The marriage of quantum physics and meta physics...

hasch mich, ich bin der frühling...

So could it be that when the dimer gets trapped we manifest our potential in the physical world and when it is the electron that gets trapped we manifest our potential somewhere else? Perhaps through the mechanism of quantum knowing...

Birds

Prettybirds wrote:

Did I get it yet, please feel free to be complicated when you have to be in your explanation....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P7WihoSSB58

Prettybirds wrote:

So could it be that when the dimer gets trapped we manifest our potential in the physical world and when it is the electron that gets trapped we manifest our potential somewhere else? Perhaps through the mechanism of quantum knowing...

Birds

this lone dimwit can only sit in awe .... seeing a future of re-invented wheels for the poor, in spirit and otherwise....

Hi Lavender, it is awesome isn't it. I have always loved science!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I would of loved to have been in on the conference mentioned regarding Hameroff and Penrose, oh to have at least been a little fly on the wall.

u+i would probably have made a good team throughout school. yeah!



still missing soooooo much of this team. but good to have found you.

We'll just have to make a good team now, better late then never my friend...

I am still trying to get wiki to translate your German message....fruhling = spring?

Oh well, school's out for my boy so I must go for now....be back later tonight....

Dearest Romana, can I ask you a few more questions?

There is every reason to suppose that on a fundamental level, the very "points" of spacetime should be regarded as quantum entities endowed with kinematic and dynamic properties, and that the underlying topological structure is possessed of quantum fluctuations as is the gravimetric field.

OK, when I try to picture the points, I see a three dimensional graph. Each line represents a person and each intersection a point of interaction. Does this make sense? The lines could be anything...a point of elecricity...

Is this person trying to say that a line is governed by quantum mechanics. My thought if so....its hard for me to explain myself....that our individual lines interact in quantum ways versus gravitational ways (SR). In my simple minds eye I see a trail of matter that winds out and away from a person as they move forward through time. Its not a trail of tangible matter per say but one I think I can identify with quantum material. I see the trails responding and moving amongst each other overlapping and touching, sometimes getting severed. The whole scope of a timeline makes me want to at first think non-quantum weight so G and SR must apply, but I am slowly learning...

One more question... so in a microtubule situation is the electron before entrapment displaying kenetic and when trapped potential? Am I still confusing myself? When I think of a bomb, the dynamite stick in place is potential and the explosion kinetic? Is it motion that determines the difference?

Warmth and good thoughts
Birds

Hi Romana, I have another question kind of related to this...when a neutrino phases, is it the space between the lines that it supposedly goes?

I kind of picture a line that severed as just ending, like a light that just went out. The line is yellow and from where in ends its just black emptyness. Could it be that the line, like the electron in the microtubule, it got trapped somehow and the potential shifted to another dimension, is that what might happen to the neutrino, is it getting trapped somehow? It's line severed in this dimension?

Birds

Perhaps the reason quantum mechanics so interest me is that those lines that I see in my minds eye are made up of particles both that flow through us and those shed by us like sloughing skin cells...

A most basic understanding of particulate imprint, every particle in either case carries an effect due to our interaction. As they pan out behind us I wonder if what I see is the common effect shared by it all as it happens. A shared value of the same amount of effect not necessarily to leave the same imprint on each different particle. That same effect played out in vibration like a system of quantum knowing which might define the borders of the line as maybe the further away from the source particle the effect weakens as does a wave, thus a border, a definition of lines perhaps.
I can really relate to the theory that an imprint of any given interaction lasts forever, the problem for me is defining the separate influences to pick out specific imprints. A process that allows tarot and other divination to work. What a glorious world that exists...


Birds

prettybirds wrote:

Thank-you...so kinetic and potential are different kinds of energy. Potential comes first and kinetic upon release which is secondary. So super positioning is potential and quantum knowing is kinetic?

Asking whether potential or kinetic energy comes first is almost like asking which comes first, the chicken or the egg. A child at the top of a playground slide has potential energy due to her elevated position within the earth's gravity, but she manifested kinetic energy in climbing up the slide's ladder to begin with, and may release the potential energy as kinetic again by sliding down. (Much fundamental physics can be observed in playgrounds.)

Superpositioning is not a form of energy at all, but rather a way of describing many observable properties of quantum particles, from energy (usually expressed as momentum) to position to polarization. Quantum knowing is also not itself a form of energy, but a phenomenon that can be manifest through any observable property of particles. The separated particles could thus "know" or share the same polarization, energy, spin, etc.

You may enjoy the following website. It contains general information on many topics in basic physics.

Hyperphysics

Thank you for sharing all the information in your "Scaffolds of Consciousness" discussion. My knowledge of biochemistry, neurology, etc. is quite minimal, and this was very enlightening. Before further comment, I should point out that the field of physics is itself quite broad, encompassing many sub-specialties. Individual researchers will not be equally conversant with areas outside their own specific expertise. I work primarily with lasers and optics, and as an experimentalist, focus on empirical study rather than theory. (I like to play with toys in the lab.) I do not, therefore, consider myself any kind of authority on particle or quantum physics, though I have had extensive classroom instruction in the latter, and work with its optical manifestations routinely.

Starting from what I know, I can say that the laser description you related is suspect:

prettybirds wrote:

" Coherence" is a hyper-organizing that imparts a strange and often wonderful quality to ordinary matter. When the crystals in a laser rod are pumped with enough energy for instance, they will all of a sudden vibrate in lock step fashion, and give off coherent laser light.

First, a laser does not require crystals at all, though many are based on crystals. A laser simply requires a material, but this can be solid, liquid, or gas. Liquid lasers are the least common now. There aren't many gas lasers, but some of the most common and well-developed fall into this category, specifically helium-neon (usually red beam, like laser pointer but larger), and carbon dioxide (one of the highest power lasers around, used often in manufacturing, machining, etc.) Solid lasers are the broadest category, and include crystals as well as glasses, ceramics, and fibers.

A laser also requires a source of input energy, and mirrors for confining the beam. See the diagram below:



When the laser material - any laser material - is pumped, the atoms within absorb the energy and become excited. They then relax, emitting photons - light. This light is emitted in all directions, like a light bulb's. This is where the mirrors are critical. The photons that happen to head in their direction are reflected back into the material, at which point they stimulate the emission of more photons from other excited atoms. These stimulated photons are no longer random in direction, but match the direction of the incoming photons. This is the origin of a laser's coherence. The more photons travel back and forth between the mirrors, the more new photons are stimulated to travel in this direction. The whole effect quickly snowballs into quite substantial output. The "crystals in a laser" thus do not "suddenly vibrate in lock-step fashion", though the effect might seem instantaneous to the observer. Instead, the initial mishmash of photons going in all directions quickly settles out to (primarily) coherent photon emission confined by the laser's mirrors. Vibration of the crystal lattice, at least in crystalline lasers, is usually associated with atoms which relax without emitting a photon. In this case, they give off their energy as heat, which is rarely a good thing in a laser.

I cannot judge the accuracy of the rest of the information as well, though the theory certainly appears to be controversial. A few comments:

1. The alignment of physical properties of materials does not require quantum effects. Electric fields on the macroscopic level can, for instance, align the polarity of molecules in a ferroelectric material, or the crystals in a liquid crystal material.

2. Quantum behavior on the macroscopic scale is the attribute of Bose-Einstein condensates, which require dilute gases at close to absolute zero. This seems incompatible with the conditions within the human brain. Some mechanism must therefore be provided to explain how this behavior can occur in such atypical circumstances.

3. There has been much theoretical development of quantum entanglement, especially from the perspective of quantum computing and cryptography. Obtaining quantum entanglement of particles in real life, however, is difficult. If QE causes knowledge to be shared among physically separated neurons, how and when did the particles within these neurons originally become entangled?

My own completely unsubstantiated intuition is that these researchers are onto something significant, just not realizing or fleshing it out in what will turn out to be the correct way. In their efforts to address critics, they seem to be adding mitigating components to the theory, making it more and more complex. Occam's razor will likely be invoked at some point. I suspect reality is a bit more simple and elegant. Much of the theory is testable; hopefully experiments will provide some answers. This is analogous to Copernicus' original heliocentric view of the universe. He was on the right track, postulating that the earth revolves around the sun rather than the reverse, but considered all planetary orbits to be circular, and the sun to be the center of the universe. Later scientists including Galileo, Kepler, and Newton corrected these misconceptions and expanded the theory that we now take for granted.

I don't know if I could even express how much I appreciate your letter. . Thank you




3. There has been much theoretical development of quantum entanglement, especially from the perspective of quantum computing and cryptography. Obtaining quantum entanglement of particles in real life, however, is difficult. If QE causes knowledge to be shared among physically separated neurons, how and when did the particles within these neurons originally become entangled?

I think the bulk of the interactions involve the criss-crossing of lines/strings. I am drawing an analogy between Stephen Hawkings strings and the lines. In his pictoral graph the movement and amount of them does not get captured. Mind you, my understanding of his theory is not much deeper than an introduction yet. He is comming here, there is a Super computer in Waterloo he is wanting to use. I am going to see a lecture or two...can't wait....a little me time.

2. Quantum behavior on the macroscopic scale is the attribute of Bose-Einstein condensates, which require dilute gases at close to absolute zero. This seems incompatible with the conditions within the human brain. Some mechanism must therefore be provided to explain how this behavior can occur in such atypical circumstances


Yes, Ive heard this discussed. The documetary is called "The Human Mind" . Without truly understanding as of yet, they atribute the quantum phemonmea at human body temperatures somehow to the cytoskeleton. A biochemical/bio-organic organism capable of achieving quantum effects? I am going to look it up on the internet and refresh...Don't quote me this but the documetary explains the current theory.
The Scaffolds of Consciousness is interesting isn't it. You know, Ive been carrying around a desire to discuss this with someone for 10 years now. Thank-you. I really suggest reading the book. It is very interesting and she is a good writer. Just enough brain fodder to keep you interested but not so much to confuse. Like Carl Sagan and "Shadows of our Ancestors". ( big difference in writing style between this book and "Shadows of our Universe". I need four books just to enterprete the universe one. However, its a good goal to get through it AND understand it.)

If quantum knowing is indeed a vibrational language, one analogy could be this...the note exuded from vibration on a wire is a material example of vibrational language. And that indeed thermal noise in our brains seriously inhibit the ability to recognize the individual vibrations. Think of a Tarot card, blessfully, it is not encumbered by the likes of thermal noise, well, in a small way perhaps through decomposition I imagine but nothing in volume as compared to ours. That is likely one reason why they are able to "catch" and thus respond to more of the vibrational language than us. Although, there are various peoples out there who are more highly receptive then others. I would like to come across a study done on supposed receptive people versus not that measures thermal noise over long periods of time. See if there is a difference.
Like the language of chemical reaction...the language of vibrational effects.
Like layers of memory material in our brains, so could be the layers of vibrational effect.

Just thoughts....

I am really thinking hard about my new understanding of kinetic and potential in relation to the Scaffold article. Need some time to mull this over.

Organic life with brains is a reasonably young concept on earth. Just the ability for millions of organisms to gather together and perform so well as to create a brain shows me that in reality, our brains are illused but ill prepared to understand the various languages that existed long before this crowning glory of organic communication. Languages that communicated the ability and desire to create not just organic life but planets, universes, dimensions.......evolution for millions of years ruled by languages at this stage in the game our brains can hardly register let alone understand.
I love science!

