/sci/ - Science & Math

>>6186034
Or people who think that probabilities are low for spontaneous generation

Yes, low enough that it would only happen and not be wiped out once in the universe

>there are people who don't realize the Universe is a living entity that reproduces itself with other Universes, matter is it's DNA.

Big bang is the ejaculate.

ass or tits?

I think expecting intelligent life to exist is as narrowminded as expecting extraterrestrial life to have 5 fingers, or 2 arms, etc.

Why the fuck would life always tend towards becoming intelligent? Maybe intelligence is a special mutation that only the human species has been lucky enough to get?

>>6186087

whynotboth.jpg

>>6186043
>once in the universe
the universe is fairly large though, and they've already started discovering fairly earth-like planets all over the place

looking at wikipedia, they say

>As a result of related studies, astronomers have reported that there could be as many as 40 billion Earth-sized planets orbiting in the habitable zones of Sun-like stars and red dwarf stars within the Milky Way Galaxy.[15][16] 11 billion of these estimated planets may be orbiting Sun-like stars

>>6186034
The only people who think life has to exist outside of earth are those so arrogant that they cannot accept that there is no fucking evidence at all of the possibility. Given probabilities are based on assumptions and even then are not certainties

Shuffle a deck of cards and pull out twelve cards at random. It is likely the first time since the universe began hat exact ordered combination has been pulled out of a deck. This is why your argument is shit, even though I believe the likelyhood of life spontaneously happening is high enough for it to happen whenever the prerequisites are filled.

Appeal to emotion is a fallacy. I don't care whether you call me arrogant. It doesn't change the fact that I do understand probability and statistics while you don't.

>>6186034
Evidence son.

The universe is a strangly quiet place for harboring so many intelligent (and probably superintelligent) beings.

>>6186139

Humans have only been "talking" to the stars for 200 years or so. If faster than light travel proves to be impossible we might just end up nuking ourselves before we can explore the galaxy. Any other intelligent species will probably nuke themselves too.

Ok, we find out a planet harbors intelligent life but is 500 light years away. Any machine we can build will literally disintegrate before we get a tenth of the way there.

I don't think the technology exists to begin the next phase of science fiction literature.

The only people who believe in bullshit without evidence instead of scientifically applying Hitchens' razor are schizophrenic /x/tards, philosotards and underaged down syndrome kids.

>>6186147
What do you have against philosophy?

>>6186183
It is useless and anti-intellectual. Childish interjections of "cannot know nuffin" are detrimental to scientific progress. And whatever edgy "theory" your teenaged mind just produced about qualia, consciousness, solipsism or ethics, it is not deep and not insightful, not scientifically testable and adds nothing of value. Summarized, philosophers are annoying immature twats who should learn to shut up and not to disturb the intellectuality of our science and math board.

>>6186195
>detrimental to scientific progress.
Wrong

>Why do you believe in humans?
<Bcuz i can see thm lolz

Retards everywhere.

>>6186196
Philosotards reject the scientific method.

>>6186195
>useless
If by useless you mean it has no utility, then that is obviously wrong on two accounts: the first being the inherent pleasure of philosophising; the second being the way paved for the natural sciences by philosophy

>Childish interjections of "cannot know nuffin" are detrimental to scientific progress.
That's an umbrella strawman which the logical positivists like Russell, Frege, Quine would not appreciate being thrown under

> about qualia, consciousness, solipsism or ethics, it is not deep and not insightful, not scientifically testable and adds nothing of value.
How can you scientifically test a meta ethical claim? The purpose of philosophy is to unmuddy the waters. "Qualia/philosophy are untestible" - see philosophy of neuroscience/ patricia churchlands work

>philosophers are annoying immature twats who should learn to shut up and not to disturb the intellectuality of our science and math board.
You think math and science are infallible?!!? how cute
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/whitehead/

Also >childish, edgy, not deep or insightful, twats, shut up, teenage
ad hominem/red herring

ty and goodbye

>>6186208
>Philosotards reject the scientific method.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_positivism

twit

>>6186208
>the first being the inherent pleasure of philosophising;
So philosophy is like masturbation? Thanks for confirming how useless it is.

>the second being the way paved for the natural sciences by philosophy
The scientific method was invented in the 19th century. That's the point where philosophy became obsolete. What you're proposing is like saying we should still practice alchemy because it paved the way for chemistry.

>Russell, Frege, Quine
They studied mathematics. Thus they are mathematicians and not philosophers.

>How can you scientifically test a meta ethical claim?
You can't. That's why philosophy is useless.

>The purpose of philosophy is to unmuddy the waters.
This is never achieved in philosophy. Endless semantical trolling won't achieve anything. There are no results and there is no way to objectively confirm anything a philosotard says.

>"Qualia/philosophy are untestible" - see philosophy of neuroscience/ patricia churchlands work
Clearly you neither understand neuroscience nor Churchland's work. Churchland does in fact dismiss qualia for the exact same reason, i.e. them being untestable.

>You think math and science are infallible?!!?
Yes, they are and the links you posted are literally just the "cannot know nuthin" fallacy.

>ad hominem/red herring
Accurate descriptive adjectives are neither ad hominems nor red herrings. Please look up what these words mean in a dictionary.

>>6186195
>>6186208

REKT

>>6186225
Too late, samefag. See >>6186223 for a real example of #rekt

>>6186225
>>6186228
Samefag

>>6186223
If something which is considered a means of understanding truth is considered masturbation due to its intrinsic pleasure, then what is science?

>>6186223
If something which is considered a means of understanding truth is considered masturbation due to its intrinsic pleasure, then what is science?

>>6186238
>The scientific method was invented in the 19th century.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#History
yeah nah. also science depends on the principles of logic which are byproducts of philosophy

> What you're proposing is like saying we should still practice alchemy because it paved the way for chemistry.
No. Alchemy is a specialty. That's analogous to putting chemistry under the whole of title of science. Philosophy deals with the branch of reasoning concerning how these specialities come to be, and alchemy is by no means a complete end of philosophy to take your example..

>They studied mathematics. Thus they are mathematicians and not philosophers.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/russell/
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/frege/
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/quine/
Actually, they were mathematicians, logicians and philosophers, which as I already mentioned were byproducts of philosophy.

>>6186223
>This is never achieved.

Perhaps not to you. If you can't see the mud in the water to begin with, congratulations, you have no need for philosophy.

cont.
>You can't. That's why philosophy is useless.
Philosophy is useless because science can't deal with a problem? Err...

>This is never achieved in philosophy.
You might want to read Wittgenstein.

>There are no results and there is no way to objectively confirm anything a philosotard says.
What you denotatively refer to as objective was brought about by the means of philosophy. You're trying to attack something which undermines your position. Science cannot come to define objective and subjective.

>Churchland does in fact dismiss qualia for the exact same reason, i.e. them being untestable.
Yes, she is an eliminative materialist and dismisses qualia. Dismissing consciousness? No. She argues that phenomenal qualities represent a state space.

>Yes, they are and the links you posted are literally just the "cannot know nuthin" fallacy.
Which philosophy resolve. You think abandoning philosophy before you're aware they have resolved or attempt to resolve it is a better solution than philosophising? That's the sort of defeatist behaviour that leads to vitalism or appeals to god.

>Accurate descriptive adjectives are neither ad hominems nor red herrings.
>accurate
see above about objective

thanks and looking forward to your reply!

>>6186240
>If you can't see the mud in the water to begin with, congratulations, you have no need for philosophy.
Mud in the water is a subject of limnology, not philosophy.

>>6186241
>a means of understanding truth
Philosophy does not yield any truth. Empty talk without basis in reality holds no truth value.

>also science depends on the principles of logic which are byproducts of philosophy
Logic has been formalized by mathematics and stopped being a field of philosophy in the 19th century.

>Philosophy deals with the branch of reasoning concerning how these specialities come to be
After they came to be, there is no place for philosophy anymore.

>which as I already mentioned were byproducts of philosophy.
"Byproducts" which made philosophy itself obsolete.

>>6186242
>Philosophy is useless because science can't deal with a problem?
Only science can deal with problems. Philosophy doesn't solve any problem because the only thing philosotards do is empty talk.

>You might want to read Wittgenstein.
No, I prefer science and math books.

>Science cannot come to define objective and subjective.
Scientific data are objective.

>Yes, she is an eliminative materialist and dismisses qualia. Dismissing consciousness? No.
Those are the same thing.

>She argues that phenomenal qualities represent a state space.
That would contradict eliminative materialism.

>Which philosophy resolve.
Empty talk doesn't resolve anything.

>>6186244
Purposefully and willfully misinterpreting someone might be funny, but its not very useful for discussion, you know?

>>6186244
You're referring to the word "truth" and "truth value" without understanding the presupposition that the definition of the word and the truth-value of the word's relations to "objective reality" are what philosophy deals with.

"Logic has been formalized by mathematics and stopped being a field of philosophy in the 19th century. "
So you admit philosophy has utility?

>After they came to be, there is no place for philosophy anymore.
What grounds do you hold that belief on? Neuroscience is a new branch of science which philosophy now currently deals with as philosophy of neuroscience which wasn't a branch of philosophy which was available to be solved by the 19th century shift to science values which you think rendered philosophy obsolete..

>>6186248
>Only science can deal with problems.
Please explain to me how philosophy can make a moral claim.

>>Science cannot come to define objective and subjective.
>Scientific data are objective.
circular

>Those are the same thing.
This is wrong and I don't have time to explain why!

>That would contradict eliminative materialism.
No, see above. Also, please familiarise yourself with her position before you accuse me of misunderstand it whilst you do.

>Empty talk doesn't resolve anything.
If by empty you mean providing the constituents of what you take to be the grand arbiteters of truth - science and mathematics, but cannot do anything more. Okay.

It's obvious that you're stuck in cognitive dissonance and are short sighted.
Feel free to reply. I'm going to sleep now and will read your red herring replies when I wake.

>>6186251
>are what philosophy deals with.
I don't need philosophy in order to make true statements.

>So you admit philosophy has utility?
No.

>philosophy of neuroscience
Philosophy of neuroscience is the worst of all. It's literally just "cannot know nuthin" and soul/consciousness dualism metaphysics. The epitome of untestable and unscientific nonsense. If neuroscience ever wants to become a real hard science, it has to rigorously eliminate all philosophical garbage.

>>6186262
>If neuroscience ever wants to become a real hard science, it has to rigorously eliminate all philosophical garbage.
Um how do you do that without philosophy retard

>>6186258
>Please explain to me how philosophy can make a moral claim.
"Moral" claims are meaningless becaue morality is a meaningless religious concept.

>circular
No, just common sense.

>This is wrong and I don't have time to explain why!
If you have no argument, then don't reply at all. We don't care about your emotional dislike for certain facts.

>No, see above. Also, please familiarise yourself with her position before you accuse me of misunderstand it whilst you do.
I corrected you and explained why you were wrong.

>If by empty you mean providing the constituents
No, by empty I mean meaningless and useless. Of no value at all.

>It's obvious that you're stuck in cognitive dissonance and are short sighted.
projection

>I'm going to sleep now and will read your red herring replies when I wake.
Don't bother waking up. We won't miss you.

>>6186223
>The scientific method was invented in the 19th century.

Stopped reading there

>>6186266
By using the scientific method and disallowing everything that is incompatible with the scientific method.

>>6186268
>can't into history of science

>>6186267
>"Moral" claims are meaningless becaue morality is a meaningless religious concept.
So we should just let anarchy rain I suppose?

>No, just common sense.
It was once common sense that the earth was flat. Appeal to tradition fallacy.

>Philosophy of neuroscience is the worst of all. It's literally just "cannot know nuthin" and soul/consciousness dualism metaphysics.
Yeah, that's one side of the debate. The other side are those of the logical positivists

>If you have no argument, then don't reply at all. We don't care about your emotional dislike for certain facts.
Qualia are 'what it's like' such as sensible qualities. Consciousness is metacognizance.

>No, by empty I mean meaningless and useless. Of no value at all.
Undermining your scientific position again.

>projection
Projecting what? I don't deny the scientific method. I'm a logical positivist. But I do not ignorantly dismiss the importance of philosophy like you are maintaining to do.

>Don't bother waking up. We won't miss you.
Soz not going yet babe. Waking up from what? How can I wake up from subconscious to conscious if it dont exist amirite lol!!

>>6186284
don't.ever.stop.
i wanna lick your mind

>>6186284
>So we should just let anarchy rain I suppose?
non sequitur

>It was once common sense that the earth was flat.
I'm glad SCIENCE revealed the truth. If we didn't have science, philosotards would still claim the earth being flat is a reasonable position.

>Qualia are 'what it's like' such as sensible qualities. Consciousness is metacognizance.
"Metacognizance" isn't even a word. You are just spouting bullshit in a desparate attempt to appear intellectual.

>Undermining your scientific position again.
No, I explained why science is the only acceptable stance and made philosophy obsolete.

>Projecting what? I don't deny the scientific method.
By defending philosophy you are opposing science.

>I'm a logical positivist. But I do not ignorantly dismiss the importance of philosophy like you are maintaining to do.
So where's your objective evidence for philosophy still being relevant? What objective results did philosophy yield in the 20th or 21st century?

>>6186273
>People didn't run before language

>>6186300
if you are correct and science is the one and only way. why advance? why discover? why save? why ease?
what drives science if not philosophic motives?
if you're going to answer with human compassion or love than you better use science to explain those.

I have a hard time believing that intelligent life happened even ONCE. Humans are a terrible example of an intelligent species. If what we are, is representative of the typical intelligent species, then NO WONDER we see no signs of interstellar civilizations in our observed galaxy. Instead of building a space-faring civilization, they're building better i-Phones.

>>6186311
>what drives science if not philosophic motives?
Psychological and economical motives.

>if you're going to answer with human compassion or love than you better use science to explain those.
Those are easily explained by psychology and biology.

>>6186326
>psychological and economical motives
i will now retreat from the conversation.

>>6186331
Goodbye, we won't miss you.

>>6186337
awww, don't be like that. i'm still lurking around
i only wish i could be there when you'll tell your children they have no souls

>>6186345
As soon as my children can speak, they will receive 10 hourse of science and math education every day. By the time they enter elementary school I want them to know graduate level science and math.

>>6186351
that's all fine and dandy, but educating the mind without educating the heart is no education at all.
will you even consider your children's desires?
what if they don't want to learn math?

>>6186316
well said

>>6186356
Beethoven and Mozart were brutally trained when they were children, at least 'brutally' by today's standards. Also, 'educating the heart' is a nonsense idea only used by those who haven't achieved anything in life, just like EQ and multiple intelligences are made up by those who aren't profoundly gifted.

Stay mediocre, retard. My children will be the ency of yours.

>>6186367
define achieving something in life

>>6186207
philosophers created the scientific method

>>6186056
Probably true

>>6186367
>ency

>>6186127
Exactly this. Its a property of information flow that natural selection works so its kinda like matter in the given conditions forms a hard drive(rna/dna) then slowly builds the computer to process the info ( organism). Process for what? I dunno

>>6186127

But that's implying that those exact combination of twelve cards being pulled out is necessary when in all truth only six or nine of those cards are needed to achieve "intelligent" life with the other three or six cards giving some varying degree of functionality to utilize that intelligence.

>>6186300
Not the person you were replying to earlier.

>>So we should just let anarchy rain I suppose?
>non sequitur
so you deny the entirety of the construction of morals, and dismiss them as simply religious guidelines? Let's just toss politics away while we're at it. On what basis, are they worthless?

>>It was once common sense that the earth was flat.
>I'm glad SCIENCE revealed the truth. If we didn't have science, philosotards would still claim the earth being flat is a reasonable position.

No one denies the position of science. Philosophy is not separate from science, but parallel to it. The purpose of philosophy is not to empirically deduct finalized results. Philosophy's purpose is to draw an outline on issues. Philosophy does not imply direct benefit, due to not depending on an escalating linear-like progression like purely scientific methods, that is correct. Philosophy exists to ask questions which science cannot approach. Note that this does not render it useless, only because it does not result in a direct good. Politics, science, and all other vital aspects of life have their stems in philosophy. it guides, and probes blurry questions which science may not ask due to its nature.Again, It does not empirically add with the same black or white way that obvious clear cut disciplines do.

>>Projecting what? I don't deny the scientific method.
>By defending philosophy you are opposing science.

Not true, i do not see why this is the case.

>>6186097
Maybe the odds are 40 billion to 1

>>6186034
Probably there are many intelligent life forms on the universe but the universe is so big that probably we will never detect any one of them.

>>6186097
First you need life, them complex life, them intelligent complex life and only them, if conditions where ideal this life can produce a civilization.

We got 4 earth like planets in the Solar system, 3 of them are in the habitable zone, only one have life. From all the life in this planet only a fraction is complex. From all the complex life only two groups have intelligence close to ours, cetaceans and primates, and only one of them developed a complex civilization. Considering the distances and time scale it is highly unlikely that we will ever detect any intelligent lifer form.