Quantum Information and Brain neurons

[abbeynewton]

Hello, i want to know if there is any way we can describe the way our brain transfers information using Quantum Information theory. I have been looking at Quantum Information theory for some time now and would want to know if it will ever be possible to transfer information directly from the brain to a device. Please any suggestion is welcome.

 

[alxm]

I don't see why you'd think QIT has any relevance to describing how neurons work; ions diffusing across a membrane, driven by an action potential, is a quite classical process, not a quantum mechanical system.

 

[Chronos]

Circa 1989, Roger Penrose argued the posibility of the brain operating as a quantum computer in his book 'The Emperors New Mind'. For discussion see http://www.friesian.com/penrose.htm

 

[Delta2]

I think its easy to see that our brain is something more than a classical system of ions diffusing or a quantum computer.

Our brain is not a computer it can operate like a computer(that is following an algorithm and compute things at every step) but it is just something more than that. Of course no one knows yet what exactly our brain is, if quantum computer is the closest we can get then i ll take that.

But really i have serious doubt if the human brain will actually get the ultimate self knowledge to understand what exactly our brain is and how it operates. Probably the human brain is the greatest mystery in the universe for us, greater than that of dark matter and dark energy or anything other we observe and study.

 

[alxm]

Circa 1989, Roger Penrose argued the posibility of the brain operating as a quantum computer in his book 'The Emperors New Mind'.

Writing a popular scientific book is a great way to present far-fetched ideas without having to face scrutiny. And it's easy to come up with far-fetched ideas outside of your own field, where you don't have the knowledge necessary to find fault with them. Roger Penrose is not an expert on neurology, or on molecular biology, or biochemistry, or quantum chemistry, or even quantum mechanics. He's an expert on mathematics, topology, GR and such. And there's no evidence whatsoever for what he says, and lots of evidence to believe the opposite. As is well-known, Max Tegmark bothered to do the math and confirm what we already knew, which is that the decoherence times are far too short in such a system. Which is pretty much what all of chemistry would already tell you.

Few, if anyone at all, actually in these fields take his ideas seriously. Also, they're not even based on established QM, but his own ideas of gravitational decoherence.

 

[alxm]

I think its easy to see that our brain is something more than a classical system of ions diffusing or a quantum computer.

Okay, what's your evidence that something's going on in the human brain that's not reconcilable with the general framework of known chemistry/biochemistry? I'd like to know more about this fundamentally new physical phenomenon you've apparently discovered.

 

[Delta2]

Okay, what's your evidence that something's going on in the human brain that's not reconcilable with the general framework of known chemistry/biochemistry? I'd like to know more about this fundamentally new physical phenomenon you've apparently discovered.

Hehe nothing extraordinary and new, just to remind you that our brain is home not only to our thoughts but to our emotions too. And i honestly don't know if one can say that our emotions are algorithmic , at least till today someone hasnt come up with some algorithms that are able to infuse a computer with true emotions.

And thought its nothing terribly wrong if one assumes that our thoughts and emotions are governed by classical or quantum systems and equations but it would be done so in such a complex way that seems to me one of the greatest mysteries of this universe.

 

[Demystifier]

Writing a popular scientific book is a great way to present far-fetched ideas without having to face scrutiny. And it's easy to come up with far-fetched ideas outside of your own field, where you don't have the knowledge necessary to find fault with them. Roger Penrose is not an expert on neurology, or on molecular biology, or biochemistry, or quantum chemistry, or even quantum mechanics. He's an expert on mathematics, topology, GR and such. And there's no evidence whatsoever for what he says, and lots of evidence to believe the opposite. As is well-known, Max Tegmark bothered to do the math and confirm what we already knew, which is that the decoherence times are far too short in such a system. Which is pretty much what all of chemistry would already tell you.

Few, if anyone at all, actually in these fields take his ideas seriously. Also, they're not even based on established QM, but his own ideas of gravitational decoherence.

Not only correct and to the point, but also beautifully expressed!

 

[abbeynewton]

I don't see why you'd think QIT has any relevance to describing how neurons work; ions diffusing across a membrane, driven by an action potential, is a quite classical process, not a quantum mechanical system.

i am actually talking about the electric signals produced...can these signals be expessed mathematicaly...like how the ones from electrical devices are expressed...

 

[xristy]

i am actually talking about the electric signals produced...can these signals be expessed mathematicaly...like how the ones from electrical devices are expressed...

The equations are the Hodgkin-Huxley equations of neural transmission that model the initiation and propagation of the action potential. A text such as Izhikevich's Dynamical Systems in Neuroscience will cover this model.

 

[abbeynewton]

thanks xristy. the text was very helpful