|
|
Post by clusium on Aug 22, 2017 0:01:43 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by theoncomingstorm on Aug 22, 2017 2:21:48 GMT
LOFL!
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Aug 22, 2017 2:29:49 GMT
I don't think it's fair that I had to click on the source to find the publication date. |
|
|
|
Post by drystyx on Aug 22, 2017 16:09:31 GMT
Obviously, there's no "laboratory" way to conduct an experiment to show either way, so only mathematical logic can supply an answer to that, and mathematical logic certainly agrees with the OP, because the soul or "meter reader" of the body, once free from reading the meter of the body, would mathematically go back into the Universe, unless there is a god to annihilate it, reward it, punish it, or do whatever with it.
|
|
|
|
Post by theoncomingstorm on Aug 22, 2017 16:24:56 GMT
Obviously, there's no "laboratory" way to conduct an experiment to show either way, so only mathematical logic can supply an answer to that, and mathematical logic certainly agrees with the OP, because the soul or "meter reader" of the body, once free from reading the meter of the body, would mathematically go back into the Universe, unless there is a god to annihilate it, reward it, punish it, or do whatever with it. LOFL twice in one thread. |
|
|
|
Post by Edward-Elizabeth-Hitler on Aug 22, 2017 17:14:39 GMT
Since when was anaesthesiology a branch of physics? |
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Aug 22, 2017 17:22:17 GMT
Obviously, there's no "laboratory" way to conduct an experiment to show either way, so only mathematical logic can supply an answer to that, and mathematical logic certainly agrees with the OP, because the soul or "meter reader" of the body, once free from reading the meter of the body, would mathematically go back into the Universe, unless there is a god to annihilate it, reward it, punish it, or do whatever with it. LOFL twice in one thread. Your agenda is showing. |
|
|
|
Post by Edward-Elizabeth-Hitler on Aug 22, 2017 17:26:36 GMT
LOFL twice in one thread. Your agenda is showing. The agenda of laughing at junk science? |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Aug 22, 2017 17:29:12 GMT
Obviously, there's no "laboratory" way to conduct an experiment to show either way, so only mathematical logic can supply an answer to that, and mathematical logic certainly agrees with the OP, because the soul or "meter reader" of the body, once free from reading the meter of the body, would mathematically go back into the Universe, unless there is a god to annihilate it, reward it, punish it, or do whatever with it. Mathematical logic has nothing to do with "souls." |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Aug 22, 2017 17:33:02 GMT
What definition of "information" are they using?
And what does the sense of information that they're using have to do with a "soul"? How would it in any way resemble the conventional usage of "soul," in order to justify naming it that?
|
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Aug 22, 2017 17:36:24 GMT
Let me just highlight a few of the things that are wrong with this article (and your endorsement of it).
The human brain could be similar to a “biological computer,”
human consciousness may be like a program
These statements are not scientifically useful! The human brain "may be" like a pile of dog sh!t too. Both are after all warm squishy and slimy. Therefore, we should assume they function the same. Saying that human consciousness is "like a program" is like stating that a bald eagle is like a Cessna 172. Okay, yeah they both have wings and they both can fly. But that is because airplanes have been designed by humans to emulate the characteristics of birds which enable them to fly, based on their understanding of physics and aerodynamics. Beyond that, there are no relevant similarities. Eagles are organic life forms; airplanes are inorganic vehicles made of metal and composite. Likewise, computer scientists design computers to emulate functions of the human brain. How they accomplish this is through their technological understanding of statistics and algorithms, not via any study of human psychology or brain chemistry. Computers can process information, store things in memory, make mathematical calculations, and even predict and simulate human response behavior. But they don't have consciousness or ego. They have no will, desire, personality or emotion. They can't "think", or reason. They are tools, and in such a way no similar to human brains in any reasonable capacity. To continue...
This theory was recently outlined on The Science Channel’s ongoing documentary show Through the Wormhole, in which Dr. Hameroff elaborates: “Let’s say the heart stops beating, the blood stops flowing; the micro-tubules lose their quantum state. The quantum information within the micro-tubules is not destroyed, it can’t be destroyed, and it just distributes and dissipates to the universe at large. If the patient is resuscitated, revived, this quantum information can go back into the micro-tubules and the patient says ‘I had a near-death experience.’ If they’re not revived, and the patient dies, it’s possible that this quantum information can exist outside the body, perhaps indefinitely, as a soul.”
That's not a "theory". That is an idea, based on many assumptions of which there is no scientific evidence to support. Then entire basis for the idea is predicted on the assumption of a soul to begin with (of which there is no evidence of). So the entire premise is flawed to being with, much less the fact that no conclusions can be drawn based on the lack of evidence to support the premise.[/i][/i]
|
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Aug 22, 2017 18:11:29 GMT
The human brain "may be" like a pile of dog sh!t too. Both are after all warm squishy and slimy. ...but, they taste completely different....  |
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Aug 22, 2017 18:14:39 GMT
Obviously, there's no "laboratory" way to conduct an experiment to show either way, so only mathematical logic can supply an answer to that, and mathematical logic certainly agrees with the OP, because the soul or "meter reader" of the body, once free from reading the meter of the body, would mathematically go back into the Universe, unless there is a god to annihilate it, reward it, punish it, or do whatever with it. Edit: have to rewrite response, for some reason the reply didn't work?! Empirical science entails a systematic approach to epistemology that uses observable, testable, repeatable, and falsifiable experimentation to understand how nature commonly behaves. www.allaboutscience.org/scientific-method.htm |
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Aug 22, 2017 18:19:46 GMT
I don't think it's fair that I had to click on the source to find the publication date. Indeed. Old news, published on April 1st. |
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Aug 22, 2017 18:22:30 GMT
Obviously, there's no "laboratory" way to conduct an experiment to show either way, so only mathematical logic can supply an answer to that, and mathematical logic certainly agrees with the OP, because the soul or "meter reader" of the body, once free from reading the meter of the body, would mathematically go back into the Universe, unless there is a god to annihilate it, reward it, punish it, or do whatever with it. LOFL twice in one thread. Yeah, I never heard of mathematically sticking one's head up one's ass before. |
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Aug 22, 2017 18:31:44 GMT
Let me just highlight a few of the things that are wrong with this article (and your endorsement of it). The human brain could be similar to a “biological computer,”
human consciousness may be like a programThese statements are not scientifically useful! The human brain "may be" like a pile of dog sh!t too. Both are after all warm squishy and slimy. Therefore, we should assume they function the same. Saying that human consciousness is "like a program" is like stating that a bald eagle is like a Cessna 172. Okay, yeah they both have wings and they both can fly. But that is because airplanes have been designed by humans to emulate the characteristics of birds which enable them to fly, based on their understanding of physics and aerodynamics. Beyond that, there are no relevant similarities. Eagles are organic life forms; airplanes are inorganic vehicles made of metal and composite. Likewise, computer scientists design computers to emulate functions of the human brain. How they accomplish this is through their technological understanding of statistics and algorithms, not via any study of human psychology or brain chemistry. Computers can process information, store things in memory, make mathematical calculations, and even predict and simulate human response behavior. But they don't have consciousness or ego. They have no will, desire, personality or emotion. They can't "think", or reason. They are tools, and in such a way no similar to human brains in any reasonable capacity. To continue... This theory was recently outlined on The Science Channel’s ongoing documentary show Through the Wormhole, in which Dr. Hameroff elaborates: “Let’s say the heart stops beating, the blood stops flowing; the micro-tubules lose their quantum state. The quantum information within the micro-tubules is not destroyed, it can’t be destroyed, and it just distributes and dissipates to the universe at large. If the patient is resuscitated, revived, this quantum information can go back into the micro-tubules and the patient says ‘I had a near-death experience.’ If they’re not revived, and the patient dies, it’s possible that this quantum information can exist outside the body, perhaps indefinitely, as a soul.”That's not a "theory". That is an idea, based on many assumptions of which there is no scientific evidence to support. Then entire basis for the idea is predicted on the assumption of a soul to begin with (of which there is no evidence of). So the entire premise is flawed to being with, much less the fact that no conclusions can be drawn based on the lack of evidence to support the premise. [/i][/i][/quote] There is only one thing you need to point out to debunk this article, there is a supporting link to the original, check the publication date on the original. |
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Aug 22, 2017 18:39:10 GMT
The agenda of laughing at junk science? Please. The correct term is "gangster science".  |
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Aug 22, 2017 18:44:54 GMT
There is only one thing you need to point out to debunk this article, there is a supporting link to the original, check the publication date on the original. To be fair, the "original" from April 1st has a link to another article from November 2016. But since all these articles more or less say the same, and so far have failed to do more than speculate, then maybe, until further notice, we can treat them as April's fools. |
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Aug 22, 2017 18:54:16 GMT
There is only one thing you need to point out to debunk this article, there is a supporting link to the original, check the publication date on the original. To be fair, the "original" from April 1st has a link to another article from November 2016. But since all these articles more or less say the same, and so far have failed to do more than speculate, then maybe, until further notice, we can treat them as April's fools. I missed that, perhaps egg on face. I assumed that it was an April fools joke, but maybe there is some seriousness in it? |
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Aug 22, 2017 18:57:49 GMT
I missed that, perhaps egg on face. I assumed that it was an April fools joke, but maybe there is some seriousness in it? The Orch-OR theory has been around for some time; but it's just a theory. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orchestrated_objective_reductionPlenty of criticism to this theory; I guess this is a theory fitting for News(paper) space to fill on April 1st. |
|
