ITT things scientifically uneducated people say that bother you >That's not evolution, it's adaptation

File: 61 KB, 719x719, c33[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Thu Jan 26 16:51:58 2017 No.8631665 [Reply] [Original]

ITT things scientifically uneducated people say that bother you
>That's not evolution, it's adaptation

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 26 16:58:44 2017 No.8631678 >>8631665 >ITT things scientifically uneducated people say that bother you Evolution

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 26 17:08:56 2017 No.8631693 >>8631665 >ITT things scientifically uneducated people say that bother you anything 2bh

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 26 17:17:02 2017 No.8631702 >free will >consciousness >science can't Nothing rustles me more.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 26 17:21:58 2017 No.8631707 >>8631702 >Science can't explain free will I see this all the time on /x/ and /his/.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 26 17:27:45 2017 No.8631716 File: 347 KB, 672x561, 1482497435170.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Any appeal to quantum mechanics. These dumb cunts know literally nothing about QM yet they use it to justify their hogwash.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 26 17:28:34 2017 No.8631719 >>8631707 >>Science can't explain free will But it's true.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 26 17:29:45 2017 No.8631723 >>8631719 There is empirical evidence, therefore it falls within the realm of science.,

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 26 17:30:23 2017 No.8631726 >>8631719 Free will doesn't exist so...

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 26 17:32:49 2017 No.8631732 >>8631719 Free will. You don't know whether there is such a thing. That's why science can't explain it. Maybe there's some way to predict real life but we don't know it.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 26 19:25:58 2017 No.8631933 File: 553 KB, 375x286, 21323.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8631665 >ITT things scientifically uneducated people say that bother you Everything.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 26 19:46:47 2017 No.8631974 i dont even know definition of "free will"? wtf does it mean? that i can kill myself whenever i want?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 26 19:48:53 2017 No.8631980 >CS is hard >theoretically you could ... >why don't scientists just ...

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 26 19:52:55 2017 No.8631988 >>8631974 It means the person using the term is misinterpreting their perception of Agent.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 26 19:57:17 2017 No.8631994 Clickbait popsci headlines going >scientists have just discovered... Also my 6 year old brother thinking he knows all about black holes and our solar system, pleb

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 26 22:21:35 2017 No.8632320 >>8631732 If life can't be predicted does that mean we have free will?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 26 22:23:02 2017 No.8632325 >>8631974 >i can kill myself whenever i want? Sure, why not?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 26 22:58:55 2017 No.8632395 >Math is discovered, not invented.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 26 23:05:57 2017 No.8632416 >>8631723 Where is that evidence?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 26 23:09:16 2017 No.8632421 >"Quantum..." >"I saw this article online that said..." >"Oh haha, I hated math in high school." >"Happy Pi day!" and many more

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 26 23:11:51 2017 No.8632426 >>8631723 If you have empirical evidence for free will, I'd like to see it. You also may have some sort of prestigious academic award headed your way as a result, as no one's provided any better evidence than "Give her the D" meme guy.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 26 23:12:34 2017 No.8632428 >>8632320 It is equally compatible with the hypothesis that we have free will, and the hypothesis that we just haven't figured out how to predict it yet.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 26 23:16:00 2017 No.8632435 >race don't exist Someone should tell medecine about it, because they clearly didn't get the memo.

Anonymous Thu Jan 26 23:19:30 2017 No.8632443

>>8632320
Doesn't mean our actions aren't predetermined, which for some, negates free will.

Myself, I'd argue, as a result of that ignorance you allude to, yes, you have free will from your own perspective, even if your actions are in fact predetermined. Even if you're aware of that, you can't escape that perception of free will.

Of course, others would argue that's merely the "illusion" of free will. Nonetheless, only creatures with omniscient perspective could see through this illusion, and they, by definition, wouldn't have free will. If breaking the "illusion" of the real world, requires an entirely fictional perspective not present therein, than that "illusion" holds considerably more sway than the claim against it.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 26 23:19:51 2017 No.8632445 >>8632395 I mean, yes?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 26 23:50:56 2017 No.8632492 >>8632421 >Happy π day Makes my blood boil

>>	Anonymous Thu Jan 26 23:58:35 2017 No.8632509 >>8632492 Just shut up and enjoy the free pie. It makes it worth it.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 00:23:48 2017 No.8632578 anything from the I Fucking Love Science facebook page. fucking try to hang myself whenever something from there gets shared

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 00:35:34 2017 No.8632607 >if evolution is real, why do monkeys still exist? I live in Kentucky

Anonymous Fri Jan 27 00:46:17 2017 No.8632630

>>8632416
Everything conscious is seeing it all the time, though "free will" is a nonsensical term for it.

When I raise my hand, I perceive a force making it move. I can only see this force in my hand and other parts of my body because my mind has a great degree of "familiarity" with them. Everything that moves though, is moved by this one force. There has to only be one force, because no human can imagine there being more than one. Being able to perceive it obviously must have some sort of advantage, but we have no idea what that is.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 00:51:16 2017 No.8632639 >its just a theory This gets me riled up like no other. I still don't know how to properly reply to this.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 01:00:40 2017 No.8632655 >>8632639 >well that's just, like, your opinion man

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 01:28:46 2017 No.8632718 >>8632445 t. brainlet

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 01:32:51 2017 No.8632724 File: 86 KB, 880x267, d6c1573a6c.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8631665 >The universe doesn't require a first cause

Anonymous Fri Jan 27 01:50:34 2017 No.8632769

>>8631702

I concur!

I can't believe people are too stupid to understand how concussions and other brain damage work.

Where does that consciousness go when you are literally "knocked unconscious". It's in our language, and they still act like it's magic.

No /x/, /his/, and /pol/, it is called an organ - the brain.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 01:53:32 2017 No.8632771 >>8632769 Not sure if purposefully being stupid or not

Anonymous Fri Jan 27 01:58:08 2017 No.8632784

Anytime I overhear someone educating another on topics they obviously don't know about, it irks me a little.

It becomes unbearably frustrating when an uneducated person attempts to educate me on topic x, when I have a graduate degree in x.

(Accountants and insurance companies, JCAHO, these guys are the ones telling our providers how to practice)

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 02:03:17 2017 No.8632796 File: 8 KB, 259x194, triggered.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8632771 >Not sure if purposefully being stupid or not Did I trigger you? You seem triggered.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 02:04:55 2017 No.8632799 >>8632630 >>8632769 >no comprehension >no independent thoughts >no literacy Classic Scientism, yeah.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 02:07:39 2017 No.8632804 >>8632724 >implying a "first cause" is logically necessary

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 02:08:40 2017 No.8632806 >>8632799 > uses green text to communicate > because an autisticfag with no real point and nothing of substance to say

Anonymous Fri Jan 27 02:23:07 2017 No.8632823

>>8632724
One you realize that "nothing" and "infinity" are platonic concepts that do not exist in this reality, you really don't.

>>8632769
You can make all sorts of empirical statements about the biological processes of consciousness and awareness, but your personal perspective or resulting qualia is ultimately unempirical and unprovable. You cannot distinguish between a person and a p-zombie either philosophically or scientifically in any communicable fashion, and the only person to which you can prove your own experience of experience, is yourself.

There are thus ultimately fundamental limitations to any empirical line of reasoning.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 02:23:51 2017 No.8632825 >>8632806 >projecting insecurities

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 02:39:02 2017 No.8632841 >>8632804 It's neccesary at every philosophical level

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 02:40:11 2017 No.8632842 >>8632825 >>8632823 You guys are so fucking stupid. I bet one of you is christfag and the other is philosophyfag. kys

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 02:43:08 2017 No.8632845 File: 18 KB, 490x326, 1449039312381.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8632842 >Being against either of those things you what

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 03:05:46 2017 No.8632876 >>8632841 Explain.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 03:20:30 2017 No.8632895 >>8632841 Not really, people just feel icky about infinity.

Anonymous Fri Jan 27 03:25:28 2017 No.8632898

Two of my co-workers bullied me today, saying the moon landings never happened.
>lol why can't you see stars on the pictures from the surface
>because the light level has been toned down
>lol why did the flag wave without air
>because of inertia and vacuum
>dude why did the astronauts die already
>probably because of radiation
>lol no the gubberment killed them off

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 03:50:46 2017 No.8632918 >>8632421 Love that pie! Love that puddin' Love that gal They call Sallie Goodin!

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 03:51:33 2017 No.8632919 >>8631665 >I browse /sci/

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 04:02:42 2017 No.8632940 >>8632895 >>8632876 The four ways cannot be answered without a need for a purely actual pre-existing being outside of them. Gotta read your Aristotle my niggas.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 04:06:29 2017 No.8632947 >>8632940 >four ways Nigger you don't impress no one with your philosophy 101 shit.

Anonymous Fri Jan 27 04:10:22 2017 No.8632950
File: 46 KB, 620x400, disgust.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8631665
>Citing "the bell curve" to justify racism
>GMO's are dangerous
>Vaccines cause autism
>Physical punishment as a parenting tool
>"It's just a theory"

My god there are a lot

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 04:10:28 2017 No.8632951 >>8632947 I'm simply telling you how it is. You acknowleding Aristotle is one of the foundations of western philosophy (now sadly abandoned in many places) isn't a rebuttal to what I said.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 04:10:54 2017 No.8632953 File: 46 KB, 540x563, ok pleb.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >the sum of all integers is not -1/12

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 04:11:31 2017 No.8632954 >>8632898 aren't some of them alive? o~o

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 04:12:29 2017 No.8632955 >>8631665 Gluten is bad for you

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 04:15:25 2017 No.8632956 >>8632492 >>8632421 theres nothing wrong with pi day you insufferable unlikable autists, the math faculty at my school celebrates it

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 04:16:52 2017 No.8632957 >>8632955 What if their gluten intolerant and it really isn't good for tgem

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 04:17:59 2017 No.8632958 >>8632956 Why are you celebrating a random mathematics formula normies don't even know how to use? What makes it better than others?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 04:35:29 2017 No.8632974 >>8631665 Everything about AI and quantum computing really rustles my jimmies, especially when they somehow try to combine it and end up with muh singularity.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 04:39:47 2017 No.8632976 >>8631665 >Engineers thinking they can science this one, lol, not everyone, but engineers tend to be the exact opposite pole of a scientist.

Anonymous Fri Jan 27 04:54:08 2017 No.8632983

>>8632976
I find this funny
If only you knew teslas theory of dynamic gravity. Literally proves einstines theory of relativity wrong... Enter special relativity to fix the mistakes without having to credit Tesla, lock up dynamic gravity in US archive and classify it above top secret, Tesla now discredited because he lied about having a theory.
Long story short an engineer discover how the force known as gravity is produced, and utilized it.
its the difference produced by any two separate fields created around a singular charged body.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 04:59:29 2017 No.8632989 >>8632957 Or if they are just sedentary, which most people are these days.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 05:02:05 2017 No.8632992 >>8632983 By "engineers" i mean the average engineer, y'know? not Tesla, lol. Also, nice conspiracy you got going on there, that's not how science works tho, so what you just said makes no sense.

Anonymous Fri Jan 27 05:10:47 2017 No.8632996

>>8632951
>>8632947
It's obviously not philosophy 101 shit, it's Youtube shit, or he woulda learned that Aristotle got his clock cleaned pretty badly in that department. Gott/Gunn/Schramm, Paul Edwards, David White - particularly in a universe where no amount of nothing is present anywhere and causal violation is a real possibility. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1401.0167v1.pdf

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 05:13:48 2017 No.8632998 >>8631665 >'Anarchy is chaos.' >Engineer: 'What I do is way to abstract for you, it's purely mathematical stuff.' >'Theoretical physicists don't do relevant research...' Especially the last one continuously triggers me.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 05:15:11 2017 No.8632999 >>8632998 But the last one is 100%, unironically and completely correct, Anon.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 05:19:46 2017 No.8633001 >>8632996 The universe from nothing theory has been debunked pretty heavily actually http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2013/02/forgetting-nothing-learning-nothing.html

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 05:19:52 2017 No.8633002 File: 1.90 MB, 640x480, 1484254760578.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >climate change isnt real/dangerous >we have plenty of coal and oil >natural gas is a great replacement for coal

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 05:21:24 2017 No.8633003 >>8632999 This gotta be bait.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 05:21:45 2017 No.8633004 File: 333 KB, 1106x962, 1478991341464.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8631665 Literally everything social scientists put in their garbage studies.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 05:23:55 2017 No.8633006 >>8633002 Climate Change is a $$$ industry first and foremost

Anonymous Fri Jan 27 05:26:19 2017 No.8633009
File: 1.88 MB, 190x200, kek.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8633002

Climate science is garbage.

A quote by climate "scientists".

"In climate research and modelling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible."

