[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 206 KB, 658x565, ps.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5441537 No.5441537[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

>> No.5441548

I've thought about this a lot and I'm actually looking forward to this.

Fuck having to work. Fuck having to think. Fuck having to do anything

>> No.5441549

>>5441548
There will never be post scarcity because if we ever make machines which can replace humans in every task then they will be basically human and demand compensation.

>> No.5441552

>>5441549
Baseless assumptions. What a shitty dismissal.

>> No.5441554

>>5441549
> implying all possible mind-designs are humanoid?

Why would robots desire compensation?

You've read/watched too much sci fi.

>> No.5441555

>>5441537
> hurrr machines will take over
your illiterate retarded childish fantasies belong to

>> No.5441556

People have to fix and think up machines and the need for art and other non-heavy labour related fields won't disappear unless we have super advanced robots.

>> No.5441581

I have long thought of this. Which is the only way communism would work is to have slaves/machines do the work.

So for starters we would need to increase our energy output many times over the current. Oil and coal is not good enough for this and only something with a high gain like fusion, could ever achieve this. As the increase of population the consumption will need to be way lower in growth rate compared to growth of the energy output. Which is the only way to increase our living standards, while we grow. Sorry for redundancy.

>> No.5441587

>>5441549
>programming robots to want compensation
>2057

>> No.5441588

This kind of thinking is just the lump of labor fallacy.

5000 years ago, 99% of "employment" was in agriculture. Now, less than 1% is. Are 98% of us unemployed? Did the system break? Are we living in a post-scarcity world?

>> No.5441590
File: 64 KB, 600x600, JM_BADBOY_MODEL.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5441590

>>5441588

>> No.5441593

So you argue that communism is inevitable?
I don't think anyone has ever doubted that, but nobody thinks that it will happen soon
Except for the marxists

>> No.5441595

>>5441588

yes

>> No.5441596

>>5441593
>I don't think anyone has ever doubted that

what

>> No.5441597

>>5441555
To where?

>> No.5441600

>Robots will make everything for everyone so no one will need to work

Resources will be required to construct these products. Resources will be required to run the factories and maintain the robots. Where are these resources coming from? Usually a company sells its products to use that money to keep things going and even make a profit.

But in an age of no money, where products are handed out for free, how do we determine which limited resources go to which factories for which products?

You can't just produce everything everyone wants, there aren't enough resources for that. There must be a way to allocate those resources. Keeping in mind that if you have some government allocate those resources then corruption is inevitable.

Not only corruption, but ineptitude. You can't trust some bureaucratic corruptible politicians and pencil pushers to effectively manage something as complex as the Earths resources, we'll just fuck it up, and fuck everything and everyone in the process.

So what do we do? How do we give people what they need without money and manage that in a way that doesn't lead to conflict or massive human fuck ups?

>> No.5441601

>>5441596
That the eventual advancement of technology will lead to a society in which there is no need for capitalism, or any other kind of political ideology, but marxism is probably the closest approximation
Complete automation
Or at least, that's what I think we are talking about
in theory

>> No.5441604

>>5441588
in 1st world food is basically post-scarcity.

>> No.5441606

>>5441604
>in 1st world food is basically post-scarcity.

So why isn't it free? Why do you need to work?

>> No.5441607

>>5441600
The fallibility you suggest does not align with humanities accomplishments
Unless you imply that an arbitrarily designed and designated item given an arbitrary value will somehow improve the collective intelligence of a group of individuals
In which case, I agree

>> No.5441608

>>5441601
>That the eventual advancement of technology will lead to a society in which there is no need for capitalism, or any other kind of political ideology

[citation needed]

>> No.5441609

>>5441607
RESOURCES ARE NOT INFINITE
EVERYTHING COMES FROM THE EARTH
the oils for our plastics, the metals for our alloys, the wood for our buildings, the food for our bellies.
ALL OF THESE THINGS ARE LIMITED RESOURCES
It doesn't matter how many robots you throw at this, there is a limited quantity of stuff to make stuff out of.

Which means you can't give everyone everything because there's only so much to go around. You have to have some system in place to decide what resources go where.

Topsoil is eroding faster then the Earth can replenish it, the nutrients we require to grow our food are not infinite. Even recycling requires energy and materials that are not infinite.

Everything is a limited resource, and when everything is free, some kind of system must be put into place to decide who gets what,

>> No.5441610

>>5441588
>Now, less than 1% is. Are 98% of us unemployed? Did the system break? Are we living in a post-scarcity world?

Unemployment is rising, and automation is doing incursions into the world of low-wage labour. It's not the same this time around, becuase we're approaching the point where an uneducated brain and pair of hands is more expensive and less capable than a pair of robot hands. If you were born retarded and handless in 1850, you'd feel how low skill labour will feel in 2050.

>> No.5441616

>>5441606
>Implying post scarsity means everything is free
It means that you get some money from goverment that you can spend on shit you like, no one is saying that there won't be money.

Just read the op

>> No.5441617

>>5441616
So the government decides who gets what. Really? Giving the government absolute power over allocation of resources sounds like a good idea to you? Consider the ineptitude and corruption, managing the resources of a planet, without fucking it up, and withing pissing everyone off, is nearly impossible.

>> No.5441621

>>5441609
>implying resources don't grow on trees
>implying extracting metals is done in expensive way
>thinks there is no way of creating resource exponentially, when in fact that's what we're been doing
While it would be a dream world, doesn't mean its far from possible. And don't go slippery slope, why wouldn't a machine being able to process our bureaucratic needs.

>> No.5441623

>>5441617
Reminds me of communism. The government setting prices, deciding how much people get paid, how much things cost. Every time it's been attempted they fuck it up. It's just too complicated for a corrupt government of inept fallible human beings to efficiently direct the resources of a nation without fucking everything completely up and bringing the entire system crashing to it's knees.

If someone believes ops post scarcity fantasy is realistic then I think that someone has far too much faith in the competence and honesty of human governments.

>> No.5441624

>>5441609
>RESOURCES ARE NOT INFINITE

I like how you green crazies group everything under the umbrella term of resources and hint that the most rare of these resources are the common denominator of every resource there is.
This is of course utter bullshit, no one is going to run out of iron, or electricity, or silicon in several millennias.

>Which means you can't give everyone everything because there's only so much to go around.
Elemental base resources are availible in abundance.
Electricity is availible in abundance and dose a very good job to flexibly meet demand.
Assuming fossil fuels start to look bleak, we can compensate by electricity expansion and use energetically expensive synthesis pathways for things such as fertilizers. and plastics and oil.

>Topsoil is eroding faster then the Earth can replenish it
Topsoil erosion can be prevented. Replenishment can be done by human activity.

>the nutrients we require to grow our food are not infinite
Fertilizers can be chemically syntethized from atmospheric CO2 given sufficient energy, Sufficient energy can be had by a solar expansion when it drops in price in the coming decades.

Everything you mention is alarmist hysterics to retard progress. Just lean back and relax, those with real competence knows how to adjust and be flexible enough to ensure your leasurely lifestile can be perpetually prolonged.

>> No.5441625

>>5441617
Everyone gets some arbitary amount of money,
also
>implying goveerment is worse than corporations
Whne robots get better at everything than humans, there is no work for anyone, then who is going to pay you if not goverment.

>> No.5441626

>>5441609
Oh my
Let's begin
>Technological singularity
I cannot stress this enough, this is a very distant future I am talking about. One would assume at this point we have conquered the stars, so we mastered fusion, eliminating the energy crisis for the measurable future
You don't understand what a limited resource is
You also don't seem to understand any laws of energy or matter
If there is a decision to be made as to what resources go where, it would be decided upon need. If there was no need, it would be divided equally
I'm not sure what you mean about the topsoil, but I can safely assume you are wrong without looking too silly
I wasn't implying everything should be free
Read up on your marxist theory dawg

>> No.5441628

>>5441621
>>implying resources don't grow on trees
Most resources don't. Meanwhile said trees themselves require resources to grow.
>>implying extracting metals is done in expensive way
Implying it could ever be done in a cheap or free way. It's always going to be a resource intensive process. Especially once we've already stripped the metals from the easy to access places.
>>thinks there is no way of creating resource exponentially, when in fact that's what we're been doing
We don't create resources, we extract them.
>While it would be a dream world, doesn't mean its far from possible.
It is far from possible
>And don't go slippery slope, why wouldn't a machine being able to process our bureaucratic needs
It would need to be a sentient machine.

And if we had an all powerful incorruptible benevolent AI dictator we could trust, then I may be inclined to embrace the fantasy. But we have no idea what AI is going to be like or when, or even if, it's ever going to happen. And frankly I'd be a bit nervous trusting it.

>> No.5441630

>>5441623
Wait a minute
Are you saying that the government doesn't control the currency system we have in place?
Also minimum wage controls the cost of living, not the other way around
You are too much of a cynic my friend
Wikipedia works, so does government

>> No.5441631

>>5441623
It's quite opposite, capitalism desides prices of things, while goverment just gives everyone money.

>> No.5441632

>>5441621
1/10 troll, just for making me post this.

>> No.5441633
File: 413 KB, 2282x1397, amount-of-natural-resources-left.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5441633

And this is how much resources we have left. Some things will last a long time, others not so much.

>> No.5441635

>>5441628
>nervous
>trusting a computer program designed to do something
Alright tinfoil, alright

>> No.5441637

>>5441625

Why does the government own everything? How did that happen?

>> No.5441638

>>5441623
The only reason it fucked up was it couldn't keep up with military production, which in a capitalist system, fuels the economy instead of turning it to waste.
>China is a 1st world nation now
I'm not saying communism is good, but its wrong to think, its like "Animal Farm", where they eventually become corrupt dickheads. Its a harsh but efficient system, still able to produce a fuckton, but with no creativity or diversity in thought.

>> No.5441639

>>5441626
>>Technological singularity
>I cannot stress this enough, this is a very distant future I am talking about.
The robots will be replacing most jobs long before we hit singularity. What are we going to do in the meantime while awaiting these super technologies to save our asses?

>> No.5441640

>>5441633
>59 years of Uranium around
Now that's just wrong

>> No.5441643

>>5441637
It doesn't

>> No.5441644

>>5441639
What super technologies?
Fusion?
Fusion solves everything bro
Literally
It does

>> No.5441646

>>5441635
So I'm a tinfoil for not entirely trusting an artificial intelligence which we know nothing about because its not even close to existing?

>trust the ai government which does not yet exist, the form and mind of said ai being something we can't even predict. anything less is crazy! trust!

>> No.5441648

>>5441637
>Why does the government own everything? How did that happen?
Op is talking about the destruction of our current economic systems. To be replaced with everyone getting free money to buy what they want. Humanity on welfare, which basically means, the government would own everything.

And we are to trust government with so much power considering its poor track record?

>> No.5441649

smaller world population would help alot

like 3 billion instead of 7

>> No.5441651

>>5441646
But we know everything there is to know about the AI
We built it, some guy went through and manually typed out everything it does, all the things it responds to
I would trust such a machine implicitly, so long as I trusted its makers

>> No.5441652
File: 112 KB, 590x441, over-the-past-century.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5441652

>>5441628
Our production has defiantly increased, exponentially. Picrelated.
>its not possible to produce more than we consume
But it is!

>>5441632
Nice namecalling, you call that an argument?

>> No.5441653

>>5441651
>>5441646
>implying ai is possible
why does everyone insta assume we will build ai eventually? what if it's impossible to build?

