Explainning the consciousness processes by new physical theories

Dave Davies dave.davies at anu.edu.au
Sun Sep 17 23:59:50 EST 1995


kenseto at erinet.com (Ken Seto) wrote:
 >hdvorak at cns.caltech.edu (Hannah Dvorak) wrote:
 >
 >>In article <43cesh$11k at eri1.erinet.com>, kenseto at erinet.com (Ken Seto) says:
 >>>
 >>>Joseph Strout <jstrout at ucsd.edu> wrote:
 >>>
 >>>>On Thu, 14 Sep 1995, Ken Seto wrote:
 >>>
 >>[snip]
 >>>
 >>>As for the consciousness process, neuroscientists have no idea how the
 >>>neurons in the brain communicate with each other. 
 >
 >>I don't know how you can even post such a statement here.  

Yes, *here* is the operative word. This is theology not neuroscience and
as such should be in alt.religion.*.

Penrose et.al. are playing a silly Russian Doll game for the benefit of
populist, positivist theologians. They are saying "hey! some of us 
scientists are good guys. We have found another place for God to hide down
at the quantum level". They are bringing a debate that has plagued quantum 
mechanics into biology.

Quantum mechanics seemed to be a god-send to the anti-determinists in that 
seemed to allow a purely stochastic interpretation - allowing , of course, 
for god to tweak the probabilities. Many physicists get quite irate at the
suggestions from people like deBroglie and Bohm that there might be a more
fundamental, and possibly deterministic, physics underlying QM.

As I say, this is theology, not physics.

 >>   We know a 
 >>heck of a lot about how neurons communicate with each other; pick up
 >>any intro to neuro text and read up about synapses.  Granted, there's 
 >>still a lot of details to be worked out, but the fundamentals are 
 >>pretty well understood.
 >
 >The current understanding how neurons communicate with each other is
 >in the molecular level. This cannot be compared to my theories which
 >deals with the communication of neurons at the very fundamental level
 >space, time and fundamental particles such as electrons and quarks.
 >Please read my web page to gain a better understanding of my theories.
 ><http://www.erinet.com/book.html>
 >
 >

The main argument against this sub-molecular thought model is in the simple
use of Occam's razor. We dont need QM. At this stage in neuroscience there
is no reason to believe that variants on the conventional view of how neurons
work at a cellular and biochemical level will not fully explain how we think 
and perceive the world.

I was once very attracted to the idea that cortical-global QM effects could
be crucial to brain function and could actually suggest a functional mechanism
if anyone is interested but, as I said, who needs it.



dave




More information about the Neur-sci mailing list