[smart (OP)]

What do you think?



http://www.sciencepublishinggroup.com/news/sciencepgfrontiersinfo?articleid=60

[smart (OP)]

Is our brain a holographic computer ?

[Bored chemist]

Is our brain a holographic computer ?

If by "holographic" you mean squishy greyish and very near 37C then yes.
But by any conventional definition of the word, then no.

I would ask what definition you are using but what would be the point?

[smart (OP)]

I would ask what definition you are using but what would be the point?

The potential entanglement of biophotons and tubulins proteins may have deep implications for memory storage and quantum information processing in the brain. See: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14962620

[Bored chemist]

Given that brain cells and nerve cells are generally not coloured, there is no way for them to interact with visible light.
To do so would require a breach of the conservation of energy.

Also, as far as I'm aware, there is no evidence for any mammal producing bioluminescence.
So, in summary, we don't emit light and we don't absorb it, so we can't be using it as a signalling mechanism (without the use of technology).

[smart (OP)]

Given that brain cells and nerve cells are generally not coloured, there is no way for them to interact with visible light.
To do so would require a breach of the conservation of energy.

Also, as far as I'm aware, there is no evidence for any mammal producing bioluminescence.
So, in summary, we don't emit light and we don't absorb it, so we can't be using it as a signalling mechanism (without the use of technology).

Let me introduce you to the concept of a biophoton: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biophoton

[smart (OP)]

Biological tissues typically produce an observed radiant emittance in the visible and ultraviolet frequencies ranging from 10−17 to 10−23 W/cm2 (approx 1-1000 photons/cm2/second).[1] This low level of light has a much weaker intensity than the visible light produced by bioluminescence, but biophotons are detectable above the background of thermal radiation that is emitted by tissues at their normal temperature.

[Bored chemist]

Too weak to measure without technology and still doesn't address the problem that there's no "detector" in the body.
The wiki page mentions humans, but they give references that say things like "Here, hydrogen peroxide (H(2)O(2)), as a strongly oxidizing molecule, was used to induce oxidative processes and enhance ultra-weak photon emission in human hand skin."
Well, who cares if hydrogen peroxide glows feebly when it reacts with skin?

[smart (OP)]

It is well known that brain neurons can emit photons...

See https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5098150/

[Bored chemist]

It is well known that brain neurons can emit photons...

See https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5098150/

Everything emits photons.
So what?
Also you seem not to notice certain words when you read things.
Here are the ones you seem to have missed
Possible
might
can
could
theoretical
could
 and so on.

It's like your strange view on chemtrails where you see a paper that says "it might be possible; maybe, sometime if it was worth it" and read it as saying " we are currently doing this on a massive scale everywhere."

[chris]

So, in summary, we don't emit light and we don't absorb it, so we can't be using it as a signalling mechanism (without the use of technology).

What about infrared?

[smart (OP)]

What about infrared?

The study I linked says: "Biophotons are the quanta of light spanning the near-UV to near-IR frequency range."

[smart (OP)]

So, in summary, we don't emit light and we don't absorb it, so we can't be using it as a signalling mechanism (without the use of technology).

Everything emits photons.

Please make up your mind...

[smart (OP)]

Photons in the brain could serve as ideal candidates for information transfer. They travel tens of millions of times faster than a typical electrical neural signal and are not prone to thermal noise at body temperature owing to their relatively high energies. It is conceivable that evolution might have found a way to utilize these precious high-energy resources for information transfer, even if they were just the by–products of metabolism to begin with. Most of the required molecular machinery seems to exist in living cells such as neurons.

Glutamate-induced biophotonic activity might be the key to quantum computation in the brain!

See: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4978290/

[the5thforce]

Consciousness is mass observing light, energy is a spectrum of self awareness

[puppypower]

The human brain is about 73% water. Water is transparent with respect to visible light but becomes more translucent with light in the UV and IR range. In terms of photo-information, accurate information would need to be in the visible range with loss occurring outside this range. The curve below plots absorption by the water, with the bottom of the curve the least absorption and loss.



Since water is the continuous phase, material moment in the brain, at synapses, along the surface of neurons  is limited by diffusion through water. Water will interact and hydrogen bond to all materials forming hydration shells that will slow them down. The fastest chemical information transfer in water is via hydrogen proton; H+. The H+ can move nearly ten times faster than even the small sodium ion, Na+, which is part of ionic information movement along the surface of neurons. The hydrogen proton signal is already there, making provisions, way before the lumbering Na+ ions, with their hydration sphere, can diffuse and appear in its final state.

Beyond H+, water can also move information directly through hydrogen bonds, by shifting the hydrogen bonding hydrogen between polar and covalent bonding. This occurs even faster than H+ diffusion. 



One last consideration is water is a poor conductor of electricity; electrons, but it is a good conductor of hydrogen protons. Water is weird in that it sort of creates an atomic inversion, where the electrons, such as attached to the oxygen of water, become sort of  part of pseudo-negatively charged nucleus, with the free moving hydrogen proton playing the traditional role of the electron but as a pseudo-positive electron with a lot of mass.

This results in different emission spectra as the heavy and slower protons (relative to electrons) diffuse and shift between hydrogen bonding states. These emission may be the photons your topic is really talking about, since they parallel the material changes of the water as information moves. 

[guest39538]

Is our brain a holographic computer ?

The answer to this is complex ,  our brains being a biomass that we could assume is interwoven with photons .  At the point center of the thought ''matrix''  of each individual there is a void of nothingness where no thing exists.  ''Surrounding'' this center point we may assume is information contained within/as  the surrounding photons.
Once a Photon enters the point center of nothingness, the photon then is ''read'' as information and perceived as a thought by the individual.  In saying that , we could consider a thought,  is untangled information , an isolation from the entangled chaos of surrounding information. 
A new term for this , we could define:  a central information point of the thought process (CIP)

[Bored chemist]

our brains being a biomass that we could assume is interwoven with photons

Well, we could assume that- but it would be silly, because it's meaningless.
So is the rest of your post.

[guest39538]

our brains being a biomass that we could assume is interwoven with photons

Well, we could assume that- but it would be silly, because it's meaningless.
So is the rest of your post.

I can not fathom out why you keep saying my posts are  meaningless Mr  Bored Chemist, it is very meaningful and a reflection of reality. The very information your brain is now reading on the screen is passive information by light to your brain that stimulates your neuron activity and memory of the words .

Please close your eyes if you do not want to receive further visual information into you mind, additionally can you please add argument to the post rather than saying a generalized term of 'meaningless'. I am sure the readers would want to know what your actual objection is and the reason why.

Thanks

[Bored chemist]

I can not fathom out why you keep saying my posts are  meaningless Mr  Bored Chemist,

Did it occur to you that there may be a single reason that explains both my comments that you talk nonsense, and also that you don't understand it?