>> No.5441654

>>5441628
>Implying it could ever be done in a cheap or free way.
It's cheap, look at the amount we're extracting. The "resource intensive" part of the process is heat and electricity, that's practically free in equatorial regions if we expand solar. And also, you don't need much brain to run the process. Mines are replacing the truck drivers by autonomous ones(we're talking about enormous caterpillar mine carts now, not anything small, and this automation is not any futuristic projection, it's happening right now commerically).

This marginalization of human labour means that maintenance costs are going down in every single field, we'll eventually see this loop close for several fields, where not a single human is involved in any step from mining resources, shipping raw materials, producing manufacturing equipment, shipping manufacturing equipment and using manufacturing equipment to manufacture finished goods.

Oh, there might be a few guys in place to set them up at the locations as a one-time manouver, but once that's done, no humans involved and it's a closed cycle system.

>> No.5441655

>>5441648
>And we are to trust government with so much power
What power exactly, the "government" is just a big welfarecheck automat that gives everyone the same amount of money each month
Compared to modern government it would be weak as shit.

>> No.5441657

>>5441653
>what if it's impossible to build?
It's not. Or are you proposing DUALISM????

>> No.5441658

>>5441653
>why does everyone insta assume we will build ai eventually? what if it's impossible to build?
Why would it be impossible, it breaks no laws of physics and there already exists intelligence in the nature.
There is no reason to believe that it coudn't be done.

>> No.5441659

>>5441640
That's actually correct. Unless we were to find it deeper than our machines can bore.

>> No.5441660

>>5441654
>Solar
Aha...no wait i guess its not that b..ba-haha aha ahem.

Solar is ok i gueh ehhehehe haha

No but seriously E HEHE A HAHAHAHA AAAA HHA AHHA OH GOD THATS FUCKING FUNNY AHAHAHA FUCKING SOLAR A AHAHAHA WOW FUCKING HELL AHAHAHA OH GOD AHEEE HHEEE HHAA HUE HUE SHIT

aha hee. a hoo. ahaha. ahem. *sniff* a wooooo a hee ha. haha. ooh.

>> No.5441661

>>5441655
>a big welfarecheck automat
That could actually be provided as a NGO/NPO service. Just set up a prototype for a ~150k people region and then expand it, take donations and whatnot else to develop it. For some elegant solutions you would certainly get money.

>> No.5441664

>>5441657
do you even understand basics of computer scienec?
do you know what dualism is?

basically our computers today are just "complex lightbulbs". you put in a signal, and it always gives back the same results
we can't even make programs that can translate accurately,

>>5441658
>doesn't brake laws
so? it isn't an insta assurance it exists. and thats a totally invalid argument because our models of nature might be flawed (actually they are in some real special experiments)
until some1 gives a comprehensive axiom system for physics, it's an invalid argument

>> No.5441665

>>5441651
But that's not sentience. I was talking about a sentient AI.

What you speak of, a computer program blindly following its exact programming to the letter, as computers run today... would need to be an incredibly complicated program to run even a single factory let alone a planet. Do you have any idea how many programmers it would take to make a program like that? How many lines of code it would take to run the world? You'd need a separate program for every unique building and business and factory and everything. The bugs and troubleshooting alone. It would be a fulltime job for a couple billion people to even keep that running.

Which means it would need the mental flexibility of sentience, to learn and rewrite it's own codes as the human brain does.

>> No.5441668

>>5441665
this

>> No.5441670

>>5441664
>do you know what dualism is?
It's what you're proposing

>> No.5441673

>>5441664
>basically humans today are just "complex lightbulbs". you put in a signal, and it always gives back the same results
Itelligence is nothing more than that. It's just how complex the code is that separates humans and calculators

>it isn't an insta assurance it exists
The fact that "intelligence" exists in nature is an assurance that it's possible. Do you not get that?
If you define humans as intelligent, then we just need to copy the function of human brain and there you have it, AI.

>> No.5441674
File: 66 KB, 491x448, aaa.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5441674

1) Replace most jobs with robots.

