Is the brain a classical or quantum system?

[bascule]

Many individuals, including scientists like Roger Penrose, have tried to make the case that the brain exhibits distinctly quantum mechanical, non-classical behavior, and because of this any attempts to simulate the brain using neural networks that treat the brain as a purely classical system will fail (an example of which is the BlueBrain project)

 

Contrary to this opinion is this Max Tegmark paper, which argues just the opposite, specifically in relation to mechanisms hypothesized by Penrose:

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9907009

 

So, again, for those of you who study this sort of thing, is that paper credible, or is it much like Penrose trying to use quantum physics as a basis for metaphysical statements about consciousness?

[foodchain]

Many individuals, including scientists like Roger Penrose, have tried to make the case that the brain exhibits distinctly quantum mechanical, non-classical behavior, and because of this any attempts to simulate the brain using neural networks that treat the brain as a purely classical system will fail (an example of which is the BlueBrain project)

 

Contrary to this opinion is this Max Tegmark paper, which argues just the opposite, specifically in relation to mechanisms hypothesized by Penrose:

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9907009

 

So, again, for those of you who study this sort of thing, is that paper credible, or is it much like Penrose trying to use quantum physics as a basis for metaphysical statements about consciousness?

 

Having studied as a pet hobby at times neuropsychology and of course brain anatomy I don’t find it hard to consider that the time span of evolution in regards to billions of neurons concentrated into different structures incorporated into a nervous system or the overall biology of an organism as being complex is any surprise. That being said brain injury of all things or the healthcare related to such is what I put my money on as to making breakthroughs really. If QM is more then just a mathematical construct and truly represents a physical reality of the nature around as in something that applies to matter period I would suggest that QM obviously has some impact on some level in the human brain. The idea to me though is that the human brain is not just a ball of matter in itself again, or it has an architecture, which I would suggest from the reality of brain injury to such again has a large sway on why it works the way it does.

[pioneer]

The difference in approach appears to deal with what is considered the relavant time scale of the affects. If we prick our finger, it takes about 0.1 second to reach the brain. We are not dealing with electrical wires, but the conduction of positive charge using, water, cations and H-protons. The quantum affect may have time scales too fast for consciousness. The brain makes up with multitasking, what it lacks in speed.

 

For example, if we walk, the coordination for smooth muscle motion occurs within the cerebellum. If this data was being processed in 10-14seconds, it would have to repeat a zillion times before one muscle flexes. If we slow the rate down to a slow level, it only needs to occur once. Our output devices, like the voice module, are not design for warp speed. The brain outputs a wide range of data, at the same time, at a slower pace, which all blend and overlap, we can form complex sound patterns. This is the pace our audio input devices, i.e., ears, are designed to work at. Our ears can pick up very complex signals, but there is a limit for speed.

 

Where the brain kicks butt is connected to 3-D memory storage. This does not have to do with physical geometry but with 3-D logic. Computers only use 2-D logic and have to make up the difference with high speed. The 3-D memory within the brain uses 3-D logic for data density transfer. What this may lack in speed, it makes up with extreme efficiency.

 

As a visual analogy, 2-D logic is a plane with an x,y axis such as cause and affect. The 3-D logic is more like a ball that is 3-D. To approximate the ball using 2-D planes, we would need to use a large number of 2-D planes, that have a common center, but which cover all the angles. The more planes we add to the approximation, the more we fill in 3-D. One 3-D memory contains a large number of connected logic planes. Triggering one 3-D memory outputs a wide range of logic planes at the same time. Even if it is slow per cycle, it accomplishes so much per cycle.

 

If we look at one of our 3-D memory balls and forget about the planes for the time being, this is essentially one 3-D entity. Just like you can take a bunch of names and use logic to process all this data into alphabetical order, the 3-D logic can process the 2-D planes almost the same way. Or essentially organize the logic planes into another order before output. If you are Bruce Lee, the 3-D memory, outputs very complex trains of logic in 3-D batches for elaborate muslcle movement. Based on input data, these can rearrangle quickly for the next batch of logic pulse. It is not fast processing using slow 2-D logic, like computer, but uses very slow processing speed, by computer standards, with very fast 3-D logic.

 

Nervous branches are near neary every cell of the body. The brain is able to take in all that data and act as a feedback control center. For this level of complexity we need a wide range of 3-D memories that interact 3-D, allowing very dense data pulses to take care of the entire body. It sort of throws around owners manuals at a time instead of words and logic lines. But we also are conscious and interact in the environment. The brain can also trigger the entire body into a coordinate state of arousal, while also keeping track of all the cells, while we interact with the environment. It does all this while only using about 90 watts of renewable food power. It would be nice if super computers could run on only coffee and donuts.

[bombus]

If QM is more then just a mathematical construct and truly represents a physical reality of the nature around as in something that applies to matter period I would suggest that QM obviously has some impact on some level in the human brain.

 

I agree with that. I think conciousness itself is intrinsically linked to QM. It's the mechanism that allows free will. I'm with Penrose and Hameroff.

[geoguy]

How can brain activity or anything not be linked to QM? Everything in existence is based on the reality of the physical properties of the Universe. Whether or not we can measure QM impact on the brain and it's functions is irrelevent as to the reality. Any model that doesn't take into account first principles is veneer and subject to revision to account for the properties of matter and energy.

[bascule]

If QM is more then just a mathematical construct and truly represents a physical reality of the nature around as in something that applies to matter period I would suggest that QM obviously has some impact on some level in the human brain.

 

The same can be said for any objects in the same reference frame. Newtonian mechanics is sufficient to explain their behavior. Obviously there are some relativistic effects, but they are so minuscule they can be safely ignored.

 

I agree with that. I think conciousness itself is intrinsically linked to QM. It's the mechanism that allows free will. I'm with Penrose and Hameroff.

 

What's your take on Tegmark's paper?

[Sisyphus]

I very much doubt QM has anything to do with the brain's function. I know very little about the latter, and I understand that it has lots of subtle and insanely complex interactions going on that we don't yet understand, but ultimately it's just an interaction between neurons, which are of course many orders of magnitude larger than measurable quantum effects. I would suggest that perhaps the desire to link the two has nothing to do with any real evidence for a connection, and everything to do with failing to come to grips with certain metaphysical issues (e.g. "free will") and finding a copout in the weirdness of QM.

[foodchain]

I very much doubt QM has anything to do with the brain's function. I know very little about the latter, and I understand that it has lots of subtle and insanely complex interactions going on that we don't yet understand, but ultimately it's just an interaction between neurons, which are of course many orders of magnitude larger than measurable quantum effects. I would suggest that perhaps the desire to link the two has nothing to do with any real evidence for a connection, and everything to do with failing to come to grips with certain metaphysical issues (e.g. "free will") and finding a copout in the weirdness of QM.

 

 

Yes, but then that’s to denote that everyone who goes into accepting that QM is a natural aspect of the reality around us in relation to nature then accepts that QM must have some impact on brain function, that’s my route. The simple aspect of photons interacting with matter is a QM subject or property off, similar to vision I would think in some regard. The idea of free will and QM is something I never really thought about when making my statement on the subject actually, and personally I don’t know what the definition of free will even implies in context of human thought really, I think its one of those vague terms even more watered down with subjectivity then intelligence or consciousness is overall.

[pioneer]

I am not exactly clear what the different between the quantum and classical model is beyond time scale of relavant events. If we compare classical to newtonian and quantum to relativity, then most of the conscious or day-to-day aspects of the brain would be classical. They can be explained with just basic physical chemical type affects.

 

The quantum would be the more progressed phenomena, i.e., relativity, like the apparent space-time distortions and pertubation associated with ESP and such. These do not follow known classical principles. One gets human virtual pairs that know what each other is thinking. This type of phenomena would need quantum theory to explain it. Science creates a problem here, since these areas are deemed fantasy science, by classical models of the brain. The classical science stays away from anything not explanable with physical chemistry.

 

The quantum scientists may try to exploit the talents of our more bizzare human bretheren, to see if they can help create some quantum affects. Some work has been done, but not by the most talented physicists. The psychic can't guess all the objects on the table with high reliability. But maybe at the quantum level, some affects may be more reliable.

