This LINK continues Dr. Stapp's assertions (which ARE true) of the previous posting, with the name of the Report stating the premise (the Report was published in PSYCHE, an interdisciplinary journal of research on consciousness):
Why Classical Mechanics Cannot Naturally Accommodate Consciousness but Quantum Mechanics Can
This second LINK adds Dr. Stapp's further comments with regard to other recent postings concerning consciousness:
Henry Stapp's posting about qualia...

For further commentary on the Brain/Mind and consciousness, by another of today's eminent researchers and "leading lights" on such topics, I include hereinfollowing two Reports by Dr. Giuseppe Vitiello, of the Department of Physics, at the University of Salerno, Italy:

Dissipation and Memory Capacity in the Quantum Brain Model
Re: Quantum memory models? (cont.)

Another two postings on consciousness and the Brain/Mind are the following:

This posting is from Dr. Gordon Globus, of the Department of Psychiatry and Human Behavior, at the University of California Irvine, as published in PSYCHE:
Quantum Consciousness is Cybernetic
This posting is actually an online Symposium of nine different researchers presenting their commentary regarding one of today's seminal books on consciousness, Dr. Roger Penrose's (of Oxford University, England) book, Shadows of the Mind. The Symposium is, again, published in PSYCHE. In fact, the LINK herewith supplied includes three additional Symposia on consciousness which include the hereinabove already noted postings (to PSYCHE) of Dr. Henry Stapp and Dr. Gordon Globus.
Symposium on Roger Penrose's Shadows of the Mind

For further background (before I resume FURTHER COMMENTS herein myself), the reader of this page might also check the following LINKS:

PSYCHE, an interdisciplinary journal of research on consciousness.
A quantum brain? Quantum consciousness?
quantum explanations
Quantum nonlocality
Nonlocality and implicate order
Nonlocal investigations
Coherence and nonlocality
Quantum coherence
This is Rhett Savage's website DICTIONARY of TERMS and Keywords (and Links):
H is for h-bar...
These are additional LINKS at Rhett Savage's website:
Links quantum mechanical...

In one of my Works ("An Evolutionary Maturity of the Human Mind"), I have made the comment that, as a long-ago student of Dale Carnegie's How To Win Friends and Influence People book and course, I remember especially one of the points of the Dale Carnegie presentations: Always "beat-around-the-bush", or (by this explanation) always state your statement/material/thought/idea/concept (or whatever), three times in three (3) different ways, in order to get the message across to those (which is most) people who have their preconceived ideas about any and everything and who will, naturally, think you are talking about something completely different than what you are actually talking about (that something being what THEY are thinking about, rather than what YOU are talking about), UNLESS you DO "beat-around-the-bush" and tell it three different ways. And that is how I seem to communicate, in my writings and in my works, by "beating-around-the-bush", and trying to present the fact or concept being discussed three different ways (or more!), in order to facilitate understanding by the reader thereof.

NOW, however, I want to apply that same term - "beating-around-the-bush" - TO those other scientists of the Quantum which I have been commenting about (and I won't even attempt to address any "classical" Newtonian physicists who may be out there and whose obsolete perspectives are not within my purview).

First of all, I want to say (with regard to such other scientists of the Quantum as I may be referring to, other than myself) that what such other scientists have done (in the LINKS hereinabove and elsewhere, as well as in other Reports, Books, etc.), in the particular ways in which they have related and expressed their ideas, concepts and facts, MAY BE, after all, a form of exactly the same thing that I have just told you that I do - in "beating-around-the-bush". In their use of such arcane, scientific language and terminology (YES, I realize that they are writing primarily for other scientists and NOT for the layman, as I do!), in relating that which they present, as to their attempts to explain the "Big Picture" of consciousness and the human brain/mind (OR the "parts" thereof), they MAY have the overall concept correct (and I assume that they DO, at least somewhere in their personal consciousness, which is one of the realities that I have written about in my Work, "An Evolutionary Maturity of the Human Mind"; i.e., that deep down inside of each one of us, as sentient human beings of consciousness, we DO KNOW the truth, the right and the wrong, and much more, OF whatever it is that we are instantaneously exposed to, confronted with, or have concern about), BUT they have yet to put the pieces together in a coherent and logical (AND truthful) "Big Picture", which can be understood by all. (Maybe I'm just a little bit obstreperous and condescending here - Heaven Forbid! - in my comparison, for I certainly do feel that I, personally, am used to writing for 5 year-old children and up, in a "classical" American-English style that is generally understandable by anyone of minimal intelligence and erudition, SO WHY CAN'T EVERYONE DO SO?)

SO, although they MAY be saying what is correct and truthful (as anything in science can be "truthful"?), they are actually "beating-around-the-bush" IN A DIFFERENT WAY. Let us apply another definition to that term, "beating-around-the-bush". MEANING that they DO KNOW, and CAN SEE, the "bush", as it might be called - the objective (OR subjective!) facts or evidence OF the realities of consciousness and the Mind - BUT, in their attempts to explain such, they are NOT putting the "jig-saw" puzzle together properly, and not completing the puzzle - the "Big Picture" - satisfactorily for anyone to comprehend (other than, maybe, other scientists of their own particular and limited "specialization" and perspective). BY such a definition, they are "beating-around-the-bush", and speaking the truth of what they say (and even offering the "idea", as one of them has put it, that there is something - some as yet un-named and un-presented and un-discovered "thing", or "essence" [however, see the definition of "essence"] - which is BEYOND the human brain and corporeality, that can explain, and put together, all of their "pieces" of the puzzle), but their words and ideas are just not "connecting" with the reality of that "bush" which they are "dancing about" in their efforts to explain consciousness and the Mind.

Okay so, as I say, most other scientists of the Quantum are yet "beating-around-the-bush". And perhaps the reason FOR such is that they do not have a perspective - a world-view, die Weltanschauung - that allows them to see the "Big Picture", but, instead, only those parts of it which they do address. Of course, such IS the nature OF the scientific profession nowadays, as Dr. Stapp has pointed out, enured (AND indoctrinated) as most physicists are by the obsolete precepts of classical mechanics, where any and everything is expected to be reducible to its (microcosmicly corporeal) parts and is then explainable (as to its macrocosmic reality) as the "sum of its parts". And thus we have the multitudes of "specializations", and disciplines of science, and each scientist is attempting to explain the elephant by explaining the elephant's right-toe-nail.

Okay, maybe I'm being a bit "perverse" here, in my rationale and symbolism, but perhaps it is because of where I "come from". I am used to seeing - or at least looking for - the "forest", rather than just the "trees" - to having a "(w)holistic" perspective, about Life and All That Is. Okay, maybe this IS theology, rather than scientific-methodology, speaking. If so, perhaps there IS a "worth", or value, to the Theology of Reality, AS applied TO Quantum Physics and the scientific......a theological-scientific "interpretation" OF the dynamics of the brain, mind and consciousness.

SO, whatever and however the case (of the other scientists of the Quantum), this scientist of the Quantum has chosen to look at, and for, the "Big Picture", of consciousness AND of All That Is, in the Cosmos and beyond! What this means is that I, humbly and reverentially, with all due respect for and to those other scientists of the Quantum (who have made their contributions to the progress which has resulted in the point where we, the human civilization that does now exist on this world, are today), have taken such "discoveries" and principles of the Quantum, AND, in "adding" my own education and experience, from both my corporeal AND incorporeal "existences" (including the realities of my immortal Soul), have thusly produced my own "formulations" and conceptualizations (FROM the realities which have been shown to me) OF the Quantum Physics of the Mind, brain and consciousness.

In using my theological-scientific perspectives, AND in supplying additional facts and realities from my extra-secular (non-secular) sources (the OA/OWB, the Collective and the Hall of Records), I have merely put together a "Big Picture" that did, already, exist in reality. All I have done is "paint the picture" that was already there, or "sculpt" the statue that was already there. AND, in doing so, as far as I know, I have NOT violated ANY truths or realities of existence. For, in all of these new "formulations" and concepts (new for secularity, but not for non-secularity), the existential realities of what the secular "proponents" do, and have, proposed, do YET generally hold. Quantum physicists will find that any and all principia of the Quantum, AS they do understand such, MAY as yet apply to what has been presented and proposed here by this researcher (and IF there is any "discrepancy", I'd venture to say that it is perhaps the secular "version" of such controversial principle that may need revision and restatement). And religionists, and others of theological persuasion and concern, will find that there is NO "discrepancy" with the Spiritual and Cosmic Laws of the Universe, AS they do understand such (and IF there IS any such "heresy", of secular religious "law", perhaps it is the secular version of Christian Spirituality and God's Law of One which is "heretical", and in need of revision).

Thusly, I, Father Jerome, have, using the principles and Laws of the Cosmos, of QUFD (as I have formulated such AND as has been "shown" to me) and of my educational background in Quantum Physics and the Theology of Reality, so "created" a new, and updated, "version" of the realities OF Consciousness and of the dynamics OF the human brain/Mind "interface" WITH All That Is, in the Cosmos and beyond! I trust that such KNOWING, as I have so presented herein these Works, does provide all of humanity with those realities of KNOWING and of Consciousness, AS SHALL enable one and all TO "get back in control" of each and everyone's Life and to DO that which may be necessary to so propel and enable us - mankind - to "go forth" INTO that future which IS our Destiny!

Aum, Peace, Amen!
Jerome