From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!uwm.edu!linac!att!rutgers!ub!dsinc!netnews.upenn.edu!libra.wistar.upenn.edu Wed Dec 18 16:01:59 EST 1991
Article 2173 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!uwm.edu!linac!att!rutgers!ub!dsinc!netnews.upenn.edu!libra.wistar.upenn.edu
>From: weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Scaled up slug brains
Message-ID: <60435@netnews.upenn.edu>
Date: 16 Dec 91 22:54:56 GMT
References: <40677@dime.cs.umass.edu> <12723@pitt.UUCP> <60372@netnews.upenn.edu> <349@idtg.UUCP>
Sender: news@netnews.upenn.edu
Reply-To: weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
Lines: 101
Nntp-Posting-Host: libra.wistar.upenn.edu
In-reply-to: dow@idtg.UUCP (Keith Dow)

In article <349@idtg.UUCP>, dow@idtg (Keith Dow) writes:
>In article <60372@netnews.upenn.edu> weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:
>>In article <12723@pitt.UUCP>, geb@dsl (gordon e. banks) writes:

>>>If we use phonon pumping in our neurons, it is a good bet that the
>>>worms do too.

>>It's not such a good bet.  In fact, phonon pumping makes it easy to
>>explain a catastrophic change in mental evolutionary history.  The
>>pump rate is a critical parameter, which when below a certain point
>>the condensate will not form.  The phonon count is a soft parameter.
>>The theory only has a phase transitionin the statistical mechanical
>>limit as the number goes to infinity.  At low enough counts, there
>>will again be no condensation.

>It still is a good bet.  Statistical mechanics only defines phase transitions
>for infinite systems.   Physicists just extrapolate finite systems to infinte
>systems.

What does your first sentence have to do with the other two?

Whoever said the N->oo limit in your statistical mechanics books was an
actual infinity?  The delta/epsilon style of limits merely says that at
large enough N, the error used between the actual physical situation and
the idealized infinite situation is too small to measure.

I admit, I learned calculus from Granville Smith and Longley, but I did
recover from that experience and learned that the use of actual infinities
and infinitesimals were not necessary for doing physics, despite notation.
So can you.

>Second, I have a VERY hard time believing there is Bose-Einsten condensation
>inside the human brain.

Indeed.  I have a VERY hard time believing that there's a Bose-Einstein
condensation in your brain.  But neither of our beliefs are relevant to
the truth, only experiment.

>			  I am not suprised that a chemistry journal published
>that article on it though, since they also published the first works on cold 
>fusion.

Such a comment is worthless.

>	  Since the brain operates at about 300 degrees kelvin, there is no
>shortage of phonons. 

Exactly.

>The few claims I have heard for Bose-Einstein condensation are for materials
>below 10 degrees kelvin.

Then you simply have not heard enough.  Laser light is a pumped photon
condensation, as originally proposed by Dicke before lasers were invented.
And it was the model that Froehlich used: he considered phonons instead
of photons.  When he looked for systems that would have the appropriate
collection of oscillators to instantiate this situation, he realized that
building them would be impossible, but that they were consistent with
biological systems.

>Superconductivity can't be a Bose-Einstein condensation since no bosons
>exist above the transition temperature!  The Cooper pairs are formed
>at the transition temperature and below.  That which does not exist, can not
>condense.

"Bose-Einstein condensation" is a noun phrase used to describe a certain
quantum mechanical state.  Its usage in no way shape or form requires that
the associated verb "to condense" be applicable.

Try and come up with more sophisticated arguments than irrelevant etymology.

>Since humans evolved from the level of slugs and other lower life forms 
>(i.e. graduate students), what is the problem with the idea that gradual
>improvements lead to what we are now?

It sometimes doesn't explain enough.

>Also, from a physicist's perspective, the fundamental principles of neurons 
>are known.  I said this earlier, and it still hasn't sunk into some peoples
>heads.  ALL of chemistry is just solutions to Schroedinger's equation.

No one I've been reading here has ever said otherwise.

>								         Some
>of you can cry all you want about it, but there is no good evidence that the
>above statement is wrong.

There is no good evidence that the statement has been rejected here either.

>Of course the human brain is too complicated to solve using Schroedingers
>equation.  But that doesn't mean we have to evoke mystical BS to understand
>it.  What evidence is there that we can't determine what the human brain is
>doing by measuring the electrical and chemical changes?  I haven't heard
>of any that is worth talking about.

Who is invoking any mysticism?  The Marshall-Froehlich pumped phonon
condensation pretheory, or Edelman's neuronal group selection model
are grounded in known physics, chemistry, and biology.  They await
experimental testing and theoretical refinement.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu)


