DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[Bucky Ball]

They are still roundly criticized.

"Hameroff’s ideas in the hands of Penrose have developed almost to absurdity. There is no justification to the incorporation in the Orch OR theory of consciousness the Diósi–Penrose scheme for objective reduction of the quantum state 34. The tentative role of gravity in quantum state reduction (the so-called wavefunction collapse), by means of the Schrödinger–Newton equation, only introduces noise in the presentation of the Orch OR theory and distracts from its most important points. I will not discuss here the ideas of Diósi–Penrose explaining quantum measurements by means of the instability of quantum superpositions involving significant mass displacements.

The prevalent scientific view is that consciousness emerged as a property of biological organisms during the course of evolution. It is a beneficial adaptation that confers a survival advantage to conscious species. However, Orch OR theory claims that consciousness is an intrinsic feature of the action of the non-computable universe. Because humans are capable of knowing the truth of Gödel-unprovable statements, the Penrose–Lucas argument states that human thought is necessarily non-computable 5. However, the computational power of a quantum computer is exactly the same as a classical one, as proved in 1985 by Oxford University physicist David Deutsch. Quantum Turing machines are equivalent to (Classical) Turing machines, even if certain NP problems can be made efficient using quantum algorithms. In my opinion, to recur to the ‘magic’ of non-computability is not the best route to a scientific solution of the problem of consciousness.

Microtubules are part of the cytoskeleton of all eukaryotic cells, however consciousness is the result of neurons in the cerebral cortex. Microtubules are cylindrical polymers of 25 nanometers in diameter made of tubulin dimers, composed of alpha and beta monomers in a helical pathway. In 1982, Hameroff and Watt 6 suggested that tubulin dimers act as dipoles representing information (classical) bits of information. Microtubules act like two-dimensional Boolean switching matrices in a cellular automata. Early versions of Orch OR theory proposed a quantum version of these ideas: tubulin dimers acting as qubits (quantum bits). A beautiful theory killed by an ugly fact.

"Experimental results by Jeffrey R. Reimers et al. 7, and others8, have shown that microtubules can neither sustain long-lived quantum states nor support quantum information processing associated with tubulin dimers as qubits. The whole set of original ideas by Hameroff and Penrose have been killed by Nature. There is no quantum coherence over the required time scale. Electronic motion in tubulin dimers is in the range of 10 fs to 30 ps, while Orch OR theory needs quantum coherence on the 25 ms timescale. Without a decoherence protection system, similar to the one used in photosynthesis, quantum computing in microtubules is not plausible."

http://mappingignorance.org/2015/06/17/o...ciousness/

[Everena]

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.

(1) In case nobody ever mentioned, using all caps on the interweb is the equivalent of SHOUTING and is considered rude.

(2) It's entirely possible once you jettison the notion that anything was "created". A simple self-replicator occurs by chance and evolves into more complex self-replicators that could not easily arise spontaneously.

Fail. You did not explain how or why that would ever possibly happen.

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.

You most certainly can have information without intelligence.

False. You most certainly cannot. All information requires an intelligent source.

The amount of information that is stored in a single zircon grain, crystallized without one shred of intellect, is startling.

False. It did not come to be without intelligence.

Information exists in everything. That big rock in my front yard contains the information "Here is a rock!" Further examination will reveal a whole host of other information, e.g.: "Here is a 1.278 tonne block of sandstone, a sedimentary rock formed near the surface of the Earth's crust..." No thought required until you want to get that information out.

False. A rock is an inanimate object. Only conscious intelligent life assigns any information to it.

---

They are still roundly criticized.

"Hameroff’s ideas in the hands of Penrose have developed almost to absurdity. There is no justification to the incorporation in the Orch OR theory of consciousness the Diósi–Penrose scheme for objective reduction of the quantum state 34. The tentative role of gravity in quantum state reduction (the so-called wavefunction collapse), by means of the Schrödinger–Newton equation, only introduces noise in the presentation of the Orch OR theory and distracts from its most important points. I will not discuss here the ideas of Diósi–Penrose explaining quantum measurements by means of the instability of quantum superpositions involving significant mass displacements.

The prevalent scientific view is that consciousness emerged as a property of biological organisms during the course of evolution. It is a beneficial adaptation that confers a survival advantage to conscious species. However, Orch OR theory claims that consciousness is an intrinsic feature of the action of the non-computable universe. Because humans are capable of knowing the truth of Gödel-unprovable statements, the Penrose–Lucas argument states that human thought is necessarily non-computable 5. However, the computational power of a quantum computer is exactly the same as a classical one, as proved in 1985 by Oxford University physicist David Deutsch. Quantum Turing machines are equivalent to (Classical) Turing machines, even if certain NP problems can be made efficient using quantum algorithms. In my opinion, to recur to the ‘magic’ of non-computability is not the best route to a scientific solution of the problem of consciousness.

Microtubules are part of the cytoskeleton of all eukaryotic cells, however consciousness is the result of neurons in the cerebral cortex. Microtubules are cylindrical polymers of 25 nanometers in diameter made of tubulin dimers, composed of alpha and beta monomers in a helical pathway. In 1982, Hameroff and Watt 6 suggested that tubulin dimers act as dipoles representing information (classical) bits of information. Microtubules act like two-dimensional Boolean switching matrices in a cellular automata. Early versions of Orch OR theory proposed a quantum version of these ideas: tubulin dimers acting as qubits (quantum bits). A beautiful theory killed by an ugly fact.

