Hameroff and Penrose have updated their Orch-OR model

What you think about how you think.
donnie
Poster
Posts: 178
Joined: Wed Jan 15, 2014 3:04 pm

Re: Hameroff and Penrose have updated their Orch-OR model

Post by donnie » Fri Feb 14, 2014 11:43 pm

I still think humour music watch in family guy. And think penrose was right.

User avatar
zeuzzz
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3859
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2013 5:33 pm
Custom Title: Unicorn Herder

Re: Hameroff and Penrose have updated their Orch-OR model

Post by zeuzzz » Sat Feb 15, 2014 2:37 am

Before I reply to the comments just posted, as I'm just going to bed, I have absolutely no idea why people are bringing up woo notions such as "robins/birds us Quantum entanglement to detect magnetic fields" or any of the other woo related material people have been citing as evidence against the originally stated model, a model which doesn't even make any comments on these new age semi-cultist spin-offs. I would be extremely cautious of posting spurious links from various new age crackpots in this thread unless you can directly link them to the literature and data published on the ORCH-OR model. If you can not then you are clutching at straws to discredit a theory by quoting various random peoples (often) delusional takes on the matter as if that has any kind of impact on the actual science of the theory.

[more to come later]
Always be you, unless you can be a unicorn; then be a unicorn.

User avatar
Shen1986
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2912
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2012 6:47 am

Re: Hameroff and Penrose have updated their Orch-OR model

Post by Shen1986 » Sat Feb 15, 2014 6:42 am

zeuzzz wrote:Before I reply to the comments just posted, as I'm just going to bed, I have absolutely no idea why people are bringing up woo notions such as "robins/birds us Quantum entanglement to detect magnetic fields" or any of the other woo related material people have been citing as evidence against the originally stated model, a model which doesn't even make any comments on these new age semi-cultist spin-offs. I would be extremely cautious of posting spurious links from various new age crackpots in this thread unless you can directly link them to the literature and data published on the ORCH-OR model. If you can not then you are clutching at straws to discredit a theory by quoting various random peoples (often) delusional takes on the matter as if that has any kind of impact on the actual science of the theory.

[more to come later]
You do not have a clue do you zeuzzz? Really? You do not know how the Orch-OR changed it was recreated into a New Age woo.

The site I cited is the Orch-OR site:

http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/pen ... brian.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This is from the same site:
Would such primitive Orch OR experiences in a Cambrian worm, urchin or suctorian be anything like ours? What would it be like to be a tentacle? A single, 109 tubulin, 500 msec Orch OR in a primitive system would have gravitational self-energy (and thus experiential intensity) perhaps equivalent to a "touch lightly on the finger" experience. However our everyday coherent 40 Hz brain activity would correspond to 25 msec events involving 2 x 1010 tubulins, and so our typical experience would be some 20 times more intense. We also would have many more Orch OR events per second (e.g. 40 vs maximum of 2) with extensive sensory processing and associative memory presumably lacking in Cambrian creatures. Nonetheless, by Orch OR criteria, a 109 tubulin, 500 msec Orch OR event in a Cambrian worm, urchin or tentacle would be a conscious experience: a smudge of awareness, a shuffle in funda-mental spacetime.
Conclusion

The place of consciousness in evolution is unknown, but the actual course of evolution itself may offer a clue. Fossil records indicate that animal species as we know them today including conscious humans all arose from a burst of evolutionary activity some 540 million years ago (the "Cambrian explosion"). It is suggested here that:
Occurrence of consciousness was likely to have accelerated the course of evolution.
Small worms, urchins and comparable creatures reached critical biological complexity for emergence of primitive consciousness at the early Cambrian period 540 million years ago.
Cooperative dynamics of microtubules, cilia, centrioles and axonemes were the critical biological factors for consciousness.
Cytoskeletal complexity available in early Cambrian animals closely matches criteria for the Penrose-Hameroff Orch OR model of consciousness.
Orch OR caused the Cambrian explosion.

Acknowledgments: Thanks to Roger Penrose who doesn't necessarily endorse the newer proposals, Dave Cantrell for artwork, and Carol Ebbecke for making it happen.
Taken from: http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/pen ... brian.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Orch-OR model is New Age if you like it or not. Hameroff recreated it into a New Age flop. Even Penrose is not happy about it:
Acknowledgments: Thanks to Roger Penrose who doesn't necessarily endorse the newer proposals, Dave Cantrell for artwork, and Carol Ebbecke for making it happen.


Taken from: http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/pen ... brian.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This same junk is even in the paper itself:
A critical degree of microtubule activity enabled consciousness during evolution
20.
Fossils will show organisms from early Cambrian (540 million years ago), had sufficient microtubule capacity for OR by τ≈ℏ/EGτ≈ℏ/E
G
of less than a minute, perhaps resulting in rudimentary Orch OR,
consciousness and the ‘Cambrian evolutionary explosion’. It is clearly hard to know an answer to this one, particularly because the level of consciousness in extinct creatures would be almost impossible to determine. However present day organisms looking remarkably like early Cambrian creatures (actinosphaerum, nematodes) are known to have over 109tubulins [56].
Taken from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 4513001188" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So its all woo again. New Age and nothing more. Hameroff and Penrose have only written a "new" paper with their old New Age ideas.

There is even more. In the paper he cites Dean Radin and D.J. Bem both who are parapsychologists and cites their papers as proof and that we have free will:
Indeed that might be the case. However, quantum processes in the brain offer what appear to be loopholes to such implications, where the apparent temporal progression of conscious experience and willed action need not correlate in a clear-cut way with the precise timings of an external clock. In the 1970s neurophysiologist Benjamin Libet performed experiments on patients having brain surgery while awake, i.e. under local anesthesia [147]. Able to stimulate and record from conscious human brains, and gather patientsʼ subjective reports with precise timing, Libet determined that conscious perception of a stimulus required up to 500 ms of brain activity post-stimulus, but that conscious awareness occurred at 30 ms post-stimulus. The brain at 30 ms ‘knew’ that activity would continue, or not continue, for several hundred more milliseconds, i.e. that subjective experience was referred ‘backward in time’. Numerous other experiments have also provided strong indications of temporal anomalies in perception and willed choice [148], [149] and [150].
Taken from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 4513001188" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
[148]
D.J. Bem

Feeling the future: experimental evidence for anomalous retroactive influences on cognition and affect

J Pers Soc Psychol, 100 (2012), pp. 407–425
[149]
D.J. Bierman, D.I. Radin

Anomalous anticipatory response on randomized future conditions

Percept Mot Skills, 84 (1997), pp. 689–690
Taken from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 4513001188" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

They cite those papers are evidence that it exists and that Orch-OR is plausible to some degree however these experiments proved nothing at all:
"Feeling the Future" controversy[edit]

In 2011, Bem published the article "Feeling the Future: Experimental Evidence for Anomalous Retroactive Influences on Cognition and Affect" in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology that offered statistical evidence for psi.[17] The article's findings challenge modern scientific assumptions about the linear nature of time. Its presentation by a respected researcher and its publication by an upper tier journal engendered much controversy. In addition to criticism of the paper itself,[18] the paper's publication prompted a wider debate on the validity of peer review process for allowing such a paper to be published.[19] Bem appeared on MSNBC[20] and The Colbert Report[21] to discuss the experiment.

Wagenmakers et al. criticized Bem's statistical methodology, saying that he incorrectly provides one-sided p-value when he should have used a two-sided p-value.[22] This could account for the marginally significant results of his experiment. Bem and two statisticians subsequently published a rebuttal to this critique in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.[23]

After evaluating Bem's nine experiments, psychologist James Alcock said that he found metaphorical "dirty test tubes," or serious methodological flaws, such as changing the procedures partway through the experiments and combining results of tests with different chances of significance. It is unknown how many tests were actually performed, nor is there an explanation of how it was determined that participants had "settled down" after seeing erotic images. Alcock concludes that almost everything that could go wrong with Bem's experiments did go wrong. Bem's response to Alcock's critique appeared online at the Skeptical Inquirer website[24] and Alcock replied to these comments in a third article at the same website.[25]

One of the nine experiments in Bem's study ('Retroactive Facilitation of Recall') was replicated by scientists Stuart Ritchie, Chris French, and Richard Wiseman. Their replication was published in PLoS ONE and found no evidence of precognition.[26] Several failed attempts by the authors to have their replication study published highlighted difficulties in publishing replications and attracted media attention over concerns of publication bias.[27][28][29] The Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Science Brevia and Psychological Science each rejected the paper on the grounds that it was a replication.[30] A fourth journal, the British Journal of Psychology refused the paper after reservations from one referee, later confirmed to be Daryl Bem, who "might possibly have a conflict of interest with respect to [the] ... submission."[30] Wiseman set up a register to keep track of other replicating efforts to avoid problems with publication bias and planned to conduct a meta-analysis on registered replication efforts.[31][32]

An analysis by Gregory Francis in Psychonomic Bulletin & Review suggested that the number of rejections of the null hypothesis reported by Bem (eight out of nine experiments) is abnormally high, given the properties of the experiments and reported effect sizes. He calculated that the probability of Bem obtaining such results (0.058) is significantly less than the standard criterion used in tests of publication bias (0.1). According to Francis, this suggests that Bem's experiments cannot be taken as a proper scientific study, as critical data is likely unavailable. Francis also noted that Bem's experiments meet current standards of experimental psychology. Drawing on his own analysis and studies suggesting a discrepancy between the observed and expected null hypothesis rejection rates across the field of experimental psychology, he suggests that the standards and practices of the field are not functioning properly.[33]

The publication of Bem's article and the resulting controversy prompted a wide-ranging commentary by Etienne LeBel and Kurt Peters.[34] Using Bem's article as a case study, they discussed deficiencies in modal research practice, the methodology most commonly used in experimental psychology. LeBel and Peters suggest that experimental psychology is systemically biased toward interpretations of data that favor the researcher's theory.

In 2012, the same journal that published Bem's original experiments, The Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (Vol. 103, No. 6), published “Correcting the Past: Failures to Replicate Psi” by Jeff Galek of Carnegie Mellon University, Robyn A. LeBoeuf of the University of Florida, Leif D. Nelson of the University of California at Berkeley, and Joseph P. Simmons of the University of Pennsylvania. The paper reported seven experiments testing for precognition that "found no evidence supporting its existence.” [35]
Taken from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daryl_Bem" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I will not get even into Dean Radin a New Age proponent.
"Death Dies Hard." - Deathstars.

donnie
Poster
Posts: 178
Joined: Wed Jan 15, 2014 3:04 pm

Re: Hameroff and Penrose have updated their Orch-OR model

Post by donnie » Sun Feb 16, 2014 3:41 pm

Being a good observer is the first important part of science. roger penrose is not woo.. He wrote The Emperor's New Min... back in 1989 And his hypothesis that the mind may be non-algorithmic and non-computable. And stuart hameroff who is a bit woo. Read this book and said QM could be happing in his microtubules. Back in 1994. And why are the A.I guy's going all out now to build a quantum computer.?
Shen you like to cherry pick info. Look at the fact's or disprove. Fact penrose never said we had a quantum soul that was hameroff. And hameroff has no real proof.
What did penrose state. The mind may be non-algorithmic and non-computable. Can you disprove this.?
Last edited by donnie on Sun Feb 16, 2014 4:15 pm, edited 2 times in total.

donnie
Poster
Posts: 178
Joined: Wed Jan 15, 2014 3:04 pm

Re: Hameroff and Penrose have updated their Orch-OR model

Post by donnie » Sun Feb 16, 2014 4:01 pm

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27486
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Location: sometimes

Re: Hameroff and Penrose have updated their Orch-OR model

Post by scrmbldggs » Sun Feb 16, 2014 4:11 pm

donnie wrote:Penrose put forwrd the idea that the mind may be non-algorithmic and non-computable. And he suggested that QM effects may play a role in consciousness. The AI people hated that. (The A.I guys see the brain as a computer,) And there was a lot of criticism. QM never work in the brain. And Its to warm to wet.
The recent discovery of warm temperature quantum vibrations in microtubules inside brain neurons by the research group led by Anirban Bandyopadhyay, PhD, at the National Institute of Material Sciences in Tsukuba, Japan (and now at MIT), corroborates the pair's theory. In addition, work from the laboratory of Roderick G. Eckenhoff, MD, at the University of Pennsylvania, suggests that anesthesia, which selectively erases consciousness while sparing non-conscious brain activities, acts via microtubules in brain neurons
seems to be from: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 085105.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
donnie, please quote who/what you are borrowing from.
Being a good observer is the first important part of science. roger penrose is not woo.. He wrote The Emperor's New Min... back in 1989 And his hypothesis that the mind may be non-algorithmic and non-computable. And stuart hameroff who is a bit woo. Read this book and said QM could be happing in his microtubules. Back in 1994. And why are the A.I guy's going all out now to build a quantum computer.?
Shen you like to cherry pick info. Look at the fact's or disprove. Fact penrose never said we had a quantum soul that was hameroff. And hameroff has no real proof.
What did penrose state. The mind may be non-algorithmic and non-computable. Can you disprove this.?
Last edited by scrmbldggs on Sun Feb 16, 2014 4:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
.
Lard, save me from your followers.

User avatar
Shen1986
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2912
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2012 6:47 am

Re: Hameroff and Penrose have updated their Orch-OR model

Post by Shen1986 » Sun Feb 16, 2014 4:12 pm

scrmbldggs wrote:
donnie wrote:Penrose put forwrd the idea that the mind may be non-algorithmic and non-computable. And he suggested that QM effects may play a role in consciousness. The AI people hated that. (The A.I guys see the brain as a computer,) And there was a lot of criticism. QM never work in the brain. And Its to warm to wet.
The recent discovery of warm temperature quantum vibrations in microtubules inside brain neurons by the research group led by Anirban Bandyopadhyay, PhD, at the National Institute of Material Sciences in Tsukuba, Japan (and now at MIT), corroborates the pair's theory. In addition, work from the laboratory of Roderick G. Eckenhoff, MD, at the University of Pennsylvania, suggests that anesthesia, which selectively erases consciousness while sparing non-conscious brain activities, acts via microtubules in brain neurons
is from: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 085105.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
donnie, please quote who/what you are borrowing from.
Being a good observer is the first important part of science. roger penrose is not woo.. He wrote The Emperor's New Min... back in 1989 And his hypothesis that the mind may be non-algorithmic and non-computable. And stuart hameroff who is a bit woo. Read this book and said QM could be happing in his microtubules. Back in 1994. And why are the A.I guy's going all out now to build a quantum computer.?
Shen you like to cherry pick info. Look at the fact's or disprove. Fact penrose never said we had a quantum soul that was hameroff. And hameroff has no real proof.
What did penrose state. The mind may be non-algorithmic and non-computable. Can you disprove this.?
This all was already discussed here.
"Death Dies Hard." - Deathstars.

User avatar
Shen1986
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2912
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2012 6:47 am

Re: Hameroff and Penrose have updated their Orch-OR model

Post by Shen1986 » Sun Feb 16, 2014 4:13 pm

donnie wrote:Being a good observer is the first important part of science. roger penrose is not woo.. He wrote The Emperor's New Min... back in 1989 And his hypothesis that the mind may be non-algorithmic and non-computable. And stuart hameroff who is a bit woo. Read this book and said QM could be happing in his microtubules. Back in 1994. And why are the A.I guy's going all out now to build a quantum computer.?
Shen you like to cherry pick info. Look at the fact's or disprove. Fact penrose never said we had a quantum soul that was hameroff. And hameroff has no real proof.
What did penrose state. The mind may be non-algorithmic and non-computable. Can you disprove this.?


Penrose put forwrd the idea that the mind may be non-algorithmic and non-computable. And he suggested that QM effects may play a role in consciousness. The AI people hated that. (The A.I guys see the brain as a computer,) And there was a lot of criticism. QM never work in the brain. And Its to warm to wet.
The recent discovery of warm temperature quantum vibrations in microtubules inside brain neurons by the research group led by Anirban Bandyopadhyay, PhD, at the National Institute of Material Sciences in Tsukuba, Japan (and now at MIT), corroborates the pair's theory. In addition, work from the laboratory of Roderick G. Eckenhoff, MD, at the University of Pennsylvania, suggests that anesthesia, which selectively erases consciousness while sparing non-conscious brain activities, acts via microtubules in brain neurons
Yeah I cherry pick donnie? Dream on. This was already discussed here.

Anirban Bandyopadhyay is a woo believer if you would read the whole thread then you would understand. Also donnie do you know what is cherry picking??

I myself posted this message here..
"Death Dies Hard." - Deathstars.

donnie
Poster
Posts: 178
Joined: Wed Jan 15, 2014 3:04 pm

Re: Hameroff and Penrose have updated their Orch-OR model

Post by donnie » Sun Feb 16, 2014 4:17 pm

What did penrose state. The mind may be non-algorithmic and non-computable. Disprove this.

User avatar
Shen1986
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2912
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2012 6:47 am

Re: Hameroff and Penrose have updated their Orch-OR model

Post by Shen1986 » Sun Feb 16, 2014 4:17 pm

donnie wrote:What did penrose state. The mind may be non-algorithmic and non-computable. Disprove this.
Has he some evidence for it donnie?

Also I posted that before:

http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=22439" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"Death Dies Hard." - Deathstars.

User avatar
Shen1986
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2912
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2012 6:47 am

Re: Hameroff and Penrose have updated their Orch-OR model

Post by Shen1986 » Sun Feb 16, 2014 4:23 pm

donnie wrote:What did penrose state. The mind may be non-algorithmic and non-computable. Disprove this.
Second thing Penrose is saying it MAY be non-algorithmic and non-computable. He is not sure either. May for me is not proof and another thing robotics are doing well from what I read:
Abilities[edit]

ASIMO has the ability to recognize moving objects, postures, gestures, its surrounding environment, sounds and faces, which enables it to interact with humans. The robot can detect the movements of multiple objects by using visual information captured by two camera "eyes" in its head and also determine distance and direction. This feature allows ASIMO to follow or face a person when approached.[6] The robot interprets voice commands and human gestures, enabling it to recognize when a handshake is offered or when a person waves or points, and then respond accordingly.[17] ASIMO's ability to distinguish between voices and other sounds allows it to identify its companions. ASIMO is able to respond to its name and recognizes sounds associated with a falling object or collision. This allows the robot to face a person when spoken to or look towards a sound. ASIMO responds to questions by nodding or providing a verbal answer and can recognize approximately 10 different faces and address them by name.[17]
Taken from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASIMO#Abilities" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"Death Dies Hard." - Deathstars.

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27486
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Location: sometimes

Re: Hameroff and Penrose have updated their Orch-OR model

Post by scrmbldggs » Sun Feb 16, 2014 4:44 pm

Shen1986 wrote:
scrmbldggs wrote:
donnie wrote:Penrose put forwrd the idea that the mind may be non-algorithmic and non-computable. And he suggested that QM effects may play a role in consciousness. The AI people hated that. (The A.I guys see the brain as a computer,) And there was a lot of criticism. QM never work in the brain. And Its to warm to wet.
The recent discovery of warm temperature quantum vibrations in microtubules inside brain neurons by the research group led by Anirban Bandyopadhyay, PhD, at the National Institute of Material Sciences in Tsukuba, Japan (and now at MIT), corroborates the pair's theory. In addition, work from the laboratory of Roderick G. Eckenhoff, MD, at the University of Pennsylvania, suggests that anesthesia, which selectively erases consciousness while sparing non-conscious brain activities, acts via microtubules in brain neurons
is from: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 085105.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
donnie, please quote who/what you are borrowing from.
Being a good observer is the first important part of science. roger penrose is not woo.. He wrote The Emperor's New Min... back in 1989 And his hypothesis that the mind may be non-algorithmic and non-computable. And stuart hameroff who is a bit woo. Read this book and said QM could be happing in his microtubules. Back in 1994. And why are the A.I guy's going all out now to build a quantum computer.?
Shen you like to cherry pick info. Look at the fact's or disprove. Fact penrose never said we had a quantum soul that was hameroff. And hameroff has no real proof.
What did penrose state. The mind may be non-algorithmic and non-computable. Can you disprove this.?
This all was already discussed here.
Yes. But in his (now edited post) donnie quoted (again) from a publication without mentioning it.
.
Lard, save me from your followers.

User avatar
Shen1986
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2912
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2012 6:47 am

Re: Hameroff and Penrose have updated their Orch-OR model

Post by Shen1986 » Sun Feb 16, 2014 4:56 pm

scrmbldggs wrote:
Shen1986 wrote:
scrmbldggs wrote:
donnie wrote:Penrose put forwrd the idea that the mind may be non-algorithmic and non-computable. And he suggested that QM effects may play a role in consciousness. The AI people hated that. (The A.I guys see the brain as a computer,) And there was a lot of criticism. QM never work in the brain. And Its to warm to wet.
The recent discovery of warm temperature quantum vibrations in microtubules inside brain neurons by the research group led by Anirban Bandyopadhyay, PhD, at the National Institute of Material Sciences in Tsukuba, Japan (and now at MIT), corroborates the pair's theory. In addition, work from the laboratory of Roderick G. Eckenhoff, MD, at the University of Pennsylvania, suggests that anesthesia, which selectively erases consciousness while sparing non-conscious brain activities, acts via microtubules in brain neurons
is from: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 085105.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
donnie, please quote who/what you are borrowing from.
Being a good observer is the first important part of science. roger penrose is not woo.. He wrote The Emperor's New Min... back in 1989 And his hypothesis that the mind may be non-algorithmic and non-computable. And stuart hameroff who is a bit woo. Read this book and said QM could be happing in his microtubules. Back in 1994. And why are the A.I guy's going all out now to build a quantum computer.?
Shen you like to cherry pick info. Look at the fact's or disprove. Fact penrose never said we had a quantum soul that was hameroff. And hameroff has no real proof.
What did penrose state. The mind may be non-algorithmic and non-computable. Can you disprove this.?
This all was already discussed here.
Yes. But in his (now edited post) donnie quoted (again) from a publication without mentioning it.
I meant it in general not towards you, scrmbldggs. I think donnie should first look what we are talking about and then post.
"Death Dies Hard." - Deathstars.

User avatar
kennyc
Has No Life
Posts: 12436
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 11:21 am
Custom Title: The Dank Side of the Moon
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Hameroff and Penrose have updated their Orch-OR model

Post by kennyc » Sun Feb 16, 2014 10:03 pm

[quote="donnie"]Being a good observer is the first important part of science. roger penrose is not woo.. He wrote The Emperor's New Min... back in 1989...../[quote]

Yeah it was {!#%@} then and it's still {!#%@} today......Penrose knew nothing about brains, consciousness, or cognitive science and clearly has avoided learning anything in the intervening decades. :roll:
Kenny A. Chaffin
Art Gallery - Photo Gallery - Writing&Poetry - The Bleeding Edge
"Strive on with Awareness" - Siddhartha Gautama

User avatar
zeuzzz
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3859
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2013 5:33 pm
Custom Title: Unicorn Herder

Re: Hameroff and Penrose have updated their Orch-OR model

Post by zeuzzz » Mon Feb 17, 2014 7:40 pm

kennyc wrote:Yeah it was {!#%@} then and it's still {!#%@} today......Penrose knew nothing about brains, consciousness, or cognitive science and clearly has avoided learning anything in the intervening decades. :roll:
I find this HILARIOUS. Having read the book (have you?) I would be most interested in how Penrose knew nothing about "brains, consciousness, or cognitive science" and what your evidence for this is. Please be as EXACT as possible, and share your knowledge about how brains, consciousness and cognitive sciences do in fact work. I'm not holding my breath. :lol:
Always be you, unless you can be a unicorn; then be a unicorn.

User avatar
Cygnus_X1
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1482
Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2014 4:08 am
Location: Middle Of Nowhere

Re: Hameroff and Penrose have updated their Orch-OR model

Post by Cygnus_X1 » Tue Feb 18, 2014 2:57 am

The problem I have with Hameroff and Penrose is that even if quantum phenomenon are going on in microtubules it doesn't actually explain anything. What is the quantum entanglement hypothised an entanglement with ? One finds oneself with an argument similar to when a creationist says God made everything and one replies ' Who made God ?'. Entanglement arguments simply shift the territory without explaining how the new territory explains consciousness any better.
100,000 lemmings can't be wrong.

User avatar
zeuzzz
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3859
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2013 5:33 pm
Custom Title: Unicorn Herder

Re: Hameroff and Penrose have updated their Orch-OR model

Post by zeuzzz » Tue Feb 18, 2014 6:42 am

Cygnus_X1 wrote:The problem I have with Hameroff and Penrose is that even if quantum phenomenon are going on in microtubules it doesn't actually explain anything. What is the quantum entanglement hypothised an entanglement with ? One finds oneself with an argument similar to when a creationist says God made everything and one replies ' Who made God ?'. Entanglement arguments simply shift the territory without explaining how the new territory explains consciousness any better.
It helps bridge the gap between biology and physics, in a very general sense it uses the non computability of Godels theorem (the strongest theory of logic, truth and non computability of axiomic models) and links it with quantum indeterminsm, giving consciousness a mechanism that enables free will and the ability to for biological creatures to change the world through their conscious actions. I don't know why you are bringing god up here.

Just to expand upon my previous support of Penrose and his quantum mind type theories ... What is important about the psychedelics as they relate to this they propel the entire subject of consciousness to center stage as they demonstrate that assumed bedrock of "ordinary perception" is in fact no bedrock at all, is is in fact a somewhat soft dwell point somewhere being in the mysteries of metabolism. And that consciousness in whatever its mysterious relationship to the brain is induced by endogenously introduced pseudo-neurotransmitters of some sort.

And to my mind this is very interesting, to my mind Alexander Shulgin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Shulgin" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;) has secured this in his work, in that by moving simply one atom in a molecule that is completely inactive you can change this into an active compound. A single atoms position is governed ultimately by quantum laws, with not just it's location being quantum (wave or particle) but it's relationship to other atoms via entanglement and other quantum effects. It's seems quite spectacular to me. Now it seems to me you could hardly have a neater demonstration into the quantum foundation of consciousness, because you have moved one atom, and yet you have moved the mountains of mind 500 miles from the perspective from which they once looked.

The idea you can somehow ignore that quantum physics has any sort of role to play in micro-tubules and the molecular biology of neurochemistry in the resulting conscious experience is many times more absurd than proposing a theory of how it may function, simply to bridge the gap between deterministic laws of physics with the basic probabilistic laws of quantum theory to explain the indeterminate and mathematically chaotic nature of biology.
Always be you, unless you can be a unicorn; then be a unicorn.

User avatar
Shen1986
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2912
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2012 6:47 am

Re: Hameroff and Penrose have updated their Orch-OR model

Post by Shen1986 » Tue Feb 18, 2014 6:47 am

Cygnus_X1 wrote:The problem I have with Hameroff and Penrose is that even if quantum phenomenon are going on in microtubules it doesn't actually explain anything. What is the quantum entanglement hypothised an entanglement with ? One finds oneself with an argument similar to when a creationist says God made everything and one replies ' Who made God ?'. Entanglement arguments simply shift the territory without explaining how the new territory explains consciousness any better.
This is the same problem which Chalmers proposed... Actually Hameroff and Penrose does not know where consciousness came from and are just claiming the same old woo, that consciousness always was. It gives no answer:
In a video that recently aired on “Through the Wormhole” narrated by Morgan Freeman on the TV channel Science, Dr. Hameroff claims, “I believe that consciousness, or its immediate precursor proto-consciousness, has been in the universe all along, perhaps from the Big Bang.”
Taken from: http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com ... /04/again/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"Death Dies Hard." - Deathstars.

User avatar
zeuzzz
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3859
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2013 5:33 pm
Custom Title: Unicorn Herder

Re: Hameroff and Penrose have updated their Orch-OR model

Post by zeuzzz » Tue Feb 18, 2014 6:54 am

Shen1986 wrote:
In a video that recently aired on “Through the Wormhole” narrated by Morgan Freeman on the TV channel Science, Dr. Hameroff claims, “I believe that consciousness, or its immediate precursor proto-consciousness, has been in the universe all along, perhaps from the Big Bang.”
Taken from: http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com ... /04/again/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I agree with this, I think the universe is alive in a broard sense, and fundamentally based on evolutionary processes of some kind, whether conscious or not. Hard to prove, but just my two cents. Similar to Lee Smolins work on this subject, who is a scientist I have quite a lot of respect for.

[ytube][/ytube]

http://edge.org/conversation/-cosmological-evolution" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
COSMOLOGICAL EVOLUTION

...there is a deep relation between Einstein's notion that everything is just a network of relations and Darwin's notion because what is an ecological community but a network of individuals and species in relationship which evolve? There's no need in the modern way of talking about biology for any absolute concepts for any things that were always true and will always be true.

TRIVERS, SMOLIN, HAUSER: "DARWIN Y LA TERCERA CULTURA" IN BARCELONA

Last year Edge received an invitation from Juan Insua, Director of Kosmopolis, a traditional literary festival in Barcelona, to stage an event at Kosmopolis 05 as part of an overall program "that ranges from the lasting light of Cervantes to the (ambiguous) crisis of the book format, from a literary mapping of Barcelona's Raval district to the dilemma raised by the influence of the Internet in the kitchen of writing, from the emergence of a new third culture humanism to the diverse practices that position literature at the core of urban creativity."

Something radically new is in the air: new ways of understanding physical systems, new focuses that lead to our questioning of many of our foundations. A realistic biology of the mind, advances in physics, information technology, genetics, neurobiology, engineering, the chemistry of materials: all are questions of capital importance with respect to what it means to be human.

Charles Darwin's ideas on evolution through natural selection are central to many of these scientific advances. Lee Smolin, a theoretical physicist, Marc D. Hauser, a cognitive neuroscientist, and Robert Trivers, an evolutionary biologist, travelled to Barcelona last October to explain how the common thread of Darwinian evolution has led them to new advances in their respective fields.
His book the trouble with physics was brilliant.
Always be you, unless you can be a unicorn; then be a unicorn.

User avatar
Shen1986
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2912
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2012 6:47 am

Re: Hameroff and Penrose have updated their Orch-OR model

Post by Shen1986 » Tue Feb 18, 2014 6:58 am

zeuzzz wrote:I agree with this, I think the universe is alive in a broard sense, and fundamentally based on evolutionary processes of some kind, whether conscious or not. Hard to prove, but just my two cents. Similar to Lee Smolins work on this subject, who is a scientist I have quite a lot of respect for.
This is just a speculation and not science. Hameroff or Penrose have no way to prove this and I doubt we ever will prove this because I think its wrong. They are again making out of consciousness a god.
"Death Dies Hard." - Deathstars.

User avatar
zeuzzz
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3859
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2013 5:33 pm
Custom Title: Unicorn Herder

Re: Hameroff and Penrose have updated their Orch-OR model

Post by zeuzzz » Tue Feb 18, 2014 11:20 pm

Biocentrism is also very similar to smolins idea: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biocentric_universe" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Always be you, unless you can be a unicorn; then be a unicorn.

User avatar
Shen1986
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2912
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2012 6:47 am

Re: Hameroff and Penrose have updated their Orch-OR model

Post by Shen1986 » Wed Feb 19, 2014 6:07 am

zeuzzz wrote:Biocentrism is also very similar to smolins idea: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biocentric_universe" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
No thanks. I had enough Robert Lanza woo for one year..

It is the same like listening to Deepak Chopra.
"Death Dies Hard." - Deathstars.

donnie
Poster
Posts: 178
Joined: Wed Jan 15, 2014 3:04 pm

Re: Hameroff and Penrose have updated their Orch-OR model

Post by donnie » Wed Feb 19, 2014 2:14 pm

Kenny shop dissin penrose. Calling him a idiot. He is clearly not.
Found this
Gödel’s Theorem http://www.iep.utm.edu/lp-argue/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
kennyc
Has No Life
Posts: 12436
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 11:21 am
Custom Title: The Dank Side of the Moon
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Hameroff and Penrose have updated their Orch-OR model

Post by kennyc » Wed Feb 19, 2014 2:26 pm

Image
Kenny A. Chaffin
Art Gallery - Photo Gallery - Writing&Poetry - The Bleeding Edge
"Strive on with Awareness" - Siddhartha Gautama

User avatar
Shen1986
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2912
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2012 6:47 am

Re: Hameroff and Penrose have updated their Orch-OR model

Post by Shen1986 » Wed Feb 19, 2014 2:49 pm

This thread has become a troll zone.. :?

Penrose and Hameroff have nothing to show and I stay by this..
"Death Dies Hard." - Deathstars.

User avatar
kennyc
Has No Life
Posts: 12436
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 11:21 am
Custom Title: The Dank Side of the Moon
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Hameroff and Penrose have updated their Orch-OR model

Post by kennyc » Wed Feb 19, 2014 3:19 pm

Shen1986 wrote:This thread has become a troll zone.. :?

Penrose and Hameroff have nothing to show and I stay by this..

I agree and donnie/mark is a troll...best ignored.
Kenny A. Chaffin
Art Gallery - Photo Gallery - Writing&Poetry - The Bleeding Edge
"Strive on with Awareness" - Siddhartha Gautama

User avatar
Cygnus_X1
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1482
Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2014 4:08 am
Location: Middle Of Nowhere

Re: Hameroff and Penrose have updated their Orch-OR model

Post by Cygnus_X1 » Wed Feb 19, 2014 5:12 pm

What is important about the psychedelics as they relate to this they propel the entire subject of consciousness to center stage as they demonstrate that assumed bedrock of "ordinary perception" is in fact no bedrock at all, is is in fact a somewhat soft dwell point somewhere being in the mysteries of metabolism.
I liked that sentence. Whether I agree entirely with Penrose or not, it has always seemed to me that 'normal' waking consciousness is far too readily taken as being 'normal'. As 'the norm' it may be such, but the problem is that there is also a tendency for it to be presented as being some sort of reliable base state by contrast with which every other state is illusory.

Some would argue that from the perspective of evolution our everyday waking state has to coincide closely with reality or we would never survive. But that is not entirely true. The only real requirement for survival is consistency of experience. As long as a lion in the external world always gets presented as a lion in our internal world, we don't get eaten. But that does not mean that our internal presentation is actually an accurate representation of the world.

Thus I have often considered that science is not so much the direct study of the external world, but the study of how we experience the external world. We already know that the blue of the sky, the experiential sound of Beethoven, etc, don't actually exist as such externally. But what if this 'closedness' of experience goes all the way and even maths and geometry are creations of our own brains ? Many would balk at that idea...but there's really no reason why one shouldn't take the Kantian notion of our experience being entirely made up to the logical conclusion that it all is.

That would leave a science based on maths and geometry in quite a quandry. This argument was actually had back in Kant's day, and the 'totally closed' option rejected. I've never seen any sound reason why.
100,000 lemmings can't be wrong.

User avatar
kennyc
Has No Life
Posts: 12436
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 11:21 am
Custom Title: The Dank Side of the Moon
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Hameroff and Penrose have updated their Orch-OR model

Post by kennyc » Wed Feb 19, 2014 5:18 pm

Cygnus_X1 wrote:.... We already know that the blue of the sky, the experiential sound of Beethoven, etc, don't actually exist as such externally. ....

BS! Everything we are aware of is due to an actual precipitating physical phenomena. And yes this even applies to delusions.

Your claim is pure woo. Pure pseudo-science. Pure belief in the supernatural or souls or quantum consciousness or other BS, not science.
Kenny A. Chaffin
Art Gallery - Photo Gallery - Writing&Poetry - The Bleeding Edge
"Strive on with Awareness" - Siddhartha Gautama

User avatar
kennyc
Has No Life
Posts: 12436
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 11:21 am
Custom Title: The Dank Side of the Moon
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Hameroff and Penrose have updated their Orch-OR model

Post by kennyc » Wed Feb 19, 2014 5:24 pm

Cygnus_X1 wrote:[... But that does not mean that our internal presentation is actually an accurate representation of the world.
......

Which is completely and utterly irrelevant. Particularly with regard to consciousness but also with regard to reality.

We can't see ultraviolet light, we can't hear radio waves....so what?
Kenny A. Chaffin
Art Gallery - Photo Gallery - Writing&Poetry - The Bleeding Edge
"Strive on with Awareness" - Siddhartha Gautama

User avatar
Cygnus_X1
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1482
Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2014 4:08 am
Location: Middle Of Nowhere

Re: Hameroff and Penrose have updated their Orch-OR model

Post by Cygnus_X1 » Wed Feb 19, 2014 6:38 pm

kennyc wrote:
Cygnus_X1 wrote:.... We already know that the blue of the sky, the experiential sound of Beethoven, etc, don't actually exist as such externally. ....

BS! .
There's always someone on every forum who seems to think that merely shouting 'BS !' automatically makes them right. I guess it saves actually having to debate the issue.

So Kant was wrong and you are right ? I know who I would rather accept.
100,000 lemmings can't be wrong.

User avatar
Cygnus_X1
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1482
Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2014 4:08 am
Location: Middle Of Nowhere

Re: Hameroff and Penrose have updated their Orch-OR model

Post by Cygnus_X1 » Wed Feb 19, 2014 6:50 pm

kennyc wrote:
Cygnus_X1 wrote:[... But that does not mean that our internal presentation is actually an accurate representation of the world.
......

Which is completely and utterly irrelevant. Particularly with regard to consciousness but also with regard to reality.

We can't see ultraviolet light, we can't hear radio waves....so what?
It is entirely relevant if the way we see the world is itself shaped by our brains. The issue I raised was just how much of what we experience is shaped by our brains and how much has any one-to-one correspondence to external reality. Its a perfectly legitimate scientific question.
100,000 lemmings can't be wrong.

User avatar
kennyc
Has No Life
Posts: 12436
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 11:21 am
Custom Title: The Dank Side of the Moon
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Hameroff and Penrose have updated their Orch-OR model

Post by kennyc » Wed Feb 19, 2014 6:55 pm

Cygnus_X1 wrote:
kennyc wrote:
Cygnus_X1 wrote:[... But that does not mean that our internal presentation is actually an accurate representation of the world.
......

Which is completely and utterly irrelevant. Particularly with regard to consciousness but also with regard to reality.

We can't see ultraviolet light, we can't hear radio waves....so what?
It is entirely relevant if the way we see the world is itself shaped by our brains. The issue I raised was just how much of what we experience is shaped by our brains and how much has any one-to-one correspondence to external reality. Its a perfectly legitimate scientific question.

No it's not. The 'experience of red' is just philosophical BS. Let's discuss the experience of {!#%@} eh?

That seems to be what you want to do.
Kenny A. Chaffin
Art Gallery - Photo Gallery - Writing&Poetry - The Bleeding Edge
"Strive on with Awareness" - Siddhartha Gautama

User avatar
kennyc
Has No Life
Posts: 12436
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 11:21 am
Custom Title: The Dank Side of the Moon
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Hameroff and Penrose have updated their Orch-OR model

Post by kennyc » Wed Feb 19, 2014 6:56 pm

Cygnus_X1 wrote:....

So Kant was wrong and you are right ? I know who I would rather accept.

Of course you do, we've already established that.
Kenny A. Chaffin
Art Gallery - Photo Gallery - Writing&Poetry - The Bleeding Edge
"Strive on with Awareness" - Siddhartha Gautama

User avatar
kennyc
Has No Life
Posts: 12436
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 11:21 am
Custom Title: The Dank Side of the Moon
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Hameroff and Penrose have updated their Orch-OR model

Post by kennyc » Wed Feb 19, 2014 7:01 pm

Cygnus_X1 wrote:
kennyc wrote:
Cygnus_X1 wrote:.... We already know that the blue of the sky, the experiential sound of Beethoven, etc, don't actually exist as such externally. ....

BS! .
There's always someone on every forum who seems to think that merely shouting 'BS !' automatically makes them right. I guess it saves actually having to debate the issue.
.
Please include my full quote and stop adding your own interpretation to it. All you are doing is exposing your ignorance.

My full post included exactly why your claim is BS.

Also what's BS is that this same BS has been brought up a million (or more) times on this and every other forum that has a discussion about consciousness, mind, cognition, philosophy and it has nothing to do with science. Please learn some and drop the philosophical woo.

I'm not here debate and certainly not on issues that are so old they are petrified.

It's always entertaining to see newbies that think they've discovered something new in the world but it's really just that they are so naive and ignorant that they don't know any better.

Good Luck.
Last edited by kennyc on Wed Feb 19, 2014 7:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Kenny A. Chaffin
Art Gallery - Photo Gallery - Writing&Poetry - The Bleeding Edge
"Strive on with Awareness" - Siddhartha Gautama

User avatar
Shen1986
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2912
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2012 6:47 am

Re: Hameroff and Penrose have updated their Orch-OR model

Post by Shen1986 » Wed Feb 19, 2014 7:09 pm

Cygnus_X1 wrote:Thus I have often considered that science is not so much the direct study of the external world, but the study of how we experience the external world. We already know that the blue of the sky, the experiential sound of Beethoven, etc, don't actually exist as such externally. But what if this 'closedness' of experience goes all the way and even maths and geometry are creations of our own brains ? Many would balk at that idea...but there's really no reason why one shouldn't take the Kantian notion of our experience being entirely made up to the logical conclusion that it all is.
Don't forget Cygnus_X1 that Kant killed metaphysics to begin with if I a remember my philosophy classes and what Penrose and Hameroff are claiming is metaphysical.

Also you are not completely right. Science looks on the world through the eyes of us, humans I grant you that because we are just humans and we have our biases and flaws and there are a lot of disciplines in science which looks on it "how we, humans look on the world". However science works in the way using experiments which must be repeated by anyone even by the bias people and even by believers. This is how science works and how we can check it and find out what reality actually is.

For me Penrose and Hameroff are a lost cause because after reading about ASIMO I get the feeling that he has already some kind of consciousness because what he can do is beyond some animals in the animal kingdom which have microtubes and should have some proto-consciousness according to their Orch-OR theory but I cannot see that in those animals.
"Death Dies Hard." - Deathstars.

User avatar
Cygnus_X1
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1482
Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2014 4:08 am
Location: Middle Of Nowhere

Re: Hameroff and Penrose have updated their Orch-OR model

Post by Cygnus_X1 » Wed Feb 19, 2014 7:13 pm

kennyc wrote:
Cygnus_X1 wrote:
kennyc wrote:
Cygnus_X1 wrote:.... We already know that the blue of the sky, the experiential sound of Beethoven, etc, don't actually exist as such externally. ....

BS! .
There's always someone on every forum who seems to think that merely shouting 'BS !' automatically makes them right. I guess it saves actually having to debate the issue.
.
Please include my full quote and stop adding your own interpretation to it. All you are doing is exposing your ignorance.

What's BS is that this same BS has been brought up a million (or more) times on this and every other forum that has a discussion about consciousness, mind, cognition, philosophy and it has nothing to do with science. Please learn some and drop the philosophical woo.

I'm not here debate and certainly not on issues that are so old they are petrified.

It's always entertaining to see newbies that think they've discovered something new in the world but it's really just that they are so naive and ignorant that they don't know any better.

Good Luck.
You keep calling things 'woo' that have been established philosophy of science for centuries. That the perceived blue of the sky does not literally exist goes back as far as Kant....who even offered a proof of it ! I find it quite unbelievable that its a point I'd have to argue about here.

Where did I say anything about supernatural, etc ? God God....if one cannot even argue basic Kant on a forum for rational thinking then something is wrong.
100,000 lemmings can't be wrong.

User avatar
kennyc
Has No Life
Posts: 12436
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 11:21 am
Custom Title: The Dank Side of the Moon
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Hameroff and Penrose have updated their Orch-OR model

Post by kennyc » Wed Feb 19, 2014 7:22 pm

Cygnus_X1 wrote:....

You keep calling things 'woo' that have been established philosophy of science for centuries. That the perceived blue of the sky does not literally exist goes back as far as Kant....who even offered a proof of it ! I find it quite unbelievable that its a point I'd have to argue about here.

Where did I say anything about supernatural, etc ? God God....if one cannot even argue basic Kant on a forum for rational thinking then something is wrong.

Religion has been 'established for centuries.'

The archaic ideas you are playing with are not science. Let's discuss the 'experience of {!#%@}'

What's unbelievable is that you don't understand science and rational inquiry.

The only thing you have offered in your posts so far is unsupportable philosophical woo.
Kenny A. Chaffin
Art Gallery - Photo Gallery - Writing&Poetry - The Bleeding Edge
"Strive on with Awareness" - Siddhartha Gautama

User avatar
Cygnus_X1
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1482
Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2014 4:08 am
Location: Middle Of Nowhere

Re: Hameroff and Penrose have updated their Orch-OR model

Post by Cygnus_X1 » Wed Feb 19, 2014 7:22 pm

The 'experience of red' is just philosophical BS.
Says who ? My qualia are the one thing about which I have more direct experience than anything else!

The Dennett school of qualia nihilism is not without its critics, and runs into numerous logical issues. It's also strange how everything is 'philosophical BS' except when Dennett, a philosopher, happens to speak.

I can fully understand that you believe and accept Dennett. That is fine. But to dismiss all else as 'BS' merely shows bias, and not rationalism.
100,000 lemmings can't be wrong.

User avatar
Cygnus_X1
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1482
Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2014 4:08 am
Location: Middle Of Nowhere

Re: Hameroff and Penrose have updated their Orch-OR model

Post by Cygnus_X1 » Wed Feb 19, 2014 7:26 pm

"It's always entertaining to see newbies that think they've discovered something new in the world but it's really just that they are so naive and ignorant that they don't know any better."
No less entertaining that it is to see oldbies get riled by the fact that some newbie might actually know more than them about the topic.
100,000 lemmings can't be wrong.

User avatar
kennyc
Has No Life
Posts: 12436
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 11:21 am
Custom Title: The Dank Side of the Moon
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Hameroff and Penrose have updated their Orch-OR model

Post by kennyc » Wed Feb 19, 2014 7:30 pm

Cygnus_X1 wrote:
"It's always entertaining to see newbies that think they've discovered something new in the world but it's really just that they are so naive and ignorant that they don't know any better."
No less entertaining that it is to see oldbies get riled by the fact that some newbie might actually know more than them about the topic.

:lol: :lol: :lol:
Kenny A. Chaffin
Art Gallery - Photo Gallery - Writing&Poetry - The Bleeding Edge
"Strive on with Awareness" - Siddhartha Gautama