Physics in Mind: A Quantum View of the Brain
January 28, 2013
- Author:
- Werner Loewenstein
- Publisher:
- Basic Books (1/29/2013)
No one can escape a sense of awe when reflecting on the workings of the mind: we see, we hear, we feel, we are aware of the world around us. But what is the mind? What do we mean when we say we are “aware” of something? What is this peculiar state in our heads, at once utterly familiar and bewilderingly mysterious, that we call awareness or consciousness?
In Physics in Mind, eminent biophysicist Werner R. Loewenstein argues that to answer these questions, we must first understand the physical mechanisms that underlie the workings of the mind. And so begins an exhilarating journey along the sensory data stream of the brain, which shows how our most complex organ processes the vast amounts of information coming in through our senses to create a coherent, meaningful picture of the world. Bringing information theory to bear on recent advances in the neurosciences, Loewenstein reveals a web of immense computational power inside the brain. He introduces the revolutionary idea that quantum mechanics could be fundamental to how our minds almost instantaneously deal with staggering amounts of information, as in the case of the information streaming through our eyes.
Combining cutting-edge research in neuroscience and physics, Loewenstein presents an ambitious hypothesis about the parallel processing of sensory information that is the heart, hub, and pivot of the cognitive brain. Wide-ranging and brimming with insight, Physics in Mind breaks new ground in our understanding of how the mind works.
Comments (9)
by Tony Stender
Well as author AYn Rand observes is her short book “Introduction to Objectivist epistemology”
Existence is Identity
Identification is Consciousness
Your Move!
by Peter Kinnon
The suggestion attributed to Tanna “that questions like “What is life? Why has life happened? Or, even, what is consciousness?” are beyond the scope of science, requiring some form of ineffable transcendence to comprehend.” is seriously wrong.
“What is life” can quite reasonably be interpreted in scientific terms within at lest two contexts.
“Why life happened” on the other hand, would not seem able to to addressed empirically, and so, within the domain of science, is meaningless.
However “What is consciousness” when stripped of the metaphysical baggage generated by introspection, is seen to be entirely accounted for by science. In fact, it is an evolutionary necessity.
Simply the navigational facility which enables an organism to interact optimally with its environment.
The level of interaction of our species being inordinately high and the extent of consciousness (which we must remember, can be inactivated rather easily by a whiff of anaesthetic ) correspondingly sophisticated.
This latter point, in particular, is expanded upon (very informally) within the context of the wider evolutionary model presented (very informally) in my latest book “The Goldilocks Effect: What Has Serendipity Ever Done For Us?” which is a free download in e-book formats from the “Unusual Perspectives” website
Actually, the quite spurious and unnecessary invoking of quantum effects to account for consciousness is not even a new idea , having quite inappropriately proposed by Roger Penrose many years back and vigorously promoted by Hammeroff .
The Hameroff-Penrose “theory of consciousness” as such, has no evidential basis and is a speculation which can fairly be describes an exercise in pseudoscience.
Having said that, there is, of course, absolutely no doubt that quantum effects underlie all chemical systems, including the subset represented by biology. That, however does not make them agents of consciousness.
This phenomenon, as I have pointed out previously is very easily accounted for within the macroscopic world of well established science.
It is saddening to see so many workers in the sciences becoming tied up in knots with what, in the light of present understandings, is a very easily explained phenomenon.
In their attempts to cope with the mystical overtones generated by the traditional introspective approaches to the subject, with the consequent recursivities, all manner of quite unrelated or pseudo-scientific concepts are brought to bear..
Examples in this case are “emergent dynamics”, information theory and autocatalysis.
Phenomena blithely invoked by others include (as in this article) quantum effects nd also fractals and “complexity theory”
“What is consciousness” when stripped of the metaphysical baggage generated by introspection, is seen to be entirely accounted for by our current understanding of biology.
It is, in fact, an evolutionary necessity.
Simply the navigational facility which enables an organism to interact optimally with its environment.
The level of interaction of our species being inordinately high and the extent of consciousness correspondingly sophisticated.
A point I have frequently made in various writings over the years is reflected in a far more more down-to-earth article in this same issue: We must remember this facility can be inactivated rather easily by a whiff of anaesthetic.
The topic is discussed rather more fully in chapter 16 of “The Goldilocks Effect: What Has Serendipity Ever Done For Us?”, a free download.
by Tom B.
We have five senses. In a vast universe, are five senses enough for us to experience “everything?” I suspect not. We have many unexplained phenomena. Some may dismiss things like precognition, ghosts, reincarnation as the musings of a bunch of wackos, but these experiences persist, even in enlightened times.
What if these things are simple echos of something we don’t have the equipment to perceive properly? What if our brain has the ability to tap energies that we haven’t begun to understand? Maybe we do not yet have the equipment to perceive all that the mind is. To us, the mind is of Newtonian physics even though we live in a string theory universe (I mean this metaphorically).
Someday, maybe the ineffable quality of the mind will not be so ineffable, but not today, I’m afraid.
by Bri
From my own experiences I don’t think our science would be able to detect the energy of consciousness. It can only be infered. Very similiar to how we understand that dark matter exist because of it’s affects on ordinary matter. I think consciousness is primordial. That this reality was spawned by it.
by Bri
Hi Peter! I’ve noticed your posts before and I appreciate your book. I really can’t give you specifics but I have some unusual experiences. These lead me to conclude that consciousness is independent of a physical body. It even can affect and inhabit inanimate objects. I would love to be tested in a true scientific setting, but it’s not so easy to find people that can do that. I know that the vast majority of scientific scrutiny has disproved metaphysical explanations. My experiences really run counter to that. If anything I think that quantum effects and the whole universe is actually generated by the force that consciousness is derived from. Someday soon I should be in a position to illustrate what I’m talking about: reality just isn’t what we tend to think it is. It’s far more like a dream that we share.
by Ralph Dratman
I think you are right about the explicability of consciousness within the existing framework of physics and chemistry. In fact, I have allowed the assumption that such is the case to guide me throughout my adult life.
More specifically, I know of no evidence which would engender the slightest doubt about the sufficiency of current knowledge to “explain” consciousness in the sense of showing what ingredients and geometry are necessary for consciousness to come about.
That said, until we can build, simulate or describe in all essential details a physical system that exhibits something most of us would be inclined to call “consciousness,” our conclusions in the matter must logically be taken as provisional.
by Peter Kinnon
One of the great virtues of science, Ralph, is that ALL conclusions are taken as provisional.
The notion of “absolute scientific truths” is invalid.
Rather, we have “best guesses” base on current empirical evidence.
That the more firmly established best guesses are not too far off the mark is evidenced by the billions of artifacts and systems that have been generated by science and its inseparable sibling, technology..
by Ralph Dratman
Mr. Kinnon, I would like to discuss your “Goldilocks” book, but I do not think we need to burden this forum with that conversation. How else can I contact you?
by Peter Kinnon
I am having to cope with an overwhelming amount of email at present but have your address and will contact you when I catch up with the backlog a bit.
Pete