Universal Common Designer theory [UPDATED and REVISED]

[Meerkat_SK5]

@CrisprCAS9

You can claim that, but no one here is convinced.

Well that is just it. I am not trying to convince anyone here that my theory is valid. Instead, I am trying to get PS users to help me improve on my theory until it gets to a point where most lay people can understand it and it is not lacking anything important within my reach.

Besides, you can convinced somebody of something to be true and it can still false and vice versa

@CrisprCAS9

If your source is bad, and I point out that your source is bad, I generally don’t need to cite anything at all beyond your source itself. As an example, your continued use of Abel’s shoddy work.
Likewise if you misrepresent a source, I don’t need a different source to support my objection. Your source will do just fine.

Correct, this is why I also mentioned that…if the only thing that you object to in my previous post was the wrong sources cited, then make sure you explain why the quotes I pulled from those sources are inadequate.

@CrisprCAS9

So you are allowed to read between the lines in scientific papers in fields you have no qualifications in, but others are not?

Yes! Thank you for pointing out how @Tim is being arbitrary and inconsistent with HIS rules. He did this first but I am not allowed to do the same.

@Tim

AFAIK, this is NOT Penrose’s interpretation. If you wish to keep regurgitating this absurd claim, then please cite where Penrose himself made this “interpretation”.

"(B) Consciousness is a separate quality, distinct from physical actions and not controlled by physical laws, that has always been in the universe. Descartes’ ‘dualism’, religious viewpoints, and other spiritual approaches assume consciousness has been in the universe all along, e.g. as the ‘ground of being’, ‘creator’ or component of an omnipresent ‘God’ ……

“…Nonetheless, in the Orch OR scheme, these events are taken to have a rudimentary subjective experience, which is undifferentiated and lacking in cognition, perhaps providing the constitutive ingredients of what philosophers call qualia. We term such un-orchestrated, ubiquitous OR events, lacking information and cognition, ‘proto-conscious’. In this regard, Orch OR has some points in common with the viewpoint (B) of Section 1, which incorporates spiritualist, idealist and panpsychist elements, these being argued to be essential precursors of consciousness that are intrinsic to the universe .” [emphasis added]

Consciousness in the universe: A review of the ‘Orch OR’ theory - ScienceDirect

@Tim

This problem has been pointed out to you repeatedly . You have failed to learn from this criticism and stop making claims unsupported by your citations.

Well you made two conditions…

@Tim

Unless and until you either:

1. find a legitimate, peer-reviewed article that explicitly links Quantum Consciousness to evolution; or
2. manage to convince one or more of the physicists or neuroscientists on this forum that you have presented sufficient evidence that collectively demonstrates you have a solid argument to make for the link …

I tried to meet the first condition and then you changed the rules. So I am switching to meet the second condition. Now, I am waiting for people to address what I said in my last comment to @Rumraket.