(November 23, 2018 at 6:47 pm)Everena Wrote:

(November 23, 2018 at 5:52 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: Yes, thank you, but I don't see either of your claims that I am interested in confirmed in the page you linked me with.  You claimed that projects such as OpenWorm were the original impetus for and substance of the view that the brain is a material process.  You also claimed that the simulated c. elegans just sits there.  A claim I'm already finding statements contrary to your assertion regarding.  Please provide a citation(s) that support those claims.  The one you supplied does not appear to do so.  Am I overlooking a specific part of that page?  If so, please supply us with the relevant quote from the article.

Their original goal of replicating C elegans as a virtual organism was a complete flop, and they have tried to justify some of their spending by uploading it's synthetic brain into a lego robot, and all it did was crash into a wall. So now all they have is some stupid computer simulation model of the worm, billions and billions of dollars later.

Here is some more information regarding the AI project, but what I linked you initially was their own website.
 https://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/art...gone-awry/
https://ideas.ted.com/the-fascinatingly-...tual-worm/

Well, thank you for the additional information, but I am still not finding confirmation of your claims. As noted, I did not find any on the original page you linked me to, so if it is there, or anywhere on that site, you will need to quote it and link me to it. Otherwise I'm going to have to conclude that the link you gave does not support your claims. The first of the new links you provided, while fascinating, doesn't provide confirmation of either of the claims I previously mentioned, either. In particular, it explicitly says that a complete model of c. elegans had not yet been achieved. The article dates to around 2006, and so that fact is not surprising, but it doesn't support your claim, either. The second article you link to actually contradicts your claim by pointing out that a robotic embodiment of the model, whose limitations are unclear, did not simply sit there, but crashed into a wall, backed up, and moved away. So you're 0 for 3 so far. This doesn't seem to be trending in a good direction. Do you have any actual confirmation of the two claims I discussed in my prior post?

(November 23, 2018 at 3:07 am)Amarok Wrote:

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

Some banter is cool but not the name calling and that is all I am saying.  It is not necessary even for pointing out stupid shit if that is what you think of someone's opinion on things.

(November 23, 2018 at 7:49 pm)Paleophyte Wrote: Last I checked human reproductive anatomy lacked a particle accelerator or high-powered laser.

Speak for yourself.

(November 23, 2018 at 7:41 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: I just want to say that I hope you, Everena, and you, CDF, had a happy Thanksgiving.  I know that you, Everena, have protested that you feel that you are in hell.  But I cannot but believe that even for you, there are moments of respite and peace not reflected by such things.  I hope yesterday was one such opportunity, and that you enjoyed your day.

Now, back to your regularly scheduled cray cray...

Thanks.  I hope you had a good Thanksgiving.

(November 23, 2018 at 8:13 pm)unfogged Wrote:

(November 23, 2018 at 7:49 pm)Paleophyte Wrote: Last I checked human reproductive anatomy lacked a particle accelerator or high-powered laser.

Speak for yourself.

No, that isn't a LINAC in my pocket. And I don't care how kinky you are, none of your cavities should be lazing!

(November 23, 2018 at 7:49 pm)Paleophyte Wrote: Penrose' hypothesis on consciousness has been around for decades and hasn't gone anywhere.Penrose' hypothesis didn't make any sense from an evolutionary standpoint. What good are quantum-computing microtubules to animals that don't have consciousness? It's like outfitting a 2 by 4 with a CPU. So you only have a few million years at best to evolve a cellular quantum computer starting completely from scratch. More recently we've built quantum computers and discovered some of their limitations. To prevent decoherence of the qubits you need to embed them in diamond or cool them to a few microKelvins. Electrons trapped in microtubules or any organic matrix at body temerature would lose their entanglement so fast you'd never know it was there. And where are you getting entangled electrons to start with? Last I checked human reproductive anatomy lacked a particle accelerator or high-powered laser.

False. Penrose and Hameroff's theory of Consciousness have proven the most important part of their theory and no one refutes any of it anymore. Read and learn. 

"Orch OR was harshly criticized from its inception, as the brain was considered too "warm, wet, and noisy" for seemingly delicate quantum processes. However, evidence has now shown warm quantum coherence in plant photosynthesis, bird brain navigation, our sense of smell, and brain microtubules. The recent discovery of warm temperature quantum vibrations in microtubules inside brain neurons by the research group led by Anirban Bandyopadhyay, PhD, at the National Institute of Material Sciences in Tsukuba, Japan (and now at MIT), corroborates the pair's theory and suggests that EEG rhythms also derive from deeper level microtubule vibrations. In addition, work from the laboratory of Roderick G. Eckenhoff, MD, at the University of Pennsylvania, suggests that anesthesia, which selectively erases consciousness while sparing non-conscious brain activities, acts via microtubules in brain neurons.

