Quantum soul

[tama]

Hameroff, Being the skunk at an atheist convention:

In November 2006 I was invited to a meeting at the Salk Institute in La Jolla, California called “Beyond Belief” (http://beyondbelief2006.org/). Other speakers and attendees were predominantly atheists, and harshly critical of the notion of spirituality. They included Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Patricia Churchland, Steven Weinberg (the least venal), Neil deGrasse Tyson and others who collectively vilified creationists and religious warriors. But the speakers also ragged on the notion of any purpose or meaning to existence, heaped ridicule on the very possibility of a God-like entity (and those who believed in such an entity), declared that scientists and philosophers should set society’s moral and ethical standards, and called for a billion dollar public relations campaign to convince the public God does not exist.

Near the end of the first day came my turn to speak. I began by saying that the conference to that point had been like the Spanish Inquisition in reverse - the scientists were burning the believers. And while I had no particular interest in organized religion, I did believe there could be a scientific account for spirituality.

(...)

After pointing out faulty assumptions in conventional brain models for consciousness and summarizing the Penrose-Hameroff theory, I laid out my plausibility argument for scientific, secular spirituality, suggesting cosmic connections and influence in our conscious thoughts occurred via quantum interactions in microtubules. I closed with a slide of the DNA molecule which emphasized it’s internal core where quantum effects rule, suggesting a Penrose non-computable influence in genetic mutations and evolution (aimed at Dawkins in the form of a quantum-based intelligent design).

(...)

Comments from the audience were negative, but off base. Physicist Lawrence Krauss said my suggestion of backward time effects in the quantum unconscious (indicated by experiments, and required to rescue consciousness from its unfortunate characterization as epiphenomenal illusion) were impossible. He was apparently unaware of the verification of Wheeler’s delayed choice experiments which precisely prove such backward time effects. Krauss also questioned the possibility of biological quantum computation at brain temperature, but I pointed to evidence for warm quantum coherence in biological photosynthesis. Neuroscientist Terry Sejnowski attempted to criticize my view, but floundered, unable to explain how his conventional approach could explain 40 Hz gamma synchrony EEG (the best measurable correlate of consciousness) without quantum effects.

(...)

I am not by nature confrontational, but am happy to debate scientists and philosophers who oppose our theory. Atheism does not hold the scientific high ground. Secular spirituality based on quantum biology and the physics of spacetime geometry is a viable and important idea. I am not offering or suggesting any proof, just a plausibility argument.
http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/skunk.htm

For more thorough discussion of the evidence and hypothesis of Quantum soul by Hameroff and Chopra:
http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/documents/QSoulchap.pdf

My comments: I'm interested in Quantum Mind hypotheses for my own reasons, but the Penrose-Hameroff hypothesis has not been my top favourite, so I'm not trying to push this but just to offer this for further discussion and rational inquiry as an evidence based rational hypothesis, not the final say. The name Chopra will probably get the usual riled up response from certain atheists instead of discussion of the ideas, but that is their problem. I'm especially interested in comments from theists who take theology seriously and philosophically instead of dogmatically and don't exclude scientific evidence and hypothesis from their theological considerations, even when they are contrary to the traditions of their religious nominations. How much room is there for evidence based science in contemporary theology that is open to dialogue with scientific approaches to spirituality?

[immoderate]

1. The Swami has new clothes!

Science and spirituality can ignore each other (best case) or be at cross purposes, but they can't co-exist. The scientist will always want to figure out what's really going on.

That evolution should take place on a quantum level is in keeping with evolution, which makes no judgements and favors the fittest. But I think it is all bio-chemistry and there are going to be interactions on a "quantum" level.

Explaining consciousness is the biggy, but some hypothetical quantum spirit does not clarify it.

--imm

[tama]

2. Well

Science and spirituality do co-exist in the observable world, as do views that they shouldn't and science should be some imperialistic power grabber to make all of humanity and universe a Borg of the materialistic dogma.

I'll just go with Hume the founder of empiricism and join him saying that "no should from is".

What is cool IMO about recent scientific progress is that the theoretical objections to quantum mind hypothesis (which has many various forms) are eroding as empirical evidence falsifies them. And that quantum mind hypotheses are not as hostile to spirituality as the materialistic hypothesis of emergentism. That means at least more room for constructive and pleasent dialogue and less room for us-against-them tribalism, if evidence is respected.

