DrmDoc

Given his seemingly anti-union and workers class business record, wasn't voting for Trump like shooting oneself in the foot? In other words, given your example, isn't identity politics like sheep identifying with or be led by wolves? You know, like in Orwell's Animal Farm with the only different being pigs instead of wolves.

As you've advised, I have just one question. Which "traditional broad-based party politics" are the Republicans, led by Donald Trump, moving from? Their efforts--thereby representative of your mandate--to undermine congressional ethics, to appoint Russian and Wall Street cronies and lobbyists to cabinet posts, and to disenfranchise the healthcare and social programs relied upon by millions of Americans appear to be in the same Republican vein of traditional broad-based politics.

To be fair, this latest link to a Philosophy of Science Archive article does indeed discuss the idea of interneuronal quantum coherence, although the prior link did not. The article discusses this idea at the macroscopic level of neural cell dynamics. This preprint, non-peer reviewed article speculates on the quantum nature of macroscopic neural processes believed to be the basis of consciousness. The article attempts to quantify the synaptic processes of cellular connectivity through the complexities of quantum mechanic models. In it's conclusion, the article proposed a " neuromolecular model for regulation of the switching in and out of the quantum coherent network in the brain cortex" with "possible applications in the analysis of normal and pathological mental conditions". As an example, the article discusses dreaming as "a function of ‘randomly entangled’ cortical neurons without memorizing of the experience." The article further claims that the mechanisms for this model is based on "experimental data collected by numerous researchers", which it regards as evidence. In my opinion, the macroscopic nature of neural connectivity and cellular processes is sufficiently explained by and in the vernacular of current neuroscience without the infusion of quantum theory terminology. Switching the terms for synaptic processes to theoretical physics vernacular may promote clarity for quantum physicists but not so much, IMO, for neuroscientists. The OP spoke of an interest in enhanced mental functions through artificial inducements but it remains unclear--to me at least--how that interest is served any better by a quantum theory perspective than by a perspective in conventional neuroscience.

Welcome back, hope you enjoyed your holiday as much as I did mine. Your allegiance to the Republican party is admirable. The election might have ended differently if Democrats were similarly devoted. I'm not trying to rehash the Clinton corruption debate but we both know that there is no evidence that her behavior in anyway harmed our nation and its citizens; however, there is evidence that your successful businessperson (Mr. Trump) has engaged behaviors that have insulted women and minorities and committed acts in business that led to several bankruptcies depriving vendors of fair payment and employees of fair wages. Although you may not like politicians, you should know that when Mr. Trump entered the election he became a politician; therefore, Mr. Trump has become something you don't like and will inevitably demonstrate that quality to your satisfaction during his tenure as President. Finally, what wasn't great about America before Donald coined that phase? Presumably, you were secure in your job and home, our stock market and employment had recovered from economic depression, a majority of our soldiers are no longer engaged in combat, and there are more people with healthcare than ever before. So, what wasn't great about America other than its political process? So, it's ok for an incoming President to play catch-up with our nation's security than be prepared from day 1? That doesn't seem to be very Republican to me--however, not being a Republican myself, I guess I really wouldn't know. So, you believe that Donald's nomination of a Russian crony is "draining the swamp"? Can you genuinely say that you wouldn't feel differently if Clinton had been elected and then appointed a man of similar background to Secretary of State? So, you don't believe the published opinion of 13 intelligence agencies either? That's got to be the most disingenuous comment you've made thus far in this discussion. Furthermore, "influencing is not interfering"...are you trolling me? I think this addresses what you believe is not so great about America, which appears to involve the way our government has helped and supported its citizenry. You appear to be of a mind that Americans have become too dependent on government. Perhaps so, but that dependency instills confidence among our citizenry, which promotes the stability we all enjoy--stability that now stands on the precipice of being undone by Wall Street oriented, socially insensitive policies.

I've been waiting for your return and reply. What is your answer? As you may not recall or care, I asked the following: Is there an answer or will you disappear from this discussion for another month?

I agreed; the question is invalid. However, the values we ascribe to time are subjective perspective dependent, which means that time is an invention that is defined by the perspective and observations of an observer. When we remove the metabolic processes proven to produce human aging, time is invalidated as a cause--because without those processes, there is no aging regardless of the length observable time ascribed.

