Jump to content

Orch Or


cornel
 Share

Recommended Posts

What do you think about Orch Or theory proposed and very sustained by Stuart Hammerof (top american researcher) and Sir Rorger Penrose (emeritus professor of Oxford ,member of royal family ,physics and math expert). Both are quantum physics experts.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/728897/LIFE-AFTER-DEATH-consciousness-continue-SOUL

This link explains it in the simplest way. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, cornel said:

Both are quantum physics experts.

This is (1) irrelevant and (2) not true. 

1 hour ago, cornel said:

member of royal family

Huh!?

Also untrue and, if possible, even less relevant. 

1 hour ago, cornel said:

This link explains it in the simplest way.

That is a trashy tabloid. I wouldn’t rely on it for accurate science reporting. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Strange said:

This is (1) irrelevant and (2) not true. 

Huh!?

Also untrue and, if possible, even less relevant. 

That is a trashy tabloid. I wouldn’t rely on it for accurate science reporting. 

My bad ,royal society.

Then what has this reply to do with the subject?

Edited by cornel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On domingo, 16 de septiembre de 2018 at 10:17 AM, cornel said:

What do you think about Orch Or theory

Have you ever been in a situation of almost sure death, one that witnesses also describe as an event of sure death and miraculous salvation? People who have suffered this situation say that every moment of life, with all the richness of detail, from things of big size to very small things like skin pores one by one, scenes with all the information up to the microdetails, they are present in the mind. Come, hear, touch, smell everything, everything, everything, they perceive everything up to the microdetail, from every instant of life, from birth or uterus, to the moment of the accident. That is too much information. And that incalculable cluster of information is normally stored in a record that is preserved. That is, in deep human memory, which is not frequently consulted.

A microsecond of life contains information about the person and the environment, with an incalculable degree of detail. It would be amazing a digital memory capable of saving a single scene with that degree of detail. To save the whole life, there is no digital technology that can do it.

The mystery of deep human memory has not been explained until today. Although it stores astonishing amounts of information, the function of memory is monotonous, because it is to store and, upon request, provide the data. The function of consciousness seems much more delicate and more complex than the function of memory. Do you think that an adequate theory of consciousness can be formulated before an adequate theory of human memory?

Once I came across an idea about human memory that, taken seriously and well developed, could lead to an adequate theory. That idea corresponds to the harmonic memory, which is not digital in its essence. If you wanted to use digital systems, you would have to program them to process analog functions. But that story would be misplaced in this thread.

Edited by quiet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 years later...

From a 2018 thread... Orch OR may or may not unfold in science because there won't be any mathematics that frames sentience of mind.

Just me.  But me has had some wild and exciting cerebral adventures I won't tell you about.

I noticed scientist attack Orch OR because it reflects upon eternal soul alive outside neurology that animates neurology.  Tegmark is an example.  His ridicule of Orch OR isn't about the science, it's about the fear physicists have of 'soul.'  They don't want to have soul.  But they each do have one.  Odd study this is.  

Tegmark's ridicule of Orch OR hails a thread of intellectual persecution that grew from the authority of the Pope of Newton's day.  The Pope said calculus is cool, but should never ever be used to study the human soul or any living thing.  That really messed up physics and the hard problem with UFOs influencing consciousness.  Among other things in the way of progress to the stars in spite of  animal beliefs in science.

Science has forgotten that, but the epigenetic proclivity lives on!  Tegmark defends the authority of the Pope of Newton's day.

Now, why is believing in a mind outside of brain any more foolish that believing in a mind inside a brain?  

 

Edited by Don86326
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Don86326 said:

 

I noticed scientist attack Orch OR because it reflects upon eternal soul alive outside neurology that animates neurology.  Tegmark is an example.  His ridicule of Orch OR isn't about the science, it's about the fear physicists have of 'soul.'  They don't want to have soul

That’s a fallacious extrapolation. No group of scientists are monolithic in their views. And if you want to support an idea, it needs to be based on science, not bashing others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Don86326 said:

Tegmark's ridicule of Orch OR hails a thread of intellectual persecution that grew from the authority of the Pope of Newton's day.  The Pope said calculus is cool, but should never ever be used to study the human soul or any living thing.  That really messed up physics and the hard problem with UFOs influencing consciousness.  Among other things in the way of progress to the stars in spite of  animal beliefs in science.

I don't know what "hails a thread" means, but you seem to be drawing modern conclusions based on historical evidence, so I'd like to see how it supports your stance, please. "That really messed up physics" is similarly lacking in evidential support. "The hard problem with UFOs influencing consciousness" also seems like hand-waving assumptions unsupported by anything scientific. Are you certain whose "animal beliefs in science" are hampering our "progress to the stars"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Don86326 said:

From a 2018 thread... Orch OR may or may not unfold in science because there won't be any mathematics that frames sentience of mind.

Just me.  But me has had some wild and exciting cerebral adventures I won't tell you about.

I noticed scientist attack Orch OR because it reflects upon eternal soul alive outside neurology that animates neurology.  Tegmark is an example.  His ridicule of Orch OR isn't about the science, it's about the fear physicists have of 'soul.'  They don't want to have soul.  But they each do have one.  Odd study this is.  

Tegmark's ridicule of Orch OR hails a thread of intellectual persecution that grew from the authority of the Pope of Newton's day.  The Pope said calculus is cool, but should never ever be used to study the human soul or any living thing.  That really messed up physics and the hard problem with UFOs influencing consciousness.  Among other things in the way of progress to the stars in spite of  animal beliefs in science.

Science has forgotten that, but the epigenetic proclivity lives on!  Tegmark defends the authority of the Pope of Newton's day.

Now, why is believing in a mind outside of brain any more foolish that believing in a mind inside a brain?  

 

Were and when did the pope say calculus should not be used to study the human soul? Which pope? I have not come across this. If there is any truth in it, it would be interesting to know, from the viewpoint of the history of religion and science. Can you quote a source? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Don86326 said:

 

Now, why is believing in a mind outside of brain any more foolish that believing in a mind inside a brain?  

 

When people develop Alzheimer's, and amyloid plaques began to fill up the spaces between neurons with misfolded proteins which eventually choke and kill the neurons, the person's mind degenerates and fades away.  This suggests that the mind is a physical function, a process of interacting neurons.  If the mind had the option of simply going somewhere "outside of the brain" then it could convey the message "I'm still here, and still fully sentient," by stimulating surviving nerves in a person's writing hand or in the nerves controlling the mouth, lips, and larynx.  In earlier stages of Alzheimer's, this free-floating mind could engage in high-level cognition and then report on those excursions during the patient's lucid moments.  "I can't do basic math right now, but last night I floated away and calculated the answer to that square root you asked for yesterday.   Here it is."  Instead, the personality withers and fades, and the simplest mental tasks become impossible.

Similarly, when people have severe strokes, some lose the ability to recognize family members.  How does this happen if the intact mind is outside the brain attending to what is going on in the room?  These patients can usually speak and answer questions.  Why can't their free-floating mind recognize Mom and Uncle Bob and get that message across?  

While none of this really solves all the mysteries of consciousness and mind, it strongly suggests that what we call a mind is the operation of a physical brain.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, exchemist said:

Were and when did the pope say calculus should not be used to study the human soul? Which pope? I have not come across this. If there is any truth in it, it would be interesting to know, from the viewpoint of the history of religion and science. Can you quote a source? 

I wish I could quote on my memory of the article of the Pope's qualification of how calculus and Newton's fame in the King's court was touched by the Pope to exclude biological sciences.

I will keep looking, but the information was found long ago... but hard to forget.  Another hard-to-forget article was one supporting the Catholic Church's commission by the Pope to the scientist-priest that penned the big bang theory.  

I looked long for the latter, and yet don't know if the information has been scrubbed from the web due to rising malcontent against superstitious 'science,' or is just buried under billions of search-engine hits.  Both were a shocking moment to read, and more shocking to see how sycophantic the scientific community has been to remain socially prudent and funded.

At least I can read about the great attractor and inside my head I don't have a wrestling match with common sense that says I should remain allegiant for no scientific reason to the big-bang theory, which is one silly piece of 'science' that is only accepted by scientists not because the scientists are religious (which isn't requiring converts to be even one bit spiritual) but because the scientists must needs have a clean resume in the opinion of all the other people that expect everyone should all always agree there is a superstition that makes scientific evidence.  That is a notch below Feynman's identification of a cargo-cult cult science in my surmise of scientific excellence.  

Scientists are driven by prudence to remain funded.  Prudence is driven by social limits. Religion yet sets these limits... some spoken... and many, many burned into the human culture.  The odor of burnt flesh wafted across countless villages visited by the Grand Inquisitor, and such demonic practice under sanction of a pope living in his own definition of hell as the grand demon of hate and torture.  Humans are superstitious and maintain such fear-based reckoning to ignore common sense over social acceptance. Humans believe our social limits are there by some present dynamic in the now.  That does not exist.  The dynamic was tortured into the destiny of mankind's self-delusions in the first millennia, and there hasn't been a general population inversion of spoken wisdom since.  Rather, we see the religious world acting out in ways so totally non-scientific.  And scientists suck up to the enduring dysfunction of human kind.  We are infected with the folly of our genetics attempting to be civilized by drawing limits and expressing animal hate in prudent ways.  We all host internal fears.

Those of us that may believe there is a higher intelligent sentience at work, other than state-sanctioned-religion, have no issue rejecting superstition.  But the professional scientist may be hide-bound and incapable of such socially unacceptable and imprudent attitudes of an ancient concept of cruel divinity loving only those who accept divine cruelty against others, but not themselves.  Superstition is pathetic, gentle people, yet humans wear the cloak of conformity to a pathetic culture that wonders why aliens don't contact us.

An academic institution could not legally stop a union-of-open-minds standing full-stop under legal credence of a union recognized by Federal law (in some countries like the U.S.)  

I'm not a trained scientist with practice at proper prudent prose.  So the above from the heart sounds naturally imprudent not because it hits on points ill-conceived, but because it hits on points that leave us unfulfilled on a life mission that cannot be fulfilled in Earth humanity at the present juncture of individuals searching for a group mind in a runaway society of animalisms and superstitions infecting the uppermost levels of science.

Please forgive my crude delivery, but I'm not saying this to be liked, but to embarrass the inner human mind of any reader that oppresses the curiosity of a hungry mind in favor of ill-prudence to support a sick society that has a fear of our own inner light that state religion has tried to extinguish since the moment is was endorsed by a king or emperor.

 

Sadly yours,

President of the Sick Puppy Club of Catcliffe (our retirement home), high over a horseshoe bend of Indian Creek

Survivor of the 1st Natural Philosophy Alliance --which accepted anyone who claimed to have scientific interest, and after several years had been populated by old scientists that were each bent on proving the Bible is the root of science.  Such pathetic levels for such trained humans to fall. Society is the strongest drug known to man.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.