(November 24, 2018 at 12:56 pm)Everena Wrote:

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

And this is supposed to prove.....what?

(November 24, 2018 at 5:57 pm)Paleophyte Wrote: 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.

Likely, maybe, leads us to believe... sounds a lot like what you read when you're studying the science behind the theory of evolution. Just say.... I don't know when you don't know, because you don't know squat.

(November 24, 2018 at 6:08 pm)Everena Wrote:

(November 24, 2018 at 5:57 pm)Paleophyte Wrote: 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.

Likely, maybe, leads us to believe... sounds a lot like what you read when you're studying the science behind the theory of evolution. Just say.... I don't know when you don't know, because you don't know squat.

This is not what we call a well-reasoned or sound rebuttal.

There are many aspects that we do not yet understand. Admitting to those is simply honest. Putting "god" in place of "I don't know" is not.

(November 24, 2018 at 6:08 pm)Everena Wrote: [I don't know when you don't know, because you don't know squat.

From one who doesn’t know what the articles she cite to support herself actually says, and cite them nonetheless despite also claiming scientists can’t be trusted when they contradict what she just knows.





The dunning Kruger in this one is amazingly even stronger than in the likes of former champions such as drich.

(November 24, 2018 at 5:52 pm)Everena Wrote: 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/

(1) Did you serious just cite a blog?!?

(2) How do you think that helps your argument?!?

Quote: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.

Wow. Quite the liar we have here.
First she says that her "theory" is partially proved, (and provides links) ... AND she says "the theory is that consciousness is received" ... and now admits NONE of the links actually say anything about her woo "received" theory.

(November 24, 2018 at 5:57 pm)Paleophyte Wrote: Life most likely did not begin with DNA.

But really, you don't know.

(November 24, 2018 at 5:57 pm)Paleophyte Wrote: It likely didn't even begin with RNA. Both are molecules that are more complex than can easily arise by chance.

That can easily arise by chance how exactly?

(November 24, 2018 at 5:57 pm)Paleophyte Wrote: 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.

Why and how would that ever possibly even happen without any intelligence involved? What you're saying is just like saying a large rock in your front yard created all life one day with no information, intelligence or purpose. NOPE NOT POSSIBLE.

(November 24, 2018 at 5:57 pm)Paleophyte Wrote: The information in your genome comes from the environment.

What part of the environment contains information and how exactly did this information get in to the environment? You cannot have information without intelligence by the way. AGAIN, not possible.

(November 24, 2018 at 5:57 pm)Paleophyte Wrote: 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.

God sure did create everything and everything happens for a reason.

(November 24, 2018 at 12:56 pm)Everena Wrote:

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

That's pretty amazing what they are discovering.  Boggles the mind.

(November 24, 2018 at 12:56 pm)Everena Wrote:

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

Interestingly, if you had bothered to read the articles to which I had referred you to, including the related links, with the idea of understanding them you would have learned that your pet hypothesis (not "theory") has been seriously been called into question, if not entirely refuted, by legitimate peer review. Clearly, you do not understand how the scientific method works.

This is not the first time you have rejected bona fide scientific evidence with a wave of the hand because it does not support your beliefs. Here is another example of your intellectual dishonesty. You are grasping at straws and committing the dishonest practice of cherry-picking the evidence to support your views. Nothing in the articles you have linked us to above prove your points. They simply confirm the need for more study.

Scientific hypotheses are not validated by being "partially" proven. They either pass peer review or they do not. Hameroff and Penrose's hypotheses have not. And until they do, and until you can rationally reconcile them with your claims, your beliefs have no standing or merit.

(November 24, 2018 at 6:22 pm)Paleophyte Wrote:

(November 24, 2018 at 6:08 pm)Everena Wrote: Likely, maybe, leads us to believe... sounds a lot like what you read when you're studying the science behind the theory of evolution. Just say.... I don't know when you don't know, because you don't know squat.

This is not what we call a well-reasoned or sound rebuttal.

There are many aspects that we do not yet understand. Admitting to those is simply honest. Putting "god" in place of "I don't know" is not.

I made you another one. Happy now???? 

---

(November 24, 2018 at 6:28 pm)Paleophyte Wrote:

(November 24, 2018 at 5:52 pm)Everena Wrote: 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/

(1) Did you serious just cite a blog?!?

(2) How do you think that helps your argument?!?

I seriously did because it seriously contains an interview.