We Need Quantum Physics For Cognitive Neuroscience
NeuroQuantology March 2010 Vol 8 Issue 1 Page 66‐76Tarlaci S., Why we need quantum physics for cognitive neuroscience and psychiatry66Opinion and PerspectivesyWhy We Need Quantum Physics forCognitive NeuroscienceSultan Tarlaci, M.D.AbstractFor the past 20 years and more, arguments about the role of quantum mechanics inconsciousness and mind theory have been mounting. On the one side aretraditional neuroscientists who believe that the way to understanding the brain isthrough looking at the nerve cells. On the other side are various physicists whosuggest that the laws of quantum mechanics may have an influence on thedynamics of consciousness and the mind. At the same time however, consciousnessand the mind cannot be separated from matter. They originate in the microscopicworld of the human brain. There can be no definite separation between mind andmatter; there is no ‘mind’ without ‘matter’, and no ‘matter’ without ‘mind’. Interms of cognitive neuroscience, we know a great deal about the working of nervecells. For example, we understand quite well about the formation of actionpotential, ion exchange, energy use, axonal transport, the vesicle cycle, andformation, oscillation and breakdown in nerve transmission. However, we still donot understand how experience is formed in our material brain (color, sound, smell,taste, pain, imagination, decision, dreams, love, or orgasm) and how consciousnessarises in an unconscious material organ. The insufficiency of these answers nodoubt arises from the insufficiency of the methods used by cognitive science.Key Words: mind, consciousness, quantum physics, qualia, cognitive neuroscienceNeuroQuantology 2010; 1: 66‐76Introduction1The brain is a complex physical system madeup of a macroscopic system of nerve cellsand an additional microscopic system. Thefirst consists of neural pathways, such asaxons. The second is a quantum mechanicalmulti-particle system, which interacts withthe nerve-cell system. Thus, there are multiparticle systems in the brain. Generalrelativity and the quantum mechanics theoryCorresponding author: Sultan TarlaciAddress: Neurology Specialist, Private Health Hospital, Özel EgeSağlık Hastanesi, 1399. Sok No 25, 35220, Alsancak, Izmir, TurkeyPhone: 90 232 463 77 00Fax: 90 232 463 03 71e‐mail: journal@neuroquantology.comReceived Feb 24, 2010. Revised March 12, 2010. Accepted March23, 2010.ISSN 1303 5150are the basis of physics and our scientificview of the world. No other theory in thehistory of science has gained so muchexperimental support (Feynman, 1988).Many quantum physicists have commentedon the close similarities between quantumtheory and consciousness. These similaritieswere mentioned very early on by thefounding fathers of quantum physics andneuroscience, among them physicists DavidBohm (Bohm, 1988), Niels Bohr (Honner,2005), John von Neumann (1955), ErvinSchrödinger (1959), and Roger Penrose(Penrose, 1989), and neuroscientist JohnEccles (Eccles, 1990; Beck and Eccles, 1992)and Karl Pribram (1999).www.neuroquantology.com
NeuroQuantology March 2010 Vol 8 Issue 1 Page 66‐76Tarlaci S., Why we need quantum physics for cognitive neuroscience and psychiatryIs Cognitive Neuroscience Enough?Today, those who are attempting tounderstand what goes on in the brain arecognitiveneuroscientists.Cognitiveneuroscience and the history of rock’n’rollshow many parallels. For a start, they areboth the same age. Both started in Americain the 1950s, and spread from there to therest of the world. Over time they bothbecame widely accepted. Between 1950 and1990, rock n roll was the most listened-tomusic, and cognitive science attracted themost attention in psychology. Generally, asmusical instruments used in rock n rollchanged, so the diagnostic methods used incognitive science, such as magneticresonance imaging and positron emissiontomography, also developed. Cognitiveneuroscience, which is still dominant today(Gazzaniga, 2002), followed on frompsychoanalysisandbehaviorism.Behaviorism rejected consciousness and onlytook notice of what could be sstressedsubconsciousprocesses, and it too ignored consciousness.In the same period, it was thought that thedeveloping cognitive neuroscience wouldstake a claim to consciousness, but this didnot come up to expectations.Scientific schools of thought andconcepts take time to develop. Seen from thestandpoint of the history of science andideas, a new