Here's a link to "The Effects of Marijuana on Consciousness." The experiments are ongoing and plentiful, as you may well imagine. There have been studies involving other psychotropic substances with more dramatic effects. Although legitimate research is ongoing, I do not recommend personal experimentation with these substances because of their known and unknown deleterious effects. If altered states of consciousness are your interest, you may want to consider a study of dreaming. Dreaming is that altered state of consciousness we naturally experience without the artificial inducement of potentially harmful substances. Dreaming is an active state of brain function in sleep induced by our brain's metabolic needs and have been credibly acknowledged as a state where many have found the creativity and saliency you spoke about in prior discussions.

Empirically, definitively, emphatically, human aging is a result of the metabolic processes associated with human biology. Time is not the origin or creator of those processes, it is merely a means by which we measure the perceived progression of those processes. Cellular division and degradation does not emerge from time anymore than the rain or climate events that erode mountains into hills. Time is not causal, it's a subjective measure we initiate at a causal onset.

Although I've declined further participation in this topic, I continue to follow this discussion and have perused the Neurquantology Journal referenced here. I found this article which, I think, more eloquently explain your topic. From the abstract: My interests involve conventional neuroscience and you must admit that this topic is particularly unconventional where cogent discussions depend on a proficient understanding of relevant terminology and quantum theory. Some of us are proficient in quantum theory and others in neuroscience; however, I suspect, many of us are not proficient in either. Therefore, I think it would be help to us--who may not clearly understand your use of terms and references--that you define your uses (e.g., neuronal phase coherence, quantum tunneling, cortical computation, etc.) with more than just a link. Define them with your own words, in layman's terms, as though you are speaking to a general audience. For example, quantum tunneling, as those proficient in physics knows, regards how quantum particles penetrate barriers and is not a term, as those proficient in neuroscience knows, commonly used in reference to exocytosis. Exocytosis regards the process of exporting substances from cells and is only half of the metabolic (energy-using) system of exchanges between cells. The other half is endocytosis, which regards the import process of cellular exchanges. At this point, you may want to further detail your thoughts on how quantum tunneling relates to exocytosis and endocytosis with similarly simple and clear definitions that allow general understanding and participation. In my opinion, I don't think the nature of consciousness on a quantum scale is singularly useful information because consciousness is more than quantum particles or a series of cellular exchanges. Focusing on the "macroscopic", I believe, provides more relevant insight on the functional qualities that combine to produce consciousness. For example, what do you know about our "second brain?"

This will be my only comment here. You really haven't clarified your use of terms or provided a cogent foundation for this highly theoretical topic. Perhaps these link will help with the latter: Quantum Mind and Quantum Cognition.

I agree, human aging isn't an effect of space-time, it's an effect of human biology.

Regarding phasic neuronal synchronicity, I found this slightly dated (2014) Frontiers in Neuroscience article exploring the computational role of gamma wave activity. The authors of this article admit that the "functional role of gamma activity and the computational means by which it is achieved is still unclear" which, to my mind, typifies the speculative nature of this area of interest. Unfortunately, I've reached the limits of my desire to speculate further on this topic but wish you well in your pursuit of this interest.

