Physics of the Brain

[Superstring]

We all know electrons are the physical building block of thoughts. Has anyone ever probed the possibility that other kinds of subatomic particles compose variant types of thought as well, acting through forces other than electriciy? (ie. quantum entanglement maybe....)

[ferunandesu]

We all know electrons are the physical building block of thoughts. Has anyone ever probed the possibility that other kinds of subatomic particles compose variant types of thought as well, acting through forces other than electriciy? (ie. quantum entanglement maybe....)

more people need to think like this...

i don't know if anyone has ever probed the possibility, but i don't see how it could not affect mental processes...

or maybe... the mental processes have an effect on the physical environment...

ESP anyone? ;)

[Xenophon]

We all know electrons are the physical building block of thoughts.

I don't know that. Maybe electrons are moved by our thoughts. What evidence do you have that the electrical signal cause thoughts and not the other way around?

[joft]

the electrical signals are the thoughts

[Snowflake]

The question is, are the electrical signals which create the thoughts "random" or are they controlled and manipulated by the brain?

[Ka.avik]

The question is, are the electrical signals which create the thoughts "random" or are they controlled and manipulated by the brain?
That's either like asking, "are my thoughts random" or, "do my thoughts care which electron configuration carries them to & fro?"

To either interpretation, I don't know. But I lean toward the latter

[Lee]

I don't know that. Maybe electrons are moved by our thoughts. What evidence do you have that the electrical signal cause thoughts and not the other way around?Since one of these involves uncaused effects, I am gonna go with the other.

[Superstring]

The question is, are the electrical signals which create the thoughts "random" or are they controlled and manipulated by the brain?

Either/or. For most people, most of the time, the former.

That raises another good question though: when people control their thoughts as is done in meditation, what is the nature of this mental muscle they are flexing? Is that known?

[Lysergication]

If one is to believe in the concept of free will then electric signals are not sufficient in explaining our thoughts. We must consider certain elements of quantum mechanics, otherwise the principle by which the brain functions is strictly deterministic. If this is the case then you truly have no control over your thoughts, or your actions and they are based purely on the previous state of the system in question (brain.)

Since the popular consensus is to consider the brain a closed system detached from outside reality it can be stated that within this framework a brain's response to the outside stimuli is self generated. It processes the signals of our sensory organs and then interprets them and acts accordingly. If this is the case, and our brain operates deterministically then the response is predetermined.

However, if we consider the inherent indeterminism present in QM then we can try to apply it to the model of the brain. I do not know much about neuroscience so I can only speculate here, but I would imagine that the open-ended features of the quantum world need to be applied by some principle to the brain's operating parameters if we are to consider ourselves anything more than meat-robots.

[Lee]

However, if we consider the inherent indeterminism present in QM then we can try to apply it to the model of the brain. I do not know much about neuroscience so I can only speculate here, but I would imagine that the open-ended features of the quantum world need to be applied by some principle to the brain's operating parameters if we are to consider ourselves anything more than meat-robots.A probabilistic law is by no means kinder to the concept of free will than a deterministic law, since if we have no control over the probabilities, we are back to stage one.

Appealing to Quantum Mechanics to find a road to a free will is a dead end.

[Superstring]

A probabilistic law is by no means kinder to the concept of free will than a deterministic law, since if we have no control over the probabilities, we are back to stage one.

Appealing to Quantum Mechanics to find a road to a free will is a dead end.

I'm under the impression it's physically proven that consciousness affects the outcome of probability, if not by the Copenhagen Interperetation then other things as well..

[Dr. Haight]

Here is another thread that makes me feel stupid.:huh:
Thanks Superstring.

[Lee]

I'm under the impression it's physically proven that consciousness affects the outcome of probability, if not by the Copenhagen Interperetation then other things as well..Observation collapses the wave function, what counts as an observer? a human? a chimpanzee? a pig? a dog? a cat? a mouse? a locust? a worm? an ameoba? a piece of rock?

I do not know Quantum Mechanics very well, but you can't infer free will from a collapsing wave function. Even if consciousness has some causal consequences, the something causing that consciousness has to come first.

I don't you can logically appeal to any physical law, probabilistic or otherwise, because science discoverse laws, unless free will can rise beyond these laws then there is nothing free about the will, what ever it does is a consequence of laws.

