[archibaldJ]

To be fair that is not the wordings in the original paper. https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.11682

I think the pop-sci writer simply didn’t choose a good wording - the original paper is simply about how the (consciousness-orchestrated?) synchronized activities of millions of neurons may be linked to “cylindrical cavity formed by a myelin sheath can facilitate spontaneous photon emission from the vibrational modes and generate a significant number of entangled photon pairs”.

When we don’t have a way to define consciousness and its (let’s called it) orchestration, the notion of “communication” is none-sensible. It’s like if we look at Shor’s algorithm, its BQP efficiency isn’t really due to any “communication” among the q-bits - but more as a kind of “probabilities collapsing” as they go through these quantum gates.

Td;dr I think the phys.org writer is just trying to make it sound more exciting by unfortunately using a miss-leading word