Re: another hint of quantum consciousness

On 15/09/2024 12:39 pm, john larkin 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.

But you do have a creationist approach to evolution. "Creation science" is what is sold to ignorant suckers, and you've bought it.

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?

We do know a bit about that. Why don't you try to find out.

When some people encounter an unwelcome idea, they call the people
that they disagree with bible bangers, and assume they have won the
argument.

Sadly. you are a bible banger, though you don't know enough to realise it.

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.

That's not what he is doing. Nobody has yet found evidence that would make it necessary to postulate that the brain (as opposed to the eye) uses quantum entanglement.

Given that most all physics and chemistry is fundamentally quantum
mechanical, why would evolution refuse to allow cells to use quantum
effects?

Evolution uses what has worked before. It doesn't make giant leaps.
Every evolutionary development has to work pretty much as well as the previous version.

Most people don't really believe in evolution.

Not in evolution as you understand it, because you don't understand evolution as well as you should.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney