Re: another hint of quantum consciousness

On a sunny day (Sun, 15 Sep 2024 15:56:16 +1000) it happened Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in <vc5su1$200qt$6@dont-email.me>:

On 15/09/2024 1:03 pm, john larkin wrote:

On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 19:39:20 -0700, john larkin <JL@gct.com> wrote:
 

On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 21:18:44 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
>

On 9/14/24 20:08, john larkin wrote:

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.
>

>
Yes, that's the typical comeback of religious believers.

>
I don't recall invoking religion here, or calling myself a believer. I
was asking about image storage and high-speed matching. It's even more
amazing when you consider all the optical distortions and viewing
angles and changes in illumination and motion effects in real life; we
don't match nice flat photos.
>
How are our collections of images stored?
>
When some people encounter an unwelcome idea, they call the people
that they disagree with bible bangers, and assume they have won the
argument.
>
>

>
I don't know how it works. Let's find out. AI seems to be
getting there, and it requires no quantum theory. Just loads
of data and a lot of matrix math.

>
You are determined to exclude the possibility that are brains use QM.
>
Given that most all physics and chemistry is fundamentally quantum
mechanical, why would evolution refuse to allow cells to use quantum
effects?
>
Most people don't really believe in evolution.
>
>

>
Jeroen Belleman

 
It would be pretty good packing, storing one bit of data per atom.
 
https://interestingengineering.com/science/wobble-nucleus-of-atom-quantum-data
 
or maybe more than one.
 
Nice possibilities for quantum correlation, pattern matching, too.

>
If evolution is that clever, why doesn't it exploit error-detecton and
-correction coding?
Bill Sloman, Sydney

It does all the time in RNA DNA
I was reading this stuff this morning:
 Explaning DNA organisation in chromosomes:
 https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/09/240912135801.htm
 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sstr.202400203
  there is still a lot to learn

design something, write some code, show us.
plenty of broken records around, not interesting.

>
>