/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.15699191]

was math discovered or invented?

[Anonymous No.15699194]

>>15699191
It depends on which level/type of math you're talking about. Basic arithmetic was discovered, geometry was discovered, but most of the highest levels of math are invented.

[Anonymous No.15699196]

>>15699194
but higher math based on lower

[Anonymous No.15699197]

>>15699191
math is revealed in dreams

[Anonymous No.15699199]

>>15699196
The film Titanic is based on true events, too.

[Anonymous No.15699203]

>>15699199
i see your point but this is not an argument. is there something added in higher math outside of basic math? no, its all based on same shit

[Anonymous No.15699210]

>>15699203
Things like doing math with infinity are invented, anything theoretical is invented, and so on.

[Anonymous No.15699216]

isn't math deeply tied to our universe's constants? to the permanence of our universe's laws? does math make sense without space and time? conceptually?
t. math retard

[Anonymous No.15699267]

some of it was invented, some of it discovered (e.g. prime numbers)

[Anonymous No.15699346]

>>15699267
what is equivalent of numbers in nature?

[Barkun No.15699358]

It was discovered.

[Anonymous No.15699614]

>>15699191
both, the underlying concepts and ideas were discovered but the actual syntaxis of math and even its current order were invented

[Anonymous No.15699688]

>>15699346
Counting seems to be natural, not numbering (attribution of abstract symbol to real things).

https://corvidresearch.blog/2015/06/11/counting-crows/
There are some examples with monkeys too.

[Anonymous No.15699695]

definitions are invented. theorems are discovered.

[Anonymous No.15701392]

invented. just as a lever and fulcrum was invented, the concept of abstracting quantities was.

[Ed No.15701505]

invent the axioms and definitions, discover that these are consistent, discover their consequences

[Anonymous No.15701533]

>>15699191
Yes, absolutely.

[Anonymous No.15701538]

>>15699191

Fabricated.

[Anonymous No.15701539]

Formulated

[Anonymous No.15701547]

>>15701392
No longer only quantities. (Qualia computing = qualities). What there? What next?

[Anonymous No.15701576]

>>15699191
both

[Barkun No.15701596]

Academic math is invented nonsense. Actual math is discovered.

ITT: mad academians covertly defend the shitty math systems they use.

[Anonymous No.15701627]

The whole concept of discovered or invented feels like a trick question.
Is what you're asking is does an idea exist in or originate from nature? But even if something is invented by man, man is still a part of nature, so by extension anything "invented" by man still exists in nature.

>>15701392
>just as a lever and fulcrum was invented
What if a monkey discovers levers? What if an insect does? What if a bacteria does?
Bacteria have invented/discovered motors, so one could argue that since motors exist in nature, motors have to have been "discovered."

[Anonymous No.15701629]

>>15699191
It was always there. Allmighty God instill Math in every children of Adam. It is the universal truth, the language of creator.

[Anonymous No.15701682]

>>15701629
Haha sinmath abound

(Notbinding)

[Anonymous No.15701804]

>>15699191
its like languages (like khmer, french) but for logic

[Anonymous No.15702169]

Invented, it’s one of the few ways for our pattern seeking, mental linking, intuitive mumbo jumbo brains to understand knowledge and facts.
Sentience is good but there’s a lot of stupidity and misinformation spawned from our meat computers.

[Anonymous No.15702517]

>>15701627
bacteria didnt invent motors, just as humans didnt invent opposable thumbs. we both got features from evolution. Something is 'discovered' when we first observe it in nature, then create a mental model for it, and usually a name as well. Something is 'invented' when we first create a mental model, then create a thing that follows the mental model well enough. bacteria cant invent anything because they cant think.
Applying this to evolution, there was a natural pattern that humans noticed, built a model for, and named evolution. Well shit maybe math was discovered, since if you put apples in a basket then the commutative property is pretty self evident.

[Anonymous No.15702850]

>>15699191
It was bestowed upon man in his darkest hour.

[Anonymous No.15703004]

>>15699191
Neither, it's symmetrical

[Anonymous No.15703031]

>>15699216
Math describes the laws of nature very well. I don’t know if that means the laws if nature are math though.

[Anonymous No.15703368]

>>15699191
It is constructed.

[Anonymous No.15703378]

>>15702517
>bacteria cant invent anything because they cant think.
Thinking is just storing information for future use and bacteria can do that, they can even communicate with other bacteria and share the information, so they can express their thoughts too, even if it isn't in the exact style of the formal linguistic human communication we are using here.

[Anonymous No.15703476]

>>15703378
'storing information' is memory, not thinking. lay off the marijuana

[Anonymous No.15703496]

>>15703476
I didn't just say storing the information, I also said it was stored to be used for future communication and when you are in the future communicating past information you have stored to others or yourself, that is called thinking about your memories, you illiterate nonce.

[Anonymous No.15703607]

>>15703496
listen retard weed is frying your brain. storing + communicating information is not sufficient to be called thinking. youre being pretty liberal with unjustified inferences of agency/motive. youre stretching definitions to the point that there are no meaningful distinctions to work with. hard drives, gullies from seasonal rainwater runoff, the epigenetics of fetuses of starving mothers, and you yourself all 'store and communicate' information, yet none of them think

[Anonymous No.15703612]

>>15703607
>storing + communicating information is not sufficient to be called thinking
It is when you are using the information to problem solve within and move about your environment while colluding with other entities in the environment to reach a mutually beneficial outcome like bacteria do.

[Anonymous No.15703613]

>>15703378
>>15703496
People caught pseuding like this should be given a forced IQ test on the spot and have the score tatooed on their head.

[Anonymous No.15703616]

>>15703613
>like this
I agree, your constant ad hominem drivel should be enough to ban you from intellectual discussion.

[Anonymous No.15703622]

>>15703616
>ad hominem
This retard thinks it's 2006 and talking like this is still a superficial mark of intelligence among teenagers. LOL

[Anonymous No.15703627]

>>15703622
So you are saying that your ad hominem drivel is so unjustified, petty and non sequitur that I should just refer to it as name calling rather than ad hominem?

[Anonymous No.15703635]

>>15699191
its a strange question really and im not sure it makes much of a difference either way

[Anonymous No.15703638]

>>15703607
Hard drives don't spontaneously and autonomously do that with information, they only react to preprogrammed commands and if you are saying bacteria can't think because all bacteria are simply executing preprogrammed commands then you have eliminated all biological entities including yourself from the ability to think since they are all just built on the same biology and it would all just be intricate preprogrammed commands everyone is acting out.

[Anonymous No.15703639]

>>15703627
Well, if you're such a little bitch that you feel the need to whine about it at all, then yes, you should refer to it as "name-calling" because that's what it is. It's not an "ad hominem", pseud. There's nothing fallacious about simply pointing out that you're a raging poseur.

[Anonymous No.15703653]

>>15703639
>I call you names because I can't actually refute your point, but that is totally not fallacious or anything because me so smart, you so dumb.

[Anonymous No.15703655]

>>15703612
>problem solving
>colluding
youre convincing yourself that bacteria are rational agents because youve already assumed that they are rational agents

[Anonymous No.15703659]

>>15703653
I don't want to engage with pseuds at all. What's "fallacious" about not wanting to """debate""" a retard who can't even grasp what a fallacy is?

