Re: Koch on Quantum Consciousness

<somatovisceral@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Peter Ashby wrote:
<somatovisceral@xxxxxxxxx> quoted:


The idea that no reduction occurs until consciousness intervenes may
seem ridiculous. Still, earlier reductions cannot occur without
violating the basic known dynamical law, the Schroedinger equation, and
there appears to be no reason for that law to fail if we consider only
the physical universe alone. No experiment has ever established any
credible evidence that reductions occur in physical systems, however
large or small, when left to themselves. And quantum mechanics gives no
predictions about observed dynamical phenomena without bringing in the
intervention by "the observer" that is called "Process 1" by
von Neumann, and a " free choice on the part of the experimenter"
by Bohr. There is no a priori reason why realities such as our
conscious experiences should not be causally efficacious, and there are
powerful evolutionary reasons why they should be efficacious.

How about no demonstrated mechanism by which consciousness can impact on
external quantum events. Stating it is not evidence which is part of the
point Koch and Hepp make in their original piece.

In view
of the acknowledged "weirdness" of quantum phenomena, the method of
science counsels a search for a rational understanding that fits all
the empirical facts, and explains them, rather than adherence to
prevailing intuitions.

The method of science requires empirical evidence to confirm that the
underlying (and oft unstated or unacknowledged) assumptions are sound. I
don't give a fig for theoreticians who posit mechanisms without
experimental evidence, I give even less for those who do so while
crossing disciplines. To collapse temperature, ions and changing
potential differences into 'D' without justification also smells.

In addition Stapp nicely ignores Koch and Hepp's point, cogently made,
that we have no need of quantum mechanisms in the brain since we have a
perfectly functional system of action potentials and chemical messengers
at synapses. If Stapp wishes to be taken seriously he needs to tell us
what all that activity is doing (apart from not quite managing to squash
every last vestige of hypothetical quantum effects).

Peter
--
Add my middle initial to email me. It has become attached to a country

Koch and Hepp's point was about decoherence and they failed in making
their case because they just don't adequatley understand Quantum
theory, rely on a false physical theory to model things and seeming to
forget that sub-neuronal process, which are at nano-scales but effect
larger neural processes, require quantum theoretic explanations.

You will have to present good evidence in favour of that proposition. I
will grant things like that quantum processes are necessary to allow the
movements of residues that open ion channels. But those processes do not
involve decoherence and do not do sufficient computation. Also they are
part of the neurophysiological process, not ancilliary to it. Penrose
and Hammeroff have posited that microtubule monomers function as quantum
computational devices. Leaving aside problems such as that most cells,
like liver, have microtubules and neurofilament would be a better bet
(but dammit, it is wrong for decoherence), If you want neuroscience to
take any of this seriously you have to do an experiment which
demonstrates the posited mechanisms are plausible. Penrose and Hammeroff
have had this challenge for many years now and no experimental evidence
in favour of their ideas has been published.

I say again, I don't give a fig for the theoreticians unless and until
they have evidence. Koch and Hepp have obviously got bored waiting, I
expect waiting will be fruitless. I am willing to be persuaded but only
that pesky evidence will do.

But
don't take my word on it because I guarantee that you will soon see
others showing how misguided Koch and Hepp really are.

Lets hope they come bearing some evidence then.

Peteer
--
Add my middle initial to email me. It has become attached to a country
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Gravity is not a force which acts on objects at a distance.
    ... because empirical evidence seems to suggest that the shit ... Who cares about the quantum multiple worlds so long as I see it as ... Photons are not particles and exist as a probability wave, ...
    (rec.martial-arts)
  • Re: Gravity is not a force which acts on objects at a distance.
    ... because empirical evidence seems to suggest that the shit ... Who cares about the quantum multiple worlds so long as I see it as ... Photons are not particles and exist as a probability wave, ...
    (rec.martial-arts)
  • Re: Intelligent Design is for lying cowards who deny their God
    ... >evidence, are not intelligent or directed, and that there is no evidence for ... I don't think there is even a need to define the known mechanisms as ... The real distinction between ID and science has always been ID's refusal to ... >of intelligent intervention, only flawed arguments that known causes could ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Strong AI Thesis (No Chinese room, I promise)
    ... Quantum mechanics. ... are unmistakeable - no hidden variables. ... causality where the evidence does not seem to support it. ... We have experience, much of it supporting determinism, (I'm not disagreeing ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)
  • Re: Finding useful functions- part 1
    ... In article, David Longley ... >>may share mechanisms in common. ... bold assertion. ... the evidence as I've already done so ad nauseam to no avail not to ...
    (sci.cognitive)
Loading