Pseudoscience in Informatics

I often see individuals bashing mathematics as being nonscientific on /prog/.

How do you respond to the fact that branches which suffer from even worse practices exist within the field?

Like Bioinformatics ( heuristics and data mining data mining applied to something which is supposed to be an 4^3 wide instruction set )

or A.I. ( attempting of a invalid cybernetic transformation, hence the definition of a machine )

Read PAIP.

i'm a dummy - what's wrong with data mining a 64 wide instruction set?

individual
It's just one ultrafinist. Such types of beliefs are rare. They're only locally fine beliefs, but as soon as you want to go meta or talk about abstract/general properties, they become unusable, potentially inconsistent.
Like Bioinformatics ( heuristics and data mining data mining applied to something which is supposed to be an 4^3 wide instruction set )
It can't be helped. We hardly have the computing power to ``do it right'', so people resort to hacks that will allow them any edge that they can get.
or A.I. ( attempting of a invalid cybernetic transformation, hence the definition of a machine )
I don't know what you mean by ``invalid cybernetic transformation''. If you actually believe that general AI is impossible, you'll have to either show some concrete infinities in our physics (such as reals), disprove a lot of cognitive science, or disprove the Church-Turing thesis. All 3 of those are highly unlikely.

>>4
you'll have to either show some concrete infinities in our physics (such as reals),
Wouldn't that mean we can do hypercomputation just fine?

>>3
try and compiled software and derive meaning without specific understanding and you will fail. Oh wait - better join teams and code some hard a.i. to fix your dilemma, sure that will work!

>>5
Yes, you'd have to show that certain models of hypercomputation are physically realizable(doubtful, but not unconceivable) AND that our mind's workings depends on them(very doubtful), and that some ``magic'' makes humans the only ones being able to exploit this(haha, no, even if the highly unlikely is the case, there's no reason to believe only humans would be capable of exploiting such mechanism once understood). A small tangent: most people that assume that the mind's body cannot be a machine have very dim views of what machines can do, instead I suggest you assume the nearly obvious: that it is, and then see what interesting things follow from this (and a lot of very interesting consequences DO follow).

>>7
As a fellow physicalist, I know that the brain is just a complex analogic machine.
What I meant in >>5 is, if there were concrete physics in our universe, we could use them just fine to do hypercomputation and make AIs with them. So that would not make AI impossible, as you(?) say in >>4. Even thinking that hypercomputation (if it exists) is magically constrained to our brains only is silly, unscientific and ultimately destructive.

>>8
>2012
>science
ISHYGDDT

>>8
Oh, I see what you meant, we're in agreement then.

doubles

oh wow, I haven't expected a response like this, you folks seem to be even more autistic than I am! (didn't you notice the stuttering?)

>>4
as soon as you want to go meta or talk about abstract/general properties, they become unusable, potentially inconsistent.
Why do you want to "talk about abstract"?

general properties
There's no sense in being precise, when you don't even know what you're talking about. -- John von Neumann, famous jewish rabbi

Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality. -- Nikola Tesla, crazy experimenter

>>13

Through mathematics you can predict the existence of things that can't yet be confirmed experimentally. Many years later, better technology will allow a test, and it ends up being confirmed.

>>14
Don't see, why we need "infinity" for this.

Even this old jewish professor agrees, everything could be done without mathematics:
http://www.youtube.com/user/njwildberger#g/c/3C58498718451C47

Even your jewish ranks have deserters, not counting obvious goyim math haters, like me.

>>15

spout this shit somewhere else please.

>>16
fuck off, jewish girl

>>15
We should stop liking what you don't like?

>>18
Why would you love things that don't exist? It is like loving Invisible Pink Unicorns. Doubt anything but strong medications could stop a crazy man from liking vocies in his head and seeing God.

>>19
Invisible pink unicorns are the best invisible unicorns, or pink unicorns, or invisible pink.