Does speed matter?

[deraudrl]

Jung's original version was kind of pompous...the Police cover flowed much better.

Applying the concept of superposition to macroscopic structures (vs subatomic particles) makes the needle of my BS detector twitch uncontrollably.

[tulamide]

Applying the concept of superposition to macroscopic structures (vs subatomic particles) makes the needle of my BS detector twitch uncontrollably.

I hope, nobody thought that! I was on the quantum layer the whole time, I don't think of a cell as being in superposition, but a quantum effect within the cell, as part of it on the subatomic layer! If I didn't make that clear, know I have!

[deraudrl]

Applying the concept of superposition to macroscopic structures (vs subatomic particles) makes the needle of my BS detector twitch uncontrollably.

I hope, nobody thought that! I was on the quantum layer the whole time, I don't think of a cell as being in superposition, but a quantum effect within the cell, as part of it on the subatomic layer! If I didn't make that clear, know I have!

No, you're good, I was responding to this:

My New scientist issue came today and the relevant bit was that microtubules in neurons may enter into states of quantum superposition.

I googled "neuron quantum" and found a bunch of articles that I really don't have time to deep-dive at the moment. But there's an overall "hand-wavy" vibe permeating the whole subject, on the level of, "We don't understand how consciousness works. We don't understand how quantum <whatever> works. Therefore, consciousness must be a quantum effect." Mr. Occam has apparently fled the scene.

[Spogg]

Deraudrl you made me laugh!

Just to distil the idea a bit more, a brain is made of quite a few atoms which definitely do display quantum stuff. As you zoom out those effects might still have influence on the macroscopic. We simply don’t know the boundaries, so for now I’m inclined to accept that a neuron could behave like a Qbit at least. That gets us no closer to how the subjective qualia of consciousness are produced of course.

[martinvicanek]

"We don't understand how consciousness works. We don't understand how quantum <whatever> works. Therefore, consciousness must be a quantum effect." Mr. Occam has apparently fled the scene.

That is exactly my impression, too.

For me it is very hard to imagine quantum effects for a neuron - a macroscopic object, thermally coupled to its surroundings. Quantum experiments are usually carried out under ultra-high vacuum conditions on much smaller, isolated systems containing only few degrees of freedom. See, quantum states are really very fragile, any interaction with other parts will lead to decoherence and ultimately wipe out quantum peculiarities. That is the reason why quantum effects are not part of our daily experience. It also explains why it is so hard to build a quantum computer.

Many see consciousness as an emergent phenomenon of a vast number (>10^10) of organized units (neurons) and an even much larger number of interconnections. It is many orders of magnitude beyond what we can achieve with computer-neural networks today. Therefore, a proof is out of reach now and probably will be for some time, and until then it remains merely a hypothesis, albeit one which does not involve doubtful ingredients to begin with.

As to intuition and quantum theory, they don't go very well together. Perhaps the best known counter-intuitive quantum effect is the double slit experiment, another, more intricate one, is the EPR paradox.

[tulamide]

As to intuition and quantum theory, they don't go very well together. Perhaps the best known counter-intuitive quantum effect is the double slit experiment, another, more intricate one, is the EPR paradox.

I don't think, you understood, what I wrote. Your examples are the results of observing, which influences the result. The EPR paradox is about locality in entangled quantum particles (which the Einstein group wanted to be true), which was proven to be non-local (thereby breaking the law of macro-physics). The double slit experiment is paradox in itself, because the behaviour is already influenced through the experiment, even before active observation takes place.

My approach is that no observation takes place, unlike in quantum computer or human experiments. The behaviour of entangled particles without observation is not stable, as you said yourself. That's why I said "as soon as they lose their entaglement, a state decision has been made". That triggers from the quantum layer influence the macro layer, shouldn't be doubted. It is the sole reason, why quantum computing works!

[martinvicanek]

You are right, I do not understand your argument. I was not referring to your post anyway, but now that you brought it up: Why would there be quantum entanglement in neurons or the brain, and which parts exactly would be entangled? In experiments entangled particles are created in an elementary process (such as pair production) with pertinent conservation laws. What plausible mechanism would generate entanglement in the brain?

[tulamide]

You are right, I do not understand your argument. I was not referring to your post anyway, but now that you brought it up: Why would there be quantum entanglement in neurons or the brain, and which parts exactly would be entangled? In experiments entangled particles are created in an elementary process (such as pair production) with pertinent conservation laws. What plausible mechanism would generate entanglement in the brain?

That's a strange answer! First, it was me who brought up intuition, so you were indeed referring to me. Second, you seem to be less informed, than would be needed.

Entanglement on the quantum layer is very common. It's only that controlling it by us humans is difficult, because any interaction disturbs entanglement of specific particles (so you need electromagnetic fields and other measures to specifically get two particles of your choice to force into entanglement). It's the common natural entanglement I'm talking about. I said it many times, that I exclude any human interaction. This is not about controlling something by us. There is no main controller, as I laid it out.
I appreciate anyone to be sceptic. That is how questions are asked. But I also appreciate not being arrogant when asking questions. Please understand that this whole thread is theoretical. If it were proven, all quantum physicists would bow before us and give us Nobel prizes.