It is why I am hesitant to argue that there are no quantum effects of any sort in the brain (although the quantum effects people have suggested so far haven’t been convincing).
Considering that quantum physics is turing complete (unless it’s nonlinear etc) any quantum effects could be reproduced with classical computation. Therefore the assumption that cognition must involve quantum effects implicitly assumes that quantum physics is nonlinear or one of the various other requirements.
In this light the first question that ought to be asked from persons claiming quantum effects on brain is: What computation [performed in brain] requires basically infinite loops completed on finite time and based on what physics experiment they believe that quantum effects are more than turing complete.
I think the brain is probably ultimately computable by a classical computer and yet quantum computing in the brain might be significant. Here are couple of the potential problems we’ll have if the brain relies on quantum effects.
1) Difficulty in replacing bits of the brain functionally. If consciousness is some strange transitory gestalt quantum field; then you would need to to make a brain prosthesis that had the same electromagnetic properties as a neuron. Which might be quite hard.
2) A harder time simulating brains/doing AI: You might have to up the date you expect Whole Brain Emulations to become available (depending upon when we expect quantum computers to be useful).
I’m having trouble parsing your above comment. Are the points labeled 1 and 2 arguments for the presence of quantum computing in the brain or consequences of that belief?
Quantum computing in the brain might be happening, but if we want to understand conciousness it is irrelevant (Unless conciousness is noncomputable where it becomes a claim about quantum physics yet again). It’s as relevant as details about transistors or vacuum tubes are for understanding sorting algorithms.
Naturally when considering brain prostheses or simulating a brain the actual method with which brain computes is relevant.
I merely wished to clarify the difference between conciousness and how it is implemented in the brain. I had no intention of implying that it was part of the discussion. On retrospect the clarification was not required.
It’s just way too common for the two issues to get mixed up, as can be seen on the various threads.
Considering that quantum physics is turing complete (unless it’s nonlinear etc) any quantum effects could be reproduced with classical computation. Therefore the assumption that cognition must involve quantum effects implicitly assumes that quantum physics is nonlinear or one of the various other requirements.
In this light the first question that ought to be asked from persons claiming quantum effects on brain is: What computation [performed in brain] requires basically infinite loops completed on finite time and based on what physics experiment they believe that quantum effects are more than turing complete.
I think the brain is probably ultimately computable by a classical computer and yet quantum computing in the brain might be significant. Here are couple of the potential problems we’ll have if the brain relies on quantum effects.
1) Difficulty in replacing bits of the brain functionally. If consciousness is some strange transitory gestalt quantum field; then you would need to to make a brain prosthesis that had the same electromagnetic properties as a neuron. Which might be quite hard.
2) A harder time simulating brains/doing AI: You might have to up the date you expect Whole Brain Emulations to become available (depending upon when we expect quantum computers to be useful).
I’m having trouble parsing your above comment. Are the points labeled 1 and 2 arguments for the presence of quantum computing in the brain or consequences of that belief?
Sorry consequences. I’ll edit for clarity.
Quantum computing in the brain might be happening, but if we want to understand conciousness it is irrelevant (Unless conciousness is noncomputable where it becomes a claim about quantum physics yet again). It’s as relevant as details about transistors or vacuum tubes are for understanding sorting algorithms.
Naturally when considering brain prostheses or simulating a brain the actual method with which brain computes is relevant.
Whoever said that this conversation was about understanding consciousness?
Personally I think that that topic is a tarpit, which I prefer to ignore until we know how the brain works.
I merely wished to clarify the difference between conciousness and how it is implemented in the brain. I had no intention of implying that it was part of the discussion. On retrospect the clarification was not required.
It’s just way too common for the two issues to get mixed up, as can be seen on the various threads.