How mental activities work ?

[hansda]

I believe physical activities and mental activities are different .

We know how physical activities work . They require energy . This energy converts into force which applies on a mass to move it . Thus physical activities follow Newtonian principles .

Mental activities also require energy . As phyisical activities and mental activities are different , mental activities may not be following Newtonian principles .

Do mental activities follow quantum principles ?

[Aqueous Id]

You could talk about action potentials, which are the method for transmitting pulses along a neuron:

[hansda]

You could talk about action potentials, which are the method for transmitting pulses along a neuron:

So, mental activities follow electro-magnetic forces ?

[Aqueous Id]

It's emitting an EM wave...but physically, the molecules are twisting - in succession. Then multiply that by a billion - or whatever the number is - and of course recognize that they are rippling through 3D-space in a jumble.

Somehow all of that has something to do with the mind.

[hansda]

It's emitting an EM wave...but physically, the molecules are twisting - in succession.

That means EM forces along with gravitational forces are working in mind .

Then multiply that by a billion - or whatever the number is - and of course recognize that they are rippling through 3D-space in a jumble.

Somehow all of that has something to do with the mind.

[NMSquirrel]

your use of the word 'twisting' makes me wonder how 'spintronics' applies in the brain..

[seagypsy]

Are electricity and heat not forms of energy? The brain uses both.

[Neverfly]

That means EM forces along with gravitational forces are working in mind .

I'm sure that might disturb astronaut potentials

The brain works by a series of electrical, chemical and physical interactions. If you get down to it- Quantum Mechanics is involved, yes, just as it is involved in everything else in the universe.

Aqueous Id posted a nice pictorial.

[Yazata]

I believe physical activities and mental activities are different .

They are different enough phenomenologically that we traditionally apply different words to them. The problem is in clarifying what that difference consists of and in accounting for it.

I'm a member of the camp, which probably includes a majority of philosophers and the vast majority of cognitive and neuroscientists, who think that mental activities are ontologically a subset of physical activities. Mental activities seem to be information processing activities that in the case of Earth life are performed by nervous systems.

A significant minority of philosophers, along with a majority of religious theologians of various sorts, believe that mental activities are fundamentally different than and separable from physical activities. These people might even argue that physical activities are ontologically a subset of mental activities.

We know how physical activities work . They require energy . This energy converts into force which applies on a mass to move it . Thus physical activities follow Newtonian principles .

More or less. On the micro-scale we see quantum effects. At high relative velocities, we see Einsteinian effects.

Mental activities also require energy .

What kind of energy are we talking about? Physical energy? Or some kind of 'psychic energy'?

As phyisical activities and mental activities are different , mental activities may not be following Newtonian principles .

The distinction between 'Newtonian' and non-Newtonian' is a distinction within physical science that applies to physical events. I don't think that it's really a good idea to try to associate the mind/matter distinction with a Newtonian/Non-Newtonian distinction.

Do mental activities follow quantum principles ?

There are people, a few of them fairly prominent, who are speculating in that direction.

While I'm sure that quantum principles are mixed up with mind somehow, if only because the physical systems that generate mental activities are quantum systems to some extent, I don't think that most of the quantum mysticism speculations are very informative or very plausible at this point.

[Yazata]

So, mental activities follow electro-magnetic forces ?

The image that Aqueous Id posted depicts how an impulse propagates along a nerve cell axon.

It comes from a very good website called Biologymad, that explains a number of biology topics at an advanced high-school or college-level introduction-for-non-majors level. (That's just about the right level for many Sciforums readers, I think.)

http://www.biologymad.com

What's happening in the axon are chemical reactions on a section of the cell membrane. Those reactions kind of propagate down the axon like a chain reaction. That's why nerve impulses move a lot more slowly than they would if it was electricity flowing along a wire.

But that's nerve cell physiology, how a nerve impulse gets from point A to point B. There's still a HUGE gap between that nuts-and-bolts level and the psychological level of 'mental activities'. That gap is where the as-yet unsolved problem lies.

I'm inclined to think that we need to be directing our attention to a slightly higher level of abstraction, and inquiring into what the brain is doing in information processing terms.

As an (inevitable) analogy, take a computer. Those of us who use computers approach them at we might call the psychological level. We use application programs and maybe mess around with Windows a little. The computer itself is a physical machine, wires and silicon chips. Explaining what's happening on the wires and silicon-junctions level is a job for the electronics engineers.

What ties the application and the hardware levels together are the computer scientists. They aren't all that concerned with wires and silicon junctions. They leave that stuff to the electronic engineers. The computer scientists are concerned with how abstract machines, that may or may not be physically instantiated in wires and silicon junctions, proceed to process information and produce results.

In the biological space, the equivalent distinctions might be neurophysiologists with electronics engineers, cognitive scientists with computer scientists, and psychology and everyday human life with real-life computer applications.

My belief is that the as-yet unsolved mysteries of how mind emerges from matter are lurking in there at the cognitive science level.

[hansda]

They are different enough phenomenologically that we traditionally apply different words to them. The problem is in clarifying what that difference consists of and in accounting for it.

I'm a member of the camp, which probably includes a majority of philosophers and the vast majority of cognitive and neuroscientists, who think that mental activities are ontologically a subset of physical activities. Mental activities seem to be information processing activities that in the case of Earth life are performed by nervous systems.

A significant minority of philosophers, along with a majority of religious theologians of various sorts, believe that mental activities are fundamentally different than and separable from physical activities. These people might even argue that physical activities are ontologically a subset of mental activities.



More or less. On the micro-scale we see quantum effects. At high relative velocities, we see Einsteinian effects.

Any activity or action is associated with some movement or motion . Till now we have only two types of theories to explain motion . These are Newtonian Principles and Quantum Principles . Physical activities or mental activities involve motions and have to follow either of these principles .

What kind of energy are we talking about? Physical energy? Or some kind of 'psychic energy'?

If we follow conservation of energy , these are only different forms of energy .

The distinction between 'Newtonian' and non-Newtonian' is a distinction within physical science that applies to physical events. I don't think that it's really a good idea to try to associate the mind/matter distinction with a Newtonian/Non-Newtonian distinction.



There are people, a few of them fairly prominent, who are speculating in that direction.

While I'm sure that quantum principles are mixed up with mind somehow, if only because the physical systems that generate mental activities are quantum systems to some extent, I don't think that most of the quantum mysticism speculations are very informative or very plausible at this point.

Action involves motion . So I was trying to distinguish various physical/mental actions with Newtonian/Quantum principles .

For example consider a football player is hitting a football . The football will only follow Newtonian principle but 'how much force to be applied' , 'at what angle/directions' all these mental calculations may not follow Newtonian principles . So , only alternative is Quantum principle .

[hansda]

The image that Aqueous Id posted depicts how an impulse propagates along a nerve cell axon.

It comes from a very good website called Biologymad, that explains a number of biology topics at an advanced high-school or college-level introduction-for-non-majors level. (That's just about the right level for many Sciforums readers, I think.)

http://www.biologymad.com

What's happening in the axon are chemical reactions on a section of the cell membrane. Those reactions kind of propagate down the axon like a chain reaction. That's why nerve impulses move a lot more slowly than they would if it was electricity flowing along a wire.

But that's nerve cell physiology, how a nerve impulse gets from point A to point B. There's still a HUGE gap between that nuts-and-bolts level and the psychological level of 'mental activities'. That gap is where the as-yet unsolved problem lies.

I'm inclined to think that we need to be directing our attention to a slightly higher level of abstraction, and inquiring into what the brain is doing in information processing terms.

As an (inevitable) analogy, take a computer. Those of us who use computers approach them at we might call the psychological level. We use application programs and maybe mess around with Windows a little. The computer itself is a physical machine, wires and silicon chips. Explaining what's happening on the wires and silicon-junctions level is a job for the electronics engineers.

What ties the application and the hardware levels together are the computer scientists. They aren't all that concerned with wires and silicon junctions. They leave that stuff to the electronic engineers. The computer scientists are concerned with how abstract machines, that may or may not be physically instantiated in wires and silicon junctions, proceed to process information and produce results.

In the biological space, the equivalent distinctions might be neurophysiologists with electronics engineers, cognitive scientists with computer scientists, and psychology and everyday human life with real-life computer applications.

My belief is that the as-yet unsolved mysteries of how mind emerges from matter are lurking in there at the cognitive science level.

I think you want to see mind from a software point of view with a software/hardware distinction .

But how the softawre works ? Its also quantum principle .

[Epictetus]

Hansda wrote:

Any activity or action is associated with some movement or motion . Till now we have only two types of theories to explain motion . These are Newtonian Principles and Quantum Principles . Physical activities or mental activities involve motions and have to follow either of these principles

Sehr gut. now I get it.

[C C]

...mental activities may not be following Newtonian principles .

Here's somebody who would probably agree with that alternative:

Piero Scaruffi - "...it is certainly true that all current neurobiological descriptions of the brain are based on Newton's Physics, even if it is well known that Newton's Physics has its limitations. First of all, Newton's Physics is an offshoot of Descartes division of the universe in matter and spirit, and it deals only with matter. Secondly, neurobiologists assume that the brain and its parts behave like classical objects, and that quantum effects are negligible, even while the 'objects' they are studying get smaller and smaller.

"What neurobiologists are doing when they study the microstructure of the brain from a Newtonian perspective is equivalent to organizing a trip to the Moon on the basis of Aristotle's Physics, neglecting Newton's theory of gravitation. No wonder most neurobiologists reach the conclusion that Physics cannot explain consciousness, since they are using a Physics that 1. was designed to study matter and leave out consciousness and that 2. does not work in the microworld. Not surprisingly, it has been claimed that all current neurobiological models are computationally equivalent to a Turing machine." http://www.scaruffi.com/science/qc.html

Do mental activities follow quantum principles ?

Because of the hot, semi-macroscopic environment involved, quantum physics factoring into any higher level functioning of the body was considered somewhat absurd by most biologists even a decade ago. Much less those quantum theories of consciousness being regarded as credible, like the one promoted by Stuart Hameroff regarding microtubules.

Stanislas Dehaene - "Excellent physicists [...] tried to tell us that the brain is a quantum computer, and that consciousness will only be understood once we understand quantum computing and quantum gravity. Well, we can discuss that later, but as far as I can see, it's completely irrelevant to understanding consciousness in the brain. One of the reasons is that the temperature at which the brain operates is incompatible with quantum computing." (SIGNATURES OF CONSCIOUSNESS)

But things have changed in recent years, at least in regard to broad life science, with an emerging quantum biology:

Philip Ball - "On the face of it, quantum effects and living organisms seem to occupy utterly different realms. The former are usually observed only on the nanometre scale, surrounded by hard vacuum, ultra-low temperatures and a tightly controlled laboratory environment. The latter inhabit a macroscopic world that is warm, messy and anything but controlled. A quantum phenomenon such as 'coherence', in which the wave patterns of every part of a system stay in step, wouldn't last a microsecond in the tumultuous realm of the cell.

"Or so everyone thought. But discoveries in recent years suggest that nature knows a few tricks that physicists don't: coherent quantum processes may well be ubiquitous in the natural world. Known or suspected examples range from the ability of birds to navigate using Earth's magnetic field to the inner workings of photosynthesis — the process by which plants and bacteria turn sunlight, carbon dioxide and water into organic matter, and arguably the most important biochemical reaction on Earth.

"Biology has a knack for using what works, says Seth Lloyd, a physicist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge. And if that means 'quantum hanky-panky', he says, 'then quantum hanky-panky it is'. Some researchers have even begun to talk of an emerging discipline called quantum biology, arguing that quantum effects are a vital, if rare, ingredient of the way nature works. And laboratory physicists interested in practical technology are paying close attention. 'We hope to be able to learn from the quantum proficiency of these biological systems,' says Lloyd. A better understanding of how quantum effects are maintained in living organisms could help researchers to achieve the elusive goal of quantum computation, he says. 'Or perhaps we can make better energy-storage devices or better organic solar cells.'" (Physics of life: The dawn of quantum biology; Nature; June 15, 2011)

- - - - - - - -

Donald D. Hoffman - "Dehaene assumes, explicitly, that quantum computing is irrelevant to understanding consciousness in the brain because the brain is too warm. Coherence is essential to quantum computing, and current technology cannot avoid decoherence in warm macroscopic objects. But, apparently, bacteria can do what technology cannot. Engel and collaborators announced in Nature in 2007 that photosynthesis in the green sulfur bacterium Chlorobium tepidum involves wavelike energy transfer through quantum coherence. Quantum computation appears to be essential to the remarkable efficiency of photosynthesis in this bacterium and, probably, in plants. Photosynthesis evolved more than 3.5 billion years ago; perhaps quantum computation has had time to evolve in other biological systems, including the brain." (comments; SIGNATURES OF CONSCIOUSNESS)

[hansda]

Here's somebody who would probably agree with that alternative:

Piero Scaruffi - "...it is certainly true that all current neurobiological descriptions of the brain are based on Newton's Physics, even if it is well known that Newton's Physics has its limitations. First of all, Newton's Physics is an offshoot of Descartes division of the universe in matter and spirit, and it deals only with matter. Secondly, neurobiologists assume that the brain and its parts behave like classical objects, and that quantum effects are negligible, even while the 'objects' they are studying get smaller and smaller.

"What neurobiologists are doing when they study the microstructure of the brain from a Newtonian perspective is equivalent to organizing a trip to the Moon on the basis of Aristotle's Physics, neglecting Newton's theory of gravitation. No wonder most neurobiologists reach the conclusion that Physics cannot explain consciousness, since they are using a Physics that 1. was designed to study matter and leave out consciousness and that 2. does not work in the microworld. Not surprisingly, it has been claimed that all current neurobiological models are computationally equivalent to a Turing machine." http://www.scaruffi.com/science/qc.html



Because of the hot, semi-macroscopic environment involved, quantum physics factoring into any higher level functioning of the body was considered somewhat absurd by most biologists even a decade ago. Much less those quantum theories of consciousness being regarded as credible, like the one promoted by Stuart Hameroff regarding microtubules.

Stanislas Dehaene - "Excellent physicists [...] tried to tell us that the brain is a quantum computer, and that consciousness will only be understood once we understand quantum computing and quantum gravity. Well, we can discuss that later, but as far as I can see, it's completely irrelevant to understanding consciousness in the brain. One of the reasons is that the temperature at which the brain operates is incompatible with quantum computing." (SIGNATURES OF CONSCIOUSNESS)

But things have changed in recent years, at least in regard to broad life science, with an emerging quantum biology:

Philip Ball - "On the face of it, quantum effects and living organisms seem to occupy utterly different realms. The former are usually observed only on the nanometre scale, surrounded by hard vacuum, ultra-low temperatures and a tightly controlled laboratory environment. The latter inhabit a macroscopic world that is warm, messy and anything but controlled. A quantum phenomenon such as 'coherence', in which the wave patterns of every part of a system stay in step, wouldn't last a microsecond in the tumultuous realm of the cell.

"Or so everyone thought. But discoveries in recent years suggest that nature knows a few tricks that physicists don't: coherent quantum processes may well be ubiquitous in the natural world. Known or suspected examples range from the ability of birds to navigate using Earth's magnetic field to the inner workings of photosynthesis — the process by which plants and bacteria turn sunlight, carbon dioxide and water into organic matter, and arguably the most important biochemical reaction on Earth.

"Biology has a knack for using what works, says Seth Lloyd, a physicist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge. And if that means 'quantum hanky-panky', he says, 'then quantum hanky-panky it is'. Some researchers have even begun to talk of an emerging discipline called quantum biology, arguing that quantum effects are a vital, if rare, ingredient of the way nature works. And laboratory physicists interested in practical technology are paying close attention. 'We hope to be able to learn from the quantum proficiency of these biological systems,' says Lloyd. A better understanding of how quantum effects are maintained in living organisms could help researchers to achieve the elusive goal of quantum computation, he says. 'Or perhaps we can make better energy-storage devices or better organic solar cells.'" (Physics of life: The dawn of quantum biology; Nature; June 15, 2011)

- - - - - - - -

Donald D. Hoffman - "Dehaene assumes, explicitly, that quantum computing is irrelevant to understanding consciousness in the brain because the brain is too warm. Coherence is essential to quantum computing, and current technology cannot avoid decoherence in warm macroscopic objects. But, apparently, bacteria can do what technology cannot. Engel and collaborators announced in Nature in 2007 that photosynthesis in the green sulfur bacterium Chlorobium tepidum involves wavelike energy transfer through quantum coherence. Quantum computation appears to be essential to the remarkable efficiency of photosynthesis in this bacterium and, probably, in plants. Photosynthesis evolved more than 3.5 billion years ago; perhaps quantum computation has had time to evolve in other biological systems, including the brain." (comments; SIGNATURES OF CONSCIOUSNESS)

So , we can make a conclusion that ; " mind follows quantum principle " .

[hansda]

[B]Hansda wrote:

Sehr gut. now I get it.

I didnt get , what you got .

[wellwisher]

Neural memory is fundamentally different from computer memory. The rest state of a neuron is actually where the neuron defines its highest energy. This energy is created by cationic pumping using ATP energy. It is the discharge of this energy (neuron firing) which creates activity.

With computer memory, stability is important. The memory is at low energy and needs to be energized to change the switch. But living memory is energized in the rest state, and is therefore an accident waiting to happen. It is not designed with stability in mind, but with the capacity for discharge and change.

As a way to see the contrast, say we designed some computer memory to act like neural memory. The memory disks has pictures on it. When the memory disk is resting, the disk is at highest energy. It is like trying to move TNT since it is full of energy, so be careful.

Energy will naturally try to go from higher to lower potential if there is an opportunity. If anything disturbs our memory disk, such as a little static charge, a chain reaction will occur, to lower energy. The memory is now different. In the case of neural memory, as the energy lowers, the neurons quickly rebuild the energy potential, via ion pumping.

The neural memory is like fountain where water is pumped upward to higher potential, and then flowing downward as quickly as it pumps upward. The fountain looks the same each second, yet is always in a flux of subtle change as water splashes shifts in the wind.

[C C]

So , we can make a conclusion that ; " mind follows quantum principle " .

There is only a minority of scientists / philosophers that feel such is the case, but probably still without consensus regarding a specific how (such as how quantum computation would be implemented, or how quantum coherence being a factor in conscious experience would take place, etc.). Their numbers could be mildly increasing or their ideas appearing slightly more tenable now that roles for quantum effects in biological systems (in general) have become feasible.

[hansda]

Neural memory is fundamentally different from computer memory. The rest state of a neuron is actually where the neuron defines its highest energy. This energy is created by cationic pumping using ATP energy. It is the discharge of this energy (neuron firing) which creates activity.

With computer memory, stability is important. The memory is at low energy and needs to be energized to change the switch. But living memory is energized in the rest state, and is therefore an accident waiting to happen. It is not designed with stability in mind, but with the capacity for discharge and change.

As a way to see the contrast, say we designed some computer memory to act like neural memory. The memory disks has pictures on it. When the memory disk is resting, the disk is at highest energy. It is like trying to move TNT since it is full of energy, so be careful.

Energy will naturally try to go from higher to lower potential if there is an opportunity. If anything disturbs our memory disk, such as a little static charge, a chain reaction will occur, to lower energy. The memory is now different. In the case of neural memory, as the energy lowers, the neurons quickly rebuild the energy potential, via ion pumping.

The neural memory is like fountain where water is pumped upward to higher potential, and then flowing downward as quickly as it pumps upward. The fountain looks the same each second, yet is always in a flux of subtle change as water splashes shifts in the wind.

Neural memory may be different from computer memory but it works through electrical pulses . So , there is a quantum effect in neural memory functioning.

[hansda]

There is only a minority of scientists / philosophers that feel such is the case, but probably still without consensus regarding a specific how (such as how quantum computation would be implemented, or how quantum coherence being a factor in conscious experience would take place, etc.). Their numbers could be mildly increasing or their ideas appearing slightly more tenable now that roles for quantum effects in biological systems (in general) have become feasible.

We can not say that , mind follows Newtonian principles . So, it makes more sense if it is said that ; mind follows quantum principles . Atleast there is some quantum effect in our mental activities .