[ExI] extropy-chat Digest, Vol 78, Issue 2

[Keith Henson]

On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 4:15 AM,  <extropy-chat-request at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

snip

> Will Steinberg <steinberg.will at gmail.com>:
>> But honestly, to stimulate discussion:
>> a) More topics on space, on material science, on energy, on social dynamics!

Space and materials science relate.  For example Spectra 2000 is good
enough for a moving cable space elevator from the lunar surface out
through L1.  I put this into a spreadsheet not long ago and later
found I had regenerated the stress graph Jerome Pearson did when he
worked through the problem.

Energy and space relate through solar power satellites.  Alas, that is
looking less and less likely since another approach has come along
that will make energy in the "half the cost of coal" range and takes a
lot less front end investment.  Spike knows what I am talking about.
We should be able to freely discuss it in a few months.

Social dynamics requires a background in memetics and evolutionary
psychology.  For EP to make sense you must be up on the selfish gene
(Dawkins) modern understanding of evolution.  If you want to
intelligently participate in such discussions it it critical you
understand these topics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kin_selection#Hamilton.27s_rule
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inclusive_fitness

>> b) To these topics, reply even if you aren't confident in totality of theory
>> or if you think your ideas are half-formed.

If you don't understand a post on these topics *ask questions.*  Don't
just assert your ignorance with dogmatic statements.

To take this discussion up to a meta level, why to people read and
post on mailing list at all?

The reason is rooted in stone age evolution, particularly in
reproductive success.  Can anyone clearly state the logic?

Mondo snip

> Subject: Re: [ExI] ExI] intelligence, coherence, the frontal lobe,
>        quantum         evolution
>
> Oi!  Phew--I am glad someone will tell me that (as I'd assumed) I have
> grossly oversimplified the workings of QM in order to speculate.
>
> However--given that neurons ALSO need multiple quanta of energy to fire, and
> that there may be "loose" enough bonding to allow sizable delocalization, is
> it tenable that the brain can in some way use this quantum efficiency to
> calculate things faster?  I was under the impression that the problem with
> QM in biological situations was mostly associated with a "noisy
> environment," and that the discovery of coherence in plants, which are
> relatively hot, perhaps allowed for other situations.

> Am I wrong in assuming this?  What makes coherence possible for plants that
> would not apply to brains?

Coherence doesn't apply to either.  The scale is wrong.  What goes on
in brains is many orders of magnitude away from where quantum effects
show up.

"Penrose and Stuart Hameroff have speculated that consciousness is the
result of quantum gravity effects in microtubules, which they dubbed
Orch-OR (orchestrated objective reduction). But Max Tegmark, in a
paper in Physical Review E, calculated that the time scale of neuron
firing and excitations in microtubules is slower than the decoherence
time by a factor of at least 10,000,000,000. The reception of the
paper is summed up by this statement in his support: "Physicists
outside the fray, such as IBM's John A. Smolin, say the calculations
confirm what they had suspected all along. 'We're not working with a
brain that's near absolute zero. It's reasonably unlikely that the
brain evolved quantum behavior', he says." The Tegmark paper has been
widely cited by critics of the Penrose-Hameroff proposal. It has been
claimed by Hameroff to be based on a number of incorrect assumptions
(see linked paper below from Hameroff, Scott Hagan and Jack
Tuszyński), but Tegmark in turn has argued that the critique is
invalid (see rejoinder link below). In particular, Hameroff points out
the peculiarity that Tegmark's formula for the decoherence time
includes a factor of T2 in the numerator, meaning that higher
temperatures would lead to longer decoherence times. Tegmark's
rejoinder keeps the factor of T2 for the decoherence time.

"In his book, The Web's Awake, Phillip Tetlow states that Penrose's
ideas about the human thought process are not widely accepted in
scientific circles, citing Minsky's criticisms, and quoting science
journalist Charles Seife, who notes that Penrose is one of a handful
of scientists for whom the nature of consciousness suggests a quantum
process. [14]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Penrose


Keith