... I'd say it's not.  There is no reason at all to think your idea is true other than your personal conviction that particles do not act randomly, from what I understand of the discussion so far. 

So? Many scientists and philosofers do this all the time. They have dedicated their careers to it, do it as their full time jobs, get public funding for it and move science and knowledge forward by proposing alternate explanations, theories and stuff. It's perfectly valid in my opinion.

Plus I wanna lift up one thing. It's the essence of randomness. I'm not an expert on this, I havent read much such material but my gut feeling tells me that not just Einstein but many modern scientists feel the same about randomness. That it's essence is such that randomness (and probabilism) is nonsense when explaining things. I argue that it's just a descritptional term. I have a hard time explaining it myself, what I exactly mean.

I think it bodes down to arguments about logic and reality, and wheather everything has a cause, and weather randomness is a possible 'cause' or not.

See my post above, about neglecting the evidence. In short I am saying that since I dont believe in the concept of randomness, I obviously assume there's other explanations or hidden factors when the tests from the quantum level appears to show evidence of randomness.

I dont mean current CPUs. I mean the theory that the brain is just a network of neurons with electric activity, in essence just like a computer, and it could all be simulated in a (future) computer (which mimics neuronal networks instead of linear threads that current CPUs process)- assuming that computer had access to input of stimuli of course (senses of smelling, hearing, seeing etc).

Okay, no.  Scientists do not say they are right about something with no evidence at all to support them. 

They may have an idea, and go out and test it, and with that evidence they may say "aha, this matches my idea" (although they should be doing their best with these tests to disprove the idea) -- but none of that is what you are doing, except the "have an idea" part. 

If you are saying that you are philosophically opposed to the existence of randomness, I think that's likely a good description of your position, but I think your philosophical objections are meaningless to science.  It's worse than apples and oranges, because at least they're both fruit. 

Einstein did hate randomness, but he didn't just say "well I'm uncomfortable with that concept so I'm gonna dream up hypothetical reasons it might not be so".  He tried to work out the math to nail down whether or not it was true. 

There aren't just tests with experimental errors that show evidence of randomness, there's a mathematical equation, theoretical, without error. It's called Bell's Theorem, which basically says that unless information can travel faster than speed of light (contradicts general relativity), no hidden variable is responsible for the randomness in quantum mechanics.

As for CPUs, of course you're talking about current CPUs! You yourself said that you observed and compared a computer to a human brain, and deducted that since the computer can't have feelings, our soul is independant from our physical self. Unless you had access to a CPU from future, my point stands. 

There are alternative interpretations of quantum mechanics, new variants of Bohm's interpretation. If everyone was to accept the standard interpretation like you advocate, science and the search for truth would not go forward.

About comps, are you putting words in my mouth? That's just silly. Why would I restrict myself to talking about current primitive CPUs when no one even has claimed that current computers have consiousness?

You are restricting thought and ideas with your argumentation just like ultima does.

Yes, Einstein didn't just complain, he also tried to lay down the math to support it, but why did Einstein, Bohms and many current day physicists feel randomness is nonsense in the first place?

Restricting thought?  When you claimed that "scientists do this all the time", all I had to do is refer back to what science is, and what the scientific method is, to know that what scientists do is different.  If all you do is dream up hypothetical ideas and believe in them without evidence and especially without looking for evidence, you're not being a scientist. 

Quantum mechanics is very counter-intuitive.  "Common sense" will often lead you to a wrong conclusion.  Many people have problems with QM for that reason and I think that Einstein was uncomfortable with that aspect of QM for a reason along those lines.  It made him uncomfortable ... but he was rational about it. 

But the only local way around randomness in quantum mechanics based on Bell's theorem is that information can travel faster than speed of light. This contradicts Einstein's relativity.

Using your method (not accepting principles, searching for alternatives), I could easily claim that speed of light isn't the limit. After all, it has never been proven (to my knowledge). Wouldn't this render relativity useless? Why don't we go back to Newtonian view of gravity? Science isn't exactly flawless (like pure math is) so there will always be ground to question a theory, no matter how advanced a theory is. By this method, search for truth might go forward, but it would be following a circular path.

And I'm not putting words in your mouth. You said you came to conclusion that computers can't get a human mind, therefore there must be something that is independant from the brain that is responsible for consciousness. "Come to conclusion" implies that you observed, and you can't observe something from future. Therefore, I concluded that you were talking about current CPUs. This is the post I'm referring to:

After taking LSD this thread doesn't suck. Cool.