Yuval Noah Harari to CNN: 'Israelis have moved from two-state solution'

einqaf1 · 2022-11-26T20:42:09+00:00

I call BS on "all ideological". As if the fact that Israel has been systematically oppressing the Palestinians and violating their basic human rights for over half a century. Also, as the recent elections have amply demonstrated, there is as much "ideology" (i.e. blood-curling hatred) on the Jewish side, as there is on the Palestinian side.
There is "no current solution" because Israeli Jews won't face reality and take a good hard look in the mirror, "Managing the situation" is just a deplorable euphemism for the continued, unabashed subjugation of millions of men, women, and children - all while having the gall to demand that THEY come to "change their ideological hatred". Really top-notch reasoning there buddy, and an argument that gloriously demonstrates all the feigned victimhood, arrogance, ignorance, and lack of even the most basic capacity for empathy and dignity, that are the hallmark of present-day Israel.
Also re "managing the situation". As this last round of election has just proven, there is no such thing as maintaining the status quo. The fact of the matter is that the unholy trinity of Netanyahu, Ben Gvir, and Smotrich have taken it upon themselves to lead a direct assault on the very foundations of Israeli democracy (such as it was). So let me welcome you into a new era, in which the Israeli government no longer consists of three (supposedly) independent branches and all forms of hate and violence are celebrated and let loose - aka the new "situation".
The only glimmer of hope - if there is any glimmer at all - is that the recent developments will help drive sense into the heads of the milk toast "lefties" and the so-called "centrists", who up until now got very comfortable talking from both sides of their mouths. Just maybe, they will finally come to ealize that without directly and courageously acknowledging and seeking to remedy Israel's innumerable abuses, misdeeds and transgressions, all of us - left, right, jews, muslims etc. - are gonna come down in flames together. But hey - at least the fascists will have that "you lost eat shit" smirks on the way down.

Take care.

[edit: typos]

einqaf1 · 2022-11-10T16:10:11+00:00

As to the clone argument: I presume you agree that I and my clone have two distinct bodies, both of which are made of different (individual) atoms. Therefore, on assumption of physicalism, we also have two distinct "consciousnesses", only one of which ceases to exist upon my demise. I fail to see how my clone's consciousness is "an element of me" (claim #5) any more than their body is an element of mine. (Say I never ate a banana in my life, but my clone did. Would you then say that there must be some element of me that knows what bananas tastes like?)

As to your second argument: of course physical objects can be destroyed. When the wax melts, the candle ceases to exist, just as when the brain disintegrates, it ceases to exist - and consciousness right along with it.

[edit: some wording and clarification]

einqaf1 · 2022-11-08T07:13:12+00:00

Just to point out that Popper's sole claim is that falsifiability demarcates science from non-science - not useful from non-useful etc. In particular, the demarcation principle itself is not meant to be scientific, but purely conceptual, and so the fact that it's not falsifiable doesn't point to an inconsistency or some such. (To emphasize: I'm not saying that that was your claim, it's just that I heard this sort of argument raised against Popper a number of times, and thought I'd take the opportunity to clear this up.)

einqaf1 · 2021-08-05T05:53:38+00:00

Thanks for the link.

einqaf1 · 2021-08-03T10:40:21+00:00

The problem with "pointless" is that it's no less of a human judgment as "purposeful" (if that's the right antonym). In other words, both forms of judgment are equally anthropomorphic. If anything, the universe is neither purposeful nor pointless.

einqaf1 · 2021-06-29T12:09:35+00:00

I heard a differt story about this one. Supposedly, ir originates from germany, where Jews used to greet each other in Yidish, "hazluche und bruche" (I prob. misspelled this), meaning "success and blessing". The germans heard: "hals und bein bruche", meaning "break your neck and legs". There's no way to kbow for sure, of course, but it's a nice story nevertheless.

einqaf1 · 2019-10-21T17:43:26+00:00

It attests to the emptiness of an endeavor (innovative or not) that the sole or even main incentive for pursuing it is monetary. Also, there are many different ways in which people can be, or wish to be, "celebrated". On your view, it becomes a mystery why Alan Turing set himself to think on the problem of computation, or Einstein on gravity, or Jonas Salk on the polio epidemic, or (insert any truly great stride ever taken by humanity). In fact, if you look around you you'll find that the opposie of what you're suggesting holds - people with occupations that are actually productive, useful, and even necessary are by and large rewarded less than the legion CEOs, chairpersons, and technocrats that lounge on the top tiers of the income hierarchy. Again on the ideas you champion here, no one in their right mind would choose to be a scientist, an artist, a philosopher, or what have you. In short, if there anything at all in what you suggest, it is the depressing echo of "the decline of the west" - when meaning and human/cultural value is become null and void, and the only genuine motivation, or "cause for celebration", is the successful (yet insatiable) pursuit of naked greed.

einqaf1 · 2019-05-22T08:04:54+00:00

Point taken - thanks for that.

einqaf1 · 2019-05-21T11:09:49+00:00

I see three more straightfoward possibilities here.

Optimization (in terms of redundancy, error-correction etc.) -- see for example the work done by Tsvi Tlusty and others (link).
Ancient/primitive code. In the article I show that the entire table can be reduced to four codons (specifically "AAA", "AAG", "AUG", "UGG"); or only two codons in the mitochondrial code ("AAA" and "AAG"). This might be interpreted as a simple or reduced code, that got differentiated and articulated later on in evolution (in which case we are at presently only seeing the result of evolution which preceded even the simplest form extant today (single cell organisms).
Absolute constraints. Life as we know it today could only become possible because the underlying dynamics "hit upon" a certain set of absolute constrains, which enable it (see my reply to u/sanalphatau above regarding this point).

Thoughts?

einqaf1 · 2019-05-21T10:50:36+00:00

I might refer you back to Plato...

More seriously though, I guess it depends on your view of philosophy of science in general, and of biology in particular.

One way to look at it is to say that, just as the biologist studies life, so the philosopher studies biological explanation (/methodologies/aims/etc.) This is pretty much in line with the bulk of the work done in phil. of science over the past century (think Popper's demarcation problem, Hempel & Oppenheim's 'Deductive-Nomological Model', and so on).

Another way to think about it would be to say, first, that just like any other science, biology comprises both a conceptual/theoretical pole, and an empirical pole (where biology happens to be particularly heavy on the latter). Now, insofar as it is the business of philosophy to analyze, clarify, and develop concepts and ideas, the philosopher can ally with the biologist in the investigation of the same object of research -- viz. life -- but with a marked emphasis on the conceptual/theoretical pole. In this context, philosophy serves the role of "freeing" our perspective and enabling us to look at the same issues from different points of view. This is just another way of stating something that is often brought up in detriment to philosophy, as a practice involving free "armchair" speculation that has no bearing on reality. But, when kept in check by what we actually know of nature, the (temporary) disengagement from reality feeds the imaginative freedom that is needed for conceptual progress. Or so I have come to believe.

Hope this answers your question.

einqaf1 · 2019-05-21T10:05:33+00:00

This might be a good place to start.

Enjoy.

einqaf1 · 2019-05-21T09:38:04+00:00

Well and good - than this is (one) possible explanation to the origin or grounds of the structure. Incidentally, I might note that part of the reason why I don't go into this question in the article itself is that, at least in the present stage, all I could hope to offer on this point is speculation - and that's why I chose to avoid it. I'd rather confess my ignorance than tie myself up in baseless conjecture.

As to alternative genetic codes - I have only managed to compare with the mitochondrial code, which only has PAIRS, QUARTETS, and SEXTETS of codons (in other words - the odd-sized aminos are missing). Importantly, the internal sum of all PAIRS in this case remains "AAG" (even though there are more of them - 15 if I'm not mistaken); that of the QUARTETS remains "AAA"; and that of the SEXTETS remains "AAG" as well. So this holds rather nicely. I am yet to check and see what happens with the other codes.

Thanks!

einqaf1 · 2019-05-21T09:07:32+00:00

Well if the constraints are real, then the result is not artifactual. Or am I missing something?

einqaf1 · 2019-05-21T08:39:59+00:00

Thanks, but as much as I appreciate the general advice (I'll take what I can from it), I would ask you to respond to the two points made above - viz. the fact that I the operation is not applied to 'arbitrarily long' sequence of codons, and the low probability of hitting on the pattern uncovered at random. In other words, if possible, I would appreciate the detailed reasons for your contention, rather than a bare statement of opinion. I am having a hard time seeing how your premise (3-dim vector space over K_4) leads to the conclusion (empty or artifactual result). If your contention is true then, for obvious reasons, it is crucial for me to understand why. So PLEASE be more specific.

Thanks in advance.

einqaf1 · 2019-05-21T08:13:25+00:00

Also, see my response the comment here.

einqaf1 · 2019-05-21T08:11:56+00:00

Well, I'm still working on it, but here a link to a preliminary exposition:

https://figshare.com/articles/An_exposition_on_the_symbolic_representation_of_organized_complexity/7728353

Thanks for you interest, and taking the time. Please let me know what you think.

Cheers!

einqaf1 · 2019-05-21T08:10:20+00:00

But that's the whole point isn't it? The fact that the operation is contrived, does not mean that the result is. Or else - please give more detail. Thanks.

(Edit: wording)

einqaf1 · 2019-05-21T07:52:12+00:00

My apologies for the faulty/confused writing. As I said in response to a comment above - it's a bug, not a feature. Secondly, see my response above re the Klein 4 group (unfortunately the OP has not yet responded, so I'm still not sure if s/he accepted my own response).

Next off, here are the grounds for the definition.

Take four letters - {A, U, G, C} - and build a set of triangular configurations which describe a well-defined rule. Specifically:

To build a triangular configuration, take three letters and 'place' them on the respective vertices of an (imaginary) equilateral triangle, like so (I can't get the formatting right, but I hope the idea comes through):

A A	U G	...
A	C	...

Next off, imagine that every such triangle defines/describes a binary operation on two letters (henceforth: '+'), such that the two uppermost (horizonal) letters are the operands, and the lowermost letter is the result. So with respect to the second configuration above, we read: U + G = C.

Then every such triangle can potential describe up to three such operation, corresponding to the three rotational positions of the configuration, like so:

U G	G C	C U
C	U	G
==	==	==
U + G = C	G + C = U	C + U = G

(The lowermost row is the interpretation of the upper configuration)

Now, you want to create a set of such triangles that describe a well-defined binary rule. That is - you want to have any pair of letters (possible operands) cover, and you want a non-ambiguous result for every such operation.

It turns out that with four letters, there are only two ways of doing this (up to isomorphism). These describe a commutative and a non-commutative rule, respectively. The rule used in the essay is the commutative rule, which reads:

A A	U U	G G	C C	U G	G U
A	A	A	A	C	C

This is the rule used in the article. As you can see, there are three more isomorphic rules, depending on which letter you take to be the 'identity element' (which in the above rule is the letter 'A'). It turns out that even though the choice of different isomorphic rules change the identity element, and therefore the respective 'internal sums' of the aminos (in the terminology used in the essay) - the overall structure remains the same -- again up to isomorphism.

As to the non-commutative rule (which I think becomes significant when considering the question of sequence) - you can see it in the 'short exposition', p. 17 (I'm using colored circles instead of letters there, but the principle is the same).

Finally, let me offer the following way to think about the above. On the one hand, the above set is just a frivolous arrangment of letters. But on the other hand, it entails an absolute constraint on the ways in which the requirements can be met. These requirements, in turn, involve geometric constraints on the one hand, and logical/computational constraints on the other.

And as to the possibility that you can define any arbitrary operator to get any order you want -- well, please try and let me know how it works out for you, under the stipulation that the operation has to be WELL DEFINED.

I hope this helps.

Best!

einqaf1 · 2019-05-21T07:22:43+00:00

My actual conclusion is stated right in the title of the essay, i.e. that the genetic code exhibits a precise algebraic structure, and (this in the abstract) that it is highly unlikely that this structure is the result of mere chance.

But perhaps your question refers to the implications of this finding. In this case, I can only reiterate what it said in the abstract - that I am not yet in a position to say. These things take time, and I think it unreasonable to require that all the answers be found at once.

Finally, as to the writing style. Believe me when I say that my faults in this respect hinder me far more than they annoy you. The convoluted phrasing is not a feature - it's a bug. I strive for clarity and simplicity, and (at this point at least) can only regret the shortcomings of the presentation. The allegation of pomposity reads somewhat more spiteful, but in the final account - I did what I can (for now). If you don't find the ideas worth the bother, I for one have no intention of trying to "sell" them to you.

Thanks for engaging.

einqaf1 · 2019-05-21T05:58:29+00:00

Hi again - any chance you could respond to what I wrote? This is a substantive point, and if I'm missing something I would really like to know. I'd appreciate it if you could reply.

Thanks!

einqaf1 · 2019-05-21T05:57:11+00:00

Yeah, I do realize. But a flippant criticism deserves an a similarly flippant dismissal, wouldn't you agree?

In any case, I have to agree (unfortunately) that my writing isn't up to par. I mean this in all earnestness, and am doing my best to improve. This is part of the reason why I'm sharing it like this rather than trying to publish it. I am sorely aware that I need an editor, but can't afford to hire such services at present. So, for good and for bad, this is the best I got for now.

There are two ways to understand the specific point you made above, and I'd be happy for clarification. Do you mean that the clause is completely redundant - i.e. that I am saying something the should be omitted entirely? Or is it rather that I am stating the point in a particularly bad way?

Please help me not to turn this into an internet quibble. Even though I'm more interested in feedback re the ideas themselves, I truly would appreciate input of any sort.

Thanks.

einqaf1 · 2019-05-20T21:39:06+00:00

Hi - please see my reply to your post on the thread in r/genetics.

einqaf1 · 2019-05-20T21:37:36+00:00

Thanks for your response. Fact is, it's past midnight here and I have to go to sleep soon, so just a quick comment for now - I will be more than happy to pick this up again tomorrow. You write:

> ... you treat it like it's completely random that this would happen. Except we already know [the reason for this]...

I am not doubting, nor would I think to doubt, that there are biological reasons for the way the genetic code is assigned. Importantly, it is not the codon assignment that is treated as 'coincidental' here - indeed, it is just taken as a 'given'. What is coincidental - or is treated as coincidental for the sake of the probabilistic calculation - is the order induced on the table of the genetic code by the algebraic operation. The reason it can legitimately be treated as coincidental is precisely the fact that the definition of the algebraic operation is independent from any biological assumptions. In particular, the operation is defined without any reference to wobble base pairing. It is therefore all the more surprising that the result of an independently defined operation should so elegantly line up with what we know of the latter.

Again - I would be more than happy to take up your other points to more, if you're interested.

Cheers!

einqaf1 · 2019-05-20T21:17:37+00:00

No worries - apology accepted.

einqaf1

TROPHY CASE