Repeating this false claim doesn’t make it true.
5 Likes
“Quantum mind” is not a scientific theory. Per Wikipedia, it is merely a “group of hypotheses”.
As you have no background in quantum physics, nor have you demonstrated any understanding of the field, you are not competent to determine whether it has been “very well tested”, nor are your cherry-picked citations from these hypotheses’ cheerleaders in any way probative.
This conclusion is a non sequitor, in that it does not follow from the quantum mind hypotheses (even if, for the sake of argument, we accept these hypotheses) combined with your fine-tuning constants. This is especially true when we look at the claims you make about your “universal protoconsciousness”:
You are therefore effectively claiming that your “universal proto-consciousness” is (the Abrahamic conception of) God.
Thus, you are claiming that physics proves the existence of God.
Even from somebody with a PhD, or even a Nobel Prize, in Physics, this would be an absurdly grandiloquent claim. Coming from somebody with no demonstrated background or competence in the field whatsoever, it is quite simply ridiculous.
As @AllenWitmerMiller said on another thread, you have reached the “Byers’ Point™”:
1 Like
That breaks the laws of nature.
That’s not specific.
For example, if a common designer is true what pattern of divergence should we see in exons as compared to introns? What pattern of transition and transversion mutations should we see? What should the Ka/Ks ratios be, and why?
1 Like
Without combing through the whole thread----what is the OP’s scientific model for intelligent design, specifically? I’ve consumed quite a bit of Discovery Institute material and can’t quite figure this out.
1 Like
Nobody can, including @Meerkat_SK5. He’ll just repeat, likely word for word, what he said previouslly.
4 Likes
The mechanism by which general anesthetics cause reversible loss of consciousness, and by which the brain produces consciousness, are both unknown…
…Our results suggest that the quantum property of nuclear spin in the monoatomic anesthetic xenon promotes conscious processes at the xenon site of action, consistent with theories proposing quantum mechanisms in consciousness.
Nuclear Spin Attenuates the Anesthetic Potency of Xenon Isotopes in Mice | Anesthesiology | American Society of Anesthesiologists
Since the paper was too technical for me, I had to just skim through most of it.
Well, it depends on what you mean by proof. 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.
I do believe that quantum physics scienfically proves God’s existence, but only ontologically speaking. I don’t claim that science proves God in an epistemological manner.
No it does not. What are you talking about?
My model does not attempt to answer these questions, nor do I see how they are relevant.
Instead, this type of research should answer these relevant questions and contribute to the theory, such as …
Origin of life: Exactly how, where, and when did life on Earth originate? What were the metabolic pathways used by the earliest life forms?
Origins of viruses: Exactly how and when did different groups of viruses originate?
Last Universal Common Ancestor: What were the characteristics of the Last Universal Common Ancestor of Archaea, Bacteria, and Eukaryotes? Did Archaea and Eukaryotes evolve out of the domain Bacteria or to a clade basal to it? Do Archaea and Eukaryotes share a later or earlier common ancestor to Bacteria?
Likewise, repeating the claim that “this is a false claim” doesn’t make it true. Instead, your claim has been demonstrated to be false on more than one occasion:>
"Due to its increasing empirical success, one wonders what it tells us about the underlying process of cognition. Does it imply that we have quantum minds and there is some sort of quantum structure in the brain? In this paper, I address this important issue by using a new result in the research of quantum foundations… This result supports a realist interpretation of quantum cognition, according to which the cognitive state of our brain and its dynamics are not classical but quantum in quantum cognition. In short, quantum cognition implies quantum minds. "
S. Gao, Does Quantum Cognition Imply Quantum Minds? - PhilPapers
"Undoubtedly, the Orch-OR theory co-established by theoretical physicist Penrose and neuroscientist Hameroff is currently the most convincing theory. Even more exciting, with the emergence of new drugs, new research methods, and new quantum technologies, this theory is constantly being enriched and perfected. Especially in the research of anesthesiology (96-100), memory (71), cognition (42,101-103), neural synchrony (104) and vision (49), mounting results and evidence indicated the Orch-OR theory could be self-explanatory and could be invoked to many different conscious backgrounds. More recently, Li et al. found that xenon’s (one kind of anesthetic) nuclear spin could impair its own anesthetic power, which involves a neural quantum process (105).
Thus, the quantum theory of consciousness is increasingly gaining more supporters. With the dedication of these supporters, the quantum theory of consciousness will be gradually completed and will be able to explain the hard problem systematically and comprehensively. As the enigmatic riddle of consciousness has remained intractable, we need more theories and hypotheses to attract enough attention and maintain lively debate. This conflict is the only way for human beings to explore the truth. Since there is no conclusive scientific mechanism of consciousness, as one of the most systemic and convincing theories among various theories of consciousness, the Orch-OR theory deserves our deeper understanding and study."
“The Orch-OR proposal therefore stretches across a considerable range of areas of science, touching upon the foundations of general relativity and quantum mechanics, in unconventional ways, in addition to the more obviously relevant areas such as neuroscience, cognitive science, molecular biology, and philosophy. It is not surprising, therefore, that Orch OR has been persistently criticized from many angles since its introduction in 1994. Nonetheless, the Orch OR scheme has so far stood the test of time better than most other schemes, and it is particularly distinguished from other proposals by the many scientifically tested, and potentially testable, ingredients that it depends upon.” Consciousness in the universe: A review of the ‘Orch OR’ theory - ScienceDirect
I provided an outline of what and where you can expect to find certain topics of interests. This will allow you to just shop for ideas you want to read further into without reading the entire article:
Outline of what to expect:
Capabilities of the designer [D]
Nature of the designer [F] [P]
Model of design mechanism [I] [G]
Definition of consciousness [C]
Definition of created kinds [H]
Methods for determining created kinds [K]
Conflicting evidence and falsifying designs [O]
Testable ID predictions [J] [O] [G]
How common designer only implies common design [G]
Confirmed predictions [I] [E] [O]
Phylogenetics model for common design [J]
Constraints on designer’s abilities [O] [P]
Origin of life and species model [I]
Future research [N] [O]
Outline of where to find it:
[A] Abstract
[B] Introduction
[C] Quantum mind theory
[D] Universal proto-consciousness field
[E] Empirical support for model
[F] Universal common designer theory
[G] Universal common design theory
[H] Definitions
[I] Origin of life and species model
[J] Origin of species predictions
[K] Methods
[L] Results
[M] Discussion
[N] Future research
[O] Difficulties on theory
[P] Appendix
Is There Evidence for a Universal Common Designer? - Peaceful Science
They are relevant, and common descent with evolution answers them. The fact that your model can not even begin to account for observations says a lot.
Yes, it does. Fully formed organisms don’t pop into being through a collapse wavefunction.
You are claiming that species as closely related as chimps and humans were separately created. Therefore, your model needs to explain the genetic features in their genomes as a result of this separate creation.
1 Like
No, you’ve repeatedly demonstrated your inability to recognize quality science. This is one of the many repeated criticisms you repeatedly ignore.
Not only are your quoted passages not quality science, they’re not even science.
So you haven’t found any empirical papers that you’ve actually read. That’s absurd.
Models do not answer questions. You seem to have an enormous problem with using words with widely agreed-upon meanings.
This is the fundamental error that you are making here. There is no evidence of common descent in living or fossil organisms. There is nothing to infer from nature that would compel anybody to make this conclusion. The simulation of common descent is just in your mind and you guys are imposing it onto the data just like Darwin did in his day. All he did was modify Owen’s theory from common archetype to common ancestor and then assumed (like you guys do) that living organisms evolved from these ancestors. For this reason, I don’t understand, nor can I answer your questions properly.
This is not what I am arguing:
Genesis 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
formed
וַיִּיצֶר֩ (way·yî·ṣer)
Conjunctive waw | Verb - Qal - Consecutive imperfect - third person masculine singular
Strong’s 3335: To mould into a, form, as a, potter, to determine
According to the definition of “formed” in Genesis, God constructed living things within the earth like a clay potter NOT by “poofing everything into existence” in a single creation week. However, this was not a tinkering design process either according to Genesis 1:11-30. Instead, as Randy from ICR has pointed out:
“…organisms were programmed to adapt to fill environmental niches. This information is previously encoded in the entire single-celled organism—not just the genes—to control embryonic development. Reproduction transmits the entire system to the next generation.”
In other words, "…the reproductive and adaptive capacity or ‘seed’ of an organism was always programmed ‘in itself’ to reproduce ‘after its kind’ so that the organism could be ‘fruitful [divide/branch into diverse progeny] and multiply’ to deliberately pioneer or “fill” environments of “the earth.”
Similar Features Demonstrate Common Design | The Institute for Creation Research (icr.org)
This is supported by observations showing how life itself is inherently a Top-down process “where an abstract and non-physical systemic entity (algorithmic information) effectively becomes a causal agent capable of manipulating its material substrate”, as I referenced before.
More importantly, the stasis we find in the fossil record further supports this creation process because fossils and its living counterpart show remarkably little change. This means that the transitional forms between higher taxa that Gould mentioned represents common ancestors NOT primitive ancestors.
Biased gene transfer explains it because it reinforces similarities between them without possessing shared ancestry:
Consequently, the degree of relatedness, as measured by the average phylogenetic signal retained in the genomes, is a function of two processes: the frequency by which organisms swap genes with each other and how long ago they evolved from a common organismal ancestor.
To the extent that an observed phylogenetic signal is caused by biased gene transfer, the resulting signal can be considered a phenetic one. If genes are mainly transferred between closely related organisms, then gene transfer reinforces similarity, regardless of if it is because of shared ancestry or biased HGT.
Biased gene transfer mimics patterns created through shared ancestry - PMC (nih.gov)
Alright, what criticism did I ignore and why is what I quoted not science. What is quality science according to you? Once you tell me, I can give you want you asked for.
No, I have read it. I am saying I don’t fully understand it because it was too technical for me.
Really?
Then what pattern of shared and derived features should common descent produce if it isn’t a nested hierarchy? Please tell us.
Why couldn’t those archetypes violate a nested hierarchy? Why couldn’t there be an archetype that has a mixture of mammal and bird features?
How?
Why couldn’t those species violate a nested hierarchy?
Why do those transitional fossils fit into the predicted nested hierarchy?
HGT does not occur in primates so the bias of naturally occurring HGT would not apply. God would not need to copy genes from other primates. God could create completely new genes, and completely new genomes. God is all powerful and all knowing, so why would God need to copy?
3 Likes
When scientists refer to “reading papers,” we are referring to engaging with the data MORE THAN we are referring to the words.
That… you don’t have the ability to recognize quality science. I literally just said that. You quoted it. Are you okay?
They’re not primary literature. To my knowledge, you’ve never cited primary literature.
I know it when I see it. Let’s start with primary literature, then methodologically valid and properly cited (that is, covering the current literature from the field).
3 Likes
No, he has on many occasions. But without exception (that comes to mind) he’s cited it to support something it doesn’t actually say, and we can doubt that he’s actually read the stuff he cites.
2 Likes
This topic was automatically closed 7 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.