This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.


← The raw deal of determinism and reductionism

djs56's Avatar Jump to comment 27 by djs56


Interesting discussion, I try not to get too involved because other know a lot more than me, but… I would just like to ask a question or two related to whether or not there can be new physics involved in describing brains. Steve Zara seems quite clear that there can be no new physics.

We have been analysing the kind of physics that goes on in brain cells for centuries and found nothing, absolutely nothing, missing. It's all biochemistry and electrochemistry, and that's it

I have two questions:

First what about the physics of complexity... ? Surely in condensed matter physics, which is way harder than particle physics ;o), it is well known that the cooperative physics of interacting systems can exhibit completely new behaviour not observable in the elements making up the many bodied system. Therefore, why not a new physics related to complexity?


We have the ingredients of nature sorted out up to the TeV energy scale.

well if you think so, but I’m not so sure we have discovered all the possible particles up to a TeV. What about WIMPS and other r candidates.. , The LHC's new particles has a mass of 125 GeV, well below the TeV scales probed by the tevatron for years and years...

We don't look for new particles at the scale of torch battery energies (which is way above that of the processes in the brain),

How much energy does a neutrino have? They have produced loads of new physics over the past decade... I know this second question is probably not so relavent to brains, but all logicophilosophicus said was,

Comment 15 by logicophilosophicus

I'd certainly regard it as an unwarranted act of faith to assert that the known particles and forces, as of this moment in time, MUST be entirely sufficient to explain free will, intention, purpose, ethics, value and the rest.

with emphasis n the MUST.....

Fri, 13 Jul 2012 22:09:16 UTC | #949128