Quote:Everena
Wrong. They have the only theory that has ever even been partially proven and corroborated. Neuroscientists agree with all proven science. And you know nothing about the theory that I have been following for 20 years, so stop pretending that you do. And microtubules were always the key to proving it all. And they have done that.

There is no such thing in science, (ignorant Woo Princess), as "partially proven". 
There is NOT ONE neuro-scientist you can name that buys into this stupid woo. 
Quantum reactions in micro tubules proves NOTHING about your woo. 
They have "done" nothing. They have no evidence of a "soul" in micro tubules. It's so laughable, it is beyond laughable. 
There is no evidence in neuro-science that consciousness can be reduced to micro tubules. 
Penrose's specialty is Relativity. He is incompetent in neuro-science. There are countless "debunkings" of this rubbish, all over the internet. 
You wasted 20 years on this crap ? 

"Microtubules are a structure in the cytoskeleton that are found in all dividing eukaryotic cells and in most differentiated cell types (Desai & Mitchison, 1997). They are by no means exclusive to neurons, so if you think they bestow consciousness then you have to grant consciousness to all eukaryotes (something that most philosophers would find strange), or you are back at the same difficulty as before in trying to explain how networks of microtubules give rise to consciousness and thus postulating them as your basic units instead of neurons gives you no explanatory power."

http://www.quora.com/Has-the-Penrose-hyp...n-debunked

LMFAO

Looks like the walls between these personalities are beginning to crumble.  We've got the meat fairy believer quoting babble verses at us and the alleged christian defending meat fairy theology.

They are desperate to believe in horseshit, Buck.

(November 22, 2018 at 7:48 pm)The Valkyrie Wrote: *Waits for mention of kirlian photography*

It's actually an interesting photographic technique, although it seems to rely on ambient moisture in the photographed object rather than "auras."

In my woo-woo days I thought I could see a faint aura around my hand when I held it up to the wall and squinted real hard. Trying that trick today, I can't help but notice that my stapler also has an aura...

(November 23, 2018 at 12:52 am)Astreja Wrote:

(November 22, 2018 at 7:48 pm)The Valkyrie Wrote: *Waits for mention of kirlian photography*

It's actually an interesting photographic technique, although it seems to rely on ambient moisture in the photographed object rather than "auras."

In my woo-woo days I thought I could see a faint aura around my hand when I held it up to the wall and squinted real hard. Trying that trick today, I can't help but notice that my stapler also has an aura...

All staplers go to heaven!

(November 23, 2018 at 12:26 am)Bucky Ball Wrote:

Quote:Everena
Wrong. They have the only theory that has ever even been partially proven and corroborated. Neuroscientists agree with all proven science. And you know nothing about the theory that I have been following for 20 years, so stop pretending that you do. And microtubules were always the key to proving it all. And they have done that.

There is no such thing in science, (ignorant Woo Princess), as "partially proven". 
There is NOT ONE neuro-scientist you can name that buys into this stupid woo. 
Quantum reactions in micro tubules proves NOTHING about your woo. 
They have "done" nothing. They have no evidence of a "soul" in micro tubules. It's so laughable, it is beyond laughable. 
There is no evidence in neuro-science that consciousness can be reduced to micro tubules. 
Penrose's specialty is Relativity. He is incompetent in neuro-science. There are countless "debunkings" of this rubbish, all over the internet. 
You wasted 20 years on this crap ? 

"Microtubules are a structure in the cytoskeleton that are found in all dividing eukaryotic cells and in most differentiated cell types (Desai & Mitchison, 1997). They are by no means exclusive to neurons, so if you think they bestow consciousness then you have to grant consciousness to all eukaryotes (something that most philosophers would find strange), or you are back at the same difficulty as before in trying to explain how networks of microtubules give rise to consciousness and thus postulating them as your basic units instead of neurons gives you no explanatory power."

http://www.quora.com/Has-the-Penrose-hyp...n-debunked

LMFAO

I know what microtubules are and I know why they are the key to this theory. You know nothing and sound like the ignorant uneducated blathering fool that you are. You never bother to find out what the actual facts are, and I am just forced to prove you wrong over and over again after you've once again spewed some ignorant crap. And didn't we already have this argument? Anyway, you lose. The only time any scientist doubted them was prior to them proving this incredibly important part of their theory in 2014. 
And yes, you can partially prove a theory when you have 20 testable predictions and you are able to prove 6 of them as they have. The other 14 predictions are still hypothesis, but NONE are refuted by anyone. Maybe you should learn to read and stop pretending you know anything. https://phys.org/news/2014-01-discovery-...rates.html Oh and Happy Thanksgiving!

