Talk:Quantum brain dynamics

message: Article was listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion Apr 16 to Apr 21 2004; was kept as consensus was not reached within the time limit.  Discussion:
Begin pasted discussion:
From Cleanup: Quantum brain dynamics - long but hard to understand, pseudo-science vfd?
*Keep (for now) - Is it backed up by any other source?  The text sounds like a legitimate connection of the two. - Tεxτurε 17:42, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: VfD

message: This link appears to be for the wrong paper...
* Georgiev DD, Glazebrook JF (2006). Dissipationless waves for information transfer in neurobiology - some implications. Informatica 30: 221-232. Free full text Dndn1011 21:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed link 

message: I think it will be better to be inserted part of the QFT description of the quantized electric field in neurons and the water dipole dynamics. I can use some of the LaTex files of mine that have been peer reviewed and published to input the relevant equations in Wikipedia but I am not sure whether the other editors will wellcome this or will revert it. So please post your opinion because I don't want to lose my time in vain. Danko Georgiev MD 08:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would prefer to adapt equations from Jibu and Yasue, unless you have something significantly new. I'll try to do this once I get to the office where I can access their papers. But any math that's understandable and/or relevant is worth adding, because for claims like these I need to see the math to believe it. SamuelRiv 15:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As an update, from what I've read it seems that the math that "justifies" this hypothesis is nothing more than a modification of the wave equation into the form of Schrodinger's equation, saying nothing about the scales involved (which, for what they're describing, are certainly on the same order for normal quantum mechanics). At least, that's what Jibu and Yasue seem to argue. Anyway, reading their book and the associated papers leads me to believe that this is quite a bit of wishful thinking. The math is correct, just simply not valid on the scales that they're arguing for. SamuelRiv (talk) 14:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The mathematical formalism of QBD 

message: Should this be part of quantum mind?1Z 13:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Added merge tag. Ripe 21:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I disagree. At first glance there appears to be a degree of self-promotion, either on these pages or not far off. It would be easier to tackle the POV pushing while the articles are separate and before the self-promotion becomes ground in, Davy p 21:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I do not support merge. I have created the entry, but after editting by others I see no-self promotion in the article. It mentions briefly Jibu and Yasue, and Vitiello, and I think it is better if the article is separate as it may be expanded with theory. I can do that in priciple, but I am afraid of being accused in self-promotion as before. If one really understands what is new and what is old in the theory, then he should be able to see, that if I input Jibu and Yasue's water lasing equations, then this is not mine research. My contributions were to model this activity with sine-Gordon solitons and this has been published in several articles of mine in the period 2004-2007. Danko Georgiev MD 11:14, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I vote to keep separate and link from the quantum mind article. This seems like a unique enough approach to warrant its own article, as it seeks a bottom-up phenomenological explanation of consciousness rather than the usual top-down idea of "since we don't understand it, maybe we need more exotic physics." SamuelRiv 15:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: I have inserted inline citations and cleaned-up a bit. Looks neat.Danko Georgiev (talk) 13:41, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Ref templates and clean-up

message: Hello people,
Isn't the brain a memcomputer which is generally not affected by quantum effects in any meaningful manner. I believe that this article should be classified as pseudoscience or labelled as a failed theory because there is no widely accepted proof of it.
Jiale8331 (talk) 11:34, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Labelling of Article 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Quantum brain dynamics. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add  after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://cognet.mit.edu/posters/TUCSON3/Yasue.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:36, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified