Are ATP molecules considered major neurotransmitters?

I only know enough about this stuff to get myself in trouble if I talk too much. — Mww

lol, I know the feeling. ATP is adenosine triphosphate, the primary energy storage molecule in cells. ATP synthase is the enzyme in a mitochondria's inner membrane that bonds a phosphate to ADP (adenosine diphosphate), one of the steps in energy capture that occurs during cellular respiration. Its not a neuromolecule specifically, but very fundamental to biological function.

Ok. Thanks.

Do you think you can work in an extra dimension for information. It seems to travel through space faster than min. resistance can account for or faster than light.

This, loosely speaking, subjective "color" consists in both dimensionality and properties of fragmentary feeling, so that organic matter is infused with rudiments of consciousness. The large array of superposition forms results in the wide variety of perceptual types: visual, auditory, olfactory, gustatory, tactile, interoceptive and introspective. — Enrique

Organic matter being infused with rudiments of consciousness sounds entirely reasonable to me.

We can't perceive matter without consciousness anyway. So there has to be contact between matter and consciousness at some point.

Maybe there is an intermediate state where consciousness and matter intersect and intermingle to some extent?

Alternatively, matter may ultimately be a form of consciousness.

Are ATP molecules considered major neurotransmitters? — Mww

Nope. ATP is the compound storing, transporting and availing chemical energy to other molecules, in pretty much all living cells.

Then I can’t hold them responsible for the network that makes me to detest Lima beans.

Certainly not. ATP is not carrying information, only energy.

The large array of superposition forms results in the wide variety of perceptual types: visual, auditory, olfactory, gustatory, tactile, interoceptive and introspective. — Enrique

I thought the large array of senses results in the wide variety of perceptuall types. What purpose do the senses have if perception doesn't require senses? Why is it if I cover my eyes, not my form of superposition,, that I loose my sense of sight?

Do you think you can work in an extra dimension...It seems to travel through space faster than min. resistance can account for or faster than light. — Cheshire

I thought the large array of senses results in the wide variety of perceptual types. What purpose do the senses have if perception doesn't require senses? Why is it if I cover my eyes, not my form of superposition,, that I loose my sense of sight? — Harry Hindu

Those are the million dollar questions for research:

a. What is the fundamental substrate of reality that transcends electromagnetism, and how does it fit together with conventional matter?

b. Where in the senses, brain, and environment generally do quantum processes of perception reside? Perception is very synthetic, so distinguishing the locations of all the quantum biochemistry involved is no simple task. Obviously covering your eyes does not greatly hinder perception, there is still a lot going on in the mind, but it does have an effect. If my theory is accurate, experiencing must involve superpositions to the extent that it includes qualia aspects like stream of consciousness rather than only trillions of molecules. These superpositions will be located wherever conscious awareness is present.

I selected information specifically referring to the spin of entangled particles. Is that inaccurate?

If information is lost during Hawking radiation, then it can exist apart from matter.

I selected information specifically referring to the spin of entangled particles. Is that inaccurate?

If information is lost during Hawking radiation, then it can exist apart from matter. — Cheshire

I'm skeptical of viewing information as fundamental, seems like a reification of mathematical concepts. Whenever we get a new model we get a new body of information because our minds are structured to assimilate the environment as such, but that means nil for the metaphysical or ontological primacy of any particular form of information or even information in general. It might be possible for an organism or being to perceive or conceive in a way that is not even analogizable to current human awareness, mathematical or otherwise, in which case thinking of the phenomenon as essentially informational could be erroneous.

As far as I know, Hawking radiation results from the separation of a matter/antimatter particle pair at the boundary of a black hole, so it is very much a radiation of matter.

The spin of entangled particles is information for contemporary humans.

Seems to me that information theory is fallacy, and we shouldn't elevate it to the status of dogma.

I was thinking something a little more bizarre and speculative. Like, information informs space about the mass of an object or something unintelligible like that.

I was thinking something a little more bizarre and speculative. Like, information informs space about the mass of an object or something unintelligible like that. — Cheshire

Not bad as a thought experiment, but ultimately better for computers than humans if given paradigmal primacy.

I think Cheshire is suggesting the simulation theory there which is of course unverifiable at the moment as of course is God.

a. What is the fundamental substrate of reality — Enrique

Is there one? Why should reality have a fundamental substrate?

Why should reality have a fundamental substrate? — Olivier5

More essential, not absolutely fundamental is a better way to put it.

More fundamental than what?

More fundamental than what? — Olivier5

More essential than electromagnetic/nucleic matter by itself, I'm thinking dark matter, dark energy, and nonlocal forces.

Ok so more fundamental than the level we've arrived at in our exploration of the infinitely small.

The answer is most probably yes.

Further, once we reached this more fundamental level, there will still most probably be a more fundamental level to explore.... And again and again.

Participatory realism maybe; I wouldn't assume simulation theory and then start drawing implications. It seems like predicting a unicorn's diet.