/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.5364896]

I know this isn't science or math.
BUT
What big philisophical questions have been weighing on your mind recently? For me it's why am I conscious. I mean if we replicated a brain and blasted it with electricity would it be able to think? I dont think so. What makes animals so special? also do plants have consciousness?
Hrmmmmm
pic sort of related...in my mind right now im having sex with her

[Anonymous No.5364898]

>>5364896
Prove your claims or fuck off to >>>/x/ with that spiritualism shit.

[Anonymous No.5364904]

also do you think there is need for a new field of study that integrates quantum mechanics with philosophy? it seems like the consequences of QM make a lot of bold statements about the universe that effect who we are and what we are made up of, and what is our identity
ps. I just had the same captcha twice woahh

[Anonymous No.5364906]

>>5364898
I think I'd rather stand firm here in the face of adversity than fuck off to a buch of retards. Not like sci is much better but meh

[Anonymous No.5364908]

>>5364906
Then where's your evidence?

[Anonymous No.5364912]

I didnt even make a claim...evidence for what?

[Anonymous No.5364916]

Your question is messed up.
You are making the assumption that there is a reason why you are conscious.

[Anonymous No.5364917]

>I mean if we replicated a brain and blasted it with electricity would it be able to think? I dont think so.

why?

[Anonymous No.5364919]

>>5364896
>I mean if we replicated a brain and blasted it with electricity
That's called having a child, and yes he thinks as much as you do.

[Anonymous No.5364922]

i have been thinking, because the universe is expanding there will come a time when there will be no visible stars and there will be a species of intelligent beings somewhere in which the 'scientists' will preach about stars and galaxys and the 'atheists' will be all like ''i don't beleive in such thing, why do you beleive something that was written 40,000 years ago'' etc.

[Anonymous No.5364923]

>>5364898
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S096098221200320X

[Anonymous No.5364928]

>>5364916
First of all he makes the assumption that a soul / consciousness exists. I'd like to see some evidence for this claim.

[Anonymous No.5364933]

>>5364928
Consciousness is usually covered in philosophy 101. Go away if you haven't taken it

[Anonymous No.5364940]

>>5364923
Good one, I lol'd.

>>5364933
This is a science board, not a philosophy board. Back to >>>/lit/

[Anonymous No.5364941]

>>5364933
lel
But please don't shitpost, enlighten us instead.

[Anonymous No.5364945]

>>5364933
I asked for evidence. Where is your evidence?

[Anonymous No.5364946]

>>5364940
Philosophy is a science.

[Anonymous No.5364944]

>>5364896
>I dont think so.
Why? I think consciousness is an emergent property of systems with sufficient complexity.

[Anonymous No.5364947]

>>5364944
>emergent

Cool synonym for "magic" you have there.

http://lesswrong.com/lw/iv/the_futility_of_emergence/

[Anonymous No.5364950]

>>5364945
Go take philosophy 101. Here's a good textbook http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Philosophy-Classical-Contemporary-Readings/dp/0195112040

[Anonymous No.5364951]

Dan Dennett - Consciousness Explained
Read it

[Anonymous No.5364952]

>>5364947
>Eliezer Shlomo Yudkowsky (born September 11, 1979[1]) is an American writer, blogger, researcher in AI and decision theory, and advocate for the development of friendly artificial intelligence[2][3] and the understanding of a possible future singularity
I don't think he understands philosophy.

[Anonymous No.5364953]

>>5364950
>>5364951
Back to >>>/lit/. This is a science board. Neither undergrad philosophy courses nor pseudo-intellectual drivel will help you back up your claims. We require hard evidence.

[Anonymous No.5364957]

>>5364952
>strawman and ad hominem

He never claimed to understand philosophy and his person is not relevant to the fact that what he said in this article is correct.

[Anonymous No.5364958]

OP here. sorry for starting an asbolutely shitty thread. I dont know how to delete it.. I just want to know why I am here and I firmly believe that there is more to life than a mere accidental combination of chemicals. Otherwise we would be no different than robots.

[Anonymous No.5364956]

>>5364896

Just when I didnt think you could get more deep you added your pic related

One of our generations finest minds

[Anonymous No.5364961]

>>5364947
>>5364957
By emergent I'm talking about any system able to gather, remember, and process information. So both humans, AI and animals would be "conscious"

[Anonymous No.5364962]

>>5364953
Define "hard evidence". All evidence is anecdotal.

[Anonymous No.5364964]

>>5364961
If that "emergent" property has no observable effects, it is non-existent. You are free to believe in non-interacting ghosts, but do it on >>>/x/

[Anonymous No.5364966]

>>5364962
Objectively verifiable evidence, nitwit.

[Anonymous No.5364970]

>>5364964
It's a synonym for a collection of phenomena, like memory and executive function. Why would this be non-existent?

[Anonymous No.5364973]

>>5364961

>gather, remember, and process information

This does in no way guarantee sentience

[Anonymous No.5364977]

>>5364970
It is a synomym for a magical soul. Cognitive abilities have their own names and don't need to be confused with spiritualist nonsense. lrn2neuroscience

[Anonymous No.5364978]

>>5364973
How so? What else would we be missing?

[Anonymous No.5364981]

>>5364973
Go back to >>>/x/ with that dualism shit. Not science.

[Anonymous No.5364980]

>>5364947
>posting links to a singularity cult
>on /sci/
I want the wide-eyed dreamers to leave /sci/.

[Anonymous No.5364987]

>>5364978

You can simulate a human brain on a processor and it will do all those things without being sentient

[Anonymous No.5364988]

>>5364966
You still have yet to define anything. Where's your evidence that I need to supply this kind of evidence?

[Anonymous No.5364989]

>>5364978
>what are we missing?
A scientifically testable definition and evidence of your soul nonsense.

>>5364985
Then don't use it at all. It is unscientific as fuck.

[Anonymous No.5364984]

I am going to start posting pictures of baby animals until we all stop fighting so this thread can die peacefully. thanks.

[Anonymous No.5364985]

>>5364977
>it is a synonym for magical soul
Well I'm not using it as one.

[Anonymous No.5364991]

>>5364987
You mean like a human? Humans are biological machines. We don't have magical souls either.

[Anonymous No.5364992]

[Anonymous No.5364993]

>>5364987
But what is sentience then?

>>5364989
I'm not using any soul nonsense. How is it unscientific?

[Anonymous No.5364994]

GUYS LOOK AT THE WITTLE ELEPHANT

[Anonymous No.5364996]

>>5364991

The output you get from a processor is our interpretation. Imagine if this was your processor

What makes us different? beats me...

[Anonymous No.5364997]

>>5364993
>But what is sentience then?
Untestable /x/ shit.

>How is it unscientific?
It cannot be tested, cannot be measured, cannot be observed and has no evidence.

[Anonymous No.5364998]

>>5364993

Dont respond to him, he is a known autists that derails every thread that mentions sentience.

[Anonymous No.5365006]

>>5364953
So you haven't read it, I see.
You should try reading it before you dismiss it as soft.

[Anonymous No.5365007]

>>5365003

dont respond to him or this thread will derail

[Anonymous No.5365008]

>>5364998
This is a science board. Baseless claims belong on >>>/x/. In science claims require evidence.

[Anonymous No.5365011]

>>5364998
Really? Ok. I haven't been on /sci/ for a while, I never remember this kind of hostility last year.

[Anonymous No.5365003]

>>5364997
Memory and executive function have lots of evidence.

[Anonymous No.5365014]

>>5365011

It's just one guy, just ignore him.

[Anonymous No.5365015]

>>5365006
I have science and math books to read. I have no time to waste with idiotic pseudo-philosophical drivel.

>>5365003
Indeed. Cognitive abilities are testable and have their own names. In no way does this prove a magical soul / consciousness / sentience.

[Anonymous No.5365021]

>>5365007
The thread is still on topic. OP made a claim and we are asking him to provide evidence.

[Anonymous No.5365025]

>>5365021

Usually when this guy posts the thread derails into flaming.