idea grows from previousthoughts and ideas, influenced by thescientific spirit of the age. Ideas that areassimilated into the spirit of the time gainascendancy, and may affect the trend ofcontemporarythought.Cognitiveneuroscience was one such idea that leapt onthe shoulders of the others, appearing in the1950s. Let’s have a look at the scientific spiritof the time when it appeared and before that.In neuroscience, Edgar Douglas Adrian hadadvanced the principle of ‘all or nothing’(1913); Hans Berger had succeeded inrecording the electric currents of the brain(1929), and made the first recordings ofaction potential from nerve cells (1929);Hodgkin-Huxley-Katz had shown theISSN 1303 515067existence of ion flow relating to voltage(1952); and W. Penfield and T. Rasmussensucceeded in mapping the cortex (1957) andproposed that certain parts of the brain werespecialized for certain functions. In sciencein general, Kurt Gödel had published theGödel theorem (1933); Alan Turing hadstarted discussion in his article oncomputability and algorithms (1936); thefirst computer, ENIAC, had been constructed(1945); and in the following year, 1947, thetransistor was invented. The same year,Claude Shannon had reduced informationtheory to equations and shown thatinformation was a computable property.Francis Crick, James D. Watson andRosalind Franklin had discovered thestructure of DNA (1953), and strengthenedthe idea that life could be programmed witha four-way code. In addition, Norbert Wienerhad taken the first steps in establishing thescience of cybernetics (1961). The meetingpoint and keywords of all these fields arecalculation,informationoperations,computers and computer networks. In themidst of these scientific trends, cognitiveneurology arose from the imaginative powerthat had given birth to all of them, and theidea of comparing the brain to a computerfirst took root (Neisser, 1967). Cognitiveneuroscience is based on these arguments: athing which processes information (andfunctions in sequential steps) is a computer,carryingouttheseoperationsbycomputation. The brain is a computer (nothardware but wetware), and the mind is itssoftware. The basic components of thiscomputer are the nerve cells. Each nerve celltakes a value of “0” or “1”, and operations arecarried out just as in a computer. Nerve cellsconnect to each other, and the nervenetworks so created form the brain. Themind then carries out operations on thesenetworks (Neisser, 1976). But one thingstands out and is supported by variousarguments: the brain does not function like acomputer, or at any rate is not a computer asclassically understood.www.neuroquantology.com
NeuroQuantology March 2010 Vol 8 Issue 1 Page 66‐76Tarlaci S., Why we need quantum physics for cognitive neuroscience and psychiatry68Figure 1. Cognitive neuroscience is concerned with sensory input and its perception and recognition, recording in thememory for later recall, decision and motor (kinetic) control, and the transfer of means of language. However, it is not veryconcerned with consciousness and thought, which show themselves in these processes but which are not possessed by acomputer.Cognitive neuroscience can be seen toconcern itself with information processing.This information processing happens instages. Entering information is perceivedand recognized, and a suitable meaning isattached to it. At the same time this input isstored in the memory for later recall. Thisinformation then enables decisions anddeductions to be made regarding a futuresituation. At the same time this processedinformation guides our actions (motorcontrol), and enables transmission of theresults to someone else (language). In thecourse of these processes something we callthought and consciousness appears. Thiswhole cycle is the basic field of interest ofcognitive neuroscience (Figure 1). Theimplication from this, and what those whouse computers in their daily lives willunderstand, is that the brain is a computer(Sun, 2008). This is because inputting data,storing it, recalling it when needed,processing information and producingoutput are all basic operations of thecomputers we use every day.ISSN 1303 5150In terms of cognitive neuroscience, weknow a great deal about the working of nervecells. For example, we understand quite wellabout the formation of action potentials, ionexchange, energy use, axonal transport, thevesicle cycle, and formation, oscillation andbreakdown in nerve transmission. But westill do not understand how experience isformed in our material brain, and howconsciousness arises in an unconsciousmaterial organ (Kandel, 1981). In particular,we have no answer to the question of how tounderstand internal experience, such ascolor, sound, smell, taste, and pain, thememory of visual images, imagination,decision, dreams, love, or orgasm.If you prick your finger with a needle orotherwise feel pain, free nerve endings in theinjured site are stimulated and an electriccurrent or action potential is formed in thenerve fibers. We know how this actionpotential is formed and how it is carried tothe brain. But the explanation given bycognitive science as to why you feel pain iswww.neuroquantology.com
NeuroQuantology March 2010 Vol 8 Issue 1 Page 66‐76Tarlaci S., Why we need quantum physics for cognitive neuroscience and psychiatryinsufficient (Schwartz, 2004). In the sameway, music reaches the ear as sound waves ofcertain frequencies. But we have no answerto the question of what the experience of69music is and how it is felt by the brain. Theinsufficiency of these answers no doubtarises from the insufficiency of the methodsused by cognitive science.Figure 2. The methods used by cognitiveneuroscience can be separated by cross‐sectional and temporal resolution. But here agap opens up. This level covers temporally themillisecond level and spatially the size smallerthan dendrites and synapses. Cognitiveneuroscience does not have a means ofworking in this field. This scale of space andtime is the domain of quantum mechanics (thequestion mark in the lower left corner and alsoleft side figure).PET: positron emissiontomography; MRI: magnetic resonanceimaging; fMR: functional magnetic resonanceimaging, MEG: magneto‐ encephalography;ERP: Event Related Potentials, TMS:Transcranial magnetic stimulation, m: meterThe methods used by cognitiveneuroscience can be divided according tospatial and temporal resolution (Figure 2).Temporal resolution shows the time phy(EEG),Magnetoencephalography(MEG),ISSN 1303 5150Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS)and single cell recording have resolution atthe millisecond scale, while positronemissiontomographyand functionalmagnetic resonance imaging show events atthe level of seconds and minutes. In terms ofspatial resolution, visual methods such aswww.neuroquantology.com
NeuroQuantology March 2010 Vol 8 Issue 1 Page 66‐76Tarlaci S., Why we need quantum physics for cognitive neuroscience and psychiatryMRI and PET give information about thebrain as a whole, while single cell recordinggives information about single cells. But herea gap opens up, comprising the spatiotemporal level below milliseconds anddendrite-synapse dimensions. Cognitivescience has no method to examine this level.This scale of space and time is the domain ofquantum mechanics, and cognitive sciencehas so far developed no way of examining orresearching this area. Thus, from this pointon we have to make use of the laws ofquantum mechanics and physics. If wecannot, we will find cognitive scienceimprisoned within the confines of the laws ofclassical physics.The Problem with Classical PhysicsClassical physics is founded on the work ofIsaac Newton (1643-1727) and later JamesMaxwell (1831-1879) and Albert Einstein(1879-1955), and Newton in turn built histheories on the work of Johannes Kepler(1571-1630). Kepler’s discovery of the laws ofplanetary motion was a great support to the70idea that movement took place in natureindependentofhumanobservation.According to this, if the position, speed andmass of a body are known, its later positionand speed can be determined. Thisdeterminateness had a great effect onphilosophy, and took away free will. Cominglater, Newton continued the tradition, anddeveloped mathematical laws which weresimple but had great deductive power andwere independent of an observer, such asgravity. Newton showed with mathematicalequations that two bodies with nothing inbetween them attracted each other (Newton,1999). However, there was a problem, in thatthis force depended on a direct effect as if itwas transmitted. Nobody knew whattransmitted gravity; even today the imaginedparticles called gravitons which are thoughtto mediate gravity are still unconfirmed.Later, Einstein came up with a practicalvehicle: the bending of space-time. Therewere no distant effects. All effects werecarried by the near neighborhood and noeffect could travel faster than light.Table 1. The basic differences between classical physics and quantum mechanicsClassical MechanicsQuantum MechanicsMacrouniversal MacroscopicMicrouniversal MicroscopicDeterministic: possible future changes can be predictedby looking at the past. Does not allow free will.Probabilistic: allows free will choices.Defines “what happens” in the world outside man: Whathappened there?”Defines the outside world including human thought: “Whathappened here?”Mind/consciousness/observer have no effect at all onmeasurements and experiments.Mind/consciousness/observer affect experiments and theirresults.Effects extend only to a local and selected area.Holistic: the effects of measurements extend to farawayplaces, not only local areas.Pavlov’s dog is used as an example, with stomach acidsreleased by conditioned reflex.Schrödinger’s cat can be both alive and dead at the sametime.Insufficient to explain nature by itself.Still not completely sufficient. There are arguments in favorof a new physics.Mind and consciousness are passive and part ofmetaphysics, not physics.Mind and consciousness are fields for study, andconsciousness is active.Classicalphysicsiscompletelydeterministic, and can predict a later statefrom an earlier one. In this way we aremechanical automatons, and physics candefinetheuniversedefinitivelybymathematics (Feynman, 1999). All ourmovements derive from the interaction oftiny mindless pieces of matter. Conversely,ISSN 1303 5150mind and consciousness have no effect onparticles of matter. A person’s mental worldis determined by the configuration of hisphysical brain.Later, Faraday in the 19th centuryproved that an electric current could form amagnetic field and a magnetic field couldwww.neuroquantology.com
NeuroQuantology March 2010 Vol 8 Issue 1 Page 66‐76Tarlaci S., Why we need quantum physics for cognitive neuroscience and psychiatryform an electric current, and in this wayelectromagnetic theory was born (Maxwell,1865). In the 1860s, Clerk Maxwell putforwardelectromagnetismandwaveequations. It was understood that light andlater heat, were electric waves vibrating atdifferent frequencies. In 1887, Hertzdiscovered radio waves. So Newton’suniverse of particles became a wholespectrum of frequencies. Later still, MaxPlanck showed these vibration frequencies tobe discontinuous due to Planck’s constant.Newton’s clockwork universe turned into asieve with quantum-sized holes. After that,heat was seen to have the characteristics notonly of waves, but of both waves andparticles. In the 1920s, Werner Heisenbergput forward the theory that an observerwishing to measure the behavior of anelectron must choose before measurementwhich characteristic he wished to measure,because measuring the position of anelectron made its speed uncertain, butmeasuring only its speed rendered itsposition uncertain. That is, it was necessaryto decide beforehand what it was that theobserver wanted to measure (Heisenberg’sUncertainty Principle) (Feynman, 1966).This principle destroyed Newton’s g information is ideally ible. In this way, quantum mechanicshas put the experimenter or “observer” intothe measurement process along with qualiaand the decision process (Green, 2000).Thus, the concept in Newtonian physics ofthe “human / experimenter / observer /conscious being” not being a part of theuniverse and only observing from outsidehas changed. “I” and the external cametogether. Later still, the concepts of spaceand time, which in Newtonian mechanicswere independent and stable, were broughttogether by Einstein. So the meaning of“now” depended on who was describing it(Marin, 2009).Classical physics is insufficient in thescience of today to form a theory ofconsciousness. Classical physics describes allbrain activity from top to bottom in atomicterms. However, there is no distinctionbetween a person’s stream of consciousnessand both bodily behavior and what ishappening in the brain (Jibu and Yasue,ISSN 1303 5150711995). When quantum theory is applied, it isthe exact opposite. The founders of quantumtheory add an “observer” to a physical theoryand this novelty creates a serious differencefrom classical physics. This duty imposed onthe observer comes entirely from the theoryitself (Mermin, 1985).Consciousnessisafirst-personviewpoint. The first-person viewpointentirely concerns the experiences of theperson himself. This view is different fromthe objective existential or third personviewpoint (Vogeley and Fink, 2003). Whilethe first person viewpoint answers thequestion, “What am I experiencing or whatis happening inside my head?”, the thirdperson viewpoint answers the question ofwhat is happening in the head or brain ofanother. All of our daily and familiar scienceis based on this third person viewpoint. Thetraditional view forces us to make a choicebetween the inside view and behavior whenwe examine the mind or consciousness. Themind is characterized by mental states, andcan be reached through the first personviewpoint. That is, a person can reach onlyhis own mental state. On the other hand, thebrain is characterized by the state of its nervecells, and can be reached from a third-personviewpoint. This third-person view meanslooking at the brain of another from theoutside. However, the individual with thefirst-person viewpoint can reach neither hisown brain nor the relevant state of the nervecells, but only his mental states. From theother side, although our behavior is anindication of our mental state, the samebehavior does not mean the same mentalphenomenon. However, quantum mechanicsaccords with the subjective first personviewpoint. Classical physics is objective andaccords with a third-person view. Themovement of the planets or Newton’sgravitation come about of themselveswithout any human experience beinginvolved.Theories of mind-brain interactioncurrent today are not yet sufficient toilluminate our experiences (Dennett, 1988).Mental function and consciousness are inone way or another a definite kind ofphysical construct and a neurophysiologicalcharacteristic. Neurophysiological processesand phenomena of the mind are among thewww.neuroquantology.com
NeuroQuantology March 2010 Vol 8 Issue 1 Page 66‐76Tarlaci S., Why we need quantum physics for cognitive neuroscience and psychiatrybiggest unanswered scientific questions ofthe day. That is, my or your pain-carrying Cfibers are stimulated and this becomes anelectrical signal, but we st
Why we need quantum physics for cognitive neuroscience and psychiatry ISSN 1303 5150 www.neuroquantology.com 67
Bruksanvisning för bilstereo . Bruksanvisning for bilstereo . Instrukcja obsługi samochodowego odtwarzacza stereo . Operating Instructions for Car Stereo . 610-104 . SV . Bruksanvisning i original
The Quantum Nanoscience Laboratory (QNL) bridges the gap between fundamental quantum physics and the engineering approaches needed to scale quantum devices into quantum machines. The team focuses on the quantum-classical interface and the scale-up of quantum technology. The QNL also applies quantum technology in biomedicine by pioneering new
For example, quantum cryptography is a direct application of quantum uncertainty and both quantum teleportation and quantum computation are direct applications of quantum entanglement, the con-cept underlying quantum nonlocality (Schro dinger, 1935). I will discuss a number of fundamental concepts in quantum physics with direct reference to .
According to the quantum model, an electron can be given a name with the use of quantum numbers. Four types of quantum numbers are used in this; Principle quantum number, n Angular momentum quantum number, I Magnetic quantum number, m l Spin quantum number, m s The principle quantum
1. Quantum bits In quantum computing, a qubit or quantum bit is the basic unit of quantum information—the quantum version of the classical binary bit physically realized with a two-state device. A qubit is a two-state (or two-level) quantum-mechanical system, one of the simplest quantum systems displaying the peculiarity of quantum mechanics.
terpretation of quantum physics. It gives new foundations that connect all of quantum physics (including quantum mechanics, statistical mechanics, quantum field theory and their applications) to experiment. Quantum physics, as it is used in practice, does much more than predicting probabili
Physics 20 General College Physics (PHYS 104). Camosun College Physics 20 General Elementary Physics (PHYS 20). Medicine Hat College Physics 20 Physics (ASP 114). NAIT Physics 20 Radiology (Z-HO9 A408). Red River College Physics 20 Physics (PHYS 184). Saskatchewan Polytechnic (SIAST) Physics 20 Physics (PHYS 184). Physics (PHYS 182).
10 tips och tricks för att lyckas med ert sap-projekt 20 SAPSANYTT 2/2015 De flesta projektledare känner säkert till Cobb’s paradox. Martin Cobb verkade som CIO för sekretariatet för Treasury Board of Canada 1995 då han ställde frågan
