Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Jeroen Belleman <jeroen@nospam.please>
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
Subject: Re: another hint of quantum consciousness
Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2024 11:24:08 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 85
Message-ID: <vc68tr$236km$1@dont-email.me>
References: <0s9bej1bhklummnn5iduadn94uvvne5k26@4ax.com>
 <a3gbejlt6o1d0nth0896cm48srt0bk99ma@4ax.com>
 <j1ibejh34njhlcocdut0idv1mtk4v4dg7p@4ax.com>
 <9qlbejpoe6lbpefvd7220e2eibrd1ioh5g@4ax.com>
 <t4nbejhkmh4gtl3rqnp84j2kr192ee1a4l@4ax.com> <vc4nvf$1kpl3$2@dont-email.me>
 <qj9cejdflm7c0desf4m5l27esk8d327sl4@4ax.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2024 11:21:00 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="75bdcd845d7eba18be82c51a9e1057e7";
	logging-data="2202262"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19JiuJsr8c4WW6DcxNKwsTa"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.13.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:7gtUyEoe3/gqx4bN3sI7/0FxhRg=
In-Reply-To: <qj9cejdflm7c0desf4m5l27esk8d327sl4@4ax.com>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 4920

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 importatnt and come first.
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.

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?

Jeroen Belleman