[Anonymous No.5365029]

>why am I conscious.
that's not philosophy OP, that's basic neurobio/chem. Sure you might not be prepared to spend a year in uni to understand the answer but that doesn't make your ponderings relevant. It's like using philosophy to answer why some rocks are heavier than others

However since /sci/ is just a bunch of pseudo-intellectual high schoolers this thread will be popular anyways

[Anonymous No.5365023]

>>5365015
>idiotic pseudo-philosophical drivel
That's entirely insulting and subjective. You have no idea what philosophy is. How about you answer my question in >>5364988 instead of repeating your mindless logical positivist propaganda?

[Anonymous No.5365032]

>>5365023
>philosophy 101
>not bullshit
pick one, faggot.

[Anonymous No.5365033]

>no evidence for consciousness
Seems like my theory that everyone else except me is simply a dummy is becoming more and more supported by the most brilliant of our generation's minds.

[Anonymous No.5365036]

>>5365015
I've never heard consciousness being used this was before

[Anonymous No.5365037]

>>5365023
I am not promoting logical positivism. Learn to read. I know more philosophy than you do and your edgy babble is pseudo-philosophy at its best.

>>5365025
That's true. The /x/tards and trolls get upset when their bullshit is being questioned rationally.

[Anonymous No.5365038]

>>5365021
Evidence was provided. Go read the philosophy texts everyone linked.

>>5365032
>hurr durr I'm so smarets xDDD
Philosophy of the mind is an entire academic field. Stop being so ignorant.

[Anonymous No.5365035]

>>5365023

>>5364998

WHY DIDNT YOU LISTEN

[Anonymous No.5365040]

>>5365036
Now you know. Don't make the same mistakes again.

[Anonymous No.5365042]

>science doesn't currently explain consciousness
>therefore consciousness doesn't exist and isn't scientific

You're one of those people who'd burn scientists for questioning the current dogma.

However I don't approve of this thread being on /sci/. Polite sage.

[Anonymous No.5365039]

>>5365015
>I have no time to waste with idiotic pseudo-philosophical drivel.
What made you decide that this book is such? Because you are wrong.

[Anonymous No.5365044]

>>5365037
>I am not promoting logical positivism.
Yes you are. Do you even know what that means? Stop avoiding the question.

> I know more philosophy than you do
Haha, good one. It really shows. /irony

Go back to watching Dawkins videos.

[Anonymous No.5365047]

>>5364998

[Anonymous No.5365045]

>>5365038
>Philosophy of the mind is an entire academic field.
No, it's not.

[Anonymous No.5365046]

I've been thinking about dependencies between having sex/masturbating and confidence boosts. It seems that fapping/having sex often lowers one's needs for making himself distinguishable and make him less confrontional, while the other make both those feelings stronger.

It's pretty damn logical, I guess. If you can't catch a girl for weeks, your brain forces you to consider doing more and more silly things to finally get one.

The thing is, that both of those situations are rather bad - in the first one you're a beta faggot, while in the other you're a frustrated maniac, that starts to think, that doing anything, that could change your current situation is a good idea.

Saying in other words: there's a sexual optimum someplace between those states, when you're frustrated enough to be very productive and creative, but you're not mad enough to do silly things.

[Anonymous No.5365050]

>>5365045
http://journals.academia.edu/in/Philosophy_of_Mind

Keep demonstrating that outstanding ignorance.

[Anonymous No.5365052]

>>5365038
>Evidence was provided.
>Go read the philosophy texts
10/10, I sure got tricked here.

>Philosophy of the mind is an entire academic field
About as accepted as homeopathy, racialism and astrology.

[Anonymous No.5365049]

>>5365038
>being mature on /sci/

[Anonymous No.5365055]

>>5365050
WOW, they have journals! NOW I'm impressed, you sure told me!

[Anonymous No.5365060]

>>5365052
OP posted a philosophy thread. Philosophical evidence was provided.

>About as accepted as homeopathy, and astrology.
Those aren't philosophical areas.

>racialism
Your point?

>>5365055
Not my fault you're some ignorant STEM student. Go back to thinking that logical positivism and Popper ideology can explain everything.

