Re: another hint of quantum consciousness

On Mon, 16 Sep 2024 07:59:18 -0700, john larkin wrote:

On Sun, 15 Sep 2024 17:03:40 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
<cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:
 

On Sun, 15 Sep 2024 08:48:37 -0700, john larkin wrote:
>

On Sun, 15 Sep 2024 16:44:58 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
 

On 9/15/24 12:53, Jan Panteltje wrote:

On a sunny day (Sun, 15 Sep 2024 15:56:16 +1000) it happened Bill
Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
<vc5su1$200qt$6@dont-email.me>:
 

On 15/09/2024 1:03 pm, john larkin wrote:

On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 19:39:20 -0700, john larkin <JL@gct.com>
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.
>
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?
>
Most people don't really believe in evolution.
>
>
>

Jeroen Belleman

>
It would be pretty good packing, storing one bit of data per atom.
>
https://interestingengineering.com/science/wobble-nucleus-of-atom-

quantum-data

>
or maybe more than one.
>
Nice possibilities for quantum correlation, pattern matching, too.

>
If evolution is that clever, why doesn't it exploit error-detecton
and -correction coding?
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 
It does all the time in RNA DNA I was reading this stuff this
morning:
  Explaning DNA organisation in chromosomes:
  https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/09/240912135801.htm
  http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sstr.202400203
   there is still a lot to learn
 
design something, write some code, show us.
plenty of broken records around, not interesting.

>
Bill prefers to insult others in a condescending manner. It's easier.

 
That's why he's here.

I'm quite proud of myself for ignoring his barbs. Must be 5 months now
since I resolved to do so - at your request!