/sci/ - Science & Math

File: 52 KB, 402x402, Richard-Feynman-9294220-1-402.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Sat Aug 10 07:37:26 2013 No.5959317 [Reply] [Original]

Lately I've noticed that /sci/ is getting full of troll threads or people that think they got the new breakthrough in science or simply people asking dumb questions.

So how about this.

Let's make a Frequently Asked Dumb Questions and try to answer most of this religious/ghosts/paranormal/conspiracy theories/math trolls/5th grade questions as reasonably possible in the hope that they will stop or people will get pointed to the FADQ and let the thread die.

The easiest way to do it will be to just pick a question that annoyed you and you think had no place in /sci/ and answer it here.I guess if we get enough answers to this questions it can be added to the sticky and hopefully /sci/ will get a bit better.

I'll start with this video which should help most of the people asking this questions answer them on there own.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYPapE-3FRw

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 07:40:56 2013 No.5959318 The FAQ would either be too long (thereby discouraging people from reading it before making threads) or too short (thereby only catching a tiny fraction of the questions) or both. Take your pick.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 07:43:25 2013 No.5959319 >>5959318 You can easily answer most of the this threads with 10 answers. And if the question is more specific the person can be pointed to his question in the FAQ and the thread will hopefully end with it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 07:46:25 2013 No.5959321 How come i^i is a real number? How do I use LaTeX on sci? >Use TeX/jsMath with the <span class="math"> (inline) and <div class="math"> (block) tags. I started learning LaTeX 2 minutes ago. What does this mean?[/spoiler]</div>

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 07:48:27 2013 No.5959323 >>5959321 I guess I answered my own question. Top fucking kek.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 08:35:56 2013 No.5959356 >people that think they got the new breakthrough in science >trolls I don't think troll means what you think it means.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 08:39:56 2013 No.5959360 >>5959356 >troll threads OR people that think they got the new breakthrough read the post one more time

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 08:42:56 2013 No.5959361 as if /sci/ is overflowing with activity

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 08:45:26 2013 No.5959363 Okay, I'll start. Q: Does free will exist? A: No, it does not.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 09:41:55 2013 No.5959452 >>5959361 Well I know 3 people that stopped coming here because of the constant flooding of this retarded threads.

Anonymous Sat Aug 10 09:43:55 2013 No.5959457

>We made FAQ
>A devious troll arrives
>"Hahaa today I will troll /sci/ with 0,999...=1 threads, it will be glorious"
>"Whats this, a FAQ?"
>"Oh well guss I can't troll here afterall, these people are way too smart for me"

FAQ does nothing to stop trolls from posting, nor does it stop regular /sci/entists from replying, just as the thousands of threads we have already had in those same topics don't stop them now.
FAQ doesn't stop dump guestions either, as by definition the OP is too stupid to look up the resources provided beforehand.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 09:43:55 2013 No.5959458 >>5959452 You know /sci/ posters IRL?

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 09:45:26 2013 No.5959460 >>5959452 And nothing of value was lost. I bet they were underaged pop sci faggots just like you.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 09:45:55 2013 No.5959461 >>5959361 That's kinda the point. Who would stay in such a shithole? Is "there wasn't any activity anyway" the excuse shitposters tell themselves to get to sleep?

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 09:50:25 2013 No.5959470 >>5959461 I feel like year ago the shitposting wasn't as big as it is right now, and it kinda alienated most of the people that actually care and wanna talk about science.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 09:53:26 2013 No.5959477 >>5959470 I noticed the opposite effect. It rather seems to scare away the pop sci retards and the cancerous sci fi kiddies, so it can be considered a kind of chemo.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 09:54:57 2013 No.5959481 What would happen if a sun made of lava collides with a sun made of ice?

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 09:55:26 2013 No.5959482 If there was consensus on these problems, they wouldn't be controversial. Your assumption is flawed, OP.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 09:55:56 2013 No.5959484 >>5959481 Steamy hot yuri sex.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 09:56:55 2013 No.5959489 >>5959482 On what problems, because most of the time there is a consensus.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 09:58:56 2013 No.5959495 >>5959489 Then why don't the threads die after the first two or three replies? Why do they regularly go to 200 or 300 posts of flaming and shit flinging?

Anonymous Sat Aug 10 10:01:55 2013 No.5959502

>>5959495
Because there will most of the time be one or two posters that give a rational explanation which will be ignored and the other 50 posters that have no clue what they are talking about will keep arguing on something that can be solved with a simple google search.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 10:02:56 2013 No.5959504 >>5959495 Because of the retards-shitposters interaction.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 10:03:26 2013 No.5959506 >>5959502 If these people are neither willing to do a google search nor to read the thread before posting, what is it that makes you believe they would read an FAQ sticky?

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 10:04:27 2013 No.5959509 >>5959506 Well you can just point them out to the FAQ with a hope they will stop shitposting. I'm not saying that it will clean /sci/ of this plague I'm just saying that it may lower it down a bit. Can't a man hope ?

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 10:05:55 2013 No.5959510 >>5959506 It doesn't matter what they would do or not, it would be a bannable offense. It's not so much about the shitposters, it's about the janitors. At least they would have no excuse to let troll threads exist for months.

Anonymous Sat Aug 10 10:06:27 2013 No.5959512

>>5959509
You can already point them to google, various educational websites or the correct explanations that have been posted. They will either ignore them or reply with more ignorant shitposting. Is this your first week on /sci/ or why are you so delusionally optimistic?

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 10:07:26 2013 No.5959516 >>5959512 this >>5959510

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 10:07:57 2013 No.5959521 >>5959506 there is literally a thread next to this one asking >So, tell me, /sci/, which is the algebraic structure of complex numbers? This has to stop.

Anonymous Sat Aug 10 10:10:25 2013 No.5959523

>>5959510
Shitposting is already a bannable offense. Repetitive troll threads are reportable and do get deleted after reports. You can report all threads about 0.999..., free will, consciousness, religion, ghosts, homework, "X is not hard science", "my major > your major", etc. If you don't believe me, check the archive and search for deleted OP posts.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 10:11:56 2013 No.5959527 >>5959523 >do get deleted after reports no they fucking dont

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 10:11:56 2013 No.5959529 >>5959523 >Shitposting is already a bannable offense. Bullshit. Reporting a shitposter gets you banned. At least a FAQ would make the janitor's job easier.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 10:13:26 2013 No.5959534 >>5959317 > there own gtfo

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 10:13:56 2013 No.5959531 >>5959523 >consciousness What's wrong with this again?

Anonymous Sat Aug 10 10:14:25 2013 No.5959537

>>5959527
Yes, they do. Sometimes there might be a delay of a few hours, but usually moderation happens.

>>5959529
>Reporting a shitposter gets you banned.
Nope. If a poster violates rules, report him. I have been reporting more than 50 shitposts every day for more than a year and never have I been banned for false reporting. Maybe you should check the rules and stop reporting posts arbitrarily for no reason.

>At least a FAQ would make the janitor's job easier.
The janitor's job is to enforce the rules. The rules can be found on http://www.4chan.org/rules

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 10:15:25 2013 No.5959540 >>5959531 Nothing. I think you have to use the term "mind" in order to keep the autistic people happy.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 10:15:27 2013 No.5959541 >>5959531 It's highly repetitive troll spam.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 10:17:26 2013 No.5959543 >>5959537 orly? A few hours? There are 40 day old troll threads that are still alive

Anonymous Sat Aug 10 10:17:26 2013 No.5959544

>>5959537
>Maybe you should check the rules and stop reporting posts arbitrarily for no reason.
Yep, maybe you noticed the rule which says trolling is not allowed in here? I reported people for that and got banned.

>The janitor's job is to enforce the rules.
Yep, and apparently they have trouble differenciating.

If you make all those reports and the janitors act upon it, how come troll threads stay up for months?

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 10:17:55 2013 No.5959545 >>5959543 >There are 40 day old troll threads that are still alive Link please?

Anonymous Sat Aug 10 10:18:56 2013 No.5959547

>>5959544
>Yep, maybe you noticed the rule which says trolling is not allowed in here? I reported people for that and got banned.
What did you report? Not everyone disagreeing with you is a troll.

>how come troll threads stay up for months?
Please show me a troll thread older than a month.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 10:18:56 2013 No.5959548 >>5959544 >I reported people for that and got banned. Things you don't think != trolling

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 10:20:55 2013 No.5959550 >>5959545 Well it looks like they were deleted. There are still a few in the 10+ day range

Anonymous Sat Aug 10 10:22:25 2013 No.5959552

>>5959547
>Not everyone disagreeing with you is a troll.
What the fuck are you talking about.This is science board.If you have something controversial you should back it up with evidence and until you do that you will get ignored.

You can't just say >HURR U MAD CUZ U DISAGREEE WITH MEH

Anonymous Sat Aug 10 10:22:56 2013 No.5959553

>>5959548
And?

>>5959547
>What did you report?
Some "consciousness" spamming for example.
>Not everyone disagreeing with you is a troll.
Nice assumptions faggot.

How long did the "planck length cut in half" thread stay up?
At this point I have no choice but to believe you're a janitor who just erased the current troll threads and try to pretend they didn't stay there for days and days.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 10:23:26 2013 No.5959554 File: 204 KB, 1650x1105, pointing schematic.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5959541 Neuroscience is "repetitive troll spam"?

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 10:24:56 2013 No.5959556 >>5959552 >and until you do that you will get ignored. Unfortunately baseless claims do not get ignored on /sci/.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 10:25:56 2013 No.5959558 >>5959553 >Some "consciousness" spamming for example. I always report these and so far they always got deleted. >>5959554 Stop mistaking neuroscience for metaphysics. Dualism is not subject of neuroscience.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 10:28:26 2013 No.5959564 >>5959558 >Dualism is not subject of neuroscience. Oh look, it's the consciousness homonym troll himself. Get help.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 10:28:55 2013 No.5959565 >>5959564 Oh look, it's the dualism spammer himself. Get help. I'm serious, please stop trolling this board.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 10:31:56 2013 No.5959567 >>5959565 How many manic psychotic episodes do you experience a day? I'd guess around 5.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 10:32:25 2013 No.5959570 >>5959567 None because unlike you I am sane. Please stop projecting and go visit a psychiatrist. /sci/ is getting tired of your shitposting.

Anonymous Sat Aug 10 10:32:56 2013 No.5959568

>>5959565
>>5959564
>>5959558
And here we see the fabled moderation working oh so well.

>I always report these and so far they always got deleted.
When I do I get banned, funny how it works eh?
And no, they don't get deleted all the time.
Getting deleted after a week of shitposting doesn't count.

Anonymous Sat Aug 10 10:33:25 2013 No.5959572

>>5959558
Since you managed to get the other thread deleted, I will ask you once again, are you suggesting that all biological processes are equally unconscious? That there is no difference between a process that you can be aware of and actively control, versus a process that you can't?
You don't have to result to a spiritualistic explanations to suggest that there are different structures in the brain that work differently.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 10:35:25 2013 No.5959574 >>5959572 Please tell me any scientifically observable difference. Biological processes simply happen. That's all we can observe. There is no need to assign any unobservable dualistic properties to them.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 10:35:55 2013 No.5959575 >>5959570 I always love how you use Freudian quackery to write "nou".

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 10:37:26 2013 No.5959580 >>5959575 I never did such a thing. I am merely stating observations. That's science.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 10:41:25 2013 No.5959585 >>5959580 Then why are you using psychoanalytic terms? And what measuring device are you using?

Anonymous Sat Aug 10 10:45:57 2013 No.5959589

>>5959574
I can voluntarily stop my breathing, temporarily (until I'm rendered unconscious, as a matter of fact). I can choose whether to sit or lie down as I type on this laptop. I cannot voluntarily stop receiving signals from my optic nerve. Therefore the brain functions differently with regards to those types of processes.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 10:47:55 2013 No.5959592 >>5959585 >implying "projection" is only used in psychoanalysis <div class="math">\sum_{i\in I}\lvert\psi_i\rangle\langle\psi_i\rvert</div> Does this look like psychoanalysis to you?

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 10:54:56 2013 No.5959601 >>5959589 All bodily motion and behaviour is deterministic and biologically explicable. Your post does not support your dualism claims.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 10:57:55 2013 No.5959602 >>5959601 I'm explicitly stating that it is biologically explicable, what do you not understand about that?

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 10:59:57 2013 No.5959606 >>5959602 Wait, you're mister "I report 50 threads a day"? So you're this big /sci/ pillar and you still argue with consciousnessbot? What the fuck is wrong with you?

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 11:01:25 2013 No.5959609 >>5959606 I've never reported a thread. Don't mistake "Anonymous" for a name. Also, please answer the question directly.

Anonymous Sat Aug 10 11:02:25 2013 No.5959610

>>5959602
Some anon ITT was claiming the existence of a soul/consciousness. Maybe it wasn't you, but it appeared as if you defended his position. If you agree that all behaviour is biologically determined, you will also have to agree that such a metaphysical entity or phenomenon cannot exist. Unless you're trolling. Please don't troll.

>>5959606
>Wait, you're mister "I report 50 threads a day"?
No, that's me. I'm not a "mister" and I said "50 posts", not "50 threads".

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 11:04:57 2013 No.5959616 >>5959609 >Don't mistake "Anonymous" for a name. >asks me to answer the question he asked another anon Oh the ironing.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 11:05:26 2013 No.5959617 >>5959610 So consciousnessbot and the person arguing there is nothing wrong with the moderation are one and the same. How interesting.

Anonymous Sat Aug 10 11:07:26 2013 No.5959620

>implying any of these threads are made with the intetion that they'll get anwsered
but i guess we can delete them if we can say they're already anwsered

But i remember some guy saying in that shrodinger's eq'n thread, how some guys been bumping all these shitty threads for months and it's true, gunna make a /q/ thread soon

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 11:09:56 2013 No.5959626 File: 270 KB, 1228x1023, redpill.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5959620 >gunna make a /q/ thread soon Don't do that. /q/ threads usually stay ignored by the staff and all they achieve is attracting more trolls to the board.

Anonymous Sat Aug 10 11:11:55 2013 No.5959629

>>5959610
>>5959610
>Some anon ITT was claiming the existence of a soul/consciousness
Every single person that has replied to you has stated, correctly, that "soul" and "consciousness" are not the same concepts.
Conscious processes are processes that are, or at least appear to the subject to be, voluntarily controllable. Unconscious processes are not. If you believe that the underlying cause of the difference stems from spiritual or metaphysical reasons, then yes, it is a topic that belongs purely on /x/. If you believe that the difference stems from underlying physical, neurological causes, there should be no problem discussing it on /sci/, as long as it's a discussion of neurological, physical, medical, biological, etc. aspects.

Anonymous Sat Aug 10 11:14:56 2013 No.5959634

>>5959629
Please tell me the observable difference between a process happening biologically and a process being "voluntarily controlled". Do you really believe when a person temporarily stops breathing, that's suddenly not biological behaviour anymore but a magical entity interfering with his body or something? You're full of shit. All we can observe is behaviour and biological processes. All of them are deterministic. By arbitrarily assigning labels like "voluntary" to some of them for no reason whatsoever, you are promoting dualism. That's /x/ and not /sci/.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 11:15:26 2013 No.5959635 >>5959629 What exactly do you hope to achieve? People have been posting those arguments for years now, and consciousnessbot always brushed them aside with a "then you should use another word".

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 11:16:55 2013 No.5959642 >>5959635 >People have been posting those arguments for years >arguments top lel People have been posting this troll shit for years and I will keep correcting them. This is a science board and trolling has no place here.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 11:18:26 2013 No.5959646 >>5959642 Shut up, I ain't talking to you.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 11:18:55 2013 No.5959649 >>5959629 What does it mean for a process to be "voluntarily controllable"?

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 11:20:27 2013 No.5959652 >>5959620 Don't think /q/ will help much. We just need to solve our problems inside /sci/ and hopefully some Admin will help us with it.

Anonymous Sat Aug 10 11:22:26 2013 No.5959656

>>5959652
>We just need to solve our problems inside /sci/
And how do you propose to do this? Most of /sci/ is uneducated as fuck or trolling. There will never be consensus on this board and even the most idiotic shitposting will always get replies.

>and hopefully some Admin will help us with it.
There is only one admin, moot.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 11:24:25 2013 No.5959663 >>5959649 Please tell me how I can make my heart stop beating without external intervention.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 11:26:26 2013 No.5959669 >>5959656 I mean Mod not Admin. Well that's why the FAQ can be good that way the educated side of /sci/ can answer all this dumb questions once and for all, and from now on it will be faster to get shitposters banned. There is hope.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 11:26:26 2013 No.5959670 >>5959663 Please tell me how temporarily not breathing is suddenly magic and not biology anymore. Because that's what you seem to believe.

Anonymous Sat Aug 10 11:27:26 2013 No.5959673

>>5959669
>that way the educated side of /sci/ can answer all this dumb questions once and for all
The educated posters already know the answers to all the dumb and repetitive troll questions.

>it will be faster to get shitposters banned.
Shitposters get banned as soon as a mod gets to see the reports. No sticky will make this faster.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 11:29:25 2013 No.5959676 >>5959673 >Reporters get banned as soon as a mod gets to see the reports. Fixed that for you.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 11:30:25 2013 No.5959677 >>5959673 Why are then 80% of the threads at the moment only shitposts,trolls or some magical dumb questions ?

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 11:31:56 2013 No.5959679 >>5959676 This never happened to me. >>5959677 Because educated posters are a minority on this board and you cannot expect the mod to check /sci/ for new troll threads 24/7. He comes here a few times a day.

Anonymous Sat Aug 10 11:34:56 2013 No.5959683

>>5959679
Sure, case in point, look at >>5959670
The other anon gave a clear, working definition of what falls under a conscious process.
Yet, consciousnessbot replied with yet another "huuurrrr, but you believe in magic". He won't get banned.

Let's not even mention the fact that he sidetracked this very thread, and will continue to sidetrack threads which had nothing to do with dualism in the first place.

Did you ever report him when he did that? Did he ever get banned?
Then again, it's probably you.

Anonymous Sat Aug 10 11:35:25 2013 No.5959684
File: 7 KB, 255x308, 1376139765179.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Is consciousness actually philosophy hocus pocus or modeled scientifically? I found this trying to get info on it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recurrent_thalamo-cortical_resonance

l. As there are numerous thalamocortical loops throughout the cortex, this process takes place simultaneously across many different regions of the brain during conscious perception. It is this ability to support large-scale synchronized events between remote brain regions that may provide for coherent perception. Altogether, the specific, ventrobasal neurons in the thalamus serve to introduce sensory input to a self-sustained feedback loop that is sustained by the non-specific, centrolateral TCs relaying information about the current cognitive state of the brain.

Anonymous Sat Aug 10 11:36:56 2013 No.5959685

>>5959635
I don't really have much of a goal here. I usually ignore this kind of stuff.
Maybe because the purported reason for this thread is to improve the overall posting quality on /sci/ (which I agree has gone downhill), and I think one of the ways to do that would be to encourage people to approach topics in a rational and scientific manner, rather than simply say "fuck off" to every question we don't like.
I also just like sharpening my debate skills.
>>5959634
>>5959634
>Please tell me the observable difference between a process happening biologically and a process being "voluntarily controlled".
There is none, and that's not what I said, they're both biological processes.
>>5959649
Definitions vary, depending on you ask. A neurologist would say processes that take place mainly in the forebrain.
Despite what our friend over there says, I'm actually a pretty hardcore determinist, so I consider the feeling of choice to be essentially illusory, but processes of which we are aware and feel that we can actively control would be a reasonable definition. Subjective, yes, but remarkably consistent from person to person.

Anonymous Sat Aug 10 11:37:55 2013 No.5959686

>>5959683
>The other anon gave a clear, working definition
Vague philosobabble is the opposite of a clear, working definition. You and him, you should both learn the scientific method.

And why would you report my posts? That's abuse of the report system. I am calmly trying to explain scientific concepts ITT. What the fuck is your problem?

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 11:38:56 2013 No.5959687 >>5959686 you do nothing to prove it's vague philosobabble, or any of your claims. that's why you are considered a spammer.

Anonymous Sat Aug 10 11:38:56 2013 No.5959689

>>5959686
>Vague philosobabble is the opposite of a clear, working definition.
>can the subject stop it without external help
>vague philosbabble
I think not.

>And why would you report my posts?
Because you sidetrack thread and ignore the most basic rules of rational discussion.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 11:40:56 2013 No.5959691 >>5959689 >basic rules of rational discussion. i actually disagree on this one. he does actually follow them properly. It's just that he has an irrational agenda against anything that appears to suggest dualism.

Anonymous Sat Aug 10 11:40:56 2013 No.5959692

>>5959685
>and I think one of the ways to do that would be to encourage people to approach topics in a rational and scientific manner
I fully agree. That's why I always take my time to refute /x/ claims on /sci/ by using science and logic.

>There is none, and that's not what I said, they're both biological processes.
Then your distinction is meaningless and unscientific. Why even introduce it if there is absolutely no way to categorize things with it because it makes no difference at all?

>Subjective
Oh please take that philososhit somewhere else.

Anonymous Sat Aug 10 11:41:56 2013 No.5959693

>>5959691
>i actually disagree on this one. he does actually follow them properly.
No, replying "but you believe in magic" to an argument again and again and again isn't compliant to the basic rules of discussion.
You're supposed to reply to the opposition arguments, not make imaginary cases.

