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

_{Denyse O'Leary

July 5, 2020

Mind, Neuroscience}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; 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

JVL:
I guess you have reading comprehension issues.
I guess that you are a bluffing blowhard.ET_{July 23, 2020
July
07
Jul
23
23
2020
02:12 PM
2
02
12
PM
PDT}

EugeneS: And? I think that while an opinion of a well established researcher is important, it is of secondary importance to the argument itself. Maybe. But when someone spends their whole adult professional life thinking about a subject and are recognised by their peers for it I tend to take them seriously. Rather, in such matters he is expressing his metaphysical position, not his professional opinion. I know UB’s attitude towards Pattee a little from UB’s comments on this blog, and just like UB, I, too, have a great esteem for Pattee for his contributions to biosemiotics. But errare humanum est. You can pick and choose from his work as you see fit. But when you cite his work as support for ID and when he himself clearly does NOT think his work supports ID then I have to wonder if you are correct. Should I believe him or you? I figure he understands his own work better.JVL_{July 23, 2020
July
07
Jul
23
23
2020
02:10 PM
2
02
10
PM
PDT}

kairosfocus:
the problem is {0,1,2,3 . . .} less the evens is {1,3,5 . . .} which demonstrably matches the cardinality of the naturals.
The problem with that is the standard set difference operation exposes a contradiction in terms. I.e. how can you have the same cardinality (the same number of elements) and have the difference observed? And Cantor recognized and gave it that name. From there people just bought and drank that Kool-Aid. Since the time of Cantor, and Galileo before him who said pretty much the same thing has GC centuries earlier, we have had Einstein. Einstein gave us relativity. And we (should) have a better understanding of infinity. So now I am looking at what Cantor did and applying 20th century knowledge. And I don't like the fact that set subtraction leaves a glaring issue. I definitely don't like teaching kids that the implications of set subtraction have to be ignored in many cases. to determine That said we can still keep Aleph_null as the countably infinite infinity. Just apply the natural density to determine the relative cardinalities.ET_{July 23, 2020
July
07
Jul
23
23
2020
02:10 PM
2
02
10
PM
PDT}

Kairosfocus: ET, the problem is {0,1,2,3 . . .} less the evens is {1,3,5 . . .} which demonstrably matches the cardinality of the naturals. That is, we recognise a quantity, that will match the endlessly continuing counting numbers. True, we can argue about density but endless countable continuation is common to the three sets and a lot of others such as squares, factorials, etc. We recognise that as a quantity and give it a less familiar name than 1 or “uno” etc. Namely, aleph-null. Thank you. For agreeing with the truth.JVL_{July 23, 2020
July
07
Jul
23
23
2020
02:05 PM
2
02
05
PM
PDT}

ET: Pattee- Earth to JVL- he says that your side doesn’t have any answer to what we observe. That you have nothing. How is that in any way a bad thing for ID? I guess you have reading comprehension issues.JVL_{July 23, 2020
July
07
Jul
23
23
2020
02:04 PM
2
02
04
PM
PDT}

ET: 1- Infinity is NOT a number. That happens to be a fact Well, it's a quantity. And there are different sizes of infinity. 2- Cardinality is defined as the NUMBER of distinct elements in a set Well, the size of the set. 3- Aleph (Alef) is the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet. Cantor called his first transfinite infinity aleph_null- he made it up He picked a name, sure. So tell me, JVL, what hole am I digging by presenting FACTS? You haven't actually answered any of the challenges presented to you.JVL_{July 23, 2020
July
07
Jul
23
23
2020
02:02 PM
2
02
02
PM
PDT}

Because Dr Pattee was presented by Upright BiPedas one of the premiere researchers on the th subject AND he is considered that by his peers.
And? I think that while an opinion of a well established researcher is important, it is of secondary importance to the argument itself.
Perhaps you should look him up before you cast judgement on his opinion.
I have read some of Pattee's works. I am subscribed to his articles on academia.edu. Here is my personal opinion. When he speaks about the biophysics of the cell, he speaks with authority. However, when he speaks about evolution and ID, he does not do that as a specialist, which even I can spot. In one of his papers, in the conclusion, he wrote very naive stuff about evolution and its capabilities. It is not his area of expertise, unfortunately. Rather, in such matters, he is expressing his metaphysical position, not his professional opinion. I know UB's attitude towards Pattee a little from UB's comments on this blog, and just like UB, I, too, have a great esteem for Pattee for his contributions to biosemiotics. But errare humanum est.EugeneS_{July 23, 2020
July
07
Jul
23
23
2020
02:01 PM
2
02
01
PM
PDT}

ET: I don’t care what anyone believes, JVL. That is very clearly the case. You just handwave away the conclusions of set subtraction because you cannot deal with it. Strange since I did deal with it. By disagreeing with you. I guess that is your real problem, that I said and proved you were wrong. And yes, set subtraction exposes infinite unmatched elements between A {1,2,3,4,5,…} and B {2,4,6,8,10,…}. The DIFFERENCE between the two sets exposes those unmatched elements. But not using my one-to-one matching. You never seem to be able to deal with that. You just deny what I've demonstrated. Food for thought eh? So you cheat when you align and you bullscorch when you deny set subtraction does as I say. I use a common scheme as can be seen by anyone who looks up this question. I do not cheat, that is a lie. You lie because you can't admit you're wrong. cardinality refers to the number of (distinct) elements in a given set. That's right. nd infinity is not a number. Therefore relativity seems like the best way to proceed when considering infinite sets. Especially given its consistency with set subtraction. Relativity has nothing to do with the number of elements in a set. You just made that up. to avoid admitting you're wrong. You invoke something that is not pertinent to prop up something that is wrong. And you're not even trying to answer the basic question: if I can line up two sets, element to element, one-to-one, so that no element of either set is left out, how can those two sets be different sizes? Please explain that since that is what you are saying. Don't make things up, don't say I'm cheating when I'm just pairing elements up, one-to-one. Just explain how the sets can have different number of elements.JVL_{July 23, 2020
July
07
Jul
23
23
2020
01:58 PM
1
01
58
PM
PDT}

ET, the problem is {0,1,2,3 . . .} less the evens is {1,3,5 . . .} which demonstrably matches the cardinality of the naturals. That is, we recognise a quantity, that will match the endlessly continuing counting numbers. True, we can argue about density but endless countable continuation is common to the three sets and a lot of others such as squares, factorials, etc. We recognise that as a quantity and give it a less familiar name than 1 or "uno" etc. Namely, aleph-null. KFkairosfocus_{July 23, 2020
July
07
Jul
23
23
2020
01:53 PM
1
01
53
PM
PDT}

RE: Pattee- Earth to JVL- he says that your side doesn't have any answer to what we observe. That you have nothing. How is that in any way a bad thing for ID?ET_{July 23, 2020
July
07
Jul
23
23
2020
01:51 PM
1
01
51
PM
PDT}

Aleph-0 is something Cantor made up. Cardinality is a number. Infinity is not a number. JVL:
You should really stop digging your hole deeper.
Derp: 1- Infinity is NOT a number. That happens to be a fact 2- Cardinality is defined as the NUMBER of distinct elements in a set 3- Aleph (Alef) is the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet. Cantor called his first transfinite infinity aleph_null- he made it up So tell me, JVL, what hole am I digging by presenting FACTS?ET_{July 23, 2020
July
07
Jul
23
23
2020
01:49 PM
1
01
49
PM
PDT}

EugeneS: Two things about it. First, how can Pattee’s views about ID influence the biosemiotic argument as it is presented by UB? Because Dr Pattee was presented by Upright BiPedas one of the premiere researchers on the th subject AND he is considered that by his peers. Second, what Pattee says is not exactly the case because we have data that enables us to make an estimate. Dr Pattee spent his entire adult professional life researching this area. He might even be said to have brought the subject to prominence. If you choose to disregard his opinion that is your choice. Perhaps you should look him up before you cast judgement on his opinion.JVL_{July 23, 2020
July
07
Jul
23
23
2020
01:47 PM
1
01
47
PM
PDT}

I don't care what anyone believes, JVL. You just handwave away the conclusions of set subtraction because you cannot deal with it. And yes, set subtraction exposes infinite unmatched elements between A {1,2,3,4,5,...} and B {2,4,6,8,10,...}. The DIFFERENCE between the two sets exposes those unmatched elements. So you cheat when you align and you bullscorch when you deny set subtraction does as I say. cardinality refers to the number of (distinct) elements in a given set. And infinity is not a number. Therefore relativity seems like the best way to proceed when considering infinite sets. Especially given its consistency with set subtraction.ET_{July 23, 2020
July
07
Jul
23
23
2020
01:43 PM
1
01
43
PM
PDT}

The weakness of this argument is that the actual probabilities of the events in question are largely unknown.
Two things about it. First, how can Pattee's views about ID influence the biosemiotic argument as it is presented by UB? Second, what Pattee says is not exactly the case because we have data that enables us to make an estimate. And the estimate is, as gpiccuo has many times shown on this blog, that a very optimistic upper bound on the amount of functional information that evolution can produce is 140 bits. Now, an independent way exists to measure the amount of functional information in the primary structure of proteins. To my knowledge, it is a few times as much as evolution can produce, up to an order of magnitude more. Evolution cannot be accountable for the difference.EugeneS_{July 23, 2020
July
07
Jul
23
23
2020
01:20 PM
1
01
20
PM
PDT}

