ITT post real scientific facts, theories and hypotheses that you find unsettling, creepy or overall mysterious

ITT post real scientific facts, theories and hypotheses that you find unsettling, creepy or overall mysterious

>/x/-tier garbage like chemtrails, HAARP, UFOs certainly not welcome

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/wfYbgdo8e-8
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_hand_syndrome
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Attractor
youtube.com/watch?v=e5nCiqOHnxM
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

KIC 8463852

things I find creepy are events in earth's history for which there is no conclusive explanation

for instance, chemostratigraphy shows enormous negative and positive excursions in the δ13C at the end of the Permian. They're the biggest spikes in the entire phanerozoic and the Carbon-values are generally all over the place until they spontaneously stabilize in the middle of the Triassic.
Geologists have yet to determine the source of these excursions.

Moloch worship by the global elites

Gravity. Not even Newton know what causes gravity.

The fact that the end of permian mass extinction is still unexplained is creepy as fuck desu

>. It is the Earth's most severe known extinction event, with up to 96% of all marine species[5][6] and 70% of terrestrial vertebrate species becoming extinct.[7] It is the only known mass extinction of insects.[8][9] Some 57% of all families and 83% of all genera became extinct.

No exact cause known

some weird shit was going on back then

we know that massive volcanism took place at the same time, but even that (as big as it may have been) isn't enough to explain the geologic and chemical features.

For a certain time, all evidence of forests disappear, with significant coal deposits vanishing until well into the Triassic. There is also evidence of massive erosion and the strata just above the P-Tr-Boundary is pyrite-rich (which hints at an absence of oxygen), void of life and without any bioturbation.

Probably those damned immigrants

Can you dumb this down for non-geology fags? I'm a mathfag and I have no idea what you're talking about.

God?

Fermi paradox

Planck-length and Planck-time

Thermodynamic laws govern your neural interaction

>Planck-length and Planck-time
Fucking this. The idea that the universe essentially has a resolution limit makes me very uneasy.

It's not the universe, it's the scale at which we can do experiments

That the human organism is an organic robotic machine which houses molecular replicators, whose on board computer has developed self-awareness.

That awareness is resultant of a particular series of interrelated structures formed by neural networks in the brain the exact nature of which we do not currently understand and our perception of reality is merely an internal simulation.

That we are animals whose behaviour is governed by genetic and environmental programming, stored in the form of particular nucleotide arrangements and neural networks that correspond to our genetic code and an array of psychological mechanisms crafted by the evolutionary processes of natural selection.

That these psychological mechanisms govern an array of behavioural programs, which developed in response to the adaptive problems humans faced throughout their evolutionary history.

That cultures and societies are the manifestations of genetic programming interacting with a wide range of external environments over time.

That from the roaming bands of prehistory, to the economically and technologically specialised civilisations of today, our societies are built upon the foundations of our evolutionary programming.

That, as is the case with most primates, human societies are hierarchical in nature and largely organised around the desires of the socially dominant, whose power is denoted by financial wealth; these desires are of course not specific to the socially dominant and are primarily related to social prestige, resource acquisition and familial prosperity, otherwise known as kin altruism, to name a few.

That our intelligence is employed for the purpose of completing a smorgasbord of dopamine mediated goal pursuit programs, the nature of which very few ever think to question.

That perhaps my penchant for alcohol [read: alcoholism] is in part due to its correlation with ripe fruit and our frugivorous past.

>pic related

The implication that there is a second consciousness inside of you that operates independently
youtu.be/wfYbgdo8e-8

okay, that's scary

There is, but you can communicate with it

Not sure how much this is pseudo-science, bro-science, pop-science

But I think there are two me. There's one that's more rational and cold, and there's me. The rational and cold always tell me I am stupid when I am wasting time and such.

While the phenomenon is real, the framing used in this video is misleading.

Perhaps it counts as /x/-tier, but quantum immortality. The idea of being physically prevented from dying, because there's always some universe where I'm conscious (never mind what state the rest of my body is in) makes me hope that the many-worlds interpretation is bullshit.

That's really not how it works unless you're literally a split-brain patient. When your brain hemispheres are able to communicate normally (i.e. the "wire" mentioned in the video isn't severed), they form a collective consciousness, sort of like a two-component hive mind. This is why people who've sustained substantial trauma localised to one hemisphere often undergo personality changes.

pop-"science" needs to die

Entropy always increases

Yes, yes it does.

elaborate, please

Molecular biofag here, I'm not well versed on the subject at all, but from my reading and understanding of the topic, it's most likely a combination of factors that caused the extinction, not just volcanism alone for example, right?

