On 2008-01-06, ChrisK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH wrote: >> >> On Jan 6, 2008, at 15:02 , Ketil Malde wrote: >> >>> More seriously, perhaps "quantum" enters into the equation in how the >>> brain works, perhaps it is even necessary for "thought". However, I >>> get worried it's just another mystical mantra, a gratuitous factor >>> that, lacking any theory about how and what it does, adds nothing to >>> help understanding the issue. > > The brain, being real, is best modeled by a final theory that physicists have > not yet (noticed) written down. > > "how the brain works" appears to be though electro- and bio- chemistry, which > are best modeled/described right now by quantum mechanics.
Quantum mechanics models these, but for most domains it's a substrate that is unnecessary -- modeling at the level of chemistry works. > There are observable quantum correlations that cannot be described by a > "classical" theory. Not in the brain. It's *way* too warm and squishy. > So long as the processes you care about (e.g. whatever the hell consciousness > is) do not use these non-classical correlations then you can create a > simplified > model that avoids the complexity of quantum theory. Right. -- Aaron Denney -><- _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe