🚀 go-pugleaf

UKComplaint wrote:

> Physicist Henry Margenau (quoted by Sir John Eccles) states that the
> components of the brain 'are small enough to be governed by
> probabilistic quantum laws' and are 'always poised for a multitude of
> possible changes, each with a definite probability'.
>
> Is Margenau's view (that actions in the brain might be subject to
> quantum effects) generally accepted withnin science?
>
> N.B. The blurb for the forthcoming Quantum Mind 2003 Conference on
> Consciousness, Quantum Physics and the Brain to be hosted by the
> University of Arizona states "recent experimental evidence suggests
> quantum nonlocality occurring in conscious and subconscious brain
> function, and functional quantum processes in molecular biology are
> becoming more and more apparent."

Quantum mechanics is a theory to define the physics of
the observed world. And it has not been tested as a
theory applying to the brain and minds of the human.

A conjecture of its capacity to define the human brain
functions is certainly possible, except a method to
prove the postulate must also be given.

I like to think that at least the optic nerve can be
studied in a quantum mechaincal theory, but I have
no hope for testing the theory, on my cause to be
a living being.

The aspect of the conciousness often identified
with quantum mechanics is another subject.
The topic of applied forms of thinking and logics
representing knowledges is likey to explain
a necessary QM theory logic similair to a knowledge's
logic.

And then the last question would be in a philosophy sense,
the ability for the thinking mind to define itself. And
things like religious necessity and the cause for any discovery
of a knowledge, indicate no capacity to observe
a thinkers cause to exist  with the same truth used in
ordinary discovery.

Douglas Eagleson
Gaithersburg, MD USA