Just to be clear here there is not currently a Quantum Theory of Consciousness that is proposed - we don't understand the mechanics of consciousness, and Penrose pointed out a resemblance between this lack and the lack of understanding of what the "decoherence/wave collapse" operation corresponds to in the formalism. (Edgar will now point out that there is a theory of wave collapse that he likes, but it's not an undisputed theory either - and there are a lot of interesting gaps in the ground covered by quantum field theory at the moment).
Google has built a vision processor with about 1/1,000,000th the power of the human visual cortex and showed it 20 million you-tube stills and it ended up with "human face" neurons, "cat face" neurons, and "human body neurons" - there is nothing in the computational structure (known) of the brain that rules out seeing, with all of its red-ness or cat-ness. Wave your hand around and look at it, and marvel. Thanks, --Chris ch...@austin-lane.net +1-301-270-6524 On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 3:12 PM, jfnewell7 <jfnewe...@yahoo.com> wrote: > If the Quantum Theory of Consciousness is true, which it might or might > not be, and if it doesn't connect to a further process, which might or > might not be, then some quantum effects must have qualities such as > redness, blueness, middle-c-ness, rose-odorness etc. The reason would be > because nerve impulses don't have such qualities, but subjective images and > other percepts do have those qualities. So the qualities we perceive would > have to be from the quantum processes. However, it is possible that the > quantum processes merely link the neurons with a third natural information > processor which does have qualities. > > Jim > > > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "Bill!" <BillSmart@...> wrote: > > > > I'm more interested in qualta than quanta...Bill! > > > > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen <edgarowen@> wrote: > > > > > > Bill et al, > > > > > > Roger Penrose originated a quantum theory of consciousness which > claims consciousness arises because certain neural processes operate at the > quantum level. > > > > > > It's a nonsense theory... > > > > > > Edgar > > > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 10, 2012, at 5:12 AM, Bill! wrote: > > > > > > > Jim, > > > > > > > > This all sounds like a bunch of gobbedy-gook to me. For example I've > never heard of a 'quantum theory of consciousness' nor do can I conceive of > such a thing. Besides affirming to you that all of these concepts are > illusory and even if they are discussed in some circle have nothing to do > with Buddha Nature, I'll defer on the rest of this to Edgar and maybe Joe, > and anyone else who wants to take it on. > > > > > > > > ...Bill! > > > > > > > > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "jfnewell7" <jfnewell7@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > One:: I am assuming that since consciousness and the physical > exchange energy, they must have serious commonalities, such as having the > same ground or one being the ground of the other. > > > > > > > > > > Does this assumption seem reasonable? > > > > > > > > > > Two:: The expansion of space itself seems to be accelerating due > to a not understood cause called dark energy at the moment. > > > > > > > > > > My impression is that the acceleration in the expansion of space > is orderly to the point of seeming coordinated over a few billion light > years. > > > > > > > > > > Does that in fact fit the astronomical data? > > > > > > > > > > Three:: The bending of space involves more stretching on the > outside of the curve than one the inside of a curve, which gravitational > lensing involves galaxies as well as smaller bodies. The bending seems to > be orderly to the point of seeming coordinated across on the order of as > much as 100,000 light years. > > > > > > > > > > Does this in fact fit the astronomical data? > > > > > > > > > > Four:: If the above processes are in fact orderly, how could that > happen? > > > > > > > > > > Five:: To be able to expand and bend, space must have an > adequately low level of stiffness. > > > > > > > > > > Does this seem true? > > > > > > > > > > Six:: If space isn't stiff enough, it couldn't coordinate itself > by a process of or in space over the great distances noted above. If space > were too stiff, it couldn't expand and bend to begin with. > > > > > > > > > > Is there a level of space which could explain the orderliness over > great distances of the expansion and bending of space? If so, the analysis > ends here. If not, see below. > > > > > > > > > > Seven:: The quantum theory of consciousness holds that the effects > propagate faster than the speed of light. If that is true, then the quantum > processes transcend the aspect of space which involves the speed of light. > > > > > > > > > > Does that seem reasonable? > > > > > > > > > > Eight:: A transcendent process propagating faster than the speed > of light might be able to coordinate the expansion and bending of space > even when space could not coordinate its own expansion and bending over the > long distances discussed above. > > > > > > > > > > Does this seem like a reasonable possibility? > > > > > > > > > > Nine:: Such a quantum process is the only explanation I can see at > the moment, which tends to confirm it, but something new might be > discovered in the future. > > > > > > > > > > Does that seem to be reasonable? > > > > > > > > > > Ten: If the same quantum processes are involved with > consciousness, which involves the Buddha-nature, and also involves the > expansion and bending of space over long distances, then there is a deep > connection between the Buddha-nature and the expansion and bending of space > over long distances. > > > > > > > > > > Does that logical step seem reasonable? > > > > > > > > > > Jim > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are > reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links > > > >
