On 6/22/2012 2:51 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/22/2012 11:42 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
It is a known fact that the brain is a "connection" machine. We do
not fully understand how it works and many people are only assuming
(based on a cartoon of a proof by Tegmark) that it is just a
"Connection machines" don't implement any different computations than
Turing machines. Tegmark's paper just showed that the neural
transmissions of the brain are almost always classical. You would
reach the same conclusion if you just considered the evolutionary
function of the brain. A brain that used more than a small amount of
quantum randomness would not be conducive to survival.
I know of Minksi's proof... It would be helpful if you looked at
the fine and subtle details before you rattle off the party line on the
subject! I was discussing the "neuron 323" situation which does in fact
make a difference in connections machines. The role of contrafactuals is
at issue and has not fully been resolved in my humble opinion. We
discussed this in
Tegmark's paper discusses only the ion channel aspect of neurons and
does not consider any other possible way that entanglement could be
maintained. Here is a talk by Hammeroff outlining the research so far.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXFFbxoHp3s I don't agree with the OrchOR
hypothesis but it is separable from the entanglement idea...
One experiment that your decide this involves testing how the brain
manages to keep qualia within a 80 msec. window to appear simultaneous.
It is as if time for the brain is a 80 msec wide sliding window. The
research of David Eagleman is relevant here:
"Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed."
~ Francis Bacon
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at