It's not a widely known field so it is not surprising that you haven't heard of it. Many other people haven't either. There is a Journal, the Journal of Consciousness Studies, which talks quite a bit about it. I participated on their message board for awhile a number of years back. Then, the Cambridge Handbook of Consciousness published by Cambridge University Press devotes an entire chapter to it. That in itself doesn't mean that the Quantum Theory of Consciousness is true. However, it does show that the field is reputable in some top university circles. It is a sigh that there is an unsupported dogma involved in rejecting the theory because it tends to be done firmly without thought. However, that the theory doesn't fit an unproven dogma doesn't mean it is false.
Penrose, who will be mentioned in another message, is a professor at Oxford University. Again reputable, although just being proposed by a reputable professor doesn't necessarily mean the theory is true. Actually, what is being talked about is the Penrose-Hameroff approach. Their theory is that the quantum effects occur via the microtubules in neurons. Let me quote from the Handbook, page 892: "Each microtubule is a cylindrical structure that can extend over many millimeters. The surface of the cylinder is formed by a spiral chain of tubulin molecules, with each circuit formed by 13 of these molecules. The tubulin molecule has a molecular weivht of about 110,000, and it exists in two slightly different configerational forms. Each tubulin molecule has a single special electron that can be in one of two relatively stable locations. The molecule's configurational state depends on which of these two locations this special electron is occupying." The theory says that the acttivity of the neuron affects and is affected by the state of the tubulin molecules. In turn, the special electrons on different neurons are entangled with one another via quantum effects. That then is the system which integrates neural activity. There are other possibilities, but their theory is quite reasonable. I worked parallel for awhile, with a publication in 1975:Newell, James F., "A Note of Some Internal Contradictions in Modern Materialistic Theory", PRABUDDHA BHARATA, Mayaviti, India: August 1975 That article discussed the need for a theory like the Penrose-Hameroff one. Essentially, I argued that the perception of visual images could not occur if only the brain were involved, due to limitations imposed by the very neural structure of the brain. We will be talking about qualia, which are subjective percepts, The visual ones are images that we see. The images indicate substantial decoding because individual neurons aren't colors, sounds, odors, feelings, etc. Individual nerve impulses are all the same; merely ions flowing across the outer membrane of the neural fiber in a chaotic way, with the cascade moving along the nerve fiber. The brain processes information in a digital way with sequences of nerve impulses or lacks of nerve impulses. Zero-one processing. However, we don't see images one digital flash at a time. Instead, we see images as arrays of what might be called mental-pixels, and we see all the mental-pixels in a subjective image simultaneously. Now to see all the mental-pixels simultaneously, even though they may subjectively look like they are in different places, the information describing the intensity, color, and location of each mental-pixel must all be in direct contact with the information describing the other pixels. Remember that the subjective image is the final integration and display and won't be processed further. Now, computer networks and neural networks cannot bring a lot of information into direct contact. The neural network in the brain processes visual data spread out over many on-off impulses on a very large number of neurons. The spread out nerve impulses are not in direct contact with each other, so could not be the ground of a visual image in which the information on each mental-pixel must be in direct contact with each other. Something else is needed to integrate the final pattern of nerve impulses into a fully integrated subjective image. Penrose-Hameroff says that the integration required is done via quantum processes. So the integrations isn't supernatural. It is something we already have discovered as natural processes. My possible alternatives are the same. They have to be done via natural processes, but I don't know exactly what the processes are in full, except that there is a good probability that they do include quantum processes. Jim --- In [email protected], "Bill!" <BillSmart@...> 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 > > > ------------------------------------ Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: [email protected] [email protected] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [email protected] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
