From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!idtg!dow Wed Dec 18 16:02:01 EST 1991
Article 2175 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!idtg!dow
>From: dow@idtg.UUCP (Keith Dow)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Scaled up slug brains
Message-ID: <351@idtg.UUCP>
Date: 17 Dec 91 02:04:04 GMT
References: <60372@netnews.upenn.edu> <349@idtg.UUCP> <60435@netnews.upenn.edu>
Organization: Integrated Device Technology, Santa Clara
Lines: 235

>>>>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?

Simple, only infinite systems have a phase transition.   So, you will be
dealing with an infinite amount of phonons.  Maybe you meant your phonon
density may be too low.  Anyway, what do you mean by a phase-transition?
What is the order parameter?  How does it relate to what you are trying
to measure?

>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.






The n->oo is a real infinity.  In practical situations, what you measure in
a large sample is assumed to be representative of an infinte sample.  Of 
course sample typically have sizes greater than 10**20 atoms.  The 
approximation appears good.
 




>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.





Why?  The theory is based on infinites.   It is fun to give a 
mathematician a heart attack, like Dirac did with the delta function.







>>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.





Yes, please give the reference to the experiment.  Too bad it does not
exist.






>>			  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.




Hardly, it is my two cents worth.  Also chemsists, like others, can be 
fooled if you get them out of their field.







>>	  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.





Your homework assignment is to write down a thousand times.
"Statistical mechanics and thermodynamics apply only to systems
in or near thermal equilibrium."





Since laser are described with negative temperatures, and they are
hardly near thermal equilibrium, they are not a candidate for
Bose-Einstein condensation.







>>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.




Not true.  Bose-Einstein condensation refers to bosons occupying the lowest
energy state.  The condensation is bosons moving from a higher state to the
lowest state.  This doesn't happen in super-conductivity near the phase 
transition.
 




>>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.






Like what doesn't it explain?  If a process with no intelligence can create
humans after a billion years, it should be little problem for homo-sapiens to
understand how it was done in less than one tenth of one percent of that 
time.








>>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.





Fine, then we all agree that the brain is a machine which will soon
be understood.   That all questions about the brain can be explained
by the chemical and electrical interactions happening between the
ears.  Also the separation of mind and body is question generated to
keep philosophers employed.  Also, that a machine will eventually be
built that does every thing the human mind does, but much better.






What more do you want to talk about?  The only question is when will
all this happen.  I predict it will all happen before the end of the
twenty first century.  If I am wrong, you can dance on my grave after
I get buried at sea.













