meekerdb wrote:
> On 12/7/2011 8:14 AM, benjayk wrote:
>> Tegmark's argument shows only that the brain is essentially classical if
>> we
>> assume decoherence works the same in natural systems as in our
>> "artificial"
>> experiments.  But it seems natural systems have a better ability to
>> remain
>> coherent, when it would be impossible otherwise (see photosynthesis). So
>> it
>> seems we can't rely on Tegmarks assumption.
> Photosynthesis doesn't require much coherence.

And wikipedia says "Studies in the last few years have demonstrated the
existence of functional quantum coherence in photosynthetic protein. [...]
These systems use times to decoherence that are within the timescales
calculated for brain protein.".

meekerdb wrote:
>   Even aside from Tegmark's analysis, it's 
> easy to see that brains should be mostly classical.  There would be great
> evolutionary 
> disadvantage to have a brain that was in a coherent superposition when it
> needed to inform 
> actions in a mostly classical world using a mostly classical body.
What if the classical world is just an simplificated world as an
epistemological model that's helps us to survive well in the world of
infinite quantum possibility (which is extremely hard to survive in without
it)? It may be that quantum processes are of great importance everywhere in
nature, and it is precisely our capability of consciousness to make simple
models that makes it appear classical.
We have more and more evidence of that, as we discover quantum coherence in
plants and many phenomena that are virtually impossible to explain in terms
of classical physics (paranormal phenomena).

View this message in context:
Sent from the Everything List mailing list archive at

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

Reply via email to