Posted on 02/15/2003 4:18:25 PM PST by PatrickHenry
Neither did I.
You're arguing from authority. There's a huge literature on EM effects on living matter. The 16 ton elephant of all this research is that there's no credible mechanism supported by elementary physics that permits chemical alteration of matter by low intensity, low frequency EM fields. The epidemiological studies, as such studies generally do, disagree with each other. But in any case, correlation does not mean causation.
But again, look at what I pointed out. 'Creation science' appears to be correlated with fringe theories about physics, biological effects of EM fields that are rejected by mainstream science, Velikovskianism, etc.. How curious that this amazing edifice of science, that has been so successful in so many areas, has gotten it so badly wrong so often, and these errors have been detected only by a few lone prophetic figures. Doesn't that make you want to step back and say 'hmmmm'?
Reject modern science if you wish. There are lots of perfectly happy, very very busy people out there constructing comprehensive world views out of tinfoil and Tesla's wilder ideas and contrails. Mostly they're harmless, and leave the rest of us alone.
I have a former student, scientifically very bright, technically enormously talented, who was convinced people (more precisely, his enemies, who include various well-known figures in the community and the Democratic National Committee) were beaming messages to him through his clothes and his car radio. He's scientifically literate, highly intelligent, and paranoid schizophrenic. I realized in dealing with him that at some stage you stop arguing what he's saying is impossible, and try to insist that regardless of how it stops him from developing his ideas, it's really important he take his medication. Very few people can live with untreated schizophrenia in the manner of 'A Beautiful Mind'. Unlike Nash, he hasn't realized yet he's nuttier than Chunky-style Skippy.
I just I figured I'd point out the direction you're going, and that it's 90 degrees away from sanity. But carry on. Until you realize for yourself you're taking big steps further and further into lunacy, arguing with you will do no good.
As BB has pointed out, we live in a sea of electromagnetic field, the strongest of which are man made. If we had any mechanism at all for detecting them, we would not need radio receivers.
I would love to find a good article describing the physics of EEG instruments. The stuff I've found on the web has been written at the kiddie level. There are a number of things about EEG that cause me to think: why do the sensors have to be attached to the skin? Are they picking up EM or are they detecting voltage fluctuations? In other words, are they detecting radio waves or electrochemical fluctuations. This inquiring mind wants to know.
There is a subjectivity upon which all our objectivity depends.
Perhaps the most obvious things are really the most difficult to grasp or convey. Thanks for your post, unspun. I see we have been "relieved of it" by the AdminMod. These things happen. Don't take it too personally.
I think I figured out where the failure to communicate happened. The Kaivarainen article is not speaking of electromagnetic effects external to the body on microtubals within the brain, but the physics involved (including electromagnetism) within the microtubal and among microtubals within the brain itself.
Your complaint is with external electromagnetic waves having any effect on brain function. The only strong wave-effect allegation I've seen is the one mentioned in the lawsuit I've been following.
Abraham's article has nothing to do with electromagnetism, he was only offering an alternative to the step-time worldview to deal with time related phenomenon already identified by experiment.
The International Institute of Biophysics interest is in ultralow photon emissions.
With regard to external forces, Kaivarainen mentions this:
Our model agrees with general idea of Marshall (1989) that Bose-condensation could be responsible for "unity of conscious experience." However, our model explains how this idea can work in detail and what kind of Bose condensation is necessary.
14.8 Another question frequently asked is: what's so special about neuronal microtubules, as opposed to those, say, in liver cells? In other words, why isn't your liver conscious? In answer to this, it should be said that the organization of microtubules in neurons is quite different from that in other cells. In most cells, microtubules are organized radially, from a central region (close to the nucleus) called the centrosome. In neurons, this is not the case, and they lie essentially parallel with one another along the axons and dendrites. The total mass of microtubules within neurons seems to be much greater than in other cells, and they are mainly stable structures, rather than in most cells, where they continually polymerize and depolymerize (grow and shrink). Of course, there is much to be learned about the respective roles of microtubules in neurons and in other cells, but there does seem to be clear enough evidence for an essentially distinct role for (some of) those in neurons. (The A-lattice/B-lattice question would seem to be of importance here also.)
