Hallo!

On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 12:34:01 -0400, Micah Johnston wrote:

>  Regarding brains and quantum mechanics: I see absolutely no reason to
>  believe that the brain relies on quantum effects unless this phenomenon has
>  actually been observed--which, as far as I know, it has not--except for
>  wishful thinking, wanting to believe that the brain's free will cannot be
>  predicted. However, I don't understand this wishful thinking either, because
>  it's simply chalking up the brain's observed free will to the inherent
>  randomness of the universe, and not to what seems random unless you know
>  everything about every particle.

You may call free will "wishful thinking", and indeed many thinkers
have questioned it; but assuming that human beings had no free will
is in my opinion a dangerous move: it is a very small step from
negating free will to treating human beings as inanimate things.
It potentially opens up inroads for all sorts of cruelty, and causes
the entire edifice of ethics to collapse.  Granted, that is no longer
*physics*, but I don't wish to open that can of worms.  In my opinion,
the present-day fashion of questioning free will is part of a current
in which pessimism about human nature meets with the cynicism of the
economic and financial élites, and serves to undermine the concept of
innate human rights.  But we are getting dangerously close to politics
and religion here.

>        Regarding the brain using quantum effects
>  making it impossible to "upload" a brain to a computer, please explain why
>  the computer couldn't just simulate the quantum effects, or even better, why
>  one couldn't make a computer that actually uses the same quantum effects
>  that the brain supposedly does.

A classical computer cannot "just simulate" the quantum effects
- that's about as impossible as a perpetual motion machine, or the
"Heisenberg compensators" of Star Trek.  I am not a physicist, but
quantum systems are nondeterministic while classical systems are
deterministic.  And determinism rules out free will.  So, as long
as one is not willing to abandon the concept of free will, or to
introduce metaphysical entities, one can only assume that the human
mind is a quantum system.

At most, a "simulation" of a quantum system on a classical computer
would lead to a system which emulates *one possible* path of behaviour
of the quantum system, but it would still be deterministic.

OnMon, 2 Aug 2010 11:19:11 -0700, Gary Shannon wrote:

>  As for quantum effects in the human brain, here are some references to
>  published papers on the subject:
>
>  overview of the different theories:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind
>
>  Arguing in favor of the theory:
>
>  http://www.quantumbrain.org/
>
>  on the The Penrose-Hamerof model:
>
>  http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/penrose-hameroff/quantumcomputation.html
>
>  And arguing against the theory:
>
>  http://cogsci.uwaterloo.ca/Articles/quantum.pdf
>
>  The arguments for both sides seem compelling, so I can't decide either
>  way, but in my opinion it certainly remains a possibility considering
>  how little we actually understand about the nature of consciousness
>  and intelligence.

I would not say that it was "proven" that the human mind was a
quantum process, but I consider it a plausible way to account
for free will without having to take recourse to metaphysics.

OnMon, 2 Aug 2010 23:29:44 +0200,Mechthild Czapp wrote:

>  Jiarks... Here am I reading CONLANG-postings and stumble over
>  my least-favorite fallacy.
>
>  >  Von: "Jörg Rhiemeier"<[log in to unmask]>
>  >  An: [log in to unmask]
>  >  Betreff: Re: Are right-branching languages easier to parse?
>
>  >  I found this idea in a book written by a physicist and a psychologist,
>  >  _Der kreative Kosmos_ by Thomas and Brigitte Görnitz.  But it is
>  >  obvious.  Classical systems are deterministic (even if it can become
>  >  practically impossible to predict their behaviour) and therefore
>  >  cannot have free will.  Quantum systems are not deterministic.
>  >
>
>  Unfortunately, neurons are 3 orders of magnitude too big to be
>  ruled by these laws. They can be considered classical systems.

You are misguided in assuming that quantum effects only manifest at
a subatomic scale and cancel out at any larger scale.  If that was so,
they would be unobservable.  It is quantum effects which determine
at which moment a Geiger counter (a macroscopic system) ticks, and
quantum entanglement has been observed over distances of kilometers.

>  Even if they were not. The behaviour would not be free, it would be
>  random. There is a big difference. I never understood why random
>  behaviour would even be something you would like to express.
>
>  The idea of free will is flawed given a materialistic view of the world.
>  That does not mean that the actions of a specific human being can be
>  predicted in any near future, but if Laplace's Demon existed, it probably
>  could.

That's 19th-century thinking.  Modern science has moved beyond this
sort of crude materialism, and Laplace's Demon is a concept as
discarded as heavenly crystal spheres, phlogiston and luminiferous
æther.  Laplace's Demon is not a matter hampered by practical problems
such as available data or computing power, it is *disproven*.

And as I have stated above, abandoning the idea of free will is
dangerous in itself, as it knocks away the very foundations of the
idea of innate human rights, and could be used to justify slavery
and death camps.  Do we want that back?

>  Also, just googling for these authors made my quack-meter peak.
>  They seem to be involved in a lot of esoteric ... things...
>  http://goernitz.de/forschung/forschung_vortraege.htm

How does that make your quack-meter peak?  I see talks at universities
and other scientific institutions - not the sort of people who'd invite
esoteric quacks to talk in their halls.

--
... brought to you by the Weeping Elf
http://www.joerg-rhiemeier.de/Conlang/index.html