Dear Kevin and FIS,
Searching for Andrei's articles, I found
and in the abstract there is a claim:
 "Therefore, mental states, during perception cognition of ambiguous figures, 
follow quantum mechanics."

I am not an expert by any means but I find this claim very plausible from my 
personal experience as a cognitive agent in case of ambiguous figures.
When I cannot decide what an ambiguous figure actually is I keep number of 
plausible hypotheses actual in mind waiting for contextual clues to help me 
make disambiguation.
The state of mind about an ambiguous figure can be written as a superposition 
of possible states with corresponding weights and that superposition
can be likened with a quantum mechanical superposition of states.
It seems to me that there could be very natural mechanisms for this phenomenon, 
and really nothing non-physical.
Maybe Andrei can help elucidate the exact meaning of similar statistical forms 
found in several different fields, as the title of his book says:
"Ubiquitous quantum structure: from psychology to finance".


Back to Pedro's original reference to physical levels of information, Deacon 
made a useful distinction between three different levels of information.

Deacon's three types of information parallel his three levels of emergent 
dynamics which in Salthe's notation looks like:
[1. thermo- [2. morpho- [3. teleo-dynamics]]] with corresponding mechanisms

 [1. mass-energetic [2. self-organization [3. self-preservation (semiotic)]]] 
and corresponding Aristotle's causes

 [1. efficient cause [ 2. formal cause [ 3. final cause]]]

In the above, thermodynamics and semiotic layers of organization are linked via 
intermediary layer of morphodynamics (spontaneous form-generating processes), 
and thus do not communicate directly (so it looks like mind communicating with 
matter via form).
Of course there is physics at the bottom.


From: [] On 
Behalf Of Kevin Clark
Sent: den 16 mars 2012 21:56
Subject: [Fis] Physics of Computing

Dear FISers:

Pedro and Plamen raise good and welcomed points regarding the nature of 
physics, information, and biology. Although I believe in a strong relationship 
between information and physics in biology, there are striking examples where 
direct correspondences between information, physics, and biology seem to 
depart. Scientists are only beginning to tease out these discrepancies which 
will undoubtedly give us a better understand of information.

For example, in the study of cognition by A. Khrennikov and colleagues and J. 
Busemyer and colleagues, decisional processes may conform to quantum statistics 
and computation without necessarily being mediated by quantum mechanical 
phenomena at a biological level of description. I found this to be true in 
ciliates as well, where social strategy search speeds and decision rates may 
produce quantum computational phases that obey quantum statistics. In such 
cases, a changing classical diffusion term of response regulator 
reaction-diffusion parsimoniously accounts for the transition from classical to 
quantum information processing. Thus, there is no direct correspondence between 
quantum physicochemistry and quantum computation. Because the particular 
reaction-diffusion biochemistry is not unique to ciliates (i.e., the same 
phenomena is observed in plants, animals, and possibly bacteria), this 
incongruity may be widespread across life.

Best regards,

Kevin Clark
fis mailing list

Reply via email to