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

Upright BiPed: You’ve gone from a stammering deer-in-the-headlights, to demanding to see the toilets. I didn't demand, I asked. You’ve regained your innate ability to spit unsophisticated one-liners back at the science, and you are prepared to do so over and over again, as many times as necessary. Yes, I know, the evidence is incontrovertible to you. No matter how politely I try and disagree I am just a spitting and lunatic moron. I get that. The words of an illogical and uncaring self-defense have become easy, and there is simply nothing that will make you truly address that evidence ever again. Well, if you're going to be that nice about I might have another think. (I do continue to consider things actually, despite your charming manner.) Science has documented a multi-referent symbol system, a language structure, and semantic closure embedded in every living cell on earth. Perhaps you won’t become too spiteful in your denial of it, but people tend to do what profits them. I denied nothing. All I did was point out that Dr Pattee did not come to the conclusion that the whole system was designed. I was never able to find anyplace where he made any kind of statements to that effect. And so my statement is true as far as I can check. Why does that bother you so much? Why do you care that I look at the same material and note that NO ONE knows how the system came into being? I find your anger and spite tiring. And, even though Kairosfocus will castigate me just for disagreeing with you or him I'm quite sure he finds your tone perfectly acceptable. And you guys wonder why more people who disagree with you don't come and present their cases? They don't like being told they're stupid and moronic and then banned. PS: 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.JVL_{July 23, 2020
July
07
Jul
23
23
2020
07:00 AM
7
07
00
AM
PDT}

.
May 24, 2020, immediately afterwards… JVL: I think most of us tend to cling to ideas they’ve held for a long time; it’s hard to admit you’ve got it wrong after years and years and some ideas are comforting to us.
You’ve truly run the gamut JVL. We’ve all watched it unfold before us in real time. You’ve gone from a stammering deer-in-the-headlights, to demanding to see the toilets. You were confronted with coherent evidence and history which you clearly could not (and cannot) respond to, but you are now back on your feet and strong; the fog and disorientation of public exposure has passed. You’ve regained your innate ability to spit unsophisticated one-liners back at the science, and you are prepared to do so over and over again, as many times as necessary. The words of an illogical and uncaring self-defense have become easy, and there is simply nothing that will make you truly address that evidence ever again. Dissonance is now your ally and companion. Science has documented a multi-referent symbol system, a language structure, and semantic closure embedded in every living cell on earth. Perhaps you won’t become too spiteful in your denial of it, but people tend to do what profits them.Upright BiPed_{July 23, 2020
July
07
Jul
23
23
2020
05:39 AM
5
05
39
AM
PDT}

Kairosfocus: Next, Venter et al show what is feasible, molecular nanotech design, instantly, it cannot be objected that it cannot be done. I didn't say it couldn't be done, I asked if you had evidence of beings with the appropriate equipment before humans had it? Next, to set aside decisive evidence in hand to demand what is known we do not have is itself a sign of rhetorical design, by resort to selectively hyperskeptical red herring. It's okay to disagree with you regarding what evidence is decisive. Further, just as a note, unless one is the Omniscient God, s/he NEVER has all of the evidence; science and other responsible endeavors proceed on evidence we have and can reasonably access. I didn't ask if you had ALL the evidence, just if you had some. With HCQ+ cocktails, there has been a consistent pattern of flawed or even built to fail studies used to cloud the issue; these and linked errors arguably cost hundreds of thousands their lives. Well, a lot of smart people and governments and government agencies seem to disagree with you on that particular issue. Have you actually counted up the number of 'positive' HCQ studies vs the number of 'negative' HCQ studies? How do you decide which ones to believe and which ones not to believe?JVL_{July 23, 2020
July
07
Jul
23
23
2020
03:40 AM
3
03
40
AM
PDT}

