Jim, This doesn't make sense to me. The brain is a computational system that simulates external reality in human terms. Qualia are representations in the simulation of the INTERACTION of the external computational forms with those of the perceiving organism...
Such qualities don't exist in the external world, only in the internally simulated world. Edgar On Oct 10, 2012, at 6:12 PM, jfnewell7 wrote: > If the Quantum Theory of Consciousness is true, which it might or might not > be, and if it doesn't connect to a further process, which might or might not > be, then some quantum effects must have qualities such as redness, blueness, > middle-c-ness, rose-odorness etc. The reason would be because nerve impulses > don't have such qualities, but subjective images and other percepts do have > those qualities. So the qualities we perceive would have to be from the > quantum processes. However, it is possible that the quantum processes merely > link the neurons with a third natural information processor which does have > qualities. > > Jim > > --- In [email protected], "Bill!" <BillSmart@...> wrote: > > > > I'm more interested in qualta than quanta...Bill! > > > > --- In [email protected], Edgar Owen <edgarowen@> wrote: > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
