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

Interesting consciousness stuff, was: Re: [nanotech] Re: Landauer...

Expand Messages
  • Andrew Derry
    ... 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
    Message 1 of 9 , Mar 31, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      At 11:29 AM 3/20/01 +0100, you 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
    • Mark Gubrud
      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
      Message 2 of 9 , 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
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.