6 ms·

I haven't found the original article yet, but from the summary: using a special MRI machine they found MRI signals that resemble heartbeat evoked potentials, a

I haven't found the original article yet, but from the summary: using a special MRI machine they found MRI signals that resemble heartbeat evoked potentials, a form of EEG signals. Apparently, these signals are only detectable if they are entangled. Hence the brain is a quantum computer. That there are entangled particles in the brain is no surprise. Any cup of coffee will have a million. That the brain uses quantum computing is a bit of a reach it seems.

bondarchuk 4y ago
The paper is linked right at the bottom of the article: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/2399-6528/ac94be https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/2399-6528/ac94be
dsego 4y ago
Sir Roger Penrose & Dr. Stuart Hameroff have researched and written about possible quantum processes in the brain's microtubules.
- andybak 4y ago
  I read the Penrose book years ago and it felt like a huge logical leap (in a bad way). At first glance so does this but I feel it would make the universe much more interesting if this turned out to be true so fingers crossed.
  - cesaref 4y ago
    Agreed, I struggled to follow his reasoning when I read his book, but I also am aware it was a popular science book, so maybe it was dumbed down for the general public? I've not tried to track down more academic work in this area, maybe the evidence is more compelling?
    - vesinisa 4y ago
      I intuitively believe that free will is incompatible with determinism. This seems to be a very divisive issue - many people seem to strongly believe that free will is either an illusion or readily compatible with determinism.
      - reuben364 4y ago
        Is this meant to be a reply to the above comment? My thoughts are as follows: If one can decompose one's subjective experience into an agent and the environment it interacts with, then there are several variations I can think of: - The agents actions are entirely determined by its environment - The agents actions form a probability distribution determined by it environment - The agent actions from their environment are annotated in some way that we haven't or can't have thought of that represents what the agent is. In my opinion, something that we can't think of or experience and something that doesn't exist are indistinguishable and we shouldn't really separate them except for making this statement. - There is no agent and subjective existence is merely one route down immutable decision tree that is our choices and their consequences. None of these options really intuitively sound like free will to me. Ultimately thinking along these lines requires separating the agent from the environment. EDIT: I see now the reply is to the YouTube link which I missed
      - Ialdaboth 4y ago
        I'm more and more convinced this is... not exactly a false dichotomy per say, but at least a tricky one : you can have both free will at the micro level (any individual), and determinism at the macro level (any sufficiently large group of humans, considered in aggregate) at the same time.
        FeepingCreature 4y ago
        Of course, the debate is generally about whether you can have both free will at the macro level (the human brain) and determinism at the micro level (particle physics).
        Ialdaboth 4y ago
    - denton-scratch 4y ago
      It was indeed dumbed down for the general public. I don't have a copy to hand, but I laughed like a drain at one section of the introduction: <paraphrase> "This book is intended for a lay reader, but necessarily contains quite a bit of maths. Readers who prefer to avoid equations and formulas can skip chapters 4, 6, 12-20, 26 and 27". </paraphrase> Penrose's notion of a "lay reader" is one who doesn't have a maths degree.
      - Tomte 4y ago
        That's the one where he starts the chapter to "brush up" some math with Hamiltonians or so?
- justsee 4y ago
  Lex Fridman interviewed Penrose on this topic recently (2020) and Penrose delivered a very accessible walkthrough of his historical and current thoughts on the topic. https://youtu.be/orMtwOz6Db0?t=2654 https://youtu.be/orMtwOz6Db0?t=2654 (Deep-link half-way through to his discussion on microtubules)
- emmelaich 4y ago
  I think https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Davies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Davies would be happy to see this too.
- jcims 4y ago
  For anyone interested in a bit more context around microtubules, here's a video that shows how they are built and used to support cell mitosis https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0JpOJ4F4984 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0JpOJ4F4984 I wish my biology class back in high school had videos like this.
zogomoox 4y ago
How can you tell entangled particles from non-entangled ones? I saw another article today about keeping quantum systems entangled for a long time by firing lasers in a Fibonacci pattern, but what allows them to see whether its still entangled?
lisper 4y ago
> I haven't found the original article yet https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/2399-6528/ac94be/pdf https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/2399-6528/ac94be/...

