/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15755166
The only non-retarded post ITT. This hits the nail on the head. If the question had been posed in terms of two different items, most of the people who get it wrong would've been able to solve it by recognizing that it can be broken down into two independent and trivial problems, but as soon as you make it the same cow, they start getting confused. The same is true of most people who solve it correctly: they still fail to recognize it, solve it mechanistically and give utterly obtuse explanations.

>>15749962
>anonymous unique eschews ego
Come on now.

>the mentally ill cretin can't wrap its tiny mind around the fact that i'm not going to engage in his low IQ subjectivist "debates"
>it doesn't understand why such debates are inherently worthless

>"""higher""" intelligence

Here's the bottom line of this braindamaged thread: if you end up with models that rely on so many levels of abstraction that you can't predict a single thing about the subject you're studying except in the form of probabilities, and your whole framework relies on picking out statistical patterns that emerge on scales vastly larger than the individual constituents, your model is agnostic to the "determinism" (or lack therefore) in the individual elements themselves. You can dedicate your model to any metaphysical god you want and justify it using whatever creation story suits you, but the model itself is probabilistic, the cause and effect you perceive are simplified approximations contingent upon abstraction, and the whole mathematics of it doesn't actually care about your determinist fantasies. It works just the same if you assume all your random variables are actually random.

Here's the bottom line of this braindamaged thread: if you end up with models that rely on so many levels of abstraction that you can't predict a single thing about the subject you're studying except in the form of probabilities, and your whole framework relies on picking out statistical patterns that emerge on scales vastly larger than the individual constituents, your model is agnostic to the "determinist" or lack therefore in the individual themselves. You can dedicate your model to any metaphysical god you want and justify it using whatever creation story suits you, but the model itself is probabilistic, the cause and effect you perceive are simplified approximations contingent upon abstraction, and the whole mathematics of it doesn't actually care about your determinist fantasies. It works just the same if you assume all your random variables are actually random.

>>15681540
>more impotent seething and reddit drama
>still can't give a single example of this magical advanced math that game engines use but game developers don't

>>15676087
>They are paid to be angry.
This is full-blown psychosis. It's legit time to start institutionalizing the green crowd.

>>15664448
>put animals under highly unnatural and stressful conditions
>they start to behave strangely
>therefore Malthusianism
Peak science.

>>15663921
It's a matter of there being a certain subclass of "people" who aren't smart enough to tackle any non-trivial problem, but who desperately want to be "intellectuals", so they obsess over trivial kindergarten problems trying to come up with some new hot take, which inevitably ends up being retarded and wrong because the correct solutions to trivial problems tend to be trivial.

>>15657103
>The problem is that more and more conservatives are about le returning to archaic times and old ideas that are no longer compatible with the world. They fail to keep up with changing times and variables because they don’t care, they have a vision of one size fits all
So tell us, what has changed about human nature over the last few centuries?

>>15654863
>just put golemium in the water supply to placate the cattle
Imagine a society that subjects people to conditions that make them terribly unhappy then gives them the drugs to take away their unhappiness.

Notice what this little weasel (>>15277886) is trying to do here: his claim is essentially "brain damage can happen, therefore the brain is the source of consciousness", which is a nonsequitur and he knows he can't defend it; so instead, he tries to pull off this low-IQ rhetorical trick: he asks "if materialism is false, then how do you explain brain damage?"; of course, there is no demonstrable logical relationship between his "if" and his "then", and he's essentially just challenging people to prove their idea of a relationship between consciousness and the brain, and when they predictably fail (just as materialtards do), he decales a victory for his materialist dogma.

>>15263942
>ChatGPT can do X
>your brain can do X a thousand times better
>therefore your brain is just X
>therefore your brain is just like ChatGPT
Imagine being so severely afflicted with a corporate-induced mental illness.

>>15259692
>posture like a scarecrow
>bland rag hanging loosely off her
>eyeliner like a ghetto negress
>mouth agape like she's retarded
>bags under her eyes
>fluoride stare
>nose up in the air like she's royalty
I don't know why it's so funny. Maybe because she was going so fucking hard for "classy".

>>15244801
Learn to recognize a corporate psy-op.

>>15181414
"Looks to be of European ancestry". Seethe about it.

>>15172181
>Even if you're under house arrest you could be reading, tinkering with your car, gardening, learning a new recipe.
imagine saying this, in an attempt to prove that someone else is a hypocrite, while sperging on the chan

>>15168605
.t.
No. It proves that if you give people brain damage, they don't receive all the necessary inputs for their conscious processing of the situation and thus process it incorrectly.

>>15152751
Putting your dull bait aside, the entire reason people become confused and disinterested in math is that past a certain point, mathtards begin to teach it the wrong way around, starting from nonsensical abstractions that don't connect to anything and forcing students to memorize definitions and apply them mechanistically without any proper context. This is not the way mathematics develops. This is not the way any body of knowledge develops. You go from concrete to abstract. Never the other way around. Modern mathematics is a gatekeeping cult.

>>15146209
this. kinda funny how "skeptics" like OP are themselves always comically simple-minded

>ITT: highschool kiddies still think about numbers in terms of counting apples
The saddest part is when you point out all the other numbers they believe in that you can't count apples withm, and they start to do extreme and clumsy mental gymnastics.

>i've been on this 4chan sub for heckin' 40 years and the only people who use racial slurs are c-c-conservatives!!
lol

>he replied again
Closing this thread but the seething redditor will address me again. :^)