[Anonymous No.5365059]

>>5365039
It is certainly not a science book.

>>5365042
There is nothing to explain as long as there's no evidence for its existence. Or do you think science has to explain non-interactin invisible demons as well?

>>5365044
>Yes you are
I'm not. Please point out where I mentioned logical positivism.

>Haha, good one. It really shows. /irony
Shitposting only shows how weak your position is.

>Go back to watching Dawkins videos.
I am not interested in religion.

[Anonymous No.5365072]

>>5365059
>There is nothing to explain as long as there's no evidence for its existence

OK, I'll bite.

Aren't 7 billion conscious humans, and possibly billions more conscious animals proof?

Or is defining consciousness the problem?

[Anonymous No.5365074]

>>5365050
There are journals for astrology as well. Does that make it a science?

>>5365060
>OP posted a philosophy thread.
That's shitposting and off-topic. /sci/ is for science and math.

>Philosophical evidence was provided.
>philosophical
>evidence
roflmao

>Those aren't philosophical areas.
Yes, they are.

[Anonymous No.5365077]

>>5365059
>Please point out where I mentioned logical positivism.
Logical positivism, also called logical empiricism, a philosophical movement that arose in Vienna in the 1920s and was characterized by the view that scientific knowledge is the only kind of factual knowledge and all traditional metaphysical doctrines are to be rejected as meaningless.

>Shitposting only shows how weak your position is.
I'm not shitposting.

>I am not interested in religion.
He's a perfect description of your attitude.

[Anonymous No.5365081]

>>5365072
>argumentum ad populum

Wow, we got a christfag in here. "Hurr if millions of people believe in god, he must be real, durrr." No, you retard. In science claims require objectively verifiable evidence.

[Anonymous No.5365082]

>>5365072
>Or is defining consciousness the problem?
Obviously that's the problem, dude...

[Anonymous No.5365084]

>>5365059
>It is certainly not a science book.
Is that so? Because it sure seemed like a science book when I read it. In particular, the author uses modern scientific understanding to rule out ideas like "p-zombies" and "qualia", and you know how often this board is poisoned with such stupid ideas.
If you knew what was in the book and took the time to read it, you wouldn't reject it as being "not science". But I get it, you're really insecure and you're so mad at all the arts students and you want everyone to understand just how awesome you are. That's cool, but you've got a false negative here - will you react like a scientist, or like an english major? Let's see.

[Anonymous No.5365089]

>>5365081
0/10

>>5365082
I've recently downloaded a paper on this issue, haven't read it yet, though. I'll post it here once I find it.

[Anonymous No.5365092]

>>5365074
>There are journals for astrology as well. Does that make it a science?
I do not know of any. I do not know of any university which allows you to research such a topic. Care to provide some?

>That's shitposting and off-topic. /sci/ is for science and math.
Thanks mom. ;) Learn to ignore shit you don't like.

>roflmao
Start here: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evidence/

>Yes, they are.
Proof?

Please answer my question: >>5364988

[Anonymous No.5365094]

>>5365077
>Logical positivism
You don't need to post definitions I already know.

>I'm not shitposting.
Yes, you are.

>He's a perfect description of your attitude.
Silly ad hominem.

>>5365072
Please back up that claim with evidence. Show me one confirmed case of a biological being with a soul / consciousness.

[Anonymous No.5365090]

>>5365077
Dude we know what logical positivism is, don't bore us. However, not believing in every fairy tale you hear doens't make you a logical positivist.

[Anonymous No.5365104]

>>5365090
You asked for evidence. Evidence was provided. What you want is scientific evidence. There is no such thing for a metaphysical phenomena. That doesn't mean we won't eventually find some, however. Do you not realize belief in consciousness is on the same ground as believe in macro-scale evolution? I do not think consciousness is a "fairy tale" at all. Many prominent philosophers recognize it.

[Anonymous No.5365115]

>>5365084
>"p-zombies" and "qualia"
Sure sounds like science. /sarcasm

>>5365092
> I do not know of any university which allows you to research such a topic
And I don't know of any university that considers spirtitualism to be science. Take that shit to >>>/x/

>Thanks mom. ;)
No problem, son. ^^

>Learn to ignore shit you don't like.
No.

>Start here
Not a scientific source.

[Anonymous No.5365116]

>>5365094
>You don't need to post definitions I already know.
Then how does that definition not reflect your position?

>Yes, you are.
How?

>Silly ad hominem.
That's not an ad hominem.

[Anonymous No.5365111]

>>5365089
Well, basically all definition for "consciousness" I read are either so trivial they basically apply to your cellphone as well or so crazy in their postulations that there's no evidence anything in the universe actually has that property.
However, I'd be very interested in reasonable defintions.

[Anonymous No.5365112]

>>5365089
Here we go:

http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2010/12/14/rspb.2010.2325

A scientific paper discussing consciousness.

[Anonymous No.5365122]

>>5365104
>Many prominent philosophers recognize it.
And many prominent retards recognize other retarded shit. What idiots believe is not what constitutes science.

>>5365112
>scientific paper
>promoting spiritualism
10/10, fucking master troll

[Anonymous No.5365123]

>>5365104
>There is no such thing for a metaphysical phenomena.
>a metaphysical phenomena
>a phenomena
confirmed for retard

[Anonymous No.5365125]

>>5365115

>If I label my opponents viewpoints as "spiritualism" enough times it will be true!

[Anonymous No.5365130]

>>5365116
>Then how does that definition not reflect your position?
Read my posts again and you'll see.

>That's not an ad hominem.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

>>5365125
Look up the definition of spiritualism. What those people propose is spiritualism.

[Anonymous No.5365133]

>>5365115
>And I don't know of any university that considers spirtitualism to be science. Take that shit to >>>/x/
You're avoiding the question. Which universities recognize astrology as a academic interest?

Spiritualism isn't the same thing as philosophy of the mind. What university do you even attend? I'd be happy to list many for you which recognize philosophy of the mind as an academic area.

>Not a scientific source.
There are none. There's other kinds of evidence besides scientific ones, logical positivist.

Please answer my question: >>5364988

>>5365123
phenomena plural of phe·nom·e·non (Noun) an appearance or immediate object of awareness in experience.

Please elaborate. How am I a "retard"?

[Anonymous No.5365134]

>>5365122
>spiritualism
Honestly I hope you're trolling. You couldn't have even read and understood the abstract by now.

[Anonymous No.5365139]

>>5365133
You DO know what "plural" MEANS, right?

[Anonymous No.5365140]

>>5365130
>What those people propose is spiritualism.
>said anon after studying and understanding the presented material

Sometimes I really feel like I'm surrounded by angsty teens.

[Anonymous No.5365144]

>>5365130
>Read my posts again and you'll see.
I hope you don't actually think this is an argument. You're only accepting scientific evidence. That's logical positivism.

>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
That definition agrees with me.

[Anonymous No.5365145]

>>5365140
>Sometimes I really feel like I'm surrounded by angsty teens.

I have news for you...

[Anonymous No.5365149]

>>5365139
Oh, I see the error now. I'm sorry. English isn't my first, or even second, language.

[Anonymous No.5365152]

>>5365115
>Sure sounds like science. /sarcasm
That's the point, numbnuts. Illustrating that science cannot accommodate notions like these given our current understanding is exactly what distinguishes it.
You're clearly too scared to ever say "I don't know". That makes you a bad scientist. plz2feelbad.

[Anonymous No.5365146]

>>5365133
>Which universities recognize astrology as a academic interest?
Which university recognizes spiritualism as an academic interest?

>Spiritualism isn't the same thing as philosophy of the mind
Look up the definition of spiritualism and see why you're wrong.

>There are none
Finally you admit that you don't have evidence. Please fuck off to >>>/x/ now.

[Anonymous No.5365154]

>>5365146
>Which university recognizes spiritualism as an academic interest?
None do.

>Look up the definition of spiritualism and see why you're wrong.
Philosophy of mind is a branch of philosophy that studies the nature of the mind, mental events, mental functions, mental properties, consciousness, and their relationship to the physical body, particularly the brain.

