At Mind Matters News: Claim — “Evolution” explains near-death experiences

_{Denyse O'Leary

July 18, 2021

Culture, Darwinism, Evolution, Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

The problem is, there is no evolutionary reason to believe the claim

Some researchers believe that near-death experiences are a biological mechanism like the fight-or-flight response, a means of pretending death to avoid a predator. They call it thanatopsis: …
Two problems arise from this analysis:
➤ Implausibility: Most of the people who have survived to tell of near-death experiences are not “death-feigning.” They are clinically — and, in most cases, involuntarily — dead.
Modern medicine can bring people back from actual states of death or even induce such states, for surgical purposes. That’s why we hear so many reports of near-death experiences these days.
There is no physiological basis for the belief that, in general, humans can just “play dead” when it suits us, as can marsupials like opossums. Many might wish we could but we can’t. …
News, “Claim: “Evolution” explains near-death experiences” at Mind Matters News

Takehome: Humans who have near-death experiences are not “playing possum”; they really are clinically dead but can be resuscitated by modern medicine.

See also: Do only Western religious people have near-death experiences? Even famous atheist philosopher A. J. Ayer had a near-death experience. Near-death experiences occur across cultures and the description differs but the outcomes are similar: a changed emphasis in life is the most common.

Comments

Heh. Not who, but what. The distinction between data versus information is important to address the points made by Bornagain77 and ET. -QQuerius_{July 23, 2021
July
07
Jul
23
23
2021
09:04 PM
9
09
04
PM
PDT}

Now, what is data?
It's me, Data.Lieutenant Commander Data_{July 23, 2021
July
07
Jul
23
23
2021
04:50 PM
4
04
50
PM
PDT}

[Sounds of heads exploding]Querius_{July 23, 2021
July
07
Jul
23
23
2021
04:26 PM
4
04
26
PM
PDT}

Consider the following quote:
Data is not information, information is not knowledge, knowledge is not understanding, understanding is not wisdom. -Clifford Stoll
Who is Clifford Stoll? https://www.ted.com/speakers/clifford_stoll Now, what is data? -QQuerius_{July 23, 2021
July
07
Jul
23
23
2021
07:49 AM
7
07
49
AM
PDT}

The problem with thinking that a fact (information) comes from some thing in an extra-mental environment is the quantum evidence that clearly demonstrates no such facts exist in that way, other than whatever it factually means to say that facts are observational selections and interpretations of immaterial potential that do not even necessarily correspond to other observers. Beyond the necessary, factual existence of potential itself, particular "actualized" or non-potential facts appear to be something entirely subjective to the observer's experience. The potential is factually existent regardless of any particular observational actualities. IOW, it appears to be, from the evidence, that our conceptual arrangement of "objective fact" vs "subjective experience" is an upside-down perspective. All particular actualities are subjective in nature (individual experience,) and non-experiential potential (non-actualities) is what is objectively "existent" regardless of any observer. This ultimately puts the observer in the driver's seat of what they experience as factual reality; it is whatever their observational status draws from the potential (unexperienced) into the actual (experienced.)William J Murray_{July 23, 2021
July
07
Jul
23
23
2021
05:55 AM
5
05
55
AM
PDT}

Bob O'H:
by that definition, information can increase without the help of a mind. Mutation and gene duplication will do it.
Question-begging, Bob. You don't know if gene duplication is a blind and mindless process. Given the paper "Waiting for TWO Mutations", it is very unlikely to impossible for blind and mindless processes to a) duplicate a gene, build it a new binding site and change the amino acid sequence to produce a new function. Also gene duplication doesn't add information. Having two copies of the same book does not give to twice the information. So clearly you don't know what you are talking about, especially given the debate is whether or not mutations are part of the intelligent design of life.ET_{July 23, 2021
July
07
Jul
23
23
2021
05:52 AM
5
05
52
AM
PDT}

When one looks around themselves at any moment there are hundreds of facts. Each one is information in some sense. Then another comes along and points out a dozen different facts you didn’t notice. That too is information in some sense. There will be thousands of other facts that exist in your immediate environment that you don’t notice. Are they not information too despite not noticing? The arrangement of these facts/entities is indicative of their previous position. The previous arrangement is also a fact. The possibilities are endless. Some current arrangements are indicative of the four forces of physics operating, mainly gravity and electromagnetic forces. Some are indicative of an intelligence causing the current arrangement.jerry_{July 23, 2021
July
07
Jul
23
23
2021
05:20 AM
5
05
20
AM
PDT}

