/sci/ - Science & Math

some people like Einstein had an inability to feel visceral emotion or touch sensation.

This helps greatly, but I don't know how to do it on purpose.

>>4758506

Serious

Ok... demonstrate your own intelligence if you want a piece...

None of this "Full proof so we can patent it.. er believe it or it didn't happen" bs...

Ok... temperature is irrelevant with regard to particles below a certain size...

Learn to epistemologize...

Everything we know about temperature is sampled from particles of sizes we can interact with...

Who is to say smaller particles even vibrate at all? No one...

Faggot...

class* ...SHUT UP, FALGOT!!!

(no really, I do) Looking for collaborators...

Any takers today? Or just a bunch of resentful low brow wannabes saying that's impossible because world calls theoreticians aren't real people that could post on 4chan?

Well?

re: Obama

Affirmative Action (same reason he is President)

wrong. The optimal policy for nations with starvation is non intervention. Why? Because donating only takes away their self reliance. Then they will reproduce until we can no longer afford to support them. Then more people will suffer than if we did nothing.

Going to space will make them look and be like "DAMN what can we learn from them so that we can be so powerful one day?" and they will successfully emulate our path to success...

Basically, I am forcibly meditating all the time no matter my surroundings. Einstein had an even worse version of this condition - he had no parietal operculum - low touch sensitivity, extreme pain tolerance, no visceral feeling, being touched didn't grab his attention.

Yes it's great - to a point. You process the information you have gathered so far using logic and deductive reasoning. Sometimes you need more input though. After a point you can pretty much create your own input, but there might always be something you wouldn't have guessed out there.

No. They used to increase them through miniaturization. They reached the limit there. Now they are doing it through parallelization. Most advancements fall into one of these two categories. Some parallelization can be done with automatic translation of serial code. Other parallelization requires special code to take advantage of it, that some people are not good at.

I know everything, including how to program human level intelligence into a computer. Yet I can't find even a single person to help and support me in my efforts.

Either they don't understand or don't believe me because they secretly believe they themselves are supposed to solve all of the universe's problems. It's a great sentiment and all, but if you have access to a superior source of information you take advantage of it.

I always do.

Where can I find a social network capable of providing accountability to my own goals.. Human beings need that as our intelligence is just a side effect of something which in high level terms equates to a need to be around other people.

You are conscious. Though we know how memory, emotion, and intelligence work, we cannot explain this basic phenomenon. Thus, it is very possible that basic consciousness has nothing to do with that which realizes memory, emotion and intelligence.

Perhaps it is just a fundamental property of matter. In that case, we would just be reincarnated as something else when our matter was re-appropriated.

In a way yes, but it's a meaningless question. They act like normal people. From your perspective, such behavior is quite lacking.

There is a large group of instincts related to reason and learning that they do not have and you do. There are all kinds of other instincts like these that lineages have or don't have.

If we can figure out what these are and how a person develops them in the first place we can argue for average people to develop them as well.

>>4725991

... no. I am talking about h() being an association rule data mining algorithm. As in, if you see a trivially non-halting program, then just put does not halt as the answer.

I have studied this issue at great length. What happens is that people pass on instincts about how to survive in civilized society on to their descendants, some of which increase IQ of descendants. This counters the dysgenic effect to some degree.

However, society is accept tribalistic ideas as well. This could end the flynn effect. A good example of this is the Occupy Wall Street movement.

mental adaptation is somewhat more important, and a mechanism for this exists (limited genetic memory)

However today's society is also moving away from social survival of the fittest towards socialism. This problem eventually corrects itself however, because any system based on this will eventually go bankrupt.

>>4725868
I have the general intelligence algorithm..

Anyways, bottom line, school is nothing more than a bunch of people stuck in a certain way of thinking because they are dependent tribals who cannot think for themselves.

There is a huge difference between a person who can invent a new branch of scientific inquiry and someone who just scores A's at school. If you are in the first group, you hardly have the patience to suffer the school system.

In my area, the ideas prevalent are so backwards and wrong it was a complete waste of my time. In my area I was amazed at how far people will go in terms of memorizing convoluted bs approaches rather than stepping back and realizing there is a more optimal approach that is simpler than the status quo approach.

Another good example is Cantor's diagonolization proof. It never ceases to amaze me how putting up a chart can divert the regular mathematician/scientist's attention away from what is actually going on.

Infinite sets do not have a size. Numbers are generated by our minds... perhaps to describe our surroundings, but still. There are not more reals than rationals... both are infinite and you will die before listing all of either.

The real set simply grows faster than the rational set, having basically any way you can think of to generate additional reals for the same set of naturals.

>>4725845

Do you know how many drooling butthurt morons asked Einstein the same question?

Understanding this simple principal has nothing to do with understanding physics... that is the sad part about the whole thing. It is a universal principal of human understanding. You can never ever say something like "Nothing can go faster than light". Why? Because any rule you derive is based on assumptions, which are based on experiences, and your experiences do not extend to everything.

While physicists over the years have constantly gone back and said "Hmm it appears we were wrong", Epistemologists have been /facepalming over and over again thinking "Idiots..."

The truth is people like you are not cut out for the highest level of intellectual investigation. You are nothing more than a cog in a machine.

I have already done it. The problem with that IBM/govt project is that they are trying to simulate the hardware of the brain. That is a waste of time. All you need to do is figure out how it actually works and map the algorithm to other kinds of hardware.

>>4725838

I am not an aspie. I have no parietal occipital.

>>4725822

The problem is your inability to see the transparency in the halting problem machine's design thus allowing you to answer it's halting problem from the get go. It never halts because it just copies machines forever and ever. thus allowing you to answer by virtue of the fact that you know a priori having designed it a certain way.

Not everyone can think at this level, which is what makes so many people susceptible to poorly reasoned proofs like this.

>>4725799

I just did... the halting problem. Another is the idea that nothing travels ftl. By definition entanglement is something traveling ftl. There are infinite "Not even wrong" interpretations of the set of current observations (most scientists/faculty do not understand this, another of that list of instincts). We came up with one convoluted such interpretation of the bell experiments that results in things like logic breaking down... causality breaking down... etc...

However the most likely interpretation is that the underlying assumptions of general relativity fail regarding particles below a certain size that we have no or limited experience of.

This is basic epistemology- (limits of induction) you cannot make assumptions about something you have no experience of.