3 ms·
To my recollection, most people disagreed with said statement. The thought was that any kind of quantum coherence would not hold for a nonnegligible time, becau
by jblow 13y ago
To my recollection, most people disagreed with said statement. The thought was that any kind of quantum coherence would not hold for a nonnegligible time, because hey, decoherence. This was before we started seeing proof of quantum effects biology at all.
- marcosdumay 13y agoPeople can not disagree that there are "quantum effects" at the brain because this term has no obvious meaning. There is a completely deceptional "evil sister" of that theory, that defines "quatum effecs" in a completely different way from what's on the paper, it normaly only appears when there isn't a chance for peer review, and yes, people are fast to torn it apart. The usual answer to this one theory presented at the paper is along the lines of "yes, that's quite possible. It may be quite important for discovering how the neurons work, but even if it's right, it does not mean that our current models are wrong", coupled with a "why did you get the idea that this can be in any way more powerfull than other kind of expected phenomena?"