Quote from: qwik2learn on October 21, 2017, 05:35:55 PM

Quote from: Astargath on October 21, 2017, 02:32:44 PM

There are a ton of ''viable'' hypothesis, so what? Why would you chose some hypothesis when there are already scientific theories that just work better. You are not proving anything here.

Prove it. Prove that parapsychological research is explained better by theories not involving Orch OR and survival. Since the tests can be replicated it should be easy to prove that the mind cannot influence matter, as you claim.

Quote from: Astargath on October 21, 2017, 02:32:44 PM

''Theories that support this idea are: Orch OR and survival.'' Orch OR is not a theory, is a hypothesis and I don't see how it directly supports magic but whatever, again and you know this, there is no scientific theory about any of what you mention.

Not true, you are making shit up again. Orch OR is a theory, it makes testable predictions, thus it is a theory. While mainstream theories assert that consciousness emerges as the complexity of the computations performed by cerebral neurons increases, Orch-OR posits that consciousness is based on non-computable quantum processing performed by qubits formed collectively on cellular microtubules.

Survival is a hypothesis, it is useful in explaining the evidence of parapsychology, the two are related and have strong explanatory power. The same cannot be said for mainstream materialist theories. I posted my evidence, so where is yours? You cannot claim that your preferred theory is better without citing evidence for it.

A review of Orch OR theory:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1571064513001188
Connecting QM to the survival of the personality and other parapsychological research:
http://www.near-death.com/science/evidence.html#a22
http://www.near-death.com/science/evidence.html#a14
http://www.near-death.com/science/evidence.html#a23
Tests that you refuse to address or even look at, yet you claim to have a better theory? Prove it!
https://www.quora.com/Is-telekinesis-scientifically-true/answers/17777933

You can do the research yourself, the problem with you people is that you find some obscure article or ''theory'' you believe it and then you ask for evidence against it, can't you look at it yourself? You also seem to always look at extremely biased links or articles towards what you are trying to prove.

https://www.quora.com/How-plausible-is-Penrose-and-Hameroffs-Orch-OR-theory-of-consciousness
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/what-are-the-problems-with-the-orch-or-consciousness-theory.783472/

The Orch OR ''theory'' is not a theory, not a scientific theory at least.

http://www.near-death.com/science/evidence.html#a22
''Principles of quantum physics and quantum mechanics supports concepts found in NDEs including a universal light (the Big Bang), a creator of the cosmos (Gödels incompleteness theorem)''

How stupid does that sound? Concepts found in NDEs like the universal light, the big bang?? A creator of the cosmos, godel incompleteness theorem? What is this garbage?
https://www.quora.com/Does-G%C3%B6dels-Incompleteness-Theorem-prove-the-existence-of-God

In the last link you have a ton of other answers
https://www.quora.com/Is-telekinesis-scientifically-true/answers/17777933

https://www.quora.com/Is-telekinesis-scientifically-true