AmethystScallop bases her essay on the analogy between the brain's functioning and the quantum processes that may occur within it. The essay is a chain of individual statements, logically linked into a coherent whole. The closer to the end of the essay, the more controversial assertions there are that cannot be confirmed or refuted, although the author acknowledges the hypothetical nature of her positions. Several positive aspects can be noted. The writing style is an outsider's perspective, where the author is familiar with the topic but can express an unbiased opinion on it, unbound by the traditions of a particular scientific school or the authority of prevailing opinion. Some statements allow one to look closely at seemingly familiar things and discover details overlooked by the established majority, details that are fundamentally important for constructing a picture of the familiar world, commensurate with the human condition, capable of interacting with the quantum world. For example:
«The continuous low of reality was fragmented to a discontinuous, granulated reality at a microlevel, at higher speeds time became relative and entwined with space, even gravity was not spared».
The text is quite short, approximately half the permitted length, and in a sense, this demonstrates not only the technical feasibility of its development but also the potential for substantive development. However, while the text is interesting, it is raw and unfinished.
There are some controversial points in the presentation of known data, which attests to the uniqueness of the approach.
«Mathematics of quantum has proven to be effective yet the true understanding or the visualizability of quantum world still eludes. For it is counterintuitive and beyond the range of human senses».
Yes, they are inaccessible. This is a real problem, not a flaw in the current method. The quantum world does not extend beyond the range of common sense; but common sense only applies to a scale commensurate with human perception.
It's true that "and beyond the range of human senses"—indeed, our sensory organs are not adapted to perceiving the microworld, and humanity has never had such experience before. This leads to a lack of adequate terms and methods of interpretation in language. When a researcher sees indirect, mediated (!) evidence of the existence of a particle or wave, they cannot describe it unambiguously (for example, the debate described between Bohr and Einstein).
«The probability, uncertainty and the discontinuous are the basis while observer-based reality challenges the objective world that exists without anyone looking at it, something that Einstein struggled to prove».
Here, it would be useful to explain in more detail the difference between the quantum world and the human-scale world. Yes, the observer is reality—this is a valuable observation, which everyone knows and blindly follows the idea that it creates the quantum world as a mental product, only because they have no other explanation. For example, I can't explain how my phone works, but that doesn't make it any less real in my eyes, but rather an object from an ideal world. Why can a quantum researcher, like a magician or sorcerer, deprive them of reality, while someone who studies, say, the dispersal of a sunbeam into the colors of the rainbow using a prism, has no doubt that their object is real? After all, light consists of photons.
«Quantum entanglement has been proven experimentally and forms the basis of quantum computing and quantum phenomenon has been found in a variety of systems - from photosynthesis, bird’s aviation and particle physics».
I'll use the idea of finding analogies between phenomena in the quantum and ordinary worlds. If a TV tower transmits a signal that is perceived as the same movie playing simultaneously on televisions located far apart, this property of radio waves propagating simultaneously in different directions wouldn't surprise anyone.
«Though theories like ORCH-OR by Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff try to explain consciousness at the level of microtubules in neurons it does not explain human cognition and activities at large. The wet noisy brain with million processes ‘decoheres’ faster in interaction with signals. The processes of the brain that we measure are in milli- to seconds while quantum processes reside at smaller temporal scales».
Yes, I agree that Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff did not explain the nature of consciousness, but only drew attention to microtubules (which are still little known) as a possible participant related to consciousness, but did not prove it.
«Where does the quantum to classical happen in brain and what is an observer in brain?
Will or intent or information, externally generated via senses or internally generated.
Are the conscious frames of reality, thoughts? Envelopes with words as symbols.
The frames are discrete but due to short time gaps appear continuous. The quantum discontinuity exists at the level of thoughts».
You are asking fundamental questions, there are no answers to them yet, but as they say, a question asked correctly contains half the answer.
The author offers a comprehensive explanation for the unity of the brain and consciousness, acknowledging the unproven nature of his claims. The individual propositions of this hypothesis are highly consistent with one another. The foundation upon which the entire structure rests is very precisely defined:
The ultimate purpose of brain and cognition, imagination and thought is to reduce ambiguity and create a sense of certainty in a world that is uncertain and random.
This essay is highly nontrivial. I would very much like to live to see the day when someone (perhaps this author) can find a solution to the problem of the interaction between the material and ideal worlds as an interaction between the observer, as an element of the material world, and their consciousness.
