> Okay, I had a chance to read over this paper a couple of times
> and try to make sense of it.
> At first, I read over the abstract and tried to get a handle.
> My first thought was that this guy is a genius or deranged or
> maybe a combination of both - it really is truly hard to get a
> handle on what he is talking about:
A physicist once said that when it comes to this stuff, it's not whether it's crazy but whether it's crazy enough!
> "Current quantum theories of consciousness suggest a
> configuration space of an entangled ensemble state as global
> work space for conscious experience. This study will describe a
> procedure for adjustment of the singlet evolution of a quantum
> computation to a classical signal input by action potentials.
> The computational output of an entangled state in a single
> neuron will be selected in a network environment by "survival
> of the fittest" coupling with other neurons. Darwinian
> evolution of this coupling will result in a binding of action
> potentials to a convoluted orbit of phase-locked oscillations
> with harmonic, m-adic, or fractal periodicity. Progressive
> integration of signal inputs will evolve a present memory space
> independent from the history of construction. Implications for
> mental processes, e.g., associative memory, creativity, and
> consciousness will be discussed. A model for generation of
> quantum coherence in a single neuron will be suggested."
> Once I got a little further into the paper and read it over a
> couple of times it became clear that he was speaking in a
> language that, as a student of biochemistry, is clearly
> well-informed, scientifically derived and terminologically
> accurate even if it is not well articulated to the point of
> being almost unintelligible to the average reader.
> So, all that being said, this is more of a thought experiment
> than an actual physical experiment that could prove neurons can
> be stimulated by being uncoupled and at a distance - which is
> what I was interested in . But, at far as I can tell, it does
> have interesting implications for the origin of consciousness
> in the entangled state of a single neuron and the relation of
> that neuron with the whole neural infrastructure.
I wonder if an actual physical experiment could even be done--it may be a question of the right technology and equipment being available.
> An interesting thought hit me while I was reading.....
> A single cell can survive in nature on it's own such as an
> amoeba or paramecium yet a single cell within our bodies is one
> of billions and billions of cells that work together towards
> the survival of the organism as a whole. If one accepts that
> each cell is an entity unto itself, enabled with a form of life
> and a desire to metabolize and reproduce, yet still is
> genetically predisposed to function towards the benefit of the
> organism as a whole, how aware is each single cell of it's own
> place in a Universe of billions and billions of cells on the
> scale of an organism?
I've thought about this and I've got nothing. That is one deep question.
Mitochondria would be a perfect example of this. All the evidence points to the mitochondria being an invading or captured entity now in an endosymbiotic relationship with the host cell. We couldn't live two minutes without them now, and yet they were once an independent life form on their own.
When we die, our composite cells die, too, and break down into their constituent atoms and molecules, whether they're brain cells, skin cells, blood cells, etc. They then flit off to become part of something else. Take the "bio" out of it, and it really is just plain chemistry.
Maybe we should all take a moment and say thank you to all the hundreds of millions of cells we have. Without them, the larger organism couldn't function and wouldn't even exist.
> Okay, my brain hurts - alot.
Yeah, mine too.
> Good paper though - and I think it is relevant to the topic
> though I'm not smart enough to figure out how, lol.
> . I'll read again tomorrow and see if I can glean any more
> relevance for the topic we have been discussing. In the
There are some things some of us aren't wired to understand. I think this is one of them LOL