Neuroscience of consciousness
I really really really want to see a scientific solution to the hard problem of consciousness. Now dualism and materialism are both insufficient, as concisely stated in the related pic. From a scientific point of view, how can we approach the topic of consciousness without falling into unfalsifiable philosobabble?
Let's hope this doesn't turn into too much of a shitstorm.
>>8459047
I took a philosophy course on this with the guy who wrote the encyclopedia britannica entry on the philosophy of mind. Him and a lot of other prominent philosophers of mind are under the impression that the way to understand consciousness is through the Computational Theory of Mind. Look into that.
Spiritualism solves the problem.
>>8459047
It's not going to happen if you only look at it from the viewpoint of Western philosophy. Have a look at Roy Bhaskar's writings. He described reality as 'stratified'; each layer emerges from the previous. For example, chemistry emerges from physics but cannot be described by it. Likewise, biology emerges from chemistry. Consciousness arises from biology but cannot be described or explained by it. Consciousness must be explored at its own level. In order to do this Bhaskar saw that we must use Eastern philosophy also.
I posted here a week ago about trying to examine student misunderstanding when it comes to probability and randomness.
Monday I was going to start a lesson involving whether or not humans can emulate or fake randomness. I will be having students get into partners make a fake set of data and a real one of 100 coins and will be going around hoping to determine which one is random or not (most student's fake data will not have strings of 5+ heads or tails because it doesn't look random, even though it is probable for that to happen in 100 tosses).
I wanted to give them a pre-test of some sort to see where their understanding of randomness/probability is before the lesson.
Does anyone have any questions that might be good to ask?
Really rough, but thinking something along the lines of:
1. What does it mean for something to be random?
2. Is there any way to tell if scientists fake their results?
3. Is the sequence HHHH or HTHT more likely to occur when flipping a coin?
4. John just lost three hands in a row at the blackjack table. He is:
a) more likely to win on his next hand
b) less likely to win on his next hand
c) equally likely to win or lose on his next hand
>>8458937
in thinking fast of slow theres examples similar to this. the author, daniel kahneman, did studies on people testing their intuitive understanding of statistics and i think some of the examples are in the book.
>>8459044
Thanks for the heads up.
Found a pdf. I'll see if I can't find anything.
>>8459118
>>8459044
I think I will use the example with kids instead of coins because I think that students may not consider the gender of a child as being random.
How do you guys do this? I mean I saw a lot of you guys learn math/chemistry/physics/comp.sci at the same time. How do you have so much time to learn all this stuff? And why don't you learn one particular area (for example only math) instead of learning others subjects like chemistry?
>>8458726
It's important to be well rounded.
>>8458726
They are just highschoolers and freshmen dreaming of becoming polymaths. They have just taken the intro courses.
>>8458726
We don't. You got the wrong impression.
Of course some people like to pretend they know multiple subjects. Combinations of phys, math, and cs are common. But they are just pretending.
Guys... my buddy just asked me why we can not just save an hour every day, like why that would be wrong and why we would not just gain an hour, he said he can not conceptualize it
And I am too dumb to explain it properly
How do I do that? Why is it not okay to just roll back an hour every day besides the world not catching up with us
>>8458652
Being up at 4am making chocolate pudding loses all meaning if we do that. I'm not ready to live in a world where memes die so easily.
because the day is 24 hours not 25 or 23
>>8458665
Actually the day is 23 hours 56 minutes and 4.1 seconds, if anything we should update our day measurements to reflect that.
Post your stupid questions here.
>>8458595
Why is algebraic geometry so boring
>>8458595
200 page book is 200$. Kek
If a closed thermodynamic system that measures 273.15 K gets heated by 26.85 °C, what temperature does it become?
/sci/
I'm able to find science relating to sex throughout species and have been reading quite a bit lately.
I'm constantly struggling to wrap my head around the news of multiple genders. I take the stance that either gender is measurable and definable or it's "how you feel" and should be dealt with as a belief / faith issue under secularism.
However I'm anxious that this is caveman thinking and there's real actual hard science about these "new" genders that I just don't know about. Can anyone offer some perspective or better yet some books / articles on the topic that aren't based on gender studies students' feelings?
>"how you feel" and should be dealt with as a belief / faith issue under secularism.
Hit the nail on the head.
There is no empirical evidence for the existence of "gender".
Sex is observable, it is objective, we can empirically observe it.
"Gender" is as real as leprechauns. Just because someone feels it exists doesn't mean it exists.
>>8458284
>tfw in your language both "gender" and "sex" are the same word with the same meaning
Gender isn't binary, but there's a good argument in favor of it being bidirectional and it's definitely bimodal.
>>8458314
what moonspeak is this, out of curiosity?
If the tiny extra spatial dimensions of string theory were macroscopic, how would chemistry and the electromagnetic force be affected?
>>8458190
Well the "size" of the dimensions are generally expressed in terms of string(/brane) coupling. So the "strength" of forces would be affected by changing the size of the compactified dimensions.
>he believes in string memetics
>>8459192
what else do you want to know?
Why is the fibonacci sequence in most IQ tests? Isn't this biased against non-mathematicians?f
>>8458153
Unbias 'IQ test': (http://iqtest.dk/main.swf).
>>8458153
>Fibonacci sequence is Pascal's triangle
NO
>>8458158
Look at the numbers that are colored red.
Hey, /sci/. I just got this email, and I was wondering if anyone had any books that could take me from knowing differential equations (and real analysis) to being able to do this.
I really would love an NSF fellowship, and I am working directly under this professor, so I think I could get this.
"BTW, if anyone knows of an undergraduate student capable of solving coupled non-linear second order partial differential equations in heterogeneous domains with discontinuous boundaries, please let me know. We would want to encourage this student to pursue an NSF fellowship."
>>8457951
hmmm.... how much algebraic geometry do you know?
>>8457959
I mean, not too much (i.e. nothing). Is that intimately related to a problem like this?
I thought Carl Sagan was smart why would he say something so dumb?
>>8457903
That's true though. Science is agnostic.
>>8457903
If he is using the formal definition of "evidence" the statement is fine. Under the colloquial definition of "evidence" it is dumb. He probably meant the formal definition of evidence meaning that statement would be like saying: "The fact that we have not seen an event which should increase or decrease our confidence in x does not indicate we should decrease our confidence in x".
I really have a feeling this can be completely solved..
I mean, you do basically have the positions of every cornerpoint
Nevermind, got it
>>8457861
The angles that make up the x in the middle are 130 + 130 + 50 + 70, which adds up to more than 360, yet it they are pieced together to form a circle.
>>8457898
130+70!=180
.
>>8457750
Lehninger
>>8457750
Voet and Voet is the standard for undergraduate-level biochemistry text books.
>tfw nano-scientist that is playing with universe makes less than some freelance designer that lands 10 jobs in a year
Why even bother with science? You can be an ignorant fool and earn more, even if you have 1% of brain you will become a freelancer so that you earn entire cake for yourself instead of working for some company
>this thread again
If you're doing it for the money, you're doing it wrong
>>8458581
Way to bump a dying thread.
>>8458581
Yeah I'm not doing it for the money but when I see that some idiot drawing emojis makes 10x what I make it really makes me question life
site designed specifically for sharing math riddles
enigmaticmathematics.com
>>8457720
fuck man that square question is really messing me up, anyone got a proof of that one?
>>8458493
I've been up 9 hours longer than I should have, I'll see if I can cook something up tomorrow.
https://www.crowdpondent.com/2016/11/05/the-end-of-hiv/
As amazing as CRISPR is, I've yet to see the study this article is talking about, or the application for the study.
>>8457393
HUMANITY FUCK YEAH
Does it help with ebola/herpes/congenitals/etc ?
what happened to the bee-venom thing