"Experimental results by Jeffrey R. Reimers et al. 7, and others8, have shown that microtubules can neither sustain long-lived quantum states nor support quantum information processing associated with tubulin dimers as qubits. The whole set of original ideas by Hameroff and Penrose have been killed by Nature. There is no quantum coherence over the required time scale. Electronic motion in tubulin dimers is in the range of 10 fs to 30 ps, while Orch OR theory needs quantum coherence on the 25 ms timescale. Without a decoherence protection system, similar to the one used in photosynthesis, quantum computing in microtubules is not plausible."

http://mappingignorance.org/2015/06/17/o...ciousness/

That was written by someone who works in computer science and it was rebutted by Hameroff. Sorry, you still lose. If you scroll down to the bottom of the article you can read Stuart Hameroffs rebuttal yourself and you can also read the other scientists comments who are also rebutting it and defending the theory.

[Bucky Ball]

That was written by someone who works in computer science and it was rebutted by Hameroff. Sorry, you still lose. If you scroll down to the bottom of the article you can read Stuart Hameroffs rebuttal yourself.

But the date of the article proves you are wrong about the dates of their criticism, now doesn't it. 

You have claimed time and again "the theory is" consciousness is *received*. 
Whose theory is this ? Where was it published ?

[Everena]

That was written by someone who works in computer science and it was rebutted by Hameroff. Sorry, you still lose. If you scroll down to the bottom of the article you can read Stuart Hameroffs rebuttal yourself.

But the date of the article proves you are wrong about the dates of their criticism, now doesn't it. 

You have claimed time and again "the theory is" consciousness is *received*. 
Whose theory is this ? Where was it published ?

That computer science guy who does not even know what he's talking about is the only one who even doubted them and as I just told you, he was rebutted by Hameroff and other scientists in the comments because he got practically everything wrong when describing it. Just scroll to the bottom of your own article and read it for yourself.

[Anomalocaris]

Your fantasy Sounds very vivid for you wonder why no one else is experiencing it.   Either you are insane or so stupid and conceited that you think you can overpower everyone else by just repeating the same thing out of what you imagine to be so distinguished and reputable a mouth as your own, or both.

[Bucky Ball]

That computer science guy who does not even know what he's talking about is the only one who even doubted them and as I just told you, he was rebutted by Hameroff and other scientists in the comments because he got practically everything wrong when describing it. Just scroll to the bottom of your own article and read it for yourself.

Wrong, their crackpot theory is universally thought of, at most, as "controversial" 

You didn't answer the question .... whose "theory" of "received" are you talking about. 

This was published by 2 MIT Neuro scientists in 2017 ... NOT ONE mention of the crackpot theory of Penrose. 
https://www.amazon.com/Ancient-Origins-C...sciousness
YOU said MIT was working on this ... WHO there is working on Penrose's theory ?

[Paleophyte]

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.

(1) In case nobody ever mentioned, using all caps on the interweb is the equivalent of SHOUTING and is considered rude.

(2) It's entirely possible once you jettison the notion that anything was "created". A simple self-replicator occurs by chance and evolves into more complex self-replicators that could not easily arise spontaneously.

Fail. You did not explain how or why that would ever possibly happen.

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.

You most certainly can have information without intelligence.

False. You most certainly cannot. All information requires an intelligent source.

The amount of information that is stored in a single zircon grain, crystallized without one shred of intellect, is startling.

False. It did not come to be without intelligence.

Information exists in everything. That big rock in my front yard contains the information "Here is a rock!" Further examination will reveal a whole host of other information, e.g.: "Here is a 1.278 tonne block of sandstone, a sedimentary rock formed near the surface of the Earth's crust..." No thought required until you want to get that information out.

False. A rock is an inanimate object. Only conscious intelligent life assigns any information to it.

God makes all the mineral grains? What a thunderously boring life of micromanagerial drudgery that must be, placing each atom.

Information requires consciousness? Is my hard drive? Is the internet? If not then kindly disregard this post as it must not exist.

[Everena]

God makes all the mineral grains? What a thunderously boring life of micromanagerial drudgery that must be, placing each atom.

Information requires consciousness? Is my hard drive? Is the internet? If not then kindly disregard this post as it must not exist.

I think God loves God's job and it is much easier for God to do these things than it would be for a mere human to do them.

[Bucky Ball]

You cannot have information without intelligence by the way. AGAIN, not possible.

You didn't strictly define "information", and what the boundary is, exactly, where intelligence is not needed, thus your assertion is dismissed as hand-waving.
Still waiting .... you have many questions to answer.

[Everena]

That computer science guy who does not even know what he's talking about is the only one who even doubted them and as I just told you, he was rebutted by Hameroff and other scientists in the comments because he got practically everything wrong when describing it. Just scroll to the bottom of your own article and read it for yourself.

Wrong, their crackpot theory is universally thought of, at most, as "controversial" 

You didn't answer the question .... whose "theory" of "received" are you talking about. 

This was published by 2 MIT Neuro scientists in 2017 ... NOT ONE mention of the crackpot theory of Penrose. 
https://www.amazon.com/Ancient-Origins-C...sciousness
YOU said MIT was working on this ... WHO there is working on Penrose's theory ?

I've given you all this information already. If you have chosen to ignore it, that is your problem. I'm done.