"The origin of consciousness reflects our place in the universe, the nature of our existence. Did consciousness evolve from complex computations among brain neurons, as most scientists assert? Or has consciousness, in some sense, been here all along, as spiritual approaches maintain?" ask Hameroff and Penrose in the current review. "This opens a potential Pandora's Box, but our theory accommodates both these views, suggesting consciousness derives from quantum vibrations in microtubules, protein polymers inside brain neurons, which both govern neuronal and synaptic function, and connect brain processes to self-organizing processes in the fine scale, 'proto-conscious' quantum structure of reality."
After 20 years of skeptical criticism, "the evidence now clearly supports Orch OR," continue Hameroff and Penrose. "Our new paper updates the evidence, clarifies Orch OR quantum bits, or "qubits," as helical pathways in microtubule lattices, rebuts critics, and reviews 20 testable predictions of Orch OR published in 1998 – of these, six are confirmed and none refuted."
An important new facet of the theory is introduced. Microtubule quantum vibrations (e.g. in megahertz) appear to interfere and produce much slower EEG "beat frequencies." Despite a century of clinical use, the underlying origins of EEG rhythms have remained a mystery. Clinical trials of brief brain stimulation aimed at microtubule resonances with megahertz mechanical vibrations using transcranial ultrasound have shown reported improvements in mood, and may prove useful against Alzheimer's disease and brain injury in the future."


Here's a .gov link about it

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

Here's another link

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

And here's another link

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://phys.org/news/2014-01-discovery-...rates.html

So I guess you were wrong about that, but you did get to learn something new today!

---

(November 23, 2018 at 7:59 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(November 23, 2018 at 6:47 pm)Everena Wrote: Their original goal of replicating C elegans as a virtual organism was a complete flop, and they have tried to justify some of their spending by uploading it's synthetic brain into a lego robot, and all it did was crash into a wall. So now all they have is some stupid computer simulation model of the worm, billions and billions of dollars later.

Here is some more information regarding the AI project, but what I linked you initially was their own website.
 https://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/art...gone-awry/
https://ideas.ted.com/the-fascinatingly-...tual-worm/

Well, thank you for the additional information, but I am still not finding confirmation of your claims.  As noted, I did not find any on the original page you linked me to, so if it is there, or anywhere on that site, you will need to quote it and link me to it.  Otherwise I'm going to have to conclude that the link you gave does not support your claims.  The first of the new links you provided, while fascinating, doesn't provide confirmation of either of the claims I previously mentioned, either.  In particular, it explicitly says that a complete model of c. elegans had not yet been achieved.  The article dates to around 2006, and so that fact is not surprising, but it doesn't support your claim, either.  The second article you link to actually contradicts your claim by pointing out that a robotic embodiment of the model, whose limitations are unclear, did not simply sit there, but crashed into a wall, backed up, and moved away.  So you're 0 for 3 so far.  This doesn't seem to be trending in a good direction.  Do you have any actual confirmation of the two claims I discussed in my prior post?

You are welcome and it was a total flop, but I am so glad you find it interesting. They did use it to program a lego robot that had a motor, but no one in the entire world besides you is impressed that billions and billions of dollars can create a computer virtual brain that can do no more than crash an already motorized robot into a wall and then back away from it. And I did already mention the robot in my last post to you. Did you forget what I wrote? 
Anyway, after the original goal of creating a virtual worm flopped, they went to the motorized robot with just the virtual brain and now to just computer simulation of the worm. (Can you say, I want my billions of research dollars back?) I guess I could check the news article from 2012 when this originally happened, if you still don't believe me with three articles that maybe don't say those exact words I used, but none the less, make it very clear.

(November 23, 2018 at 7:30 pm)Everena Wrote: I have had my own personal experiences that have proven it to me beyond any doubt. Nothing that would convince you because I was the one who experienced them.

I saw a snowman taking it's own scarf off. I know you will not believe this but I experienced it, so that's evidence.

Quote: So many signs and experiences that I have absolutely no doubt left.

I have no doubt about what I saw.. Are you convinced?

Quote: One thing that had me convinced even before all of that had happened though....
 Have you ever been in love before? I mean really, really in love where that other person could alter your emotional state (good and bad) in ways you never even thought were possible? Felt that magnetic connection and intense attraction? Had the spiritual and moving experience of making love with that person? I ask because men have told me that they did not realize there was a God until they met their soulmate and I know it helped me believe in God and eternal life.

One thing that had me convinced before all that happened though.....
Have you ever watched The Snowman? I mean really really watched it until it altered your emotional state.. In ways that you never thought possible?
I ask because children have told me that they did not realise that snowmen came alive at night.. And that it was possible for a snowman to ride a motorcycle.

This all obviously must point toward some sort of God and an eternal afterlife.. Otherwise I'm fucking mental.

(November 23, 2018 at 8:29 pm)Everena Wrote:

(November 23, 2018 at 7:59 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: Well, thank you for the additional information, but I am still not finding confirmation of your claims.  As noted, I did not find any on the original page you linked me to, so if it is there, or anywhere on that site, you will need to quote it and link me to it.  Otherwise I'm going to have to conclude that the link you gave does not support your claims.  The first of the new links you provided, while fascinating, doesn't provide confirmation of either of the claims I previously mentioned, either.  In particular, it explicitly says that a complete model of c. elegans had not yet been achieved.  The article dates to around 2006, and so that fact is not surprising, but it doesn't support your claim, either.  The second article you link to actually contradicts your claim by pointing out that a robotic embodiment of the model, whose limitations are unclear, did not simply sit there, but crashed into a wall, backed up, and moved away.  So you're 0 for 3 so far.  This doesn't seem to be trending in a good direction.  Do you have any actual confirmation of the two claims I discussed in my prior post?

You are welcome and it was a total flop, but I am so glad you find it interesting. They did use it to program a lego robot that had a motor, but no one in the entire world besides you is impressed that billions and billions of dollars can create a computer virtual brain that can do no more than crash an already motorized robot into a wall and then back away from it. And I did already mention the robot in my last post to you. Did you forget what I wrote? 
Anyway, after the original goal of creating a virtual worm flopped, they went to the motorized robot with just the virtual brain and now to just computer simulation of the worm. (Can you say, I want my billions of research dollars back?) I guess I could check the news article from 2012 when this originally happened, if you still don't believe me with three articles that maybe don't say those exact words I used, but none the less, make it very clear.

I won't pretend that I know enough about the experiment to call it a flop. That you have no hesitation in doing so may simply reflect your lack of understanding of the issue. Describing it as a flop is your word, and you appear to be a dumbass, so I'm not inclined to put a lot of stock in it unless you can document someone who actually does possess the requisite expertise and who also describes it as a flop. You claimed that the model, upon being activated, just sat there. A claim which appears clearly false. That you are not particularly adept at reasoning is not a particularly troubling failing. That you can't even complete the rather rudimentary task of documenting actual support for your claims is somewhat troubling. If you're not basing your claims upon the things you are reading, I have to wonder exactly what it is you are basing them on. The only obvious conclusion is that the supposed "facts" and claims you spout have their origin largely within your imagination, and that there is a significant disconnect between your brain and reality. Are you sure that you, too, do not have a psychotic disorder?

(November 23, 2018 at 7:46 pm)Bucky Ball Wrote:

Quote:You are a science denier. You have been provided all the material over and over again and because it does not fit your illogical and twisted worldview that is based on science that you clearly don't even understand, you just ignore facts. Penrose and Hameroff have several neuorscientists on their team so you are just full of shit about that too. And your article contains nothing but an unproven hypothesis. I am talking about a globally accepted, partially proven and corroborated theory. Use a dictionary if any of the words I have used confuse you.

Bla bla bla ... LOLOLOL I'm a woo-science denier, Woo Princess.  Your theory is bullshit. It's not science. There is no known source for the information to be "transmitted" (received) from .... AND once again, the Woo Princess, instead of addressing the actual science, deflects and talks around the subject. There is NO "universally accepted" anything for these quacks. You cannot name the neuro-scientists on the team, or any other major teams who accept this garbage or are working on it. NOT ONE reference. You're lying. Actually you're SO ignorant, you're *not even* lying. What a giant JOKE.

BTW, the person who employed the ad populum fallacy throughout her posts, really should not be talking about others being illogical.

