Quantum physics meets biology.
socratus
What did the authors
/ Markus Arndt, Thomas Juffmann, Vlatko Vedral /
talk about in their article ?
http://www.univie.ac.at/qfp/publications3/pdffiles/Arndt2009a%20HFSPJ%20Quantum%20Bio%20Printed.pdf
They have interest only in one idea.
Through all their work they try to understand the
connection between information, brain and quantum
theory in living and not living systems.
Their conclusion is.
The interest of combination between Quantum physics
and Biology is growing but many experimental
demonstrations and theoretical explanation unclear.
To understand this problem is timely and important for us.
========.
My layman’s conclusion.
1.
In the internet we can read hundreds theories of electron.
All of them are problematical.
Nobody knows what electron is.
2.
In the internet we can read hundreds articles about
connection between quantum theory, brain and information.
All of them are problematical.
3.
There is tendency for searching this truth.
4.
How I understand this problem.
Our brain works on dualistic basis:
usually consciousness (logically) and rarely unconsciousness.
It means the interaction between billions and billions neurons
can be in two stats.
In the stat of consciousness (C ) or in the stat of unconsciousness
( U).
And we have information ( I ) which gives birth to thought and act
in the each of these two situations.
The question is:
How can the information or quantum of information transfer ( or be
transfer)
from the stat C to the state U and vice versa ?
Doesn’t this question is similar to the puzzle of quantum tunneling ?
But quantum tunneling is tunneling of one particle- electron.
So.
How can electron transfer from the stats C to the state U and vice
versa ?
What is electron ?
If somebody try to understand the connection between information,
brain and quantum theory without electron, he is mistaken.
=====================.
Socratus.
Uncle Al
>
> Quantum physics meets biology.
[snip crap]
Already dead.
> Through all their work they try to understand the
> connection between information, brain and quantum
> theory in living and not living systems.
[snip rest of crap]
Reductionism has never worked, not even for every cell traced from
conception to death in Caenorhabditis elegans. The screamingly
obvious conclusion is that there is an emergent phenomenon with
threshhold around a half-dozen neurons staring everybody in the face.
The telephone company, server farms, and the Internet do not awaken.
Static connectivity and deterministic programming are irrelevant.
What irony if intelligence is merely an artifact of plebeian
chemistry, being no deeper than the Belosouv-Zhabotinsky reaction
demonstrating positive feedback spontaneously eructating global
synchronous order from a random, energy-rich medium.
There is no watchmaker. The watch builds itself.
http://www.merretts.info/fullsize/escher/escher_hands.png
The second hand is superfluous.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm
Edward Green
> socratus wrote:
>
> > Quantum physics meets biology.
>
> [snip crap]
>
> Already dead.
>
> > Through all their work they try to understand the
> > connection between information, brain and quantum
> > theory in living and not living systems.
>
> [snip rest of crap]
>
> Reductionism has never worked, not even for every cell traced from
> conception to death in Caenorhabditis elegans. The screamingly
> obvious conclusion is that there is an emergent phenomenon with
> threshhold around a half-dozen neurons staring everybody in the face.
How did you arrive at that estimate of the threshold?
> The telephone company, server farms, and the Internet do not awaken.
> Static connectivity and deterministic programming are irrelevant.
Has somebody tried a substantially sized random/self-programing
network?
You'd probably need a model where programs competed for resources,
together with some clever way of limiting program size, so one program
didn't simply take over all the resources.
Though that seems to be the outcome if you allow the "programs" to
achieve the level of eco-systems. One eco-system, e.g. tropical rain
forest, does generally take over all the available climate niche.
Nice if you could devote some sizable chunk of computing power to a
competition among random programs to pass the Turing test: those that
survived interviews the longest would be rewarded with more cpu time,
or something. Then, while we're at it, we could provide some
interface to real physical resources, and try for some nice self-
replicating cyborgs that were more intelligent and stronger than us,
and hostile. Bye bye.
> What irony if intelligence is merely an artifact of plebeian
> chemistry, being no deeper than the Belosouv-Zhabotinsky reaction
> demonstrating positive feedback spontaneously eructating global
> synchronous order from a random, energy-rich medium.
>
> There is no watchmaker. The watch builds itself.
>
> http://www.merretts.info/fullsize/escher/escher_hands.png
> The second hand is superfluous.
I thought you were talking about a clock there, for a moment.
jmfbahciv
> On Jan 1, 12:22 pm, Uncle Al <Uncle...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>> socratus wrote:
>>
>>> Quantum physics meets biology.
>> [snip crap]
>>
>> Already dead.
>>
>>> Through all their work they try to understand the
>>> connection between information, brain and quantum
>>> theory in living and not living systems.
>> [snip rest of crap]
>>
>> Reductionism has never worked, not even for every cell traced from
>> conception to death in Caenorhabditis elegans. The screamingly
>> obvious conclusion is that there is an emergent phenomenon with
>> threshhold around a half-dozen neurons staring everybody in the face.
>
> How did you arrive at that estimate of the threshold?
>
>> The telephone company, server farms, and the Internet do not awaken.
>> Static connectivity and deterministic programming are irrelevant.
>
> Has somebody tried a substantially sized random/self-programing
> network?
>
> You'd probably need a model where programs competed for resources,
> together with some clever way of limiting program size, so one program
> didn't simply take over all the resources.
>
<snip>
We used to call this general timesharing and shipped a couple of OSes
which actually did your specificiations. ;-)
/BAH
socratus
The process of conscious and unconscious.
My layman’s opinion.
===============================
There is a possibility of the brain activity to have
the ability to switch between conscious and unconscious.
But this process is suppressed by contact with the
cerebral cortex neurons (! ) which work in Maxwell’s regime. ( !)
( Electroencephalography shows us the Maxwell’s electrical
activity of the brain)
#
To create 'awareness' having senses and thoughts is impossible.
The senses and thoughts increase the cerebral cortex neurons
impulses ( Maxwell’s EM energy ) and doesn’t give the ability
( of something ) to switch between conscious and unconscious.
#
Maxwell’s electrical activity of the brain shows the
‘normal – not normal logical ‘ process in the brain.
To create 'awareness/ unconscious ' needs another
process – Quantum (!). 'Awareness' is Quantum process.
Very often it is only Quantum moment (!) but at this moment,
at this second the structure of cerebral cortex neurons is changes
and it means that the thought and behaviour of person changes too.
And then again the Maxwell’s electrical activity of the brain takes
place.
#
" . . . the discovery is not the matter of logical thought,
even if the final product is connected with the logical form".
/ Einstein /
===========================.
P.S.
Is an 'awareness/ unconscious ' equal to a ‘discovery / enlightenment
‘?
============.
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik Socratus.
============================================.