Sunday, 6 April 2008

The brain, as a quantum computer?

"A quantum computer is any device for computation that makes direct use of distinctively quantum mechanical phenomena, such as superposition and entanglement, to perform operations on data. In a classical (or conventional) computer, information is stored as bits; in a quantum computer, it is stored as qubits (quantum bits). The basic principle of quantum computation is that the quantum properties can be used to represent and structure data, and that quantum mechanisms can be devised and built to perform operations with this data."

If we assume that line, what are the possible configurations of information storage? The qubit equivalent? What are the quantum mechanisms that perform operations with this data? That the brain makes direct use of the distinct quantum mechanical phenomenon of superposition is evident as it is required to operate within a framework of multiple potential states, simultaneously existing, without any distinct preference or indication of any, out of these states, being prevalent, superposed one upon the other, before the collapse of its wavefunction by an observer, which singles out one particular state, which acts as an effector in the actions an individual undertakes and thus determines the individual's behaviour.

What about entanglement? How can it be visualised? Entanglement of particles. Quantum particles. Quantum particles can be interpreted from the point of view of chaotically driven processes as attractors. Chaotic mechanisms, the brain is involved, produces attractors which direct an individual's behaviour. These attractors can be assumed equivalent to quantum particles, and these presumably would represent the entities engaged in entanglement. Entanglement represents non-local, (oh hell!), interactions between similar quantum particles with instantaneous sharing of information. Acting like pairs, entangled pairs. Likewise, attractors developed in the brain of human individuals interact non-locally with attractors developed in the brains of other individuals? A candidate explanation of ESP phenomena? Extra sensory perception effected by entanglement?

Human individual, a quantum mechanical entity?

Human individual to be regarded as a quantum mechanical entity? The embodiment of a quantum mechanical entity its superposition of states. States in which the individual finds itself in, a multitude of states and the collapse of its wave function into a single state, become determining in the life of the individual, by effecting actions when it is required. Followed up, by its entry into a new superposition of states till another collapse will bring about the emergence of another single state to deal again with the multitude of situations, any individual finds itself in, in the course of its daily life.

Quantum mechanics and chaos do not exclude one another. Whereas quantum mechanics draws attention in the states and the description of these states, chaos refers to the processes which are responsible for these states. It is interesting this mixture of quantum mechanics and chaos, and above all this transference of the quantum mechanics adherents to describe situations of macroscopic environments.

Analysing each particular feature of quantum mechanical models and applying the doctrines to other systems and examine these systems from that particular prism, it would probably produce insights which will elucidate further the phenomena observed.

By talking about superposition of states, should bear in mind that the states are defined by their constituent variables and parametres, therefore multiple states existing simultaneously refer to the values of variables and parametres. The values of variables and parametres are not fixed, but rather fluctuate. As a superposition itself does not imply infinite states, simply multiple states, therefore the values of variables and parametres would not have infinite range, simply ranges which will ensure multiple states. This agrees with the parametric development of chaotic states.

Oh heck! What is that thought that entered my mind. Observation as the reason for the collapse of the wave function of the quantum mechanical superposition of states of a human individual. Observation, the act to effect the collapse comes from other individuals. As a human individual is observed by other individuals, this observation brings the collapse into its single state. Now this single state, out of the superposed multiple states, is determined by the observer. The observed individual collapses its wave function to that of the observing individual. This can explain the overriding effect of acting as expected by the observing individual. It goes along with the observer influences the observed. This should be counteracted by a subsequent observation from the observed individual, the observed becomes the observer and therefore affects the wave function collapse of the initial observer. These actions must provide grounds for explaining rules of conduct.

The individual can not help but act according to what is expected by the individual who have effected the collapse of its wavefunction in the first place? Therefore we act as it is expected? The single state out of the superposition of states that the wavefunction collapses to is the state that the observer determines?

Saturday, 5 April 2008

Would the mind know but would not tell?

The right questions asked and the answers are given. The mind works regardless whether the individual is aware of it or not. So therefore the mind as it is proclaimed here:

"Popper and Eccles (1977) and Margenau (1984) have also discussed the possibility of quantum reduction being dependent on the mind of the observer, leading to the paradox of Wigner's friend in which an observer's friend splits the wave function, and reports on the result."

reduce the wave packet and the information gained is used to effect things happening in the environs of the individual that splits the wave function. To achieve knowledge about the processes involved, a mind has to assault the item to be known, armed with an arsenal of ever more detailed concepts, probe deep, analyze minute processes, put forward questions, in structured sentences, in seek for an answer. And the mind provides the answer. The mind makes use of the brain's quantum machinery.

