You initially said that the SE is a postulate/axiom. However it can be derived from experimental observation.
three quotes from that paper:
"We illustrate a simple derivation of the Schrodinger equation, which requires only knowledge of the electromagnetic wave equation and the basics of Einstein?s special theory of relativity. We do this by extending the wave equation for classical fields to photons, generalize to non-zero rest mass particles, and simplify using approximations consistent with non-relativistic particles."
"Most students and professors will tell you that the Schrodinger equation cannot be derived"
"Our approach to the Schrodinger equation will be similar to that taken by Schrodinger himself. We start with the classical wave equation, as derived from Maxwell?s equations governing classical electrodynamic"
If you see the SE as an axiom then yes it is just a mathematical formula, but that discounts that it is a description of physical reality since it was derived from observations.
I think that axiom of QM is unnecessary, the SE already gives the probabilities of occurrence, it doesn't make sense to say that there is suddenly a conversion from a quantum wave to a particle, that is just a simplification to make it easier to understand but is incorrect.
If the particles existence is based on an axiom, then it is not supported by reality.
And the question arises, "Where are the quantum centers in the neuron?" H. Stapp, a quantum physicist, says in his "Mindful Universe" book that the channel to contain the main neurotransmitter is small enough to have quantum effects. At the scale of the synapse and the axon sheath, the scale is about right, but no qm theory exists afaik. The theory of axon transmission is very weak - it is the so-called "cable theory." The theoreticians modeled the axon as an undersea cable with catacitance, and I believe the theory dates from those times. The axon does seem to follow that general paradigm:
-axon sheaths seem to be insulating thick layers
-measurable potential differences are generated at key points via ion gradients.
-giant squid axons have larger diameters and transmit faster than our smaller ones.
-saltatory conduction is done by periodic "booster" switches which are triggered like ionic amplifiers and re-inforce a travelling impulse.
There is no microscopic theory to explain exactly what the transmission mode is. Do ions shuttle back and forth? Do polar molecules switch like an LCD display? Is this just a passive field effect in a tubular capacitor? Is there a net flow of ions?
Overall, I suspect that evolution (the process of) will just do classical physics solutions, just as we do, unless there is "evolutionary pressure" to use QM to get extra-ordinary results needed for survival.
I believe the same principle may be true for our minds: We evolved a classical Newtonian mind for everyday stuff like fighting over women, but there is an underlying type of consciousness which is more "psychic."
An interesting phenom which may relate is the "other room" effect. Who hasn't gone into another room and wondered why he went there? The reason that happens is your mind will re-boot to counter purposeful attention, ie, the reason you went there. There might be an enemy hiding in the other room, and your mind wants you to be aware, not in a preoccupied state.
So, the theory says we have two minds, a classical and a quantum-like. The classical evolved opportunistically for survival, but the QL is the basis for it, ie, the organizing principle.
In the religious literature you will find something called the "Buddha Mind." This is the idea (actually the experience of, as eastern philosophy deprecates ideas as such.), the experience of a universal mind permeating all things, or at least all living things. In the Bible, we have Jesus saying, "makarioc ptoqos pneumati estin gen ouronos." Mat 5:6. "The greater consciousness of utter humility is the sames as merging with the universe, right now." (The Koine "estin" is translated as "is," and denotes "isness," not some cause and effect in the future. Churches translate this as "the kingdom of Heaven," but that abstractifies it and implies a pie in the sky, whereas the tense of Yeshua's statement is the present, = our experience.)
And certainly the awareness of this fact is widespread among "primitive" peoples. in their experience. Whether or not they have heard of Buddha or Jesus, etc. j
quantum" conventional statistics, but it is explained when applying the quantum principle of
tml
ml
t that trapped energy to the reaction centre in the cell as quickly as poss ible, where the energy is converted into chemical energy for the organism.
hion, like a drunk staggering home. But quantum coherence would allow the e nergy to test every possible pathway simultaneously before travelling via t he quickest route."
Slick perhaps, but ever-so-slightly irrelevant.
. Stapp, a quantum physicist, says in his "Mindful Universe" book that the channel to contain the main neurotransmitter is small enough to have quan tum effects.
By which he means that he thinks that it might be.
, but no qm theory exists afaik.
Or any experimental justification for invoking quantum effects.
theory." The theoreticians modeled the axon as an undersea cable with ca pacitance, and I believe the theory dates from those times.
Once upon a time ...
o be insulating thick layers - measurable potential differences are generat ed at key points via ion gradients - giant squid axons have larger diameter s and transmit faster than our smaller ones.
And were big enough to stick electrodes into before we had patch-clamp elec trodes.
triggered like ionic amplifiers and re-inforce a travelling impulse.
ode is. Do ions shuttle back and forth? Do polar molecules switch like an LCD d isplay? Is this just a passive field effect in a tubular capacitor? Is ther e a net flow of ions?
There is a flow of ions, and a microscopic theory. Haitic hasn't managed to find out about it yet ...
formatting link
I thought that everybody knew about action potentials, but I guess there ar e the usual exceptions.
Algae and neurons are both cells. Both have internal molecular machinery, made of atoms. If the algae uses quantum effects, why not the neuron?
Nobody can understand how a cell, or a neuron, or a nervous system works. So what is your justification for dismissing quantum effects?
People can hit a baseball or a tennis ball traveling at 100 MPH, with their entire visual, computational, and motor system functioning from head to toe with precision in milliseconds, using chemical ion propagation velocities in their extended nervous system. And people can design electronic circuits in their heads, with zero evolutionary preparation for such skills. Explain that.
--
John Larkin Highland Technology Inc
www.highlandtechnology.com jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com
Precision electronic instrumentation
All of chemistry is ultimately down to quantum effects! But that doesn't mean that the quantum nature of things affects all scales equally. The largest things observed to have quantum coherence are a few proteins involved in critical path energy transport.
I don't rule out the possibility that neuron biochemistry relies on quantum effects at the lowest level but my point is that the signals it produces are large slow macroscopic and distinctly non-quantum. The mitochondria in cells probably use quantum effects to have maximum efficiency in the ATP/ADP energy transfer. I am also pretty sure that DNA and RNA and protein transcription are dominated by the rules of quantum matching but that doesn't confer any mysticism to it.
Since hive mind insects can achieve some impressive results using a mixture of pheromones and hand signals I see no compelling reason to invoke quantum effects as an explanation for intelligence. I reckon it is an emergent property of sufficiently complex computing networks.
What you mean is you don't understand how it works and so you insist that it is all done by quantum magic.
The brain is a rather flexible computer of sorts. Machine vision proved to be an astonishingly hard problem although they are getting there.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and all you can muster is bluff and bluster. aka Proof by dynamic assertion.
et that trapped energy to the reaction centre in the cell as quickly as pos sible, where the energy is converted into chemical energy for the organism.
shion, like a drunk staggering home. But quantum coherence would allow the energy to test every possible pathway simultaneously before travelling via the quickest route."
made
Photosynthesis essentially takes place within a single protein, pretty much localised around a couple of transition metal atoms.
The neurone seems to be transition metal free, and the processes are going to be a lot less localised - whatever information the neurone stores, there seems to have to be a fair bit of it, and it's going to be spread out over quite a few atoms - probably quite a few molecules.
ers; we are part of the incomprehensible mystery of the quantum universe. S ome people might say that God made physics the way it is, so that we could be conscious critters.
So what is your justification for dismissing quantum effects?
What's your justification for proposing them?
eir entire visual, computational, and motor system functioning from head to toe with precision in milliseconds, using chemical ion propagation velocit ies in their extended nervous system. And people can design electronic circ uits in their heads, with zero evolutionary preparation for such skills. Ex plain that.
You need to explain why invoking utterly hypothetical quantum effects adds anything to your totally content-free "explanation".
You insist that neurons don't use quantum computing. I think it's an evolutionary competitive necessity.
Machine vision is still mediocre, using gigaflops of compute power with sub-ns logic elements. Try doing that in a system with millisecond prop delays.
What's extraordinary is not my claims, it's the existance of a conscious brain with astonishing memory and computational abilities, with the ability to do abstract math and write novels and design electronics, which evolution never prepared us for. With wet chemistry as the compute elements and soggy ion channels as the transmission lines. THAT requires some extraordinary explanations, none of which come close so far.
How can you stand to live in a world that avoids every possibility of discovery?
Classical physicists decided that the heat of the sun came from gravitational compression of gasses, and computed the age of the solar system from that. They lacked imagination. I think you lack, and thus dislike, imagination.
--
John Larkin Highland Technology Inc
www.highlandtechnology.com jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com
Precision electronic instrumentation
Algae and neurons are both cells. Both have internal molecular machinery, made of atoms. If the algae uses quantum effects, why not the neuron?
Genetic algorithms that design say, electronic filters, using the evolution axioms of replication, selection and random variation, can do so without true randomness.
However, I am open as to whether consciousness has significant QM components. For example, GA designing electronics are not aware like we are.
To all those that are sceptical about the existence of Qualia, I am quiet able to come over and give them a firm, hard kick in the balls to remove that particular delusion.
Yes. Absence of proof of an event, is not absence of the event.
Clearly you can, you know that you think. Period. As to cats, its probably an open debate if they know that there is a thing named consciousness that they are exhibiting.
Approaching it from the other side of the problem insects with a hive mind like ants, wasps and bees communicate between individuals by a combination of pheromones and glorified hand signals and yet the colony as a whole can perform some very sophisticated reasoning. The insects are far too large for quantum effects to be dominant (even though the sense of smell itself *is* mediated by quantum matching on receptors).
Qualia is more the domain of philosophers. Naming something that can be neither measured nor observed isn't noticeably helpful. A just so story.
Unless and until it can provide a testable hypothesis we can test using fMRI or PET brain scanning it is pointless to just give it a name.
And if he is right then the self organising CA model of the brain is likely to be pretty close to reality. If we can build one that is complex enough to be self aware then we will be able to test our understanding. NB. Human babies are born blind and not self aware.
formatting link
I disagree. Anyone that has experienced a kick in the balls knows exactly what it is like to be conscious.
Just like check bits in the human genome to allow error detection and error correction in the DNA-encoded hereditary data. In fact I don't think that Martin Brown is insisting that neurones don't do quantum computing, merely pointing out that there's zero evidence that they do and no point in hypoth esising that they might.
to be an astonishingly hard problem although they are getting there.
ub-ns logic elements. Try doing that in a system with millisecond prop delays.
Do the words "massively parallel processing" ring any bells with you? The h uman brain has a lot of neurones all operating in parallel, and lots of ver y thin nerve processes - dendrites - to hook them all up.
er is bluff and bluster. aka Proof by dynamic assertion.
brain with astonishing memory and computational abilities, with the ability to do abstract math and write novels and design electronics, which evolution neve r prepared us for. With wet chemistry as the compute elements and soggy ion channels as the transmission lines. THAT requires some extraordinary explanations, none of which come close so far.
Since we have to have one to ask the question, it's existence isn't extraor dinary, but a given. The fact that the essentially serial silicon-based com puting hardware that we can put together at the moment can't match it (even though it's much faster) doesn't justify a claim that biological data-proc essing has to rely on even faster hardware.
covery?
How can you think that the way we put together our silicon-based processing hardware gives us much insight into how biological hardware might be worki ng?
onal compression of gasses, and computed the age of the solar system from that. They lacked imagination. I think you lack, and thus dislike, imagination.
That wasn't "lack of imagination". That was just Kelvin exploring one obvio us - but clearly dubious - hypothesis back in 1862.
formatting link
It does end with "unless sources now unknown to us are prepared in the grea t storehouse of creation", which turned out to be nuclear physics. Unlike y ou, he wasn't prepared to imagine some arbitrary source for the sake keepin g the geologists happy.
You haven't explored the possibilities of what we do know about neurones wi th quite the same thoroughness.
There have been attempts to automate electronic design, but people seem to have given up. Logic synthesis is a much tamer problem, and that works well.
Electronic design is analogous to quantum computing. Given a poorly posed problem, there are unspeakable many ways to connect components to satisfy it. The parallel-search selection of a few viable circuits, out of an absurd number of mostly bad possibilities, sounds a lot like quantum computing. It probably is.
The three things you need to design are
A generator of zillions of possible circuits, including wild and crazy ones
A filter that lets through the best ones, that will actually work.
Brutal analysis of the final candidate to make sure it's safe.
Not many people are comfortable doing all three of those.
--
John Larkin Highland Technology Inc
www.highlandtechnology.com jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com
Precision electronic instrumentation
axioms of replication, selection and random variation, can do so without true randomness.
Not exactly. People do electronic design routinely. Quantum computing is pretty much confined to "proof of principle" experiments in research centres.
I can see the formal similarity. It also sounds a lot like playing chess, which non-quantum computers can manage quite well enough to beat chess-masters.
That's stretching an analogy way too far.
Creating a tree of potential possibilities. You don't have to create the whole tree, just work out the rules that would let you create the branches if your evaluation algorithm thought that it was worth going that way.
Pruning the tree
formatting link
Creating the more promising branches in enough detail to see how they'll work out. Very like chess.
So what. Few people play chess really well either.
Bill I'm going to respond to your points. Please put away the dagger you hide in your sleeve! :) My mark MMMMMM
.html
html
get that trapped energy to the reaction centre in the cell as quickly as po ssible, where the energy is converted into chemical energy for the organism .
ashion, like a drunk staggering home. But quantum coherence would allow the energy to test every possible pathway simultaneously before travelling via the quickest route."
MMMMM How irrelevant? The advantage of such a system based on QM is clearly stated. (exploration of channels.) I am skeptical also, but have either of us really studied what the researchers have concluded? If there is a clear adv antage, X, then good to study that. A single photon going through a double slit will "interfere" with its own alternate and leave an interference patt ern. Thats hot stuff if shown in any living physical system.
MMMMMM Bill, I encourage you to examine this name calling. You are a smart guy, and many respect you, so it cuts you off from the community to name call. I do this myself, as I am irascible as well. :)
H. Stapp, a quantum physicist, says in his "Mindful Universe" book that t he channel to contain the main neurotransmitter is small enough to have qu antum
MMMMM Yes, I am the first to say he is arm-waving. He is a theoretical fizz icist, after all. :)
ht, but no qm theory exists afaik.
MMMMM I don't know what you mean by "experimental justification." AFAIK the re is no philosophy of science based on that - Perhaps you mean that no pro ductive hypothesis can be built on it that is not better explained by class ical physics.
I'll tilt at that windmill, as soon as I get this horse awake. :)
First, a scientific explanation of Qualia. It's a very psychological-spirit ual kind of thing. You may go "snort! It's just imaginary and unreal." But reca ll that BF Skinner took that position, with mixed results. In its favor (in support of studying it experimentally.) is the edifice of many spiritual systems built upon it, such as Tibetan Buddhism, as a hidden cornerstone of human consciousness. See "woo woo" below.
Second, certain mysteries about coherence in the brain may be explained by some quantum properties - perhaps the puzzling problem about how the brain can produce a coherent experience, given it's self-creation from a Google numbe r of possible interconnects...
And I have laid out what I call the "Woo Woo Challenge." This just says tha t if a single woo woo effect can be proved, then the Newtonian edifice must fall . It's obvious stuff, but sometimes useful to spell it out. In fact, there ha ve been many psychic events experimentally proved, so getting just one is a do ne deal. These effects require woo-woo science (like quantum mechanics) to explain. (woo woo = Twilight zone music. :)
And it's possible, even mandatory, to consider a system whereby classical a nd quantum effects co-exist, according to Darwinian opportunism.
le theory." The theoreticians modeled the axon as an undersea cable with capacitance, and I believe the theory dates from those times.
to be insulating thick layers - measurable potential differences are gener ated at key points via ion gradients - giant squid axons have larger diamet ers and transmit faster than our smaller ones.
ectrodes.
triggered like ionic amplifiers and re-inforce a travelling impulse.
mode
display? Is this just a passive field effect in a tubular capacitor? Is th ere a net flow of ions?
to find out about it yet ...
MMMMM Uh, no. The microscopic theory of how a potential transmits in myelin ated sheaths remains a mystery. If these ions flow, they must flow through the axon interior diameter. Where do they enter and leave? The Wikipedia does not explain it, though they have a word for it. It is unlikely to be a flow of ions, in my opinion, since there are material transfer issues. As well, no one ha s seen the net transfer of ions in fast axons, in a distal-to-proximal manner .
Now, I am not claiming that QM does it, but the complete understanding of t he "mind as a machine" is a myth at this point. I believe it's a pernicious belief, like socialism. :)
MMMMM No, you should understand science here. Te philosophy of science says that statements stand or fall based on their confirmation of a hypothesis. This principle of science says nothing about appointing you, with or without a P hD, as an police authority on what may be said or hypothesized. In fact, it was exactly this attitude that Francis Bacon sought to counter, as he explained in his Novum Organum, ca. 1620.
are the usual exceptions. MMMMM "Action potentials" are an empirical description of something measurable. T he case is far from closed, as there is no microscopic theory of their TRANSMISSION. You seem to be confused between the nodes that generate the potentials via an ion gradient, and their transmission.
But, as I've tried to explain to you, this is theoretical physics construct ing a theory. At this stage, there is no definite statement of this or that. Gi ven the woo-woo effect, though, there is justification for the effort. (eg inab ility of classical physics to explain all phenomena of the mind.)
Not at all. I see no evidence for it. Not the same thing at all.
I am making the point that they do not *need* to use quantum effects to achieve a result that looks from the outside like intelligence. It is entirely possible that the network complexity of 10^14 synapses between
10^10 neurons is sufficient for self organisation along the lines of a classical cellular automaton. If that is correct then we should be able to build one on that scale before too much longer and try it out.
Even Conway's humble game of life (which is probably too simple to ever become self aware) has some amazing characteristics that are still being researched as a precursor to more complex Alife cases. eg.
formatting link
(only one I can find with free access)
You are again missing the point. The brain is massively parallel processing and some functions are distributed closer to where they are needed. The blink reflex is faster than the eye-brain-eye message time.
The usual one is Goddidit. Yours is only one step up from that with a handwaving "its all magic incomprehensible quantum mechanics".
Unless it is a testable hypothesis it adds nothing to our understanding.
What makes you think that I do? The whole point of science is to discover how the world works.
That was mainly because Kelvin had a very large Creationist axe to grind sharp to use on geologists and evolutionists. He did still leave the way open for some other energy source presently unknown to us. Official physics history has largely airbrushed out the virulence of his attack on geologists and Darwin's theory of evolution.
Just because *you* imagine you have the right answer doesn't make it correct. Nature is the final arbiter and the hardware experiment is still some way off being a practical proposition (although not by much).
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.