/sci/ - Science & Math

>>7012737
Thank you captain.

>>7012737
Ok.

Underrated post

I absolutely agree. One of my favorite quotes puts it well:

A very small cause which escapes our notice determines a considerable effect that we cannot fail to see, and then we say that the effect is due to chance.
Henri Poincare

>>7012737

nobel prize incoming

>>7012737
Thank you jesus

>>7012737
What about all the quantums?
Checkmate atheists.

Best post in /sci/ in years. Thank you.

so true. thanks

>>7012737
I chose to believe in determinism for many years but lately I've felt compelled to believe in free will.

>>7012737

>the fart of a butterfly can cause a hurricane

Lrn2 Quantum.

>>7012737

That's a totally baseless assertion. Randomness is no more "magic" than causality. Sorry if that makes you uncomfortable, but the universe doesn't care about your feelings.

>>7012785
Nice quote.

But a while "very small cause" might escape the notice of a single person it might be noticed by a VERY large body of people. If you can control society at large, incept an an idea so it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy then all it takes is one person to notice to change reality. An example is how popular science fiction, with enough time, becomes science fact. If you think of humanity as a super-organism then this way it does have free will, even it the super-organism is not aware of hit. As an individual, you might have awareness but you don't have free will.

>>7012895
quantum doesn't have randomness

>>7012965

Says who? You? Who the fuck are you?

>>7012965
can't tell if trolling or retarded

>>7012737
Well shit, I'm glad you were around with your super insightful opinion to guide me in my life.

>>7012965
>>7012975
>Sticking baitless hooks to their lips.

>>7012737
Materialism, the philosophical notion that states that things inside the universe evolved to be more intelligent than the universe itself.

Anyone intelligent can see right through materialism. It's someone's philosophical idea, and you think that's how the world works. News flash, no one knows how the world works. If you think you do you're only perpetuation someone else's illusion.

>>7012737
Materialism, the philosophical notion that states that things inside the universe evolved to be more intelligent than the universe itself.

Anyone intelligent can see right through materialism. It's someone's philosophical idea, and you think that's how the world works. News flash, no one knows how the world works. If you think you do you're only perpetuating someone else's illusion.

>>7012737

prove it or shut up

>>7013035
>the philosophical notion that states that things inside the universe evolved to be more intelligent than the universe itself.
You're an idiot.

Yes OP.
It's a clever ruse by the friendly merchant.

>>7012965
>>7012975

Saying something is random is the easy and lazy way round to "prove" something. People call random things that they don't have the capacity to find all the factors that physically indistintively made something occur without chance of "randomness". Flipping a coin obviously isn't a random occurrance, same as you being born with a severe retardation.

>>7013075
Saying something is caused is just the easy and lazy way round to "prove" something. People call caused things that they don't have the capacity to see the emergent order that results in the macroscopic illusion of cause. Causality is only a placeholder for the probabilistic effect of the law of averages.

>>7013061
Super rebuttal bro. Want a medal?

>>7013091
>rebuttal
>implying your confused drivel is worthy of rebuttal
Stay mad, idiot.

>>7013091

It actually was a super rebuttal, but it doesn't deserve a medal because rebutting OP is easy as fuck.

>>7013097
>ad hominem
Stay self-assured.

>>7012737
No shit. Of course there's some fucking faggot because of who my fucking payment still haven't come, it couldn't be random.
Fucking motherfucker, I swear, nothing makes me more angry than late payments. Fuck.

>>7013086
Interesting

>>7013103
>I don't know what ad hominem means yet I post it all the time
Thank you for confirming that you really are an idiot.

>quantum mechanics
>not the science of giving up explanations and using statistics
pick one

I never understood this obsession with free will or free choice. As if this revelation was suddenly going to change the way everything works. As if the lack of a transcendental ideal of choice changes the reality of choice. YOU have will. YOU have choice. Will and choice are the two biggest things that will decide your life (at least the two biggest factors that you have control over). Whether these "will" and "choice" and "control" that you have live up to some abstract standard of ideal is a matter for very high philosophy. And if you aren't going to examine it with the methodical completeness of high philosophy, why even ask the question?

>>7012737
determinism or indeterminism is interpretation, not science. please fuck off.

>>7013246
Your "point" was absolutely terrible and pulled directly off our ass. No one would care to make a rebuttal. All one would have the will to do is call you an idiot as he did.

I'll call you an idiot too.

Idiot.

>>7013264
Welcome to /sci/, where we now talk about such topical things like "strong AI" and music.

>>7013246
>>7013266
Yeah, because you guys know everything about the universe. You are in the truest sense omnipotent, aren't you? It's almost poetic how ridiculously sure of yourselves you are.

My point was simply that materialism doesn't make any sense to someone with the slightest degree of rational thought. Why not? Because it states that the universe is essentially dead, which is paradoxical given that it gives rise to sentient beings like me and you. But go ahead, keep calling me an idiot. Maybe your mantra will hypnotize you into eventual happiness. It sure doesn't make up for an interesting discussion.

Oh, and to the retard above; Ad hominem means you attack me personally instead of attacking my argument like someone who'd actually be interested in it would. You know what my argument is to begin with? It's that the notion of intelligence is illusory. But I don't expect you to understand this. The only thing you understand is being angry at someone provoking your illusions. Go right ahead and keep them. Hypnotize yourself some more while you're at it. In the meanwhile, rational thinkers will debate these topics with mutual respect and not call each other idiots and start holy wars over fucking words and ideas. You're both immature assholes, I hope you're young so you have an excuse for it.

>>7013305
Not anyone who ever replied to you in this thread, but since you're so needy for attention.

Materialism does not state that the universe is essentially dead, this is a fundamental lack of understanding on your part. Materialism states that life is causal; that "choices" and "will" are the result of an intricate machinery. There is nothing "essentially dead" about this in the eyes of a materialist and with regards to the observed universe it does not raise any inconsistencies. You might have an aesthetic repulsion to the idea that the qualia that you feel, that makes you conscious, that you want to call "life" cannot be simply matter and information and thus you are not a materialist. But there is nothing irrational about materialism and believing that there is is a failure to step out of your own stubborn way of thinking.

As for the matter of ad hominen, someone criticizing your work and THEN calling you an idiot because of it, though unnecessary, is hardly dramatic offense and choosing the cherry-pick on that statement rather than the statement that your argument was bad makes you just as guilty as him.

>>7013315
>Materialism does not state that the universe is essentially dead, this is a fundamental lack of understanding on your part.
Actually that's precisely what it states.

It tries to answer the following questions:
- what is matter
- what is space

And it fails in adequately describing either. It's a naive position. I'm not the one dragging qualia into this either, that part is completely on you.

>>7012965
>>7012785
>>7012737
You're almost there guy!!!

>>7013329

>Actually that's precisely what it states.

No it isn't because the idea that materialism states that the universe is dead is a statement that only makes sense in contrast to the ideas that you are personally holding, that is, a statement that only make sense to you and not necessarily anyone else. From the perspective of materialism itself the universe is not "dead", in a sense the distinction between dead and alive is not meaningful, rather the statement is that the universe is comprised of matter etc. But to return to some of your original points:

>Materialism, the philosophical notion that states that things inside the universe evolved to be more intelligent than the universe itself.

You have not demonstrated why that is absurd, and furthermore you seem to be assuming that the universe has some innate intelligence. You act as if this is some obvious fact that anyone with a brain will quickly realize, but in fact it is not at all clear what you have in mind here or why anyone should believe it.

>News flash, no one knows how the world works. If you think you do you're only perpetuating someone else's illusion.

Yes, nobody knows how the world works, we're all working on that. However it seems like you've got some presuppositions you're taking for granted, in effect doing exactly what you're criticizing others for doing.

>>7013355
You really needs a square for using meaningless intensifiers like "really" and "truly." Oh wait, that's the center square.

>>7013355
Quantum physics are wrong.

>>7013305
What is "alive" but the term we apply to certain configurations of stuff?

You seem to be assuming that the universe must have some innate alive-ness from which other life springs, while intelligent people realize that "alive" is a basically arbitrary label. Is an amoeba alive? Probably. A virus? Not sure. Fire? It almost seems to qualify. When does something die, exactly? When it stops functioning? How do we define that? The boundary between "life" and "death" or at least "not-life" is rather fuzzy because the concept of "life" is not a self-evident truth in the first place.

>>7013359
>From the perspective of materialism itself the universe is not "dead", in a sense the distinction between dead and alive is not meaningful, rather the statement is that the universe is comprised of matter etc.
The perspective is held by the person examining a theory, not by the theory itself. I can understand why this would confuse you.

>You have not demonstrated why that is absurd, and furthermore you seem to be assuming that the universe has some innate intelligence. You act as if this is some obvious fact that anyone with a brain will quickly realize, but in fact it is not at all clear what you have in mind here or why anyone should believe it.
Why it is absurd? Well, how do you make chemical interact in seemingly intelligent ways if all you have is matter? How do components, which materialism clearly states have no intrinsic intelligence to them, add up to intelligence? How is this not an absurd proposition? Well, I'll tell you how. It's because people assume we have it figured out. Or someone has figured it out, or at the very least will at some point in time. But what does materialism tell us? Without branching into too many topics, let's just bottom it out on the fact that it tells us absolutely completely nothing. Under its authority, we are completely lost and we might as well kill ourselves. And don't mistake this for promoting a god or some kind of universal authority. The contrasting theory to materialism that I have is one that states that intelligence of some sort is embedded into reality itself. If a thing is a sum of its parts, then materialism explains a lot. But it does not explain sentient beings.

>However it seems like you've got some presuppositions you're taking for granted, in effect doing exactly what you're criticizing others for doing.
No. I'm merely exploring alternatives. I'm not claiming I know the truth myself. I'm arguing against the dogmatic materialistic view which in my view is completely absurd.

>>7013329
If you are not willing to drag qualia into it then you have no grounds for argument whatsoever. All you're really stating is that "materalism is not a science." No one ever said it was.

Materialism does not attempt to answer either of those questions. It takes the existence of matter and space as axioms.

>>7013384
Every theory starts with a proposition. Sometimes the proposition itself is absurd, but people believe it because it's comforting to perpetuate the status quo.

>>7013381
>>7013103
>>7012737
so close mang

>>7013404
I'm afraid of public transportation and traveling in general. Does that make me transphobic?

>>7013305
>Because it states that the universe is essentially dead, which is paradoxical given that it gives rise to sentient beings like me and you.
How is that paradoxical? Living things are made up of, and developed from, nonliving things. To say that the universe is alive simply makes no sense. Life is defined based on how it interacts with it's environment. The universe does not interact with an environment.

>Ad hominem means you attack me personally instead of attacking my argument like someone who'd actually be interested in it would.
No, an ad hominem is an argument of the form "You're wrong because you're stupid". But stating "you're stupid because you're wrong" is not the same thing and not an ad hominem. If you actually thought for a second about what makes an argument fallacious instead of reacting to every insult with "ad hominem", maybe people would take you more seriously. Retard.

>>7013446
>No, an ad hominem is an argument of the form "You're wrong because you're stupid". But stating "you're stupid because you're wrong" is not the same thing and not an ad hominem. If you actually thought for a second about what makes an argument fallacious instead of reacting to every insult with "ad hominem", maybe people would take you more seriously. Retard.
Ad hominem.

P.S.: screw you and your false sense of understanding semantics

ctrl+f: "bell" and "bohm"
0 results.
im disappointed sci

>>7013449
He has a point, though. The term "ad hominem" has been corrupted to mean "name calling in general", but both its literal translation and its significance as a fallacy is as he stated. Randomly calling someone a name is not a logical fallacy; it's completely tangential to logic.

>>7013404
>That image
Back to tumblr you go!

>>7013462
No. That's your interpretation. And the guy telling me what an ad hominem is after calling me an idiot multiple times deserves a medal for dedication.

>>7013470
Reading comprehension, mate. I was very specific with what I said.

>>7013463
>implying you've been here longer than me
2006 mofuckka

>entropy doesn't exist

It's like a first year physics student is trying to understand philosophy

>>7013474
I know you were, but you were still acting as an authority on words. Are you an authority on words? The very simple fact is that the guy got pissed off at me and instead of clearly saying at least WHY he got pissed off, that was his sole position - being pissed off. And now you're getting pissed off at me for using a specific term as if the term is controversial and not the way he reacted.

>>7013477
>implying philosophy requires any understanding

Philosophy is just baseless opinions, so OP will fit in perfectly.

>>7013381
>Well, how do you make chemical interact in seemingly intelligent ways if all you have is matter?
Ummm... the same way they do now? Your brain is made of matter. If it is made of something else, please prove it scientifically. Until then you are just another babbling retard.

>How do components, which materialism clearly states have no intrinsic intelligence to them, add up to intelligence?
How do components, which materialism clearly states have no intrinsic ability to transport objects, add up to a car? How does hydrogen and oxygen, gases at room temperature, combine to form water, a liquid at room temperature? You seem to have the logical abilities of a caveman. Components do not necessarily have the attributes of the object they make up. Intelligence is an emergent phenomenon that requires a specific combination of parts, just like any machine with a special function.

Please stop posting, you are spewing stupidity.

>>7013481
How is "he has a point" and justifying my reasoning acting as an authority on words?

Him calling you a name was unnecessary, but you thinking it invalidates his argument is the only fallacy going on here?

>>7013477
what does entropy got to do with all this, you fucktard

>>7013483
I forgot how silly this board is, thanks for reminding me

>>7013484
Is a car intelligent?

What kind of an argument is that.

I will stop posting, but only because I can't bear the stupidity of you people here anymore. Also I can't even see the logic behind all that name calling. Is it supposed to make me convert my opinion? Highlight your authority on these matters? What is it supposed to do?

>>7013489
Look, you seem to be enjoying this conversation on semantics but I don't necessarily care about it as much as you seem to. That guy is a moron and there's not much I can do about it. His reasoning involves nitpicking about semantics and generally being outwardly angry at pretty much everything. I refuse to even go into conversation with someone like that.

>>7013481
All I stated was an emprical fact. You're an idiot. That is not fallacious.

>>7013496
Randomness, disorder if you will, arises as a result of increasing entropy, and is a very real and tangible concept. You are an idiot

Randomness and free choice (in any real sense) are completely incompatible.

In a deterministic world, you make your own determined action based on your sense of what has happened previously.

With a world in which nondeterministic, random things occur, order and sense are gone, choices are now out of control, because they would be definition be deterministic.

Determinism = cause and effect is legitimate
Non-determinism = cause and effect have no place.

Which do you prefer? Clearly the first is the better one for all things in which we make use of cause and effect, i.e. basically everything.

I cannot understand why people look at determinism in a negative way.

>>7013514
Wrong. An increase of entropy does not imply randomness at all. Can't tell if trolling.

>>7013506
>Is a car intelligent?
I think what you should be questioning is whether you have intelligence, since even a child should have been able to understand that simple analogy, yet you failed.

Intelligence is simply a function of the brain, a machine made out of matter. The chemical interactions of the matter in the brain produces intelligence. Your argument is akin to asking how the components of a car cause it to transport people when the components themselves can't transport people.

Enjoy wallowing in a useless and obviously wrong theory, while "materialists" continue to actually figure things out.

>>7013521
because it's sad to think that we are determined by physical laws. people want to imagine they can make choices. sad

>>7013506

>Is a car intelligent? What kind of an argument is that.

Not even him, but a pretty reasonable analogy. Complex systems can have properties or capabilities that are not possessed by any individual component of the system, but the system those constituents create can be capable of something more. Understanding this allows us to look at thinking systems like human minds as emerging from the complex interaction of the constituents that comprise us. Whereas it appears to me that your alternative is rather to assume that the intelligence of humans is representative of some deeper property of the universe, which is a much bigger claim, and I don't think a necessary one.

>>7013521
Determinism is incompatible with free choice. If determinism is correct, then every action you take is determined by causes that occurred billions of years before you were ever born.

>>7013530
>Intelligence is simply a function of the brain, a machine made out of matter
Prove it.

>The chemical interactions of the matter in the brain produces intelligence.
Prove it.

>Your argument is akin to asking how the components of a car cause it to transport people when the components themselves can't transport people.
No, that's a misinterpretation. A stupid one at that.

>Enjoy wallowing in a useless and obviously wrong theory, while "materialists" continue to actually figure things out.
Making conclusions about people you don't know about.

Keep calling me stupid. Maybe that will assure you.

>>7013535
Again I will ask; does a car have intelligence? Does your computer have intelligence? Your reductionist argument doesn't work. Or at least it doesn't work the way you'd expect it too.

>>7013524
Yes it does. What does the word randomness mean to you? Entropy is the quantized possible microstates of any system, an increase in which results in greater disorder (randomness) of said system. Paired with the Second and Third laws of thermodynamics, any process that exists results in a universal increase in net entropy, thus increasing the net disorder of the universe (randomness).

Undergrads are generally taught that disorder is entropy, which is not true but close enough for the purposes of their thermodynamics but is an important distinction to make at higher levels. By the laws of the universe, any deterministic action must result in an increase in net entropy, thus increasing total randomness of the universe.

You are an idiot and will make a terrible scientist if you ever finish that undergrad degree you're working on. Please stop trying to do philosophy, you are terrible at it.

>>7013541

>Intelligence is simply a function of the brain, a machine made out of matter

>Prove it.

What, do you think it's made out of magic?

>>7013530
Since you seem to have all the answers, I have some for you.

If the brain is a machine, who designed it?

All machines require a designer. They don't magically appear out of thin air. So who designed the brain?

>>7013544
It seems like you're assuming that intelligence should be taken as some special property that cannot be understood analogous to anything else, and I assume that's why you just keep repeating "intelligence", am I right?

>>7012737
*holds up spork*

>>7013548
I didn't say that. You did.

>>7013552
God, of course, what's your point?

>>7013552
God

>>7013553
Well CAN IT be understood in terms of something else? Do you have a formula for intelligence? If you do, good. Then you've also explained things like genius and creativity. In which case please share it with the rest of us.

>>7013541
When we fiddle with the material structure of the brain, it has consequences on the functioning of our minds and intelligence. That appears to imply that our capacity for intelligence is dependent on those physical structures. I suppose you might argue that the physical brain mediates consciousness without producing it directly, but it isn't clear to me why such claims are necessary or useful.

>>7013565
Are those things mysteries? I was not aware that they are.

>>7013541
>Intelligence is simply a function of the brain, a machine made out of matter
>Prove it.
Already been done. It's a scientific fact that the brain is the source of intelligence and is made of solely matter (it's been dissected numerous times). Pick up a biology or neuroscience textbook sometime, you might actually learn something.

>No, that's a misinterpretation. A stupid one at that.
Care to explain your argument then? Or are you now aware that you have no logic?

>Making conclusions about people you don't know about.
I made a conclusion from your posts, retard.

>>7013559
I said it's made of matter. How is matter magic?

>>7013560
>>7013561
>2015
>magic

/x/-------------------->

>>7013552
>If the brain is a machine, who designed it?
No one. Why would you think that machines need to be designed? There's this process called evolution that explains how emergent order and complexity can arise randomly, without intelligence from simple parts

>>7013571
>When we fiddle with the material structure of the brain, it has consequences on the functioning of our minds and intelligence. That appears to imply that our capacity for intelligence is dependent on those physical structures. I suppose you might argue that the physical brain mediates consciousness without producing it directly, but it isn't clear to me why such claims are necessary or useful.
False deduction. A house has a roof. When the roof has holes, the house gets wet. Therefore, the roof rains.

>Are those things mysteries? I was not aware that they are.
Ever heard of the hard problem of consciousness?

>>7013575
>Already been done. It's a scientific fact that the brain is the source of intelligence and is made of solely matter (it's been dissected numerous times). Pick up a biology or neuroscience textbook sometime, you might actually learn something.
Citations needed.

>Care to explain your argument then? Or are you now aware that you have no logic?
No.

>I made a conclusion from your posts, retard.
Good job.

>>7013546
You, sir, are being blinded by what you've been erroneously taught in physics. You made up this relation between entropy and randomness when it's actually the opposite. I'll make a simply example for dummies like you: say you burn CO2, creating an obvious increase of entropy. The residual molecules won't be dispersed randomly, the position in time could be calculated even before the explosion if we managed to have all the factors that would influence in the dispersion.

Idiot.

>>7013584
Machines that design themselves. Sounds pretty intelligent to me.

>>7013552
>the brain needed to be designed

>>7013560
>>7013552

>>7013588
>False deduction. A house has a roof. When the roof has holes, the house gets wet. Therefore, the roof rains.

Might be a reasonable deduction if made by a person who had never left his house, since he'd be using the evidence he has. The implication being that, you believe there is a piece of evidence as illuminating to our understanding of the mind as would be walking outside for the first time for a person born indoors. What is that evidence?

>Ever heard of the hard problem of consciousness?

I was not aware things like creativity are addressed by that problem. Mind paraphrasing for me? It isn't clear to me what you are arguing for at all or what your evidence is, unless you don't have a specific argument but rather are seeking to simply point out flaws in a materialist/physicalist view. That'd be fine, but I struggle to see your point.

>>7013588
>False deduction. A house has a roof. When the roof has holes, the house gets wet. Therefore, the roof rains.
The only reason that can be called false is because another factor was found to explain the rain. What is your alternative to the brain producing intelligence?

>Citations needed.
Literally any biology or neuroscience textbook.

>No.
So you have no logical argument. That's what I thought.

>>7013595
Where did you get "machines designing themselves" from what I said? In fact I specifically said "without intelligence". Learn how to read, retard.

>>7013595
>certain molecules in certain processes make copies of themselves

>must means the molecules are intelligent

>>7013604
>unless you don't have a specific argument but rather are seeking to simply point out flaws in a materialist/physicalist view.
That's precisely what I'm doing.

>but I struggle to see your point.
There is no point except the one that materialism is dogmatic and you all take it for granted without considering it rationally first. If you can see the logic in materialism, fine - I do not.

>>7013606
>What is your alternative to the brain producing intelligence?
I'm not claiming any answers. I'm arguing against yours.

>Literally any biology or neuroscience textbook.
Now you're just talking out of your ass. Give me citations or shut up.

>So you have no logical argument. That's what I thought.
I have an argument that apparently pisses you off to no end. I don't quite see why but at this point I find it enjoyable to tease you at least.

>>7013595
>self replication program
>sounds pretty intelligent to me

>>7013592
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_demon

You are a troll, you are trolling me

>>7013610
>things design themselves without intelligence
I don't even understand how you find this logical. But at least I don't go so low as to call you names. That only shows insecurity on your part.

>>7013620
>molecules make copies of themselves
>after N iterations, bam, a giraffee
Yeah, no. Also Einstein was a deeply spiritual person. As were most great scientists.

>>7013588
>the hard problem of consciousness

>>7013623
>I'm not claiming any answers. I'm arguing against yours.
Yes, that's what I'm saying. The only reason you can say that a roof being the cause of rain is ridiculous is because you know of a more sensible alternative. Since you won't and can't provide an alternative to material intelligence, your argument is moot.

>Now you're just talking out of your ass. Give me citations or shut up.
How is a textbook not a citation? Literally any biology textbook will tell you that the brain's chemical interactions cause thought.

>I have an argument that apparently pisses you off to no end. I don't quite see why but at this point I find it enjoyable to tease you at least.
You are mistaking amusement with anger. You are essentially a clown to me. It's just much more funny because you aren't pretending.

