Brain, Behaviour and Extensionalism
kpaulc at [remove]earthlink.net
Tue Apr 13 07:16:05 EST 2004
"Peter F." <effectivespamblock at ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:fZNec.232$_84.5336 at nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...
> "Lester Zick" <lesterDELzick at worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:407ab55c.45010209 at netnews.att.net...
> > On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 12:34:44 +1000, "Peter F."
> > <effectivespamblock at ozemail.com.au> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
> > >
> > >"Lester Zick" <lesterDELzick at worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> > >news:4079c410.41628901 at netnews.att.net...
> > ><snip>
> > >> The problem is that material interactions
> > >> are certainly governed by quantum effects
> > >> and relations. We just don't know enough
> > >> to say whether mental interactions are
> > >> produced and governed by similar principles.
> > >> If they are governed by differential interac-
> > >> tions it is by no means clear that the mech-
> > >> anics involved need to be based on quantum
> > >> relations and effects even though interactions
> > >> of the substrate on which they are mechanized
> > >> obviously would.
> > >
> > >The only _reasonable_ (~non-religiously natural~)
> > >and most generally conclusive philosophical reas-
> > >oning possible, is that consciousness (a complex
> > >multifaceted/multilevel/modular phenomenon of
> > >being and interacting as an *individual*) _do need_
> > >(or fundamentally/essentially) the quantum aspect
> > >of What Is going on.
> > >
> > I definitely disagree that the mechanics of intelligence
> > or sentience are quantum. The mechanics of intelli-
> > gence have to use material the mechanics of which
> > definitely are quantum mechanics but I have seen no
> > clear rationale presented by anyone that the mechan-
> > ics of intelligence are just those of quantum interac-
> > tions. In other words if you expect to calculate mat-
> > erial interactions and functions of intelligence on
> > the same basis you may not get correct answers for
> > intelligence. At least I don't know of anyone who
> > can calculate sentient processes in such a way or
> > even suggest why they have to be calculatable ac-
> > cording to common equations.
> I never ever have voiced an opinion to the effect that
> quantum theoretical calculations of any kind can be
> used to do anything such. All I have tried (and now
> try again) to say is, that:
> - The existence and cosmological, chemical and bio-
> logical evolution of the (to us typically seen as counter-
> intuitive) quantum-world/aspect of our Universe _is
> an inextricable part of _'the bedrock'_ out of which _
> any_ kind of consciousness can been carved by natural
I agree, Peter, and I also agree with Lester's comments,
but I disagree with both your saying quantum-world/aspect"
and Lester's saying that "quantum" stuff is his "definite".
'quantum mechanics' looks-at physical reality, but sees
other-than physical reality.
And it's physical reality, not 'qm', that Determines nerv-
ous system function as you assert.
Cheers, Peter, ken [k. p. collins]
More information about the Neur-sci