Edit to add: what would clarify the biggie, from your point of view?

[Goblinmonger]

3. So I find this interesting in your OP and in this post

In your OP, you say

The name Chopra will probably get the usual riled up response from certain atheists instead of discussion of the ideas, but that is their problem.

In this post, you say

Science and spirituality do co-exist in the observable world, as do views that they shouldn't and science should be some imperialistic power grabber to make all of humanity and universe a Borg of the materialistic dogma.

Now, I put the smiley in there for you because I know you were being a little flippant on purpose, but even you show the dichotomy that exists between the world view of the two. I found your desire to have Chopra discussed rationally to be deliciously coated in irony.

And, yeah, Chopra's a turd. That coming from a literature teacher who likes a lot of weird stuff.

[tama]

7. No,

I'm still interested in dicussing Chopra rationally or irrationally, he just happens to be co-author of interesting article together with Hameroff. And as predicted, you have no comment on the content of the article and show interest only in discussing turd. Million flies can't be wrong? Never mind, also I have had many very refreshing scatological discussions.

PS: do you imply by "dichotomy" that world is divided into two: dualism of spirituality and science?

[cbayer]

9. Certainly science and spirituality can co-exist, and do so beautifully

in many scientists.

Wanting to continue to discover and ask questions that are hard to answer are aspects of both.

[immoderate]

13. Spirits do not submit themselves to scientific study.

They're just never around when you need them.

The spirits once controlled the heavens, and the weather, and disturbances inside the earth, and diseases and afflictions of body and soul. But scientists are in charge of everything now, except sex and sports. Those are the only places left to invoke a deity.

--imm

[cbayer]

15. Wow, it must be amazing to know so much of everything that is known.

Me? I know very, very little.

[immoderate]

25. Merely an illusion I create by sticking to the obvious.

And while fair hearings are always in order, if it ducks like a quack, it's a quack. They exist.

--imm

[skepticscott]

4. Spirituality is a Rohrschach word

It can mean pretty much anything to each different person who uses it, so debating where it exists and where it doesn't is largely an unproductive exercise. If someone says that something is a "spiritual" experience for them, who is anyone else to argue? And who says that science and spirituality in any form shouldn't or can't possibly coexist, anyway?

But when someone says something as silly as "Atheism does not hold the scientific high ground", it makes me wonder how much their agenda is coloring their thinking. That's just about the silliest straw man about atheism that you could invent.

[Leontius]

5. I think everyone should remember this post whenever you tout science and the evidence it

has revealed about how the universe functions as reason to doubt the probability of the existence of God.

[skepticscott]

6. Not only is this post not directly relevant to that

But I have never "touted" what you said in any case. I don't believe in any gods because I see no good evidence for doing so. The fact that science can now explain much more parsimoniously things that used to be attributed to "gods" of all stripes is simply a reflection of that lack of evidence. "Spirituality" need not have anything at all to do with the physical and objective existence of a god. Spirituality is entirely a subject matter, and I don't have to be convinced that someone's god exists outside of their imagination to be convinced that their superstitious belief in it provides them with a "spiritual" experience.

Feel free to remember this post too.

[tama]

8. Answers

1) So maybe spirituality some mode of avoiding and/or finding freedom from arguments and debates?

2) Immoderate said that science and spirituality cannot coexist

3) The comment about atheism should be regarded in the context of Hameroff having attended an atheist convention of strongly opinioned scientists, some of whom seem to identify science with atheism.

[FarCenter]

10. A quantum computer does not continue to compute after the physical system is destroyed.

So while it may be important in understanding how the mind works, it does not imply life after death or oneness with some cosmic conciousness.

[tama]

23. Quantum computers

as we know them are rather complex logic circuits to gain classical answers utilizing quantum states.

The logic circuits were developed most notably by David Deutch, who believes that quantum computers would prove his many-worlds theory carrying on classical notions of causality.

There is also a much simpler test to the many-worlds theory of world dividing into worlds in each quantum event, namely Russian Roulette - in a suicide game of any level of quantum uncertainty the experimenter could not die in all of the many-worlds, but would consciously continue living at least in one. Depending on the odds, in other worlds friends and relatives would mourn the departed experimenter, believing or not believing in his afterlife in some other world.

[FarCenter]

24. That would be David Deutsche

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Deutsch

He is also an atheist

BTW, "Shut up and calculate!" is from David Mermin, not Richard Feynman.

So far, not many qubits have been implemented.

Meanwhile, I'll avoid playing Russian Roulette. However, I'll gladly inhabit the universe where I win the lottery every time.

[LongTomH]

11. Some info on Stuart Hameroff

Last edited Sun Mar 25, 2012, 11:45 AM - Edit history (1)

Here's some background info on Dr. Hameroff:

From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuart_Hameroff

More from the Quantum Consciousness website: http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/personal.html

From Skeptiko.com: http://www.skeptiko.com/stuart-hameroff-on-quantum-consciousness-and-singularity/

What is Consciousness - from the Institute of Noetic Sciences: http://noetic.org/noetic/issue-thirteen-august/what-is-consciousness-hameroff/

[bananas]

17. Good stuff, thanks for the links.

[Silent3]

12. "I am not offering or suggesting any proof, just a plausibility argument."

You can't and shouldn't expect a lot of automatic respect based on mere plausibility (not to mention arguable degrees of plausibility), especially when one is looking for ways to make true what one desperately wants to belief is true, and when that very thing -- mysticism and "spirituality" and talk of souls -- has been part and parcel of what held science back in the dark ages for so long, and when abandoning that thing has been the most fruitful way to expand our knowledge.

If you're really onto something expect a hard fight, expect to endure skepticism and even jeering until you prove your ideas. It's only a few rare hard-to-accept ideas that turn out not to deserve the scorn they receive. Most crazy ideas are just that, crazy ideas.

Wheeler's delayed choice experiment, by the way, does not prove backward time effects at all. The results you get via delayed choice are exactly what QM predicts and has predicted for a long time that you'd get. All Wheeler's experiment does is emphasize how weird QM is, and how it can be a big mistake to enforce a classical interpretation on a quantum result by thinking of it as meaning that a photon has to have taken a particular path.

[tama]

14. I've been taught

that science or empirical method does not positively prove theories but theories stay valid until proven wrong. "Conventional truth" and "plausibility arguments" is what science (mostly) does, not positive proofs of absolute truths.

Enduring skepticism and even jeering would arise from need to convince others and make them accept and adopt your ideas (and need to believe or disbelieve in your case), which sounds like the plausibility game and in his own words, Hameroff is playing that game, which is fine. But I'm not Hameroff. So I assume the "you" is the generic "you".

And yes, it is correct to say that Wheeler's experiment and math of QM does not mean sending information into some objectively existing past, but that "past" if presumed at all, is created by observation event of "now". So what does that mean for causality that presumes "objective past"?

[Silent3]

16. While nothing is ever 100% positively proved...

...scientific ideas do have to demonstrate some degree of scientific merit first before they become established, before they enjoy the privilege of being considered valid until disproved. A debatable degree of plausibility is at most motivation for allocating some time and funding to researching new ideas, and the burden of that costs belongs on the champions of the new ideas.

Since the idea of an "objective past" is not needed by QM, it is superfluous to QM. The fact that an objective past can be constructed in other areas of science (say, paleontology and geology and astrophysics) doesn't mean there has to be such a construct for "uncollapsed" wave equations.

[tama]

18. Yeah

sociolology of science is a bitch.

Supposing that biology reduces to quantum biology and to QM without objective past, what happens e.g. to darwinian evolution presupposing linear causality?

[Silent3]

19. Suppose an average of 5.7 angels can dance on the head of a pin...

...and angels fart rainbows. It's more supposing than I care to do. Since I can't spend my time supposing an infinite number of supposable things, I'd rather suppose things with more promise to lead somewhere interesting and productive.

[tama]

20. So in other words

your evaluation of scientific evidence and premisses and their plausibility stems from your ideological and subjective notions of what you consider productive and interesting. And then based on your subjective plausibility evaluation you can proceed to claim that Reality (with capital R) is on your side all others who don't believe the same way should be ridiculed and shown contempt...?

[Silent3]

21. Show me results

Last edited Sun Mar 25, 2012, 07:09 PM - Edit history (1)

Show me what's been solved based on quantum ESP, what treatment for mental illness as been produced based on quantum consciousness, what new medicine has been discovered based on quantum biology, where "quantum" refers not merely to well-understood and established QM, but something belonging to your wooish top-down, consciouness-first conjecture and mysticism.

Even crappy science that later gets replaced often has some results before being shown to be inconsistent or incomplete. I've just been reading about the history of phlogiston theory. Even that had some seeming successes before it had to be abandoned. What success has your quantum woo had, apart from putting a gleam in Deepak Chopra's eye?

When you can do that, then I'll reconsider if my "subjective plausibility evaluation" is some sort of unfair prejudice, but not until then.

[tama]

22. What is "unfair" about your prejudice

is that instead of discussing reasonably you try to put words in my mouth a lá "wooish top-down, consciouness-first conjecture and mysticism". As mysticism refers to what cannot or should not be spoken about, real mysticism refers to Feymann's "shut up and calculate", not my attempts to discuss and understand quantum theory and it's philosophical etc. implications in natural language. That you somehow seem to feel threatened by.

You show your subjective and cultural prejudice in your expectation that science becomes "plausible science" only when it can be used for ideological purposes like technological control over natural processes like "new medicine" etc. Pure math and theoretical physics are primarily descriptive sciences for pure intellectual pleasure, not technological engineer sciences of putting math into use for ideological purposes (and by ideological I don't mean good or bad but teleological purpose oriented behavior).

As for mental illness, people have all sorts of experiences that the prevailing materialistic paradigm consider impossible or supernatural and signs of insanity, and I have seen that what such people often need most is someone just to listen their experiences without considering them mental patients in need of treatment. And being able to tell that science is not limited to materialist paradigm (even though many pseudoskeptics try to give such appearance) helps to keep the dialogue and channels of communication open between those with experiences that don't fit well with materialistic paradigm and science in general.

So becoming aware that scientific hypothesis like quantum mind/body/soul do exist helps many people feel less alone (against the condemnation and ridicule from the materialist prejudice) and equally importantly not to develope hostile attitude towards science as whole, which would be justified only if all of science - as social phenomenon - was hostile to such experiences.

"Scientific discovery and scientific knowledge have been achieved only by those who have gone in pursuit of it without any practical purpose whatsoever in view." - Max Planck

[Silent3]

26. The practical results show that the intellectual part...

...has something to do with reality, that it stands up over and over again when put to the test, and isn't just a game people play in their heads, however fascinating and rewarding that game might be in and of itself.

That you somehow seem to feel threatened by.

Threatened? Oh, such fear I feel in the presence of your bold ideas that threaten to shatter my paradigm! Please, get over yourself. You're merely being obnoxious, hardly threatening.

...only when it can be used for ideological purposes like technological control over natural processes like "new medicine" etc.

Gosh, I never realized that thinking the curing of diseases was a good thing was an "ideology". I really should get over that evil agenda of wanting to prevent disease and suffering -- it's just a control freak thing to not let people sicken and die naturally, I guess.

(Maybe I should feel a bit threatened by you... I should be worried about eye muscle spasms from all of the eye rolling you induce.)

So becoming aware that scientific hypothesis like quantum mind/body/soul do exist helps many people feel less alone

That's how you'd like to judge the quality of science? By how good it makes you feel to think about an idea?

"Scientific discovery and scientific knowledge have been achieved only by those who have gone in pursuit of it without any practical purpose whatsoever in view." - Max Planck.

But it's only when tangible results are achieved -- reliable, reproducible results -- that someone's imaginative, practical-concern-free pursuits are considered good science. It might be good fun before it's good science, it might be elegant math before it's good science, but science demands more. Imagination is a very helpful BUT NOT SUFFICIENT condition for creating good science.

[tama]

29. "Science" is abstract noun

which you seem to personify as some sort of superego-authority (that you imply to have magical connection with as the self-claimed profet-like spokesperson for Science-SuperEgo-Person) with sentences like "science demands more". It would be more honest and rational just to admit that your subjective expectations and criteria of "practicality" demand more, that "good science" becomes "good" only by constantly producing new technological wonders.

Speak for yourself and try not make claims in the name of personified abstract nouns like "Science" and "Reality".

[Silent3]

30. What a silly diversion

I can talk about what happened in England in the eighteenth century without purporting to be the ruler of England, without having to be English myself, without having to be the Prophet of England, without having to solve every territorial dispute so the "England" is precisely and unambiguously defined.

If I say "England expanded its empire" that's hardly a statement of belief in magical English Super Ego that I'd have to imagine exists in order to speak of unified English actions that way.

[tama]

31. Well

I would say that is exactly a statement of belief in magical English (or any other nationalist or tribal) Super Ego mythology. Language is not innocent tabula rasa but reflects and represents the fundamental myths that we live by. And "spiritual" methodology advices or suggests that we can become free from such mythological constructs by becoming consciouss of them and by ceasing from giving emotional energy to to such mythological concepts. That's individually testable. And it does not say we *should* do so, only that we can.

[Silent3]

32. All you're proving...

...is that no matter what is argued, you'll argue for words being used in the argument to be just as slippery as you need them to be so that you're right (but not so slippery that the person you disagree with can be right at the same time).

I can remain perfectly aware that "England" is a less-than-totally-precise mental construct, that its people aren't all in agreement on the issues, that they wouldn't even all agree who is English and which patches of ground belong to England and who speaks for England, yet I can still also understand that, by and large, when I say "England established colonies in North America" that I'm communicating a clear, understandable concept that provides useful information, and that even people who despise English imperialism will still know what I'm talking about.

There's nothing "magical" about that at all. People by and large can understand what I mean when I say "science has standards of evidence" without, unlike you, thinking that this means I've declared myself the Emperor of Science, or that I think that science is a personified being. Only you seem to suffer from such confusion, and the only thing I can't decide is if you pretend to suffer from that confusion for the sake of evasive argumentation, or if you really are that confused.

[laconicsax]

27. I'd like to suggest that you may have posted this in the wrong group

While discussion of religion and theology often requires begged questions and unsupported premises, your desired discussion of quantum mind may be better suited to the Astrology, Spirituality & Alternative Healing group or Creative Speculation.

[tama]

28. I'd like to suggest

that you resign from being host and censurer of Science group because of your confessed personal bias against discussing quantum mind hypothesis.

[laconicsax]

35. Confessed bias? LOL, that's rich.

I have no problem with discussions of pseudoscience. I just thought you'd appreciate the discussion you might get in one of the two suggested groups, since neither group would subject you to those evil atheists who realize that Chopra is a nut-job.

[tama]

38. I have no problems with atheists

I have problem with pro-censureship attitudes based on ideological prejudice.

[laconicsax]

41. That's a wholly reasonable position.

Have you been censored on DU?

[tama]

43. E.g.

Topic about Sheldrake's new book was censured in Science group before I could participate in the discussion.

[laconicsax]

51. Someone else's thread being locked as off-topic is censoring you?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12281534

You didn't start the thread in question and none of your replies were hidden.

What's more, the topic (Sheldrake's new book) was about pseudoscience, which doesn't belong in the Science group any more than a discussion of whether cats or dogs are make better pets belongs in the Music Appreciation group. Every forum and group on DU has a statement of purpose, and threads that fall outside of that statement risk being locked as off-topic.

BTW, my search for this led me to find that outside of your posts here in the Religion group, Sheldrake is the topic of at least one thread in the Astrology, Spirituality, and Alternative Healing group, where I've already suggested you may find the discussion you're looking for.

[cbayer]

33. I think it's fine here.

[laconicsax]

36. I was only suggesting that the OP may get more of the discussion he wants elsewhere.

[Joseph8th]

34. Quantum consciousness...

... is garbage. That's why scientists ridicule it. You wouldn't expect an astronomer to demean the science by debating a flat-earther, right? Why would you expect physicists to demean quantum mechanics by taking this garbage seriously?

Quantum consciousness is a despicable worthless low-down lie meant to dupe people out of their cash. Garbage. Worthless. There's no point in refuting the flat-earther, nor their so-called 'science'.

[tama]

37. Perhaps

you are referring to Stengers criticism based on the scale argument:

In reality, the gap between subatomic quantum effects and large-scale macro systems is too large to bridge. In his book The Unconscious Quantum (Prometheus Books, 1995), University of Colorado physicist Victor Stenger demonstrates that for a system to be described quantum-mechanically, its typical mass (m), speed (v) and distance (d) must be on the order of Planck's constant (h). "If mvd is much greater than h, then the system probably can be treated classically." Stenger computes that the mass of neural transmitter molecules and their speed across the distance of the synapse are about two orders of magnitude too large for quantum effects to be influential. There is no micro-macro connection. Then what the #$*! is going on here?