ET: Aleph-0 is something Cantor made up. Cardinality is a number. Infinity is not a number You should really stop digging your hole deeper. Any honest person can see set subtraction contradicts Cantor. And a vast majority of people agree with that. Oh, do tell. What is your evidence for that? Please explain how set subtraction can prove there are unmatched elements. Or shut up. JVL does neither. What a coward. Set subtraction cannot prove that as I have explained many times. Why do you keep asking the same question over and over again and ignore that fact that I have answered that question? You can disagree with my answer but to just flat out deny I have answered it is a bit . . . weird. Just because you believe your answers doesn't mean anyone else does. Even Kairosfocus has stopped trying to argue with you. And, let's be honest, NO ONE has come to your defence. No one. Food for thought eh?JVL_{July 23, 2020
July
07
Jul
23
23
2020
11:48 AM
11
11
48
AM
PDT}

Upright BiPed: Shall we just decide to discuss the actual excerpt from the paper by Howard Pattee I referenced? What do you think about his statement?JVL_{July 23, 2020
July
07
Jul
23
23
2020
11:41 AM
11
11
41
AM
PDT}

.
(my bolds)
Whenever you are ready to discus those physical conditions, I am happy to engage.Upright BiPed_{July 23, 2020
July
07
Jul
23
23
2020
10:38 AM
10
10
38
AM
PDT}

.
there is a double standard.
You mean like, out of one side of your mouth extolling the virtues of measurement over personal beliefs, then turning around to seek out the personal religious views of a scientist (like you did with Von Neumann) to see if they can leveraged to support your denial of actual measurement (as you are now seeking to do with Pattee)?
JVL: Good science is good science no matter where it comes from or who discovered it. If it’s repeatable, predictable and observer independent then I’m good.
Upright BiPed_{July 23, 2020
July
07
Jul
23
23
2020
10:32 AM
10
10
32
AM
PDT}

Please explain how set subtraction can prove there are unmatched elements. Or shut up. JVL does neither. What a coward.ET_{July 23, 2020
July
07
Jul
23
23
2020
10:27 AM
10
10
27
AM
PDT}

One of the oldest, non-religious arguments against Darwinian evolution is the apparent improbability of chance mutations producing any successful protein, let alone a species. This is still an argument used by “intelligent design” advocates. This argument is based on the assumption of the sparseness of sequences and the immensity of the search space. The weakness of this argument is that the actual probabilities of the events in question are largely unknown.
And yet there isn't anything else to account for it. There isn't even a methodology to test the claim that blind and mindless processes did it. So that is just another non-scientific objection.ET_{July 23, 2020
July
07
Jul
23
23
2020
10:25 AM
10
10
25
AM
PDT}

JVL:
Yes, I know, you find the evidence convincing; I do not.
You don't have anything to account for it. So yours is not a scientific objection and can be dismissed.ET_{July 23, 2020
July
07
Jul
23
23
2020
10:23 AM
10
10
23
AM
PDT}

Any honest person can see set subtraction contradicts Cantor. And a vast majority of people agree with that.ET_{July 23, 2020
July
07
Jul
23
23
2020
10:22 AM
10
10
22
AM
PDT}

JVL:
ET thinks countably infinite and cardinality of aleph-0 mean different things.
What a pathetic jerk you are. Aleph-0 is something Cantor made up. Cardinality is a number. Infinity is not a numberET_{July 23, 2020
July
07
Jul
23
23
2020
10:20 AM
10
10
20
AM
PDT}

Bob:
yes, but (and I know this sounds weird), how do you count? Isn’t it just using the bijection to natural numbers?
I use the kindergarten method, Bob. I understand that may be above your level but it works.ET_{July 23, 2020
July
07
Jul
23
23
2020
10:18 AM
10
10
18
AM
PDT}

.
Which is not true at all.
Who are you trying to fool? You've been spouting the materialist party line since the moment you arrived here:
JVL on design being inferred from the empirical observation of semiosis, i.e. description-based replication, DNA: "fantastical and lacks any kind of empirical evidence."
Upright BiPed_{July 23, 2020
July
07
Jul
23
23
2020
09:51 AM
9
09
51
AM
PDT}

I don’t care who you are, that’s gotta hurt. :-PRetired Physicist_{July 23, 2020
July
07
Jul
23
23
2020
09:03 AM
9
09
03
AM
PDT}

