On 2/28/2012 9:43 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/28/2012 3:39 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/28/2012 11:48 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:

Not so fast! Tegmark's argument only holds, if it can be experimentally verified that is, _only_ for ion transport based processes. Consider theexperimental evidence <http://newscenter.lbl.gov/feature-stories/2010/05/10/untangling-quantum-entanglement/> for quantum entanglement in the photosynthesis process in algea, does that not make you pause just a little bit in making your proclamation?
    Also see http://arxiv.org/abs/1012.4059Dear Brent,
(dec. 18, 2010), Focus on quantum effects and noise in biomolecules <http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/13/11/115002> , http://arxiv.org/abs/1104.2337 for the latest on the topic.

None of those have anything to do with neural signaling in the brain. They are about metabolism and other molecular level processes. If you think that the brain works by molecular level processes then you need to explain why it is made of neurons with very complex and extensive axon interconnections. If consciousness were implemented by molecular level information processing then a brain could be structured like a liver.

OK, I look forward to you getting a scan of your neuron connection network and getting it run as a computational simulation. Then I might have email conversations with two Brents! ;-)

That would an impressive technological achievement. But it might involve destroying the first Brent. :(

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