Monday, July 27, 2009
Kauffman on the Philosophy of Mind
The theoretical biologist, Stuart Kauffman, argues that quantum physics can explain the existence of free will.
Stuart Kauffman is a theoretical
biologist and author from the University of Calgary in Canada who has
pioneered the study of complexity in relation to biological systems.
As a theoretical biologist, it must be hard to avoid the
biggest outstanding problem of them all: what is the nature of
consciousness? And today, Kauffman takes a crack at it along with
five others related to the philosophy of mind.
He
begins by mapping out his territory: "If mind depends upon
the specific physics of the mind-brains system, mind is, in part, a
matter for physicists." Fair enough.
He then lists
the questions he hopes to tackle:
How does mind act on matter?
If mind does not act on matter is
mind a mere epiphenomenon?
What might be the source of free
will?
What might be the source of a
responsible free will?
Why might it have been selectively
advantageous to evolve consciousness?
What "is" consciousness?
That's an ambitious list. The gist of his answers is that mind is
a quantum phenomenon that produces a classical output that Kauffman says is the
source of free will. He adds that this classical output is nonrandom
and yet cannot be described by the laws of physics because, as the
quantum system decoheres, information is lost in a way that can never
be retrieved.
If true, that's important because "if the
quantum-classical boundary can be non-random yet lawless, then no
algorithmic simulation of the world or ourselves can calculate the
real world, hence the evolutionary selective advantages for evolving
consciousness
to "know" it may be great".
In
other words, consciousness is very useful for making sense of the
world which is why evolution selects for it.
He also says
this means we are not machines, although how he reaches this
conclusion isn't clear. A more reasonable conclusion would be that we
are machines that span the quantum-classical divide.
In
any case, that clears up questions 1 to 5.
As for the biggie,
he says: "I make no progress on problem 6"
An honest answer for sure; but then why include it in the essay in
the first place?
Ref: arxiv.org/abs/0907.2494: Physics and Five Problems in the Philosophy of Mind
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Comments
Someone - Paul Valery? - wrote that 'The world is always more interesting than any of our ideas about it.'
Somehow that encompasses all of questions 1-5 and far more. As to question 6, mind 'is' that which discovers - and invents - 'ideas about it'.
Bob Tyson
Turin
lkrndu
07/27/2009
Posts:23
By AWT observable reality appears like nested system of density fluctuations (or space-time curvatures if you want) of inertial chaotic environment aka Aether. The only thing, which we can be perfectly sure here is, Universe is more extensive, then every part of it. It means, IF we are such part too, here should be an infinite number of nested levels of density fluctuations both above, both bellow human scale.
We can deduce from this assumption, why Universe appears always curved into itself in convex way, while particle bellow human scale are curved in concave way and why their symmetry remains always violated, and so on. It's a geometrical model, which we can handle in predictable way.
ZephirAWT
07/27/2009
Posts:99
mobp
07/30/2009
Posts:1
Archie
07/27/2009
Posts:10
ZephirAWT
07/27/2009
Posts:99
After all, even trivial system of few neurons behaves quite randomly in computer simulations. Here's no direct experimental support for involvement of QM at atomic level.
ZephirAWT
07/27/2009
Posts:99
Max Tegmark debunked this idea (see "The importance of quantum decoherence in brain processes" quant-ph/9907009, Phys. Rev. E, 61, 4194-4206).
wcoenen
07/27/2009
Posts:1
But such foamy behavior is emulated by human brain at slightly higher supramolecular level, then common quantum mechanics allows. It uses a neural membranes for spreading of electrochemical solitons mediated by sound waves in their critical state, where they're behaving like liquid crystals or elastic foam. In this way, whole length of nerve cell is serving like active environment for soliton spreading. Its foamy structure represented by microtubules is serving only for realization of hidden dimensions (foamy elasticity of environment), which every soliton requires for its spreading in simmilar way, like modern hollow-core optical cables for example (which can spread light in selfreinforcing waves, too).
In such a way, both Sir Penrose/Hameroff, both Tegmark have their parts of truth.
ZephirAWT
07/27/2009
Posts:99
rkomatsu
07/27/2009
Posts:15
rkomatsu
07/27/2009
Posts:15
bpertum
07/27/2009
Posts:4
Such multidimensional mesh/foam could radiate "scalar" waves of high energy density without macroscopic EM effect, still being able to induce the analogous motion of ions in another multidimensional mesh/foam at distance. Such collective motion and exchange of energy could be modelled by collective motion of ions on the surface of water clusters or maybe inside of ball lighning and related phenomena.
ZephirAWT
07/27/2009
Posts:99
ZephirAWT
07/27/2009
Posts:99
ylicht
07/27/2009
Posts:1
General problem of free thinkers is, they want to find an exact answers to vague questions, i.e. without exact definitions of terms used. In certain sense, the main task of contemporary philosophy is to define subjects, which exact science can handle in formal way, after then.
ZephirAWT
07/27/2009
Posts:99
quantum mechanics...
And, if and when, algorithmic simulations of human
mind could be a possibility,how more realistic would
affecting,or effecting classical determinant
parametric phenomena into achieving more refined
real world positive derivative product(s) of
'free will' like human conscience for
an improved human co-existence and society. ??
martinaatayo
07/28/2009
Posts:42
I for one am not in favor of ditching reductionism because Stuart Kauffman cannot accept the fact that he is a physical system.
stuntmonkey
07/28/2009
Posts:2
In AWT the mind stuff is a soliton wave packet, spreading along neural cell, which is material stuff here. It's size corresponds the CMB scale, which the neural system is adopted on by evolution, i.e. it's a bit smaller, then average neural cell.
ZephirAWT
07/29/2009
Posts:99
magdala
07/29/2009
Posts:8
magdala
07/29/2009
Posts:8
magdala
07/29/2009
Posts:8
ZephirAWT
07/31/2009
Posts:99
To get to consciousness, you continue on and need to simulate others to guage their intentions and potential reactions. Still not consciousnes. Now, finally, apply that simulation of others to yourself. That, I believe, is consciousness and if I'm correct, it's a byproduct of this need to simulate others and is not primary (not selected for directly) itself. I don't see any need for quantum mysticism in any of this.
Go figure.
GaryB
08/20/2009
Posts:64