Re: quantum consciousness

Mary: Microtubules are fascinating structures to be sure as their
proteins are also unique to eucaryotic cells ( despite earlier claims by
Lynn Margulis) and the site of action of several antitumor and
anti-rejection drugs. However, Tegmark and others have concluded that
their quantum decoherence timescales are much too short for them to be
involved in consciousness by a minimum of 10 orders of magnitude (10 exp
-13 to 10 exp -20 seconds) compared to timescales of 10 exp - 3 to 10
exp -1 for neuron firing and microtubule polarization (Tegmark, Max.
1999. The Importance of Quantum Decoherence in Brain Processes. Phys.
Rev E, 10 Nov. 1999.). The paper has an extensive bibliography

Vic Stenger has discussed quantum consciousness in less technical detail
and with broader coverage in his book, "The Unconscious Quantum" and I
recommend this and other books by him, though perhaps his uncompromising
skepticism and materialism may be off-putting to some people. BTW,
Stenger was one of many co-investigators in the recent US-Japanese
experiments showing that neutrinos have mass.

Although consciousness studies are commonplace now, I have a feeling
that they are still premature, that consciousness is scarcely definable,
let alone understandable at present.
I presume it is some sort of emergent property of complex neuronal
networks, but that's admittedly mere handwaving.

--John

Hi John

What is consciousness (and spirit) has fascinated me since college
and was a strong impetus for choosing psychiatry, and I still think
neurobiology is one of the most exciting fields around.

However, Tegmark and others have concluded that
> their quantum decoherence timescales are much too short for them to
be
> involved in consciousness by a minimum of 10 orders of magnitude
(10 exp
> -13 to 10 exp -20 seconds) compared to timescales of 10 exp - 3 to
10
> exp -1 for neuron firing and microtubule polarization (Tegmark, Max.
> 1999. The Importance of Quantum Decoherence in Brain Processes.
Phys.
> Rev E, 10 Nov. 1999.). The paper has an extensive bibliography

I will look it up and let you know if I have any thoughts about it.
I don't think timescale is critical again if you are thinking about
implicate order and vertical information, but that is off the top of
my head. Of course timescale is quite critical in translating
this "mindstuff" into actual neuronal impulses.

Since we are moving to Tucson I plan on attending the Tucson
Coference in Consciousness next year (I think that is the next one)
where I can get a feeling of where the whole field is these days. I
was actually quite amazed to see that they were mapping aminoacids in
the tubulin structure, which dates me :-) Actually I don't recall
ever even hearing microtubules discussed in med school

I think the Fibonacci connection in the tubular structure is
just "too neat" - ie I don't buy that.

>
>
> Although consciousness studies are commonplace now, I have a feeling
> that they are still premature,
Well they were saying that in the 70's and 80's too, but have to
start somewhere. CUrrently my interests in it are how music affects
it, and the body, and microtubules seem quite interesting from that
vantage point. I think harmonic studies using microtubular
preparations might be fascinating, somewhat akin to the sound plate
studies that have been done.

consciousness is scarcely definable,
> let alone understandable at present.

> I presume it is some sort of emergent property of complex neuronal
> networks, but that's admittedly mere handwaving.
>
Yes:-)

I suppose someday we will see the same polemical division of Math and
Consciousness, Not!

MAry.

I posted an interesting excerpt from B. J. Hiley on this subject onto
the tuning list . . . the entire article is available at

http://www.bbk.ac.uk/tpru/BasilHiley.html

and is entitled

_Non-commutative Geometry, the Bohm Interpretation and the Mind-
Matter Relationship_.

I think this is more interesting and promising (but even further
ahead of its time) than the Penrose microtubule approach.