~ The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ~ (IPCC) Third Assessment Report Section 14.2.2.2, page 774

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 05:28:05 2017 No.8633011 >>8633006 we gotta regulate sum growth or we will eat ourselves off the blanket like bacterials no oil no lamp we gotta inovate while there is time but people argue and say we are fine

Anonymous Fri Jan 27 05:30:26 2017 No.8633013

>>8633001
>They mean “How could something arise from nothing?” That is to say, from the absence of anything whatsoever -- including the absence of space (empty or otherwise), laws of physics, or anything else.
That blog post is more a demonstration of a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept, than it is an argument against it.

Not that there aren't arguments against a lot of Krauss's crap, but that isn't one of them, and none of them have any real affect on that aspect of cosmology - something he has no credit in, and simply references.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 05:30:36 2017 No.8633015 >>8632958 >pi is a formula

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 05:31:56 2017 No.8633017 >>8633009 those are some hot opinions you've got there

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 05:34:59 2017 No.8633022 >>8631716 My dad, unfortunately. Super into QM and asks me about the latest news I don't give a fuck about. And he hasn't studied anything close to math or physics.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 05:36:06 2017 No.8633023 >>8631665 Anything popsci.

Anonymous Fri Jan 27 05:37:08 2017 No.8633025

>>8633006
>Climate Change is a $$$ industry first and foremost
You can make arguments against climate change, but that has gotta be the dumbest one, and it triggers me no end..

Who has more money and more motivation? A budding industry that barely exists, or an industry that has been fundamental to civilization since the dawn of the industrial age, and that all the "old money" in power has its hands and roots in?

The money is firmly in the climate change denier's court. As to which court the actual facts belong to, that's more something you can debate, but given where the money and power is, that particular conspiracy theory doesn't work.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 05:38:17 2017 No.8633027 File: 167 KB, 515x419, 1479944755692.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8633017 Facts. Climate science is garbage.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 05:39:32 2017 No.8633029 >>8631719 free will is binary. choosing your path in the cyoa that is the multiverse. A fucking snail can do this.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 05:39:36 2017 No.8633030 >>8632958 > formula > use Wat

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 05:39:40 2017 No.8633031 File: 7 KB, 240x240, 1476629009167.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8633022 >Tfw people ask you about QM but never heard about Schrödinger equation

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 05:43:06 2017 No.8633033 holy shit. >dont go on /sci/ since before election >come back >people are now denying climate change wtf this is like how /g/ is suddenly anti net neutrality wtf is happening here? are paid shills actually winning over the thinkers? im scared

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 05:45:06 2017 No.8633035 This thread has made me fucking anger, and I just woke up fuck humanity

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 05:45:53 2017 No.8633038 >>8631719 >But it's true ...that Science can't explain the vague and open-ended issue of "free will", because it is ill-defined, as are the other touchy-feely concepts issued from the Philosophy Department.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 05:47:25 2017 No.8633040 Antioxidants

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 05:53:38 2017 No.8633048 >the sum of all positive integers is -1/12 Whoever first spread this piece of shit should be burned at the stake.

Anonymous Fri Jan 27 05:59:09 2017 No.8633057

>>8633033
>people are now denying climate change
Literally none of the previous climate models agree with current readings. It's getting warmer but not as fast as even the slowest models.

>this is like how /g/ is suddenly anti net neutrality
Hysterics think getting rid of net neutrality will usher in a dark age of post truth, which is not true. It's bad but nowhere near as bad as the fearmongers would lead you to believe. ISPs can't even curb piracy properly.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 06:10:43 2017 No.8633065 >>8632983 Do you have any good starting materials for tesla's therories on gravity?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 06:11:46 2017 No.8633066 >>8633001 >blogspot

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 06:14:47 2017 No.8633069 >>8633048 Ramanujan was fucking based you fuck.

Anonymous Fri Jan 27 06:17:18 2017 No.8633072
File: 45 KB, 800x587, 16174675_1370385353018063_942210001374874706_n.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8631665
>scientists say..
>according to scientists
>according to science
>with science
>by science
>science can't prove [philosophical concept]
>science journalism is important
>science is arbitrary(unknowingly referring to units of measurement)
>scientist
>scientists
>scientific
>scientifically
>science..
>science!!!
>I love science!!!
>i fucking love science™!!!
>I hate science!!
>I fucking hate science
>quantum [buzzword]
>free will
>Schrödinger's cat
>superposition
>string theory
>theory
>energy
>GMOs
etc...

Anonymous Fri Jan 27 06:19:53 2017 No.8633073

>>8633069
I'm pretty sure the first person wouldn't be the indian-savant but the brainlet who misunderstood him about what analytic continuation actually means.
The analytic continuation of the Riemann zeta function with input of -1 isn't the sum of all positive integers, but it is -1/12.
Fucking brainlets ruin everything.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 06:24:36 2017 No.8633076 >dialectical materialism is REAL >human nature doesn't exist marxists are dumber than christfags

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 06:44:04 2017 No.8633092 anything spit out by the anti-nuclear movement

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 06:50:35 2017 No.8633097 >>8631665 >solar energy is the energy of future >automation will cause mass unemployment

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 06:55:36 2017 No.8633100 >>8633072 >science journalism is not important yes it is for grants

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 06:56:08 2017 No.8633101 >>8633072 forgot: >science shows >science has shown >science suggests

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 06:57:18 2017 No.8633102 >>8633100 I meant (pop)science {{{news}}}

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 06:57:53 2017 No.8633103 >>8631665 >dude global warming will kill us all we need to get all our energy from solar and wind LMAO

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 06:58:04 2017 No.8633104 >>8633102 well yeah, you get news coverage, you get some attention and it helps when applying for grants [a bit]

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 07:34:39 2017 No.8633140 >>8633097 solar energy is a meme

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 07:42:46 2017 No.8633150 >>8633097 >>automation will cause mass unemployment How will it not tho Retail and drivers are on the way out

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 07:50:30 2017 No.8633158 File: 271 KB, 817x652, Max Tegmark.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 07:51:58 2017 No.8633164 >>8633158 God created the big bang

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 07:55:33 2017 No.8633169 >>8633150 Historically, every single industrial revolution created new fields of work. I'm pretty sure it will happen again

Anonymous Fri Jan 27 07:57:26 2017 No.8633171

>>8633169
Yeah but things that can be done by idiots are being automatised.. our current """"""AI""""""" state can do a lot of things that idiots can do and it gets smarter, so unless idiots also get smarter at a similar rate, they won't really have anything useful to do

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 07:57:31 2017 No.8633173 >>8633164 God is not the creator, God is the cause.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 07:59:06 2017 No.8633176 >>8633150 Norway

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 08:00:29 2017 No.8633180 >>8633176 ? Is that a pun on no way or a reference to that law they passed to give money to everyone or what

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 08:08:05 2017 No.8633191 File: 150 KB, 528x398, 70.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >If Heritability of IQ and psychological traits ~ 50%, Why are feral children so wild and stupid? checkmate, you... racist pig

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 08:09:46 2017 No.8633192 >>8633173 what did he mean by tis

Anonymous Fri Jan 27 08:11:52 2017 No.8633197
File: 79 KB, 630x509, RobotsReplaceHumanWorkersIllus.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8633150
The same way it's always failed to in the past. We doubled the size of the work force from '65 to '75, all while automating more jobs than ever, and the unemployment rate nonetheless, went down - just like it always has on the grand scale, since the dawn of the industrial revolution (yet we've been predicting this end to employment via automation since at least the 1910's).

