Re: another hint of quantum consciousness

On Sun, 15 Sep 2024 11:24:08 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

On 9/15/24 04:18, john larkin wrote:

On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 21:28:44 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
 

On 9/14/24 21:02, john larkin wrote:

On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 14:38:14 -0400, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net>
wrote:
>

On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 10:33:37 -0700, john larkin <JL@gct.com> wrote:
>

On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 13:03:07 -0400, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net>
wrote:
>

On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 08:13:10 -0700, john larkin <JL@gct.com> 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 wouldn't get too fired up.  The researchers are undergrads, and the
bit about microtubles originally came from Penrose, back before the
Neurocomputation field had found plausible mechanisms in vector
algebra over hyperdimensional parameter spaces.

>
Undergrads and amateurs often shake up scientific dogma.

>
Uncommon, but certainly not unheard of.
>
>

Given that microtubules are very widely employed in all cells for all
manner of purposes, blocking microtubules does not imply that quantum
mechanics are or are not involved, as blocking anything that
fundamental is likely to affect very many things.
>

>
Evolution seems to use anything that works, even if scientists
disapprove.

>
True, but unhelpful.  It's not enough to observe that if A is blocked,
B stops working, and therefore the mechanism is X.  There are many
mechanisms simultaneously in action.  One must methodically rule out
all but a single X to claim causality.
>
Joe Gwinn

>
I didn't claim causality, but it is possible.
>
Discoveries usually happen through accident and speculation. Slapping
down speculation leaves only accident, which is unlikely in this case.
>
Designing electronics also benefits from being friendly to new ideas.
>

>
Discoveries happen by diddling with the problem, trying out different
things to see what happens. Once you have a collection of observations,
some theory will form of how it all fits together. You test the theory
by doing more experiments. If these experiments keep confirming your
theory, then, and only then, can you claim to have discovered something.
>
Just throwing harebrained ideas around leads nowhere.

 
Certainly rejecting ideas leads nowhere.
 
Who gets to define "harebrained" ideas? Should they be made illegal?
 
Google      quantum biology     which was once agreed to be
impossible.
 

>
You're suggesting that the ideas are most importatnt and come first.
I'm saying that ideas come about because of the unexpected result
of some experiment. Ideas don't come out of the blue. You have to
have some familiarity with the matter to which the idea applies.

I'm recursively suggesting that ideas about the origin of ideas should
not be rigid either. Neither you nor I know where ideas come from.

Lee DeForest arguably invented electronics and didn't understand
electrons. I read that Edison didn't understand Ohm's Law but he
electrified the USA. The Wright brothers had no education in fluid
dynamics; they learned from flying kites.

It's a common pattern: fiddlers invent things and then the scientists
move in and improve them, and often try to take credit, with the
klystron being an example. The reflex klystron was a major contributor
to the Allies winning WWII, so changed the world.

>
I would never dismiss your ideas about electronics out of hand,
but when you ramble about quantum consciousness, then I do.

I wouldn't want you in a brainstorming session. Some people are
poisonous to brainstorming, want to murder ideas at birth.

I've had summer interns say something aguably goofy that triggered a
discussion that led to something valuable. The attitude of the group
is critical to applying positive gain to idea propagation.

Quantum biology is a hot topic lately. I've "rambling" about it for
decades. Evolution make quantum consciousness imperative.

>
As for quantum biology, biology is complicated chemistry and
chemistry is a complicated consequence of quantum mechanics.
It's just a different level of abstraction. I don't suppose you
use quantum theory to design an opamp circuit, do you?

Well, I do care about shot noise, and semicondutor effects do involve
QM. We are involved in hydrogen fusion. No, most opamp circuits are
pretty simple.

I used to use a lot of tunnel diodes, but they are hard to get now.
About the only quantum tunneling diodes for sale now are back diodes,
used as RF detectors. People keep talking about tunnel transistors but
there are none at Digikey so far.