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


← The raw deal of determinism and reductionism

Steve Zara's Avatar Jump to comment 28 by Steve Zara

Comment 27 by djs56

Good questions. The major problem with involving other particles is that they don't interact with things on the energy scale of what goes on in brain cells. The energy of biochemical phenomena is normally well below the volt scale, and involves different forms of electromagnetic interaction - technically quantum electrodynamics. What goes on in biological system is almost all to do with electrons one way or another! WIMPS and neutrinos only interact with matter via the weak force or gravity. That's FAR too small to have any significant effect on the biochemical scale.

The other reason why we don't need to even consider new physics is because we know there is sufficient going on in our brains to explain everything in principle, and by 'explain', I mean that if an alien were to come and investigate our species, they would not even think about trying to involve spooky extra physics. Just seeing that we were biological neural networks would be enough. There is unlimited possible complexity in the neural networks in our heads. We find it hard to explain in any detail what goes on, but we should be in no doubt that there is more than enough information processing resources in our heads to explain what we do and think.

The only reason we suggest that there should be new physics is because we feel that there should be. What I'm trying to show is that those feelings aren't evidence for anything like that at all.

Fri, 13 Jul 2012 22:34:17 UTC | #949132