Yes, and the audio stories I tell my wife. 
Well, please, let’s not get stuck in the 70’s and accuse Roger Penrose of spouting “quantum mechanics buzz”… He is talking “quantum mechanics”, definitely not buzz.
A lot has evolved and it doesn’t take much to see that.
I am current in quantum mechanics; my 1970s references show how long I have been experimentally involved with learning, memory, and consciousness from biophysical, biochemical, and neuroscience perspectives. Other perspectives began earlier.
I published four books on the matter last year, assimilating thousands of references.
as I noted, fundamentally other than theory …
but, I am all for theory when tested and verified
1 Like
I have to congratulate you on that.
2 Likes
@akro
Could you as an olden expert please give your opinion on the topic of how the integrating frequency peak of 613Thz of consciousness might arise?
As I understand from all I’ve read, microtubules cohesively resonate in the following ways: mechanical vibration, inductive-type electric resonance and arising from this, an optical output. As I understand, the optical resonance has been explicitly measured in precise conditions - so we come back to the “blue light”…
Hameroff has suggested that centrioles especially might act as the optical reception centers.
Having to admit that I know very menial details, albeit heard from masters, I would like to hear an educated analysis from you, akro.
Do you consider that it could well be that microtubules “communicate” locally with such forms of resonance?
It is after all a well-established fact that when you erase the mentioned 613Thz peak with anaesthetics, consciousness collapses.
to be candid, my 50+ year background in biophysics and neurophysiology/neuropharmacology is on a different wavelength from the matters you raise
my published work with microtubules and drug anesthetics and my looking into the published literature regarding your reports did not reveal what you discuss with sufficient data
nevertheless, long live theories, especially their testing and development
as I noted above…Personally, I focus on synapse function and plasticity, neural networks, pragmatism, and Vipisanna/Jhana meditation rather than subatomic quantum mechanics to explain learning, memory, and consciousness…but expect that answers will come from many directions. To the future, and beyond!
1 Like
Right on.
Some recent experiments in this area.
Unfortunately the article is behind a paywall but those who subscribe to Apple News+ can access it. Your Consciousness Can Connect With the Whole Universe, Scientists Say
1 Like
I can open and read it without Apple News+.
Nice article.
When do science and spiritualilty meet?
1 Like
Hopefully never. Believing in stuff never cured a disease or invented a cell phone. Keep to the facts and they will build to truth. When you don’t have an answer, speculate, but “I don’t know” will keep a person from blind alleys.
We humans have a survival characteristic from evolution… we don’t like not knowing. This cognitive dissonance drives us to find an answer. We plug our gap with assumptions that feel good. Folks that did this well usually wore feathers on their heads, or cool robes. But looking back on human history, their record for being correct was pretty dismal. The folks who rolled up their sleeves and went to work, pooped out cures and digital to analog converters.
Peace
Bruce in Philly
3 Likes
I believe you. 
My strained humor; but yes, I agree with you.
Why not have both.
You chose the agnostic path and that’s perfectly fine.
I’m speaking of (me) exploring consciousness from my inward universe. That’s different from religious believes btw. No need to exclude.
Aren’t we both curious to unveil the mystery? Every step takes us deeper in, teaching us there’s still more to discover and enjoy.
Peace and love
1 Like
There is no mystery ither than a rigerous, objective analysisi of the physical world.
It is mysterious only because we have yet to understand all aspects of the world. The mere fact we find something understood does not make it “spiritual.”
I don’t think either of us needs, nor wants convincing. Wasn’t my point anyway, so let’s get back to the topic.
All is well.
I just went back and re-read that article… I don’t like it. It mixes a few branches of discovery that frankly, do not overlap, then draws some conclusion that our “consciousness can interact with the whole universe”… whoa…
I love speculation founded on science but this is a little too far out. Not that speculation is not interesting but I have no clue how the author connects the dots they presented. Penrose and Hammeroff never… never… connected those kinds of dots (at least that I am aware of).
So… while presenting some pretty cool stuff, the author connected it together with a tissue of human desire… a literary clickbait of sorts.
Anywho… if you want to listen to really well presented summaries of leading (bleading?) edge science, go directly to Closer To Truth on YouTube. The author references this channel. Closer to Truth is just what it says it is and I have not found a better, more informed source of the latest edge stuff along with well presented speculation. Speculation from PHDs and other intellectual leaders. Interviews with Hammeroff and Penrose are in this library of work.
Peace
Bruce in Philly
I’ve found Daniel Dennet talks a lot of sense about human consciousness.
“Trillions of tiny robots is all you need”
…and it also strikes a perfect chord for me with the concept of all we see about us and within us having simply come from random chances given a real long time to be random.
No need for spiritual shiz.
Having said that, different people use different tools (including thought processes) to come to the same correct conclusion so each to their own I guess.
Closer to Truth has a bunch of interviews with Daniel Dennet… good stuff.
Peace
Bruce in Philly
1 Like