Quantum Physics and Neurons

Claude de Contrecoeur Cyrano at beehive.twics.com
Thu Nov 21 08:00:27 EST 1996


On Tue, 19 Nov 1996 14:03:38 GMT, lkh at mail.cei.net (Lee Kent
Hempfling) wrote:

>Alexander Easton <newc0101 at sable.ox.ac.uk> enunciated:
>
>>> I wonder whether phenomena of quantum physics might have an effect at
>>> the level of biological molecules and mechanisms such as in neurons.
>>> I know that the Planck quantum is quite small and its direct effects
>>> are basically only realized in the mikrokosmos, but there might be for
>>> example long-term effects, however, in an indirect manner.
>>> It would then be interesting to speculate about effects on 
>>> thinking, free will, conscious and so on, but also on the evolution
>>> of the brain itself.
>>> Can anyone provide me with information on this branch?
>>> 

All this grotesque quantum discussion on consciousness by Penrose,etc,
has been taken seriously because Penrose is a well-known and good
mathematician,etc.
However,as far as consciousness is concerned Penrose is a complete
IGNORANT and a primitive...and I advise him to have a look at :

http://dog.net.uk/claude

and then I advise him to do methodically what I have done for years
and,AFTER THAT,I will be very happy to hear what Penrose has to say on
consciousness.
Claude


>>Well....it looks like you are going down the line of conciousness as 
>>thought of by people like Roger Penrose ("Emporers New Mind" etc). Here 
>>he talks about phenomena of quantum physics at the  level of the cell 
>>(especially in microtubules) as playing a role in conciousness. If you 
>>want to look at this arguement any more then look into books like those 
>>by Penrose, or there is also an account of quantal phenomena and their 
>>relation to conciousness in the book "Towards a Science of conciousness" 
>>which is a report on a conference in 1994. It goes into some detail, but 
>>if you are interested it is well worth a read.
>
>>As to whether it plays as important a role as they claim...well, my mind 
>>is still not made up. I would question whether conciousness can be fully 
>>explained at this sort of level...I still beleive that there must be a 
>>much larger combination of effects that give rise to "conciousness" and 
>>believe that if events in microtubules underlay the whole process it 
>>would be only too easy to claim that nearly ALL organisms had 
>>conciousness...a highly questionable position.
>
>In a rebroadcast of Beyond 2000 last night it was speculated in
>reference to the Stuart Hameroff and Roger Penrose microtubule 
>Orch Or theory that every cell has a form of consciousness and that
>(from Stuart himself) it could be (there's that wonderful hope again)
>possible to transfer one's consciousness to some media to essentially
>live on forever. I can not argue with that comment since it may well
>be possible in some future time but the depiction of consciousness
>arising from the process that permits initial causal computation in
>brain without regard to results and levels of computationality is
>ignoring the parts in deference to the whole.
>
>A paper I have recently completed (Orch Or and Its Computationality)
>is available at our company's web site papers page) argues that
>Hameroff-Penrose are suggesting a protocol causes consciousness
>without addressing the parts they are actually observing and studying.
>
>There is much more too it but rather than posting the piece here I'll
>stop at that.
>
>lkh
>
>available at http://www.aston.ac.uk/~batong/Neutronics/
>
>
>Lee Kent Hempfling...................|lkh at cei.net
>chairman, ceo........................|http://www.aston.ac.uk/~batong/Neutronics/
>Neutronics Technologies Corporation..|West Midlands, UK; Arkansas, USA.
>




More information about the Neur-sci mailing list