On 6/22/2012 5:37 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/22/2012 1:30 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 6/22/2012 2:51 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/22/2012 11:42 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
It is a known fact that the brain is a "connection" machine. We do not fully understand how it works and many people are only assuming (based on a cartoon of a proof by Tegmark) that it is just a classical machine.

"Connection machines" don't implement any different computations than Turing machines. Tegmark's paper just showed that the neural transmissions of the brain are almost always classical. You would reach the same conclusion if you just considered the evolutionary function of the brain. A brain that used more than a small amount of quantum randomness would not be conducive to survival.

Dear Brent,

I know of Minksi's proof... It would be helpful if you looked at the fine and subtle details before you rattle off the party line on the subject! I was discussing the "neuron 323" situation which does in fact make a difference in connections machines.

Bruno's hypothetical was supposing it did not make a difference. Are you saying that in a brain, or other 'connection machine' computer, every neuron/connector must make a difference in every computation?

Of course not, but if we are considering computations (plural) in general then we cannot just gloss over the differences that make a difference.

The role of contrafactuals is at issue and has not fully been resolved in my humble opinion.

I agree.

We discussed this in http://www.mail-archive.com/everything-list@googlegroups.com/msg19437.html Tegmark's paper discusses only the ion channel aspect of neurons and does not consider any other possible way that entanglement could be maintained.

He has also considered microtubles.

    Yes, but Hammeroff answered those critiques to my satisfaction.

Here is a talk by Hammeroff outlining the research so far. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXFFbxoHp3s I don't agree with the OrchOR hypothesis but it is separable from the entanglement idea...

Hameroff is a crackpot. If microtubles were the source of consciousness my finger would be conscious; microtubles are in almost all cells.

OK, that solves it, just call him a crackpot and sit back and wonder why no progress occurs. I think that the sensitivity might be set too high on your crackpot meter. ;-)

One experiment that your decide this involves testing how the brain manages to keep qualia within a 80 msec. window to appear simultaneous.


Let me re-write that. One experiment that we can consider is how the various separate 'parts' of the brain synchronize their activities such that we obtain a unified field of consciousness. There seem to be many pathologies that are the result of bad synchronization. Multiple personality disorder and schizophrenia for example. D. Eagleman mentions this.... This talk about quantum effects in biology is informative: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSe8mBWeeYM&feature=relmfu

It is as if time for the brain is a 80 msec wide sliding window.

Yes. It would be remarkable if the brain could resolve extremely short differences in time. 80msec seems about right for a signal carried by neural axons to spread through the brain.




The research of David Eagleman is relevant here: http://eaglemanlab.net/time/our-experimental-questions



"Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed."
~ Francis Bacon

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to