Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.bio,comp.ai,alt.consciousness
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!bb3.andrew.cmu.edu!newsfeed.pitt.edu!gatech!swrinde!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!doug
From: doug@netcom.com (Doug Merritt)
Subject: Re: Numbers for QM Biocomputer
Message-ID: <dougDMsLJs.3wo@netcom.com>
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
References: <4ftvtt$auo@cloner2.ix.netcom.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 1996 01:02:15 GMT
Lines: 31
Sender: doug@netcom23.netcom.com
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu sci.physics:171301 comp.ai:37049

In article <4ftvtt$auo@cloner2.ix.netcom.com> sarfatti@ix.netcom.com (Jack Sarfatti ) writes:
>If, further, the electrons are shielded from ordinary
>thermal decoherence by the Hameroff mechanism, then
>we have a long-lived quantum electron biocomputer in our
>microtubules. Thw quantum wave (in configuration space)
>of this many-electron system is our mind.

You mean "then we *might* have a quantum electron biocomputer";
there are other facts, as yet unestablished, required to support
Penrose's hypothesis. The simple empirical evidence concerning
the interaction of nitrous oxide and microtubules seems enough
to show that *some* quantum interaction is going on, so I understand
Penrose's (and your) interest...but there's a long, long way to go
yet.

My main reason for being dubious about the microtubule hypothesis is
simply that human brains give no evidence of being *THAT* incredibly
powerful. The far simpler (relatively) computational abilities
that arise from more traditional neural models seem closer to
what is observed in gross intelligence.

(I should give Penrose's collaborator attribution too, but I forgot
his name.)

What's the Hameroff mechanism?
	Doug
-- 
Doug Merritt				doug@netcom.com
Professional Wild-eyed Visionary	Member, Crusaders for a Better Tomorrow

Unicode Novis Cypherpunks Gutenberg Wavelets Conlang Logli Alife Anthro
Computational linguistics Fundamental physics Cogsci Egyptology GA TLAs