It's easier under the current trend of lower paying jobs with less benefits, fewer and weaker labor unions and regs, and of course, the increasing ease of exporting labor, forcing local laborers to further reduce their compensation. For the most part, people are cheaper than machines, and only getting cheaper. At the moment, nearly every job you replace by machine creates three more in other sectors.

Automation will only continue to happen so long as there's enough people around with employment to buy the products said automation produces. If unemployment increases too far, there's less of a market in which to sell products, thus production reduces, thus the need for automation is reduced.

Welfare maybe a thing, but it is reliant on the excess of resources that system of employment and exchange produces, and thus it must always be the exception, and not the rule, lest the source of its support vanishes.

Finally, the people at the top of this fiscal pyramid reside over folks who rely on that employment model to retain their power. They aren't giving that up.

The only way automation could end employment completely is under a one-world government forcing maximum automation and a welfare state for the majority of its populous. But so long as trade exists, and ambition exists, compensation for services rendered will exist, so that'd require fundamental genetic changes to the nature of man, in addition to an unprecedentedly dominating power.

Your individual employment may be under threat, but employment in general is going to be around long after everyone here is long dead, sadly.

Anonymous Fri Jan 27 08:16:15 2017 No.8633204

>>8633197

What if you look at it from "the end"?

If you have """""""artificial general intelligence"""""""" then you don't need jobs for humans anymore, so automation won't always fail to replace jobs. When we're close to AGI, some jobs such as AI research will still be open, but naturally a lot of jobs would have already been replaced by an already capable AI. Wouldn't that mean that after a point, the closer we are to AGI, the fewer jobs there will be? What if that point is now? I'm not saying that it's not, but just because it failed in the past doesn't mean it will always fail

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 08:28:43 2017 No.8633212 >>8631665 >the earth is round i mean seriously, there is no proofs

Anonymous Fri Jan 27 08:33:35 2017 No.8633215

>>8633204
If an SAI also creates super-robots to replace both human minds and human bodies, and creates an army to end human civilization, then yes, that might be a problem - but the potential for a one-world government bent on changing human nature via CRISPR, while far fetched, is probably less so than that, and both possibilities are fairly negligible.

But an SAI in a box doing design work for a corporation is only going to go as far as the owners of said corporation want. Again, if everyone is replaced by robots, you have no economy, no one to produce for who can give you anything in return. That won't happen with modern humans in the equation as it cannot be supported.

Yes, expert systems like Watson can replace a small army of researchers, but it still relies on data being added to its base by real world researchers and folks asking it the right questions to apply its research, and an army of people to maintain and improve upon it. More importantly, the R&D in question, in the end, has to be of use to enough people who can give up a portion of their resources to support all that.

We're actually closer to doing a non-real time human brain simulation than AGI anyways. So far, no one's close to figuring where to even begin to design a "general problem solving" program, just really good expert systems with learning algorithms for very specific tasks. Even when parts of experimental systems are made up of actual gray-matter, it seems we can only get those wet neural networks to learn extremely specific tasks (and thus far extremely simple ones at that).

Anonymous Fri Jan 27 08:40:53 2017 No.8633220

>>8633215
>Again, if everyone is replaced by robots, you have no economy, no one to produce for who can give you anything in return. That won't happen with modern humans in the equation as it cannot be supported.
Well, you could get into a situation where all employment is administrative. "My army of robots will do X for you, if your army of robots produces Y for me."

But that doesn't end employment, that just changes your job. It's comparable to modern computer programmers. They are still working and trading for their efforts, even when their product is entirely virtual and involves no real manual labor.

Automation has yet to put a real dent in the overall direction of the employment rate, but it has radically changed the nature of that employment, and will likely continue to do so.

Anonymous Fri Jan 27 08:42:00 2017 No.8633223

>>8633215
>>But an SAI in a box doing design work for a corporation is only going to go as far as the owners of said corporation want.
Companies always look for ways to reduce the number of employees so if an algorithm can do that, they'll take it without thinking about the greater implications. It's more likely that the economy will have to change, rather than companies willingly pay people replaceable by a script.

>So far, no one's close to figuring where to even begin to design a "general problem solving" program, just really good expert systems with learning algorithms for very specific tasks.

Well not really. There's deep reinforcement learning / DQN which is one algorithm that works in multiple environments. Also OpenAI's work on Universe, etc

Anonymous Fri Jan 27 08:51:27 2017 No.8633237

>>8633223
>Companies always look for ways to reduce the number of employees so if an algorithm can do that, they'll take it without thinking about the greater implications.
They don't have to think about the greater implications - the greater implications happen, planned for or not. The market can no longer bear their product, demand drops, thus they drop supply, their business shrinks and their factories close. This happens all the time. It merely makes way for smaller companies with less access to automation and cheaper products to emerge as other sectors expand, and, if they are successful, eventually, the cycle repeats, as it has since we invented the loom. (Generally with some ghettos forming in between.)

Anonymous Fri Jan 27 08:53:53 2017 No.8633239

>>8633237
>It merely makes way for smaller companies with less access to automation and cheaper products to emerge

Um they can't make cheaper products without automation than with automation because one has to pay wages, and one doesn't. The ones with automation will have the lowest prices

Anonymous Fri Jan 27 09:02:37 2017 No.8633245

>>8633239
Generally what happens is that the beast that is producing without providing employment collapses under its own weight, unless some other sector is supporting it by supplying that employment (which, most often is the case). Either way, it hits a growth limit, which means it has to branch out to other sectors or die.

In those rare instances where that isn't the case, the company generally moves to some place where it is, or collapses completely, and the less automated company thus has a niche to grow in. Though, sometimes, the less automated company will instead supply a premium product (whether it is actually superior or not tends to be more of a matter of marketing than fact - be it organic farming or Rolls-Royce) and gains a foothold that way.

