/sci/ - Science & Math

When will the war with transhumanists start?

Anyone here have experiencing threatening a PhD advisor with quitting unless you have the freedom to study areas you want to study?

I finished my MS but feel pretty much burnt out/dead, I was offered a PhD but after starting to do reading on the topic I'm not very interested in it.

Thinking about quitting.

For those who terminated their STEM PhD pursuit, what caused you to finally cut the cord?

Have any of you dropped out of a PhD program?

Why and do you regret it?

What happened to wildburger and his crusade to end measure theory?

>>11792193
>If you think that big government interferes in your life too much NOW, just wait till the government starts regulating the genetic constitution of your children. Such regulation will inevitably follow the introduction of genetic engineering of human beings, because the consequences of unregulated genetic engineering would be disastrous.

>The usual response to such concerns is to talk about “medical ethics.” But a code of ethics would not serve to protect freedom in the face of medical progress; it would only make matters worse. A code of ethics applicable to genetic engineering would be in effect a means of regulating the genetic constitution of human beings. Somebody (probably the upper-middle class, mostly) would decide that such and such applications of genetic engineering were “ethical” and others were not, so that in effect they would be imposing their own values on the genetic constitution of the population at large. Even if a code of ethics were chosen on a completely democratic basis, the majority would be imposing their own values on any minorities who might have a different idea of what constituted an “ethical” use of genetic engineering. The only code of ethics that would truly protect freedom would be one that prohibited ANY genetic engineering of human beings, and you can be sure that no such code will ever be applied in a technological society. No code that reduced genetic engineering to a minor role could stand up for long, because the temptation presented by the immense power of biotechnology would be irresistible, especially since to the majority of people many of its applications will seem obviously and unequivocally good (eliminating physical and mental diseases, giving people the abilities they need to get along in today’s world). Inevitably, genetic engineering will be used extensively, but only in ways consistent with the needs of the industrial- technological system.

>>11789451
>If the machines are permitted to make all their own decisions, we can’t make any conjectures as to the results, because it is impossible to guess how such machines might behave. We only point out that the fate of the human race would be at the mercy of the machines. It might be argued that the human race would never be foolish enough to hand over all power to the machines. But we are suggesting neither that the human race would voluntarily turn power over to the machines nor that the machines would willfully seize power. What we do suggest is that the human race might easily permit itself to drift into a position of such dependence on the machines that it would have no practical choice but to accept all of the machines’ decisions. As society and the problems that face it become more and more complex and as machines become more and more intelligent, people will let machines make more and more of their decisions for them, simply because machine-made decisions will bring better results than man-made ones. Eventually a stage may be reached at which the decisions necessary to keep the system running will be so complex that human beings will be incapable of making them intelligently. At that stage the machines will be in effective control. People won’t be able to just turn the machines off, because they will be so dependent on them that turning them off would amount to suicide.

What's the science behind indifference?

As in IDGAF?

>>11756711
>I’d blame it on air pollution from vehicle exhausts combined with the lights, sounds, and crowding myself.
>48. It is well known that crowding increases stress and aggression. The degree of crowding that exists today and the isolation of man from nature are consequences of technological progress. All pre-industrial societies were predominantly rural. The Industrial Revolution vastly increased the size of cities and the proportion of the population that lives in them, and modern agricultural technology has made it possible for the Earth to support a far denser population than it ever did before. (Also, technology exacerbates the effects of crowding because it puts increased disruptive powers in people’s hands. For example, a variety of noise- making devices: power mowers, radios, motorcycles, etc. If the use of these devices is unrestricted, people who want peace and quiet are frustrated by the noise. If their use is restricted, people who use the devices are frustrated by the regulations. But if these machines had never been invented there would have been no conflict and no frustration generated by them.)

Why are pajeets the only country which records all their university courses and posts them online?

Besides the shitty accent and terrible video quality said pajeets are actually better than American professors.

What happened to wildburger shitposting?

Or the category clowns?

How many of you have actually learned something independently?

Anyone ever not take a certain subject because they were afraid of fucking up their GPA?

I never took electrodynamics, I have a background in ML/CS/Math but always had a harder time with physics subjects and I didn't want to fuck up my GPA/transcript.

I'm somewhat regretting it now,

Can someone redpill me on the Wolpertinger algorithm?

>Machine Learning all the buz
>start learning about it

It's glorified optimization. Like why the fuck are people so excited about it?

95-99% of scientific "research" is make work projects for the researchers. They study incredibly obscure things and if they get results at all they are very, very narrow with almost always no applications to anything else.

Basically science is a vastly over-funded a self-sustaining industry and the peer-review nature of it isn't doing a good job of using money. You have groups of people approving each others research because they want their cash to keep coming.

Someone needs to clear house. I think if your research hasn't resulted in applications within a certain time frame you need to be cut-off and fired.

>>10103968
No, >>10103870 and >>10103983 are correct. The reason is because Ted built a lot of his primitivist philosophy around humanity ridding themselves of surrogate activities and returning to simplified lives oriented around survival and self-sufficiency. Keyword is "surrogate activities," which is meant to apply to activities that humanity arbitrarily assign meaning/purpose in their completion (think sports, luxury goods, the sciences, and non-baby mathematics) due to humanity no longer receiving any real purpose from self-sufficiency after the industrial revolution (think needing to store grain to not starve to death before winter arrives, something that is no longer an issue in the modern world). There's much, much more to why Ted hated modern society and the post-industrial revolution world, but that is the gist of what Ted thought in relation to existentialism.

What's the fastest way to get redpilled on electromagnetics?