jeudi 20 janvier 2011

OrchOR - what is that?

We are now January 12 ...

Here I found out what Orch-OR is:

"In this paper we propose that aspects of quantum theory (e.g. quantum coherence) and of a newly proposed physical phenomenon of quantum wave function 'self-collapse' (objective reduction: OR -Penrose, 1994) are essential for consciousness, and occur in cytoskeletal microtubules and other structures within each of the brain's neurons. The particular characteristics of microtubules suitable for quantum effects include their crystal-like lattice structure, hollow inner core, organization of cell function and capacity for information processing. We envisage that conformational states of microtubule subunits (tubulins) are coupled to internal quantum events, and cooperatively interact (compute) with other tubulins. We further assume that macroscopic coherent superposition of quantum-coupled tubulin conformational states occurs throughout significant brain volumes and provides the global binding essential to consciousness. We equate the emergence of the microtubule quantum coherence with pre-conscious processing which grows (for up to 500 milliseconds) until the mass-energy difference among the separated states of tubulins reaches a threshold related to quantum gravity. According to the arguments for OR put forth in Penrose (1994), superpositioned states each have their own space-time geometries. When the degree of coherent mass-energy difference leads to sufficient separation of space-time geometry, the system must choose and decay (reduce, collapse) to a single universe state. In this way, a transient superposition of slightly differing space-time geometries persists until an abrupt quantum classical reduction occurs. Unlike the random, 'subjective reduction' (SR, or R) of standard quantum theory caused by observation or environmental entanglement, the OR we propose in microtubules is a self-collapse and it results in particular patterns of microtubule-tubulin conformational states that regulate neuronal activities including synaptic functions. Possibilities and probabilities for post-reduction tubulin states are influenced by factors including attachments of microtubule-associated proteins (MAPs) acting as 'nodes' which tune and 'orchestrate' the quantum oscillations. We thus term the self-tuning OR process in microtubules 'orchestrated objective reduction'('B>Orch OR', and calculate an estimate for the number of tubulins (and neurons) whose coherence for relevant time periods (e.g. 500 milliseconds) will elicit Orch OR. In providing a connection among 1) pre-conscious to conscious transition, 2) fundamental space-time notions, 3) non-computability, and 4) binding of various (time scale and spatial) reductions into an instantaneous event ('conscious now', we believe Orch OR in brain microtubules is the most specific and plausible model for consciousness yet proposed."
"In this paper we apply certain aspects of quantum theory (quantum coherence) and a new physical phenomenon described in Penrose (1994) of wave function self-collapse (objective reduction: OR) to specific, essential structures within each neuron: cytoskeletal microtubules. Table 1 summarizes how quantum coherence and OR occurring in microtubules (Orch OR) can potentially address some of the problematic features of consciousness."

When copying table, I insert debate, my comments in underscore, JR's in italics, the quote from above as such:

Problematic Feature of ConsciousnessPossible Quantum Solutions
Unitary sense: "binding problem"1) Non-local quantum coherence; Indivisible macroscopic quantum state (e.g. Bose-Einstein condensate);
2) Instantaneous self-collapse of superpositioned states (Orch OR).
Superpositioned states would only explain "unitary sense" - the "common sense" of St Thomas Aquinas - perfectly, if resulting "unitary sense" was neither of the original sense impressions. Instead it combines both, like seeing and hearing a waterfall or talking to a person you look at.
Transition from pre-conscious/sub-conscious to conscious processes1) Sub-and pre-conscious occur in quantum computing mode
2) Automatic, autonomic functions occur in classical computing mode
3) Quantum classical transition. (Wave function "self" collapse - Orch OR -is intrinsic to consciousness).
Supposing there is such a transition.
Non-computable, non-algorithmic logicOrch OR is non-computable.
Well, non-computable by mathematics does not mean irrational as far as predicate logic is concerned.

He means non-computable in the Godelian sense. It's not computable by bit-logic. (He's making a claim that the "Hard-AI" position is false)
(Apparent) non-deterministic "free will"Non-computable, but non-random wave function self-collapse (Orch OR).
If so, it would not be free will, but determined by accidents of self-collapse of wave functions.
Essential nature of human experience1) Wave function self collapse (Orch OR) from incompatible superposition of separated space-times;

I have evidence of this. Very compelling evidence but it's of the kind I'd like to talk about only in private. Let's just say the chances of it being wrong are 1 in 2.4x10^57.

No. This is a public debate.
I deleted that letter, and it does not prove that mind is quantum mechanical as opposed to not mechanical at all in nature.

It does not prove information as percieved or known is the same thing as a wave function or collapse of such.

2) Pre-consciousconscious transition;

Well we have a subconscious which affects our thinking.

According to Freud and Jung.

3) Effectively instantaneous "now"(Orch OR) collapse.

It is.

Orch-OR does not account for all attributes of essential nature of human experience.

Saying consciousness and will are primal does.

It is primal in Orch-OR it just hides it. Information does not exist unless the wave-function collapses. And the first wave-function to collapse had to be by Orch-OR -by definition. Thus mind is primary in Orch-OR -even if it conceals it by saying that there are two ways to collapse a wave-function.

..."Information does not exist unless the wave-function collapses."...

That is what I deny precisely.

5 commentaires:

  1. Anscombe proposes C. S. Lewis had mixed up the formal characteristics of valid thought with the coming into being of valid thought.

    Not so, he said that the coming into being of valid thought as portraid by Naturalism is too close to the coming into being of invalid thought to be able to have a far superior formal characteristic of validity as thought.

    Which is true, since Naturalism portrays both thought as coming into being ultimately from Non-Thought.

  2. I mean that if, after we are old enough to understand the question, our confidence in the existence of anything else (say, the solar system or the Spanish Armada) is challenged, our argument in defence of it will have to take the form of inferences from our immediate sensations.

    Two glosses: for one thing "immediate sensations" might be better put as "immediate sensations and introspections", since it is introspection which teaches us to trust others as we are truthful ourselves (Spanish armada case involves trusting testimony of other people), for another thing, I am glad he said "solar system" rather than "Heliocentrism". Tychonian Astronomy is quite along with Heliocentrism on the fact that there are planets that circle the sun and thereby form a system, a fact that can be verified optically and by trigonometry.

    Not so the claim that separates Heliocentrism as such from Tychonian Astronomy that Earth is one planet circling the Sun as are all the other seven or eight plus n planetoids. When I have debated this with scientists, I have got answers after a while meaning that they base the denial of angelic propulsion of planets on Naturalism or Monism.

  3. Quote from 1947 edition's version of Chapter III.