There are hundreds, if not thousands or millions of crack-pot religionists who have claimed the most bizarre experiences, ALL just as convinced THEIR experiences prove their nonsense in JUST the same way as Everena.
http://www.unexplainedstuff.com/Religiou...gures.html

I have had mutual/shared experiences that were verified on the spot and that is just one of the reasons that I have no doubts left at all. And you know absolutely nothing about what anyone else has experienced, and may I add that not one believer in the entire world cares what you think about what they have experienced, so just save it for your atheist friends.

---

(November 23, 2018 at 8:57 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(November 23, 2018 at 8:29 pm)Everena Wrote: You are welcome and it was a total flop, but I am so glad you find it interesting. They did use it to program a lego robot that had a motor, but no one in the entire world besides you is impressed that billions and billions of dollars can create a computer virtual brain that can do no more than crash an already motorized robot into a wall and then back away from it. And I did already mention the robot in my last post to you. Did you forget what I wrote? 
Anyway, after the original goal of creating a virtual worm flopped, they went to the motorized robot with just the virtual brain and now to just computer simulation of the worm. (Can you say, I want my billions of research dollars back?) I guess I could check the news article from 2012 when this originally happened, if you still don't believe me with three articles that maybe don't say those exact words I used, but none the less, make it very clear.

I won't pretend that I know enough about the experiment to call it a flop.  That you have no hesitation in doing so may simply reflect your lack of understanding of the issue.  Describing it as a flop is your word, and you appear to be a dumbass,

Everena: I could say the same of you. And you obviously have reading comp issues. You're also one of those who thinks evolution created everything on our planet right? LOL

so I'm not inclined to put a lot of stock in it unless you can document someone who actually does possess the requisite expertise and who also describes it as a flop.  You claimed that the model, upon being activated, just sat there.  A claim which appears clearly false.

Everena: No, it is pretty obviously true, since they had to go from virtual worm to putting just the brain in a motorized lego robot. Don't you think they would have mentioned if it was a success? And not needed to put part of it in a motorized robot to get it to do something.. anything? Just think about it for a minute......


 That you are not particularly adept at reasoning is not a particularly troubling failing.  That you can't even complete the rather rudimentary task of documenting actual support for your claims is somewhat troubling.

Everena: I really thought you would just figure it out from what I linked you....My mistake.


 If you're not basing your claims upon the things you are reading, I have to wonder exactly what it is you are basing them on.

Everena: I read about all this years ago when it happened.

 The only obvious conclusion is that the supposed "facts" and claims you spout have their origin largely within your imagination, and that there is a significant disconnect between your brain and reality.  Are you sure that you, too, do not have a psychotic disorder?

Everena: Yes, I am quite sure. 

(November 23, 2018 at 8:29 pm)Everena Wrote: Here's a .gov link about it


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

Here's another link

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

And here's another link

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://phys.org/news/2014-01-discovery-...rates.html

So I guess you were wrong about that, but you did get to learn something new today!

The NIH link presupposes Orch-OR. It doesn't demonstrates it. Three of the other four links are pop-sci rewrites of the paper in "Physics of Life Reviews", link #3, so no surprise that they all seem to say the same thing. The actual publication, by Penrose and Hamerhoff again, shows only quantum vibrations in electrons in microtubules. It doesn't show entanglement or quantum computing. Or computing of any sort. Just electron vibrating, which they do pretty much all the time. It also didn't show bugger all in the way of citations, which is really sloppy scientific writing. The researchers seemed impressed that there was a correlation between the quantum vibrations and EEG patterns, though one might expect that pumping charged ions in and out of neurons regularly might set the electrons in the microtubules to vibrating.

A literature review shows little work by anybody other than Penrose and Hamerhoff. Rather tellingly, one of the few other publishers was Deepak Chopra, whom they appear to take seriously.

There's actually a really easy way to disprove Orch-OR. Electron spin is highly susceptible to influence by external magnetic fields, so if consciousness was produced by electron spin in microtubules then the high-powered magnets in an NMR machine should render you completely unconscious, at best. Clearly that doesn't happen.

Let's assume that Orch-Or is right though. Where does that get you? Now you have a quantum computer in your cells that rots and dies along with the rest of you. Congratulations. It's a very tiny snack for the worms.

"A review and update of a controversial 20-year-old theory of consciousness published in Physics of Life Reviews claims that consciousness derives from deeper level, finer scale activities inside brain neurons."