 

I remember in High School, a friend of mine was part of this Silva mind control group, led by a psychic woman, Ramona. It sounded rather weird but seemed harmless enough. He got me to go and the instructor asked me to stay for the weekend session, and allowed me to sit in for free. I had nothing to lose, so I tried to be open. Everyone was really nice and very positive. The first day was the basic indocrination, that taught some basic healing and pain control techniques, that I still periodically use.

 

During the second day we did what they called cases. These were index cards, which had the name of a person with medical condition, taken from world wide members, who had been through the program. What we would do is have one person with 10 cards, and the other person would be opposite, with eyes closed, trying to visualize, until they came up with the condition. It was the most amazing thing. Everyone that day, i.e, 25 people, were hitting home runs. The youngest kids were really amazing with the ease they were able to rattle off "the belly is sore (apendix).", or their heads hurts (migraines), etc.. The one case that still sticks in my mind, to this day; I saw a women lying on a table, covered with a sheet. I couldn't see what was wrong because of the sheet. The other person said, take off the sheet and look. I did and she was pregnant. I could see her face as clear as day and could describe her with a lot of detail. It may have been thought transference, but irregardless, it was non-classical.

 

The point I was trying to make is such things do occur in pockets. If one is at the right place at the right time, they do often occur. But a quantum approach may tell us if some quantum affects occur, which do not always translate into classical model output.

[bombus]

 

Well, I can't pretend to be able to follow it all so I have to trust his conclusions. I'm sure he is correct by saying that the particular issues he is talking about can possibly be explained by classical theory. However, classical theory does not allow for free will (and I find it absurd to think we have no free will). Quantum Thoery at least gives us the 'room for manoevre' for free will to exist. Also, reading the paper suggests to me a lot of 'rounding of edges' has occurred - but that's not to say it is in any way unscholarly.

[PhDP]

However, classical theory does not allow for free will (and I find it absurd to think we have no free will). Quantum Thoery at least gives us the 'room for manoevre' for free will to exist.

 

This is nonsense for two reasons. First, you accept a statement just because you don't like a conclusion. Also, there's no way quantum theory could explain free will better than classical physics. I don't understand how you can image that, just because we can't know both the momentum and location of an atom with infinite precision, quantum physics would justify free will.

 

As for Penrose's view, it's very "exotic", yet there's no concrete proof for now. The characteristics of the brain are possible because of complex interactions between cells and I really doubt quantum physics has anything to do with a system of this size/complexity.

[Sisyphus]

Yes, but then that’s to denote that everyone who goes into accepting that QM is a natural aspect of the reality around us in relation to nature then accepts that QM must have some impact on brain function, that’s my route. The simple aspect of photons interacting with matter is a QM subject or property off, similar to vision I would think in some regard. The idea of free will and QM is something I never really thought about when making my statement on the subject actually, and personally I don’t know what the definition of free will even implies in context of human thought really, I think its one of those vague terms even more watered down with subjectivity then intelligence or consciousness is overall.

 

Well yes, you're right, of course. What I mean is that we have no reason to expect QM plays a bigger role in the functioning of neurons than in the functioning of, say, muscle cells. Yet only the former ever gets talked about, because people want there to be a connection out of some vague metaphysical discomfort.

[bascule]

However, classical theory does not allow for free will (and I find it absurd to think we have no free will).

 

How does classical theory offer a metaphysical statement about consciousness?

 

You really need to read Kant. Or Dennett. The former offers a monist take on the difference between consciousness and brain activity. The latter offers a materialist take on free will (Freedom Evolves).

[bombus]

This is nonsense for two reasons. First, you accept a statement just because you don't like a conclusion. Also, there's no way quantum theory could explain free will better than classical physics. I don't understand how you can image that, just because we can't know both the momentum and location of an atom with infinite precision, quantum physics would justify free will.

 

The issue is whether conscious observation, or maybe just consciousness, can alter 'reality' at the subatomic level. Classical physics makes it impossible for us to think freely, because everything we think is based on what we were thinking beforehand, and everything was determined at the Big Bang. QM and the consciousness issue allow for us to get out of this problem.

 

I can see the merits of both camps, but if given the choice, like I said earlier, I'm with Penrose and Hameroff.

