You just needed to read the next paragraph:

"The 2026 multicenter placebo-controlled trial extending this work..."

The definition of pi is what determines the digits of pi, FULL STOP. There's no room whatsoever, for any sort of agent to 'leave a message' in those digits. I would think even a full-on theist would be embarrassed to suggest otherwise.

"Having chosen... you are given the chance to switch"

Nowhere does it say, you'll be offered the switch no matter which envelope you choose.

Same idea applies, to the very similar Monty Hall problem.

That true statement is definitely not an argument in favor SE; it would be of no evidentiary value to a zombie, for example.

If and when you, naasking, have SE and recognize it: it's existence will then be impossible to doubt.

However, I don't think Dennett (or any human) is actually a zombie. The difficulty, is getting people to recognize their own SE. Our vocabulary, all about material and mechanisms, can't actually define SE. Instead, we have a few ostensions by which an attentive experiencer might recognize his own SE:

[Descartes] SE is that one thing, which absolutely must exist.

[Nagel] SE is "what it's like, to be...". He adds, that all our science is fully consistent with SE not existing. That's why it makes perfect sense for a zombie to believe it doesn't exist.

[Jackson]: Mary knows what seeing red is like, only when she has seen red.

I don't think SE is exclusive to humans, but only humans talk about it, as far as we know.

Start instead with SE, and then any sort of material universe can be the contents of it.

Those of us who do have SE, and have recognized it, know something the zombies cannot know: that SE must exist.

That's what illusionism, the position of Keith Frankish, asserts. Dennett mostly seems to support it, as you note, but more equivocally than Frankish.

For those of us who have subjective experience (SE), and are aware of it: SE is the thing, which we know must exist (as noted by Descartes).

Anyone doubting the existence of SE, either is not having SE (i.e. is a "phenomenological zombie"), or (more likely, IMO) has not identified his own SE.

Not specific to RNA.

And I'm not a biologist.

1) The crystal gene hypothesis of A. G. Cairns-Smith. As a clay crystal grows and splits, the info in the crystal's defect structure is replicating with impressive fidelity, and those defects also interact with the surroundings. So you get the Darwinian game bootstrapped pretty much for free. Later on, the crystals start using organic polymers; later still, the polymer technology is developed well enough to take over from the clay. So this might make abiogenesis reasonably probable on one planet.

2) An observable universe is just any epsilon size patch, on an inflationary universe. The space-time curvature of our whole observable universe is too small to measure, hence the radius of our inflationary universe is a large multiple of the 13 G-lightyear radius we can observe. So abiogenesis could be highly improbable in any observable universe, answering Fermi's paradox, yet be probable within the much greater volume of an inflationary universe (maybe this is what TFA said? TLDR [Edit: yeah, it says that right in the abstract]). And there could even be a large number of inflationary universes, for all we know.

Descartes described the clearest identifying property of SE: it's absolutely certain to exist. Since absolute certainty lies outside the scope of science: science can't define what SE is, it can only describe what SE does.

Science doesn't rule out the philosophical hypothesis known as "illusionism" (advocated by Keith Frankish), that SE is a delusion.

If you, skohan, have SE and have correctly identified it: its nonexistence will be inconceivable to you. Are you there yet?

It's because subjective experience (SE) cannot even be defined in physical terms. Or any terms, really. Instead of any definition of SE, all that's on offer are ostensions that will direct a reader's attention to his own SE if he's having it. Such as:

Descartes: SE is what you're absolutely certain must exist, even if everything else is an illusion.

Nagel: SE is "what it's like to be _____".

Nagel again (same paper, but not quoted enough): It [SE] is not captured by any of the familiar, recently devised reductive analyses of the mental, for all of them are logically compatible with its absence. [italics mine]

I don't have any dates for these usages.

Edit: that p-47 powertrain is an absolute beast!

  ..transpile to C for speed,
  ..have an interpreter (REPL) for convenience,
  ..use *Cheney on the MTA* to support:
  ....continuations
  ....1st generation of GC.

It had a few 16 bit instructions: arithmetic on data in registers, or loading/storing a 16 bit register (8 bits at a time). I think the Z80 did as well.

Here's Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorola_6809

I got an optional OS for it, called "OS9" but unrelated to Apple's OS9 (which came later).

OS9 had capabilities very similar to (and modeled on)Unix. Clearly, Linux or something a lot like it could also have run on the CoCo.

Another way to describe it: the spiral's uphill slope stays constant.

Some singing is enunciated enough, that I actually do hear all the words. Notably, the Beatles.