ET @ 69 - by that definition, information can increase without the help of a mind. Mutation and gene duplication will do it. So I guess that's not what ba77 means. Jack @ 71 -
Information is what informs you. Increases your knowledge, however you want to define that.
So if I hook my computer up to 2 temperature sensors and put one inside my house and the other outside, and the computer tells me that it is warmer inside than out, would you say that that is information? (I'm asking because I can see arguments both ways, even ignoring "who programmed the computer")Bob O'H_{July 23, 2021
July
07
Jul
23
23
2021
04:12 AM
4
04
12
AM
PDT}

BA77 linked to and quoted from: https://henry.pha.jhu.edu/The.mental.universe.pdf
The Mental Universe – Richard Conn Henry – Professor of Physics John Hopkins University At the top of that page:
The only reality is mind and observations, but observations are not of things. To see the Universe as it really is, we must abandon our tendency to conceptualize observations as things.
This leaves us with some version of mental or idealism reality theory. If consciousness creates your experience of reality absent any actual "real things" out there, the question then becomes: is there a way to put this new model into practical application in a manner that clearly distinguishes it from the old model?
William J Murray_{July 23, 2021
July
07
Jul
23
23
2021
03:00 AM
3
03
00
AM
PDT}

Seversky, Information is what informs you. Increases your knowledge, however you want to define that. Now, as I think you know, random noise can't do that. If not random noise, what then? Do I have the answer? No. But your brain knows what's noise and what isn't. It's a colossal filter. I have nothing to sell. Do I think super-intellect entities are in control of earth? Yep. But I have an open mind. You're thoughts?Jack_{July 23, 2021
July
07
Jul
23
23
2021
02:08 AM
2
02
08
AM
PDT}

MikeW:
The statement “No new information is created in computers” is ludicrous. I just now created some new information in this computer.
Nope. That information already existed. Try again.ET_{July 22, 2021
July
07
Jul
22
22
2021
09:07 PM
9
09
07
PM
PDT}

Oh my. Crick defined what is meant by information with respect to biology. This has been explained over and over in ID literature.
Information means here the precise determination of sequence, either of bases in the nucleic acid or on amino acid residues in the protein.- Francis Crick
Tree rings are data recorders. And trees are living organisms. The very thing your position cannot explain. So it is question-begging to call tree rings a "natural phenomena". Geological strata are also data recorders. So what we have is seversky remaining willfully ignorant as everything it brings up has been covered many times over.ET_{July 22, 2021
July
07
Jul
22
22
2021
09:03 PM
9
09
03
PM
PDT}

I am still waiting for a coherent definition of what is meant by "information" in these discussions. Is there one agreed definition or more than one in play? As I have argued before, it is possible to acquire information from tree-rings or geological strata, neither of which were created by human beings or any other form of intelligent life, as far as we know. And is the information in those tree-rings or strata new or old? The physical entities themselves are old but if I am seeing them for the first time then, for me, the information I get from them is new. In principle, I could take words from the text of Lord of the Rings and write an entirely different story using only them. Would that be new information? The words already existed but my particular arrangement of them - my story - did not exist before, So is it new information or not? If we allow that both artefacts like words and natural phenomena like tree-rings can convey information then what do we mean by "information"?Seversky_{July 22, 2021
July
07
Jul
22
22
2021
08:16 PM
8
08
16
PM
PDT}

I hope between all the lines of pseudo-intellectual wranglings, focussed on this virtual reality, that will perish soon enough, and more immediately when you die, you remember to agape your neighbor as your self. Hang all the Law and the Prophets on that. Can I get an Amen? And don't forget, as Paul the apostle said: Keep being filled with the Holy Spirit. There may be some of you reading this who have neglected to keep yourself filled with the Holy Spirit. Ephesians 5:18Jack_{July 22, 2021
July
07
Jul
22
22
2021
07:40 PM
7
07
40
PM
PDT}

Because of such antics as that, whatever reservation I had, (that MikeW might be more honest than the myriad of other trolls that we have dealt with on UD through the years), is now completely gone.
Yeah, I would have hoped so as well. But as Proverbs 26:4-5 (NASB translation) aptly says:
Do not answer a fool according to his foolishness, Or you will also be like him. Answer a fool as his foolishness deserves, So that he will not be wise in his own eyes.
-QQuerius_{July 22, 2021
July
07
Jul
22
22
2021
06:12 PM
6
06
12
PM
PDT}

Thanks for catching that AnimatedDust, that is of course exactly what I meant since that was exactly the point that was being debated. i.e. We all know for a fact that humans can create information "in" a computer. The claim I disputing from MikeW is the claim that information can be created 'by' a computer, all by its lonesome. Of course he knew that, and was apparently just trying to score cheap rhetorical points. Because of such antics as that, whatever reservation I had, (that MikeW might be more honest than the myriad of other trolls that we have dealt with on UD through the years), is now completely gone.bornagain77_{July 22, 2021
July
07
Jul
22
22
2021
05:19 PM
5
05
19
PM
PDT}

MikeW, you are the one being 'slippery' with the evidence. Professor Richard Conn Henry specifically stated " in “Renninger-type” experiments, the wave function is collapsed simply by your human mind seeing nothing. The universe is entirely mental,,,, The Universe is immaterial — mental and spiritual. Live, and enjoy."
The Mental Universe – Richard Conn Henry – Professor of Physics John Hopkins University Excerpt: The only reality is mind and observations, but observations are not of things. To see the Universe as it really is, we must abandon our tendency to conceptualize observations as things.,,, Physicists shy away from the truth because the truth is so alien to everyday physics. A common way to evade the mental universe is to invoke “decoherence” – the notion that “the physical environment” is sufficient to create reality, independent of the human mind. Yet the idea that any irreversible act of amplification is necessary to collapse the wave function is known to be wrong: in “Renninger-type” experiments, the wave function is collapsed simply by your human mind seeing nothing. The universe is entirely mental,,,, The Universe is immaterial — mental and spiritual. Live, and enjoy. http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/The.mental.universe.pdf
With his allusion to “Renninger-type” experiments, Professor Richard Conn Henry is clearly alluding to the experimental realization of the interaction free measurements of Zeilinger and company. Yet you acted as if he was talking about the original Renninger thought experiment itself. In the video where you picked out the words "Bomb test' and ran with it and said it was a unrealized thought experiment, the fact of the matter is that the full phrase reads "Zeilinger Bomb Tester experiment"
An Interaction-Free Quantum Experiment (Zeilinger Bomb Tester experiment, and in the double slit experiment, the Detector can be placed at one slit during the double slit experiment and yet the photon or electron still collapses in the unobserved slit) – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOv8zYla1wY
If you would have dug deeper, perhaps even watched the video, (instead of rushing off to declare it merely a 'thought experiment'), you would have realized that the experiment that Zeilinger conducted in 1994 was considered an experimental realization of the Bomb Tester thought experiment, As the following article makes clear,,,
Interferometer, a bomb tester? Excerpt: The Elitzur–Vaidman bomb-tester is a thought experiment proposed by Avshalom Elitzur and Lev Vaidman in 1993. A real tester was built and used by Anton Zeilinger, Paul Kwiat, Harald Weinfurter, and Thomas Herzog in 1994. It was picked by the New Scientist magazine as one of the seven wonders of quantum world. https://sites.google.com/site/physicsphilosophyscience/physics/interferometer-a-bomb-tester
Thus, I clearly was not talking about the thought experiments, as you implied, but was clearly talking about the 'practical' experimental realization of both of those thought experiments. Yet you accused me of "you disingenuously switch to general “interaction-free experiments”, NO I did not. I was talking about the experimental realization of those thought experiments the entire time. You are the one who mistakenly assumed I was talking about unrealized thought experiments. An apology is in order from you. Then after falsely accusing me of being the source of your very own confusion about what I was actually talking about, you then go on to repeat your wildly unsubstantiated claim that these interaction free measurements can be "interpreted within the quantum coherence/decoherence framework" And for the reference that MikeW cited, i.e. " as mentioned in the third article below.",, MikeW, of all things, cited my own reference back to me, Here is the third article MikeW cited to me as supposed proof that decoherence explains interaction-free measurements. (A article which I had cited to him previously at post 40).
