Discovery Supports Controversial Theory of Consciousness

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Discovery of Quantum Vibrations in 'Microtubules' Inside Brain Neurons Supports Controversial Theory of Consciousness

“The origin of consciousness reflects our place in the universe, the nature of our existence. Did consciousness evolve from complex computations among brain neurons, as most scientists assert? Or has consciousness, in some sense, been here all along, as spiritual approaches maintain?” ask Hameroff and Penrose in the current review. “This opens a potential Pandora’s Box, but our theory accommodates both these views, suggesting consciousness derives from quantum vibrations in microtubules, protein polymers inside brain neurons, which both govern neuronal and synaptic function, and connect brain processes to self-organizing processes in the fine scale, 'proto-conscious' quantum structure of reality.”

Quite frankly, I disagree with the implication that "consciousness has been here all along" - presumably due to the existence of quantum activity. If that were the case, then anywhere there's quantum activity, there's consciousness.

At best, consciousness can only be said to exist because the quantum activity occurs within microtubules within the brain.

I can see Deepak Chopra et al running with the "hasty generalization" of the above comment.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Gnug215]

[...]

I can see Deepak Chopra et al running with the "hasty generalization" of the above comment.

Kindest regards,

James

Oh god yes, my thoughts exactly.

And yeah, I also disagree with the implication.

It just means that the possibility of consciousness was there all along, and that it is not really some weird, unlikely miracle.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

I can see Deepak Chopra et al running with the "hasty generalization" of the above comment.

This already happens. I just watched a debate wherein Deepak Chopra referenced Hameroff and Penrose. The debate was posted over a year ago.

 

[Nemesiah]

It seems to me that unless we as a species put extra effort in educating our young towards having an skeptic mind, there will always be people misinterpreting results and people using said misinterpretations to further their own arguments.

I can remeber the whole "God's particle" fiasco when people decided that since someone decided to call it that, it was proof that God had something to do with it.

The really difficult parts of physics (string theory, quantum theory, etc...) are so hard to fully understand (there must be like 10 people worldwide that do) that they are a wonderfull haeven for crackpot theories that non skeptic minds tend to gravitate torwards since they sound "legit" by having sciency terms thrown in for good measure.

Humans will never fully understand the universe, I believe that just as formal languages are incapable of analizing certain logical propositions (Something relating to this:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel's_incompleteness_theorems but I can't remeber well how the analisis was done) the human brain is ill equiped to deal with every situation or phenomenon in the universe. This limitation however should make us be that much more critical of what we consider to be true however it would seem that the opposite is the case.