Spiritualism is a belief system or religion, postulating the belief that spirits of the dead residing in the spirit world have both the ability and the inclination to communicate with the living. Anyone may receive spirit messages, but formal communication sessions (séances) are held by "mediums", who can then provide information about the afterlife.

>Finally you admit that you don't have evidence. Please fuck off to >>>/x/ now.
There isn't any scientific evidence. I think philosophy is an okay topic for /sci/.

[Anonymous No.5365158]

>>5365144
>You're only accepting scientific evidence. That's logical positivism.
No, that's called "scientific method". And while a logical positivst will probably accept the scientific method in some variations, using the scientific method doesn't make you a logical positivist. Maybe you should actually learn philosophy before trying to defend it?

[Anonymous No.5365161]

>>5365134
Belief in a magical soul / consciousness is spiritualism.

>>5365140
>Sometimes I really feel like I'm surrounded by angsty teens.
I guess those are your peer group.

>>5365144
>You're only accepting scientific evidence
Do you have any idea where you are? Hint: It's called "/sci/ - science and math".

>That's logical positivism.
Nope.

>>5365152
> Illustrating that science cannot accommodate notions like these
"Hurr durr science can't explain unobservable magic, therefore science is wrong."
I'm waiting for you to post "lol I trole u xD".

[Anonymous No.5365170]

>>5365158
I don't see how this follows. The original poster created a philosophy thread. Someone asked for evidence, so philosophical evidence was presented. The poster denied the philosophical evidence as being evidence, and insisted that consciousness is isomorphic to spiritualism. That isn't the scientific method at all. You can't apply the scientific method to metaphysical discussion.

[Anonymous No.5365172]

>>5365154
>Philosophy of mind is a branch of philosophy that studies
Guess what it's not. It's not science.

>Spiritualism is
That definition is not correct. Please use a dictionary.

>There isn't any scientific evidence
Then you agree this thread belongs on >>>/x/

> I think philosophy is an okay topic for /sci/.
Only science and math belong on /sci/.

[Anonymous No.5365175]

>>5365170
>You can't apply the scientific method to metaphysical discussion.
That's the point.

[Anonymous No.5365177]

>>5365154
While I think you're a totally cool guy, I disagree that philosophy is a good subject for this board.

This thread is already making so many people mad, it'd be great if it just died.

>>5365161
Belief in a magical soul / consciousness is spiritualism.
>magical soul = consciousness
You're discussing an article which you didn't even read the abstract of. That's unscientific.

>>That's logical positivism.
>Nope.
Please make sure you know the definition of the term you're arguing over.

>I guess those are your peer group.
Oh boy you sure did show me.

[Anonymous No.5365178]

>>5365161
>Do you have any idea where you are? Hint: It's called "/sci/ - science and math".
So? Why can't we discuss philosophy here?

>Nope.
Explain why.

You still did not answer my question. Please do >>5364988

[Anonymous No.5365179]

>>5365170
>isomorphic

Oh look, babby doesn't even understand his freshman math definitions.

[Anonymous No.5365181]

>>5365175
Well then why are you referring to it as the scientific method? This is a thread about metaphysics.

[Anonymous No.5365183]

>>5365161
>"Hurr durr science can't explain unobservable magic, therefore science is wrong."
It's not that it can't explain these things, but that any attempts to define such phenomena contradict our understanding. And it was only an example.
Keep up the willful ignorance, it's hilarious.

[Anonymous No.5365185]

>>5365177
>>5365177
>>5365177
>>5365177
/thread

[Anonymous No.5365186]

>>5365179
I do. Please tell me why you think the word was used incorrectly.

[Anonymous No.5365189]

>>5365177
>This thread is already making so many people mad, it'd be great if it just died.
Okay, I understand.

[Anonymous No.5365194]

>>5365170
>philosophical evidence
No such thing exists. Backing up a baseless claim by making more baseless claims is pure trolling.

>>5365177
>You're discussing an article which you didn't even read the abstract of
I have no reason to read articles about spiritualism.

