Discussion

Thousands of neuroscientist collect new results every year gaining more insights about how the brain works. However, despite the collective efforts, there is still much progress to be made in tackling the big questions. Could this be the case because dominant concepts in neuroscience, which were developed 50 to more than 100 years ago, are outdated \cite{Stern_2017}
If yes, then we have to allow even small hints, which contradict the overwhelming flood of information based on old concepts, to be considered. We have shown here, how such clues which are easy to overlook can change those concepts fundamentally but also may reveal unknown brain networks.
We combined little basic knowledge of the brain with the observation of a quantum coherence during consciousness to conclude that the brain must be a quantum computer. This new concept has not found many followers over the years because it moves radically away from known concepts in mind and even quantum mind. However, topological computing is maybe the most obvious, natural, and fundamental known concept which could be applied to the mind.
Nevertheless, neuroscience is classical not for no reason. Most observation link to the mind are classical. neurones which are considered as main contributor to cognition send information via action potential; a classical signal.
However, classical signals can also be observed in quantum computation as result of a measurement during computing or as part of information transfer which is performed using quantum teleportation. Furthermore, topological defects and order can be in the classical domain as we can see in the following.
Another reason why our findings are rejected is that through the common and intuitive argument that quantum coherence can't survive in the hot and wet environment of the brain. This argument reflects on  empirical physics in  laboratory systems which observation resulted in the creation of quantum mechanics 100 years ago; a very successful theory for closed system with few disturbances.