the answer to all questions:

QUANTUM MIND

Very nice!

but..
(from the text)

"Nevertheless, quantum theories of consciousness suffer from the same difficulties as neural or computational theories. Quantum phenomena have some remarkable functional properties, such as non-determinism and non-locality. It is natural to speculate that these properties may play some role in the explanation of cognitive functions, such as random choice and the integration of information, and this hypothesis cannot be ruled out a priori. But when it comes to the explanation of experience, quantum processes are in the same boat as any other. The question of why these processes should give rise to experience is entirely unanswered."

stupid why questions ; )

This theory is bogus.

Although quantum effects can be observed in larger systems this is usually under very specific conditions. Quantum mechanics is describing things at the plank level.

Most of what goes on in the brain and neurotransmitters is described by classical mechanics.

Penrose is a genius but hes WAY off on this one. Hes a damn good physicist but he should stick to physics and stay away from the brain. His microtubule theory is total BS.

I agree the theory is bogus. However I would be very hesitant to say that quantum processes are not in some way involved in consciousness or brain function in general. For example electrons seem to be heavily involved in neuronal activity in certain brain regions. DNA seems to constantly emit photons and has been found extracellularly through the CNS. There is def room for QM interactions and manipulations here. We can not fully explain the functioning of the CNS however I think it entirely possibly the QM effects are utilized in addition to classical mechanics. I think that QM processes will def be found to be involved in brain function.


I love neuroscience but the more I have studied it the more I realize that for all we know we barely know shit. Even with drug actions there are so many complex variables. People love to take a drug and observe the first biological effect it has and say "oh these effects are caused by its action at this site..." however what about all the other sites it acts at? What about unknown mechanisms? Even the tools and techniques we have to study these processes are currently limited. We know a lot but we have a long way to go. Good science is def the way to knowledge unfortunately science is limited by its tools and our knowledge of the system we are probing. History has shown us that a single thought can radically alter the foundations of our beliefs.

People are making theories without adequate knowledge of the system. It would be like trying to guess the image of a puzzle with 90% of the pieces missing. Just as when scientists look back at research from the 60's and see how "primitive" most of it was but for their knowledge at the time it was groundbreaking work. The same will be said of our work today. This is why in many ways it is better to document information, and make observations but hold off on the grand theories.... unless you acknowledge them as what they are ....theories.. but many think they are definite...this limits progress and wastes money.... not that theories don't have utility and it certainly depends on the field and situtation... but especially neuroscience work I see this happening more and more and the politics of it all ... don't get me started how that influences the theories... .

Well said man. Won't say anymore

You're back, eh?

The theories are probably wrong, agreed. Like bufoman said:

But still, I like that people are at least trying to piece together what we know. The issue isn't really about

It's about what is going on during the phenomena that we've found in quantum mechanics. What is the variable in heisenberg's uncertainty principle that we aren't able to observe? How can two particles become entangled, and communicate faster than the speed of light? And of course, there are the questions that arise from the use of psychedelics.

I'm not willing to exclude the possibility of consciousness playing a role. It's no coincidence that people talk about these "consciousness theories" on a site devoted to the spirit molecule.

We shouldn't jump to conclusions or start believing that we've found all the answers or can completely explain the entire system of existence in a few thread posts... but I like that we keep the possibility of the role of consciousness as a hot topic, whatever that role may be.

this!!!!
love you man

the way I see it is that science is based on variables and things that can only be conclusively factuated within pre-requisite boundries......i.e a to b to c ect

what happens to our scientific dogma when all of a sudden an unknown letter is added to our "alphabet"? ( metaphorically speaking)

we could be only a step away from blowing it all out of the water and back to square 1..or maybe not but that is the fascination, that is the endearment, that my friends is our so called reality!!!

I am enthusiastic about science but it does not determine and would be ignorant to argue science as the be all and end all gospel of our existance

ambi's all be it incoherrant 2 cents

impossible is nothing!...

nothing is impossible!!!!!


amby - lye- spilled in his eye -lysergance's final quote of the night!!! lol

sweet dreams and much love

xxxx

AMEN

There is science and there is philosophy. These complement and drive.
As long as we realise this we can have different ideas (black-white), but still be on the same quest and have a common enemy (->ignorance).
We can use duality to accomodate unity.

well said virola, I couldnt agree more with this statement friend