(November 24, 2018 at 11:34 pm)Everena Wrote:Ooh! Call me "Sad" next!(November 24, 2018 at 11:09 pm)Paleophyte Wrote: All counts?
Your link is from a pop-science site that reviewed Penrose and Hameroff's review. It's doubly digested with no dissenting view. That's the equivalent of the National Enquirer.
Even there title was: "Discovery of quantum vibrations in 'microtubules' inside brain neurons supports controversial theory of consciousness" Note the quotes around microtubules and the word controversial.
Go find some real science.
It's real science. You just don't like that it doesn't agree with your twisted illogical worldview so you pretend it's not. Pathetic.
No peer-review equals pop-sci rubbish. At least quote the scientific papers that your rubbish article cites. Seriously, is it that hard?
Quote:(November 24, 2018 at 11:33 pm)Paleophyte Wrote: Well, there's the Journal of Neuroscience. It's been publishing on this topic for nearly half a century. Probably a few dozen similar journals that couldn't get that name.
Here's a link to the Google Scholar search for "Neural Correlates Consciousness" that calls bullshit on your assertion. Here's a lovely publication called "Towards a neurobiological theory of consciousness" from 1990.
But please, keep telling us how nobody else was working on this subject. It gets funnier with every retelling.
Neurobiology is not neuroscience
Seriously?!? Kindly demonstrate.