From: Krekoski Ross (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sun Mar 02 2008 - 16:35:59 MST
Yah, the argument regarding the degree, or lack of degree of interaction
that quantum effects have on a more macro level I suppose holds quite well.
My curiosity was somewhat two-pronged -- firstly, are current models
regarding the complexity and processing power required for a reasonable
simulation of the human brain adequate (ignoring the necessary overhead that
a software implementation would entail), and secondly, a more general
curiosity regarding the degree of determinism implied if all human reasoning
summarizing penrose's argument:
assume that my reasoning capabilities can be simulated by formal system F.
for every statement S of F that I determine true, S is a theorem of F, and
vice versa. Since I believe F describes my reasoning, I believe F is
sound. Since F is sound, G(F) (goedel) is true, but not a theorem of F.
however, since F is sound, G(F) is also true. However, G(F) is not a
theorem of F, but I know it to be true, therefore F does not describe my
On Sun, Mar 2, 2008 at 11:03 PM, Adam Safron <email@example.com> wrote:
> Quantum entanglement is not considered to be an important factor by
> most well-regarded neuroscientists.
> With ~100 billion neurons and 10^14 synapses, the brain is plenty
> complex to explain human cognition/behavior without resorting to
> exotic physical properties. And more importantly, no one has come up
> with a reasonable account for how quantum entanglement would impact
> information processing. Quantum explanations for the mind are both
> unnecessary and unhelpful.
> On Mar 2, 2008, at 5:09 PM, Krekoski Ross wrote:
> > Why has there not been any discussion that I can find, regarding the
> > very real possibility that quantum entanglement plays a large role
> > in the functioning of the human brain?
> > It certainly is a factor in the low-level motion of particles, and
> > in a chaotic system where local disturbances can lead to large
> > systemic changes, such as cascade effects in neurons, it seems to be
> > a significant oversight to not at least acknowledge it's likely
> > presence. It has significant implications for the processing
> > capacity of the human brain since it multiplies the number of
> > interactions by a significant number of orders of magnitude, and is
> > also quite relevant therefore in talking about at what point we have
> > the machine capacity with current architecture to begin to simulate
> > things.
> > Rgds
> > Ross
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:01:02 MDT