Re: another hint of quantum consciousness

"john larkin" <JL@gct.com> wrote in message news:hfhcej9vlqdlpef8cadk6g74lguj5nldpj@4ax.com...

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?

Likely in a way which is similar to the way
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AlphaGo_Zero
stores its ability to play the game.

So we may never know how the human brain stores images.
We just know it does.
It may not be possible to know how, and why would we need to know how?
Not knowing how won't stop us making AI which is cleverer than us.

>
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.

Even if that's true, it's likely because it doesn't easily map to the average human lifetime.
Because it took rather longer than a human lifetime.
So long, that even a human imagination can't begin to imagine how long it took and what happened over that time.

>
>

>
Jeroen Belleman