[Serious Discussion] Religion

[LIke]

wheres the two week mute when u need it...

[STyL4]

Since collapse is ontologically identical with protophenomenal observation (meaning the same thing that occurs in both mental observation and observation by non-mental equipment), how can self-collapse not equal self-observation? Since self-observation is equal to consciousness how is self-collapse ontologically different in any way shape or form from self-observation?

if im the clueless one then explain please. waiting for an answer, if u dont have stop going off topic, just proves ure a clueless troll getting owned. both ways = win.

[MidNight]

so like styla is on the believer side or on atheist side?

[Silent_Bob]

so like styla is on the believer side or on atheist side?

believer

[MidNight]

oh good, GO STYLA!

[Richard]

Quit the namecalling.

[Tuism]

oh good, GO STYLA!

believer doesn't necessarily mean a good thing
sometimes believer = stupid ass troll kid

[Maka]

believer doesn't necessarily mean a good thing
sometimes believer = stupid ass troll kid

Exactly.

[STyL4]

believer doesn't necessarily mean a good thing
sometimes believer = stupid ass troll kid

yes, and as for that... if u mean me, don't u troll. Maka couldn't reply and so can't u, it's way too scientific for u.. because so far in ur replies i didn't see so much of a science. sometimes believer can be a good scientists also.


answer :


"Since collapse is ontologically identical with protophenomenal observation (meaning the same thing that occurs in both mental observation and observation by non-mental equipment), how can self-collapse not equal self-observation? Since self-observation is equal to consciousness how is self-collapse ontologically different in any way shape or form from self-observation?"

[STyL4]

Maka u still here? this discussion does not involve u because u obviously dont know whats going on, face it (dont say u do otherwise ur agument'd be better)


0target0, i guess i reached the limit of ur "patience", gg u even reported me  for that


"Therefore they are not real and therefore your god is not real."

u're doing his quantum all backwards if u think there is no real wave-like nature before collapse occurs: Dear Positivists: Who's The Quantum Mystic Now?

If there is no real probability wave then we wouldn't be seeing an interference pattern in the double-slit experiment. Also the ensemble interpretation has long been debunked.

This is from Hameroff's site directly: (Hameroff is the guy who teamed up with Penrose on Orch-OR)


Problematic Feature of Consciousness:

"Essential nature of human experience"

Possible Quantum Solutions:

"1) Wave function self collapse (Orch OR) from incompatible superposition of separated space-times;
2) Pre-consciousconscious transition;
3) Effectively instantaneous "now"(Orch OR) collapse."

"

http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/penr...rchor.html"



nuff said 0target0, yet another argument of urs "cuz i say so" has been proven a fail. deny more u want, u've officialy lost this debate, now go state ur own opinion because u simply can't stop, but the fact is that u're wrong. THESE UP THERE ARE FACTS. if u deny them, u deny science therefore u can't say NOTHING about Religion, NOTHING about this debate itself.


Johananratz truly is a scientists, not to mention his public debates... he's master at this, engineers cant stop him.

ORCH OR wins. facts are provided here, answer with a proper fact or u're considered as a bad debater or ur opinion can't be counted as a FACT.