Interaction-free measurements by quantum Zeno stabilization of ultracold atoms J. Peise, B. Lücke, L. Pezzé, F. Deuretzbacher, W. Ertmer, J. Arlt, A. Smerzi, L. Santos & C. Klempt Nature Communications volume 6, Article number: 6811 (2015) https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms7811
Moreover, there is no mention whatsoever of decoherence in the paper's discussion section,
Discussion The probability distributions obtained with and without object provide a calibration of our apparatus. They can be used to detect the presence/absence of an object from a single measurement result, without prior knowledge. For example, a rescaled atom number of 20 is not compatible with the existence of an object, whereas a sufficiently small rescaled atom number strongly suggests the presence of an object. For an optimal discrimination between the two outcomes, the absolute value of the rescaled number of atoms should be compared with a threshold of 1.7 (see Supplementary Note 1). In the presence (absence) of the object, we obtain a measurement below (above) this threshold with a probability larger than 90%. We evaluate the figure of merit introduced in the original proposal2 , where P(D) is the probability of performing an IFM and P(int) is the probability of interaction with the object. In the case with object, this parameter yields the optimal probability of detecting it without interaction. We generalize the parameter for the experimentally relevant case that an object can only be detected with a finite confidence6. From our measurements, we obtain a figure of merit of ?=65(2)% at our confidence level of 90% (see Supplementary Note 1). It exceeds the threshold of the original Elitzur-Vaidman scheme2 and reaches a value comparable to the one achieved in optics experiments, although at a much higher confidence level (?=63(1)% in the experiment of ref. 6 with a confidence of 65%, ??50% in ref. 5 with a confidence of 2%). An improvement of the mentioned optics results with state-of-the-art technology is to be expected but outstanding. The confidence of possible statements for any measurement result can be determined by a Bayesian analysis (see Methods) of the recorded probability distribution (Fig. 4d). The results show that the existence of an object can be inferred interaction-free with a confidence level of up to 84(1)% at a rescaled number of atoms of 0. The absence of an object can be detected with almost 100% confidence for a wide range of possible measurement results beyond ±6. It is also possible to extract the probability for an interaction with the object. In principle, the interacting case can also be detected externally, for example, by measuring the fluorescence photons scattered by the unwanted atoms in the level (1, ?1). If such an external detection was realized, the Bayesian confidence for an interaction-free detection of the object could be increased to 90.6(6)%. Our analysis demonstrates that a BEC in an unstable spin configuration can be used for highly efficient IFMs. Although the Zeno effect has already been demonstrated with BECs in previous publications28,32, a proof of an IFM requires a Zeno suppression and its detection on the single-atom scale, which has not been presented up to now. Moreover, we emphasize that there are two versions of IFMs2 depending on whether a possible interaction with the object can also be detected from the measurement result or not. In previous proposals2,3,5,6,7,8, such a detection requires single-particle sources. Our protocol realizes the strong version of IFMs without requiring single-particle sources. The achieved figure of merit (65%) surpasses the predicted optimum of the original proposal (50%) and is comparable to the best results obtained in optics experiments, which also rely on the quantum Zeno effect6, yet with a larger confidence of 90%. For improved atom counting and a noiseless environment, the method permits a 100% figure of merit with an almost ideal confidence of 1–4/exp(2?).
I don't know what kind of games MikeW is trying to play, but He's got nothing, And when shown that he's got nothing, he then doubles down and refuses to admit that he's got nothing. Just a big ole merry-go-round of unreasonableness on his part. I guess Seversky has a new playmate now! :)bornagain77_{July 22, 2021
July
07
Jul
22
22
2021
05:06 PM
5
05
06
PM
PDT}

MikeW @61, pretty sure he meant no new information is created BY computers. GIGO sound familiar? They only do what us folks tell them to do.AnimatedDust_{July 22, 2021
July
07
Jul
22
22
2021
05:04 PM
5
05
04
PM
PDT}

Doubter@59, all right I give up with you, also. Your statement about inducing cardiac arrests in human test subjects is not only a strawman, it’s a ludicrous strawman. Like Spaceballs, you and BA77 have gone from ridiculous speed to ludicrous speed. https://giphy.com/explore/space-balls-ludicrous-speedMikeW_{July 22, 2021
July
07
Jul
22
22
2021
01:03 PM
1
01
03
PM
PDT}

BA77@58, all right I give up. The statement “No new information is created in computers” is ludicrous. I just now created some new information in this computer.MikeW_{July 22, 2021
July
07
Jul
22
22
2021
12:56 PM
12
12
56
PM
PDT}

BA77@55/56, all right, one more try, but this is it. Actual Renninger and Bomb-test “experiments” are thought exercises, as referenced below. But then you disingenuously switch to general “interaction-free experiments”, some of which can be realized in actual experiments, but all of which can be interpreted within the quantum coherence/decoherence framework, as mentioned in the third article below. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renninger_negative-result_experiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elitzur%E2%80%93Vaidman_bomb_tester https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms7811MikeW_{July 22, 2021
July
07
Jul
22
22
2021
12:51 PM
12
12
51
PM
PDT}

MikeW@50 "if you cannot systematically demonstrate the effects of certain phenomena, then I fundamentally disagree with your statement that they are “undoubtedly real”." Then I guess you mean that since ethically we can't deliberately artificially induce cardiac arrests in 500 human test subjects in order to get some lab replicated and instrumented veridical NDEs, then real veridical NDEs simply can't exist even in principle. You know, somehow that conclusion doesn't seem correct or right.doubter_{July 22, 2021
July
07
Jul
22
22
2021
12:36 PM
12
12
36
PM
PDT}

MikeW, computers can 'transform' information. Period. No new information is being created in computers. Period.bornagain77_{July 22, 2021
July
07
Jul
22
22
2021
12:31 PM
12
12
31
PM
PDT}

BA77@51, on the contrary, it’s you who are confusing the creation of information with the creation of complex specified information (CSI), which is what all of your examples are referring to. I agree that the creation of new CSI is always associated with a conscious mind. I would consider the computerized transformation of radar data into weather maps to be a creation of new CSI, since it encodes complex information that I as the weather map observer will decode. But I agree that this creation is programmed by a conscious mind, which is what your last quote is referring to. The point is that the creation of that new CSI was accomplished by material processes within the computer. So the question (again) is whether an existing conscious mind can also accomplish its creation of new CSI with material processes. If we can’t get past this, we should discontinue the conversation.MikeW_{July 22, 2021
July
07
Jul
22
22
2021
12:26 PM
12
12
26
PM
PDT}

After being challenged to provide empirical evidence that decoherence can explain the ability of the eye to detect a single photon, MikeW punts and states, "I’m not getting into the quantum rabbit hole with you" How convenient! You make a wildly unsubstantiated claim, and then, when called on it, instead of honestly admitting that you were wrong to claim what you claimed, you instead refuse to get 'into the quantum rabbit hole with you'. All I have to say about that is don't make claims for your position that you can't back up.bornagain77_{July 22, 2021
July
07
Jul
22
22
2021
12:25 PM
12
12
25
PM
PDT}

MikeW claimed, "“Renninger and Bomb Tester experiments” aren’t even true experiments. They are thought exercises." HUH??? What??? The video I referenced,
An Interaction-Free Quantum Experiment (Zeilinger Bomb Tester experiment, and in the double slit experiment, the Detector can be placed at one slit during the double slit experiment and yet the photon or electron still collapses in the unobserved slit) – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOv8zYla1wY
,, that video referenced this "Experimental realization of interaction-free measurements" right off the bat,,
Experimental realization of interaction-free measurements - 1995 Harald Weinfurter, Paul Kwiat, Thomas Herzog, Anton Zeilinger, and Mark Kasevich Abstract Recently, it has been pointed out that it is possible to make a quantum-mechanical interaction-free measurement (IFM), in which the existence of an object in a given region of space may be determined seemingly without interacting with it.1,2 In the embodiment first proposed by Elitzur and Vaidman,3 a standard Michelson interferometer is aligned so that incident single photons (obtained in our experiment by using parametric downconversion; see Fig. 1) must exit by the same port in which they entered, in the absence of any object within the interferometer. The presence of an object (e.g., the mirror leading to detector DB) in one of the arms completely changes the possible outcomes because the constructive interference is interrupted. Now it is possible that the photon will exit from the other exit port, to detector DIfm. By detecting the photon in this case, one can claim with certainty that an object was within the interferometer, even though the photon could not have interacted with it. If the beam splitter has a very low reflectivity, then the fraction of IFMs approaches 1/2. https://www.osapublishing.org/viewmedia.cfm?uri=QELS-1995-QTuF5&seq=0
And I myself referenced these experiments right below that video I had referenced
Initially proposed as thought experiments, interaction-free measurements have been experimentally demonstrated in various configurations, 6,7,8,, 6. Kwiat, Paul; Weinfurter, Harald; Herzog, Thomas; Zeilinger, Anton; Kasevich, Mark A. (1995-06-12). “Interaction-Free Measurement”. Physical Review Letters. 74 (24): 7. White, Andrew G. (1998). “”Interaction-free” imaging”. Physical Review A. 58 (1): 8. Tsegaye, T.; Goobar, E.; Karlsson, A.; Björk, G.; Loh, M. Y.; Lim, K. H. (1998-05-01). “Efficient interaction-free measurements in a high-finesse interferometer”. Physical Review A. 57 (5): – per wikipedia
So I have no earthly idea why MikeW would falsely claim that interaction free measurements were just thought experiments.,,, Unless he is just being completely disingenuous now. I can assure you that Anton Zeilinger, a world leading experimentalist in quantum mechanics, with many notable breakthroughs in quantum mechanics under his belt, does not bother to publish his speculative 'thought experiments' :)bornagain77_{July 22, 2021
July
07
Jul
22
22
2021
12:06 PM
12
12
06
PM
PDT}

