Michael Egnor talks with podcaster Lucas Skrobot about how we can know we are not zombies

_{News
July 5, 2020

Mind, Neuroscience

1}_{Categories
Mind
Neuroscience}

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

Also: Egnor , a neurosurgeon, told Skrobot: “My wife jokes with me that meeting me is always the worst part of a person’s life.”

Comments

The only thing I dispute is the concept that all countably infinite sets have the same cardinality. And no one uses the concept that all countably infinite sets have the same cardinality for anything. No one. For years I have asked JVL to produce something showing the concept is used and useful. For years JVL has been the typical coward, refusing the challenge.ET_{July 13, 2020
July
07
Jul
13
13
2020
01:52 PM
1
01
52
PM
PDT}

JVL:
Your basic set subtraction is not used by anyone, ever, for infinite sets.
Wow, what a devastating refutation- not.
I have and you just deny anything that runs counter to your view.
More lies. I have challenged you to show that the concept is useful and you have failed. No one uses what I am disputing for anything. No one.
Now who’s a denialist?
YOU. YOU have FAILED to demonstrate that the concept under dispute is used or useful. Clearly you are just a punk. Set subtraction proves there is fault with the inferences from the proof. JVL is still too dim to grasp what that means. There isn't anything in set theory that prevents set subtraction from being used with infinite sets. You have to be a special type of coward to even try that BS argument.ET_{July 13, 2020
July
07
Jul
13
13
2020
01:49 PM
1
01
49
PM
PDT}

.
UB: my issue with you (among others) is your claim that math exists outside of an observer. JVL: Show me a counter example.
You want “counter examples” to mathematics existing outside of an observer? Hello? Instead of incoherence, let’s try out what you actually do say as an argument instead. Let’s match our symbols with the quantity of objects in a set, as you suggested upthread. How many moons are in our sky at night? Answer: One Okay ... explain to me how mathematics exists outside of measurement and expression here. Surely you are not arguing that math exist merely because a single moon exist in the night’s sky?!?Upright BiPed_{July 13, 2020
July
07
Jul
13
13
2020
01:31 PM
1
01
31
PM
PDT}

ET: Liar. I disagree with something that no one uses for anything. And the reason I disagree is because basic set subtraction warrants my disagreement. You are just too dim to grasp what I post. Your basic set subtraction is not used by anyone, ever, for infinite sets. Why do you keep embarrassing yourself with this futile line or argumentation? Liar. Again, I only disagree with an insignificant and useless part of set theory. To say otherwise is a blatant lie. JVL has steadfastly refused to answer my challenges and can only falsely accuse, as cowards are want to do. I have and you just deny anything that runs counter to your view. No one uses what I am disputing for anything. No one. Now who's a denialist? Only a total loser would say that I have horrendous misunderstandings of set theory just because I disagree with one insignificant claim Cantor made. And here you two are- desperate moron twins. No one is going to agree with you just because you type it in bold. I don’t care what you say. All you can do is use the thing being disputed to try to settle the dispute. How stupid is that? Find a fault in a proof. Can you do that? If you can't then there is no dispute. I challenge anyone to make the case that I have a horrendous misunderstanding of set theory. If no one steps up to even try then they should be banned for being pathological liars and losers Find a fault in a proof. Can you do that? I only dispute an insignificant and useless part of set theory. And at least I understand the implications of set subtraction. All JVL has is its cowardly accusations and ignorance when it comes to debate tactics. Find a fault in a proof. Can you do that? So to claim anything else about my knowledge of set theory is a cowardly lie. You can't find a fault in the proofs which establish what you dispute. You lose.JVL_{July 13, 2020
July
07
Jul
13
13
2020
01:19 PM
1
01
19
PM
PDT}

JVL:
God or no God we have to work with the mathematical structures. And that means that ‘God’ did not create them.
That doesn't follow. This is the problem, JVL. Your posts prove that you don't understand logic and reasoning.ET_{July 13, 2020
July
07
Jul
13
13
2020
01:14 PM
1
01
14
PM
PDT}

Upright Biped: I made no comment about theology; my issue with you (among others) is your claim that math exists outside of an observer. Show me a counter example.JVL_{July 13, 2020
July
07
Jul
13
13
2020
01:13 PM
1
01
13
PM
PDT}

KF, set subtraction proves there are difficulties with Cantor's view. If all people have is to Jedi hand-wave away the implications of set subtraction, then they have left mathematics behind. And the fact that no one uses the concept that all countably infinite sets have the same cardinality for anything, tells me all I need to know about that Jedi hand-wave. Arguments from authority don't stand a chance in the octagon.ET_{July 13, 2020
July
07
Jul
13
13
2020
01:13 PM
1
01
13
PM
PDT}

Bornagain77: JVL, again, disagreeing without presenting a coherent argument defending your position is no different than straight up ‘denialism’, i.e. a mental illness! How do you know the laws of mathematics are mutable at all? You don't. That's all just a supposition on your part because your conception of the 'creator' of the universe dictates that they have control over all things. I think mathematics is invariant. God or no God we have to work with the mathematical structures. And that means that 'God' did not create them. I may be wrong but I see not evidence to contradict that belief. Show me an example of God affecting mathematics. Just one. And not something that you just find 'amazing' or 'beautiful'. I mean something really clearly divinely influenced.JVL_{July 13, 2020
July
07
Jul
13
13
2020
01:11 PM
1
01
11
PM
PDT}

JVL:
As you like to say: your ignorence of the evidence is not an argument.
You coward. The ignorance is all yours. Liar. I disagree with something that no one uses for anything. And the reason I disagree is because basic set subtraction warrants my disagreement. You are just too dim to grasp what I post.
You are in stark contrast with every single math publication produced in the last century.
Liar. Again, I only disagree with an insignificant and useless part of set theory. To say otherwise is a blatant lie. JVL has steadfastly refused to answer my challenges and can only falsely accuse, as cowards are want to do.
No one takes you seriously or uses your system. No one.
No one uses what I am disputing for anything. No one. Only a total loser would say that I have horrendous misunderstandings of set theory just because I disagree with one insignificant claim Cantor made. And here you two are- desperate moron twins.
It doesn’t matter what you think.
I don't care what you say. All you can do is use the thing being disputed to try to settle the dispute. How stupid is that? I challenge anyone to make the case that I have a horrendous misunderstanding of set theory. If no one steps up to even try then they should be banned for being pathological liars and losers I only dispute an insignificant and useless part of set theory. And at least I understand the implications of set subtraction. All JVL has is its cowardly accusations and ignorance when it comes to debate tactics. So to claim anything else about my knowledge of set theory is a cowardly lie.ET_{July 13, 2020
July
07
Jul
13
13
2020
01:09 PM
1
01
09
PM
PDT}

.
I don’t ignore that but that has nothing to do with theology.
I made no comment about theology; my issue with you (among others) is your claim that math exists outside of an observer. Mathematics requires the specification of something among alternatives (i.e. measurement and symbolic expression), so do have an argument that supports this assertion? You tell us that mankind learned mathematics by counting - i.e. matching our symbolic expressions to the quantity of objects in a set. Additionally you seem to suggest that if that scenario were repeated elsewhere, the symbolic expressions might certainly be different, but the math itself would be the same. Whatever else that argument may be, it is not an argument that math exists outside the measurement and expression of an observer.Upright BiPed_{July 13, 2020
July
07
Jul
13
13
2020
01:09 PM
1
01
09
PM
PDT}

ET, I appreciate that you take a heterodox view of set theory. There are difficulties with that view, but they do not substantially alter the key point in 85 above. Though, it is much harder to hammer home to the determined, that finite stage step traversal of the transfinite is impossible, a supertask, as we saw four years ago. That is what needs to be answered. Of course, I see that tamed infinitesimals thus transfinite hyperreals and infinitesimally altered reals are very useful. For concepts, surreals. Likewise, there is transfinite induction that goes beyond limits of induction on N. KFkairosfocus_{July 13, 2020
July
07
Jul
13
13
2020
12:59 PM
12
12
59
PM
PDT}