[Anonymous No.15703671]

>>15703659
>don't want
Except the problem is your can't actually engage in anything except basic school yard name calling because the retard is you. The fallacious part is you putting forward some new argument about what kind of person I am that has nothing to do with the original argument or the real conversation because you don't understand the complexity of the concepts needed to engage with the original argument given you only understand very basic childish insults.

[Anonymous No.15703675]

>>15703655
I haven't assumed anything, its apparent by their behavior and their tendency to form colonies and communicate with their environment to share resources for the greater good.

[Anonymous No.15703681]

>>15703671
>your can't actually engage
You'll never know because I don't deem your dross interesting enough to seriously engange with.

>The fallacious part is you putting forward some new argument about what kind of person I am
Are you ok? I didn't put forward any "new argument", and it wouldn't be a fallacy even if I did care to start a cringe reddit debate about your pseudery.

[Anonymous No.15703695]

>>15703681
I know because if you did have the ability to actually refute anything, it would be trivial to just type it up quickly to explain your position and shut me down instead of continuing to spout a bunch of inflammatory nonsense in order to mine (You)s instead of make a valid point.

You did put forward some kind of argument, though, that I am [insert negative subjective quality] instead of accurately describing bacterial communication schemes since you have no idea how bacteria communicates and there is no way to refute some subjective nonsense based on your opinion of the cutoff for pseudointellectual IQ.

[Anonymous No.15703702]

>>15703695
>it would be trivial to just type it up quickly to explain your position
Yes.

>and shut me down
The only thing that can shut you down is a janny. Monogoloids like you are physiologically incapable of perceiving that they are wrong, no matter how hard they get owned. You've already demonstrated this with the way you double down on your misunderstanding of what a "fallacy" is. lol

[Anonymous No.15703705]

>>15703702
Except you are the one clearly doubling down on being wrong and refusing to actually explain anything preferring to call me more names and use other childish fallacies instead even though you claim a real explanation would be trivial instead of clearly just mining (You)s and seeking for a quantity of replies to waste a bunch of time rather than quality to efficiently settle the misunderstanding or misinformation that lead to you being so triggered and angrily devolving into name calling.

[Anonymous No.15703709]

>>15703705
Do you acknowledge that calling you the pseud that you are is not a fallacy? :^)

[Anonymous No.15703714]

>>15703638
i am not saying that at all, the same way im not saying 'its all just pos/neg, therefore computers dont compute' or 'its all atoms, therefore life isnt alive'. its layers of complexity and emergence leading to human-recognizable patterns that humans then named. the concept of 'thinking' is a little fuzzily bounded, but if you abuse that and stretch the definition to include bacteria reacting to the environment, then the word loses its utility as a demarcator. im getting tired of repeating myself. ill just call that other guy a retard one more time
>>15703653
retard

[Anonymous No.15703720]

>>15703607
The amphetamines and oxy have turned you into a psychotic narcissist, you aren't the only one with agency, speedball.

[Anonymous No.15703729]

>>15703709
No, its still a name calling fallacy when you use it to deflect from your lack of argument unless you could actually explain why my logic is wrong then attach a label to being wrong in that way instead of simply calling me some name without explanation.

[Anonymous No.15703738]

>>15703714
>the definition to include bacteria reacting to the environment, then the word loses its utility as a demarcator.
The aren't just mindless reacting, but using thoughtful resource management to share resources for the greater good of the bacteria colony. If they weren't capable of thinking, people wouldn't need to apply so much counter thought to try to stop bacteria from infecting their bodies and food sources, the utility in treating bacteria like a thinking agent is that you are less likely to underestimate its ability to reproduce at your expense.

[Anonymous No.15703739]

>>15703729
>it's still le heckin' fallacy!!!
You see? Mongoloids like you are physiologically incapable of processing the fact that they are wrong. Explain what conclusion of mine doesn't logically follow from its premise. (Protip: you can't.)

[Anonymous No.15703745]

>>15703739
Yes you still have no logical counter argument to the original claim, so calling me a name instead trying to think of a counter point is still a logical fallacy. It stops being a fallacy when you actually have an argument then use the name calling as a supplement to your argument instead of a replacement for an argument.

[Anonymous No.15703759]

>>15703745
>calling me a name instead trying to think of a counter point is still a logical fallacy.
Then you should pinpoint which conclusion of mine doesn't logically follow from the premise of my argument. You seem to be having a lot of trouble doing that. Maybe it's because I was just making a simple observation and not arguing anything.

[Anonymous No.15703770]

>>15703759
I am having trouble identifying your logical argument because your argument has no logic is is just some subjective non sequitur, but if you think you have one, feel free to present it and I can pinpoint how it is not based on logic or reasoning.

[Anonymous No.15703771]

>>15703770
>I am having trouble identifying your logical argument because your argument has no logic
Right, because a statement is not an argument, nor is it suposed to be an argument, you literal inbred. lol

[Anonymous No.15703773]

>>15703771
Finally you admit you are just making random illogical fallacious statements instead of any kind of logical argument, pseud.

[Anonymous No.15703775]

>>15703773
I don't know why it's so funny to trigger your mental illness over and over and make you spout 80 IQ drivel.

[Anonymous No.15703776]

>>15703775
Its obviously because you are stupid and thus easily amused and insecure about your own low IQ, so you can't help but project about it in order to fuel your giggle fit and avoid reality.

[Anonymous No.15703784]

>>15703776
>Its obviously because you are stupid
That must be it. Interacting with you at all is about as intelligent a behavior as torturing a bug high on industrial insecticide. Which is kinda my whole point. There's a certain meta even to cringe reddit deboooooting. On the most basic level, it involves picking opponents that aren't overt intellectual cripples. It may be fallacious to assume that a retard is automatically wrong about everything just because he's mentally disabled, but it isn't a fallacious to spare your own time and effort by refusing to engage a retard's retarded arguments. I have failed to do so. Clearly, I am clinically fucking stupid and I am ashamed of myself. :^(

[Anonymous No.15703789]

>>15699191
Invented. Anyone claiming otherwise is a retard because literally everything can be considered to be discovered, e.g.: https://libraryofbabel.info/bookmark.cgi?q.pvwkgrvnycbn,qarfcbj296

[Anonymous No.15703792]

>>15699191
>>15699194
is language is discovered or invented?
abstract systems are not discovered, they are defined by humans.
this question is plebbit tier dogshit

[Anonymous No.15703796]

>>15703792
>abstract systems are not discovered, they are defined by humans.
The underlying logical relationships are discovered. Humans did not make up the rules for what kind of results you get by limiting yourself to coherent and consistent systems.

[Anonymous No.15703799]

>>15699191
Invented

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQOwG-hcd_k

[Anonymous No.15703803]

>>15703784
Another shitty argument.
If your goal was to spare your own time, you would make the most efficient argument possible or not reply at all instead of replying over and over with the most inflammatory nonsense possible to guarantee more replies and more time wasted, you haven't refused to engage at all, you have done the exact opposite by continually just stooping to the lowest levels of fallacy to ensure repeated engagement.

[Anonymous No.15703806]

>>15703803
Holy mental illness.

[Anonymous No.15703811]

>>15703806
Yes, like that, replies constantly devoid of any logic filled with pure attention seeking inflammatory nonsense instead.

[Anonymous No.15703833]

>>15703796
warping your senseless moronic shit with meaningless esoteric buzzwords is not impressing, braincattle like you are everywhere.
simplicity is the key, if you are unable to express yourself in a way that can be understood and appreciated you are essentially saying nothing

[Anonymous No.15703836]

>>15703833
>meaningless esoteric buzzwords
Holy mental illness. "Coherent" and "consistent" are considered meaningless esoteric buzzwords in brainlet land these days?

[Anonymous No.15703849]

>>15703836
you are too stupid to make the distinction between an abstract system and the prospect it correspond with

[Anonymous No.15703852]

>>15703849
I did make that distinction. You're just mentally ill and intellectually crippled.

[Anonymous No.15703853]

>>15703852
if you think that math is the same as what it illustrate you don't

[Anonymous No.15703857]

>>15703853
>if you think that math is the same as what it illustrate you don't
Where did I say or imply that, you braindead ESL?

[Anonymous No.15703863]

>>15703857
is math discovered or invented?

[Anonymous No.15703865]

>>15703863
Invented expressions of discovered truths.

[Anonymous No.15703867]

>>15703865
you are mentally deficient

[Anonymous No.15703870]

>>15703867
Go ahead and prove me wrong. (You can't. All you can do is lash out like a nigger beast).

[Anonymous No.15703872]

>>15703870
is language discovered or invented?

[Anonymous No.15703873]

>>15703872
Is natural language the same as synthetic mathematical notation?

[Anonymous No.15703874]

>>15703873
>retard
yes.
they are both abstract systems

[Anonymous No.15703877]

>>15703874
>yes.
I'm glad you've shown yourself to be a violent nigger ape. And to think two minutes ago you were screeching about how I fail to make some distinctions.

[Anonymous No.15703880]

>>15703836
>I am always struggling to make a logical points while saying things that invite controversy, but everyone else is mentally ill, not me, I could not possibly just be projecting because I am mentally ill.

[Anonymous No.15703881]

>>15703877
you can write math and mathematical processes purely in english, its just a format

[Anonymous No.15703882]

>>15703880
You will never be fully human.

[Anonymous No.15703883]

>>15703873
Language is equally synthetic rather than natural.

[Anonymous No.15703884]

>>15703881
>you can write math and mathematical processes purely in english
Can you also write English purely in math, you total inbred?

[Anonymous No.15703885]

discovered
doesn't mean it's material reality though, it's an artefact of our biology

[Anonymous No.15703886]

>>15703882
You will never make a logical point, fallacybot.

[Anonymous No.15703889]

>>15703884
did you ever read a math book?

[Anonymous No.15703890]

Mathematics is abstraction, therefore it was invented.

[Anonymous No.15703893]

>>15703889
Can you also write English purely in math, you total inbred? You don't see particularly eager to answer. Once you figure out the answer to that one, here's another question for you: when people say "math" are they referring solely to the synthetic notation they invented to express mathematical ideas?

[Anonymous No.15703894]

>>15703893
>synthetic
naturalistic fallacy

[Anonymous No.15703897]

>>15703894
>fallacy
Oh. Another one of these subhuman. Explains your braindead opinions, your lack of reading comprehension and your inability/unwillingness to answer simple questions. Either way:

Can you also write English purely in math, you total inbred? You don't see particularly eager to answer. Once you figure out the answer to that one, here's another question for you: when people say "math" are they referring solely to the totally-not-synthetic notation they invented to express mathematical ideas?

[Anonymous No.15703899]

>>15703893
>You don't see particularly eager to answer.
because it has nothing to do with anything.
and yes you can it will just look weird since verbal language is dedicated to deal with humans interaction.
>are they referring solely to the synthetic notation they invented to express mathematical ideas?
yes

[Anonymous No.15703900]

>>15703897
im sorry, i dont think engaging with you while you are in this irrationally emotional state does not benefit either of us, i hope you feel better soon

[Anonymous No.15703902]

>>15703899
>and yes you can it will just look weird
Write your braindamaged post in math, then.

>yes
Yes what? You actually believe "math" means "mathematical notation"? Holy fuck, what a certified clinical moron.

[Anonymous No.15703904]

>>15703902
math is a symbolic language cry harder freak

[Anonymous No.15703910]

>>15703904
Holy mother of mental illness. What happened to this board?

[Anonymous No.15703916]

>>15703910
lol

[Anonymous No.15703918]

>>15703916
>mental illness intensifies
Post some more random definitions.

[Anonymous No.15703922]

>>15703918
everyone sees you're wrong what's the point?
even ESL like me can humiliate you.
let it sync shithead

[Anonymous No.15703924]

The saddest thing is that the retard decided to die on that hill literally 2 minutes after pointing out that you don't need any special language for mathematical reasoning.

[Anonymous No.15703933]

>>15703792
Humans invented written numbers, but they did not invent the concept that putting one thing with another thing makes two things.

[Anonymous No.15703935]

>>15703933
>they did not invent the concept that putting one thing with another thing makes two things.
They did invent this concept, but that concept obviously reflects something taken from reality.

[Anonymous No.15703936]

>>15703935
No, it was discovered and a method for recording it was invented.

[Anonymous No.15703937]

>>15703933
| and | = ||
this sort of shit found in caves dumbass

[Anonymous No.15703939]

>>15703936
>it was discovered
If you want to be really autistic about it, I guess you could say modern humans discovered that their brains are tailored for quantitive reasoning and perceive quantities... :|

[Anonymous No.15703941]

>>15703893
>Can you also write English purely in math
gematria, cipher, morse, ASCII etc..?

[Anonymous No.15703943]

>>15703941
That's not writing English in math. That's just encoding English characters using numbers. Fucking hell.

[Anonymous No.15703946]

>>15703937
Okay? Writing is an invention, the existence of addition is a discovery.

[Anonymous No.15703947]

>>15703943
>encoding language
>not math
you are inconceivably retarded
last post.

[Anonymous No.15703949]

>>15703947
>the mentally ill ape tries to (You) me again
You might as well "translate" English into Chinese by mapping individual characters. You people are legit, 100%, clinically disabled.

[Anonymous No.15703959]

>>15703949
ASCII representation of A is 41, adding one to 41 gives you 42 = B, you asked how can you write english purely with math, well this is the kind of operations your computer is doing.
it so sad that people like you exist as i said braincattle keep absorbing your own delusions you will achieve nothing in this life

[Anonymous No.15703964]

>>15703959
>ASCII representation of A is 41, adding one to 41 gives you 42 = B
You might as well "translate" English into Chinese by mapping individual characters. You people are legit, 100%, clinically disabled. Or maybe you'll grasp it better if I use Hindu instead of Chinese in my analogy, you fucking code monkey?

[Anonymous No.15703967]

>>15703964
>"translate" English into Chinese by mapping individual characters
that's the fucking point it's all abstract systems that can perform exchange between values.
you can make a simple operation of converting one value to another or make a whole data structure out of it.
its the same and you are too stupid to understand this
kill yourself
last post.

[Anonymous No.15703970]

>last post.
>continues to shit out apelike mental vomit into the thread
Negrosis of the prefrontal cortex is complete and irreversible.

[Barkun No.15703975]

>goes on about how maths is some universal language
>Thinks someone invented math

You don't even know the mathematic language

[Anonymous No.15704071]

>>15699191
>discovered
Under wich stone they found a number in nature, where in the woods is an addition engraved in the trees an wich constellation shows a Fourier sequence,?

[Anonymous No.15704076]

>>15704071
You found numbers in nature when they taught you how to count on your fingers and uncovered the incredible concept of one-to-one relationships.

[Anonymous No.15704089]

>>15699191
It was given for destruction not for you to count how many cows you have or to find theta.

[Anonymous No.15704275]

>>15703476
>not thinking
not that anon, but process of elimination, and trial and error are though process algorithms that both humans AND bacteria use. Bacteria may not have "free will" or consciousness like humans do, but that doesn't mean they're incapable of thinking or having thoughts. In some many ways they're comparable to computers, that is to say thought and thinking without knowing what those thoughts are or having any will or consciousness.

[Anonymous No.15704296]

>>15704275
>resurrecting your own retarded post after everyone has shat on it
Just why?

[Anonymous No.15704299]

>>15699191
Both.
I see math as like a photo/mirror it's a reflection of how the world works and is defined by some fundamental laws of existing somehow more fundamental than the laws of physics to work. So like the photo we had to invent it but also like the photo it only shows truth univented by us merely discovered

[Anonymous No.15704326]

>>15704296
because it's hubris to say what does and doesn't' think when we ourselves have no idea how our own brain works. Modern psychology is behavioral psudoscience at best that's only accepted by "the science community" because previous methods were comparably more grotesque. In short, nobody knows how thinking works, or why it works, so how can anyone say bacteria don't think?

For example, recently it's been proven plants are capable of classic Pavlovian training. This implies both learning and memory, but how? It's been observed plants will turn their leaves in the same direction as neighboring plants, even if they are fake plastic plants, which begs the question how do they see without any eyes? We've learned plants communicate with other plants through chemical smells, and plants even emit sounds on occasion when distressed as if they were communicating.

I think the greatest failing of humanity right now is we're not comfortable NOT knowing. We don't like having questions unanswered. So much that we'll invent answers to ease this discomfort, even if they're wrong. When science, research, or experimentation reveals more questions than answers, people tends to look away from the mystery, because publishing a paper admits one's own ignorance simply looks bad.

[Anonymous No.15704329]

>>15704326
>it's hubris to say what does and doesn't' think
Is it even hubris to say that someone like you doesn't think? I'm willing to give microbes the benefit of the doubt, but there are some plausible limits.

[Anonymous No.15704334]

>>15704326
>recently it's been proven plants are capable of classic Pavlovian training. This implies both learning and memory, but how?
Probably not through thought.

> It's been observed plants will turn their leaves in the same direction as neighboring plants, even if they are fake plastic plants
Proof.

> We've learned plants communicate with other plants through chemical smells, and plants even emit sounds on occasion when distressed as if they were communicating.
None of this implies thought.

[Anonymous No.15704350]

>>15704334
But what if the plants themselves aren't what thinks but instead it's the whole collection of plants communicating through fungal networks. Like unless we're going to bring souls into the discussion then thoughts are just a pattern somehow emerging from a complex system of connections which a forrests fungal plant network has. Theirs no reason any complex system that can check its own state couldn't develop thoughts and awareness imo.

[Anonymous No.15704353]

>>15704350
>it's the whole collection of plants communicating through fungal networks
At that point you might as well theorize that a group of people can spawn a thinking mind into some mystical ether by clapping each other's hands in a particular pattern. It's nonsense.

>somehow emerging from
Oh. I see. This cult again.

[Anonymous No.15704995]

>>15699191
It was discovered in the year 2000 bc by muslims exploring a cave, they found ancient paintings of simple adding and subtraction.

[Anonymous No.15705132]

>>15699194
Some maths are invented, most approximations in physics are invented as ways to describe naturally chaotic events.

[Anonymous No.15705139]

>>15699191
math is having fun

[Anonymous No.15705161]

>>15704995
>by muslims
heh

[Anonymous No.15705252]

>>15699191
That's philosophy gtfo

[Jealous No.15705265]

[Anonymous No.15705281]

>>15699191
True

[Anonymous No.15705305]

>>15699191
Discovered given the wild success of QM

[Anonymous No.15705623]

>>15704071
They can be found at bookends.

[Anonymous No.15705626]

>>15704296
>incoherently shitting on something, then claiming everyone else did it
You just can't help but be dishonest can you?

[Anonymous No.15705630]

>>15704334
>None of this implies thought.
Sure, they are just coherently communicating with each other to form group strategies of sharing limited resources by coincidence.

[Anonymous No.15705632]

>>15704353
So now even people don't think?

[Anonymous No.15705640]

>>15699191
No

[Anonymous No.15705642]

I'm so fucking dumb that I thought OP said
>Was meth discovered or invented?

[Anonymous No.15705647]

>>15705642
Go blog about yourself somewhere else, dummy.

[Anonymous No.15706217]

All inventions are a form of discovery because everything already exists somewhere in the infinite multiverse. The iPhone existed long before humanity arose on our planet. Then someone discovered the iPhone here as well.

[Anonymous No.15706219]

>>15705630
None of this implies thought, no matter how hard you try to weasel-word it.

[Anonymous No.15706222]

>>15705632
So now you're incapable of basic reading comprehension?

[Anonymous No.15706227]

>>15699191
One should first define mathematics in order to determine if that question is necessary.
The answer could be both or neither.

[Anonymous No.15706317]

>>15699194
All math is invented. It's a system we use to describe truths we find in reality, but it is still not reality in and of itself. There are no such thing as numbers in reality.

[Anonymous No.15706394]

>>15703796
>The underlying logical relationships are discovered. Humans did not make up the rules for what kind of results you get by limiting yourself to coherent and consistent systems.
Are you sure math is coherent and consistent?

[Anonymous No.15706406]

>>15706394
If by "are you sure?" you mean "can you prove it?", then no, but that's another thread.

[Anonymous No.15706423]

>>15706394
Yeah the consistency of arithmetic was proven. Note this doesn't contradict Godel's second theorem, because it claims that arithmetic can't prove ITS OWN consistency, i.e you can't prove the consistency of arithmetic using arithmetic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gentzen%27s_consistency_proof
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_geometry

[Anonymous No.15706425]

>>15706423
Ignore the second link
>>15706406
See my post

[Anonymous No.15706459]

>>15706423
>Note this doesn't contradict Godel's second theorem, because it claims that arithmetic can't prove ITS OWN consistency, i.e you can't prove the consistency of arithmetic using arithmetic.
Would that be characteristic of arithmetic being discovered or invented?

[Anonymous No.15706490]

>>15706459
Theorems and relations are discovered. The logic and axioms are invented. So that characteristic of arithmetic is discovered not invented.
I think this should all be obvious to anyone who has done pure math. Not sure why people still debate whether math is discovered or invented.

[Anonymous No.15706522]

>>15706317
If you only see math as the language of mathematics, then sure. I guess I just don't see it that way, to me it's like saying "physics is invented." The system we use to describe and predict physics is invented, but the physics we're describing are discovered. The confusing part is that we call physics and the system of describing physics the same thing. I view math in the same way; we invented a language/system to describe what we discovered.

[Anonymous No.15706537]

>>15706490
>Theorems and relations are discovered. The logic and axioms are invented. So that characteristic of arithmetic is discovered not invented.
I'd agree, to be more accurate perhaps we could say the subsequent theorems and relations are more like pleasant surprises than discoveries (as there's a tendency to take the word discovery quite seriously)

[Anonymous No.15706570]

>>15706537
Same could be said for the usage of the word "invented". If you told someone that disjunctive syllogisms and the idea that all right angles are equal are both completely invented by humans they would think you're unhinged.