2) Then we separate government from the welfare system. Let government do all the shit it already does.

3) But as some separate organization free from government corruption and ineptitude: there is a machine that emails us all a few grand a month. And let free market, with some government regulation, handle the rest.

Any problems with this? I am looking for someone to blow holes in this idea, there's no way it could be that easy.

>> No.5441676

>>5441665
But you can't code a self-altering program, or at least not a dynamic one
It wouldn't know what to do unless you told it, that being a fundamental rule of computing
Input, processing, output
An artificial Intelligence is merely a complex extension of this
It takes a very, very long time to make even simple ones
But it can be done

>> No.5441678

>>5441674
inflation?

>> No.5441679

>>5441638
>People's Republic of China
>communist
Have you been living under a rock for the past 40 years?

>> No.5441682

>>5441676
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-modifying_code

it's not only possible but it's done all the time

however it lacks the complexity required for an artificial intelligence. seems likely to me the first ai's will be modeled on the human brain

but ai is so far away we have no idea what it will be like or if it will even be possible.

>> No.5441683

This would actually be brilliant

Everyone would then have to become 'knowledge workers' to earn a living, there are no minimum wage jobs to fall back on, and everyone will as a result be more intelligent as they are forced to study more complex subjects

With so many highly educated people, think of what we could accomplish scientifically and culturally.

>> No.5441684

>>5441665
>rewrite it's own codes as the human brain does.
It doesn't rewrite anything other than some minor details at a synaptic level, the framework remains the same.

A good enough AI doesn't require self writing superadaptation, it just requires good recognition within some areas, and a selection to seamlessly switch between them.

Why are you all so focused on the ultra-advanced paradigm shifting cases when you get so far without reaching them? A self driving car doesn't rewrite its own code, and we almost have those, and you ignore this case.
The singularity would be preceded by strong AI that's only weakly superhuman, but you ignore those.

>> No.5441685

>>5441679
i know eh?
china was falling apart till they injected a fuckload of capitalist elements into their economy. their government is communist, but deep down, not their economy

>> No.5441688

>>5441682
So it's been told how to modify itself?
That's not 100% dynamic
And that's what you are proposing

>> No.5441689

>>5441684
Either it's a strong AI, or it takes an incredible fuckton of bug prone human written code to run every micro-facet of the entire resource and production process, which would require a vast complexity beyond current means of programming.

>> No.5441691

>>5441688
define 100% dynamic for me. because it sounds like you want a program that can write itself but we haven't even programmed it to know how to write itself, so how does it even know how to write itself? which would be impossible really. is that the point you're trying to make?

i'm not sure why a strong ai needs to be like that. the human brain rewrites itself dynamically according to a program created through natural selection. or something like that

>> No.5441692

>>5441674
So can we get back on this?

>> No.5441695

>>5441691
You are making it sound like you can make a program that just gets better and better and better once you give it the "Hey, code yourself now" executabe That's 100% dynamic
A program that doesn't need to be told what to do, it just does what it does for the hell of it
I'm telling you it doesn't work like that
Programs have a purpose and an AI is no different
Perhaps you could streamline the experience, but I don't believe that you can build a program that can make itself into anything other than what you tell it to be, giving it each and every step along the way

>> No.5441698

>>5441695
but human beings are computers. human beings are sentient computers. humans have a "hey code yourself now" executable (albeit limited, we can't rewrite everything inside ourselves)

if a human brain can do that why not something derived from a simulation of how a human brain works?

>> No.5441700

>>5441698
Oh, you are talking about that branch of philosophy. Way to bring up something now you should have said from the start. Still, that's a simulation, not an AI
Simulations have to be hard coded in even more so than self-altering code. It would take longer to do, but you'd get more out of it
A fair call, but I think that the first AIs will be purpose built rather than simulated

>> No.5441707
File: 2.90 MB, 200x200, 1344142718858.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5441707

>>5441698
>human beings are sentient computers

Have you ever into philosophy?

