Re: another hint of quantum consciousness

On 9/15/24 12:53, Jan Panteltje wrote:

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.
 

An organism with extensive DNA repair ability is Deinococcus
Radiodurans, so evolution is apparently clever enough.
Jeroen Belleman