"Nowhere does it state that this theory is made to explain God." another small amount of knowledge detected. it does explain God and it is made for that, i've spoken with author about that on youtube. no wonder u don't know anything about it lol
"It cannot be used to prove anything regarding God, at all.
Everytime you try to use this theory and connect God, you're misinterpreting it and exploiting it." are u kidding me? obviously u don't know what ORCH OR theory is, author itself used it just for that.. oh God go read from page number ... oh wont go back just for u.
it's like saying : "Big Bang theory is not even trying to find out how universe started, its completely misinterpretating it."
http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/penr...rchor.html - please u read that (considering Hameroff)
"It's a theory of consciousness, wich is a normal known term most people know of. " that's just part of it, another small amount of knowledge detected.
gramar mistake, kill me.
* Use of proper grammar
* No internet slangs
* No "gg u fail" trolling
* Proper use of quotes
* Proper use of paragraphs and punctation
alright, what about u stop with ur "opinion" and answer this one:
"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?"
none of u haters did it so far. none of you even disproved the theory, which means YOU urself actually can't.
theory is too difficult for you ... CREATION < last word. get the whole theory right because u didn't even watch it .. or even if u did, ur INTERPRETATION is WAY too simple.
"It cannot be used to prove anything regarding God, at all.
Everytime you try to use this theory and connect God, you're misinterpreting it and exploiting it." are u kidding me? obviously u don't know what ORCH OR theory is, author itself used it just for that.. oh God go read from page number ... oh wont go back just for u.
it's like saying : "Big Bang theory is not even trying to find out how universe started, its completely misinterpretating it."
http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/penr...rchor.html - please u read that (considering Hameroff)
"It's a theory of consciousness, wich is a normal known term most people know of. " that's just part of it, another small amount of knowledge detected.
gramar mistake, kill me.
* Use of proper grammar
* No internet slangs
* No "gg u fail" trolling
* Proper use of quotes
* Proper use of paragraphs and punctation
alright, what about u stop with ur "opinion" and answer this one:
"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?"
none of u haters did it so far. none of you even disproved the theory, which means YOU urself actually can't.
theory is too difficult for you ... CREATION < last word. get the whole theory right because u didn't even watch it .. or even if u did, ur INTERPRETATION is WAY too simple.
![[Image: tourney-25.png]](http://i295.photobucket.com/albums/mm153/Mark_Vido/tourney-25.png)