Again? :sleep: Must be because the simplicity of the logic is just too hard to refute on its own terms---who would have thought.
The simplicity of dogma is certainly difficult to refute. As for the simplicity of logic, why do you think computational intelligence paradigms don't use first order logic, but rather fuzzy logics?
Right. Because I haven't backed up my views with references to various sciences...oh wait. I have. You haven't, with the exception of:
My understanding is based on conclusions such as
"The main argument against the quantum mind proposition is that quantum states in the brain would decohere before they reached a spatial or temporal scale at which they could be useful for neural processing. This argument was elaborated by the physicist, Max Tegmark. Based on his calculations, Tegmark concluded that quantum systems in the brain decohere quickly and cannot control brain function.[
3][
4]
source [snipped for brevity, as the entirety of the reference was or was based on Tegmark's discredited study]
To which I responded:
Did you read the sources (i.e., not just the science magazine review of Tegmark's study, but Tegmark's study itself)? Tegmark's study came out in 2000, in the journal Physics Review E (Vol. 61 no. 4). And his central argument, as he states, is a particular model of neurons/neural activity:"In this analysis, the object is the neuron, and the superposition will be destroyed by any interaction with other (environment) degrees of freedom that is sensitive to where the ions are located" p. 4197.
However, there are issues with Tegmark's description of neural activity (some are merely the result of the study being over a decade old) as well as his use of decoherence. We don't even have to switch journals. The obvious place to start would by the reply to Tegmark in volume 65 by Hagan, Hameroff, and Tuszynski. But as it is Hameroff's model under attack, why not go with a neutral party? Volume 70 (2004) included a study by Rosa & Faber: "Quantum models of the mind: Are they compatible with environment decoherence?" The authors (like Tegmark) criticized the Penrose & Hameroff model and its account of coherence. However, they state:
"based on this difference, we do not conclude, as Tegmark does, that the quantum approach to the brain problem is refuted if we use decoherence instead of gravitational collapse. The first point is that we must also consider the time for building coherence, while the system either remains relatively isolated to sustain coherence or there is no coherent collective state...Our result does not discard the conjecture that quantum theory can help us to understand the functioning of the brain, and maybe also to understand consciousness...We still propose a new quantum model in the brain where the most important thing is the sequence of coherent states accumulating in the microtubule."
Then there's the issue of the change with the field of physics concerning quantum coherence: Tegmark got it wrong. In fact, a paper published from the 2011 Journal of Physics conference not only criticizes Tegmark's analysis, but proposes several components of biological systems which rely on quantum coherence. In the paper ("Plausibility of quantum coherent states in biological systems" by V Salari, J Tuszynski, M Rahnama, G Bernroider), the authors state:
[various refutations snipped for brevity]
which received the counter-argument:
Unfortunately, I don't have the resources you do, and only have brief re-caps and soforth to go on.
I've relied on reviewed, academic works including monographs from academic (and peer-reviewed) series, edited volumes (also from such series), and peer-reviewed journals in disciplines ranging from physics to biology to neuroscience to mathematics. However, rather than addressing the points made in these sources, you continue to dogmatically assert that your understanding of "logic" is all that is required. While even those in biology (let along cognitive science, cosmology, physics, etc.) are realizing that "the reductionist approach worked extremely well for some five decades, but to maintain the winning mood in the twenty-first century, it is not clear that this approach will suffice. At the turn of the twentieth century, an ever-growing number of biological scientists mention limits to reductionism" (p. 8)., and in fact (emphasis added):
"systems biology is concerned with the relationship between molecules and cells; it treats cells as organized, or organizing, molecular systems having both molecular and cellular properties. It is concerned with how life or the functional properties thereof that are not yet in the molecules, emerge from the particular organization of and interactions between its molecular processes...It refers to function in ways that would not be permitted in physics. It addresses an essential minimum complexity exceeding that of any physical chemical system understood until now. It shies away from reduction of the system under study to a collection of elementary particles.
Indeed, it seems to violate many of the philosophical foundations of physics, often in ways unprecedented even by modern physics." (p. 4)
And whence comes these quotes, these violations of clear "logic" which must be "based on the need to preserve one's security blanket"?
from an edited volume of several papers by specialists in various fields relating to biology which "represents the culmination of our studies" (our being the various contributers from different fields and different labs, ranging from the Department of Molecular Cell Physiology at Vrije Universiteit of Amsterdam to the Cognitive Science and Science Studies at the University of California). The volume in question is Boogerd, F.C., Bruggeman, F. J., Hofmeyr, J-H S., & Westerhoff, H. V. (editors).
Systems Biology: Philosophical Foundations (Elsevier, 2007).
I could go on citing other sources, but I already did that and you just ignored them and insisted that your understanding of "logic" makes research in everything from biology to physics inconsequential.
