Quantum physics, consciousness, free will, and woo-woo

[ryan]

So would QM be random? Do you think you might be just convoluting my original statement and unnecessarily taking this into a semantic black hole?

Quantum mechanics predicts true randomness, i.e.  Martin-Löf randomness, where there is no algorithm to predict it (from any perspective).

Yes I know. That was the point of my post.

 

[ryan]

'Random' doesn't have 'typical definitions'; in a mathematical or scientific context, it has a single, very specific definition.

If you want to say 'unpredictable', 'irregular', or 'chaotic', then do so. Don't abuse the word 'random', it just confuses everyone - particularly yourself.

Cyclones are not random; they are chaotic. Their behaviour is determined, but to accurately predict it at a reasonable distance into the future requires unachievable precision in our knowledge of the starting conditions.

So would QM be random? Do you think you might be just convoluting my original statement and unnecessarily taking this into a semantic black hole?

As far as we can tell, QM includes truly random behaviours; The decay of radioactive materials, for example, is indistinguishable from randomness, and can only be predicted statistically with large populations of similar nuclei. So you can identify a half life for a given unstable isotope, but it is not possible to predict the time at which a given nucleus will decay.

If you want to discuss anything with any hope of reaching useful conclusions, then precision is essential; the misuse of technical terms is to be avoided, unless our purpose is to obscure rather than to enlighten. There is nothing unnecessary about demanding the use of accurate language in a technical discussion; To fail to do so is to invite (intentional or unintentional) equivocation fallacies, and the resulting logical errors.

Truly random inputs cannot in any way be 'willed', by definition - the ability to influence an event would render it non-random. So randomness (including QM randomness) cannot possibly be a contributing component of willed behaviour.

Now let's go back to what I was talking about. To an observer, the dynamics of a choice through QM would be random. But to the QM consciousness, it is selected.

 

[bilby]

So would QM be random? Do you think you might be just convoluting my original statement and unnecessarily taking this into a semantic black hole?

Quantum mechanics predicts true randomness, i.e.  Martin-Löf randomness, where there is no algorithm to predict it (from any perspective).

Yes I know. That was the point of my post.

As far as we can tell, QM includes truly random behaviours; The decay of radioactive materials, for example, is indistinguishable from randomness, and can only be predicted statistically with large populations of similar nuclei. So you can identify a half life for a given unstable isotope, but it is not possible to predict the time at which a given nucleus will decay.

If you want to discuss anything with any hope of reaching useful conclusions, then precision is essential; the misuse of technical terms is to be avoided, unless our purpose is to obscure rather than to enlighten. There is nothing unnecessary about demanding the use of accurate language in a technical discussion; To fail to do so is to invite (intentional or unintentional) equivocation fallacies, and the resulting logical errors.

Truly random inputs cannot in any way be 'willed', by definition - the ability to influence an event would render it non-random. So randomness (including QM randomness) cannot possibly be a contributing component of willed behaviour.

Now let's go back to what I was talking about. To an observer, the dynamics of a choice through QM would be random. But to the QM consciousness, it is selected.

No.

See the part of beero1000's post I have quoted and bolded above for the reason why not.

 

[ryan]

Yes I know. That was the point of my post.

As far as we can tell, QM includes truly random behaviours; The decay of radioactive materials, for example, is indistinguishable from randomness, and can only be predicted statistically with large populations of similar nuclei. So you can identify a half life for a given unstable isotope, but it is not possible to predict the time at which a given nucleus will decay.

If you want to discuss anything with any hope of reaching useful conclusions, then precision is essential; the misuse of technical terms is to be avoided, unless our purpose is to obscure rather than to enlighten. There is nothing unnecessary about demanding the use of accurate language in a technical discussion; To fail to do so is to invite (intentional or unintentional) equivocation fallacies, and the resulting logical errors.

Truly random inputs cannot in any way be 'willed', by definition - the ability to influence an event would render it non-random. So randomness (including QM randomness) cannot possibly be a contributing component of willed behaviour.

Now let's go back to what I was talking about. To an observer, the dynamics of a choice through QM would be random. But to the QM consciousness, it is selected.

No.

See the part of beero1000's post I have quoted and bolded above for the reason why not.

You were the one that said if it is chosen or selected, then it couldn't be random. QM eventually collapses to a state.

A string of infinite numbers may be random but it is known to itself.

If nothing else selects the state of QM, then I am left to believe that the QM system selects itself. Yet it would still follow the rigorous definitions of being random.

 

[bilby]

As far as we can tell, QM includes truly random behaviours; The decay of radioactive materials, for example, is indistinguishable from randomness, and can only be predicted statistically with large populations of similar nuclei. So you can identify a half life for a given unstable isotope, but it is not possible to predict the time at which a given nucleus will decay.

If you want to discuss anything with any hope of reaching useful conclusions, then precision is essential; the misuse of technical terms is to be avoided, unless our purpose is to obscure rather than to enlighten. There is nothing unnecessary about demanding the use of accurate language in a technical discussion; To fail to do so is to invite (intentional or unintentional) equivocation fallacies, and the resulting logical errors.

Truly random inputs cannot in any way be 'willed', by definition - the ability to influence an event would render it non-random. So randomness (including QM randomness) cannot possibly be a contributing component of willed behaviour.

Now let's go back to what I was talking about. To an observer, the dynamics of a choice through QM would be random. But to the QM consciousness, it is selected.

No.

See the part of beero1000's post I have quoted and bolded above for the reason why not.

You were the one that said if it is chosen or selected, then it couldn't be random. QM eventually collapses to a state.

A string of infinite numbers may be random but it is known to itself.

If nothing else selects the state of QM, then I am left to believe that the QM system selects itself. Yet it would still follow the rigorous definitions of being random.

But not the rigorous definition of 'select'.

 

[ryan]

Now let's go back to what I was talking about. To an observer, the dynamics of a choice through QM would be random. But to the QM consciousness, it is selected.

No.

See the part of beero1000's post I have quoted and bolded above for the reason why not.

You were the one that said if it is chosen or selected, then it couldn't be random. QM eventually collapses to a state.

A string of infinite numbers may be random but it is known to itself.

If nothing else selects the state of QM, then I am left to believe that the QM system selects itself. Yet it would still follow the rigorous definitions of being random.

But not the rigorous definition of 'select'.

If the QM system is interchangeable with my consciousness, then yeah QM actually does select its state.

Try to focus on the argument as well as the big picture. When you try to trip people up with these semantic games you waste everyone's time.

 

[bilby]

No.

See the part of beero1000's post I have quoted and bolded above for the reason why not.

You were the one that said if it is chosen or selected, then it couldn't be random. QM eventually collapses to a state.

A string of infinite numbers may be random but it is known to itself.

If nothing else selects the state of QM, then I am left to believe that the QM system selects itself. Yet it would still follow the rigorous definitions of being random.

But not the rigorous definition of 'select'.

If the QM system is interchangeable with my consciousness,

IF

then yeah QM actually does select its state.

But it isn't, so it doesn't. Unless you have some evidence that it is - but this evidence had better be compelling. Extraordinary claims, etc.

Quantum events take place far below the scale of individual neurons. Let us assume ad argumentum that the quantum interactions in micro-tubules are somehow the seat of consciousness. This would imply that there are as many 'seats of consciousness' as there are neurons - or even far more such 'seats of consciousness' than there are neurons - so how do we have a single unified conscious experience? Is one such quantum state dominant? If so, if that particular neuron happens to die, why does our entire conscious experience not change radically? How does a person keep his personality intact? If they are all interacting, then how do they do this without behaving as a macroscopic (and therefore classical) object? The predictions we can make from your hypothesis are at odds with observations of real people and real brains - so the hypothesis is false.

Your consciousness is clearly not a QM system. All of neurology points away from that position. Consciousness is characteristic of brains, which are macroscopic objects. It is NOT characteristic of non-brain quantum interactions; and there is no reason (other than a desire to rescue the bankrupt hypothesis that consciousness is special and different) to assume that it is characteristic of Quantum systems in the brain.

The macroscopic brain is quite capable of exhibiting ALL of the behaviours we observe by simple (but unpredictable en bloc) macroscopic chemical and electrochemical processes, that are well understood. There's simply no reason to assume that consciousness requires some additional process that operates at a smaller scale.

Try to focus on the argument as well as the big picture. When you try to trip people up with these semantic games you waste everyone's time.

I have no interest in semantic games; Nor am I trying to trip anybody up. I am pointing out that your argument is fundamentally and fatally flawed. It depends on 'but what if..' when there's no reason to even consider that something might be missing. The Sun is not pulled across the sky by a giant scarab beetle. Saying 'But what if the beetle was invisible' doesn't help.

The brain doesn't need QM randomness to generate consciousness. Saying 'But what if...' doesn't help; You need to give others a REASON to even imagine that there is something more there. That ancient Egyptians wholeheartedly believed in the scarab is simply not sufficient. That you really believe that consciousness is a quantum effect is likewise insufficient - you need to demonstrate that it IS, or nobody has any justification for making the unparsimonious assumption in order to supply your ad argumentum.

I understand that you don't LIKE that fact, but that's not sufficient for a reasonable person to reject the simple facts that I have presented. Whether it is sufficient for you is your call.

 

[ryan]

You were the one that said if it is chosen or selected, then it couldn't be random. QM eventually collapses to a state.

A string of infinite numbers may be random but it is known to itself.

If nothing else selects the state of QM, then I am left to believe that the QM system selects itself. Yet it would still follow the rigorous definitions of being random.

But not the rigorous definition of 'select'.

If the QM system is interchangeable with my consciousness,

IF

then yeah QM actually does select its state.

But it isn't, so it doesn't. Unless you have some evidence that it is - but this evidence had better be compelling. Extraordinary claims, etc.

Quantum events take place far below the scale of individual neurons. Let us assume ad argumentum that the quantum interactions in micro-tubules are somehow the seat of consciousness. This would imply that there are as many 'seats of consciousness' as there are neurons - or even far more such 'seats of consciousness' than there are neurons - so how do we have a single unified conscious experience? Is one such quantum state dominant? If so, if that particular neuron happens to die, why does our entire conscious experience not change radically? How does a person keep his personality intact? If they are all interacting, then how do they do this without behaving as a macroscopic (and therefore classical) object? The predictions we can make from your hypothesis are at odds with observations of real people and real brains - so the hypothesis is false.

Your consciousness is clearly not a QM system. All of neurology points away from that position. Consciousness is characteristic of brains, which are macroscopic objects. It is NOT characteristic of non-brain quantum interactions; and there is no reason (other than a desire to rescue the bankrupt hypothesis that consciousness is special and different) to assume that it is characteristic of Quantum systems in the brain.

The macroscopic brain is quite capable of exhibiting ALL of the behaviours we observe by simple (but unpredictable en bloc) macroscopic chemical and electrochemical processes, that are well understood. There's simply no reason to assume that consciousness requires some additional process that operates at a smaller scale.

Try to focus on the argument as well as the big picture. When you try to trip people up with these semantic games you waste everyone's time.

I have no interest in semantic games; Nor am I trying to trip anybody up. I am pointing out that your argument is fundamentally and fatally flawed. It depends on 'but what if..' when there's no reason to even consider that something might be missing. The Sun is not pulled across the sky by a giant scarab beetle. Saying 'But what if the beetle was invisible' doesn't help.

The brain doesn't need QM randomness to generate consciousness. Saying 'But what if...' doesn't help; You need to give others a REASON to even imagine that there is something more there. That ancient Egyptians wholeheartedly believed in the scarab is simply not sufficient. That you really believe that consciousness is a quantum effect is likewise insufficient - you need to demonstrate that it IS, or nobody has any justification for making the unparsimonious assumption in order to supply your ad argumentum.

I understand that you don't LIKE that fact, but that's not sufficient for a reasonable person to reject the simple facts that I have presented. Whether it is sufficient for you is your call.

From Hameroff's paper, "In Orch OR, microtubule quantum computations occur in integration phases in dendrites and cell bodies of integrate-and-fire brain neurons connected and synchronized by gap junctions, allowing entanglement of microtubules among many neurons."

From https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnint.2012.00093/full

 

[ryan]

I should add that there is evidence supporting the Orch OR theory, www.elsevier.com/about/press-releas...roversial-20-year-old-theory-of-consciousness

 

[bilby]

But not the rigorous definition of 'select'.

If the QM system is interchangeable with my consciousness,

IF

then yeah QM actually does select its state.

But it isn't, so it doesn't. Unless you have some evidence that it is - but this evidence had better be compelling. Extraordinary claims, etc.

Quantum events take place far below the scale of individual neurons. Let us assume ad argumentum that the quantum interactions in micro-tubules are somehow the seat of consciousness. This would imply that there are as many 'seats of consciousness' as there are neurons - or even far more such 'seats of consciousness' than there are neurons - so how do we have a single unified conscious experience? Is one such quantum state dominant? If so, if that particular neuron happens to die, why does our entire conscious experience not change radically? How does a person keep his personality intact? If they are all interacting, then how do they do this without behaving as a macroscopic (and therefore classical) object? The predictions we can make from your hypothesis are at odds with observations of real people and real brains - so the hypothesis is false.

Your consciousness is clearly not a QM system. All of neurology points away from that position. Consciousness is characteristic of brains, which are macroscopic objects. It is NOT characteristic of non-brain quantum interactions; and there is no reason (other than a desire to rescue the bankrupt hypothesis that consciousness is special and different) to assume that it is characteristic of Quantum systems in the brain.

The macroscopic brain is quite capable of exhibiting ALL of the behaviours we observe by simple (but unpredictable en bloc) macroscopic chemical and electrochemical processes, that are well understood. There's simply no reason to assume that consciousness requires some additional process that operates at a smaller scale.

Try to focus on the argument as well as the big picture. When you try to trip people up with these semantic games you waste everyone's time.

I have no interest in semantic games; Nor am I trying to trip anybody up. I am pointing out that your argument is fundamentally and fatally flawed. It depends on 'but what if..' when there's no reason to even consider that something might be missing. The Sun is not pulled across the sky by a giant scarab beetle. Saying 'But what if the beetle was invisible' doesn't help.

The brain doesn't need QM randomness to generate consciousness. Saying 'But what if...' doesn't help; You need to give others a REASON to even imagine that there is something more there. That ancient Egyptians wholeheartedly believed in the scarab is simply not sufficient. That you really believe that consciousness is a quantum effect is likewise insufficient - you need to demonstrate that it IS, or nobody has any justification for making the unparsimonious assumption in order to supply your ad argumentum.

I understand that you don't LIKE that fact, but that's not sufficient for a reasonable person to reject the simple facts that I have presented. Whether it is sufficient for you is your call.

From Hameroff's paper, "In Orch OR, microtubule quantum computations occur in integration phases in dendrites and cell bodies of integrate-and-fire brain neurons connected and synchronized by gap junctions, allowing entanglement of microtubules among many neurons."

From https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnint.2012.00093/full

As the paper itself says "If correct, Orch OR can account for conscious causal agency". I see no reason why we would accept that this is correct, and many good reasons why we should not - quantum entanglement is incredibly difficult to sustain in the laboratory, even in very carefully controlled, isolated, and cold environments, and there is no reason to imagine that it would be possible to establish or sustain it in the 'hot and noisy' environment of a living brain.

In the conclusion, the authors state: "Orch OR is a testable quantum brain biological theory compatible with known neuroscience and physics, and able to account for conscious free will". They do not, however, appear to have actually tested it.

In short, that paper is just another bunch of "IF". Show me the "IS", and I will care. I have enough "IF" to last a lifetime.

The expounding of an extraordinary hypothesis in a paper is no more significant than doing so on an Internet discussion board, unless the paper also includes a rigorous test of the hypothesis and strong evidence that it is true.

 

[ryan]

If the QM system is interchangeable with my consciousness,

IF

then yeah QM actually does select its state.

But it isn't, so it doesn't. Unless you have some evidence that it is - but this evidence had better be compelling. Extraordinary claims, etc.

Quantum events take place far below the scale of individual neurons. Let us assume ad argumentum that the quantum interactions in micro-tubules are somehow the seat of consciousness. This would imply that there are as many 'seats of consciousness' as there are neurons - or even far more such 'seats of consciousness' than there are neurons - so how do we have a single unified conscious experience? Is one such quantum state dominant? If so, if that particular neuron happens to die, why does our entire conscious experience not change radically? How does a person keep his personality intact? If they are all interacting, then how do they do this without behaving as a macroscopic (and therefore classical) object? The predictions we can make from your hypothesis are at odds with observations of real people and real brains - so the hypothesis is false.

Your consciousness is clearly not a QM system. All of neurology points away from that position. Consciousness is characteristic of brains, which are macroscopic objects. It is NOT characteristic of non-brain quantum interactions; and there is no reason (other than a desire to rescue the bankrupt hypothesis that consciousness is special and different) to assume that it is characteristic of Quantum systems in the brain.

The macroscopic brain is quite capable of exhibiting ALL of the behaviours we observe by simple (but unpredictable en bloc) macroscopic chemical and electrochemical processes, that are well understood. There's simply no reason to assume that consciousness requires some additional process that operates at a smaller scale.

Try to focus on the argument as well as the big picture. When you try to trip people up with these semantic games you waste everyone's time.

I have no interest in semantic games; Nor am I trying to trip anybody up. I am pointing out that your argument is fundamentally and fatally flawed. It depends on 'but what if..' when there's no reason to even consider that something might be missing. The Sun is not pulled across the sky by a giant scarab beetle. Saying 'But what if the beetle was invisible' doesn't help.

The brain doesn't need QM randomness to generate consciousness. Saying 'But what if...' doesn't help; You need to give others a REASON to even imagine that there is something more there. That ancient Egyptians wholeheartedly believed in the scarab is simply not sufficient. That you really believe that consciousness is a quantum effect is likewise insufficient - you need to demonstrate that it IS, or nobody has any justification for making the unparsimonious assumption in order to supply your ad argumentum.

I understand that you don't LIKE that fact, but that's not sufficient for a reasonable person to reject the simple facts that I have presented. Whether it is sufficient for you is your call.

From Hameroff's paper, "In Orch OR, microtubule quantum computations occur in integration phases in dendrites and cell bodies of integrate-and-fire brain neurons connected and synchronized by gap junctions, allowing entanglement of microtubules among many neurons."

From https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnint.2012.00093/full

As the paper itself says "If correct, Orch OR can account for conscious causal agency". I see no reason why we would accept that this is correct, and many good reasons why we should not - quantum entanglement is incredibly difficult to sustain in the laboratory, even in very carefully controlled, isolated, and cold environments, and there is no reason to imagine that it would be possible to establish or sustain it in the 'hot and noisy' environment of a living brain.

In the conclusion, the authors state: "Orch OR is a testable quantum brain biological theory compatible with known neuroscience and physics, and able to account for conscious free will". They do not, however, appear to have actually tested it.

In short, that paper is just another bunch of "IF". Show me the "IS", and I will care. I have enough "IF" to last a lifetime.

The expounding of an extraordinary hypothesis in a paper is no more significant than doing so on an Internet discussion board, unless the paper also includes a rigorous test of the hypothesis and strong evidence that it is true.

So now instead of accepting that you had no idea what you were talking about, while losing any credibility you may have had with the readers, you would rather build a straw man of a hard scientific claim instead of its actual treatment of being a scientific/philosophical possibility.

 

[bilby]

IF

then yeah QM actually does select its state.

But it isn't, so it doesn't. Unless you have some evidence that it is - but this evidence had better be compelling. Extraordinary claims, etc.

Quantum events take place far below the scale of individual neurons. Let us assume ad argumentum that the quantum interactions in micro-tubules are somehow the seat of consciousness. This would imply that there are as many 'seats of consciousness' as there are neurons - or even far more such 'seats of consciousness' than there are neurons - so how do we have a single unified conscious experience? Is one such quantum state dominant? If so, if that particular neuron happens to die, why does our entire conscious experience not change radically? How does a person keep his personality intact? If they are all interacting, then how do they do this without behaving as a macroscopic (and therefore classical) object? The predictions we can make from your hypothesis are at odds with observations of real people and real brains - so the hypothesis is false.

Your consciousness is clearly not a QM system. All of neurology points away from that position. Consciousness is characteristic of brains, which are macroscopic objects. It is NOT characteristic of non-brain quantum interactions; and there is no reason (other than a desire to rescue the bankrupt hypothesis that consciousness is special and different) to assume that it is characteristic of Quantum systems in the brain.

The macroscopic brain is quite capable of exhibiting ALL of the behaviours we observe by simple (but unpredictable en bloc) macroscopic chemical and electrochemical processes, that are well understood. There's simply no reason to assume that consciousness requires some additional process that operates at a smaller scale.

Try to focus on the argument as well as the big picture. When you try to trip people up with these semantic games you waste everyone's time.

I have no interest in semantic games; Nor am I trying to trip anybody up. I am pointing out that your argument is fundamentally and fatally flawed. It depends on 'but what if..' when there's no reason to even consider that something might be missing. The Sun is not pulled across the sky by a giant scarab beetle. Saying 'But what if the beetle was invisible' doesn't help.

The brain doesn't need QM randomness to generate consciousness. Saying 'But what if...' doesn't help; You need to give others a REASON to even imagine that there is something more there. That ancient Egyptians wholeheartedly believed in the scarab is simply not sufficient. That you really believe that consciousness is a quantum effect is likewise insufficient - you need to demonstrate that it IS, or nobody has any justification for making the unparsimonious assumption in order to supply your ad argumentum.

I understand that you don't LIKE that fact, but that's not sufficient for a reasonable person to reject the simple facts that I have presented. Whether it is sufficient for you is your call.

From Hameroff's paper, "In Orch OR, microtubule quantum computations occur in integration phases in dendrites and cell bodies of integrate-and-fire brain neurons connected and synchronized by gap junctions, allowing entanglement of microtubules among many neurons."

From https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnint.2012.00093/full

As the paper itself says "If correct, Orch OR can account for conscious causal agency". I see no reason why we would accept that this is correct, and many good reasons why we should not - quantum entanglement is incredibly difficult to sustain in the laboratory, even in very carefully controlled, isolated, and cold environments, and there is no reason to imagine that it would be possible to establish or sustain it in the 'hot and noisy' environment of a living brain.

In the conclusion, the authors state: "Orch OR is a testable quantum brain biological theory compatible with known neuroscience and physics, and able to account for conscious free will". They do not, however, appear to have actually tested it.

In short, that paper is just another bunch of "IF". Show me the "IS", and I will care. I have enough "IF" to last a lifetime.

The expounding of an extraordinary hypothesis in a paper is no more significant than doing so on an Internet discussion board, unless the paper also includes a rigorous test of the hypothesis and strong evidence that it is true.

So now instead of accepting that you had no idea what you were talking about, while losing any credibility you may have had with the readers, you would rather build a straw man of a hard scientific claim instead of its actual treatment of being a scientific/philosophical possibility.

Nothing I have said here fails to address the claims you have presented. Which are all pure conjecture, and don't even seem to claim not to be.

If you don't find my criticism credible, then that's your prerogative; I don't find the claims you are making credible either - and I leave it to the audience to decide for themselves which of us has the stronger case.

It's a possibility; But it's not a likelihood; It's not supported by hard evidence; it's not in keeping with the evidence we DO have; and so it remains more myth than science. Mere possibility is a low bar indeed.

I provisionally reject this outlandish claim, pending further actual data. Data you seem disinclined to present.

I understand that you are unhappy about this, and that you have set your heart on this all being true; But that doesn't have the slightest effect on whether or not it IS true, and so your disgust at my failure to join your faith is misplaced, if unsurprising.

 

[ryan]

Nothing I have said here fails to address the claims you have presented. Which are all pure conjecture, and don't even seem to claim not to be.

If you don't find my criticism credible, then that's your prerogative; I don't find the claims you are making credible either - and I leave it to the audience to decide for themselves which of us has the stronger case.

It's a possibility; But it's not a likelihood; It's not supported by hard evidence; it's not in keeping with the evidence we DO have; and so it remains more myth than science. Mere possibility is a low bar indeed.

I provisionally reject this outlandish claim, pending further actual data. Data you seem disinclined to present.

I understand that you are unhappy about this, and that you have set your heart on this all being true; But that doesn't have the slightest effect on whether or not it IS true, and so your disgust at my failure to join your faith is misplaced, if unsurprising.

I can see what you think you are arguing against, and I could try to explain. But you are at a point where you will fight me every step of the way no matter how much sense it makes in a larger picture and context.

There is just no way you are open minded enough to actually learn something new, so forget it.

 

[bilby]

Nothing I have said here fails to address the claims you have presented. Which are all pure conjecture, and don't even seem to claim not to be.

If you don't find my criticism credible, then that's your prerogative; I don't find the claims you are making credible either - and I leave it to the audience to decide for themselves which of us has the stronger case.

It's a possibility; But it's not a likelihood; It's not supported by hard evidence; it's not in keeping with the evidence we DO have; and so it remains more myth than science. Mere possibility is a low bar indeed.

I provisionally reject this outlandish claim, pending further actual data. Data you seem disinclined to present.

I understand that you are unhappy about this, and that you have set your heart on this all being true; But that doesn't have the slightest effect on whether or not it IS true, and so your disgust at my failure to join your faith is misplaced, if unsurprising.

I can see what you think you are arguing against, and I could try to explain. But you are at a point where you will fight me every step of the way no matter how much sense it makes in a larger picture and context.

There is just no way you are open minded enough to actually learn something new, so forget it.

Thanks for the vote of confidence.

Perhaps if you did try to explain, you might persuade me that I am mistaken, and that you are onto something remarkable. But if you don't care to try, we will never know.

I am, of course, suspicious that your lack of effort is inspired more by a lack of confidence in your beliefs, than by any accurate assessment of my open mindedness. In my experience, people only accuse me of not being open minded when I refuse to accept their unevidenced claims. You are doing nothing to change or challenge that experience. If you had compelling evidence, I think you would have presented it. But frankly, I don't care a lot either way.

 

[ryan]

Thanks for the vote of confidence.

Perhaps if you did try to explain, you might persuade me that I am mistaken, and that you are onto something remarkable. But if you don't care to try, we will never know.

I am, of course, suspicious that your lack of effort is inspired more by a lack of confidence in your beliefs, than by any accurate assessment of my open mindedness. In my experience, people only accuse me of not being open minded when I refuse to accept their unevidenced claims. You are doing nothing to change or challenge that experience. If you had compelling evidence, I think you would have presented it. But frankly, I don't care a lot either way.

Your criticism about separate microtubules was irrelevant and I explained why with the quote from Hameroff's paper.

Then I provided a link with evidence of the Orch OR theory in the next post.

And I never said what degree of certainty this was, only that it was possible. You some how imagined I said it was an exact science.

And WORST OF ALL you made a statement that is totally wrong about it "not keeping with the evidence we do have". That's absolutely wrong. Quantum cognition explains the decision-making process better than classical explanations using classical probability mathematics. Look it up yoiself; I Don't give a s*** if you Don't believe me.

You think votes in this insestual forum is going to change anything. You know people in here will give their opinions whether they are correct or not.

You assume I am emotionally invested in this. Don't assume this because you are dead wrong. What kind of b.s. is that anyways?

 

[bilby]

Thanks for the vote of confidence.

Perhaps if you did try to explain, you might persuade me that I am mistaken, and that you are onto something remarkable. But if you don't care to try, we will never know.

I am, of course, suspicious that your lack of effort is inspired more by a lack of confidence in your beliefs, than by any accurate assessment of my open mindedness. In my experience, people only accuse me of not being open minded when I refuse to accept their unevidenced claims. You are doing nothing to change or challenge that experience. If you had compelling evidence, I think you would have presented it. But frankly, I don't care a lot either way.

Your criticism about separate microtubules was irrelevant and I explained why with the quote from Hameroff's paper.

Then I provided a link with evidence of the Orch OR theory in the next post.

And I never said what degree of certainty this was, only that it was possible. You some how imagined I said it was an exact science.

And WORST OF ALL you made a statement that is totally wrong about it "not keeping with the evidence we do have". That's absolutely wrong. Quantum cognition explains the decision-making process better than classical explanations using classical probability mathematics. Look it up yoiself; I Don't give a s*** if you Don't believe me.

You think votes in this insestual forum is going to change anything. You know people in here will give their opinions whether they are correct or not.

You assume I am emotionally invested in this. Don't assume this because you are dead wrong. What kind of b.s. is that anyways?

It's not an assumption. The evidence is presented above in bold.

 

[ryan]

Thanks for the vote of confidence.

Perhaps if you did try to explain, you might persuade me that I am mistaken, and that you are onto something remarkable. But if you don't care to try, we will never know.

I am, of course, suspicious that your lack of effort is inspired more by a lack of confidence in your beliefs, than by any accurate assessment of my open mindedness. In my experience, people only accuse me of not being open minded when I refuse to accept their unevidenced claims. You are doing nothing to change or challenge that experience. If you had compelling evidence, I think you would have presented it. But frankly, I don't care a lot either way.

Your criticism about separate microtubules was irrelevant and I explained why with the quote from Hameroff's paper.

Then I provided a link with evidence of the Orch OR theory in the next post.

And I never said what degree of certainty this was, only that it was possible. You some how imagined I said it was an exact science.

And WORST OF ALL you made a statement that is totally wrong about it "not keeping with the evidence we do have". That's absolutely wrong. Quantum cognition explains the decision-making process better than classical explanations using classical probability mathematics. Look it up yoiself; I Don't give a s*** if you Don't believe me.

You think votes in this insestual forum is going to change anything. You know people in here will give their opinions whether they are correct or not.

You assume I am emotionally invested in this. Don't assume this because you are dead wrong. What kind of b.s. is that anyways?

It's not an assumption. The evidence is presented above in bold.

You see, this is why I didn't want to put in the effort. I knew my effort would be a waste of time, and now I know for the future.

 

[bilby]

It's not an assumption. The evidence is presented above in bold.

You see, this is why I didn't want to put in the effort. I knew my effort would be a waste of time, and now I know for the future.

You are absolutely right that your emotional outpourings are wasted on me; if you want to persuade me of anything, you need more facts and less passion.

 

[Kharakov]

Anything eternal is "random" according to quantum mechanics, but I'd recommend talking to a quantum engineer for a 10/3 nanometer opinion.

 

[ryan]

It's not an assumption. The evidence is presented above in bold.

You see, this is why I didn't want to put in the effort. I knew my effort would be a waste of time, and now I know for the future.

You are absolutely right that your emotional outpourings are wasted on me; if you want to persuade me of anything, you need more facts and less passion.

You stay focused on the wrong stuff. You're not being genuine.