Discussion:
another hint of quantum consciousness
(too old to reply)
john larkin
2024-09-14 15:13:10 UTC
Permalink
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.
Jan Panteltje
2024-09-14 16:20:19 UTC
Permalink
On a sunny day (Sat, 14 Sep 2024 08:13:10 -0700) it happened john larkin
Post by john larkin
https://scitechdaily.com/groundbreaking-study-affirms-quantum-basis-for-consciousness-a-paradigm-shift-in-understanding-human-nat
ure/
Interesting way to define consciousness, the thing that goes away when
an a general anesthetic is applied. That can be quantified.
Yes, my experience too.
In a way past present and future is known.
All is connected

We have a long way to go to get to understanding to where evolution was already when life was beginning.
It is beautiful.
Beatles song:

There's nothing you can know that isn't known. Nothing you can see that isn't shown. There's nowhere you can be that isn't where you're meant to be. It's easy
https://www.thebeatles.com/all-you-need-love-0
john larkin
2024-09-14 17:29:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jan Panteltje
On a sunny day (Sat, 14 Sep 2024 08:13:10 -0700) it happened john larkin
Post by john larkin
https://scitechdaily.com/groundbreaking-study-affirms-quantum-basis-for-consciousness-a-paradigm-shift-in-understanding-human-nat
ure/
Interesting way to define consciousness, the thing that goes away when
an a general anesthetic is applied. That can be quantified.
Yes, my experience too.
In a way past present and future is known.
All is connected
We have a long way to go to get to understanding to where evolution was already when life was beginning.
It is beautiful.
http://youtu.be/Mr9XX4vtjT4
There's nothing you can know that isn't known. Nothing you can see that isn't shown. There's nowhere you can be that isn't where you're meant to be. It's easy
https://www.thebeatles.com/all-you-need-love-0
If consciousness is quantum mechanics, then things indeed get mystical
and cosmic.

There has long been uncertainty as to why anaesthetics work, like
small amounts of fat-soluble gasses like ether and chloroform.
Cursitor Doom
2024-09-14 19:48:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jan Panteltje
On a sunny day (Sat, 14 Sep 2024 08:13:10 -0700) it happened john larkin
Post by john larkin
https://scitechdaily.com/groundbreaking-study-affirms-quantum-basis-for-
consciousness-a-paradigm-shift-in-understanding-human-nat
Post by Jan Panteltje
Post by john larkin
ure/
Interesting way to define consciousness, the thing that goes away when
an a general anesthetic is applied. That can be quantified.
Yes, my experience too.
In a way past present and future is known.
All is connected
Sorry to bring the "vibration" down, but that
just sounds like something some hippie that's smoked too much dope would
say. This is the kind of thing that's destroying the West and has been for
the last 55 years IMO. After that intro I thought you were going to cite
'Tomorrow Never Knows' but AYNIL is every bit as idealistically mystic BS.
Jan Panteltje
2024-09-15 05:48:18 UTC
Permalink
On a sunny day (Sat, 14 Sep 2024 19:48:13 -0000 (UTC)) it happened Cursitor
Post by john larkin
Post by Jan Panteltje
On a sunny day (Sat, 14 Sep 2024 08:13:10 -0700) it happened john larkin
Post by john larkin
https://scitechdaily.com/groundbreaking-study-affirms-quantum-basis-for-
consciousness-a-paradigm-shift-in-understanding-human-nat
Post by Jan Panteltje
Post by john larkin
ure/
Interesting way to define consciousness, the thing that goes away when
an a general anesthetic is applied. That can be quantified.
Yes, my experience too.
In a way past present and future is known.
All is connected
Sorry to bring the "vibration" down, but that
just sounds like something some hippie that's smoked too much dope would
say. This is the kind of thing that's destroying the West and has been for
the last 55 years IMO. After that intro I thought you were going to cite
'Tomorrow Never Knows' but AYNIL is every bit as idealistically mystic BS.
hehe, well you have had a limited life experience it seems, maybe something will
make you see.
Many die for whatever reason without seeing.
There is -and always was- so much more than your boatanchors

Do not feel offended.

Anyways the hippie times when Vietnam war ended and peace movement engufled the planest did a lot of good
brought out a lot of good in people.
Age of Aquarium? LOL
Now we have byethen and Chameleon Harrasement provoking a nuke attack on what's left of what once was a great country.
all for the money ..

Wonder how you will power your boat-anchors ater it rains fissile material.

OTOH wildlife in Chernoblyl is flourishing mostly because there are no humming-beans to kill it.
So life or universe - will continue perfectly without YOUIR ideas-
and what is that exactly -life- you did say?
Oh you did not say.
No clue

And you ARE part of all that
the role you play
All is connected

I have spoken
who am 'I'

"whan I was just a boy giving iot all away"

music just comes to my mind...