>>7013631
>Muhh Einstein was spiritual so magic is real

>>7013624
>a program is intelligent
Grass is more intelligent than any program we know of today, no matter how complex. Grass has "real" intelligence in the sense that it adopts to its environment, something no program, no matter how clever the programmer, can achieve today. So suck it up, mr. irony.

>>7013637
>Literally any biology textbook will tell you that the brain's chemical interactions cause thought.
You are a fucking idiot, you know that?

Tell me more so I can laugh.

Citations, fucker. Do you have them?

>>7013623
>That's precisely what I'm doing

Okay, but I guess I find it hard to engage that style of argumentation when it isn't accompanied by a concrete alternative. It seems like you're just saying "That doesn't make sense" but then not backing it up with a well-formed rebuttal, which doesn't seem to have much value, except in forcing people to articulate why they believe what they do, which I have tried to do here.

>There is no point except the one that materialism is dogmatic and you all take it for granted without considering it rationally first. If you can see the logic in materialism, fine - I do not.

I've already given you an example of why I find a materialist/physicalist view acceptable, and you claimed that it is a false deduction without elaborating on why it is false. While there may be evidence out there which makes a non-materialist view more tenable, I have yet to see that evidence, so at this point in time I find the materialist view to be sufficient in accounting for the world as I currently understand it.

>>7013631
>I don't understand science
>So it must be false and magic must exist

Nice argument from ignorance

>>7013631
>things design themselves without intelligence
>I don't even understand how you find this logical. But at least I don't go so low as to call you names. That only shows insecurity on your part.
I don't even understand where you got "machines design themselves" from anything I said, and your repetition of it just makes you look more stupid. Maybe you're a masochist and are just pretending to be incredibly dense.

>>7013643
dat No-true-intelligence fallacy

>>7013645
Do you know what a citation is?

>>7013645
>thoughts come from magic

>>7013646
It's a false deduction because it gives you the contextual answer. And contextual answers are ill suited to consider "good enough" for any kind of reasonable philosophical position. Like I said, this position seems to satisfy materialists. But that's either because they don't think about it far enough, or they're simply too stupid to even attempt to do so.

>>7013657
Of course he doesn't

>>7013631
>denying scientific facts because they don't emotionally resonate with you
>appeal to authority

How old are you? Does mommy know you're on an 18+ website?

>>7013662
>>7013657
>I can't prove my own statements, that's why I will resort to name calling, works for me!

>>7013666
>philosophical

>>7013670
>I'll just project a little, that'll show 'em!
Yeah, no. I'm 28. And I would gladly argue with any of you if you weren't so immature to begin with.

>>7013668

You mean there was a serious attempt to turn this quasi-science thread into an actual scientific discussion??

With citations and all????

*grabs popcorn and prepares for show*

>>7013671
>dat shifting the burden of proof

Prove magic exists, I'll wait

>>7013671
>I can't read and I'm uneducated, look at me!

>>7013678

>one guy literally purporting magic
>thinks this is an actual scientific discussion

>>7013677
Where were you during Biology class? Did you just miss the class on evolution or are you a redneck?

>>7013679
I will repeat this for the Nth time now. I'm not claiming anything. You all failed at basic conversation, and most importantly, you failed at providing solid arguments for your own theories.

>>7013684
>let's greentext some more, it's more fun than actual discussion!

>>7013475
>2006 mofuckka

>has been on a Taiwanese historical fiction website for 9 years
>is proud of it

>>7013694
>actual discussion
>4chan
newfriend pls go

>>7013690
This is not about evolution, so stop dragging it into the conversation. No, I'm not a redneck.

>>7013690
>did you just miss the class on evolution
>are you a redneck

>>7013701
Well you see, rednecks don't have the class to begin with.

>>7013666

>It's a false deduction because it gives you the contextual answer

I'm unaware that any human can ever form a conclusion that isn't contextual: Anything we ever assert is bound by the evidence available to us and our ability to interpret that evidence. I believe that this applies to literally anything a human can ever state. I see no alternative and you have yet to provide a suggested one.

>And contextual answers are ill suited to consider "good enough" for any kind of reasonable philosophical position.

Can you give me an example of a non-contextual answer, and tell me why contextual answers are not suited to philosophical discussion? In general, such answers are all we have to work with. Every human is bound by their own context, but we make progress by recognizing those limitations and working within them the best we can, which is always a work in progress.

>But that's either because they don't think about it far enough, or they're simply too stupid to even attempt to do so.

I think they probably realize more than you give them credit for, but if this is your typical way of engaging with them I can understand why materialists are hostile towards you, because your way of arguing is more or less to just say "That's wrong!" without ever providing an intelligent rebuttal or alternative or suggestion beyond re-asserting that you don't agree.

>>7013694
>I will repeat this for the Nth time now. I'm not claiming anything.
Well there you have it. OP has no point and is just wasting time with retarded nonsense.

