telepathy and Sheldrake

Okay, because Zooby said so.

What are your qualifications Zooby? Should we assume that you are an expert in the functions of the brain, or are you self taught?

I stated that this all appears to be true. I have run this by a number of qualified people who think it makes sense. Maybe I am wrong for some reason, but you need to get over your perpetual case of freshmanitis.

I wasn't being selective, my objection is that you make unqualified declarations that are way beyond your level of knowledge; that is unless you care to explain consciousness and refute the solution to Maxwell's paradox.

Facing Up to the Problem of Consciousness
Consciousness poses the most baffling problems in the science of the mind. There is nothing that we know more intimately than conscious experience, but there is nothing that is harder to explain. All sorts of mental phenomena have yielded to scientific investigation in recent years, but consciousness has stubbornly resisted. Many have tried to explain it, but the explanations always seem to fall short of the target. Some have been led to suppose that the problem is intractable, and that no good explanation can be given.

To make progress on the problem of consciousness, we have to confront it directly. In this paper, I first isolate the truly hard part of the problem, separating it from more tractable parts and giving an account of why it is so difficult to explain. [continued]

Spin-Mediated Consciousness Theory: Possible Roles of Oxygen Unpaired Electronic Spins and Neural Membrane Nuclear Spin Ensemble in Memory and Consciousness

A novel theory of consciousness is proposed in this paper. We postulate that consciousness is connected to quantum mechanical spin since said spin is embedded in the microscopic structure of spacetime and may be more fundamental than spacetime itself. Thus, we theorize that consciousness is connected with the fabric of spacetime through spin.[continued]

What is in your opinion the solution to Maxwell's paradox?

I already stated what I was taught in physics: Useful information contains energy. Again, this isn't my opinion, this is what I was taught. The observation and decision required for the demon to open or close the door accounts for the "missing" work.

I wasn't being selective, my objection is that you make unqualified declarations that are way beyond your level of knowledge...

that is unless you care to explain consciousness

and refute the solution to Maxwell's paradox.

Specifically it was stated that userful information can do work. This means information contains energy.

No, nothing I say is "beyond" my level of knowledge. I am always speaking from the information I have at my disposal.

I think what you actually might be meaning to say is that I speak beyond my level of formal education. If so, that is true. I don't see what the hell difference that makes here in Skepticism & Debunking, if I got my facts from books or from a university course, as long as I have my facts straight. If you doubt any particular thing I say, you can point to it, and I'll do my best to find a respectable link.

Here you have shifted from the concept of a thought to the concept of consciousness. They aren't interchangable words.

This is a straw man. I never said there was anything wrong with that solution.

Balance of information in bipartite quantum-communication systems:Entanglement-energy analogy
Ryszard Horodecki1*, Michal Horodecki1§, and Pawel Horodecki2¶

1Institute of Theoretical Physics and Astrophysics, University of Gdansk, 80-952 Gdansk, Poland

2Faculty of Applied Physics and Mathematics, Technical University of Gdansk, 80-952 Gdansk, Poland

Received 16 February 2000; revised 19 June 2000; published 18 January 2001
We adopt the view that information is the primary physical entity possessing objective meaning. Based on two postulates stating that (i) entanglement is a form of quantum information corresponding to internal energy and (ii) sending qubits corresponds to work, we show that in the closed bipartite quantum-communication systems, the information is conserved. We also discuss the entanglement-energy analogy in the context of the Gibbs-Helmholtz-like equation connecting the entanglement, of formation, distillable entanglement, and bound entanglement. Then we show that in the deterministic protocols of distillation, the information is conserved. We also discuss the objectivity of quantum information in the context of information interpretation of quantum states and algorithmic complexity.

As for the wavefunction and QED, the answer seems to be pretty much what I suggested by referencing Carlip's last statement in the quote. As near as I can tell, the following explanation is probably as good as any.
http://www.lns.cornell.edu/spr/2000-11/msg0029749.html