Re: another hint of quantum consciousness

On Sun, 15 Sep 2024 21:37:54 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:

On 15/09/2024 7:24 pm, Jeroen Belleman wrote:

On 9/15/24 04:18, john larkin wrote:

On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 21:28:44 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
>

On 9/14/24 21:02, john larkin wrote:

On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 14:38:14 -0400, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net>
wrote:
>

On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 10:33:37 -0700, john larkin <JL@gct.com> wrote:
>

On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 13:03:07 -0400, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net>
wrote:
>

On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 08:13:10 -0700, john larkin <JL@gct.com> 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 wouldn't get too fired up.  The researchers are undergrads, and
the
bit about microtubles originally came from Penrose, back before the
Neurocomputation field had found plausible mechanisms in vector
algebra over hyperdimensional parameter spaces.

>
Undergrads and amateurs often shake up scientific dogma.

>
Uncommon, but certainly not unheard of.
>
>

Given that microtubules are very widely employed in all cells for
all
manner of purposes, blocking microtubules does not imply that
quantum
mechanics are or are not involved, as blocking anything that
fundamental is likely to affect very many things.
>

>
Evolution seems to use anything that works, even if scientists
disapprove.

>
True, but unhelpful.  It's not enough to observe that if A is blocked,
B stops working, and therefore the mechanism is X.  There are many
mechanisms simultaneously in action.  One must methodically rule out
all but a single X to claim causality.
>
Joe Gwinn

>
I didn't claim causality, but it is possible.
>
Discoveries usually happen through accident and speculation. Slapping
down speculation leaves only accident, which is unlikely in this case.
>
Designing electronics also benefits from being friendly to new ideas.
>

>
Discoveries happen by diddling with the problem, trying out different
things to see what happens. Once you have a collection of observations,
some theory will form of how it all fits together. You test the theory
by doing more experiments. If these experiments keep confirming your
theory, then, and only then, can you claim to have discovered something.
>
Just throwing harebrained ideas around leads nowhere.

>
Certainly rejecting ideas leads nowhere.
>
Who gets to define "harebrained" ideas? Should they be made illegal?
>
Google      quantum biology     which was once agreed to be
impossible.
>

 
You're suggesting that the ideas are most important and come first.

>
He has so few that he makes a fuss about the ones he does have.
>

I'm saying that ideas come about because of the unexpected result
of some experiment. Ideas don't come out of the blue. You have to
have some familiarity with the matter to which the idea applies.

>
In designing novel circuits, idea are frequently generated by having to
come up with unexpected solutions to unfamiliar problems. Some people
are better at it than others.
>

I would never dismiss your ideas about electronics out of hand,
but when you ramble about quantum consciousness, then I do.
 
As for quantum biology, biology is complicated chemistry and
chemistry is a complicated consequence of quantum mechanics.
It's just a different level of abstraction. I don't suppose you
use quantum theory to design an opamp circuit, do you?

>
Phil Hobbs has to work around quite a lot of Johnson noise, which is the
Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle in action. John Larkin performs at a
less demanding level.

What's amazing about Johnson noise is that some resistors don't have
it.