Consider the entire human brain is entirely made up of one type of neuron, which is a brain cell. The neuron has many output tentacles called axons, like output wiring of a computer. The neuron has many input tentacles called dendrites, like the input wires of a computers. The middle region of the neuron between the axons and dendrites is a fat region called neuron body. As neuronal signals pass along the dendrites down the body, the signal chaotically shoot signals out the axons. If there is little inputs to the dendrites, there is little output down the axons. If there are many inputs to the dendrites at the same time, there will be bigger explosion of the axons outputs, meaning more energy is produced at the output.
Welcome to the site, you might profit from reading Hameroff (Stuart) and Penrose (Roger), specifically ORCH-OR theory. After getting past some of the cosmological consciousness hand-waving, the base idea is loosely what you seem to be describing above.
My problem with Penrose and his microtuble notions of consciousness is this: Consciousness is mysterious. The self-organization of microtubles is mysterious. Quantum Mechanics is also mysterious. Therefore, they must all be linked somehow. The equivalent of: âthen a miracle occursâ.
Unless there is some solid experiemental evidence to back up these claims, well, you know the old adage about extraordinary claims.
I agree completely, Penrose confounds the whole thingâŠbutâŠ
When you look to Hameroff you get a very interesting and plausible theory. First off, being an anesthesiologist he wondered how people (and animals!) went âunconsciousâ yet retained cognitive function, parasympathetic nerve functions, etc⊠What he proposed was an underlying network constructed from ”tubules that underlies the nervous system. This network, unlike the very slow processing speeds of the main nervous system, operates at orders of magnitude higher speeds and accounts for the binding problem as well as the sensation of qualia. This, of course, happens through the magic of QM and this is where things get weird, get terribly misunderstood, and suffer from a lack of empirical data.
I personally am quite satisfied with what we have so far and feel confident that it will ultimately be validated (better than it currently is). As it stands, some very new research is looking good in this regard, so whet your whistle on this:
Entangled biphoton generation in the myelin sheath
Zefei Liu, Yong-Cong Chen, and Ping Ao
Phys. Rev. E 110, 024402 â Published 2 August 2024
There should be a âsimpleâ way to verify his hypothesis.
But before we even go there, it might be instructive first to understand the molecular basis of anaesthesiology. If it is affecting the microtubles, then how precisely?
How do firings propagate through the anaesthetised neuron vs. one that is not? What is going on at the molecular level? Once we start getting some data from that, it will point us to answering more and more questions. I suspect that there will be nothing too special about the eventual conclusion. That is, it will not involve some macro aspect of quantum mechanics. But what we do find will be remarkable in other ways.
Photosynthesis does depend on quantum mechanics, but within the single molecule. It does not entail macro aspects encompassing the entire plant â or the entire leaf, for that matter. I think we will find something similar with microtubles and anaesthesia.
And besides, we should start with the simpler possible explanations first before we even begin to take seriously a more extraordinary hypothesis. Yes, my approach will never make good copy, but it will make for good science. May not make a Bestseller list, but it will bring us closer to understanding how biological conscience and intelligence actually works.
And maybe, just maybe, we may even see true AGI in our lifetimes as a result.
Claiming that consciousness is âinherently quantum mechanicalâ is like stating that a hurricane is âinherently quantum mechanicalâ.
Yes, you can claim that anything is âinherently quantum mechanicalâ, because the entire universe appears to behave in a manner that is consistent with the laws of quantum mechanics (such as we currently understand them).
What these statements invariably misrepresent, is that the âweirdnessâ of quantum mechanics is almost never experienced in macroscopic states. By weirdness, Iâm referring to concepts such as entanglement, spooky action-at-a-distance, etc. These effects are almost never observed in macroscopic states due to the inherently stochastic nature of quantum mechanics. That means there is a statistically negligible chance that those coherent interactions will survive beyond a few nano-seconds in the natural world (perhaps a few milliseconds or maybe even seconds in a contrived laboratory setting). This is due to the enormous amount of random perturbations these systems are experiencing constantly.
Thereâs a reason why quantum computing is so difficult and expensive. Itâs very hard to keep these desired entangled states stable for long enough to construct a coherent circuit from which useful information can be extracted. The systems have to be cooled to absurd temperatures to prevent random thermal fluctuations from destroying the entangled states.
Biological systems are inherently very messy and noisy. Any useful system that naturally evolved had to be very robust to this noise and still perform its essential role in supporting the persistence of the organism.
So, I believe that it is very unlikely that these quantum mechanical states are somehow essential to consciousness.
Youâve taken the words right out of my mouth. That is precisely what Iâve been saying all along.
Which makes what biological systems do all that much more amazing. How do biological systems gives rise to consciousness without invoking the âmiracleâ of quantum mechanics?
Given the nature of this forum (anything goes), hereâs my latest refinement.
Brains, to include insects, have two âneural networksâ.
The main network is the one we see with an optical microscope, the neurons, axons, dendrites, etc⊠This network gives rise to behaviors and is made complicated by morphology; e.g., contrast elephant brain with human, neurotransmitters; e.g., hormones and other substances that guide and drive behaviors, and waves; e.g., delta, theta, etcâŠ
The second one is implicated by the ”tubules in the axons. This network demonstrates quantum effects, is more photonic than electronic, operates at significantly higher frequencies than the main network and is capable of orders of magnitude faster computations than the main.
The two networks are interlinked, but the main network is more associated with learning and motor control while the second produces awareness and conscious (awake) behavior. The second network solves both the binding problem and the internal and subjective component of sense perceptions arising from stimulation of the senses by phenomena; i.e., qualia.
My knee-jerk response is: I wish. At this juncture the assumption is that there are the two networks and we pretty much know how the main one operates. Of course there are lots of details missing, but in general we understand it.
Not so much for the ”tubules. That all came out of Orch-OR and if a theory was ever convoluted by ridiculous confounders this is it. Penrose, bless his 93 YO heart (and brain) got wrapped up too deeply into the whole âcosmic consciousnessâ nonsense that he failed to dive deep into the real potential of the theory. Hameroff, a true visionary, did the groundwork, but he too is pretty much over the hill. That said, his 2022 paper, at least in my opinion, explains it best.
Although I personally despise Nagelâs âWhat is it like to be a bat?â (philosophy has done more to squirrel-up consciousness studies than any other discipline), his point can be applied other places, such as animals where we have good models of their entire cognitive structure, like the honeybee and fruit fly. That is what we are looking at now to try an elucidate some sort of rational mechanism for how it might work. Note that honeybees not only sleep, but they dream as well. This has been confirmed and although they arenât dreaming of that cute drone buzzing about the hive entrance, their brains are quite active even though they are asleepâthe conscious network is dormant.