FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSDIRECTORY
You are invited to Log in or Register a Frihost Account!

Dual nature of the Brain?!

 


yagnyavalkya
“Structures built from a very large number of units can exhibit sharp transitions from one state to another state, which physicists call phase transitions,” said Cowan, a Professor in Mathematics and Neurology at Chicago. “Strange and interesting things happen in the neighborhood of a phase transition.” (http://www.physorg.com/news122310241.html)
CIRCUITS in the brain can pick up the senses just like a living FM radio, scientists in Israel claim. They think that we can feel textures because the brain tirelessly monitors the changing frequencies of neurons(http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg15621052.800-radio-head--the-brain-has-its-own-fm-receiver.html)
The question I pose here is
IS BRAIN A Quantum Mechanical System??
ocalhoun
yagnyavalkya wrote:

IS BRAIN A Quantum Mechanical System??


Only in the loosest sense, because some of the chemical changes would be quantifiable, and when you get down to the nuts and bolts of it, any chemical reaction operates based on the laws of quantum mechanics. But no, I don't think it uses quantum mechanics as an operating principle. If it did, then a single particle (like an electron) would be able to make significant changes, but each electrical exchange between neurons involves very large numbers of electrons.

As for inducing brain activity with magnetic fields, that is possible, and I've heard that some company in Japan is working on a device that uses that as a computer human interface device.
Bikerman
Well, not so fast.
Roger Penrose (and others) have suggested that certain parts of the brain operate on quantum-mechanical principles. There are certain micro-tubules within the brain that would be small enough for quantum effects to be important.
Penrose basis his argument on Godel's incompleteness theorm. Basically put, it means that no computer could ever reproduce human abilities - there is something else (other than algorithmic processing) going on.
It is certainly a controversial proposal, but anyone who dismissed Roger Penrose lightly is either a fool or an outstanding genius - I am neither, so I remain sceptical but not dismissive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind
Indi
i'm a fool. Penrose is full of shit.

Not that that is entirely his fault. Often the greatest minds in physics and mathematics make craptastic philosophers. Einstein was mentioned in another thread, as an example.

It's hard for a human to admit we're a chunk of motile meat with a brain not much bigger than a monkey's or a dolphin's, and that all of our culture, art, science and everything we think, feel and perceive personally is just the product of some chemical reactions pushed along by a few millivolts of electro-motive force. It's especially hard for really bright people who can see and understand just how absolutely amazing and incredible our species, its accomplishments and its potential are.

But for dim bulbs like myself, i can see what they're doing - simply making up excuses to avoid admitting they're just animals with a well-developed brain. Quantum mechanics is the latest quasi-mystical explanation that they can use to get around this admission... only it's actually science, not really mysticism, so you get all the non-specificity and warm fuzziness of mysticism with none of the guilt for being obviously irrational.

His micro-tubules are just the phlogiston of the 21st century study of mind.

No, the brain is not a quantum mechanical system any more than any other system is. Everything is quantum, eventually, and everything follows the laws of quantum mechanics. But after you cross a certain threshold of size, the correspondence principle dictates that even though it's technically still quantum mechanics, it looks like classically deterministic mechanics. Every functionally-important part of the brain is way bigger than what is normally considered the quantum limit, and even then the brain works on massive paralleliaztion and redundancy to further smooth out any hypothetical quantum hiccups.
Bikerman
I think you dismiss Penrose far too readily.
He is, after all, pretty familiar with quantum mechanics (to put it mildly) and his version of the 'objective collapse hypothesis', whilst certainly not mainstream, at least has the benefit of being experimentally testable via FELIX
http://cgpg.gravity.psu.edu/online/Html/Seminars/Fall1998/Penrose/Slides/s01.html

I also don't think it is being fair to Penrose to classify his proposal as you appear to. I'm absolutely certain that Penrose has no problems with evolutionary systems, and I am fairly certain that he is not looking for a quasi-mystical explanation of human consciousness (I'm aware that I'm extrapolating from what you actually said - I leave it to you to say whether you think this is a fair representation or not). I think his motivation is actually rather the opposite - he is looking for a non mystical way of interpreting the quantum collapse problem and his consciousness hypothesis is an offshoot of that approach, rather than the main point.

I'm currently trying to plough my way through his thoughts, in 'The Road to Reality' - specifically chapter 30 which deals with this issue in depth. Unfortunately my maths is so poor that I have to keep referring back to earlier chapters to understand the concepts he discusses. It will probably take me several more weeks of occasional reading before I feel qualified to talk sensibly about his proposals in more detail - specifically the role of Gravity in quantum state reduction (which is the proposal which would allow quantum effects at the macro scales we are talking about, as I understand it).

I shall continue to plough my way through, in my own less than adequate manner, until I can make more sense of it - but I am resistant to any blanket dismissal at this stage Smile


Last edited by Bikerman on Mon Jul 21, 2008 1:32 am; edited 3 times in total
Indi
Bikerman wrote:
I think you dismiss Penrose far too readily.
He is, after all, pretty familiar with quantum mechanics (to put it mildly) and his version of the 'objective collapse hypothesis', whilst certainly not mainstream, at least has the benefit of being experimentally 'testable'...
http://cgpg.gravity.psu.edu/online/Html/Seminars/Fall1998/Penrose/Slides/s01.html

i'd never read that before. It's definitely interesting, and i can't personally see any flaws in the logic, but then again it's way beyond my expertise.

But while Penrose may be very good with QM, it does not follow that he knows squat about the mind, brain physiology or even philosophy. And those people who understand QM inside out and backwards are often the first to admit that QM is freaky weird.

What are the flaws in the logic of Penrose's claims about the mind? Where to start? First, it's downright silly to claim that the human mind cannot be quantified completely by a closed deterministic system. How the hell can anyone claim to know that? ^_^; The science of the mind - real science - is less than half the age of QM! It's a little early to be blithely tossing out claims about what the limits of the system are, when we have only just begun to seriously consider what that system might be.

(You know what that smells like to me? It smells a lot like: "Science cannot explain X, therefore it must be God", except replace "God" with "the magical mysteries of QM". It's a gap argument.)

And to claim that no computer could do what the mind could do is also silly. No computer in the world exists that's even close to the sophistication of the human brain. Not even a decent fraction of it. Penrose may know QM far better than i, but i'll bet i know far more about computers than he does, and i wouldn't have the balls to state outright that a computer a billion or more times more powerful than the most powerful computer today could never do the same things as the human mind. (For two reasons. First, a computer that powerful would be operating on principles that are only superficially similar to the principles in use today, and would probably be quite different, because our current models simply don't carry over to that kind of massively parallel processing power. All of our models assume a single, self-contained processor that takes input data and instructions, performs the task, and then starts over - and even modern "multi-core" processors are just two, three, four or more of those running in parallel. The brain's processors are not singular or self-contained - data and instructions get passed around and shared before, during and after processing. We just don't have a model where processing can be muddled with half-way through the equation. Or, to put it another way, all of our models work under the assumption that when we ask the processor to solve 2 + 2, nothing interferes during the + (and part of the fun of multiprocessor programming is making sure nothing does, because that would send the working model to hell). Second, we don't even know how the mind works. How can we say even that a computer today can't do what the mind does when we don't know what the mind does?)

Penrose's micro-tubules are no different than Descartes animal spirits. Both do the same thing: make an assumption and then try to seek facts that support their assumption. Descartes assumed the soul exists, so he need a place for it to be, so he said - arbitrarily - "the pineal gland!". Penrose assumes the mind is affected by QM wackiness in some way, so he needs a place where QM effects become significant, so he says - arbitrarily - "micro-tubules!". In reality, current models of the brain developed by, surprise surprise, neurologists... don't involve any significant interaction by the micro-tubules.

On another note, from now on, whenever i teach about QM, i am so using pictures of living and dead cats right in the equations. i can even do that with MathML online.
Bikerman
I posted an addition to my previous posting simultaneous with your reply. My fault - I should have done so earlier. I'll consider your points in detail before replying Smile
PS - on computers - hmm...Penrose is no fool on the subject. I read some of his work on Turing and computability* - it's not trivial..
*I originally thought I had read this as an undergraduate but, on checking I find it was in 1989 (long after I graduated). Funny how the mind plays tricks Smile

PS - I managed to dig out a copy of the review that first persuaded me to look at Penrose on consciousness, nearly 20 years ago.. http://cogprints.org/432/0/penrose.htm
(I didn't realise, when I first read it, that this review was by Daniel Dennett. Nor would it have meant much to me at the time - it is only since then that I have read Dennett's work (at least some of it) - I also missed Dennett's conclusion the first time around - I think it is insightful).

PPS - I make no secret of my admiration for Penrose. I saw a lecture of his back in the 1990s in Oxford (on relativity), and I have been a 'fan' ever since. Whether that influences me unreasonably towards accepting his theories I leave to you - and yes, I agree, prominence in one field should not lead to supposition of intelligent comment in another Smile
Indi
Oh, i know you're a Penrose fan. ^_^; i also don't doubt that his math is probably pretty good with regards to this problem. The problem is not his math, it is before he even starts the number crunching. He kicks off from a bad premise right off the bat.

Dennett made a really neat observation in that review that i didn't even think of. While i was waxing poetic about next generation computing policies, he demonstrated that even some current algorithms betray Penrose's preconceptions.

To show another example of where things are going wrong: i mentioned that i probably knew more about computing than Penrose, and you pointed out that he knew about the mathematics of computability and algorithms. Tsk, tsk. ^_^ You missed my point completely. i will happily concede that he can probably spin circles around me with the math... but programming is not just about math. Both you and Penrose apparently can't see past that. i'm not just speaking in the romantic sense, either, i mean literally. Like the brain, a computer program is supposed to solve a problem - but what is escaping Penrose is that not every problem needs a mathematically correct solution. "Good enough" is good enough, most of the time. i can give a concrete example, too - in modern 3D games, in theory, every frame has to be rendered with each 3D object positioned and oriented correctly. Imagine a tree off in the distance. If the player takes a step to the left or right, he is - theoretically - being presented with a slightly turned view of the object (if he is d distance away, and moves x distance directly perpendicular to the line between him and the object, the object appears to rotate by arctan(x/d), and shrink by a factor of (d/sqrt(d^2 + x^2)). In practice, in every game i have worked on, such objects are not really turned, but the human eye is fooled with other rendering tricks. You don't need to calculate everything to fool the human mind... which suggests that the human mind doesn't really calculate everything either... which renders the need to explain how we calculate things that are incalculable unnecessary (the answer is: we don't).

Penrose's entire argument starts from that flawed premise. His argument, at its core is:
  1. Our brains are big calculators.
  2. We cannot enumerate the behaviour of the brain using our current understand of calculators.
  3. Therefore, they must be special (read: quantum) calculators.
i am not arguing with Penrose's mathematical expertise with regards to 2. i am not even quibbling with 3 - whether quantum randomness is satisfactory to solve the problem in 2. i am saying that claiming 1 is more than just a little premature given our current understanding of the brain. Without doing proper calculations, we can produce results as good as - or better than - the brain can resolve. "Algorithms" like the 3D graphics one i described above are not really algorithms in the computing sense - they're just "good enough" fudges that do the job. In pseudo-mathematical terms (because i can't use real mathematical terms... this is not a legitimate mathematical problem, but a problem of fuzzy perception), Penrose is trying to explain how our brain can solve a 10 simultaneous equation problem so quickly by appealing to exotic algorithms, when what our brain may really be doing is solving five 2 simultaneous equation problems and averaging the results - it will probably fail in the general case, and even when it succeeds the results will be approximate at best... but in the usual cases it's close enough that we get away with it. (Yes, i know that's not legitimately true, but like i said, i cannot explain it with pure math because pure math terminology restricts the discussion to pure math, and that's not how reality works.)

Consider that we can't even begin to answer the question of how our minds can solve "2+2". Do we store the relationship "2+2" and "4" exactly? Do we encode an algorithm for addition (say, envisioning dots and counting them) and apply it every time? Do we do something else exotic? All of the above? One of the above, randomly selected? One of the above, selected contextually somehow? Who knows? If we can't even answer that, how in the hell can Penrose say he knows how our minds encode and actualize qualia? How can he say that our minds don't do it by means of a traditional linear computational algorithm... just one we haven't figured out yet? How can he say our minds don't use non-linear algorithms (which we can't even mathematically model, but certainly don't require a random element)?

