None of the remaining articles are even approximately relevant. However, I’d especially like @Meerkat_SK5 to explain how the 5th study relates, given the methodology. And by that, I mean given the methodology consists of MRIs of men while they watch erotic films.
4 Likes
That’s already incoherent in your first sentence!
4 Likes
I actually felt the same way about the authors’ preliminary deductive argument for quantum idealism, but I showcased it anyways just to see what you guys think. So just forget about it.
This is not as important as the other syllogism that is supposed to be the actual deductive proof for God. I was hoping you tell me what you think about that one.
As I mentioned before, I don’t know what you consider to be proof or disproof of something because it all depends on what standard of proof we are operating on. There are 4 known types:
Consensus (scientific)
Absolute certainty
Persuasion (I.e. until I’m convinced)
Beyond a reasonable doubt
I am basing it on the fourth one, which entails that a proposition must have:
(A) Enough evidence that supports the actual claim being made or evidence proportional to the claim
(B) There can’t be other explanations that explain the evidence equally as well or better.
(C) There can’t be unexplained conflicting evidence, unaddressed objections, or untested predictions that are designed to falsify it.
- The God hypothesis can be neither proved nor disproved;
- Idealism can be neither proved nor disproved;
FYI, The testing of the Orch-OR theory proves this is not the case for either one of these.
- Solipsism can be neither proved nor disproved;
I concede , but it really is not relevant here.
- Materialism can be neither proved nor disproved.
Quantum physics experiments prove this is not the case as well.
I have already mentioned this in the last post. It is to show everyone that I was not trying to assume God’s existence or a universal consciousness when I inferred that it was the cause for life’s origins and evolution. More importantly, it was to show that this universal consciousness was not an unknown/undefined omnipotent entity as @Dan suggested but was defined and known.These were both his objections and I wanted to fully address them because they were valid points of contention.
I am pretty much done addressing his latter point and I have provided him with the evidence needed to support the auxiliary hypothesis that were incorporated to make sure the theory is testable.
Now, I need your help to determine whether the former objection is valid by engaging with the second deductive argument I presented
This is not true and it shows again your lack of effort to read my sources objectively and why I can’t take some of your objections seriously. Anestheisology is what Stuart Hammeroff specializes and it is incorporated within the Orch-OR theory:
“Anesthesiology is the medical specialty concerned with the total perioperative care of patients before, during and after surgery.[1] It encompasses anesthesia, intensive care medicine, critical emergency medicine, and pain medicine”
“Accordingly, translational medicine is a highly interdisciplinary field, the primary goal of which is to coalesce assets of various natures within the individual pillars in order to improve the global healthcare system significantly.”
Translational medicine - Wikipedia
Then, you are going to have to elaborate on your objection here with an example or something because I don’t know what you are asking for.
Right, he was talking about an experiment done in the 80’s that support his claims.
I told you already. It is highly unlikely that such a high impact journal like Physics of life reviews would publish their article if those objections were fatal or relevant.
For instance, although there are fraudulent articles that can and do get passed peer-review even in highly prestigious journals, Physics of life review has a special feature where additional experts can make up to 5 replies each after an article is published in which the editor informally reads those comments. In this particular case, the editor extended it to 7 replies from various outside sources and experts in which Penrose and Hammeroff adequately addressed all with replies of their own.
I say “adequately” because the editor informally peer-reviews it himself. They also have been bringing their theory in front of skeptics in conferences and publish subsequent articles afterwards to be scrutinized even more. Not to mention the other journals that have published their paper after this one…
Lastly, I just gave you a recent review article on their work that does not suggest there is a criticism or objection they failed to adequately address. Thus, unless there is a new peer-reviewed criticism of their article after 2019 that has gone unaddressed, this explanation must be ruled out until further noticed.
Do you have a peer-reviewed article that contains this unaddressed fatal or devastating objection that makes their theory still controversial ?
The Orch-OR theory has gone through everything this article has suggested that makes an idea a scientific theory. It just does not have consensus yet. That’s it. However, all this means is that not enough of the old school paradigm of scientists have died off or its just philosophical/religious bias according to my analysis:
'The issue is not whether a scientific theory is settled, but rather whether it works. Any successful scientific theory must be predictive and falsifiable; that is, it must successfully predict outcomes of controlled experiments or observations, and it must survive tests that could disprove the theory.
A scientist advocating a particular theory must propose an experiment and use her theory to predict the results of that experiment. If the experimental results are inconsistent with her predictions, then she must admit that her theory is wrong. To gain acceptance for a theory, a scientist must be willing to subject it to a falsifiable test.
If an experiment produces results that are consistent with a scientist’s predictions, then that’s good news for her theory. Just one successful test, though, is not usually enough. And the more controversial a theory is, the more experimental verification is required. As Carl Sagan said, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”
Wide acceptance comes from repeated, different experiments by different research groups. There is no threshold or tipping point at which a theory becomes “settled.” And there is never 100 percent certainty. However, near-unanimous acceptance by the scientific community simply doesn’t occur unless the evidence is overwhelming.’
Scientific theories aren’t mere conjecture – to survive they must work (theconversation.com)
Can you find anybody on this thread other than @CrisprCAS9 that does reject my latest sources as failing to support my latest claims? If not, then the problem would appear to be on your end, not mine.
No, your lack of expertise is not the actual issue I am having with you here. It is the fact that you are not objectively looking within sources. Instead, you are just looking for quotes that contradict my claims and ignoring the articles that do support my claims, such as my articles on the wave-function. We can’t progress within our discussion if you keep doing this. You need to try to research unbiasedly and make sure you familiarize yourself better on some of the articles and quotes I present. With that said, I do take some of the blame for this type of behavior.
I’m in.
2 Likes
I do, at least those regarding actual biology, though you seem to have abandoned biology lately.
2 Likes
As I stated before:
1 Like
#metoo. On the grounds that @Meerkat_SK5 hasn’t confirmed they were his actual sources.
4 Likes
I was mainly talking about physics but whatever. Go ahead and please tell me which source does not support my claims and why…
(A) The Appearance of Common Design
Survey of Engineering Models for Systems Biology (hindawi.com)
(B) Failure to Explain the Evidence through Unguided Natural Processes
The Origins of Life: The Managed-Metabolism Hypothesis | SpringerLink
(C) Reproduction of the Common Design Patterns
Total synthesis of Escherichia coli with a recoded genome | Nature
Sorry, we’ve been through that. I’ve responded, and you have ignored me. Of course it goes without saying that none of your cited references actually support your claims.
But I was talking about the “basic types” discussion.
3 Likes
But make an exception for @Meerkat_SK5 explaining the relevance of Beauregard et al 2001, as mentioned in my previous comment. For reasons mentioned in my previous comment.
Of those, “persuasion” is too weak. That you yourself are persuaded tells us more about you than about the argument used. Scientists know better than to trust their own judgement on this, which is why they see peer review as important.
It seems to me that you fail on (A) and (B). For (C), the major difficulty is that your theories don’t seem to touch any actual evidence.
You might not have tried to assume God’s existence. But you assumed it anyway, perhaps without trying. It’s the well known principle that there is no such thing as free lunch. You cannot get God as a result of an argument unless it was there in the starting assumptions.
Yes, Christian apologists come up with many arguments that purport to prove God. But what those arguments really do, is attempt to hide where they assumed God as a starting assumption.
I’ll go back and look at that again. I did not specifically comment on it, as it seemed that my comment would not be much different from a repeat of my comment about the first deductive argument. But I’ll go back and take another look, and then decide whether it is worth an additional reply.
2 Likes
@Meerkat_SK5 wanted me to go back and comment on his second deductive argument. I’ll start by quoting the argument.
Premises 1 and 2 appear to be assertions from nowhere. I cannot find any basis for them. And if I doubt the premises, then the argument cannot persuade me of the conclusion.
This appears to be an appeal to Tononi’s “Integrated Information Theory of consciousness.” It looks as if @Meerkat_SK5 sees this as an alternative to the Orch-OR theory he has been pushing. I doubt that they are compatible, but I will admit that I have not looked closely into that.
For myself, I am inclined to see the Chalmers “hard problem” of consciousness as a red herring. I don’t expect it to ever be solved, because I think it is a bogus problem. I see it as coming from dualistic thinking. Yes, most contemporary philosophers have rejected Cartesian dualism. But they retain a lot of dualistic thinking.
2 Likes
Yes, that paper doesn’t appear to have anything even remotely to do with quantum consciousness. My suspicion is that @Meerkat_SK5 simply copied-and-pasted it as part of a bulk list of the sources that Michael Jones (aka “Inspiring Philosophy”) gives in one of his videos. The fact that their link to it is to a PubMed listing for the paper, which Jones frequently gives (see for example here), would seem to confirm this.
Feel free to pursue this line of inquiry, but for myself I have other more pressing issues to put their toes to the fire on. 
1 Like
But, this was not your original point from before. You were suggesting that …
- The God hypothesis can be neither proved nor disproved;
- Idealism can be neither proved nor disproved;
Of course, this has to be wrong because the testing of the Orch-OR theory proves this is not the case for either one of these.
- Solipsism can be neither proved nor disproved;
I concede here , but I don’t see why this is relevant since I never argued for this.
- Materialism can be neither proved nor disproved.
Quantum physics experiments prove this is not the case as well.
No, that is not what I meant by making an assumption or proof of God. I mean making an assumption where there is no scientific evidence yet for it. The deductive argument I presented was there to provide scientific evidence for a universal consciousness based on the digital information that is observed within the DNA . But, it is not there to provide scientific proof, but a starting point for further scientific inquiry via scientific method style.
No, I was referencing the general theory of integrated information, which does include consciousness at the quantum level now from a recent update and ,thus, they are compatible.
I agree. I think Dualism is unparsimonius and incoherent now, which is why I only adhere to certain forms of idealism instead.
Let me formulate it differently then where I combine the two syllogisms I presented:
-
Premise 1: There is a single Universal Wave Function UWF, which implies the entanglement of all matter-energy and thus all information into a single integrated information state
-
Premise 2: The universal wave function of quantum mechanics is real, but not of a spatiotemporal-physical nature, but of a mathematical nature.
-
Premise 3: Entanglement of information is synonymous with integration of information and thus synonymous with consciousness
-
Conclusion: Mathematical objects are abstract concepts that presuppose a universal conscious mind as a carrier.
-
Conclusion 2 The universal consciousness is real, but not of a spatiotemporal-physical nature, but of a mathematical nature.
-
Premise 4 : Life emerges from a universal wave-function. [2] [3]
-
Conclusion 3 : Life emerges from a Universal consciousness.
I give up.
Your post is mostly word salad. It seems that what words mean for you has very little relation to what the mean for most people.
2 Likes
I’d have said “a naive mix of ill-understood jargon and non sequitors” – but “tomayto/tomahto”.
1 Like
Congratulations @Meerkat_SK5, your thesis is perfected. No one understands it, not even you.
5 Likes
/thread
(plz)
3 Likes
I keep wanting to say something by way of critique, but I am reminded of Stravinsky’s elegant response to Fantasia in which he said that he declined to criticize an unresisting imbecility.
Hey, I warned everybody that I suck at syllogisms 
Alright, let’s go back to the previous construction of the syllogism. When you said this…
Were you saying that the syllogism was not rational/sound or you just did not accept the first two premises for lack of supporting evidence?