 

try here: http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/

[PhDP]

The issue is whether conscious observation, or maybe just consciousness, can alter 'reality' at the subatomic level.

 

QM doesn’t allow that, at least not more than classical mechanics. You’re probably referring to an erroneous interpretation of the uncertainly principle. In reality, observation, both in classical physics and in QM, has some effect on the observed object (it could be argue that it’s always the case in science), but that has nothing to do with QM.

 

Classical physics makes it impossible for us to think freely, because everything we think is based on what we were thinking beforehand, and everything was determined at the Big Bang. QM and the consciousness issue allow for us to get out of this problem.

 

Again, you’re only accepting QM because you want to believe in free will, it doesn’t seem to be based on anything rational. I'm sorry to put so much emphasis on this, but it bugs me. You say it allows us to "get out of this problem". There's no "problem", science doesn't need to justify and prove the existence of all our traditional views, on the contrary! I still fail to see;

 

A) How the behaviour of atoms at the quantum levels can be applied to the behaviour of systems in the brains.

 

B) How QM is different from classical mechanics when it comes to free will.

 

I think it's another example of people trying very hard to justify, at all cost, traditional beliefs (free will) with "hard science", and it's obviously not working very well.

[bombus]

QM doesn’t allow that, at least not more than classical mechanics. You’re probably referring to an erroneous interpretation of the uncertainly principle. In reality, observation, both in classical physics and in QM, has some effect on the observed object (it could be argue that it’s always the case in science), but that has nothing to do with QM.

 

 

 

Again, you’re only accepting QM because you want to believe in free will, it doesn’t seem to be based on anything rational. I'm sorry to put so much emphasis on this, but it bugs me. You say it allows us to "get out of this problem". There's no "problem", science doesn't need to justify and prove the existence of all our traditional views, on the contrary! I still fail to see;

 

A) How the behaviour of atoms at the quantum levels can be applied to the behaviour of systems in the brains.

 

B) How QM is different from classical mechanics when it comes to free will.

 

I think it's another example of people trying very hard to justify, at all cost, traditional beliefs (free will) with "hard science", and it's obviously not working very well.

 

If you wish to believe that free will does not exist, you are welcome to that belief (which is scientifically unprovable either way). I happen to believe that I have free will, and thusly welcome a scientific theory that allows this, rather than one that does not.

 

I will answer question A) with another question: What are the physical mechanisms within your brain that enable you to control the flow of electrical impulses - to allow you to think freely? The answer is that there are none. So how can you do it?

 

To answer B) Classical theory suggests that every action in the universe was pre-ordained at the Big Bang. Thusly free will cannot really exist. QM suggests that this is not the case, so free will is possible.

[bascule]

If you wish to believe that free will does not exist, you are welcome to that belief (which is scientifically unprovable either way). I happen to believe that I have free will, and thusly welcome a scientific theory that allows this, rather than one that does not.

 

What scientific theory is that? There isn't one. Penrose's microtubule hypothesis is falsified by this paper.

 

I will answer question A) with another question: What are the physical mechanisms within your brain that enable you to control the flow of electrical impulses - to allow you to think freely? The answer is that there are none. So how can you do it?

 

The neocortex, thalamus, and interconnecting loops

 

To answer B) Classical theory suggests that every action in the universe was pre-ordained at the Big Bang.

 

No, it doesn't, it suggests classical systems are deterministic. Obviously quantum effects played a huge part in the Big Bang and explain the non-uniformity of the Cosmic Microwave Background.

 

Thusly free will cannot really exist.

 

Why?

 

QM suggests that this is not the case, so free will is possible.

 

Randomness in lieu of determinism gives way to free will? Do you consider "free" behavior to be random?

 

You really need to stop using science as the basis of metaphysical statements about consciousness. You're merely confusing yourself.

 

This thread is about the brain. The brain is not consciousness! Your brain can be unconscious. Unless you're a reductive materialist you really shouldn't use the two synonymously.