JVL, opinion counts for nil (save, when it becomes defamatory tort), warrant is decisive. Next, the evidence of complex, algorithmic, alphanumeric code speaks for itself: goal-directed, linguistic . . . signatures of intelligence. Next, Venter et al show what is feasible, molecular nanotech design, instantly, it cannot be objected that it cannot be done. Next, to set aside decisive evidence in hand to demand what is known we do not have is itself a sign of rhetorical design, by resort to selectively hyperskeptical red herring. Further, just as a note, unless one is the Omniscient God, s/he NEVER has all of the evidence; science and other responsible endeavors proceed on evidence we have and can reasonably access. That too is part of decision theory, consider costs of delay and further investigation. With HCQ+ cocktails, there has been a consistent pattern of flawed or even built to fail studies used to cloud the issue; these and linked errors arguably cost hundreds of thousands their lives. KFkairosfocus_{July 23, 2020
July
07
Jul
23
23
2020
03:27 AM
3
03
27
AM
PDT}

Kairosfocus: Just as I pointed out on the core issue of design theory, the evidence of design — decisive, BTW — lies in the information, communication and control system before us. Yes, I know, you find the evidence convincing; I do not. It does not matter if the guys who did it had green or grey skin, were buggy-eyed. lived in a geosynchronous space station and disposed of wastes by firing them into the handy nearby Sun. Well, I think that would matter a lot! Do you have any evidence that this happened? Only, Venter et al have demonstrated that cell scale genetic engineering is feasible, so we know a molecular nanotech lab is a sufficient causal candidate. Do you have any evidence that such a thing existed before humans invented one? Evidence is evidence, once you find it. It needs to be respected on its own merits rather than subjected to arbitrary hyperskeptical objections, too often because the source or context or import do not sit well with a reigning orthodoxy and its self-appointed new magisterium of [typically, secularist nowadays] high priests You have decried studies which seem to contradict that which you believe to be true; should not that evidence be taken into account? Shouldn't ALL the evidence be taken into account? Shouldn't the decision be made based on all the evidence taken as a whole?JVL_{July 23, 2020
July
07
Jul
23
23
2020
03:16 AM
3
03
16
AM
PDT}

JVL, red herring. Just as I pointed out on the core issue of design theory, the evidence of design -- decisive, BTW -- lies in the information, communication and control system before us. It does not matter if the guys who did it had green or grey skin, were buggy-eyed. lived in a geosynchronous space station and disposed of wastes by firing them into the handy nearby Sun. Only, Venter et al have demonstrated that cell scale genetic engineering is feasible, so we know a molecular nanotech lab is a sufficient causal candidate. I cited these to show just how fallacious the objection you made is. And BTW, this pattern is quite similar to how the HCQ cocktail issue has been handled over the past several months, with hundreds of thousands of lives on the line. Evidence is evidence, once you find it. It needs to be respected on its own merits rather than subjected to arbitrary hyperskeptical objections, too often because the source or context or import do not sit well with a reigning orthodoxy and its self-appointed new magisterium of [typically, secularist nowadays] high priests. KFkairosfocus_{July 23, 2020
July
07
Jul
23
23
2020
01:43 AM
1
01
43
AM
PDT}

Bob O'H: yes, but (and I know this sounds weird), how do you count? Isn’t it just using the bijection to natural numbers? Exactly. ET thinks countably infinite and cardinality of aleph-0 mean different things.JVL_{July 23, 2020
July
07
Jul
23
23
2020
01:27 AM
1
01
27
AM
PDT}

Upright Biped: JVL, it was pointed out to you (both here and in the previous conversation) that Howard Pattee’s position was that the symbol/matter problem remains entirely unresolved by science. Throughout his career he repeatedly stated that he was describing the problem, but that he had no solution (no conclusion) as to its origin. That's right, he did not say it was designed. Your little drama was amusing but there is a point: designers require resources, tools, food, recording methods, etc. Unless you have evidence of one that does not.JVL_{July 23, 2020
July
07
Jul
23
23
2020
01:21 AM
1
01
21
AM
PDT}

ET: Set subtraction proves that your alignment is incorrect. That you cannot grasp that fact says it all. My 'alignment' is not correct or cheating or contrived. It has been used by many mathematicians and writers over the last century. No one else had a problem with it. Just you. Everyone else has thought about the problem and realised Cantor's view was correct. Except you. And when someone shows where your method fails or is inapplicable you either ignore the challenges or say the other person is cheating without being able to find academic support for your views. Please explain how set subtraction can prove there are unmatched elements. Or shut up. It doesn't prove it because I have demonstrated a one-to-one correspondence where there are no elements left out. You're only response: you're cheating. But that's just you not being able to come up with an actual counter-argument. Not having an argument you fallback on evasion. JVL can’t do it! I have done as anyone can see. In fact, in this thread NO ONE agrees with you. Everyone else understands what I've done. And, as I said, my approach is echoed over the centuries by many, many people. When that is pointed out you abuse and slur again by suggesting I can't think for myself that I am some kind of sheep for accepting reality. You have no idea the path I took to agreeing Cantor's way is correct so stop being abusive. Here we go again- JVL says there are billions of dishonest people and only a small % (very, very small) % of honest people. I'm talking about mathematicians, people who understand the mathematics. Besides, you have consistently failed to even attempt to test your ideas out on the wider public so you actually have no idea what the actual support for your broken ideas would be. Any honest person can see set subtraction contradicts Cantor. So far, after more than 100 years, you are the only person I know who thinks so.JVL_{July 23, 2020
July
07
Jul
23
23
2020
01:17 AM
1
01
17
AM
PDT}

ET @ 788 - yes, but (and I know this sounds weird), how do you count? Isn't it just using the bijection to natural numbers?Bob O'H_{July 23, 2020
July
07
Jul
23
23
2020
12:44 AM
12
12
44
AM
PDT}

daves:
Then this “relative cardinality” isn’t the right tool for the job I am trying to accomplish.
OK, Good luck with that.
I am trying to express the fact that the primes and the squares can each be put in one-to-one correspondence with N. They share this property in common.
It means that they are also countably infinite (N being countably infinite). However, 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 22, 2020
July
07
Jul
22
22
2020
02:58 PM
2
02
58
PM
PDT}

ET, Then this "relative cardinality" isn't the right tool for the job I am trying to accomplish. I am trying to express the fact that the primes and the squares can each be put in one-to-one correspondence with N. They share this property in common. {a, b}, {x, y}, {19, 23} each are in one-to-one correspodence with {1, 2}. These sets go in the "2" bin. {a, b, c, d, e} and {1, 2, 6, 24, 120} go in the "5" bin. The sets of squares and primes go in yet another bin. You probably know what label is used for this bin. The set of subsets of N and the set of reals go in a much larger bin. There are infinitely many even larger bins one can consider, and lots of open questions. Is there a bin between the one containing N and the one containing R? That question is still debated.daveS_{July 22, 2020
July
07
Jul
22
22
2020
01:36 PM
1
01
36
PM
PDT}

daves- there are more primes than squaresET_{July 22, 2020
July
07
Jul
22
22
2020
11:51 AM
11
11
51
AM
PDT}

. #770 Ideologue: Did you find a symbol system? Scientist: Yes. Ideologue: Are you sure? Scientist: Yes, symbol systems have a physical embodiment that can be measured. Ideologue: Is there a code? Scientist: Yes, a multi-referent code using spatial orientation of symbols to distinguish one referent from another, as well as a set of non-intergrable constraints to establish the medium. Ideologue: Did all these discoveries just come out of the blue? Scientist: Actually no, the requirements of the system were predicted to exist, generally through the work of information theory, mathematics, physics, and logic. Ideologue: And what’s this “semantic closure” thing? Scientist: It means that the coordination of symbols and constraints is required at the origin of the system’s function. It’s one of the fundamental requirements of self-reference. Ideologue: Find anything else? Scientist: Well yes, the only other physical organization like this to ever be documented is in human language and mathematics. Ideologue: Did you find any toliets? Scientist: What? Ideologue: You know, toliets. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - JVL, it was pointed out to you (both here and in the previous conversation) that Howard Pattee’s position was that the symbol/matter problem remains entirely unresolved by science. Throughout his career he repeatedly stated that he was describing the problem, but that he had no solution (no conclusion) as to its origin. The actual content of his descriptions remains.Upright BiPed_{July 22, 2020
July
07
Jul
22
22
2020
10:45 AM
10
10
45
AM
PDT}

