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.
Brent
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/[email protected]/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.
OK.
Brent
Brent
The research of David Eagleman is relevant here:
http://eaglemanlab.net/time/our-experimental-questions
--
Onward!
Stephen
"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 [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
