DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[Angrboda]

http://www.artificialbrains.com/openworm#news

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.

[Bucky Ball]

minds do while we are unconscious did not in any way prove me wrong either

Yes sweetie it DOES. The fact they do ANYTHING AT ALL, while unconscious, demonstrates your claim was false.
You said "everything we do, is done "consciously". You were wrong.

Nice try though. ... and right on cue. Instead of addressing the POINT, or anything relevant, you talk around it, as you actually know NOTHING about what you are jabbering about.
You STILL have not told us in your own words what you think Penrose proved, and what that was all about.

What a loser.

---

The theory is that the brain is a receiver of our consciousness.

That's your woo crackpot theory. It is NOT the mainline theory, and you can quote NO MAINLINE neuro-scientist that buys that rubbish.

---

Delusions of grandeur :
"I find the subject matter fascinating, and have hopes of it potentially solving some of the mysteries of our existence."

LMAO

[Paleophyte]

http://www.artificialbrains.com/openworm#news

A computer model was wrong, thus God. QED

Do you have any evidence for your deity? Please try to remember that arguments are not evidence.

[The Valkyrie]

Pizza proves Odin loves us.

[Rahn127]

Ev - The brain is a receiver of electrical impulses from our sensory organs.

Blink twice if you understand this.

[Everena]

http://www.artificialbrains.com/openworm#news

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/

[Bucky Ball]

There is not one theory in neuro-science concerning the *how* and *from where* and *from what* (the unseen woo cloud ?) consciousness is "received". Not one.
Until this "source" is identified and verified" the woo-crap of consciousness being "received" (LOL) will not ever, .. even *be* a viable possible mechanism for consciousness.
It's nothing but bullshit.
Serious researchers IN the field don't even mention the BS of Penrose and Hameroff.
https://www.sciencealert.com/harvard-sci...sciousness

[Everena]

There is not one theory in neuro-science concerning the *how* and *from where* and *from what* (the unseen woo cloud ?) consciousness is "received". Not one.
Until this "source" is identified and verified" the woo-crap of consciousness being "received" (LOL) will not ever, .. even *be* a viable possible mechanism for consciousness.
It's nothing but bullshit.
Serious researchers IN the field don't even mention the BS of Penrose and Hameroff.
https://www.sciencealert.com/harvard-sci...sciousness

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.

---

http://www.artificialbrains.com/openworm#news

A computer model was wrong, thus God. QED

Do you have any evidence for your deity? Please try to remember that arguments are not evidence.

You mean aside from the fact that it is the ONLY logical assumption? 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. So many signs and experiences that I have absolutely no doubt left. 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.

[Bucky Ball]

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

[Paleophyte]

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.

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.

---

A computer model was wrong, thus God. QED

Do you have any evidence for your deity? Please try to remember that arguments are not evidence.

You mean aside from the fact that it is the ONLY logical assumption?

An infinitely complex and unknowable deity that's utterly undetectable is hardly a logical assumption. BTW, this is an argument.

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. So many signs and experiences that I have absolutely no doubt left. One thing that had me convinced even before all of that had happened though....

Anecdotal. You're right, I didn't have those experiences, which is why they can't be accepted as evidence. Evidence is what we can all see, nt just the person that was there for it.

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.

Seriously?!? You fell in love with some guy thus god. QED

BTW, this is still an argument. Evidence?

To answer the question, yes, I have. Three times. So much for soulmates.