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

That's the good thing though. I know quite a bit about the brain, but maybe not enough in your standard. The terms i give might be vague, but they are essentially true... for instance, suppose we do not consider information here in the ethereal sense, but deal with the actual thermodynamics of the photon absorption. It turns out again, that this is only possible through an angular momentum, which is a non-classical function.

So information may even be irrelevent to the point, it was a demonstration really. But we also need to be carefull, because even that energy has information, a form of information anyway. For me, the logic can be no more complete, other than to say that is was somehow proof.

I still hold to this, because of the proof above. The photon, that original wave that collapsed upon the retina, added, and contributed to a generation of processes which end up being nuerological. They are tied functionally through this.

But your POV may not necesserily be wrong at all. I am not a total unmaterialist. I believe the material is still required as a conduit for consciousness, and the finer information located within brain activity, such as thoughts. We know if the brain tissue is damaged, then there can be a nueral problem, with remembering thoughts.

But there must be a ''back-reaction'' theory, that is predicted by David Bohm, originally i believe.

The idea, is that the mind and the matter it somehow ''surrounds'' in a ghostly field, both react upon each other, so that mind is certainly materialistic to some extent, whilst there is also something quite beyond matter itself, when concerning the mind.
 
Reiku said:
...The terms i give might be vague, but they are essentially true...
Click to expand...
"Oksa met orboo" There is a concept expressed in vague terms also. I.e. I asked you to at least define what you are talking about. Vague terms are not "true." They are not "false" either. They are vague and as meaningless as: "Oksa met orboo."

Reiku said:
...for instance, suppose we do not consider information here in the ethereal sense, but deal with the actual thermodynamics of the photon absorption. It turns out again, that this is only possible through an angular momentum, which is a non-classical function.
Click to expand...
Yes the angular momentum of a atom or molecule emitting or absorbing a packet of optical energy (light IR , UV or X-ray microwave such as the 21 cm line form space) does have a change in its angular momentum, so the packet has angular momentum. It could be completely classical physics (but current theory strong suggests it is not). I.e. logically it could be what Newton thought it was - a small ball of energy that could carry both energy and angular momentum.

You start with the knowledge that quantum mechanics, QM, does well describe all the known interactions of this packet with matter (None are known with the "ghostly field" you mention later that causes mind or with unicorn's horns.). Then you falsely conclude that some aspect of QM is required for the interaction to be understood. Not true, or a logical consequence. All that follows is that in addition to carrying energy, the packet carries angular momentum (and as bricks do not get heavier by absorbing these packets for years in sunlight, these packets must not carry mass.)

I.e. There is no "Proof that a Quantum Model of the Brain is required" as you titled this foolish thread as I have just give you a counter example, these little classical packets, that destroys your claim. Only one counter example destroys any claim even if a million supporting case are known. Again your reasoning is circular. You start with QM assumed, observe absorption, conclude with QM being needed. Just if I start by assuming classical energy angular momentum mass-less balls too tiny to be seen, observe absorption, and conclude with these tiny balls being needed is circular logic and certainly nonsense also.

Reiku said:
...I still hold to this, because of the proof above.
Click to expand...
That circular proof?

Reiku said:
...The photon, that original wave that collapsed upon the retina, added, and contributed to a generation of processes which end up being nuerological. They are tied functionally through this.
Click to expand...
Yes, that is true, in all probability, but not a proof that classical physics is not adequate POV also. THIS WAS YOUR ASSUMED STARTING POINT, NOT SOMETHING PROVEN. I of course also believe that QM is the best description of these little packets, but some day a different theory may replace it and certainly QM is not required to adequately understand most interactions with these energy packets called photons and gross pieces of matter, like the retina, (pieces big enough to be seen with the un-aided eye). Even very strange reactions like the dual index of refraction of "Island spar" crystals are better understood without QM, using Maxwell's equations, crystal structures etc. Both F= ma and classical optics are adequate for most, if not all, common observations with any dense matter weighting a micro gram or more.

Reiku said:
...I believe the material is still required as a conduit for consciousness, and the finer information located within brain activity, such as thoughts. We know if the brain tissue is damaged, then there can be a nueral problem, with remembering thoughts.
Click to expand...
Well I guess that is a little part of your definition of "consciousness" - i.e. it is something that can flow thru conduits. Is that thru any sort of conduit, such a a copper pipe or are there special requirements on the "conduit"? Perhaps you think of it like Newton after all. He thought the conduits were special - only the little tube of the nervous system we now call nerves contained the low viscosity fluid in such fine amounts that the tiny little balls striking these conduits could make a pressure pulse travel up to the brain. (Those balls do not carry much momentum individually.) Newton also believed, I am sure , that if you damage these conduits, then mental function would be impaired.

Reiku said:
...But there must be a ''back-reaction'' theory, that is predicted by David Bohm, originally i believe. The idea, is that the mind and the matter it somehow ''surrounds'' in a ghostly field, both react upon each other, so that mind is certainly materialistic to some extent, whilst there is also something quite beyond matter itself, when concerning the mind.
Click to expand...
I don't think Bohm said anything even vaguely resembling that, but I have only read one of his books. Sir John Ingles, who knew much more neuro-science than me, did say some things sort of like that in his book, which I also read. As far as I know, he was the last "dualist" who knew a significant amount of neuro-secience. I missed him so much that I called the smartest monkey in the lab, "Sir John" and still have his skull* (The monkey's, not the English lord's)
-------------
*Saved it as it has the two tiny holes were the wires went in and the section that was removed during the electrode implant operation heald so well it is had to see. I though that if I ever needed a cane, that Sir John's skull would make a good top for it. It is just the right size to fit in your hand with smooth surface and provides good grip.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Billy,

I said...
...The photon, that original wave that collapsed upon the retina, added, and contributed to a generation of processes which end up being nuerological. They are tied functionally through this.

then you said

''Yes hat is true, in all probability, but not a proof that classical physics is not adequate POV also. THIS WAS YOUR ASSUMED STARTING POINT''

......

But it is. I have given proof that the energy absorption requires a non-classical theory, such as angular momentum.

You can't ignore evidence that cannot be refuted.
 
Reiku said:
....I have given proof that the energy absorption requires a non-classical theory, such as angular momentum.
You can't ignore evidence that cannot be refuted.
Click to expand...
I am not ignoring it. Far from that. I am pointing out that your "proof" is circular in it logic AND further more, there is a counter example to what you claim to be proving, so it is impossible to prove as one counter example proves it false. Namely classic physic can explain absorption. Angular moment in small mass-less packets is no more inconsistent with classical physics than energy in small mass-less packets is inconsistent with classical physics. You seem to be stating that only QM can have and use the concept of angular momentum. - That is false. Newton invented and thus defined "classical physics" and had these little mass-less balls as part of his classical physics. (As I have already told you he died still deigned the wave property of light. Light was little particles, too small to be seen or injury when passing thru the eye. - It was very much like the ancient Greek idea except they had these invisible particles shooting out of the eyes and "feeling" the effect of sun light on things to give you your visual perceptions.

I agree that it is very likely that QM< is the best known description of these small packets, but that current fact is not a "proof" that classic physics cannot provide an adequate explanation of most if not all interactions of the packets with micro-gram or larger pieces of dense matter. In fact it does. as well as QM does so there is no NEED for QM, just as there is no NEED for QM in almost all other types of interactions between all forms of energy and all pieces of micro-gram or larger mater. Most people have never heard of QM and yet understand these interactions by some model, often one you and I think false.

Your are confusing "Proof" "Is required" etc. with what is likely true about the interaction of a photon with a molecule in the retina. I.e. In principle, it can be described with QM, but no one would be able actually to do that. Classical physics contains energy and angular momentum concepts also. Your so called "proof" is circular logic. I think that while QM is a more complete description in principle, QM is totally useless in all brain processes, including the retina, which is brain tissue that migrated forward to its location in back of eyes prior to birth.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
What I find circular, is your arguement that classical figures can already determine a theory of the mind, but that would simply be wrong since there is the evidence of quantum mechanical actions that are certainly not classical, as instructed by wiki in the case of angular momentum and the exchange of energy and information also through angular momentum.

The momenta, is itself, an erreneous theory in classical physics, because it doesn't take onto account instrinsic effects of modern physics, i believe, and leads to the conclusion that, [[even though the process between the photon and the retina are purely not located nuerologically, the information does travel and get superpositined into the phenomena of the three dimensions we percieve... the effect is nonetheless an operation of the neural networks, while the neural networks, are the operations of consciousness, for remember, i am not totally ethereal on the mind-body problem]].

There is proof, and then there is proof that is inexorably required. Without the detail, we would have a theory of the mind, no matter whether adiquate to answer for consciousness, would still be, incomplete, ignoring evidently the non-classical actions most obvious.
 
(1) - In fact i speculate a theory that the collapse of the information, a two dimensional image at the retina, through the processes of electrolyte and local chemical changes such as isotopes, among various other actions and events, which renders the original information to break into a third state, where it can only be described as superpositining occuring in the brain activity.
 
It would be like breaking quite defined information into another set of parts, caused by the wave nature inherent in the matter through the transportation between the optical point, to the neuro point, with consciousness as a direct result.
 
I will finally abandon efforts in this thread. Your last three posts are such a "soup" of vague unsupported statements that it is impossible to see any factual content in them to comment on.
 
I know, and i made that totally clear.

You trying to make me scape goat?? You are the one who continues to rally that no one reads your posts, and yet i took my way out to read your ans consider it deeply, talking two days to answer. I look up to people with your kind of representation, then let me ask you one more thing, you horrible old man who has lost all integrety to the realm he first studied:

Did you noe write a book so that you hope the world children from declining in the area of research....???

And yet you are here, trying to grind my idea's down in a pistol and bowl, and that my inverted logical counterpart who has now vacated on a few thoughts of mere speculation, you are by definition hypocritical.

And, talking about vacating on a few unsupported claims, only vased with logic, you haven't provided any evidence at all, either, and with unsupported claims of speculations. Hyposcritical again.

If you hadn't given up, i certainly would have had myself.

Good call.
 
I am sure you think you are stating something, but in the other thread you started on the same subject when I last looked, the were 11 replies ALL BY YOU to your post one. Not one person has the slightest idea what you are so vaguely expressing. I asked you for a definiton in this thread, but never got it.

The first thing one must do if one wants to contribute to science is learn to express yourself so others can understand if they try. I did try for several posts but as stated in my last have given up as I have no idea what you are trying to state, here or in the 11 posts you and you alone have made in the other thread you started on this ill defined idea of yours. Why not try to give a few definitons of the terms you are throwing about.

For example, from your post 46:
"a theory that the collapse of the information, a two dimensional image at the retina, through the processes of electrolyte and local chemical changes such as isotopes, among various other actions and events, which renders the original information to break into a third state, where it can only be described as superpositining occuring in the brain activity." Only thing I am sure of here is that isotopes have nothing to do with this subject. WHAT "third state" what were the first two? etc.

Or from your next post, 47:
"breaking quite defined information into another set of parts, caused by the wave nature inherent in the matter through the transportation between the optical point, to the neuro point, with consciousness as a direct result." Does that mean anything? or is it just a word soup? Are you really trying to explain consciousness in this one sentence? What is the "neural point"? Where is it found?

You do not believe me, but I am trying to help you see your problem. No one else is even doing that. The only other posts here have basicly been to state that your crazy, or making false claims etc. No one is even doing that in the other thread.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
''I am sure you think you are stating something, but in the other thread you started on the same subject when I last looked, the were 11 replies ALL BY YOU to your post one. Not one person has the slightest idea what you are so vaguely expressing. I asked you for a definiton in this thread, but never got it.''

Well, i was wondering that why myself, so i will ask anyone to ask a few questions to anything i can help the understand.

''For example, from your post 46:
"a theory that the collapse of the information, a two dimensional image at the retina, through the processes of electrolyte and local chemical changes such as isotopes, among various other actions and events, which renders the original information to break into a third state, where it can only be described as superpositining occuring in the brain activity." Only thing I am sure of here is that isotopes have nothing to do with this subject. WHAT "third state" what were the first two? etc.''

Well, i did explain, so its obvious you never read it properly, as i had suspected.

''Or from your next post, 47:
"breaking quite defined information into another set of parts, caused by the wave nature inherent in the matter through the transportation between the optical point, to the neuro point, with consciousness as a direct result." Does that mean anything? or is it just a word soup? Are you really trying to explain consciousness in this one sentence? What is the "neural point"? Where is it found?''

Help me see problems, as much as i am contending yours. You are not necesrily right, and i shown evidence to suggest so. Also, Pernose was the first one who psotulated that maybe superpositioning plays a fundamental part in consciousness, and i am merely speculating it may have an implication on that two-dimensional information being spuerpositioned into the value we observe.

Now give me a break. I did say i was speculating. I was not INFORMING SOME definate truth. You have already made an opinion on my, before you read this, for that it why you are intnetionally trying to ignore what i am informating you.

I don't like appealing to authority, but Fred Wolf Agreed with my evidence. And i consider it a a truth.
 
Oh, and i try to talk soup to you, in simplistic terms, because you often get some simple basic rules you learn in 1st years college.
 
Reiku said:
Oh, and i try to talk soup to you, in simplistic terms, because you often get some simple basic rules you learn in 1st years college.
Click to expand...
Before you give more word soup that has no meaning for me or all the others who have responded here, Please try to give some definitons. I will even help you get started:

It is hard, if not impossible, to define consciousness, but perhaps as a stater you could tell to what extent, if any, the way you use that term differs from "awareness" and specifically tell what your objective here is. I.e. are you trying to explain either what consciousness is or how it functions?

Half the others who have posted here have noted that, to quote one, your posts are "barely readable." the other half have said it is nonsense of "bull cookies" I have been remarkable kind and patient. Go back and see if you can find even one poster (other than me) you has been able to undestand and agree with even one thing you have posted. - You will not be able to. You do not seem to understand the most fundamental aspects of meaningful communications with others.
 
Jesus speculated wisdom that was considered crack-pot...

You barley recognize my meanings, OR QUANTUM PROOF BILLY,so either the years have had a wisdomful perspectia on your life, or eithe age has descrepenced and limited the youth of idea's.

For this is feel sorry, because you still haven't answered why you are streating a phsyics student as an operation different to the reason you write your book... Contradictory @FUCKING BEST.


... old you may be, but lots you still have to learn
 
In other words, you are personally analogous to the twats the keep close ctanct here, ecause you can't emphaisze the conceptuability of self-reference on think outside box.


As a physicist, i am disappointed by the genera illogic speculations, which could arguably not even be such a thing.
 
Reiku said:
How can this be disputable?
Click to expand...
By the fact you don't know any quantum mechanics, any classical dynamics, any relativity, you use none of those in your openning post, you don't know anything about neurology or biochemistry and your seemingly single source for anything in the world of science is Dr Wolf, a known crackpot.

So you're making claims about a subject you know nothing about based on the ramblings of a crank.

How's that for 'disputable'?
 
Until you posted this:
Reiku said:
In other words, you are personally analogous to the twats the keep close ctanct here, ecause you can't emphaisze the conceptuability of self-reference on think outside box. As a physicist, i am disappointed by the genera illogic speculations, which could arguably not even be such a thing.
And from your post 46:
"a theory that the collapse of the information, a two dimensional image at the retina, through the processes of electrolyte and local chemical changes such as isotopes, among various other actions and events, which renders the original information to break into a third state,..."
Or your next post, 47:
"breaking quite defined information into another set of parts, caused by the wave nature inherent in the matter through the transportation between the optical point, to the neuro point, with consciousness as a direct result."
Click to expand...
I was coming to the conclusion you were a sock puppet for MetaKron I.e. Are the same poster as MetaKon as neither of you ever thank for the badly needed educational efforts I provide.

Both of you when can think of nothing less, switch to personal attack mode:
For example of his, see:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1881987&postcount=99

but MetaKron never wires the un-intelligible gibberish you post (illustrated above) that several here have complained is "barely readable" etc.

so I dropped the idea that you are MetaKron in disguise.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top