x
Click to expand
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #4661 - billybeee (06/14/2015) [-]
If you go unconscious, you die.

Looking for a discussion / opinion on this.

Lets say you create a clone of yourself - atom for atom. Both you and the clone have identical memories, thoughts, feelings desires, etc - including the memory of creating the clone. Now imagine that you kill yourself. The clone takes your place in society, thinking it is the original you and goes on with its life. But in reality it was born a few minutes ago, and is not really the original you. So to summarize: there are two identical bodies, and two streams of consciousness that exist in them at the same time (until you kill yourself of course)

Now lets say you hit your head and you knock yourself out - you go unconscious. Your stream of consciousness is broken. Assuming what we call "unconscious" really means you are physically unconscious, now imagine your body wakes up. A new stream of consciousness begins. Is it really you waking up, or is it a new conscious entity that lives in your body, that believes it is you, but was really born the moment your body woke up? So to summarize: In this example - there is one body, but two streams of consciousness that exist in the body at separate times.

What do you think? If you truly go unconscious, do you die?
User avatar #4713 to #4661 - hatersghate (06/27/2015) [-]
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus


"Plutarch thus questions whether the ship would remain the same if it were entirely replaced, piece by piece. Centuries later, the philosopher Thomas Hobbes introduced a further puzzle, wondering what would happen if the original planks were gathered up after they were replaced, and used to build a second ship. Hobbes asked which ship, if either, would be considered the original Ship of Theseus."
User avatar #4715 to #4713 - billybeee (06/27/2015) [-]
not exactly what I was getting at... I guess it could transfer over to if you were able to upload your mind to a computer. Unless it's done somehow slowly and gradually it wouldn't be you anymore once it was uploaded
User avatar #4676 to #4661 - supahsayin (06/18/2015) [-]
I think of personal consciousness as a saved game.
You have had all that shit happen, you can make copies where all that shit has happened, but once one of those two saves are deleted, that particular save(memories, consciousness) is gone.
User avatar #4677 to #4676 - billybeee (06/18/2015) [-]
what do you think about the "you die if you go unconscious" thing?
User avatar #4679 to #4677 - supahsayin (06/18/2015) [-]
I feel it's more of a pause, than me dying forever. I remember the period before I feel asleep, and I'm conscious after the fact
User avatar #4668 to #4661 - leightonsolomon (06/17/2015) [-]
I see what you're saying, but for all intensive purposes most people would just consider death when all neurons stop firing in the brain. Being unconscious is probably what its like to be dead, but your body is still alive along with brain so I wouldnt really say it's the same.
User avatar #4669 to #4668 - billybeee (06/17/2015) [-]
What I was trying propose is: waking up from being unconscious is indistinguishable from killing yourself and letting a clone of you take your place in society
User avatar #4678 to #4669 - ohhh (06/18/2015) [-]
Even if you get knocked there are still things firing in the brain. You are still there. Just knocked out. What you're are saying is like saying if i turn a PC off and back on will the programs in it technically be different? The answer is no. IF all brain function, "you" in a sense, did stop. Than you're brain dead. The human brain is an abyss of data, trillions to quadrillions of synapses, hundreds of billions of neurons. And much more, something is always firing unless something makes you completely brain dead.
User avatar #4683 to #4678 - billybeee (06/19/2015) [-]
What i'm saying is nothing like your computer example. With a computer, the hardware and software is still there. It continues where it left off once it is turned back on.

Just like the computer, when a human wakes up from being unconscious, the body also starts off where it left off so to speak, since your memories and feelings etc are still just neural connections. But the difference comes from the fact that there is a new state of consciousness when you wake up. Turning the computer on and off is the same as cloning yourself atom for atom, and then killing yourself and letting the clone take your place. When the clone wakes up, it will believe it is you, it continues where you left off, but it is an entire new entity.

Im no expert in neuroscience, but I know that the majority of brain function is only present in the evolutionary older part of the brain when you are unconscious. Which is of course responsible for breathing, heart rate, etc. AKA what are unconscious and lower level functions to begin with.

If what we call "unconscious" is true to its definition, then when you wake up it is an entire new stream of consciousness that is present. which is analogous to creating the clone that is identical to you then killing yourself, letting the clone take your place
User avatar #4684 to #4683 - ohhh (06/19/2015) [-]
Honestly i don't know what you mean by "Knew stream of consciousness". Because it's not recognized by any branch of science i know. It's still you, same stuff, same everything. You can change, sure, but it will always be you.
User avatar #4686 to #4684 - billybeee (06/19/2015) [-]
Lets say you create a clone of yourself. It is identical to you, atom for atom. Both you and the clone have the memory of creating the clone.

For a moment in time that clone is exactly identical to you. It has the same stuff, and the same everything. Both you and the clone would be unable to determine which one of you were the original you. You both believe you are 20 years old, when in reality one of you is a few minutes old.

So would you agree that that clone is an entire different conscious entity than you, even though it has the same memories, feelings, thoughts, stuff, everything, as you?
User avatar #4687 to #4686 - ohhh (06/19/2015) [-]
Oh i think i see what you are getting at. Truth is no one knows what consciousness is. Is it perception, is it all those neurons and synapses, is it simply the info of which those hold and they are the medium of which we express ourselves through? Is it all of that? Who knows. Isn't consciousness waves? Much like brainwaves? I don't know. I think consciousness is info, i think the data is you. An that data you compile is constantly being transferred rather than copied. I view it as sending a game to someone over the internet, not copying it than sending it, but just sending the game. It's still the same game. Just a different "Medium" for it to be "expressed through".
0
#4685 to #4684 - billybeee has deleted their comment [-]
0
#4682 to #4678 - billybeee has deleted their comment [-]
#4660 - Rascal (06/14/2015) [-]
Why autism is not real
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBqedEda2Ek
User avatar #4662 to #4660 - raeptiemx (06/14/2015) [-]
that was the king of /autism/ he's trying to cover up the existence of the board
#4658 - Rascal (06/12/2015) [-]
Is this true for most of them? Like Chalcopyrite?
User avatar #4659 to #4658 - unforgivenfive (06/13/2015) [-]
no. there are a bunch of stones that look like semi precious crystals that are sold as such though.

the stone you mentioned isnt as well as known as lets say a quartz/amethyst/citirine (which are ALL quartz anyway)
0
#4657 - headlessmamii has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #4655 - sideism (06/10/2015) [-]
I know this may seem like an autisitic question, but can you effectively knock down or knockout a person in armor using just your bare hands/feet in real life?
User avatar #4656 to #4655 - sugoi (06/11/2015) [-]
Depends on the armor.
Give em a concussion and it's all good, punch em just right in the head and they're down. Depending on how heavy the armor is you could probably trip em up and get them on the floor quite easily.
We talking ballistic vest or fucking medieval all up in this bitch?
User avatar #4654 - alekksandar (06/10/2015) [-]
do kids explode if they eat too much chocolate, /science/ ?
User avatar #4644 - loltrosity ONLINE (06/08/2015) [-]
I need help /science/

In my apartment the AC barely works and in the summer it gets around 87 F in most of my place, and the landlord hasn't bothered to do shit. Anyone here know of any ideas to use like thermodynamics or something to lower the temperature?
User avatar #4689 to #4644 - magicalsteve ONLINE (06/19/2015) [-]
Idk about thermodynamics but if you use a regular fan and put like a wet washcloth on the back of it then it cools the room down incredibly well
User avatar #4646 to #4644 - abbieru (06/09/2015) [-]
You need an energy input to move heat around and make it cooler

Either repair the AC or get a fan.
Also puting something damp in front of the AC might work
User avatar #4645 to #4644 - skoldpaddacommala (06/08/2015) [-]
Get a portable swamp cooler if it's a mostly dry heat.
Or take the less science-y route and threaten to sue your landlord cause that's his/her fucking job. Don't take their shit!
User avatar #4643 - shaunata ONLINE (06/07/2015) [-]
which trees put out more oxygen? Conifers or deciduous trees?
User avatar #4649 to #4643 - nimba (06/09/2015) [-]
Per tree or sum total for either population?
User avatar #4650 to #4649 - shaunata ONLINE (06/09/2015) [-]
Lets say, One conifer tree vs one deciduous. Say you wanted to cut down on green house gasses, so I guess really, my question is What absorbs the most CO2, and what releases the most O2 biproduct.
User avatar #4651 to #4650 - nimba (06/09/2015) [-]
Two approaches I can think of; mathematically and experimentally. The mathematic solution requires a heap of assumptions that wouldn't make a great deal of sense and the experimental would require a lot more effort but still makes an assumption about what you consider typical of each category.
a) figure out the average chloroplast content per photosynthetic cell from either
b) from there work out the average number of chloroplasts per average tree of each category with the idea that more chloroplasts = more O2
c) give up because it requires so many assumptions that it's meaningless

You'd have to come up with the 'average' size tree of each category.
Experimentally you could do a submerged bubble test to collect and measure oxygen output. Obiously submerging a whole tree would be problematic let alone enough to make a good experiment but saplings or cuttings could suffice. Find the average output per leaf of each category, multiply by the average number of leaves on a mature tree and compare.
User avatar #4642 - zonetransferrer (06/07/2015) [-]
what are your thoughts about wollfram mathematica and matlab? what are the main differencies and wich one would you rather choose? i had some lectures about wolfram but didn't gave me much other than interest. is it good idea to go to group tutorials rather than selflearning? And at the end, what do you think about TeX, is it necessary to know how to use it for advance in studies and beeing competent student / worker?
#4623 - bwiedieter (06/06/2015) [-]
If anyone who is proficient in Chemistry reads this, I´d appreciate a little bit of your time.   
See comment >>#4612. I´ve been wondering this for quite some time now, and i can´t find a solution.   
Thanks, bros!
If anyone who is proficient in Chemistry reads this, I´d appreciate a little bit of your time.
See comment >>#4612. I´ve been wondering this for quite some time now, and i can´t find a solution.
Thanks, bros!
#4617 - minibeep (06/05/2015) [-]
just like some dogs are smarter than other dogs
white people are smarter than gorillas
User avatar #4615 - trenchman (06/04/2015) [-]
Hey guys, just a little backstory, and then a few questions:
I'm currently finishing up Sophomore year at UCSD as a Political Science/Public Law major (school provided if anyone wants to take a look at the CompSci Minor and Major requirements to better pass judgement on the questions below), and had originally planned to study law. Having seen the horrific job prospects in that industry, though, I decided to take the intro level Comp Sci class (CSE11) and enjoyed it quite a lot. That being said, I am considering moving towards a Comp Sci minor or even a double major. I have yet to start the mathematics series required, but will take it along with everything else.
My questions are the following:
-Would a PoliSci major with a CompSci minor (mathematics included) and demonstrated private interest (e.g., a github account full of personal projects) be able to get into the industry as a low-level code monkey or other software developer?
-If this is possible, what do you recommend I do to really beef up my prospects of being noticed and employed?
-If a minor is not enough, is it worth taking another year at university (making it five years total) to get that double major?
-My parents, who are financing around half of my tuition (the other half being financial aid) don't believe this is a smart move and are strongly urging me to "play to my strengths" of writing and speech and go to Law School. How could I potentially win an argument with them about the usefulness of CompSci and convince them that the extra workload and time would be worth it (this question hinges mainly on it being a major, if that's necessary)?
-Finally, what topics/concepts do you recommend studying on the side to improve my employability?
I've been in a bad place this past week or so, thinking about my future and how to make myself marketable. I don't care about being a big shot or rich, but merely paying the bills and living my life.
All answers- even sarcastic or negative ones- are appreciated. You guys rock!
User avatar #4635 to #4615 - nought (06/06/2015) [-]
personally I would not like law people working in comp sci, judging by how they act only do it if you love it
#4624 to #4615 - Rascal (06/06/2015) [-]
where are you from? hod does your school system works? beacause i undestand none of it. and for your question which i don't remember already, at the end of high school i was convinced do become a director, but i had no film and no one to shot it with so i decided to go on movie history and theathre histor. but after thinking it out i ended up at chemistry university. i known nothing and at high school did not pay attention but i made it to the end of 2nd year. And even if this may sound egoistic, i think i am better than some who studied sciences more than me, lot of theese people cant get through 2nd year and still has some unfinished classes from first year. just bite your tounge and go hard. and if you are shy to ask something like i am most of the times, remember what you wanted to know and then do research on your own. believe me, you will get to the right answer. But sometimes i have depressions ( only sometimes ) and i long for movie making and studying that shit, now i don't have time for it but i plan to do something about it cause it eats me.
User avatar #4614 - alexanderburns ONLINE (06/03/2015) [-]
you think since the star wars movies happened a long long time ago
we could find the galaxy where they happened and see the events through telescopes now since it's so far far away
User avatar #4616 to #4614 - raeptiemx (06/04/2015) [-]
Maybe the all pepsi
The empire was holding them all together but noo someone wanted a republic
User avatar #4611 - sergife (06/03/2015) [-]
i dunno where to post it but fk it.
i want the bird sound thats is similar to this
www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNJ7JOoX8u4

thx
#4607 - bwiedieter (06/03/2015) [-]
I just want you lot to know that I love the fact that this board still exists, even though it is 98% pepsi.
Wish it was more active. I vow to check in at least once a day from now on.
User avatar #4599 - nimba (06/02/2015) [-]
If swimming's such a good exercise, how come whales are so fat?
If nothing ever sticks to TEFLON, how do they make TEFLON stick to the pan?
User avatar #4647 to #4599 - abbieru (06/09/2015) [-]
Whales need energy reserves to move all that body, but they're mostly fat, not big.

TEFLON is not everything-repellant, it does stick to some compounds under certain pressures and temperatures, so that's how they manufacture pans
User avatar #4636 to #4599 - nought (06/06/2015) [-]
whales move through water efficiently
i am guessing for teflon it can be applied and then cured
User avatar #4600 to #4599 - raeptiemx (06/02/2015) [-]
if glue is so adhesive how come it doesn't stick to the tube huh?
You're asking the important questions here mate. I've got the answer it's the illuminati
User avatar #4637 to #4600 - nought (06/06/2015) [-]
for glue to be adhesive it has to have lots of surface area in contact with air (spreading it)
User avatar #4641 to #4637 - nimba (06/06/2015) [-]
probs illuminati
User avatar #4640 to #4637 - raeptiemx (06/06/2015) [-]
Illuminati sounds more reasonable thanks for the input
User avatar #4601 to #4600 - nimba (06/02/2015) [-]
oh my gosh
#4596 - lulzforalpsplane (06/02/2015) [-]
If:
-lines make up the 2D and planes make up the 3D equivalent of a line
-and 2 non-parallel planes always intersect in the form of line

Does that mean you can apply the same for higher dimensions?

As in the 4D, or 5D will have its equivalent to a line in 2D just like the plane is. And does that mean intersections between these will yield the equivalent of a dimension below them? ie - two 4Ds will intersect to form a plane (infinite POIs in the plane)

Someone get what I'm trying to say?
User avatar #4638 to #4596 - nought (06/06/2015) [-]
yes
#4603 to #4596 - bwiedieter (06/03/2015) [-]
You can have 3 spatial dimensions plus 1 time dimension, or 4 spatial dimensions.
You can achieve the latter by making (just as an example) two simple 3D cubes and then joining every point with its respective counterpart in the other cube. Boom, you have a 4D object viewed in 3D space. Higher dimensions mean (in its simplest terms) more cubes that you set into relation to each other.
For 3+1 (3 spatial + 1 time-dimension), you take your original cube, and then just "drag it" by a vector of your choice, so that the former cube fills all the space between your staring points and end points.
User avatar #4602 to #4596 - xsnowshark (06/03/2015) [-]
Every line that represents a dimension must be orthogonal to all the other lines (ie. at 90 degrees to all other lines).

You could have a picture where lines make up higher dimensions, but I'm not sure how you would visualize it.
User avatar #4587 - shaunata ONLINE (05/31/2015) [-]
So there is a theory that the atomic bomb testing we did in the 40's was the influence as to why cancer became more common in the 60's and beyond. Any thoughts on this?
User avatar #4648 to #4587 - abbieru (06/09/2015) [-]
No, radiactivity levels are not hazardous enough to have a significant raise in cancer levels, they did the testing under controlled distances and circumstances.

This video goes away from the topic a bit, but it's good to get a hang of it
www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRL7o2kPqw0
User avatar #4639 to #4587 - nought (06/06/2015) [-]
well, given there is no evidence of radioactivity for most people with cancer, I don't see any evidence supporting that
User avatar #4590 to #4587 - skoldpaddacommala (06/01/2015) [-]
What kinda of cancers? Like lung/throat cancers? Cause there were quite a few hippies during that time, all smoking away like there was no tomorrow. Could be other factors as well. Production of processed foods takes off and gets more advanced. We become lazier and more gluttonous. Plus, technology to identify and treat cancers are always improving. Especially when we reach the atomic age where we utilize electromagnetism to peer into a human body.

If the atomic bombs had any influence on the statistics of cancer, it would only be because of the people America dropped the bombs on.
User avatar #4594 to #4590 - shaunata ONLINE (06/01/2015) [-]
They say cancers in general. But brain cancer and breast cancer is the most discussed one in regards to nuclear testing.
#4588 to #4587 - raeptiemx (05/31/2015) [-]
Cancer increased due to various reasons with most important being early diagnosis and treatment compared to back in the days when people realized something went wrong when they had seizures and/or kept on bleeding through all of their orifices. Also the boom occurred someone might say due to the increased stressful life that everyone had to put up with in the big cities.
Also let's not forget that we're getting older and thus our chances of getting cancer get higher since the body is filled with DNA errors/short telomeres/mitosis gone wrong/weak immune system prone to cancerous formations.
We realized that smoking is indeed very detrimental to health and we see it from all the people in the hospitals with oropharyngeal/lung cancer.
Let's also not forget that cancer is a group of diseases with different causes (environmental and or genetic)
and thus it feels like the atomic bomb theory is not that solid.
Besides the Manhattan project helped us with radioisotopes in diagnosis of cancer.

User avatar #4589 to #4588 - shaunata ONLINE (05/31/2015) [-]
I can see why all those factors contribute to the cancer statistic we have today, and we do live in a stressful society, this can only weaken the immune system and create more DNA damage, thanks for input.
User avatar #4595 to #4589 - dudeheit (06/01/2015) [-]
And Keep in mind that while growing older your cells doesn't divide as fast as they used to be, meaning: just because someone who has cancer at the age of 90 can die a natural death because he was just simply to old and not because of his spreading cancer - just a side note but raeptiemx did a good summary
#4586 - phanactssonjoe (05/30/2015) [-]
do you think we already met intelligent life but they're not telling? like the rule of not to tell the public because they dont think we can handle it
User avatar #4714 to #4586 - mookiea (06/27/2015) [-]
I'd be pissed to be honest. I would love to meat some other intelligent lifeforms. I would love to explore the universe and witness the beauty of different planets. I'm ready alien peoples. take me.
User avatar #4652 to #4586 - gmarrox (06/10/2015) [-]
The Fermi Paradox is a good explanation as to why that's highly unlikely.
User avatar #4597 to #4586 - nimba (06/02/2015) [-]
no
User avatar #4591 to #4586 - sugoi (06/01/2015) [-]
So basically men in black?
#4593 to #4591 - phanactssonjoe (06/01/2015) [-]
the government cause theyre the ones that would know
#4585 - dvmaster (05/29/2015) [-]
Anybody knows about good books about permutations, combinations, and probabilty?? I have an exam on Wednesday and I'd like to read more about it.
#4604 to #4585 - bwiedieter (06/03/2015) [-]
Books no, but I can heartily recommend the videos from Numberphile (Brady Haran and Prof. James Grime), e.g. the ones on decifering Enigma.
In general, everything from the University of nottingham is 100% worth a watch if you don´t already know them.
 Friends (0)