DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[Everena]

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!

---

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.