The Proof that a Quantum Model of the Brain is Required that is Non-Classical

[Reiku]

A few things to clarify first...

I believe that consciousness as we know it, requira non-classical physical model of physics.

But i also believe that consciousness as we know it, may take on a different form or existence without the function of matter.

Contradictory? Only if one states that consciousness is single-sided.

 

[Reiku]

I believe, that matter is required for consciousness to become independant in thought and experience. Independant of the one mind in creation... Wolf calls this the Mind of God. A subspacetime realm, where probability curves become possibilities. Its well accepted by the mainstream.

Matter and energy may just be there (among other reasons, but we are talking about mind and consciousness), to give a foundation of linear thought and linear experiences.

As we know, in physics, there is no such thing as a linear time existence, but somehow, the mind creates this illusion.

When mind entered matter and energy, mind began to function in a direct path, in a direct vector, in a distinct framework of a psychological arrow.

When this matter dies, the biological functions of the brain cease to operate, does the mind rally out of existence? The experience of consciousness may defy quantum rules, but the essence of consciousness cannot, and since we have a place in time and space, we must ask if our information, the network information of what we come to experience, really does dissappear, because we are insideously told by physics, that information is impervious, and cannot simply be destroyed.

But as wolf has informed us, there is no definate proof of a physical consciousness, nor is there any proof of it relying on space and time... that is... the latter has an acception i wish to share. And i will share it soon, along with some mathematical consclusions, i hope you will enjoy.

I'll do this in small parts, because there is a lot to talk about, and since i am waiting on Billy to get back, and answer everyone.

.......................................................

Initial Thoughts on Spacetime Theories

Its seems that spacetime theories are quite a mainstream theory. I came up with the idea of treating the mind
as a dimension of spacetime, and I wasn’t aware of this. Its actually good, because then it cannot be so
crack pot. The idea, is that consciousness is related to geometrical features, and are therefore called
spacetime theories.

I believe it was Arthur Eddington who first came up with the name to the theory, and advanced by Dr. John
Smythies. It seems that the theory is based upon the proposal that the spacetime continuum we perceive in
the four dimensional phenomenon, neither exists in time nor space… But we do have points and places in
space and time as though our bubble of perception has these degrees of freedom.


The Relationship between Internal and External Spacetime

My rule that unites spacetime, the subjective and objective dimensions, are brought together through the conclusion:

‘’Every point recognized in our visual bubble of spacetime correlates to a point in external space and time.
The relationship between the two corresponding variables are found to be equal to the absolute square of
the variable t gives the probability of an act between an observer and an observed system.’’

((Billy)) - in very short words, the conclusion relates real time experiences, between the observer and the observed. Anything happenening inbetween, is irrelevent. See the connection?

 

[Billy T]

Quite a few words have appeared since my last post. I do not see meaning in or understand most, mainly because my POV is 100% materialist. I.e. nerves make the mind, consciousness, our perceptions and experiences is my POV.

The mind, consciousness, etc. have evolved so probably they are useful (or at least were) to our reproduction. In conflict with most cognitive scientist who also have this materialistic POV, I think parietal tissue produces a Real Time Simulation, RTS, of the sensed external world and ourselves (but some relatively slowing changing aspects of our selves, such as memory and personality, attitudes are likely to be inputs to this RTS from other parts of the brain, especially frontal cortex for aspect of our personality.)

The accepted POV is that the RTS does not exist - instead our perception "emerges" after many stages of neural transformations (processing) of sensor information, typically making perception delayed by about 1/3 of a second.

The advantage of a creature with RTS over one with only a 1/3 second delayed perception in a life or death struggle with spear and thrown rocks should be obvious. I think the RTS first developed in our ancestors and that is why they killed off the stronger, bigger-brained Neanderthals who still had a delayed perception of the world that "emerged." I also believe the RTS developed first in a small inbreeding group in Africa, that very rapidly on an evolutionary time scale, dominated the world in what is often called the "Out of Africa" event. about 50,000 years BP.

