/sci/ - Science & Math

Bump

there would have to be separate groups:

pure math

physics/applied math/hard sciences

pleb popsci books

That sounds great! I would be really interested in this, it would be a good incentive, because if I know I am going to discuss something I will absorb it, because I want to show how right and smart I am.

>The reading material would consist of popular science books and perhaps a few introductory textbooks.

Into the trash it goes!

want to help me round out my starting list?


Principles of Biochemistry - Lehninger
Organic Chemistry - Bruice
Introduction to Electrodynamics - Griffiths
Principles of Quantum Mechanics - Dirac
Principles of Mathematical Analysis - Rudin
Fundamentals of Fluid Mechanics - Munson
Fundamentals of Gas Dynamics - Zucker
How To Think Like A Mathematician
Fifty Major Philosophers - Plant

Just in case you don't know, probably all the books could be download from Bookza.org.

>>6276422
I'm in favour of the QM book.

>>6276422
>Fifty Major Philosophers - Plant

0/10

>>6276428
didn't like the book or you can't into philosophy?

>>6276420
Why? Have you seen the level of discussion here on /sci/? Some people even believe that racism can somehow be scientifically justified. A little Dawkins and Sagan would be great for them.

>>6276433
Philosophy is anti-science.

>>6276436
science is a philosophy

>>6276439
lel

>>6276444
just don't respond to the philosophy trolls.

>>6276439
why don't you read a biology or physics textbook instead of being told what to think?

>>6276444
No, it isn't. Science and philosophy are polar opposites. Science is about explaining observations that happened in reality. Philosophy is about making up untestable nonsense far away from reality. Science has practical purpose and tangible results while philosophy consists of nothing more than pseudo-intellectual masturbation.

Let's stop arguing over philosophy and vote in the poll.

http://strawpoll.me/987059

>>6276449
PhD is a Doctorate of Philosophy

>>6276422
Are most of these books textbooks? Because, honestly, it doesn't seem realistic to go through textbooks in short time, also it takes a lot of effort and background info.
>for science vs philosophy retards, just stop it, don't be fucking trolls and being trolled into such shit

Basic Mathematics, by Serge Lang

>>6276455
Vote in the poll, guys.

>>6276456
>appeal to tradition
>etymological fallacy

>>6276462
they are all textbooks, but they should be all entry level textbooks.
But I'm not sure as I compiled the list from many sources.

>>6276462
>it doesn't seem realistic to go through textbooks in short time,

Why? Because you're projecting your own mental inadequacy onto others?

>>6276451
>Science and philosophy are polar opposites.
argument by repetition

>Philosophy is about making up untestable nonsense far away from reality
semantic shift.
philosophy is the study of knowledge, reality, and existence

>Science has practical purpose and tangible results
no only very few pieces of science

>philosophy consists of nothing more than pseudo-intellectual masturbation.
philosophy has endless applications, like science for example

>>6276471
Well, the one about philosophy seems interesting, it would be great to broaden horizons in philosophy.
So my vote goes to
>Fifty Major Philosophers - Plant
Or how does this work?

>>6276462
Indeed, it would be better to have popular science books. Not very easy ones like "Biology for 5 year olds!" but books like those by Pinker and others.

>>6276475
>argument by repetition
The "fallacy fallacy" is the fallacy of accusing a correct argument of being a fallacy.

>semantic shift.
You don't know what that means.

>philosophy is the study of knowledge, reality, and existence
Knowledge is information stored in the brain and thus subject of neuroscience. Reality is explained by science and existence is something you prove in math.

>no only very few pieces of science
Do you even scientific method?

>philosophy has endless applications, like science for example
Science and philosophy are opposites. Philosophy denotes all nonsense that isn't amenable to science (and thus pointless).

>>6276479
They are pop sci books.

I mean, come on...
>taken from Principles of Quantum Mechanics

>>6276451
>philosophers are trained in logical expressions
>are somehow less than scientists or mathematicians because the symbols they manipulate have no numerical value
???

>>6276482
>The "fallacy fallacy" is the fallacy of accusing a correct argument of being a fallacy.
except your argument isn't correct

>You don't know what that means.
projection

>Knowledge is information stored in the brain
irrelevant conclusion and baselessly assuming materialism

>and thus subject of neuroscience.
neuroscience doesn't say anything about knowledge

>Reality is explained by science
science is only an attempt to explain certain parts of reality accessible to human-designed measuring devices

>existence is something you prove in math.
silly straw man

>Do you even scientific method?
i do and it's irrelevant to the fact that large parts of theoretical science have no applications

>Science and philosophy are opposites.
argument by repetition

>Philosophy denotes all nonsense that isn't amenable to science (and thus pointless).
repeating false definitions won't make them right
look up the definition of philosophy in a dictionary

>>6276487
Page 200?

>>6276490

165

>>6276484
Then we could use easier textbooks - introductory ones, like OP said.

Basic Mathematics, by Serge Lang, looks good for pure math.
For biology, Biology - by Campbell.
For philosophy, perhaps Russell's history or some anthology of philosophical writings.

>>6276487
>textbooks explain things chronologically
>choosing something from the middle of the book

It's not even that bad

>>6276487
What exactly is your point? Are you saying it is too trivial to qualify as a textbook?

I think QM by dirac makes the most sense. Math for the math nerds. Physics for the physics nerds. Applies to chem for chem nerds. And who cares about biofags?

>>6276489
I don't want to take part into that passionating argument, but can you tell me just one thing for which philo can be useful in my daily-life? (I don't ask for science, I have answers that satisfy me, e.g. a job)

http://strawpoll.me/987059

Only got 7 votes here, we're gonna need 15-20 for a decision.

>>6276495
Philosophy shows where the other topics are weak.
These readings are about pursuing knowledge (at least imo), not creating a marketable skill
Here's something that might wet your whistle for philosophy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnchhausen_trilemma

>>6276487
Hamstringing qm by cutting out the math isn't learning qm.

>>6276495
I didn't expect OP to just take my list as is.
It definitely needed refinement.

>>6276488
Your first line is wrong. Logic is a field of math and not understood by philosotards anymore.

>>6276489
All those witless one-liners which fail to address the quoted sentences surely convinced me of the rhetorical superiority of philosophers. (<--- This was sarcasm btw. Why do I even have to explain this? Oh yeah, right, it's because you're autistic as fuck.)

>>6276502
I can't vote more than once for different things

>>6276505
>Philosophy shows where the other topics are weak.
No, it doesn't. Science doesn't become wrong, just because you're making up infantile nonsense like qualia or solipsism. "U cannot know nuffin" is not a valid argument.

>>6276509
That's called cheating. We should have included an intro into criminology.

Why are there no psychology books in the list?

>>6276504
[citation needed]

>>6276517
because no one has suggested a book on it yet.
>>6276516
plz stop feeding the troll

>>6276499
hyperbolic doubt

>>6276504
ad hominem and lack of counterarguments

I would like to read something about economics. Its mathematical, so it should be easily understandable for STEM people, and it would be nice for a change since most of us probably never touched the subject.

>>6276512
Qualia and solipsism are compatible with science. Philosophy only shows the epistemological limits of science.

>>6276514
>not having a voting system based on primary, secondary, and tertiary preferences
You need an introduction to voting

>>6276522
>magic is compatible with science

No, it isn't, you fucking /x/tard. Science clearly shows there is nothing supernatural. Metaphysical phenomena would violate the rules of physics.

>>6276523
I have a pop sci book I enjoyed on it.
Freakonomics.

I'd like a book that show'd me how to do the stuff he did in that book.

>>6276528
>Metaphysical phenomena would violate the rules of physics.
No because metaphysical phenomena would be outside of our conception of time and space where physical rules no longer apply.

>>6276528

If I wanted to read textbooks I'd read the ones I am supposed to read for my course.

We should be recommending things outside academic scientific interest.

/sci/-approved novels: Nineteen Eighty-Four/We/The Handmaiden's Tale/BNW

Some important philosophy: Rousseau's Social Contract, JSM On Liberty, Hobbes' Leviathan

>>6276534
Everything in existence has to obey the laws of physics. Do you even science? Something outside the scope of science can be dismissed as non-existent. Science explains EVERYTHING.

>>6276528
>hi I don't understand the concepts of qualia or solipsism correctly

>>6276537
>outside the laws of physics
>must abide by the laws of physics
The emulatior of metaphysics (the mind) needs to obey the laws of physics.

>>6276542
Nobody understands them because they are inconsistent and incompatible with scientific reality.

>>6276540
>wasting your time and money by not reading textbooks
I can't say I'm surprised

Why don't you go back to /r9k/ the adults are talking

>>6276538

>>6276537
How old are you?

>>6276549
Inane dualism trolling belongs on >>>/x/. The human brain is a physical organ and does neither require nor imply magical soul metaphysics.

>>6276557
21

>>6276562
So every thought that your mind can imagine abides by the laws of physics?

>>6276562
hitchbot detected

Alright Principles of QM seems to have the most votes at this point. I suggest we all obtain the book and set some dates.

Please refrain from continuing to contaminate this thread with your funny meme images and poor argumentation regarding philosophy being useful or not.

>>6276567
Philosophy containment general?

>>6276537
Dogmatists like you also thought everything in existence had to obey Newton's laws a few centuries ago.
>Something outside the scope of science can be dismissed as non-existent
Argument from ignorance much?

>>6276564
A thought is a representation of algorithmic processes in the brain. Tell me how that isn't physical.

>>6276567
Principles of QM sucks. I'm gonna read the fluid dynamics book and you can't stop me.

>>6276568
>A thought is a representation of algorithmic processes in the brain.
[citation needed]

>>6276568
Right, so like I said, the emulator of the metaphysical must abide by the laws of physics.

>>6276568
Thoughts are subjective experiences.

>>6276572
I'm going to do do that too talk to you later

>>6276518
>hyperbolic doubt
not really practical in daily life...
Did you read "Discours_de_la_méthode" (Discourse on the method)? (I'm French, so I read the OV).

Cause after "Cogito ergo sum"...well... it's a dead-end. All exits are blocked. No way to go further (He writes it, I don't invent)
And "woooosh", let use the god concept and start thinking again.

So... well. I'm not convinced for now. But I'm open-minded.

>>6276570
I'm scientifically applying Hitchens' razor. If something exists, it must be possible for it to have evidence. By modus tollens the impossibility of evidence implies non-existence.

>>6276576
Source: common sense

>>6276573
There is no metaphysics. Only physics.

There seems to be a lot of disagreement about which books we are supposed to read. We could solve this by creating different reading categories in the group.

Example: ‘’hard’’ textbooks - for those who have already mastered the basics of a subject and want to learn more advanced stuff; ‘’intro’’ textbooks - for those who are not familiar with the subject and want to learn it in a rigorous and technical way; pop sci - for those who only want to enjoy learning a little bit of science or who don’t have the time to read textbooks.
After we decide what are going to be these categories, we could then select the reading list for each one of them.

What do you think?

Also, stop the philosophy vs. science discussion. Both fields are important in their own way and if you really want to read about philosophy, read something in the fields of philosophy of science, mind or logic – which are related to science and math.

>>6276572
Good for you!

What should the date be? Till what chapter?

>>6276584
>Source: common sense
And now we know you're trolling

>>6276581
No such thing exists. Qualia have been scientifically disproved by Daniel Dennett. Go back to >>>/x/.

>>6276584
>Source: common sense

top lel

>>6276584
There are pieces of evidence to support the existence of metaphysical phenomena. They just can't be found with scientific measuring devices.

>>6276583
>Both fields are important in their own
Justify the importance of philosophy. Tell me one thing philosophy has achieved.

>philosophy of science
Once you know the scientific method, you know everything about the philosophy of science. There is nothing more to it,

>mind
Philosophy of mind is the worst. It's literally just "I choose to believe whatever fairy tale most appeals to me". All that dualism and qualia hogwash has no scientific basis. Philosophy of mind is the continuation of science vs religion bullshittery.

>logic
Logic is math and not philosophy.

>>6276587
>has no common sense

>>6276593
In other words "u have 2 beleive". That's not an argument on a science board. Back to /x/, please.

>>6276584
>asserts that there are no metaphysics without evidence
>tries to dismiss the field of metaphysics with no evidence

Read anathem. Actually everyone should read anathem

>>6276578
>>6276585
I got some exams upcoming in the next weeks. Probably won't have the time to read until february. How about you?

>>6276601
I just finished those.

>>6276597
No not at all. Just because science can't explain them doesn't mean they don't have an existence.

>>6276602
I won't read childish escapism fantasy garbage. I prefer real science and math.

>>6276594
> Justify the importance of philosophy. Tell me one thing philosophy has achieved.
I think therefor I am
God is dead
Empiricism
Scientific method
Münchhausen trilemma
The Renassaince
The Enlightenment
The Jefferson Bible
Nihlism, solipism, stoicism

>>6276606
Without evidence your hogwash belongs on /x/.

>>6276614
also
Hitchen's razor
Occam's razor
Hanlon's razor
All the fallacies

>>6276614
>I think therefor I am
logically and scientifically false
>God is dead
obvious to any rationally thinking person
>Empiricism
>Scientific method
are the reason why philosophy became obsolete
>Münchhausen trilemma
"u cannot know nuffin"
>The Renassaince
early stage of development that gave rise to science, without philosophy
>The Enlightenment
historical epoch mainly characterized by changes in societal and economical structure, not phlosophy
>The Jefferson Bible
bible? my sides
>Nihlism, solipism, stoicism
edgy teenager facebook tier garbage

>>6276615
Do you think the quote is supposed to be relevant? It's not. Philosophy doesn't belong on /sci/. Yes I agree, but that isn't your argument. You're insisting metaphysical phenomena don't exist because science can't explain them. Which is a wrong belief and not a scientific fact. There's a big difference between making up any old thing as existing and metaphysics.

>>6276601
I'm pretty NEET, but it's going to take me longer to Grok it. I studied anthropology in school, and have learned all my hard science over the net (thanks for the recommendations /sci/) Let's say day before valentines?

>>6276618
Rhetorics is a social skill and doesn't require philosophy. In fact most philosotards are too autistic and can't into proper rhetorics.

>>6276620
#Edgy

>>6276594
Ok, then philosophy is a worthless pursuit. There you have it, thank you. Now please stop all this useless discussion or create your own thread about it. This thread is about the book club. We’re trying to chose how the club is to be organized, which books we’re going to read etc. and this ‘’science vs. philosophy’’ discussion is not helping at all.

If we are to adopt the ‘different categories’ option, here are a few suggestions for each one of the categories:

Advanced textbooks: Principles of QM; Principles of Biochemistry; and the other ones which have already been suggested.

Introductory textbooks: Lang’s Basic Math; Campbell’s Biology; perhaps something on psychology, social sciences, computer science or linguistics and some physics textbook which is not very hard.

Pop science books: The Ancestor’s Tale, by Dawkins; some puzzle book by Smullyan or Gardner; a few Very Short Introduction books, which have the advantage of, well, being very short and therefore easier to finish.


Captcha: Liverpool uidinac

>>6276622
>>6276603
First week of february should be fine for me. How are we gonna recognize each other? Should we get tripcodes?

>>6276620
>if I ignore philosophy's profound influence on science it never happened!

>>6276587
i can't artificial networks guys
guys i can't

>>6276620
Is this guy serious?

>>6276579
anyone? a /lit/ or philo fag?

>>6276583
not true anymore. Analysis masterace

Pic related : hyperbolic doubt -> Kan't know muffin

Captcha : Schopenhaur

>>6276621
Right?

>be 1900s
>animal magnetism and hypnotism happen
>modern science cannot explain it
>must be hogwash

>>6276621
>because science can't explain them
Without evidence there is nothing to explain. "Explain muh non-interacting spirit" is not a science question and is to be dismissed as foolery as long as you don't provide any kind of evidence.

>>6276624
I'm on 4chan. I have to be edgy.

>>6276628
>appeal to tradition

>>6276630
Not a "guy", but yeah I'm serious.

>>6276588
0/100

>>6276620
> inb4 Gödel's incompleteness theorems : "u cannot know nuffin" edition

>>6276633
There is evidence though. It just isn't scientific evidence.

>>6276626
Nah just make a thread. I'll set my browser to save fluid dynamic images, we'll do an image dump to keep the thread from falling off the back end

>>6276635
Stay mad, dualism fag. Dennett scientifically disproved your faily tales.

>>6276637
Evidence has to be objectively verifiable. Belief does not qualify as evidence.

>>6276630
He's either a brilliant troll or the edgiest neck beard I've ever encountered

>>6276633
>>appeal to tradition
wait so you don't like studying the history of your field either?
if we do enjoy history of our knowledge will you stop shitposting?

>>6276639
Repeated use of fallacies and denial =/= a disproof

>>6276638
Till what chapter/page are we doing?

>>6276641
Of course I know history. Unlike you I have education. I explained why your view was wrong.

>>6276642
He uses logic and science.

>>6276639
Please stop shitposting.

>>6276644
>Of course I know history. Unlike you I have education. I explained why your view was wrong.

That isn't what I said shitposter.

>>6276644
>He uses logic and science
HAHAHAHAHA

no

>>6276639
>Evidence has to be objectively verifiable
Not even scientific evidence fits that criteria.

>>6276639
Are you mentally retarded? Evidence can be objectively verifiable and still not be scientific.

>>6276643
Not sure how much time you guys have. I downloaded the book now and it has 12 chapters, ~700 pages. I'd be okay with reading the first 6 chapters, ~300 pages. That'd take me maybe 2 or 3 days.

Should we create a board for the book club on 8chan.co or are we going to do everything here?

>>6276610
>anathem
>childish escapism
>not a powerful metaphoric work which explores The relationship between science and society
>not an appendix filled with metaphysics of mathematics
>not a detailed examination of how scientists should interact with the world
Heh

>>6276656
I don't see anything wrong with making a thread here, the board is fairly slow moving and you can ctrl-F it in the catalog.

>>6276659
you know, there even exists a filter.

>>6276643
Let's just shoot for as much as possible. Worst-case scenario what somebody's read more than other people ooh no

>>6276645
I never did such a thing.

>>6276646
Daniel Dennett is a neuroscientist. Everything he says is objectively true and has been verified in theory and experiment.

>>6276647
It isn't my fault you can't express your thoughts in an appropriate manner.

>>6276648
Yes, it does. Do you even science?

Then what is going to be the reading list?

And are we going to divide the group into different categories?

>>6276663
> It isn't my fault you can't express your thoughts in an appropriate manner
translation: I'm gonna shitpost and there's nothing you can do to stop me.

>>6276663
uhm you and the others. Could you just use a tripfag so we can hide your totally unrelated to the discussion posts?

Thanks.

>>6276651
>Are you mentally retarded?
I am highly intelligent. My IQ is > 170.

>Evidence can be objectively verifiable and still not be scientific.
No, it can't.

>>6276654
It's a book for children. Please grow up.

>>6276663
What if you have subjective evidence? Like what if you Saw a ghost? Your inclination is to trust your senses, and dismissing the evidence of your senses because it doesn't fit your worldview seems limiting

>>6276671
>quoting IQ when someone asks if you're retarded
>not retarded

pick one

>>6276669
>projecting

>>6276673
IQ was designed to tell apart retards and non-retards.

>>6276674
Not objectively verifiable. Belief is not evidence.

1st three chapters are Introduction, Fluid Statics and Elementary Fluid Dynamics - 133 pages. I suggest we read it by mon 3rd feb or sat 8th feb.

>>6276654
> As an appendix to the novel, Stephenson includes three "Calca", discussions among the avout of purely philosophical or mathematical content. The first is a discussion of a cake cutting procedure corresponding to the geometric problem of "doubling the square" presented in Plato's Meno. The second presents configuration spaces (called "Hemn spaces" in the novel) as a way of representing three-dimensional motion. The third discusses a "complex" Platonic realism, in which several realms of Platonic ideal forms (called the "Hylaean Theoric Worlds" in the novel) exist independently of the physical world (called the "Arbran Causal Domain" in the novel). The mathematical structure of a directed acyclic graph is used to describe the way in which the various realms can influence one other, and even the physical world can function as part of the realm of ideal forms for some worlds "downstream" in the graph.

>>6276663
>I never did such a thing.
You're doing it right now.

>>6276584


>Source: common sense

BEST ARGUMENT EVER !!!

totally convinced.

>Srsly, you want everything to be scientifically explained. How do you define such a notion???

>>6276663
Scientific evidence is only intersubjective.

>>6276678
Let's do it, faggots!

>>6276676
So how would you go about testing that? Evidence: you saw a ghost. Then what?

>>6276671
>book for children
Nope. Obviously you haven't read it.

>>6276663
>Daniel Dennett is a neuroscientist. Everything he says is objectively true and has been verified in theory and experiment.


http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v14/n9/full/nn.2886.html

"We reviewed 513 behavioral, systems and cognitive neuroscience articles in five top-ranking journals (Science, Nature, Nature Neuroscience, Neuron and The Journal of Neuroscience) and found that 78 used the correct procedure and 79 used the incorrect procedure. An additional analysis suggests that incorrect analyses of interactions are even more common in cellular and molecular neuroscience."


Well, :(

>>6276674
What if you have eaten pic related ?
Scientific evidence is wrought through repeated experiments that are verified by many people, while not being high.

>>6276663
>Daniel Dennett is a neuroscientist.
He's a crank with a philosophy PhD.

>Everything he says is objectively true
Cool story.

>and has been verified in theory and experiment.
Right. All of his wrong claims are empty and it's very possible to verify their incorrectness.

>>6276679
Whoa, he used high school pop math? Hold on with all that pseudo-intellectualism.

>>6276680
Where's your evidence?

>>6276686
Nope, it's objective.

>>6276687
A baseless claim isn't evidence.

>>6276688
I prefer to read science and math books.

>>6276676
And yet here you are, being retarded with a high iq

>in b4 "jokes on them I was only pretending To be retarded"

>>6276671
>My IQ is > 170.
I'll apply Hitchen's razor to this claim.

if anyone interested :

this autistic fag (pretend to be a genius girl) is just mentally ill.

Look for her in the archive, it's really laughable.
Easily recognizable answers/posts.

So be aware that you're loosing your time "discussing" with "her"

>>6276671
>I am highly intelligent
Top lel. You're brain damaged evidenced by the fact that you don't even have a subjective experience.

>>6276695
> cake cutting procedure
> high school pop math
pick one or eat a dick

>>6276691
>statistical test
Daniel Dennett doesn't need statistical tests. He has compelling arguments.

>>6276693
>He's a crank with a philosophy PhD.
He has published in neuroscience journals and every scientist agrees with him.

>Cool story.
True stories are always cool.

>Right. All of his wrong claims are empty and it's very possible to verify their incorrectness.
You're just a dualist being mad because Dennett proved you wrong.

created a new thread for those who want to talk about books
>>6276699

>>6276695
>Nope, it's objective.
Nice denial you have there. It would be a shame if anything were to happen to it.

>>6276705
Sadly, >>6276703 is right.
The only thing >>6276706 achieve is killing threads :(.

Good luck with this new one!

>>6276671
Yes it can. Objective evidence doesn't need measurement devices to confirm objectiveness.

>>627670
http://www.eoht.info/page/IQ%253A+150%252B+%257C+Smartest+woman+ever
>>claims to be one of the most intelligent women ever
>>still retarded

Ladies, eh?

>>6276707
>He has published in neuroscience journals
see >>6276691

>every scientist agrees with him.
obviously not. (tip : scientist <> people who think like you)

>>6276703
You mean the one reading Anathem or the physicalist materialist nonmetaphysicalist with an IQ > 70 ?

>>6276695
>Where's your evidence?
Your posts, shitposter.

>>6276701
Nobody has qualia. They are logically and physically impossible. Read Dennett.

>>6276702
I have no problem with eating dick. My boyfriend can confirm this.

>>6276703
>argumentum ad honinem

>>6276711
Objective evidence needs to be observable.

>>6276305
>popular science books
No.

Unfortunately most of /sci/ reads textbooks, and well most of /sci/ has different amounts of background in their field and in other fields. Like you can't just say "let's all read Visual Complex Analysis" because the larger portion of the user base won't have the background or interest to read the book or in the opposite scenario it will be material that they're already familiar with.

It might be interesting to have users read intro books for subjects outside of their field but again you'll run into the problem of interest. I am a pure mathfag and really would not want to sit through one of those garbage intro textbooks on physics where they use a series of pre-derived formulas for everything that you would normally use babby calculus for.

>>6276707
>He has published in neuroscience journals
Nope.

>every scientist agrees with him.
Nobody with a brain agrees with his uneducated quasi-philosophy.

>True stories are always cool.
Yes, it's a cool story that your posts are filled with bullshit.

>You're just a dualist being mad because Dennett proved you wrong.
Wrong.

>>6276714
the second sorry, maybe I misquoted. Dunno the other.

Hey guys! What about Ian Stewart's Letters to a Young Mathematician?

>>6276695
>I prefer to read science and math books
.
Translation: You prefer to read things that confirm your biases and ignore things that show how they're wrong.

>>6276722
It is observable.

Suggestion for pop science readings:

The Selfish Gene (evolution)
The Scientists, by John Gribbin (History of Science)
The Moral Animal, by Robert Wright (evolutionary psychology)
Human Evolution: A Very Short Introduction
Mathematics: A Very Short Introduction
Guns, Germs and Steel (history)
How to Lie with Statistics
The Wordly Philosophers: The Great Economics Thinkers
What is the name of this book?, by Smullyan (logic puzzles)

>>6276715
Which one?

>>6276718
It is a well accepted fact in neuroscience that qualia and free will do not exist. Dennett and Harris will certainly win a Nobel prize within the next decade.

>>6276729
>science is wrong lol
Take your "le epic troling" to /pol/ or wherever you came from.

>>6276722
>argumentum ad honinem
that's not an argument, you donkey?!
The insult is part of 4chan you know it. I was just informing people that you are some kind of freak girl. And you never denied that, as far as I know (you admitted being nerdy and shit)

Just an assumption easyli checkable.
By Ctrl+F "argumentum ad honinem" in the archive for instance :)

>>6276733
>Dennett and Harris will certainly win a Nobel prize within the next decade.
Thanks, "Madame Irma"

>>6276733
That's not what I said.

>>6276707
>He has compelling arguments.

Show me a single one. Oh wait, you can't.

>>6276733
>translation: science is 100% right forever

I read a fringe book in the 80s about how the universe is a holographic projection. The idea is coming back nowadays

>>6276733
All of them.

>>6276733
>It is a well accepted fact in neuroscience that qualia and free will do not exist.
You're completely delusional.

Keep going /sci/tizens.
This thread is really promizing
I'm ready

>>6276734
>that's not an argument, you donkey?!
Exactly. It's a fallacy. I'm still waiting for you to post an actual argument.

>>6276736
No, it isn't.

>>6276738
I don't know who that is.

>>6276740
Learn to express your thoughts unambiguously.

>>6276744
>shifting the burden of proof
You claim qualia exist. Show me a quale.

>>6276722
>Nobody has qualia.
Every human being does.

>They are logically and physically impossible. Read Dennett.
Denial and fallacies don't show logical or physical impossibility.

>>6276754
>Learn to express your thoughts unambiguously.
Get your reading disabilities checked by a neurologist and not a naturopath.

>>6276747
Not an acceptable answer. Link one and explain your reasoning.

>>6276750
>can't into neuroscience

>>6276756
>Every human being does.
I don't and I have no reason to assume you do, unless you show me the evidence.

>Denial and fallacies don't show logical or physical impossibility.
But logic and science do.

>>6276754
Yes, it is. Everyone has to observe it or else it isn't objective.

>>6276754
>I'm still waiting for you to post an actual argument.
But fuck off? I'm just warning people they're losing their time. You're not concerned. I'm not trying to convince you of anything.
I want them to be aware, that's all.

>I don't know who that is.
Don't you know french, "smart girl"? Lrn2google, maybe.
Pop word for someone who practise psychic reading.

Well, I lost enough time. Time 2 go.

>>6276759
>projecting

>>6276761
I did. Why don't you try reading my posts for once?

>>6276761
>can't into neuroscience
Neuroscientists wouldn't be researching consciousness and free will if what you said had any truth value.

>>6276754
No, you claimed he had convincing arguments. Please post one.

>>6276764
That's exacly why you were wrong. Stop switching your position.

>>6276765
>using words incorrectly.

>>6276777
Human observation isn't a scientific measuring device so it couldn't possibly be a scientific observation.

>>6276761
>I don't
Lying won't get you anywhere.

>But logic and science do.
No, they show logical and scientific possibility.

>>6276761
>I don't and I have no reason to assume you do, unless you show me the evidence.
See chocolate, salivate, qualia.jpg
You can explain it with physics, but it is qualia nonetheless.

>>6276768
>But fuck off?
No, I'm here to discuss science and math.

>Don't you know french, "smart girl"?
French is useless outside of France and maybe some african countries. If I ever need to read a French text, I can deduce almost all of it from my knowledge of other Indo-European languages.

>Pop word for someone who practise psychic reading.
Psychic reading belongs on >>>/x/

>>6276769
You didn't.

>>6276771
They are not researching it anymore. The problems of consciousness and free will have been solved by Daniel Dennett and Sam Harris who proved that both don't exist.

>>6276774
>implying I'm gonna spoonfeed you
Read his book. You're probably lacking the neuroscience background to understand his scientific arguments.

>>6276793
Childish fallacies and denial are not a solution.

>>6276778
Look it up in a dictionary.

>>6276781
Sensory organs are physical measuring devices. The problem of possible inaccuracy is solved by peer review.

>>6276787
>Lying won't get you anywhere.
Then why are you doing it?

>No, they show logical and scientific possibility.
And they constitute factual truth.

>>6276789
Taste buds are physical and have nothing to do with metaphysical soul nonsense.

>>6276796
That's why they belong on /x/. The only solution is science - like the science Daniel Dennett and Sam Harris used to disprove qualia and free will.

>>6276793
>They are not researching it anymore.

There are new papers being published every month.

>>6276798
And these papers are verifying what Dennett and Harris said.

>>6276799
There is no science in those books.

>>6276799
There is no way this isn't a troll.

>like the science Daniel Dennett and Sam Harris used to disprove qualia and free will.

Anyway, I second >>6276540

>>6276803
No, they are in direct contradiction with it.

>>6276804
>>6276805
>>6276806
Why are you dualists denying neuroscientific facts so hard? Does it hurt your feelings to know that you are not special snowflakes?

>>6276797
Sensory organs aren't used for these observations.

>>6276813
Troll harder, idiot.

>>6276809
What measuring devices are used?

>>6276813
>neuroscientific facts
0/10

>>6276819
None.

>>6276818
No, I don't need to troll. I have facts.

>>6276820
Is neuroscience too hard for you?

>>6276826
>No, I don't need to troll. I have facts.
That really explains why you post nothing but trolls.

>>6276813
What neuroscientific facts?

>>6276813
The now standard response to Dennett's project is that he has picked a fight with a straw man. Cartesian materialism, it is alleged, is an impossibly naive account of phenomenal consciousness held by no one currently working in cognitive science or the philosophy of mind. Consequently, whatever the effectiveness of Dennett's demolition job, it is fundamentally misdirected (see, e.g., Block, 1993, 1995; Shoemaker, 1993; and Tye, 1993).

>>6276827
I never did such a thing. Stop projecting.

>>6276829
Yeah you did, in every single post of yours in this thread.

>>6276828
Cartesian materialism isn't the only thing Dennett rejects.

>>6276828
Either you are a scientist and accept that consciousness and qualia are physically and logically impossible, or you are dualist. This is what Dennett proved logically. These are the only two options. Tertium non datur.

>>6276830
Go to school and learn them on your own.

>>6276813
>we live in a nondualistic mind/body connection
ok i agree
>>therefore there is no such thing as free will
i guess it just matters how you define free. Can you choose things? yes. Are those choices the result of every event which has happened to you previously? yes. does that mean you don't have free will? doesn't matter, really.

but that's philosophy, and you hate philosophy.

>>6276832
[citation needed]

>>6276839
That's neuroscience, not philosophy.

>>6276835
No place of education is going to teach your outright fabrications.

>>6276842
Wrong. A lot of universities teach string theory.

>>6276835
>This is what Dennett proved
He didn't prove shit.

>>6276843
>irrelevancy

>>6276844
>denial

>>6276847
Dennett's denial isn't a proof. Neither is an argument from ignorance or a lie.

>>6276851
He uses rigorous science and logic. Stay mad, dualism fag.

>>6276835
>consciousness is impossible
wait are you using some alternate definition of consciousness which i'm not aware of?

>>pic related
we're awake
we're aware
we have awareness of our mind and of the world

if you're running with another definition of consciousness which allows you to claim that consciousness is impossible, then you're simply wrong. The word consciousness was is to describe the internal mental state of standard humans.

how do you define consciousness?

>>6276857
No he doesn't.

>>6276732

I have a few suggestions for pop science reading too

1. A brief history of time, by Stephan Hawking
2. The grand design, by Stephan Hawking
3. The Universe in a Nutshell, by Stephan Hawking
4. The Elegant Universe, by Brian Greene
5. The Hidden Reality: Parallel Universes and the Deep Laws of the Cosmos, by Brian Greene
6. QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter, by Richard Feynman

>>6276859
There are no qualia or whatever dualists want to believe. The word "consciousness" has no scientific meaning because it is just a collection of skills each of which having its own name.

>>6276862
Yes, he does.

>>6276866
Show them to me.

>>6276866
Subjective experience isn't a belief. It's a fact.

>>6276866
I don't give a shit about "qualia."

if you're claiming your psychologist buddy has disproved consciousness, you have to give me a shred of evidence.

>>6276866
>hurr he uses logic to prove it
>>doesn't even bother encoding it in symbolic logic so that we can break through the barrier of language and transcend into higher levels of understanding
it's like you don't even science

>>6276868
Go learn about neuroscience.

>>6276871
Fuck off, dualist. Your claims have no evidence and are untestable.

>>6276876
Read Dennett's book. He uses rigorous neuroscience.

>>6276880
Why do you need the arguments encoded in symbolic logic? Is natural language too hard for you?

>>6276881
Don't dodge the question. Instead just offer me a shred of evidence.

>>6276881
>go read a book
>i can't explain it using simple logical terms
>i have an iq of 170 i promise

>>6276881
>qualia imply dualism
No.

>>6276881
>Your claims have no evidence and are untestable.

There's lots of evidence for subjective experience. You're using it right now, for example.

>>6276886
>>doesn't present any arguments or evidence or logic disproving consciousness
>lol max pleb XDD
back to reddit

I just realized something.

this troll is clearly a neuroscientist wannabe

neuroscience is an extension of medical science and psychology

medical science is an extension of biology

and we all know that biology and psychology are not science

that's why he can't encode it in symbolic logic, he doesn't know how!

>>mfw

>>6276881
>Read Dennett's book.
No thanks. Fallacies and denial aren't my thing.

>>6276887
Why would I waste my time spoonfeeding you?

>>6276889
Metaphysical phenomena without physical interaction would contradict the laws of physics.

>>6276891
Please show me the evidence. I'm waiting.

>>6276905
We don't even know what the final laws of physics are or even if we're able to understand them as humans.

>>6276881
> implying you don't experiment sensations.

>>6276905
because you're wasting your time dodging the question?

>>6276905
It's right there. Stop denying it and look.

>>6276892
That's where you belong. I'm sure they have a dualism subreddit where you can circlejerk with your spiritual friends or whatever.

>>6276900
They are not Dennett's thing either. That's why he uses logic and facts instead.

>>6276909
>cannot know nuffin
Do you even science? Science has explained almost everything.

>>6276910
Sensory perception has been explained scientifically and has nothing to do with metaphysics.

>>6276912
What question?

>>6276915
>That's why he uses logic and facts instead.
Proof by assertion is a fallacy.

>>6276915
>how
>can
>you
>possibly
>claim
>consciousness
>doesn't
>exist

>>6276914
Where? Post it.

>>6276916
That would be redundant. You already see it.

>>6276915
>Do you even science? Science has explained almost everything.
You're fucking retarded fedora tosser who can't into science. Scientific theories are constantly being falsified and replaced.

>>6276915
Sensory perception is not experience

>>6276926
false

>>6276927
Sensory processing of pain doesn't explain the subjective feeling of pain.

>>6276915
Metaphysics is a traditional branch of philosophy concerned with explaining the fundamental nature of being and the world that encompasses it.

Materialism and physicalism are metaphysic thesis.

You seem to be physicalist, because you keep saying everything is physical. It is metaphysics, you make assumption about the fundamental nature of the world.

Metaphysics are not only useless bullshit such as "wat is gode wat is fredom", you know.

>>6276549
this is fun 7/10

>>6276917
No, it isn't.

>>6276918
If you want to believe in metaphysical dualism, go to /x/ please. /sci/ is for science.

>>6276922
I didn't. Please post it.

>>6276924
I do not wear a fedora.

>>6276915
please stop with the naturalistic fallacies

>>6276926
There is nothing more to sensory perception. Sensory perception does not imply metaphysical experience. Stop promoting dualism.

>>6276931
There is only the physiology of pain.

>>6276932
Metaphysics is untestable and does not explain anything. Metaphysics is literally nothing more than "I believe whatever fairy tale most appeals to me".

>>6276941
I don't even know what that is.

>>6276946
Look what up?

>>6276938
>No, it isn't.
Look it up.

>>6276938
>I didn't.

Yes, you did in fact. Please pay attention and look.

>>6276938
i'm not talking about dualism you fucking retard

saging because fuk u

>>6276947
Proof by assertion.

>>6276951
Pay attention to what?

>>6276952
You were defending the main point of dualism, i.e. the existence of a "consciousness".

>>6276959
What assertion?

>>6276942
And therefore, you believe the fairy tale that everything is physical.

You surely believe that Joan of Ark heard voices because she had a mental disorder, it is your interpretation of the phenomenon.
http://www.mentalhealth.org.uk/help-information/mental-health-a-z/H/hearing-voices/

>>6276942
Metaphysical ideas like free will and subjective experience are universal truths to all humans without brain damage. Sorry you don't fit into this category.

>>6276947
>I don't even know what that is.
you poor uneducated soul

>>6276963
>inane religious trolling
gb2>>>/b/

>>6276942
>There is only the physiology of pain.
No, there is also an experience of pain unless you are on analgesics.

>>6276931
Sensory processing of numerical values that we believe validate our opinions-- ie science, do not explain the fundamental nature of our universe.
Yet we still feel validated enough to internally fabricate realities built on concepts that have historically been proven wrong multiple times in a lifespan.
The point is, experience doesn't exist, progress does. 'Experience' is much too rigid a concept to be applied universally.

>>6276964
Refer to >>6276972

>>6276965
>>dur dur zero sum game

>>herp derp if there's consciousness then the mind and body must be seperate

>>6276965
Do have a learning disability? No assertion. You need to look up "proof by assertion" and see that it is a fallacy.

>>6276973
I do not understand what you're talking about. Can you show evidence to me?

>>6276980
Why is it a fallacy?

>>6276977
Doesn't apply. My post wasn't inane, religious, or trolling.

>>6276942
>>so autistic that he tries to divorce his physical experience from his mental state
gosh

>>6276983
I'm sorry to hear that neuroscience is too hard for you. What I posted are merely the facts Daniel Dannett discovered.

>>6276991
It was.

>>6276992
"Mental state" is a meaningless pseudoscientific concept. We are talking about neuroscience here and not outdated pseudo-psychological quackery.

>>6276985
repeating something over and over doesnt make it right.

>>6276985
>I do not understand what you're talking about.
Your brain damage makes this feat impossible.

>>6276999
>brain is part of the body
yeah ok thanks i took high school philosophy too

>>6276993
>>has not cited a single fact
>>not even one

one last shot to retain your credibility


honestly, i think you're fighting a strawman here. none of us are dualists.

>>6277002
In neuroscience it does. See for example Dennett's argumentation against qualia.

