Dear Gordana,

There are for me many question marks in ascriptions of quantum properties to 
complex cognitive phenomena. The inversion of perspective I propose. using 
Deacon's term, is to see processes of superposition as common both to quantum 
phenomena as simplified projections of mental processes and to the mental 
processes themselves. This does not require, as many people seem rather 
desperately to want, that any given figure -ground event involve quanta at that 
higher level. In this case, your useful term "likened with a quantum mechanical 
superposition" can be replaced, usefully I suggest, by a weighting of the 
degrees of actuality and potentiality of the components of a evolving complex 
process. This is both where information is and what it is.

In this connection, I call all FIS'ers attention to the very pertinent concept 
of another Andrei, Andrei Igamberdiev, described in his book, of Internal 
Quantum States. The difference is, if I understand both sets of ideas 
correctly, is that Igamberdiev is talking about the foundations of theoretical 
biology. He does not require that Nature at higher levels actually instantiate 
quantum structures in any sense other than that, as Gordana says, there is 
nothing non-physical and quanta are involved a priori.



----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----


Datum: 16.03.2012 23:11

An: "Kevin Clark"<>, 

Kopie: ""<>

Betreff: Re: [Fis] Physics of Computing

panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
[if gte mso 9]>

[if gte mso 9]>

Dear Kevin and FIS,
Searching for Andrei’s articles, I found

and in the abstract there is a claim:
mental states, during perception cognition of ambiguous figures, follow quantum
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
state of mind about an ambiguous figure can be written as a superposition of 
states with corresponding weights and that superposition 

can be likened with a quantum mechanical superposition of states.
seems to me that there could be very natural mechanisms for this phenomenon, and
really nothing non-physical.
Andrei can help elucidate the exact meaning of similar statistical forms found
in several different fields, as the title of his book says:
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
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
 [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.


[] 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