|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,885
|
classical vs. quantum neuroscience
#21314941 - 02/22/15 08:42 PM (9 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
"Some neuroscientists who study the relationship of consciousness to brain process believe that classical physics will be adequate for that task. That belief would have been reasonable during the nineteenth century, but now, in the twenty-first, it is rationally untenable: quantum theory must in principle be used because the behavior of the brain depends sensitively upon ionic and atomic processes, and these processes involve quantum effects." --Dr. Henry P. Stapp
So, I ask you, is neuroscience in general making a costly and embarrassing mistake in trying to treat the brain and consciousness classically? I regard the above statement to be true, so, not to include the quantum level in a fundamental way seems like a horrible mistake to me. Am I missing something, or are they gravely barking up the wrong tree?
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
Cinnor
Stranger
Registered: 04/01/14
Posts: 287
Last seen: 7 years, 1 month
|
Re: classical vs. quantum neuroscience [Re: DividedQuantum] 1
#21314982 - 02/22/15 08:51 PM (9 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
The current model of neurology has no need for quantum physics to explain the workings of the brain. Obviously, as more research is done in quantum physics scientists will have to build new models.
Look up Quantum Biology. Interesting topic. There are some biological processes that we know of that can be modeled with quantum physics. Brains and the nervous system in general may but too large to be effected by such small scale actions.
|
DieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
Re: classical vs. quantum neuroscience [Re: DividedQuantum] 1
#21322666 - 02/24/15 01:02 PM (9 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
All of chemistry has quantum physics as its foundation. The chemistry of the brain is no different than any other system of chemicals in this regard. So I am not really sure what exactly he is trying to say...
In my experience the people with religious/mystical/superstitious beliefs are the ones that try to inject quantum physics into areas related to their belief in the eternal soul. When the phrase quantum consciousness is used, this is immediately what I think.
If there is a quantum model of consciousness that describes and predicts observations better than a classical model then people will study it. Otherwise, there are plenty of fundamentally quantum systems that can be described at a high level classically. Like the computer we are on. Trying to describe and predict consciousness from the first principles of quantum physics sounds like a ridiculously hard and untenable project. What is he really proposing? Take the Schrodinger equation from quantum field theory and derive consciousness? If he has done that, then congrats him. I doubt he has (or has even come close or found any evidence to suggest it would work).
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,885
|
Re: classical vs. quantum neuroscience [Re: DieCommie]
#21325156 - 02/24/15 08:54 PM (9 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
I understand that the brain can be treated classically very successfully, and that it has yielded many stunning advances in many fields, especially computing technologies. But that's not the point I'm getting at.
The brain has been very well modeled. The mind, and the hard problem of consciousness, have not. Most in the field just assume consciousness is an epiphenomenon of neurological function, which to me is lazy, sloppy thinking. There is no evidence at all for that, either, truth be told. My thinking, and Professor Stapp's, is that what if quantum effects at synapses cannot be approximated away? Meaning, what if the evolving wavefunction at the level of ion channels and neurotransmitters -- ultimately atomic particles -- is not negligible? Wouldn't we need a totally different approach?
You may say, well there's no evidence that's the case. There's no evidence for anything regarding the hard problem of consciousness! People love to say the dominant ideas are supported by evidence, which is bullshit -- we don't know one way or the other. So given that we don't know, let's assume it's possible that the evolving wavefunction at the atomic level of the brain has large scale effects on mind. IF we assume that this is possible, we have to conclude that billions being allocated for research in neuroscience are potentially being wasted. We'll get around to it eventually, but why are we not exploring all avenues?
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
DieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
Re: classical vs. quantum neuroscience [Re: DividedQuantum] 1
#21325383 - 02/24/15 09:30 PM (9 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Sounds like philosophy and mysticism to me.
What exactly are you purporting to model? What is the test for if your model is descriptive or predictive of observations? What quantum effects at synapses are approximated away?
Also, who claims that the "evolving wavefunction at the level of ion channels and neurotransmitters" is negligible and what does that really mean? Chemistry is all about the wavefuntion, either explicitly or implicitly. Even at the organic and molecular level its there.
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,885
|
Re: classical vs. quantum neuroscience [Re: DieCommie]
#21325513 - 02/24/15 09:54 PM (9 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Your points are well taken and yes, it is more philosophical than not because there is simply no way to know (yet) how q.m. interfaces with the mind, if at all. I couldn't very well have posted it in PS&P, though, as I am sure you would agree.
Just for fun, really. I just have to wonder if we're making a mistake in the way we approach the interface between brain and mind. I think we have to take a harder look at first principles. What that would look like in theory or in practice, I admit I have no idea.
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
DieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
Re: classical vs. quantum neuroscience [Re: DividedQuantum] 1
#21325602 - 02/24/15 10:10 PM (9 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
I suspect and probably believe the hard consciousness problem or the mind-body problem are problems born out of our culture, philosophy and personal beliefs. That is, the problems are not inherent to the conscious experience and need not exist at all. I see the duality, I dont see the problem. What is suggested in the original post is a solution I don't understand to a problem I doubt exists.
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,885
|
Re: classical vs. quantum neuroscience [Re: DieCommie]
#21328803 - 02/25/15 03:19 PM (9 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Interesting response.
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
|