South Africa Flag logo

South African Skeptics

December 11, 2019, 20:00:43 PM
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
Go to mobile page.
News: Please read the posting guidelines before posting.
   
   Skeptic Forum Board Index   Help Forum Rules Search GoogleTagged Login Register Chat Blogroll  
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic:

Quantum Mechanics and Consciousness

 (Read 24027 times)
0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +61/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 3757


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #45 on: September 19, 2009, 01:06:00 AM »

Look who has finally got it... Do you think it is testable?
Yes, you’ll have to excuse us ordinary mortals.  We’re just way too slow for the stunningly fleet-minded, breathtakingly xyresic, awesomely perspicacious Mechanist.  No, it’s got too many gaping gaps but that’s just what anti-materialists thrive on, isn’t it?  Ergo, it must be true, mustn’t it? I mean, who needs a scalpel when you have sledgehammer, right?

'Luthon64
« Last Edit: September 19, 2009, 01:42:23 AM by Mefiante » Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +61/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 3757


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #46 on: September 19, 2009, 01:40:40 AM »

You argue just like a creationist, you know that? Not the content but the method. It's like intellectual hopscotch. All over the place. Damn annoying.
Pure art.

'Luthon64
Logged
Peter Grant
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +5/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 845


a fully caused agent


AtheistStoned AtheistStoned
WWW
« Reply #47 on: September 19, 2009, 12:16:18 PM »

Please explain what it is that I am misunderstanding. Insulting me by comparing me to a creationist is not very helpful.
Logged
rwenzori
Sniper
Sr. Member
****

Skeptical ability: +7/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 403


Merda accidit.


« Reply #48 on: September 19, 2009, 13:33:33 PM »

Yes, you’ll have to excuse us ordinary mortals.  We’re just way too slow for the stunningly fleet-minded, breathtakingly xyresic, awesomely perspicacious Mechanist.

Actually he's a ******* ***** a bit retarded, but who's counting?

Ergo, it must be true, mustn’t it? I mean, who needs a scalpel when you have sledgehammer, right?

No, it's true because Jesus told him so. Just a pity that Pretzlpakit ( my fave-rave Inca god ) told me it's bollocks.
« Last Edit: September 19, 2009, 18:51:57 PM by rwenzori » Logged
Peter Grant
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +5/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 845


a fully caused agent


AtheistStoned AtheistStoned
WWW
« Reply #49 on: September 19, 2009, 16:02:48 PM »

As to creationism, it might be possible to convince me that I created the universe just before I woke up this morning, but, unfortunately, I don't think it's a belief that would spread. Tongue
Logged
bluegray
Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +9/-3
Offline Offline

Posts: 1107



saskeptics
WWW
« Reply #50 on: September 19, 2009, 19:37:01 PM »

Continuing with the information gained by interpolation argument here: http://forum.skeptic.za.org/science-and-technology/digitisation-interpolation-and-information/

BTW. If that last comment to Petey had anything to do with the 'Skeptical ability' rating, it's misplaced Wink
Logged
Peter Grant
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +5/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 845


a fully caused agent


AtheistStoned AtheistStoned
WWW
« Reply #51 on: September 20, 2009, 12:33:28 PM »

Thanks, for the record I don't recall voting anyone down so far. I have voted up a few of those who said nice things about atheism though. Smiley
Logged
Irreverend
Full Member
***

Skeptical ability: +9/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 222



« Reply #52 on: September 20, 2009, 14:00:10 PM »

Then I offer my sincere apologies to the forum generally and Peter in particular for having misread him on that score. I see the knock I handed out has been undone - thanks Mr Admin.
Logged
bluegray
Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +9/-3
Offline Offline

Posts: 1107



saskeptics
WWW
« Reply #53 on: September 20, 2009, 20:15:53 PM »

Peter, I moved your post here: http://forum.skeptic.za.org/science-and-technology/digitisation-interpolation-and-information/msg5763/#msg5763
Logged
Teleological
Moderate Realist
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +2/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 980

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit


« Reply #54 on: November 02, 2009, 07:43:43 AM »

Penrose-Hameroff orchestrated objective-reduction proposal for human consciousness is not biologically feasible
Abstract:
Quote
Penrose and Hameroff have argued that the conventional models of a brain function based on neural networks alone cannot account for human consciousness, claiming that quantum-computation elements are also required. Specifically, in their Orchestrated Objective Reduction (Orch OR) model [R. Penrose and S. R. Hameroff, J. Conscious. Stud. 2, 99 (1995)], it is postulated that microtubules act as quantum processing units, with individual tubulin dimers forming the computational elements. This model requires that the tubulin is able to switch between alternative conformational states in a coherent manner, and that this process be rapid on the physiological time scale. Here, the biological feasibility of the Orch OR proposal is examined in light of recent experimental studies on microtubule assembly and dynamics. It is shown that the tubulins do not possess essential properties required for the Orch OR proposal, as originally proposed, to hold. Further, we consider also recent progress in the understanding of the long-lived coherent motions in biological systems, a feature critical to Orch OR, and show that no reformation of the proposal based on known physical paradigms could lead to quantum computing within microtubules. Hence, the Orch OR model is not a feasible explanation of the origin of consciousness.


From the conclusion:
Quote
The Penrose-Hameroff Orch OR model has attracted much attention and much debate since it was initially proposed in part because it holds the fascinating possibility of quantum mechanical effects playing a central role in cognitive function, and in part because, at least superficially, the model appears physically reasonable. Here we have shown that when tested objectively the basic physical assumptions upon which the Orch OR model depends simply do not hold either from a structural, dynamic or energetic perspective and we hope that with this work we can finally put to rest this intriguing but fundamentally flawed model of cognitive function.


Oh well, there you have it, fundamentally flawed it seems  Tongue.
Would be interesting to see the responses to this article from the protagonists of the Penrose-Hameroff Orch OR model proposal not?
Logged
Teleological
Moderate Realist
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +2/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 980

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit


« Reply #55 on: May 04, 2010, 20:00:41 PM »

Looks like Hameroff has replied.

Stuart Hameroff defends Orch-OR theory at TSC 2010 - Pt 1 of 2

Stuart Hameroff defends Orch-OR theory at TSC 2010 - Pt 2 of 2


The panpsychist implications (materialism on steroids Evil) of this view of consciousness does not appeal to many. Maybe Dennett found a buddy Shocked Tongue.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]   Go Up
  Print  


 
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
Page created in 0.808 seconds with 24 sceptic queries.
Google visited last this page May 03, 2019, 09:34:21 AM
Privacy Policy