Ah, I might have to get my hands on this:
The Necessity Of Biosemiotics: Matter-Symbol Complementarity: by Howard Pattee Abstract: Biosemiotics distinguishes life from inanimate matter by its dependence on material construction controlled by coded symbolic information. This irreducible primitive distinction between matter and symbol is necessary for open-ended evolvability and the origin of life as we know it. This type of subject/object distinction is reestablished at many levels throughout all of evolution. In physics this becomes the distinction between material laws and symbolic measurements and models; in philosophy this is the distinction between brain and mind. These are all emergent epistemic distinctions, not ontological dualisms. The origin of life requires understanding the origin of this symbolic control and how inanimate molecules become functional messages. I discuss the necessary physical conditions that would allow such evolvable symbolic control of matter to arise
(my bolds) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/225988428_The_Necessity_Of_Biosemiotics_Matter-Symbol_Complementarity From the paper itself (page 15):
This size creates two fundamental problems. The first problem is that the number of copolymer sequences of such lengths is immense, well beyond actual enumeration. One of the oldest, non-religious arguments against Darwinian evolution is the apparent improbability of chance mutations producing any successful protein, let alone a species. This is still an argument used by “intelligent design” advocates. This argument is based on the assumption of the sparseness of functional sequences and the immensity of the search space. The weakness of this argument is that the actual probabilities of the events in question are largely unknown.
Not exactly an endorsement of ID.JVL_{July 23, 2020
July
07
Jul
23
23
2020
08:30 AM
8
08
30
AM
PDT}

Upright BiPed: After coming here to push the diatribe that there is no evidence for design in biology Which is not true at all. You're just making that up. I never say anything about my views unless asked directly and then I answer politely and with respect. you are confronted with physical and historical evidence you cannot repel. When you are asked to address this evidence (that you say doesn’t exist) you start doing runs in falsetto for the judges. I have denied no evidence. I have come to different conclusions. I only ask for equal treatment. And when that doesn’t fly, you paint your opponents as unjustified and yourself as a victim. I can leave so not much of a victim. Treated poorly, yes, but I don't loose any sleep over it nor do I publish screeds on a blog telling the world how stupid the UD crowd is. I don't call people names, I don't question their motivations, I don't expect to set or change the rules. But it is fair to point out there is a double standard. Science has documented a multi-referent symbol system, a language structure, and semantic closure embedded in every living cell on earth. Is there evidence of design in biology, It seems like one of the men who practically developed part of the pertinent field did not conclude that that system was indicative of design. I shall defer to his superior knowledge, to my own that is. I can see that you have thought about all this for a very long time and that this area seems like rock-solid evidence for your design inference. I respect that, I'm not trying to argue you out of your view. I wanted to know how you came to your view and you told me and I appreciate that. For some reason when I came to a different conclusion than you (and one that I think is shared by one of the primary modern researchers) you decided I was denying evidence and was intellectually dishonest. That was why I asked you (twice) if there was anyway your view could be falsified. It seems like there isn't even a way you would accept someone disagreeing with you. I wonder what Dr Pattee would say if I asked him? Perhaps we should. That would be interesting.JVL_{July 23, 2020
July
07
Jul
23
23
2020
08:15 AM
8
08
15
AM
PDT}

.
No matter how politely I try and disagree I am just a spitting and lunatic moron … I find your anger and spite tiring … I should be honoured that you seem to have kept copies of everything I’ve written in response to you but, to be honest, it feels a bit creepy.
These are all positioning statements JVL. They are meaningless. After coming here to push the diatribe that there is no evidence for design in biology you are confronted with physical and historical evidence you cannot repel. When you are asked to address this evidence (that you say doesn’t exist) you start doing runs in falsetto for the judges. And when that doesn’t fly, you paint your opponents as unjustified and yourself as a victim.
I denied nothing.
Science has documented a multi-referent symbol system, a language structure, and semantic closure embedded in every living cell on earth. Is there evidence of design in biology, JVL?Upright BiPed_{July 23, 2020
July
07
Jul
23
23
2020
07:37 AM
7
07
37
AM
PDT}

A few interesting examples relating to natural density (similar to ET's concept), lifted from wikipedia: 1) The natural density of the square-free integers is 6/pi^2. (Square-free integers are those not divisible by any square greater than 1). There is a generalization which involves the Riemann Zeta Function. 2) The natural density of the abundant numbers is somewhere between 0.2474 and 0.2480. (Abundant numbers are positive integers n where the sum of the proper divisors exceeds n. For example, 12 is abundant because 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 6 = 16 > 12). 3) The set of numbers whose decimal expansion begins with the digit 1 has no natural density.daveS_{July 23, 2020
July
07
Jul
23
23
2020
07:07 AM
7
07
07
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 … 31 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply