Re: yes!

"john larkin" <jlarkin_highland_tech> wrote in message news:p1usbj1jtg5st9ahr544q5pajc98o9vqsn@4ax.com...

On Thu, 15 Aug 2024 21:42:12 +0100, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
>

On 15/08/2024 00:55, john larkin wrote:

>
https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a61854962/quantum-entanglement-consciousness/

>
Popular Mechanics is *such* a reputable source of cutting edge QM theory.

>
It's a news site. It links to a physics journal article.
>
Is Physics Review E contaminated by a link from PM?
>
>
>

>
When they publish it in Nature or somewhere reputable I'll take note.
They already seem to have grumbled to New Scientist about being dissed.
>
A hypothesis has to survive experimental testing to be at all credible.
If they are right then you should be able to alter consciousness by
flooding the interior of the brain with incoherent IR photons. Somehow I
can't see that working at all.
>
Quantum entanglement may be all the rage now but it is likely to be just
another variant of the "action at a distance" in Newtonian gravity that
will disappear once we have a complete grand unified theory of physics.
>
So far it looks like consciousness is an emergent property of any
sufficiently complex computational network. The big super computer
networks are now getting close to the threshold where that might happen.

>
It's just code.

What are you going to say when a conversation you can have with a computer is indistinguishable from a human?
That it's just code and therefore behaves like a conscious entity but isn't really??