Kairosfocus: Normal math level to work with PID controllers, familiarity with Laplace Transforms and associated s-domain block diagram algebra [z-domain is related, for the discrete time case], poles and zeros of a rational, complex frequency domain function, the transfer function. Even with tricks and tools such as the heavy rubber sheet model, you need to understand transient behaviour, circular frequency and cycle frequency as well as frequency response. The transfer function is of course the image of unit area impulse response; this can be used to draw it out of noise and responses thereto. Generally, do not hit a system in a real world situation with an impulse . Familiarity with ODE’s is a given, indeed that is what you are manipulating . . . that auxiliary equation or D operator is a thinly disguised Laplace Transform. Way back the get the idea concept was, sophisticated logarithms. Someone with that background and required basic intelligence will be able to access and appreciate the mathematical thinking in baseline special relativity and quantum mechanics. You really do not make sense. I can't even parse most of what you write. Just speak clearly and plainly.JVL_{July 13, 2020
July
07
Jul
13
13
2020
12:57 PM
12
12
57
PM
PDT}

ET: What evidence? Stop bluffing. What evidence is there that unguided, blind and mindless processes can produce a ribosome? How can we test for such a thing? As you like to say: your ignorence of the evidence is not an argument. Liar. I disagree with something that no one uses for anything. And the reason I disagree is because basic set subtraction warrants my disagreement. You are just too dim to grasp what I post. You are in stark contrast with every single math publication produced in the last century. No one takes your view seriously. Why you bother I just can't fathom. Again, I only disagree with an insignificant and useless part of set theory. To say otherwise is a blatant lie. JVL has steadfastly refused to answer my challenges and can only falsely accuse, as cowards are want to do. Welcome to obscurity. No one takes you seriously or uses your system. No one. Only a total loser would say that I have horrendous misunderstandings of set theory just because I disagree with one insignificant claim Cantor made. And here you two are- desperate moron twins. It doesn't matter what you think. You are incorrect. I challenge anyone to make the case that I have a horrendous misunderstanding of set theory. If no one steps up to even try then they should be banned for being pathological liars and losers You have already made the case yourself and NO ONE has come to your defence. No one. Still waiting. More nonsensical accusations just prove that JVL is a coward, liar and bluffing loser. I'm good being correct.JVL_{July 13, 2020
July
07
Jul
13
13
2020
12:55 PM
12
12
55
PM
PDT}

JVL, and again, disagreeing without presenting a coherent argument defending your position is no different than straight up 'denialism', i.e. a mental illness!bornagain77_{July 13, 2020
July
07
Jul
13
13
2020
12:54 PM
12
12
54
PM
PDT}

Only a total loser would say that I have horrendous misunderstandings of set theory just because I disagree with one insignificant claim Cantor made. And here you two are- desperate moron twins. I challenge anyone to make the case that I have a horrendous misunderstanding of set theory. If no one steps up to even try then they should be banned for being pathological liars and losers Still waiting. More nonsensical accusations just prove that JVL is a coward, liar and bluffing loser.ET_{July 13, 2020
July
07
Jul
13
13
2020
12:51 PM
12
12
51
PM
PDT}

F/N: Normal math level to work with PID controllers, familiarity with Laplace Transforms and associated s-domain block diagram algebra [z-domain is related, for the discrete time case], poles and zeros of a rational, complex frequency domain function, the transfer function. Even with tricks and tools such as the heavy rubber sheet model, you need to understand transient behaviour, circular frequency and cycle frequency as well as frequency response. The transfer function is of course the image of unit area impulse response; this can be used to draw it out of noise and responses thereto. Generally, do not hit a system in a real world situation with an impulse . Familiarity with ODE's is a given, indeed that is what you are manipulating . . . that auxiliary equation or D operator is a thinly disguised Laplace Transform. Way back the get the idea concept was, sophisticated logarithms. Someone with that background and required basic intelligence will be able to access and appreciate the mathematical thinking in baseline special relativity and quantum mechanics. With persistence and good references, should be able to appreciate more advanced topics. Of course, such an autodidact will have limitations, but such will not be relevant to what is on the table substantially from 85 on, which answers the challenge in 79. KFkairosfocus_{July 13, 2020
July
07
Jul
13
13
2020
12:50 PM
12
12
50
PM
PDT}

JVL:
So, given the evidence you just say the thousands of researchers are lying?
What evidence? Stop bluffing. What evidence is there that unguided, blind and mindless processes can produce a ribosome? How can we test for such a thing?
You disagree with one of the most basic precepts of modern set theory.
Liar. I disagree with something that no one uses for anything. And the reason I disagree is because basic set subtraction warrants my disagreement. You are just too dim to grasp what I post. Again, I only disagree with an insignificant and useless part of set theory. To say otherwise is a blatant lie. JVL has steadfastly refused to answer my challenges and can only falsely accuse, as cowards are want to do.ET_{July 13, 2020
July
07
Jul
13
13
2020
12:49 PM
12
12
49
PM
PDT}

Retired Physicist: BornAgain are you capable of doing any level of math? Calculus 2? Ordinary differential equations? Partial differential equations? In my experience: BornAgain77 hasn't actually shown any experience with mathematics above the basic level. He's good at copying and pasting references. For lots of different things. Bornagain77: In fact, in college, I was required to build a PID controller from scratch, i.e. from the component level up. It was either pass or fail. In other words, you did not graduate from that college until you successfully built that PID controller. It was the most challenging, and nerve wracking, class that I have ever taken. Okay, I stand corrected. Always happy to revise my stance with the addition of new data. ET likes to think he's good at math and, a few times when I've pushed him, has come up with some good answers. After quite a few proddings. As you've noted, his understanding of set theory is severely flawed; but there is no way he's ever going to back down from that stance as he's decided to die on that hill a long time ago. Upright Biped is quite good on philosophical discussions and topics but mathematics . . . .I'm not so sure. Kairosfocus certainly does has some good basic mathematical knowledge but he's prone to throw out tons of jargon and irrelevant comments; I think maybe he was taught in a very old and out dated fashion and that has affected his approach to communicated mathematical ideas. I could be very wrong but those are my impressions.JVL_{July 13, 2020
July
07
Jul
13
13
2020
12:40 PM
12
12
40
PM
PDT}

RP, I most likely have far more experience working with math and applying it to the real world than you do. I worked as a technician helping build Chemical factories in the Texas area. This is the math that I had to be familiar with in order to qualify for, and do, that job:
PID math demystified, part 1 https://www.controleng.com/articles/pid-math-demystified-part-1/ PID math demystified, part 2 https://www.controleng.com/articles/pid-math-demystified-part-2/
In fact, in college, I was required to build a PID controller from scratch, i.e. from the component level up. It was either pass or fail. In other words, you did not graduate from that college until you successfully built that PID controller. It was the most challenging, and nerve wracking, class that I have ever taken. And even though you probably know the math RP, I still don't think you could have done my job. Besides the math, I had to be extremely knowledgeable in troubleshooting many other areas, i.e. electronics, chemistry, hydraulics, pneumatics, etc.. etc.. Frankly, I would not have given two cents for anyone who tooted their own horn as being smarter than everyone else as you do, but the respect that I received and gave to others in that job was every bit earned. Book learning could only get you so far in that job, but in the field, in the real world of applied science, it was the common sense solutions to extremely complicated problems that most often earned you the most respect from others in that job. Do you have that required common sense to do that job? The only way to find out is to throw you in the water and see if you can swim, i.e. can do the job. I doubt it. I've seen many people fail at trying to do that job after they got out of college. There is something about being in the field that just can't be learned in the classroom. That something is common sense. And in that area of having common sense, I have not seen much coming from you.bornagain77_{July 13, 2020
July
07
Jul
13
13
2020
12:32 PM
12
12
32
PM
PDT}

Upright BiPed: Mathematics is the product of measurement and expression, i.e. something must become specified among alternatives. You know this, but ignore it. I don't ignore that but that has nothing to do with theology.JVL_{July 13, 2020
July
07
Jul
13
13
2020
12:31 PM
12
12
31
PM
PDT}

RP, you have ignored the substantive issue on the table to play at credentials. That tells us something, and not to your advantage. From 79 a challenge was issued which bridges mathematics and ontology. A response was on the table since 85 (see onward here), which you have evaded, while trying to belittle. I would suggest that as Math proper a reasonable senior high school or freshman exposure to core math would be adequate to follow the substantive math of the von Neumann construction and cascade N,Z,Q,R,C, R* and it is easy enough to pick up on the possible worlds context, including how logic of structure and quantity emerges from the principle of distinct identity of a PW. Thus we see how an answer to Wigner's wonder emerges: necessary, framework entities obtain in any PW, so will be relevant through logical necessity not cause-effect bonds. Beyond, the attempt to infer to Math independent of a causal root of reality runs into: where do possible worlds come from. Non-being fails, circular retrocausality fails, infinite descent from an unbounded past is a supertask. That leaves one serious candidate: finitely remote, causally capable, necessary being reality root. KFkairosfocus_{July 13, 2020
July
07
Jul
13
13
2020
12:31 PM
12
12
31
PM
PDT}

