Bill et al, Roger Penrose originated a quantum theory of consciousness which claims consciousness arises because certain neural processes operate at the quantum level.
It's a nonsense theory... Edgar On Oct 10, 2012, at 5:12 AM, Bill! wrote: > Jim, > > This all sounds like a bunch of gobbedy-gook to me. For example I've never > heard of a 'quantum theory of consciousness' nor do can I conceive of such a > thing. Besides affirming to you that all of these concepts are illusory and > even if they are discussed in some circle have nothing to do with Buddha > Nature, I'll defer on the rest of this to Edgar and maybe Joe, and anyone > else who wants to take it on. > > ...Bill! > > --- In [email protected], "jfnewell7" <jfnewell7@...> wrote: > > > > One:: I am assuming that since consciousness and the physical exchange > > energy, they must have serious commonalities, such as having the same > > ground or one being the ground of the other. > > > > Does this assumption seem reasonable? > > > > Two:: The expansion of space itself seems to be accelerating due to a not > > understood cause called dark energy at the moment. > > > > My impression is that the acceleration in the expansion of space is orderly > > to the point of seeming coordinated over a few billion light years. > > > > Does that in fact fit the astronomical data? > > > > Three:: The bending of space involves more stretching on the outside of the > > curve than one the inside of a curve, which gravitational lensing involves > > galaxies as well as smaller bodies. The bending seems to be orderly to the > > point of seeming coordinated across on the order of as much as 100,000 > > light years. > > > > Does this in fact fit the astronomical data? > > > > Four:: If the above processes are in fact orderly, how could that happen? > > > > Five:: To be able to expand and bend, space must have an adequately low > > level of stiffness. > > > > Does this seem true? > > > > Six:: If space isn't stiff enough, it couldn't coordinate itself by a > > process of or in space over the great distances noted above. If space were > > too stiff, it couldn't expand and bend to begin with. > > > > Is there a level of space which could explain the orderliness over great > > distances of the expansion and bending of space? If so, the analysis ends > > here. If not, see below. > > > > Seven:: The quantum theory of consciousness holds that the effects > > propagate faster than the speed of light. If that is true, then the quantum > > processes transcend the aspect of space which involves the speed of light. > > > > Does that seem reasonable? > > > > Eight:: A transcendent process propagating faster than the speed of light > > might be able to coordinate the expansion and bending of space even when > > space could not coordinate its own expansion and bending over the long > > distances discussed above. > > > > Does this seem like a reasonable possibility? > > > > Nine:: Such a quantum process is the only explanation I can see at the > > moment, which tends to confirm it, but something new might be discovered in > > the future. > > > > Does that seem to be reasonable? > > > > Ten: If the same quantum processes are involved with consciousness, which > > involves the Buddha-nature, and also involves the expansion and bending of > > space over long distances, then there is a deep connection between the > > Buddha-nature and the expansion and bending of space over long distances. > > > > Does that logical step seem reasonable? > > > > Jim > > > >