>Please make sure you know the definition of the term you're arguing over.
I do. You don't.

>>5365178
>Why can't we discuss philosophy here?
Because it's off-topic.

[Anonymous No.5365196]

>>5364998
>>5364998
>>5364998

It didnt have to be this way

[Anonymous No.5365201]

>>5365186
Tell me what you think an isomorphism is. I could need a good laugh before correcting you.

[Anonymous No.5365216]

>>5365194
>I have no reason to read articles about spiritualism.
That article is not about spiritualism. Even if it was, you couldn't know it, because you didn't read a fucking word of it.

>I do. You don't.
You obviously have the wrong definition of the term logical positivism. No matter how many times you say you're right, it wont magically make you right. Besides, being a logical positivist is obviously a good trait as far as I can tell from your position, so why are you arguing this? (Oh right, because you know jack shit about it.)

For such an avid proponent of science, you seem to be pretty careless for respecting its methods and teachings.

>Because it's off-topic.
True, this thread needs to be saged.

[Anonymous No.5365217]

>>5365216
Shit, I forgot to sage.

[Anonymous No.5365226]

>>5365194
>No such thing exists. Backing up a baseless claim by making more baseless claims is pure trolling.
Did you read this yet? http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evidence/

>Because it's off-topic.
Are you a mod?

[Anonymous No.5365228]

>>5365216
>That article is not about spiritualism.
The title already claims the existence of paranormal phenomena.

>You obviously have the wrong definition of the term logical positivism
You obviously don't understand that implications are not bidirectional.

>True, this thread needs to be saged.
Sage it as hard as you can.

[Anonymous No.5365225]

>>5365217

thanks for letting us know

[Anonymous No.5365231]

>>5365201
In English "similarity in form".

In mathematics: "A one-to-one correspondence between the elements of two sets such that the result of an operation on elements of one set corresponds to the result of the analogous operation on their images in the other set."

[Anonymous No.5365230]

We should seriosuly take this shit to /q/ because as it is as soon as someone mentions sentience the thread gets derailed to hell and back

[Anonymous No.5365234]

>>5365226
>Did you read this yet?
I am too busy reading actual science and math books. I don't have time for edgy blog posts.

>Are you a mod?
If I was, this thread wouldn't exist anymore. It doesn't require mod powers to recognize that a thread on the science and math board is off-topic when it is neither about science nor about math.

[Synapse No.5365242]

>>5365235
PD: the moment is actually as long as 1 or 2 seconds.

[Synapse No.5365235]

Mine's is that moment when you do something its wrong and you are aware of. but for some reason you still do it. its something like a mind paradox.

[Anonymous No.5365237]

>>5365234

Why arent you on phys.org?

[Anonymous No.5365244]

>>5365230
Why? The mods already ban spiritualism and pseudo-philosophy threads when they get reported. It just takes some time. Complaining on /q/ won't make the mods work faster.

>>5365231
You copypaste that, but clearly you don't understand what it means.

[Anonymous No.5365249]

>>5365228
>The title already claims the existence of paranormal phenomena.

Funny I bet you don't even know the title. Because if you did, you'd probably feel stupid.

And you seem to be very inexperienced when it comes to scientific papers if you're only reducing them to their title.

This situation is getting even more and more hilarious.

>didn't read anything others have posted
>claim it's invalid because you have other things to do

>>5365244
>clearly you don't understand what it means.

You think "similarity in form" is too much for his poor little brain to handle?

[Anonymous No.5365250]

>>5365237
Why should I be there all day? I read their RSS feed. That takes me a few minutes.

>>5365247
No, but obviously it is 2advanced4u.

[Anonymous No.5365247]

>>5365244

Do you seriously consider isomorphism an advanced concept that you can act condescending to other people for mastering?

[Anonymous No.5365254]

>>5365250

I'm not even the guy you're arguing with, I just saw you being the biggest fag when I scrolled through first page

[Anonymous No.5365259]

>>5365250
>I read their RSS feed.
Confirmed for pop sci kid. No real scientist browses popsci websites.

