Mind and Spacetime

[bascule]

Ok... how about superpositioning... many particles in my head are in a state of superpositioning... or how about quantum tunelling? Basic quantum phenomena will most probably be candidates... now...

 

I don't think you understood the question.

 

Classical physics is typically sufficient to describe the behavior of physical systems on the scale of neurons. These systems are so large and composed of so many particles that the quantum behaviors are averaged out and do not impact the system in ways which are inconsistent with classical physics.

 

What part of the brain do you think cannot be adequately described by classical physics?

 

And you know, the idea mind doesn't exist in space or time, is only one theory. I've heard theories by Wolf, that the mind is time, and by Pribram, who showed evidence that memories are stored in spacetime.

 

The idea that mind does not exist in space or time is a common property of all theories of mind, including dualism, monism, and emergent materialism.

 

As I mentioned earlier, the only theory that argues otherwise is reductive eliminativism, which suggests that mind is completely reducible to matter and therefore does not exist as something separate and distinct from the brain.

[Bignose]

Oh, i wouldn't have time to study an algebra book right now... i have so much work from college... but i'll tell you what... i'll fix the mistakes, then we can discuss it right? Deal?

 

Sure. Fix the mistakes and we'll be much, much closer to being able to have a discussion.

 

You still haven't answered my questions about any kind of testable prediction with your math, but that question is kind of moot with bad math. Fix the math, and then we can discuss further later.

[Graviphoton]

What part of the brain do you think cannot be adequately described by classical physics?

 

Not sure i understand. You must be very clear with me, i have communicational problems. A form of ADD. Is it a trick question?

 

''The idea that mind does not exist in space or time is a common property of all theories of mind, including dualism, monism, and emergent materialism.''

 

But i've shown, there are other consistent theories. None of which have been disproved.

[bascule]

What part of the brain do you think cannot be adequately described by classical physics?

 

Not sure i understand. You must be very clear with me, i have communicational problems. A form of ADD. Is it a trick question?

 

No, it's certainly not a trick question.

 

Physicists can describe the behavior of systems on the scale of neurons without resorting to quantum mechanics.

 

This is similar to the way you can describe the behavior of billiard balls without having to resort to quantum mechanics. In the case of billiard balls, all that's needed to describe their behavior is Newtonian mechanics. Sure, there's fundamentally quantum effects going on underneath, but they're irrelevant to the behavior of the billiard balls on a large scale, because the quantum effects are occurring on a scale too small to matter to objects as large as billiard balls and are effectively averaged out.

 

For such systems, quantum mechanics is effectively irrelevant. I contend the same is true with the brain, but you are arguing that it is not.

 

In order for your argument to be correct, some part of the brain must behave in such a way that it cannot be adequately described without involving quantum mechanics.

 

What part of the brain do you suggest behaves in such a way? Penrose has suggested microtubules, a proposal which has been thoroughly rebutted by several physicists, namely Max Tegmark.

[Graviphoton]

I see what you mean now. Let me mull over this.

[timo]

your equation can only ever be true if a*a=a which is NOT very common at all, infact is only true for 0, 1 and -1, [...]

Not really .

[Klaynos]

Not really .

 

Having slept on it, you are of course correct... For some reason I think I was treating the two terms as vector components when I wrote that.

 

Because i am wanting a certain result, and other times, i have simply missed a mistake. Look, i'll do a binomial right now...

 

...(3 − i√2)² = 9 − 6i + √2i²

 

= 9 − 6i√2 − 2

 

= 7 − 6i√2

 

right?

 

Now, are saying this is wrong or can be right?

 

(a + √b . a − √b)i = ai² − bi² = (a - b)-1=a + b = x

 

Again, the equations i use everyday, are much different to standard algebra, which i haven't sat down to do it like this in years.

 

...(3 − i√2)² = 9 − 6i + √2i²

 

Is wrong, you say you made a typo, but it looks to me as if there's more than one....

 

[math](3 - i \sqrt{2})^2 = 3*3 -3i\sqrt{2} - 3i\sqrt{2} +i^2\sqrt{2}^2[/math]

[math](3 - i \sqrt{2})^2 = 9 -6i\sqrt{2} -2[/math]

 

Completely different to what you said....

