Yep, I only read half and kinda got the feeling "X is green and Y is green therefore X = Y". A lot of "what if", "might it", "could it be" and so on...
Yes, the idea that quantum mechanics are involved in producing consciousness is not crazy (although I think Penrose would admit it is pretty speculative). His book The Emperor's New Mind discusses it. But the idea that consciousness produces quantum mechanical effects is (I'm fairly sure) nonsense.
I have seen at least one set of studies where yogis in a deep state of meditation are asked to focus their consciousness on an active particle detection experiment, and the results seem to indicate some anomalies directly correlated with the yogi's direction of focus. The scientist's name escapes me, and was someone who had an active libel campaign running on his Wikipedia page.
I directly experience the sensation of making choices. All the scientific data I have ever perceived has been through countless filters and transformations. I find it hard to muster faith in my perceptions of scientific data if I can't trust my perceptions of something much more raw and unfiltered.
That is going way too far. I would say science is the practice of "triangulating" reality by trying "project" our perceptions (which we assume are noisy) into a space where they are directly comparable - kind of like how you take multiple measurements to get a distribution, then move forward using the mean.
"Might it be that, just as quantum objects can apparently be in two places at once, so a quantum brain can hold onto two mutually-exclusive ideas at the same time?"
Argh. Brain-hurting levels of bad science writing.
To quote a stand-up comedian Pete Holmes on laymen explaining Magic acts:
"I don't understand magnets... and I don't understand this... this is magnets!" [1]
The writer watched some Big Bang theory for well-known physics concepts, mashed in some Deepak Chopra, and ensured all the relevant sentences are phrased as questions.
Be warned it is a difficult read, not because of complicated concepts (there are many mentioned, but they are certainly not examined), but because of lack of any cohesive or binding logic between the smattering of phrases.
A thing may not "know" itself without recursion. Thus, some unknowns, contrary to popular logic, are still unknowns. We don't know how magnets work and it may be that our brains use how they do work in a specific way to do what they do.
On the other hand, they may not. It's the concept of holding both of these "facts" as eventual truths (irrationally resolved in the future) in one's mind at the same time that leads to dissonance. That's a good excuse for the scientific process, if there ever was one.
The sad thing is that you're wrong about the writer; he holds a doctorate in physics. What this piece demonstrates is that formal education and even several levels of practical experience do not necessitate deep understanding. Humans are pretty good at copying.
If a particle is strictly a point like entity then we expect it to be localised. In space. And that means an observation which probes somewhere it isn't shouldn't affect it.
However, single photon double slit experiments don't show this - the particles act as though they are interfering with each other even though a photon detector will show photons arriving one at a time, at a rate which shows only one photon could have been traversing the apparatus at a time.
maybe I should have included the whole quote, but this is regarding the double slit experiment stead delayed choice quantum eraser experiments, where you measure over here but seem to affect over there
> If we place a detector inside or just behind one slit, we can find out whether any given particle goes through it or not. In that case, however, the interference vanishes. Simply by observing a particle's path – even if that observation should not disturb the particle's motion – we change the outcome.
when we place an observer at one of the slits we lose the previously ambiguous diffraction and instead get a clump pattern, but we are definitely probing where it is
In the "delayed choice" experiment described, measuring the path of particles after they have traversed the slits forces their super position to collapse and yields no interference pattern on the detection screen. If that is the case, why doesn't the detection screen itself, which also measures the position of electrons, also force their super position to collapse? What is special about the detection screen as a measuring device?
Think of measurement as the application of constraints. The slits are a form of weak measurement. This produces a loose constraint on the state of the electron - within the bounds of that constraint there are still many possible states in which it can exist. Depending on the type of measuring device, the constraint applied can be very tight, up to the limits of the uncertainty principle.
The screen DOES cause the superposition to collapse. It just does so after the electron was able to interfere with itself. This causes the probability distribution for the collapse to be different than it is in the presence of a detector at the slits (no interference).
Consciousness is certainly a quantum phenomenon, because at the end of the day our reality is quantum mechanics writ large. We don't really understand the transition from wave-like behavior to classical particle behavior, and our current theories are at least incomplete if not plain wrong. Given that, mechanistic speculation on the relationship between quantum physics and consciousness seems premature.
That's pretty much like saying that everything is a quantum phenomenon. This is an example of a rather common mistake called 'reductionism'. But even reductionists are careful enough not to go too far - they do not call French Revolution a "quantum phenomenon", for example.
