What is “perplexing” is why you think changing your theories in some way demonstrates any of these things, particularly when your ‘changes’ frequently repeat the errors that have been pointed out to you.
You would appear to have ignored my use of the words “repeated” and “resurrecting”. My point was that you keep bringing up claims after they have been debunked. (Hence @Puck_Mendelssohn’s satirical comment “… following which I will not listen and will reiterate the above.”) This has nothing to do with science as it is practiced.
And whilst I am not a scientist, I do have a reasonably extensive Tertiary background in Philosophy and Formal Logic. Enough of a background to know complete illogic when I see it.
And the pervasive expert opinion would appear to be that you have failed to improve it. To the extent that I have expertise in logic, I agree with this opinion – the illogic demonstrated by your earlier attempts has not been in any appreciable way improved upon.
Can you point to anyone on this thread, other than yourself who is of the opinion that any of these is true:
-
It has been a success.
-
Your understanding has improved greatly.
-
Your arguments have improved greatly.
-
That we are almost done completing it.
I would suggest not.
Then let me provide you with an example of how my understanding was “sufficient” to know you don’t understand your sources:
Not only does your source make no mention of “consciousness”, a “conscious observer” or similar, but it makes very clear that the observer they are defining need not be conscious:
Before we describe our experiment in which we test and indeed violate inequality (2), let us first clarify our notion of an observer. Formally, an observation is the act of extracting and storing information about an observed system. Accordingly, we define an observer as any physical system that can extract information from another system by means of some interaction and store that information in a physical memory.
From this my understanding of the source is “sufficient” that I can determine that you must have no understanding of the source at all in order to think that it supports your position.
I have no idea what “example” you are talking about. But then given the shear volume of posts that you have made, and the exceedingly low signal-to-noise ratio (figuratively speaking) of them, it is hardly an indictment if I missed some of your claims.
Given that this is a book chapter, not a peer-reviewed article, it simply amounts to Penrose & Hameroff’s claim that Hameroff’s predictions have been confirmed. It provides no evidence that these claims have been accepted by the wider scientific community.
Another problem is that it provides no indication whether more orthodox theories of consciousness predict these outcomes as well (or alternatively whether they have successfully predicted other outcomes that Orch-OR has not).
This is the problem of basing your understanding of a hypothesis’ scientific standing exclusively on the claims of its proponents.
No @Meerkat_SK5. Given that you have repeatedly proven yourself incapable of determining if a source supports your position I will not waste my time reading still more of them.
Addendum:
@nwrickert: “keep in mind” that this “additional postulation” of Penrose’s is not merely “unproven”, it appears to exist nowhere except in @Meerkat_SK5’s fevered imagination. Yet they seem unable to stop themselves from referring to it repeatedly, when it is pointed out to them that Orch-OR itself is merely a hypothesis, not a scientific theory.
@Meerkat_SK5 appears to be incapable of even entertaining the idea that Orch-OR is not widely supported in the scientific community.
This is perhaps an example of motivated reasoning, as an argument based on a hypothesis as controversial and poorly-accepted as Orch OR would surely fail against a concept as widely accepted and well-evidenced as Common Descent. (Yet another reason why I think their argument is fatally flawed.)