[mooeypoo]

The post was originally posted int he wrong thread, though it seems that Graviphoton is having quite a field day on the speculation forums with the same idea and different threads.

It was a mistake posting it there, I meant to post it here, but regardless, it seems to fit both threads, and if I have a feeling it will fit the third one as well.

 

To summarize (I'm reposting anyways) -- Graviphoton, you are in dire need to explain and prove what Consciousness is before you do anything with it as a theory. Consciousness is an ABSTRACT concept that many people have a problem with its definition. To form a theory of how it operates you need first to explain what it is, how you describe it, that it is POSSIBLE to measure it using physical theories and instruments, and only then explain how it is related to spacetime or math.

 

It seems that I was confusing the two threads (is it just me or are they both the same principle?) - so I took off the quotes and my specific answers to the quotes, so I won't confuse anyone else. Other than that, though, it's the same post - only in the correct thread.

 

 

-------- REPOSTED and EDITED from the other thread (correct thread this time, sorry) --------

 

Uhm, I am going to "barge in" a bit, but I've been following the debate on this thread for a while through the weird math equations (where you guys completely lost me) and I have to say I don't quite get what we are arguing about.

 

 

I think you are mixing a bunch of subjects, as is the title of this thread, and I think that you need to explain this more before we can get to the "crux" of your theory and examine its validity.

 

The problem here is that you are jumping from philosophical abstracts to physical concepts and mixing the two up. It might be that I misunderstood you, but that is all the more reason that you need to go back to the beginning and explain the base of your theory again.

 

For that matter, consciousness is an abstract concept with an abstract, non-specific, controversial meaning.

 

Quantum physics is a physical theory that describes the behavior of particles in the "tiny" level. No more. Some movies and films think it "sexy" to introduce time travel, self-improvement and dimensional woowoo into the theory, because it's very hard to understand and it does deal with things we don't usually see as "normal", but that doesn't mean it's part of the theory.

 

It seems to me that you debate here a link of consciousness, AI and the mathematical application of consciosness and some Quantum Mechanics. There is a very big problem with that, however: you haven't proven what consciousness *IS*.

 

No amount of math - correct or otherwise - can prove a statement that is, in itself, moot.

 

Let me empasize by raising this idea:

 

Claim: Female green unicorns can jump over a truck.

I prove it with math, as is not very hard and only demands general mechanics to show the necessary speed, acceleration and solve the equations to show that it works mathematically. And there would be no doubt that my math would be correct.

 

But there are a few fundamental problems here that I must address before going into the math - one that if I don't address, the math is utterly irrelevant and void:

 

(1) I need to first prove that Unicorns exist.

(2) I need to prove that there are green female unicorns.

(3) I need to know what green female unicorns are in order to know how they behave and act physically.

(4) I need to prove they can run and jump.

[edit/add]

(5) I need to prove I can measure it.

[/add]

 

Only after I do these four stages, can I start talking about my theory about jumping green female unicorns seriously. Only then, we can start analyzing the math and find errors or corrections.

 

Before then, the math is moot.

The entire idea is meaningless.

 

 

Graviphoton - Consciousness is an abstract. It is not a physical property or object. Physicists, Philosophers and Metaphycisits, along with AI-developers, Computer scientists and even theologians, argue about its meaning.

 

You must first do these stages to have your theory reach the level of checking its mathematical application:

(1) Define consciousness. (Not that simple)

(2) Prove a consciousness exists. (Many people disagree.)

(3) Prove it is a physical property that can be measured by physical concepts like mathematical theory and quantum theory.

(4) Explain and prove that consciousness "acts" and "runs by" quantum physics.

 

Then, and only then, can you start talking about how the math supports your theory. Mathematics is supporting physical theories, not vice versa. Math has a lot of "games" to it that you can manipulate and twitch and get to some fun applications but they are meaningless - and specifically, they are not connecting QM to abstract-notions - just because you switch numbers around.

 

Equations need to have meaning.

 

Please put meaning into yours, before we start with the math.

 

~moo

[Graviphoton]

bascule

 

After some thought, here is my answer:

 

I am not sure what parts of the brain cannot be explained by classical means, other than trying to explain for electroquantum dynamics inside the head, or protons or neutrons, or like systems. But as you said, classical mechanics can answer for nuerons... but here is my problem.

