Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Strange Quark Consiousness


Virtual Particle

Recommended Posts

INTO THE LIGHT

One of the most significant quantum observations in the life sciences comes from Fleming and his collaborators. Their study of photosynthesis in green sulfur bacteria, published in 2007 in Nature [subscription required], tracked the detailed chemical steps that allow plants to harness sunlight and use it to convert simple raw materials into the oxygen we breathe and the carbohydrates we eat. Specifically, the team examined the protein scaffold connecting the bacteria’s external solar collectors, called the chlorosome, to reaction centers deep inside the cells. Unlike electric power lines, which lose as much as 20 percent of energy in transmission, these bacteria transmit energy at a staggering efficiency rate of 95 percent or better.

The secret, Fleming and his colleagues found, is quantum physics.

Source

Although the debate on the role of QM in consciousness persists, quantum physics has nevertheless made inroads into biology, and will further help biologists to understand other phenomena and mechanisms. If QM is the basis of reality, as some researchers believe, it should come as no surprise that it is intimately involved in all kinds of biological processes, even sensation and cognition.

Source

Any thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 426
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Virtual Particle

    148

  • Mattshark

    76

  • SlimJim22

    41

  • Dougal

    39





Any thoughts?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a fascinating article, thank you, and strongly relates to some very recent discussions taking place on a forum for Christian hermeticists. I find two things particularly interesting/inspiring. Firstly, the realisation from science that there are no boundaries permits a certain 'restoration of hope' for the conscientious spiritual seeker, who is otherwise bound - in the interests of faithfulness to the cause - to hold objectivity and subjectivity in balance - a yoke that science has never really had to bear. Secondly, it helps to explain one of the key teachings of religion, which is to act with faith, hope and love, but without any definite expectation, because one must never take anything for granted else risk being caught out by random 'chance'. AKA being tested.

Ok, if you mix religion and science all you have is religion. Science doesn't address religion at all. I think you should look deeper in real science and not triad's religious abuse of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, if you mix religion and science all you have is religion. Science doesn't address religion at all. I think you should look deeper in real science and not triad's religious abuse of it.

Mattshark I am simply presenting a perspective not "FACTS". Claiming one had facts over some aspect of science? That has not yet been proven would be like trying to apply science as a relligion. :yes: So your comment is due to your experience with such issues?? I mean you bring up applying a religion to science but admitedly the opposite can and does happen. :o

Any thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mattshark I am simply presenting a perspective not "FACTS". Claiming one had facts over some aspect of science? That has not yet been proven would be like trying to apply science as a relligion. :yes: So your comment is due to your experience with such issues?? I mean you bring up applying a religion to science but admitedly the opposite can and does happen. :o

Evolution Explained :sleepy:

Any thoughts?

Edited by Triad
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mattshark I am simply presenting a perspective not "FACTS". Claiming one had facts over some aspect of science? That has not yet been proven would be like trying to apply science as a relligion. :yes: So your comment is due to your experience with such issues?? I mean you bring up applying a religion to science but admitedly the opposite can and does happen. :o

Any thoughts?

So, you are abusing science because you want to justify your beliefs so you are skipping all the difficult and important aspects that don't suit your view.

And your link is not evolution explained, it is just you have no clue about pretty much anything.

I sent you real links, and although they were for kids, for some reason, you didn't understand them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can we tone down the personal remarks please, remember this is not a science site and everyone has different levels of experience and understanding - i also don't believe the term "abuse" should be getting thrown around so liberally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mattshark because of my abilities a 4 year old girl who was murdered received a proper burial. And those who murdered her are and will remain in prison for the rest of there lives. I do not consider this even to have been the least of my efforts. of all the things I have ever been involved with it had the greatest effect upon my life. In 1985 I was involved in a discussion with a scientist during which we discussed my feeling that 21 years later a list of about 15 items would come true. Amongst them was that a small child would die and that what that happened I would gain access through psi? Every detail I needed for the convictions of those who hurt this girl. 21 years later while just leaving my office that is exactly what happened.

Those details were presented to the Florida Departments of Law Enforcement and after a 1 year investigation? Those I identified as involved in her murder were arrested, tried and convicted to life imprisonment. Here is the truth...I got involved in that because morally? It was the right thing to do but in doing so I worked outside my jurisdiction.

See I know you are wrong ad this is just one example of how I roll.

Your conclusions regarding my link are incorrect....

1. Each of these animals evolved from another and that has been identified through DNA analysis. Humans, whales, elephants evolved. But that does not change the fact that Evolution is still a theory. Do you remember that discussion we had years ago? Where you pointed out that particle/wave theory was still a theory? I said nothing at the time.....Despite the fact that the double split experiment exist.

2. With regards to the bee's we have clear evidence? That the debate between skeptics and believers has been going on? For much longer than humans have existed on Earth. And when it comes to the fundamentals of the argument the skeptics were wrong...I mean the flowers with the pollen were in the boat. The skeptical bee's even had the audacity to actually fly over the boat and refuse to land despite the scent.

I feel we as believers have an excellent Metaphor here which should not be ignored.

3. Despite your claims when it comes to what we know today of reality? You have no justification? Whatsoever, for claiming that modern conservative science has a grasp of reality.

We have spoken to each other for years Mattshark....The other issues I have been involved with would scare the hell out of most people.

Any thoughts?

PS: I have no problems discussing this ;)

PSS: Matt the other 14 items all came true :innocent:

Edited by Triad
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mattshark do no confuse me with another person...The only reason this girl got a proper burial is because of the paranormal.

Any thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What ever makes you happy Triad, I for one don't believe you.

Also, what do you think a theory becomes? It is always a theory, it is an empirically evidenced explanation of an observable fact.

Observation -> Hypothesis -> Experiment -> Repeat -> Theory.

I have presented you with many sources showing this.

Animal cognition is completely different to evolution.

Edited by Mattshark
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mattshark because of my abilities a 4 year old girl who was murdered received a proper burial. And those who murdered her are and will remain in prison for the rest of there lives. I do not consider this even to have been the least of my efforts. of all the things I have ever been involved with it had the greatest effect upon my life. In 1985 I was involved in a discussion with a scientist during which we discussed my feeling that 21 years later a list of about 15 items would come true. Amongst them was that a small child would die and that what that happened I would gain access through psi? Every detail I needed for the convictions of those who hurt this girl. 21 years later while just leaving my office that is exactly what happened.

Those details were presented to the Florida Departments of Law Enforcement and after a 1 year investigation? Those I identified as involved in her murder were arrested, tried and convicted to life imprisonment. Here is the truth...I got involved in that because morally? It was the right thing to do but in doing so I worked outside my jurisdiction.

See I know you are wrong ad this is just one example of how I roll.

Your conclusions regarding my link are incorrect....

1. Each of these animals evolved from another and that has been identified through DNA analysis. Humans, whales, elephants evolved. But that does not change the fact that Evolution is still a theory. Do you remember that discussion we had years ago? Where you pointed out that particle/wave theory was still a theory? I said nothing at the time.....Despite the fact that the double split experiment exist.

2. With regards to the bee's we have clear evidence? That the debate between skeptics and believers has been going on? For much longer than humans have existed on Earth. And when it comes to the fundamentals of the argument the skeptics were wrong...I mean the flowers with the pollen were in the boat. The skeptical bee's even had the audacity to actually fly over the boat and refuse to land despite the scent.

I feel we as believers have an excellent Metaphor here which should not be ignored.

3. Despite your claims when it comes to what we know today of reality? You have no justification? Whatsoever, for claiming that modern conservative science has a grasp of reality.

We have spoken to each other for years Mattshark....The other issues I have been involved with would scare the hell out of most people.

Any thoughts?

PS: I have no problems discussing this ;)

PSS: Matt the other 14 items all came true :innocent:

I read your posts and I have concluded that you are completely delusional. I cannot help but feel completely offended when a person like you comes barging in, presuming to lecture people on the ins and outs of quantum mechanics and theories. Have you made any publications on the subject? Do you have even at least a bachelor's degree in theoretical physics? You literally spat in the face of thousands of dedicated scientists and their work. From all your posts it is absolutely clear to me that you do not even have an inkling as to what any of these things mean and how they relate to the world. The written language is an extremely poor medium to communicate these types of theories, because people like you with self proclaimed professorship and psychic abilities completely misinterpret facts and twist them into something that fits your narrow description of what the reality of the universe is. It doesn't stop there no, you deem it absolutely necessary to propagate your broken understanding of a real science.

And this post I'm quoting. Holy ****! Modern conservative science? Get help.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read your posts and I have concluded that you are completely delusional. I cannot help but feel completely offended when a person like you comes barging in, presuming to lecture people on the ins and outs of quantum mechanics and theories. Have you made any publications on the subject? Do you have even at least a bachelor's degree in theoretical physics? You literally spat in the face of thousands of dedicated scientists and their work. From all your posts it is absolutely clear to me that you do not even have an inkling as to what any of these things mean and how they relate to the world. The written language is an extremely poor medium to communicate these types of theories, because people like you with self proclaimed professorship and psychic abilities completely misinterpret facts and twist them into something that fits your narrow description of what the reality of the universe is. It doesn't stop there no, you deem it absolutely necessary to propagate your broken understanding of a real science.

And this post I'm quoting. Holy ****! Modern conservative science? Get help.

Amen to that. Triad is an expert at filling threads with nonsense and acting willfully ignorant.

Edited by Moonie2012
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not really, they simply conject this without evidential basis. There is nothing to suggest that it affects the mind and in no way counters the masses of bioelectrochemical evidence we have.

A top of that, there is no reason to attributing sub-atomic effects to macroscopic level organisms.

If you are correct, then you are saying string theory and membrane theory are hooey. There are many theoretical physicist that would say that you do not know what you are talking about. There is evidence or all these physicist wouldn't be wasting their time with string theory and memebrane theory, and many more cutting edge theories based upon evidence that you call conject.

The bioelectrochemical evidence you state doe not explain the workings of the brain. The bioelectrochemical actions in the brain happen too slowly to account for the speed of human thought; and the ability of a human to pull a random memory instantly out of storage much faster than any computer can today, and much faster than the maximum speed of bioelectrochemical response by molecules in the brain.

This in itself is evidence that you ignore.

You are welcome to conject your opinion though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gentlemen my commentary in this thread is apparent and very clear. That you feel so strongly about its incorrectness very much gives me a chuckle. Clearly God can exist, the paranormal is a valid conclusion and it is in fact your opinions which are pedantic. You have presented no argument to counter the intent of the post. Just the usual blah, blah, blah as to why you disagree.

The Strange Quarks has virtual properties. They are an aspect of the protons structure

That is incredible and clearly indicative of an awareness beyond ours As far as your dogmatic perspective upon the world?

That is a delusion which quite frankly makes itself apparent? Each time several of the skeptic in this forum post.

Also, as far as your inability to express yourselves without all the personal garbage? That is to most people with a real education? Always a certain sign of willful ignorance. :yes:

Excellent point Astute One

Any thoughts?

Edited by Triad
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you are correct, then you are saying string theory and membrane theory are hooey. There are many theoretical physicist that would say that you do not know what you are talking about. There is evidence or all these physicist wouldn't be wasting their time with string theory and memebrane theory, and many more cutting edge theories based upon evidence that you call conject.

No his observations coincide with current string theory. You do not understand apparently.

The bioelectrochemical evidence you state doe not explain the workings of the brain. The bioelectrochemical actions in the brain happen too slowly to account for the speed of human thought; and the ability of a human to pull a random memory instantly out of storage much faster than any computer can today, and much faster than the maximum speed of bioelectrochemical response by molecules in the brain.

Oh what an astute observation. Please refer me to these studies which show how thought is faster than the neurons can transmit signals. Seriously where do you invent such drivel?

This in itself is evidence that you ignore.

You are welcome to conject your opinion though.

None of that was evidence, and will be duly ignored.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Problem of Meaning

An important problem neglected by neuroscientists is the problem of meaning. Neuroscientists are apt to assume that if they can see that a neuron's firing is roughly correlated with some aspect of the visual scene, such as an oriented line, then that firing must be part of the neural correlate of the seen line. They assume that because they, as outside observers, are conscious of the correlation, the firing must be part of the NCC. This by no means follows, as we have argued for neurons in V1.

But this is not the major problem, which is: How do other parts of the brain know that the firing of a neuron (or of a set of similar neurons) produces the conscious percept of, say, a face? How does the brain know what the firing of those neurons represents? Put in other words, how is meaning generated by the brain?

This problem has two aspects. How is meaning expressed in neural terms? And how does this expression of meaning arise? We suspect (Crick and Koch, 1995c) that meaning derives both from the correlated firing described above and from the linkages to related representations. For example, neurons related to a certain face might be connected to ones expressing the name of the person whose face it is, and to others for her voice, memories involving her and so on, in a vast associational network, similar to a dictionary or a relational database. Exactly how this works in detail is unclear.

But how are these useful associations derived? The obvious idea is that they depend very largely on the consistency of the interactions with the environment, especially during early development. Meaning can also be acquired later in life. The usual example is a blind man with a stick. He comes to feel what the stick is touching, not merely the stick itself. For an ingenious recent demonstration along similar lines, see Ramachandran and Hirstein (1997).

Source

Any thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Source

Any thoughts?

The main purposes of this review are to set out for neuroscientists one possible approach to the problem of consciousness and to describe the relevant ongoing experimental work. We have not attempted an exhaustive review of other approaches.

This is not a reference. This is in fact only an inquiry for an inquiry. There are no facts here, only questions and the possible ways of exploring answers. *snip*

Edited by SupeRgirl
make your point in a civil way
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is not a reference. This is in fact only an inquiry for an inquiry. There are no facts here, only questions and the possible ways of exploring answers.*Snip*.

Are you familiar with the SALK Insitute?

Reference please as to what make this outdated??? It makes clear the extent of the unknown in relation to modem science.

What in the name of God are you talking about?? Honestly you sound like some kind of salesman,

And I really am not buying into all the intensity :no:

How about some substance that would actually make your arguments? Actuall arguments.

Any thoughts?

Edited by SupeRgirl
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you familiar with the SALK Insitute?

Reference please as to what make this outdated??? It makes clear the extent of the unknown in relation to modem science.

What in the name of God are you talking about?? Honestly you sound like some kind of salesman,

And I really am not buying into all the intensity :no:

How about some substance that would actually make your arguments? Actuall arguments.

Any thoughts?

Yes I am familiar with the SALK Institute. The link you provided to me was a all too brief summary of possible venues of exploration into a subject with little understanding. That inquiry was made over 10 years ago. The field has advanced much since then.

You do not post anything with substance. You only post out of context snippets which do not even support anything you are saying, but somehow by your twisted logic they are evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes I am familiar with the SALK Institute. The link you provided to me was a all too brief summary of possible venues of exploration into a subject with little understanding. That inquiry was made over 10 years ago. The field has advanced much since then.

You do not post anything with substance. You only post out of context snippets which do not even support anything you are saying, but somehow by your twisted logic they are evidence.

References please otherwise your responses are unsubstantiated.

You guys are hallarious.

Any thoughts?

Edited by Triad
Link to comment
Share on other sites

References please otherwise your responses are unsubstantiated.

You guys are hallarious.

Any thoughts?

*Snip*

Edited by SupeRgirl
5c. Personal scrutiny: Do not attack or scrutinise another member's intelligence, mental status or personal/educational background.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No his observations coincide with current string theory. You do not understand apparently.

Matt said "A top of that, there is no reason to attributing sub-atomic effects to macroscopic level organisms."

The main gist of String theory is to reconcile quantum mechanics and the macroscopic universe (general relativity). This is why string theory is considered the theory of everything.

So show me where Matt's quote coincides with the theory of everything if he says there is no reason to attributing sub-atomic effects to macroscopic level organisms.

I'll show you the research on the brain later if you play nice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Matt said "A top of that, there is no reason to attributing sub-atomic effects to macroscopic level organisms."

The main gist of String theory is to reconcile quantum mechanics and the macroscopic universe (general relativity). This is why string theory is considered the theory of everything.

So show me where Matt's quote coincides with the theory of everything if he says there is no reason to attributing sub-atomic effects to macroscopic level organisms.

I'll show you the research on the brain later if you play nice.

You are indeed correct on this understanding, however one must also remember that the laws of quantum mechanics and general relativity are not compatible in the respective scales. The main issue at hand is the reconciliation of gravity on a macroscopic sense and at a quantum level.

Matt is correct in the sense that these sub-atomic reactions do not have an over bearing effect on the chemical reaction taking place in a macroscopic environment. Lets forget neurology and look at computers for instance. Your computer's functions right now are governed my the laws of general relativity because their scale is working on a macroscopic level and the quantum behavior of subatomic parts aren't powerful enough to override its main function, however since each generation of computers become even more miniaturized it is claimed that we will reach a stage (of about 11nm processing) where the architecture is so small that the laws of quantum mechanics start to take effect. Current programming and hardware will not function correctly and your computer will not work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK but the issue is the human brain and what we know about it. QM is a science and it makes perfect sense that if? Something is not understood applying the "macro-models"? QM is applicable. Arbitrarily demonizing something because it does not fit your world scheme is not scientific. Its not even professional.

You should actually read that article a computer is what about 933mhz? Human brain is about 30 to 70 hz. What you are saying would make a lot more sense if you could support it with data.

Any thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK but the issue is the human brain and what we know about it. QM is a science and it makes perfect sense that if? Something is not understood applying the "macro-models"? QM is applicable. Arbitrarily demonizing something because it does not fit your world scheme is not scientific. Its not even professional.

Ok, it's very obvious you do not even understand this. You do not know what general relativity is, not to mention even what quantum mechanics are. So please stop embarrassing yourself.

You should actually read that article a computer is what about 933mhz? Human brain is about 30 to 70 hz. What you are saying would make a lot more sense if you could support it with data.

That is seriously quote worthy. That statement is so retarded on so many levels. Seriously are you high?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.