"Kenneth 'pawl' Collins" <k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net> wrote in
message
news:f2nT9.103257$hK4.8387369 at bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> Does Penrose still hold that view?
There appears nothing above that question to which it might refer.
Don't top post.
Don't throw away the headers.
> There's nothing 'quantum' required. It's all just macroscopic TD
> E.I-minimization.
That is gobbledegook.
>> Todd A. Anderson wrote in message ...
> |In "The Emperor's New Mind", Roger Penrose argues that parts of the
> |brain exist simultaneously in multiple states due to quantum
effects
> but
> |that once the maximum difference between any two of these states
> |reaches a certain threshold the wave function collapses. I always
> thought
> |the need for conscious to collapse the wave function was silly.
> |
> |Todd
> |
> |"UKComplaint" <ukcomplaint at lycos.com> wrote in message
> |news:67ab52c2.0301071558.7e44fc36 at posting.google.com...> |> Physicist Henry Margenau (quoted by Sir John Eccles) states that
> the
> |> components of the brain 'are small enough to be governed by
> |> probabilistic quantum laws' and are 'always poised for a
multitude
> of
> |> possible changes, each with a definite probability'.
> |>
> |> Is Margenau's view (that actions in the brain might be subject to
> |> quantum effects) generally accepted withnin science?
> |>
> |> N.B. The blurb for the forthcoming Quantum Mind 2003 Conference
on
> |> Consciousness, Quantum Physics and the Brain to be hosted by the
> |> University of Arizona states "recent experimental evidence
> suggests
> |> quantum nonlocality occurring in conscious and subconscious brain
> |> function, and functional quantum processes in molecular biology
> are
> |> becoming more and more apparent."
Franz Heymann
