Indeed! The question is, “How do you tell?” The “how do neurons work” research has gotten down to the level where the decision-making seems to involve quantum phenomena where we can’t take the lid off and peek inside. Theoretical physicists wonder if there are more than just four dimensions, but haven’t nailed down anything concrete. We can sort of see back to the beginning of our universe, but not into anything that may have been before it or beside it or anything like that.
You can definitely say it’s “not outside our universe,” whatever it is, because containing absolutely all of everything is part of the definition of “universe.” But that doesn’t actually answer the question of how it works in any meaningful way either, merely gives a more optimistic outlook about the odds of us figuring out how to understand it.
Interestingly, there’s at least one experiment I’ve heard of where they were using an FPGA and genetic algorithms to “evolve” circuits, and it turned out to not be practical at the time, but analysis of the resulting circuits found them working in strange and unusual ways. Some of which seemed to be delving into the same kinds of quantum phenomena that we now know neurons use. So, at the very least, if there is some deeper layer it doesn’t seem like it’s a “protein chauvinist.”
What? I sure don’t think so. Last I checked, about 2-3 years ago, there was no reason to think that quantum phenomena play any role in neural function, and certainly not the interlocked phenomena that Penrose talked about.
Neural network theory on the classical physics level is plenty to explain consciousness, let alone decision-making.
You’re reporting a few studies that claim to find weak evidence vaguely suggestive of quantum effects. The huge sum of evidence is that such effects aren’t needed and so would be peripheral to neural function and resulting mental function.
People like the idea of quantum effects because the sound mysterious like consciousness. Look closely and there’s no explanatory power different from neural networks anyway. They naturally have super positional effects like Penrose talks about for interlocked quantum effects.
See the sequence post “my wild youth” for Yudkowsky disclaiming quantum consciousness on these grounds.
Indeed! The question is, “How do you tell?” The “how do neurons work” research has gotten down to the level where the decision-making seems to involve quantum phenomena where we can’t take the lid off and peek inside. Theoretical physicists wonder if there are more than just four dimensions, but haven’t nailed down anything concrete. We can sort of see back to the beginning of our universe, but not into anything that may have been before it or beside it or anything like that.
You can definitely say it’s “not outside our universe,” whatever it is, because containing absolutely all of everything is part of the definition of “universe.” But that doesn’t actually answer the question of how it works in any meaningful way either, merely gives a more optimistic outlook about the odds of us figuring out how to understand it.
Interestingly, there’s at least one experiment I’ve heard of where they were using an FPGA and genetic algorithms to “evolve” circuits, and it turned out to not be practical at the time, but analysis of the resulting circuits found them working in strange and unusual ways. Some of which seemed to be delving into the same kinds of quantum phenomena that we now know neurons use. So, at the very least, if there is some deeper layer it doesn’t seem like it’s a “protein chauvinist.”
What? I sure don’t think so. Last I checked, about 2-3 years ago, there was no reason to think that quantum phenomena play any role in neural function, and certainly not the interlocked phenomena that Penrose talked about.
Neural network theory on the classical physics level is plenty to explain consciousness, let alone decision-making.
You’re reporting a few studies that claim to find weak evidence vaguely suggestive of quantum effects. The huge sum of evidence is that such effects aren’t needed and so would be peripheral to neural function and resulting mental function.
People like the idea of quantum effects because the sound mysterious like consciousness. Look closely and there’s no explanatory power different from neural networks anyway. They naturally have super positional effects like Penrose talks about for interlocked quantum effects.
See the sequence post “my wild youth” for Yudkowsky disclaiming quantum consciousness on these grounds.