According to Dr. Sarfatti:
"That is really not for you to decide on what is constructive peer review."
As I understand it, it is perfectly in order for an author to respond to criticisms of his own essay, but I have to admit that my response above was strongly coloured by irritating past exchanges with this individual. Let me then address some of the technical issues.
Jack: We first corresponded in 1963 when I was working with Fred Cummings at Ford Philco Aeronutronics in Newport Beach. You also was my guest in San Francisco in 1976. In fact there was a SF Chronicle article about that. More details are in David Kaiser's book "How the Hippies Saved Physics."
1) No arguments are given for why cognitive science should not be mixed with 'simple physics', whatever that term may mean. It may be the case, as I do argue in the essay, that there is a level below that covered by present day physics where cognitive science concepts (and biosemiotic ones) are relevant, and that is certainly a possibility that is relevant in the context of this competition.
Jack: I think you are conflating apples with oranges. Cognitive science phenomena are emergent out of lower levels described by theoretical physics. To make an analogy: theoretical physics is like machine language, and your cognitive, semiotic concepts are like Facebook software many levels up. Now you can claim top --> down causation as well as bottom --> up causation. That is plausible.
2) I am glad that Sarfatti considers it a 'well-written intuitive philosophical paper for laypeople and beginning science-physics-biotech students'. As it happens there are more highly qualified people than that who have also considered it well-written and of philosophical relevance and who have not expressed the view that it is not for them.
Jack: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. May we see those comments?
3) Considering that the only valid research requires Popper falsifiability is an out of date point of view. And perhaps Dr. Sarfatti stopped reading the essay before he got to the point where I say "Science does however possess tools that should prove adequate to taking these ideas further, for example computer modelling (which served to disclose the existence of the previously unsuspected phenomena of chaos and the edge of chaos), dynamical systems theory, and studies involving complexity".
Jack: I did not reject the basic message of your paper as not being Popper-falsifiable. My specific point was that the right hand side of your ledger was too vague to be useful because it had no mathematical formulation and no connection with Popper falsification compared to the concepts on the left side of your ledger (quantum mechanics). I consider that constructive criticism.
4) Others here may well not accept the view that "Or, why Bohr, Heisenberg, Pauli, Born, Schrödinger, Oppenheimer, Feynman. Wheeler, von Neumann and Einstein were all wrong about quantum mechanics.", and may indeed find it rather surprising.
Jack: That is a quote from Michael Towler. I think it is the truth. There is a great schism in physics from the unfinished Bohr-Einstein debate. Many book have been written about it, Bellar, Valentini, Cushing et-al.
The recent papers by Rod Sutherland give much more force to Einstein's position as further developed by David Bohm in his 1952 pilot wave theory now made fully relativistic by Sutherland.
5) "The self-organizing action-reaction loops provide the "regulation" synchronized by the macro-quantum non-equilibrium post-quantum coherence (the seat of the soul)." Have you proved that?
Jack: Nothing can be "proved' in physics. Physics is not pure mathematics. I have given strong mathematically couched arguments for the above in my paper with Arik Shimansky that is indeed, Popper falsifiable. I uploaded that paper in a previous posting on this forum.
What are the detailed mechanics involved, since you demand the same of me? The explorations of myself and colleagues are going some way to being able to characterise the details of how regulation works.
That's enough for now!
Jack: Just read my paper with Shimansky it is much more precise than yours and it provides the sort of mathematics (Lagrangians) that you need. Michael Towler also explained my idea here very well in slides 25 and 31 of his Lecture 8 in his Cavendish Lab course that is online. I have reloaded my paper with Shimansky and Towler's paper "Return of the Pilot Waves"Attachment #1: 1_SarfattiShimansky11252017v3.pdf