Re: another hint of quantum consciousness

On Sun, 15 Sep 2024 13:19:58 -0400, "Edward Rawde"
<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

"john larkin" <JL@gct.com> wrote in message news:pc1eej9v5j8i25qm38l4jffodn7eb4c2f6@4ax.com...

On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 23:28:40 -0400, "Edward Rawde"
<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>

"john larkin" <JL@gct.com> wrote in message news:kaicejdhq0cudpivno5qmtes8al3tu8hje@4ax.com...

On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 17:04:32 -0400, "Edward Rawde"
<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>

"john larkin" <JL@gct.com> wrote in message news:31kbejpg6dos3fdm81oq42a4rgcenu4lk1@4ax.com...

On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 19:36:35 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
>

On 9/14/24 17:13, john larkin wrote:

>
https://scitechdaily.com/groundbreaking-study-affirms-quantum-basis-for-consciousness-a-paradigm-shift-in-understanding-human-nature/
>
Interesting way to define consciousness, the thing that goes away when
an a general anesthetic is applied. That can be quantified.
>

>
I paraphrase: "Since we don't know how it works, it must be quantum".

>
Or, more conventionally, "It can't be quantum because QM only works at
liquid helium temperatures."
>

That's it then: Quantum-something is merely religion. The god of the
gaps.
>
There's a lot of quantum nonsense about. This is just one example.
>

>
Well, explain how we can name one image out of maybe a million stored
images, in a fraction of a second.

>
In a way which is similar to the way this does it.
https://www.google.com/search?&q=eiffel+tower&udm=2
Just in reverse.
So choose any of the above images and save it.
Now go here
https://images.google.com/
And upload the image and see how long it takes for the words "eiffel tower" to appear.
>
Also it's possible you might not know the correct spelling.
https://www.google.com/search?&q=ifle+tower&udm=2

>
Does the lack of response here mean that you agree that I provided a valid explanation of how
"we can name one image out of maybe a million stored images, in a fraction of a second." ?
>
No-one is suggesting that Google does it exactly the same way the human brain does
but you asked for an explanation of how it is possible.
>

>

>
Face and voice recognition are similarly amazing.

>
But it is becoming much easier to do them without a human brain as time goes by.
>

>
Of course, the machines and the code that do google's image matching
were designed by people.
>

>
You mean like
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AlphaGo_Zero
is just code so all it can do is something like
if {player makes this move} then {respond with that move} ?
>
If you're going to stick with the idea that something designed people then what designed the thing which designed people and what
designed the thing which designed the thing which designed people?
>
What are you going to say when a thing designed by people becomes able to design electronic circuits better than you can?
>
>
>

>
I check up now and then on FLUX.AI,  just for fun.

>
I've never used it.
I have a general dislike of "sign up with Google" etc and pay a monthly subscription if you want anything worth using.
My last interaction with schematic/pcb software a few weeks ago was getting some Protel99SE files into KiCad.
That and simulating an LTC4267-3 circuit in LTSpice.

One Flux concept is collaborative design, multiple people having
simultaneous access to a schematic or PCB or code. That's insane.

>

>
A while back they were looking to hire a bunch of full-stack software
types and one hardware intern.
 

>

I recently installed an addon to Firfefox that kills the Goggle
sign-in atrocity. My life is much improved.