(November 24, 2018 at 4:14 pm)Bucky Ball Wrote: [quote pid='1857600' dateline='1543090098']

Quote:Deepak Chopra is a doctor and was the Chief of Staff at New England Memorial Hospital. He gave up his very successful career to study and teach eastern philosophies and he has spent years researching and studying consciousness, long before science even became interested.

So you're admitting his woo is not science. List 5 journal articles he has published and had peer-reviewed in Neuro-science.

[/quote]
Neuroscience was not even studying consciousness back then. He studied it independently.

---

(November 24, 2018 at 4:21 pm)Bucky Ball Wrote:

Quote:You wish that were true. I care only what God thinks of me and I do wish the best for all of you and hope you gain a better understanding of our purpose here, but I do not care what you think of me. Get over yourself.

No. YOU prove by your constant presence here that you care a very great deal what is thought of you, and ALL your tortured attempts and fake references prove you are lying.

I have provided no fake references. You are just a fool who believes any idiot who holds the same illogical stance as you do, and that is really not my problem, it's yours. I am here because I am ill right now and am trying to do some work from home, but happen to have a lot of free time, and I enjoy debating this topic.

(November 24, 2018 at 4:35 pm)Everena Wrote:

(November 24, 2018 at 4:15 pm)Paleophyte Wrote: OK, you have no anatomy even vaguely resembling what you need to produce or maintain entangled particles. It's like saying you have a skeleton made of neutronium. Prove it? OK, you have neither the ability to produce nor maintain neutronium.
You're the one claiming that Orch-OR is even a hypothesis. You show how the necessary entangled particles could be produced or maintained.

Orch-Or is scientific theory that has been partially proven and corroborated whether any of you atheists like it or not. This may help you understand, since you obviously don't.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar...4513001188

Theories aren't proven. Not even partially.

I read your link twice already. As I said before, it's just a review by Penrose and Hamerhoff rehashing old ideas. Find me a paper that shows how entangled particles are created and maintained in microtubules. Without that you have no receiver.

Quote:You also need to provide cited sources to back up your argument.

OK.

Non-Gaussian Low-Frequency Noise as a Source of Qubit Decoherence

Pairwise Decoherence in Coupled Spin Qubit Networks

Majorana qubit decoherence by quasiparticle poisoning

(November 24, 2018 at 4:34 pm)Paleophyte Wrote: I'll see your unfounded opinion and raise you the entire field of cognitive neuroscience. Your brain is a computer. We build computers in our image.

Everena: That is a total load of crap. Computers cannot do anything even remotely close to what we can do. They do not have consciousness or emotions or a will to live and survive or a love life, etc etc etc etc etc. You are just wrong.

Computers can't do some of the things that we do. Yet. Other things they do much better. This is largely because they are designed rather than being evolved.

And you have no idea how amusing your argument is that your brain has no computational capacity. What do you think 100 Billion neurons are doing up there?

Quote:

Quote:Untrue. Evolution and emergent behaviours can account for the human brain without ever having to invoke deities.

Everena: False. Evolution is a process not a first cause.

You say that like processes don't cause anything. Processes are just long causal chains.

In this summary of where the field stands in 2018, Woo Princess' woo is not even remotely alluded to. 
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/...sciousness
And in fact consciousness was being studied LONG before Chopra ... of course she knows nothing about the actual work in the field. 
https://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/hist.html
LOL

(November 24, 2018 at 5:24 pm)Paleophyte Wrote: Theories aren't proven. Not even partially.

Not true. The hypthoses they contain can be proven and corroborated, just as this one has been.

(November 24, 2018 at 5:24 pm)Paleophyte Wrote: I read your link twice already. As I said before, it's just a review by Penrose and Hamerhoff rehashing old ideas. Find me a paper that shows how entangled particles are created and maintained in microtubules. Without that you have no receiver.

False. You have no idea what type of signal we are even receiving, so you have no valid argument.

(November 24, 2018 at 5:24 pm)Paleophyte Wrote: OK.

Non-Gaussian Low-Frequency Noise as a Source of Qubit Decoherence

Pairwise Decoherence in Coupled Spin Qubit Networks

Majorana qubit decoherence by quasiparticle poisoning

Everena: Still does not prove what you stated, because you have no idea what our brains (and I think maybe our bodies too) are receiving.

(November 24, 2018 at 4:34 pm)Paleophyte Wrote: Computers can't do some of the things that we do. Yet. Other things they do much better. This is largely because they are designed rather than being evolved.

And you have no idea how amusing your argument is that your brain has no computational capacity. What do you think 100 Billion neurons are doing up there?

Far more than any computer can or will ever do.

(November 24, 2018 at 4:34 pm)Paleophyte Wrote: You say that like processes don't cause anything. Processes are just long causal chains.

I said it is not a first cause and it isn't.

Quote:I have provided no fake references. You are just a fool who believes any idiot who holds the same illogical stance as you do, and that is really not my problem, it's yours. I am here because I am ill right now and am trying to do some work from home, but happen to have a lot of free time, and I enjoy debating this topic.

Yeah you have. You *claim* the theory is that consciousness is "received" and that the links provided, "partially prove" that. 
In fact they never even mention "received", (much less name a *sender*). Everything about you is fake.

BTW, you keep talking about logic, as if it were something you knew about. 
Here is a list of 30 logics. Please tell us which one you employ, why it is applicable to what you are saying and why you follow this particular logic ... and demonstrate that the one you chose, .. obtains, in reality. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:S...rmal_logic

The DK with Everena is hilarious. The very notion that a moron who cannot figure out the quote function could somehow understand neuroscience or quantum mechanics is a special kind of stupid which appears to be exclusive to god botherers.