/thread

>>7013689
Either provide citations for your claim, or you're saying bullshit. Give me the article that provides evidence and states without a shadow of doubt the exact processes that give a sentient being its conscious awareness. Do that, or fuck off.

>>7013700
You're then one who asked how intelligence could exist without being designed, you illiterate shithead. Your continuous incoherency and contradiction is hilarious.

>>7013694
If you have no-counter claim, then you literally have no argument, and are just shouting "You're wrong!" brainlessly. You apparently can't even describe why a materialist view is wrong. You just think it must be, and are stating as much over and over.

>>7013704
>I'm unaware that any human can ever form a conclusion that isn't contextual
No problem can be solved on the level it's created. All problems are solved on higher levels. Don't give me that bullshit.

>Can you give me an example of a non-contextual answer, and tell me why contextual answers are not suited to philosophical discussion?
Do you really want to go into a discussion on ontology on a /sci/ board with me? Really?

>I think they probably realize more than you give them credit for, but if this is your typical way of engaging with them I can understand why materialists are hostile towards you, because your way of arguing is more or less to just say "That's wrong!" without ever providing an intelligent rebuttal or alternative or suggestion beyond re-asserting that you don't agree.
Actually I'm providing plenty of arguments against it, and none of which have been addressed so far.

>>7013714
>it's wrong to exploit wrong theories
Funny. I thought we were scientists.

>>7013700
This conversation is about a guy whose life is literally a testament to materialism, acting like it isn't.

It is about a fucking faggot armchair philosopher bitching that magic must exist, because MUUH SCIENCE IS TOO HARD.

>>7013723
You're the one claiming magic, silly.

The easiest thing is to hypnotize yourself with what you think I'm saying.

What I'm saying is that YOUR position falls apart when you look at it rationally and from every conceivable angle.

>>7013721
>I reject science
>but I'm a scientist

>>7013717
>No problem can be solved on the level it's created. All problems are solved on higher levels. Don't give me that bullshit.

So contextual problems must be solved with a non-contextual solution? What human is capable of a non-contextual, absolute solution? Or is your implication that such a thing is not possible, and we need to resort to God, or what?

>Do you really want to go into a discussion on ontology on a /sci/ board with me? Really?

It might help illuminate what you're trying to communicate, assuming you aren't a sophisticated troll.

>Actually I'm providing plenty of arguments against it, and none of which have been addressed so far.

I haven't noticed any so far, would you kindly point out even one?

>it's wrong to exploit wrong theories
>Funny. I thought we were scientists.

You aren't actually pointing out -why- anything is wrong as far as I can see, that's the problem. You're simply stating that a view is wrong without offering an alternative analysis or solution.

>>7013726
>You're the one claiming magic

You seem to have gotten your Anons confused faggot. I bet you get a lot of stuff confused.

>>7013730
>implying faggot McDumbShit even made a coherent argument against materialism

>implying he didn't just say MUUH FEELS

>>7013355
Judging from the content of this card I'm getting the message that /sci/ is 4chan's tumblr colony.

>>7013730
>So contextual problems must be solved with a non-contextual solution? What human is capable of a non-contextual, absolute solution? Or is your implication that such a thing is not possible, and we need to resort to God, or what?
You know the theory of global and local maxima? Same thing. You need higher level functions to accurately describe lower level functions. Whatever you seem to think my position is, it's wrong. We don't need to resort to god or any kind of authority. What we need to do is pick apart the current dogmas and create theories that better match our observation and our reasoning. Right now we're riding on the Newtonian description of the world. It's wrong, it's been proven wrong, and yet people still take is as the default view.

>It might help illuminate what you're trying to communicate, assuming you aren't a sophisticated troll.
I think it might take way too much energy and probably result in an exponentially increasing attempts at name calling by other participants of this thread. I think I'll skip. Maybe on /lit/, they seem to be far more intelligent on the whole for some reason.

>I haven't noticed any so far, would you kindly point out even one?
Materialism states that a thing is a sum of its parts. If parts aren't intelligent on their own, then how do they form patterns that appear (to us) intelligent? This is the essential argument. There's more if you just scroll through the thread and ignore all the name calling.

>You aren't actually pointing out -why- anything is wrong as far as I can see, that's the problem. You're simply stating that a view is wrong without offering an alternative analysis or solution.
Because it gives us the illusion of understanding something greater than us. It also fails completely to take into account the observer.

>>7013739
Implying you made a coherent argument _for_ it.

Look, we can call each other names all night if you wish. It doesn't change the fact that you're indulged in a dogma, probably imprinted onto you by your parents and education, and I'm the one trying to dispel that dogma.

So go ahead and call me some more names and we'll call it a night.

>>7013764
>guy on a computer bashing materialism

>>7013764
>call me some more names

You're a dumbfuck

>>7013768
>more immature arguments
It's like this is some kind of place where frustrated teens come to vent.

>>7013764

>Literally everything mankind knows about has a material basis

>You didn't make a case for materialism

>>7013756
>You know the theory of global and local maxima?
If by "theory" you mean high school level calculus?

OP confirmed for underage faggot talking about shit he has no clue about.

>>7013777
Materialism is a philosophical position, dumbo.

>>7013774
>implying he was wrong

Are you not on a computer bashing materialism?

>>7013781
>materialism is about coffee

Well fuck off then

>>7013756

I understand if you don't want to get into an extremely nitty-gritty argument here, but it seems that the vagueness of your mode of expression basically requires it at this point.

If you can think of a few random links which usefully discuss some of the stuff you're trying to communicate, post them and I may well read them. I am in fact open to considering how a materialist/physicalist view is insufficient, and while I don't think that it is perfect, as far as I've seen it's the most sensible, and I am unlikely to shift my views until presented with an alternative view that accounts for the same data, and more, while avoiding pitfalls of the previous.

I have no qualms about accepting tentative hypotheses about the world. Materialism/physicalism generally makes sense to me as I understand things so far, and I generally accept those views, though I understand they are works in progress. I definitely want to hear good arguments against that view, but I'm specifically interested in solutions. I want to see concrete hypotheses that usefully accomplish something the previous ones did not. I don't feel like anti-materialist arguments generally provide this, though.

>>7013781

>>7013782
This place is really retarded.

>haha, computers exist, materialism is proven
This is so stupid it hurts.

Just, ... you know what? You're all right, materialism is super. You disproved all my points with your flashing intelligence, now allow me kindly to remove myself from your palace of high reasoning.

>>7013789
This

>>7013792
>implying you had points

>>7013792
>>7013756

>>7013407
ahahahahaha

>>7013794

This post is the result of stupidity entering the level of intelligence it was prevented from achieving until ignorance of such calibre was
Permanently Retracted

>>7013800

but no less entertaining all the same.

>>7013801
Die.

>>7013789
[citation needed]

>>7013788
Try to ask yourself, and I mean yourself, without consulting any external sources of information, these two questions:
- what is matter
- what is space

Continue following any philosophical ground you find reasonable. But please consider these questions on your own.

>>7013756
>Materialism states that a thing is a sum of its parts

>It also fails completely to take into account the observer

Nope. lrn2quantummechanics.

You don't know science. You don't know what we demonstrably know (and don't know) about reality. You aren't even capable of serious discussion about it, because you're so fucking unaware.

But you still come up here, with your garbage philosophy and pretend that your opinion is worth anything. You are the reason modern day philosophers are looked down upon.

>>7013800
>>7013813

>>7013830
>quantum mechanics

>>>/x/
I don't believe in cats being dead and alive at the same time.

>>7013830
I'm not a philosopher. I philosophize as a hobby. My job is strictly scientific, and so is my education.

Feeling stupid yet?

Does QM really have randomness, or is it that we just don't understand it enough yet?

>>7013825
>what is space
>what is matter

Why do you ask such trivial questions and pretend they are hard?

>>7013839
>thinks Schrodinger cat implies a cat is dead and alive

>doesn't realize the reason we have modern computer is quantum mechanics

You are too cute

>>7013830
Quantum mechanics disproves materialism. Quantum mechanics implies that consciousness effects reality.

>>7013841
>crazy bullshit

Whatever makes you sleep better at night phil faggot

>>7013843

We don't know. But if it doesn't have randomness, then that means even weirder stuff is going on.

>>7013858
Good projection, captain.

>>7013856
Misconceptions of Quantum Mechanics: The Post

>>7013853
>implying Schrödinger didn't literally say the cat is dead and alive at the same time

>>7013856
>Quantum mechanics implies that consciousness effects reality

>>7013871
>thinks Schrodinger actually thought the cat was dead and alive

>never heard of an proof by contradiction or proof by absurdity

You literally have no fucking idea what you are talking about son. Schrodinger cat is a proof by absurdity, demonstrating how stupid it is to try to use quantum mechanics directly for macroscopic objects.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrxqTtiWxs4

>>7013901

>>7013901
But it is a faulty proof, since it assumes that any concious interaction would be needed, when in practice it is the Geiger Müller counter which measures the radiation and kills the cat.

>>7014011
No, the proof is fine. It perfectly discredits what it was intended to discredit; a particular notion of "scaling up" quantum mech to macros scales.

Of course the Geiger counter would cause collapse. But that isn't the problem Schrodinger was trying to address. No one has a problem with the wave function collapse from a Geiger counter. The experiment becomes trivial.

Compatibilism

>>7014110
Compatibilism is bullshit.

>I have no banana
>I have an apple
>haha, I'll redefine banana to mean apple
>now I have a banana
>am I smrat yet?

>>7013483
Can you falsify that statement?