DrmDoc

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.

Psychiatry is a medical discipline that focus on the diagnosis and treatment of mental illness and it's as much a science as those medical disciplines that focus on the diagnosis and treatment of physical illness and injury. Indeed, pseudoscience is as much a encumbrance to diagnosing and treating mental illness as it is to the evaluation and treatment of physical illness and injury (e.g., bogus cures). However, mental health related disciplines are likely perceived as pseudoscience more because of the perceived intangible quality of the mind relative to the body. One can't physically examine and sample test the mind as one might the body; therefore, our conclusions regarding mental illness are largely based on conjectures derived from behavioral observations and responses to medication. Science requires tangible and testable examples, which can and does apply to the mind through neuroscience and our understanding of brain function. Psychiatry and psychology become science when their modes of investigation and conclusions are based on valid neuroscience and the effects of observable and tangible brain disorders.

Why are you a supporter of Mr. Trump and how does his approach to governance, given his cabinet choices, specifically reflect or support your interests? Do you sincerely believe that a president-elect should be skipping any intelligence briefings before being sworn to office? It's my understanding that even Obama took every briefing offered before taking his oath of office. Why isn't Donald's refusal an issue with you? Do you think a person who set-up and managed a shell corporation for Russian should be our Secretary of State? Do you honestly believe as Mr. Trump that the Russians did not interfere in our elections? I'm most interested in your answer to the initial questions of whether you believe the president-elect truly represents you.

You didn't vote for Trump to follow in the footsteps of Mr. Obama...or did you?

If I recall correctly, you were among the throng calling for Hillary's prosecution for criminal violations. Despite your call and misperception, an extensive investigate found no criminal violations of government rules nor violations that harm the security of our nation. I agree that any violation of government rules should have consequences; however, as I understand, the penalties for violating government rules only apply to individuals who are actually in the employ of the government. As a candidate or ex-Secretary of State, Ms. Clinton was not subject to those penalties. Let us both ponder: ​Donald Trump no longer takes daily intelligence briefings. Donald Trump disputes the findings of extensive CIA investigations. Donald Trump's Secretary of State choice has close ties to Russia. Donald Trump selects climate change denier to head EPA. And here is where you may find a host of other wolves whom Mr. Trump have chosen to guard the sheep. By sheep I mean you Trump supporters who believe he truly cares about you, the middle class, common folk, or any people or entity other than himself, corporate America, and big business. Yes...your candidate, not mine.

There are 26 bi-weekly pay periods per calendar year (12 months), which calculates as $2,000/bi-weekly (@$1,000/week) and totals $52,000/year. However, if you are actually receiving pay semi-monthly, ​in which there are only 24 pay periods per calendar year, your salary is actually $48,000/year. Recipients of semi-monthly pay experience just two pay periods per month regardless of the number of weeks or days per month. However, bi-weekly pay recipients receive pay every two weeks regardless of pay periods that overlay or encompass separate months or years . I hope this helps.

Indeed, I recall wondering why it was ever a question.

In a prior discussion on the theory of everything, Genecks questioned whether or not consciousness is reducible. Although Genecks resolved it was not, it was a fascinating question that garnered few responses, which I though we might engage further here. If I understand correctly, Genecks views existence as a manifestation of consciousness and posits the non-existence of gravity without consciousness as an example. Rather than in the Theoretical Physics Forum where this discussion originated, I believe a thread here in neuroscience might yield more substantive discussion of this question. As the only testable example of a true consciousness producing structure, the human brain and it functional matrix definitively suggest that consciousness is, at the very least, reducible to constituent components. If this is your interest, I welcome your thoughts.

I disagree. I think it's our interpretations that are sometimes wrong and not the science itself when the methods we use to investigate a question or idea adheres to the rigors of the scientific method. In science, rigorous methods of observation, logic, and verification assures our reliance on tangible evidence and relevant facts rather than unproven or unprovable beliefs that promote delusion, ignorance and, often, social division.

You may find what you're looking for through this link to brain mapping news posted to this science discussion site. That post also contains further links to an article and paper on recent discoveries associated with this subject. I hope this helps.