4 ms·

My internal understanding of Penrose's "hypothesis" is that there are structures in the brain that relate individual quantum events to macroscopic neurological

My internal understanding of Penrose's "hypothesis" is that there are structures in the brain that relate individual quantum events to macroscopic neurological processes, in a way not explained by the usual aggregation of quantum events into chemical behavior. I'm very skeptical of this because nothing I've read has proposed any mechanism whereby it could evolve, nor any reason why these events should related to "consciousness" as opposed to any other mental process. Admittedly, I haven't spent a whole lot of time looking into it, because time is limited and the history of science is littered with enough great scientists who latch on to mysticism (Newton being a prominent example) that I don't assume that everything coming from a recognizable name is worth exploring.

giardini 8y ago
kevinpet says>"...nothing I've read has proposed any mechanism whereby it could evolve..."[italics mine] If a biochemical mechanism exists then it is possible for it to be conscripted in evolution. Its not as if something called "evolution" sits around waiting for permission (and from whom and when?). Instead, a gene is modified randomly and blam a new mechanism occurs (or doesn't, mostly) which either enhances replication and persists in the genome or doesn't. In the long run you'd expect all chemical pathways possible to be eventually probed many, many times by evolution.
- TheOtherHobbes 8y ago
  That's only true if the space of possible pathways is small enough for evolution to perform a random search of all of them in a realistic timescale, and they're all more or less equally probable. This seems unlikely in practice.
  - giardini 8y ago
    Why? Show me the math.
sdenton4 8y ago
My guess would be 'easily available random number generator.' Whether access to an rng is a prerequisite for consciousness is another question...
- exoesquitur 8y ago
  Since adding noise is a critical part in many neural network training models, it is entirely possible that an at-hand source of randomness is highly useful. Drugs that reduce the accessibility of this randomness by biasing the signal pathways (or something) might be an interesting research vector.
  - maze-le 8y ago
    >> Since adding noise is a critical part in many neural network training models Our brains do not work exactly like neural network models. Neural Networks are a model, on how nervous systems could work. It doesn't follow, that nature has implemented them the same way. There is no need for the human brain to produce noise with some arbitrary process. There is more than enough noise in the human brain... Every single neuron is a powerful noise-filter[0], that seemingly can generate signals when the "correct" noise-signal is filtered. >> Drugs that reduce the accessibility of this randomness by biasing the signal pathways The randomness you are talking about is way the brain operates under normal circumstances[1]... so no, it wouldn't be beneficial, since we cannot discern signal from noise in any meaningful way [2]. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuronal_noise https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuronal_noise [1]: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/486289 https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/486289 [2]: not even on the level of the single neuron -- except for very few types of neurons [pyramid neurons] in a rat model -- https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1456039/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1456039/
  - rusk 8y ago
    IANAP but my understanding of a lot of psychiatric drugs is that they do just this, they dampen brain activity which may be analogous to what you're describing.
- blahblah1010 8y ago
rusk 8y ago
> nothing I've read has proposed any mechanism whereby it could evolve If quantum effects are at play in the evolutionary environment, then that is the mechanism. It seems pretty self-evident IMHO. Some random adaptation introduces a sensitivity that allows that mutation to prosper and reproduce. It's very easy to say that because you can't perceive quantum effects at the level of your personal experience, that their effect on selection is negligible, but this is a mistake a lot of anti-evolutionists take .. but over the course of millions or billions of years such effects could be highly significant.

giardini 8y ago

kevinpet says>"...nothing I've read has proposed any mechanism whereby it could evolve..."[italics mine] If a biochemical mechanism exists then it is possible for it to be conscripted in evolution. Its not as if something called "evolution" sits around waiting for permission (and from whom and when?). Instead, a gene is modified randomly and blam a new mechanism occurs (or doesn't, mostly) which either enhances replication and persists in the genome or doesn't. In the long run you'd expect all chemical pathways possible to be eventually probed many, many times by evolution.

TheOtherHobbes 8y ago
That's only true if the space of possible pathways is small enough for evolution to perform a random search of all of them in a realistic timescale, and they're all more or less equally probable. This seems unlikely in practice.
- giardini 8y ago
  Why? Show me the math.

sdenton4 8y ago

My guess would be 'easily available random number generator.' Whether access to an rng is a prerequisite for consciousness is another question...

exoesquitur 8y ago
Since adding noise is a critical part in many neural network training models, it is entirely possible that an at-hand source of randomness is highly useful. Drugs that reduce the accessibility of this randomness by biasing the signal pathways (or something) might be an interesting research vector.
- maze-le 8y ago
  >> Since adding noise is a critical part in many neural network training models Our brains do not work exactly like neural network models. Neural Networks are a model, on how nervous systems could work. It doesn't follow, that nature has implemented them the same way. There is no need for the human brain to produce noise with some arbitrary process. There is more than enough noise in the human brain... Every single neuron is a powerful noise-filter[0], that seemingly can generate signals when the "correct" noise-signal is filtered. >> Drugs that reduce the accessibility of this randomness by biasing the signal pathways The randomness you are talking about is way the brain operates under normal circumstances[1]... so no, it wouldn't be beneficial, since we cannot discern signal from noise in any meaningful way [2]. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuronal_noise https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuronal_noise [1]: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/486289 https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/486289 [2]: not even on the level of the single neuron -- except for very few types of neurons [pyramid neurons] in a rat model -- https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1456039/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1456039/
- rusk 8y ago
  IANAP but my understanding of a lot of psychiatric drugs is that they do just this, they dampen brain activity which may be analogous to what you're describing.
blahblah1010 8y ago

rusk 8y ago

> nothing I've read has proposed any mechanism whereby it could evolve If quantum effects are at play in the evolutionary environment, then that is the mechanism. It seems pretty self-evident IMHO. Some random adaptation introduces a sensitivity that allows that mutation to prosper and reproduce. It's very easy to say that because you can't perceive quantum effects at the level of your personal experience, that their effect on selection is negligible, but this is a mistake a lot of anti-evolutionists take .. but over the course of millions or billions of years such effects could be highly significant.