It could be for instance, that volcanism led to high carbon dioxide which led to very high temperatures through global warming and anoxia in the oceans, which in turn killed most oxygen-dependent marine life and opened the niche for sulfate bacteria and archaea to produce hydrogen sulfide and poison terrestrial life, which would explain the absence of forests. Plus the excess hydrogen sulfide could weaken the ozone layer according to wikipedia and contribute to the lethality of the event as the cherry on top.

But what parts of the permian event would remain unexplained by such a combination of theories for example? Really interesting to try to fit models like this into the data that we have from the extinction era.

I remember seeing this in a House MD episode some years ago, lel

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_hand_syndrome
for anyone who might want to read more

what's the difference?

It's about measurements

you might have heard of the δ18O analysis, where we measure the ratio of 16O-atoms to 18O-atoms in ice or carbonate rocks, which tells us something about the temperature conditions when the ice or carbonate rocks were deposited.

With δ13C we look at the ratio of 13C-atoms to 12C-atoms. This tells us something about the carbon cycle at that time, though it isn't as straight-foward as δ18O because there are many different processes that determine the deposition of 12C to 13C atoms. Among them are primary production (=photosynthesis), volcanic exhalation of CO2, methane release and oxidation of organic matter.

For example: organism preferentially take up the lighter 12C atom. This means with high primary production, a lot of 12C atoms are bound within the metabolism of the organisms, which in turn means that (marine) rocks that form at that time are comparatively heavy (i.e. have a higher number of 13C-atoms). If however a lot of organisms die and the primary production falls very rapidly, more 12C atoms are free to be incorporated into the rocks, which makes them comparatively heavy.

This is just one example, another significant one is methane, which is very light. Therefore if a lot of methane is released from bogs or from the continental shelfs, the sedimentary rocks that form will be lighter.

The thing with the changes in δ13C at the end of the Permian is, that they are so massive (strongest in the entire phanerozoic) and come in such a rapid succession, that geologists have yet to make sense of the process that would produce this signature. Insane amounts of CO2 and methane would have to been released as well as buried again at incredible speeds.
As mentioned in other posts, a lot of other weird things were happening at the same time. If you ask stratigraphers and geologists, most of them will just say that it was a "large-sclae perturbation of the carbon cycle" which isn't very precise.

Yes, let's kill the thing that boosts interest in science by dumbing it down a little for the masses. We should only make videos/magazines showing the actual study to show how riveting it is and not explaining the future use of it.

Did you watch the video?

That's not dumbing down. That's just lying.

Are you really sure? I mean the two consciousnesses can communicate but that doesn't really mean that they are one while connected. The evidence is that in split brain patients the right hemisphere acts as an independent consciousness.
Sure if right brain feels like doing something and communicates it to left brain you know why you're doing a certain thing and are not surprised at your own actions, but it doesn't really change that you have two consciousnesses that receive and proceed information differently.
If the least we can take from this it's that your subconsciousness should isn't that much "sub" as rather mute and should get a little more credit and consideration when discussing behaviour.

Most people I believe pictute their subconscious as something dormant that doesn't really play an active role, bit as split brain patients prove, the subconscious really is capable of doing active decisions

That's pretty interesting user
Does someone has an academic opinion/article about this?

>mfw Aliums are real
>mfw Earth is an artificially teraformed (aliumformed) planet

What was it lying about? Elaborate.

>two consciousnesses
define

Thanks user, that does raise some big questions.

Frame it in a better way then

b..but.. the normies want it senpai

further proof there is no external consciousness, and that consciousness is merely an organic process.

Consciousness:

>the state or quality of awareness, or, of being aware of an external object or something within oneself.

There's still one 'consciousness'; however, it becomes aware that it is not guiding all of its actions.

It's a structural change that results in increased subjective awareness, relating to how we operate.

We do not make decisions, we simply draw up explanations for the actions after they have already been executed.

This phenomenon allows an individual a subjective insight into the illusion of free will.

Therefore, it is rather creepy.

An entity that can receive imformation, process, understand and respond

o fug

Why the need for a "consciousness" to explain your own actions?
Your eloboration doesn't really explain why consciousness does what it does.

Also consciousness doesn't just explain your past actions. It's also able to deduce, plan future actions and reflect

By that definition, my laptop is consciouss.

Nice try, user.

Split brain patients are a special case and in no way indicative of the state of things in "healthy" minds. Otherwise the phenomenon would show up outside of the very specific conditions in which it's currently observed.

Anyway, personality shifts in people who have had significant portions of one of their brain hemispheres destroyed (or the hemispheres have been severed - I wonder why this is'nt mentioned at all in the video) is fairly well documented. It strongly implies that consciousness is a composite process distinct from any of its individual components.

Also, I'm not sure you entirely understand what the subconscious actually is.

>can be traced back to the Cambrian
>still can be found today
>no one knows what it is
>trace fossil?
>burrow?
>impression of organism?

fugggggg

Your laptop cannot "understand" though

"Understand" is not a meaningful word

You can understand what I wrote. Your laptop cannot.

State of the art natural language processing begs to differ.

>why the need for a "consciousness" to explain your own actions?

Why did consciousness evolve?

Well, we do not currently understand how consciousness arises as we do not have a complete neural map of the brain; however, it is not guaranteed that once we do have such a map, that consciousness will be immediately understood.

The technology and data processing techniques pertinent to this field are advancing every year, however.

To indulge in informed surmising, it is possible that consciousness is a spandrel; that is to say, a by-product of other evolved mechanisms.

In this respect, it would be viewed as an emergent property.

>also consciousness doesn't just explain your past actions.

That is not what the available experimental data indicates.

>It's also able to deduce, plan future actions and reflect

Again, this is where the illusion comes into play.

All available evidence indicates that we do no such thing; we merely think that we do.

Essentially, consciousness is an internal simulation and free will is merely an illusion.

Understand:

>1. perceive the intended meaning of (words, a language, or a speaker).

>2. interpret or view (something) in a particular way.

Yes it can, user.

does anyone know anything about "Dark Flow"?

according to wikipedia it's an unexplained acceleration of several galaxy clusters towards a point beyond the cosmic light horizon

also gives me the chills:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Attractor

Yes and it is a little creepy.

>Zorg the consumer of galaxies is coming for us all

A bunch of comets in all probability.

not really, that was discarded by the most recent paper

>All available evidence indicates that we do no such thing; we merely think that we do.

I'm currently planning how I'll spend the rest of my day. How the fuck is this an illusion?

>I'm currently planning how I'll spend the rest of my day.

The planning is being undertaken by what some call the subconscious and then being fed into an internal simulation, which we recognise as consciousness.

>How the fuck is this an illusion?

It’s an illusion insofar as you believe there is a ‘you’ that has a ‘choice’.

You are an organic machine performing computations and running programs/subroutines, which operates on an input-output/stimulus-response basis.

The conscious experience and notion of free will are illusory in that respect.

That is most definitely /x/-tier shit. Anything with the belief that consciousness isn't integrated within an organic framework is /x/

How can the planning be subsconscious if I can actively create a list of things I'm going to do? That's not created by outside stimuli or against my control. It's not reactionary.

>A simulation
A simulation of what? And what exactly would perceive and process that simulation?

How you decide to spend the rest of your day is already pre-determined by the events and conditions leading up to the moment of you making the decision. Your act of planning is mostly your consciousness observing some of the deterministic factors that contribute to the inevitability of that choice.

Even if you decide to do something different hat you were going to to show that fucking user that you do indeed have a free choice, in reality it will have been influenced by this post.

Have a nice day, though.

do you have a link (or maybe a quick explanation why coments were dismissed)?

>How can the planning be subsconscious if I can actively create a list of things I'm going to do?

The list is created before you are aware of it, as is the decision to pursue one of a range of potential goals.

The decisions are made before you are aware of 'making' them.

>A simulation of what?

A simulation of conscious experience.

>And what exactly would perceive and process that simulation?

We do not currently know how consciousness arises.

That's an ergo hoc ergo propter hoc.
Just because outside influences can influence your decisions doesn't mean they only happen because of outside influences.
Just as I can choose to change my decision because of your post I can choose to completely ignore your post and stick with my original decision regardless or change it because of deciding to take more time thinking about my plans and coming to a different conclusion by having a longer and deeper thought about it completely independent from anything I've experienced today.

>Consciousness is an illusion
>but there is a something that we do not understand that thinks it has a consciousness because it pretends to have one

Really you're just moving the problem to another layer where you can answer any question with "we don't know".

All you're really arguing is that consciousness is a lot more complex than one might assume and has way more layers to it, but nothing proved that it"s non-existent

>
Just as I can choose to change my decision because of your post I can choose to completely ignore your post and stick with my original decision regardless or change it because of deciding to take more time thinking about my plans and coming to a different conclusion by having a longer and deeper thought about it completely independent from anything I've experienced today.

It is not based on your experiences of today.

You can't ignore all of the genetic and environmental programming you have recieved over the course of your life.

That is ultimately what decides how you behave.

As the other user said, you then observe:

>some of the deterministic factors that contribute to the inevitability of that choice

That obervation/simulation is consiousness.

>but there is a something that we do not understand that thinks it has a consciousness because it pretends to have one

Nobody said anything remotely like that.

I specifically defined consciousness and refuted the statement that there are 'two conscious agents' as the video implied:

>All you're really arguing is that consciousness is a lot more complex than one might assume and has way more layers to it

No, I'm saying exactly what I'm saying if you'd care to read my posts properly.

>but nothing proved that it"s non-existent

Nobody said consciousness is non-existent.

You either haven't read my posts properly or are a little slow.

Perhaps both.

You don't understand. There are nothing but outside influences. Your brain is essentially a very complex difference engine: the only thing it does is process input. It's not capable of producing a truly independent action. Absolutely everything that happens in there is a response to outside stimuli. Those stimuli may not necessarily be based on sensory perceptions of things happening at that very moment. Sometimes those stimuli initiate processees that go on for very long periods of time - possibly for your entire life. Your consciousness is composed of a very large number of such processes.

Your entire life is already pre-determined. Your subjective self is only there for the ride.

>Your entire life is already pre-determined. Your subjective self is only there for the ride

Well said.

HOLY FUCK THEY FOUND THE COLLECTOR'S BASE

You literally cannot prove that and you never will be able to. Heck quantum processes literally are based on chance and are unpredictable so really the only thing that you can prove is that nothing is predetermined and even if it were chaos theory dictates that arbitrarily complex become so chaotic that even IF there was a way to literally acquire every single piece of information it would be impossible to calculate the outcome

Paleodictyon nodosum

Guys what is this?

>it would be impossible to calculate the outcome
For you.

I knew this was coming.

>You literally cannot prove that and you never will be able to.

The brain is a computer that performs both analogue and digital computations.

It relies on genetic and environmental programming in order to operate.

The available data indicates that decisions are made before we become aware of them.

What can’t we prove?

>Heck quantum processes literally are based on chance
>and are unpredictable so really the only thing that you can prove is that nothing is predetermined

Only if you accept the Copenhagen Interpretation; however, QM is far from complete and there are several competing interpretations.

>even if it were chaos theory dictates that arbitrarily complex become so chaotic that even IF there was a way to literally acquire every single piece of information it would be impossible to calculate the outcome

Yes user, calculate an outcome.

That means that we wouldn’t be able to calculate a person’s behaviour by taking note of every single aspect of genetic and environmental programming and discerning their interactions and subsequent effects.

That doesn’t mean that our behaviour isn’t determined by genetic and environmental programming.

This.

>We are predetermined robotic machines
>We can determine a persons future behaviour

Not even slightly the same thing.

Clathrate gun hypothesis;
youtube.com/watch?v=e5nCiqOHnxM
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis

How has no one posted this???

There's already an entire thread about it

He's too dumb to get it

>Guy McPherson
almost immediately discarded
there are better sources than him, user...

This effected both the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum 56 million years ago, and most notably the Permian–Triassic extinction event, when up to 96% of all marine species became extinct, 252 million years ago

Yeah,user, history will repeat its self, and we will all be killed by a giant fart. :^)

Just to recap we know how gravity works, how we're kept from flying away, but not how it's created?

I mostly agree with you. I think that we are just made up of atoms that act deterministically. I don't think our brain has programs and subroutines' and I don't think there is even close to enough evidence about these things to correct people and state your opinion as fact

One thing that has always bothered me is the idea of a fine Fine-Tuned universe.

For example; N, the ratio of the strength of electromagnetism to the strength of gravity for a pair of protons, is approximately 1036. According to Rees, if it were significantly smaller, only a small and short-lived universe could exist.


Things like this make me believe in a higher power.

This reminds me of Kafka for some reason

>if it were significantly smaller, only a small and short-lived universe could exist.
These universes died before they could reproduce by black holes, obviously.

>I don't think our brain has programs and subroutines' and I don't think there is even close to enough evidence

Well then you clearly haven't looked into it, user.

There are pleny of cross-cultural studies that indicate the presence of universal psychological mechanisms.

In addition to this, several of these mechanisms appear to be present among other species.

It just explains the universes fined tuned nature and for the existence of humanity ! Another example; Omega (Ω), commonly known as the density parameter, is the relative importance of gravity and expansion energy in the Universe. It is the ratio of the mass density of the Universe to the "critical density" and is approximately 1. If gravity were too strong compared with dark energy and the initial metric expansion, the universe would have collapsed before life could have evolved. On the other side, if gravity were too weak, no stars would have formed.

