The great strength biology has over present day electronics is in the
ability
of one neuron to make thousands of connections of various strengths with
other neurons. However, I see absolutely nothing in the fundamental laws
of
physics that prevents nano machines from doing the same thing, or better
and
MUCH faster.
John K Clark
johnkc@well.com
But what about this sort of stuff? ( The Penrose- Hameroff quantum
explanation of consciosness)
Here's an example of the list about it
Roger
Subject:
QUANTUM-MIND Digest - 20 Jul 1998 to 21 Jul 1998
Date:
Wed, 22 Jul 1998 00:03:58 -0700
From:
Automatic digest processor <LISTSERV@LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU>
Reply-To:
Quantum Approaches to
Consciousness<QUANTUM-MIND@LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU>
To:
Recipients of QUANTUM-MIND digests
<QUANTUM-MIND@LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU>
Subject:
QUANTUM-MIND Digest - 20 Jul 1998 to 21 Jul 1998
Date:
Wed, 22 Jul 1998 00:03:58 -0700
From:
Automatic digest processor <LISTSERV@LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU>
Reply-To:
Quantum Approaches to Consciousness
<QUANTUM-MIND@LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU>
To:
Recipients of QUANTUM-MIND digests
<QUANTUM-MIND@LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU>
There are 2 messages totalling 263 lines in this issue.
Topics of the day:
Subject:
Quantum coherence in the brain - Nick Herbert Date:
Tue, 21 Jul 1998 18:24:56 -0700
From:
Stuart Hameroff <hameroff@U.ARIZONA.EDU>
Nick Herbert
your[Orch OR] model needs to have many tubulins
coherently entangled so that ORCH OR can collapse the state in an act of
consciousness. Now in your model you SAY that this happens but you don't
actually calculate realistically how this will be achieved.
Stuart
We calculate that, for example, 2 x 10^10 tubulins in superposition for
25 msec will self-collapse. We calculate this from the indeterminacy
principle
E=h/T where E is the gravitational self-energy of the superpositioned
(separated from itself) mass, h is Plancks constant over 2pi, and T is
the
time till collapse. It happens because superposition, in the Penrose
view,
actually involves separations in underlying reality - spacetime geometry
at
the
Planck scale. The separations are unstable and after a while reduce,
something like a radioactive particle decays.
NICK: this number 2 x 10^10 is the number of coherent tubulins that YOU
NEED in order for ORCH OR to collapse the wavefunction. You cannot use
this
calculation to show that a coherent state of 2x10^10 bits MUST EXIST.
In a more familiar context your logic resembles a real estate broker
calculating that you need $40,000 to close a deal (collapse the wave)
and
you go home and tell your wife that the broker has given you $40,000.
Stuart
As I said earlier 2 x 10^10 entangled tubulins for 25 milliseconds
lifetime.
Im not sure what type of calculations you want, but Id very much like
to know.
NICK: What kind of calculation? That's up to you. Perhaps something like
a
2D array of interacting spins on an Ising lattice as is done for
ferromagnetism calculations with parameters adjusted to match tubulin
parameters. From this post i already see another big problem with
setting
up such a model. I had naively assumed your two tubulin states open (O)
and
closed (X) to have the same energy so that when you perform a
phase-coherent superposition of |O> and |X> you get a nice stationary
state
(no time dependence). But in your model |O> and |X> differ in energy by
as
much as one electron volt. This means that the superposition is not
stationary and will oscillate between the two states at a frequency of
about 10^15 HZ (f = deltaE/h). Because this frequency is so high it will
be
extremely difficult to maintain phase coherence with an adjacent tubulin
oscillating at the same (or slightly different) rate, let alone a whole
gang of 'em. A better strategy might be to superpose all the |O> states
and
all the |X> states separately to make two interpenetrating coherent
states
but as i say only a quantitative toy model calculation can show if
coherent
tubulin states can plausibly exist at all. Knowing the extreme
difficulty
of creating coherent states in the laboratory under the best of
conditions
i am pessimistic about the possibility of establishing coherence in a
hot
wet tubulin array.
Your (very imaginative) model rises or falls on the crucial question of
whether this particular kind of coherent state exists in the brain or
not.
My informed guess is that coherent states of even one or two tubulins
cannot exist for more than a nano-second or less. Seems to me that until
someone shows (quantitatively) that the existence of large coherent
tubulin
states is even remotely plausible that your whole proposal is physically
UNREALISTIC at a very basic level.
And of course if you can't cohere any more than one or two tubulins in a
single neuron the operation of gap junctions is wholly irrelevant.
best regards
Nick Herbert
http://members.cruzio.com/+AH4-quanta
Subject:
Meaning of mind in backaction theory - Jack Sarfatti Date:
Tue, 21 Jul 1998 18:30:05 -0700
From:
Stuart Hameroff <hameroff@U.ARIZONA.EDU>
Phillip Benjamin has said that Bohm's hidden variable X is the "mind" in the post-quantum backaction theory. That is not the way I see it. The mind is the post-quantum potential landscape Q* whose shape, at time t in the configuration space for the material path X(t), depends directly on that path. Recall that the shape of the path itself depends on the shape of the landscape. Therefore, both the shape of the mental Q* landscape and the material path X(t) depend directly on each other, as well as the Darwinian environment. This is in contrast to the ordinary one-way quantum mechanics where the quantum potential Q landscape has no direct dependence on the X(t) it guides. Q only depends on the Darwinian environment with no spontaneous self-organization. Therefore, the Bohm quantum Q field is not formally an adaptive neural net like the new post-quantum Q* field is. That this violation of Wigner's action-reaction principle is essential to maintain uncontrollable quantum randomness and Shimony's "passion-at-a-distance" is proved by Bohm and Hiley in The Undivided Universe.
My position is that Bohm has a realistic nonlocal theory
that has peaceful coexistence with relativity i.e.,
Shimony's "passion-at-a-distance"). That is one-way Q -> X
Bohmian non-mechanics. All of that is in the book The
Undivided Universe. But this is strictly for inanimate
levels of organization of matter-geometry. There is no
sentient living mind at that one-way level. As soon as you
have sentience (inner feels, "The Spirit" of Saint Paul if
you like) you have two-way post-quantum non-mechanics Q*(X)
<-> X.
The two-way feedback-control loopof spontaneous sentient self-organization is free-will and perception unified. Controllable superluminal signals are a fundamental property of this sentient level. Mind is impossible without controllable superluminal signals. That is why remote-viewing really works (e.g. Jim Schnabel's Remote Viewers). That is why Shamans can do what they do. You cannot have any of that without controllable superluminal signals that violate quantum randomness and relativistic causality. You cannot have the creation this sentence, this non-random c-bit string from the q*-bit string that is my conscious awareness of my writing this sentence as I am writing it, without violating these sacred cows of modern physics. This very message is the public record of a post-quantum selfaware-measurement of my Q* field by my Q* field. The Q*(X) <-> X is John Archibald Wheeler's sentient "self-excited circuit". This is my post-quantum theory.
[Moderator's note - Gordon Globus]
"The two-way feedback-control loop of spontaneous sentient
self-organization is free-will and perception unified." Your
physics is very impressive, but how you get out sentience,
perception and free-will needs some explaining. These
are very deep issues that you treat en passant.
[Jack]
My main
reason for the above post at issue here is to respond to P.
Benjamin who says "mind" is Bohm's hidden variable X in the
backaction theory that I am proposing. That is not so. X is
the matter-geometry "brain" configuration, the "mind" is the
post-Bohmian potential field that forms a landscape that X
moves on. This landscape is similar to those in complex
adaptive systems theory and in neural net theory (e.g.
Stuart Kauffman At Home in the Universe and Murray
Gell-Mann, The Quark and the Jaguar).
Many people have noticed the analogy of the quantum wavefunction with thought starting with Bohr. I am saying it is more than an analogy. This is like when Feynman said that Di