The Argument Clinic

[Tim]

@Meerkat_SK5

I only reference youtube videos on them because you guys refuse to read the articles I give you on quantum physics or the Orch-OR model.

That misrepresents the record.

1. Back in April/May 2021 you merely made an incomplete citation to “Hameroff, Stuart; Penrose, Roger 2014” (as it gave no title, it was unclear which of their 2014 papers you were referring to), which was only one citation among many you gave in that post.

2. Long before you either gave a complete citation, let alone further ones, @Jordan did his own research on the topic here:

@Jordan

OK, I dug a little bit more into Orch-OR and while I can see where you’re going better, I think a significant issue is that your hypothesis that consciousness impacts mutation seems more like conjecture built on a hypothesis that’s built on one-of-several competing theories. Orch-OR is a hypothesis with major relevant problems (decoherence would be an enormous problem in biochemically relevant conditions) built on objective-collapse theory which is an extension/competitor to quantum mechanics. But no objective-collapse theory has been experimentally verified, so whether objective-collapse is “true” is an open question. But the biggest problem with this “arm” of your hypothesis is that extending from Orch-OR (consciousness as a quantum phenomenon) to “consciousness could be responsible for many/most/all mutations” is pretty much just conjecture. My opinion is that this moves the hypothesis out of the realm of science into science-grounded philosophy. I would put Orch-OR in that category as well.

3. Your presentation of Youtube videos WAS NOT in response to failure to read articles that you had not presented to us, but rather an attempt to shore up your failing argument here.

4. That you would present us those videos from a “buffoon”, and even think that the presenter was actually a quantum physicist, further confirmed our growing impression that you had no idea what you were talking about.

Thus, we were left with prima facie evidence that (i) you have no understanding of quantum physics, quantum biology, or neuroscience, and (ii) that your ‘theory’ is utter balderdash.

The ONLY way you can rebut this evidence is to provide evidence of your own competence in these fields by answering these questions:

@Tim

@Tim

I therefore have three questions for you:

1. What is your formal background in physics?
2. What is your formal background in calculus?
3. What books/textbooks on quantum physics, written by actual quantum physicists have you read? (As opposed to Youtube videos by apologists.)

To which I would add:

4. What is your formal background in biology?
5. What books/textbooks on quantum biology, written by actual quantum biologists have you read?
6. What books/textbooks on neuroscience, written by actual neuroscientists have you read?

@Meerkat_SK5

I only need to know the basics of quantum physics and read enough about it online to make my case.

To “know the basics of quantum physics” with any robustness would require a fairly strong background in both physics and math. Further, you have given no impression that your reading of this topic had any depth, or that you have any real understanding of the scientific sources you cite.

@Meerkat_SK5

No, this was not what I meant.

Then perhaps you should have said what you meant, rather than making an absurd statement, that has, as a direct implication, what I suggested.

@Meerkat_SK5

No, Plato did not argue that the Forms or Ideas create concrete objects or physical reality directly.

You have provided no evidence that Penrose has either.

@Meerkat_SK5

I just gave you an example in regards to Galileo. That is the evidence.

No, to be “evidence” a fact has to be relevant – Galileo was a non sequitor.

Further, I would point out that acceptance of Darwinian Evolution started long before universities, and society, was as secular as it is today – so your conspiracy theory falls apart completely.

@Meerkat_SK5

I beg to differ…

More like you ‘beg to dither’.

That HGT, just like mutations, can be adaptive is old news, and fails to help your case.

But, without Natural Selection, or some analogous mechanism, there is no mechanism to separate out the adaptive variation from the maladaptive (this is what I meant by “source of adaptation” – adaptation separated out from maladaptation) – therefore both adaptive and maladaptive variations accumulate. Owen+HGT lacks such a mechanism.

You also haven’t addressed my first point:

1. Owen’s work never anticipated the existence of HGT.