/sci/ - Science & Math

>>6585853
>You read me like a book, buddy friend.
That was just an indirect empathetic handshake, guyman.

>but true
Been through that phase, #itgetsbetter

>>6585833
Ugh.
The same rule apply, buddy friend.

You could eventually say everything that we experience is biological, any culture, thoughts, feeling, blahbity blah is biological, since everything we experience is biological, genes and so forth.

But that is extremely redundant.
It seems you have some issue with hippies and their non-understanding of the world, it's the wrong place to chase such arguments, you're beating a dead straw horse.
Chill the fuck out scienceman.

>>6585816
umm, yes? That's the name we've given to all that enterprise you just described.

It's like saying apples don't exist because it's just arragements of atoms, you sure call them apple and eat those juicy fuckers.

>>6526534
In my opinion computers can theoretically replicate everything the brain does.
Thing is, computers can replicate almost anything with enough computational power and the correct algorithms, but that's not the point.

What I'm not agreeing is the direct comparison of a brain and a computer as functional systems.
The computer can also replicate my dick, doesn't that a computer is like my dick.

It's just annoying watching people taking the analogy at heart and waving it like it's a synonym.

>>6526480
It's a type of confirmation bias.
You search and over-focus on the similar functions.
No matter how far you go, it's still an analogy.
You can make analogies for pretty much anything if you're in the mood.

Computers and brains share alot of things, sure, as you say there's no denying that.
Although taking the analogy out of context to speculate and extend your conjectures is not wise.

>>6526460
That's not how analogies work.
Some people take it too far.

1=1

The most profound equation.
Reality is a tautology.
Math is too.
Interpretation systems such as life are pattern translating machines to approximate the tautology effectively enough to survive and reproduce.

>>6204970
Difference is what am saying corresponds to reality.
At least the empirical one.

>>6204954
>[insert example of evolving/resistant change of bacteria and my health]
Am lazy.

Why do you blindly accept Gravity?

>>6168178
>muh sentimental pre-nostalgic fanboism

>>6037185
You don't need this new theory to tell you that.

>>6037138
>>6037166
>>6037152
>>6037189
>>6037131

Actually, absolute randomness AND determinism must eventually be false for anything to exist.
If anyone is up for the "debate" i'll explain why.

You all do realize that neither determinism nor true randomness works eventually, right?

>>5869713
you're not serious either, you look like you have no clue regarding physics.
Once you get on my level you gonna start asking the same things from plebes.

define relative, define black holes, define fixed, define position, define space, define "do", define movie.
Not even being sarcastic.

>>5801834
>>5801810
One wishful thinking trying to shit on another's wishful thinking.

"Singularity" will come, eventually in one form or another.

Physical exploration is overrated.
Both on earth and interplanetary.

What we need to do is to understand physics even more, create strong AI, play with DNA, etc to create fucktons of churazeee technologies.

>when it will be my time for genetics
25cm fat dick, here i come.
>mfw as i look grils trying to fit my dick into their mouth
This is the purpose of all science.

>>5795037
well, i remember all pokemans of first generation.
It was important to me when i was a kid.

Importance is mostly perceived rather than intrinsic.
But still, not quite that simple as to what's get stored long term and what's not.

>>5781515
you low, bro?

>>5781284
"Sunset" would be more artistic.
"After Sun" sounds like a Hollywood CGI duuudee 420blzit fuck fest.

>>5777790
>not being able to predict that on a basic 4chan standard posting model.

You calling yourself a scientist?

>>5777322
lel friend, you're not gonna cut it with a thread in /sci/ if you start with silly statements.

I read the whole thing and dare I say it is very correct when it comes to representing certain concepts like learning, after the starting point you make good cases even though in completely plebe language, I'll assume that was your goal from what you're stating.

Though it is fun to watch people shit on your thread it kinda bugs me when CNS posts some incomprehensible shit and it's so obvious that 98% of /sci/ can't into it but still they praise him like a god cause he uses so many terminologies and complicates simple things.

Science is about understanding the world, not as /sci/ treats it, an elitist club where the more edgy and unnecessary complicated you get the more 'sciencer' you become.