ET,
Relative cardinalities
Ok, what are they for the squares and the primes?daveS_{July 22, 2020
July
07
Jul
22
22
2020
10:23 AM
10
10
23
AM
PDT}

Set subtraction proves that your alignment is incorrect. That you cannot grasp that fact says it all.
That’s just not true at all
Your ignorance is not an argument. Please explain how set subtraction can prove there are unmatched elements. Or shut up. JVL can't do it!
It doesn’t matter, any honest person can see you’re wrong
Here we go again- JVL says there are billions of dishonest people and only a small % (very, very small) % of honest people. Any honest person can see set subtraction contradicts Cantor.ET_{July 22, 2020
July
07
Jul
22
22
2020
09:25 AM
9
09
25
AM
PDT}

ET: Set subtraction proves that your alignment is incorrect. That you cannot grasp that fact says it all. Sigh. That's just not true at all. Check just about any source. This from Wikipedia:
For example, the set E = {0, 2, 4, 6, ...} of non-negative even numbers has the same cardinality as the set N = {0, 1, 2, 3, ...} of natural numbers, since the function f(n) = 2n is a bijection from N to E,
Everyone says your method is wrong and you make up criteria. Please explain how set subtraction can prove there are unmatched elements. Or shut up. It doesn't prove that using my scheme. That's the point. There are no rules about what is or is not allowed. You just want there to be. But it's not true. You make stuff up and claim that's the way it has to be. It doesn't matter, any honest person can see you're wrong and you make things up. And no, JVL, you don’t have anything coherent to say about Pattee’s work. Your opinion just exposes your cluelessness. It doesn't matter; Upright Biped brought that all up again not me. I've said what I wanted to say.JVL_{July 22, 2020
July
07
Jul
22
22
2020
08:53 AM
8
08
53
AM
PDT}

daves:
Certainly no finite integer will suffice. It looks like we need some new notation. Any suggestions?
Relative cardinalitiesET_{July 22, 2020
July
07
Jul
22
22
2020
08:36 AM
8
08
36
AM
PDT}

And no, JVL, you don't have anything coherent to say about Pattee's work. Your opinion just exposes your cluelessness.ET_{July 22, 2020
July
07
Jul
22
22
2020
08:35 AM
8
08
35
AM
PDT}

Set subtraction proves that your alignment is incorrect. That you cannot grasp that fact says it all. Please explain how set subtraction can prove there are unmatched elements. Or shut up.ET_{July 22, 2020
July
07
Jul
22
22
2020
08:34 AM
8
08
34
AM
PDT}

ET: Both the evens and odds are matched with the integers. You do not subtract unlike numbers. Obviously you are just a jerk. So, what is B - C using the B and C I have given? And wrt to Pattee, you have nothing to say. With respect to nature producing coded information systems, you have nothing to say. I do have something to say about Pattee's work but Kairosfocus tells me I am coming close to defamation. Apparently offering my opinion is accusing someone of something or casting aspersions on their character. So, I guess it's okay for you to say whatever you like about someone but if I even express an opinion that differs from certain people I am defaming them. JVL, if your alignment did not involve cheating then A – B should = {} and it doesn’t. My one-to-one correspondences are NOT cheating. You've made that up because you cannot explain how two sets can have their elements in one-to-one correspondence with no element left out of either set and still have one set bigger than the other. So you create criteria which favours your view. But those criteria are NOT supported anywhere by anyone but you. So, again, given that I have shown over and over and over again that I can put lots of sets you say have different sizes into one-to-once correpsondences where no element of either set is left out please explain how that can happen if the sets are of different sizes. And don't make something up this time; try and actually address the issue.JVL_{July 22, 2020
July
07
Jul
22
22
2020
07:39 AM
7
07
39
AM
PDT}

ET,
And without counting you don’t know what that cardinality is.
Certainly no finite integer will suffice. It looks like we need some new notation. Any suggestions?daveS_{July 22, 2020
July
07
Jul
22
22
2020
07:28 AM
7
07
28
AM
PDT}

JVL, if your alignment did not involve cheating then A – B should = {} and it doesn’t.ET_{July 22, 2020
July
07
Jul
22
22
2020
07:26 AM
7
07
26
AM
PDT}

daves:
We might decide that it’s reasonable to say the squares and primes have equal cardinality, since the elements pair up exactly.
And without counting you don't know what that cardinality is.ET_{July 22, 2020
July
07
Jul
22
22
2020
07:25 AM
7
07
25
AM
PDT}

LoL! @ JVL- I have already explained this to you, several times. So obviously you have issues. Both the evens and odds are matched with the integers. You do not subtract unlike numbers. Obviously you are just a jerk. And wrt to Pattee, you have nothing to say. With respect to nature producing coded information systems, you have nothing to say.ET_{July 22, 2020
July
07
Jul
22
22
2020
07:23 AM
7
07
23
AM
PDT}

Bob- you just count. You don't need a bijection. If the counts equal each other than a bijection is at hand.ET_{July 22, 2020
July
07
Jul
22
22
2020
07:19 AM
7
07
19
AM
PDT}

True, ET. And @ 778 DaveS explained how to count using bijection.Bob O'H_{July 22, 2020
July
07
Jul
22
22
2020
07:14 AM
7
07
14
AM
PDT}

ET: JVL, if your alignment did not involve cheating then A – B should = {} and it doesn’t. Look, you think the relative cardinality of the evens and the relative cardinality of the odds are both half that of the natural numbers. But the evens - odds doesn't give you the empty set. What does it give you? Is it: B = {2, 4, 6, 8, 10 . . . . .} and C = {1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11 . . .} Is B - C = {-1, 2, -3, 4, -5, 6, -7, 8, -9, 10, -11 . . . . } Or is B - C = {2 - 1, 4 - 3, 6 - 5, 8 - 7, 10 - 9 . . .. . .} = {1, 1, 1, 1, 1 . .. . } Or something else? You need to define the operation of set subtraction clearly, when it can and can't be used. Set subtraction proves your alignment and inference from that alignment are wrong. It isn’t my fault that you are too willfully ignorant to grasp that. You still cannot explain how I can pair up elements from two sets so that no element is left out and yet still have one set bigger than another. Pattee did NOT say that nature did it. No one in their right mind would say that nature can produce the system that he described. I better not answer 'cause Kairosfocus might accuse me of defamation again.JVL_{July 22, 2020
July
07
Jul
22
22
2020
07:10 AM
7
07
10
AM
PDT}

ET, We might decide that it's reasonable to say the squares and primes have equal cardinality, since the elements pair up exactly. After more investigation, we would find there are many sets whose elements match up exactly with the counting numbers. In other words, "counting" these sets uses up all of N (but no more). Actually this realization might not come until we happen upon sets where there are too many elements to match up one-to-one with N. The set of all subsets of N is one of these. Its elements are: {} (one zero-element subset) {1}, {2}, {3}, ... (infinitely many one-element subsets) {1, 2}, {1, 3}, {1, 4}, ..., {2, 3}, {2, 4}, {2, 5}, ... (infinitely many two-element subsets) etc., including lots of infinite-element subsets that my list will never get to. The "last" sets in this list would be: N - {1}, N - {2}, N - {3}, ... (all counting numbers except one element) N (all counting numbers) This collection of sets cannot be laid out on an "infinite table" and paired up with elements of N.daveS_{July 22, 2020
July
07
Jul
22
22
2020
06:57 AM
6
06
57
AM
PDT}

And without counting you won't know the cardinality.ET_{July 22, 2020
July
07
Jul
22
22
2020
06:41 AM
6
06
41
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 … 31 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply