/sci/ - Science & Math

I'd tell them a joke then I'd play him a song and after that I'd rape him.

>>9655324
If an extraterrestrial was advanced enough to make contact with Earth, it would probably have superintelligent AI by then.

>Humor
Amusing subversion of expectations, in a controlled environment.
>Music
Sensory stimulation designed to elicit either a certain feeling, or to purely derive enjoyment from.
>Religion
A useful crutch for evolution, somewhat like the tonsils. Most people have it, some people don't, and you can function just fine without it. It provides a sense of companionship and belonging, as well as some measure of external morality and hope for existence after death.

>humor
humans react with laughter to something unexpected. People had learned to exploit this
>music
humans biologically like rhythm, people had learned to exploit this
>religion
the easiest way to let people cooperate

>>9655324
>humour
A gift from God for men to make fellowship with other men in order to establish the One True Church
>music
God gave us music to glorify Him
>Religion
For God loved the world so much he gave his only begotten Son, so whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have life eternal

>>9655332
bless you

Don't know about the others, but
>Humour
ayy lmao

>>9656069
ayy

>>9655324
How can an extraterrestrial explain that earthlings are retards?

>>9656036
>Religion
>A useful crutch for evolution, somewhat like the tonsils. Most people have it, some people don't, and you can function just fine without it. It provides a sense of companionship and belonging, as well as some measure of external morality and hope for existence after death.
Not sure if that's yours or something you quoted but either way it's brilliant

>>9655324
How would you explain the following to a terrestrial with no context?
>Humor
>Music
>Religion

>>9656251
A bit condescending, one can visualize the fedora while reading it. But as an attempt at an explanation from one nonbeliever to another, not the worst I've ever seen.

>>9655324
For all we know, they also have these. Intelligent species upon Earth certainly do.
Why would it be different elsewhere?

>>9655324
Well seeing as the earth is flat and enclosed...I'd tell the "extraterrestrial" that it's a demon and I'd shoot it in the face. No explanation needed.

>>9655334
It's never going to happen, fagboy.

>>9656852
>Can visualize the fedora while reading it
Fuck. I was trying to avoid that. It's why I used the tonsils thing instead of an appendix thing.

>>9656042
>humans react with laughter
laughter =/= humor

The first two are easy. It's unlikely they wouldn't have at least some emotions, possibly not the same ones as us, but they should at least understand what they are.
>Humor
We can talk or about things fictional or not to provoke a certain kind of emotion that puts you in a good mood.
It's possible the wouldn't understand the exact kind of emotion but they should be able to get the general idea.
>Music
We use sounds to communicate, we have sense of rythm.
We can combine the two and make rythmic sounds with the sole reason to induce emotions instead of communicate information.
Now the difficult one:
>Religion
My personal full explanation would take a lot and most probably be quite controversial even among humans themselves.
The only think I'd say is we should take the utmost precaution in case of first contact about the subject.
While it's unlikely they would be completely oblivious about emotions there is really no reason to think that religion is a universal concept.
A non religious species could see us as dangerously crazy.

>>9656872
Not an argument

>>9657548
Let me find a post I made yesterday: >>9652687
>We can never make a perfect system, even if we made a near-perfect system to make a perfect system.
>Let's run this through.
>Humans are imperfect.
>Our creations are imperfect.
>We make an imperfect system, that is as near to perfect as we can make it, therefore it is near-perfect.
>This imperfect system is programmed to take its source code, optimize it and then replicate from this optimized code.
>It in turn creates a near-perfect system, that is less imperfect than the system before it.
>It reiterates the routine of its predecessor system and processes another near-perfect system that is slightly less imperfect than before.
>Each system that follows will always be near-perfect, slightly less imperfect than the system before it, but never perfect.
>This also cannot tend to infinity, as the system has a hard limit on the amount of time it can reproduce, head death.
>Therefore, the system can never reach perfection.
Checkmate, atheist.

>>9657536
none of them are easy and your answers would make a good case for that

>>9655324
memes are universal

>>9655324
Tell him to pull my finger, fart in such a way I'm manipulating time while genuflecting.

