quantum questions

You're asking questions that have been asked for thousands of years. There is a lot of speculation about the nature of thoughts and their origins, but suffice to say that nobody will ever arrive at a fundamental theorem that encompasses the esoteric nature of human action and thoughts and, even if one were to come up with an explanation, there would always remain a level underneath that which is known -- always.

You may want to explore some of the works of Michael Talbot and Paul Davies, especially "The Holographic Universe" and "The Mind and God."

If you're interested in origin theory, you may also want to dive deeper into quantum mechanics and explore the "many worlds" theory. Just do a google for "quantum many worlds."

I've read countless books on consciousness, quantum mechanics, chaos theory, evolutionary theory (including the original works of Darwin), etc -- and I am no closer today to "absolute truth" than I was when I was a kid. In fact, I was probably much closer to "absolute truth" from the blissful naive ignorance that comes with being a kid in the sandbox.

Yours truly,
aphie
 
Originally posted by darkhorse
i have some quick questions for any of you who dabble in quantum mechanics and/or neuroscience.

a) does anyone know of accessible research with significant findings as to the material nature of thought- i.e. what does a 'thought' specifically consist of, beyond the generic notion of chemical processes and electrons, and how possible is it that our brains show quantum activity.

b) has anyone done a conceptual comparison of thought and quantum mechanics as potentially related systems- examined the possibility of similarity between the probability independent states of quantum particles and potentially comparable thought particles/waves/packets etc.

c) if the possibility exists that the physical/temporal nature of pure thought is wholly describable by, or significantly similar to, the established matter/energy structure of quantum mechanics, has anyone considered the implications of such a link.

i know this is a shot in the dark but figured why not

thx
More...

darkhorse, are u on drugs? who gives a flyin fig what the particles in your brain are doing.

from your post, it appears that your white blood cells are cannibalizing the rest of your body, starting with the pea between your ears.

perhaps they have an innate sense of well being, and know that whatever your pea brain is up to, won't be good for you or society.

If you don't want to become a vegetable, I suggest you apply your pea to something more worth while.
 
permabull,

There is nothing wrong with asking "why" things are the way they are. If people didn't ask "why," we'd still be using rocks and sticks sitting around a camp-fire chasing women around and beating them with a club to make babies.

We are much more advanced now. We have alcohol to do the work of our ancient clubs.

aphie
 
(brought to my attention recently by ET's own Nitro - let's hear it for Nitro!)

may be the most widely read investigator of quantum consciousness theories. He also surveys research from neurobiology in partial support of his theories. SHADOWS OF THE MIND is fairly accessible, builds on his prior work THE EMPEROR'S NEW MIND, and includes enough in the way of notes and bibliography to lead you to further areas of interest. Though his work is exploratory and tends to the theoretical and mathematical rather than the concrete, his work is especially worth reading for his critical discussion of popular ideas such as the spontaneous emergence of sentience in computer networks.

Here's a good link on quantum consciousness - which, as you might expect, hardly qualifies as "settled" theory:

http://www.consciousness.arizona.edu/hameroff/

You might also try:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_1/104-4061875-2432759?s=books

Penrose gives rather short shrift to Neural Group Selection theory and other cognitive Darwinisms - which propose, in effect, that the mind functions like a hyper-accelerated ecosystem - governed by the same processes that govern the evolution of species. There are different ways of envisioning the concept, as the biology of brain activities and the actual mechanisms of thinking may not be the same thing. Such ideas were given an evocative, reader-friendly treatment in THE CEREBRAL SYMPHONY by William Calvin (the book has its detractors, but I found it congenial and memorable). There's been some very interesting work in neuro-embryology and -physiology which is somewhat supportive of NGS.

This general topic has been a special interest of mine for some years, though I'd have to go digging through old notes to get you much more right now. As for a single, convincing description of the biochemical or biophysical production of a "thought," there has been much work in the area and have been many intriquing hypotheses put forward. So far, I believe that cognitive scientists have been better at mapping the brain behaviorally - showing how injuries, stimulants, intoxicants, and so on, typically impact upon cognitive responses and mechanisms.
 
I was dabbling with quantum mechanics the other day between trades, and I discoverd an alternate Universe, and found an alternate Don Bright who was working for the Peace Corps in Africa helping the local tribes to grow corn in the Sudan.

Freaked me out....so I got back to trading.
 
Originally posted by permabull

darkhorse, are u on drugs?
More...


This is your brain.

This is your brain with sausage, toast and a side of hash browns.

Any questions?

I like chewing on this stuff because I enjoy figuring stuff out, but it also has pragmatic ends as well. I think in a lot of ways the brain is like a muscle (whether this is physiologically true or not is secondary, it is mainly useful as an analogy). The more we 'stretch' and 'work' our minds the stronger and faster they get (as long as we are maintaining proper sleep, diet, exercise etc.). i.e. athletes can condition and tune their bodies for peak performance, so why can't I condition my mind the same way.

Besides being ridiculously curious, I am a proponent of wildcat modeling. Wildcatting is an oil driller's term, where you go around digging in unknown territory. The odds of a hit are low, but the potential for a gusher is high when you do hit because the territory was previously untapped. I combine wildcatting with the principle of mental modeling, something everyone does to understand reality whether they realize they are doing it or not. There is too much raw data in the world to make sense of it in straight form- that would be like trying to drink the ocean. So we create specialized models of reality in our heads instead- just like traders simplify woolly market movement into a set of finite observations that translate into rules. The value of mental modeling explains why I like analogies so much.

So: if I can learn something new and interesting about reality and work my mental muscles to boot, I am entertaining myself more efficiently than if I were to spend my time, say, reading Archie comics instead. The worst case scenario is that I've learned something new that has no application outside itself. But the big upside is that I can potentially take that new info and apply the wildcat modeling concept to other areas of reality that are seemingly unrelated, but in truth can benefit from a clarification overlay- an improved or entirely new model based on a creativity spark from a new place. Because the rules of reality are largely universal and fractal, there's a high degree of possibility that I can take a useful information model from area A and use it to refine my mental model of area B- thus giving me a potential edge of understanding in area B that others might not have. In some ways I consider myself a creativity thief- I take creativity applied to one area and see if I can get some juice out of it in other areas as well.

The better I get at this, the more my conceptual framework is able to build itself out without conscious effort on my part. By training my brain to constantly look for models and correlations between new and old information, I can teach my subconscious to do the heavy labor without requiring my conscious mind to act as taskmaster. The more I strive to link the skill sets and information sets in my head, the more likely I am to find new connections quickly and easily because my mind starts offering them up before I ask it to. Also, the more accurate and complete my conceptual framework, the better I become at quickly assessing the value of new information based on analysis of how it 'fits' with all the other pieces of the framework.

The other cool thing about the challenge of understanding reality is that I will never get bored. By declaring my comfort zone null and void, I reach a place where constant expansion is a matter of natural course as opposed to drift or complacency. I say if you're gonna have goals, why not have HUGE goals? More fun that way-and less pressure if there's no time limit and no finish line.
 
Originally posted by marketsurfer
in addition, dark, i would also suggest "the tao of physics" as additional "framing" material.

the non taoist dowist,

surf:) :cool:
More...

Capra has some gems in that book! Also check out The Dancing Wu-Li Masters if you like that one MS...

PEACE and good trading my friend,
Publias
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top