As near as I can tell, it’s basically that consciousness is a quantum phenomenon (involving neurons and qubits) and somehow interacts with DNA through proton-tunneling to cause mutations. Mind-guided mutations then could be responsible for the direction of evolution.
1 Like
Thanks. I had no idea. Presumably this is only God’s mind that does that sort of thing, right? People don’t go around mutating persimmons or flounders, right? And the persimmons and flounders don’t mutate themselves either, again right?
Speak for yourself, Miles Standish.
1 Like
Well, that’s a bit of what I’m confused about. It seems like he’s testing human minds (because Orch-OR depends on neurons, which I’m assuming God doesn’t have) and extending that to an “intelligent designer” .
It suggests a whole new slant on the X-Men.
Ready to pull that plug now? 
1 Like
35 posts were split to a new topic: DNA duplication, mutation, and information
Yes, you are right. “Coherent” and “concession” were a poor choice of words looking back at it and I am not trying to be confrontational either. I was just trying to get you to understand that we really need your expertise more than anybody on this forum because of your background in quantum physics, chemistry, and theism. We simply can’t move forward with any sort of confidence or at all without your say on the matter. However, your response before the last one you made just seem like you were not fully invested and just wanted to end this topic ASAP. This may have prompted me to use those poor choices of words without being fully aware it.
Therefore, I really wish you would have gave me the benefit of the doubt like I do for every other user on here rather than assume the worst, but that’s ok. My apologies, nonetheless.
Yes , but when I make the claim “God guides all life on earth”, it is not based on an assumption upon another assumption. It is an inference based on previous experiments and observations that I argued suggest a Divine intelligence guided evolution. For instance, there are 5 known explanations for DNA/RNA. An alien designer, an unconscious quantum computer, natural law, time-traveling humans, and a personal necessary being, which would be God.
It can’t be humans for obvious reasons, but it can’t be the known laws of physics and chemistry either because they only produce analog information while digital information has only been known to come from minds;
It can’t be a quantum computer because RNA experiments suggest it requires a conscious observer to obtain positive results; it can’t be an alien designer because the genome and genetic text is mathematically identical to human language, which suggests that there is a relation between us and this agent rather than something mysterious. This leaves us with God as being the best possible explanation.
Thus, we are not making an assumption like time machines but an inference based on things that can give us a more accurate conclusion. Moreover, the proposed methods to test the hypothesis are valid ,for the most part, because they are derived from quantum physics experiments (i.e. observer effect).
I think that the confusion here might be coming from Roger Penrose’s additional postulation of a Universal consciousness, but this involves the creation and development of the entire Universe or non-biological settings. My hypothesis and methods to test it strictly apply to biology or biochemistry.
Thus, I am not relying all that much on Penrose’s additional postulation and methods to be correct or proven correct for my hypothesis to work. Instead, I am relying on the Orch-OR theory’s support of human consciousness AND those experiments or observations I just mentioned before. This theory happens to be very well established and used by other scientists for their work with no competing theories that I know of. In fact, even if there were competing theories, we have an experiment that would distinguish between them.
We are never going to know one way or another about any theory. Almost everything in science is tentative and careful. So I am not quite sure where you are getting at here. Maybe this will help…
Can you tell me which standard of proof you are operating under when you suggest that the Orch-Or theory of consciousness is not established enough to make accurate conclusions (not talking about Penrose’s objective collaspe). There are 4 known types:
Consensus (scientific)
Absolute certainty
Persuasion (I.e. until I’m convinced)
Beyond a reasonable doubt
Would you say it is the fourth one, which entails that a proposition must have:
(A) Enough evidence that supports the actual claim being made or evidence proportional to the claim
(B) There can’t be other explanations that explain the evidence equally as well or better.
(C) There can’t be unexplained conflicting evidence, unaddressed objections, or untested predictions that are designed to falsify it.
If you feel there is at least potential (especially after this response), then this would be groundbreaking. This is because, as you know, very few theists believe it’s even remotely possible that God can be a useful scientific hypothesis. I’ve talked to many Christian scientists and many of them would suggests that there is no way to ever get there for a number of different reasons.
Since I am not an expert, my goal on this forum was to present my model and have it be torn apart and improved on enough for Christian scientists to take notice and they can take it to the next level for me.
Ohhhh… my mistake. I thought you were going somewhere else with this objection.
As I explained to @Michael_Okoko , the experimental procedure I pointed out only applies and works for the past, but let me elaborate.
The rationale behind my approach is based upon a principle regarding causation from past events, which was popularized by Charles Lyell who also influenced Charles Darwin and Stephen Meyer, of course. “Lyell argued that when scientists seek to explain events in the past, they should not invoke unknown or exotic causes, for the effects of which we do not know. Instead, they should cite causes that are known from our uniform experience to have the power to produce the effect in question. Historical scientists should cite ‘causes now in operation’ or presently acting causes. This was the idea behind his uniformitarian principle and the dictum, ‘The present is the key to the past’.
For instance, pre-biotic experiments are attempting to simulate natural environments that potentially occurred in the past in order to find out the causal mechanism that led to life as we know it. As you alluded, inserting a human observer into the experiment is not enough to establish that a Divine intelligence was the cause because we are contingent beings.
This is why another experiment showing an unguided process ,in accordance with the second experiment that shows a guided process, is required in order to show there could not be any conscious life before simple life emerged. If the unguided experiment produces negative results, it would support the “necessary” attribute of this intelligent designer. This is because “necessity” is an intrinsic attribute of God’s nature, which means showing that God is not necessary in explaining a particular feature in nature is the same thing as falsifying the God hypothesis.
Therefore, we cannot apply the same reasoning to present day events because humans exist and ,thus, could have been responsible for the results equally as well. So I agree with you that we cannot exclude other minds and ,as @Michael_Okoko pointed, it leads into logical absurdities to apply this reasoning to the present. This is why I proposed other ways to test whether God is still guiding evolution in the present.
Actually, experiments have shown that human cognition operates in a quantum mechanical manner, which would suggest that God does have something akin to neurons. My assessment might be mistaken though:
“We point out that quantum mechanical principles, such as superposition and interference, are at the origin of specific effects in cognition related to concept combinations…
…We investigate the implications of our quantum modeling scheme for the structure of human thought, and show the presence of a two-layer structure consisting of a classical logical layer and a quantum conceptual layer.”
Quantum structure in cognition - ScienceDirect
This is another reason why I think the experimental methods I proposed to test the hypothesis can be considered valid in making the right conclusion.
I don’t see that suggestion in there.
You’re not trying to test your hypothesis. Testing involves trying to falsify it, not confirm it. You continue to maintain a fundamental misunderstanding of the scientific method.
May I suggest smaller, more modest hypotheses as a better way to learn?
2 Likes
You mean the suggestion that God has something akin to neurons. As I said before, my assessment could be mistaken.
Yes, I have done this already by creating this topic. Again, I made it very clear at the start of this topic that I was going to show how we can test whether a Divine intelligence has and continues to guide evolution, which would make this an improvement of the Modern synthesis rather than a separate explanation. However, this time it will NOT be about trying to prove that God guided evolution or prove God exists at all.
Mine does as well.
Not small enough.
No, you’re not understanding the empirical requirement. Empirical means what you directly observe, not how you or anyone else might interpret it.
The idea is that all of the interpretation is baked into the hypothesis in advance. You’re not doing that at all.
2 Likes
NO, as I explained to @Jordan, it is based on observations within DNA. You have not made any objections on my inference yet regarding the matter.
16 posts were split to a new topic: Is DNA digital information?
I’m really trying to be polite about this. A scientific hypothesis predicts empirical observations that are not known to you. Your response makes no sense in the context of what I wrote.
My objection is not to any inference. My objection is that you are not following, and lack a basic understanding of, the scientific method itself. This is why I am (in good faith) suggesting starting with something much, much smaller.
2 Likes
Let’s put this simply.
What you would need is for atheists to look at your hypothesis, and conclude “With this hypothesis, I can achieve something useful that I could not have achieved without the hypothesis”.
At present, you are at the stage where even theists are doubting that anything useful can be achieved with your hypothesis.
Yes, the requirement is tough. But science is tough.
5 Likes
Sure. I will explain further with an example. A hydrothermal vent simulation experiment by researchers reported that they created protocells with the capacity to self-replicate continuously for multiple generations, mirroring the behavior of biological cells. They concluded that their work demonstrated how lifelike cells emerged from nonliving matter under conditions similar to the hydrothermal vents found on the early earth.
However, they artificially and carefully designed or selected certain molecules such as phospholipids that play a key role in forming stable vesicles. A quote from their article truly reflects this: “To achieve this goal, we selected well-defined suitable lipids and macromolecules, including newly designed ones, and constructed a giant vesicle (GV)-based model protocell that links self-replication of information molecules (RNA/DNA) with the self-reproduction of a compartment (GV)” (italics added).
A recursive vesicle-based model protocell with a primitive model cell cycle | Nature Communications
If my hypothesis is true, then the second round of experiments that do not insert the observer into the experiment will produce negative results because it is not guided by the experimenter.
However, if my hypothesis is false, then the second (unguided) experiment will produce the same results as the first one.
1 Like
They concluded nothing of the sort. Their conclusions were chock-full of conditionals and qualifications that you omitted.
Why did you do that?
3 Likes
“The aim of our investigation was to explore the universal concept of life by embodying a model protocell that demonstrates how collaborative dynamics emerged from nonliving matter under certain circumstances. To achieve this goal, we selected well-defined suitable lipids and macromolecules, including newly designed ones, and constructed a giant vesicle (GV)-based model protocell that links self-replication of information molecules (RNA/DNA) with the self-reproduction of a compartment (GV)…”
Not one word of that supports your blatant misrepresentation of their conclusions as lacking any qualifications.
2 Likes
Pro tip; as a rule, the conclusions are on the discussion section of a paper…
1 Like