Starship Asterisk*

Fred the Cat wrote:I’m certainly no expert but I do find the topic fascinating. The sentence “Might it be that, just as quantum objects can apparently be in two places at once, so a quantum brain can hold onto two mutually-exclusive ideas at the same time?” evokes thoughts that our brain has a conscious-subconscious relationship. ...

Chris Peterson wrote:

neufer wrote:

Chris Peterson wrote:
You're just falling deeper into the pseudoscience morass.

All well accepted modern theories of consciousness are independent of the biological details of the brain.

Believe what you want. There are no theories of consciousness...just hypotheses.

You're quite mistaken about that. I don't think you're keeping up with the work.
(I think there's a good chance that we're less than a decade from self-aware machines.)

neufer wrote:
(And Penrose is one or two orders of magnitude smarter than either of us.)

Penrose is smart. I don't know if he's smarter than me or not. I know he's not orders of magnitude smarter than either of us.

neufer wrote:

Chris Peterson wrote:
You're just falling deeper into the pseudoscience morass.

All well accepted modern theories of consciousness are independent of the biological details of the brain.

Believe what you want. There are no theories of consciousness...just hypotheses.

(And Penrose is one or two orders of magnitude smarter than either of us.)

Chris Peterson wrote:
You're just falling deeper into the pseudoscience morass.

All well accepted modern theories of consciousness are independent of the biological details of the brain.

neufer wrote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orchestrated_objective_reduction wrote:

---

<<Stuart Hameroff proposed that microtubules were suitable candidates for quantum processing. Microtubules are made up of tubulin protein subunits. The tubulin protein dimers of the microtubules have hydrophobic pockets that may contain delocalized π electrons. Tubulin has other, smaller non-polar regions, for example 8 tryptophans per tubulin, which contain π electron-rich indole rings distributed throughout tubulin with separations of roughly 2 nm. Hameroff claims that this is close enough for the tubulin π electrons to become quantum entangled.

Hameroff suggested the tubulin-subunit electrons would form a Frohlich condensate, a hypothetical coherent oscillation of dipolar molecules. However, this too was rejected by Reimers' group. Hameroff then responded to Reimers. "Reimers et al have most definitely NOT shown that strong or coherent Frohlich condensation in microtubules is unfeasible. The model microtubule on which they base their Hamiltonian is not a microtubule structure, but a simple linear chain of oscillators." Hameroff reasoned that such condensate behavior would magnify nanoscopic quantum effects to have large scale influences in the brain.

[size=150][color=#0000FF]~40 Hz Gamma waves[/color][/size]

---

Hameroff proposed that condensates in microtubules in one neuron can link with microtubule condensates in other neurons and glial cells via the gap junctions of electrical synapses. Hameroff proposed that the gap between the cells is sufficiently small that quantum objects can tunnel across it, allowing them to extend across a large area of the brain. He further postulated that the action of this large-scale quantum activity is the source of 40 Hz gamma waves, building upon the much less controversial theory that gap junctions are related to the gamma oscillation.>>

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orchestrated_objective_reduction wrote:

---

<<Stuart Hameroff proposed that microtubules were suitable candidates for quantum processing. Microtubules are made up of tubulin protein subunits. The tubulin protein dimers of the microtubules have hydrophobic pockets that may contain delocalized π electrons. Tubulin has other, smaller non-polar regions, for example 8 tryptophans per tubulin, which contain π electron-rich indole rings distributed throughout tubulin with separations of roughly 2 nm. Hameroff claims that this is close enough for the tubulin π electrons to become quantum entangled.

Hameroff suggested the tubulin-subunit electrons would form a Frohlich condensate, a hypothetical coherent oscillation of dipolar molecules. However, this too was rejected by Reimers' group. Hameroff then responded to Reimers. "Reimers et al have most definitely NOT shown that strong or coherent Frohlich condensation in microtubules is unfeasible. The model microtubule on which they base their Hamiltonian is not a microtubule structure, but a simple linear chain of oscillators." Hameroff reasoned that such condensate behavior would magnify nanoscopic quantum effects to have large scale influences in the brain.

[size=150][color=#0000FF]~40 Hz Gamma waves[/color][/size]

---

Hameroff proposed that condensates in microtubules in one neuron can link with microtubule condensates in other neurons and glial cells via the gap junctions of electrical synapses. Hameroff proposed that the gap between the cells is sufficiently small that quantum objects can tunnel across it, allowing them to extend across a large area of the brain. He further postulated that the action of this large-scale quantum activity is the source of 40 Hz gamma waves, building upon the much less controversial theory that gap junctions are related to the gamma oscillation.>>

neufer wrote:

Chris Peterson wrote:

neufer wrote: I know of no one who is smart enough to be able to dismiss such ideas out of hand :!:

I am.

No you're not :!:

Chris Peterson wrote:

neufer wrote:
I know of no one who is smart enough to be able to dismiss such ideas out of hand

I am.

neufer wrote:I know of no one who is smart enough to be able to dismiss such ideas out of hand :!:

Chris Peterson wrote:
I have spent years studying cognitive science, and am very familiar with the current state of research on cognitive processes, decision making, and reflective consciousness. More than familiar enough to recognize that Penrose's idea made no sense when made, and can be dismissed in light of our understanding of the subject today.

I am also well trained in quantum mechanics, which helps me recognize when it is being used in an entirely nonsensical way.

• The Emperor's New Mind: Concerning Computers, Minds, and The Laws of Physics (1989)
  
  Shadows of the Mind: A Search for the Missing Science of Consciousness (1994)
  
  The Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe (2004)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind wrote:
<<The quantum mind or quantum consciousness group of hypotheses propose that classical mechanics cannot explain consciousness. It posits that quantum mechanical phenomena, such as quantum entanglement and superposition, may play an important part in the brain's function and could form the basis of an explanation of consciousness. Eugene Wigner developed the idea that quantum mechanics has something to do with the workings of the mind. He proposed that the wave function collapses due to its interaction with consciousness. Freeman Dyson argued that "mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent inherent in every electron.">>

the master wrote:

Chris Peterson wrote: I do not authoritatively comment on subjects I'm not very familiar with. Ever.

Really? you seem to imply you have a familiarity with the phenomenon of consciousness to come off with the statement that Penrose

Chris Peterson wrote: doesn't know enough to shut up about that which he has no understanding of

Chris Peterson wrote: I do not authoritatively comment on subjects I'm not very familiar with. Ever.

Chris Peterson wrote: doesn't know enough to shut up about that which he has no understanding of

the master wrote:

Chris Peterson wrote: Yeah. Penrose is one of those insane geniuses who doesn't know enough to shut up about that which he has no understanding of.

But of course you do. :roll:

Chris Peterson wrote: Yeah. Penrose is one of those insane geniuses who doesn't know enough to shut up about that which he has no understanding of.

Ann wrote:But what if that ledge suddenly gave way, and the Universe "came tumbling down"?
Ann

Chris Peterson wrote:

neufer wrote:

"If a man will begin with certainties, he will end in doubts;
but if he will be content to begin with doubts,
he will end in certainties."--Sir Francis Bacon

• It requires more than beginning with doubts to end with certainties.
  Sir Francis seems to have overlooked a few key steps here in his attempt at brevity.

• Nevertheless... one must begin with doubts to get anywhere.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Bacon wrote:

[b][color=#0000FF]Baco crater named for Roger Bacon[/color][/b]

---

<<Roger Bacon (c. 1219/20 – c. 1292), also known by the scholastic accolade Doctor Mirabilis, was an English philosopher and Franciscan friar who placed considerable emphasis on the study of nature through empiricism. In the early modern era, he was regarded as a wizard and particularly famed for the story of his mechanical or necromantic brazen head. He is sometimes credited (mainly since the 19th century) as one of the earliest European advocates of the modern scientific method inspired by Aristotle and by Arab scientist Alhazen.

Medieval European philosophy often relied on appeals to the authority of Church Fathers such as St Augustine, and on works by Plato and Aristotle only known at second hand or through (sometimes highly inaccurate) Latin translations. By the 13th century, new works and better versions—in Arabic or in new Latin translations from the Arabic—began to trickle north from Muslim Spain. In Roger Bacon's writings, he upholds Aristotle's calls for the collection of facts before deducing scientific truths, against the practices of his contemporaries, arguing that "thence cometh quiet to the mind".>>

neufer wrote:

"If a man will begin with certainties, he will end in doubts;
but if he will be content to begin with doubts,
he will end in certainties."--Sir Francis Bacon

Chris Peterson wrote:

neufer wrote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Penrose wrote:
<<Sir Roger Penrose (born 8 August 1931) has written books on the connection between fundamental physics and human (or animal) consciousness. In The Emperor's New Mind (1989), he argues that known laws of physics are inadequate to explain the phenomenon of consciousness. Penrose responded to criticism of The Emperor's New Mind with his follow up 1994 book Shadows of the Mind, and in 1997 with The Large, the Small and the Human Mind.

In those works, he also combined his observations with that of anesthesiologist Stuart Hameroff. Penrose and Hameroff have argued that consciousness is the result of quantum gravity effects in microtubules, which they dubbed Orch-OR (orchestrated objective reduction). Max Tegmark, in a paper in Physical Review E, calculated that the time scale of neuron firing and excitations in microtubules is slower than the decoherence time by a factor of at least 10,000,000,000.>>

Yeah. Penrose is one of those insane geniuses who doesn't know enough to shut up about that which he has no understanding of. Consciousness is something he should not be discussing. Indeed, anybody who invokes quantum mechanics in discussing consciousness is better off communing with Deepak Chopra than with the scientific community.

DL MARTIN wrote:A caution must therefor be included in describing objects as 'distance away' when, in fact, they are 'ago'.

neufer wrote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Penrose wrote: <<Sir Roger Penrose (born 8 August 1931) has written books on the connection between fundamental physics and human (or animal) consciousness. In The Emperor's New Mind (1989), he argues that known laws of physics are inadequate to explain the phenomenon of consciousness. Penrose responded to criticism of The Emperor's New Mind with his follow up 1994 book Shadows of the Mind, and in 1997 with The Large, the Small and the Human Mind.

In those works, he also combined his observations with that of anesthesiologist Stuart Hameroff. Penrose and Hameroff have argued that consciousness is the result of quantum gravity effects in microtubules, which they dubbed Orch-OR (orchestrated objective reduction). Max Tegmark, in a paper in Physical Review E, calculated that the time scale of neuron firing and excitations in microtubules is slower than the decoherence time by a factor of at least 10,000,000,000.>>

Chris Peterson wrote:

De58te wrote:

If so then the speed of light is sure going to slow down the thought process.

That is if the neural network uses speed of light signals. There are strings and wormholes that overcome the C. limit. Just science fiction? There is what actual scientists are now working on called quantum entanglement over a distance. If a particle is changed here on Earth, then its twin particle on the other side of the universe is instantaneously changed as well. Perhaps the universal brain is using entanglement to process information?

Absolutely nothing appears to overcome the limitation of the speed of light for the rate information can be transferred. That includes strings, wormholes, and quantum entanglement. Even in their "instantaneous" aspects, they do not violate Special Relativity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Penrose wrote:

[b][color=#0000FF]Microtubules are one of the cytoskeletal filament systems in eukaryotic cells[/color][/b]

---

<<Sir Roger Penrose (born 8 August 1931) has written books on the connection between fundamental physics and human (or animal) consciousness. In The Emperor's New Mind (1989), he argues that known laws of physics are inadequate to explain the phenomenon of consciousness. Penrose responded to criticism of The Emperor's New Mind with his follow up 1994 book Shadows of the Mind, and in 1997 with The Large, the Small and the Human Mind.

In those works, he also combined his observations with that of anesthesiologist Stuart Hameroff. Penrose and Hameroff have argued that consciousness is the result of quantum gravity effects in microtubules, which they dubbed Orch-OR (orchestrated objective reduction). Max Tegmark, in a paper in Physical Review E, calculated that the time scale of neuron firing and excitations in microtubules is slower than the decoherence time by a factor of at least 10,000,000,000.>>

Chris Peterson wrote:

De58te wrote:

If so then the speed of light is sure going to slow down the thought process.

That is if the neural network uses speed of light signals. There are strings and wormholes that overcome the C. limit. Just science fiction? There is what actual scientists are now working on called quantum entanglement over a distance. If a particle is changed here on Earth, then its twin particle on the other side of the universe is instantaneously changed as well. Perhaps the universal brain is using entanglement to process information?

Absolutely nothing appears to overcome the limitation of the speed of light for the rate information can be transferred. That includes strings, wormholes, and quantum entanglement. Even in their "instantaneous" aspects, they do not violate Special Relativity.

Chris Peterson wrote:

neufer wrote:
If so then the speed of light is sure going to slow down the thought process.

Only with respect to an outside observer. No doubt an electronic mind would be aware of the pathetic slowness of our own chemically transmitted brain signals, yet we seem to be thinking just fine from our own sense of awareness.