What is Digg?142 Comments
- humanerror, on 01/14/2009, -0/+75My answer is both yes and no, but only as long as no one is listening
- vandeg, on 01/14/2009, -1/+47Quantum processes are used in all systems at all times.
- skoles, on 01/14/2009, -3/+29I want to say "yes" but I'm compelled to say "no".
- Stevo23, on 01/14/2009, -1/+25I wish popular science writers wouldn't try to dumb down and sensationalize things. In the second paragraph, the author claims that "photosynthesis appears to derive its ferocious efficiency not from the familiar physical laws that govern the visible world but from the seemingly exotic rules of quantum mechanics"
Photosynthesis is, in fact, anything but 'ferociously efficient'. Rubisco, one of the main enzymes involved in photosynthesis, is probably the ***** enzyme in biology. It works almost as well in the backwards direction as the forwards, and so it spends about half its time undoing the work it just did, and wasting energy to boot. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RuBisCO
In fact, rubisco and standard photosynthesis are so inefficient that nature has evolved at least two alternative forms of photosynthesis that try to minimize the problems with rubisco. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C4_photosynthesis
I don't know enough physics to really gauge the rest of the article, but based on this early whopper, I'd take it with a grain of salt. - Harabeck, on 01/13/2009, -3/+26Title was a bit misleading, the thing about consciousness is only the last paragraph. But, still very interesting to think that quantum processes may be used in biological systems.
- drunkenoaf, on 01/14/2009, -0/+16QM, as a concept, is singular. I think. Probably.
- sepelester, on 01/14/2009, -0/+15"Is Quantum Mechanics Controlling Your Thoughts?"
No silly, media is controlling my thoughts. - sockpuppets, on 01/14/2009, -0/+12.uʍop ǝpısdn pɹɐoqʎǝʞ ɹnoʎ uɹnʇ
- drunkenoaf, on 01/14/2009, -2/+13So, no, then.
But is quantum mechanics at work in your brain? Yes. But then, QM is at work everywhere. - spoonboy, on 01/14/2009, -2/+13What an oversimplified thinking....
Yes we know that all matter is governed by QM, but does understanding thoughts and consciousness requires a QM explanation? THAT is the what question posed in the title is trying to ask. For comparison, since QM is governing all matter, then it is also governing how (say) a car operates. But does understanding the working of a car requires a QM explanation? I don't think so. Simple classical mechanics, plus and some electrical principles (also chemistry for the gas burning) is sufficient.
The problem is now, we can't seem to understand the complete workings of our brain, how it generates mind. thoughts, consciousness, dream etc... by simply using classical physics. It has been studied for centuries, by philosophers, mathematician, physics expert, biology expert, phsycologist,... - dotMH, on 01/14/2009, -0/+11Is gravity controlling your life? What about thermodynamics?
- sockpuppets, on 01/14/2009, -3/+14I wonder what Schrödinger's cat was thinking.
- christoast, on 01/14/2009, -1/+10is reality affecting your life?
- notoneofus, on 01/14/2009, -0/+9What's that smell?
- SpudDuffer, on 01/14/2009, -9/+17Since ALL matter is governed by quantum mechanics, it is impossible for anything to NOT be controlled by quantum mechanics. What an oversimplified article,.....
- dreid1987, on 01/14/2009, -0/+8I don't feel like the problems with Rubisco really take away from the point they're trying to make. The capture of light and generation of ATP is still incredibly efficient; it's just the carbon fixation that's especially slow.
There must be a good reason for Rubisco being so slow, too, otherwise it would have been fixed by evolution very quickly. There's a little information about this in the Wikipedia article you posted: "The authors conclude that RuBisCO may actually have evolved to reach a point of 'near perfection' in many plants (with widely varying substrate availabilities and environmental conditions)"
Your overall points about popular science are right on though. - humanerror, on 01/14/2009, -0/+6Why the hell can't I just collapse my own wave function?
- FulcrumVitesse, on 01/14/2009, -3/+9The majority of researchers don't think that the brain uses quantum effects, because the structures in the brain (cells, neurons and synapses) are far too large for quantum effects to have much influence. I think this view is going to change in a pretty short time. Quantum effects could explain many things about consciousness.
- ripter, on 01/14/2009, -0/+6"But I have convinced myself that there is absolutely nothing in the world, no sky, no earth, no minds, no bodies. Does it now follow that I too do not exist? No. If I convinced myself of something [or thought anything at all] then I certainly existed. But there is a deceiver of supreme power and cunning who is deliberately and constantly deceiving me. In that case I too undoubtedly exist, if he is deceiving me; and let him deceive me as much as he can, he will never bring it about that I am nothing so long as I think that I am something. So, after considering everything very thoroughly, I must finally conclude that the proposition, I am, I exist, is necessarily true whenever it is put forward by me or conceived in my mind. (AT VII 25; CSM II 16–17)"
- Rene Descartes - amdahlj, on 01/14/2009, -0/+6maybe
- Appity, on 01/14/2009, -0/+6Every time you use an electrical device, realize that the transistors that make it up work only because quantum mechanical principles are in effect.
- alski707, on 01/14/2009, -0/+6FTA: "Unlike electric power lines, which lose as much as 20 percent of energy in transmission, these bacteria transmit energy at a staggering efficiency rate of 95 percent or better."
Transmission, not Conversion. - dexter411, on 01/14/2009, -0/+5Dyslexia != bad at grammar, unless you read that as "Is mutnauQ scinahceM..."
- Stevo23, on 01/14/2009, -0/+5I mean, ok, fine, light capture and ATP generation may be very efficient. They should write that, then. Photosynthesis in total (which includes carbon fixation) is not efficient at all.
Also, it's not necessarily true that evolution would fix Rubisco. Random mutation and natural selection will only produce improvements along functional gradients. If improving Rubisco required a completely radical redesign, you'd probably never get there.
Imagine it like you have a car that you want to fix up, but you also need to keep driving that car to work. You can make some improvements here and there, but if you want to make a repair that requires, say, disassembling the whole engine and rebuilding it, you won't be able to do that because even if it would really improve the car, in the meantime you won't be able to get to work.
Natural selection runs into the same problem, it's going to select against any totally non-functional intermediate stages, even if they might eventually lead to a radical improvement. It's a "can't get there from here" problem. - pe5t1lence, on 01/14/2009, -1/+6No the Hypnotoad is. I MEAN I WORSHIP HYPNOTOAD OF MY OWN FREE WILL.
- archer104, on 01/14/2009, -2/+7What the ***** are you guys talking about? Consciousness means awareness, perception. I can't be certain that what I see is real. It could all be an illusion, like a dream. The ONLY certainty is that I am AWARE of SOMETHING.
- doublsh0t, on 01/14/2009, -2/+7clip from Waking Life: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JpPxClULniI
- elhaf, on 01/14/2009, -0/+4Lasers only work because light energy consists of quanta known as photons. That's where the whole concept of quantum physics came from in the first place. And if you don't think you use it every day, think cd reader.
- mistertrogdor, on 01/14/2009, -0/+4Is Thoughts Controlling Your Quantum Mechanics?
- cloudberries, on 01/14/2009, -0/+4But we don't need to invoke it to explain the majority of physical phenomena. Why does my toaster work? Can quantum mechanics provide an answer?
- dreid1987, on 01/14/2009, -0/+4The question isn't whether quantum mechanics take place in the brain, it's whether quantum principles are relevant at the level of neurobiology.
- enoerew, on 01/14/2009, -0/+4Do we see that there is no inherent division between anything? Quantum blends into micro blends into macro, and the reverse.
- mrkmrk, on 01/14/2009, -0/+3Quantum Mechanics is the most accurate theory that mankind has ever come up with. We do not understand *why* things are this way, but we know experimentally that they *are*, and we sure as hell know how they work.
- Mujokan, on 01/14/2009, -2/+5From the last paragraph: "potentially via quantum entanglement"
My ***** detector just went off.
"But many human experiences, Hameroff says, from dreams to subconscious emotions to fuzzy memory, seem closer to the Alice in Wonderland rules governing the quantum world than to the cut-and-dried reality that classical physics suggests."
Arrgh! Make it stop! - blergle, on 01/14/2009, -0/+3Fascinating - reminds me of something I once read where some guys were experimenting with self programming algorithms on FPGAs to make the most efficient signal path between two points. Problem was the solution worked without there being any physical link between the points which was unexpected. This confused the experimenters until they tested it for RF and realised that one part of the circuit was oscillating so fast it was generating RF and another part was receiving the signal. (the circuit had no radio transmitter components).
Trying to find a link to anything about it. - Azerael, on 01/14/2009, -4/+7Maybe consciousness doesn't exist at all. It's one of those interesting things that everyone, even scientists apparently, seem to assume is there, but have so far been incapable of detecting, let alone deciphering.
- Kev8888, on 01/14/2009, -0/+3Or both
- sanman, on 01/14/2009, -0/+3exactly - quantum mechanics is a fundamental layer on top of which all the other stuff rests upon
you can't even have chemistry without quantum mechanics - skabyss, on 01/14/2009, -0/+3Quantum mechanics is "god"
What now smart-ass - afroncio, on 01/14/2009, -0/+3In "The Emperor's New Mind", that's exactly what Roger Penrose is proposing. I think I'll go back and re-read it, come to think of it!
- justjoehere, on 01/14/2009, -0/+3What cat?
- TheMoniker, on 01/14/2009, -0/+3Penrose and Hammeroff (sp?) ended up being wrong about a number of the details of their bid for a quantum mechanical basis for consciousness (spin systems, was it? I forget the details.). Not that it would have solved the hard mind-body problem as they were advertising it would: it simply moved the issue of how consciousness arises from neurons to spin networks.
Sorry if this is incoherent, I'm on 5 hours worth of sleep and barely able to type, let alone reason. - Mujokan, on 01/14/2009, -0/+3I try to avoid it.
- MrBobyMan, on 01/14/2009, -0/+2Hi, I'm Tyler.
- StateofMind09, on 01/14/2009, -0/+2Are Your Thoughts Controlling Quantum Mechanics?
- Anonchrist, on 01/15/2009, -0/+2ALL HAIL THE HYPNOTOAD
- Mujokan, on 01/14/2009, -0/+2I don't think Heidegger would approve, actually.
- graeh, on 01/15/2009, -0/+2"this whole 'consciousness causes collapse' thing is psuedoscientific new age horse *****"
- DeskFlyer, on 01/15/2009, -0/+25 hours of sleep? I envy you dude.
- iancgi, on 01/14/2009, -0/+2Good point. Since the brain operates on electricity which is essentially energy and light then it may operate on much more complex principles than just simply atomic interaction.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 145 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is