>>9657582
I meant sound for that middle one I guess but I'd do that too

>>9655324
>Humor
got this from JF: a mechanism in which a human organism responds to spotting a knowledge differential between any other human organisms, representations of them or forms alike or between itself and the other mentioned

>pic related: op trying to understand

>>9657298
yes retard hence people have learned to exploit this. so then humor is abillity to purposefully formulate expressions which make you react with laughter

>>9655324
I'd want him to be impressed, so :

>>Humor
Biologically incentivized response towards having our brain's generated models of reality challenged.
>>Music
Recreational math using the section of our brain dedicated to processing audio signals.
>>Religion
Humans circumventing our brain's homeostasis system by lying to our brain in order to turn off our responses to fears.

>>9657561
What makes you think that a not-even-close-to-perfect ingellience can create a near-perfect intelligence but a near-perfect intelligence can't create a perfect intelligence?

>>9657651
You know your argument is semantics, right?
Because I can just go:
>Define perfection in this context.
And you're BTFO.
Then, if you do, I can go:
>And why would this special context apply to all other contexts?
And then you get fully BTFO.
Id est, it would be wise for you to stop here.

>>9657657
>your argument is semantics because I can tangentialize and argue semantics

>>Define perfection in this context.
>And you're BTFO.
Having no defects. It looks like you're the one whose BTFO.

>>And why would this special context apply to all other contexts?
It's not special.

You're a moron and an egomaniac. Your pretentious rant makes no sense and you're an illiterate who knows nothing about AI or science in general.

>>9657666
>Can't offer a cogent reply attacking the argument, because he knows he's just backed himself into a corner, so instead opts to attack the person behind the argument.
Textbook definition of an ad hom, right there.
To echo the words of a 'dear friend':
>You're a moron and an egomaniac.

>>9657672
It's not an ad hominem, which apparently you can't spell, because I've provided 6 lines of counter-argument and only 1 line of insult. You've directed all the attention at the insult because you feel like you're losing and think the best strategy is to save face on an anonymous image board. No amount of silly smiling guy stock photo pictures will disguise the fact that you're a lamer who can't defend his stupid talk. ;^)

>>9657692
>It's not an ad hominem, which apparently you can't spell, because I've provided 6 lines of counter-argument and only 1 line of insult.
What is a contraction? Oh dear, your super IQ already failing you?

>I've provided 6 lines of counter-argument and only 1 line of insult.
>Having no defects.
I elucidated (made clear) in my previous argument what the defect was, you're just too slow to notice it.
Although, it isn't that surprising, I was already two posts ahead of you by that point. :'D
>It looks like you're the one whose BTFO.
This is actually part of the argumentum ad hominem (which is actually the full term for *ad hom, *ad hominem - I guess that super IQ still hasn't kicked in.)
I'm guessing when you say:
>not-even-close-to-perfect ingellience
You're clearly subconsciously invoking yourself, that's amusing.
Oh, and that's some hilarious hypocrisy:
>which apparently you can't spell
>ingellience
I think you mean "intelligence"; something you're lacking. :'D
>It's not special.
But it is, as the context of what implies perfection would change with the required task of the AI, however, if it was fully generalizing, then the context/definition wouldn't be special.
But as previous discussed (see: >>9657561) it never will be.
>You've directed all the attention at the insult because you feel like you're losing and think the best strategy is to save face on an anonymous image board.
More hypocrisy, clearly you've never heard about stones and glass houses, have you?
To parrot a 'dear compatriot' of mine:
>you're a lamer who can't defend his stupid talk. ;^)
Now, why don't you pick your teeth up and try again. ;)

>>9657712
>*previous = previously

>>9657712
You seem to think ad hominem attacks and insults are the same thing. This is not the case. Glad to see my post resonated enough for you to take the counter arguments seriously though. ;^o You'll spend the rest of your post ranting at me, claiming my typos show how stupid I am, and saying "IQ" over and over.

