From: Zenarchy (J.R.Molloy@shasta.com)
Date: Tue Dec 01 1998 - 21:18:45 MST
From: Anders Sandberg <asa@nada.kth.se>
>And frankly, quantum effects most probably have nothing to do with
>anything in the CNS (Penrose, Hameroff et al are widely regarded as
>silly by neuroscientists). OK, I might be wrong (and in that case I
>will admit it to whoever proves it on his or her Nobel lecture here in
>Stockholm), but the q-mind theory has no extraordinary evidence
>backing up its extraordinary claims.
I think I know what you mean when you write that quantum effects most
probably have nothing to do with anything in the CNS. You mean that quantum
effects do not result in cognitive effects, and that cognition and other CNS
function does not interface or interact with matter at the quantum level,
yes?
Of course, quantum effects determine brain behavior and brain structure in
the same way that they determine behavior in computers, molecules, galaxies
and everything else in the universe. So, for instance, laws of quantum
mechanics predict the limits of dimension in building nano-structures, and
the speed at which systems can process information.
Do the microtubules of the human brain, operating at the quantum level
(since their tiny dimensions will only allow a single file flow of photons,
electrons, or other signal carrying particles), indicate any kind of
threshold in terms of the self-organization of a complex adaptive system? I
mean, Penrose and his pals theorize that the uncertainty principle has some
connection to what some call /free will/... and since free will can't exist
unless indeterminability exists, then human free will depends on this
uncertainty which occurs (or obtains) at the level of physics where quantum
effects make a difference.
Between phenomena at the sub-atomic level and those at the human cognitive
level, hundreds of brain structures operate. William Calvin, Francis Crick,
and other scientists have focused on CNS structures observable via EEG, PET,
MRI, X-rays, CAT scans, patch clamping, MEG, and cerebral arteriography.
Powerful tools to look into the brain. But not powerful enough to collect
any evidence in support of the q-mind hypothesis.
Without quantum effects... if quantum effects did not make up part of our
universe, obviously brains could not operate in the fashion that they do;
just as stars could not behave in the manner that they do. So, in that
respect, quantum effects have something to do with the CNS, although they
may not actually explain self-awareness and cognition.
The discovery that brains use structures (microtubules) which have
dimensions that make them susceptible to quantum effects, places much of
cognitive science in the realm of quantum physics... and since this field
baffles ordinary brains like me... and since everyone recognizes Roger
Penrose as a genius... well naturally we yield this mystery to his and your
superior capability.
Penrose may have penetrated this mystery farther with mathematics, which I
can't follow, as I can't follow the calculations of Copernicus, having
stopped just short of calculus. We await a Galileo who can provide visual
or other empirical evidence to validate astonishing hypotheses.
Nevertheless, the best tool at our disposal to help us apprehend the
conundrum of cognition, remains our CNS.
As that rascal Ambrose Bierce has defined it "Mind, n. A mysterious form of
matter secreted by the brain. Its chief activity consists in the endeavor to
ascertain its own nature, the futility of the attempt being due to the fact
that it has nothing but itself to know itself with." It makes me happy that
Marvin Minsky included that quote in _The Society of Mind." -zen
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:49:53 MST