Artander Posted October 26, 2014 Share Posted October 26, 2014 http://phys.org/news/2014-01-discovery-quantum-vibrations-microtubules-corroborates.html And this quantum consciousness is said to be a receiver of consciousness from the supreme/1st consciousness. How come when they say quantum consciousness they say it's a receiver and there's a 1st consciousness? What makes them say that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted October 26, 2014 Share Posted October 26, 2014 And this quantum consciousness is said to be a receiver of consciousness from the supreme/1st consciousness. Does it say that? I couldn't see it anywhere in that article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted October 26, 2014 Share Posted October 26, 2014 I can't find where "they" said anything like that. Who are "they", or are you trying to conflate this article with some less-than-reputable one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrewcellini Posted October 26, 2014 Share Posted October 26, 2014 (edited) a major problem with Orch-OR is that the brain is too warm, wet and noisy to preserve entanglement between microtubules to be useful for information processing http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/9907009.pdf Edited October 26, 2014 by andrewcellini Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Artander Posted October 26, 2014 Author Share Posted October 26, 2014 well guess what if you saw the link they've already discovered quantum effects in microtubules. -1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robittybob1 Posted October 26, 2014 Share Posted October 26, 2014 well guess what if you saw the link they've already discovered quantum effects in microtubules. So did your microtubules tell fibs in the OP? What quantum effects were going on in your consciousness to allow that to happen? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrewcellini Posted October 26, 2014 Share Posted October 26, 2014 (edited) well guess what if you saw the link they've already discovered quantum effects in microtubules. that's not the point i was trying to make. try rereading what i posted, and in particular the paper i linked. the point isn't that there are no "quantum effects," rather the usefulness and necessity of them for neural processing seems low. there are numerous other empirical issues with the theory, hence the lack of mainstream acceptance. would you like some other papers? Edited October 26, 2014 by andrewcellini Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now