/sci/ - Science & Math

>"It's not my fault I didn't study for biostats, I have ADHD!"

>I'm actually smart. I just don't try.

>my grade was bad because I had a blackout

>'S-should I tell the people on my dissertation defense committee that I suffer from an anxiety disorder?'

>I'm really good at math, it's just that integrals are scary

>>7679657
> you dont have to be good at maths to be smart

>OMG the teacher yelled at me for sleeping in class doesn't he know i'm SICK?!
>Never mind the fact that I always sleep in class, this time, he was unjustified for being mad at me!
>the outrage!

>>7679705
>I'm really good at maths -- I can calculate integrals

>I LOVE science
>So you take genuine interest in hard science?
>No I just watch big dumb comic book movies

ITT: Projecting

>"Muh science is beatiful"
>fail all fucking exams and labs
>"scores don't determine my intelligence"

>I got a C in immunology because my alcoholic boyfriend put me in the hospital and it took me a year to get back to 80% brain function

>>7679735
Wait what?

>>7679729
>projecting this hard

>I'm smart but I have a demyelinating disorder so I need extra time on exams

>I am a religious person and cannot attend that exman on <insert random religious holyday here> I demand another chance

>"I can't attend lab meeting because my mom and dad and identical twin sister died in a car crash and I must attend the funeral"

OK well enjoy not being listed as an author on my poster.

>>7679765
There's 'fun' in 'funeral', so you know they be lying

>in real life you can just look it up man
>gets shit on during an open book exam
undergrad engineerfag logic

>>7679744
>implying 100% of /sci/ isn't mentally ill as fuck so it's projecting by default

How many of you suffer from depreshun again? :^)

>>7680165
Helium :^)

>>7679657
>>>/b/
>>>/trash/
Fuck off. This isn't /sci/

>>7679657
>dumb but motivated

No, being in STEM doesn't automatically mean that you're intelligent. Any energetic and motivated average IQ dumb fuck can be successful in their STEM field provided they put the work in. I, personally, am took fucking intelligent to have not realized the complete meaningless of life. Why would I be wasting a life of pleasure to instead live an anti-hedonistic boring shitty lifestyle for the sole reason of trying to impress my dumb friends / family who think I'm smart just because I am involved in STEM?

>>7680380
>>7680448
>autism
Seek help.

>>7680380
But it is /sci/. Everyone here thinks they're hot shit but when shown a kid who got into MIT at 16 it's all "its cos hes brown" or "I'm way smarter than him I just can't be bothered"

>I have a bad teacher/lecturer/etc.

>>7680448
>advocates hedonism

But I AM smart and lazy, that's why I'm a math grad student.

>>7679657
The statement makes the assumption that smart people are somehow hard working. A person doesn't have to be hardworking to be smart. It's like saying how an athletic person who runs a lot has to be good at hand-to-hand combat.

Your meme is invalid senpai.

>>7681092
Ayy nigga, the thread is about excuses from dumb people why they fail at things while holding up the facade of being smart. Your welcome. Enjoy the memes! :^)

>>7680162
HAHA! Same for take home exams

Heard it for 12 years of education from basically every teacher. Ended up a nobody.

>>7681463

and its your fault only, sucks to be you man

>I didn't have enough time on the test / the test was too long

>>7679657
see related:
>>>7681718
>>7681718

>>7679657
One of my first year engineering teaches told us that the best engineers are smart and lazy. They find the easiest, fastest, cheapest effective solution.
I'm not sure if this is true or not but I'm inclined to believe someone with 40 years in the field.

>>7681759
>They find the easiest, fastest, cheapest effective solution.
that's the point of engineering, what's the point of finding the most convoluted difficult solution?

>>7681777
I think he was basically trying to say "don't get caught up trying to re-invent the wheel every time." Apparently a big problem for rookie engineers is that they over complicate things a lot. So be lazy=be efficient. Or something of that nature

>>7680448
I can't even fucking tell if this is bait.

If not, you're a whole lot more stupid than you think faggot.

>>7681092
It's the fact there are a group of average people, who are marginally better at articulating their thoughts, and are highly egotistical. They believe they're smart despite having achieved nothing that reflects intelligence, aside from a few online iq tests. The harsh truth they don't realize is that there's nothing about them that's above average, other than narcissism, and their heads being stuck in their assholes.

>>7680448
think harder dumb dumb

Anyone else like me, gets shit grades because they're lazy, but accepts that it's my own stupid ass fault and doesn't try to blame anyone else or call myself smart?

>>7679710
>you dont have to be good at maths to be smart
Such an affirmative absolute, what an autistic anon

>>7680448
>have not realized the complete meaningless of life. Why would I be wasting a life of pleasure to instead live an anti-hedonistic boring shitty lifestyle
Because death is the great denominator of all

Whether you lived a life of constant partying and hookies or some slum-dwelling hobo, the end result is the same. Death nullifies anything you ever did or were.

TOO MUCH TROLL IN THREAD
LEGIT REPLY CAUTION:

Imagine a gps map of your everyday movements. If youre lazy you will notice you might repeat a single shape day to day. If so your brain is no longer thinking but creating the illusion of thought. You are in habitual patterns. Its not laziness, its the boredom of repeating the same damn process day to day. Pick a day, go mia. Go outside, walk around the block, then wander somewhere youve never been. Go on foot, take money, get lost. Then find your way back. Do things youve never done before. Change it up.

Dumb people need routine to be motivated and productive.

Smart people need entropy to motivate their vessels of the physical plane and taste purpley goodness of dopemine success.

Which are you?

WAKE


THE


FUCK


UP

>>7682412
you just proved his point. not that I necessarily agree with him, but the fact remains that he has a point.

if he understands the true value of life (that is, there is no value) and decides to indulge in his vices and live a life of degeneracy, what proof is there that his way of life is wrong and ours is right?

>>7679657
It's people's omnipresent excuse to keep going, and feeling good. It feels safe. Almost nothing is more powerful than the idea "I could if I really tried. If I really wanted."

I think people spend too much time thinking about their relative intelligence. A lot of it stems from a desire to understand the pecking order, who to push, how, and when. As well as the desperate search for identity and one's function in the world.

Personally though, I can't say I've ever met anyone who was really, truly, undeniable net better than me. And part of me has been waiting for it to happen. I think if you're spending a lot of time feeling that you are up against people like this, that's energy that would be better spent identifying why and fixing it, or at least coming to some sense of peace with yourself. There are 3 main means for improvements. Tapping intuition based logic, reverse engineering, or emulation (which is a form of the former).

The only real deficit I have, and know I have, has to do with spatial transforms and reasoning. I can't fold paper in complicated ways. I just can't do it. I've tried, I've tried to learn how, but I just can't seem to easily understand how I'm making something transition through states, and what those states will afford later on. It's like there's some blind spot and I can barely understand what it already is, much less how I can change it. Making those paper book covers in high school was awful. It's a hole in my mental faculties, and paper is one of those things I can't find an indirect approach to get around it.

Also. Chronic pain. That's my own internal omnipresent excuse for being hacked together and artificially limited at a lot of tasks.

>>7682510
Death is not the end of your existance. It simply is not. Nobody can ever explain after-death. Think of it this way:
-if you can use your senses or words/analogies/metaphors to explain post-death, its wrong.
-if you're a robot (running on batteries), you will never know what its like to not have electricity.
You can program a robot and tell it an idea of what its like to not have electricity (lets teach it blackness and inability to action) and everytime the robot tries to kill itself (unplug its power source) its cmos battery will run the script of our preprogrammed idea of "death". If no electricity is running through the robot, it cannot store memories. Hence the robot can never know nor explain whats its like to not have electricity. More so, if it does "explain" whats its like to not have electricity, it would be using electricity to explain no-electricity so it would have to be using electricity to remember not having it... yea paradoxicle and cannot happen.

Furtherfoknmore,

THOUGHT vs KNOWLEDGE
Thought is rather limited
Knowledge is infinite
Thought takes time
Knowledge is instant

When you die your biological material is wasted. Your senses fail, your brain stops firing. You no longer think, but yet are still part of the universe. Your concious continues, but your thoughts fade away with the biological vessel. Your concious is all knowing, it is the knowledge of "no-electricity". Your previous thoughts were the electricity. You are 2 but 1 at the same time. You were 2 sperms but made one brain. On, and off at the same time. This is starting to make sense but the depression will return when I remind you that not having electricity cant be explained with electricity. Still dont get it? Im using words and analogies to explain post-death while using pre-death to do so. Like I said, its probably wrong. But yet Im right about being wrong. Welcome to /sci/. The analygous girl in the other thread is pretty cute. ;_;

>>7682529
And if you think I was getting religious with the on/off theories then no. All religions are wrong because they use words and "electricity" to explain nolectricity. God cant think, he doesnt have a brain, he is not a he, and it is not a thing, nor is it omnipresent because if it would be it would have a measurable distance and it would contain itself in its own creation.

Ps. Find the turkey cache much fun

>>7682529
>Death is not the end of your existance.
It very probably is. The "I" I presently know I certainly don't expect to still be around, so there's no "your" to meaningfully speak of.

>Thought is rather limited
It depends on a limited machine. It depends on finite language as well.

>Knowledge is infinite
It isn't. Regardless of how you define knowledge, or what you believe can possess it. The brain is a finite thing, even if the universe isn't one's mental faculties will probably either cease to be able to store it, or cease to be able to perceive true novelty.

>Thought takes time
Maybe. Given that it's mechanical, it along with everything else certainly appears to. But that all implies we know a damn thing about time.

>Knowledge is instant
I don't really know what this is supposed to mean, but no. The above statement disallows this one from being true. Thought is mechanical. Knowledge is mechanical. Therefore, knowledge takes time. whether in a brain, a tree, or a rock. It takes time to be made. If it is to be recollected, it also takes time. To meaningfully exist in any given instant also requires time.

>Conscious
Dualism will likely never be able to be reconciled, just like solipsism. It's a logical consequence of what we are, and it's inseparable. The best it's going to get is unraveling time, and breaking down the brain's functions into mechanical terms.

>>7682547
By knowledge I meant existance. When you die you become seperated from the brain. You begin to simply EXIST and not "live". So if you exist you much be part of the entire universe or at least connected to it. Either way youre a part of it. You dont need to know anything because you ARE part of it. You are potential knowledge without a processor. When youre alive you are the processor and not the information.

>>7682560
I don't know if the body is just a proxy. I'm apt to think consciousness is a product of the brain.

But it doesn't really matter either way. Having a hard belief about consciousness is foolish. The idea is better toyed with, for fun, for the fuck of it, for whatever. Cuz ya just can't solve it. And ya just don't know. Maybe neuroscience will eventually have something to say about that, but I doubt it.

>>7682572
Everything is a "soul". You for example, were simply lucky that your particle became the nucleus of a sperm cell. Then you were lucky to take over an egg from which you took over a biological vessel. Your soul controls the subconsious and from their it controls the outside like a crane. The more you think, the more you(the soul) is using the crane. Surprised i made it sound so simple. Can a crane unbuild itself? (Not destroy, but unbuild)

Lulz, yes the "crane"(body) is made up of other souls.
Id like to believe that living a physical life does have some sort of implication on the original "soul" so when you return to the OG form youre not just the same particle. Idk. Thoughts?

>>7682583
>Everything is a "soul".
I'd be more apt to frame this as "everything is life". Therefore, everything is also dead and the thing is nullified to all things actually being neither. Life and death are an illusion, the framework is not meaningful beyond our own perspective. Or better described as some small bump in an otherwise grand gradient.

>The crane
Depends on the nature of what is actually controlling this crane, and what the crane is composed of. By what means is the body made a proxy, and where does this interaction, this bridging occur? Just as a real bridge connects two regions together at many points, this thing that might or might not transcend our material world, could easily do the same. There's always the possibility it does so in a way that breaks logic entirely and the mind can't even try to encompass, much less unravel.

The matter of the crane then gets even harder. What is it -really- controlling? Further, what is "you"? Where do you begin, where do you end? What is the body? Why is eg your heart "yours', yet the sun, which sustains your life equally, not one of your organs as well? This viewpoint makes the body sustaining your consciousness variable. A woodstove in winter becomes an organ as well. No longer do you only need glucose and nutrients, now you need wood to metabolize as well. If your environment changes too much in the wrong ways, you and your body cease to be.

Hell, the thing could be controlling everything else and only causing you to be you indirectly.

>does have some sort of implication on the original "soul"
A "well", which everything comes from, and everything returns to. This makes us, and all systems, but tiny gatherers. Meant to bring back information. Also, perhaps the universe loops infinitely and the only change is cumulative and stems from small bits of each life being retained. Same could go for objects.

Life seems more about macro structures than individual particles. The whole arrangement

>>7679710
>funnyjunk filename
>>>/out
>>>/trash/

>>7682601
Soul>HostSperm>Hostegg>GrowHost>UnlockHostAbilities>Controlhost>openhostcommandprompt>help

Cd vision : Opens eye structures
Cd smell : Opens nasal structures
cd Hearing :opens ear structures
etc
print thoughts (method) : transfer idea to physical object, drawing writing speak etc

Cd soul =! Cannot compute

Only way to exit the proxy is to destroy it completely, degration and all until the soul has nothing left to control but itself.
The proxy is only aware of what the proxy is designed to do. If the soul controls a wolfsperm the soul can eventually control a wolf. It will be restricted to the thoughts and actions of a wolf. We are just lucky that the preprogrammed human vessels are capable of such complex thinking and low level language.

Youre a radio, if you control a helicopter; you can fly. If you control a car, you can drive. If you control an android, you can do anything it was programmed to do.

Where does this bridging happen? Ayyy lmao im on 4chan. If I'd know I would be mega famous. In theory we would be able to selectively insert select soul to select sperm and "reincarnate souls". Sure memories would be reset, and the souls would be dependant on the newly porvided host proxies... but then again what is the soul capable of? Would the soul be capable of retaining some SORT of data from the previous proxy? Or is the soul just a serial number for a rasberry pi and what it does is completely submissive to the outside?

>>7679657
This guy seems to disprove your conjecture, which seems to be (by implication) that academic performance is an accurate measure of intellect.

>>7682628
>Only way to exit the proxy is to destroy it completely, degration and all until the soul has nothing left to control but itself.
Created a story about something similar to this some number of years ago.

The issue of determining where you begin and end still remains.

You start out controlling a cluster of particles, a system, or one base unit within that system (in your example, the sperm).

You ten become the human. But why you stay that way? The original unit is quickly lost. It might not even remain through the whole of fetal development. Through what means has it "infected" the macro structure that results after development, and throughout life? When that system loses particles, which one is you? Do you go everywhere, and at such a point, why isn't nearly everything you? There's no reason you should be you, nor any way to have a deficit of awareness driving it all. You could also say multiple souls comprise one individual. But I really don't think the body is anything special in this kind of scenario.

Makes me think scale is an illusion. Every perceived reduction of size is actually a different way of looking at the same things, and it loops back into itself. Macro is no different than micro. Therefore a soul could just be a tag and then some loose subsets attached. But again. The problem lies with time. What is time, and what affords anything the ability to change at all. What forces it to change.

Consciousness is tied with time. I think any answer is tied to time.

>>7682650
You(soul) dont need to infect every part(body). You(soul) only need to infect what controls the body(proxy).

You dont need to BE the hand, you only need to control the brain point that interprets the hand and its touch.

You dont need to be the city to know whats going on, you only need stand in the intersection where every road of the city connects and where all information passes through. So lets call this hub BrainCell_X. Modern science we know that cells constantly replace themselves (you know what i mean) so in some amount of years your body is made up of completely different cells. So the soul would have to be somewhere where it can observe and command BrainCell_X, without being a part of it because when BrainCell_X has cracks and pot holes and the city comes to renovate it, the soul has to be the one that oversees the construction while managing the traffic.
Anything similar in neuroscience?

>>7682663
>You dont need to BE the hand, you only need to control the brain point that interprets the hand and its touch.
I think the "psyche", the "I", is better viewed as a collection of parts, rather than a single core processor. The brain and its functions are fairly distributed. The closest thing to a consciousness center I know of being known of is the claustrum and surrounding regions to around the corpus callosum, as white matter tracts are shown to heavily converge there. Transcranial magnetic stimulation can also alter awareness and control. But the I/O of "consciousness" is much greater and seems to inhabit many regions.

Believe it or not, the belief that consciousness is a director rather than simply a watcher, is not the most popular one. I see (and experience) it as a director, but know that it can also made a watcher. What is it really? That's what neuroscience could eventually discern, and might be the only real progress to be made about what consciousness is.

>Modern science we know that cells constantly replace themselves
In some regions. The brain included, if the glia don't get in the way. Which they almost always do. For the most part it's just a gradual "flow" of particles as they're used for whatever and replaced. The macro structures (the cell itself) remains, its base constituent parts do not. Even dendritic spines, and the components of memory itself, are replaced over time. Yet the memory remains able to be decoded. It is still stored.

>the soul has to be the one that oversees the construction while managing the traffic.
I don't really know much about intercellular signaling in the brain in the context of repairing damage or remodeling. It's probably fairly simple, yet effective, logic when broken down. Again it comes to the bridge. How does the soul interface with the universe's physics, etc.

>>7681759

are you australian

>>7680162
>>7681358
>open book exam
>take home exam

what the fuck?

>>7682030

>someone with 40 years experience telling someone with no experience to use shortcuts

that's really terrible advice... he has 40 years of knowledge behind every decision he makes, so he has a huge appreciation for what is and isnt an appropriate shortcut. Being "efficient" as a fresh grad working your first job is a good way to get fired. Be thorough and always be learning is real advice.

>>7682030
Yep I see that a lot on /sci/, engineering students stroking their egos over how complex their solution to a problem is when the reality is such solutions are trash, we just want dumb easy shit that werks. It's a business at the end of the day.

>>7680661
The boss is still the boss be it right or wrong.

>>7682685
Watcher/director
This might sound confusing but:
I think it directs (1) itself to watch (2) itself directing(3).

We experience life on (3), but we cant comprehend (2) because its like trying to see the back of your head in a single mirror. And if we somehow experienced (2) we wouldnt comprehend (1).

>>7682646
But it is. Nearly everyone that gets good grades is smart. But a lot of people who don't get good grades are also smart.

>>7682885
>But a lot of people who don't get good grades are also smart.
That's sort of my point.