14.9 In this connection, I should mention something of considerable interest and relevance that I learned recently from Guenther Albrecht-Buehler (1981, 1991), which concerns the role of the centriole, that curious "T" structure (roughly illustrated in Shadows, Fig. 7.5, on p.360), consisting of two cylinders resembling rolled-up venetian blinds, constructed from microtubules and other connectingsubstances, which lies within the centrosome. In Shadows, I had adopted the common view that the centrosome acts in some way as the "control centre" of the cytoskeleton of an ordinary cell (not a neuron), and that it initiates cell division. However Albrecht-Buehler's idea about the role of the centriole is very different. He argues, convincingly, in my opinion, that the centriole is the eye of the cell, and that it is sensitive to infra-red light with very good directional capabilities. (Two angular coordinates are needed for identifying the direction of a source. Each of the two cylinders provides one angular coordinate.) Impressive videos of fibroblast cells provide a convincing demonstration of the ability of these cells to pinpoint the direction of an infra-red light source. This also provides some remarkable evidence for individual cells having considerable information-processing abilities, which is at variance with current dogma. One may well ask where the "brain" of a single cell might be located. Perhaps its structure of microtubules can serve such a purpose, but it does seem that the centrosome itself must have some central organizing role. In a single (non-neuronal) cell, the microtubules emanate from the centrosome. I gather from Albrecht-Buehler that the specific contents of the centrosome are not known. It seems that it would be important to know what indeed is going on in the centrosome. Does it have some information-processing capabilities? Is there conceivably some structure there that is capable of sustaining quantum coherence in any form? The answers to questions of this nature could have considerable importance.
14.10 I should make clear that I am not arguing for any consciousness (or consciousness of any significant degree) to be present for individual cells. But according to the views that I have been putting forward, some of the ingredients that are needed for actual consciousness ought already to be present at the cellular level. Individual cells can behave in strikingly sophisticated ways, and I find it very hard to see how their behaviour can be explained along entirely conventional (classical) lines.
How can you just idly by, and give me such control your futures?
How can you just idly by, and give me such control over your futures?
Good point. Tommy J. just said in the Declaration that "oh well, that's self-evident," and went on from there. ;-) Come to think of it, Paul even wrote that at points. 8-o
Thanks for your post, unspun. I see we have been "relieved of it" by the AdminMod. These things happen. Don't take it too personally.
I'm sorry, I should have posted an explanation! (unspun's folly continuted) I asked AM to erase those two posts. And since I did it to my self, I take it very personally! I seemed to be much more perfectionistic after the fact. (Note, unspun, impatience is usually not your friend.) Oh shoot, after so many hours at the computer this week, and my late night, it got to the point that I could hardly type a syntactical sentence. Calling you betty "boob" as jennyp astutely pointed out was the icing on the cake!!
But FBOW, I'll repost that soon and suspect it will look very similar, complete with the Colonel.
Are you sure?
One of my gripes with Penrose, et al is that he has jumped into speculation about quantum computing in the brain without exhausting more mundane explanations. It seems premature to try to explain consciousness without working your way up from descriptive explanations of "lesser" brains.
I imagine the physics of the brain would be the same for "lesser" brains. With regard to consciousness, in the absence of interactive language (comprehension, decision making and response) - with the "lesser" brains to determine the existence of free will, I'm not sure how else one would proceed.
You're not going to like my response to this, but I don't think free will is exclusive to humans. What makes humans special is not free will, but the ability to "predict" the future, a faculty that is greatly enhanced by language. "Lower" animals have some ability to predict the future -- cats, dog, chimps to varying degrees evaluate their situations and anticipate consequences. But humans can tell stories about actions and consequences, and pass these stories on to future generations. Their range of freedom is greatly enhanced by this. But anticipation is at the heart of whatever we mean by free will. Having one's behavior affected by the future is a pretty amazing thing -- it certainly has the apearance of detaching one from cause and effect -- but it is not exclusively human.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.