Is our mind quantum?

Saint

Saint

Valued Senior Member
If the observer can influence the behavior of particles being observed, does it mean our mind is quantum?
 
Saint said:
If the observer can influence the behavior of particles being observed, does it mean our mind is quantum?
Click to expand...
Yes but only under a short time. This is why multitasking is difficult and we only use ten percent of our mind. Photons only travel a short distance through us and our minds use sensory perceptions other than light
 
our minds should be quantum, not 0 and 1, our minds can think of many possibility.
 
Saint said:
If the observer can influence the behavior of particles being observed, does it mean our mind is quantum?
Click to expand...
No. I can influence the flight of a tennis ball by throwing it. That says nothing about my mind.
 
origin said:
Back on ignore you go.
Click to expand...
Oh my heart is breaking. Here you were granting me the privilege of your attention and I ruined it. Aaaauwww....

But resilient as I am, I can live with that. In fact I can do without non-constructive criticism. It lightens my burden of proof considerably.
 
Last edited:
James R said:
According to some fringe speculations, you mean.
Click to expand...

That's where you placed it. I had it originally in Alternative Theories. There are literally hundreds of scientists researching that fundamental self-organizing organelle. Are they fringe speculators? Are research grants about fringe speculations? Are reviewers all fringe speculators? Unless anyone can come up with a better subject for study of data transmission and possible impact on emergent consciousness, please indulge me. I am not making the claim, I report the state of research. This has become a clear case of kill the messenger, without reading the message.

The last post was about 2021 results of research. You want a day by day update?

So, as we have established the importance MT have in Eukaryotic neural biology, the question of MT role in brain function is just another facet of current state of the art research. I just don't understand the resistance to this naturally inductive reasoning.

If there is no magic then it must be biological and the microtubule is a natural candidate due to the "hard fact" that MT process electro/chemical data and are present in the largest numbers of all single and multicellular organisms.

This has been established a long time ago. With current technology we are now able to observe at nano scales and knowledge of MT function is increasing as we speak.

I cite one number associated with microtubules in the brain ; 80 billion MT, connected by 250 trillion synapses.
There is nothing even remotely comparable in any living thing, except perhaps a 300,000 lb whale.

And this warrants instant dismissal as fringe speculation, without offering a single alternative solution?

I am doing the work for those who may be interested, not to please some irascible critic, who has not read a single article on the subject.

Give me some leeway, please. I am not making this up. I am reporting on the science!!!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top