Anonymous Sat Aug 10 11:42:26 2013 No.5959694

>>5959687
The burden of proof is not on me. When people like you come here parading around the board and announcing magic is real, then it is your fucking burden of proof. You have to define it precisely and provide evidence.

>>5959689
>the most basic rules of rational discussion.
Unlike you I am using arguments and logic. Why do you keep trolling?

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 11:43:25 2013 No.5959697 >>5959692 >Then your distinction is meaningless >can the subject stop a process if the experimenter asks him >meaningless The worst part is after all those years you have come to believe in your bullshit.

Anonymous Sat Aug 10 11:43:57 2013 No.5959698

>>5959693
>No, replying "but you believe in magic" to an argument again and again and again isn't compliant to the basic rules of discussion.
If your only argument consists of "lol magic is real because I say so and I want to believe", then there is not much we can do. We asked you several times to express your claims in scientific terms and to provide evidence. You refuse to do so.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 11:44:25 2013 No.5959701 So in this thread, we learned that the only person content with the moderation is the one shitting this board. I'm glad it wasn't a completely useless thread, then.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 11:45:25 2013 No.5959702 File: 8 KB, 272x252, 1375483755866.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5959694 When have I announced magic is real? do you have evidence for that? Show me your proof dumbshit.

Anonymous Sat Aug 10 11:45:25 2013 No.5959703

>>5959697
>>can the subject stop a process if the experimenter asks him

This is a question of whether the subject can perceive and process auditory input. It is still biological behaviour and nothing magic. There is no reason to view it as proof of a soul. Please go back to /x/.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 11:45:55 2013 No.5959707 >>5959698 I replied here. >>5959697 >>5959689 Clear, unequivocal definition. Yet you chose to ignore it and reply "lel u believe in magic". I will report your next trolling post and get banned, again.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 11:46:56 2013 No.5959711 >>5959703 >This is a question of whether the subject can perceive and process auditory input. Because you can stop your heart if I ask you, right?

Anonymous Sat Aug 10 11:47:27 2013 No.5959713
File: 77 KB, 625x626, 1374574513120.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>5959703
He never said proof of a soul. you're projecting an argument that isn't even happening. You've lost this discussion by even suggesting that his comparison of a replicating process in a neural network could be modeled by understanding various things outside empirical analysis.

Anonymous Sat Aug 10 11:48:56 2013 No.5959715

>>5959692
>Then your distinction is meaningless and unscientific. Why even introduce it if there is absolutely no way to categorize things with it because it makes no difference at all?
Because there is an observable difference between those processes, which means there's a physical basis for those differences, which means there's something to explore. And it's already used widely in neurology. Any HS level biology textbook will have a diagram of the structure of the brain and describe the parts of the brain that control voluntary actions versus the ones that do not. Which leads us to
>>5959692
>>Subjective
>Oh please take that philososhit somewhere else.
If difference in perception is caused by difference in biological structure, it's /sci/. If it arises from spiritual reasons, it isn't.
Maybe you're a closet religious?

Anonymous Sat Aug 10 11:49:26 2013 No.5959717

>>5959702
Are you the poster who believes in a soul/consciousness (or claims to believe in it for the purpose of trolling)?

>>5959707
>Clear, unequivocal definition.
And entirely meaningless as explained in >>5959703. It does simply not support your original point. Please don't abuse the report system. There are lot of legitimate reports the mods have to care about and you are wasting their time by inadequately reporting arguments solely because they refute your position.

>>5959713
>various things outside empirical analysis.
What do you mean?

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 11:50:55 2013 No.5959719 >>5959717 >And entirely meaningless as explained in >>5959703. I already replied to it. You're reported. Once again the moderation will ignore it.

Anonymous Sat Aug 10 11:52:25 2013 No.5959723
File: 1.12 MB, 1920x1080, fdggdfgdgdf.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

I took my time to show you how much shitposting/dumb questions that can be googled/trolls/pseudo-science/religious threads there are at the moment on /sci/.

Tell me again that threads get deleted.

Anonymous Sat Aug 10 11:52:55 2013 No.5959724

>>5959715
>Because there is an observable difference between those processes
You (or the anon I was replying to) just said "There is none" in response to my question what the differences are. Please consistently state the difference or stop trolling.

>If it arises from spiritual reasons, it isn't.
Then why do you keep insisting in talking about soul/consciousness bullshit?

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 11:52:55 2013 No.5959725 File: 943 KB, 1920x1080, ghnhgn.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5959723

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 11:53:26 2013 No.5959728 Is our passage through time an illusion? Has everything in the universe already happened and is the past still happening right now?

Anonymous Sat Aug 10 11:54:26 2013 No.5959730
File: 1.63 MB, 255x164, im totally baked.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>5959717
I'm not the poster, but I don't need to put faith in consciousness being something model-able. It's being studied using theoretical models on a daily basis, so where does your agenda with dualism and philosophizers come into play with those areas?

Anonymous Sat Aug 10 11:54:56 2013 No.5959731

>>5959717
>There are lot of legitimate reports the mods have to care about and you are wasting their time
And yet in years time they couldn't take their time off to ban your trolling ass.

