> I agree that physicists, myself included, might need some sort of a > neural-plugin to supplement the physical-map-building hippocampus for > mapping "quantum environments." > > I disagree that physicists, myself included, with this sort of a > neural-plugin would have any enhanced cognition of external "quantum > environments.". > > In brief, I'd never be able to get the darned plugin, plugged in and/or if > you did, there would always be a certain 'uncertainty' vis-a-vis the state > of communication between the systems, i.e. remember the > Heisenberg bracket. > Obviously, my opinion of cognition is somewhere between non > 'Penrosian' in a > modern context and 'Parmenidean' in an ancient context. > > But, to be sure Ben, you've got a phenomenal imagination and an articulate > way of expressing it ;-).
Ed, I see two options 1) the quantum neural module is purely classical in its operation, merely *simulating* quantum dynamics via implementing equational models of them. In that case, problems like the ones you describe don't exist. The question is whether this kind of simulation can be done in an adequately efficient way to provide helpful quantum-environment-modeling. 2) the quantum neural module is actually a macroscopic quantum system, allowing modeling of quantum environments in a more direct way by *being* a quantum environment. In this case, couldn't it happen that, via the close coupling with the quantum plugin, the dynamics of the brain as a whole would be transformed into those of a "macroscopic quantum system" ? In other words, even if those who call the brain a macroscopic quantum system NOW are wrong, isn't it possible that the introduction of the hypothetical quantum-environment-modeling neural module would cause this to become the case. And presto, a new species, Quantum Man, is born .... -- Ben ------- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