From your link: This is the clearest explanation of your theory thus far as it presents the major components of that theory. Point #1 of your theory is that consciousness is a source of computational activity, which is a given in that we do engage in consciously directed computational activity. You should also note that such activity isn't the exclusive function of consciousness. Your initial point also proposes exocytosis as a driver of consciousness, which is also a given as it is part of the neural system of micro-exchanges that create and support consciousness. However, the perception of consciousness as a system of micro-exchanges between neurons is a mistake in that consciousness involves a confluence of macro-neurochemical and electrical exchanges between separate and distinct neuronal groups inclusive of our entire central nervous system. Consciousness is a collaborative product of interactions within and between different neuronal groups whose functional distinctions contribute to an overall matrix of cognitive activity that isn't always computational. Point #2 of your theory appears to essentially regard consciousness and its output as a product of "neurocomputational" synaptic activity. This is only valid if you can prove--through tangible equivalents or rigorous evidence--that consciousness and it's output is produced through a computational process at cell level. As the originator of this idea, it's incumbent upon you to present to us detailed evidence for your theory regarding this computational activity between neurons. For example, you should detail and provide evidence of how the minute exchanges between neurons and neuronal groups mirror the quantum components of mechanized computational processes. You shouldn't proceed to presenting hyper-computation ideas without first providing a foundation for those ideas in how the brain neurologically engages in computational activity and exchanges. You should understand that the onus is on the investigator to provide evidence for his convictions or theories and not the jury or those to whom the investigator presents his theories. NOTE: I now see that you've provided a link to a paper discussing your idea of hypecomputation. I'll post another response after my review. I've reviewed the paper you've provided and now have a clearer perspective of the ideas we're discussing. The paper is an introduction to the concept of "Biological Hypercomputation" (BH) and appears to be dated from 2012. It's authors regard hypercomputation as the "theoretical and practical feasibility of computing...the dynamics, phenomena and processes that were never before taken into account as essentially computable." ​Essentially, as I understand, they regard hyper-computation as a capacity to engage computations exceeding the scope of numbers and functions but necessarily computational speed. In this introduction to BH, the authors seek to expound on an idea originated by another author, S. Stepney, in a 2009 computer science paper on "Non-classical Hypercomputation." According to the authors, biological computation regards "how is information represented in the [biological] system, how information is read and written by the system, how it is processed, and how this information acquires function (or “purpose” or “meaning”), and studies comparisons among various kinds of computation and what life does, computationally speaking." ​Although the authors of this paper attempts to make comparisons between numerical and biological computational systems, they do admit questions remain regarding "how exactly is BH carried out in every level or scale and how that scale interacts – hypercomputationally! – with the other levels of an organism, a species and the biosphere." ​This paper seeks to establish and quantify the production and exchange of information in biological systems as a hyper-computational process based on the idea that they involve computational elements and processes that transcend the scope of numbers or numeric functions. This idea appears to presuppose that a flower opens to the sun's rays or track the sun across the sky as a result of some computational process. Relative to your interest, this idea appears to regard the intuitive output of brain function where some functional products appear to be the result of computing elements beyond those within the scope of perceptible observations. Unfortunately, this paper provides no evidence for this computational process occurring in biological systems but provides that the idea should be further researched. In my opinion, a healthy brain is the only path to enhanced brain function. You should probably consider pursuing other, more natural avenues for function enhancement. I recall hearing, but not confirming, that people of higher intelligence appear to having higher levels of copper and zinc in their systems. It's an interest notion to investigate--perhaps more so than the minutia of synaptic discharges.

As I now understand, synaptic hyper-computation (SHC) regards your thoughts on the synchronicity or optimization of exocytosis. Specifically, dopamine exocytosis that you believe to be the primary neuromodulator of a mental quality you've identified as "saliency." I think the synchronicity or optimization of exocytosis is a clearer, more quantifiable reference for the processes we're discussing here than SHC. SHC infers a data producing process between neurons that really doesn't apply to the quantum nature of brain function. Indeed, dopamine is a neuromodulator, as well as, a neurotransmitter and it does have some excitatory affects but primarily inhibitory affects on our nervous system. Also, dopamine is only one of several types of neuromodulators and neurotransmitters. All considered, the singular role of dopamine in your perspective is overstated and there is more than sufficient evidence of its deleterious effects at elevated levels. You should consider focusing your investigation on the intricacies of exocytosis overall without this idea of SHC and the effects of dopamine exclusively. Exocytosis is the quantum nature of cellular exchanges and I believe it's where you may find the answers you seek.

"Non-local activation of brain-to-brain interconnectivity" reads, IMO, as highly speculative and before we proceed any further, you need to clarify your idea of "synaptic hypercomputation", evidence for its existence and/or what specific functional (mentation, behavioral, physiological, etc.) effects or output it regards. I'm not sure what you're suggesting here. Dopamine isn't the sole or primary medium for communication between neurons. Also, dopamine isn't specifically known to originate, induce, or carry computational data between neurons. As you may be aware, dopamine isn't the only medium of connectivity between neurons. Dopamine is just one of several neurotransmitters that, when balanced, jointly produce the mental and behavioral output of normal brain function. Again, the effects of increased dopamine production may not produce the enhanced neuronal or mental effects you expect or believe. From the link: A while ago, some of us engaged this idea as a topic of Speculation. It's highly speculative and you should probably post your thoughts on this idea in that forum.