 

Quantum systems, as much as they are descriptive, they are also incomplete. The path of a neuron, may be well mapped out, but tiny peturbations, (such as quantum behaviour) can indeed alter the course of an atom, atoms and even a neuron. Not only this, but we know that the atom is also incomplete, and requires the existence of non-classical mechanics, because we know there are smaller things. Indeed, mechanics is still in quandary about even smaller things than subatomic particles in the form of solitons.

 

Any description of the brain using classical physics is incomplete, if we are to derive a GUT... and if the new physics is also incomplete, then we have quite a journey to go.

[Graviphoton]

Don't worry... i haven't forgotten. I will present the math again soon, this time hopefully without error. I have, i will admit, had to seek help, for the equations where simply confusing...

[bascule]

After some thought, here is my answer:

 

[...]

 

Any description of the brain using classical physics is incomplete, if we are to derive a GUT... and if the new physics is also incomplete, then we have quite a journey to go.

 

Unless there's a part of the brain demonstrating behavior inexplicable by classical physics, there's no more need for a grand unified theory to explain it than there is the bouncing of billiard balls... the "incomplete" portion of the explanation is so insignificant as to be irrelevant.

[mooeypoo]

Unless there's a part of the brain demonstrating behavior inexplicable by classical physics, there's no more need for a grand unified theory to explain it than there is the bouncing of billiard balls... the "incomplete" portion of the explanation is so insignificant as to be irrelevant.

 

That's not what I've read, but this is very interesting. From what I know we don't know yet how the brain operates completely -- there are a lot of missing data, like certain accurate connections between physical brain and psychological behavior.

 

Explain the complete behavior of the brain, please (plus references, please) -- that's something I'd love to learn.

[insane_alien]

well, the basic building block of the brain is the neuron. this is an electrochemical system which can be fully understood with the principles of chemistry. sure, we haven't catalogued every single reaction and compound but we understand the underlying principles of them.

 

if we understand the basic building blocks enough to know there are few quantum effects(the ones that crop up uncertainty at least, chemical bonding depends somewhat on quantum mechanics but thats good an predictable) then we can be reasonably sure that the larger structure can be explained in their absence.

 

for instance, there is a large structure made out of bricks. the structure is too complicated to fully understand or grasp. the bricks on the other hand are easy to understand(relatively), we know that the structure is made only out of bricks. ass the bricks do not display any jelly like properties(translucent and tasty), we can say that the larger structure will not display jelly like properties(translucent and tasty).

[mooeypoo]

well, the basic building block of the brain is the neuron. this is an electrochemical system which can be fully understood with the principles of chemistry. sure, we haven't catalogued every single reaction and compound but we understand the underlying principles of them.

Yes, this I know, but from this fact to saying that we know how the brain works is quite a leap.. knowing how something works means knowing how to fix things (which we are, as far as I know it, quite lacking in many aspects), among other things.. knowing how the neurons work is great, but there's still a way to go to state we understand the brain's functioning.

 

That said, I am by no means saying it's not possible to understand it. I actually believe it will probably be relatively soon.. but.. am I wrong to say that we're not there just yet?

if we understand the basic building blocks enough to know there are few quantum effects(the ones that crop up uncertainty at least, chemical bonding depends somewhat on quantum mechanics but thats good an predictable) then we can be reasonably sure that the larger structure can be explained in their absence.

Wait, we can infer based on what we know, but that doesn't mean that we understand the brain, how it works, or can state it is operating by QM.

 

Again - isn't this the same as saying that a cockroach is operating by quantum mechanics because the sub molecular particles do?

 

QM is not my strong point, but it's very interesting, so don't take my questions as anything but curiosity..

 

~moo

[Graviphoton]

Is it so increadible that the mind requires non-classical physics? What i find increadible is any theory which states it doesn't, considering we know that quantum behaviour of the non-classical kind must be in operation within the brain, and builds up any effects of the psyche...

 

...avoiding answering the brain as such, will itself lead to an incomplete, and quite nessesery flawed model of brain activity.

 

And mooey is right. We don't actually know what causes consciousness. Nueronal activity is a theory, which has good experimentation... but it is not enough to say ''we know'' what causes consciousness.

 

''Again - isn't this the same as saying that a cockroach is operating by quantum mechanics because the sub molecular particles do?''

 

YES!!! BINGO!! I made this arguement already in a different form.

[mooeypoo]

Is it so increadible that the mind requires non-classical physics? What i find increadible is any theory which states it doesn't, considering we know that quantum behaviour of the non-classical kind must be in operation within the brain, and builds up any effects of the psyche...

 

...avoiding answering the brain as such, will itself lead to an incomplete, and quite nessesery flawed model of brain activity.

 

And mooey is right. We don't actually know what causes consciousness. Nueronal activity is a theory, which has good experimentation... but it is not enough to say ''we know'' what causes consciousness.

 

''Again - isn't this the same as saying that a cockroach is operating by quantum mechanics because the sub molecular particles do?''

 

YES!!! BINGO!! I made this argument already in a different form.

 

Says you.

 

and while it's interesting and great to read, it's still not proven, not referenced, and hence non scientific.

 

Saying QM explains anything you want it to explain just because you want it to explain it, is not science. It's wishful thinking.

 

I am not saying you're wrong - I don't know if you're wrong or right - I'm saying this isn't science until you explain yourself *scientifically*.

[Graviphoton]

I'll tell you what, i will consult another physicist who works in the area of cognitive science, and ask whether he believes that a model of the brain requires non-classical physics, and if i was wrong, i will hold my hands up.

 

Then it will be scientific, in the sense you mean yes?

[iNow]

Then it will be scientific, in the sense you mean yes?

No. NOT AT ALL. That is appeal to authority, and is still nothing more than a single person's opinion on a subject. I don't care WHO that person is, what you've proposed is NOT scientific, and if you think it is, well... then you're wrong.

[bascule]

Yes, this I know, but from this fact to saying that we know how the brain works is quite a leap.. knowing how something works means knowing how to fix things (which we are, as far as I know it, quite lacking in many aspects), among other things.. knowing how the neurons work is great, but there's still a way to go to state we understand the brain's functioning.

 

That said, I am by no means saying it's not possible to understand it. I actually believe it will probably be relatively soon.. but.. am I wrong to say that we're not there just yet?

 

We aren't there yet, but at the same time we do understand how the building blocks of the brain work.

 

A physicist may not be able to understand the computer program running on a microprocessor, but he can explain the physics of the processor itself, and in doing so rule out specifically quantum mechanical behaviors as an explanation for what the program is doing, even without understanding the program.

[Graviphoton]

Fine. There is no more i can say about the subject then, since i am being soooooo unscientific. Jst for the record, I spoke to Dr. Alan Wolf

 

''I think we do. However, there are many who believe that we don't.

The subject will be tested soon enough as AI devices improve.

 

 

Best Wishes,''

 

My question was... ''Do we need to integrate non-classical physics in an attempt to create a model of consciousness?''

[mooeypoo]

Stop being a child, Graviphoton. The only reason we keep telling you that you are not scientific is because of your debate methods of not referencing anything, stating as facts things that aren't necessarily facts and expecting people to "take your word" for it are non scientific debate.

 

It might as well be the case that your theory is correct. You just haven't done enough to explain it in a way that is compatible with the scientific method or the rules of rational, logical debate.

 

And the quote from the Dr means nothing other than another opinion. It's appeal to authority (which is a logical fallacy). Statements need to be backed up by facts or inferences upon facts.

 

I suggest you read a bit about logical fallacies, so we can continue this debate and actually learn something from one another.

 

~moo

[Graviphoton]

Well, i'm flawed then aren't I, because as we have seen, there is no current technology to prove this either way. So either i can't give my opinions, you give yours, there's nothing more than can be said.

[iNow]

So, you're going to give up instead of actually trying to support these opinions? Well, I suppose that IS one approach.

[Graviphoton]

I never give up on my studies. I may give up with people though.

[mooeypoo]

Well, i'm flawed then aren't I, because as we have seen, there is no current technology to prove this either way. So either i can't give my opinions, you give yours, there's nothing more than can be said.

 

No one stops you from giving your opinion. Just be fair and state that these are OPINIONS instead of treating them as facts when they are not.

 

When I give an opinion, I am fair enough and honest enough to state that it is my opinion. When I give a fact, or an observation, or quote someone else's fact, or want to support my own conclusions, I reference, and hope that my theory stands peer review and analysis.

 

Because it's the fair thing to do. The scientific thing to do.

 

~moo