Re: another hint of quantum consciousness

On Sun, 15 Sep 2024 11:32:50 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

On 9/15/24 04:39, 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. 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.

>
Believing things without evidence is what I meant by 'religious
beliefs'. I did not intend to refer to any deity.

Lots of people refuse to consider multiple possibilities when any of
them even hint of drifting towards anything that Christians might
agree about. That's a real effect, a movable blind spot.

Imagining things without evidence is the first step towards gathering
evidence. I tell my engineers, have crazy ideas and stay goofy and
stay confused for a while, and see what happens.

I don't encourage them to violate conservation of energy, but that's
about the only hard guideline.

>

 
How are our collections of images stored?
 
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?
>

>
Precicely my point. We seem to agree after all.
>
Jeroen Belleman