Also, the crank notion that evolution is somehow responsible for cosmology in general is likewise the preserve of a particular brand of breathless believer.

I may have to restock the popcorn.

(November 24, 2018 at 5:36 pm)Bucky Ball Wrote: In this summary of where the field stands in 2018, Woo Princess' woo is not even remotely alluded to. 
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/...sciousness
And in fact consciousness was being studied LONG before Chopra ... of course she knows nothing about the actual work in the field. 
https://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/hist.html
LOL

Neuroscience did not start studying conscious self awareness again until very recently. Your link about the history of neuroscience is off topic. 

Read an interview with a Professor of Cognitive and Computational Neuroscience and Founding Co-Director of the Sackler Centre for Consciousness Science at the University of Sussex and learn something new today. Here's the first paragraph:

The study of consciousness has long been excluded from serious consideration within psychology and the neurosciences, but this field is gaining momentum again. We sat down with the editor of Neuroscience of Consciousness, Anil Seth, to learn a bit more about our “inner universe” – a landscape sometimes thought of as a problem beyond the reach of science.

https://blog.oup.com/2015/11/can-neurosc...ciousness/

Life most likely did not begin with DNA. It likely didn't even begin with RNA. Both are molecules that are more complex than can easily arise by chance. Life likely began as a relatively simple self-replicator. An auto-catalytic chemical reaction that makes more of itself from molecules present in the early oceans. We've produced self-replicating molecules in the lab and they exhibit both mutation and heredity. DNA and DNA were likely evolved later as more robust molecule for information storage.

The information in your genome comes from the environment. Mutation adds random noise to your genetic material. Usually this is useless or detrimental. Rarely it helps you survive just a little bit better. Natural selection removes the detrimental mutations, leaving behind information that helps you survive. We've watched this happen. God didn't make nylon-eating bacteria and he didn't turn lizards on an island into vegetarians.

(November 24, 2018 at 5:41 pm)Bucky Ball Wrote:

Quote:I have provided no fake references. You are just a fool who believes any idiot who holds the same illogical stance as you do, and that is really not my problem, it's yours. I am here because I am ill right now and am trying to do some work from home, but happen to have a lot of free time, and I enjoy debating this topic.

Yeah you have. You *claim* the theory is that consciousness is "received" and that the links provided, "partially prove" that. 
In fact they never even mention "received", (much less name a *sender*). Everything about you is fake.

BTW, you keep talking about logic, as if it were something you knew about. 
Here is a list of 30 logics. Please tell us which one you employ, why it is applicable to what you are saying and why you follow this particular logic ... and demonstrate that the one you chose, .. obtains, in reality. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:S...rmal_logic

Nope. I never said any of that. And I linked you a youtube video where Hameroff discusses the receiver theory. You just pay no attention to what someone is actually saying.

---

(November 24, 2018 at 5:50 pm)Abaddon_ire Wrote: The DK with Everena is hilarious. The very notion that a moron who cannot figure out the quote function could somehow understand neuroscience or quantum mechanics is a special kind of stupid which appears to be exclusive to god botherers.

Also, the crank notion that evolution is somehow responsible for cosmology in general is likewise the preserve of a particular brand of breathless believer.

I may have to restock the popcorn.

I understand the quote function. I have used it several times. I just don't use it every time. And your side already lost the argument. No need for more popcorn.

(November 24, 2018 at 5:40 pm)Everena Wrote:

(November 24, 2018 at 5:24 pm)Paleophyte Wrote: Theories aren't proven. Not even partially.

Not true. The hypthoses they contain can be proven and corroborated, just as this one has been.

Theories are not proven. Please learn how science works. Proof is for mathematicians and drunks.

Quote:

(November 24, 2018 at 5:24 pm)Paleophyte Wrote: I read your link twice already. As I said before, it's just a review by Penrose and Hamerhoff rehashing old ideas. Find me a paper that shows how entangled particles are created and maintained in microtubules. Without that you have no receiver.

False. You have no idea what type of signal we are even receiving, so you have no valid argument.

I know what Penrose and Hamerhoff claimed was happening and it requires entangled electrons. Without that you've got nothing.

Quote:

(November 24, 2018 at 5:24 pm)Paleophyte Wrote: OK.

Non-Gaussian Low-Frequency Noise as a Source of Qubit Decoherence

Pairwise Decoherence in Coupled Spin Qubit Networks

Majorana qubit decoherence by quasiparticle poisoning

Everena: Still does not prove what you stated, because you have no idea what our brains (and I think maybe our bodies too) are receiving.

I know what Orch-OR claims and those articles show it can't work. Decoherence kills qubits.

Quote:

(November 24, 2018 at 4:34 pm)Paleophyte Wrote: Computers can't do some of the things that we do. Yet. Other things they do much better. This is largely because they are designed rather than being evolved.

And you have no idea how amusing your argument is that your brain has no computational capacity. What do you think 100 Billion neurons are doing up there?

Far more than any computer can or will ever do.

Now you see the future too.

Quote:

(November 24, 2018 at 4:34 pm)Paleophyte Wrote: You say that like processes don't cause anything. Processes are just long causal chains.

I said it is not a first cause and it isn't.

Explain to me how a first cause is possible. The people who thought that argument up thought heaven was in the clouds and had a rather shaky grasp of cosmology.