Abhirao456

Facts.... thank you for the response Will check;)

True, very true

Oh crap😂😂 Also one last question, I saw this guy has cited one or two Legitimate papers, does this increase the credibility of the author in any way? Say for example, just before the start of section 4. *Biological dynamics* , he cites a very very credible paper, does this mean that he read that and is right?

I am actually familiar with this, does this mean it's impossible to find a mistake with the paper?

Hey since you're quite knowledgeable in physics, could you point out atleast 5 mistakes in the paper please? Or is it impossible cuz its a word salad?

Hi, yes I have read penrose's view, his view is called the Orch Or theory, the article I linked is quite different actually although he does say something about the microtubules..... The author of the article I linked is weird, he says there is a "tension domain" and a "energy domain" according to Quantum Field Theory, which I think isn't the case..... Also he states the mind body is a form of a toroid which Penrose doesn't say...... I generally overlook people who put toroids in their theory because they tend to couple this with their pseudoscientific nonsense, but I questioned because I've never seen anyone write so much lol XD... well great that it is a word salad..... PS: I would like to confirm my position here that I'm not against the mind being seperate from the brain but this paper takes bullshit to the whole new level

Hey I'm so sorry I don't know how the forum works, I had written that is open access journal so I wanted to edit and put researchgate, I'm so sorry Hmm your right, although you may not be an expert about the mind stuff, I think his physics part should atleast make sense, if it doesn't then I don't think his other stuff should because he uses the so called "physics" to relate it to the mind, moreover neither is he physicist, cosmogonist , biologist,etc. He is just a physiotherapist, that's all..... That being said I think the fact that people who are expertise in physics should be able to tell whether it's nonsense, and I think it's true that the article is nonsense

I asked to some other guy, he said it's awesome and seems like word salad because of its technicality, is their really anything of use? You are theoretical physicist so could you get anything put of the paper?

Damn😂

Hmm well said... So basically the article is shit?

Also is there really something knows as a tensive gradient in quantum physics? Also is them something known as Spin Conjugate Dynamics /Phase Conjugate Dynamics really?

Could you make anything of Section 3?

I have one request, I hope you could answer it…. I saw this article that makes heavy assumptions based on Quantum Electrodynamics , like something like formation of an energy domain or such, and it connects it with brain activity which is super weird, I did ask a neuroscientist and he said he couldn’t make any sense with the physics part of it because the author delves into parts of physics which I’ve not heard off such as Energy Quanta-Gradients and stuff like that, and to me it seems pretty pseudosciencey as it is published in a non peer review Journal, however if you don’t mind you could please point out some of this mistakes(if any) this author makes on the QED theory(you need not read the whole paper just the part of Tension vs Energy domain (Section 3)? I would really really appreciate it, I’ll link the article down below:- https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344348924_Mind-Brain-Body_System's_Dynamics_Open_Access TL;DR:- This person bases his theory on Quantum Electrodynamics to explain brain activity, all I hope is for you to point out