I like this theory of quantum consciousness but I get worried when it kind of seems too perfect, to fit too well. I did manage to get the library – not an easy trip from where I am staying. Anyway, once I see Deepak Chopra’s name even tangentially associated with something (he interviewed Hameroff), my bullshit meter goes right off the scale and I run in the other direction.
But, though I like the theory I still have questions. First, do we really know how quantum events translate to macro level events? Have we bridged that gap yet? I’m not sure. Second, Hameroff talks about microtubules within the neuron that, voila, are just the thing needed to have quantum states exist in an unreduced state. This gets a 2.7 on the Chopra B.S. scale. But let’s go with it. What does it really mean? To my mind (no pun intended) it means nothing. Well, no. Not really. It just points in an interesting direction for research. It’s when they – researchers – reach too far with the metaphors that I have a problem, when science slips into salesmanship. I think Hameroff should drop the word consciousness and instead use the term self-awareness or self-referential. That will get away from the religious Chopra bullshit.
P.S. Carmen says “Hi” and sends her love.
Note to the Reader
Here are the links to the previous two letters in this series.
- What Is The Physiological Basis Of Consciousness?
- The Physiological Basis for Consciousness: A Reply to Dom’s Letter
Related articles by Zemanta
- Deepak impact (blogs.discovermagazine.com)
- China has a quantum teleporter and we don’t [Beam Me Up] (io9.com)