I have referred to the work of Danko D. Georgiev in previous posts and in my books. He authored an article that was preprinted in August, 2020 entitled “Quantum Information Theoretic Approach to the Mind-Brain Problem,” Progress in Biophysics & Molecular Biology. He challenged material reductionism in his introductory statement, “The brain is composed of electrically excitable neuronal networks by the activity of voltage-gated ion channels” [reference to which was given in my last blog post]. “Further portraying the molecular composition of the brain, however, will not reveal anything remotely reminiscent of a feeling, a sensation or a conscious experience. In classical physics, addressing the mind-brain problem is a formidable task because no physical mechanism is able to explain how the brain generates the unobservable, inner psychological world of conscious experiences and how in turn those conscious experiences steer the underlying brain processes toward desired behavior [a topic I have addressed in detail in my books]. . . . Comprising consciousness of unobservable quantum information integrated in quantum brain states [superpositions] explains the origin of the inner privacy of conscious experiences and revisits the dynamic timescale of conscious processes to picosecond conformational transitions of neural biomolecules. . . . Thus, quantum information theory clarifies the distinction between the unobservable mind and the observable brain. . . . the mind and the brain are not identical . . . the mind-brain problem is to explain how the unobservable conscious mind and the observable brain relate to each other: do they interact . . . ?” [My research has addressed this very question extensively.]
Georgiev continues describing a most complex process, “. . . the dynamic timescale of conscious processes is consistent with picosecond conformational transitions of neural biomolecules. Examples of picosecond protein dynamics, which is directly related to the neuronal processing of information, include regulation of conductance of voltage-gated ion channels, activation of ionotropic glutamate receptors by neurotransmitter binding, or vibrational motions of the alpha-helix backbone involved in the conformational flexibility of SNARE proteins that drive exocytosis of synaptic vesicles. In contrast, the observable brain dynamics of electric spikes propagating along neuronal projections at a millisecond timescale describes transfer of classical information, which is triggered by quantum processes.”
“The minimal molecular machinery capable of driving synaptic vesicle fusion is comprised of only three SNARE proteins: synaptobrevin, syntaxin and SNAP-25 [I have discussed the proposed function of these proteins in my books]. These three SNARE proteins zip together to form a bundle of four alpha-helices referred to as the core SNARE complex. The twisting of the 4-alpha-helix bundle inside the core SNARE complex applies a traction force that drives the fusion of the opposing phospholipid bilayers of the synaptic vesicle and the plasma membrane. The zippering of the core SNARE complex is potent enough to drive synaptic vesicle exocytosis . . . In different neuron types, the process of exocytosis is regulated by different sets of SNARE master proteins that effectively set the potential energy barrier for vesicle fusion . . . . Classical particles are forbidden from entering spatial regions where the particle energy is less than the potential energy . . . whereas quantum particles are not . . . . the quantum wavefunction . . . needs to be continuous throughout space, which allows the quantum particle to tunnel through the potential energy barrier . . . and appear on the other side. . . . quantum quasi-particles . . . are able to transport energy along the protein and could trigger conformational transitions. . . . In the case of SNARE zipping, the role of the barrier is played by the calcium sensor synaptotagmin, which clamps the SNARE complex in partially zipped conformation. Quantum tunneling . . . through the barrier may induce full zipping of the SNARE complex and trigger exocytosis. In essence, massive proteins do not quantum tunnel, whereas quantum excitations propagating [as quasi-particles] along the proteins do. Quantum tunneling of such excitations could act as a trigger that steers the overall protein motion . . . into one of two alternative classical paths. Thus, cortical neurons that have surpassed . . . the voltage threshold for the generation of electric spike, are able to amplify the quantum dynamics of SNARE proteins at individual axonal buttons into a macroscopic pattern of active synapses that release neurotransmitter molecules. . . . The dynamic timescale of the underlying quantum processes is on the order of picoseconds.”
Is it possible that Georgiev has also given a description of the “non-material energy” to which I have referred in my latest blog posts, an energy that actualizes interaction between the immaterial mind and the material components of the synaptic networks? I will continue to monitor more recent articles from the neurosciences, seeking clarification of these most complex mechanisms. I strongly suggest to those readers who find this topic of interest to access Georgiev’s work.