>>6276999
Proof?

>>6277008
pathetic

>>6277008
hahahahah oh my god you're great

such an infuriating troll, very very convincing.

>>6277008
Guys, I will keep refering to a metaphysics book as if it was neuroSCIENCE !

>>6277006
Makes what impossible?

>>6277007
Are you accusing Dennett of using strawman fallacies? Seriously? Do you even neuroscience?

>>6277008
>In neuroscience it does.
No, proof by assertion isn't scientific.

>See for example Dennett's argumentation against qualia.
Not science or even philosophy.

>>6277020
Consciousness and free will aren't metaphysics. They are topic of neuroscience and have been solved by Daniel Dennett and Sam Harris.

>>6277017
no i'm accusing you of strawmanning. no one in this thread is a dualist.

not everyone has read this denett guy you idolize. most people don't give a shit about neuroscience. maybe you should calm your shit down, reread your posts, realize that you've been doing argumentum ad authority for like three hours without producing any of the evidence which has convinced you this thoroughly

>>6277024
>No, proof by assertion isn't scientific.
Stating observations is very scientific.

>Not science or even philosophy.
Dennett is a neuroscientist.

>>6277026
Dennett has proved scientifically that if you acknowledge the hard problem of consciousness, you're a dualist who denies neuroscience because "muh feelings".

>>6277027
> implying science ∩ philosophy = O

>>6277035
Science and philosophy are polar opposites.

>>6277033
>Stating observations is very scientific.
Your misinterpretations aren't observations.

>Dennett is a neuroscientist.
He has a PhD in philosophy and not one scientific publication.

>>6277033
>proved scientifically
if that were true, you would be able to also prove it scientifically to me. but it's not true, so you can't. all you can do is say that some guy said something, without even quoting him once.

>>6277033
What's his proof?

>>6277039
oh my fucking god this is too funny

>>6277037
Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language.[1][2]

>>6277039
>Your misinterpretations aren't observations.
I am not interpreting anything. I am only stating observations.

>He has a PhD in philosophy and not one scientific publication.
He has published in neuroscience journals.

>>6277041
>>6277043
Read his book and watch his youtube videos.

>>6277037
trolling troll is succsessfylly trolling.

> implying these two thing are polar opposites :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_Logic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_logic

I'm out.

>>6277050
>>argues against philosophy for an entire thread based on one author's pop-philosophy book
>>does not realize that his idol is a philosopher

yfw

>>6277045
>reality
explained by physics

>existence
obvious by common sense

>knowledge
explained by neuroscience

>values, reason
obviuos by common sense

>mind
explained by neuroscience

>and language
explained by linguistics

See? No philosophy needed.

>>6277047
>cognitive science

>>6277050
>I am not interpreting anything.
You are. You believe, for example, that neuroscience uses proof by assertion, which is wrong. Neuroscience requires evidence and proof for a claim to be valid.

>I am only stating observations.
Neuroscience using proof by assertion is not an observation, it's an interpretation of whatever neuroscientific literate you have/have not read.

>He has published in neuroscience journals.
http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=3FWe5OQAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=sra

Oh look, not a single scientific publication.

>>6277059
>literate
meant literature

>>6277051
1. Math isn't science.
2. Logic is a field of math and not understood by philosotards anymore.

>>6277055
He's a cognitive scientist.

>>6277050
>Read his book and watch his youtube videos.

You're grasping at straws. Post the proof or you're bullshitting.

>>6277058
>interest

also
physics doesn't have a perfect model for the universe. does that mean that the universe isn't scientific, or that science isn't universal

>>existence
all you can say is that your own senses tell you that there's an exterior

>knowledge, mind
>>discount the thousands of years of thinking about thought in favor of a single writer writing at the end of the twentieth century.

>values reason=common sense
that's why there have never been wars about morality ever

>linguistics
ok fair enough linguistics are pretty badass

additionally, philosophy forms the framework for all of that stuff. you wouldn't have your precious single author that you've ever read without philosophy.

>>6277059
>Neuroscience requires evidence and proof for a claim to be valid.
Daniel Dennett and Sam Harris disagree.

>>6277058
>explained by physics
not all of it

>obvious by common sense
appeal to common sense is a fallacy

>explained by neuroscience
no, by ontology

>obviuos by common sense
appeal to common sense is a fallacy

>explained by neuroscience
No, neuroscience can't explain the metaphysical concept of mind.

>explained by linguistics
Needs philosophy of linguistics to work.

>See? No philosophy needed.
Wrong.

>>6277070
Good for them. They have no say on the field.

>>6277067
I'm not gonna copypaste his entire book here.

>>6277069
>physics doesn't have a perfect model for the universe. does that mean that the universe isn't scientific, or that science isn't universal
Just because science hasn't yet explained everything, doesn't mean you can fill the gaps with fairy tales.

>all you can say is that your own senses tell you that there's an exterior
Typical "cannot know nuffin" philosocrap.

>that's why there have never been wars about morality ever
No war has ever been fought over philosophy. Wars are fought for economical reasons.

>>6277076
>dodging again or lacking the ability to summarize
The burden of proof is on you, shithead.

Bump for a next round!
What a delightful moment I spent reading this after a day of hard work.

Just, if I may:
>>6277059
http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=3FWe5OQAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=sra
"psychology - evolution - artificial intelligence - philosophy", 48584 citations

http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=N80kIiYAAAAJ&hl=en
"Neurology - Psychology - Psychopathology", 343489 citations

Well, that was a wonderful argument.
Look, peer-review is the perfect tool for stating the truth.
(this is sarcasm, I feel forced to say it, because you seriously lack of abilities in social interactions)

Someone should create an external forum for this thread on another site. Then we can make this more organised and actually work.

Dat thread.

Unbelievable. I save it. ("what's a troll, dad? Look, my son: [insert thread here]")

(>>6278489: thx, I missed it whent it happened)