For more on this, including some of the evidence for this POV and reasons why the accepted POV must be wrong, see:

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1294496&postcount=52

I will be happy to clarify your question about anything there, but cannot comment on how "space time" may related to consciousness etc. as that sort of thing is not any part of my POV, nor do I think Quantum Mechanics is evolved in any of this, but that is not certain. My POV about perception, what we are, etc. may make it possible logically for Genuine Free Will, GFW, to be compatible without appeal to "immaterial souls" etc, but I am not sure of this as the RTS must be implemented in material tissue with data stored in material tissue in my POV. If GFW exists, then this implementation can NOT be following any logical rules I am aware of, which are also contained in this material tissue, as then the entire system is material and governed by the laws of physics. I.e. it is deterministic if QM is unimportant and random if QM is important, but neither provides what I call GFW - an agent making real choices between two or more real possibilites.

Thus, I lean towards the POV that GFW is an illusion but there are logical systems that I do not understand. I.e. not all simple statements are either true or false. For example: "This sentence is false" is a simple declarative statement which has no "truth value" (is neither true nor false). Perhaps a logic exists containing a set of these self referencing statements (and/or other types) that can be embodied in a material system and yet not have all of its outcomes determined by the laws of physics? for GFW to exist an "agent" must exists and clearly only a physical body is not an agent capable of doing or thinking anything other that what the laws of physics cause.

Whether or not GFW is possible or only an illusion is not important to my POV as to how perception "works." I.e. I think the evidence for the RTS is over whelming; - that the standard POV of cognitive science is simply and demonstrably WRONG, but all "crackpots" think this about the accepted POV.

 

[Billy T]

Billy ...The Real Time Simulations, are they tied to actual observations made in the real world? ...

I think yes, if I understand your question, but not sure what is meant by "tied."

We have evolved and this makes the RTS normally quite an accurate model of the sensed external world, but illusions do exist, drugs can distort our RTS to be quite in conflict with the external world etc. Also I think that the RTS is not well connected (or better “ignores”) most of the sensory information when we dream. Also usually the SRT is not controlling the body’s mussels during dreams.

No one knows why we dream. The most widely accepted ideas currently relate to "house keeping" and “storing / consolidating” of memories, but I think that with the disconnect from the limitation of the physical world, some "thinking outside of the box" is facilitated. I often intentionally think about some problem when I go to sleep and not rarely have a new idea or approach to the problem when I awake the next day.

 

[Reiku]

I think yes, if I understand your question, but not sure what is meant by "tied."

We have evolved and this makes the RTS normally quite an accurate model of the sensed external world, but illusions do exist, drugs can distort or RTS to be quite in conflict with the external world etc. Also I think that the RTS is not well connected (or better “ignores”) most of the sensory information when we dream. Also usually the SRT is not controlling the body’s mussels during dreams.

No one knows why we dream. The most widely accepted ideas currently relate to "house keeping" and “storing / consolidating” of memories, but I think that with the disconnect from the limitation of the physical world, some "thinking outside of the box" is facilitated. I often intentionally think about some problem when I go to sleep.

Just about the latter for now.

Quantum mechanics does in fact have something to say about memories...

...for one, memories are not stored in something analogous to a record of files, but instead, any memory we do have, is ''recreated'' in the present, so each memory is new in the respect, that whenever we come to remember something, these are not thoughts/memories that are re-used...

Now, as for the ''tied'', it also said in QM that an observation on, for a classic example, on an atom, is made i real time. Whenever an object is not measured, or even a general reflection/observation in spacetime, it must exist as imaginary.

So for your real time simulational hypothesis, would it then generally have its own points in spacetime, where the observer and the observed, the external and internal, the subjective and objective meet, or as i put it, ''tie'' together...

 

[Reiku]

(And by the way, i don't believe there is any free will either... just to clarify)

 

[Billy T]

...Quantum mechanics does in fact have something to say about memories...

...for one, memories are not stored in something analogous to a record of files, but instead, any memory we do have, is ''recreated'' in the present, so each memory is new in the respect, that whenever we come to remember something, these are not thoughts/memories that are re-used...