>>5959703
>HURRRRRRRRR
>can you hear me?
>yes
>what's 2+5?
>seven
>stop your heart
>it's not working
OBVIOUSLY THE ISSUE IS HE CAN'T HEAR THE EXPERIMENTER HURRRHUHRRRURRR

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 11:55:57 2013 No.5959735 >>5959723 >>5959725 MLP has more moderation then this.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 11:55:57 2013 No.5959736 >>5959730 He will ask you to show publications using the term. Then you will show him and he will say it's crackpottery. He's not arguing, he's trolling, and he's been doing so for at least a couple years.

Anonymous Sat Aug 10 11:57:25 2013 No.5959740

>>5959724
>You (or the anon I was replying to) just said "There is none" in response to my question what the differences are
Because you asked what the difference between a voluntary and biological process was in a clumsy attempt to subvert my post. The difference is between voluntary and involuntary action, both of which stem from biological processes.
>>5959724
>Then why do you keep insisting in talking about soul/consciousness bullshit?
Why do you keep insisting they are the same? I have no interest in the nonexistence of souls.

Anonymous Sat Aug 10 11:57:25 2013 No.5959741
File: 70 KB, 1280x720, 1317580068727.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>5959736
Why would i need proof of the exact word being used? It's synonymous with various frameworks that result in the effects that define the exact word. That clearly would suffice.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 11:58:26 2013 No.5959743 >>5959730 Please tell me its observable effects. Science requires observable effects. Metaphysics and spiritualist beliefs are not science. >>5959731 Why do you accuse me of trolling? All I want is to keep /sci/ scientific.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 12:00:26 2013 No.5959747 >>5959741 What do you expect? For him to say "yes I was wrong, excuse me for being an inane shitposter"? Look at >>5959743, he just ignores argument he can't answer to and keep going in circles on the others, like any other troll.

Anonymous Sat Aug 10 12:00:59 2013 No.5959748

>>5959740
>Why do you keep insisting they are the same?
Because I don't care about the detailed distinctions within your spiritualist framework. All I care about is science and from a scientific point of view all untestable nonsense claims without evidence are equivalent insofar as they can be dismissed by applying Hitchens razor. If you want to believe in entities or phenomena without physically measurable or observable effects, then please do it on /x/.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 12:01:56 2013 No.5959750 >>5959747 Please tell me where I ignored an argument. I addressed every single one of your fallacies.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 12:02:27 2013 No.5959751 >>5959743 >Please tell me its observable effects The effects of what? Consciousness? It's a classification or grouping of neurological processes, not a force.

Anonymous Sat Aug 10 12:02:55 2013 No.5959752
File: 2.53 MB, 336x189, 1371693846300.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>5959743
There isn't a a universally accepted operational definition yet, but neural correlates are usually the closest.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neural_correlates_of_consciousness

and >>5959684

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 12:03:26 2013 No.5959753 >>5959751 By what criteria are they grouped and how is the classification meaningful? You're grasping at straws.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 12:03:56 2013 No.5959754 >>5959750 >Please tell me where I ignored an argument. I answered to your stupid claim that this criterium only determined if the subject could hear and process the experimenter. This is easily factored out by testing it with another feedback.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 12:05:27 2013 No.5959757 >>5959752 >There isn't a a universally accepted operational definition yet Exactly my point. Now can all the retards please stop acting as if there was one?

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 12:06:57 2013 No.5959758 File: 43 KB, 500x370, 1305710980400.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5959723 >Not marking this thread as troll thread even though this is now philosophy troll

Anonymous Sat Aug 10 12:06:57 2013 No.5959759
File: 24 KB, 345x266, 1315714510814.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>5959757
But then how was it hocus pocus pseudo shit? conflicts in unified definitions doesn't fall under philosophy if the scientific method is still used in experiments and theories.

Anonymous Sat Aug 10 12:08:56 2013 No.5959761

>>5959759
>But then how was it hocus pocus pseudo shit?

Because it is meaningless metaphysical drivel. Science is about testable phenomena. Want to talk about science? Then use scientific terminology and talk abou the things we can observe. They already have their own names and none of them needs to forcefully renamed with spiritualist vocabulary just because a troll from /x/ says so.

Anonymous Sat Aug 10 12:09:56 2013 No.5959762

actually, we could easily fill a board with stuff that /sci/ would be better off without:

admissions help/school questions
homework help
/pol/shit
IQ test threads
general /sci/ trolling ("0.9999... =/= 1??" &c.)
rating majors
ancient aliens / intergalactic travel / anything else they have on the history channel
popsci spokespeople
religion/philosophy /epistemology
free will / conciousness &c.
multiverse
any topic that sources to tabloids
"how do i get good at math?" / study strategy threads

call it /nsci/, or 'not-science'

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 12:11:26 2013 No.5959767 >>5959761 >Science is about testable phenomena. Too bad, the working definition has been given to you ITT already.

Anonymous Sat Aug 10 12:12:25 2013 No.5959768
File: 54 KB, 340x263, 1315715995341.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>5959761
When was it metaphysical drivel? neural correlates constitute the minimal set of neuronal events and mechanisms sufficient for a specific conscious percept, a stimulus of perception. The most you can do is suggest that it's soft science and you only approve of hard science. Neural correlates can be tested by isolating gamma frequencies in an EEG scan.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 12:12:25 2013 No.5959769 >>5959767 Too bad the definition you're referring to has nothing to do with the topic we're talking about right now.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 12:12:56 2013 No.5959771 >>5959761 >from "baaaaaw you believe in magic" to "baaaaaaw you should use words I prefer" Please go on, your backpedaling is delicious.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 12:14:26 2013 No.5959776 >>5959769 It does, stop making random claims. Your sentences have to have some meaning to them, otherwise you're just trolling.

Anonymous Sat Aug 10 12:14:26 2013 No.5959777

Let's also have smart questions-thread, like this, already created:
>>5955101

Also, I'll answer to some of the questions I had, but now know the answers.

> Is there a possibility of existence of something like gravigun/zero element/portalgun?
This hasn't been yet disproven.

Anonymous Sat Aug 10 12:17:27 2013 No.5959784

>>5959768
As long as you don't define what a "conscious percept" is as opposed to any other kind of percept, your sentence is meaningless. Especially you cannot use your post as a definition because that would be circular. You have to define it in terms of what we can observe in an experiment. If you want to find out which neural correlates there are for "consciousness", first of all we need to know how "consciousness" can be observed. If you can't tell me how it is observed, then the concept is meaningless. This is simple logic. Before explaining something, first of all we need to know what we're even talking about.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 12:18:55 2013 No.5959787 >>5959776 Someone posted his attempt at a definition of "voluntarily controlled movement". This is not what we're talking about right now.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 12:19:55 2013 No.5959788 >>5959771 What is your problem? Is scientific terminology too hard for you? Or why do you insist in using /x/ terminology instead?

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 12:19:55 2013 No.5959790 How do we start build this FAQ ? Make a list of the questions and wait for good answers or what ?

Anonymous Sat Aug 10 12:20:26 2013 No.5959791
File: 218 KB, 135x150, 1373720487770.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>5959784
That's simply false. The premise of the scientific method in neurology is to break down that which is being understood and then replicate it with the sub components that are analyzed. A conscious precept has no need for a definition if it serves to replicate the overall model.

Anonymous Sat Aug 10 12:20:27 2013 No.5959792

>>5959787
>This is not what we're talking about right now.
Because you lost?
Because continuing would force you to admit you've been shitting up the whole board for years?
Your new argument is just as retarded.

Once you've defined conscious processes, it's very easy to define conscious percepts being the percepts that the subject can respond to through a conscious process.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 12:21:55 2013 No.5959795 >>5959788 Do you even know what you're arguing anymore? It's been made very clear what we're arguing, and you argument was proven wrong.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 12:23:26 2013 No.5959799 >>5959787 Yes, and your definition of an involuntary action is one you can't hear someone ask you to perform. I don't think you have much ground to stand on.

Anonymous Sat Aug 10 12:23:56 2013 No.5959798

>>5959791
This is pure nonsense and circular reasoning. Do you understand the scientific method? Science starts with observations. An observation is made and we form a hypothesis to explain it. What you are doing on the other hand is axiomatically asserting nonsense which cannot be tested and has no observable effects in the real world.

8/10 if you're trolling, you're doing a great job

Anonymous Sat Aug 10 12:25:26 2013 No.5959803
File: 437 KB, 245x118, 1374133889539.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>5959798
It's tested after the premise is made. What part of that is circular? Do you not have a grasp on hypotheses? As I've stated, a conscious precept has no need for a definition because the neural correlate models the criteria for consciousness, not the percept.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 12:25:55 2013 No.5959802 >>5959798 >subjects can't stop their heartbeat if we ask them, but they can stop their breathing >not an observation

Anonymous Sat Aug 10 12:26:56 2013 No.5959804

>>5959792
>Once you've defined conscious processes
This hasn't happened yet. I invite you to do it, if you think you can define it in terms of scientifically observable effects.

>>5959795
>and you argument was proven wrong.
What argument?

>>5959799
I did not post any definition. I was only replying to the other anon's definition which happens to be retarded. If "voluntary action" is by his definition action that occurs when an individual is instructed to do it, then a deaf person cannot have any "voluntary action" because he doesn't hear the instruction.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 12:27:55 2013 No.5959805 >>5959804 >This hasn't happened yet. It did, you just ignored it.

Anonymous Sat Aug 10 12:28:56 2013 No.5959808

>>5959804
>If "voluntary action" is by his definition action that occurs when an individual is instructed to do it, then a deaf person cannot have any "voluntary action" because he doesn't hear the instruction.
This incredibly stupid argument was already answered.

You can easily verify whether or not the subject not reacting is due to audition problems.

Anonymous Sat Aug 10 12:28:56 2013 No.5959809

>>5959802
This post was not about the definiton of "voluntary action" anymore. Please read what you're replying to.

>>5959803
Your reasoning is fucking circular and unscientific. It makes absolutely no sense. You are asserting something which cannot be tested.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 12:30:26 2013 No.5959811 >>5959805 Please show me the post. >>5959808 That doesn't make his definition less wrong. If his definition does not account for this case, it is useless.

Anonymous Sat Aug 10 12:30:27 2013 No.5959812
File: 93 KB, 696x615, 1373767997136.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>5959809
I just explained how EEG scans can show the by product of the neural correlate. From that you have a non-passive counterpart replicate the results for a neural network model.

Anonymous Sat Aug 10 12:30:57 2013 No.5959813

>>5959809
>This post was not about the definiton of "voluntary action" anymore.
It follows from that, stop being such a cretin.

>It makes absolutely no sense. You are asserting something which cannot be tested.
You know at some point you have to justify the shit you write?

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 12:31:27 2013 No.5959816 Is there some math theory which analyses random functions and searches for the equations for them?

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 12:33:56 2013 No.5959822 >>5959811 >If his definition does not account for this case But it does? It's a process that can't be controlled by a subject who otherwise processes inputs.

Anonymous Sat Aug 10 12:34:25 2013 No.5959824

>>5959812
>I just explained how EEG scans can show the by product
What "by product"? What are you talking about?

>>5959813
>It follows from that
No, it doesn't.

>You know at some point you have to justify the shit you write?
I always justify the posts I make. Unlike you I post arguments instead of insults.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 12:35:26 2013 No.5959825 >>5959824 >I always justify the posts I make. No, you absolutely don't, and the post I quoted is proof of that. There is no justification there.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 12:36:56 2013 No.5959828 File: 43 KB, 88x276, 1372992723518.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5959824 A product of synchronized action potentials.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 12:38:55 2013 No.5959831 >>5959822 So deaf persons are not capable of "voluntary action" by his definiton? >>5959825 0/10 >>5959828 WHAT product?

Anonymous Sat Aug 10 12:43:27 2013 No.5959840
File: 178 KB, 1280x720, 1315715332826.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>5959831
A consciousness percept, and before you say its circular to define it as such, it's being rigorously tested for validity, hence why i commented on operational definitions in conflict. The only reason i'm arguing now is that you said it wasn't even scientific.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 12:44:25 2013 No.5959845 >>5959840 Please name its testable effects. How many times do I have to repeat this question?

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 12:44:58 2013 No.5959847 >>5959840 Can you please stop trolling? Your circular reasoning is disgusting.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 12:48:26 2013 No.5959852 File: 119 KB, 392x366, 1374569227373.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5959845 Thalamic oscillation atm

Anonymous Sat Aug 10 12:48:55 2013 No.5959854
File: 379 KB, 1665x2485, scientific-method.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>5959840
>I define X as a byproduct of physical processes
>>What is X? How can it be observed?
>We don't neeed to observe it because we defined it.
>>How is this science?
>Because we test it.
>>How do we test it?
>Science found out X is a byproduct of physical processes.

This is fucking retarded, circular, pointless and anti-scientific. Please read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 12:50:25 2013 No.5959857 File: 6 KB, 250x202, images.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5959852 So you're saying that "thalamic oscillations" are not caused by other neuronal activity but by metaphysical interaction? Is this what you're saying?

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 12:50:56 2013 No.5959859 File: 1.00 MB, 300x233, 1373091842909.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5959854 >ad hominem no thanks i prefer logic and reasoning.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 12:51:55 2013 No.5959861 >>5959859 Circular reasoning is an anti-intellectual denial of logic.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 12:52:56 2013 No.5959862 File: 499 KB, 500x375, 1373767820368.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5959857 >metaphysical >modeled and replicated after EEG scans

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 12:52:56 2013 No.5959863 >>5959859 0/10

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 12:53:25 2013 No.5959865 >>5959862 What observations were made in EEG scans that support your claims?

Anonymous Sat Aug 10 12:53:55 2013 No.5959866 [DELETED]

>>5959317
How about you get off your high horse and let people exercise their right to post? If they are driven by curosity to ask questions, thats fine.

Not everyone is on a pro-level here with PHD's and working for NASA. Not everyone is proficient in Maths and Physics, some just visit the board out of curosity.

Your elitist attitude will just discourage these people from coming. Math nerds are already famous for being pretentious pricks with PHD's in elitism.

This is a public board, as long as people follow the rules, YOU don't get to decide what they can or cannot post.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 12:54:56 2013 No.5959867 >>5959862 I still don't know what you're talking about? WHAT has been modelled after EEG scans?

Anonymous Sat Aug 10 12:55:27 2013 No.5959868
File: 42 KB, 400x458, 1315714405785.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>5959865
Thalamocortical circuits, pyramidal cells that reciprocally synapse back on thalamic neurons. Each loop is self-contained and modulated by sensory input. Inhibitory interneurons both in the cortex and the reticular nucleus of the thalamus regulate circuit activity.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 12:59:25 2013 No.5959874 >>5959868 You did not answer my question. What has been observed that requires examining the things in your post in order to find an explanation?

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 13:01:57 2013 No.5959879 >>5959816 Answer a serious question at last! Come on, what are you, a bunch of dilettants?

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 13:04:25 2013 No.5959884 >>5959879 Asking dumb questions in a thread that tries to stop your kind. 3/10

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 13:04:56 2013 No.5959885 >>5959879 The question is vague and ambiguous. It is not clear what is being asked here.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 13:13:32 2013 No.5959902 So, you're saying why not build a library of gross science ignorance so people who don't bother looking things up before posting dumb shit have another a place where they can not bother looking things up? Yeah, that'll work.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 13:19:04 2013 No.5959912 y'all posting in a troll thread.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 13:20:33 2013 No.5959913 The only thing needed to save /sci/ is to ban the guy who makes all threads about dualism, like it happened in this one.

Anonymous Sat Aug 10 13:29:04 2013 No.5959929

>>5959884
You kidding? This thread is made exactly for such questions, so that answers to them can then be collected and stored. Even no, my question can't really be considered dumb.
>>5959885
Well say we have some graphic on x-metric system. And we want to know it's function. So there should be at least some theory, that works on such problems, right?

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 13:29:04 2013 No.5959931 >>5959874 >"please use scientific terminology" >"baaaaaaaw moooommmmmyyyy I don't understand all those complicated words" Ahahahah this is golden. A good spanking if I ever seen one. Pseudointellectual faggots belong on /lit/, stay there.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 13:33:03 2013 No.5959940 >>5959929 You mean you want to fit a function from its numerical values?

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 13:44:34 2013 No.5959963 >>5959940 Yeah would be nice

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]