The answer is he can't. He's literally just making shit up and then burying it in mathematical gobbledygook. Before one piles on the math, one should make sure it actually applies. He hasn't. He can't have, because it would require more knowledge than humanity has yet acquired about the nature of the human mind (unless he's got access to some cutting edge papers, man ^_^; like at least five decades ahead of what i can get). Don't look at the math. ^_^; The problem's not there.
yagnyavalkya
Did you guys see the movie " Oxford Murders"
anything can be a pattern for the brain!?
Bikerman
Indi,
I understand what you are saying and I'm not yet in a position to go into a detailed discussion of this (still reading and digesting) but a couple of points leap out.
1) Penrose is not starting with the assumption that the brain is a big calculator - rather the opposite.
2) He doesn't claim to know how our minds encode and actualize qualia - he is, I think, relying on work by others in this area, such as Stuart Hameroff*

I'm still at the stage of 'research' into this, so I don't want to mount a defence of Penrose yet - until I have read quite a bit more, which will take a few weeks. Penrose (and Hameroff) are well aware, I think, that they are 'out on a limb' with this theory of 'Orchestrated Objective Reduction', but I think it is, at the very least, interesting and worthy of consideration..

* http://www.hameroff.com/springer.htm
http://www.hameroff.com/publications.html#penrose
Indi
Bikerman wrote:
1) Penrose is not starting with the assumption that the brain is a big calculator - rather the opposite.

Yeah, i was scratching my head over that myself. I don't think Penrose even knows what he is talking about in that regard. One moment it sounds like he is talking about the functionality of consciousness, the next, consciousness itself. (It's rather like trying to explain electron properties vs. trying to explain what electrons are. It is much easier to talk about something's properties than to talk about what it really is.)

Bikerman wrote:
2) He doesn't claim to know how our minds encode and actualize qualia - he is, I think, relying on work by others in this area, such as Stuart Hameroff*

Well, i didn't mean him specifically, i meant in general. He cannot claim that our understanding of our consciousness is flawed (and thus, needs a new, "quantum" interpretation) without first having an understanding to pick on. He chose this Hameroff's explanation? Fine. But Hameroff doesn't have the answer either. No one does. It is absurd to try and theorize about the nature of consciousness at this point in time... we don't even yet know if it even exists! (For an analogy, there was a flurry of bad science done in the early days of psychology - think Freud - about personality archetypes and whatnot. It wasn't until decades later that someone finally spoke up and said "does personality even exist?" Now, we know it probably doesn't - thus completely invalidating all the personality theories of the first half of the last century. Penrose is doing the same thing: theorizing about the nature of something we don't even have the tools to understand yet.)

Bikerman wrote:
I'm still at the stage of 'research' into this, so I don't want to mount a defence of Penrose yet - until I have read quite a bit more, which will take a few weeks. Penrose (and Hameroff) are well aware, I think, that they are 'out on a limb' with this theory of 'Orchestrated Objective Reduction', but I think it is, at the very least, interesting and worthy of consideration..

If you say so. To me, it's about as interesting as the "science" of ghosts. In both cases, they assume something exists without any kind of scientific justification for it, list its supposed properties, and then start doing "science" with what they've got. In both cases, i think they're just wasting their time.
yagnyavalkya
Penrose was he respected as mathematician or a biologist
MGC77
That sure is interesting about the "quantum mind"....thanks for the link.
Related topics

Speed of thought ?!
A debate of religion, science, and more
Loss of humanity.
Is god down with computers?
alice in chains - check my brain

Human Nature
Dual Layer DVD's
Anyone use dual monitors?
Display Pictures
A has no emanative letter:

Future Cyborgs?
Dual core or 64 bit?
Intel: We rushed the dual-core P4 to market
Europeans and Americans, your thoughts on "Eurabia"
types of cell phones?
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Science -> Life

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2007 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.