BA77@49, as I stated previously, I’m not getting into the quantum rabbit hole with you. Perhaps you can gain some insights from the articles below. I would say that quantum coherence and quantum criticality are interesting characteristics of quantum consciousness that are discussed in the third article below. https://www.scienceabc.com/humans/can-human-eye-see-detect-single-photon.html https://www.technologyreview.com/2017/04/25/152190/quantum-biometrics-exploits-the-human-eyes-ability-to-detect-single-photons/#:~:text=Quantum%20Biometrics%20Exploits%20the%20Human%20Eye%E2%80%99s%20Ability%20to,biometrics%2C%20guaranteed%20by%20the%20laws%20of%20quantum%20mechanics. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-consciousness/MikeW_{July 22, 2021
July
07
Jul
22
22
2021
12:00 PM
12
12
00
PM
PDT}

Jack@47, see my comment@48. I readily agree that no unconscious material system can generate any information processing systems, at least no unconscious material system that I know of. But once some higher power has designed and created a highly complex system like the human body and brain, is it possible that that complex human/brain system was designed to use material processes in its operation? That’s the question.MikeW_{July 22, 2021
July
07
Jul
22
22
2021
11:47 AM
11
11
47
AM
PDT}

MikeW I'm just curious as to how a person acquiring knowledge of what is taking place in another room, in a distant part of a hospital might be explained by hypothetical brainstem activity? Or the other types of knowledge somehow acquired during NDEs such as the person knowing of someone who has only recently died, and had no conventional way of knowing, but describes meeting them and passing on details of what happened to them or bringing some message from them. In your opinion, is this a usual function of the brainstem, or for that matter any other part of the brain? Of course in your ideological certainty of reductionist materialism you complacently claim that none of the evidence of these occurrences painstakingly accumulated by careful investigators is valid. No amount of this type of verified empirical evidence could sway your certainty. After all, it can't be in your world belief system, it's impossible. At the very least it would invalidate the EM field theories of consciousness..doubter_{July 22, 2021
July
07
Jul
22
22
2021
11:44 AM
11
11
44
AM
PDT}

MikeW, you are confusing the shuffling around, organizing, formatting, etc.. of preexisting information, with the creation of new information.
The Turing Test Is Dead. Long Live the Lovelace Test. Robert J. Marks II – July 3, 2014 Excerpt: Here are a few others statements expressing doubt about the computer’s ability to create Strong AI. “…no operation performed by a computer can create new information.” – Douglas G. Robertson “The [computing] machine does not create any new information, but it performs a very valuable transformation of known information.” – Leon Brillouin “Either mathematics is too big for the human mind or the human mind is more than a machine.” – Kurt Godel and, of course, my favorite:7 “Computers are no more able to create information than iPods are capable of creating music.” – Robert J. Marks II The limitations invoked by the law of conservation of information in computer programming have been a fundamental topic of investigation by Winston Ewert, William Dembski and me at the Evolutionary Informatics Lab. We have successfully and repeatedly debunked claims that computer programs simulating evolution are capable of generating information any greater than that intended by the programmer.8,9,10,11,12,13 https://evolutionnews.org/2014/07/the_turing_test_1/
bornagain77_{July 22, 2021
July
07
Jul
22
22
2021
11:42 AM
11
11
42
AM
PDT}

1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply