(November 24, 2018 at 6:24 am)downbeatplumb Wrote:

(November 23, 2018 at 12:47 pm)Everena Wrote: I'm sure you did all have good reasons. I'm just trying to help you see things in a different way, so that you no longer hate the idea of God and eternal life. I fully understand that my attempt may be futile, but it is worth a shot if it helps even one person consider something they had not considered before. True love with your soulmate/other half should get you some of the way there....

---

REFLEXES? Seriously? Are you just making this shit up as you go? And yes science sure has guessed at an enormous amount of things or they never would have gotten anywhere. A hypothesis is merely an educated guess. And how are you claiming these so called "reflexes" came to be in the first place?

Reflexes yes.

Quote:Avoidance reaction is a term used in the description of the movement of paramecium. This helps the cell avoid obstacles and causes other objects to bounce off of the cell's outer membrane. The paramecium does this by reversing the direction in which its cilia beat. This results in stopping, spinning or turning, after which point the paramecium resumes swimming forward. If multiple avoidance reactions follow one another, it is possible for a paramecium to swim backward, though not as smoothly as swimming forward.[1]
Avoidance reaction occurs when the cell hits an obstruction, providing an anterior, mechanical stimulus: - The cell will then reverse. - It will then stop and rotate. - Now facing a new direction, the cell will move off in that direction.
This process will continue until the cell is able to negotiate its way around the obstruction.
Movement of Paramecium cells is caused by control of calcium ions inside the cell and membrane potentials. The simplest explanation for the avoidance reaction is that membrane potential controls the influx of calcium ions, which regulates the beat frequency and angles of cilia on the surface of the cell.
.

They've seen this happen under the microscope. For some one so interested in this I wonder why you no know this?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avoidance_reaction

---

(November 24, 2018 at 1:54 am)CDF47 Wrote: You can laugh at the truth but you can't change the fact that it is still the truth.

That is true. 
However what you think is the truth isn't.

And again she shows no understanding of scientific definitions and tries to replace it with woo mental masturbation

(November 23, 2018 at 8:59 pm)Everena Wrote:

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

Please explain to me how hitting a wall and then moving away is even remotely similar to simply sitting there and doing nothing? Another commenter states, "the worm sim performs a highly realistic worm-like motion" (here). How are either of these things like what you said? I appreciate that you may be basing your earlier comments on readings long ago, but reading the material you cited was not long ago, and you cited material which not only didn't support your claim but actually contradicted it. Why did you continue to post and implicitly claim that these were support for your claim when you were clearly wrong? Why didn't you amend your claim to agree with that information? Are you really this stupid?

By the way, you still have yet to provide a satisfactory answer to the question of how you know that you are not deluded.

(November 24, 2018 at 9:24 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: Please explain to me how hitting a wall and then moving away is even remotely similar to simply sitting there and doing nothing?  Another commenter states, "the worm sim performs a highly realistic worm-like motion" (here).  How are either of these things like what you said?  I appreciate that you may be basing your earlier comments on readings long ago, but reading the material you cited was not long ago, and you cited material which not only didn't support your claim but actually contradicted it.  Why did you continue to post and implicitly claim that these were support for your claim when you were clearly wrong?  Why didn't you amend your claim to agree with that information?  Are you really this stupid?

So she states a bunch of ignorant straw men and continues to cite things that don't support her position all the while failing at the quoting function 

Quote:Everena
What a bunch of whiny babies you all are. You can dish it out, but you sure can't take it.

(November 24, 2018 at 9:24 am)Jörmungandr Wrote:




Please explain to me how hitting a wall and then moving away is even remotely similar to simply sitting there and doing nothing?  Another commenter states, "the worm sim performs a highly realistic worm-like motion" (here).  How are either of these things like what you said?  I appreciate that you may be basing your earlier comments on readings long ago, but reading the material you cited was not long ago, and you cited material which not only didn't support your claim but actually contradicted it.  Why did you continue to post and implicitly claim that these were support for your claim when you were clearly wrong?  Why didn't you amend your claim to agree with that information?  Are you really this stupid?

By the way, you still have yet to provide a satisfactory answer to the question of how you know that you are not deluded.

To answer your last question first, the same way the rest of the sane world does. We just know. We have, clear rational minds. And we don't ask dark and ridiculous questions like that to people over and over again either in sane world.

The project and the billions of dollars were invested in building a virtual worm. Not on taking apart a virtual worm that did nothing and removing just the brain then sticking it on a motorized lego robot, but on creating an actual virtual worm. And yes the stupid computer simulation that they have it on now is even doing tricks, but it is only because they made it into an integrative simulation, not a "four dimensional simulation of a biological system" that exists on it's own like they initially set out to do.

Here: Maybe you will get it now if you read all this. I attached the article.

Distinguished computer scientist David Harel called the task
of creating a four-dimensional simulation of a biological system
that is “true to all known facts” a grand challenge of computing
While building a perfect simulation of C. elegans is
not feasible, nonetheless an integrative simulation based on what
is currently known could help further define and choose between
competing hypotheses, help generate new experimentally testable
predictions, and expose gaps in our knowledge.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication...is_elegans

---

(November 24, 2018 at 6:37 am)Amarok Wrote:

(November 24, 2018 at 6:24 am)downbeatplumb Wrote: Reflexes yes.




They've seen this happen under the microscope. For some one so interested in this I wonder why you no know this?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avoidance_reaction

---

That is true. 
However what you think is the truth isn't.

And again she shows no understanding of scientific definitions and tries to replace it with woo mental masturbation

No, I apply the logic that makes it very apparent and obvious that intelligence had to be involved in the creation of life, regardless of what it's doing. If I am the woo princess, you are all the illogical fools of the universe.

---

(November 24, 2018 at 11:27 am)Bucky Ball Wrote:

Quote:Everena
What a bunch of whiny babies you all are. You can dish it out, but you sure can't take it.

You should look in the mirror and sing that to yourself. Maybe you'll figure some stuff out.....

---

(November 24, 2018 at 9:27 am)Amarok Wrote:

(November 24, 2018 at 9:24 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: Please explain to me how hitting a wall and then moving away is even remotely similar to simply sitting there and doing nothing?  Another commenter states, "the worm sim performs a highly realistic worm-like motion" (here).  How are either of these things like what you said?  I appreciate that you may be basing your earlier comments on readings long ago, but reading the material you cited was not long ago, and you cited material which not only didn't support your claim but actually contradicted it.  Why did you continue to post and implicitly claim that these were support for your claim when you were clearly wrong?  Why didn't you amend your claim to agree with that information?  Are you really this stupid?

So she states a bunch of ignorant straw men and continues to cite things that don't support her position all the while failing at the quoting function 

False. I know how to quote now and I do it sometimes, but sometimes it seems like it will come out better and easier to read the other way.

I was going to post this in a thread for quotes, but it seemed particularly relevant to the current thread.

“What I cannot build, I cannot understand.”
— Richard Feynman

Does our inability to simulate or even describe a mechanism for consciousness indicate a poverty in our understanding of it?

(November 23, 2018 at 9:39 pm)Bucky Ball Wrote: Still WAITING for you to discuss the links you post in your own words, and a list of major university science centers that accept and are working on Penrose's .... um ... ideas.

Take your time sweetie.

I've already stated it in my own words several times. The theory is that the brain is a receiver of our consciousness and is receiving quantum vibrations through the microtubules in our brain, much like a radio receives a signal or a cell phone or a computer with wifi receives a signal.

Here is a list of universities working or that have worked on the Penrose and Hameroff Theory of Orch Or that I know about just off the top of my head:

University of Arizona
Mathematical Institute and Wadham College, University of Oxford
National Institute of Material Sciences Tsukuba, Japan
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)
University of Pennsylvania
University Medical Center Tuscon

(November 24, 2018 at 12:10 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: I was going to post this in a thread for quotes, but it seemed particularly relevant to the current thread.

“What I cannot build, I cannot understand.”
— Richard Feynman

Does our inability to simulate or even describe a mechanism for consciousness indicate a poverty in our understanding of it?

Yes.

(November 24, 2018 at 12:31 pm)Everena Wrote:

(November 23, 2018 at 9:39 pm)Bucky Ball Wrote: Still WAITING for you to discuss the links you post in your own words, and a list of major university science centers that accept and are working on Penrose's .... um ... ideas.

Take your time sweetie.

I've already stated it in my own words several times. The theory is that the brain is a receiver of our consciousness and is receiving quantum vibrations through the microtubules in our brain, much like a radio receives a signal or a cell phone or a computer with wifi receives a signal.

Here is a list of universities working or that have worked on the Penrose and Hameroff Theory of Orch Or that I know about just off the top of my head:

University of Arizona
Mathematical Institute and Wadham College, University of Oxford
National Institute of Material Sciences Tsukuba, Japan
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)
University of Pennsylvania
University Medical Center Tuscon

At present, it is not a theory, but an hypothesis, and an unlikely one.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orchestrat...#Criticism

(November 24, 2018 at 12:42 pm)Gwaithmir Wrote:

(November 24, 2018 at 12:31 pm)Everena Wrote: I've already stated it in my own words several times. The theory is that the brain is a receiver of our consciousness and is receiving quantum vibrations through the microtubules in our brain, much like a radio receives a signal or a cell phone or a computer with wifi receives a signal.

Here is a list of universities working or that have worked on the Penrose and Hameroff Theory of Orch Or that I know about just off the top of my head:

University of Arizona
Mathematical Institute and Wadham College, University of Oxford
National Institute of Material Sciences Tsukuba, Japan
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)
University of Pennsylvania
University Medical Center Tuscon

At present, it is not a theory, but an hypothesis, and an unlikely one.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orchestrat...#Criticism

It is a theory and one that has been partially proven. 

The theory, called "orchestrated objective reduction" ('Orch OR'), was first put forward in the mid-1990s by eminent mathematical physicist Sir Roger Penrose, FRS, Mathematical Institute and Wadham College, University of Oxford, and prominent anesthesiologist Stuart Hameroff, MD, Anesthesiology, Psychology and Center for Consciousness Studies, The University of Arizona, Tucson. They suggested that quantum vibrational computations in microtubules were "orchestrated" ("Orch") by synaptic inputs and memory stored in microtubules, and terminated by Penrose "objective reduction" ('OR'), hence "Orch OR." Microtubules are major components of the cell structural skeleton.

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."



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

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24070914

http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/welcome

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11349432

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