On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 1:14 AM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:

> On 8/2/2011 10:03 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
>> I'm just interested in how we would decide who won?  If there is some test
>>> you can suggest or some theoretical development you anticipate it would be
>>> very relevant to the question of the philosophical zombie.
>> Whatever, this conversation is going nowhere. I am over it. You want your
>> dollar? Will that make you happy?
> No.  I'm not unhappy, just curious.
> Brent
 It might help if Stephen would explain what scale of quantum coherence he's
predicting. The new possible explanation for photosynthesis only involved
quantum coherence within a *single* molecule, not quantum coherence spread
across the entire chloroplast (organelle where photosynthesis occurs), let
alone across an entire cell or multiple cells in a plant. It seems that most
people who think quantum coherence has something to do with how the brain
does its job are talking about large-scale quantum coherence across brain
regions with a macroscopic separation (Tegmark's article, which reflects the
opinion of nearly all physicists, is that this sort of thing is totally
unrealistic due to decoherence), is this specifically what you're predicting
Stephen? Or would you count it as a "win" if quantum coherence were only
found to play a useful role within individual neurotransmitter molecules or
similarly small collections of atoms?


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to