You're not disproving my claim that you're an egomaniac by saying stereotypically narcissistic things like "I'm two posts ahead of you" and defining the words you use mid-sentence.

No subconscious about it, I'm invoking all humans in that. None of us are even close to perfect intelligences, and if you think you are, you've made a mistake.

All the way down here, at almost the very bottom of your post, seems to be one line of counter argument:
> But it is, as the context of what implies perfection would change with the required task of the AI, however, if it was fully generalizing, then the context/definition wouldn't be special.
General AI has only the required task of meeting or surpassing human ability at any given task, so the definition of a flawless general AI is a pretty low bar.

>why don't you pick your teeth up and try again
Wew, a 5'5 teenager who could be held down have his mouth shat in by most humans against his will uses allegories of violence over the internet.
Bonus points for the choice of kimbo slice. Very appropriate given the context.

>>9657745
>You seem to think ad hominem attacks and insults are the same thing. This is not the case.
No, I don't, you retard. As already evident from:
>Can't offer a cogent reply attacking the argument, because he knows he's just backed himself into a corner, so instead opts to attack the person behind the argument.
Which is an 'idiolectified' version of the DEFINITION.
>Glad to see my post resonated enough for you to take the counter arguments seriously though. ;^o
But I didn't, because they aren't serious, if they were serious, I'd be worried. I just hate a loud mouth idiot who doesn't think before he types (or talks) and you fit that bill, bucko. :)
>You'll spend the rest of your post ranting at me, claiming my typos show how stupid I am, and saying "IQ" over and over.
Oh the irony! Still keeping up with the hypocrisy, despite you sligning the first:
>BUT YOU CAN'T SPELL! :3333
See >>9657692 @ "which apparently you can't spell". REKT.
>You're not disproving my claim that you're an egomaniac by saying stereotypically narcissistic things like "I'm two posts ahead of you" and defining the words you use mid-sentence.
So you're going to prove that by acting like an egomaniac too? But, isn't that more hypocrisy?
Ah yes, that infamously supermind at work once more. Like fucking poetry, buddy. :'D
>No subconscious about it, I'm invoking all humans in that
Speak for yourself, dumb dumb.
>None of us are even close to perfect intelligences, and if you think you are, you've made a mistake.
I agree. If anything, like me, many are near-perfect. *flex*
>All the way down here, at almost the very bottom of your post, seems to be one line of counter argument
Kind like your sparse "counter argument" in >>9657666, it's almost like hypocrisy doesn't pay off (or look good).
>General AI has only the required task of meeting or surpassing human ability at any given task, so the definition of a flawless general AI is a pretty low bar.
Oopsie, did you notice the flaw yet?

>>9657745
>>9657756
Cont. <- That's another contraction.
I'll give you a moment.
How about now?
But again, that wouldn't be perfection, as perfection is undefinable, would simply be better than humans, or in the terms of the my previous post:
>near-perfection
Well done though, for playing the semantics card, yet again.
>Bonus points for the choice of kimbo slice
He is pretty based.

>>9657745
Or, we try another avenue of argumentation.
>General AI has only the required task of meeting or surpassing human ability at any given task, so the definition of a flawless general AI is a pretty low bar.
I'll use this to demonstrate the semantic nature of your argument.
Let's assume, because it is likely, there is like out there and we happen upon them, which though extremely unlikely, isn't impossible.
What if they're smarter than us? Better than us? Better than this AI? Well, that means your definition of perfection isn't perfect (ironic, I know).
B T F O
T
F
O

>>9657769
>*there is like out there = there is life out there

T
K
E
T K E R E K T
E
K
T

>>9657796
Worth a try though, perfect idea, poorly executed.
I'd call that near perfect.

>>9657756
>>9657760
>>9657769
>>9657772
I wish I was trolling so I could take credit for making you this mad. Your literacy skills are pretty lacking, so I'm not going to waste my time reading all four of your posts. You've made no good arguments so far. Maybe next time keep your posts concise and direct to the point.

>>9658098
Weak, very weak. You got BTFO so bad you couldn't even attempt to respond, that's very sad.
Do you know what makes it worse? I've only just gotten back from McDonalds, and even at the point at which you posted you'd already had at least 2 hours to think of a better response. Yet, this, this pitiful excuse it all you could come up with. Hilarious.
Next time, buddy, just keep your opinion to yourself and don't trouble anyone else with it. Certainly people better than you in almost every possible metric.
Sad, very sad.

>>9655334
>teh singularity.

>>9655324
> Humor

A way of dealing with unexpected or seemingly impossible events in a way that gives us pleasure rather than reacting with fear or anger.

They would probably have something similar just to keep from going insane.


> Music

Sounds and words organized in ways that give sensory pleasure, but not necessarily carrying any real meaning.

> Religion

We have an innate need to understand the world around us, which is a natural outgrowth of our survival instincts and expanded along with our brains. Before our ancestors had the knowledge or instruments to observe reality beyond their own senses, they came up with the best explanations they could for the nature of reality. Those explanations were often supernatural in nature, and while they sound absurd to modern people, they made sense to the people of those times.

When they started building large civilizations they expanded that line of reasoning to inculcate people with a sense of civic virtue (ethics) so they could live together peacefully. That strategy worked for a long time, well into the scientific age. Since science still cannot explain everything, w still cling to the remnants of those beliefs, and even expand on them, to fill in gaps in our knowledge and experience that science can not.

>>9657255

You used the term 'crutch', often perceived as a slur for weak people.

I love these sort of things
How would you explain to an alien you like to microwave food to heat?
>"I want this lasagne's atoms to vibrate at the right frequency"
What about ice cream?
>"No this food can't vibrate too much or its gross"

>>9658514
Yeah, if the atoms have too much energy it hurts.:'(

In most likelihood the alien would be in fact so alien your primitive, primate mind couldn't even conceive him of a physical being cohabitating the same dimension you're in
Ergo no kind of communication would be possible to begin with
Ergo its quite possiblee you're right beside one of these beings right now

>>9658523
Why do people always assume they're so esoteric when the majority of evidence of life shows that life is shocking similar., especially considering that life also probably shares the same base mechanics.

>>9658525
>when the majority of evidence of life shows that life is shocking similar
Because the only evidence of (complex) life you have is carbon-based aerobic multicellular
Its a kind of confirmation bias
In reality we have no idea how an alien being would look like and any a priori conceptualization of it would be distorted by said bias

>>9658547
No it isn't, we know of other kinds of life. For instance, there are these bacteria that live in acid and consume heavy metals, however, because of this fact, that they don't have a very advantageous biological foundation, they'll never evolve very much and will always be microscopic.
The fact is carbon-based aerobic multi-cellular is the most successful and that's why it is the most prominent. And considering how common the elements are that comprise it, compared to others, it probably is the most common basis for life throughout the universe.
Sorry, but those are the facts.

>>9658514
kek

>>9655324
>>Religion
Don't worry, God would have already revealed Himself to them long ago. The only worry is if they start mass killing/enslaving all the atheists and jews.

>>9655324
Why is this here?
>>>/x/

>>9658572
But xenos are probably real, fampai.

>>9658560
We're talking about complex, intelligent life here
You know shit about chemical elements outside of Earth even within this solar system, let alone the entire universe
You're assuming life everywhere must evolve exactly like it happened it here

>>9658582
Lol, I knew I was talking with someone who is illiterate on the matter.
The chemical composition of the universe, thus far, is pretty much uniform. There is no reason to believe it isn't elsewhere.
It's the same reason I say possible alien life, there's life here, with the common chemicals found throughout the universe, therefore there is probably life elsewhere.

>>9658582
Incidentally, if you want some light reading very briefly on the matter:
>https://phys.org/news/2015-10-average-chemical-composition-universe-sun.html
>"What we found was that the ratios between the abundances of iron, silicon, sulphur, and magnesium, are constant throughout the entire volume of the Virgo Cluster, and indeed roughly consistent with the composition of our own Sun and most of the stars in our Galaxy" - Dr. Norbert Werner from Stanford University