Human Soul Found...Both Science And Religion Are True

[jos]

A controversial quantum theory of consciousness called “Orch OR” (which stands for “orchestrated objective reduction”) recently had a review theory accommodates both these views, suggesting consciousness derives from quantum vibrations in microtubules, protein polymers inside brain neurons, which both govern neuronal and synaptic function, and connect brain processes to self-organizing processes in the fine scale, ‘proto-conscious’ quantum structure of reality. The connection to space–time geometry also raises the intriguing possibility that Orch OR allows consciousness apart from the brain and body, distributed and entangled in space–time geometry. It’s possible that the quantum information can can exist outside the body, perhaps indefinitely, as a soul.

Source: http://www.inquisitr.com/1812664/human-soul-found-quantum-theory-consciousness-science-religion-true/

[Vacsol]

please don't bring religious debates onto the forum. it just causes a shitty hostile environment in which everyone gets butthurt.

[jos]

This is science news not religion

[Goussy]

This theory was proposed in the 1990's I believe.

[dfsdfgfkjsefoiqzemnd]

It's not science news, it's just a wild theory with no tangible evidence that any of it could be remotely possible.

[connorpiper]

Ehhhhhh. http://www.inquisitr.com/1812664/human-soul-found-quantum-theory-consciousness-science-religion-true/

 

No. Also, that picture, is from 2003.

[jos]

theory was 90's 3 experiments suggested for its proof where performed and all was proven to be true. The review of the experiments along with theory was reviewed this year. Photo is someones work of imagination.

[Camul]

please don't bring religious debates onto the forum. it just causes a shitty hostile environment in which everyone gets butthurt.

 

If anyone gets offended by a simple discussion then it's their own problem, and I don't think people who actually want to talk about the subject should have that ability removed from them because of it.

[Goussy]

And what does the picture have to do with it you can find plenty of brain pictures like that.

[Goussy]

If anyone gets offended by a simple discussion then it's their own problem, and I don't think people who actually want to talk about the subject should have that ability removed from them because of it.

exactly If anyone wants to have a friendly debate that's fine by me.

[Atmos]

theory was 90's 3 experiments suggested for its proof where performed and all was proven to be true. The review of the experiments along with theory was reviewed this year.

In science nothing is "true" Only shown thus far to be correct. Part of science is that is has to be able to be rewritten. It is ever changing, ever evolving, No scientist would ever say "his proof is true!"

 

And 3 situations where something appears to cohere to a theory means nothing. No validated theory has any less than dozens and dozens of proofs, and experiments, not just 3 single events. 

 

EDIT** Having only 3 accounts of proof is akin to me saying, "Because I have broken my leg, my father broke his leg, and my mother broke her leg; All people in the world will break their leg." Doesn't make much sense does it?

[Jerakl]

please don't bring religious debates onto the forum. it just causes a shitty hostile environment in which everyone gets butthurt.

This.

[Trik'Stari]

In science nothing is "true" Only shown thus far to be correct. Part of science is that is has to be able to be rewritten. It is ever changing, ever evolving, No scientist would ever say "his proof is true!"

 

And 3 situations where something appears to cohere to a theory means nothing. No validated theory has any less than dozens and dozens of proofs, and experiments, not just 3 single events. 

 

EDIT** Having only 3 accounts of proof is akin to me saying, "Because I have broken my leg, my father broke his leg, and my mother broke her leg; All people in the world will break their leg." Doesn't make much sense does it?

Incorrect, in science, there are laws, laws are things that have been proven to be true. Such as the law of gravity, the law of thermodynamics, etc. That stage where something is no longer a theory, and is proven to be true.

 

We also have internet laws. The first internet law is

 

1. discussing anything will lead to a massive argument and many people will become butthurt, regardless of subject, even mentioning this law will cause an argument over the redundancy of including "anything" and "regardless of subject".

 

end internet laws

[jos]

the problem is it is not events it is experiment. A theory suggests a certain conditions and creates theory for an experiment to prove it. If true then it will be the starting point to go into further research as it may be true. then if what you tell is true then higgs boson is still a theory and not proven

[Atmos]

Incorrect, in science, there are laws, laws are things that have been proven to be true. Such as the law of gravity, the law of thermodynamics, etc. That stage where something is no longer a theory, and is proven to be true.

 

We also have internet laws. The first internet law is

 

1. discussing anything will lead to a massive argument and many people will become butthurt, regardless of subject, even mentioning this law will cause an argument over the redundancy of including "anything" and "regardless of subject".

 

end internet laws

Once again incorrect. (at least in your first part, the second part is quite true) Blackholes break almost all "laws" of science. time, and thermodynamics, nothing escapes. (assides from rare accounts which we have no reasoning for other than it consuming too much matter at any given time) 

 

Even laws are broken, and while not often, they themselves are not invincible to pen, they can be changed, updated, and completely rewritten. They call it a Law not because it is absolute law, but because it APPEARS to be absolute, and in all things, but as we've just read, even blackholes break down many of these "laws." And that's why physicists hate them so much, blackholes make no sense, at all.

[Glenwing]

Incorrect, in science, there are laws, laws are things that have been proven to be true. Such as the law of gravity, the law of thermodynamics, etc. That stage where something is no longer a theory, and is proven to be true.

 

We also have internet laws. The first internet law is

 

1. discussing anything will lead to a massive argument and many people will become butthurt, regardless of subject, even mentioning this law will cause an argument over the redundancy of including "anything" and "regardless of subject".

 

end internet laws

Theories don't "graduate" into laws, if that's what you're saying. A scientific law isn't like a higher ranking theory or something like that. Laws describe something. You do this and this thing happens, always, as long as x and y pre-conditions are met, or else some mathematical relationship. A scientific theory is much broader in scope and is an explanation for an entire system. For example, Germ Theory explains the entire system of what causes sickness. I think we can all agree it's proven and true, but it's still Germ Theory. Not Germ Law.

Unproven assertions in science are called Hypotheses.

[Trik'Stari]

Theories don't "graduate" into laws, if that's what you're saying. A scientific law isn't like a higher ranking theory or something like that. Laws describe something. You do this and this thing happens, always, as long as x and y pre-conditions are met, or else some mathematical relationship. A scientific theory is much broader in scope and is an explanation for an entire system. For example, Germ Theory explains the entire system of what causes sickness. I think we can all agree it's proven and true, but it's still Germ Theory. Not Germ Law.

Unproven assertions in science are called Hypotheses.

We were always taught in High school that a theory, confirmed enough times to remove all doubt, is considered a scientific law. Just saying thats what we were taught

 

 

Once again incorrect. (at least in your first part, the second part is quite true) Blackholes break almost all "laws" of science. time, and thermodynamics, nothing escapes. (assides from rare accounts which we have no reasoning for other than it consuming too much matter at any given time) 

 

Even laws are broken, and while not often, they themselves are not invincible to pen, they can be changed, updated, and completely rewritten. They call it a Law not because it is absolute law, but because it APPEARS to be absolute, and in all things, but as we've just read, even blackholes break down many of these "laws." And that's why physicists hate them so much, blackholes make no sense, at all.

 

Indeed. I love black holes for that reason, particularly because they appear (at least theoretically) to break Einsteins theory of relativity, and prove that something can travel faster than light. Namely light, falling into a black hole.

 

Edit: I have a thing against Einstein, refuse to believe that we are trapped in this solar system for eternity, something must be capable of traveling faster than light, we just haven't detected or discovered it yet.

[Rafy]

Can the OP please explain where religion fits in?! I'm really having trouble seeing how finding out how we are conscious confirms the validity of religion...

Please, let's not make statements like these. Also, this is a scientific THESIS not theory, the meaning of theory is completely different in science compared to every day talk.

 

Here is the difference between thesis and theory: https://www.iusb.edu/english/academic-programs/first-year-writing/Essential%20Handouts%20What%20is%20a%20Thesis%20or%20Theory.pdf

[-TesseracT-]

please don't bring religious debates onto the forum. it just causes a shitty hostile environment in which everyone gets butthurt.

This is off-topic.

[Aphexx]

its because of lazy journalism like this that gives rise to anti vaxxers

 

its a feel good fluff article. the searchlight of science has uncovered something dark and currently unknown therefore Jesus. I'm still perplexed at how the author made the leap from Quantum brain processes to religion the thread connecting the two is laughably thin.

 

thankfully the lazy pseudoscience article was so short it did not waste much time

[SIGSEGV]

That's crazy, it's like exactly how I thought souls worked...

This might also explain why it's so incredibly difficult for us to decode what our brain is doing...

[MrTomnus]

Incorrect, in science, there are laws, laws are things that have been proven to be true. Such as the law of gravity, the law of thermodynamics, etc. That stage where something is no longer a theory, and is proven to be true.

 

We also have internet laws. The first internet law is

 

1. discussing anything will lead to a massive argument and many people will become butthurt, regardless of subject, even mentioning this law will cause an argument over the redundancy of including "anything" and "regardless of subject".

 

end internet laws

 

When it comes to any principal or theory in science, anything is possible until it has been fully investigated. This is the process of scientific reasoning. By testing something, you reduce the potential for other events to happen or other properties to be possessed. All of the classical theories in physics we have today are just that - theories. Some may state they are "laws" (like Newton's laws of motion), but that is only because they appear to be true for all bodies in the universe with mass. However, there is no way to ever test if these laws are 100% true - that would involve testing the laws on every object in the known universe, which is next to impossible. Instead, we test a theory as much as possible to increase the statistical likelihood of it being correct. This is true for every theory in all of science.

 

For example, black holes. It is a perfectly valid hypothesis that, should I enter a black hole, I could be sent to an alternate dimension. It is also a perfectly valid hypothesis that I could be transformed into a sheep and placed back on Earth once I enter. But until we test the conditions inside a black hole, we can never know which is true or not. Additionally, once we do discover the properties of one black hole, we cannot say every other black hole in the universe will share the same/similar properties. There could be one black hole that will transform me into a sheep, while the others will take me to another dimension. But the more we test, the closer we come to finding the true answer.

[zappian]

-.-

[Trik'Stari]

When it comes to any principal or theory in science, anything is possible until it has been fully investigated. This is the process of scientific reasoning. By testing something, you reduce the potential for other events to happen or other properties to be possessed. All of the classical theories in physics we have today are just that - theories. Some may state they are "laws" (like Newton's laws of motion), but that is only because they appear to be true for all bodies in the universe with mass. However, there is no way to ever test if these laws are 100% true - that would involve testing the laws on every object in the known universe, which is next to impossible. Instead, we test a theory as much as possible to increase the statistical likelihood of it being correct. This is true for every theory in all of science.

 

For example, black holes. It is a perfectly valid hypothesis that, should I enter a black hole, I could be sent to an alternate dimension. It is also a perfectly valid hypothesis that I could be transformed into a sheep and placed back on Earth once I enter. But until we test the conditions inside a black hole, we can never know which is true or not. Additionally, once we do discover the properties of one black hole, we cannot say every other black hole in the universe will share the same/similar properties. There could be one black hole that will transform me into a sheep, while the others will take me to another dimension. But the more we test, the closer we come to finding the true answer.

That would be the most epic and confusing plot twist of all time, entering a black hole transforms someone into a sheep and transports them to earth lol.

 

I understand scientific principle, I just remember being taught that when theories are confirmed enough times, and most scientists agree on a theory to be true, it is considered a law.

 

Either way, as long as Einstein was wrong about the speed of light, I'm good.

[MrTomnus]

That would be the most epic and confusing plot twist of all time, entering a black hole transforms someone into a sheep and transports them to earth lol.

 

I understand scientific principle, I just remember being taught that when theories are confirmed enough times, and most scientists agree on a theory to be true, it is considered a law.

 

Either way, as long as Einstein was wrong about the speed of light, I'm good.

 

I'd imagine science would be baffled by it as well!

 

That is true. It's just science's way of saying "eh, well we've tested as much as we can so we can pretty much say this has to be true." But there are plenty of laws that were considered concrete and have since been changed. People used to think heat was a tangible force in ancient times, for instance.

 

I do wish that will change to; unfortunately even light can't exceed the speed of light to our current knowledge. Looks like good old Alby's theory might stick for a while