Re: yes!

On Fri, 16 Aug 2024 21:01:06 +0100, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:

On 15/08/2024 22:53, john larkin wrote:

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?

>
In a word *YES*. I'm not sure what Physics Review E thought it was doing
accepting an article making wild claims about consciousness on the basis
of predicted entangled photon emission from myelin sheaths.
>
OTOH I was visiting my tame biochemist friend today and he is interested
in it as he has always suspected that there was a lot more to myelin
sheaths on nerves than they are usually given credit for. A QM mediated
higher transmission efficiency of signals *might* just be plausible.
>
He thanks you for me bringing it to his attention.
>
The good thing about the scientific method it that it is ultimately self
correcting since the experimentalists and nature will have the final
say. An elegant or pleasing theory that makes incorrect predictions is
toast once an experimental refutation has been found.

But that's no reason to outright dismiss interesting conjectures. Most
science started with wild, unpopular ideas, so small but important
fraction of which turned out to work.

>
QM certainly plays a big role in making rhodopsin and chlorophyll work.
The former being way more archaic and is still present in our eyes.
>

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.

>
Not any more it isn't.

Those giant computer networks don't run code?

Your lack of understanding is a handicap.

Your lack of imagination ditto.