Re: yes!

On 17/08/2024 8:16 am, john larkin wrote:

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*.

 Cool. I can set up a trashy lunatic web site and link to a scientific
journal, or to wikipedia or to the BBC, and ruin them.
 

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.

 That's called "science."

It's called speculation.
"Science" is the business of relating speculation to experimental evidence that can support some speculations and reject others.
Philopsophers have been speculating for a few thousand years. Science developed a few hundred years ago to weed out the less useful speculations.

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.

 My theory is that the electrical pulses we see in long nerves are just
chemical refreshes, not the data carriers themselves.

It might be a hypothesis. Dignifying it by calling it a "theory" is a considerable stretch.
In this case it's a more a pretentious assertion.

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.

 OK, simplify science by immediately rejecting all speculation. That
simplifies electronic design too. We don't need no stinkin' ideas.

Science necessarily rejects a lot of speculations. That is what it was set up to do. You may feel hurt because your speculation has been treated as half-baked, but asserting that this means that every speculation would be rejected is an unrealistic over-reaction.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Norton antivirus software.
www.norton.com