Tony_Materna • 3 days ago −
Being a cofounder of a neural network technology company in the mid 1980s, I have been startled and disappointed at the lack of progress in developing “brain-like” machines. 25 years later, there are still no commercial neural net based products.
The conclusion I have reached is that there is more going on in the brain than just the strengthening of synapses.
It seems likely to me that the brain is using quantum effects to create consciousness. If that is in any way correct, then mechanical attempts to create ‘artificial intelligence’ will continue to be stuck where they have begun. We will not be able to make significant progress until we have mastered the construction and operation of quantum computers.
Samuel H. Kenyon IRT Tony_Materna • a day ago −
So let’s get this straight. Your company and other companies failed to productize neural nets, therefore consciousness is directly dependent on quantum effects. Sorry, but I’m missing the logic here.
Tony_Materna IRT Samuel H. Kenyon • 13 hours ago
Dear Sam,
My argument is not that because artificial neural networks have failed to produce anything useful, that leads ipso facto to the conclusion that the brain is using quantum effects.
What I was saying is that after a quarter century of study and development with nothing in the way of useful, i.e. commercial, results, the hypothesis that the brain is solely or mainly using synaptic strengthening to encode and process information may be insufficient. Undoubtedly synaptic strengthening is some part of the brain’s signal processing and sensor fusion, but it does not appear to lead to “thinking”, consciousness, or any result that beats traditional signal processing or probability analysis. Something else must be necessary to make the existence proof we have, our brains and consciousness, work.
What else can that be? The limitations of neural networks do not point us anywhere.
An alternate hypothesis can be formulated, and has been. Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff, among others, have proposed that the brain is using aspects of quantum particle behavior to effect consciousness.
While I don’t have any particular feelings on their specific theory of how this is coming about, I do find it interesting that Penrose came to it from physics and mathematics, while Hameroff independently arrived at it from his work as an anesthesiologist and that they ended up collaborating. I am also influenced in my musings by the work of Dutch cardiologist, Pim Van Lommel, who after making a prospective study of cardiac arrest patients, and the reports from a subset of them of their near-death experiences, also has concluded that consciousness is a ‘non local’ phenomenon and that quantum effects are potentially the mechanism.
The well documented phenomenon of some people who are brain dead, i.e. their brains are inactive and silent (to the degree that our science can determine it so) and yet they report, often with remarkable precision, the actions and conversation of people around them or even in adjacent rooms or floors (the out-of-body experience), is observational evidence that suggests that consciousness is not contained only inside living brain matter but may have an existence in another plane or dimension. (Van Lommel proposes that the brain is a transceiver to that quantum plane, which is where “you” are encoded right now.) Quantum phenomenon, with its ‘spooky action at a distance’, non local properties, multiple simultaneous states and quantum entanglement, may provide the mechanisms that make thinking and consciousness possible.
The often reported and documented phenomenon of a family member dying on one side of the Earth and a close relative on the other side sensing something seriously amiss within seconds or minutes, sometime even understanding to a certainty what has happened, is inexplicable with traditional hypothesis of brain function, but potentially yields to an understandable, if still theoretical, result of two quantum brains becoming entangled.
You can immediately read Van Lommel’s research on Near Death Experiences in a paper that was published in Lancet, the peer reviewed journal of the British Medical Society:
http://profezie3m.altervista.o…
I can also recommend to you Van Lommel’ follow-up book on the subject:
http://www.amazon.com/Consciou…
For a more easily consumed version of his observations, if you can handle his strong accent, you can watch this video interview with, Dr. Van Lommel:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…
For a discussion of the possible mechanisms for quantum
conscienceness, this Wikipedia write up is a good introduction to the work of anesthesiologist Stuart Hameroff and his work with physicist Roger Penrose:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S…
If you’d like to hear some first hand accounts of Near
Death Experiences and in particular some of the out-of-body observations, you might enjoy watching these videos:
http://www.biography.com/tv/i-…
What is interesting to me is that whatever the brain is doing, it is doing it right now as you are reading my comments. Further, I suspect that all brains, dog and cat brains, mouse and wasp brains, have evolved using the same quantum mechanisms. As an engineer, and an entrepreneur, I
believe that as we fully understand them, we will be able to simulate these mechanisms, possibly with quantum computers, and then perhaps we can create thinking machines of our own design.
treetrunkdings 