***

To debunk our theory Shermer cites an assertion in a book by Victor Stenger that the product of mass, velocity and distance of a quantum system cannot exceed Planck’s constant. I’ve not seen this proposal in a peer reviewed journal, nor listed anywhere as a serious interpretation of quantum mechanics. But in any case Stenger’s assertion is disproven by Anton Zeilinger’s experimental demonstration of quantum wave behavior in fullerenes and biological porphyrin proteins.

http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/hackery.htm

To repeat, Stengers main objection has been falsified by Zeiliger's empirical evidence. Remaining theoretical problems of the scaling problem can be solved by Pitkänen's idea that instead of giving Planck's constant or rather hbar just one numerical value, the numerical value can be scaled number theoretically - which solves also elegantly the problem of dark matter, showing that it's just like ordinary matter but with different values of hbar.

[Joseph8th]

39. Nope... not referring to that...

... I'm referring to straight-up dishonest pursuit of using quantum mechanics to justify New Age crackpottery. It's yet another transparent attempt to use QM to justify some metaphysical or philosophical argument. It's not, therefore, "criticism" to dismiss "quantum consciousness" upon even the most superficial lit review.

RE the scale argument: it holds, for the most part. Exceptions are interesting the way black holes are interesting: as anomalies. So arguing that a phenomenon known only to apply, in general, at a very tiny scale, also apply in general at a large scale is not science. The evidence says nothing of the sort. It says there are anomalies, which sometimes are predicted (like black holes) and sometimes appear empirically 1st. Either way, we use the scientific method to understand them, not woo-woo New Age claptrap.

[tama]

40. So

your very emotionally hostile response has nothing to do with science and evidence all to do with your personal prejudice against what you call "New Age crackpottery", what ever that is supposed to mean.

And no, the scaling argument does not hold by calling evidence that falsifies it "anomaly" - that's what anomalies do, they falsify theories and hypothesis and misconceptions that fail to predict and explain anomalies. There is also other evidence, quantum coherence in photosynthesis and birds sensing magnetic fields quantum coherently.

When plants and birds can do it, claiming to know that humans and sentient beings in general can't do it, is ridicilous. Especially as the only counterarguments offered are political, not scientific.

[FarCenter]

42. Theoretical examination of quantum coherence in a photosynthetic system at physiological temperature

The observation of long-lived electronic coherence in a photosynthetic
pigment–protein complex, the Fenna–Matthews–Olson
(FMO) complex, is suggestive that quantum coherence might play
a significant role in achieving the remarkable efficiency of photosynthetic
electronic energy transfer (EET), although the data were
acquired at cryogenic temperature [Engel GS, et al. (2007) Evidence
for wavelike energy transfer through quantum coherence in photosynthetic
systems. Nature 446: 782–786]. In this paper, the spatial
and temporal dynamics of EET through the FMO complex at physiological
temperature are investigated theoretically. The numerical
results reveal that quantum wave-like motion persists for several
hundred femtoseconds even at physiological temperature, and
suggest that the FMO complex may work as a rectifier for unidirectional
energy flow from the peripheral light-harvesting antenna
to the reaction center complex by taking advantage of quantum
coherence and the energy landscape of pigments tuned by the protein
scaffold. A potential role of quantum coherence is to overcome
local energetic traps and aid efficient trapping of electronic energy
by the pigments facing the reaction center complex.

http://www.pnas.org/content/106/41/17255.full.pdf+html

Relaxation times in the FMO complex are sub-picosecond.

[tama]

44. Yup

And I just found this very interesting and entertaining debate:
Plenary debate: Quantum effects in biology: trivial or not?
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCUQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.univie.ac.at%2Fqfp%2Fpublications%2Fpdffiles%2F2008-09.pdf&ei=C_1wT7ScMc2k4AT0o4iYDw&usg=AFQjCNE1nOYJ9hOnYT8z2w8R8z4rFzwrIQ

[Joseph8th]

45. Uh. oh. Got us a ...

... leak. Throwing info at ppl in a web forum isn't going to help. One has to make cogent arguments and support with links, not just throw other author's work at random folks like that. Climate deniers do it, too... cut & paste from pet research in forums as if comments threads were legitimate forums for peer review.

[tama]

46. I'm sorry

but you're not making much sense.

That was a panel discussion about relevance of quantum biology, with two sides represented and with top scientists like Zeiliger, Davies etc. participating.

But if you want a cogent argument supported with a link, the vote of the well educated audience at the end of the discussion shows that your claim about the general opinion of the scientific community is extreme misrepresentation.

[FarCenter]

50. Anton Zeilinger would qualify as a top scientist. Davies not so much.

How did Davies lend his name to "A Bacterium That Can Grow by Using Arsenic Instead of Phosphorus", Felisa Wolfe-Simon1,2,*,
Jodi Switzer Blum2, Thomas R. Kulp2, Gwyneth W. Gordon3, Shelley E. Hoeft2, Jennifer Pett-Ridge4, John F. Stolz5, Samuel M. Webb6, Peter K. Weber4, Paul C. W. Davies1,7, Ariel D. Anbar1,3,8, and Ronald S. Oremland2

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/1163.full

Now belongs in the Journal of Irreproducible Results

[FarCenter]

49. I'll have to read more, but at first glance it is not persuasive.

Further, consider "Cytoskeletal Signaling: Is Memory Encoded in Microtubule Lattices by CaMKII Phosphorylation?" by Travis J. A. Craddock, Jack A. Tuszynski, and Stuart Hameroff. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3297561/

Couldn't the phosphorylation of microtubules by the attachment of CaMKII more or less permanently modify the transport of materials to the synapse by dynein and kinesin transporters, thus permanently modifying the synapse?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinesin

I don't see why any quantum functionality in the microtubules is implied by this work.

[Joseph8th]

53. No... anomalies don't falsify...

... it's anomalous for a black hole to appear in the fabric of spacetime, but predictable in science. Falsifies nothing.

And hell yeah, I have emotionally hostile response that has nothing to do with science... and why not? Neither does what I'm emotionally responding to in a hostile way. Surely I shouldn't be held to a higher standard than Deepockets Chopra.

[westerebus]

47. Well that's interesting.

In several ways. Here's a very intelligent mind proposing a connection of secular spirituality and QM, so what's so unreasonable?

Nothing that I can think of. Why wouldn't it be possible?

The more I've read about the the how and what of consciousness the more I ask why? While my interest is the subject of the emotions and interpersonal interaction, variances in behavior, imprinting, and socialization; what's not to like about about a guy who puts people to sleep discussing what might keep you up all night. Now that's funny!

Then there's the pundits of the non religious nature arguing for the unknown nature of god, that's even funnier!

Then the religious are respectfully netural in their response, as if anything is going to change their minds, funnier still!

Personally, Hameroff looks like someone I'd like to have a beer with at the next meeting of the Holy Disorder of Agnostics which meets every one hunderd point nine years in a parallel universe by invitation only. Mine is in the mail. Your's too.

[tama]

48. Sensing and consciousness

This is interesting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetoception

Terminology is problematic, but I understand sensing and sentience to be more fundamental than consciousness, in the sense that there can be much sensing going on that some neurological processes tend to filter from conscious experience. Magnetoception could be quantum-sentient process of direclty sensing electromagnetic fields at cellular level - while 'consciousness' would refer to secondary lever of neurologically/classically filtering out magnetoception or channelling it through classical senses - and living "in the head" instead of whole-body sensing. "Spiritual" body-sense during so called "alternate states of mind" etc. could in many cases refer to pre-classical quantum magnetoception. And maybe the math to give more detailed description of this is allready out there available.

[westerebus]

52. Communication is 80% non verbal, so I understand.

As it happens, our response by verbalizing to what we are sensing happens in a conscious state for the most part.

A mixed message is the emotional response that appears to negate what was verbalized. The opposite of what is verbalized is detected by the observer. We are imprinted in our attraction to believing that which we wish to hear, while we sense something not coherent in respect to the message delivered. In this state the observer accecpts the message as given absent any current proof to the other wise.

It is in the alternative state of mind that true or false lose thier inherent nature. Valuation ceases. The observer is The observed. In this discussion for our purpose, maintaining a secular spiritual state, to not send or receive mixed messages, is possible.

If there is a true north, there must then exist a false north. I sense this is incorrect. In an altered state there is no sense of a difference.

The observer can be in both places at once, until a state of consciousness returns. Sensing we are sensing.

Time for sleep. Have a good night. Or day. Or either. Both.