[Anonymous No.15707901]

>>15706219
Notice how you will never provide a definition of thought because you know that any coherent definition you provide will mean that something that can sense its environment, internalize memories, and form strategies and alliances will count as having thoughts.

[Anonymous No.15707903]

>>15706222
I read just fine, you are the one too stupid to understand that your scenario implies that people clapping in unison don't have minds just because you want to infer that bacteria working together don't either.

[Anonymous No.15707905]

can the minds of men will things into the universe that weren't already there?

[Anonymous No.15707943]

>>15707905
Not the mind alone, no, the body has to apply work to realize something imaginary.

[Anonymous No.15707954]

>>15707901
Having a mind is a prerequisite for having thoughts.

[Anonymous No.15707956]

>>15707903
>your scenario implies that people clapping in unison don't have minds
LOL. The sheer level of your delusional mental illness... Explain in what conceivable way my scenario implies that.

[Anonymous No.15707975]

>>15707954
Good thing I just explained how they demonstrate mindfulness in their ability to sense their environment, internalize memories, and form strategies and alliances. I still notice that not only did you fail to define thoughts, but you just kicked the can and introduces some other synonymous term which you failed to define because you know any definition you give will imply that even bacteria has a mind and thoughts.

[Anonymous No.15707979]

>>15707956
Your conclusion was that no minds are involved with people clapping in unison to communicate with each other.

[Anonymous No.15707985]

>>15707975
>their ability to sense their environment, internalize memories, and form strategies and alliances.
None of this implies having a mind.

>you just kicked the can
No, I didn't. It's an obvious absurdity to claim that a magical mind just spawns into a mysterious ether whenever separate entities happen to interact in a way that you subjectively deem mindlike.

>>15707979
>Your conclusion was that no minds are involved with people clapping in unison to communicate with each other.
Why do you spout mentally ill drivel in every thread? I never stated or implied such a conclusion.

[Anonymous No.15708003]

>>15707985
>None of this implies having a mind.
Of course when you don't provide any definition, nothing implies anything about it, but you still can't define your terms because you know that they would actually prove that bacteria has mindful thoughts, so you just have to stick with the nu-uh strategy and hope people don't notice you are just being hallow and contrarian.

>It's an obvious absurdity to claim that a magical mind just spawns into a mysterious ether whenever separate entities happen to interact in a way that you subjectively deem mindlike.
That just means you don't think it is possible for a mind to form at all since brain cells can't actually interact to form a separate entity known as a mind by your claims.

>deem mindlike
You will never be able to provide a definition of your own because you know that bacteria will conform to being mindlike by whatever definition you do provide.

>I never stated or implied such a conclusion.
>>15704353
Everyone can still see you did exactly that and we can all see that you can not provide definitions because you know you are wrong, so all you can do is say nu-uh while spewing random insults.

[Anonymous No.15708005]

>>15707979
> people clapping in unison to communicate with each other
I'm not Australian but I've been drinking earlier and just woke up and it's still dark. This is some serious shit the clappings. What's goign on

[Anonymous No.15708006]

>>15708003
>That just means you don't think it is possible for a mind to form at all since brain cells can't actually interact to form a separate entity known as a mind by your claims.
I don't know what the magic sauce is in brains, but it's still absurd to imply that a magical mind just spawns into a mysterious ether whenever separate entities happen to interact in a way that you subjectively deem mindlike.

>Everyone can still see you did exactly that
No one can see I did that. You are mentally ill and you show it in every thread.

[Anonymous No.15708009]

>>15708005
You're talking to a clinical retard who thinks "no extra minds are involved besides the individual minds of the participants" means "no minds are involved".

[Anonymous No.15708015]

>>15708006
See, the only definition you can provide for your so called mind is that its mystery is only exceeded by its magic and nothing else can have one.

You are also misrepresenting what is being said, the interaction, cooperation, environmental strategizing is a result of individual minds working together to form a hivemind.

>>15708009
So you admit that the individuals "doing the clapping" like the bacterium communicating its strategies to other bacteria do have minds?

[Anonymous No.15708018]

>>15708009
Sweet jesus I don't even know what that means right now. It's a spritely thread you've got on, though.

[Anonymous No.15708019]

>>15708015
>its mystery
It is a mystery. No one really knows how it works, but it's not really relevant to this discussion. No matter how you twist it, it's still absurd to imply that a magical mind just spawns into a mysterious ether whenever separate entities happen to interact in a way that you subjectively deem mindlike.

>You are also misrepresenting what is being said
Maybe the problem is that you took over for someone else. What's your belief? That your single lonely cactus has a mind all to itself?

>So you admit that the individuals "doing the clapping" like the bacterium communicating its strategies to other bacteria do have minds?
I admit that your level of delusional mental illness is only matched by your ratlike kike dishonesty. lol

[Anonymous No.15708028]

>>15708018
Anon's cactus is talking to him. That's what's going on. He needs help.

[Anonymous No.15708033]

>>15708028
I feel like an asshole now lol. I tried to read back and got back to Tuesday. Sorry. I;ll try to sleep again. Forget me

[Anonymous No.15708036]

Discovered.

P1. We should be ontologically committed to whatever our best theories quantify over.
P2. Our best theories (namely, physics) quantify over mathematical objects.
Q. Therefore, we should be ontologically committed to mathematical objects.

QED.

[Anonymous No.15708038]

>>15708019
>It is a mystery.
Sure, mind is a complete mystery and nobody knows how it works at all, except you totally know how it works in order to conclude that bacteria can't have minds anyway.

>whenever separate entities happen to interact in a way that you subjectively deem mindlike.
So the bacteria themselves do have a mind, but there is no hivemind when they work together or interact with fungal networks, just individuals bacterial and fungal minds cooperating?

>What's your belief?
That a mind is the quality of something that allows it to be aware of its surroundings and make decisions to employ strategies for survival and prosperity and thinking is the process of sensing the environment, internalizing it, and making strategies to succeed within it. Pretty much all life conforms to this definition, your mind is not that special or magical, it is just life like any other.

>lol
No you are clearly just trying to be amusing and don't actually understand any of the implications of your claimed position, you just know it is contrarian and will attract (You)s.

[Anonymous No.15708041]

>>15708028
San Pedro would destroy your argument in an afternoon if you actually had the integrity to put your money where your mouth is and give it a shot.

[Anonymous No.15708046]

>>15708038
>except you totally know how it works in order to conclude that bacteria can't have minds anyway.
I don't "know" that bacteria don't have minds. For all I know, maybe my chair has a mind. Maybe even you have a mind. I don't know. What I do know is that your arguments are fucking retarded.

>a mind is the quality of something that allows it to be aware of its surroundings and make decisions to employ strategies for survival and prosperity and thinking is the process of sensing the environment, internalizing it, and making strategies to succeed within it.
That's a profoundly retarded belief, given that monsters in Doom now have minds according to your belief.

[Anonymous No.15708048]

>>15708041
Braindead normalniggers like you are why I support keeping psychedelics illegal even if it inconveniences me personally. The world doesn't need any more dumb, delusional motherfuckers.

[Anonymous No.15708054]

>>15708046
No my argument is that their actions conform to the definition of mindfulness thoughtful action in ways I have described in detail, your argument is "nu-uh because magic or something, I don't know".

There is no real doom character and there is no real doom environment, they are just digital calculations.

[Anonymous No.15708056]

>>15708048
Then enjoy being stuck your little nu-uh -> I don't know -> u r dum loop forever.

[Anonymous No.15708057]

>>15708048
Post man purse again. Not him and not talking shit, just wanna see.

[Anonymous No.15708058]

>>15708054
>their actions conform to the definition of mindfulness thoughtful
So do the actions of Doom monsters. The guys in picrel have minds according to you.

[Anonymous No.15708061]

>>15699191
It's all invented

[Anonymous No.15708063]

>>15708056
>>15708057
Hope the N-bomb kills you next time.

[Anonymous No.15708069]

>>15708058
The would be if doom actually existed and was a real environment where they had their own autonomous biology in a real environment instead of all just being simulated cartoons in code running in a computer you control.

[Anonymous No.15708075]

>>15708069
>The would be if doom actually existed and was a real environment
I was just going by your definition. It didn't specify anything about "real" environments (as if the senses of a real biological thing can't be spoofed). Notice how your worthless definition suddenly grows ad hoc tumors to contend with reality? Let's see how many more it will grow by the end of this "discussion". Suppose I run Doom monster logic on little toy bots running around a box. Do they have minds then? lol

[Anonymous No.15708076]

>>15708063
>nu-uh -> I don't know -> u r dum
why did you skip disagreeing, then saying you don't know before going to the insults?
I don't even know if a one state loop like that can be considered thinking even the bacteria have more range than you now and your insult -> insult loop.

[Anonymous No.15708077]

>>15708063
The fuck? I'm -57 not -56. I remembered your voice from like a year or two ago. You posted a pic of some nice shit down in your own purse. Don't be a cunt and pretend like you forgot

[Anonymous No.15708078]

>>15699210
>anything theoretical is invented,
Zero was theorerical at one point
>Things like doing math with infinity are invented
Zero was invented
All the other numbers were discovered
Kill platonists. Behead platonists. Round house kick a platonist in the face. Cook platonist in a wok. Delete platonist songs. Abort platonist babies.

[Anonymous No.15708079]

>>15708075
Environment generally means real rather than simulated digital code, its not that my definition grew, its that you tried to expand it asymmetrically by saying digital environment is equal to a real environment and a simulated digital mind is the same as an organic one, so yes those are simulated digital minds in a digital environment, but we were talking about real biology and biological minds before, not simulated digital machinations.

[Anonymous No.15708080]

>>15708078
>Zero was theorerical
Your mother was theoretical and zero in 1800

[Anonymous No.15708081]

>>15708077
What in the fuck makes you think I'm that one specific guy from two years ago? I'm just tired of you schizos. It's behavior like this that feeds the psychedelics-bad meme.

[Anonymous No.15708084]

>>15708079
>Environment generally means real
No, it doesn't. It's an ad hoc bandaid barely covering the tip of your mountain of fail. Suppose I run Doom monster logic on little toy bots running around a physical box. Do they have minds then? lol

[Anonymous No.15708089]

>>15708081
>Braindead normalniggers like you are why I support keeping psychedelics illegal even if it inconveniences me personally.
That's you lol.
I literally just woke up and never talked with you here. I'm this faggot >>15708005
But I recognize your game cunt lol

[Anonymous No.15708095]

>>15708084
>No, it doesn't.
Yes it does, a general accepted definition of the environment is the natural world.

The adhoc part is you trying to insist that data structures are the same as the environment because you want doom characters to be real given you are full of rage and obsessed with murder.

>Suppose I run Doom monster logic on little toy bots running around a physical box.
You are too retarded to do that and doom monsters don't actually do the things I said were necessary for thinking, they don't form group strategies, they don't try to prosper on their own, they don't have meaningful communication with each other in order to cooperate, they don't even exist when you aren't looking at them, they just attack when they are on the screen, but if you weren't a rageoholic retard and you could actually make some species of mechanical monster that could do all that on its own and teach others its strategies, then yes by all definitions, it would have a mind.

[Anonymous No.15708097]

>>15708089
Is this the purse in question?

[Anonymous No.15708099]

>>15708095
>doom monsters don't actually do the things I said were necessary for thinking

>they don't form group strategies
Neither do most living things.

>they don't try to prosper on their own, they don't have meaningful communication with each other in order to cooperate
Purely subjectivist jewish babble. This amounts to a concession.

> they don't even exist when you aren't looking at them,
Figures a nigger like you would have no object permanence. LOL

[Anonymous No.15708102]

>uummmm sweaty???
>they fight to survive, but they don't """try""" to """prosper"""
>and their communication is not """meaningful""" to me, ok?
>i can't talk to them like i talk to the microbes

[Anonymous No.15708104]

Mathematics is an intricate fusion of inventions and discoveries. Concepts are generally invented, and even though all the correct relations among them existed before their discovery, humans still chose which ones to study.

[Anonymous No.15708106]

>>15708097
Holy fucj. It rings a bell and it's certainly held in a very similar polygonal shape. You're a maestro. Peace be with you.

[Anonymous No.15708108]

>>15708106
Peace be upon you, ya cheeky cunt.

[Anonymous No.15708117]

>>15708099
>Neither do most living things.
Yes they do, the bacteria we have been talking about definitely do.

>Purely subjectivist jewish babble.
No, its objective, doom monsters can't prosper, they don't grow or need to compete for resources, there are no nutrients or limited resources for them to hoard and no way to replicate until they fill up the environment like bacteria do, they just get triggered to exist if you enter a room and stop existed once you can't see them and they don't even work together to attack you or change strategy if they sense failure, they just wander in predictable loops until you kill them.

>no object permanence
They aren't permanent objects, they are digital assets that don't even exist in the computer's memory when you aren't looking at them, they just get triggered to spawn when you enter a room.

[Anonymous No.15708121]

>>15708117
>Yes they do
Tell me more about the group strategies of koalas.

>uummmm sweaty???
>it's objective
>they fight to survive, but they don't """try""" to """prosper"""
>and their communication is not """meaningful""" to me, ok?
>i can't talk to them like i talk to the microbes
Off yourself.

[Anonymous No.15708124]

>>15708117
>there are no nutrients or limited resources for them to hoard and no way to replicate
That wasn't part of your definition, by the way, you stupid nigger.

[Anonymous No.15708130]

>>15708121
https://www.savethekoala.com/about-koalas/how-koalas-live-socialise-communicate/
I doubt you actually care about koala group dynamic, so I am not going to bother summarizing, but if you actually care this describes how they communicate, socialize, and share resources.

>they fight to survive, but they don't """try""" to """prosper"""
They don't fight to survive, they just fight to kill the player, they can't grow or replicate or make alliances to secure resources, so they can't prosper and they don't communicate with each other or form group strategies, they can only wander around in loops when you are looking at them and attack you when they are looking at you.

>i can't talk to them like i talk to the microbes
You can't talk to them at all, you can't convince them to cooperate with you, you can't influence them in any way because they are just digital assets on behavior loops in a digital data structure meant to simulate a dungeon environment.

[Anonymous No.15708134]

>>15708124
That is part of the definition of prosper, material success, but they have no material, so they can not prosper, they are just digital assets and if you type a number they grow or shrink without any choice in the matter.

[Anonymous No.15708136]

>>15708104
Is a pattern in game of life discovered? Is a planet in no mans sky discovered? Is a biome in minecraft discovered?

[Anonymous No.15708142]

>>15708130
>I doubt you actually care about koala group dynamic
I don't. I just want to hear what group strategies they use.

>They don't fight to survive
>they just fight their attackers
LOL.

>they can't grow or replicate
Not part of your definition. Notice how the ad hoc turmors keep creeping in.

>or make alliances
They're all on the same team from the get-go. Play some Doom, kid.

>they don't communicate with each other
They do.

>or form group strategies
Neither do snails.

I don't know why it's so funny to trigger your mental illness over and over and make you stumble all over yourself defending what would normally be the fantasies of a 7 years old.

[Anonymous No.15708146]

>>15708134
>That is part of the definition of prosper
No, it's just a weasel word to serve as your injection port for ad hoc extensions to your worthless definition. I mean, look at you. You don't "propser" by your definition. You don't even try to "prosper". Guess you have no mind. :^(

[Anonymous No.15708166]

>>15708136
No it was pragrammed
No no one saw it
What's minecraft

[Anonymous No.15708208]

>>15708142
>I just want to hear what group strategies they use.
You now have a long article describing their group dynamics and how they split up territory to read at your leisure.

>LOL
You don't have to attack them for them to fight you, that is the point, they aren't doing it for survival, they don't need food and resources, they are just walking in circles and attacking the player.

>Not part of your definition.
Its still part of prospering, sorry you don't understand how words work and how you may have to look up many secondary definitions to understand the collection of words in the first definition you were given.

>They're all on the same team from the get-go.
No, they are all randomly locked into small behavior loops and they never actually talk to each other or form group strategies.

>They do.
How so? They don't even know the others exist, many times to the point they clip through each other sometimes to occupy the same space at the same time.

>Neither do snails.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6875674/
Wrong again, you are 0 for 2 for animals that you don't think can cooperate with each other.

>I don't know
You say that alot, you don't even know how to define a though, but I know why, its because you are retarded and easily amused by your own retardation.

[Anonymous No.15708212]

>>15708146
>I mean, look at you. You don't "propser" by your definition. You don't even try to "prosper".
I do though, I hoard resources to survive for more than just the next moment and I have grown and expanded my mind and social network significantly since childhood.

[Anonymous No.15708214]

>>15708208
>You now have a long article describing their group dynamics
There's not a single word in there describing any "group strategies" they use. The sheer level of your mental illness and dishonesty is staggering. Just gonna ignore the rest of your post in light of just how sick you are. This is not productive.

[Anonymous No.15708216]

>>15708212
> I have grown and expanded my mind and social network significantly since childhood.
Self-evidently false. Your reply to this post will prove me right again. :^)

[Anonymous No.15708223]

>>15708214
The very first sentence is "Koalas live in complex social groups", you absolute idiot.
It then describes it in the next sentences how they form stable breeding groups where individual members of Koala society maintain their own "home range" areas. It also talks about how their communication with each other works and how Koalas use a range of sounds to communicate with one another over large distance using a deep grunting bellow which the male uses to signify its social and physical position to others.

I see you are back to the nuh-uh-> I don't know -> u r dum loop you keep getting stuck in.

[Anonymous No.15708225]

>>15708216
> :^)
>>15708146
> :^(
Not even sure what the topic is in this tab but I guess it's global warming?

[Anonymous No.15708228]

>>15708223
Literally nothign in your post involves any "group strategy", but I guess I should get used to you, the mentally ill bot, redefining terminology on the fly to save its mongoloidal corporate narrative. lol

[Anonymous No.15708229]

>>15708216
You are not my self, your opinions is not my self evidence, my self provided evidence is what I just told you.
The only thing you have proven is you still can't define any of your terms and you are perpetually stuck in some retarded nuh-uh-> I don't know -> u r dum thought loop where you can never explain yourself or define your terms and everything is dependent on being contrarian to whatever someone else said so you can justify whatever random insult amuses your retard brain in the moment.

[Anonymous No.15708231]

>>15708229
>proves my point just as predicted
Zero development. Zero growth. You are static.

[Anonymous No.15708233]

>>15708228
Yes sure, forming complex social groups where they divy up territory and communicate with each other over long distances using deep grunts to occasionally meet and cohabit in social breeding spaces has nothing to do with group strategy.

[Anonymous No.15708235]

>>15708233
Nothing whatsoever to do with group strategies. You're welcome to die on that hill. It only helps my case that you're seriously ill.

[Anonymous No.15708243]

>>15708231
You are the one not developing your own assertions because you are the one that refuses to define anything and can't logically justify anything you have said, so you have to stay stuck in a contrarian thought loop and if I did develop, you would be contrarian to that to and just call it worthless ad hoc injections followed by some insulting meme label.

[Anonymous No.15708247]

>>15708243
>You are the one not developing your own assertions
My main assertion here is that you're a fucking retard, which I've developed by rubbing your nose in the implications of your opinions and causing you to spew increasingly more absurd statements. lol

[Anonymous No.15708249]

>>15708235
It is exactly a group strategy for sharing territory and breeding.

[Anonymous No.15708251]

>>15708247
No, your main assertion is that you don't actually know anything about thoughts or minds, its a complete mystery to you other than the fact you always know exactly what has them and who doesn't.

[Anonymous No.15708253]

>>15708249
>It is exactly a group strategy
How do they say? You're "not even wrong". Intelligent people sharpen their terminology and definitions to help them make useful distinctions. Mentally ill cretins (like you) absue, dilute and muddy language to render useful distinctions impossible. Dolphins coordinating to hunt? "Group strategy". Microbial growth stabilizing? "Group strategy". It's all the same when you're a retarded kike.

[Anonymous No.15708255]

>>15708251
See >>15708253 for the final word on you and your opinions. I've accepted your concession. No more discussion to be had. Your inevitable reply will only demonstrate the profound negrosis of your prefrotnal cortex and your lack of self-control.

[Anonymous No.15708256]

>>15708253
So its not a group strategy when people get together and decide how to split up land/resources and develop communication lines to have social gatherings or is it only not a group strategy when groups of koalas do that?

[Anonymous No.15708258]

>>15708253
>Intelligent people sharpen their terminology and definitions to help them make useful distinctions
You haven't provided a single definition for any of your claims, you just say everything is a mystery while still asserting that you understand exactly how it works despite not knowing what it even is then include a list of insults to distract from your lack of evidence, logic, or reasoning.

[Anonymous No.15708260]

>>15708253
> Intelligent people sharpen their terminology and definitions to help them make useful distinctions. Mentally ill cretins (like you) absue, dilute and muddy language to render useful distinctions impossible.
nailed it

[Anonymous No.15708263]

>>15708255
Not only do you suck at logic and mindfulness, you also aren't any good at reverse psychology.
You are the one giving up and conceding the argument by trying to even employ such a retarded tactic in such a retarded manner.

[Anonymous No.15708264]

>the seething bot keeps replying to the same post over and over again
I think I broke it.

[Anonymous No.15708265]

>>15708260
What definitions did you provide that were so useful in proving you are the only life forms with thoughts again?

[Anonymous No.15708268]

>>15708264
You replied to yourself to vaguely congratulate yourself 2 of those times, though.

[Anonymous No.15708271]

>>15708265
wtf are you talking about retard?