...So for your real time simulational hypothesis, would it then generally have its own points in spacetime, where the observer and the observed, the external and internal, the subjective and objective meet, or as i put it, ''tie'' together...

In my POV everything exists in space time but that does not seem very relivant to me to an understand of perception.

I think perhaps you are not adequately noticing that we learn of objective world via relatively few and limited sensory tranducers. For example dozen of different radio signals are passing thru my body as I type, but that part of "objectiive reality" is not part of my perceptual reality. I.e. only via the senses are these two realities connnected or tied together at all.

The brain is presented with neural impulses and postualtes and objective reality to exist from them. It may not - that was the logically consistent POV of Bishop Berkely more than 300 years ago. I think there is a physical world and that my perception in the RTS automatically tries to mirror it because evolution selected for that.

I fail to see how QM plays any role in this. (unless I am doing some experiments with insturments that extend my senses so at the macro level so some meter or film etc. which I can sense will be changed by a QM probablistic event.)

I agree that much of memory is "reconstructed" experience but fail to see any QM process in this also. Obviously memories are not stored in something like a file to be opened and looked at - there is no one in the brain to open it and look - in some sense it must be re-experienced. There is evidence that the remembering process does re-activate some of the neural circuits that were active during the original experience. Where and how the information is stored to make this re-activation of them is not known.

Not only do I fail to see any role for QM in recall, but also I think I can remember the color a friends car or hair etc. at many different locations in "spacetime," so I do not understand why you are talking albout "spacetime."

 

[CharonZ]

I see not anything resembling proof in the OP. Only some over generalizations, a somewhat faulty description of retinal cell activities and then some ramblings that basically end with:
"There I wrote some stuff. Therefore I must be right. If do not see that you must be daft."
Bravo.

 

[Reiku]

Emmm???

The photon must operate in a non-classical sense when it hits the retina. This is the reasoning behind why we need a model that is non-classical. Did you even pick that up?

 

[Reiku]

And may i ask, you joined in 2003... and yet only 453 posts... you don't contribute very much...

 

[Billy T]

And may i ask, you joined in 2003... and yet only 453 posts... you don't contribute very much...

CharonZ, is not retired, like me, but a professional researcher working full time - one of the most authorative, informed, if not the best informed, poster contributing here in the fields related to the basic processes of informatrion with in cells (DNA, mRNA sRNAi etc. and the associated technology...) One does not intelligently measure the magnitude of a contribuiton by post count, but by quality of the posts. Few here exceed him on that measure.

As far as your comments that here is some quantum mechanical nature to the photon absorption process in the retina, I think not. In fact it closely resembles the type of events that support the classical particle nature of the photon, such as the photo-electric effect. I.e. the photon's energy is, as if a particle, like that of a particle, as hits one rod or cone, not even like a classical wave. But even it were stimulating several photo sensors, as if a wave, that would still be a "classical interaction."

Do you have any reason for your statement that some non-classical process is envolved? I would like to hear it. Again, it is the quality of the posts that counts, not their number - often that just indicates little thought content.

 

[Reiku]

There needs to be a quantum mechanical process. How do you answer for a photon in a superpositioning of eigenstates collapse to reveal one single eigenstate upon arrival at the retina? Or how about the fact that the photon has to follow quantum rules upon absorption, such as the exchange of information and energy through angular momentum in a time of 0<t<r/c? Aren't these quantum processes?

Please Billy, its obvious this professional hasn't put a single thought into my post, concerning that original photon. A professional in his field, he may very well be. If he is, i am dissappointed he cannot see the implications, and somewhat astounded as well.

I will answer to your other post soon.

 

[Reiku]

For instance, the angular momentum is related to the spin of the particle, and wiki says:

''In physics and chemistry, spin has a special meaning, representing a non-classical kind of angular momentum intrinsic to a body, as opposed to orbital angular momentum, which is the motion of its center of mass about an external point.''

 

[Reiku]

So how can the photon exchange any energy OR information, in a non-classical model?

 

[Billy T]

There needs to be a quantum mechanical process. How do you answer for a photon in a superpositioning of eigenstates collapse to reveal one single eigenstate upon arrival at the retina? Or how about the fact that the photon has to follow quantum rules upon absorption, such as the exchange of information and energy through angular momentum in a time of 0<t<r/c? Aren't these quantum processes?

Please Billy, its obvious this professional hasn't put a single thought into my post, concerning that original photon. A professional in his field, he may very well be. If he is, i am dissappointed he cannot see the implications, and somewhat astounded as well....

CharonZ's comment on this thread were better than yours. For example there is little thought in this post as it is entirely a circular argument. It assumes the quantum nature of the photon, states that it enteract with the retina and conclude therefore the interaction must be of a quantum nature. Without any knowledge of the existance of quantum mechanic, there is no problem in treating the absorbtion of light in paint, in leaves, or in the retina entirely classically. The post of CharonZ was not as blunt as this, but this thread is basically circular nonsense.

PS Newton believed in the particle nature of light all his life, even derived Snell's law of refraction (slightly wrong as he had sins instead tan functions, but for small angles his experiments could not tell the difference.) He knew the retina absorbed light, that the image on it was "upside down," that the retina converted the light into signals sent on the optic nerve*, etc and had no need of quantum mechanics, which is good as it was not known for more than 250 years later. He wrote a whole treatis, called Optics**, which you could learn from, without any need to know that light is quantized or about quantum mechaincs. You start knowing that, wave some hard to understand words around and then conclude quantum mechanis must be an essentail part, "logically" of the light retinal interaction. This is false, circular logic. Netwon did not know some things you do (QM characteristics of light) but would never have advanced a circular argument.
------------
*Back then, these signals were thought to be pressure pulses in little tubes we now call "nerves."
**Been long time since I read it, but think it is there where he spend considerable time on how gravity, which is not particles in his POV, gets from the sun to Earth. His main reason, as I recall, for rejecting the alternative wave theory of light was that light did get to Earth from the sun and there was no medium for the waves to travel in. He knew that for "fact," as if there were, friction with it would have spiraled the Earth into the sun long ago. He could think deeply and clearly - why I am sure he too would recognize the circular nature of this thread's main idea.

 

[Reiku]

Is no one listening? How can the photon be classical, when the exchange of information requires a non-classical theory?

 

[Reiku]

Such as spin and angular momentum. Instrinsic properties that are not classical.

 

[Billy T]

Is no one listening? How can the photon be classical, when the exchange of information requires a non-classical theory?

That too is nonsense. Read Shannon's classic book on information (where the Bit is first defined, the relationship to entropy etc. is all clearly layed out, with NO REFERENCE TO QUANTUM THEORY.)

The only one "not listening" and learning, appears to by you. Just because it is true that light is quantized, and best understood IN ALL IT ASPECTS with quantum mechanics, especially line radiation and absorbtion such as why line widths are inverse to the transition probablies of the associated change in levels of the radiating atom etc., does NOT mean that the quantum mechanical nature of light is needed to model or understand ALL of the interactions of light with mater. Especially if one takes a particle POV of light, as Newton did, QM is often not needed . In fact some interactions, like the photo-electric effect, are easier to understand if one is ignorant of the QM nature of light and assumes light is little massless particles! Absorption in the retina is such case also. Better to think of light as little massless balls of energy for that.

 

[Reiku]

That too is nonsense. Read Shannon's classic book on information (where the Bit is first defined, the relationship to entropy etc. is all clearly layed out, with NO REFERENCE TO QUANTUM THEORY.)

The only one "not listening" and learning, appears to by you. Just because it is true that light is quantized, and best understood IN ALL IT ASPECTS with quantum mechanics, especially line radiation and absorbtion such as why line widths are inverse to the transition probablies of the associated change in levels of the radiating atom etc., does NOT mean that the quantum mechanical nature of light is needed to model or understand ALL of the interactions of light with mater. Especially if one takes a particle POV of light, as Newton did, QM is often not needed . In fact some interactions, like the photo-electric effect, are easier to understand if one is ignorant of the QM nature of light and assumes light is little massless particles! Absorption in the retina is such case also. Better to think of light as little massless balls of energy for that.

Yes, exactly. No physics reference.

Being a physicist, you're not really one to accept that all of reality needs to be understood from a quantum viewpoint. By doing so, we will also need to establish the firm grounds of the possible notions of unified theories, and then reflect on them which does not use non-classical physics.

THIS is a nightmare.

The complexityof the brain billy, you said, i was actually unaware of the very few functions that give rise to this complexity.

I propose you haven't given this much of a wide, and diverse interpretation the attention of differential models in the field, in example, quantum mechanics of course.

First of all, there is no proof that consciousness arises from matter, despite the obvious evidence of materialistic statistical averages, moving about my brain and body. In fact, it alone would be a statistical nightmare to catalogue these particles into some kind of model, because there are far too many to deal with.

But these may be complicated by defect as a ''complexity of numbers'', there is still on the whole, very simple processes happening. And somehow, these simple processes give rise to a more complex machine: The nuerological networks of the human perception or consciousness.

You give up reason, to investigate some of the possible theories backing up other possible connections to the conscious level, so there maybe, in fact, there very possible IS more processes involved, rather than the ones you singularily had in mind.

I'll continue this later, showing some other possible connections to the spark of consciousness, rather than alone a series of materialistic functions and operators.

 

[Billy T]

... First of all, there is no proof that consciousness arises from matter... there is still on the whole, very simple processes happening. ...You give up reason, to investigate some of the possible theories backing up other possible connections to the conscious level, so there maybe, in fact, there very possible IS more processes involved, rather than the ones you singularily had in mind. ...

I can agree with most of your post. Certainly there is no proof that mind or consciousness is only a product of mater. Likewise there is no proof it a simple process (bold above). I do not know of any adequate definition (or even a good test for) consciousness, so of course I have no proofs as to how it (or mind, if that differs) is produced.

I chose, however not to make a difficult problem even more so by dragging in more ill defined concept like "karma" "spirit" or even “quantum mechanics” which is well understood, but usually only of any significance in very small systems. The functioning of the brain is (with the possible exception of the micro-tubular hairs found in most life forms, including amoebas* etc. also) much to gross for QM to play any role. Quite a lot is understood about the detail mechanisms of a neural discharge (the propagating wave of depolarization along the axon as Na+ ions rush in and change the "resting potential" of the interior from approximately -70mV to brief small positive over shoot. I think the biochemical "sodium pump" which restores the -70mv in some cases as short a time as 0.8ms, but usually a few ms is well understood now too. The uptake, blocking, diffusion of site specific neuro-transmitters also all is governed by classical physic.

In short there is no reason to believe that QM is in any way involved in any neural activity, but it is essentially impossible to prove any negative statement. You may say that the sun will not rise tomorrow - and I cannot PROOVE you wrong. I can even imagine reasons how that could happen, more easily than I can imagine how QM makes any part of consciousness or the mind. I think the brain does that because I can show by drugs or cooling parts of it your loss of aspects of consciousness Small parietal strokes often do make you even loss awareness of half the world contra-lateral to the stroke etc. with no other observable effect in the retained space, etc.

I.e. if you knew a little more about how the brains works, you would understand it is great step backwards to speak in such vague terms as you do.
------------
*Do you think amoebas are “conscious”? – I ask not to ridicule, but to expose the difficulty of defining consciousness. There are multi- year long human coma cases with no responses that have recovered with recall of some events that occurred during the coma and would thus seem to require some form of consciousness during the coma. Yet the lowly amoeba is able to demonstrate many different responses and some limited ability to learn. Before you make assertions about anything, you need to be able to define it – what you are speaking of. Can you do this for consciousness so the amoeba fails and the comatose man with recall passes? Until you can, I will continue to think this thread’s central idea is basically nonsense. Even if you can, I think I will keep my POV as I do know a little about brain processes.