[Anonymous No.5365262]

>>5365249
>And you seem to be very inexperienced when it comes to scientific papers if you're only reducing them to their title.
A paper with a title along the lines of "magical invisible unicorns exist and we can prove it" is not worth reading.

>You think "similarity in form" is too much for his poor little brain to handle?
Obviously. If it wasn't too much for him, he wouldn't have used it incorrectly.

[Anonymous No.5365265]

>>5365259
Way to show that you don't even know what an RSS feed is. I don't browse the site.

[Anonymous No.5365266]

>one guy getting anally annihilated because philosophy is getting discussed
>rage about how consciousness is unscientific and "magical" and therefore should be banned from discussion
>get presented evidence in form of scientific papers
>"fug you i gots better things to do"

[Anonymous No.5365273]

>>5365234
>I don't have time for edgy blog posts.
That isn't a blog post.

>If I was, this thread wouldn't exist anymore. It doesn't require mod powers to recognize that a thread on the science and math board is off-topic when it is neither about science nor about math.
Then hide the thread and report it.

>>5365249
I don't think I have a "poor little brain", but it's clear this person is a troll.

[Anonymous No.5365271]

>>5365266

I warned you after his first post not to respond to him but nooooo....

[Anonymous No.5365272]

>>5365266
>>get presented evidence in form of scientific papers

This hasn't yet happened.

[Anonymous No.5365281]

>>5365273
>I don't think I have a "poor little brain"
You don't have a brain?

[Anonymous No.5365283]

>>5365272
>didn't read the thread
Yes, I posted a published paper that discussed consciousness. This is enough proof that it is possible to discuss consciousness in scientific context. You, or whoever, didn't read even the title of the paper, and made a dumbass out of himself.

>>5365273
>I don't think I have a "poor little brain"
Sarcasm.

[Anonymous No.5365291]

>>5365281

He actually has more IQ than the rest of sci combined. That is why he was elected by the people of sci as our internet defended, and that is why he is allowed to carry the dreadful powers of autism into internet-battle

[Anonymous No.5365292]

>>5365283
>I posted a published paper that discussed consciousness
0/10

You posted pseudoscience. Pseudoscience is not welcome here.

[Anonymous No.5365295]

>>5365294
I am. Ad hominems won't help you.

[Anonymous No.5365296]

>>5365292
>didn't read the paper
>inb4 lel i was pretendeng all along xDD

[Anonymous No.5365294]

>>5365265
You're still not a scientist

[Anonymous No.5365303]

>>5365296
A paper that makes it obvious in the title that it isn't scientific is not worth reading.

[SAGE No.5365304]

http://archive.installgentoo.net/sci/thread/S5339043#p5339294


\THREAD

[Anonymous No.5365306]

>>5365295
Real scientsts don't read pop sci

[Anonymous No.5365309]

>>5365306
I do not read pop sci.

[Anonymous No.5365308]

>>5365304
>>5365304
>>5365304
>>5365304
>>5365304

[Anonymous No.5365324]

>>5365309
physorg is pop sci

[Anonymous No.5365328]

>>5365324
That explains why most of their feeds are shitty and devoid of content.

[Anonymous No.5365341]

>>5365328
What degrees do you have?

[Anonymous No.5365351]

>>5365341
Stop giving the troll attention, please.

[Anonymous No.5365352]

>>5365341
Why should I have a degree? I'm not a polynomial, I'm not an angle, I'm not a vertex in a graph ...

[Anonymous No.5365359]

>>5365341

Advanced derailing

[Anonymous No.5365365]

>>5365341
a PhD in quadratic equasions

[Anonymous No.5365372]

>>5365365

[Anonymous No.5365376]

>>5365365

And isomorphism

[Anonymous No.5365688]

>>5365074
>There are journals for astrology
Confirmed for ignorant faggot who doesn't know what peer-review is.
Back to /pol/ with you.

[Anonymous No.5365744]

>>5364896

>For me it's why am I conscious

Are you? Define consciousness.

Oh and plants are definitely conscious as they react to a gazillion different situations such as which plants are nearby, the kind of soil they're in, are animals eating them etc etc.

You are aware you can google half your questions?