No @Meerkat_SK5, here is where your credulity is showing. Criticism such as Beall’s is a threat to AME’s business model. So it is entirely to be expected that they will make some effort to rebut that criticism whether that criticism is justified or not. This rebuttal is entirely self-serving, and so is of little probative value.
I already told you this:
I would note that their willingness to publish an article so far outside the journal’s stated topic is, in and of itself, likely evidence of a predatory journal.
I take it English is not your first language?
Your quote does not say “Indeed, Orch OR does also help explain other mysteries including how anesthesia works, the origin and evolution of life, free will, the flow of time, memory, dreams, and how general relativity relates to quantum mechanics.”
It says “may”, which means that it also may not “also help explain …”.
The employment of “may” in English denotes the subjunctive mood, “[d]esignating a mood … the forms of which are employed to denote an action or a state as conceived (and not as a fact) and therefore used to express a wish, command, exhortation, or a contingent, hypothetical, or prospective event.”
This means that the “link” in the article is purely speculative and thus of zero evidentiary value.
I would also note that this article was authored by Stuart Hameroff, who is the co-proposer (along with Penrose) of Orch OR. That means that his rosey assessment of that controversial hypothesis is entirely to be expected and is in no way evidence this hypothesis’ wider acceptance within science.
So you are still exactly nowhere.
The rest of your blather appears to be simply further examples of your misinterpretation/exaggeration of (often speculative rather than empirical) articles.
This seems to be nothing more than ‘apologetics’, taking my earlier Lowest Common Denominator definition of this field as ‘bad arguments stated with utter confidence’.