A very thankful Birds

Hackery/Quackery in Scientific American

An essay in the January 2005 Scientific American by professional skeptic Michael Shermer criticizes the surprise hit film

What the #$*! Do We Know? ("Whatthebleep?") and the scientific underpinnings of quantum consicousness, namely the Penrose-Hameroff model. I wrote a reply but thus far at least Scientific American has turned a deaf ear. Here are Shermer's piece and my response.



Quantum Quackery

Michael Shermer

Scientific American 292(1):234 2005

A surprise-hit film has renewed interest in applying quantum mechanics to consciousness, spirituality and human potential

In spring 2004 I appeared on KATU TV's AM Northwest in Portland, Ore.., with the producers of an improbably named film, What the #$*! Do We Know?! Artfully edited and featuring actress Marlee Matlin as a dreamy-eyed photographer trying to make sense of an apparently senseless universe, the film's central tenet is that we create our own reality through consciousness and quantum mechanics. I never imagined that such a film would succeed, but it has grossed millions.

The film's avatars are New Age scientists whose jargonladen sound bites amount to little more than what California Institute of Technology physicist and Nobel laureate Murray Gell-Mann once described as "quantum flapdoodle." University of Oregon quantum physicist Amit Goswami, for example, says in the film: "The material world around us is nothing but possible movements of consciousness. I am choosing moment by moment my experience. Heisenberg said atoms are not things, only tendencies." Okay, Amit, I challenge you to leap out of a 20-story building and consciously choose the experience of passing safely through the ground's tendencies.

The work of Japanese researcher Masaru Emoto, author of The Hidden Messages in Water, is featured to show how thoughts change the structure of ice crystals--beautiful crystals form in a glass of water with the word "love" taped to it, whereas playing: Elvis's "Heartbreak Hotel" causes other crystals to split in two. Would his "Burnin' Love" boil water?

The film's nadir is an interview with "Ramtha," a 35,000 year-old spirit channeled by a woman named JZ Knight. I wondered where humans spoke English with an Indian accent 35,000 years ago. Many of the films' participants are members of Ramtha's "School of Enlightenment," where New Age pabulum is dispensed in costly weekend retreats.

The attempt to link the weirdness of the quantum world to mysteries of the macro world (such as consciousness) is not new. The best candidate to connect the two comes from University of Oxford physicist Roger Penrose and physician Stuart Hameroff of the Arizona Health Sciences Center, whose theory of quantum consciousness has generated much heat but little light. Inside our neurons are tiny hollow microtubules that act like structural scaffolding. Their conjecture (and that's all it is) is that something inside the microtubules may initiate a wave-function collapse that results in the quantum coherence of atoms. The quantum coherence causes neurotransmitters to be released into the synapses between neurons, thus triggering them to fire in a uniform pattern that creates thought and consciousness. Because a wave-function collapse can come about only when an atom is "observed" (that is, affected in any way by something else), the late neuroscientist Sir John Eccles, another proponent of the idea, even suggested that "mind" may be the observer in a recursive loop from atoms to molecules to neurons to thought to consciousness to mind to atoms…

In reality, the gap between subatomic quantum effects and large-scale macro systems is too large to bridge. In his book The Unconscious Quantum (Prometheus Books, 1995), University of Colorado physicist Victor Stenger demonstrates that for a system to be described quantum-mechanically, its typical mass (m), speed (v) and distance (d) must be on the order of Planck's constant (h). "If mvd is much greater than h, then the system probably can be treated classically." Stenger computes that the mass of neural transmitter molecules and their speed across the distance of the synapse are about two orders of magnitude too large for quantum effects to be influential. There is no micro-macro connection. Then what the #$*! is going on here?

Physics envy. The lure of reducing complex problems to basic physical principles has dominated the philosophy of science since Descartes's failed attempt some four centuries ago to explain cognition by the actions of swirling vortices of atoms dancing their way to consciousness. Such Cartesian dreams provide a sense of certainty, but they quickly fade in the face of the complexities of biology. We should be exploring consciousness at the neural level and higher, where the arrow of causal analysis points up toward such principles as emergence and self-organization. Biology envy.

~~~~~~~~

My reply:

Quantum Consciousness



Stuart Hameroff M.D.

Professor, Departments of Anesthesiology and Psychology

Director, Center for Consciousness Studies

The University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona

www.consciousness.arizona.edu/hameroff



I read with interest Michael Shermer’s skeptical criticism of the surprise hit film What the #$*! Do We Know? (Whatthebleep? to its fans) in which I appear.1 The film attempts to link consciousness with the weirdness of quantum mechanics. As the best candidate for such a connection, Shermer cites (then attempts to refute) a theory put forth a decade ago by British physicist Sir Roger Penrose and me.



We attribute consciousness to quantum computation in structural proteins within the brain’s neurons called microtubules. Though Shermer correctly describes microtubules—part of the cell’s cytoskeleton—as scaffolding, they also actively organize intra-cellular movement, transport and neuronal synaptic plasticity (the apparent cornerstone of learning and memory). How are such activities organized? Pondering the amazing feats of unicellular protozoa which swim, avoid predators, learn, find food and mates and have sex—all without benefit of a single synapse—the famed neuroscientist Charles Sherrington surmised a half century ago “of nerve there is no trace, but the cytoskeleton might serve”. Indeed, cytoskeletal microtubules’ periodic lattice structure (resembling switching circuits in computers) seems ideally suited to molecular-scale computation.



The states of microtubule protein subunits (bits in a microtubule computer) are regulated by quantum mechanical (van der Waals London) forces in intra-protein non-polar pockets, suggesting that microtubule subunits could act not only like classical bits, but also like quantum bits (qubits) in quantum computers.



To debunk our theory Shermer cites an assertion in a book by Victor Stenger that the product of mass, velocity and distance of a quantum system cannot exceed Planck’s constant. I’ve not seen this proposal in a peer reviewed journal, nor listed anywhere as a serious interpretation of quantum mechanics. But in any case Stenger’s assertion is disproven by Anton Zeilinger’s experimental demonstration of quantum wave behavior in fullerenes and biological porphyrin proteins. (Skepticism should cut both ways, Mr. Shermer.) Nonetheless I agree with Stenger that synaptic chemical transmission between neurons is completely classical. The quantum computations we propose are isolated in microtubules within neurons. Classical neurotransmission provides inputs to, and outputs from, microtubule quantum computations mediating consciousness in neuronal dendrites.



But the brain seems far too warm for significant quantum states, apparently running into the problem of decoherence. (Shermer conflates the strong Copenhagen interpretation of the measurement problem—that conscious observation causes wave function collapse, with decoherence—in which any exchange of energy or information with the environment erodes a quantum system.) But recent evidence shows that quantum processes in biological molecules are actually enhanced at higher temperatures. Moreover biological mechanisms within neurons (actin gelation, laser-like metabolic pumping, plasma layer shielding and topological quantum error correction in/around microtubules) may preserve quantum states in microtubules for hundreds of milliseconds or longer at brain temperature.



Is there any evidence for the relevance of quantum states/processes to consciousness? Well, general anesthetic gases selectively erase consciousness while nonconscious brain activities continue (e.g. evoked potentials, control of autonomic function, EEG). The anesthetic gases act in the same intra-protein non-polar pockets in which quantum London forces control protein conformation. This occurs in a class of receptors, channels and other brain proteins including cytoskeletal structures. And the anesthetics do so by forming only quantum mechanical interactions, presumably interfering only with physiological quantum effects. It is logical to conclude that consciousness occurs in quantum pockets within proteins throughout the brain.