Kairosfocus: your own words at 79 speak for themselves. Also, that you did not follow enough above to see that PW is possible worlds. Why can't you just speak plainly? That may also explain why you failed to see that Mathematics, substantially, being logic of structure and quantity would tie to how necessary mathematical entities will be framework to PWs, thus universally applicable. Thence, how do we get the P in PW, i.e. a logic of being, ontological question. Ontology being a subdiscipline of metaphysics, one of the main foci of philosophy. BTW, so is logic. And yes, meta questions raised by Mathematics and other disciplines are by definition matters of philosophy. It is unsurprising that you would mislabel meta issues of Mathematics as “theology,” that palpably being a dismissive sneer on “beliefs.” BTW, every worldview option — the stuff of metaphysics — necessarily has core first plausible beliefs that are antecedent to proofs, they are how you get to proofs. The issue is comparative difficulties and strengths and it so happens that PW framing allows a powerful answer to the Wigner challenge Just repeating yourself over and over again doesn't make you right. Or, I'm afraid, coherent.JVL_{July 13, 2020
July
07
Jul
13
13
2020
12:30 PM
12
12
30
PM
PDT}

Bornagain77: To repeat,’ Moreover, contrary to what you want to believe, you are VERY far from ever proving that math can exist independently of God: Okay. I'll leave it then. Not only would math not have a basis if God did not exist, but, since the entire concept of ‘personhood’ itself is immaterial and therefore must be based in the personhood of God, then JVL himself would not exist as a real person if God did not really exist: But you just can't leave it alone can you? Me disagreeing with you, that you just cannont tolerate.JVL_{July 13, 2020
July
07
Jul
13
13
2020
12:27 PM
12
12
27
PM
PDT}

ET: What I said is true. Clearly you are just a pathetic loser. Evos are lying. Anyone who says that nature produced the genetic code is a liar. No one has presented any cases in that regard. You are lying. So, given the evidence you just say the thousands of researchers are lying? That's your counter-argument? Only a total loser would say that I have horrendous misunderstandings of set theory just because I disagree with one insignificant claim Cantor made. And here you two are- desperate moron twins. I challenge anyone to make the case that I have a horrendous misunderstanding of set theory. If no one steps up to even try then they should be banned for being pathological liars and losers You disagree with one of the most basic precepts of modern set theory.JVL_{July 13, 2020
July
07
Jul
13
13
2020
12:24 PM
12
12
24
PM
PDT}

. Are you actually unsure if you can do mathematics without specifying something among alternatives, or is "guessing" just a rhetorical maneuver to depreciate the obvious answer?Upright BiPed_{July 13, 2020
July
07
Jul
13
13
2020
11:13 AM
11
11
13
AM
PDT}

RP, can you make a coherent argument? I am very sure the answer is no.ET_{July 13, 2020
July
07
Jul
13
13
2020
11:09 AM
11
11
09
AM
PDT}

@upright biped i’m guessing the answer is no.Retired Physicist_{July 13, 2020
July
07
Jul
13
13
2020
11:08 AM
11
11
08
AM
PDT}

.
BornAgain are you capable of doing any level of math?
That's a silly question, and you know it. RP can you do any level of mathematics without measurement and symbolic expression; can you do any level of mathematics without specifying something among alternatives?Upright BiPed_{July 13, 2020
July
07
Jul
13
13
2020
10:58 AM
10
10
58
AM
PDT}

BornAgain are you capable of doing any level of math? Calculus 2? Ordinary differential equations? Partial differential equations?Retired Physicist_{July 13, 2020
July
07
Jul
13
13
2020
10:53 AM
10
10
53
AM
PDT}

.
If there is no God then math came from someplace else.
Mathematics is the product of measurement and expression, i.e. something must become specified among alternatives. You know this, but ignore it.Upright BiPed_{July 13, 2020
July
07
Jul
13
13
2020
10:45 AM
10
10
45
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 20 21 22 23 24 … 31 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply