I've always believed most deeply that there was a reason for everything. This belief has been with me all my life despite encountering a ton of things that had no apparent reason whatsoever. The idea was that not knowing the reason didn't mean that there wasn't one; I was just currently ignorant of it.
I know how popular the idea that beliefs cause bias is, so when I woke up this morning my mind sort of jumped to the idea that that belief of mine might be causing problem for my cognition. I've probably avoided thinking a lot of types of things by holding... Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>8191836 >What can or should I expect now /sci/? If anything. Is letting go of a natural tendency expected to have any observable (or internally sensable) consequences or are intents of this variety not causative to cognition in first place?
Come on /sci/. If you don't make a prediction you know someone else will, and you know that nine times out of ten it'll just end up being unfalsifiable platitudes. Any falsifiable hypothesis is better than no hypothesis at all.
How many chemicals exist? How many chemicals can there potentially exist? How many of these chemicals are psychoactive? Is it possible that there is some sort of super drug that we have yet to discover that is 100x as euphoric as meth?
>>8190677 Don't know, but likely finite. Don't know, but near certainly finite. Don't know, but with certainty, finite amount. Very unlikely. The brain is a machine, and as it presently exists, it isn't likely capable of existing in a state of that sort. Terms like "100x as euphoric as" are also not very useful.
>>8190677 Every "chemical" is a combination of set values interacting with one another in specific ways yada yada the point is, on earth we have the elements of the periodic table. If you wanted an answer, you would need to know the maximum affordability for size of a molecule. Also, if you're including solutions, the number will increase exponentially. To the second part, the brain has a very specific structure, so there are not infinite molecules that could do what you are suggesting if there is a maximum molecule size. There very well may be, though. Maybe even 420x.
Most people find it uninteresting and useless. Like if someone were to show you there spoon collection. That combined with the pretentious "being good at math means your smart" meme means they would rather not try, than try and fail.
So like many others I grew up believing pic related. However a friend who's going through a bit of a health-food conscious phase (organic, raw) tells me otherwise, that milk depletes calcium from bones. And there's a couple of website supporting this claim. The problem is, they have the feel of Naturalnews.com and similar sites. Here's one of the main sites pushing this new way of thinking.
Any biologists in the house? This is nu-age bunk right?
I have been busting my ass on my thesis, geology related. It has pasted my committee. Now the department head who is a soft geography science (don't ask me why or how he is in charge) is reviewing my thesis. I caught a mistake in a figure and emailed him the correct new image. He says he doesn't see the difference. He then procedes to email me the 1st half of my thesis. I am horrified. The bastard is resizing all the figures like an autist so there are no "white gaps". I need advice B. I need some advice on how to tell him he ruining my work and convince... Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
OP here. He has also resized some other figures and I have not seen the damage on my results or conclusions section but I am worried that all my photomicrographs with scale bars are gonna look like "Fun-house" mirrors.
Maybe it causes epigenetic changes that somehow rewire the nerves that are sending pain signals when they shouldn't. Placebo pretty much only works on stuff like back-pain, migraines and the like. Vague conditions without a clear cause involving abnormal pain. It doesn't actually work against stuff like infections and cancer.
Intelligence is (usually) defined to be someone's ability to learn new skills (NOT emotions) quickly. So no. If you're an emotional person, you're just emotional... "emotionally intelligent" is like saying "furiously exist". It doesn't have any meaning.
No. I suppose you could consider it to mean someone's ability to read other people's emotions (at least I think that's how people traditionally use it), but the problem with that is it's entirely dependent on the people around them. If they happen to be similar to their peers they're going to be able to read their emotions. Unlike actual intelligence, it's a measure effected solely by outside influences (while real intelligence is something that's specific to the person who's capable of reasoned thinking).
Sup /sci/. Doing some physics work when I come across this. Having a brainfart, I fail to recognize what I'm supposed to do. These are two separate fractions, correct? Is multiplication between the two fractions implied when there's no sign or parentheses?
>>8192469 >What's at the edge of the universe? Don't know. >Is the edge of the universe penetrable? Don't know if it can bridge like a typical physical space. >Does it even have an edge? Don't know. >What's even the geometry of the universe? Is it spherical? It's thought to be flat, which doesn't necessarily imply infinity of any sort.
Infinity... Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
First genetics lab. We need to rip the heads off from Drosophila pupae for their gigantic chromosomes. One girl with Aspergers starts crying and yells that she's going to quit because it's so wrong, fruit flies have freedom to live too. She lies down on floor and then hides underneath a table.
First biochem lab. The same assburger loses her mind because cheap Chinese plastic tubes melt in the PCR device. She starts crying and hides underneath the laminar. After 30 mins she starts to tell everyone about Aspergers, her hypothyroidism, how her feelings are completely justified etc. The lab assistant and lecturer sigh in despair.
Animal physiology lab. A small blood sample made her faint and cry. Frog decapitation and dissection makes her vomit and rage quit the course. The lab teachers are extremely patient, but she is constantly testing them with her stupid shit.
And after all this she specialized in animal physiology because "genetics has too much math".
My only experience in lab as an undergraduate is that I don't generally trust my lab partners so I prefer to do the lab myself. Inconsistencies that throw off results piss me off, and my partners usually want to finish in a hurry and leave before lab ends so I tell them to act occupied and let me type the reports and perform the lab, unless my partner has integrity to do it right the first time.... Sounds jerkish but I've been screwed by relying on lab partners before
I keep seeing all these magical 'POWER YOUR OWN HOME FREE TESLA GENERATOR INFINITE ENERGY AWAKED YOUR PINEAL GLAND FORBIDDEN KNOWLEDGE' on Youtube, and surprise surprise they all turn out to be bullshit.
So I figured I'd ask here, is there such a thing as a fancy generator that I could build and use at home?
By fancy I mean something that isn't basic like wind or solar.
I think I can understand OP. I always feel like I "should" be doing something to learn something new or useful on my own, but I'm too lazy to ever do any extra work and I can never decide on a topic that I want to study on my own. The few times I'm ever successful is when I just pick a topic and run with it. I think the majority of the difficulty comes from deciding on and starting something. I guess I need more of a "just do it" kind of attitude.
>be me >in intro to physics class >calc based classical mechanics >after first week there are only 13 people in my class >only 7 in my lab
So what gives /sci/? I know a smaller class is better for learning, engagement and building a relationship with the professor. But by the looks of it there is only going to be 3 people in an upper level class. Is physics becoming a meme degree? I also noticed it's a huge sausage fest.
Yeah I definitely wanna explore that cartoon girl's core if you know what I mean. Maybe poke a little too deep and see the water content flowing. Indeed taking some semi-naked pictures of her back to earth would be great.
You find yourself in a situation where you have managed to produce a correct, constructive proof that P = NP by providing a polynomial-time algorithm for an NP-complete problem. Let's also say that this algorithm happens to have an extremely practical running time, say O(n^2).
Ignoring whether or not this is possible, what would be the 'right' plan of action to take in this situation? Such a solution would have an extreme effect not only on the academic sphere, but also on the life (and potentially safety and privacy) of people around the globe. Do you... Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>8195270 >So now you don't understand GR, QM or geometry. The balloon's surface is composed of finite points. It is not magic, it is a balloon.
>>8195271 >Ok, give me the reference frame where the universe is stationary and I will always be able to give you one where it is not. I can think of no instance where the universe as a whole has changed its location in any spatial direction. Therefore it has undergone no motion,... Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>8195283 >The balloon's surface is composed of finite points. Defend this statemate. It can be representated in uncountably infinite real space, there's no reason to assign a finite number of points over an infinite.
>>8195304 The balloon is a finite object occupying a finite number of the universe's possible positions. The universe does not afford infinite precision or infinite subdivision of space between two arbitrary points.
If the balloon exists in a vacuum that is otherwise the rest state and minimum excistation of its underlying fields, as you expand the balloon you're just distributing the excitation gradient of its components more widely. The balloon is not gaining new energy, nor does it gain new points. It just... Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Hello. I would like to discuss the problem of developing AI with some experts if possible. Am a comp sci student and recently started an Algorithms course referencing Introduction to Algorithms by Cormen, second edition.
We had a session on few of Turing's papers a while ago and as I recall he considered the brain to be a finite-state machine and hence emulatable. I got not problem with this line of thinking.
The algorithm course however introduces NP complete problems that do not have a computational procedure that always give the efficient solution. This got me thinking that wouldn't a self dependant AI need to make its own algorithms? Does there exist an algorithm for algorithm designing with even partial emulation of human logic?
I understand self learning machines exist but don't they just copy what humans do? What happens when a new unknown situation arises?
Example of an NP complete problem from the book: Given a central warehouse and a delivery truck. Find the most efficient route to deliver goods each day.
>yfw you realize all it takes is a couple drops of semen for a woman to LITERALLY grow another human being, bones organs skin hair teeth and all inside of her Why is sexual reproduction so disgusting and horrifying?
so I've been thinking about how fiction other than star wars rationalizes the idea of lightsabers actually working the usual problem that arises when thinking about how to make one that actually works (using just a high-powered laser for a blade, not contained plasma) is "the blade will never end" but is it impossible to contain a laser beam? could you not potentially build some kind of containment unit to cap the blade, with a photovoltaic system to reduce energy loss?
IF you could get a high enough power laser, you could have a small bar run parallel to it, with a lens on the top. The lens(or set of lenses) would be concave(toward the laser) and refract the light, spreading out the beam over a large area so it is virtually harmless.
Of course, nobody wants a metal beam on their light-saber. But that's the only practical way I see.
>>8194636 the laser blade literally is extendable. Why not just have the laser surround the metal bar, and the energy is obviously so concentrated you can't see through it, so the bar in the center is concealed? As it extends, the blade grows in length
How close are we to immortality and putting brains in robots really? I find very mixed answers about both. Hypothetically, what would become of us if we just kept breeding and we all were immortal? Would we phase out breeding almost entirely and the same few billion people would continue living forever? Sorry if this sounds like x-tier, uneducated garbage, but I'm actually curious about it.
Not very. Realize the brain is dependent on a lot more from the body than just nutrients and oxygen. If you think otherwise, then cut out your thyroid, castrate yourself, and cut the adrenal glands off your kidneys. Then remove ~70% of your liver and induce scarring where your CSF drains.
Also, remove all your adipose cells, see how readily you can tell you're hungry. Also, adipose makes estrogen, which men need to an extent as well.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from them. If you need IP information for a Poster - you need to contact them. This website shows only archived content.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content you can contact me at email@example.com with that post and thread number and it will be removed as soon as possible.