Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
|
He is not a physicist according to
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Lanza, he is a biologist.
Perhaps you can enlighten me to what physics degree he actually has.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
Could you please substantiate your credentials and recognition to support, "Maybe I DO know more about the relevant QM".
|
I have cited my credentials in other threads, I have a BSc in computer science, with my final year focus on neuro-science and back propagation networks. So once again, if neither of us are QM physicists, maybe I DO know more than he does based on me studying what actual QM physicists say.
And my background in neuro-science is far more relevant to talking about consciousness than any idea by a biologist misusing QM mechanics, regardless of the qualification of the person abusing QM.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
You cite Appeal to Authority to discredit...then, you Appeal to Authority.
|
I know. As I said, my appeal to authority were relevant authorities. Shall I quote them again, where they say Lanza's ideas are just that, ideas that do not explain consciousness?
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
So...you refuted nothing.
|
Yes I did. I pointed out the misuse of the word 'observer' that is a basis for Lanza's idea he mentioned in his Youtube clip you posted. It is telling you simply ignored this instead of trying to refute what QM physicists say.
Once again, you need to address your problem that his theory is based on the false idea that in the double slit experiment, it is the researchers' mind that causes the light to act as a wave or a particle. That is not what is meant by 'observer'.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
New things are figured out all the time...that you dismiss this completely is also telling...of something I already knew. You function on bias...not a logical, open-minded search for new information & knowledge.
|
That is a non sequitur and an ad hominem. Possible future discoveries are just that, possible future discoveries. Arguing something may be discovered does not refute the valid points I have made.
So once again, do you have any credible science supporting your cosmic consciousness views, because otherwise your constant evasion of actual science, and uses of fallacies is wasting everybody's time?
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
