Thank you. Having any TOE is not necessarily a solution, Bohm's implicate order may be TOE, but whatever it is, it is often hidden or then easier to describe by conventional means. But if they talk about quantum consciousness, then it must be something what we have some reasons to say that it may be a form of consciousness, not just anything non-computable (proving non-computability was not the aim of the Gödel's theorem, the aim was to prove the incompleteness of Principia Mathematica) or then cellular automata (talked about in Quantum Mind 2003 confererence and often wrongly said to be neural network) what has regular grid, restricted functionality (because of what the structures quickly disappear) and no reasons to consider that they have any abilities of consciousness. Whatever quantum consciousness is, if it is there, it cannot be just anything, it is then a very exact mechanism ("anything" can also be called "complexity", but this has no meaning whatsoever because by far not any complexity, such as complexity in two dimensions etc, can ever produce any form of consciousness).

But so far I see only three similaritities of BEC with artificial consciousness:

1. the extensive non-locality,

2. not significant importance of dimensions and

3. when the BEC form, then two or more particles or atoms become as one, so all the non-local connections what they may have would be joined together into one unit. This may reflect only one aspect of the mechanism, guess they can also split apart.

Unfortunately I was not able to understand these papers more to say more than that.

• BEC's, topology; perspectives on groups: CHESS - dolphin - November 26, 2003 - 07:14 UTC