/sci/ - Science & Math

>Particle-Wave Duality and the Mind
You're already wrong.

>You will never be unable to disprove Dualism.
LOLno. If full-brain simulation works in producing a human mind, then dualism is proven wrong. And we're working on that (but it'll be years before we're there).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Brain_Project

>>4615940
>able to disprove
fix'd

>>4615943
>And we're working on that (but it'll be years before we're there).
It'll be longer than that, bro.

Also:
>If
I like how you slipped that in there in hopes that I wouldn't notice it.

>>4615943
If I create a simulation of the Universe, does that mean I've created a Universe?

No. It just means I've created a simulation. It will always be one step behind of my actual understanding of reality.

>Particle-Wave Duality
Do you even know what this means?

>You will never be unable [sic] to disprove Dualism

That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

>>4616009
Yes.

It's Physics embracing Dualism.

>>4616011
Doesn't matter.

If science was capable of eliminating Dualist philosophies by now, we wouldn't have particle-wave duality to begin with.

Instead, we are forced to treat all matter in the universe with the properties of each. To claim that we can eliminate Dualism is kind of embarrassing when "hard science" is incapable of doing so in the first place.

lol @ OP's ignorance and unquenchable thirst for cocks

>>4616030
>>>/b/

Remember, everyone: OP either actually believes that particle-wave duality represents an acceptance of dualism among physicists, or he is trolling. Either way, he is beyond redemption and your time interacting with him is wasted.

>>4616063
Hate to break it to you, but I brought up legitimate points in my post.

Are you going to resort to nit-picking, or are you going to actually going to present a proper counter-argument?

>>4616022
>>4616009
>>Particle-Wave Duality
>Do you even know what this means?

>Yes.
>It's Physics embracing Dualism.

OP, I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and say you're trolling. 4/10

>>4616092
Still waiting for a counter-argument.

Wave-particle duality is merely a description of the probabilistic behaviour of photons. It has exactly nothing to do with “duality.” The idea that the model extends to all other matter is not simply preposterous, but completely and wholly unfounded, unsupported by science.

I want OP to extrapolate more on this "particle-wave dualism." From my understanding, how light, for instance, decides to behave has nothing to do with the philosophical idea of dualism. I want to know why OP is attempting to marry these ideas, and what it have to do with neuroscience.

>>4616086

>legitimate points

Such as?

>>4616119
He's just going to pretend he's already explained himself and demand a "counterargument" again. Yawn.

OP, wave-particle duality has nothing to do with the philosophy of mind/body dualism.

There is a more scientifically viable way to observe the structure of thoughts -- It is not entirely necessary to study at the quantum level. If you really wanted to crack the mind's code, you would first genetically engineer a measuring system within the cells themselves as to computationally relay the brain's multivariate matrix.

Wow... OP is even more retarded than IQ fundie... I didn't thought that such thing could be possible...

>>4616105
>Wave-particle duality is merely a description of the probabilistic behaviour of photons
We can treat matter and energy as particles or waves, but only with the understanding that we are applying probabilistic approaches. In no way is that a statement on whether it's one or the other.

This has everything to do with Dualism/Monism.

>>4616141
>you would first genetically engineer a measuring system within the cells themselves as to computationally relay the brain's multivariate matrix.
I don't see how you would pull this off without drastically interfering with the system's natural functions.

>>4616155
>This has everything to do with Dualism/Monism.
No, no it doesn't.

This is all as stupid as saying that elephants have "tree/snake duality" because some measurements of elephants are snakelike (their trunks) and some measurements are tree-like (their legs).

Photons are excitions of the electromagnetic field. Both the "particle" and "wave" models are just *wrong*.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantization_of_the_electromagnetic_field
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_field_theory

And remember: All models are wrong. Some are useful.

QM cannot explain qualia

>>4616155

>We can treat matter and energy as particles or waves

No, we can treat light as particles or waves. Matter we must treat as particles; energy, as waves.

Even if all matter and energy were capable of being modeled both as particles and as waves, it would still have nothing to do with dualism.

>>4616178
matter as waves too, hence electron orbitals

i guess you don't know shit

>>4616119
>In quantum mechanics, wave function collapse (also called collapse of the state vector or reduction of the wave packet) is the phenomenon in which a wave function—initially in a superposition of several different possible eigenstates—appears to reduce to a single one of those states after interaction with an observer.

This relates this to what I was saying about attempts to reduce the human mind to either "structure" or "process".

>>4616155

And that has what to do with neuroscience? How does the mind-body argument affect how neuroscientists gather information about thoughts? Electromagnetism doesn't destroy brain matter or else we wouldn't use around brains to begin with. This all seems to be coming from a young theists point of view.

>>4616190
But dualism in the context of philosophy of mind isn't about structure/process origins - no one is claiming that. It's about mind/body, claiming that mind is a substance separate from the physical body.

I'm purely hypothesizing, but I do have a number of possible approaches to this question. In the end, the ultimately limiting factor would be transmitting the data from each cell to a biologically adapted computer within the environment. And actually, now that I think about it, our brain possesses a potential of data storage and processing far greater than any computer of our era. What can be said of improving the functions of our neurons via intelligent agents?

>>4616161
>Photons are excitions of the electromagnetic field. Both the "particle" and "wave" models are just *wrong*
That's ultimately what I'm saying about the human mind.

It's neither "brain" nor "thought process". And attempts at observing either result in the Observer Effect.

The human brain is a physical system on the classical level. Quantum mechanics have nothing to do with consciousness.

Stop with this nonsense.

>>4616206

>It's about […] claiming that mind is a substance separate from the physical body

Which is an unfounded, unscientific claim. That you can say, “You know what would be cool? If the brain worked like high-energy subatomic particles!” does not make it so.

>>4616206
The terminology is mixed up a bit, but I'll try to explain.

"Mind" is the activity of the brain.
"Body" is the brain itself.

Neuroplasticity shows that the activity of the brain affects the structure of the brain itself. That means that the "mind" produces the brain the same way that the "body" produces the brain.

The more you observe neural activities, the more you interfere with them. Ultimately, you end up reconstructing the brain into something that was different from what you started with.

That's the problem we're dealing with here.

>>4616212
See >>4616220

Uncertainty Principle applies directly to neurosicence and psychology. You can't know both the structure *and* the thoughts of the mind at the same time.

>>4616208
Well, it's funny.

Because what you're describing actually does apply on quantum level. Which would just mean that we have no clue how we're interfering with the system or what affects we'll ultimately have on it.

>>4616204
>Electromagnetism doesn't destroy brain matter or else we wouldn't use around brains to begin with
Neurologists have to be extremely careful when scanning the brain.

You can view the overall process with little interference. But you can't view the interactions of the individual cells without frying the brain in one way or another.

When they say the brain is plastic and changes shape. Do they mean it actually physically changes shape, like a worm moving?

>>4616271
No, plasticity refers to ability to adapt to changes, and is chiefly about neuron interconnections forming or changing.

>>4616233
You might as well argue that lights in baseball stadiums affect the path of the ball.

It's technically true, but doesn't actually make a difference to the things we are concerned with.

>>4616276
Oh right, thats what I thought but OP made me second guess by saying it "changes shape".

>>4616271
Pretty much what >>4616276 said.

Consider it like the formation of "thoughts", "ideas", or "habits". Neuroplasticity is most common in the outer layers of the brain. They can have some effect on the overall structure, though. There have been cases where people have had brain damage, but the neurons reconfigured themselves in order to compensate.

I'll be honest, man. It's some really freaky shit.

>>4616278
I'd say it's more like sticking software in the ball to detect how hard it is hit and where it lands each time.

By changing the structure of the ball, the ball's path changes as well. It'll still function like a baseball. But it won't produce the same results as an actual baseball.

If it does, chances are that you were already familiar with the baseball's path to begin with. Ultimately, that just makes the experiment rather pointless. You're merely replicating the information you already know.

>>4616212
>The human brain is a physical system on the classical level.
The brain both interacts and responds to electromagnetic activity.
This places it both in Newtonian physics and quantum mechanics.

Both the structure and the processes of the brain are affected by our attempts to observe it.

Honestly, our philosophies with QM may very well need to be applied to how we handle human psychology. Otherwise, we're just going to be continually stuck dealing with the Observer Effect.

>>4616326
It's not THAT sensitive. It's chemical reactions at the root of it.

>>4616331
>It's not THAT sensitive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroreception

It may not be that sensitive in humans, but that's because we have a skull designed to protect us from electromagnetic radiation... Well, most of it. But the point is that neurons both produce and rely on electromagnetic communication as well as chemical reactions.

Image somewhat related.
There are several nerves that line the outside of the skull cavity that connect directly to the interior.

Bump.

>>4615940
The "quantum brain" theory has never held any weight in neuroscience. It's possible, but it isn't necessary to explain how our brain works.

>>4616342
>neurons both produce and rely on electromagnetic communication
No..they don't. They rely on ionic potentials.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_synapse
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion_channel

It is possible to simulate neurons with electromagnetic radiation, but it not something that happens incidentally.

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

>>4616860
Perhaps he was confused and meant electrochemical...

>>4615943
Had never heard of this before, fascinating stuff.

The ethical implications of Blue Brain Project blow my mind.

>>4616876
> we have a skull designed to protect us from electromagnetic radiation
Electrochemical radiation? That sounds badass but I can't imagine how it would be possible.

>>4616893
>neurons both produce and rely on electromagnetic communication

Was talking specifically about that sentence.
Now you mention it, it does sound pretty badass

>>4616844
>but it isn't necessary to explain how our brain works.
See >>4616860
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcranial_magnetic_stimulation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroreception

We have more than enough evidence that the brain functions in ways outside of the basic chemical and ionic forms of communication.

How can you possibly claim that it's unnecessary for describing how the brain works? That's a completely unfounded claim, especially considering we are still trying to unravel the brain in the first place.

>>4615940

Dualism is superfluous. There's no need to disprove it anymore than there's a need to disprove that the position of the planets affects brain structure.

>>4616908
Quantum phenomena (like coherence) require conditions that are not likely to hold for room-temperature meat.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind#Max_Tegmark

You're just grasping for something that will preserve the "magic" in consciousness.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioelectromagnetism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioelectromagnetics

Fysicalism does not imply that every brain having the 'same' thought must look identical. However, there has to be something similar with the internal structure, but that has to do with the firing of neurons and their connections etc.

TL;DR (substance) dualism is still a dead theory and has been for hundreds of years.

>>4616915
Hang on, this might take me a bit. I need to read up more on this, but I'm not sure how closely this relates to what I'm suggesting.

>>4616930
Well, let's back up.

What, exactly, are you suggesting? I'll save you some time.

>>4616932
I'm not sure if I'm doing a proper way of describing it.

But I think what I'm ultimately getting at is that the brain is both creates and is defined by its thoughts and ideas, many of which are contextual.

Let's say I'm taking notes and I forget some information.

Basically, I have an incomplete thought in my head. It's only a complete thought when I'm experiencing that very specific stimulation.

I know I'm doing a poor job of explaining this, but this doesn't actually have much to do with quantum mechanics and more to do with the brain not being a complete or isolated system.

>>4617077
>more to do with the brain not being a complete or isolated system.
Hm. Yeah, I'm not sure I understand you yet.

The brain does have some very interesting feedback in it though.

>>4617077
I guess what I'm saying is that I don't see "mind-reading" as being feasible without understanding the person's environment, that their thoughts and ideas are not contained only within themselves.

And that understanding a person's thoughts or ideas would require a level of invasiveness that would affect either that person's "mind" or "body". Being the "process" or the "structure".

>>4617093
> I don't see "mind-reading" as being feasible without understanding the person's environment, that their thoughts and ideas are not contained only within themselves.
Hm. Suggesting that you couldn't decode thoughts without also knowing more about the outside stimuli? I'm not sure I see what leads you to that idea. Does this influence your idea? Pic also related.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain%E2%80%93computer_interface#MEG_and_MRI

>And that understanding a person's thoughts or ideas would require a level of invasiveness that would affect either that person's "mind" or "body". Being the "process" or the "structure".
This is just supposing that the observer effect makes mind reading impossible. This is just wishful thinking, as far as I can tell.

>Neuroplasticity shows that the brain changes shape as a result of stimulus.
>as a result of stimulus.
I don't think you know what neuroplasticity is.

>The brain is a delicate structure that is very susceptible to electromagnetic activity.
>very susceptible to electromagnetic activity
No. Ion channels cannot be externally triggered. You'd need a 500kV/m electric field applied to the head for that.

>This means that every single person has a unique brain structure.
No. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what a neuron does. Neuronal networks form and evolve based on instructions from DNA, neural growth factor, and other hormones.


>And the harder you attempt to observe the structure of "thoughts", the more likely you are to damage the brain and skew your results.
This is nonsensical bullshit. I cannot believe this thread has nearly 60 posts.


>I suggest you start taking notes from Quantum Physicists.
0/10

>Particle-Wave Duality and the Mind
Stopped reading there. Reported for /x/ bullshit.