Anonymous Fri Jan 27 09:06:54 2017 No.8633248

>>8633245
That's in the current economy, but I just think the economy will have to shift. Everyone will have access to automation eventually, not only the big players, and human workers will simply be unnecessary. Maybe people will get some fixed amount of money or whatever, I'm not an economist, but you can't stall full automation forever, so the economy will have to adapt

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 09:09:19 2017 No.8633252 >Trump is bad for science

Anonymous Fri Jan 27 09:15:38 2017 No.8633262

>>8633248
Everyone has access to automation of one sort of another now, even in the most basic of service sectors. That doesn't end employment, it just changes the nature of the job.

The overall base quality of living will likely rise, which has been happening steadily, statistically. Jobs will likely get easier and perhaps more pleasant. The excess of resources may even increase to expand that welfare sector, but folks will only be willing to expand it so much, and it will always have to be a fraction of the actual employment generated trade it relies upon, lest it collapses.

To get into a self-sustaining system where everyone is magically provided for, you'd need not just a shift, but a massive world-wide revolution to end all competing conventional economic systems, in addition to a fundamental change in the way people interact with one another.

Not that it couldn't happen, but not likely in any of our lifetimes, and the transition might not be pretty - nor might the end result.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 09:47:04 2017 No.8633304 >>8632639 Don't try to explain it. Just correct them by saying: "You mean hypothesis" and going on with your argument. Sooner or later, they may catch on.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 09:48:22 2017 No.8633307 >>8633304 that may be interpreted that the theory in question is a hypothesis

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 10:26:11 2017 No.8633336 >>8633304 Correct response is just to rip your hair out.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 10:28:29 2017 No.8633338 >>8633304 >>8633307 >>8633336 You mean theory its just a theory A game theory!

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 10:31:04 2017 No.8633340 >Climate change? But the climate is always changing lmao. Surely that means this is natural.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 10:32:08 2017 No.8633343 >>8633340 Alternatively >Climate change is rayycis yo >[x] is rayyyciss nigga

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 12:17:48 2017 No.8633473 >Just a theory

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 12:23:29 2017 No.8633481 >>8633473 A GAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYMMMMMEEEEEEEE THEORY

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 12:24:27 2017 No.8633484 >>8632845 Why are you here?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 12:28:17 2017 No.8633488 >Any time someone makes a decision it cuts off into another universe where you could have made a different decision!

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 12:29:02 2017 No.8633491 >>8633015 Technically the exact form of it is a Taylor series.....

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 12:31:45 2017 No.8633494 >>8633057 The climate is still changing though

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 12:33:05 2017 No.8633495 >>8633343 Alternative facts you see

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 12:33:40 2017 No.8633497 >>8633169 >Historically So? >Every single industrial revolution created new fields of work Not now since there is only so many people who can work on machines. You are making a shitty assumption.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 12:34:46 2017 No.8633499 >>8633197 Except the employment participation rate has been going down year over year for 40 years. They just don't call it unemployed because they aren't looking for work.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 12:35:45 2017 No.8633500 >>8633252 No no hum he said things scientifically uneducated people say . Not the scientist

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 12:36:04 2017 No.8633501 >All natural >No GMOs added >Organic

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 12:38:42 2017 No.8633509 >>8633501 This I was a fat kid and did yoga to lose the weigh. I hear this all day

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 12:49:15 2017 No.8633530 >>8633033 /pol/ is spilling over and ruining even the more obscure boards. Mot should have deleted it years ago.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 12:50:23 2017 No.8633531 >>8631665 >muh random mutation No proof of this save from virus mutation.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 12:51:31 2017 No.8633534 >>8633531 Kek, hi /his/.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 12:53:23 2017 No.8633540 >>8633531 so you believe in a telepathic zombie.... i see

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 12:54:29 2017 No.8633543 >>8633534 /pol/ actually. Show me proof of random mutation in the animal kingdom. And not bone analysis which can be faked, I want proof on a biological basis between so called "transitional" species.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 12:54:57 2017 No.8633545 >>8632983 >the difference produced by any two separate fields created around a singular charged body Not even you know what you mean

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 12:56:45 2017 No.8633549 >>8633540 >cucktianity I believe that we are all the mind of God talking to itself. No master slave relationship jewish made jehovah or human Christ figure.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 12:57:31 2017 No.8633551 >>8633057 Kek, it's almost Pavlovian

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 12:58:16 2017 No.8633553 >>8633545 Show proof of relativity. >inb4 gps Not tangible testable evidence. Also explain how german rocket scientists developed guided rocketry without the use of what they called "jewish physics"?

Anonymous Fri Jan 27 13:00:55 2017 No.8633559

>>8633543
>/pol/ actually
Oh, just as retarded then.
>Show me proof of random mutation in the animal kingdom
Are you saying for some reason mutation happens elsewhere but not animals for no reason?
Ok, I can show you mutations in humans.
http://taboo.news/most-common-human-genetic-mutations-and-disorders/
Genetic mutations happen all the time.

Anonymous Fri Jan 27 13:05:57 2017 No.8633575

>>8633553
>show proof of relativity
>but not the thing that effortlessly and absolutely proves it because then I'd be wrong
I could talk about light curving around the sun causing stars to appear in different positions, I could talk about redshifting and blueshifting and gravitational lensing and the detection of gravitational waves, but why would you believe it? There's already nothing I can say to enlighten you to the truth so why would I try.

>"To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason, and whose philosophy consists in holding humanity in contempt, is like administering medicine to the dead, or endeavoring to convert an atheist by scripture." - Thomas Paine

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 13:06:50 2017 No.8633578 >>8633559 These traits existed in the human population from the beginning - it's only now, with the advancement of science, that they are being recognized for what they are, rather than witchery or gremlins.

Anonymous Fri Jan 27 13:10:29 2017 No.8633591

"it is natural it must be good for you"
"it is a chemical it must be bad for you"
"it is green, or it says it is green, so it must be better for the environment than the status quo"
"video games and tv are good for you because some idiotic article/book claims it is true"
"calories are nonscientific, you can lose weight without reducing them"
etc.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 13:10:37 2017 No.8633593 >>8632953 That's true you dunce. The divergent meme you're thinking of is the sum of all natural numbers.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 13:17:32 2017 No.8633607 >>8633575 Dead is what you lying physicists will be in the coming years if people like me find out you have been willfully lying. Tread carefully. I am undecided on this issue as of yet.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 13:21:33 2017 No.8633618 File: 190 KB, 540x386, 1432252491893.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8633607 kek

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 13:22:47 2017 No.8633621 >>8633618 I'm sure jews laughed at the national socialists when they called for their deaths in the square at first too. If it's true though there's nothing to fear. If.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 13:25:23 2017 No.8633629 >>8633621 How do jews even come into this?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 13:40:54 2017 No.8633673 >>8633033 There is a massive effort from paid shills that's been continually raiding 4chan from the past US elections. SHILLS PLEASE LEAVE OUR HUMBLE SHITPOSTING BOARD IN PEACE

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 13:43:02 2017 No.8633679 >>8633607 Oh boy Mr. Bigshot here is undecided on this issue as of yet. Better not catch any people who practically kill themselves in pursuit of truth lying once. Look out everyone.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 13:44:17 2017 No.8633683 >>8633543 Go look for it yourself if you care so much you lazy paid shill.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 13:45:06 2017 No.8633685 >just a theory

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 13:52:09 2017 No.8633696 >>8633683 It does not exist.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 13:52:55 2017 No.8633699 File: 3 KB, 125x105, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8633031 >>Tfw people ask you about QM but never heard about Schrödinger equation >"that's the one where he put the cat in the box with the quantum chemical, right?"

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 13:53:11 2017 No.8633701 >>8633685 >just a guess

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 13:56:04 2017 No.8633710 >>8633621 >>8633629 Because he's a stormfaggot. He makes Jews part of every argument.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 14:33:21 2017 No.8633790 > ITT 80% are replies from butthurt plebs explaining why they are morons

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 14:50:54 2017 No.8633825 >>8633699 REEEEEE I HATE THOSE PEOPLE TOO

Anonymous Fri Jan 27 15:01:05 2017 No.8633844

>>8631665
"Randomness is the key to evolution"
Actually, not.
I've seen artificial life simulations with limiting the randomness factor to various numbers with very poor changes in the resulting population.

Actually, the key to evolution lies in sexual reproduction where your genes are mixed with someone other.

Nature itself is fighting against randomness in such a manner that no "life threatening" changes occur. Only the ones with no impact can happen like hair n eye color.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 15:04:44 2017 No.8633853 >you can't believe in science if you're religious anon!!!!!11111

Anonymous Fri Jan 27 15:09:54 2017 No.8633864

>>8632842
At this point your argument is that they're wrong. Why don't you realize that the reason the debate falls apart and you can't provide a counterargument is that they gave you something that you (personally) cannot disprove? You lost the debate, deal with it. Nobody here can ever admit that they're wrong, so it just dissents into insults and accusations based on dumb stereotypes, hostilities, prejudices, and ideological differences.

So fuck off or grow up.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 15:14:18 2017 No.8633875 >>8632607 >Kentucky I can see why people would think there aren't any higher orders of being

Anonymous Fri Jan 27 15:15:57 2017 No.8633879
File: 105 KB, 587x565, space_time_energy.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8633553
http://www.livescience.com/48922-theory-of-relativity-in-real-life.html

Mind you, that article for babies includes GPS, but if the fact that you have to use relativity calculations to keep those working right is "not tangible testable evidence" then you're one of those conspiracy theorists who thinks tens of thousands of engineers, physicists, college professors, et. al. are conspiring to lie about how physics works, without even being paid to do so.

...and that's a trigger for me. People who think folks are conspiring to lie to them en mass, simply because they can't wrap their head around a concept or it's slightly unintuitive. Or, in other instances, because it interferes with their business interests, or worse, in some way conflicts with their world view.

In other words, they can't be wrong, therefore the world is.

It's particularly frustrating to watch old folks dying with dementia pick up this pattern of thought and makes them near impossible to deal with. I sometimes wonder if the thought process is the source of the dementia itself, simply extending itself to anything and everything.

Anonymous Fri Jan 27 15:16:44 2017 No.8633881

>>8633591

>"it is natural it must be good for you"
>"it is a chemical it must be bad for you"

desu this isn't such a bad heuristic, especially if the natural thing has been around for a while. it probably won't cure you but it also probably won't kill you.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 15:18:37 2017 No.8633888 >>8631665 >Why do you use mice in the lab?

Anonymous Fri Jan 27 15:21:35 2017 No.8633896

>>8633881
Nightshade vs. Oxygen.

No, it's a pretty fugging terrible heuristic.

I mean, yeah, there's probably more things that can kill you packed into a chem lab than a random same-sized chunk of forest (in most cases). But, particularly if it's something designed to aid you, vs. something that just happens to aid you, the designed material is almost invariably safer. (Plus the stuff in the chem lab that will kill you tends to be labeled, and not self mobile.)

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 15:24:14 2017 No.8633904 >>8631716 To be fair, no one really "knows" QM

Anonymous Fri Jan 27 15:28:45 2017 No.8633908
File: 68 KB, 275x182, tfw_pols_favorite_eye_color_is_a_mutation.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8633543
>Show me proof of random mutation in the animal kingdom.
Find your local Easter Seals chapter.

Or expose a bunch of Hawaiian fruit flies to bananas for a few days.

Anonymous Fri Jan 27 15:29:50 2017 No.8633910

>>8633896

yes and who was going around eating nightshade for hundreds of years? my point is that if something is obviously very harmful and found in nature, people probably aren't going to keep eating it for very long. meanwhile artificial substances by definition are new, so we haven't had much time to see whether they have chronic effects.

yes there are exceptions, that doesn't disprove the general rule.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 15:30:36 2017 No.8633913 >>8633904 >To be fair, no one really "knows" QM REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE! That quote has gotta be the source of 90% of all Quantum woo.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 15:31:19 2017 No.8633916 >>8633033 AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Anonymous Fri Jan 27 15:35:34 2017 No.8633925

>>8633864
> At this point your argument is that they're wrong.
> Implying that there was an argument.

Well, you are obviously the philosopher or a new anon. Let's first address the christfag's "argument":

>no comprehension
>no independent thoughts
>no literacy

No comment. That's not even an argument. Now, let's get to what I assume is your argument:

> You can make all sorts of empirical statements about the biological processes of consciousness and awareness, but your personal perspective or resulting qualia is ultimately unempirical and unprovable. You cannot distinguish between a person and a p-zombie either philosophically or scientifically in any communicable fashion, and the only person to which you can prove your own experience of experience, is yourself.

A more terse version, "I think therefore I am".

Fine throw away science and your senses. No knowledge is possible except the knowledge that you exist.

I just think it is not useful and borderline non-sensical to be so reductionist, and, if you truly believed in your philosophy, then you would shrivel up and die.

Why bother doing anything if nothing is real?

Anonymous Fri Jan 27 15:36:16 2017 No.8633927

>>8633910
...and people will use/eat/live with shit in nature that has chronic side effects for hundreds of years, without even realizing it. (At which point it becomes difficult to wean them off of it.)

At least with a new chemical combination, you're looking for it. Plus it's simpler and of specific make, so you can more easily predict and isolate its effects, vs. things that occur in nature that tend to have all matter of only the gods know what in them.

99.99% of the time, the manufactured solution is safer and more predictable and more effective than the naturally occurring one. Anything else is the "exception to the rule".

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 15:40:01 2017 No.8633934 File: 144 KB, 422x381, file.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8633699 Let's don't forget the axe!

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 15:44:37 2017 No.8633943 >>8632823 This is literally fact.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 15:44:59 2017 No.8633946 >>8632953 wouldn't that be 0

Anonymous Fri Jan 27 15:45:38 2017 No.8633947

>>8633057
imagination tends to run away with people, but i really dont want isps fucking with my bandwidth. also, there is a point to be made that there would be nothing stopping them from say throttling cnn ir breitbart or anything they dont really like

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 15:45:40 2017 No.8633949 >>8633140 Everything is a meme you dip

Anonymous Fri Jan 27 15:56:16 2017 No.8633971

>>8633925
>A more terse version, "I think therefore I am".
>No knowledge is possible except the knowledge that you exist.
>Why bother doing anything if nothing is real?
It's kind of the opposite problem. You can't empirically prove to anyone else that you are a conscious being having an experience and point of perspective, and not merely a reactive chemical blob. We just, as a matter of courtesy, tend to assume that we're all in the same boat.

All sorts of knowledge is possible. It maybe even nearly all that is can be digested empirically and demonstrated to others. It's simply that certain key territories, in this case a fundamental one underlying all the others, are forever out of reach of an empirical view.

Plus the other hogwash that's nonetheless relevant - such as science being a tool that doesn't tell you what to do with itself. It takes another discipline to decide how to use said tool, what to use it for, and what non-cascaded goals should be attempted with it and are of value. Or, to paraphrase your own post, why bother doing anything if everything is ultimately meaningless? Axioms core to existence tend to ultimately be entirely arbitrary, and one cannot empirically assign values without first setting a goal.

(Granted, my counter to that hogwash is that the goal of survival does seem rather fundamentally in-built, but I suppose the average nihilist would deny that gives survival inherent value.)

Anonymous Fri Jan 27 16:03:40 2017 No.8633987

>>8633971
>It's kind of the opposite problem. You can't empirically prove to anyone else that you are a conscious being having an experience and point of perspective, and not merely a reactive chemical blob. We just, as a matter of courtesy, tend to assume that we're all in the same boat.
>All sorts of knowledge is possible. It maybe even nearly all that is can be digested empirically and demonstrated to others. It's simply that certain key territories, in this case a fundamental one underlying all the others, are forever out of reach of an empirical view.

Woah, woah, woah.

I can't get past these first couple paragraphs, because suddenly, you are extending your philosophy to make exceptions for where it is convenient for your world belief.

Or maybe you do not realize that as soon as you say science and logic is valid, then I can say that the brain houses consciousness.

Every drop of empirical evidence and logical reasoning demonstrates that the brain house consciousness and that includes your brain and my brain.

Anonymous Fri Jan 27 16:05:08 2017 No.8633990

>>8633947
I suspect, ultimately, the internet is going to turn into television. We'll have a few, limited places and scenarios, where we can upload any data at all, and all the receiving servers will be centralized in such a way that we can only upload very specific data to very specific locales - not directly to one another. All the domains will be controlled by a handful of media conglomerates in much the way television stations are now, and they'll similarly be far too heavily regulated and liable for any individual to afford their own "stations", only giant companies will be able to afford to transmit large amounts of unregulated data. Piracy will, as a result, become all but physically impossible, so there's every motivation for this to happen.

It's likely inevitable, and the laws to make it happen are going to leak through a bit at a time, regardless. The degree to which people put up with proprietary restrictions on their phones is just a sign of things to come.

The days of www being synonymous with wild wild west are numbered, net neutrality or no.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 16:07:35 2017 No.8633995 >>8633971 Oh, sorry. I was too rash. I guess you didn't make that claim. Wishing edits were possible... I agree. Makes sense.

Anonymous Fri Jan 27 16:12:41 2017 No.8634008

>>8633987
>I can say that the brain houses consciousness
Of course it does (or the body does, in the broader sense), I'm not defending an argument against that (not that some other folks won't try to).

But there's no way to empirically prove that all of those observed reactions give rise to anything more than that. You cannot empirically delineate between a conscious being and a philosophical zombie (which is kind of the point of the thought experiment). You can empirically prove reaction, but you cannot empirically prove perspective, at least not to anyone other than yourself. Some things are ultimately incommunicable.

Anonymous Fri Jan 27 16:13:36 2017 No.8634010

>>8632435
Race in the way that most people think about it doesn't exist. Sure there are races. Groups sharing particular genetic heritages tied to geographic regions. But it doesn't fit into the stereotypical portrayal of race - there are literally dozens of races in africa alone.

So if you're just talking about "blacks" and "whites" then yeah, race is a meme and the whole thing about "more varience within the race than outside" is true.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 16:15:38 2017 No.8634016 >>8632443 Doesn't mean that its not an illusion. It just means its easier to accept free will as a convenient approximation.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 16:19:20 2017 No.8634025 >>8631726 This

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 16:43:11 2017 No.8634057 >>8631726 complete nonsense idd. Fucking neural networks and the shit theyll cook up to delude themselves into surviving better.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 16:58:13 2017 No.8634075 >>8633879 >without even being paid to do so that's what you think......think again

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 17:00:18 2017 No.8634078 >>8633925 How do I know that I have subjective experience/qualia? Wouldn't a p-zombie also believe they had qualia?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 17:19:47 2017 No.8634127 >>8634008 There are models that address the human anomaly without resorting to unscientific ideas like qualia.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 17:23:16 2017 No.8634136 >>8631665 "It's just a theory, it's not proven."

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 17:28:42 2017 No.8634147 >>8631665 Evolution is just a theory. They haven't found the missing link!

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 22:45:43 2017 No.8634794 >>8633495 >facts are racist both the left and the right are retarded

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 23:09:38 2017 No.8634821 File: 43 KB, 776x602, getaloadofthisguycam.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8631702 >Free will doesn't exist

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 23:10:56 2017 No.8634829 >>8634821 >doesn't understand what free will is

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 23:13:50 2017 No.8634835 >>8634829 It is the things the jews hate.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 23:20:34 2017 No.8634848 >>8631665 Hurr durr tell me what scientifically uneducated people say so I can jerk you off while I jerk you and me off. This should've been a true Christian thread and you know it.

>>	Carbon Sat Jan 28 03:56:57 2017 No.8635217 >>8631665 >anything about AI >thinking computer graphics == web design Instant trigger

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 28 03:57:51 2017 No.8635219 >>8634127 Link me up! So far the only articles I've read that claim to go into that either miss the point entirely or essentially call consciousness an illusion - or worse - go all wibbly wobbly timey wimey quantum wootastic.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 28 03:59:31 2017 No.8635221 >>8632976 But they're the only ones that actually "do" science

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 28 04:58:28 2017 No.8635283 >>8631726 >believing your freshman psych teacher did he tell you psychology was a science too?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 28 05:01:41 2017 No.8635288 >>8635221 Not really.

/sci/mon Sat Jan 28 05:02:05 2017 No.8635290

>>8631665
"How could you know what you're talking about without a piece of paper that says you know more than me!"

A reality that still leaves me poor and destitute. Reality is far from fun. Really hope SOMEONE fucking contacts me directly.

Seriously. Open invitation. Ya just gotta knock on my door. Not hard. Do y'all need my address or something?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 28 14:49:07 2017 No.8635967 >>8635219 >either miss the point entirely or essentially call consciousness an illusion What is "missing the point entirely" if not calling consciousness an illusion?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 28 14:53:27 2017 No.8635973 File: 83 KB, 1280x720, wrong.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8632445

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 28 14:55:36 2017 No.8635977 >>8631665 >Sociology is a science

Anonymous Sat Jan 28 14:55:37 2017 No.8635978

>>8631665
>This is playing god and this shouldn't be allowed
Literally anytime anything is proposed where we can advance our understanding of life. These people think they have some kind of moral high ground and want to stop something they have no knowledge about.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 28 15:01:00 2017 No.8635989 >posts statistic with no uncertainty rustled.

Anonymous Sat Jan 28 15:42:23 2017 No.8636062

>>8635978
Reminds me of the comments on this article
http://osp.od.nih.gov/under-the-poliscope/2016/08/next-steps-research-using-animal-embryos-containing-human-cells
I love how one of them says that the people should have a say in research as well about where scientists should direct their studies.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 28 16:14:06 2017 No.8636107 >And how does that make you feel?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 28 16:32:31 2017 No.8636144 >>8635978 So you are saying that you are perfectly okay with the tampering of God's creation for your own fucked up desires? We don't need to know everything especially if it requires breaking moral and ethical guidelines.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 28 16:49:47 2017 No.8636182 >>8631707 The worst thing is that /his/ posters defend their mysticism with walls of text of flowery language that doesnt actually convey a coherent argument Nothing more triggering than dumb people trying to sound smart

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 28 17:15:01 2017 No.8636248 >>8633025 >implying there aren't firms who get financial help because of the theory in the S&P500

Anonymous Sat Jan 28 17:19:19 2017 No.8636259

>>8631665
>science says: grandiose claim about brand new discovery
It's like they don't understand that science is just a bunch of fucks using stats to help find out how the world works. They want simple answers, so we get a personification of science talking like it's the goddamn pope handing out wisdom rather than 1 lab at 1 university.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 28 23:35:07 2017 No.8637027 >>8635967 You are an illusion

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 29 18:16:47 2017 No.8638770 >>8632919 Underrated post

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 29 18:28:59 2017 No.8638785 >>8633033 Calling it now, it's all Russian psyops.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 30 10:12:24 2017 No.8640028 >>8633103 >adding "dude" and "lmao" to make their position sound stupid. Jesus is it 2013 in here?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 30 10:28:12 2017 No.8640069 File: 51 KB, 639x494, e49.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8633501 >Organic Chemophobia in general rustles me.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 30 10:35:59 2017 No.8640078 >>8632395 The methods employed by mathematics are all invented you retarded.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 30 11:03:06 2017 No.8640108 >sorry I'm busy >you're a nice guy and all but... >ew, fuck off

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 30 11:16:50 2017 No.8640121 >>8631665 fuck off evocuck

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 30 11:17:28 2017 No.8640123 >>8632769 The brain is just like a computer, consciousness is the software No, pleb it's called biosemiosis t. /his/ AND /sci/

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 30 12:02:29 2017 No.8640174 >so gamma rays are green or blue ?!

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 30 12:49:23 2017 No.8640261 >>8640069 >chemical-free >gene-free >atom-free

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 30 13:45:37 2017 No.8640384 >>8632639 Tell them that every single thing in science is either just a theory, or less.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 30 13:47:13 2017 No.8640388 >>8640108 Is the joke that you're one of those insufferable fags who can't take rejection?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 30 19:39:30 2017 No.8641058 >The Earth is round.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 30 23:06:50 2017 No.8641376 File: 78 KB, 1024x707, 1482857441498.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] I'm a geology student, and so many people have legitimately tried to talk to me about the healing attributes of crystals.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 30 23:22:22 2017 No.8641397 >>8636248 Implying they are even close to the power and wealth of fossil fuel companies wew lad

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 31 02:29:38 2017 No.8641603 >>8631665 everything einstein said in his, that guy in the wheelchair said, oh, richard feynman everythign he said. all that stuff that was said, bothered me.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 31 08:55:24 2017 No.8642004 >>8631678 Nice 8

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 31 08:57:39 2017 No.8642011 >>8641376 Huh. I'm a geology student myself and I've never had this happen.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 31 09:13:16 2017 No.8642028 >>8631665 Nothing because i'm not a pompous faggot.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 31 09:20:12 2017 No.8642034 >Your beard grows faster if you shave >eating at night will make you fat

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 31 09:46:38 2017 No.8642060 >>8642034 >Your beard grows faster if you shave This. Shaving just makes your beard fucking disapear

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 31 09:56:18 2017 No.8642066 >>8642034 Eating at night does cause weight gain.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 31 09:58:31 2017 No.8642069 >>8631994 Encourage your little brother, he's young but interested in science. Get him a telescope for his birthday or take him to a planetarium. The more he learns the sooner he understands the he knows nothing at all.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 31 10:08:03 2017 No.8642078 >>8633910 Potatoes and tomatoes are part of the deadly nightshade family retard.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 31 13:02:55 2017 No.8642329 File: 62 KB, 400x400, 1482651917998.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >I believe in microevolution, not macroevolution >radiological dating is wildly inaccurate >crystals have healing powers

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 ]

/sci/ - Science & Math