I want to understand this better because it seems like a few paradoxes might fall out of this. For example, Hameroff says “As qubits in the brain Penrose suggested superpositions of neurons both firing and not firing.” If neurons can be in states of superposition, firing and not firing at the same time, then where does that leave the classical notion of neurons firing in response to stimulation by other neurons? Everything we know about neuroscience would have to be turned on its head!
Is anyone an “expert” or QC - or even just know a few things about it?
Thanks for your reply nameta9. It seems very few people have anything to say about this (or care to say anything), which sucks because I really want to be enlightened about this stuff . I’m reading through some of the material, but I’m the type who needs to ask questions as well.
Anyway, you think if we start modifying our neural networks, we’ll gain a better understanding of this? How so?
I’m unaware as to how this approach fails to explain the why’s.
Just because we don’t have a definite explanation of how every single thought, feeling, and emotion operates, that doesn’t mean there is anything else going on other than neurons firing, and those experiences being the side effect of them.
Maybe you don’t really understand how radical the idea is of modifying your own neural circuits and all the relative subsystems etc. The whole concept of understanding, the entire universe, all possible reference points could virtually disappear. Who would understand who ? What would understanding be ? who is measuring who ? the modified brain or the brain as we all know it, as our brain is actually organized naturally ?
The real problem is that a modified brain would look back at us and say “well that brain has got it all wrong, I know how things really are etc.”
And we could say the same thing even of the brain we modified. So I think we wouldn’t understand anything more but much more likely less and less until oblivion or until we leave this universe as we know it by perceiving it with a completely different - brain - emotion - sense organs etc. Really wild and insane isn’t it …
I agree. This guy probably losses his credibility when he says “we don’t know how the brain produces consciousness”. We’ve seen enough people with brain damage to see the connections.
I believe all the wackiness around quantum science is due to particles existing in the form of concentric shells that are difficult to measure. So the particles appear to be in two places at once just like an egg shell is in two places at once: when referenced from the yolk: it’s to the left, right, and top, bottom of the yolk.
I’m no expert, but I happen to be rereading Penrose. The first time I read it, years ago, I thought it was BS. Not any more.
Look at it this way: something has to cause consciousness in the brain, that is a given. But to claim that it is neurons is totally inadequate. There aren’t enough neurons to do the thinking, and they’re way too slow. 1/30 second, I think. So there has to be something more going on there. The neurons are just wires that connect nodes that are populated by chemicals. There are many times more chemicals at the nodes then there are neurons. These chemicals have quantum properties (so does everything else). So it is NOT unreasonable that quantum computation is going on, controlled by the action of neurons.
It is quantum computation that operates on ‘qubits’. Its operations overlap, superpose, whatever, in parallel. It all makes sense in theory.
Problem: Nobody knows or will know for quite a while how a busy place like the brain can do parallel processing. Quantum processing MUST not be disrupted while in superposition. And that seems impossible in a real brain.
Thanks for the insight Yada (can I call you that?).
Although I agree that neurons and chemicals are not enough to explain consciousness, I don’t know if I agree with this statement:
Since when did we figure out how many neurons are needed for thinking and how fast they need to be? 1/30 of a second is pretty darn fast IMO - I mean, some of the simplest thoughts like “I’m hungry” take at least a whole half second to think.
Yes, even Hameroff mentions this as one of the criticism leveled against his theory:
I’m somewhat against the whole theory myself. If it was presented as a theory of free will, then I’d entertain it, but as a theory of consciousness all together, I’m sceptical.
Several. Maybe God maintains our souls. Maybe the brain produces consciousness naturally in an epiphenomenal manner. Maybe the entire world is mental and we only think there are such things as brains because our senses are deceiving us.
I don’t subscribe to the above views, but I don’t think that quantum superposition is necessarily the only source of consciousness. One problem I have with quantum consciousness is that it fails to explain qualia. That’s why I say it’s a better theory of free will.
I agree that there is such a thing as qualia. It is the quality of first person experience that I have, and I have no reason to believe that any being with consciousness does not also have a first person experience that is unique to it.
But I don’t know what qualia is. In what sense could I know? If, due to its unique nature, there is no acceptable public behavioral description, and I don’t have a personal understanding, then where would my knowledge come from?
So while consciousness is pretty solid, I’m not sure that anything can ever ‘explain’ qualia.
The slow chemical interaction of Neurons is not the only way infomation is exchanged in the brain. There are other faster mechanisms that are being explored.
Descartes said: “I think , therefore I am”
2.
Buddhist monk say “I think not, therefore I am”
Consciousness is real but nonphyslcal.
2.
Consciousness is connected to physical reality .
There are many theories explaining the origin of consciousness.
Here some of them.
1)
“God” “blowing” “consciousness” “into man”
“whom he created from clay”
2)
20 billions years ago all matter (all elementary particles,
all quarks and their girlfriend antiquarks, all kinds of waves:
electromagnetic, gravitational, muons….) –
all was assembled in “singular pointâ€.
Then there was a Big Bang .
Question: when was there consciousness?
a) Before explosion,
b) At the moment of explosion,
c) After the explosion.
It is more probable, that it existed after the explosion.
Then there is a question: what particles (or waves)
were carriers of consciousness?
Mesons, muons, leptons, bosons (W+, W- , Z) ,
quarks, …gluons field …… ets …?
On this question the Big Bang theory does not give an answer.
But can it be that consciousness was formed as a result
of the interaction of all elementary particles, all waves, all fields?
Then, on the one hand, the reason for the origin of the Big Bang is clear:
everything was mixed, including consciousness, and when it is mixed
then it is possible to construct all and everything.
But on the other hand, it is not clear:
why farmer John can think simply, clearly and logically.
3) Ancient Indian Veda approve, that origination of consciousness
is connected with the existence of spiritual, conscious particles – purusha .
4) Modern physics affirms that the Quantum of light
is a privileged particle as in one cases,
it behave as a particle, and in other case, acts in a way which causes a wave.
How is a particle capable of creating a wave?
The behaviour of Light quanta (dualism ) is explained simply.
A quantum of light has its own initial consciousness.
This consciousness is not rigid, but develops.
The development of consciousness goes
“from vague wish up to a clear thoughtâ€.
The man acts:
1)
usually under logic program,
2)
sometimes on intuition (unconsciousnessly).
I personally concur that consciousness has quantum or quantum like behaviors. I have be actively working on this problem for many years, I think the closest or “best” canidate to emerge in the QC realm is a theory put forward by Henry Stapp. My personal views differ only in the Process 1 function’s role in the mind/brain connection.
Everything we know about neuroscience would have to be turned on its head!
quote]
That happened in the mid 90’s after taking measurements from flying bats and several insects. the nutshell is that neuron activity was assumed to “produce” information in the form of the distances between the spike trains produced in response to the enviornment. In fact even today college still stick to this “teaching” and sweep the dirty secret under the rug like it doesn’t exist. The dirty secret is that when measuring a bat’s ability to change trajectory mid-flight in response to collision avoidance, it was found that a SINGLE spike without the context of subsequent spikes in the train was enough for the bat to make a decision to change direction, now on the surface this seems quite harmless the reality is it produced the fact that was don’t have any idea how information is encoded and we don’t understand neuronic functions. The bomb got dropped causes a stir for about 3-5 years and it’s in the closet now.
Let me see if I understand this correctly. One spike corresponds to one firing of a neuron, correct? One firing of a neuron caused the bat to change direction, correct? I don’t see any implications of this beyond basic mechanics… unless the firing also determined the direction in which the bat’s flight changed. The latter would entail that there was more information in that one spike than simply “change direction” - it also said “change to such-and-such direction”.
But then, what if that neuron was specialized for only that specific direction, and there are other neurons for different directions. Did the study cover this? Or what if that neuron triggers a sub-system of neuron modules, the configuration of which is way more complex, and that sub-system computes the exact direction? I’m sure the study must have touched upon these questions, but I still ask - did they?
. I’m reading through some of the material, but I’m the type who needs to ask questions as well.