Shermer also conflates the Copenhagen interpretation with the dualist quantum mind proposal of Sir John Eccles. Suffice to say that in the Penrose-Hameroff model, consciousness does not cause collapse of the quantum wave function (a la Copenhagen). Rather, consciousness is collapse. More precisely, consciousness is a particular type of self-collapse proposed by Penrose involving quantum gravity (currently being tested). Pre-conscious (unconscious/subconscious) information exists as quantum superpositions—multiple coexisting possible actions or experiences—which, upon reaching a specified threshold at the moment of consciousness/self-collapse, choose a particular action or experience. Such conscious moments are calculated to occur roughly 40 times per second.



Shermer closes by advising researchers to look for emergence of consciousness at the neural level and higher. This has been precisely the tack taken by armies of scientists and philosophers for decades, and the result is nil. Consciousness is ever more elusive. The prevalent paradigm—that axonal action potentials and chemical synaptic transmissions are fundamental units of computation from which consciousness emerges at a higher-order network level—force-fits consciousness into an illusory, out-of-the-loop epiphenomenon. While this might be true, the prevalent paradigm is also incompatible with the best electrophysiological correlate of consciousness—synchronized gamma EEG (“coherent 40 Hz” oscillations). The latter, it turns out, is mediated by coherent activities of neuronal dendrites linked by electrotonic gap junctions, windows which link adjacent neurons (and glia) into large-scale syncytia, or “hyper-neurons”.



In 1998 I published a list of twenty testable predictions of our model (which, unlike prevalent emergence theories, is falsifiable). Several predictions have proven true (e.g. signaling and action of psychoactive drugs in microtubules). To explain the extension of quantum states among many neurons throughout the brain, I also predicted that neurons connected by gap junctions mediate consciousness, subsequently validated by gamma EEG studies. That doesn’t prove that quantum states extend among neurons (e.g. by tunneling through gap junctions), but it casts serious doubt on conventional approaches (which have yet to generate a testable prediction). Skeptics like Shermer should apply their craft to conventional dogma as well as to upstart hypotheses.



Regarding the film, I stand by my statements (Shermer didn’t criticize anything I said). But Whatthebleep? is entertainment. Lighten up! The early animations of Jules Verne’s moon landings were crude by later standards, but planted the seed of a wonderful idea in popular culture.





1. Shermer M (2005) Quantum Quackery, Scientific American 292(1):34.

Given what I have read so far, I agree more with Shermer than Hameroff when it comes to the details of this theory. I can very well see in it "the seed of a wonderful idea", as Hameroff describes the work of Jules Verne, though the one is science and the other entertainment. There is simply not enough evidence to support it yet, and most scientists are almost by definition skeptics. We are open-minded enough to consider anything, but ultimately it must prove itself. When more of the 20 testable statements have been vetted, we will have a better idea which parts of the theory are valid, and which must be discarded or retooled.

Prettybirds: have you considered the possibility that consciousness is separate from physiology, and therefore not within the realm of scientific explanation?

Hi, yes I have. I do think it seperate from physiology, I think. Seperate in so far as when we are unconscious we are merely this physiology, not because our conscious is lost but gone elsewhere. Free to do other things if people's testimonies of the experience are anywhere near true.

Perhaps why the brain is but a canvas to the whole of consciousness, a piece of art, a work in progress...

Birds

PS As much of this that I do understand... I have found and read about a Boson Peak and vibrational lines induced by elecricity on low temperature glass. Not organic material albiet but very interesting. I wonder if any kind of analogy could be drawn by the same reaction in organic material.

Hi again, no I do not however think it out of the realm of eventual scientific understanding.

To me, meta physics has for ages understood the sum of the equation of quantum physics. Quantum physics is just getting started in working backwards from answer to question...give it a few hundred years...the possibilities are endless.

If I didn't understand the physiology part please explain it. What do you think conscious is? Are you a God based, evolution based or extraterestrial frame of thought? I don't feel like I can truly define consciousness because science does not allow for intuition in anything but theory.

We could be God born, in which case a true knowledge of him would not be impossible because of some mental or physical harm as so often implied of those who seek to look directly into the face of God. In my mind, true knowledge of this would do wonders for changing the world in a oh so positive way.
It is not in my nature to see limits on matters of the mind...mostly my interest in this quantum language stems from the fact that to me it is likely how our consciousness exists in a world without the benefit of organic devises such as eyes and outputs such as words.
I can't assume at all that our consciousness is organic bound. So without our bodies, if we were say in atomic or molecular form, how would our surroundings register. To me it is simple processes like this on steriods that could encompass a rich and wealthy world of experience and living.

I wonder what the world is like for a spider, so well eqipped to register the bulk of the world in vibrational form. So in tune with it's web, likely in tune in other ways too. I have a study written in a book somewhere done on Spiders given LSD, I should find it and write it out. It's quite funny... Doing studies on the vibrational recepters spider's have.

Romana wrote....
Asking whether potential or kinetic energy comes first is almost like asking which comes first, the chicken or the egg. A child at the top of a playground slide has potential energy due to her elevated position within the earth's gravity, but she manifested kinetic energy in climbing up the slide's ladder to begin with, and may release the potential energy as kinetic again by sliding down. (Much fundamental physics can be observed in playgrounds.)

Thank-you for this, I have had the most interesting dreams because of this note from you. I dreamt of continually revolving kinetic and potential energy and it was displayed in everything, I don't remember so much the details unfortunately but I woke up with smile realizing that did indeed dream about it. I love waking up with a smile, thank-you.


From the article....
The work of Japanese researcher Masaru Emoto, author of The Hidden Messages in Water, is featured to show how thoughts change the structure of ice crystals--beautiful crystals form in a glass of water with the word "love" taped to it, whereas playing: Elvis's "Heartbreak Hotel" causes other crystals to split in two. Would his "Burnin' Love" boil water?

I'm really curious as to whats up with this, I think I'll look for some material on it....curious people can be so interesting,,,the things they do...

So, from what I think I understand is that Shermer while not totally discrediting the theory he figures the effect to small to measured by quantum effect?

article note
even suggested that "mind" may be the observer in a recursive loop from atoms to molecules to neurons to thought to consciousness to mind to atoms…

Wouldn't this be interesting if it comes out true, I could spend hours contemplating this theory...especially in terms of ego!

article note
How are such activities organized? Pondering the amazing feats of unicellular protozoa which swim, avoid predators, learn, find food and mates and have sex—all without benefit of a single synapse—the famed neuroscientist Charles Sherrington surmised a half century ago “of nerve there is no trace, but the cytoskeleton might serve”

This fascinates me, the language! The language is in there somewhere...is it chemical or vibrational? I love to watch the debates and theories.

Romana wrote,
When more of the 20 testable statements have been vetted, we will have a better idea which parts of the theory are valid, and which must be discarded or retooled.


I'm with ya sister!
Birds

Romana, interesting web site the introductory one. I think I am beginning to understand why they think the quantum wave of the electron is too small to effect the whole of consciousness, I'm not sure I agree. I'm not sure I'm getting it though, I read about Planck, Schrodinger, Bohr. I am going to read some more...Thank-you!

Have I gotten this right?


The wave of the singular electron in the hydrophobic pocket of the microtubule is by itself too small to effect the next electron over without a mechanism like Hameroff's. That it is the severing of the ATP and GTP that gives the energy boost to the wave that travels through the MAPS from one electron to another in Hameroff's theory.


( a much toned down mental image of splitting an atom/ splitting the ATP and AGT molecule )

So this is what I'm wondering...if the energy that comes from the severed molecules is what carries the 'wave' onward and outward, how does it do it. Is it a chemical blueprint that effects the next electron or is it a vibrational blueprint that registers.
In my minds eye I picture the severing must happen within the proximity of the electron's wave, that's awfully close, that it is a vibration carried within that energy as it moves outward that registers and causes chemical reaction...does this makes any sense?

I hope you don't feel like a fridge my friend...

Birds

Please pardon my delay in replying. I have been quite busy, and want to give your ideas and questions the attention they deserve.