/sci/ - Science & Math

>>6246433
you'd be wrong.

>>6246433
Wrong. /pol/ is your better bet.

Yes.

>>6246433
If you include agnostic then yeah we have a large %

>>6246433
Correct.

>>6246457
The opposite, actually. These two guys, >>6246457 and >>6246438 are probably from /pol/, though.

/sci/ is very slow to begin with so it would be rare for it to be the largest in population at anything

Nope, try /pol/.

Are you talking about raw numbers or concentration?

>>6246462
please join OP and go back to /pol/ because this has nothing to do with /sci/ and both of you are fucking shitposters.

>>6246490
Wow, rude.

[ insert fedora joke here ]

>>6246461
>specifically mention atheist
>if you include agnost

for a 'science' board there are a lot of retards here, don't you guys know that science contradicts religion in nearly all fields?

>>6246517
Please leave.

>>6246433
Atheism is for stupid persons. Be agnostic, you have feeling and love.

>>6246529
Agnosticism is for atheists that want a safety net
Bareback motherfucker

Atheism and religion are at the opposite ends of the autism spectrum. They both rely on belief with no evidence, but confident and delusional enough to believe their theories are the one and only truth. That's why both sides defend their perspective to death in the same obnoxious fashion.

>>6246544
I don't see how atheism relies on belief without evidence, considering it opposes believe and seeks evidence
Also atheism doesn't have 'one' truth as atheism means nothing more than non-religious

>>6246544
What are they eating?

>>6246433
China actually

>>6246433
nope, i love Jesus

>>6246571
And Jesus love you!

I just genuinely hate religion and seeing as atheism has devolved into one I can't say I am. Too much groupthink going on in atheism today.

>>6246548
> seeks evidence
and what is atheists evidence for afterlife ? or consciousness ?

>>6246580
>there is no "afterlife"
>define consciousness

>>6246582

huur, I care so much about what others do

>>6246590
>hurr others have no impact on me whatsoever, it's not like others can kill me for being a heretic durr

>>6246582
Join ussssss
we have cookies

>>6246580
Consciousness does not exist. Apply Hitchens' razor.

>>6246587
So I see you got no evidence for the nonexistence of afterlife. As for consciousness, I think it would be 'the state of being self-aware'. Pretty much what separates us from a rock.

Pascals Wager

>>6246603
Aren't you self aware ?

>>6246604
I have the same amount of evidence for unicorns, and we can both agree that they do not exist.
>define self-aware

>tips fedora to all the delusional atheists

>>6246610
No.

>>6246604
Nothing separates us from a rock. We are made of atoms too. Humans don't have a magical soul. Go back to >>>/x/

>>6246603
That's - that's not what Hitchen's Razor means. You can't use it to mean "you didn't cite specific sources or use a detailed philosophical argument in your specific post, therefore it's false."

>>6246614
The definition of self-awareness is "being aware that you exist as an agent in the world and have some ability to observe your own mental processes." If you're using the word "I" , you're self aware.

>>6246614
>unicorns
>DNE

>>6246605
My religion forbids gambling

>>6246614
> atheism seeks evidence
> i got the same evidence for unicorns
oh then, please enlighten me with your studies on how life and consciousness dissapears after death.

Self-awareness is the capacity for introspection and the ability to recognize oneself as an individual separate from the environment and other individuals.

>>6246620
I can program a computer to say I, and whenever it says "I" it must be referring to itself, the computer

>>6246628
>enlighten me with your studies on how life and consciousness dissapears after death
what you know as "consciousness" appears in the brain, and there is no brain activity after death
>[latin proverb about proofs]

>>6246618
> i'm not self aware
> souls
> cant make an argument without putting words into opponents mouth
ignoring this hardcore fedora knight here.

>>6246620
> have some ability to observe your own mental processes
I think most of us can do that. Can't you ?

>>6246620
A soul/consciousness is metaphysical bullshit without possible evidence. Hitchens' razor tells us to dismiss it as non-existent. Deal with it, /x/tard.

>>6246629
computers aren't self aware, they follow a linear method where in they respond to your inputs because they are determined to.

>>6246637
The brain does not produce any metaphysical magic. The brain is a physical organ and all its products are physical. A soul/consciousness has no place in science.

>>6246643
what does being self aware have to do with determinism
pls stop strawmanning

>>6246637
Oh, so now consciousness does exist ? You sure sound a lot shifty for someone with so much evidence.

>>6246645
>>6246648

I agree consciousness DNE, thats why I said "what you know as consciousness"

>>6246649
read again. I said computers aren't self aware, and they are determined to act on whatever they are programmed to do. Do you have an objection to this statement ? Are you afraid because it implies that humans are also pre-determined ?

i'm not an atheist, i'm an absurdist.

>>6246656
>afraid
I'm insulted, humans are predetermined, and you have to agree if you believe in an all knowing god. If I gave a computer its spatial dimensions and position, then I could argue that it's "self aware"

>>6246659
that statement was absurd

>>6246433
Even the High Priest of atheism, Richard Dawkins, admits he's agnostic.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2105834/Career-atheist-Richard-Dawkins-admits-fact-agnostic.html

In few years time, he'll become religious. That's how it always goes… the closer you are to your own mortality, you realize that religion is the only way forward.

>>6246661
Oh I too believe humans are pre-determined. I was trying to clarify the point agnosticm is making.

>>6246661
>then I could argue

You must be mistaken. This is /sci/. /sci/ is a science board, not a philosophy board. If all you're gonna post is puerile sophistry, you better gonna leave to /x/.

>>6246666
>people get more delusional the older they get

seems about right

>>6246665
/x/ == paranormal
/x/ != philosophy
do you even Pythagoras

>>6246666
>Richard Dawkins, admits he's agnostic.

everyone who isn't a mystic admits they are "agnostic"...atheists and theists alike.

The question is whether there is good reason to believe in a god or not.

>>6246665
>implying philosophy is not a science

>>6246666
He's shifting between religion and atheism like a sine wave, agnosticism means hes settling down.

>>6246666
Turning to religion before death is a sign of cowardice

>>6246671
if theres no god, how do you explain the flood?

>>6246666
>6666

>>6246670
/x/ is a containment board for all unscientific garbage. "Paranormal" is a catch-all term for any kind of irrational beliefs. Pythagoras was a delusional retard btw. He believed in absurd mysticism and the theorem he's known for was not even found by him.

>>6246676
not to imply your statement is something close to be proof of god, but where did you get the chart ?

>>6246674
>>6246673
>>6246671

>THERE IS A GOD: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/23/books/review/Gottlieb-t.html?_r=0&pagewanted=all

>>6246680
plskillmeimaretard.com/images/wtf.jpg
>>6246678
x->paranormal, pls stop projecting

>>6246681
one atheist changes his mind therefore god exists?

>>6246688
does ethics belong on /x/?

>>6246682
"Paranormal" includes metaphysics. Therefore philosophy belongs on /x/.

>>6246601
>>6246617
>>6246659

>>6246688
my sides

>>6246689
Ethics is solved by common sense and is not worthy of discussion.

>>6246690
epick ruse :^)

>>6246690
looks like someone clearly doesn't understand what absurdism is.

>>6246695
"Maybe I'll call myself absurdist or something..."

>>6246693
>avoiding the question like a plague
does the study of logic belong on /x/?

>>6246690
Christianity is a Jewish plot to create banking monopolies.

>>6246433
Fuck off /pol/, you are violating rule 1 and 3 of /sci/.

>>6246697
that doesn't make any sense in that context.

>>6246698
Logic is a field of math and not philosophy. Philosotards don't understand logic because all the mathy symbols hurt their liberal arts brains.

>>6246706
>implying there are rules on christmas

All the mods are sitting under the christmas tree with their parents.

>>6246704
>still avoiding the question
how about the approach to a rational argument, does that belong on /x/? Where do you think mathematics even came from?

>>6246709
>how about the approach to a rational argument
That would be the opposite of philosophy. Philosotards don't know any rational arguments. They only pick whatever untestable belief most appeals to them and then they flood the discussion with rhetorical fallacies.

>Where do you think mathematics even came from?
It evolved.

>>6246704
>Logic is a field of math and not philosophy

This is not correct. Do your research.

>Philosotards don't understand logic because all the mathy symbols hurt their liberal arts brains.

David Lewis
W.V. Quine
Hilary Putnam
Kit Fine
Jaegwon Kim
Bertrand Russell
Stewart Shapiro
Nelson Goodman
Peter van Inwagen

Are you a better logician than these 'iberal arts philosotards'?

>>6246711
>It evolved.
from what?
>Philosotards don't know any rational arguments
This is why this board needs philosophy, this is what is referred to as an ad hominem

>>6246711
>it evolved

from logic you goddamn moron

>>6246714
>This is not correct. Do your research.
I did and it is still correct.

>Are you a better logician than these 'iberal arts philosotards'?
Most of the people in your list are mathematicians. Congratulations, you invalidated your own point.

>>6246693
>common sense
fuck off anti-intellectual

>>6246717
>from what?

From monkeys.

>>6246724
classy

>>6246717
>This is why this board needs philosophy
The only thing this board needs is science and math. Philosophy belongs on /x/.

>this is what is referred to as an ad hominem
An observation is not an ad hominem.

>>6246718
Logic is a field of math.

>>6246722
>has no common sense
>calls others anti-intellectual
top lel

>>6246640
I don't think "consciousness" means what you think it means. "consciousness" is, essentially, that thing you are doing right now. If you think a soul doesn't exist and is metaphysically bullshit, then you don't think consciousness doesn't exist, you just think it doesn't require a soul. If you think we just have more of what other animals have, then all animals are conscious.

It's totally impossible to derive a definition of human where "consciousness" doesn't exist, because the definition of consciousness essentially just boils down to "that thing you do when you're awake, even when you're in a room standing still, that you're not doing when you're asleep"

>>6246728
>An observation is not an ad hominem.
"I'm right because these people are this way", sounds like an observation to me

>>6246720
>Most of the people in your list are mathematicians.
David Lewis - PhD in Philosophy
W.V. Quine - PhD in Philosophy
Hilary Putnam - PhD in Philosophy
Kit Fine - PhD in Philosophy
Jaegwon Kim - PhD in Philosophy
Bertrand Russell - lectured Philosophy at Cambridge
Stewart Shapiro - PhD in Philosophy
Nelson Goodman - PhD in Philosophy
Peter van Inwagen - PhD in Philosophy

>>6246729
>that thing you are doing right now
woah there Gordon Freeman, wanna re-write wikipedia's article on consciousness

>>6246729
Wakefulness is a physiological state and has nothing to do with a "consciousness". Keep dualist vocabulary on /x/. This is a science board.

>>6246730
Nice lack of reading comprehension.

>>6246732
Are you pretending to be retarded again? Look them up on wikipedia. The majority of them studied mathematics.

>>6246433
>Report submitted! This window will close in 3 seconds...

>>6246728
appeal to common sense is a fallacy

if you believe common sense supersedes rational discussion you are an anti-intellectual

>>6246728
>Logic is a field of math.

You have it backwards.
Try doing mathematical proofs without logical reasoning. You can't. You can, however, apply logical reasoning outside of mathematical proofs, so the backwards implication doesn't hold.
Of course, I doubt you know anything about logic or math.

>>6246728
>Logic is a field of math.

Logic is derived from philosophical reasoning. The mathematicization of Logic is considered a field of mathematics, but is fundamentally just a symbolization of pure Logic.

>>6246728
Logic is part of philosophy of math. Mathematicians don't study foundations.

>>6246734
Are you trulling bruh? Wiki presents them as philosophers

>>6246735
idiot.

global rule 7: http://www.4chan.org/rules

>>6246733
Well, that's what it is. Consciousness is, by definition, that thing you're doing right now inside your head. You have it. Everyone else has it. We used to think it requires a soul, now we think it's a biological property, or an algorithmic property, and some people think everything with enough brain has it.

You want to put a different name on it? Fine. But then you're just arguing over word usage. But that's the thing consciousness is a name for. If we prove, definitively, that humans don't have souls (which we've mostly done already), then that doesn't disprove consciousness any more than proving that the eye doesn't really emit light and that color isn't really just a mixture of white and black, a la Aristotle, disproved "green."

>>6246744
>Friendly reminder: sage is not a downvote
I lolled

>>6246734
How the fuck do you call someone with a PhD in PHILOSOPHY, who lectures PHILOSOPHY, a mathematician on the basis of them having studied it at some point? Pretty much everyone has studied mathematics, you fucking idiot. That does not make a lawyer a mathematician or a doctor a mathematician or someone who flips burgers at McDonalds a mathematician.

>>6246745
>Consciousness is, by definition, that thing you're doing right now inside your head.
Pls publish a book, your words could clarify quantum mechanics to an infant

>>6246737
Why is common sense too hard for you? What mental disorder do you have?

>>6246738
Appeal to tradition is a fallacy.

>>6246739
Do you know that there's more to logic than babby's first quantifiers? No, obviously you don't. Go study wikipedia or something. I can't be arsed to educate you.

>>6246743
The section about their biography says they studied mathematics. How illiterate are you?

>>6246745
>You have it. Everyone else has it.
I don't have it and I have no reason to believe that anyone else has it. Please go troll somewhere else. A physically unobservable entity does not exist.

>>6246747
>How the fuck do you call someone with a PhD in PHILOSOPHY, who lectures PHILOSOPHY
I'd call him a pseudo-intellectual.

>Pretty much everyone has studied mathematics
YOU obviously didn't.

>>6246749
>Appeal to tradition is a fallacy.

It's called history, you stupid cunt.

Take a scientific theory and reduce it to mathematics. Then reduce it to first-order logic. Where do you end up? You end up at the classical laws of philosophical reasoning.

>>6246745
Hell, even if we proved consciousness was a pure illusion, that our internal experience in no way reflected the actual workings of our brain, that they were mere fictions thrown up after-the-fact (like the neurological studies that seem to show free will is an illusion, just a series of justifications) then that still wouldn't "disprove consciousness."

For instance, you know what else is a neurological illusion? Magenta. It doesn't exist. There's no wavelength of light that corresponds to magenta. It's an artifact of the way our brain processes color, throwing up a fictional reddish-violet color to patch the light spectrum into the "color wheel" , which is totally unrelated to the way light actually works, stitching the high-energy violet end onto the low-energy red end.

But that doesn't "disprove magenta." You can stare at a mixture of red and violet light and experience magenta. It's a neurological artifact with no bearing on reality, but it's still a thing.

Consciousness is just a name for an experience. It's a name for that experience you're having right now, and would continue having if you closed your eyes, stood still, and went into a sensory deprivation chamber, where you think you have some processes going on inside your head, can recall memories, can visualize things that don't exist, can think through things and at least believe you're following the process by which you're doing so. That's all it is. It's a name for an experience, and one which you cannot possibly dispute you're having. You can't "disprove consciousness." You can say it's a bad name, and that's OK. You can say it's a misleading name, and that's OK. But you're still conscious, you just don't like using that word, because you object to extra connotations you perceive.

>>6246751
>whines about fallacies
>throws out ad hominem arguments

the b8 ends here.

>>6246749
>Why is common sense too hard for you?

i never said it was

>What mental disorder do you have?

panic disorder

>>6246753
>You end up at the classical laws of philosophical reasoning.
Philosophical reasoning is illogical and has no laws. It's all just "I want to believe" bullshit. No law of logic implies qualia or solipsism.

>>6246756
Take your meds.

>>6246757
>fish reaction images
gb2>>>/b/

guys, you are expending a lot of waste heat for absolutely zero gain.

this is 4chan. ad hominem and deliberate misinterpretation is the norm here. it is not a place for rational discourse of deeply confusing subjects such as philosophy.

go post on lesswrong.

>>6246761
i already did

>>6246457
wut?

>>6246761
>Philosophical reasoning is illogical and has no laws. It's all just "I want to believe" bullshit.

This is the most ignorant thing I've ever read. Ever.

It's a good thing you're baiting.

>>6246766
Lesswrong is a cesspool of anti-intellectual escapist teenagers and a worse circlejerk than reddit's atheism board.

>>6246766
I'd rather post in an unproductive anti-hugbox than an unproductive circlejerk.

Posting on 4chan frequently gets you frustrated, but occasionally shatters your misconceptions or you learn something brilliant and new.

Posting on LessWrong frequently turns you into the sort of person who gets pants-wettingly scared over Roko's Basilisk.

>>6246773
the basilisk thing is stupid, mmkay. I don't see how anyone can actually be scared of it. outside of that snafu LW is usually right about most things.

>occasionally shatters your misconceptions or you learn something brilliant and new.

this has never happened on this end and I have been here for long enough to have seen the birth of raptor jesus (yes, I am shame). if it has happened for you, give an example.

>>6246773
>>6246774

less wrong is definitely the most delusional community around. even those religious boards are less insane than LW.

>>6246771
It's true though and you're confirming it by the fact that your response is nothing but an emotional "I don't want to accept it, therefore it can't be true".

>>6246778
The trick is not to post in /sci/.

I can't say i've learned something "brilliant and new"

But I've seen dozens of stories I've felt genuinely glad to read, met friends, and occasionally found really cool things - gaming groups, found new games, joked, laughed, and even read a book someone had written and was giving out free copies because /tg/ had inspired him to do.

>>6246782
>
But I've seen dozens of stories I've felt genuinely glad to read, met friends, and occasionally found really cool things - gaming groups, found new games, joked, laughed, and even read a book someone had written and was giving out free copies because /tg/ had inspired him to do.

I would point out that none of those things will help you figure out philosophy.

>>6246782
>The trick is not to post in /sci/.

Why not? I've learned a lot on /sci/. This board made me discover many new things I would of never considered before. Unfortunately though it ruined my interest in philosophy.

>>6246780
I actually responded like that once.

It was to a person who said,

"Birds can't have evolved from lizards, right?

>draws a crude outline of a lizard in the sand

Now a lizard relies on speed to survive.

>draws some simple wings on the lizard body

So it starts growing wings, but midway through it's slow, and SWOOP! An eagle comes down and eats it."

My response was a stunned silence, followed by "what? But- but? What? Buh?" followed by putting my head in my hands and leaving.

Does that mean that
"It's true though and you're confirming it by the fact that your response is nothing but an emotional "I don't want to accept it, therefore it can't be true"" ? Does my response confirm that lizards really couldn't have evolved from birds?

Or does it just confirm that what I heard was so very, very wrong - at the very core - that there was not a sliver of almost-correct logic to grasp against and form an argument? That it was so utterly stupid that there was simply no argument that could prevail against that bulwark of foot-thick stupidity?

>>6246786
Birds evolved from dinosaurs and not from lizards.

>>6246787
Like what?

>>6246791
0.999... = 1

>>6246786
Do you seriously believe dinosaurs are lizards? Like seriously? I cannot stop laughing. Hahahahahahahaha, what are you doing to my sides?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaurs
>Although the word dinosaur means "terrible lizard", the name is somewhat misleading, as dinosaurs are not lizards. Instead, they represent a separate group of reptiles

>>6246796
That was the example the person used to disprove that evolution occured at all, and that the Earth was a mere 6000 years old. I was aware of the difference, but felt that arguing the point would be like deciding to attack a brick wall with a plastic knefe instead of a plastic spoon.

>>6246800
>and that the Earth was a mere 6000 years old

How silly. The earth is 2014 years old.

>>6246786
there is usually a kernel of a legitimate question, wrapped in thick layers of stupidity.

in this case, I think what that person is asking is, how can a creature evolve a system as complex as wings, when incremental moves in that direction is actually evolutionarily counter-productive? e.g. when half-developed wings actually slow the creature down?

the trick (in real life, where the goal is to actually educate, rather than in 4chan, where the goal is to make the other person look like a retard) is to de-emphasize the stupid parts.

p.s. far as I know, the answer is that
1. evolution has a LOT of time to try, try, try again and have lots of things die in gruesome ways until something sticks by sheer chance.
2. incremental moves can serve SOME utility: half-formed wings might allow higher jumping or breaking of falls, for example, like in chickens.

I'm no biologist, though. somebody else with more expertise can probably give a better answer.

I think as long as you're not in the redneck parts of 4chan: /pol/ and /k/ there's probably an atheist majority

>>6246816
/lit/ is full of theists

which isnt a surprise since its by far the most intelligible board on 4chan

prove me wrong


actually dont, because you cant.

>>6246628
Why are you assuming life after death exists in the first place? Shouldn't we assume there is no afterlife until we find evidence?

If sick of this "assume silly shit, prove me wrong" shit

>>6246822
I laughed.

>>6246433
No, there are about 50 times as many posters on /b/ and /v/ as on /sci/ so even if they followed the population distribution in their religious preferences there would be several times as many posters on either board.

>>6246822
Most threads are complete bullshit but they're well written.
Just what you'd expect from the humanities.

>>6246822
/lit/ has an interesting mix like /pol/.

There's a lot of dirt, but there are many diamonds to be found.

>>6246822

There are no theists on 4chan. Anyone who says they are is trolling, and it works.

>>6246859
>implying atheists exist anywhere else beside leddit

>>6246865

You are either trolling or incredibly new

The sad thing is that not everyone on /sci/ who says they believe in God is trolling.