Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

1756Re: Interesting consciousness stuff, was Landauer...

Expand Messages
  • Mark Gubrud
    Apr 2, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      I didn't respond to Lenhert's post about 310 K somehow being the wrong
      temperature to use for the human brain, because I didn't see any kind of
      argument that I could respond to. It's true under various physical
      conditions there can be different temperatures for different degrees of
      freedom (electrons, phonons, etc.) and that some degrees of freedom can be
      "frozen out" at a given temperature, but I don't see how these conditions
      can exist for proteins in cytosol at body temperature.

      Max Tegmark's paper states something that is so obvious to most physicists
      that credit is due to Tegmark mostly for being the first to notice that
      the literature lacked and could use a paper stating the reasons why. The
      proposals of Hameroff and any others that I know of for quantum coherent
      computation in the brain (apart from local electro-chemical dynamics) are
      ridiculous on their face and quite implausible from what is known about
      decoherence rates in general systems.

      On Sat, 31 Mar 2001, Andrew Derry wrote:

      > At 11:29 AM 3/20/01 +0100, Steve Lenhert wrote:
      > >Exactly the paper that prompted me to write my article (see references
      > >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.
      > >http://www.consciousness.arizona.edu/hameroff/decoherence.htm
      > http://www.consciousness.arizona.edu/hameroff/decoherence.html
      > (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.
      > Andrew
    • Show all 9 messages in this topic