Jim, But that theory as you state it does NOT explain consciousness. It assumes a separate pre-existing consciousness the microtubules work with..
Edgar On Oct 10, 2012, at 8:46 PM, jfnewell7 wrote: > The quantum processes involving the microtubules transfer information from > the nerve impulse patterns to consciousness, and information from > consciousness back to the neurons, setting of new nerve impulse patterns. > > That seems clear. Whether it is true or not is another question. > > Jim > > --- In [email protected], Edgar Owen <edgarowen@...> wrote: > > > > Jim, > > > > Good synopsis. However even if microtubules exhibit quantum level processes > > what in the heck does that have to do with consciousness? Nothing at all > > that I can see... That's why I see no value in the theory at least with > > respect to consciousness. I'm not knocking Penrose in general. I got a lot > > from his book on other theories such as his explanation of manifolds etc. > > > > Since you are interested in consciousness you might be interested in my > > paper titled 'An Easy Solution To the Hard Problem' at > > http://edgarlowen.info/hardproblem.pdf . It's a little out of date but > > still mostly good and I've expanded the theory considerably recently if you > > feel like discussing it. > > > > Best, > > Edgar > > > > > > > > On Oct 10, 2012, at 5:50 PM, jfnewell7 wrote: > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