[Anonymous No.15708274]

>>15708271
I am talking about the way you implied that I abused, diluted, and muddied your definition of something when you haven't provided any definitions because you know they don't support your argument.

[Anonymous No.15708277]

>>15708274
unironically wtf are you talking about, schizo?

[Anonymous No.15708281]

>>15708277
I am talking about the way you don't know what you are talking about and can't justify or define anything you have said, so all you can do is either say nu-uh, idk, or use some random insult to get attention and pretend you have anything meaningful to contribute.

[Anonymous No.15708282]

>>15708281
>pretend you have anything meaningful to contribute.
i didn't, i just agreed with his summary. i didn't have anything to add because there's nothing to add. i think he nailed it

[Anonymous No.15708286]

>>15708282
I am sure its just a coincidence the poster count didn't go up, but If you think he nailed it, then you should have some idea of what definitions were being abused, but you clearly don't because you are clearly just him trying to astroturf because you realized you failed miserable and are employing a bunch of shitty tactics like astroturfing your own support and employing reverse psychology to shut detractors down.

[Anonymous No.15708293]

>>15708286
>poster count didn't go up
must've gone up from 2 to 52 right after your last post, because apparently the thread was just the two of you. jesus anon. anyway, why are getting so angry? i agree with you as well. in a world where koalas get together and strategize a bacteria can think. it's a world where you can't be wrong because words just don't mean anything. have a nice life retard

[Anonymous No.15708295]

>>15708293
Except words do mean things and that is how we are able to describe exactly how koalas and bacteria form group strategies by using their senses and memories to make future predictions. I see that you still can't describe how any definitions were abused or words made meaningless, you are just seething that you demonstrably are not the only special snowflake in the universe capable of thought.

[Anonymous No.15708297]

>>15708295
have a nice life retard. i mean it

[Anonymous No.15708303]

>>15708297
As long as you had fun getting proven wrong over and over with words that do mean things, my life will be just fine.

[Anonymous No.15708306]

>>15708303
i wonder what happens if you ever leave your basement and discover that nobody but you thinks bacteria have thoughts. will you "prove" them all wrong and insist they're all the same person? bright future ahead of you indeed. jesus anon

[Anonymous No.15708310]

>>15708306
Maybe he can call his smooth-brained koala friends for backup and come up with a group strategy to win that argument. lol

[Anonymous No.15708314]

>>15708306
I didn't make it up on my own, I am clearly not the only or first person to make that observation, I actually studied things and watched documentaries because I am not stuck in your nuh uh-> idk -> u r dum thought loop, so I know that there are entire series about "The Blob" and how it can solve mazes and think about its environment more efficiently than mice.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YWbY7kWesI

[Anonymous No.15708318]

>I actually studied things and watched documentaries
>posts 10 min wired video
is this nigger trolling or what?

[Anonymous No.15708327]

>>15708318
No, I just don't think you have the attention span for a more comprehensive documentary and I was right since you clearly don't even have the attention span for a 10 minute wired video given you barely took 1 minute to respond, but the wired one at least introduces all the terms, gives an overview of the situation and provides what one would need to learn more about the subject and hunt down more comprehensive documentaries like the hour long one from BBC.

[Anonymous No.15708332]

>>15708327
slime mold doesn't change anything in this argument one way or another. it still all just boils down to the fact that you're abusing language to rationalize your kiddie fantasies

[Anonymous No.15708341]

>>15708332
No, you still can't actually describe how language is abused by anyone other than you when you keep claiming you understand something because it is a mystery and you have some well developed understanding of thinking because you can't even define it.

[Anonymous No.15708348]

>>15708341
go outside and touch grass, you overgrown haploid

[Anonymous No.15708352]

>>15708348
I do sincerely hope you break out of your pathetic little nu-uh->idk->u r dum someday.

[Anonymous No.15708354]

>>15708352
see >>15708348

[Anonymous No.15708355]

>>15708354
see>>15708352
I really do sincerely hope you break out of your pathetic little nu-uh->idk->u r dum loop someday.

[Anonymous No.15708360]

LOL @ that schizo still looping and stalling an hour after I got bored with it.

[Anonymous No.15708371]

>>15708360
Stalling is when you use fallacies and retarded tactics like astroturfing your own support and reverse psychology because you know your original argument is shitty and illogical and you have no way to actually support it.

[Anonymous No.15708372]

LOL @ that schizo bumping this thread over and over. It just can't get over being schooled.

[Anonymous No.15708375]

>>15708372
>being this amused and happy by your own logical failure
I really envy retards sometimes.

[Anonymous No.15708378]

LOL @ that schizo literally begging me for (You)s and still trying to prove itself to me.

[Anonymous No.15708385]

>>15708378
You would have to be able to think to have something proven to you and you have clearly demonstrated that you don't believe thought is actually possible.

[Anonymous No.15708387]

LOL @ that schizo literally begging and screaming for my attention.

[Anonymous No.15708398]

>>15708387
>>15708387
>my shitty low effort reverse psychology will work eventually and as long as I make the last post, it means I was right about everything

[Anonymous No.15708420]

LOL @ that schizo giving me infinite (You)s on demand.

[Anonymous No.15708444]

>>15708420
>>15708375
Here you go (You) farmer, enjoy collecting your (You) by being completely retarded and irrelevant.

[Anonymous No.15708455]

LOL @ the schizo who just can't wind down from the asshurt inflicted upon him by my superiority. I'll be living rent-free in his head for months.

[Anonymous No.15708460]

>>15708455
>>15708375
This thread won't last months, you will be forgotten as soon as it reaches page 15 because your logic was terrible and nothing you have claimed is worth any further though now that it has been easily refuted.

[Anonymous No.15708463]

>>15699191
neither both either
it's a just description of existing or possible phenomena
*shrug*

[Anonymous No.15708479]

>This thread won't last months
But my rent-free existence in your head will.

[Anonymous No.15708489]

>>15708479
What? Who?

[Anonymous No.15708491]

LOL @ the schizo still fighting for my attention.

[Anonymous No.15708496]

>>15699191
Math is the blood of the living word (Yaweh) made flesh (Oily Josh )

[Anonymous No.15708615]

>>15699191
Mathematical notation is invented

Mathematical concepts are discovered

[Anonymous No.15708622]

>>15699191
was language discovered or invented?
Answer is yes to both, math is a language too. Just like languages, which can be natural sounds, grunts, screams and reactions which we still retain after evolution. But mostly, it is invented stuff.
See, it is same in math. For example, even numbers are an invention.

[Anonymous No.15708623]

>>15699191
this is semantic horseshit

kys

[Anonymous No.15709385]

>>15704350
>>someone just binged The last of us

[Anonymous No.15709391]

>>15699191
invented

[Anonymous No.15709403]

>>15704995
Mohammed was not invented yet black ape

[Anonymous No.15709410]

>>15706490
Every day a new number of pi is discovered

[Anonymous No.15709411]

>>15699194
Enjoy the delirium of a retard. You might lose brain matter after reading this. You've been warned.
I would say that all of math is invented. However axiomatic something may seem, it's still generated by our mind for our mind. It's just how we make sense of things.
But things like pi just show, to me at least, that universe is not literally mathematical, therefore all math is an invention rather than a discovery.
Same thing with words I guess.

[Anonymous No.15710395]

>>15708360
>>15708372
>>15708378
>>15708387
>>15708420
>>15708455
>>15708491
What exactly is this? Is this what a mental breakdown looks like?