I think the brain is essentially a computer and consciousness is like a computer program. It will cease to run when the computer is turned off. Theoretically, it could be re-created on a neural network, but that would be very difficult, as it would require all one's memories. - Stephen Hawking.
Studies have shown the brain has a higher computational power efficiency than electronic computers by orders of magnitude (Jorgensen, 2022). This has been the belief since 1936 when the first computer was built in Germany. Time and time again, humans observe peculiar parallels between themselves and the operations of human innovations. The universe knows no divagation when it comes to optimal function. If system A works well, variations of system A will be seen throughout nature. Computers work very differently from brains, but that's because our technological prowess is limited compared to where it has the potential to be. Computers can have the capacity to function like the human brain, better than the human brain, and even demonstrate signs of true consciousness in a neural network. With that being said, it’s fair to conclude that unlike any computer operating today, whether it's your binary-manipulating computer or a quantum computer that utilizes quantum bits, the brain out-functions the rest. Quantum computation coupled with cognition aren't new ideas; in fact, they've been around for quite some time. Trinity College Dublin recently published a paper on 'Experimental indications of non-classical brain functions.' In the paper, they argued that the evidence that implied entanglement in the brain correlated, possibly even causated, with consciousness. In this piece of writing, I will cover the following:
1) What did the experiment entail?
2) What does the outcome convey?
3) Further Implications
Like all research, this paper is open to a difference in opinion. Debating about whether the product of this particular study is fact or not accomplishes little. Research, no matter how contentious, will invariably give rise to more and sounder investigations that will attempt to establish its credibility. The point of writing this article is to update you on the recent research in this growing field as opposed to contend for a winning side. The emanations of the forthcoming research within this field will undoubtedly demonstrate the credibility of this paper, but the journey of acquiring a promising explanation will be more fruitful for evolving research and stemming areas. This climacteric paper in the growing field of Quantum Biology will give us substance to work with in this relatively unexplored domain.
The Experiment
Two known quantum systems can mediate entanglement if the mediator itself is non-classical. Non-classical is a term given to a law, theory, or observation that can be expressed or understood in terms of Newtonian physics. Theoretically; if system A is of an unknown quantum system state, and system B is a quantum system, then you could react them together. If their interaction generates results that are characteristic of 2 known quantum states, such as entanglement, then system B is a quantum system. The inference behind this seems very forthright, but this isn't the case. Research linking to the infamous quantum theory is predominantly theoretical; quantum is not determinate, and this makes it harder to concretely associate this idea with many conceptualizations, let alone consciousness. The rationale behind this experiment is illustrated below. Do note that this is a rather simplified depiction of this particular experiment (Variations of this rationale were also used as evidence for quantum gravity).
The sensory system feeds the brain with data employing quantum mechanisms. The presence of specific nuclear spins is necessary for more complex brain functions beyond those caused by sensory inputs. The activity of complex behavior in Lithium-6 isotopes with nuclear spin 1 is higher than that in Lithium-7 isotopes with 3/2 spin, for instance. To calculate proton movement, custom MRI scans were used, employing the proton spins of the fluid that builds up in the brain as the known system. Zero quantum coherence (ZQC) was used to minimize classical signals that circumvent quantum correlation detection limits in NMR. They found evoked signals in most parts of the brain, whereby the temporal appearance resembled heartbeat-evoked potentials (HEPs). Heartbeat-evoked potentials are characteristic changes in brain waves caused by evoked potentials that can occur due to changes in cardiac activity, such as heart rhythms and heart rate variability (Schandry and Montoya, 1996; McCraty et al., 2009; Park et al., 2015). They found that those signals did not correlate with any classical NMR contrast. The evoked signal depends on consciousness itself. Consciousness-related or electrophysiological signals are unknown in NMR. Their findings suggest that they may have witnessed entanglement mediated by consciousness-related brain functions. Those brain functions must then operate non-classically, which would mean that consciousness is non-classical.
For further information refer to the reference section. The paper is pinned first.
The Outcome
The experimental detection of such an entanglement created by the brain was proclaimed to offer sufficient proof of cerebral non-classicality and the evidence suggested that such entanglement creation occurs as part of cognitive processes. There is entanglement, but that does not mean it has anything to do with how a brain fundamentally operates. Although there was an established correlation, causation is not synonymous with this justification. There is nothing in the macro world that is not a scientific extension of quantum mechanics as a fundamental principle. The consensus is that you can emanate equations for larger things from smaller things. Essentially, we should be able, to begin with, quantum field theory and retrieve all macroscopic laws. This is manageable in some cases, but hard in certain transition regimes, which is why we need research at all levels to thread the science properly. Nevertheless, this experiment produced evidence that seemed to link cognitive processes to entanglement. It appeared that the evidence was presented in a pattern and that pattern matched that of consciousness.
Future Implications
Web critics remarked that the implication of the brain performing quantum computations was a ploy to profit off of keywords for the sake of grants. Despite this criticism, you’ll find that the paper itself mentions no such direct assertions. Such claims stem from journalists and news sites which employed viral keywords for the sake of grabbing attention. In the paper, ‘Is the Brain a Quantum Computer?’ released in 2005, scientists argued the complete opposite of this. They argued that the computation via quantum mechanical processes is irrelevant to explaining how brains produce thought, contrary to the speculations of many theorists at the time. First, quantum effects do not have the temporal properties required for neural information processing. Second, there are substantial physical obstacles to any organic instantiation of quantum computation. Third, there is no psychological evidence that such mental phenomena as consciousness and mathematical thinking require explanation via quantum theory (Litt. A., et al, 2005). Evidence and hypotheses live on both sides of this coin and we hope for evidence on both sides to keep developing in this growing sub-division of quantum biology so a consensus can be achieved on how the splendors of the brain and its consciousness can be explained.
References:
The Paper in question: Christian Matthias Kerskens and David López Pérez 2022 J. Phys. Commun. 6 105001. Accessed online https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/2399-6528/ac94be/pdf
Timothy J. Jorgensen. 2022. Is the Human Brain a Biological Computer? Princeton Press. Accessed online https://press.princeton.edu/ideas/is-the-human-brain-a-biological-computer
Park, Sangin et al. “Anti-Heartbeat-Evoked Potentials Performance in Event-Related Potentials-Based Mental Workload Assessment.” Frontiers in physiology vol. 12 744071. 18 Oct. 2021, doi:10.3389/fphys.2021.744071
Litt, Abninder et al. 2005. Is the Brain a Quantum Computer? University of Waterloo; Cognitive Science Society. Accessed online https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1207/s15516709cog0000_59
Comments