[ 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: 42 KB, 344x432, Krillin Hero.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5498495 No.5498495 [Reply] [Original]

How does nature know how to do science at the fine-tuned level needed to cause evolution and create immaterial things like gravity and consciousness??

>> No.5498497

diamonds

>> No.5498498

How does nature know how to do science at the fine-tuned level needed to cause some 4chan /b/ troll to think about making a giant shitpost on the science board and then actually making it??

>> No.5498501

>>5498495
Some believe it doesn't, e.g. Thomas Nagel's Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False

>> No.5498500

>consciousness

Care to show us any evidence of that magical soul?

>> No.5498506

>>5498500
Do you know what subjective experience is?

>> No.5498509

>>5498508
Then you wouldn't understand the evidence.

>> No.5498508

>>5498506
No.

>> No.5498511

>>5498500
>Care to show us any evidence of that magical soul?

No evidence of gravity either, yet objects still fall

>> No.5498515
File: 2.91 MB, 1628x843, .png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5498515

>>5498500
There is no physical evidence for souls because they do not affect the physical world. You have to look inward for evidence.

>> No.5498527

>>5498511

that's not the point, that guy is either trolling or not conscious enough to realize he's conscious

>> No.5498533

>>5498527
Maybe he has frontal lobe damage?

>> No.5498537

>>5498527

some people subscribe to a purely materialistic belief system that ignores the possibility of conscious experience because it's too hard to explain within its limited ideology

>> No.5498538

>>5498509
If you have evidence, then post it. Evidence has to be objectively verifiable.

>>5498515
If something has no observable effects, it cannot have evidence and can therefore be dismissed by Hitchens' razor.

>>5498527
I'm neither a guy nor "trolling". Asking for evidence is just rational.

>> No.5498543

>>5498538
>Evidence has to be objectively verifiable.

you mean verifiable by conscious entities, like humans?

>> No.5498544

>>5498537
As long as there's no evidence there's nothing that needs to be explained.

>> No.5498542

>>5498538
It is objectively verifiable. You just have to understand the definition of subjective experience first.

>> No.5498548
File: 225 KB, 480x640, 23helna.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5498548

The possibility of scientific evidence assumes conscious entities making observations.

>> No.5498546

>>5498544

The possibility of scientific evidence assumes conscious entities making observations.

>> No.5498551

>>5498542
Post the definition and the evidence.

>>5498543
Humans do not have a magical soul / consciousness. That nonsense has no evidence. We are biological machines like all animals. Or do you deny evolution?

>> No.5498555

>>5498546
>>5498548
No, it doesn't. Observation is a physical act of measurement and does not require metaphyscial magic.

>> No.5498565

>>5498548
>The possibility of scientific evidence assumes conscious entities making observations.

This actually makes a lot of sense, thnx

>> No.5498568

>>5498565
You can stop samefagging. Your nonsense is wrong and has been disproved.

>> No.5498573

>>5498551
You post it and I'll tell you if it's right.

>> No.5498576

>>5498573
The burden of proof is on you.

>> No.5498579

The possibility of scientific evidence assumes conscious entities making observations.

>> No.5498583

It amazes me how some people consciously decide to deny consciousness exists. They have a mind like everyone else, and yet demand proof it exists? Amazing.

>> No.5498586

>>5498583
>It amazes me how some people consciously decide to deny consciousness exists

People are great at interpreting the world in ways that suit their desires and ideologies

>> No.5498584

>>5498579
Observation is a physical act of measurement and does not require metaphyscial magic.

>> No.5498589

>>5498584
>Observation is a physical act of measurement and does not require metaphyscial magic

you are objectively confused, please refer to:
>>5498579
>>5498546

>> No.5498587

>>5498583
You might say the same about ghosts and unicorns. There is no rational reason to believe in /x/ shit without evidence.

>> No.5498593 [DELETED] 

>>5498584
>Observation is a physical act of measurement and does not require metaphyscial magic.

I've never seen science conducted by unconscious non-human entities that just make measurements.

In fact it's not possible since unconscious entities have no point of view.

>> No.5498594

>>5498586

And yet scientists are meant to be so open minded and objective, free of judgement and prejudice. Makes me wonder how much we've been held back as a species cause of people like >>5498584

>> No.5498599

>>5498589
Argument by repetition is a fallacy. Do not repeat nonsense that has been disproved.

>>5498595
Observation is a physical act of measurement and does not require metaphyscial magic.

>> No.5498595

The possibility of scientific evidence assumes conscious entities making observations.

>> No.5498601

>>5498576
Nope. Your burden to learn what subjective experience is first.

>> No.5498602

>>5498594

Well neuroscientists are busy grinding away at figuring out consciousness and qualia and subjective experience

so I'd say we're on the right path

it's mostly the computational comp-sci fags that deny consciousness cause it doesn't fit into their binary beliefs about nature

>> No.5498604

>>5498601
It is not my burden to learn about irrational /x/ claims. If you make such claims on a science board, then it's up to you to provide evidence.

>>5498602
Neuroscience is the study of the brain (a physical organ). Metaphysics and spiritualist fantasies are not subject of neuroscience.

>> No.5498605

>>5498599
>Do not repeat nonsense that has been disproved.

But scientific evidence requires conscious entities interpreting data and their perceptions about reality.

>> No.5498609

>>5498602

excellent point

>> No.5498616

>>5498604
Where did I make a claim? You asked for evidence for consciousness. I asked if you knew some preliminaries to understand the evidence. You said no. It's your burden to learn the preliminaries first.

>> No.5498618

>>5498538
>Hitchens' razor
Plz nigga. You are the one asking for evidence. You are asking us a favor. The burden is therefore on you to produce the evidence. Don't like it? Too bad, no evidence for you.

>> No.5498624

>2013
>believing your unconscious automata that makes measurements and can't feel pleasure or pain because they are "qualia"

hue hue huehue

>> No.5498654
File: 1020 KB, 212x170, PV2cwEU.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5498654

All possibilities occur because fuckifIknow and then boom, anthropic principle.

>> No.5498669

>>5498618
you're getting trolled

>> No.5498684

>>5498669
says the guy who bumped the thread

>> No.5498719

Because god said so

>> No.5498742

>>5498602

>it's mostly the computational comp-sci fags

Funny thing is I'm one of those people, but have radically different beliefs about the whole thing. I guess it's cause my sense of identity has nothing to do with a degree

>> No.5498775

>>5498684
I don't follow your logic.

>> No.5498798

>>5498495
Lucas (1976)