October 22, 2008
This is not a parody... I guess
Charlene notes a letter sent to Jerry Pournelle:
Orchestrated Objective Reality (Orch OR) is a theory of consciousness jointly developed (from independent underpinnings) by Sir Roger Penrose and anesthesiologist/neurologist Sturart Hameroff.
To summarize, the core theory states that consciousness arises from quantum mechanical effects in the transmission and operation of nervous tissue, probably in connection with quantum coherence in spin states of solvated electrons trapped within microtubules embedded in the connective proteins of nerve cells, which they argue following Penrose allows collapses of formative quantum events into a final objective quantum state associated with completion ("orchestration") of the thought process in the higher structures of nerve cells on the time scales which have been neurologically associated with consciousness.
In other words, the human mind is a biological quantum computer and as such is capable of leaping past inductive and deductive logic into what Penrose described as computable and non-computable insights.
Needless to say, the core theory is itself controversial (see the wiki above for details). The friend who introduced me makes the further claim (which does not appear in the wiki, but may appear in some of the ancillary references) that, due to entanglement, it is thus possible that thought processes affect, and are affected by, events in the broader spacetime in the vicinity (and NOT in the vicinity) of the person thinking. Thus, the further postulate he espoused is that "the power of positive thinking" thus has a quantum mechanical underpinning in terms of entanglement of certain thought processes with the external universe to directly effect events. This ranges from variations of "the placebo effect", self-healing, and faith healing up to the viability of the so-called "Jedi philosophy."
Pournelle responds: Chesterton famously said that when a man ceases to believe in God, he will believe in anything.
(And I respond: If I told this guy about Christianity he would say that I'm trying to snow him with mumbo-jumbo!)
Posted by John Weidner at October 22, 2008 08:08 PMAnother attempt to use physics to explain the metaphysical. Hasn't this Penrose fellow read his Wittgenstein? "That of which we cannot speak we must pass over in silence".
Reminds me of the early 19th attempts to explain every phenomenon as arising from 'magnetic rays'.
I think you should distinguish between Penrose's theory (that self aware consciousness requires quantum computation) and the non-local thought effect theory the letter writer promotes. Penrose, at least, is attempting to explain a real phenomenon (self aware consciousness) with plausible physics (quantum computation). The other stuff is, well, a bit more out there.
P.S. You might note that Penrose's theory has, as an ancillary goal, explaining the failure of artificial intelligence projects. If self awareness is a quantum computation based effect, then it would follow directly that no modern computer can support true intelligence because they cannot perform quantum computation nor even simulate it.
I find Penrose's theory intriguing and plausible, although I do not, at this point, think it to be correct.
Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at October 23, 2008 03:34 PMThis is a very traditional theory, in the sense that people always explain the brain by analogy to the hot technology of the moment.
The contents of each microtubule constitutes, roughly, a quantum computer. The microtubules in a neuron communicate with each other, so a neuron is in effect a local area network of quantum computers. Neurons communicate with each other via the familiar system of dendrites and synapses, so a brain is a network of networks.
In brief, a brain is an internet. Just like, back when people marveled that you could hold a mechanical contraption to your ear and hear a distant voice, the brain was a telephone switchboard.
Posted by: Bob Hawkins at October 24, 2008 10:08 AMThis is a better analogy than the telephone switchboard, but it is still an analogy.
Posted by: Alan Sullivan at October 24, 2008 06:28 PMb9sWZf zxkjimjupruk, [url=http://fkykwlsekxos.com/]fkykwlsekxos[/url], [link=http://tjgqcapitlnr.com/]tjgqcapitlnr[/link], http://xylikdtrxuyd.com/
Posted by: myteacft at October 29, 2008 08:05 PM
