Universal Common Designer theory [UPDATED and REVISED]

[Tim]

@Meerkat_SK5

Then, let’s focus on utilizing your strengths instead shall we. I encourage you @Puck_Mendelssohn and @nwrickert to evaluate my syllogism and point out where I went wrong.

A quick glance at your latest “syllogism”, tells me that you are repeating the same mistakes that have been pointed out to you in the past. This tells me that further pointing them out to you is pointless.

This is particularly true, given your “playground” response to my example above.

@Meerkat_SK5

I have already gave you a review article that provides evidence of this …

Balderdash. A single review article is not “evidence that these claims have been accepted by the wider scientific community”. This is particularly true when its published in a journal whose area of expertise is unrelated to Quantum Physics or Neuroscience.

@Meerkat_SK5

Here is a quote from an article that features this:

What follows is a quote that has nothing at all to do with “whether more orthodox theories of consciousness predict these outcomes as well”.

@Meerkat_SK5

Here is the actual experiment that has been done to support his claims:

Are we quantum computers, or merely clever robots? (ucsb.edu)

This is NOT an “actual experiment” it is in fact explicitly a “talk”.

@Meerkat_SK5

Not true, I have already gave you my analysis in post 25 on why there is not a consensus yet on it.

That “analysis” was nothing more than wishful thinking. An example is this statement:

@Meerkat_SK5

The criticisms raised on their theory have all been adequately addressed in their 2014 peer-reviewed article that was published in a highly prestigious journal.

How do you know that the criticisms “have all been adequately addressed in their 2014 peer-reviewed article”? Because Penrose and Hameroff said so? Balderdash.

@Meerkat_SK5

Here is the rest of the sources supporting their theory:

Balderdash.

The first is simply a pop-science puff-piece about their 2014 article. The second explicitly states:

Controversial theories have been suggested that relate such microtubule processes directly to neural coherence and consciousness[71],[72],[73], but experimental confirmation is needed for validation of such claims.
[My emphasis]

The middle of those references (#72) to “Controversial theories [for which] experimental confirmation is needed” is to Orch-OR.

At which point I refuse to read through further citations of yours.

@Meerkat_SK5

Rejecting citations or sources that are purported to support claims is not the same thing as debunking claims.

Can you find anybody on this thread that doesn’t reject your sources as failing to support your claims? If not, then the problem would appear to be on your end, not mine.

@Meerkat_SK5

And from this response I can determine that you either did not bother to understand my claim or that you must have no understanding of the quantum physics at all.

ENOUGH!

I am sick and tired of you constantly casting aspersions about others’ “understanding of the quantum physics”, when you have demonstrated absolutely no understanding of your own.

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.)

Until you answer these questions, I refuse to discuss any matter related to Quantum Physics with you.