(November 23, 2018 at 12:15 am)Everena Wrote: You know nothing. And I am sure that I am far more intelligent and well educated than you are.

Because you are you, the only thing you should be able to be sure of is you are wrong.

---

(November 23, 2018 at 1:51 am)Everena Wrote:

(November 23, 2018 at 12:26 am)Bucky Ball Wrote: There is no such thing in science, (ignorant Woo Princess), as "partially proven". 
There is NOT ONE neuro-scientist you can name that buys into this stupid woo. 
Quantum reactions in micro tubules proves NOTHING about your woo. 
They have "done" nothing. They have no evidence of a "soul" in micro tubules. It's so laughable, it is beyond laughable. 
There is no evidence in neuro-science that consciousness can be reduced to micro tubules. 
Penrose's specialty is Relativity. He is incompetent in neuro-science. There are countless "debunkings" of this rubbish, all over the internet. 
You wasted 20 years on this crap ? 

"Microtubules are a structure in the cytoskeleton that are found in all dividing eukaryotic cells and in most differentiated cell types (Desai & Mitchison, 1997). They are by no means exclusive to neurons, so if you think they bestow consciousness then you have to grant consciousness to all eukaryotes (something that most philosophers would find strange), or you are back at the same difficulty as before in trying to explain how networks of microtubules give rise to consciousness and thus postulating them as your basic units instead of neurons gives you no explanatory power."

http://www.quora.com/Has-the-Penrose-hyp...n-debunked

LMFAO

I know what microtubules are and I know why they are the key to this theory. You know nothing and sound like the ignorant uneducated blathering fool that you are. You never bother to find out what the actual facts are, and I am just forced to prove you wrong over and over again after you've once again spewed some ignorant crap. And didn't we already have this argument? Anyway, you lose. The only time any scientist doubted them was prior to them proving this incredibly important part of their theory in 2014. 
And yes, you can partially prove a theory when you have 20 testable predictions and you are able to prove 6 of them as they have. The other 14 predictions are still hypothesis, but NONE are refuted by anyone. Maybe you should learn to read and stop pretending you know anything. https://phys.org/news/2014-01-discovery-quantum-vibrations-microtubules-corroborates.html  Oh and Happy Thanksgiving!

Oh, the irony.



You mean learn to read a for profit site that collects and aggregates press releases whatever the source as the fount of received truth,  and not from published, peer reviewed, and cited professional literature?

Oh, no need to thank us for giving you any hints of reality.  You are totally incapable of profiting from it.

(November 23, 2018 at 1:52 am)Anomalocaris Wrote:

(November 23, 2018 at 12:15 am)Everena Wrote: You know nothing. And I am sure that I am far more intelligent and well educated than you are.

Because you are you, the only thing you should be able to be sure of is you are wrong.

---

(November 23, 2018 at 1:51 am)Everena Wrote: I know what microtubules are and I know why they are the key to this theory. You know nothing and sound like the ignorant uneducated blathering fool that you are. You never bother to find out what the actual facts are, and I am just forced to prove you wrong over and over again after you've once again spewed some ignorant crap. And didn't we already have this argument? Anyway, you lose. The only time any scientist doubted them was prior to them proving this incredibly important part of their theory in 2014. 
And yes, you can partially prove a theory when you have 20 testable predictions and you are able to prove 6 of them as they have. The other 14 predictions are still hypothesis, but NONE are refuted by anyone. Maybe you should learn to read and stop pretending you know anything. https://phys.org/news/2014-01-discovery-quantum-vibrations-microtubules-corroborates.html  Oh and Happy Thanksgiving!

Oh, the irony.


You mean learn to read a for profit site that collects and aggregates press releases whatever the source as the fount of received truth,  and not from published, peer reviewed, and cited professional literature?

