1755Interesting consciousness stuff, was: Re: [nanotech] Re: Landauer...
- Mar 31, 2001At 11:29 AM 3/20/01 +0100, you wrote:
>Exactly the paper that prompted me to write my article (see referenceshttp://www.consciousness.arizona.edu/hameroff/decoherence.html
>therein). My arguement - Max used 310K as the "T" in his numerical
>computation of the decoherence times of a microtubule soliton. To make
>sure I wasn't missing the obvious, I wrote Prof. Tegmark about it before
>publishing but my arguement was dismissed with a friendly giggle (no
>counter arguement). I received more sympathy from Hameroff, who had
>simultaneously managed to discover numerous other vulnerable points in
>Tegmark's bold statement, even though his model (Orch OR) is completely
>different from the vesicle transport model I adapted from Matsuno.
(html, not htm)
Most of the stuff that y'all have been discussing and a lot of the stuff on
the above mentioned page is way over my head.. but I still fount/find a lot
of it very interesting, for anyone else on this list that might be in the
same boat as me.. Hameroff's page in general, not just that article.
Thanks for the link, Steve.
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>