In article <3j75p8$k2d at mserv1.dl.ac.uk> "I. Reichova" <reichi at ibp.cz> writes:
> Yes, I have read sir Eccles's theory about brain and mind
> (although I don't understand just that point about q.m. which is
> not experimentally grounded) and R.Penrose The Emperor's New Mind
> chapter about brain and thinking. But I have not seen ANY
> experimental proof of validity of these speculations in neuro lit.
You won't see any experimental proof of validity in the physics
literature, either. The general feeling in the physics community is
that this is all extremely speculative stuff.
Penrose, for example, suggests that it is necessary to invoke quantum
gravity to understand brain functioning. He could conceivably be
right, of course, but I don't think it's very likely. There is no
physical theory of quantum gravity yet, there are no experimental
results which require a theory quantum gravity for an explanation, and
there are strong reasons for thinking that the effects of quantum
gravity will be negligible until you get to energies more than a dozen
orders of magnitude higher than what you an achieve in particle
accelerators.
I'm inclined to think that quantum mechanics is likely to be useful in
understanding some of the biochemistry of the brain (no surprise;
chemists have used quantum mechanics for many decades now). And
there's also some reason to think that quantum mechanics might be
relevant to a description of microtubules: they are small enough to
trap single electrons, and you'll need quantum mechanics if you want
to talk about that sort of behavior.
On the other hand, it's not obvious that the behavior of a neuron
depends so crucially on the details of exactly how microtubules work.
None of this is terribly glamorous stuff.
--
--matt
