34 ms·
I believe what was meant was quantum-only or primarily-quantum effects rather than the aggregate effects we normally see (classic physics & chemistry), which ar
by tabtab 4y ago
I believe what was meant was quantum-only or primarily-quantum effects rather than the aggregate effects we normally see (classic physics & chemistry), which are probably the result of quantum physics, but we have "classic" abstractions that model them well enough. Thus, the issue is whether the brain relies mostly on classic effects (common aggregate abstractions) for computations or on quantum-specific effects.
- marginalia_nu 4y agoI don't think that's a meaningful distinction. Many effects in classical physics are just previously poorly understood quantum effects. The distinction has more to do with when they were discovered than what causes them. Electricity is a good example. A large reason why electrons act collectively the way they do is a direct consequence of the pauli exclusion principle.
- tabtab 4y agoRe: The distinction has more to do with when they were discovered than what causes them. Well, okay. But so far there's no evidence to suggest the brain uses quantum effects discovered/verified fairly recently. The "common" properties of electricity and chemistry where fairly well known and modelled well by 1900.