The collective human mind, in collaboration, managed to accumulate a lot of information. It has constructed models of the way nature works, as well as, how the mind works. Constructed attractors act like a magnet's poles, to thoughts and ideas in the minds of individuals, in a similar manner as the same authors mention here:

"An excitable cell or neurosystem which evolved initially to achieve constrained optimization through chaotic fluctuation, could thus also display a new type of predictive modeling through non-local quantum interactions. Predictive optimization may thus have driven the evolution of the excitable cell and subsequently a structurally-unstable chaotic brain in which consciousness and free-will become direct manifestations of the quantum non-locality underlying membrane and brain-function."

The individual coaxed towards achieving deeper understanding. Of its mind's inner workings? Our consciousness a wave front wandering amidst the swirl of intertwining folds of processes, becomes trapped in isolated regions oblivious of all other regions. Its location determined by a handful of thoughts and ideas it aspires to. A matter of will, but will which is largely determined by the prevalent ideas in the social environment it finds itself in.

The idea of observation and collapse in our daily lives. In the anticipation of forthcoming events. Representing the unknown factor. The indeterminate nature of things to come, in a superposition of states. A macroscopic equivalent mirroring the microscopic events unraveling in the quantum realm.

Is there a genetic predisposition to the things we draw our attention to? There is a lot of hubris in the lives of individuals, which affects what we draw our attention to, from what actually should pay attention to. Certainly, an individual's sensory apparatus can not sense everything that lies around us, exacerbated by lack of detailed knowledge, of information, for what lies around us. What determines that we would actually pay attention to, from all the possibilities presented to us, is strongly connected with emotions and feelings. Interdependent and bi-directional pathways, either influence emotions or our emotional make-up influence what we will pay attention to.

Sunday, 23 March 2008

Tractable and intractable computations human individuals are faced with.

In an uncanny manifestation, as I would call it for the lack of a better word available in my mind right now, sources unraveled before me, without a consciously prepared plan, only to lead me, almost effortlessly, to a sought after solution of a nagging problem. One seemingly intractable problem, in personal terms, on the grounds of the unyielding amount of operations in the process of arriving to a satisfactory solution.

Similar with what I mentioned in that post, the anticipation built-in in the firing sequences of neuron groups, with the additional element of intractable problems. Does that go beyond a simple immediate future anticipation? To processes connected to situations where ever ready, constantly on standby, lingering bifurcations sweep away the thoughts toward new, concluding attractors or falling under the influence of powerful trajectories of all-surpassing, universal attractors? As for example the attractor-notion of knowledge already there, awaiting your mind's arrival? Severely cutting down the number, by-passing unyielding operations? Arriving to a solution sooner?

Computational problems can be "efficiently solvable" or "tractable" or "intractable" as they would require a huge amount of operations, at least n^1000000 (n to the power of 1 million), as it is mentioned here,

"P is often taken to be the class of computational problems which are "efficiently solvable" or "tractable", although there are potentially larger classes that are also considered tractable such as RP and BPP. Also, there exist problems in P which are intractable in practical terms; for example, some require at least n^1000000 (n to the power of 1 million) operations."

These are the kind of problems human individuals face in life situations as it is mentioned in "Fractal Neurodynamics and Quantum Chaos: Resolving the Mind-Brain Paradox Through Novel Biophysics", in Chapter 6.1, The Computational Intractability of Survival in the Open Environment.,

"The principal task of the brain is to compute the survival strategy most likely to enable the organism to evade death and produce viable offspring. A computational problem is intractable if the number of computational steps required grows super-exponentially with the complexity of the problem. The traveling salesman problem (Bern & Graham 1989), finding the shortest route round n cities illustrates this, growing with (n-1)! A problem may also be formally undecidable in the sense of Gödel. Many adaption-survival problems in the open environment share the characteristics of intractable problems, because each strategy tends to be matched by a competing strategy in another organism and the number of options rapidly exponentiates. An active organism must also complete a processing task within 0.1-1 second if it is going to have survival utility, regardless of its complexity. Such arguments make it clear why parallel processing is an integral feature of vertebrate nervous systems."

In each step in our modern lives, though no different in real terms with the lives of human individuals in any era in human history for that matter, we are required to make decisions about effectively intractable problems. The human individual has largely managed to tackle successfully the computational problems associated with survival, and it did so by utilising our brain's chaotic potential. Thanks to our innate ability to engage and utilise chaotic processes led to the establishment of numerous attractors, providing solutions for many problems. Attractors manifesting in numerous forms and shapes, tangible and intangible, matter-transforming or social and mental constructions, tools in the constant grappling with nature, while at the same time continuously transforming into new shapes and forms.

Thursday, 6 March 2008

Thinking (with)in and (with)out the brain.

New thoughts:
A distinction between thinking as it occurs in the brain and thinking as it is done by the use of language and logic combined.

The brain has the ability to provide solutions to problems as long as the relevant concepts are provided. The concepts provided must confer meaning to the individual otherwise the brain would not process them in an efficient manner

The thinking which is done by the use of language uses external tools and its efficiency, in most of the cases, is doubtful. It is done 'outside' the brain and its strength barely approaches the actual potential of the human brain. Of course I can not deny that most of the thinking it has been done outside the brain, and has produced the breadth and length of the knowledge humanity possess now. But it kickstarted by thinking done 'inside' the brain. It was and is heavily geared by the intuitive resilience of the individuals that produced and produce the foundations of largely all fields of knowledge.

Other individuals took the thoughts intuitive spurts produced, made further alterations, added more concepts, primarily by thinking 'outside' the thought mechanisms of the human brain.

The human brain's understanding of reality, has an uncanny capability to provide solutions that no language techniques can match. This is because it works in the same way nature works. What drives nature is dictated by chaos, and the same goes for the brain. Built out of the same blueprint. It works in ways that the conscious mind can not fathom, and unable to follow. To talk about gaining knowledge of what underlies the intricate fabric of nature, this can only be revealed by utilising the intuitive powers of the human brain. All knowledge that exists is already there and our brain knows 'where', we should let our brain to take us there. Each individual has this knowledge within grasp. Let our brain guide us.

Alongside an intuitive knowledge gained explaining nature's workings, there is another body of knowledge accumulated, with very little use. A drawback, an obstacle and baggage which hinders our goal in understanding nature's phenomena. It is not only that it does not assist us, but it throws us away, it misleads us. We should pick and choose the concepts which we need, identify and subsequently ignore concepts that bear no relevance in what is needed to know reality.

Monday, 25 February 2008

The mind and chaotic attractors?

I read in this website of student.fizika.org an interesting account of mind chaos and I will let it flow into my own chaotic mind and see what will bring out.

"In this model, low level chaos is lifted into a higher energy state by olfactory input. Chaos in this state enables the system to explore its phase space, falling into an existing attractor in the case of a recognised odour, but bifurcating to form a new attractor in the case of a newly learned stimulus."

Admitting of the existence of low level chaos before the presence of a stimulus provides a picture of the state of the mind before the stimulation. It brings into my mind the noise existing into our brain, Erich Harth's penumbrae, what is needed for some random sparkle to build upon. By referring at that state as chaos, it reflects its random character. And as the stimulus results in a flurry of activity, in a process similar to Erich Harth's Alopex optimisation algorithm, lifted into a higher energy state by the sensory input. And once, in that higher energy state the system explores its phase space. Phase space? An abstract space. The 'space' in which all possible states of a system are represented. Can phase space be visualised? All possible states? Regardless of being visualised exploring phase space, the system explores all possible states and the states focuses upon are the states that belong in an attractor. An attractor the set of states (points in the phase space), invariant under the dynamics, towards which neighboring states in a given basin of attraction asymptotically approach in the course of dynamic evolution. And the including basin of attraction, the set of points in the space of system variables such that initial conditions chosen in this set dynamically evolve to a particular attractor.

The chosen attractor. Chosen? What criteria is a choice identified with? Based on system variables. Variables that have been analysed by sense detectors. The values of the variables chemicals present, represent the initial conditions and dynamically evolve to a particular attractor. An existing attractor if the chemical and its odour has already presented itself, along with the word, the symbol associated with or bifurcating to form a new attractor if the chemical and its odour has not presented itself as yet, and duly assigned with another word, another symbol which it will make it easier, later on to convey information to other individuals about the new chemical and its odour.

Building up attractors by engaging into chaos. Why? Is there not any other way? Because it is fast? Or is it because it emerges out of noise, unstructured states? Out of nothing? And what would that noise be, the unstructured states found in the deepest level of organised matter. Quantum froth? Quantum noise? Our very own entanglement with the quantum world?

Or is it because

"The transition into chaos thus provides sensitive dependence on input, ergodic 'randomizing' phase space exploration, parametric bifurcation to form new symbols, and possible quantum amplification. Return from chaos in turn fixes stability structures from the fractal dynamics."

