalism is defined as “a procedure or theory that reduces complex data and phenomena to simple terms”. Reductionism states what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. Rationalism uses the above reductionist principle. To claim is defined “to assert in the face of possible contradiction”. By definition, every claim should be approached rationally. “What can be stated without evidence can be dismissed without evidence” is a claim. This claim has not been proven to be useful in any scientific or philosophical endeavor. Therefore by definition this claim has no evidence, and it can be dismissed. Consequently it’s rational to dismiss rationality. But rationality is tautologically rational. A contradiction.

Continued from >>5588827

4:
Occam’s razor, a reductionist principle, demands that the simplest explanation is the right one. “God did it” is objectively simpler than any other explanation. Reductio ad absurdum.

5:
There is experimental evidence against the use of reductionism. It is therefore a fairy tale and inapplicable to the real world. http://arxiv.org/pdf/cs/9605101.pdf

>Are you seriously denying that science is based on rationality?
Yes. I asked for an example of where science makes use of reductionist principles. Please show me one.

>Then why do you do it all the time?
I never have.

>We are talking about the irrational fairy tales you believe in and you are promoting on the science board.
I never did this and I haven’t promoted anything.

>They don't belong here, exactly because they contradict empirical observations.
Nothing I've said thus far contradicts empirical observations. The only thing contradicting empirical observations is your reductionist nonsense. Eradicate it and similar nonsense from the science board please.

>>5588819
>obliging to the ladder

>>5588842
Implying it isnt a pathetic samefag troll purposely driving the thread to 300+ posts

when will we invent robots that can shitpost on 4chan for us?

>>5588955

youre already here.

>>5588827
>The big bang theory contains a non-interacting, unobservable singularity that doesn't explain anything.
>The big bang theory doesn't explain anything
>wut

>"What can be stated without evidence can be dismissed without evidence” is a claim. This claim has not been proven to be useful in any scientific or philosophical endeavor. Therefore by definition this claim has no evidence, and it can be dismissed.
You just used a rule to show why that rule isn't necessary. That's a fallacy. That's why people can't disprove the Law of Noncontradiction.

>>5588831
>Occam’s razor, a reductionist principle, demands that the simplest explanation is the right one. “God did it” is objectively simpler than any other explanation. Reductio ad absurdum.
I'm sorry, but that's not Occam's razor. Occam's razor is that out of competing hypotheses, the one that makes the fewest /assumptions/ should be accepted. Your premise is flawed; strawman fallacy detected. Please try again.

>all these idiots slowly adding bigger and bigger words as insults

you guys seriously need to reconsider your lives

>>5588819
>qualia
>paranormal events
>spiritual connections
I'm sorry. You're very eloquent, and I admire that in a debater, but you're just plain wrong. There's no actual evidence for these things beyond "claims"- and, as we all know, people love to lie. That's human nature if there is any. Please go and rethink your beliefs.

Inversely, if you don't believe that rationality is worth anything, can you propose another system?

>>5589023
>>The big bang theory doesn't explain anything
>wut
The unobservable singularity doesn't explain anything. There's no need for it.

>You just used a rule to show why that rule isn't necessary. That's a fallacy
No, it's not. You have no idea what a fallacy is. Please look it up in a dictionary.

>>5589032
>I'm sorry, but that's not Occam's razor. Occam's razor is that out of competing hypotheses, the one that makes the fewest /assumptions/ should be accepted.
Nothing changes. God did it will still make the least assumptions.

>Your premise is flawed;
That doesn't change my point whatsoever.

>strawman fallacy detected. Please try again.
Explain how that's a strawman.

>>5589050
>There's no actual evidence for these things beyond "claims"
There isn't a communicable evidence. It's subjective.

>and, as we all know, people love to lie.
Sure. That's an alternative hypothesis. All of those philosophers could be lying about qualia too. It doesn't make it more or less true.

>That's human nature if there is any. Please go and rethink your beliefs.
I don't believe in anything.

>Inversely, if you don't believe that rationality is worth anything, can you propose another system?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemological_anarchism

>mfw people still respond to the "go to >>>/x/ troll"

>>5588796
>Why do you deliberately post irrelevant hokum?
Just going down on your level.

>Why should it? Prove to me that it should.
Hitchens' razor, fucktard.

>You don’t observe physical laws. You observe observations.
huehuehue

>Again any theory can be made compatible with any empirical observation
That doesn't make it true.

>You can’t dismiss any of them without proof.
I can dismiss pseudo-philosophy very hard. "Shut up and calculate" -- Richard Feynman

>The fact that I claim to have magical qualia is my evidence for a possible theory
If anything it's evidence for you being a delusional nutcase. Take your meds.

>I dId go to high school, thanks for asking.
And why didn't you learn anything?

