yet another spawn of quantum consciousness
Today’s pseudoscience often uses the word quantum as a substitute for magic, a kind of deus ex machina of woo which exploits a complex discipline in physics to argue that literally anything is possible at any time, and disputing the pseudoscientific assertion would require that you disprove quantum mechanics. This is exactly why it landed very high on my top five list of science terms most abused by cranks and serves as the main engine behind Deepak Chopra’s technobabble about consciousness. Given how fond cranks are of using a quantum phenomenon, one would surely think that a giant of physics like Roger Penrose would steer clear of any ideas which say that what we define as consciousness is born out of the universe’s quantum mesh and that our brains are essentially quantum supercomputers. And it seems like one would be wrong to do so…
The problem with any theory which describes a brain as a computer is the notion that somehow, the thoughts and chemical reactions taking place in our brain are comparable to binary signals being crunched by multiple processor cores and work corresponding to a computer’s logic gates. That’s not really what happens. Instead of acting like a computational device, the brain deals with much more complexity and disorder. It’s imprecise, misfires on a regular basis and has evolved not to become incredibly efficient at calculations and considering probabilities, but to put up with the more or less organized chaos of firing neurons and make decisions with a number of specialized brain structures working in an improvised concert. But Penrose and an Arizona doctor Stuart Hameroff, decided to go even further, claiming that tiny structures in brain cells act like the qubits of an advanced quantum computer with a computational capacity beyond any supercomputer in a 1996 paper. Even stranger, Hameroff has been claiming that consciousness simply emerges from the quantum mesh and that a single celled organism like an amoeba can live in total self-awareness thanks to this phenomenon.
Allow me to put it this way. If the human brain was really proven to be a quantum computer, I would never look at modern evolutionary biology the same way again and take back all the ridicule to which I subjected quite a few high brow creationists because the level of precision it would take to create a computer out of molecules, atoms and other tiny particles requires some very delicate engineering. Without strict controls, the waveforms of the quantum particles begin to collapse within femtoseconds, way too quickly to actually compute anything, or produce the kind of resonance that Hameroff claimed as evidence for the quantum processing happening in the mind. Rather than being housed in a warm, soggy brain, quantum computing has to be done in chilled labs where the particles’ coherence can last long enough to produce some sort of meaningful result that can be gathered by indirect observation instead of direct output. The other problem here is the fact that while using a quantum computer would allow someone to peruse algorithms which would be highly impactical to run on a conventional machine, the device would still work in a very similar way.
The difference between quantum computers and the computer you have on your desk is that the quantum bits of the former would be able to generate more than 0s and 1s and could use superimposition to process more data in parallel, a bit like superscalar processors use redundancies in their structure to multithread. Note that this is not how the brain works and while Hameroff and Penrose pondered the possibilities of how some tiny cellular structures could achieve the kind of quantum state capable of data processing, they haven’t explained how these signals would be governed, how the different, specialized parts of the brain play a role, or how the actual processing gets directed if it’s over within less than a millisecond. And this is why the idea of Orch-OR, as it’s called, still remains a speculative and largely unsupported idea more than a decade after it was shown to the scientific public. We could say that at least they went much further with it than any New Age woomeister, but then again, that may not be saying much…
[ illustration by Mateu, story tip by Michael Varney ]
If what you say is true about quantum-level computational brain processes having evolved is so unlikely, then how do you explain the recent experiments that revealed that leaves use quantum effects in order to achieve near-perfect photosynthesis? That’s an evolved system, in which taking advantage of quantum effects was selected for, and it’s much more common than we thought. Why not then in the brain, and the applications to thought are numerous. Anything which has beneficial consequences can be selected for, no? It doesn’t necessarily mean an amoeba is conscious that might be going a step too far, but the human brain? Let me put it this way, I wouldn’t bet against it.
… how do you explain the recent experiments that revealed that leaves use quantum effects in order to achieve near-perfect photosynthesis?
According to the expert write-ups, quantum entanglement carries proteins in leaves with optimal efficiency. Describing photosynthesis as a near-perfect process thanks to plants using quantum mechanics would be too grandiose since this is not what’s actually happening. The plants just do what they do and the physics enable them to do it in the first place.
I should also note that being able to efficiently move proteins around an organism is a far cry from cognition and self-awareness coming from the quantum mesh. It’s just quantum mechanics having an effect on biological organisms, like they always do.
That’s a good answer. (I meant near-perfect in the sense of near-100% energy conversion, which is unheard of so far by non-quantum means, at least the ones we can artificially replicate.) I understand your skepticism; however, considering that evolution works on all processes and we are not close to knowing how many processes such as the protein energy conversion step might be aided in a similar way by a shortest-path solution, it’s too soon to make a determination as to the unlikelihood or not of cognitive benefits.
You get to believe whatever you want and live in the reality you have constructed. That is complete and total freedom. Hope you are finding happiness where you are. In my reality people do not need to defend their ideas by making fun of others. Predator/prey rules do not ‘work’ there. There are many ways of thinking about reality. None are right. None are wrong. They simply are. And, we can choose from among them where we want to ‘live’.
Dear Mary Anne
“In my reality people do not need to defend their ideas by making fun of others.”
I dont think this website makes fun of peoples ideas, it just shoots holes in the theories that people can believe in…
In your reality? I’m sorry but I don’t understand how In your reality people “do not need to defend their ideas by making fun of others.” Here you are considering someone to be doing just that…? surely that contradicts the whole “my reality” thing?
“There are many ways of thinking about reality. None are right. None are wrong. They simply are. And, we can choose from among them where we want to ‘live’.”
This applies due to insufficient proof… however there has to be a right answer…
that is like saying a certain religion is right and wrong at the same time due to people not knowing…
Consciousness hasn’t become fully understood yet, but that however does not mean that there are multiple realities for someone who wants there to be…
please explain…
Nicholas
There are many ways of thinking about reality. None are right. None are wrong. They simply are.
That’s very post-modernist, isn’t it? If we can’t agree that something’s right or wrong from a factual standpoint based on all the currently available evidence, then why do we bother with science and education? Ultimately, you learn a lot more when you’re wrong and it’s a good thing to challenge your beliefs once in a while, even if you end up with the same conclusion you had going in, provided you based your stance on tangible, factual evidence that is…
True, True however challenging ones beliefs is often ineffective due to humanities incredible stubbornness when it comes to their beliefs.
For example: religion….
Mr. Varney is correct. In fact let’s be critical of anyones attempt to understand how the human brain works as Mr. Varney doesn’t seem to offer much of an alternative. Seems to me it really does take a rocket scientist to understand how molecular configurations can create consciencsiousness, recall and decision making for “sentient beings”, but yet we inherently know that’s where the answer is. It seems to me Mr. Penrose was offering a parallel theory of reasonable tantamount import, not the exact process.
@dons
Yikes. Where can I offer an alternative to intellectual borborygmus?
“.. If we can’t agree that something’s right or wrong from a factual standpoint based on all the currently available evidence, then why do we bother with science and education?”
It is right to say that science needs to use a strict scientific approach to obtain empirical evidence for observable truths. However, this I believe is also a weakness of science. It’s like saying “If I can’t see it, feel it or smell it then it doesn’t exist”. It’s fine to say “I can find no evidence that it exists” but too often people translate this to mean “It doesn’t exist”. Sometimes the proof science requires is impossible to obtain.
If the world is knowledge then what science knows is but a grain of sand. Remember this next time you use science as a stick to beat people with. Can you explain consciousness? Would genuinely like to read your opinions on what consciousness is and where it is located etc.
Sometimes the proof science requires is impossible to obtain.
That would mean we’re dealing with an assertion which can’t be used with authority and we don’t have to entertain it until we’re given evidence. If you can’t prove it, what’s the rationale behind giving it any weight in an argument? I can prove the existence of big, poisonous frogs. I can’t prove the existence of ghosts. Therefore, when I bring up toxic frogs, I have a far more valid argument than when I bring up ghosts.
Remember this next time you use science as a stick to beat people with.
Penrose and Hameroff are scientifically trained. They expect being questioned since this is how science gets done. Someone suggests an idea, experts ask for proof to verify it, critique to make sure the case is solid, and either reject or accept the idea as a valid one. If you want to call it “beating people with sticks,” you’re confusing critique with outright ridicule.
Can you explain consciousness?
My area of expertise is computers so I can look at the Hameroff/Penrose model and tell you that they seem to be barking up the wrong tree given what we know about the dynamics of quantum computing. I’m not a neuroscientist or a cognitive psychologist so my opinions about consciousness are irrelevant because I don’t have the same training and knowledge they would.
I think it boils down to this. Consciousness is reality in the 1st degree. The observed world is reality in the 2nd degree. If we think we are illusions to ourselves, then what the hell is left for the observed world to rest on. Why can’t it be an illusion to ourselves as well. This can of worms swallows everything including your opinions, and even you. So, it is clear that reality itself is “magic” or weird, or even unexplainable. We choose how much of it is believable, since we as “consciousness” practice belief. We know there is little known. We know ourselves to be and the rest is perception. I don’t blame Penrose and the like for their efforts. For you to expect comfortable, empirical, and logical explanations for that which is neither of these yet contains all three of these; is of the same form of “insanity” which produces the idea that one is an illusion to one’s self.
Our standard accepted senses and their brain processing that goes along with them function as a portal for the empirical world ( I’m sure this isn’t news to you). But, by augmenting our senses
we can observe more, such as micro-,tele-,occilli-,and other scopes. Yet there are many more ways to augment and probably ways we can’t even imagine. The size of your universe seems to be limited only by how well you can see. But maybe it’s worse than that, it tends to be limited more by how hard we are willing to look.