IUBio Biosequences .. Software .. Molbio soft .. Network News .. FTP

[Neuroscience] Re: A Purely-Electronic Brain -- Possible?

r norman via neur-sci%40net.bio.net (by r_s_norman from _comcast.net)
Fri Apr 20 18:17:56 EST 2007


On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 00:15:17 +0200, Josip Almasi <joe from vrspace.org>
wrote:

>Richard Dobson wrote:
>> [trying to be  abit selective in cross-posting]
>
>Well sure this topic doesn't fall into basic electronics;)
>
>>  From my recent reading on consciousness studies, it seems the big 
>> debate is over whether consciousness and the brain is local or non-local 
>> (i.e. involves processes at the quantum level). Evidence of non-locality 
>> is likely controversial by nature (telepathy ...); bit if it does prove 
>> to be so it suggests that general computer models cannot reach that 
>> final stage, until quantum computing itself become a reality. Which 
>> thyen begs the question about what we might feel about a quantum 
>> computer with non-local behaviour...
>
>AFAIK nonlocality doesn't play here. Brain is surrounded with a very 
>good electric isolation IOW high potential barrier IOW Faraday cage.
>Magnetic field passes but brain generates none measurable.
>
>'However, all electrical circuits - and that’s basically all neurones 
>are – generate an associated energy field, known as an electromagnetic 
>field or em field. This field contains precisely the same information as 
>the circuitry that generated it. However, unlike neuronal information, 
>which is localised in single or groups of neurons, the brain’s em field 
>will bind the neuronal information into a single integrated whole.'
>Sez McFadden in The conscious electromagnetic field theory.
>
>'However, there is a macroscopic quantum effect that in principle is not 
>suppressed by environmental decoherence: the quantum Zeno effect.'
>Sez Stapp in Quantum Mechanics in the Brain.
>
>'However, for modeling most of psychological functions (perception, 
>memorizing, learning, emotions, language, thinking, and especially 
>consciousness, creativity, and transpersonal interactions), the 
>brainwaves combined with complex biophysical ionic neural networks are 
>necessary.'
>Sez Rakovic in Hierarchical neural networks and brainwaves: towards a 
>theory of consciousness.
>
>Bottom line - there's a lot of however's.
>Google yourself;)
>
>Regards...

OK, some of this is nonsense, but it at least it is nonsense with
citations.

McFadden's work can be found through
  http://www.surrey.ac.uk/qe/cemi.htm

Stapp can be found at
  http://psyche.cs.monash.edu.au/v2/psyche-2-05-stapp.html

Rakovic at
  http://www.vxm.com/21R.7.html
  http://www.iasc-bg.org.yu/e-publ.html

I recall Roger Sperry describing in class some 45 years ago his
experiments showing how general electric fields could not be
responsible for "gestalt" phenomena -- he shortcircuited brain regions
with tantalum wires and isolated brain regions with mica insulators
but neither intervention had any effect on cortical function.  

The speculations of many physicists over the past century or more
about brain function have not yet led to breakthroughs in our
understanding.  Will one of these three prove to be the exception?
Perhaps,.


More information about the Neur-sci mailing list

Send comments to us at biosci-help [At] net.bio.net