>The science board bans all discussion of scientific theories.
Muh sides. Your pseudoscience /x/ drivel is the opposite of a scientific theory.

>>5588806
>We’re talking about the scientific theory, not the television show.
How do you think you're qualified to talk about science, if you already fail to understand the tv show?

>So because you baselessly believe I’m ignorant and delusional you dismiss me?
Just stating objective observations. If you weren't scientifically illiterate, you'd know that observations are part of the scientific method.

>We’re dealing with scientific vocabulary.
Haha, no. Science and dualism are mutually exclusive.

>Schrodinger’s cat is a thought experiment only obliquely related to the measurement problem.
If that's what you believe, then you didn't understand the deeper implications of Schrodinger's cat.

>>5588819
>I never said anything about solipsism. Kindly define reality
my sides

>Explains claims of possessing qualia.
>Explains claims of paranormal events.
>Explains claims of spiritual connections.
Circular reasoning at its best. Your irrational /x/ beliefs don't explain shit. They are baseless assertions without referring to anything in reality.

>I didn’t use subset. I used equality.
Then you're wrong,.

>X is false, because you cannot prove that X is true.
That's not an argument from ignorance, that's Occam'r razor. lrn2rationality

>skepticism
Skepticism doesn't mean believing in ghosts and unicorns just because they can't be disproved.

>>5588827
>I've shown that you're wrong with several arguments and examples
You didn't show shit. Your endless wall of meaningless blather and ludicrous delusions belongs in an asylum, not on a science board.

>If there is no proof that X is true, it does not follow that X is false.
Nobody said this, you illiterate dimwit. If there is no proof of X, there is no reason to believe in X unless somebody presents evidence.

>Science uses the above reductionist principle.
At least you learned that by now and stop denying it as you did before.

>a non-interacting, unobservable singularity that doesn't explain anything
You don't know shit about the big bang theory. As pointed out earlier ITT you don't even understand the tv show.

>By definition, every claim should be approached rationally. “What can be stated without evidence can be dismissed without evidence” is a claim.
Huehuehue, mixing up language and meta-language. DId you fail logic 101? If you weren't incapable of abstraction, you'd know how to approach the claim from a meta-level to dissolve the (non-existing) contradiction.

>>5588831
>“God did it” is objectively simpler than any other explanation.
The "simple" in Occam's razor refers to the amount of justified assumptions. A sky wizard has no explanatory power at all and is an unjustified assumption. A detailed mechanism is always simpler than appeal to magic.

>There is experimental evidence against the use of reductionism.
Nice crackpot pseudoscience article you found there.

>Yes. I asked for an example of where science makes use of reductionist principles.
In your previous post you already admitted the opposite, you inconsistent schizophrenic.

>Nothing I've said thus far contradicts empirical observations.
Qualia contradict empirical observations. Supernatural interference goes against the laws of physics.

OP here. Just realized this thread has been going for five days. I abandoned it in the first hour for a reason.

/sci/ is perhaps the worst board on here.

>>5578070
>Consciousness can be tested.

o boy here we go

>>5589912
>Just going down on your level.
What is my level?

>Hitchens' razor, fucktard.
Obscurum per obscurius and circular reasoning. Hitchens’ razor isn’t a proof, and it isn’t an epistemologically sound criteria.

>Huehuehue
Argumentum ad passions.

>That doesn't make it true.
Straw man. I never claimed this.

>I can dismiss pseudo-philosophy very hard. "Shut up and calculate" -- Richard Feynman\
That doesn’t dismiss anything. What are your standards for “pseudo-philosophy”? You can calculate in any of those theories. I do agree with Feynman that we should just shut up about indifferences between theories themselves and admit any of them could be right.

>If anything it's evidence for you being a delusional nutcase. Take your meds.
Sigh.

>And why didn't you learn anything?
I did.

>Muh sides. Your pseudoscience /x/ drivel is the opposite of a scientific theory.
Any reason why you think this? The big bang theory is also pseudoscience /x/ drivel and the opposite of a scientific theory.

>>5589921
>How do you think you're qualified to talk about science, if you already fail to understand the tv show?
A mix of argumentum ad hominem and association fallacy. The scientific theory doesn't require any knowledge gained off of that monotonous comedy.

>Just stating objective observations. If you weren't scientifically illiterate, you'd know that observations are part of the scientific method.
Show me your objective observations so they may be objectively verified.

>Haha, no. Science and dualism are mutually exclusive.
Moving the goalposts. And this claim is incorrect. They are both subsets of unfalsifiable metaphysics.

>If that's what you believe, then you didn't understand the deeper implications of Schrodinger's cat.
Moving the goalposts again…. what is it like to be a dead cat?

>>5589925
>my sides
Argumentum ad passions. Just admit you don’t even have proof or even a clear definition of reality. Tell me, what is reality? It's just more nebulous and unfalsifiable metaphysical hogwash of yours. But according to you postulating an unprovable material world is far more scientific than postulating unprovable Dualism, hmm… Aren't unfalsifiable, unprovable, and unjustifiable premises like Occam’s razor supposed to be intuitive? And aren't you arguing against intuition by dismissing consciousness?

>Circular reasoning at its best. Your irrational /x/ beliefs don't explain shit. They are baseless assertions without referring to anything in reality.
What circular reasoning? There is none. Someone objectively claims to experience a subjective phenomenon. That claim is made in reality.


>Then you're wrong,.
Give me an example. Any scientific theory will do. Let me remind you that this argument was inaugurated over (1) philosophy has no relevance in AI research (2) “unfalsifiable metaphysical nonsense” has no place on the science board.

>That's not an argument from ignorance, that's Occam'r razor. lrn2rationality
Look up what an argument from ignorance is. Rationality is undoubtedly meaningless.

>Skepticism doesn't mean believing in ghosts and unicorns just because they can't be disproved.
I agree.

>>5578070
You're talking to a troll who routinely and deliberately conflates A-consciousness with P-consciousness in order to shit up neuroscience threads.

>>5589937
>You didn't show shit. Your endless wall of meaningless blather and ludicrous delusions belongs in an asylum, not on a science board.
Bore. At first you sounded as a somewhat thought-provoking material eliminativist, but now you’re just throwing insults at me because you can’t refute any of my arguments.

>If there is no proof of X, there is no reason to believe in X unless somebody presents evidence.
Then you agree with me.

>At least you learned that by now and stop denying it as you did before.
Quit quoting out of context.

>You don't know shit about the big bang theory. As pointed out earlier ITT you don't even understand the tv show.
Argumentum ad hominem. You sound like you’re projecting. Forget the big bang theory, pick any scientific theory you’re familiar with. There’s no difference between any scientific theory, dualism, physicalism, or any other garden variety unfalsifiable philosophical ideology.

Continued from >>5591632
>Huehuehue, mixing up language and meta-language. DId you fail logic 101? If you weren't incapable of abstraction, you'd know how to approach the claim from a meta-level to dissolve the (non-existing) contradiction.
>shifting the problem to meta_1-meta_2-meta_3-… language infinite regress
The set of all claims still exists, however Platonic that may be, so I’ll merely deny whatever axioms of your meta language restrict the set of all claims to the set of all claims with adequate evidence + Hitchens’ razor on the basis that they are inconsistent, unjustifiable, and unreasonable. Come on now, that’s not a technique of confronting contradictory premises.

But seriously, Hitchens uses “what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence”. Notice the “what can”. His \exists is clearly pointing to the meta-universe of types, and not some exceptionally restricted type. Type theory is done in natural deduction, and therefore the negation of a proposition can be proven by showing that the proposition concludes its own negation. The internal logics of higher homotopy topoi construct the universe of small types, Type, with object classifiers, which clearly belongs to the meta-universe of types. Setness is a term of the type of homotopy types, and the type of paths needed to it are just identity types, which are path objects of the higher homotopy topoi. The type of “setness” then exists, and the set of all claims with and without evidence objectively exists as an object in one of the universes of the category Set. The set of all claims with adequate evidence is a subset of the set of all claims, and it doesn't include Hitchens’ razor. How did you not see this?

Why would any of this even matter? Logical arguments are but constructs of the mind. The mind and intuition don’t exist according to you, right?

>>5589942
>The "simple" in Occam's razor refers to the amount of justified assumptions. A sky wizard has no explanatory power at all and is an unjustified assumption. A detailed mechanism is always simpler than appeal to magic.
It is justified by Occam’s razor. The sky wizard is the only required assumption and is objectively simpler. The sky wizard theory makes the same predictions and has the same explanatory power. The scientists who worked on those so-called “natural theories” merely had built in assumptions/definitions and so with bias they interpreted their data through a false belvedere. All empirical observations made in support of those theories within some error bound are simply coincidences. The sky wizard wasn’t bored enough that day to try something different, correlation doesn’t imply causation. Similar argument could be made with a brain in a vat, solipsism, etc…

>Nice crackpot pseudoscience article you found there.
Argumentum ad hominem.

>In your previous post you already admitted the opposite, you inconsistent schizophrenic.
Quoting out of context.

>Qualia contradict empirical observations. Supernatural interference goes against the laws of physics.
Name an empirical observation which contradicts qualia. The laws of physics aren’t empirical observations, they are guesswork and faith. How do you even know these “laws of physics” reproduce what you call “psychology”? Magic?