Yes, i agree this whole theory sounds like a natural selection of the universes, but i choose to believe there is more behind it.

>It just explains the universes fined tuned nature and for the existence of humanity
Meteors always fall in craters. Craters were created for the meteors!

Finely tuned is nothing more than every other possibility having been tried.

I actually just changed my entire argument. Life is "fine tuned" and adapts to variables the forth by the universe.

The change of heart came about after reading this quote, "We have no reason to believe that our kind of carbon-based life is all that is possible. Furthermore, modern cosmology theorises that multiple universes may exist with different constants and laws of physics. So, it is not surprising that we live in the one suited for us. The Universe is not fine-tuned to life; life is fine-tuned to the Universe."

it makes logical sense

I agree....A more in depth explanation than mine...

>It just explains the universes fined tuned nature and for the existence of humanity!

No it doesn’t.

>Another example; Omega (Ω), commonly known as the density parameter, is the relative importance of gravity and expansion energy in the Universe. It is the ratio of the mass density of the Universe to the "critical density" and is approximately 1.

Yes…

>If gravity were too strong compared with dark energy and the initial metric expansion, the universe would have collapsed before life could have evolved. On the other side, if gravity were too weak, no stars would have formed.

This is what tells me you have no idea what you are talking about; the value of omega informs us about the curvature of the universe and how it will evolve.

If Ω = 1 then we live in a closed universe.

If Ω = 1 then we live in a flat universe.

Ω = 1 = collapse

Ω = 1 = expand forever, slowing down but never quite stopping so that at ∞ v = 0

Omega being less or more than 1 would not have impeded the universe from formation of the universe or stars; you’ve just pulled that out of your ass.

>Yes, i agree this whole theory sounds like a natural selection of the universes, but i choose to believe there is more behind it.

If inflation is confirmed, then we live in a multiverse and the only universes that would form matter, galaxies, stars, planets, life and conscious observers would be those that had the necessary parameters to do so.

This is exactly like a natural selection among universes and an extension of the anthropic principle.

There is no place for a creator here; believe in one if you like, but there’s no logical reason to do so.

I always found the fine-tuning argument wierd
maybe that's pseudo-philosophy but I'm thinking that since we only live in this universe, we can't really know how many universe exist without live in them.
Let's assume there are 500 billion universes that don't allow life. Since there isn't life, no one can go "Aha! This universe isn't fine tuned, so it'S without life!"
By definition, life-forms will only ever see the "fine-tuned" universes, so they'll have a 100% track record of hitting the right universes. Isn't it therefore idiotic to claim the universe was made with intent?

>Isn't it therefore idiotic to claim the universe was made with intent?

Yes.

I literally just changed my argument, see

Well, I was refuting your initial argument.

However, retraction accepted.

I'm glad to see you came to your senses.

That's what intelligent discussions are about , my friend. precisely what differentiates us from places like /pol/ , we can learn and develop.

And yes i fully agree now that basing any beliefs on a higher power on this "fine-tuning" claim would be misguided and illogical.

>precisely what differentiates us from places like /pol/

I wouldn't go that far.

>hard vs soft science
>math is a science
>psychology isn't a science
>biology isn't a science
>CS is pointless
>etc.

Fuck it, I'll expand on this instead of just shitposting.

You're probably aware of Laplace's demon. It's fairly easy for an educated person to accept it, because our minds are capable of conceptualizing, if in a very abstract manner, an tracking every atom in the universe. We do this by simplifying the thought to a scale that we can operate in: perhaps you visualize the journey of a single atom through the ages, then form an abstract expanded image from that. It's easy to see all the ways an atom might interact with other atoms if you've studied enough physics. The building blocks of matter are easy to understand.

The human mind isn't. We don't even properly understand what the mind really is. Therefore it's extremely hard to the mind as a clump of if-then sentences. You'd have to account for biological factors, the surrounding physical world, and even immaterial systems like society, which is ultimately composed of the interactions of six billion people. It's impossible.

It's easy to think that the human mind doesn't adhere to the same kind of mechanistic-deterministic principles as those simple atoms in Laplace's articulation just because of that event horizon of complexity. But in that you're proposing that the mind has some intrinsic, special quality that exempts it from the laws and mechanics of the entire rest of the universe. You kinda need proof for that, dog.

The fact that the mind is beyond some threshold of complexity alone doesn't mean shit. That we don't currently possess the means to model all the interactions contributing input to a mind doesn't mean they're not fundamentally computable - even if in practice necessitates and omniscient god-being with infinite computing capacity to do it.