bondarchuk 4y ago

The paper is linked right at the bottom of the article: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/2399-6528/ac94be https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/2399-6528/ac94be

dsego 4y ago

Sir Roger Penrose & Dr. Stuart Hameroff have researched and written about possible quantum processes in the brain's microtubules.

andybak 4y ago
I read the Penrose book years ago and it felt like a huge logical leap (in a bad way). At first glance so does this but I feel it would make the universe much more interesting if this turned out to be true so fingers crossed.
- cesaref 4y ago
  Agreed, I struggled to follow his reasoning when I read his book, but I also am aware it was a popular science book, so maybe it was dumbed down for the general public? I've not tried to track down more academic work in this area, maybe the evidence is more compelling?
  - vesinisa 4y ago
    I intuitively believe that free will is incompatible with determinism. This seems to be a very divisive issue - many people seem to strongly believe that free will is either an illusion or readily compatible with determinism.
    - reuben364 4y ago
      Is this meant to be a reply to the above comment? My thoughts are as follows: If one can decompose one's subjective experience into an agent and the environment it interacts with, then there are several variations I can think of: - The agents actions are entirely determined by its environment - The agents actions form a probability distribution determined by it environment - The agent actions from their environment are annotated in some way that we haven't or can't have thought of that represents what the agent is. In my opinion, something that we can't think of or experience and something that doesn't exist are indistinguishable and we shouldn't really separate them except for making this statement. - There is no agent and subjective existence is merely one route down immutable decision tree that is our choices and their consequences. None of these options really intuitively sound like free will to me. Ultimately thinking along these lines requires separating the agent from the environment. EDIT: I see now the reply is to the YouTube link which I missed
    - Ialdaboth 4y ago
      I'm more and more convinced this is... not exactly a false dichotomy per say, but at least a tricky one : you can have both free will at the micro level (any individual), and determinism at the macro level (any sufficiently large group of humans, considered in aggregate) at the same time.
      - FeepingCreature 4y ago
        Of course, the debate is generally about whether you can have both free will at the macro level (the human brain) and determinism at the micro level (particle physics).
        Ialdaboth 4y ago
  - denton-scratch 4y ago
    It was indeed dumbed down for the general public. I don't have a copy to hand, but I laughed like a drain at one section of the introduction: <paraphrase> "This book is intended for a lay reader, but necessarily contains quite a bit of maths. Readers who prefer to avoid equations and formulas can skip chapters 4, 6, 12-20, 26 and 27". </paraphrase> Penrose's notion of a "lay reader" is one who doesn't have a maths degree.
    - Tomte 4y ago
      That's the one where he starts the chapter to "brush up" some math with Hamiltonians or so?
justsee 4y ago
Lex Fridman interviewed Penrose on this topic recently (2020) and Penrose delivered a very accessible walkthrough of his historical and current thoughts on the topic. https://youtu.be/orMtwOz6Db0?t=2654 https://youtu.be/orMtwOz6Db0?t=2654 (Deep-link half-way through to his discussion on microtubules)
emmelaich 4y ago
I think https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Davies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Davies would be happy to see this too.
jcims 4y ago
For anyone interested in a bit more context around microtubules, here's a video that shows how they are built and used to support cell mitosis https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0JpOJ4F4984 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0JpOJ4F4984 I wish my biology class back in high school had videos like this.

zogomoox 4y ago

How can you tell entangled particles from non-entangled ones? I saw another article today about keeping quantum systems entangled for a long time by firing lasers in a Fibonacci pattern, but what allows them to see whether its still entangled?

lisper 4y ago

> I haven't found the original article yet https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/2399-6528/ac94be/pdf https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/2399-6528/ac94be/...