Oh, no need to thank us for giving you any hints of reality.  You are totally incapable of profiting from it.

Oh just keep on laughing, like the ignorant uneducated fools that you are. This is for you too Bucky Ball.

Here's a .gov link about it

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4594572/

Here's another link saying the exact same thing:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20...085105.htm

And here's another link saying the exact same thing again

https://www.journals.elsevier.com/physic...vibrations

And here is another link about it 
https://www.scribd.com/document/31829521...sciousness

And here's another link about it
https://www.quora.com/As-of-yet-is-there...t-Hameroff

Get it yet fool? They proved the most important part of their theory.

(November 23, 2018 at 12:10 am)CDF47 Wrote:

(November 22, 2018 at 11:56 pm)Nay_Sayer Wrote: Look everdumb is a lost lamb, but I know through vigorous prayer, meditation, and jazzercising I can save her. 

Worst case scenario I get in shape with some funky music.

If she truly believes in Jesus, she will be saved, her and her household.

That's not real cool calling her names.  She seems like a nice person.  I don't understand that about this site, is the name calling.  It makes your position look weak.  I enjoy the little banter here and there and expect it on an atheist forum, it is just the personal attacks and name calling which I don't understand.

1. You only say that because she agrees with you 

2.Actually it does make his position look weak considering 

3.You say stupid shit you get called out on it .

---

And to she continues to respond to me directly 

(November 23, 2018 at 2:20 am)Everena Wrote:

(November 23, 2018 at 1:52 am)Anomalocaris Wrote: Because you are you, the only thing you should be able to be sure of is you are wrong.

---

Oh, the irony.


You mean learn to read a for profit site that collects and aggregates press releases whatever the source as the fount of received truth,  and not from published, peer reviewed, and cited professional literature?

Oh, no need to thank us for giving you any hints of reality.  You are totally incapable of profiting from it.

Oh just keep on laughing, like the ignorant uneducated fools that you are. This is for you too Bucky Ball.

Here's a .gov link about it

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4594572/

Here's another link saying the exact same thing:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20...085105.htm

And here's another link saying the exact same thing again

https://www.journals.elsevier.com/physic...vibrations

And here is another link about it 
https://www.scribd.com/document/31829521...sciousness

And here's another link about it
https://www.quora.com/As-of-yet-is-there...t-Hameroff

Get it yet fool? They proved the most important part of their theory.

Having been instructed that news aggregators are not authoritative, you answer with another 4 news aggregators?   Really?

Are you truly so dumb that you can not grasp the concept that quality is everything, quantity without quality is nothing?   You really being that dumb would neatly explain your persistent moronic fixation with the ad populum (look it up) “93% agrees with me”.  

But let’s see what these sources do say, shall we?   We would be doing your towering ignorance and dishonesty a grave disservice if we were to allow the mistaken impression to form that argumentum ad populum is your main or only customary fallacy.

Let’s look at your .gov article:

“This is by taking the Orch OR (Orchestrated Objective Reduction) hypothesis of Hameroff and Penrose1 as a starting point. The Orch OR hypothesis, which is based in quantum physics, proposes that, when a sufficient mass of tubulin molecules has assembled into cytoskeletal microtubules (MTs) within neuronal cells of the brain, these structures become sites of quantum computation and of quantum state reduction (OR) events resulting in moments of protoconsciousness.”

Ergo: if the theory can hold any shit without leaking, then when tubulin molecules are dispersed, or nonexistent, there is no microtube structure, there is no quantum computing, there is no protoconsciousness.   i.e.  when your brain’s physics structure didn’t exist, or is destroyed, there is no consciousness.  Proto, or otherwise.  No conscious soul before the formation of your nervous system, no conscious soul after the destruction of your nervous system.

So, even if a fringe theory, 14 of whose 20 predictions are admitted to be unproven, is accepted, somehow, as a sound basis upon which to build an entire world view,  it supports no world view such as those you might be capable of propounding.    

So, your intellectual dishonesty is so crass that you would cite articles, whatever their quality and the solidity of their basis, as support which say the exact opposite of what you, by claiming them as support, imply they say.