

Does an explanation of higher brain function require reference to quantum mechanics? - neilc
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2116682770285651082

======
andyn
I've enjoyed Penrose's books, but "The Emperor's New Mind" (where all this
started) wasn't as good as some of his other work.

I just came away with the impression that the train of thought was:

    
    
      (Brain == Mysterious & Complex) and (Quantum Physics == Mysterious & Complex)
    
      =>
    
      (Brain == Quantum Physics)
    

And with no explanation of how QP would actually solve the problems that
regular computation couldn't.

~~~
te_platt
My impression was a bit different. It seems to me his thought process was: I
deduce consciousness is not a computable process. Consciousness is a real
physical process. Quantum Mechanics may include processes that are not
computable. It is possible to have scientifically understandable processes
that are not computable. My deduction is not disproved by our current
understanding of physics.

I think your reaction is reasonable. It seems to be a (well justified)
conditioned response to "God of the gaps" arguments. I don't understand A
therefore I need God to explain A. It is common now to see people replace God
with Quantum Mechanics. I don't think that is the case with Penrose.

~~~
hugh
Isn't that basically the same argument, except with the words "mysterious and
complex" replaced with the words "probably not computable"?

~~~
te_platt
Not quite. As I understand Penrose he only claims quantum mechanics is a
reasonable place to look for an explanation of consciousness. He doesn't
propose that QM is the explanation. In other words, he believes consciousness
is not computable and uses QM to fight against the argument that "the universe
is computable, consciousness is a part of the universe, therefore
consciousness is computable".

------
coffeeaddicted
Summary: Psychedelic drugs increase the processing of the quantum annealing
box because some biological plants like green tea have been shown to produce
quantum effects. Further evidence can be found by analyzing lots of reports
from people tripping and dismissing other explanations. Also this stuff must
be in some way responsible for creativity and consciousness.

The video really ain't that bad and I even like that some people study if this
might lead up to something. But lets just say once you start researching
quantum effects in the brain you should maybe try to find arguments which are
not based on yet another topic which sounds like typical 70's esoterica.

The basic building blocks for quantum computing could be there... yeah, sure,
but unless he can present some stronger evidence this ain't worth the hour
needed to watch the video. Though I liked the first half hour which was a nice
overview on the topic.

------
oPerrin
No.

From my background in Physics:

Qubits decohere at anything like room temperature.

From my background in Neuroscience:

100 trillion connections is sufficient for all cognition.

Unfortunately, understanding why this claim is absurd takes a fairly strong
background in both sciences. Rather than ask you to take my word for it
however, I suggest you pick up a copy of they Feynman lectures and Principles
of Neural Science. Read them both and we can then all have a good laugh at
quantum-as-thought.

-Ian

------
mdkersey
Most research into brain function and AI employs models that are at the lowest
level atomic (i.e., basic chemistry). In ignoring quantum mechanical effects,
we are like physicists who approximate a function with a Taylor's series and
then truncate the series' higher-order terms. They shouldn't be significant
but there's that nagging thought that sometimes they are.

In the book "Tending Adam's Garden : Evolving the Cognitive Immune Self" Irun
Cohen discusses (among other things) how evolutionary processes may set up
shop in any available ecological niche, regardless of how inefficient or
convoluted the process may be. More nagging thoughts.

Degrees of freedom involving quantum mechanical operations are available;
there's no reason they wouldn't be used. And as others have stated here,
evidence is accumulating that they are used in biological systems. Hard
evidence that the brain uses such processes would be revolutionary.

Many models of atomic and electromagnetic theory lie strewn by the roadside as
science moves forward: ">Maxwell's molecular-vortex model of electromagnetism
(
[http://victorian.lang.nagoya-u.ac.jp/victorianweb/science/ma...](http://victorian.lang.nagoya-u.ac.jp/victorianweb/science/maxwell1.html)
) and William Thomson's (Lord Kelvin) vortex model of the atom come to mind. I
hope we're not as far off the correct path with current theories of
intelligence and the mind.

------
Leon
If you want to know more of Penrose's arguments for Orchestrated Reduction:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orch-OR>

I've always been a fan of his books and I'm sure others here have read his
works too.

------
albertcardona
No.

~~~
robg
The problem is that the basic assumption of neurons working as binary units is
likely wrong. The next best guess is qubits, but that will take another
generation, at least, to even begin to understand the implications let alone
test. With two possible states for every neuron the exponential capacity to
explain is ridiculous. The problem is that the basic assumption of neurons
working as binary units is likely wrong. The next best guess is qubits, but
that will take another generation, at least, to even begin to test let alone
understand. With two states the exponential capacity to explain is ridiculous.
The range of possibilities to decode gets absurd, if not infinite, with an
additional supposition of the two. Godspeed to those trying!

~~~
curi
qubits are not the next best guess. making quantum computers is really hard
and delicate. a hot, wet, mushy place like the brain is no good.

