Re: another hint of quantum consciousness

On Sun, 15 Sep 2024 08:48:37 -0700, john larkin wrote:

On Sun, 15 Sep 2024 16:44:58 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
 

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.

Bill prefers to insult others in a condescending manner. It's easier.

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

 
We would die of cancer before we were born if we didn't have error
correction in cell division.

At least that would solve the population explosion. What are we at now? 9
billion? And they've all decided to join us in N. America and Europe for
some reason.