In my own opinion, it is not very helpful, from the scientific point of view, to "think of a dualistic 'mind' that is (logically) external to the body, somehow influencing the choices that seem to arise in the action of R. If the 'will' could somehow influence Nature's choice of alternative that occurs with R, then why is an experimenter not able, by the action of 'will power', to influence the result of a quantum experiment? If this were possible, then violations of the quantum probabilities would surely be rife! For myself, I cannot believe that such a picture can be close to the truth. To have an external 'mind-stuff' that is not itself subject to physical laws is taking us outside anything that could be reasonably called a scientific explanation, and is resorting to the viewpoint D (cf. §1.3).
"The origin of consciousness reflects our place in the universe, the nature of our existence. Did consciousness evolve from complex computations among brain neurons, as most scientists assert? Or has consciousness, in some sense, been here all along, as spiritual approaches maintain?" ask Hameroff and Penrose in the current review. "This opens a potential Pandora's Box, but our theory accommodates both these views, suggesting consciousness derives from quantum vibrations in microtubules, protein polymers inside brain neurons, which both govern neuronal and synaptic function, and connect brain processes to self-organizing processes in the fine scale, 'proto-conscious' quantum structure of reality."
There's zero evidence that the brain operates and navigates through the information it stores.
Brain-Scan Lie Detectors Just Don’t Work
The researchers could identify which photos were familiar to the participants and which ones were not, with 91 percent accuracy, Wagner said. However, when the researchers told the participants to try to actively suppress their recognition of the photos that were theirs—to “try to beat the system”—the researchers had much less success.
Scientists still don’t know how this “suppression” actually works; like so many questions about the inner workings of the human brain, it remains a mystery. But the fact that so many test subjects could, somehow, do it on command, led the authors of both the Cambridge and Stanford studies to come to the same conclusions.
In short, brain-scan guilt-detection type tests are beatable, their results are unreliable, and they shouldn’t be used as evidence in court. Except on television.
Identifying the Potential for fMRI as a Lie Detector The potential to use fMRI as a lie detector was discovered unintentionally by Daniel Langleben, MD, a psychologist at the University of Pennsylvania, while he was studying adolescent boys with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).
Using fMRI, he tried to determine whether their brains operated differently from the brains of children without ADHD, and if so, in what areas. While performing experiments and asking these children to carry out different tasks, he found that these children had difficulty lying. This observation intrigued him, and he began trying to identify the areas of the brain involved with deception by examining which areas either were missing or did not function correctly in these children. As a result, he became the first individual to utilize fMRI to study deception.11
Although Dr Langleben has been performing research on this topic for 6 years, many in the scientific and judicial worlds are still skeptical about whether this form of lie detection should be used in court.12
Deception relies on 2 main principles:
Theory of mind, which allows the person to infer what others are thinking; and
Deontic reasoning, which allows the person to appreciate social rules.13
After extensive testing, it has been shown that regardless of the patient's age, sex, employment, level of education, or time from the action occurring to the scan does not matter; the lie is still detected in the same region in everyone who is tested.14 Yet skepticism about the legitimacy of this consideration still exists due to the lack of real-life situation experiments.
Here is the Science Daily article:
Discovery of Quantum Vibrations in 'Microtubules' Inside Brain Neurons Supports Controversial Theory of Consciousness
So is it time to track down all the debunkers and gloat or what?
edit on 18-1-2014 by BlueMule because: (no reason given)
I think the jury is still out on that one.
The nature of consciousness, the mechanism by which it occurs in the brain, and its ultimate place in the universe are unknown. We proposed in the mid 1990ʼs that consciousness depends on biologically ‘orchestrated’ coherent quantum processes in collections of microtubules within brain neurons, that these quantum processes correlate with, and regulate, neuronal synaptic and membrane activity, and that the continuous Schrödinger evolution of each such process terminates in accordance with the specific Diósi–Penrose (DP) scheme of ‘objective reduction’ (‘OR’) of the quantum state. This orchestrated OR activity (‘Orch OR’) is taken to result in moments of conscious awareness and/or choice. The DP form of OR is related to the fundamentals of quantum mechanics and space–time geometry, so Orch OR suggests that there is a connection between the brainʼs biomolecular processes and the basic structure of the universe. Here we review Orch OR in light of criticisms and developments in quantum biology, neuroscience, physics and cosmology. We also introduce a novel suggestion of ‘beat frequencies’ of faster microtubule vibrations as a possible source of the observed electro-encephalographic (‘EEG’) correlates of consciousness. We conclude that consciousness plays an intrinsic role in the universe.
The recent discovery of warm-temperature quantum vibrations in microtubules inside brain neurons by the research group led by Anirban Bandyopadhyay, PhD, at the National Institute of Material Sciences in Tsukuba, Japan (and now at MIT), corroborates the pair’s theory and suggests that EEG rhythms also derive from deeper level microtubule vibrations.
An important new facet of the theory is introduced. Microtubule quantum vibrations (e.g. in the megahertz frequency range) appear to interfere and produce much slower EEG “beat frequencies.” Despite a century of clinical use, the underlying origins of EEG rhythms have remained a mystery. Clinical trials of brief brain stimulation — aimed at microtubule resonances with megahertz mechanical vibrations using transcranial ultrasound — have shown reported improvements in mood, and may prove useful against Alzheimer’s disease and brain injury in the future.