Neuronal synchronicity, as I understand, is a theoretical "correlate of consciousness" and regards the "simultaneous oscillation of membrane potentials in a network of neurons." Essentially, as I perceive, it regards the synchronous neuro-electrical communication between neurons that is believed to be representative of those neural activations associated with mentation and cognitive activity within the brain. My impression of your idea of "synaptic hyper-computation" is that it regards the hyper-connectivity or enhanced speed at which neurons and neuronal groups could potentially communicate. If my impression is correct, your interest appears to involve enhancing either the processing speed or power of that neuronal group or system from which you believe salient mental qualities arise. It's your understanding, I believe, that prefrontal function identifies where those salient qualities originate. However, it isn't quite that simple. All qualities of the mind, which includes creativity and saliency, arise from a confluence of brain activity that cannot be distinguished by a singular cognitive system (e.g., subconscious) nor by the singular functional output of a specific lobe (e.g., prefrontal). A more refine understanding of our brain's functional confluence may be necessary to your perspective before proceeding further. For example, no cortical activity arises--spontaneously or otherwise--without a neural connection to subcortical brain structure (e.g., classic experiment). This decorticate outcome suggests the depth of dependency of cortical function, including its prefrontal, on subcortical input. Further still, there are more neural relays from the cortex to subcortical structure than there are subcortical relays (e.g., thalamus) to the cortex. This aligns with the dependency of cortical function on subcortical input. Essentially, this suggests that creativity and saliency also requires something provided elsewhere in the brain; therefore, enhancing one brain area without consideration of others may not be as productive as desired. Further, you may want to consider the already researched deleterious effects of enhanced or increased prefrontal activity. For example, there is some evidence of an association between hyperfrontal activity and certain mental disorders. Indeed, the circuitry of our brain functions as a closed system of perceptual and thought processes distinctly separate from other systems and isolated by both physiological and neurological boundaries.

That's a very compelling perspective. I think tinfoil hats are the fashion for those of us who speculate about such things as multidimensional objects and higher dimensional spheres.

On this, I refer you to these comments that I think best explain my thoughts regarding the distinction between unconscious and subconscious. Although some of us use these terms synonymously, I think that is a mistake because they really don't describe the same quality.

Your interest, if I understand correctly, is in what substances act to enhance the speed of neuronal processes. Specifically, you're interest involves enhancement of those processes that occur below the threshold of conscious where you believe salient qualities of mind originate. You may what to consider that the brain system you call subconscious is not distinguishable in the way you believe or is capable of being enhanced as you imagined. Subconscious, for example, is not a distinctive state of brain activity that is distinguishable by brain structure or function as is the unconscious, which is disguisable by the dreaming state of brain function. Subconscious, without a distinguishable target, cannot be enhanced. Also, the neural circuitry of the brain is a closed system of concurrent processes whose functional output is determined by several factors you may not clearly grasp. For example, creativity involves a confluence of brain activity functionally indistinguishable as either conscious or unconscious because both activities employ the same neural circuitry. You should note that prefrontal function does indeed contribute significantly to the innovative or creative quality of our conscious mental processes; however, believing that its functional contributions are exclusively to one path of mentation would be a mistake.

I saw this recent PBS Infinite Series YouTube video entitled "A Breakthrough in Higher Dimensional Spheres." It's host describes and discusses various techniques for visualizing spheres in multidimensional spaces which, being a novice, I found very informative. Among several examples, the video's host described how a 3D sphere might appear as it passes through 2D space and how a 4D sphere might appear as it passes through 3D space. Her description recalled to me observations reported as a common quantum occurrence where virtual particles pop in and out of existence. I now understand that those observations involve more than just something materializing from nothing but the idea raises a question for me, which I hope you could answer. Is it likely that quantum particles observed as spontaneously appearing and disappearing are merely our 3D observations of extra-dimensional particles passing through our space? I understand the nature of virtual particle formation, my question regards the idea of true spontaneous materialization (if such a process actually occurs) rather than particles spontaneously combining to form larger particles. Further, how probable is it that we have observed or are continually observing macro extra-dimensional objects in our space as ordinary 3D objects because of our inability to detect or perceive their extra-dimensional quality?

I've reviewed the study link you've provided. That link is to an article reporting the findings in rat brain studies of HU210 effects, which is a synthetic substance "100 to 800 times more potent than natural THC." You should note this distinction because HU210 isn't the THC or natural substance you perceive as a promoter of neurogenesis. The chemical composition of these substances is not the same and, therefore, their neurological effects sharply differ. Although HU210 likely supports but not induce neurogenesis, THC, according to its pharmacology, "has a relatively low cannabinoid receptor efficacy and affinity", which prominently suggests the improbability that THC promotes neurogenesis. You should also consider that neurogenesis involves additional processes beyond dopaminergic neurotransmission and that those processes may be more essential than dopamine. Although some of us believe otherwise, subconscious is a misnomer for that distinctive state of brain function from which aspects of our psychology arise. Our brain does not produce a separate subconscious state of observable activity but does, however, produce a distinctive unconscious state of activity that we can observe as dreaming. Dreaming is an unconscious, rather than subconscious, state of brain activity suggesting mentation or thought processes in sleep. Unconscious, relative to the cognitive processes of brain function, describes that state of brain activation and mentation that is directly opposite of our brain's conscious functional state. Unconscious is more descriptive of that state of brain function and mentation that is not directed by conscious awareness. Subconscious is more descriptive of a type of influence mentation produces and a path of influence relative to that mentation. Interestingly, the distinctions between conscious and unconscious brain function and mentation is clearly defined by universal distinctions in cortical activation between our brain's waking and dreaming state.

You may have to review your sources or references supporting your perspective for THC efficacy in neurogenesis because current research suggests that there is insufficient reliable evidence to reach such a conclusion. Although THC is known to be effective in treating the symptoms of neurodegenerative diseases such as multiple sclerosis, it is not known that such efficacy is a result of neurogenesis. Indeed, THC has been shown to moderately increase dopamine production initially, which primarily acts on the pleasure pathways of the brain; however, dopamine production and sensitivity has been shown to decreases with long-term or heavy use of THC. Dopamine, at low therapeutic levels, is known to increase mental acuity; however, higher levels of dopamine are also known to cause "cognitive deficits." Therefore, enhancing dopamine production will likely have a deleterious affect on the quality you're investigating. If I understand correctly, your interest is in the "subconscious systems" of the brain and their activation. Depending on your interpretation of the term subconscious, all neural activity in the brain could be perceived as occurring below the threshold of our conscious awareness. However, if your terms and usage is to reference a specific functional distinction in the cognitive activity of our brain's activations, I think that distinction is more aptly described and referenced by our use of the term unconscious. Functional distinctions in our brain's cognitive activity regard observable and testable distinctions in the nature and output of brain function. Empirically, our brain produces just two overall functional states supported by observable and testable distinctions: conscious and unconscious. These two distinctions envelop the overall cognitive nature and output of brain function. If your interest specifically regards enhancing the distinction of unconscious brain function, then we can proceed from here with a clearer understanding of that distinction. It's important to understand that whether we are discussing conscious or unconscious brain function both states involve the same neurotransmitters.

To answer your question, I've reviewed your citation link, subsequent links, and the pharmacology of THC. If I understand correctly, "synaptic hypercomputation" regards the quantum electrodynamics in microtubules, which involves the quantum efficiency at which energy and signals could be transferred between photosynthetic cells. A further review of the relevant links show that this perspective involves marine algae and not human cells; however, this subsequent link speculates on the photoelectric nature of human neurons. As your subsequent quote provides, "we are rather far from rigorously demonstrating" the conclusions in the articles supplied by your link. There is not enough evidence, in my opinion, for the type of quantum hyper-connectivity these articles suggests. In answer to your cannabis question, THC is a cannabinoid receptor type 1 agonist, which acts to inhibit neuronal excitability. Therefore, cannabis is contraindicated for enhanced inter-neuronal connectivity as its effects appear to diminish neuronal activity rather than enhance that activity. I hope this helps.

SJ is right, antipsychotic medications are prescribed based on their efficacy through extensive research, which is where you will find the science in psychiatry. Antipsychotics address the neurochemical imbalances determined, through patient study and testing, to be the cause of the psychiatric conditions for which these drugs are prescribed. Type and dosage of these medications are not intuitive for every patient because the neurochemical particulars of every patient is not always well defined or the same. Patients require a period of adjustment and continual monitoring as these drugs act to balance or supplement the neurochemical measures their brains require to mediate a functional disorder.

Seroquel (quetiapine), according to its pharmacology, is a serotonin, dopamine, and adrenergic antagonist. This means that quetiapine binds to the receptors for those substances, which are naturally produced in the brain. Zyprexa (olanzapine) is primarily a serotonin antagonist and lesser with dopamine. These are mood altering drugs and substances particularly serotonin where 90% is produced by cell in our gastrointestinal tract. I hope this helps.