>> No.5441716

>>5441707
that's not even philosophy. it's just obvious

what else could we possibly be?

>> No.5441720

>>5441716
Are you saying we are entirely machines of logic?

There are plenty of examples and ideas to prove you wrong.

>> No.5441723

>>5441720
Not him but
>There are plenty of examples and ideas to prove you wrong.
Such as?

>> No.5441726

>>5441723
Human emotion. Or are you going to use the argument that it's "all chemical reactions"?

Now it's going to get messy

>> No.5441725

>>5441720
>Are you saying we are entirely machines of logic?

No, I said we're computers. We compute. We compute shit like emotions. And often the computations we run can be fucking stupid and irrational. Naturally occurring organic computers chock full of fuzzy logic.

>> No.5441731

>>5441726
Input information from the senses, the brain processes that information, and outputs actions. It's a computer. A sloppy computer of fuzzy logic and chemical reactions but a computer all the same.

>> No.5441740

>>5441731
>Dat fuckin empricism

Do you even Kant?

>> No.5441763

>>5441740
explain how kant proves humans aren't computers

>> No.5441764

>>5441763
>Kant is big on Categorical (imperatives)
>Categories: Human and Robot
>A Being cannot be simultaneously a human and robot
>Hence, humans cannot be robots
>QED

Thank me later.

>> No.5441767

>>5441764
So ridiculous.

>> No.5441771

>>5441763
"Proof" is irrelevant here, this is the realm of philosophy of mind.

Prove that physical brain reactions are the sole source of 'you'.

>> No.5441775

>>5441771
Prove that we're not all in the matrix and that a giant rabbit hasn't been following me out of sight all my life.

>> No.5441776

>>5441767

I can't help but feel that your Jimmies are rustled ever so slightly.

>> No.5441777

>>5441771
>Prove that physical brain reactions are the sole source of 'you'.
That is not how science works
It's you who needs to prove that there is something else than physics.
Or you can just go to: /x/ or /lit / with your philosophy bullshit.

>> No.5441781

>>5441777
>philosophy bullshit
>implying all of science isn't founded on critical thinking, logic, theory, etc.
>implying all those foundations aren't derived (at least in part) from philosophy
>2013

Shiggidy diggidy

>> No.5441784

>>5441771
>Prove that physical brain reactions are the sole source of 'you'.
translation "b-b-b-but muh soul!"

have fun believing in magic

>> No.5441785

>>5441777
Let me reiterate, proof is irrelevant.
You are trying to quantify human conciousness.
You have a direct experience of this, you are a conscious human.

The person to who I was originally directing this argument made the statement that "'human beings are sentient computers".

Are we really solely rational, logical machines? Is there not some level of irrationality to our experience?

>> No.5441789

>>5441781
Fucking this.

It's like people believe that 'rationality' is an innate human ability, and not a philosophical idea in itself.

>> No.5441791

>>5441785
>Are we really solely rational, logical machines? Is there not some level of irrationality to our experience?

see
>>5441731

>> No.5441796

>>5441791
What the fuck do you even mean by "fuzzy logic"? It's pretty much a place-holding idea.

>> No.5441798

>>5441796
Fuzzy logic is a form of many-valued logic or probabilistic logic; it deals with reasoning that is approximate rather than fixed and exact. Compared to traditional binary sets (where variables may take on true or false values) fuzzy logic variables may have a truth value that ranges in degree between 0 and 1. Fuzzy logic has been extended to handle the concept of partial truth, where the truth value may range between completely true and completely false. Furthermore, when linguistic variables are used, these degrees may be managed by specific functions.

Fuzzy logic has been applied to many fields, from control theory to artificial intelligence.

>> No.5441808

>>5441798
Wow! That pretty much fills in all the blanks that binary left out of the incredibly complex thing that is human existence.

>> No.5441814

>>5441796
> "fuzzy logic"? It's pretty much a place-holding idea.
wat. i take it you've never written something using fuzzy logic?

even my washing machine has a "fuzzy logic" setting.

>> No.5441824

>>5441808
translation "b-b-b-but muh soul. muh human emoshuns!"

you're an organic naturally evolved fuzzy logic computer full of chemicals. and there is no soul. deal with it

>> No.5441829

>>5441808
Fuzzy logic is built up from binary logic.

>> No.5441838

>>5441829
>>5441829
trinary in the human computer actually, but yeah.

>MIT neuroscientist, Guosong Liu, has found that human neurons compute in trinary, using signals that are the equivalents of -1, 0 and 1.

http://cbcl.mit.edu/news/files/liu-tp-picower.html

>> No.5441841

>>5441824
I'm not even arguing in defence of a 'soul' (as pejoratively as you put it), but in that pure logic, or reason is not the be all and end all of our experience.

I'm pointing out an elephant while you argue about the shape of an ant.

>> No.5441849

>>5441841
>I'm not even arguing in defence of a 'soul'
Yes you are, right here:
>pure logic, or reason is not the be all and end all of our experience.
Then what is it, please tell us.

>> No.5441856

>>5441841
if not soul. if not computer. then what else is there? read that mit news article, you might learn something.

>> No.5441861

>>5441849
Are you willing to throw all subjective experience to the dogs because it is undefinable, objectively?

You are a part of this too.

>> No.5441868

>>5441861
nobodies throwing anything to the dogs. we are powerful and complex computers capable of emotions and irrational thought.

>> No.5441873

>>5441861
Answer the guestion please, if not we have boards for all things not /sci/
you could try:
>>>/x/
or
>>>/lit/

>> No.5441884

>>5441873
It's not an answerable question, because it won't fall within the framework logic and reason has created for you, therefore you will never accept it.

I am of course talking about mysticism. Why should this be separated from the human experience?

It's a holistic thing, a combination of logic, reason, faith. You will never create a carbon copy human brain with physical hardware.

>> No.5441889

>>5441884
>It's not an answerable question
>because it won't fall within the framework logic and reason has created for you
>therefore you will never accept it.
Not science
>>>/x/
>>>/lit/
Why do you even come here, just go away.

>> No.5441894

>>5441884
lol, he believes in magic. everyone point and laugh

>> No.5441900

>>5441889
"For a superficial observer, scientific truth is beyond the possibility of doubt; the logic of science is infallible, and if the scientists are sometimes mistaken, this is only from their mistaking its rule."

>> No.5441903

>>5441889
>>5441894
Where does the idea of 'intuition' fit into your framework?

Is it a creation of the binary logic (or 'trinary' (fuzzy logic)) that the human brain works upon?

>> No.5441918

>>5441903
A neural network have a pretty easy time to classify something as "mostly triangle". and similar gradings of higher concepts.

That is, it can generate signals that are representative of higher concepts, so when your intuition says someone is lying it is because you have a 53% lie value signal and 35% truth signal, not because of magic.

>> No.5441948

>>5441903
Intuition comes from the subconscious mind. (Although I think these days science calls it the unconscious mind, I'm not sure). Basically the background thoughts you're not focused on.

The subconscious mind is a vast and complicated cluster of chaotic computations that usually runs in the background. Background processes that often push ideas forward into the conscious mind.

Where did you think intuition comes from? Unicorns?

>> No.5441972

>>5441948
0/10

Take your dualism troll nonsense to >>>/x/

>> No.5442024

>>5441972
There clearly is an unconscious mind though, it's not pseudoscience. The way some people talk about it though it can seem that way, so I can see why you're confused.

I should have avoided the term subconscious, it's generally not used in academia anymore, too many different meanings from different people.

You might have thought I was busting out some funky Carl Jung shit or something. But I was just talking about the processes in the mind that occur automatically and are not available to introspection, and include thought processes, memory, affect, and motivation etc.