[pioneer]

Free will can be explained with a classical model using multiple choice. If we put an apple, orange, pear, grapes and peach on a table. All of these choices will have the same affect relative to satifying hunger. No matter which one you pick, it will still do the same thing relative to the body. The free will is usually not even free will, since people are often biased to pick one or the other, such that unconsciousness makes their choice. Free will would imply the ability to chose any one, without any bias. Most people pretend free will and explain preprogrammed bias as their free choice.

 

The human brain is set up in a way to maximize adapation. The best way to do this is to offer multiple choices. Smart design also adds failsafes, which buffer the mechanism during the biased short term choices. One can suvive on pizza and beer for decades, even though not optimum.

[iNow]

The human brain is set up in a way to maximize adapation.

No, actually it's not.

[bombus]

Originally Posted by bombus View Post

 

What scientific theory is that? There isn't one. Penrose's microtubule hypothesis is falsified by this paper.

 

No it does not!

 

 

The neocortex, thalamus, and interconnecting loops

 

And how are those structures controlled?

 

To answer B) Classical theory suggests that every action in the universe was pre-ordained at the Big Bang.

 

No, it doesn't, it suggests classical systems are deterministic. Obviously quantum effects played a huge part in the Big Bang and explain the non-uniformity of the Cosmic Microwave Background.

 

Free Will and deterministic universe do not go well together!

 

Thusly free will cannot really exist.

 

Why?

 

Because it means that any state is predetermined by an earlier state.

 

QM suggests that this is not the case, so free will is possible.

 

Randomness in lieu of determinism gives way to free will? Do you consider "free" behavior to be random?

 

Free will is not random - maybe because of the influence of consciousness. c/f the double slit expt.

 

You really need to stop using science as the basis of metaphysical statements about consciousness. You're merely confusing yourself.

 

No I'm not!

 

This thread is about the brain. The brain is not consciousness! Your brain can be unconscious. Unless you're a reductive materialist you really shouldn't use the two synonymously.

 

Read about how unconsciousness is produced by anaesthetics. You can find i here:

 

http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/penrose-hameroff/fundamentality.html

[Sisyphus]

Bombus:

 

bascule is completely right about this. Free will is a state of thought in which decisions are consciously made between weighed alternatives. That's it. It exists, because it is a subjective experience. Nothing we discover about the universe could possibly change that. Determinism certainly does not preclude it, it just means that you have definite reasons for making whatever choices you do. Randomness, which is the alternative to determinism, does not "help" in any way. If anything, it makes it trickier, because it means there's no real reason you choose one or the other.

 

But that is not even the biggest error you're making. You're arguing that a particular version of objective reality exists merely because you want it to. More specifically, because you think it is the only way something which you think you want can also exist. This is very, very bad science.

[pioneer]

One way to look at the multiple choice feature of the brain, that is used by free will, is to look at chemistry. If we wanted to make propyl alcohol, it can come out in two ways, either the -OH group attaches on either end of the three carbons, i.e., n-propanol, or the -OH group will be added on the middle carbon, i.e., iso-propanol. Is it sort of a multiple choice, with the chemical environment able to shift the equilibrium either way.

 

If we scale up to the brain and neural memory, these are complex chemical systems that have a wider variety of possible states. Free will sort of alters the environment about the possibilities to create one. If you look in terms of energy, the lowest possible energy state is reality. But the ego can add energy to the system to create higher energy states. For example, iso-propanol is the easiest of the two, to make. This is sort of analogous to the lower energy version of the two choices, i.e., natural reality. But the chemists can add other reagents to shift the balance the other way. The other way is still a valid choice, it occurs in nature, but nature does not make that one in quite those same proportions.

 

The problem that a physicist may face is that in physics the four forces are very deterministic and tend to follow singular paths to an outcome. It is not a multiple choice. We can add energy but that is also deterministic. But in the chemistry of larger molecules, the EM force has many options. Instead of just postive and minus we have 6 positive and 5 minus, which now allows a wide range of possible options with little energy difference. These still all obey the laws of physics, but now we have multiple choices.

 

If we compare the brain to semi-conductor memory, with semi-conductor we start with a nice uniform wafer and then partitian it with software. But as the brain grows, the partitions occurs, via branching, even before the child is old enough to be able to add anything in the way of memory. When the memory is added, its potential causes the brain to try to lower its energy into stable states, such as for long term memory storage. These need to be very stable so they will last a life time without corruption. The short term memory has more multiple choice, allowing adaptive flexibility. Once it is settled, then it becomes part of long term memory.

[bascule]

No it does not!

 

Can you explain to me how Tegmark's measured decoherence times don't falsify Penrose's hypothesis?

 

And how are those structures controlled?

 

They aren't "controlled", they are interconnected systems which feed each other

 

Free Will and deterministic universe do not go well together!

 

Again:

 

"Free will" is a philosophical position which makes certain metaphysical assumptions which can't be proven or disproven by science. Furthermore, it's an ambiguous position and there are several alternatives which you can choose from. Kant suggests one form which is thoroughly compatible with both monist thinking and the brain as a classical physical system. Dennett suggests another which is in-line with materialist/physicalist thinking. Regardless of whether you espouse monism or physicalism, neither depend on the brain being a non-classical system.

 

I suggest you read Kant's Critique of Pure Reason. By adopting a monist position and Kantian metaphysics, it's possible for absolute metaphysical free will to exist even if the brain is deterministic without involving any form of dualism.

 

Because it means that any state is predetermined by an earlier state.

 

QM suggests that this is not the case, so free will is possible.

 

QM would suggest that future states (in non-classical quantum systems) are determined by the random (but statistically predictable) way in which waveforms collapse.

 

Free will is not random - maybe because of the influence of consciousness. c/f the double slit expt.

 

What does consciousness, which I hope you'd consider ontologically distinct from the physical world, have to do with the double slit experiment?

 

The double slit experiment demonstrates that probability waves can interfere even in the case of a single particle passing through the slits.

 

Read about how unconsciousness is produced by anaesthetics. You can find i here:

 

http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/penrose-hameroff/fundamentality.html

 

Penrose has been thoroughly debunked by the scientific, mathematical, and philosophical communities.

 

The microtubule hypothesis has been discredited by Tegmark (see above)

 

The Godelian proof in Penrose's Shadows of the Mind has been disproven by Solomon Fefferman (among others, here's a simpler description) Oddly enough, Fefferman is a neutral monist who does not see consciousness as being computable, but has enough intellectual honesty to argue against Penrose's attempted proof.

 

The article you link equates computationalism to physicalism. This is entirely incorrect. Computationalism is compatible with a number of forms of monism, including epiphenominalism.

 

Penrose and Hammeroff are misusing science and mathematics to make metaphysical statements about consciousness. This is both intellectually dishonest and incorrect. I've linked refutations of their attempts. They have made more arguments and there are more refutations available if you don't consider these substantive.

 

[giant block of pseudoscientific mumbo jumbo]

 

Nobody cares. Knock it off already, will you?

[bombus]

Bombus:

 

bascule is completely right about this. Free will is a state of thought in which decisions are consciously made between weighed alternatives. That's it. It exists, because it is a subjective experience. Nothing we discover about the universe could possibly change that. Determinism certainly does not preclude it, it just means that you have definite reasons for making whatever choices you do. Randomness, which is the alternative to determinism, does not "help" in any way. If anything, it makes it trickier, because it means there's no real reason you choose one or the other.

 

But that is not even the biggest error you're making. You're arguing that a particular version of objective reality exists merely because you want it to. More specifically, because you think it is the only way something which you think you want can also exist. This is very, very bad science.

 

I disagree. You say that because maybe you don't understand why I am saying what I am saying. I suggest you have a look at some articles on the subject. Start here:

 

http://www.imprint.co.uk/hardprob.html

 

Can you explain to me how Tegmark's measured decoherence times don't falsify Penrose's hypothesis?

 

They do not falsify, they merely give an opposing view. Big difference. Anyway, Tegmark's theories are opposed by many - have you visited his website? He has some great theories by the way.

 

 

 

They aren't "controlled", they are interconnected systems which feed each other

 

How are those interconnected systems controlled, or have you no power of independent thought?

 

"Free will" is a philosophical position which makes certain metaphysical assumptions which can't be proven or disproven by science.

 

Everything in science is a philosophical position. Science is a philosophy. (PhD = Doctor of Philosophy)

 

Furthermore, it's an ambiguous position and there are several alternatives which you can choose from. Kant suggests one form which is thoroughly compatible with both monist thinking and the brain as a classical physical system. Dennett suggests another which is in-line with materialist/physicalist thinking. Regardless of whether you espouse monism or physicalism, neither depend on the brain being a non-classical system.

 

And some would argue they don't work

 

I suggest you read Kant's Critique of Pure Reason. By adopting a monist position and Kantian metaphysics, it's possible for absolute metaphysical free will to exist even if the brain is deterministic without involving any form of dualism.

 

OK, I will.

 

 

QM would suggest that future states (in non-classical quantum systems) are determined by the random (but statistically predictable) way in which waveforms collapse.

 

Aaaaah, I see your problem. The point is that consciousness can cause the collapse of wave function into a discreet value (c/f the double slit expt), thusly in the brain this 'randomness' can be controlled by consciousness and give us the ability to think freely without our brains being totally dependent on what state they were in before.

 

 

 

What does consciousness, which I hope you'd consider ontologically distinct from the physical world, have to do with the double slit experiment?

 

That is the whole of the question!

 

 

The double slit experiment demonstrates that probability waves can interfere even in the case of a single particle passing through the slits.

 

A bit more than that - quite a bit more. Try here (it's fun too):

 

Penrose has been thoroughly debunked by the scientific, mathematical, and philosophical communities.

 

That's not true. Opinion is just divided - and that's just in relation to the orchOR theory.

 

The microtubule hypothesis has been discredited by Tegmark (see above)

 

Not discredited, just challenged.

 

The Godelian proof in Penrose's Shadows of the Mind has been disproven by Solomon Fefferman (among others, here's a simpler description) Oddly enough, Fefferman is a neutral monist who does not see consciousness as being computable, but has enough intellectual honesty to argue against Penrose's attempted proof.

 

These critiques can often be full of misunderstandings and errors, although I'm happy to check it out.

 

The article you link equates computationalism to physicalism. This is entirely incorrect. Computationalism is compatible with a number of forms of monism, including epiphenominalism.

 

???

 

Penrose and Hammeroff are misusing science and mathematics to make metaphysical statements about consciousness. This is both intellectually dishonest and incorrect. I've linked refutations of their attempts. They have made more arguments and there are more refutations available if you don't consider these substantive.

 

Penrose is a giant among scientists. I think to say he is misusing science is like saying that the Beatles ruined music! Like I said, believe what you like, but I am confident Penrose and Hammeroff et al will be proven correct to some degree.

[bascule]

They do not falsify, they merely give an opposing view. Big difference.

 

Unless Tegmark's measurements are wrong, the decoherence time is too short for quantum effects to impact microtubule behavior. Penrose never tested his hypothesis experimentally. Tegmark did, and the results demonstrate it to be incorrect.

 

How are those interconnected systems controlled, or have you no power of independent thought?

 

If you're asking what's the source of volition, it's consciousness, which is ontologically distinct from the brain.

 

Aaaaah, I see your problem. The point is that consciousness can cause the collapse of wave function into a discreet value

 

No, particle interaction causes wavefunction collapse. "Consciousness" has nothing to do with it.

 

That's not true. Opinion is just divided

 

Yes, just like opinion is divided between evolution and creationism.

 

Penrose's Godelian argument was in the form of a mathematical proof. There's no room for opinion in a proof. The proof is either correct or contains an error. Penrose's proof contains errors, as Solomon Fefferman demonstrated. It is therefore wrong.

 

Penrose's microtubule hypothesis is predictive, and therefore falsifiable by experiment. Tegmark carried out the experiments, and they do not support the hypothesis.

 

Do you know who Penrose is?

 

I've posted about Penrose extensively, including multiple threads about the Road to Reality and Shadows of the Mind. Have a look here:

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/search.php?searchid=352214

 

Penrose is a great example of why the opinion of a single scientist carries little weight when not expressed in the form of a peer reviewed paper. Don't get me wrong, he's done excellent physics work, but he's really gone off the deep end with this "science of consciousness" crap. As I said: it's intellectually dishonest.