rof at maths.tcd.ie (Ruadhan O'Flanagan) enunciated:
>There is no field of quantum neuroscience or quantum cognitive science. If
>you read Penrose's books, you'll get about as much information on this
>subject as there presently is(afaik - correct me if I'm wrong anybody).
It would be hard pressed to have such a 'real field' but for a lack of
a better field, quantum observations are used to denote that
experimental results are indeed experimental results. The same
function or process that causes quantum observations (which quantum
physics refuses to deal with , and well they should) is the same
underlying function or process that controls brain activity as well as
interaction of any other system or subsystem... i've referred to it as
A Quantum-Relativity Perspective... which I should have added "in a
Newtonian Realm"... or some such dribble.....
>Unless, that is, you want to have a look at the work of(gasp!) Jack Sarfatti.
>You'll usually find him gibbering on sci.physics. His ideas are about
>as realistic as Penrose's.
Allow me to explain something here: Neither Sir Roger now Monsignor
Jack can be held responsible for their extrapolations (Nanopolis
included here)... consider this for a moment:
Look at yourself in a mirror:
The image you see is you.. but it is (TO YOU) your're reflection.. You
KNOW that is not the way you really are...
but allow someone else to look at you
and the image you see in the mirror is EXACTLY the same imge they see
of you looking right at you...
The point here is this: perspective...
People study the brain by looking at its' outcomes... then examine the
potentials of how to make something that will result in the same
outcomes with the same essential input stimuli.....
the problem with this is simple: the brain 'knows' what is being
observed is the OPPOSITE of what IT KNOWS is how it works.
So, to correctly model the brain, look at it from ITS Pperspective.
>Pure mathematicians would(in general) know very little about those
>subjects. Applied mathematicians would probably have worked with
>neural networks and maybe some of the more mathematically-oriented
>models of cognition.
Such models are based on the external observation not the internal one
(see above analogy) neural nets do (outcome) what brain function
seesm to do but they do not do it the WAY brain does it.. see CORE
and Neural Nets http://www.neutronicstechcorp.com/corenn.htm
>Physicists are usually jolly good at using
>mathematics to analyse physical systems. Also, mathematicians and
>physicists can afford to be arrogant when it comes to matters like
Only because nothing has come along publicly to shakes it foundations.
Why do you think Plank stopped working on it... and let others run off
into interpretation... he KNEW what he found was a result of something
>>Ah yes... Dr. Penrose has reached that stage in his career where he
>>can come up with ludicrous ideas about things of which he knows little,
>>and yet impress people. People who know less than he does, that is.
The main point of Sir Roger's works is mostly missed. That some other
form of mathematics is needed to explain SUB quantum events... how
things happen.... he has remarked quite well on the necessity for a
more fundemental process and dares to call it non-computational. He
and Stuart have hit upon the microtubes as the most obvious vehicle
but to invoke quantum gravity is, rather ludicrous...what they are
observing is the vehicle, not the passenger.... and the passenger is
the point..... neurons are NOT active components, they are chambers
or passive components... it is the process itself, permitted by the
connectivity and the formative structure of the neurons and
connectivity channels that permit the process to occur in its proper
fashion... disease changes the components to an active condition and
messes things up...
>Sir Roger knows quite a lot about quantum theory, although he knows
>a lot less about brain function. His ideas are rather too far-fetched,
>contrived, and redundant to be considered anything other than vague
One has to put oneself in His perspective to see what he was getting
at, even if he didn't know it himself..... something more fundemental
is controlling events... quantum ... for lack of a better term....
I've used it myself to describe causal events that lead to quanta...
but it needs to be named something entirely different to make the
separation from the result which is quanta to the cause which is
before quanta.... Jack Sarfatti is interested in backaction...
something every system must have in one way or another to balance
itself.... but back action in a wave function is murder on the wave...
luckily the brain makes up for it by breaking the transmission from
one neuron to the next with a synapse.... the same thing is done in
electronics with diodes....
>rof at maths.tcd.ie
Enjoyed reading your post.
Lee Kent Hempfling Chairman, CEO
Neutronics Technologies Corporation
523 Garrison Ave Fort Smith Arkansas 72901
http://www.neutronicstechcorp.comlkh at neutronicstechcorp.com 1-888-ENTICY1