/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.6146487]

If free will doesn't exist then why can people perceive a difference between lucid and non-lucid dreams?

[Anonymous No.6146490]

>>6146487

That is a a complete non sequitur.

[Anonymous No.6146521]

Lucid dreams could simply be engaging the mechanism that makes it feel like you have free will when non-lucid dreams are not doing so. It would be more meaningful to ask where that feeling arises from in the first place and why it is needed.

[Anonymous No.6147997]

Is there really a difference between "lucid" and "non-lucid" dreaming?

[Anonymous No.6148194]

>>6147997

Yes. The first time you experience a really lucid dream it hits you like a brick. You know that you are dreaming and you are not absorbed in the dream (main difference to a 'normal' dream) but you can consciously observe, act and later remember what you experienced to keep your dream diary.

When you meet 'people' in this realm all communication resembles a direct thought pattern transfer, no language, no words required. You are usually recognized as a 'newbee' because you are initially somewhat disoriented in this environment.

It feels like a hyper-awake state of the mind, as if your normal waking state was merely another mode of being asleep.

There's more to it but that would probably exceed the 'human=biobot' paradigm of this place.

[Anonymous No.6148208]

>>6148194
>There's more to it but that would probably exceed the 'human=biobot' paradigm of this place.

Are you saying that humans are more than biological machines? Are you denying evolution? We evolved and our bodies obey the laws of physics. If you want to promote spiritual nonsense, do it on /x/.

[Anonymous No.6148242]

>>6146487

A. The perception between the two isn't even clear. Most people I've ever accounted relating their lucid dreams to me stated in one way or another that the transfer to being "in control" of the dream was gradual, and that they did not always begin or end their dream "in control" of it.

2. Moreover, the notion that you are in control of any situation (or any infinitesimal part of any situation) is just as liable to be a self-generated fiction as the notion that you are "in control" of a dream.

3. The factors and subfactors outside of "yourself" which influence any given situation are so innumerable that claiming you are either in control or generating a situation, real or imagined, remains lightyears from the realm of the verifiable.

[Anonymous No.6148251]

>>6148242

*1. instead of A.
(or B-C instead of 2-3)
* encountered instead of accounted

oops

[Anonymous No.6148269]

>>6148208
Fuck off with that evidence.jpg already.

Accept the fact that your interpretation of the world isn't the only one and move on.

[Anonymous No.6148283]

>>6148269
The scientific method is the only objective approach to find truth in nature. Are you denying the scientific method, /x/tard? Why don't you show us some evidence of your ridiculous claims? Oh wait, you can't and that's why you also reject the concept of burden of proof. /sci/ obviously isn't the right board for you.

[Anonymous No.6148327]

>>6148283
First of all, don't call me an /x/tard you fucking idiot. I never go to fucking /x/, so stop projecting like you fucking know me.

Secondly, ridiculous claims or not, you're pretending like your mechanical interpretation of the world is somehow more meaningful than any other interpretation. Pull your moronic head out of your ass and smell the fucking sunshine - there are thousands of different interpretations. If you can't accept that, fuck it, go and live in your glass jar and pretend to be a know-it-all.

It's like you're literally incapable of rational thought. Burdens of proof aren't necessary, and you know fucking why? I'll tell you why, you fart brain. Because your own fucking definitions support your claims. Your claims work because you defined them to work. I realize you can't understand this because you're a toddler, and I can't really blame you. Maybe when you grow up you'll get to see that the world is colorful and not just black and white.

And if you're so fucking sure that the world is inherently mechanical, then why in the name of dwarf Elliot's butthole are you defending this stance with a militant fury? People who accept their standpoints don't fucking do that. Only children that aren't sure of themselves do that. Like a way of poking other people to see how they respond to your viewpoint.

Grow the fuck up. Study some philosophy and stop pretending like you're a fucking authority on this board.

[Anonymous No.6148354]

>>6148327
>First of all, don't call me an /x/tard you fucking idiot. I never go to fucking /x/
You should go there. Obviously you are more interested in empty talk than in science.

>you're pretending like your mechanical interpretation of the world is somehow more meaningful than any other interpretation
By Occam's and Hichens' razor a scientific interpretation is always more meaningful than wild geusses about paranormal or metaphysical bullshit without evidence.

>It's like you're literally incapable of rational thought.
I am an expert on rational thought.

>Burdens of proof aren't necessary, and you know fucking why? I'll tell you why, you fart brain. Because your own fucking definitions support your claims. Your claims work because you defined them to work.
Maybe that's how philosotards like you do it, but in science we use facts and evidence. Your garbage doesn't become less wrong, just because you define it to be true.

>And if you're so fucking sure that the world is inherently mechanical, then why in the name of dwarf Elliot's butthole are you defending this stance with a militant fury?
Because I have no other choice. There is no free will. Every response is determined biologically.

>Study some philosophy and stop pretending like you're a fucking authority on this board.
This is a science and math board, not a philosophy board. If you want to talk about philosophy, get the fuck out and stay on /x/. And yes, as a person of scientific education I do have more authority to talk about the subject than you.

[Anonymous No.6148404]

>>6148208
only retarded people think the burden of proof rests on proving free will exists. the only evidence i'm really sure of is that i exist, i'm conscious, and i make decisions. if you ask people 'do you exist', 'are you conscious', 'do you make decisions', 99.99% of the population will say yes. refuting that takes extraordinary evidence.

[Anonymous No.6148414]

>>6148404
/sci/ is a science board. In science we need objectively verifiable evidence. Do you even scientific method?

[Anonymous No.6148420]

>>6148354
/x/ is not a philosophy board, last time I checked. You're full of yourself. I'd marry you just to have someone for arguments like this.

[Anonymous No.6148422]

>>6148420
>/x/ is not a philosophy board

/x/ is a containment board for all unscientific bullshit.

[Anonymous No.6148437]

>>6148422
No, it's a board for paranormal.

By your standards, art should go into /x/ as well.

[Anonymous No.6148440]

>>6146487
Because lucid dreaming engages logical thinking and you have free access to your memory?

[Anonymous No.6148445]

>>6148414
>being this dense
i think the problem is really with philosophical pedagogy, like, you teach people stupid continental philosophy in philosophy 101 rather than analytic philosophy, and it makes the future computer janitors in phil 101 close up and repeat 'muh scientific method' over and over again without any self-reflection about the assumptions and circular logic of the whole thing

[Anonymous No.6148456]

>>6148437
>No, it's a board for paranormal.
"Paranormal" is a catch-all term for things like metaphysics, religion, spirituality, scary or funny youtube videos and role playing.

>By your standards, art should go into /x/ as well.
Art is very scientific. It follows the mathematical laws of aesthetics.

[Anonymous No.6148465]

>>6148456
>It follows the mathematical laws of aesthetics.
You just went full retard. Never go full retard. All I can do now is to proceed to mock you and giggle about your lack of understanding of the world around you.

[Anonymous No.6148476]

>>6148465
>can't into art
>can't into math
>can't into science

How uneducated are you?

[Anonymous No.6148479]

Because people wouldn't understand the difference between a lucid dream and a non-lucid dream without prior experiences dictating the actions they take in them.

[Anonymous No.6148488]

>>6148476
do you know anything about the mathematical aspect of aesthetics other than phi?

[Anonymous No.6148489]

>>6148476
>Art follows mathematical laws
Yeah. I mean, pic related is so fucking mathematical. There's like, formulas in there.

[Anonymous No.6148506]

>>6148476
you fuck. god pure mathmos can be so arrogant.

[Anonymous No.6148505]

>>6148488
Why don't you fucking google it?

>>6148489
If Dali didn't choose the right distances and proportions, the painting would look like shit.

[Anonymous No.6148513]

>>6148505
>I don't know

it wouldn't look shit. it would look different. that's the point of art

[Anonymous No.6148515]

>>6148505
The painting does look like shit, and he didn't use proper distances and proportions. What kind of herbs are you smoking?

[Anonymous No.6148521]

Isn't it funny how everyone who believes in determinism have zero self-confidence?

>DON'T BLAME ME, I'M JUST A PRODUCT OF MY ENVIRONMENT!

[Anonymous No.6148525]

ITT

[Anonymous No.6148538]

>>6148521
Then again, I said, and thought, this in English, something I had no control over. Maybe I should choose to learn a different language. Wait, why?

[Anonymous No.6148540]

>>6148513
It would be less aesthetic.

>>6148515
Statistically the painting is considered high quality art.

>>6148525
This painting does not follow the mathematical laws of aesthetics. You suck at creating art.

[Anonymous No.6148546]

>>6148540
So we are judging art by statistics now? Your argument is so shaky it's not even funny anymore.

Here, have some art. Maybe that will sober you up.

[Anonymous No.6148554]

>>6148546
>So we are judging art by statistics now?

Do you even sociology and psychology? We can objectively collect statistical data of how many people consider a painting aesthetic.

[Anonymous No.6148558]

>>6148554
>Do you even sociology and psychology?
Do you even know how to type proper English?

[Anonymous No.6148566]

>>6148554
>We can objectively collect statistical data of how many people consider a painting aesthetic.
Objectivity through subjectivity? What the actual fuck.

[Anonymous No.6148568]

>>6148558

Do you even internet?

[Anonymous No.6148570]

>>6148566
We can ask people whether they consider the painting aesthetic or not. It's a "yes or no" question.

[Anonymous No.6148589]

>>6148570
AND HOW THE FUCK DOES THIS SUPPORT YOUR CLAIM OF ART OBEYING MATHEMATICAL LAWS?

[Anonymous No.6148594]

>>6148589
After doing the statistical research, it's not hard to find the mathematical laws that cause a painting to be seen as either aesthetic or unaesthetic. Why do I even need to explain this to you?

[Anonymous No.6148621]

>>6148594
You're not making any sense.

>mathematical laws that cause a painting to be seen as either aesthetic or unaesthetic

I'm sure all the great artists were concerned with mathematics rather than simple human quality that is called emotion.

You're obviously a robot. I can't talk to you anymore because I feel like I'm talking to clever-bot.

[Anonymous No.6148635]

>>6148621
>I'm sure all the great artists were concerned with mathematics rather than simple human quality that is called emotion.

Emotion is a physiological reaction. It follows the mathematical laws of physics. Therefore the information encoded in art is of mathematical nature.

[Anonymous No.6148653]

>>6148635
Really? You seem to know very little about emotions then.

Ever been in love? How is that mathematical?
Ever hated someone to their guts? How is that mathematical?
Ever felt like you're on top of the world? How is that mathematical?
Ever got so drunk you told someone what you really thought of them? How is that mathematical?

And if it indeed mathematical, then find me rules, or laws, from which you can deduce emotions. Fucking do it, there's a Nobel prize waiting for you.

[Anonymous No.6148679]

>>6148653
>Ever been in love? How is that mathematical?
Love doesn't exist.

>>Ever hated someone to their guts? How is that mathematical?
>Ever felt like you're on top of the world? How is that mathematical?
>Ever got so drunk you told someone what you really thought of them? How is that mathematical?
All of those are simple physiological reactions. They are biological. Biology follows the laws of physics. Physics is described by mathematical rules.

>And if it indeed mathematical, then find me rules, or laws, from which you can deduce emotions
Are you denying that emotions are physical? Are you a dualist /x/tard or something? What is your problem? Too stupid for science?

[Anonymous No.6148681]

>>6148594
Wow. So you're saying art is pleasing or not, based on people's opinion?

Are you a sociologist? Because that's not a scientific method, not by any stretch of imagination.

[Anonymous No.6148683]

>>6148679
>Are you denying that emotions are physical?
No. I'm asking you to formulate mathematical laws that describe emotions.

Can emotions be predicted? Then they're mathematical and deterministic. If not, then they're not. And since you're so big on the whole burden of proof thing, the burden of proof is on you because right now you're making ridiculous claims.

By the way, reality isn't deterministic. Look at quantum theory. It's a probability wave.

>Are you a dualist /x/tard or something?
>What is your problem?
>Too stupid for science?
Great projections. 7/10 for trying.

[Anonymous No.6148696]

>>6148653
With principles of aesthetics, which >>6148594
was talking about, there are two approaches. You could figure out ideal forms and map your pieces to precisely fit them to so many decimals, like Bartok (and Debussy, a little bit).
There are also people who do this intuitively, like Beethoven.
However, in music, at least, there is no one who could simply figure out how to write counterpoint as described in, say, Gradus ad Parnassum.
Form, structure and composition of art had very little to do with emotion until rather recently, and when it was important, it was only briefly, from around 1750 to 1890 or so.
Art before that was more about looking pretty and following certain structural rules, art after it was really mostly about external arguments, like absurdism, or about technical arguments, like the integer serialists.

[Anonymous No.6148700]

>>6148681
>Are you a sociologist?
No.

>Because that's not a scientific method, not by any stretch of imagination.
Collecting empirical and statistical data is scientific.

[Anonymous No.6148701]

>>6148679
>Love doesn't exist.
It does because I love you. :3

[Anonymous No.6148708]

>>6148683
>No. I'm asking you to formulate mathematical laws that describe emotions.
Do your own research.

>Can emotions be predicted?
Yes. They can be easily predicted on several levels. Once again: Are you seriously claiming that emotions are not physical? If that's what you're saying, then I have to ask you to keep your dualism bullshittery on /x/.

>By the way, reality isn't deterministic.
The human body - like all biological systems - works on a scale much larger than quantum level. Quantum effects are negligible and biology is deterministic.

[Anonymous No.6148714]

>>6148679
>too stupid for science
this is what many STEM people actually think, topkek

[Anonymous No.6148716]

>>6148708
>Do your own research.
I'm not the one making claims.

>Yes. They can be easily predicted on several levels.
Can you prove this claim, or is it just something you pulled out of your ass?

>Are you seriously claiming that emotions are not physical?
I never claimed that. What I am claiming, however, is that they're unpredictable.

>Quantum effects are negligible and biology is deterministic.
Not entirely true, according to some theories. In any case, what you're saying is far from being an established fact. It's more of a reasonable conjecture. But that doesn't make it the truth.

[Anonymous No.6148865]

>>6148708
>radical materialist getting butthurt

[Anonymous No.6149820]

>>6148456
>Art is very scientific. It follows the mathematical laws of aesthetics.

There's so much chaos in aesthetics that the math doesn't even matter.

[Anonymous No.6150898]

>>6149820
Chaos follows mathematical rules. Do you even dynamic systems?

[Anonymous No.6150909]

>>6150898

Do you even english? Chaos doesn't have to mean the same thing

[Anonymous No.6150917]

>>6148456
HHahahaha what a fucking faggot

So you can show me an equation of beauty? Please do so...

Protip: you are a very deluded ignorant sophomore that claimed all sorts of outrageous things like "aesthetics = mathematics" in another threads weeks ago with ZERO evidence.

[Anonymous No.6150919]

>this whole thread

[Anonymous No.6150925]

>>6150917
>So you can show me an equation of beauty?

e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0

I bet you don't even understand the equation.

[Anonymous No.6150929]

>>6150925

troll status has been confirmed

[Anonymous No.6150932]

>>6150929
Why do you say this? Because the equation is too hard for you? Don't worry, kid. Once you take a university math course, you'll understand it.

[Anonymous No.6150939]

>>6150925
The question is why is that aesthetic you moron?
Define "aesthetic", prove aesthetics has to do with equations and or any mathematical model and don't deviate from the thread, you dunce.

>>6150929
He is not, he already tried to pull this shit on a thread weeks ago spewing all sorts of non sequiturs, and particularly, strikingly dumb circular arguments like "the optimum is good because it is the optimum".

I say, if this retard is so shure about his nonsense he should publish a book on ethics and how Hume was wrong (I bet you don't even understand this, little brains). He would be ipso facto the savior of human kind by solving finally the ethics question.

[Anonymous No.6150937]

>>6150932

No because no one can be this hilarious and serious at the same time

[Anonymous No.6150940]

>>6150937
Anything can by anything at the same time. Learn to quantum mechanics.

[Anonymous No.6150946]

>>6150939

You can't be serious that you believe he's not just goofing around. Especially after: >>6150940

[Anonymous No.6150945]

>>6150939
Also, what is the big fucking deal about the Euler Identitity equation?

You are hilarious kid, hi-fucking-larious, and we are all having a blast with ya.

[Anonymous No.6150948]

>>6150939
>The question is why is that aesthetic you moron?
If you understood the math, you'd see its beauty. All you did was confirming that you lack the math knowledge to understand my equation.

>Define "aesthetic", prove aesthetics has to do with equations and or any mathematical model and don't deviate from the thread, you dunce.
I already explained this. Read the f*cking thread.

>by solving finally the ethics question.
What question? There is no "ethics question". Just apply common sense and you'll see what's the right or the wrong thing to do. Or are you too autistic for common sense?

[Anonymous No.6150951]

>>6150946
First, we are not shure that is actually him.

Second, he was dead serious last thread, unless its not the same person, which I doubt. He tried hard to answer any of my questioning about how was "politics" solved by the "optimum" (in economical terms).

He also supported sociology and psychology as "the answer" (as if sociology hd any one given answer and it is not a shitfest of disimile theories).

He is serious, but he is pants on head retarded.

[Anonymous No.6150952]

>>6150946
>doesn't understand Schrödinger's cat

I can understand your ignorance though. The topic is very advanced and only few people understand it.

[Anonymous No.6150953]

>>6150950

But it also doesn't make it worthwhile to respond.

[Anonymous No.6150950]

>>6150946
>just goofing around

That doesn't make what he's saying wrong.

[Anonymous No.6150955]

>>6150950
Stop samefagging, it is pathetic

[Anonymous No.6150961]

>>6150951
>He also supported sociology and psychology as "the answer" (as if sociology hd any one given answer and it is not a shitfest of disimile theories).

At least they base their theories on empirical observation and statistics. They are using the scientific method, while philosotards only pull shit out their ass and come up with nothing more than "my theory which cannot be tested must be true because I want to believe".

[Anonymous No.6150959]

>>6148679
Consider my fedora tipped.

[Anonymous No.6150965]

>>6150948
And what makes is beautiful?

[Anonymous No.6150968]

>>6150965
Why even ask? You already told us that you don't understand the equation. Go learn some math.

[Anonymous No.6150969]

>>6150961
And how does that change the fact that it is still not the answer as you contended since it does not have ONE answer whatsoever?

Also, I think I'll just quote this

>At least they base their theories on empirical observation and statistics. They are using the scientific method

>falsifying sociology or psychology

And leave it to the rest of the users who actually study science to mock you. I won't get involved since you already read my answer weeks ago.

[Anonymous No.6150974]

>>6150969
>And how does that change the fact that it is still not the answer as you contended since it does not have ONE answer whatsoever?
So you prefer mysticism and spirituality over scientific answers? Go back to /x/.

>And leave it to the rest of the users who actually study science
I know more about science than you ever will, you ridiculous pop sci moron.

>I won't get involved since you already read my answer weeks ago.
You forgot the part where I thoroughly refuted and disproved your nonsense.

[Anonymous No.6150975]

>>6150968
That is not me, kiddie :D

Also,

>If you understood the math, you'd see its beauty.

Glorious fallacy

>I already explained this. Read the f*cking thread.

Circular logic, beauty is math because math is beautiful

>What question? There is no "ethics question". Just apply common sense and you'll see what's the right or the wrong thing to do. Or are you too autistic for common sense?

Huehuehuehue, gr8 answer, now write it down, make yourself famous.

[Anonymous No.6150982]

>>6150974
>So you prefer mysticism and spirituality over scientific answers? Go back to /x
Nom thats why i dont prefer socioloogy or psychology and prefer biology.

>I know more about science than you ever will, you ridiculous pop sci moron.
it doesnt show :/

>You forgot the part where I thoroughly refuted and disproved your nonsense.
Nobody has seen this and this thread with 4 people mocking you is proof of how autistic you are.

[Anonymous No.6150983]

>>6150975
>Glorious fallacy
An emprical observation is not a fallacy.

>Circular logic, beauty is math because math is beautiful
Nothing circular in here.

>Huehuehuehue, gr8 answer, now write it down, make yourself famous.
I just did. Why don't you listen to my words and start applying common sense?

[Anonymous No.6150991]

>>6150982
>Nom thats why i dont prefer socioloogy or psychology
You reject scientific fields of research because you're too retarded to understand them? GTFO, anti-science fag.

>it doesnt show :/
It does show very well. I'm constantly correcting your garbage.

>Nobody has seen this
denial

>and this thread with 4 people mocking you
You samefagging is not 4 people and the only reason you resort to ad hominems is because you know you cannot attack the facts I posted.

[Anonymous No.6150992]

>>6150968
Actually I didn't participate in the earlier conversation, I just wanted to know what you think makes mathematics beautiful. Because that is clearly the core of what is being dicussed here.

[Anonymous No.6150995]

>>6150992
>Because that is clearly the core of what is being dicussed here.

Your lack of readig comprehension is showing.

[Anonymous No.6151004]

>>6150983
You have convinced no one on these threads, people actually mock you (3 or more in this one).

I'll leave you to ponder on these facts

[Anonymous No.6151005]

>>6150995
Let me rephrase. Is mathematics universally beautiful?

[Anonymous No.6151007]

A question to all the mathfags ITT.

How can people, that know jack shit about math, create aesthetically appeasing art?

[Anonymous No.6151008]

>>6151004
No matter how upset you are over losing this debate, my facts remain true.

[Anonymous No.6151011]

>>6148327
>>6148354
>>6148420
>>6148445
>>6148465
>>6148488
>>6148489
>>6148506
>>6148540
>>6148566
>>6148546
>>6148589
>>6148621
>>6148681
>>6148683
>>6148716
>>6148865
>>6150909
>>6150937
>>6150953
>>6150959
>>6150965
>>6150992

None of those are me, its other people realizing what a huge ignorant fuckface you are :S

[Anonymous No.6151016]

>>6151007
Technically speaking art maps universal logic to some form of medium. The entire universe creates art all the time. It's only logical that a subset of the universe would also likely create art.

[Anonymous No.6151017]

>>6151011

Here, some science to prove how worthless you are.

[Anonymous No.6151014]

>>6151007
>How can people, that know jack shit about math, create aesthetically appeasing art?

They don't need to know the math explicitly. The mathematical laws are implicit and inherent to nature. An aesthetically pleasing piece of art will follow mathematical rules, irregardless of whether you're sufficiently educated to recognize them.

[Anonymous No.6151019]

>>6151011
Some science to prove how worthless you are, edit version.

[Anonymous No.6151024]

>>6151008
Losing? I see, resorting to the whole denial and claiming win tactics. See >>6151019

We all saw how fucking dumb you are my dear.

[Anonymous No.6151030]

>>6151011
You randomly quoted a lot of posts. Three of them are mine and the majority of them doesn't even reply to posts of mine. You are fucking retarded.

[Anonymous No.6151029]

>>6151011
Ironically, half of those are mine from last night. I'm too high right now to take anything seriously. Actually reading this thread is pretty hilarious.

[Anonymous No.6151037]

>>6151014
That is why Matta, Gaugin, Lautrec, Miro, Picasso (cubist era) are all clearly math influenced amirite?

>>6151030

I tried to make continuance in the argument so you can see how I am not anyone respoding to any of your nonsense. Are you afraid people dont like you? Afraid of people thinking you are dumby?


>>6151030

[Anonymous No.6151038]

>>6150925
why do you find this aesthetic? what are its aesthetic qualities?

[Anonymous No.6151042]

>>6151037
Notice how the cubist era of Picasso does NOT follow an actual cube, he paints IRREGULAR cubes that are aesthetic. I feel I need to explain this to the illiterate idiot because he of course ignores this fact.

[Anonymous No.6151059]

>>6151042

Roberto Matta, sooo mathematics, wow aesthetic, lines, straight lines so beauty, all circles and equations, MASTERFUL

[Anonymous No.6151062]

>>6151059
Thanks 4chan for glitches

[Anonymous No.6151063]

>>6151037
>That is why Matta, Gaugin, Lautrec, Miro, Picasso (cubist era) are all clearly math influenced amirite?
Their paintings follow mathematical rules. If they didn't, they wouldn't be aesthetic.

>Are you afraid people dont like you?
I don't ask you to like me. I only care about the truth. But when you don't like the truth, then you are wrong on a science board.

>Afraid of people thinking you are dumby?
Why would anyone think that? Why do you resort to childish insults? Why are you too immature for proper debate?

[Anonymous No.6151068]

>>6151063
>Their paintings follow mathematical rules. If they didn't, they wouldn't be aesthetic.

HUehuehuehuehueheHEhuehue

I declare this debate finished, you know NOTHING bout art and you resort to this.

Now you can play the "I was merely pretending card"

[Anonymous No.6151078]

>>6151068
It is in fact you does not know anything about art. If you believe art is just "lol I stare at picture ... picture is colorful", then you are a dilletantish pseudo-intellectual. Please do us all a favor and stop posting until you got some education. Your understanding of art is underdeveloped. You don't know shit about how to intepret or analyze a painting.

[Anonymous No.6151097]

>>6151078
Go ahead, kid, teach us all the truth

[Anonymous No.6151098]

>>6151097
Fuck off, retard. Throughout this thread you have proven that you don't know shit about neither math nor art nor science. You are lacking the intellect to comprehend any of the topics you clumsily attempted to talk about. Please, please go to school. You're in dire need of education.

[Anonymous No.6151109]

>>6151098
You are such a dum dum. I was eager to be enlightened.

[Anonymous No.6151116]

>>6151109
Go away. You are too immature to engage in debate.

[Anonymous No.6151120]

>>6151078
How do you analyse a painting?

[Anonymous No.6151128]

>>6151120
By applying your intelligence and your education.

[Anonymous No.6151127]

>>6151116

But please, do inform us of your truths, Mr., a lot of us do really want to know it, it would change everything.

[Anonymous No.6151132]

>>6151128
how is that adhering to mathematical principles?

[Anonymous No.6151133]

>>6151130
XD

This thread sucks and you are the main reason for it

[Anonymous No.6151130]

>>6151127
Go to school.

[Anonymous No.6151138]

>>6151132
Everything adheres to mathematical principles. Do you even science?

[Anonymous No.6151140]

>>6151133
>projecting

[Anonymous No.6151178]

>>6151138
sure, art is deterministic. but describing aesthetics with mathematical formulae is not something feasible. not impossible; but not something that's practical. I can't think of any deterministic process more complicated.

it can theoretically be described, but it can't actually be done so, so for what cause is it worth describing it as mathematical?

[Anonymous No.6151185]

>>6151140
snappy retort
you are not able to describe the mathematics of aesthetics. if this fact is untrue, you would have given at least a slight indication that the converse were true.

[Anonymous No.6151201]

>>6151178
And how is it that because it adheres to mathematicas formulae it, therefore, is aesthetic?

Determinism has nothing to do with aesthetics.

[Anonymous No.6151228]

>>6151201
m8 the man is clearly not convinced by a dualistic argument

[Anonymous No.6151253]

>>6151178
>not impossible; but not something that's practical
I never claimed it was practical.

>it can theoretically be described
That's all I said ITT. Obviously that was already too much for the autistic philosotard.

[Anonymous No.6151275]

>>6151253
so in what sense is art describes my mathematical rules any more than anything else? if anything, it's less so, in that the processes are more convoluted. saying that art is governed by mathematics is therefore redundant. the implication you made was that it was determinable what is aesthetic and what isn't. this is not feasible.

[Anonymous No.6151285]

>>6151275
>if anything, it's less so, in that the processes are more convoluted
Bullshit. You have no idea what you're talking about.

>saying that art is governed by mathematics is therefore redundant
The statement conveyed information and was therefore not redundant.

>the implication you made was that it was determinable what is aesthetic and what isn't. this is not feasible.
This is easily feasible. Collect and analyze statistical data of what people consider aesthetic.

[Anonymous No.6151298]

>>6151285
I'll resist replying to your pointlessly hostile first two points, though don't take that to mean that I haven't acknowledged them.

If we define aesthetic to be 'whatever the majority of humans deem it', sure, you're correct. but a lot of people think ACDC are decent. arguments ad populum are not viable when aestheticism is an inherent quality (if you wish to infer that it's defined as something else, go ahead). who's to say the human race is a good judge of inherent aestheticism? what makes your census useful/viable data?

[Anonymous No.6151301]

>>6151228
This has nothing to do with dualism, there is still NO ARGUMENT why mathematics ia aesthetics. All I see is circular logic.

Yes, the world is deterministic, how does that entail that this or that is beautiful or ugly?

Please stop it with ambiguity and define your terms, then kindly produce an argument on why mathematics is the form of aesthetics, aka, why determinism is aesthetic.

This thread is full of ambiguity fallacy and circular logic.

[Anonymous No.6151303]

>>6151253
>>6151285
>>6151298

Once again, other posters, not me, see how you resort to cicular bullshit. YOu aren't able to make a single argument for us to disprove.


You are very pathetic.

[Anonymous No.6151307]

>>6151298
There is consensus that this man is synoymous with aesthetics.

[Anonymous No.6151313]

>>6151301
I am not the infamous 'guy posting the maths side of this thread' - I am not claiming you're incorrect, merely acknowledging his lack of respect for your sort of questions, as he dismisses them as /x/fodder due to his nature as a le master troll.

[Anonymous No.6151310]

>>6151307
No, there is in fact many people that think that Frank Zane or Jeff Seid are much more aesthetic, of course, you do not know who these people are because, of course, you have shown time and time again to be completely ignorant.

Try again, idiot kid.

[Anonymous No.6151314]

>>6151310
Jeff pls go

[Anonymous No.6151316]

>>6151310
In fact, consensualism is the complete oppposite of what can logically expect from a scientist that speaks about "truth".

By deifnition, consensus is not truth, its just will agreeing. There are consensus, such as contracts, that do not deal with what is ontologically real.

Now, I do not expect this sophomore to understand the inner contradictions of his speech but still, for the rest of you that are not utterly idiotic.

[Anonymous No.6151322]

>>6151316
Yet the phenomenon of "consensus" can be observed and researched empirically and statistically. Thanks for demonstrating your utter ignorance of social sciences.

[Anonymous No.6151323]

>>6151314
I prefer Rakich if anything, no homo. Or a young (before pro bbing) Lee Priest.

[Anonymous No.6151329]

>>6151322
More baseless claims? Studied by failed sciences such as sociology? What school of sociology do you adhere to and who is your favorite author? I'll give you 3 mins to lurk wikipedia and come up with a half assed answer.

[Anonymous No.6151327]

>>6151313
>lack of respect for your sort of questions

What kind of question? That poster did not raise any questions. "Hurr durr muh feelings > math" is not a question worth considering on a science and math board.

[Anonymous No.6151334]

>>6151329
Do you seriously not know what statistics are?

[Anonymous No.6151337]

>>6151327
Feelings? Who said anything about feelings? It is mind numbing that you are getting constantly shot at by several different posters and you still adamantly repeat the same circular idiocy, I'll hand it to you, you really are tiring, I guess that's how you get your "internetz wins".

Again, people agreeing on stuff has nothing to do with ontological arguments. Now it is your turn to prove which of all the different sociological theories you consider to be true, because you have shown time and time again to be a complete ignorant ignoring my questions.

Sociology provides no one answer, you resorting to "sociology" just shows what an utter ignorant you are.

[Anonymous No.6151341]

>>6151334
So, what is it? Statistics or sociology? What is inherent to statistics that make statistic choices more aesthetic?

How do you define aesthetics for the billionth time?

[Anonymous No.6151344]

there are far more posters in this thread than yourself and the person you think you're replying to

[Anonymous No.6151350]

>>6151337
>Feelings? Who said anything about feelings?
You responded emotionally instead of rationally. You resort to ad hominems instead of arguments. Your emotional instability makes conversation with you very difficult.

>shot at by several different posters
aka you samefagging

>repeat the same circular idiocy
Nothing circular and the only reason I have to repeat myself is because you are too illiterate to understand it the first time.

>has nothing to do with ontological arguments
Nobody is talking about ontological arguments. Keep your philosotardation out of here. This is a science board, not a teenager's pseudo-intellectualism blog. You have facebook for this shit.

>Sociology provides no one answer
Sociology provides testable hypotheses while your philosodrivel on the other hand produces nothing but more and more baseless and utterly meaningless claims without any impact.

[Anonymous No.6151352]

>>6151341
>So, what is it? Statistics or sociology?
Sociology is an application of statistics.

>How do you define aesthetics for the billionth time?
Why are you using a word you don't understand? You should have gained an understanding of its meaning during your childhood. Was your verbal development delayed or impaired?

[Anonymous No.6151354]

>>6151350
how do you define aesthetics? If you can't see that this is an argument going nowhere without your definition, then by your own rules, you should probably be ignored for being a uneducated teenager or some shit

[Anonymous No.6151359]

>>6151350
You have made no arguments and have committed ad hominems yourself. Notice, calling you stupid is not an ad hominem, arguing that you are wrong because you are stupid is an ad hominem. Of course, you do not know this because you have shown time and time again to be a total idiot.

I already showed you many posts are not mine, do you want me to do it again with the recent posts?

>Nobody is talking about ontological arguments. Keep your philosotardation out of here. This is a science board,
Two fallacies in a row, youre getting good at it.

>Sociology provides testable hypotheses while your philosodrivel
Sociology does not give a single answer, there are marxist sociologist , libertarian sociologists and anything inbetween.

One again, I have to prove all your argument wrong and show just what an imbecile you are.

Define aesthetics
Define your socological view point
Provide arguments for your baseless claims

Until then, me and several others will just kep laughing at you.

[Anonymous No.6151364]

>>6151352
>Why are you using a word you don't understand? You should have gained an understanding of its meaning during your childhood. Was your verbal development delayed or impaired?

Nice one sophomore, still evading my question ...are you afraid of something? Why are you so reluctant to speak your mind? Is it that you're....stupid?

This >>6151344 is not me, proof in following point, little-brain.

[Anonymous No.6151370]

>>6151354
>how do you define aesthetics?

You should know what it means. Do you have a problem with the English language? What is your native language?

[Anonymous No.6151367]

>>6151364

;D there ya go cutie, we all know what an imbecile you are.

[Anonymous No.6151372]

>>6151344
>>6151344
>>6151344
>>6151344

[Anonymous No.6151377]

>>6151370
Here we go cutie, we are all laughing at ya ;D

[Anonymous No.6151382]

>>6151370
After a billion repeated attempts by different posters to try to get you to define your terms as a good scientist would, you resort to the lowest of the low, "taking for granted definitions".

I am ashamed sometimes what the scientific community in which I partake has produced. Wilful ignorance and hubris at its best.

[Anonymous No.6151391]

>>6151370
Christ, just define it. There is no sense in your avoiding a simple question behind hostilities other than your fears that you're wrong, and everyone in this thread, including you, is aware of this fact

[Anonymous No.6151386]

>>6151359
>You have made no arguments
I did. Your denial only confirms their strength.

>I already showed you many posts are not mine
Nobody cares. We are talking about the stupidity in the posts that are yours.

>Two fallacies in a row, youre getting good at it.
How are they fallacies? Did you not read the board's title? This board is dedicated to science and math. Philosotardation has no place here. If you want to pretend being deep and pseudo-intellectual, then get a fucking blog.

>Sociology does not give a single answer
Yes, it gives multiple answers, but at least it does give answers. Your simpleminded musings on the other hand do not answer anything and serve no purpose other than wasting time.

>there are marxist sociologist , libertarian sociologists and anything inbetween.
Is this what uneducated murrifats actually believe? Not all of sociology is politicized. The research on aesthetics is pretty unpolitical.

>One again, I have to prove all your argument wrong
Is this a joke? Sorry, given your autism I seriously cannot tell whether you're attempting to be funny or whether you're deluded as fuck. You did not even address any of my arguments. "Lol ur stoopid" does not disprove anything. Stop behaving like a huffy infant.

>Define aesthetics
Learn English.

>Define your socological view point
My view point is irrelevant to the facts I posted.

>Provide arguments for your baseless claims
I did not make any claims.

[formrst quality (OP) No.6151398]

>>6146487
In real life, most events are out of your control because they are beyond your mental/physical limitations. You are only able to directly influence certain things within a certain neighborhood.
In a dream environment, the only limitation on your control is the degree to which you understand and become aware of the process through which your mind is simulating that environment ("Lucidity.")

[Anonymous No.6151400]

>>6151382
>>6151391
It isn't my fault that your verbal skills are subpar. If you are aware of your obvious defectiveness, then why do you keep embarrassing yourself by repeatedly failing to understand the meaning of words every child is expected to know?

[Anonymous No.6151404]

>>6151386
You are cute, an ignorant cute insufferable fat nerd.
There has been no argument presented other than circular logic. With the big fucking implied assumption that math is aesthetic because science. Which I have challenged for several posts. Define your terms and show us how you derive the "must be" from the "being".
I could keep poking holes in your feeble faux-argument but I am starting to get the impression you really know jack shit of what you talk about.

And please, do post these sociological theories of aesthetics that you refer to.

Show us why I MUST find something aesthetic because it follows "science", whatever that fucking means (again, you havent even developed what it means that smething is accord to science, is it just determinism? Why is determinism aesthetic?)

You are really the worst.

>>6151391 This is not me, and again, I can prove just how much of a fucking idiot you are making yourself look.

[Anonymous No.6151407]

>>6151391
>>6151391
>>6151391

[Anonymous No.6151414]

>>6151400
Not me, I'm sorry you fail so hard at everything hehehehe. I am starting to feel sorry for you.

[Anonymous No.6151416]

Why is /sci/ full of these bitchy nerds who only want to argue and insult one another's intelligence?

[Anonymous No.6151421]

a quick update on who's saying what as I perceive it - maths=aesthetics guy is refusing to define aesthetics because there aren't any valid definitions that fit his argument

I can't tell if there are two proponents of maths=aesthetics

that's about it, it's tricky

if anyone has anything to add to this synopsis feel free

also, I am this guy >>6151344

[Anonymous No.6151419]

>>6151416
Because I genuinly wanted to see how this fat nerd would develop his outrageous argument (I am open to any idea) but nothing has come out of his emtpy head. I had some faith since the last thread he would develop, but its painful now...He makes our community look bad with his arrogance and ignorance (the worst combo).

[Anonymous No.6151424]

>>6151404
>You are cute, an ignorant cute insufferable fat nerd.
I am neither ignorant nor fat. I am a nerd though. I watch TBBT and I frequently browse "I fucking love science".

>There has been no argument presented other than circular logic.
There is no circular logic in the facts I posted. Are you too dumb to understand a linear sequence of logical inferences?

>Which I have challenged for several posts
You challenged a straw man you made up because you cannot address the actual arguments?

>derive the "must be" from the "being".
Is this a failed attempt to talk like one of your philosotard heros?

>And please, do post these sociological theories of aesthetics that you refer to.
You wouldn't understand any scientific paper.

>Show us why I MUST find something aesthetic
Nobody is forcing you, but if you deviate too much from the social norms, you are considered abnormal. But then again, after reading your posts, I'll have to assume that you are already damaged beyond repair. How socially isolated are you? Is your mom the only person you talk to?

>You are really the worst.
Appeal to emotion is a fallacy.

>This is not me
Nobody claimed it was.

[Anonymous No.6151427]

>>6151421

No, its only one guy, the same guy from a thread a week ago that didn't bother to argue for any of his outrageous views and resorted to circular logic for all of them with an implied premise that somehow because science shows "truth" (which is already a hilarious claim), hence we can derive the "must be", the "because it is a mathematical model, I must find it aesthetic.

If I was this fat nerd and was so sure about my "thoughts" I'd publish this and make myself famous. ALso, it is funny how he sets forth philosophical ideas (what "must be") and shits on philosophy.

He truly is the worst of us all.

[Anonymous No.6151428]

>>6151424
so the opinions of the minority are always incorrect and abnormal? was van gogh a bad artist as he was not rated for a while after his death?

[Anonymous No.6151433]

>>6151428
Why do you talk about art with this guy? He clearly KNOWS NOTHING. I already asked his little brain to show me what is mathematical about a Miro or even Duchamp (notice his art involving feces) but he failed, as he will fail always.

[Anonymous No.6151435]

>>6151424
Keep dismissing the arguments, the questions set, the examples. You are sinking deep and I have a feeling this thread will last since new people have entered.

You have so far not answered any single question and there are at least two other active anons that have confirmed this. If you ask me, that is telling.

[Anonymous No.6151437]

>>6151419
>ad hominem

>>6151421
>ad hominem

I like how you implicitly admit that I won the debate. Not that I care very much about "winning", but I find it hilarious how you crave the embarrassment of shouting out "everyone look at me losing a debate". Is it really necessary to resort to the most childish form of communication, i.e. insults? Come on, we are all adults here. You should be mature enough to be thankful for being corrected on a science and math board.

[Anonymous No.6151438]

>>6151433
I find it interesting I suppose.

[Anonymous No.6151440]

>>6151424
>Refusing to post definitions
>Refusing to post citation
>Doesn't understand the underlying dilemma of ontology and truth.

Here kiddie, let's get started, which particular current do you adhere to? Why do you think empirical truths of the noumenons have any normativ value (ie, what should be liked (beauty) and what should be disliked (ugliness)?

[Anonymous No.6151442]

>>6151433
I demonstrated very broad knowledge of art while all you did was shit flinging. You did not even understand the topic of discussion.

>>6151435
What arguments? What questions? Show them to me.

[Anonymous No.6151447]

>>6151440
Keep your pseudo-intellectual philososhit to yourself. This is a science and math board. You are clearly wrong here. Nobody cares how many variations of "cannot know nuffin" you can produce.

[Anonymous No.6151449]

>>6151442
>I demonstrated very broad knowledge of art while all you did was shit flinging. You did not even understand the topic of discussion.

Hahahahahahah where??

>What arguments? What questions? Show them to me
>>6151440
>>6151427
>>6151404

These threads are a mix of scorn to your ignorant-ness and questions.

[Anonymous No.6151450]

>>6151449
None of these posts contains any reasonable questiosn or arguments. They are a disgusting mix of ad hominems, insults, straw men and infantile philosocrap. Come back when you have science and math education. You are wrong on this board.

[Anonymous No.6151452]

How do you personally define aesthetics, maths=aesthetics guy?

Because I'm pretty sure the standard definition, simply 'beauty' or something to that effect, does not confirm the use of argumentum as populum.

How do you objectify art?

What do you say to this?

[Anonymous No.6151455]

>>6151447
lol

I hope you see what's wrong with this post

[Anonymous No.6151459]

>>6151452
>Because I'm pretty sure the standard definition, simply 'beauty' or something to that effect, does not confirm the use of argumentum as populum.

It does.

[Anonymous No.6151466]

>this whole thread was predetermined by a higher power.

[Anonymous No.6151467]

>>6151466
This is what determinists actually believe.

[Anonymous No.6151470]

>>6151459
explain your reasoning. How do you know the average human is able to correctly identify what is aesthetic and what isn't? Why would the populace just happen to be able to tell you what beauty is?

[Anonymous No.6151478]

>>6151470
>How do you know the average human is able to correctly identify what is aesthetic and what isn't? Why would the populace just happen to be able to tell you what beauty is?

We evolved. Evolution is a physical process following mathematical laws. Our bodies obey physical, i.e. mathematical, laws. Identifying certain patterns causes the physiological response of considering the observation "aesthetic".

[Anonymous No.6151484]

>>6151467

[Anonymous No.6151488]

>>6151478
So why do different people consider different things aesthetic?

[Anonymous No.6151495]

>>6151488
Because their brains are different. Neuronal structure are still sufficiently similar however to allow for us to have statistical consensus on what is aesthetic.

[Anonymous No.6151507]

>>6151495
So there is a fundamental set of patterns that our brains have evolved to recognise as beautiful, with some people more accurate than others? Why would this trait be selected for?

If there are set patterns, why might someone enjoy patterned art (say Mozart) and that which is deliberately anti-patterned (say Schoenberg)?

[Anonymous No.6151514]

>>6151507
I don't know but I'm sure science will find an explanation. Science is the only method of finding explanations. Just because science hasn't yet explained everything, that doesn't mean you can fill the holes with whatever baseless philosogarbage most appeals to you.

[Anonymous No.6151519]

>>6146487

Lucid dreams have never been proven to happen. Its Tulipa-tier bullshit.

[Anonymous No.6151520]

>>6151514
Wow. Didn't see that coming. What a falsifiable and highly scientific outlook on the world that is!

[Anonymous No.6151559]

>>6146487

Free will does exist because believing it doesn't exist has massive effects on your behavior.

Someone who believes in free will is more likely to take responsibility for their actions and push their limits than someone who believes they're nothing more than circumstance.

Free will is simulated, but very real.

[Anonymous No.6151674]

>>6151495
How do you explain that people like and dislike the beatles at the same time?
Why do you say that any given social consensus must be the "aesthetic" thing?
Why are you unableto prove this "consensus" you speak of?
Ultimately, why are you such a fucking tool thatt even more people mock your dumb opinions after I left?