Do you believe consiousness is an quantum phenomenon?

Braznor

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 2005
4,767
435
126
Does it have a good standing or is it regarded well only in the fringe circles?

 

f95toli

Golden Member
Nov 21, 2002
1,547
0
0
It is definitly a "fringe" thing. Penrose is not alone but AFAIK he has not managed to convince that many physicists (which is what counts in this case, there aren't that many "ordinary" people that understands QM well enough to really understand what he is saying).
Penrose is a very clever guy, but he has some really strange ideas (his attempt to connect decoherence to gravity is another, more technical, example).

 

mercanucaribe

Banned
Oct 20, 2004
9,763
1
0
Isn't that why Star Trek transporters use quantum resolution? If they only disassembled the molecules and reassembled them, you'd make a person with consciousness, but it wouldn't be the same person who went into the transporter. I wouldn't be I.
 

Aqualize

Member
Jul 18, 2001
45
0
0
It's an interesting topic. I don't belive it's a quantum phenomenon.

All lifeforms in Star Trek is scanned on quantum-level when it has to be transported. I'm not sure but I think the generally used it for all bio-matter. For real inanimate objects atomic-level is sufficient (the way cargotransporters normally operate).
 

f95toli

Golden Member
Nov 21, 2002
1,547
0
0
Originally posted by: etrader2050
what is a quantum phenomenon? lol

In this case "quantum phenomenon" simply refers to the non-classical effects such as entanglement. Most researchers believe that the brain is essentially a "classical" machine.
Penrose belongs to a small group of researchers who believe that quantum effects are important.
In some sense it is somewhat similar to the difference between classical- and quantum computers.

 

Biftheunderstudy

Senior member
Aug 15, 2006
375
1
81
This is a little bit off of the conciousness bit but kind of relevent.

There was a paper published (forgive me, I only went to a lecture on it so I don't know a lot of details) about quantum effects playing a role in organisms evolution and lifecycles. There is no hard evidence, rather statistical correlations. One of these involves a theory about how long a clock can stay accurate based on its size. The jist of it is that if you have a clock the size of a virus, it can only accurately keep track of time for about an hour. When the lifetimes of certain viruses are looked at they match with the theoretical times to withing a couple of decimal places.

There were a few other odd coincidences, nothing to outright say that quantum mechanics was definitively guiding the evolution but strong correlations none the less.

Point is, we know a lot about quantum mechanics but not a whole lot about the brain or even bacteria and viruses for that matter.
 

Nathelion

Senior member
Jan 30, 2006
697
1
0
I personally find it hard to believe that the basic functions of neurons are directly dependent on quantum phenomena. Neurons and cells are HUGE compared to the single-atom spatial scales on which quantum mechanics plays a direct role in phenomena. So unless some crucial part of the neuron is very very small (on the order of a couple of atoms) it seems unlikely that quantum phenomena would have a direct function in the workings of the neuron. And if the brain had evolved functional information processing structures that small, how come we still have those awful energy intensify and bulky clumps of neurons sitting around? One would think that it'd be a relatively rapid evolutionary process to switch over to such small functional structures considering the advantages it would bring.
Secondly, it seems to me that any "harnessed" quantum effect would be very fragile. I don't know enough about this theory to say anything really informed about the feasibility of the specific models it's proposing, but it would seem that any phenomenon that microscopic would be extremely easily disrupted - wouldn't, say, a fluctuating external electromagnetic field be sufficient to collapse whatever fragile quantum state has been established in the brain? That'd make life hard on us cellphone users.

Of course, someone more knowledgeable may be able to confirm/debunk these criticisms. It would be interesting to see what other posters have to say.