Philosophy Now Forum

This article explains a theory:

http://thespiritscience.net/2015/07/12/ ... afterlife/

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote:This article explains a theory:

http://thespiritscience.net/2015/07/12/ ... afterlife/

PhilX

Hamerhoff's theory fails. It is based upon the bogus opinion that information is a form of energy and therefore cannot be destroyed. If that was true, information could likewise not be created.

Any pinhead knows that information can be destroyed. Write your name in the dust on a car's windshield before a good rain, then try to find a trace of it. Even better, go burn one of Hameroff's papers, then try to retrieve its content from the ashes.

Except for the non-verified and non-verifiable quantum mechanisms, Hamerhoff's theory of consciousness is not new. It was the core of the Buddha's theory of consciousness that the soul is an epiphenomenon generated by the brain, which somehow persists after the body-brain's death. The Buddha offered no mechanism for how this might happen. Hameroff's mechanism is absurd.

Merely ask yourself how these little quantum states remain in a coherent pattern, absent the brain's structure and timing mechanisms, and from whence comes the energy for their ongoing activity? (It had originally, theoretically at least, been generated by other mechanisms within the brain.)

If that is not enough to disabuse anyone with a 2-digit IQ that Hameroff is merely another brilliant idiot, note that the highlight of the article is a conversation between Hameroff and the Deepak Chopra, the certifiable jackass made famous by another famous jackass, Oprah Winfrey.

There are better theories of consciousness.

Greylorn

Greylorn Ell wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:This article explains a theory:

http://thespiritscience.net/2015/07/12/ ... afterlife/

PhilX

Hamerhoff's theory fails. It is based upon the bogus opinion that information is a form of energy and therefore cannot be destroyed. If that was true, information could likewise not be created.

Any pinhead knows that information can be destroyed. Write your name in the dust on a car's windshield before a good rain, then try to find a trace of it. Even better, go burn one of Hameroff's papers, then try to retrieve its content from the ashes.

Except for the non-verified and non-verifiable quantum mechanisms, Hamerhoff's theory of consciousness is not new. It was the core of the Buddha's theory of consciousness that the soul is an epiphenomenon generated by the brain, which somehow persists after the body-brain's death. The Buddha offered no mechanism for how this might happen. Hameroff's mechanism is absurd.

Merely ask yourself how these little quantum states remain in a coherent pattern, absent the brain's structure and timing mechanisms, and from whence comes the energy for their ongoing activity? (It had originally, theoretically at least, been generated by other mechanisms within the brain.)

If that is not enough to disabuse anyone with a 2-digit IQ that Hameroff is merely another brilliant idiot, note that the highlight of the article is a conversation between Hameroff and the Deepak Chopra, the certifiable jackass made famous by another famous jackass, Oprah Winfrey.

There are better theories of consciousness.

Greylorn

Hi GE,

It goes deeper than Hamerhoff's theory. Check this link:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_h ... on_paradox

According to this, information may not be destroyed - it depends. Currently the idea of information not being destroyed is controversial. That is all I have to say in this area.

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote:
According to this, information may not be destroyed - it depends. Currently the idea of information not being destroyed is controversial. That is all I have to say in this area.

PhilX

It is also worth keeping in mind that the empirical evidence is showing that microtubules carry out this quantum function.

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microtubule

Greylorn Ell wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:This article explains a theory:

http://thespiritscience.net/2015/07/12/ ... afterlife/

PhilX

Hamerhoff's theory fails. It is based upon the bogus opinion that information is a form of energy and therefore cannot be destroyed. If that was true, information could likewise not be created.

Any pinhead knows that information can be destroyed. Write your name in the dust on a car's windshield before a good rain, then try to find a trace of it. Even better, go burn one of Hameroff's papers, then try to retrieve its content from the ashes.

Except for the non-verified and non-verifiable quantum mechanisms, Hamerhoff's theory of consciousness is not new. It was the core of the Buddha's theory of consciousness that the soul is an epiphenomenon generated by the brain, which somehow persists after the body-brain's death. The Buddha offered no mechanism for how this might happen. Hameroff's mechanism is absurd.

Merely ask yourself how these little quantum states remain in a coherent pattern, absent the brain's structure and timing mechanisms, and from whence comes the energy for their ongoing activity? (It had originally, theoretically at least, been generated by other mechanisms within the brain.)

If that is not enough to disabuse anyone with a 2-digit IQ that Hameroff is merely another brilliant idiot, note that the highlight of the article is a conversation between Hameroff and the Deepak Chopra, the certifiable jackass made famous by another famous jackass, Oprah Winfrey.

There are better theories of consciousness.

Greylorn

I don't know much at all about Hameroff, but something in this post reminded me of homeopathy. They claim that a tiny amount of 'bad stuff' (like viruses) placed in water will transfer its structure to the water molecules which will then transfer the structure to the user and somehow protect the user. Since the molecules are placed in large amounts of water (proportionately), most of the water molecules of course never come into contact with anything that might transfer its structure - so they say the affected water molecules transfer the information to other water molecules, etc.. It's all very silly.

Again, I'm not saying that Hameroff is silly as I don't know much about his theory. But as many on this site are constantly pointing out, there is a huge difference between making up theories that can be tested as opposed to theories that cannot be tested.

Wyman wrote:
I don't know much at all about Hameroff, but something in this post reminded me of homeopathy. They claim that a tiny amount of 'bad stuff' (like viruses) placed in water will transfer its structure to the water molecules which will then transfer the structure to the user and somehow protect the user. Since the molecules are placed in large amounts of water (proportionately), most of the water molecules of course never come into contact with anything that might transfer its structure - so they say the affected water molecules transfer the information to other water molecules, etc.. It's all very silly.

Again, I'm not saying that Hameroff is silly as I don't know much about his theory. But as many on this site are constantly pointing out, there is a huge difference between making up theories that can be tested as opposed to theories that cannot be tested.

Wyman, this link may help.

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orchestra ... _reduction

Wyman wrote:

Greylorn Ell wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:This article explains a theory:

http://thespiritscience.net/2015/07/12/ ... afterlife/

PhilX

Hamerhoff's theory fails. It is based upon the bogus opinion that information is a form of energy and therefore cannot be destroyed. If that was true, information could likewise not be created.

Any pinhead knows that information can be destroyed. Write your name in the dust on a car's windshield before a good rain, then try to find a trace of it. Even better, go burn one of Hameroff's papers, then try to retrieve its content from the ashes.

Except for the non-verified and non-verifiable quantum mechanisms, Hamerhoff's theory of consciousness is not new. It was the core of the Buddha's theory of consciousness that the soul is an epiphenomenon generated by the brain, which somehow persists after the body-brain's death. The Buddha offered no mechanism for how this might happen. Hameroff's mechanism is absurd.

Merely ask yourself how these little quantum states remain in a coherent pattern, absent the brain's structure and timing mechanisms, and from whence comes the energy for their ongoing activity? (It had originally, theoretically at least, been generated by other mechanisms within the brain.)

If that is not enough to disabuse anyone with a 2-digit IQ that Hameroff is merely another brilliant idiot, note that the highlight of the article is a conversation between Hameroff and the Deepak Chopra, the certifiable jackass made famous by another famous jackass, Oprah Winfrey.

There are better theories of consciousness.

Greylorn

I don't know much at all about Hameroff, but something in this post reminded me of homeopathy. They claim that a tiny amount of 'bad stuff' (like viruses) placed in water will transfer its structure to the water molecules which will then transfer the structure to the user and somehow protect the user. Since the molecules are placed in large amounts of water (proportionately), most of the water molecules of course never come into contact with anything that might transfer its structure - so they say the affected water molecules transfer the information to other water molecules, etc.. It's all very silly.

Again, I'm not saying that Hameroff is silly as I don't know much about his theory. But as many on this site are constantly pointing out, there is a huge difference between making up theories that can be tested as opposed to theories that cannot be tested.

Wyman,

I gave homeopathy a cursory study 3 decades ago after listening to a med school lecture by Dr. Andrew Wyle. He reported contracting, while in medical school, some mystery illness that failed to respond to any treatment. It rendered him functional but depleted. He had to drop that semester, and spent the rest of it trying to recuperate. A friend told him about homeopathy. He checked out the theory and declared it to be bunk. Nonetheless, the knowledgeable friend offered him a small vial of little white sugar pills that contained trace amounts of a chemical known to produce, in measurable quantities, the symptoms Wyle reported. He was well and fully functional within two days.

BTW, the penultimate sentence above explains the theory behind homeopathy. It does not involve trace amounts of any virus or bacterium. Whoever fed you your false explanation has confused vaccination technology with homeopathy, indicating that he is both stupid and ignorant.

Homeopathic remedies have not worked for me, although they are helpful and often curative for others. My last wife, for example, swears by them and is in excellent health for an old gal. The literature reflects this go/no go effect.

However, serious homeopathy requires the exactly correct chemical dosage. Thick books detail the precise relationships between human symptoms and the correct homeopathic remedy. I did not study these books when trying homeopathic remedies on myself, nor did I consult a homeopathic physician who had done so. I merely self-prescribed, or accepted the recommendations of unpaid amateurs who do not own those books. I strongly suspect that my neutral experiences with homeopathic treatments is entirely the result of incompetent treatments, for which I am entirely responsible.

Whatever, this properties-transferred-into-water-molecules notion is complete bullshit and has nothing whatsoever to do with homeopathy. Best that you never return to the ignorant source from which you obtained that nonsense. If that source happens to be your wife, you have a problem.

Finally, there is indeed a huge difference between theories that can be tested and those which cannot. You'll have noted that the almighty God concept cannot be tested. The Big Bang cannot be tested. Darwinism can be tested and has failed every quiz. Beon Theory can be tested. It can be verified and conversely, invalidated, with relative ease by those who own the relevant research facilities. It has already been empirically tested. Had it not passed with A+ grades I'd not be promoting it.

Greylorn

Ginkgo wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:
According to this, information may not be destroyed - it depends. Currently the idea of information not being destroyed is controversial. That is all I have to say in this area.

PhilX

It is also worth keeping in mind that the empirical evidence is showing that microtubules carry out this quantum function.

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microtubule

I think that the microtubule evidence comes from experimental rather than empirical evidence. Whatever, I don't deny it.

My argument contrary to this being non-evidence for the continuation of consciousness post-death is that the microtubules, their bioelectrical and biomechanical structures, as well as the sources of the energy that drives them, do not survive death. Hameroff is asking us to believe that viable consciousness resides in the ghosts of quantum states. Horseshit!

Looks to me like you'll believe anything, provided that its promoter stands on a credentialed but ignorant platform of agreeable brilliant idiots.

Greylorn

Greylorn Ell wrote: Homeopathic remedies have not worked for me, although they are helpful and often curative for others. My last wife, for example, swears by them and is in excellent health for an old gal. The literature reflects this go/no go effect.
Greylorn

The Placebo effect has varied results depending on how much effect the victim believes they will have.

thedoc wrote:

Greylorn Ell wrote: Homeopathic remedies have not worked for me, although they are helpful and often curative for others. My last wife, for example, swears by them and is in excellent health for an old gal. The literature reflects this go/no go effect.
Greylorn

The Placebo effect has varied results depending on how much effect the victim believes they will have.

As I explained in detail in the same post from which you've taken this small excerpt, there is more to homeopathy than the placebo effect.

Dr. Wyle was a homeopathic skeptic, yet his treatment worked. I expected positive results but did not obtain. Yes, this is a small sample. I'm not a big fan of large-sample studies. This small sample is enough to convince me that the placebo effect is mostly irrelevant.

BTW, one dumb-fuck Ph.D "medical doctor" once gave me a placebo script. It had no effect. I sent pill samples to a testing lab, and sent the dumb-fuck doctor the lab bill. He didn't pay it, and I did not pay him. Economically his win, but I learned about his incompetence early enough to move onward before the asshole killed me.

IMO the placebo effect works for stupid people who imagine that they are sick. For these nits, it is the only cure. There are plenty enough of them to account for the statistically determined success of that effect.

Your use of the word "victim" to apply to the patients of regular MD's, or to recipients of alternative healing practices, suggests to me that you might have your head up your ass from watching too much liberal TV programming. I would be delighted to be proven mistaken in that assessment.

Greylorn

Greylorn Ell wrote: It is based upon the bogus opinion that information is a form of energy and therefore cannot be destroyed.

I think Hamerhoff is full of shit but this doesn't mean that information and energy cannot be equated at the Planck scale and thus be eternal. This is what Wheeler was driving at with the "it from bit" universe of sublime austerity which he felt certain our cosmos would reveal itself to be. If we think of the universe as an event rather than as a place we can see how it can be exquisitely modelled as a reality MAKER but this is not possible within the Newtonian paradigm. Newton's world is linearly deterministic and such worlds cannot generate new information. However the reality MAKER is a non-linear dynamic PROCESS and such systems continuously generate new hierarchies of emergent informational complexity within themselves as sub-structures. The most elaborate example known to science of such an informationally complex sub-structure in our universe is the human mind. However these emergent sub-structures are inherently unstable without the continuous input of energy, a truth of nature which dates back to Anaximander.

"All things originate from one another and vanish into one another, according to necessity and in conformity with the order of time"...Anaximander. "On Nature".

Anaximander's breathtaking statement of the bloody obvious reveals a great truth about our universe which Newtonian physics is utterly unable to explain. Every emergent entity in the universe is mortal, from the humblest electron to the smartest physicist. The second law of thermodynamics is not one to be trifled with and all matter must inevitably decohere eventually into a more fundamental form, which we could loosely define as energy or information. This is the much-famed "heat death" of the universe, an inescapable conclusion of Newtonian physics, where the entropy of the universe is assumed to be increasing. Sadly this perfectly logical conclusion stands in stark contradiction of the evidence. We have 13.8 billion years worth of evidence which shows us that the entropy of the universe as a whole is actually decreasing, not increasing as the second law requires.

Clearly the first law of thermodynamics trumps the second when we consider our universe on the cosmological scale but when we re-define our cosmos as a non-linear dynamic system we have a natural explanation for this obvious contradiction in physics. Non-Newtonian systems operate according to a self-organising principle which is as fundamental as 1+1=2. They EVOLVE.

Greylorn Ell wrote:
Your use of the word "victim" to apply to the patients of regular MD's, or to recipients of alternative healing practices, suggests to me that you might have your head up your ass from watching too much liberal TV programming. I would be delighted to be proven mistaken in that assessment.

Greylorn

I don't watch much TV at all, and certainly I don't watch liberal TV programming, I'm not sure where I would find it. If I watch a news program, it's to hear what the weather is forecast to be.

Also my reference to 'victims' was not to those who consulted regular MD's, more like those who bought from the "snake oil" salesmen. Also I don't think I characterized the victims in any way, intelligent or not. Please don't read things into my posts that are not there. You need to be careful, your bias is showing.

thedoc wrote:

Greylorn Ell wrote:
Your use of the word "victim" to apply to the patients of regular MD's, or to recipients of alternative healing practices, suggests to me that you might have your head up your ass from watching too much liberal TV programming. I would be delighted to be proven mistaken in that assessment.

Greylorn

I don't watch much TV at all, and certainly I don't watch liberal TV programming, I'm not sure where I would find it. If I watch a news program, it's to hear what the weather is forecast to be.

Also my reference to 'victims' was not to those who consulted regular MD's, more like those who bought from the "snake oil" salesmen. Also I don't think I characterized the victims in any way, intelligent or not. Please don't read things into my posts that are not there. You need to be careful, your bias is showing.

TheDoc;

My bias? Which one?

I'm glad that I misinterpreted your post. Had I not done so and complained, I'd not have received your clarification. Thank you!

I keep a TV going in the background while I work. The information density coming out of it is pretty low, and does not much interfere with work. This is an easy way to catch up with the ongoing bad news. I'm tired of hearing perfectly culpable nitwits who got themselves into a pickle referred to as "victims," so I'm plugged into that term, negatively.

BTW, there are lots of genuine victims who have mistakenly trusted the medical establishment. I've been one on several occasions, when younger and more easily victimized. Most regular MDs aren't worth shit, but then, neither are their patients. It all works out.

BTW, should you ever get confused enough to seek liberal TV programming, watch Bill O'Reilly on Fox News.

Greylorn

Obvious Leo wrote:

Greylorn Ell wrote: It is based upon the bogus opinion that information is a form of energy and therefore cannot be destroyed.

I think Hamerhoff is full of shit but this doesn't mean that information and energy cannot be equated at the Planck scale and thus be eternal. This is what Wheeler was driving at with the "it from bit" universe of sublime austerity which he felt certain our cosmos would reveal itself to be. If we think of the universe as an event rather than as a place we can see how it can be exquisitely modelled as a reality MAKER but this is not possible within the Newtonian paradigm. Newton's world is linearly deterministic and such worlds cannot generate new information. However the reality MAKER is a non-linear dynamic PROCESS and such systems continuously generate new hierarchies of emergent informational complexity within themselves as sub-structures. The most elaborate example known to science of such an informationally complex sub-structure in our universe is the human mind. However these emergent sub-structures are inherently unstable without the continuous input of energy, a truth of nature which dates back to Anaximander.

"All things originate from one another and vanish into one another, according to necessity and in conformity with the order of time"...Anaximander. "On Nature".

Anaximander's breathtaking statement of the bloody obvious reveals a great truth about our universe which Newtonian physics is utterly unable to explain. Every emergent entity in the universe is mortal, from the humblest electron to the smartest physicist. The second law of thermodynamics is not one to be trifled with and all matter must inevitably decohere eventually into a more fundamental form, which we could loosely define as energy or information. This is the much-famed "heat death" of the universe, an inescapable conclusion of Newtonian physics, where the entropy of the universe is assumed to be increasing. Sadly this perfectly logical conclusion stands in stark contradiction of the evidence. We have 13.8 billion years worth of evidence which shows us that the entropy of the universe as a whole is actually decreasing, not increasing as the second law requires.

Clearly the first law of thermodynamics trumps the second when we consider our universe on the cosmological scale but when we re-define our cosmos as a non-linear dynamic system we have a natural explanation for this obvious contradiction in physics. Non-Newtonian systems operate according to a self-organising principle which is as fundamental as 1+1=2. They EVOLVE.

O.Leo,

The proclamation, "They EVOLVE," is irrelevant unless you can define the mechanisms behind the evolution. Otherwise this kind of comment is merely bandwagon bullshit, a meaningless slogan.

I'm old, and mentally trudging through your erudite paragraphs has tired me. Let me deal with my deficiencies by ignoring all the erudite stuff and focusing upon what seems to my senile mind as a fundamental element. You wrote:

"All things originate from one another and vanish into one another, according to necessity and in conformity with the order of time"...Anaximander. "On Nature".

Goddamn and cowabunga! How can I argue with an authority figure like Anaximander? First off, I'd have to figure out who he was. (Guessing from the name and lack of contemporary connections, "is" seems unlikely. But wait. I almost forgot that I don't give a shit about authority figures, so I can evaluate Anaxi's profound pronouncements exactly as I would if i heard them from Joe Sheitforbranz some afternoon at my local tavern-- at face value. You might consider doing the same.

Anaxi's profound statement contradicts all theories about the beginnings. Big Bang theory proposes that the universe was the consequence of a single exploding micropea. Creationism holds that a single almighty God created the universe. Both hypotheses are functionally identical-- many arose from one.

You seem to have neglected the fact that Anaxi's "breathtaking" statement is perfectly consistent with Newtonian mechanics. Study his three laws of motion. Eventually you'll come to the identical conclusion. Deal with it.

Anaxi speaks from legitimate observation. We live in a cause-effect universe. But has he taken the trouble to consider the beginnings, the first cause? Or have you?

Personally I believe in the principle that physical events can only arise from the interaction of at least two forces. This is consistent with Anaxi's position. Nonetheless, given this principle, at least two "things" must have existed, period, before the beginnings of our universe. There is no way to attribute an origin to those two fundamental things.

Greylorn

Greylorn Ell wrote:The proclamation, "They EVOLVE," is irrelevant unless you can define the mechanisms behind the evolution.

If you don't understand how evolution works then there are more authoritative writers on the subject than I, even though I've studied it for much of my life. However evolution is a very complex subject and is dealt with in a number of different sciences. I suggest you read up on non-linear dynamic systems theory and many of its related fields. These include complexity theory, control theory, game theory, chaos theory and cybernetics, to name just a few. I would particularly recommend the works of Stuart Kaufman, Ludwig von Bertalanffy, Norbert Weiner, Claude Shannon, Henri Poincare, John von Neuman and Benoit Mandelbrot. Once again this names only a few because complexity theory is a very big science with a host of sub-disciplines. If you read and understand Ilya Prigogine's definitive papers on molecular evolution in dissipative structures then you'll have come a long way to understanding what evolution is. With all due respect, Greylorn, you'll have to do your own homework on this because there's absolutely no way that evolution can be explained briefly. However that it is the fundamental organising principle of the universe is self-evident.

Greylorn Ell wrote: Anaxi's profound statement contradicts all theories about the beginnings.

You got that right, anyway. None of the pre-Socratics laboured under the illusion that reality had a beginning.

Greylorn Ell wrote: You seem to have neglected the fact that Anaxi's "breathtaking" statement is perfectly consistent with Newtonian mechanics.

No it isn't. Evolution is exclusively non-Newtonian.

Greylorn Ell wrote: But has he taken the trouble to consider the beginnings, the first cause? Or have you?

You embarrass yourself. I'll remind you that this a philosophy forum in which the notion of "first cause" is a logical non-sequitur. If the notion of an eternal universe is beyond your conceptual grasp then we have no common basis for a conversation, which quite frankly would sadden and disappoint me.