Totally OT: Quantum Mechanics proof for the existence of a Supreme Conciousness?

[Craig Black]

"bearophile" <bearophileHUGS at lycos.com> wrote in message 
news:fp2arv$dg7$1 at digitalmars.com...
> Craig Black:
>> The fact that there are correlations between neurons firing and
>> consciousness is a profound observation.
>
> It was profound 200-300 years ago, today it's well known, like many other 
> things in science.
>
>
>> However, it doesn't really address the ideas presented, unless I am 
>> missing something.
>
> You are probably missing some things, that's why reading a big university 
> manual about neurobiology may help you.
>
>
>> Furthermore, the
>> assumption that the configuration of matter known as the brain is the 
>> cause
>> of consciousness may be fundamentally flawed
>
> A very important part is the configuration of the activation patterns too, 
> that the dynamic state too, it includes the electrical fields of the many 
> charges that create that chemistry dance too.
> I think you are making the phenomenon of consciousness more mysterious and 
> strange than necessary. Learning more about nematode and aplysia nervous 
> systems may help you see that the situation is quite more mundane, despite 
> being really complex anyway.
> In the end quantum mechanics may have some role in animal brains (but I 
> know no concrete facts about this has being found so far), but surely 
> that's not the most important layer of the reality you have to look at if 
> you want to understand how a living brain works (like a grizzly brain). 
> You have to learn about signal processing, neural dynamics, neural groups, 
> neural networks, neurology, neurobiology, linguistics, sociology... :-)
>
> Bye,
> bearophile

Thanks for your input.  I indeed know little about such subjects and am not 
even aware of the scope of our current understanding of them.

BTW, (as I mentioned already to boyd) I think I can agree with you now that 
this issue is not as conclusive as the link seems to convey.  I discovered 
that this topic (both pros and cons) is discussed on Wikepedia.  It 
basically states that this is one interpretation of quantum mechanics, 
whereas in the link I provided it is communicated as a conclusion.  There 
are other ideas that attempt to resolve the strangeness of quantum mechanics 
with the determinism of the macroscopic world.  This particular 
interpretation is not without problems, but it does have the interesting 
quality that it concurs with some religious world views.

-Craig