The only link I may imagine, classic mechanics is too deterministic to explain free will. Quantum mechanics, on the other side, has uncertainty as its fundamental principle.
There are many non-quantum phenomena which can't be accurately predicted, like turbulence and the stock market. I've never understood why the argument that 'it'a unpredictable, and therefore must be quantum' only seems to be applied to the brain.
I spend pretty much every weekend watching (super dyslexic) hours and hours of "stuff" about quantum, form quantum biology to physics to astro, here are some good ones around humans and the universe. Some may not seem totally relevant but give foundational knowledge, suggest watching in order:
I don't have the link but I can recommend "The Measurement Problem" by the World Science Festival on YouTube. Really good introduction to the subject and the discussion is among distinguished theoretical physicists -- not journalists.
This bullshit again. Could we please just stop giving these cranks attention until they produce at least a somewhat plausible mechanism for how quantum mechanics and conciousness are related, and not just a bunch of unscentifeic speculative mumbojumbo that falls appart if you even take a cursory look at it?
I found surprising link between quantum objects and socks. Socks can be left, or right. They cannot be partially left, or partially right, but they can be left and right at same time! Trust me, I checked that.
Moreover, when nobody is watching, socks are spreading in the room in wave-like pattern. It demonstrates wave-particle duality of socks. However, if somebody watching, socks are demonstrating particle only behavior. Moreover, they are demonstrating particle only behavior even if somebody will watch them in future!
Socks can be entangled, so if one sock is the right sock, then other one is instantaneously collapses to the left sock via spooky action at distance. This feature of socks can be used for FTL communication.
I have theory, it's called «string theory». In this theory, our Universe is made of little strings, which are creating space-time fabric, in which socks are living. In the process of entanglement, socks are somewhat connected by a string, which allows them to communicate via large distances.
Can anybody suggest me how to create a powerful theory from that, e.g. x in power of 10 at least?
Human brain is bound and conditioned by the shared physical environment. The process of evolution accumulates so-called hard-wired heuristics which reflect what usually happens in the environment. This is the machinery behind of some intuitions or Kant's "apriory knowledge". The "knowledge" is represented as a structure (circuitry), not information.
What is obvious, anything which could not be captured by the senses and does not directly influence the chances of survival and reproduction cannot be represented into a brain structure and cannot be the source of related intuitions.
Abstract concepts and generalized notions would necessarily reflect observable empirical phenomena, not imaginable.
In other words, this is another hipster's nonsense.
Why, Kant has been explicit that such kind of knowledge must be there prior to the sensory conditioning of the mind (through which each baby goes), hundreds of years before modern machine learning algorithms, so he is an extraordinary thinker indeed.
He just attributed it to some metaphysical abstractions, perhaps due to being prejudiced by all the religious dogmatic nonsense, and the social consensus which refused to consider a man being mere a machine and everything in the universe as an unfolding of one single process.
As a software dev, without having any knowledge about quantum physics, reading about 'delayed-choice' particles, I'd say they are using some kind of lazy evaluation. Maybe the universe is actually a software simulation...
I just don't get why smart people--even physicists!!--fall for this trap. AFAICT, Quantum mechanics adds no explanatory power to current theories of consciousness based on real, observable neurological phenomenon--like the quite obvious fact there is a huge neural network information processing system that is clearly doing the heavy lifting. No electrical activity, no consciousness. It's been shown over and over again. So what do the quantum superpositions add over mapping neural networks and simulating them? Does a quantum superposition of a single molecule somehow make the nodes of this neural network any more powerful or mysterious? Do they suddenly get a lot more storage capacity (the human brain is already estimated at 2.5pb just using neural connections)?
QM just doesn't add _any_ new explanations or make any predictions for consciousness. Until it does, or we meet something we really cannot explain, it does not make sense to obsess over it.
Quantum Mechanics as a physical theory that describes behavior of particles, structure of atoms, etc. does not have much to say about behavior of larger molecules, let alone cells such as neurons, or their interactions.
But at the core of the modern QM lies a mathematical theory that, unfortunately, only rarely is seen as something that is independent from the QM's concrete physical aspects. That theory is a kind of probability theory that is different from the one that we all know and love (or hate). It is exactly that difference that makes QM unreachable for our intuition. But as a mathematical framework it can be expected to be useful in describing behavior of some other systems that have nothing to do with Quantum Mechanics and which could possibly include mechanisms of consciousness.
How would that probabilistic model be applied to consciousness? Genuinely curious here. As far as I can tell, the definition of consciousness that Chalmers and others use doesn't seem to have measurable aspects.
Well, Chalmers is a philosopher, and what philosophy does is it clarifies problems (which often creates more problems to clarify) rather than solves them... Whatever the exact definition, consciousness is a function of a living brain, a function required for the survival of an individual as a part of a group, and since the environment in which an individual operates is characterized by the high degree of uncerainty as to both its present state and especially its future, making decisions must involve probabilistic methods, and so must learning (because we all learn from our mistakes). The process of learning has a physical manifestation due to changes in the brain, which could be "measured," and if we assume the primacy of matter over function, we have to expect that the material substrate also must behave probabilistically. Which probability model is the best one in describing that behavior, remains an open question.
So, I agree with you completely that consciousness is a function of a living brain, where "living brain" is the physical substrate. I don't know if it follows that consciousness has to be probabilistic.
The reason that I brought up Chalmers is that he, and others, will say that physical states don't map to subjective consciousness or qualia. Don't get me wrong, I'm much more of a "physicalist" in this regard. I'm not trained and I don't work in the field, but I can't help but think that humans overestimate the complexity and capabilities of consciousness. I think that there is a brain and, like you say, there is some function of it that results in consciousness. I think that we end up with a problem of definitions because the thing that Chalmers et al are describing, I think, doesn't exist. BUT if we are talking about the thing that Chalmers an co are talking about, then no...I don't see a way that you get to qualia and consciousness from protein.
I'm kind of rambling. Sorry, it this isn't very coherent.
The problem is (not) realizing that our consciousness is as much a function of our brain as it is generated by our interaction with other human beings. I agree with your point about the overestimating. Indeed, social behavior by necessity is rather simple, and, therefore, so is our consciousness. Complicated systems are unreliable, which is why we try to keep things simple - things that we can personally control anyway. And so when things, in their natural progression, get complicated - which they inevitably do, - we give up and submit ourselves to an even simpler, purely social, form of consciousness (by asking for advice, participating in all kinds of social gatherings, etc.), where "qualia" all but disappear. From this perspective it is indeed unrealistic to try to explain human consciousness only as a function of the brain of a particular isolated person.
> Does a quantum superposition of a single molecule somehow make the nodes of this neural network any more powerful
I think you meant this question to be rhetorical but I think this is a reasonable question to consider. It's speculation without evidence but it is interesting (to me) speculation.
> Quantum mechanics adds no explanatory power
Occam's Razor indicates that we should prefer the simplest explanation that explains a phenomenon. Unfortunately we don't have anything like a good explanation for consciousness so discarding hypotheses for not being simple enough isn't necessarily helpful.
> No electrical activity, no consciousness.
It seems that this is necessary, but that doesn't mean it is sufficient, to explain consciousness.
> or we meet something we really cannot explain, it does not make sense to obsess over it.
Like the hard problem of consciousness? This is something we really can't explain with our current level of knowledge (unless you are in the "there is no hard problem" camp).
It may well be the case that consciousness can be explained within our current understanding of physics but given the uniqueness of the phenomenon it doesn't seem unreasonable to keep something of an open mind.
> Like the hard problem of consciousness? This is something we really can't explain with our current level of knowledge (unless you are in the "there is no hard problem" camp).
Yeah, I am with Dennett and the others that think the Hard Problem is basically made up. My thinking is pretty close to what Thomas W. Clark has written on the subject (http://www.naturalism.org/philosophy/consciousness/the-expla... basically, that your consciousness and awareness actually _is_ the experience that your physical brain is having in response to stimuli and self-reflection.
I read your link, but I don't find Clark's argument terribly convincing. He writes in the conclusion:
"If indeed qualia are identical to certain functional informational processes, then the hard problem of consciousness (what Chalmers more or less takes to be the easy problem) is the empirical one of discovering just what these processes are."
But why should certain "functional informational processes" be a certain experience? Even if Clark is correct it doesn't seem to really explain anything. I'm not sure it's even scientific; is it at all testable?
It seems to me that no one has come up with a good explanation of what consciousness is, or even made any sort of dent in the problem. Saying that consciousness is the physical experience of the brain, or that it's quantum mechanics, or it's an illusion or whatever are interesting guesses but they haven't led us anywhere.
Maybe I just latched onto his argument because it already agreed with it in some sense. It boils down to a hypothesis, not a proof:
If the brain's activity _did_ somehow give rise to experience, wouldn't _this_ experience--the one you are having right now, reading this sentence, thinking these thoughts, breathing, etc, even the sensation of the redness of red--have to be exactly that? Moreover, if the brain's activity gave rise to a _different_ experience, then we'd experience _that_ instead. In other words, _if_ there is an experience that is _produced_ by the signaling behavior of brain, then _this_ must be it.
Speculation of currently unknown theory leading to circular thinking to follow:
Stead a direct link between qm and consciousness, as in protein strands exhibiting superposition, I think both utilise, and thus are consequence of, the same, or similar, underlying mathematics
There are flaws in both that require probability for us to even get a glimpse of what is happening
it is my intendeded inference that with a new mathematical model that solves high dimensional problem spaces we will understand both more
For me qm and consciousness are intuitive evidence that p=np, but we will only be able to show that indirect relation when we have proven the math
> QM just doesn't add _any_ new explanations or make any predictions for consciousness. Until it does, or we meet something we really cannot explain, it does not make sense to obsess over it.
As an aside, how would scientists develop/validate explanations for long-term behaviors, i.e., behaviors that occur over a longer period incrementally with low-energy processes? I think we're lucky to have have astronomical data to observe physics at logarithmic time scales, but I wonder about the general case of low-energy, long-term system behavior that may not exhibit itself in astronomy.
When I read your comment I immediately recalled this article about an experiment that designed tone discrimination circuits on FPGAs by stochastic processes (genetic algorithm). The highlight is that at the end of thousands of rounds of controlled evolution, the researchers obtained a circuit that achieved unexpected efficiency through mechanisms they initially failed to explain. There were closed circuits within the overall structure which only interacted with the main structure passively. Its design was the product of its unique electro-magnetic environment to the extent that results could not be replicated on another board of the same type.
In other words, a circuit appeared to originate with properties that would not have been arrived at by applying the conventional theory of circuit design.
Considering that organic brains are made up of many trillions of unit neurons, which grow into networks that will be trained by stochastic processes, it makes sense to expect them to exhibit a similar level of exploitation of their environment. If that environment is one in which quantum phenomena can result in real effects on the behavior of the system, why shouldn't we expect them to be exploited by real brains?
Long history of this - experts in physics becoming fools the moment they stray an inch or two from what they do in fact know. Heisenberg wrote a book in the realm of philosophy, which I've read because a Philosophy prof of mine handed it to me along with his yellowed and very negative published review. It was indeed excrement from start to end.
For some reason the mathematics of QM is extremely good at explaining counter intuitive phenomena that classical probability theory cannot (necker cube is a good example, where the mental state can be said to be in a superposition of the two cube orientations).
Mind you, this doesn't say anything about the actual mechanism. It could or couldn't be quantum but we'll never know if we just shrug the entire thing off as crackpottery.
Computer hardware (like harddrives and memory) has to take quantum mechanical effects into account. Or they could not be so compact. Makes sense that human memory would evolve to it optimize these effects too. Nothing magical about it.
Serious question: why does everyone love the hard, mathematical reductionism that currently prevails so much? It's plagued by serious explanatory difficulties and terribly limited philosophical support, and seems to really contribute nothing of great value -- what the hell is the appeal?
Not that you are correct about your view on limitations of reductionism - but even if you were the answer is: because the alternative is magic. Thanks but no thanks.
That's an unconvincing response. The alternatives are not necessarily magic (it's terribly unclear what you mean by "magic" here, but I'm making some reasonable assumptions) -- but if they were, why would that be so terrible? You're certainly free to denounce whatever you want as "magic" -- but that doesn't tell me why it's bad.
Life on the Edge: The Coming of Age of Quantum Biology by Johnjoe McFadden (https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00RKO0KWM/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?...) concludes with speculation about the role of quantum mechanics in consciousness. He's clear that it's just theory, but the entire book paves a credible path toward considering the idea.
77 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 203 ms ] threadhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Penrose
Many untestable, unprovable theories in the past were considered nonsense and later proven true.
I think the way you're using the word "theory" here dilutes its technical meaning. More accurate to call it speculation or philosophizing.
Argh. Brain-hurting levels of bad science writing.
The writer watched some Big Bang theory for well-known physics concepts, mashed in some Deepak Chopra, and ensured all the relevant sentences are phrased as questions.
Be warned it is a difficult read, not because of complicated concepts (there are many mentioned, but they are certainly not examined), but because of lack of any cohesive or binding logic between the smattering of phrases.
[1] https://youtu.be/lK8G_VAuEnk?t=3m1s
On the other hand, they may not. It's the concept of holding both of these "facts" as eventual truths (irrationally resolved in the future) in one's mind at the same time that leads to dissonance. That's a good excuse for the scientific process, if there ever was one.
this claim has always frustrated me
can someone who agrees with it defend it from first principles?
However, single photon double slit experiments don't show this - the particles act as though they are interfering with each other even though a photon detector will show photons arriving one at a time, at a rate which shows only one photon could have been traversing the apparatus at a time.
> If we place a detector inside or just behind one slit, we can find out whether any given particle goes through it or not. In that case, however, the interference vanishes. Simply by observing a particle's path – even if that observation should not disturb the particle's motion – we change the outcome.
when we place an observer at one of the slits we lose the previously ambiguous diffraction and instead get a clump pattern, but we are definitely probing where it is
Alarm bells ringing around! Path and position are not the same thing, and that's quite an important distinction in quantum mechanics!
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YycAzdtUIko - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1YFrISfN7jo - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-MNSLsjjdo - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLeEsYDlXJk - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADiql3FG5is - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWfRWdeuPb4 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stXhGMVJuqA - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atMuFCpxnUQ
Are Space and Time An Illusion? | Space Time | PBS Digital Studios
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YycAzdtUIko
The Geometry of Causality | Space Time
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1YFrISfN7jo
The Quantum Experiment that Broke Reality | Space Time | PBS Digital Studios
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-MNSLsjjdo
Quantum Biology: An Introduction
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLeEsYDlXJk
Quantum Biology: The Hidden Nature of Nature
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADiql3FG5is
Consciousness: Explored and Explained
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWfRWdeuPb4
The Mind After Midnight: Where Do You Go When You Go to Sleep?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stXhGMVJuqA
Rebooting the Cosmos: Is the Universe the Ultimate Computer?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atMuFCpxnUQ
Good discussion from bad article.
I found surprising link between quantum objects and socks. Socks can be left, or right. They cannot be partially left, or partially right, but they can be left and right at same time! Trust me, I checked that.
Moreover, when nobody is watching, socks are spreading in the room in wave-like pattern. It demonstrates wave-particle duality of socks. However, if somebody watching, socks are demonstrating particle only behavior. Moreover, they are demonstrating particle only behavior even if somebody will watch them in future!
Socks can be entangled, so if one sock is the right sock, then other one is instantaneously collapses to the left sock via spooky action at distance. This feature of socks can be used for FTL communication.
I have theory, it's called «string theory». In this theory, our Universe is made of little strings, which are creating space-time fabric, in which socks are living. In the process of entanglement, socks are somewhat connected by a string, which allows them to communicate via large distances.
Can anybody suggest me how to create a powerful theory from that, e.g. x in power of 10 at least?
almost as silly as a chiropractor making adjustments on a turtle: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=693MsUkQzsA
What is obvious, anything which could not be captured by the senses and does not directly influence the chances of survival and reproduction cannot be represented into a brain structure and cannot be the source of related intuitions.
Abstract concepts and generalized notions would necessarily reflect observable empirical phenomena, not imaginable.
In other words, this is another hipster's nonsense.
He just attributed it to some metaphysical abstractions, perhaps due to being prejudiced by all the religious dogmatic nonsense, and the social consensus which refused to consider a man being mere a machine and everything in the universe as an unfolding of one single process.
QM just doesn't add _any_ new explanations or make any predictions for consciousness. Until it does, or we meet something we really cannot explain, it does not make sense to obsess over it.
But at the core of the modern QM lies a mathematical theory that, unfortunately, only rarely is seen as something that is independent from the QM's concrete physical aspects. That theory is a kind of probability theory that is different from the one that we all know and love (or hate). It is exactly that difference that makes QM unreachable for our intuition. But as a mathematical framework it can be expected to be useful in describing behavior of some other systems that have nothing to do with Quantum Mechanics and which could possibly include mechanisms of consciousness.
Local minima'maxima and the unyeildy nature of large numbers of nuerons are both currently being dealt with utilising probabilistic methods
the mind functions on electrical signals and should be able to be understood through modeling
This is the case regardless of where you stand on dualism
The reason that I brought up Chalmers is that he, and others, will say that physical states don't map to subjective consciousness or qualia. Don't get me wrong, I'm much more of a "physicalist" in this regard. I'm not trained and I don't work in the field, but I can't help but think that humans overestimate the complexity and capabilities of consciousness. I think that there is a brain and, like you say, there is some function of it that results in consciousness. I think that we end up with a problem of definitions because the thing that Chalmers et al are describing, I think, doesn't exist. BUT if we are talking about the thing that Chalmers an co are talking about, then no...I don't see a way that you get to qualia and consciousness from protein.
I'm kind of rambling. Sorry, it this isn't very coherent.
I think you meant this question to be rhetorical but I think this is a reasonable question to consider. It's speculation without evidence but it is interesting (to me) speculation.
> Quantum mechanics adds no explanatory power
Occam's Razor indicates that we should prefer the simplest explanation that explains a phenomenon. Unfortunately we don't have anything like a good explanation for consciousness so discarding hypotheses for not being simple enough isn't necessarily helpful.
> No electrical activity, no consciousness.
It seems that this is necessary, but that doesn't mean it is sufficient, to explain consciousness.
> or we meet something we really cannot explain, it does not make sense to obsess over it.
Like the hard problem of consciousness? This is something we really can't explain with our current level of knowledge (unless you are in the "there is no hard problem" camp).
It may well be the case that consciousness can be explained within our current understanding of physics but given the uniqueness of the phenomenon it doesn't seem unreasonable to keep something of an open mind.
Yeah, I am with Dennett and the others that think the Hard Problem is basically made up. My thinking is pretty close to what Thomas W. Clark has written on the subject (http://www.naturalism.org/philosophy/consciousness/the-expla... basically, that your consciousness and awareness actually _is_ the experience that your physical brain is having in response to stimuli and self-reflection.
"If indeed qualia are identical to certain functional informational processes, then the hard problem of consciousness (what Chalmers more or less takes to be the easy problem) is the empirical one of discovering just what these processes are."
But why should certain "functional informational processes" be a certain experience? Even if Clark is correct it doesn't seem to really explain anything. I'm not sure it's even scientific; is it at all testable?
It seems to me that no one has come up with a good explanation of what consciousness is, or even made any sort of dent in the problem. Saying that consciousness is the physical experience of the brain, or that it's quantum mechanics, or it's an illusion or whatever are interesting guesses but they haven't led us anywhere.
If the brain's activity _did_ somehow give rise to experience, wouldn't _this_ experience--the one you are having right now, reading this sentence, thinking these thoughts, breathing, etc, even the sensation of the redness of red--have to be exactly that? Moreover, if the brain's activity gave rise to a _different_ experience, then we'd experience _that_ instead. In other words, _if_ there is an experience that is _produced_ by the signaling behavior of brain, then _this_ must be it.
Stead a direct link between qm and consciousness, as in protein strands exhibiting superposition, I think both utilise, and thus are consequence of, the same, or similar, underlying mathematics
There are flaws in both that require probability for us to even get a glimpse of what is happening
it is my intendeded inference that with a new mathematical model that solves high dimensional problem spaces we will understand both more
For me qm and consciousness are intuitive evidence that p=np, but we will only be able to show that indirect relation when we have proven the math
As an aside, how would scientists develop/validate explanations for long-term behaviors, i.e., behaviors that occur over a longer period incrementally with low-energy processes? I think we're lucky to have have astronomical data to observe physics at logarithmic time scales, but I wonder about the general case of low-energy, long-term system behavior that may not exhibit itself in astronomy.
https://www.damninteresting.com/on-the-origin-of-circuits/
When I read your comment I immediately recalled this article about an experiment that designed tone discrimination circuits on FPGAs by stochastic processes (genetic algorithm). The highlight is that at the end of thousands of rounds of controlled evolution, the researchers obtained a circuit that achieved unexpected efficiency through mechanisms they initially failed to explain. There were closed circuits within the overall structure which only interacted with the main structure passively. Its design was the product of its unique electro-magnetic environment to the extent that results could not be replicated on another board of the same type.
In other words, a circuit appeared to originate with properties that would not have been arrived at by applying the conventional theory of circuit design.
Considering that organic brains are made up of many trillions of unit neurons, which grow into networks that will be trained by stochastic processes, it makes sense to expect them to exhibit a similar level of exploitation of their environment. If that environment is one in which quantum phenomena can result in real effects on the behavior of the system, why shouldn't we expect them to be exploited by real brains?
For some reason the mathematics of QM is extremely good at explaining counter intuitive phenomena that classical probability theory cannot (necker cube is a good example, where the mental state can be said to be in a superposition of the two cube orientations).
Mind you, this doesn't say anything about the actual mechanism. It could or couldn't be quantum but we'll never know if we just shrug the entire thing off as crackpottery.
The answer is there, in the last panel ;)