Re: another hint of quantum consciousness

"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?