Chaos processes make it possible to take into consideration minute differences in the presented conditions as they are sensitively dependent upon and thus increase human analytical powers discriminating between finer and finer features. Minute details noticed multiply, a plethora of features swamp the human intellect. Each individual with a unique view of the world? A reason that explains the diversity of human endeavour?

Thursday, 7 February 2008

Thoughts about stream of consciousness

A stream of consciousness rushed through me, almost out of nowhere and it kept me thinking. It struck me, as I pondered on thoughts unraveled a few hours ago. What impressed me most, it was how easy one thought followed another, effortlessly, without pause. A continuous unbiased flow following, I dare say, a predetermined path.

It brought into my mind, the first time I heard something profound about consciousness, that left me puzzled and astonished. It was at the time, I was pondering about a seat of consciousness and struggling to get in terms with the consciousness concept. A colleague of mine, being overtaken by the event he was describing, a person who he admired, and mentioned this individual's expressive power, designating it as "a stream of consciousness". The analogy struck me as alien. I was grappling and contemplating about the concept of consciousness from a different angle and his approach impressed me, though unfamiliar at the time, but I did not dismiss it. My own exposition the other night, reminded me of his remarks. I felt, I experienced what he described a stream of consciousness, as he described it.

What is the significance of this? How can it be explained? How can it become possible? Is it an illusion? A furtive sensation not worth to grapple upon? But its results stared back at me. A feeling of disbelief. Surely, there must be something here. Can it have a physical explanation? To that effect, I feel the answer might lie in Richard Feynman's retarded and advanced waves. What I came across, for the first time, in John Gribbin's book, "Q is for Quantum. Particle physics from A to Z".

Richard Feynman along with John Archibald Wheeler grappled with the idea of 'action at a distance', the idea that interactions between objects occur instantaneously, regardless of the distance involved. It is referred primarily to gravitational interaction such as between the sun and the earth and it operates without any intervening mechanism. They provided a version of the idea, which was used later on by John Cramer, to build the model of the transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics.

As John Gribbin states in his dictionary under Wheeler-Feynman absorber theory,

"When a charged particle jiggles, it radiates both into the past and into the future. This causes another charged particle to jiggle in the future. The jiggling of that particle sends another wave both into the future and into the past. The two sets of waves cancel out everywhere except in the region between the two charged particles. But because one wave goes forwards in time and the other travels backwards in time, the connection is made instantaneously."

The two sets of waves that a source simultaneously radiates, were called retarded and advanced waves. The retarded waves, sent to the future, are moving outwards from their source and forwards in time, and they arrive somewhere, their destination, at a later time than they set out on their journey. The advanced waves, sent to the past, are moving towards their source and backwards in time, so they arrive to their destination, their source, before they set out on their journey.

As is pointed out further, clarifying the notion stated before,

"The half retarded wave goes out from the first electron forwards in time, while the half advanced wave goes out backwards in time. When the second electron shakes in response, it produces another half retarded, which is exactly out of step with the first wave and so precisely cancels out the remaining half retarded wave for all later times; and a half advanced wave, which goes back down the track of the first wave to the original electron, in step with that wave, reinforcing the original half-wave to make a full wave, ...
This half advanced wave arrives at the first electron, of course, at the moment it started to shake, ... Then it continues back into the past, canceling out the original half advanced wave from the first electron. The result is that between the two electrons there is a single wave .., but everywhere else the wave cancels out, ...
"

In my mind the transactional interpretation John Cramer proposed, provides a way to explain the phenomenon of consciousness. Each transaction represent an instant of consciousness, and all the instants put together become a stream, a stream of consciousness.

The atemporal view might be used to explain the vastness of our consciousness as there are no limits either spatial or temporal for each transaction. The objects interacting in each instant of consciousness can be anywhere in space and time and their interaction takes place instantaneously thanks to the advanced waves that travel backwards in time. This could explain how our imagination can have no bounds as well as our consciousness being boundless.

Further, the acceptance that the retarded and advanced waves sent in each transaction travel at the speed of light, it likewise gives a measure of how long it takes for an instant of consciousness to take place as well as the collation of all the instants in a stream of consciousness and by that give a measure of the speed mental events can take place. This notion is inherent in each individual and can explain the impatience an individual expresses, when it complains about how slow computers can be, oblivious to the fact that the huge number of calculations a computer performs, are beyond the individual's conscious abilities.