Brain, Behaviour and Extensionalism

Lester Zick lesterDELzick at worldnet.att.net
Wed Apr 14 10:31:27 EST 2004


On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 13:23:07 +0200, "JPL Verhey" <petervar at 12move.nl>
in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:

>
>"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 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
>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.
>
>Hi Lester, can you explain what you mean with "quantum" and "quantum
>effects".
>
>As I understand it, "quantum effects" concern also (the effect of) quantum
>jumps. These quantum jumps are called unpredictable, uncontrolable and
>indivisible (btw..are they?) quantum transitions between discrete orbits.
>The quantum of action is a major building block (If I may call it that) of
>all known matter.  I don't know how many of such quantum jumps per second
>are taking place in the nervous system.. but my guess is it will be
>astronomic. I predict that if you'd take out the quatum jump, aqa quatum of
>action.. intelligence (whatever that is) and sentience are non-existent.

Many people get the whole idea of quantum effects and relations wrong.
Planck's constant defines a gradient for EM radiation, units of mrr/t,
analogous to angular momentum. Quantum units of energy and energy
transfer exist for atoms because Planck's constant is what it is. And
material interactions are governed by that constant. But there are no
irreducible atomic monads or quanta of energy shooting through space
like so many silver bullets. So whatever mechanics govern operations
of intelligence will certainly be based on quantum effects and
relations. But that doesn't imply that those mechanics are quantum
mechanics as it governs material interactions generally.

>If the mechanics of intelligence or sentience are not quantum.. maybe they
>are not protonic..neutronic.. electromagnetic
>..photonic..synaptic..biochemical..either.

Or maybe the mechanics of intelligence and sentience are just
differential without regard to whether the differences involved are
quantum variables or not.

>
>>The mechanics of intelligence have to use material the
>> mechanics of which definitely are quantum mechanics
>
>What you mean by "using" ? All mechanics are spatio-temporally related, on
>all levels we decide to distinguish.
>
>>but I have seen no
>> clear rationale presented by anyone that the mechanics of intelligence
>> are just those of quantum interactions.
>
>I also have never seen anyone claiming that, in the "just" sense.

Oh, I've seen many claims that the mechanical basis of intelligence is
just "discrete" quanta and that sentience is a discontinuous function
because quanta are "discrete." It's a variant of materialism.

>cheers
>
>>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.
>>
>> Regards - Lester
>>
>
>


Regards - Lester




More information about the Neur-sci mailing list