Brain, Behaviour and Extensionalism

Lester Zick lesterDELzick at
Tue Apr 13 10:32:09 EST 2004

On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 18:58:51 +1000, "Peter F."
<effectivespamblock at> in wrote:

>"Lester Zick" <lesterDELzick at> wrote in message
>news:407ab55c.45010209 at
>> On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 12:34:44 +1000, "Peter F."
>> <effectivespamblock at> in wrote:
>> >
>> >"Lester Zick" <lesterDELzick at> wrote in message
>> >news:4079c410.41628901 at
>> ><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 interactions it is by
>> >> no means clear that the mechanics 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 reasoning possible, is that consciousness (a
>> >complex multifaceted/multilevel/modular phenomenon of being and
>> >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 intelligence have to use material the
>> mechanics of which definitely are quantum mechanics but I have seen no
>> clear rationale presented by anyone that the mechanics of intelligence
>> are just those of quantum interactions. In other words if you expect
>> to calculate material 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 according
>> 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 biological 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 selection.
Or by artificial selection. If this is what you meant then I agree.
However I don't see this interpretation of quantum effects adds much
to the analysis of consciousness as a mechanism.

Regards - Lester

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list