Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rochester!cornell!svax!belmonte From: belmonte@svax.cs.cornell.edu (Matthew Belmonte) Newsgroups: net.physics,talk.philosophy.misc Subject: Re: Quantum free will Message-ID: <504@svax.cs.cornell.edu> Date: Wed, 10-Sep-86 16:09:51 EDT Article-I.D.: svax.504 Posted: Wed Sep 10 16:09:51 1986 Date-Received: Fri, 12-Sep-86 22:14:56 EDT References: <179@sri-arpa.ARPA> <123@omepd> <129@omepd> <134@omepd> Organization: Cornell Univ. CS Dept. Lines: 43 Summary: nondeterminism in neurons Xref: mnetor net.physics:2949 talk.philosophy.misc:11 In article <134@omepd>, max@omepd.UUCP writes: > >.. The difference -- or at least a possible difference > > -- is that digital circuits > >are designed to correct for small random fluctuations; the output of a TTL > >chip is virtually uncorrelated with the fifteenth significant digit of its > >input. I have seen no evidence as to whether this is true of human neurons, > >or whether they can tend to amplify these small fluctuations. > > The presence of theories accurately > modelling the behavior of neurons would seem to indicate that the large > scale behavior of neurons does NOT depend on QM events. > > So, if this 'information' is being used, it is being sent out > along the axon in equally small fluctuations. Postulating that > huge amounts of information are being transmitted all over the brain by > immeasurable fluctuations in neuron activity seems a little implausible, > and could be characterized as wild speculation. > I am certainly not well-versed in biology, but... It was my understanding that a neuron fires iff the voltage it feels from a neighbouring axon across a synapse attains a certain threshold level (assuming, of course, that it has had enough time since the last firing to recharge). so, neurons are basically digital devices (the biological equivalent of the electrical engineer's TTL buffer). It doesn't seem that small-scale variations in charge or electric field could cause changes in the behaviour of the brain. Certainly quantum effects would not induce any nondeterminism (unless there were an Improbability Drive -equipped ship passing through the universe at the time :-). Suppose for the moment that the above reasoning is faulty, and that random effects really do influence the behaviour of individual neurons. This does not imply that random events influence the behaviour of the brain as a whole. The brain must be redundant somehow; otherwise I'd be in danger of losing a facility or memory the next time I go drinking & cause the death of some critical neuron. -- Matthew Belmonte ARPA: BITNET: UUCP: ..!decvax!duke!duknbsr!mkb