No. The uncertainty principle is not just a statement of the limits of our knowledge. It is a statement of the actual state of affairs. The particle whose location we know does not have a precise velocity which we simply cannot measure. It literally does not have a single velocity, but rather a range of velocities in superposition. My understanding, anyway, as explicitly stated in books like this
Perhaps I am being to forceful in my statement, and it would be more accurate to say there is no clear evidence that a particle can have both an exact momentum and location. This touches on the thorny question of the degree to which our measurements determine or reflect reality.
I’d ask for a more detailed and precise explanation of how this works, but since you’ve decided to insult us and flounce off rather than defend your claims in an open forum, the point is moot.
If your position requires that you deny some of the scientific facts of the universe what we know with the highest degree of certainty, then I can understand why you’d rather run away then defend your claims.
My guess is that someone starts doing something like solving mathematical problems if the brain is stimulated, either deliberately by an experimenter or thru a spontaneous discharge. In context, I think that is what Egnor is suggesting.
It’s an interesting question. I don’t think immateriality answers it.
Suffice it to say his responses miss the mark by a wide margin.
I have sent the website an email clarifying that I do not “describe (myself) as a ‘Militant atheist’ and an ‘Anti-Creationist Psychiatrist’”, but rather that those are @swamidass’s pet nicknames for me.
I won’t ask for it. And I would accept your M.D. as moderately supporting evidence as to your intelligence. (But I worked in a hospital for three decades, so it is not conclusive evidence to me. )
I love how the DI doesn’t even hide the fact that they lurk these forums to troll for things to write about. A form of confrontational voyeurism I guess, lol. Hi guys! Are you enjoying watching the grownups chat?
PS had become the premier place for engaging ID. I’m glad they value the opinions of everyone here, even those with whom I disagree on many things, such as @Faizal_Ali.
But other than some cheap jabs (about your moniker) he actually engaged with what you said. I am happy because this moves the conversation forward. When I watched the video I thought Egnor had some good points. Then you made some good points (I am especially curious about the intellectual seizure) and now he’s responded.
Minus the slight bit of attitude on both sides, this is exactly the type of conversation that needs to be taking place for people to wrestle with what it means to be human in an AI/tech world, in my opinion.
Engagement would involve actual direct contact between the two of us. I don’t know if he intended to inform me of the posts (I learned of them when another writer there emailed me to confirm my identity, and did not at first mention the articles, which were already up by then. OTOH, I didn’t email him about the thread here.
No comments allowed on his blog. Not much engagement possible there, is there?
I also don’t really see how he advanced the discussion. He pretty well just repeats the claims he made in the video, and does not really show any understanding of my points.
Anyway, he is probably reading this, so he knows there is an open invitation to discuss things here.
Yes, they do. They’re sense organs. Blind people can’t see. Deaf people can’t hear. Unless a disembodied consciousness has organs that react with photons, it won’t be able to see. Unless it has organs that react with vibrations, it won’t be able to hear. Or do you think it’s all just magic?
And I would accept your M.D. as moderately supporting evidence as to your intelligence. (But I worked in a hospital for three decades, so it is not conclusive evidence to me.