/sci/ - Science & Math

>>6001006
Thats pretty interesting cause humans are the only species that ask questions. That may sound nonrelevant but it shows that we humans have the knowledge that other living beings also have a conscious mind and that they can be smarter then ourself.

So basically we humans are the only ones that know that other living beings also know. Which is pretty sad.

>>6001017
This guy speaks monkey or something...

>>6001024
lel you funny

>>6001006
I dunno OP, do you think we're intellectually superior to you?

>>6001017
>other living beings also have a conscious mind

No, they don't and neither do I. There is no soul/consciuosness. Please keep dualism on >>>/x/

>>6001034
consciousness can be measured by the ability to recognize one's self in the mirror.
many animals can replicate this behavior, many animals can't
there's many models for consciousness
you need to read more.

>>6001056
The ability to know what a mirror is has nothing to do with metaphysical entities or phenomena. Please stop trolling and shitposting. We are having this crap every day on this board.

>>6001061
good thing consciousness isn't a metaphysical entity or phenomena.
Stop being a moron.

>>6001061
i think its pretty cool that animals can see themselves in the mirror and think "that's me" rather than just reacting based on instinct, you dont suppose that proves anything about how they think?

>>6001068
It's a meaningless spiritualist word that does not refer to anything scientifically observable or testable. Please go away and stop shitposting. You are wasting your time.

>>6001071
The mirror test is flawed and this has been pointed out in the academic community decades ago. It does not prove anything because it is a priori already decided which animals' behaviour is supposed to be interpreted arbitrarily as "passing the test".

>>6001056
>mirror test

So blind people are not self-aware?

>>6001072
I just fucking told you one way it was testable.
You stop shit posting.
>>6001077
Again it's only one test.
> The classic example involves placing a spot of coloring on the skin or fur near the individual's forehead and seeing if they attempt to remove it or at least touch the spot, thus indicating that they recognize that the individual they are seeing in the mirror is themselves. Humans (older than 18 months) and other great apes, bottlenose dolphins, pigeons, and elephants have all been observed to pass this test.
Doesn't sound arbitrary to me
>>6001084
clearly

>>6001102
>I just fucking told you one way it was testable.
And I told you why your "test" doesn't test what you think it tests. Please go to school and learn the scientific method.

>Doesn't sound arbitrary to me
It is highly arbitrary do define the results of the test before conducting it. Then there's no need to conduct it anymore.

>>6001114
>The ability to know what a mirror is has nothing to do with metaphysical entities or phenomena
No you made an assertion that metaphysical entities or phenomena cannot be measured by a mirror test. Which is true.
Learn to logic
>>6001114
>define the results?
you mean to define what you're looking for?
yeah they are looking for things that can look at itself and say "That's me!".
That's consciuosness

>>6001130
>Learn to logic
I know more about logic than you ever will.

>you mean to define what you're looking for?
No, I mean defining the results of the test. In the mirror test it is defined before conducting the test which animals' behaviour is to be interpreted as passing the test. This means classifying the animals beforehand and thus making the test obsolete, arbitrary and meaningless. This criticism is not new. It has been known for decades and it is the reason why nobody in science takes your pseudoscience test serious. Your trolling is sub-par. Please go to >>>/b/ and learn some subtlety.

>>6001134
> I know more about logic than you ever will.
clearly

> In the mirror test it is defined before conducting the test which animals' behaviour is to be interpreted as passing the test.
sooo when looking for the Higg's Boson they weren't looking for a certain mass to exist at a certain energy level? They directly observed this particle with their senses?
> This means classifying the animals beforehand and thus making the test obsolete, arbitrary and meaningless.
you mean classifying by species? imagine that we classify animals that are very genetically similar.
> This criticism is not new. It has been known for decades and it is the reason why nobody in science takes your pseudoscience test serious.
Then why are you so bad at arguing against it?

>>6001141
>sooo when looking for the Higg's Boson they weren't looking for a certain mass to exist at a certain energy level? They directly observed this particle with their senses?
Observation in science means measurement. The Higgs boson has measurable effects. Your soul/consciousness bullshit on the other hand doesn't.

>you mean classifying by species?
No, I mean classifying species arbitrarily into "those who pass the test" and "those who don't" before even conducting the test. That makes the test meaningless and unscientific.

>Then why are you so bad at arguing against it?
Why would I argue against the criticism I posted? I'm arguing against your pseudoscience garbage.

>>6001034

>there is no consciuosness[sic]

What the fuck? I am aware, am I not? I have intangible memory, do I not? My thoughts, my memories, is this not consciousness?

>>6001154
Thoughts are neuronal information processing. Memory is information physically stored in the brain. This does not require any metaphysical soul/consciousness garbage.

>>6001151
> Observation in science means measurement. The Higgs boson has measurable effects. Your soul/consciousness bullshit on the other hand doesn't.
you keep leaping to linking consciousness to the soul and metaphysicallity for some dumb reason. please stop doing this
The thing is this is how a lot of biology is done.
When asking "Is this a red ear turtle?" We don't take a DNA sample and get peaks and non peaks. We look at it's head observe that it has red ears and categorize it like that.
> No, I mean classifying species arbitrarily into "those who pass the test" and "those who don't" before even conducting the test. That makes the test meaningless and unscientific.
again this is how you observe animals. Does it have a mane, a tail, a 5 minute scootlypooping?
It's probably a lion.
What we are defining as a conscious animal is something that recognizes itself.
> Why would I argue against the criticism I posted. I'm arguing against your pseudoscience garbage.
I meant arguing against my pseudoscience garbage.

>>6001161
>The thing is this is how a lot of biology is done.
No, biology is not done by inventing unobservable spiritualist concepts. Biology is done by observation. Your soul/consciousness nonsense has no observable or measurable effects. It is the epitome of unscientific. Please learn the scientific method and stop trolling. You are wasting your time.

>animal is something that recognizes itself.
The definition of "recognizing itself" as you proposed it is arbitrary and meaningless because you simply decided without any rational basis which animals are to be classified as recognizing themselves. There is no scientific test.

>I meant arguing against my pseudoscience garbage.
You openly admit posting pseudoscience garbage? Please GTFO the fuck out.

>>6001172
>"unobservable spiritualist concepts"
>"no observable effects"
>"pseudoscience garbage"


Dear /sci/,

/sci/, I cannot fucking believe that this troll is still running around here. It's literally been years and years of endless lines of morons falling for the same goddamn garbage that this guy spits out. Look at yourselves. It's pathetic. I don't know how many times I scroll down the front page, see this argument, and think, "wow, there it is again....maybe next time they'll figure it out". BUT NO. /Sci/'s ego is so goddamn big that not a single one of you can resist when there's an idiot to be argued with...even when he does nothing but repeat the same thing! I can't even imagine the type of loser that sits around arguing about this nonsense...

You're all a bunch of animals

Sincerely,
/b/

>>6001162

are you trolling. acknowledging consciousness exist does not mean you accept dualism (or immaterial explanations for it).

>>6001172
again it's like you can't read and you only know how to assert what you've been told. Think for yourself idiot.

> No, biology is not done by inventing unobservable spiritualist concepts.
I just invented a very observable non-spiritualist concept. Stop lumping consciousness with the spirit. It's a poor argument and only seeks to demean the other side.
> Biology is done by observation.
Like observing something recognizing itself.
> Your soul/consciousness nonsense has no observable or measurable effects.
Look you did it again. seriously you aren't good at this. I just named an observable effect, and you haven't refuted
> It is the epitome of unscientific.
hyperbole as an argument?!?!?
> Please learn the scientific method and stop trolling.
I know it quite well
>You are wasting your time.
Implying I have better things to do.
> The definition of "recognizing itself" as you proposed it is arbitrary and meaningless because you simply decided without any rational basis which animals are to be classified as recognizing themselves.
No I decided that those who can clean themselves in the mirror instead of attacking or trying to mate with the thing in the mirror recognize themselves.
> There is no scientific test.
Isn't there?

> You openly admit posting pseudoscience garbage? Please GTFO the fuck out.
I've been fairly sarcastic earlier when people just make stupid assertions. If you keep making them, I'm going to keep making fun of them

>>6001196
I am not a troll. No matter how much you dislike the idea that your beliefs are incompatible with the scientific method, it doesn't make me a troll, so please grow up and stop abusing that word. The scientific method is clearly defined and I am doing my best to educate people like you about it.

>>6001201
See >>6001205. The belief in unobservable phenomena without measurable effects is not compatible with the scientific method.

>>6001196
I really don't have anything better to do and I want him to sway me. He's definitely doing better.

>The definition of "recognizing itself" as you proposed it is arbitrary and meaningless because you simply decided without any rational basis which animals are to be classified as recognizing themselves.
is getting close to a pretty good argument.
And he keeps talking to me. Most threads I get into people just leave and then I'm bored again

>>6001208

I can observe that I am conscious. And I can observe others acting like they are and telling me the same. Thats evidence.

Are you denying that you are conscious?

>>6001204
>I just invented a very observable non-spiritualist concept.
You did not. You took a spiritualist word and repeated it over and over again for the purpose of trolling. It still has no observable effects and it still is entirely meaningless from a scientific point of view. No matter how you think of yourself as a "master ruseman", you will not force your garbage into our science board.

>Like observing something recognizing itself.
Self-recognition has nothing to do with your previous claims, so you are apparently shifting the goalposts. While self-recognition might be a meaningful concept, what you proposed is not a method of testing it. Simply asserting and arbitrarily classifying species without any rational or empirical basis is not science.

>I just named an observable effect, and you haven't refuted
Refute what? You did not name an observable effect, you posted just another fallacy by moving the goalposts.

>hyperbole as an argument?!?!?
Not every rhetorical device is an argument. If your debating skills weren't underdeveloped, you'd know this.

>I know it quite well
Apparently not, if you want to make us believe that asserting "hurr durr magic does real" counts as application of the scientific method. This is purely nonsensical trolling and not even /b/ would fall for it.

>Implying I have better things to do.
How sad.

>No I decided that those who can clean themselves in the mirror instead of attacking or trying to mate with the thing in the mirror recognize themselves.
Shifting the goalposts once again. What behaviour do you classify as "cleaning themselves"? You are arbitrarily anthropomorphizing certain species.

>>6001226
Please explain what that means in terms of objectively obervable effects. Can you show it to me?

>>6001230
>You did not.
Did too.
> You took a spiritualist word
it's not a spiritualist word, stop saying it is
>and repeated it over and over again for the purpose of trolling.
you just told someone to stop using that word yet you rely on it so hard.
As far as repeating, how many times have you said spiritual, un-observable, and pseudoscience?
Stop being hypocritical it's not helping your argument.
>No matter how you think of yourself as a "master ruseman", you will not force your garbage into our science board.
you do realize you are in the minority on this board?
> Self-recognition has nothing to do with your previous claims, so you are apparently shifting the goalposts.
I believe I did, but I believe you did too. I would say that self-recognition is one of the steps toward consciousness. Another one would be knowing that you are thinking.
You can't really ask an animal about this so all we have is the mirror test.
For humans we have the Necker cube.
> Simply asserting and arbitrarily classifying species without any rational or empirical basis is not science.
I'm not asserting or arbitrarily classifying
I am classifying via the mirror test.
We talked about this before
>Refute what? You did not name an observable effect, you posted just another fallacy by moving the goalposts.
The mirror test! Do you not understand what I'm saying? The fallacy only applies to consciousness so tell me why the mirror test is not a test for self recognition.
> Not every rhetorical device is an argument. If your debating skills weren't underdeveloped, you'd know this.
but it'ssssssss boring in the middle of the argument.
> Apparently not, if you want to make us believe that asserting "hurr durr magic does real" counts as application of the scientific method.
I didn't assert any magic. I said that we could classify via a mirror test. Or are you saying mirrors are magic?
> This is purely nonsensical trolling and not even /b/ would fall for it.
again you used that word

I think everyone in this thread has their fedoras on too tight.

>>6001230
> How sad.
It is sad. I'm working on having better things.
Do you have better things to do? why are you on /sci/?
>Shifting the goalposts once again. What behaviour do you classify as "cleaning themselves"? You are arbitrarily anthropomorphizing certain species.
you don't know that animals groom?
I'm very sorry for you.
I am saying that if you can't see the dirt on your body then you can't clean it. If you see the dirt in the mirror, then you know it is you. If you don't see the dirt, or you don't know that it's you you can't clean the dirt.

>>6001072
>ITT: people who don't have experience or internal monologue
>being this stupid

Don't respond to HitchBot, it scours this board night and day until a thread about consciousness appears, ignore it you can't win

>>6001006
I'm pretty sure they can't understand evolutionary superiority. And it's not like humans don't recognize the smarter ones.

>>6001298
ITT: One guy we call MrSage who attacks anyone who mentions consciousness becasue he redefines the word to mean ghosts.

>>6001034
>No, they don't and neither do I.
Prove it

>>6001017
>humans are the only species that ask questions

A couple thousand behavioral studies beg to differ. Also you can ask koko yourself if you want

>>6001072
>anyone who disagrees with me is shitposting.

>>6001134
I don't think you actually know very much about logic. Even if you did, it's clearly not helping you right now.

>>6001205
>I am not a troll

>>6001255
>it's not a spiritualist word
That's where it originated from and that's where it is used almost exclusively. It has no accepted scientific definition. Science prefers to use the established academic terminology instead.
>you do realize you are in the minority on this board?
Scientifically educated people are in the minority on this board? Very sad. The more it is our duty to educate the less educated posters and to inform them about why shitposting trolls like you are wrong.
>I believe
Science doesn't care about your beliefs.
>I would say that self-recognition is one of the steps toward consciousness.
Self-recognition is a physical mechanism of information processing and does not imply any spiritual or metaphysical qualities.
>You can't really ask an animal about this so all we have is the mirror test.
The flaws and the pseudoscientific nature of this test have been pointed out several times in this thread and in the acadmic community over the last decades.
>I'm not asserting or arbitrarily classifying
>I am classifying via the mirror test.
The results of the test are decided before conducting the test. That's unscientific.
>so tell me why the mirror test is not a test for self recognition.
I told you at least 10 times ITT. You refuse to address what I said and you mindlessly repeat already disproved fallacies. What you're doing is too unintelligent to be called "trolling". It's just shitposting.
>I didn't assert any magic.
You asserted the existence of metaphysical/spiritual phenomena without observable effects.
>I said that we could classify via a mirror test.
The test does not classify anything. It is not even a test. You are classifying animals completely arbitrarily.

>>6001298
How does scientific education make me "stupid"? Do you have any argument or are you just gonna repeat /b/ tier insults?

>>6001427
>guy
nope

>redefine
I do not define anything, I am asking for a definition. In science definitions have to carry information and have to refer to something observable/measurable. Neither talking about unobservable metaphysical magic nor arbitrarily renaming existing phenomena for the sole purpose of forcing /x/ vocabulary on /sci/ qualifies as science.

>>6001432
Hitchens' razor.

>>6001439
Repeating fallacies even after they have been disproved is shitposting.

>>6001443
I studied several kinds of mathematical logic. You probably never heard of them because in your pseudo-intellectual teenager world view "logic" means "lol I use fallacies, cool argument /b/ro". You'd probably fail at the simplest exercises of rigorous inference.

>>6001445
Read the rest of my post.

>>6001470
Prove Hitchens razor.

>>6001480
Hitchens' razor is a reformulation of modus tollens aka proof by contradiction.

If X exists, it has to have evidence.
There is no evidence, therefore X cannot exist.

>>6001484
Define evidence please

>>6001484

The year is 1605, Europe.

If black swans exist, there has to be evidence.
No one has seen a black swan, therefore they CANNOT exist.

>>6001455
yay you're back
>That's where it originated from
no it isn't
maybe from philosophy
>and that's where it is used almost exclusively.
no it isn't. i study AI and it's talked about pretty frequently.
> It has no accepted scientific definition.
yeah it does, it's to know itself or know it is thinking
> Scientifically educated people are in the minority on this board? Very sad. The more it is our duty to educate the less educated posters and to inform them about why shitposting trolls like you are wrong.
you are the shitposting troll, everyone is telling you this. why won't you listen?
>Science doesn't care about your beliefs.
wasn't talking about science you illiterate mong
>Self-recognition is a physical mechanism of information processing and does not imply any spiritual or metaphysical qualities.
i didn't said it did. stop saying it does. you are arguing against something no one is saying. this is your major argument every fucking thread and every fucking response. CUT IT OUT
> The flaws and the pseudoscientific nature of this test have been pointed out several times in this thread and in the acadmic community over the last decades.
no it hasn't you never fully refuted the mirror test. you just side stepped it when you got lost.
fucking answer WHY ISN'T THE MIRROR TEST SCIENTIFIC? Don't fucking argue anything else until we are fucking done.
> The results of the test are decided before conducting the test.
no it's not. that's why you are doing the fucking test. why would I do a test I already new the results of?
> You asserted the existence of metaphysical/spiritual phenomena without observable effects.
still not spiritual or metaphysical
> You are classifying animals completely arbitrarily.
nope still classifying them by the mirror test.

>>6001470

>guy
>nope

I would like some evidence with that assertion. Without which I will dismiss it with evidence

>>6001470

>>6001470
> scientific education make me "stupid"?
you clearly have none, and you keep repeating yourself.

we've told you the definition and we've shown you something measurable.
you are the one who keeps forcing /x/ vocabulary
> Repeating fallacies even after they have been disproved is shitposting.
you keep spouting fallacies and switching the fucking convo away from the actual arguement
>I studied several kinds of mathematical logic.
Sounds like you failed pretty hard then
>You probably never heard of them because in your pseudo-intellectual teenager world view "logic" means "lol I use fallacies, cool argument /b/ro". You'd probably fail at the simplest exercises of rigorous inference.
lol

>>6001486
No. Please take a science class and learn the scientific method.

>>6001500
>The year is 1605
No, the year is 2013.

>No one has seen a black swan
Black swans are possible and observable.

>do apes think
no

>>6001084
You're a fucking idiot.
Blind people cant SEE the image in the mirror. An animal that sees itself but cant recognize the image as itself can.

>>6001519
>maybe from philosophy
Philosophy is not science. "U cannot know nuthin" is in fact one of the most anti-scientific attitudes.
>i study AI and it's talked about pretty frequently.
You do not study AI. You clearly do know nothing about statistical inference, machine learning or data mining. What you meant to say is "I watch shitty youtube videos made by teenagers about teh singularity". In AI research nobody gives a shit about metaphysical nonsense. AI is all about algorithms.
>yeah it does, it's to know itself or know it is thinking
What part of "scientific" did you not understand? Empty philosophy trash talk is not science. Science requires rigorous definitions referring to observable phenomena.
>you are the shitposting troll, everyone is telling you this. why won't you listen?
projection and ad hominem
>wasn't talking about science you illiterate mong
Then get the fuck out of the science board. This is /sci/ and not /b/.
>you are arguing against something no one is saying.
I am arguing against exactly what you said. Stop moving the goalposts.
>no it hasn't you never fully refuted the mirror test. you just side stepped it when you got lost.
I refuted it with the well known academic criticism at least 10 times ITT. Your denial does not change this.
>fucking answer WHY ISN'T THE MIRROR TEST SCIENTIFIC?
Read my fucking posts, you asshole troll. I do not see any point in repeating the same criticism again. It has been posted several times and it can even be found on the fucking wikipedia page.
> why would I do a test I already new the results of?
Look, here you even refuted the test on your own. See? Here's the answer you to your question. THIS is why the "test" is not scientific and not even a test.
>still not spiritual or metaphysical
You used spiritual/metaphysical vocabulary.
>nope still classifying them by the mirror test.
The test does not classify anything. It does not even test anything.

>>6001523
>you clearly have none
I have academic education.

>and you keep repeating yourself.
It is very sad that I have to repeat myself because that troll is outright denying the facts I posted.

>we've told you the definition and we've shown you something measurable.
You did not post any definition. I am still waiting for you to do so. And please be more creative than just renaming already named phenomena for the sole purpose of forcefully using your spiritualist vocabulary on /sci/.

>you keep spouting fallacies and switching the fucking convo away from the actual arguement
I never did such a thing.

>Sounds like you failed pretty hard then
I never failed anything. I excel in everything I do. Stop projecting your own inadequacy and incompetence.

>>6001549
>Blind people cant SEE the image in the mirror.

That's why they fail the test and are therefore by definition not self-aware.

>>6001535

Confirmed as trolling failure.

>>6001535
>>The year is 1605
>No, the year is 2013.
>>No one has seen a black swan
>Black swans are possible and observable.

This is a comically wrong answer.
You didn't even try to amend your error.

>>6001573
>>6001584
The poster who brought up black swans was intentionally trolling and misinterpreting Hitchens' razor. Evidence for black swans is possible and they are observable by looking at them and seeing they are black and they are swans. Even without ever having seen one, we can agree that their discovery would be objectively verifiable if it happened. The same cannot be said about "muh metaphysical non-interacting consciousness spirits" which have no observable or measurable effects at all. There is not even a hypothetically possible observation proving their existence. Therefore they are to be dismissed.

>>6001568
No its not. Its why the test doesnt apply to them.
The test is an animals ability to RECOGNIZE itself in the mirror. Blind people cant see the mirror or the image in it so they are not fit to take it at all. The test is not a vision test to test for conciousness. It simply assumes that the subject can see.

>>6001616
If the test doesn't apply to them, then they cannot be self-aware by definition.

>>6001562
Philosophy is the origin of science.
As you can see just because something comes from philosphy doesn't mean it's not science.
>statistical inference
yes
> machine learning
yes
>data mining
and yes
>Then get the fuck out of the science board. This is /sci/ and not /b/.
ummm...did you read the sentence that it was about? it was about this thread and our particular argument. Arguments can be science, but one of us is clearly wrong.
>you are arguing against something no one is saying.
>I am arguing against exactly what you said. Stop moving the goalposts.
again was talking about your idiotic way of saying something is spiritual.
> I refuted it with the well known academic criticism at least 10 times ITT. Your denial does not change this.
no you didn't
if you did point to the exact place where you did and I will tell you why you didn't AGAIN
>Look, here you even refuted the test on your own. See? Here's the answer you to your question. THIS is why the "test" is not scientific and not even a test.
I still don't know the result of the test before I do it
>You used spiritual/metaphysical vocabulary.
no i didn't
>The test does not classify anything. It does not even test anything.
yes it does
>It is very sad that I have to repeat myself because that troll is outright denying the facts I posted.
you show me facts instead of just your opinion and then I'll believe you
> conscious
sentience, awareness, subjectivity, the ability to experience or to feel, wakefulness, having a sense of selfhood, and the executive control system of the mind.
> I excel in everything I do
lol

I think I'm in love

>>6001568
lol so that's it?
why didn't you just say that in the first place?
I didn't think that was your whole argument.

Blind people can't see a lot of shit.
Blind people fail a normal standardized test

>>6001631
Except thats wrong, dingus.

>>6001633
Literally all your answers are repetition and denial. You provide no arguments whatsoever. You do not address any of the points I made and you continue your mindless "trolling" without showing any interest in discussing the topic scientifically. Please go away and stop shitting up our science board.

>>6001640
>>6001651
So you agree that by defining "self-awareness" by the mirror test blind people are defined to be not "self-aware"?

>>6001652
>if you did point to the exact place where you did and I will tell you why you didn't AGAIN
also gave you a definition for consciousness

<3

>>6001660
so you are agreeing blind people are fucking morons because they fail a standardized test?

>>6001661
Using more nonsensical and unscientific spiritualist words doesn't make it a scientific definition but on the contrary makes it more unscientific. At this point you're just shitposting. How bored are you? You are wasting your time.

>>6001663
name the unscientific words and I'll do my best to explain them for you.

<3

>>6001662
yep

>>6001671
good glad we're in agreement.
I fucking hate blind people.
Fucking up my tests.

Jesus Chris, this thread

Fuck off Mr. Sage

a consciousness allows independent thought, simulation of scenarios, and choice making.

Science is not at a point with technology where it can be proven or disproven objectively, but any normal person is able to tell you that they think and make choices. You should understand that you are aware of yourself and the world around you in a way that would be described as 'conscious'.

The problem is there is no way to prove you are conscious and not a hoodwinked automaton. This is the origin of solipsism, since it's perfectly possible, at this level of scientific power, that you are the only being in the universe that is 'conscious' and able to make decisions rather than simply react.

There is no provable evidence, it is merely understood. A sort of axiom of life.

>>6001684
lol I love your picture.

She'll keep arguing with you though.
(Also she hates blind people)

>>6001684
>Science is not at a point with technology where it can be proven or disproven objectively
>The problem is there is no way to prove
>There is no provable evidence

If you agree that it cannot be observed or measured, why don't you apply Hitchens' razor? This is a science board and not a spirituality board.

>>6001684
I can't stop laughing at your pic bro
12/10, will use again

>>6001558
>AI is all about algorithms.
You are retarded.

>>6001696
Because the only people I bother to 'prove' consciousness to are other conscious people. Other people who understand without evidence that they are conscious.

Every conscious person has evidence within their own mind that they are conscious, they simply cannot express it objectively to another conscious person.

It's kind of poetic and if this were /b/ I'd go on that tangent for giggles, but you're ramming the /sci/ cock up your ass as hard as you can so I won't have my fun.

>>6001715
>Other people who understand without evidence that they are conscious.
>Every conscious person has evidence

well I butchered the english language, but you know what I fucking mean

>>6001535
Without a definition of evidence your entire post is semantically meaningless. You could laughably replace the word with "tupacasedidiza" and it wouldn't change a thing.

>>6001715
>understand without evidence

That's not how science works.

>>6001735
>hurr durr

>>6001735
see >>6001720

And I actually do have better things to do than argue with you, please go shred your anus on bismuth

>>6001172
>GTFO the fuck out.
>Get the fuck out the fuck out

>>6001612

no.
I showed you alleged logical formation of modus tollens Hitchens razor is absurd.

Asserting there is no possible evidence for something is just worse.

>>6001754
sauce

>>6001782
bring it to /tg/, it's just a short two page comic

>>6001754
So your argument boils down to "u hav 2 believe"? Still not science. Come back when you have a rigorous definition and objectively verifiable evidence.

>>6001781
You do not even understand modus tollens.

Stop feeding the troll, faggots.

>>6001796
There is a rigorous definition. You refuse to hear it because that's who you are.

<3

>>6001796
Everything that exists is within the realm of science. A conscious person knows their consciousness can be said to exist, but cannot provide evidence for it, because technology does not currently allow it.

Consider the Higgs Boson because that's the hot topic everyone likes to talk about. Until it was observed properly, there was no objective evidence it existed, but the models said it did, so it was science's obligation to study it until they could prove one way or another. The lack of evidence was not evidence of absence.

The same applies to a consciousness. There is no evidence, but it is intrinsically understood to exist by us because we clearly have it, so until proven otherwise it exists, and thus is a part of science. It is the obligation of scientists to study the consciousness and determine it's objective properties. There being no evidence doesn't mean it doesn't exist

This unfortunately also applies to crackpot shit to a lesser degree. The only thing holding it above those is the fact that it in order to refute it, you need it.

>>6001800
Post it or STFU.

>>6001812
The comparison is incorrect. The Higgs boson arose from theoretical considerations and allowed for testable predictions and the design of experiments in order to verify its existence. The same cannot be said about "muh non-ineracting metaphysical consciousness spirit" which has no observable, measurable or testable effects at all. There is a huge difference between "I hypothesize a particle of this mass, now let's build an LHC to test my hypothesis" and "I believe in dualistic magic that can never be proved or disproved". If you don't see the difference, you are either a willfully ignorant troll or a truly deficient /x/tard.

>>6001827
already did, love
you ignored it

<3

>>6001827
The comparison is incorrect. Particle jets arose from theoretical considerations and allowed for testable predictions and the design of experiments in order to verify its existence. The same cannot be said about "muh non-ineracting metaphysical gluon confinement phlogiston" which has no observable, measurable or testable effects at all. There is a huge difference between "I hypothesize a hadronization event with these outgoing states, now let's build a Tevatron to test my hypothesis" and "I believe in quantum chromodynamic magic that can never be proved or disproved". If you don't see the difference, you are either a willfully ignorant troll or a truly deficient /x/tard.

>>6001831
nope

>>6001852
Gluon confinement is proved by applying Hitchens' razor because there is no evidence for free quarks.

>>6001889
There is no evidence for gluons or confinement.

>>6001889
see
>>6001633
and
>>6001669

<3

>>6001962
That's what happens when you base your standard model on flawed ideas like "imaginary" numbers.

>>6001226
why are you saging everything? This thread isn't even that bad? geez...

>>6002381
she always does this.
anyone mentions consciousness and she comes in and goes THERE'S NO SUCK THING
and then keeps repeating that for all time