[ptGatsby]

From what I understand (which is limited!);

Electricity is the communication medium between neurons. The actual 'brain' and thoughts are physically determined by the neural pathways that have developped. As such, neural cells are the fundamental building block, and quantum entaglement wouldn't be a... likely... thing. IOW, its not at the atomic level.


I thought that stimulated emission is a possible explanation for true randomness. But... its been a long time since I've read about it and QM has come a long ways.

[PlayerOfGames]

Roger Penrose has written two dense and weighty books about the possible relationships between quantum phenomena and the human mind, and the fact that most people's views on these topics are informed by half remembered understandings the related fields (quantum mechanics, computational theory, etc.)

IIRC The Emporer's New Mind and Shadow's of the Mind.

[Snowflake]

Either/or. For most people, most of the time, the former.

That raises another good question though: when people control their thoughts as is done in meditation, what is the nature of this mental muscle they are flexing? Is that known?

I was thinking more along the line of fate versus free will, but, aye, meditation is a good example of being able to control thought. However I think it is easier to control thought than having to resort to meditation, but it is certainly true most people don't have long attention spans.

[Lysergication]

Observation collapses the wave function, what counts as an observer? a human? a chimpanzee? a pig? a dog? a cat? a mouse? a locust? a worm? an ameoba? a piece of rock?

I do not know Quantum Mechanics very well, but you can't infer free will from a collapsing wave function. Even if consciousness has some causal consequences, the something causing that consciousness has to come first.

I don't you can logically appeal to any physical law, probabilistic or otherwise, because science discoverse laws, unless free will can rise beyond these laws then there is nothing free about the will, what ever it does is a consequence of laws.

Conscious observer is actually not required for wave function collapse. Simply a measurement has to be taken. For instance in a double-slit experiment, if we set up a detector to see which slit the particle entered, without any sort of memory or visual indication. The wave function has been collapsed. We do not have to observe it consciously. Simply the detector being there constitutes measurement. It is possible however that eventually some interaction with consciousness is inevitable, and in that case the question of what consciousness really is comes into play.

If consciousness was simply an epiphenomenon of the brain and could influence objective reality as such then it would go against our notions of nature. I am not saying that our notions are correct by any means, because this issue does pose a significant problem which makes us question our view on reality.

And as far as free will is concerned, the uncertainty of the quantum world is a concept that is more compatible with free will than strict determinism, which completely negates it. Probabilities are after all open ended, where determinism is not.

[Lee]

Roger Penrose has written two dense and weighty books about the possible relationships between quantum phenomena and the human mind, and the fact that most people's views on these topics are informed by half remembered understandings the related fields (quantum mechanics, computational theory, etc.)His he the guy with the theories about consciousness and the Quantum properties of microtubules?

[Lee]

Conscious observer is actually not required for wave function collapse. Simply a measurement has to be taken. For instance in a double-slit experiment, if we set up a detector to see which slit the particle entered, without any sort of memory or visual indication. The wave function has been collapsed. We do not have to observe it consciously. Simply the detector being there constitutes measurement. It is possible however that eventually some interaction with consciousness is inevitable, and in that case the question of what consciousness really is comes into play.That's why I asked the question, what counts as an observer/measurer? potentially anything which is affected makes a measurement.


If consciousness was simply an epiphenomenon of the brain and could influence objective reality as such then it would go against our notions of nature.Not necessarily, we consider photons to have an influence upon reality, the mind is no different, the mind is part of nature, there's no reason to think that it is exempt from having causes and effects.


And as far as free will is concerned, the uncertainty of the quantum world is a concept that is more compatible with free will than strict determinism, which completely negates it. Probabilities are after all open ended, where determinism is not.No, neither is more kind.

Randomness is the antithesis of free will, since it is the completely random selection from a set of alternatives. Any concept of free will requires a very specific selection from a set of alternatives. Any probability is little different than pure randomness, as long as there is a pattern out of our control i.e. a law, then free will can't creep in.

Free will literally cannot even in principle be discovered through science. Appealing to probability, or any scientific law is just muddy thinking, since laws governing thought are contradictory to the idea of free will, especially of those laws introduce randomness into the process.

[Lysergication]

Not necessarily, we consider photons to have an influence upon reality, the mind is no different, the mind is part of nature, there's no reason to think that it is exempt from having causes and effects.



Yes, but it goes against our notions that we can instantaneously affect the state of a particle across light-years and even across time, which is what the EPR paradox implies. I agree that it is part of nature, but it’s very counterintuitive for us to think this way and this exact issue is still one of the major problems with reconciling QT and Relativity.


Randomness is the antithesis of free will, since it is the completely random selection from a set of alternatives. Any concept of free will requires a very specific selection from a set of alternatives. Any probability is little different than pure randomness, as long as there is a pattern out of our control i.e. a law, then free will can't creep in.

Free will literally cannot even in principle be discovered through science. Appealing to probability, or any scientific law is just muddy thinking, since laws governing thought are contradictory to the idea of free will, especially of those laws introduce randomness into the process.


I agree with you to a certain extent. This is why it is my personal belief that consciousness does indeed play a part in free will and that consciousness is something that cannot be adequately explained by science, at least at this point.

[euterpenc]

I don't have a brain. And there's no way you can prove it to me that I do have one.

[zhang_bob]

I don't have a brain. And there's no way you can prove it to me that I do have one.
If you think that you obviously don`t.

[euterpenc]

If you think that you Obviously don`t.

:sadbanana:

[zhang_bob]

:sadbanana:
:laser: Now I have shot out all the brain cells you had left.

[Lee]

Yes, but it goes against our notions that we can instantaneously affect the state of a particle across light-years and even across time, which is what the EPR paradox implies. I agree that it is part of nature, but it’s very counterintuitive for us to think this way and this exact issue is still one of the major problems with reconciling QT and Relativity.I have little knowledge Quantum Mechanics, but I believe the EPR paradox and much of Quantum Mechanics is still under debate.

Besides, many things are counter-intuitive to our feeling of what nature should be like, the point of scientific investigation is to try and see why our concept of nauture is wrong and correct it. We may never grasp the principles of Quantum Mechanics intuitively, because they are not part of the world our brain was designed to understand. As long as it is possible to make predictions and record errors, scientific investigation can offer us a way of overcoming that hurdle, however unsatisfyingly.


I agree with you to a certain extent. This is why it is my personal belief that consciousness does indeed play a part in free will and that consciousness is something that cannot be adequately explained by science, at least at this point.Consciousness is still much of a riddle as far as I am concerned. For now I simply subscribe to the belief that consciousness is a natural property of the universe, a product of specific kinds of patterns which exist in the relational rpoperties of the physical matter which makes up our brain.

In science, we are not supposed to presuppose what properties matter can and cannot have, those properties are for us to discover, yet people happily make the assumption that consciousness cannot arise out of mere matter, so another explanation is required. Personally I find that assumption unfounded, the evidence would suggest mere matter is quite capable of producing consciousness, for now I see no reason to think otherwise.

As for free will, I do not believe in free will, at least not in the spiritual sense most people mean, free will is not a requirement in my eyes in order for people to be free, or to hold people responsible for the choices they make. I also believe there to be a often unnoticed hypocrisy underlying the supposed moral superiority of free will, I see no reason to accept it when the evidence points the other way.

[zhang_bob]

Messed up neurotransmitters are probably the cause of schizophrenia.

[Superstring]

I have little knowledge Quantum Mechanics, but I believe the EPR paradox and much of Quantum Mechanics is still under debate.


Says Wikipedia,

"most physicists today regard the EPR paradox as an illustration of how quantum mechanics violates classical intuitions, and not as an indication that quantum mechanics is fundamentally flawed."

I've always been under the impression that there's not really any room for debate in QM's intricacies....except for things like 'how many dimensions are there'..okay I guess that counts as 'much', ignore me.

[Lysergication]

I've always been under the impression that there's not really any room for debate in QM's intricacies....except for things like 'how many dimensions are there'..okay I guess that counts as 'much', ignore me.

As far as I know quantum mechanics does not deal with dimensions. String theory, or M-theory does however.

[Superstring]

As far as I know quantum mechanics does not deal with dimensions.

Meh. Just like science doesn't deal with hot nerd chicks, still important though