Give me an example and I will explain to you how I did respond to it.
“Non-believing pals”? What are they not believing in, your strange and ill-conceived hypothesis? You should know by now that at least several of the people here, myself included, are Christians. And in my experience the majority of people here are not anti-theists.
4 Likes
Christians are not the ones I am conversing with here majority of the time.
BTW, I thought you were a materialist or a property dualist.
My hypothesis is not really mine, remember. I just advocate for it and defend it, which would be the common archetype theory or the Orch-OR model.
You still did not respond to my question before and ignored me actually.
Yes, for the reasons already belabored.
1 Like
No offense, but I don’t think that’s quite the issue with everybody here. One may argue this if the theories in question, and particularly the distinction between them is rooted in opinion. But if one of the models is an actual theory, based on experimental data, where the other is a rag-tag assemblage of technobabble that is at best composed of second or third hand quotes from poorly substantiated speculative works, I don’t believe personal bias is quite enough to account for the bulk of the reasons a collective of scientifically literate thinkers would lean towards the former.
Anyway, today I began and finished assembling what I believe is a fair mixture of easy-to-medium questions on the basics of quantum physics, anticipating that you might at last agree to take that test, but also for my own practice, and for the not unprecedented event that I meet someone else making suspiciously big claims about quantum theory. Once I have composed example answers to them and adjusted scope and difficulty where necessary, I shall assign scores/weights, and upload the document with an upcoming message. If someone else wishes to review either document (questions or questions & answers) ahead of publication, and in particular make suggestions about what quirks of notation or jargon may need explanation, please, let me know.
2 Likes
And why do you think it is futile if you are the one who is ignoring my responses and questions?
I seem to remember something about removing the plank from one’s own eye before helping one’s brother remove the speck in his. It seems applicable.
No, of course. Your personal incredulity over evolution is irrelevant. But that seems to be the only personal incredulity on offer here. You’re spouting gibberish, and then attributing people’s well-stated objections to their biases and/or personal incredulity. But the fact is that you have been unable to answer any of the substantive objections to your notions. When your hypotheses are this incoherent, you really are not in a good position to attribute everyone else’s objections to some kind of obstinate refusal to see the obvious.
3 Likes
As I told Tim, It is not my theory or claims. This is the fundamental error that you guys keep making here. I am simply organizing previous works from Richard Owen, Roger Penrose, Stuart Hameroff, that have done most of the work already. Their works are well receptive and taken seriously by other researchers and have been for quite some time.
Your guys refusal to accept this basically proves my point.
I think you’ve failed to realize that your views are derivable in no possible way from any of those sources. Blame yourself, not them.
I do sense that you’re giving up, and that’s good. It’s a first step to recovery. But these insistences that other people, by continuing to think your ideas are basically guano in its pre-fermented state, are somehow conceding the validity of those ideas – well, that’s just more of that guano, and the offgassing may please you but it pleases nobody else.
I think you should just fast-forward through this “every denial is a confirmation of how right I am” phase and move on to “they laughed at Galileo!” We’ve all seen this story before and we all know the ending.
2 Likes
And how on earth would you know that if you guys refuse to inform yourselves on their theory or model?
It is you guys who are giving up.
If you guys don’t give me any reason to think that my arguments defending their theory is invalid, then what else should I believe about their theory?
Haphazardly grabbing quotes from all over the place is not the same thing as “organizing”. Pretty sure none of those you named asked or hired you to do any organizing of their work. But, regardless, such organizing would be work in its own right. People have been rendered co-authors for less, anyway. And it is immaterial whether you did that yourself either. You are here presenting it, you are here expecting people here to take the results of what ever you did seriously. For the purposes of the conversation we are having here, it might as well be your work. Pointing at names you think are more credible than some-rando-on-the-internet is not a replacement for substance, nor a shield against criticism, especially when so many times where you actually reference their work it ends up through secondary or tertiary sources, at times quote-mining the original, and with minimal indication that you have read any of said original, much less understood it enough to try and Frankenstein it onto the rest of your bizarre blob of crudely sewn together misunderstandings. If you are unwilling to adequately address objections, that’s fine, but you don’t get to call everyone who raises any ignorant or any other sort of unreasonable for so doing.
Oh, and the “big names” you try and hide behind (pretending for the moment that public/media prominence actually correlates with scientific impact - not at all a trivial concession to grant) became big by earning it. Even then the works you try to borrow are heavily in dispute, no matter how well-established their authors are generally. For in science, it is the works that make names big, not the names that make works big.
4 Likes
We have in the last few posts a shining example of futility, visible to all except you. This post too is futile.
1 Like
Oh, I am more than willing to adequately address your guy’s objections. The problem is that you guys are unwilling to adequately address my follow-up responses to your objections. You just give up at some point.
let me rephrase what I said…If you guys don’t respond back to my responses that defend their theory is invalid, then what else should I believe about their theory?
What you should believe is irrelevant to what you can be convinced of, which is nothing. Futile.
1 Like
Seriously, dude, that one’s not working. Move on to “they laughed at Galileo,” and let’s get this over with.
Not “their theory.” Your gibberish. But people have given you a lot of reasons and you don’t appear to understand any of them. You seem to think that the difference between sanity and insanity is a matter of the specific phrasing. You appear to be entirely unfamiliar with the intellectual landscape of science and completely unable to see that you can contribute nothing to it, as matters stand. You think that, without understanding quantum mechanics or biology, you can integrate the two and fold in some Chopra-esque notions of consciousness. You can, of course, but the resulting concoction is odious and useless to any thinking person.
3 Likes
I’m a property dualist and a Christian. They’re not incompatible. There are quite a few property dualist, and even physicalist, Christian philosophers.
1 Like
I am honestly perplexed by this John given our history together on this forum.
From the very beginning, I have been taking what you and others have said very seriously and ,as a result, I ended up throwing away a number of scientific arguments from various sources based on your guys objections and feedback. What I am presenting to you now is nowhere near the same as it has been when I first came on this forum.
Now, all of a sudden, you want to give up providing more feedback. This is all on you. You are the one that is throwing in the towel on following the evidence and reason where it leads NOT me.