Re: another hint of quantum consciousness

On 16/09/2024 8:54 am, Joe Gwinn 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.

 Yes, this is by far the usual path.
 

Just throwing harebrained ideas around leads nowhere.

 And science has a fair sample of ideas originally thought harebrained
that later turned out to be correct, to be epic breakthroughs.
 I'll grant that the fraction of harebrained ideas that turn out to be
correct is tiny, but it is not zero.  These often led to a Nobel
Prize.

At least one Nobel-prize-winning idea - the Josephson Junction - came from a guy whose subsequent antics looked pretty hare-brained. Brian Josephson kept on showing up at Cambridge lectures on cognitive matters and asking very hare-brained questions.

So while one may be quite sure that something is harebrained, one can
ignore it and see if it goes anywhere, or simply fades away.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney