yes <- to Cytos

also
"medicine is statistics, not science"

paraphrasing

Why aren't physics or chemistry science? Because as far as we're aware there exists inherent randomization within the universe

those are sciences

On what basis?

you are dismissing the randomness of quantum again, which you can not predict what the spin will be

the fact you can reliably predict the outcome when you set detailed parameters

you can not on medicine

When you set detailed parameters you can

But the real world is not known, detailed parameters

okay just to set thigns straight

when talking about randomness and predictability in science

I want you to take a gun to a range and fire 10 shots with 0 spread in your groupings. Just use physics m8

If you can't do it, it's not a science

on the contrary, if you can't do it, you can set it as a basis for science that it can't be done (barring the infinite numbers argument)

the term "random" is jsut the coloquial term for stochasticy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic

which in essence means randomness but not as randomness is colloquially understood

You can't fire 10 shots on target exactly in a vacuum using a machine because you couldnt do it IRL in your meat body?

meat machines on mars

Sigh I think i made a mistake coming here...i forgot that however open minded this place is still slanted toward secular naturalism...so all that happened is that I wasted everyone's time sounding as far as they are concerned a complete idiot

Sorry

oof

you can do it on target in a vacuum in zero g

(true zero g)

you want a complete spread of all beliefs for you to want to be somewhere?

thats gay

secular naturalism

What's wrong with that?

you will never get that

I didn't realize I was a secular naturalist

nah i think its a "you don't agree with me so i'm leaving" thing Cytos

Right and that doesn't change the fact that you're only going to get a % success rate in a real world scenario

......
...

I mean, you're absolutely welcome here if you want to stay.

The fact that you're calling evidence a form of bias doesn't reflect well tbh

Like we can discuss how that study isn't proof at all

I can find middle ground

thats so PoMo

I am a naturalist for the most part

ieuw

@Ghostler hi sargon

But if you're just going to label and disregard there's no point

Just answer me this

I'm secular in the sense that I want state and church to be separated but I'm not anti-religious at all

42

Not even the muzzies

#noteven

Am i wrong for believing we are more then just glorified squishy robots?

@Ghostler agree seperation of state and religion

No.

Depends on what you mean by that statement

you're not right or wrong

it's too complex

yeeeee not like computers like we have them now

We haven't even properly mapped the brain

and Beemann

The science point of it
that using that test you can guarantee that when firing your bullets, you won't suddenly start getting side effects you can't predict beforehand

with medicine you can't predict that certainty

we dont have neat seperated specialized processors for functions

its all a blend

We sorta do

They do predict the options though

and we sorta don't

@Ghostler dude we cant even get trains to arrive on time

It's just that there are other chemical compounds at play

There are cortexes that align to operations

at which point we prolly are not talking computers anymore

I would say you're wrong in thinking the only two options are nihilism or spiritualism.

but they can be overridden which is really cool

I mean am i wrong in thinking that we are onlybour physical bodies?

Or not

but you can't predict with certainty which will hapen guaranteed,
In science you can, you can predict the outcome by correlating tests every time (barring the obvious anomaly)

not really

sure they allign, but brain action is a blend of sub functions of all cortexes and reptile and mammalian brain functions

and not exactly

But as for what you believe, no, that's yours to believe.

Not Just our physical bodies

I don't think you should jump the gun on either possibility

And I can't prove it either way.

You can't prove it

Since we don't know, we can't say you're wrong Mallic

exactly.

Maintain a little healthy skepticism with your faith

Hope is all we have

@Dr.Wol it's just chemistry, m8. I know A and B = C, but if you give me a vat of ??? Then I have to first figure out what's in it

you can not point to a piece of brain and say "there, that is the part where we process sight/consiousness/sound/movement/multiplication/etc etc

I suppose

it all blends

at which point you can not consider us a computer of the sort we know

thats just too radically different from how computers work

well outside of general right/left hemisphere processes

in most people

there are few that have very interlinked left/right hemisphereic processes

outside of musicians

it all is interlinked massively my dudaroo

yeah

its how we process the environment after all

i know im just saying that there are generalised areas of function

not that thet cant be linked