🚀 go-pugleaf

The collapse of the quantum mechanical vector is intimately tied to
the observation of the system so why is it "downright silly" to
suggest that consciousness plays a causal role in the process?  The
fundamental problem I see is that we have become accustomed to
thinking about the world of both physics and biology in mechanistic
terms that don't fit with the more recent work of Penrose, Hameroff
and others.  But there is a growing body of data suggesting that
consequential events occur at the smallest scale in the nervous
system.  There is a great deal more processing going on within the
neuron than that directly associated with axonal spiking.  For
instance,
http://www.emergentmind.org/choquetteI2.htm


"Franz Heymann" <Franz.Heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in message news:<avjl1o$2rh$1@venus.btinternet.com>...
> "Todd A. Anderson" <drtodd@aaahawk.com> wrote in message
> news:avihgb$i2f$1@news01.intel.com...
> > 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.
> 
> Yes.  It is downright silly.
> 
>