Could quantum effects explain consciousness?
20 October 2007
NewScientist.com news service
Zeeya Merali

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fundamentals/mg19626264.000-could-quantum-effects...
WITH its triumphant descriptions of a range of subatomic phenomena, quantum mechanics is one of the most successful scientific
theories of all time. Now it holds out the tantalising prospect of explaining one of the great mysteries in biology: the nature of
consciousness. It may even explain why dreams are dream-like.

These hopes stem from a quantum model of consciousness developed by Efstratios Manousakis of Florida State University, Tallahassee.
It is inspired by the "image flips" the brain makes when faced with an ambiguous image such as the one to the right, which can look
like either a vase or two faces. Psychologists have long been fascinated by the fact that the brain cannot consciously perceive both
versions simultaneously.

Understanding how the brain switches between these versions might shed light on how the conscious experience is generated. "If we
can pinpoint what is different about the brain when someone is conscious versus unconscious of the image, we could solve one of the
biggest questions left in science," says Olivia Carter, a visual psychologist at Harvard University.

On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 16:00:09 -0700, Sir Frederick
fuzzysys.com> wrote:

On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 10:31:07 GMT, Art zilch.com> wrote:

...

On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 04:41:52 -0700, Sir Frederick
fuzzysys.com> wrote:

On Oct 19, 9:24 am, Art zilch.com> wrote:

On Oct 19, 9:24 am, Art zilch.com> wrote:

On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 14:24:46 GMT, Art zilch.com> wrote:

On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 15:01:56 -0000, zinnic gate.net> wrote:

Standard neurobiological charlatan fare.

The example itself, that employs the use of two possible images, is a
monument to truncated reason. Images don't exist in their own right. A
pencil drawing perceived as either a duck or a rabbit is not in itself
either a duck or rabbit, that the brain 'perceives'.

This transparant nonsense from our neurobiologists is matched by the
poverty of interpretation of experience that only a physically based
theory can offer. Just awful.

"Art" zilch.com> wrote in message
news:e5jhh3tcc7o9c3d8audpoqvg1o9cnicj1j@4ax.com...

In the domain of professional academics, we call that a Zinger! :)