Music is a nice way to
well
:-)
Joe Gwinn
2024-09-14 17:03:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by john larkin
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.

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.

Joe Gwinn
john larkin
2024-09-14 17:33:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe Gwinn
Post by john larkin
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.
Post by Joe Gwinn
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.
Joe Gwinn
Evolution seems to use anything that works, even if scientists
disapprove.
Joe Gwinn
2024-09-14 18:38:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by john larkin
Post by Joe Gwinn
Post by john larkin
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.
Post by john larkin
Post by Joe Gwinn
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
john larkin
2024-09-14 19:02:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe Gwinn
Post by john larkin
Post by Joe Gwinn
Post by john larkin
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.
Post by john larkin
Post by Joe Gwinn
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.
Jeroen Belleman
2024-09-14 19:28:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by john larkin
Post by Joe Gwinn
Post by john larkin
Post by Joe Gwinn
Post by john larkin
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.
Post by john larkin
Post by Joe Gwinn
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.

Jeroen Belleman
Don Y
2024-09-14 21:35:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeroen Belleman
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.
To be clear, you design experiments that *challenge* your theory,
not experiments that hope to *confirm* it. "Proof" always remains
elusive; DISproof is what you are looking for.
Post by Jeroen Belleman
Just throwing harebrained ideas around leads nowhere.
Agreed. That's little more than high-brow bar-room chatter...
john larkin
2024-09-15 02:26:01 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 14:35:59 -0700, Don Y
Post by Don Y
Post by Jeroen Belleman
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.
To be clear, you design experiments that *challenge* your theory,
not experiments that hope to *confirm* it. "Proof" always remains
elusive; DISproof is what you are looking for.
No. If one imagines an equation that describes the period of a
planetary orbit, and tests it in all available cases, it's rational to
assume it's true.

Let someone else find a counter-case. They will usually try.
Post by Don Y
Post by Jeroen Belleman
Just throwing harebrained ideas around leads nowhere.
Agreed. That's little more than high-brow bar-room chatter...
Ideas are the starting point of theories. Or circuits.

No ideas results in few of either.
Bill Sloman
2024-09-15 05:31:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by john larkin
On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 14:35:59 -0700, Don Y
Post by Don Y
Post by Jeroen Belleman
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.
To be clear, you design experiments that *challenge* your theory,
not experiments that hope to *confirm* it. "Proof" always remains
elusive; DISproof is what you are looking for.
No. If one imagines an equation that describes the period of a
planetary orbit, and tests it in all available cases, it's rational to
assume it's true.
Let someone else find a counter-case. They will usually try.
Post by Don Y
Post by Jeroen Belleman
Just throwing harebrained ideas around leads nowhere.
Agreed. That's little more than high-brow bar-room chatter...
Ideas are the starting point of theories. Or circuits.
No ideas results in few of either.
And if you have very few new ideas, you do tend to over-value the few
that you do come up with.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
john larkin
2024-09-15 15:17:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Sloman
Post by john larkin
On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 14:35:59 -0700, Don Y
Post by Don Y
Post by Jeroen Belleman
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.
To be clear, you design experiments that *challenge* your theory,
not experiments that hope to *confirm* it. "Proof" always remains
elusive; DISproof is what you are looking for.
No. If one imagines an equation that describes the period of a
planetary orbit, and tests it in all available cases, it's rational to
assume it's true.
Let someone else find a counter-case. They will usually try.
Post by Don Y
Post by Jeroen Belleman
Just throwing harebrained ideas around leads nowhere.
Agreed. That's little more than high-brow bar-room chatter...
Ideas are the starting point of theories. Or circuits.
No ideas results in few of either.
And if you have very few new ideas, you do tend to over-value the few
that you do come up with.
Not my problem! I have to keep a notepad by my bed to write down all
the ideas I have at night. Some nights I fill a page, and then there's
the shower.

I invented a new product line, small PoE powered instruments, and keep
coming up with box ideas. I started a new design center to develop
them. It's been fun so far.

I might post the introduction here and get opinions, and maybe
suggestions for new boxes.
Bill Sloman
2024-09-16 06:40:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by john larkin
Post by Bill Sloman
Post by john larkin
On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 14:35:59 -0700, Don Y
Post by Don Y
Post by Jeroen Belleman
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.
To be clear, you design experiments that *challenge* your theory,
not experiments that hope to *confirm* it. "Proof" always remains
elusive; DISproof is what you are looking for.
No. If one imagines an equation that describes the period of a
planetary orbit, and tests it in all available cases, it's rational to
assume it's true.
Let someone else find a counter-case. They will usually try.
Post by Don Y
Post by Jeroen Belleman
Just throwing harebrained ideas around leads nowhere.
Agreed. That's little more than high-brow bar-room chatter...
Ideas are the starting point of theories. Or circuits.
No ideas results in few of either.
And if you have very few new ideas, you do tend to over-value the few
that you do come up with.
Not my problem! I have to keep a notepad by my bed to write down all
the ideas I have at night. Some nights I fill a page, and then there's
the shower.
But how many of them are actually new? The acid test for that is were
they patentable? Nobody patents all the patentable idea that they have
had, but if none of them get patented, the implication of them is that
none of them were.

One of my colleagues at EMI Central Research had the record for the
maximum number of patent queries that he had submitted in one year -
some 53. I don't recall that any of them got patented.

I got my name on two patents in the three years I worked there. One was
for an aspect of some work I'd done which hadn't struck me as patentable
and the other was for an approach that struck me as obvious, until I'd
had to explain it to enough people that it clearly wasn't obvious to
those skilled in the art.
Post by john larkin
I invented a new product line, small PoE powered instruments, and keep
coming up with box ideas. I started a new design center to develop
them. It's been fun so far.
And will keep on being fun until you realise that they aren't as
original as you imagine, when you find yourself having to pay royalties
to the people who invented them first.
Post by john larkin
I might post the introduction here and get opinions, and maybe
suggestions for new boxes.
Don't do it until you have got the patenting process going on the ideas
that you do imagine are patentable. Prior publication bars you from
getting a patent.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
john larkin
2024-09-15 02:18:54 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 21:28:44 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
Post by Jeroen Belleman
Post by john larkin
Post by Joe Gwinn
Post by john larkin
Post by Joe Gwinn
Post by john larkin
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.
Post by john larkin
Post by Joe Gwinn
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.
Bill Sloman
2024-09-15 05:41:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by john larkin
On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 21:28:44 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
Post by Jeroen Belleman
Post by john larkin
Post by Joe Gwinn
Post by john larkin
Post by Joe Gwinn
Post by john larkin
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.
Post by john larkin
Post by Joe Gwinn
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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_biology

Nobody ever seems to have "agreed that it was impossible". The slightly
bizarre compounds where it happens mean that it happens inside single
molecules - albeit fairly large ones.

Having it happen along an axon is an extravagant stretch.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axon
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Jeroen Belleman
2024-09-15 09:24:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by john larkin
On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 21:28:44 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
Post by Jeroen Belleman
Post by john larkin
Post by Joe Gwinn
Post by john larkin
Post by Joe Gwinn
Post by john larkin
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.
Post by john larkin
Post by Joe Gwinn
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
Bill Sloman
2024-09-15 11:37:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by john larkin
On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 21:28:44 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
Post by Jeroen Belleman
Post by john larkin
Post by Joe Gwinn
Post by john larkin
Post by john larkin
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.
Post by john larkin
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.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
john larkin
2024-09-15 15:45:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Sloman
Post by john larkin
On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 21:28:44 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
Post by Jeroen Belleman
Post by john larkin
Post by Joe Gwinn
Post by john larkin
Post by john larkin
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.
Post by john larkin
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.
john larkin
2024-09-15 19:00:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by john larkin
Post by Bill Sloman
Post by john larkin
On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 21:28:44 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
Post by Jeroen Belleman
Post by john larkin
Post by Joe Gwinn
Post by john larkin
Post by john larkin
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.
Post by john larkin
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.
Oops, sorry, I meant shot noise.

Having no Johnson noise would violate COE.

Coffee deprivation is a terrible thing.
Bill Sloman
2024-09-16 06:45:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by john larkin
Post by Bill Sloman
Post by Jeroen Belleman
Post by john larkin
On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 21:28:44 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
<snip>
Post by john larkin
Post by Bill Sloman
Post by Jeroen Belleman
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.
Which ones? Resistors sunk in boiling liquid helium don't have much, but
they have some. Your lack of thermodynamic sophistication is showing.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
john larkin
2024-09-15 15:42:38 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 15 Sep 2024 11:24:08 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
Post by Jeroen Belleman
Post by john larkin
On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 21:28:44 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
Post by Jeroen Belleman
Post by john larkin
Post by Joe Gwinn
Post by john larkin
Post by Joe Gwinn
Post by john larkin
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.
Post by john larkin
Post by Joe Gwinn
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'm recursively suggesting that ideas about the origin of ideas should
not be rigid either. Neither you nor I know where ideas come from.

Lee DeForest arguably invented electronics and didn't understand
electrons. I read that Edison didn't understand Ohm's Law but he
electrified the USA. The Wright brothers had no education in fluid
dynamics; they learned from flying kites.

It's a common pattern: fiddlers invent things and then the scientists
move in and improve them, and often try to take credit, with the
klystron being an example. The reflex klystron was a major contributor
to the Allies winning WWII, so changed the world.
Post by Jeroen Belleman
I would never dismiss your ideas about electronics out of hand,
but when you ramble about quantum consciousness, then I do.
I wouldn't want you in a brainstorming session. Some people are
poisonous to brainstorming, want to murder ideas at birth.

I've had summer interns say something aguably goofy that triggered a
discussion that led to something valuable. The attitude of the group
is critical to applying positive gain to idea propagation.

Quantum biology is a hot topic lately. I've "rambling" about it for
decades. Evolution make quantum consciousness imperative.
Post by Jeroen Belleman
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?
Well, I do care about shot noise, and semicondutor effects do involve
QM. We are involved in hydrogen fusion. No, most opamp circuits are
pretty simple.

I used to use a lot of tunnel diodes, but they are hard to get now.
About the only quantum tunneling diodes for sale now are back diodes,
used as RF detectors. People keep talking about tunnel transistors but
there are none at Digikey so far.
Bill Sloman
2024-09-16 06:57:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by john larkin
On Sun, 15 Sep 2024 11:24:08 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
Post by Jeroen Belleman
Post by john larkin
On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 21:28:44 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
Post by Jeroen Belleman
Post by john larkin
Post by Joe Gwinn
Post by john larkin
Post by Joe Gwinn
Post by john larkin
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.
Post by john larkin
Post by Joe Gwinn
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'm recursively suggesting that ideas about the origin of ideas should
not be rigid either. Neither you nor I know where ideas come from.
Lee DeForest arguably invented electronics and didn't understand
electrons. I read that Edison didn't understand Ohm's Law but he
electrified the USA. The Wright brothers had no education in fluid
dynamics; they learned from flying kites.
It's a common pattern: fiddlers invent things and then the scientists
move in and improve them, and often try to take credit, with the
klystron being an example. The reflex klystron was a major contributor
to the Allies winning WWII, so changed the world.
Post by Jeroen Belleman
I would never dismiss your ideas about electronics out of hand,
but when you ramble about quantum consciousness, then I do.
I wouldn't want you in a brainstorming session. Some people are
poisonous to brainstorming, want to murder ideas at birth.
I've had summer interns say something aguably goofy that triggered a
discussion that led to something valuable. The attitude of the group
is critical to applying positive gain to idea propagation.
Quantum biology is a hot topic lately. I've "rambling" about it for
decades. Evolution make quantum consciousness imperative.
Evolution doesn't make anything "imperative". It exploits every effect
that it can, but it's limitations make it highly unlikely that it
exploits them at any level about the single molecule (though single
molecules can be quite large).

The guy I went through primary school with amazed me fifty years later
by explaining how some molecule that incorporated ten transition metal
atoms coupled the lot together to do something metabolic (but not
remotely cognitive).
Post by john larkin
Post by Jeroen Belleman
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?
Well, I do care about shot noise, and semicondutor effects do involve
QM. We are involved in hydrogen fusion.
Your hardware is involved in hydrogen fusion. You aren't.
Post by john larkin
No, most opamp circuits are pretty simple.
I used to use a lot of tunnel diodes, but they are hard to get now.
About the only quantum tunneling diodes for sale now are back diodes,
used as RF detectors. People keep talking about tunnel transistors but
there are none at Digikey so far.
You will have to wait a bit.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Joe Gwinn
2024-09-15 22:54:38 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 21:28:44 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
Post by Jeroen Belleman
Post by john larkin
Post by Joe Gwinn
Post by john larkin
Post by Joe Gwinn
Post by john larkin
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.
Post by john larkin
Post by Joe Gwinn
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.
Post by Jeroen Belleman
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.

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.

Joe Gwinn
Bill Sloman
2024-09-16 07:03:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by john larkin
On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 21:28:44 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
Post by Jeroen Belleman
Post by john larkin
Post by Joe Gwinn
Post by john larkin
Post by Joe Gwinn
Post by john larkin
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.
Post by john larkin
Post by Joe Gwinn
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.
Post by Jeroen Belleman
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.
Post by john larkin
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
Bill Sloman
2024-09-15 05:28:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by john larkin
Post by Joe Gwinn
Post by john larkin
Post by Joe Gwinn
Post by john larkin
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.
Post by john larkin
Post by Joe Gwinn
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.
I didn't claim causality, but it is possible.
At the "pigs might fly" level.
Post by john larkin
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.
John Larkin has so few new ideas that he's very friendly to his own.
For the rest it's all not invented here.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Joe Gwinn
2024-09-15 22:46:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by john larkin
Post by Joe Gwinn
Post by john larkin
Post by Joe Gwinn
Post by john larkin
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.
Post by john larkin
Post by Joe Gwinn
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.
I must admit that I wake up with many dazzling ideas that don't
survive morning caffination. But some of the survivors led to real
innovations, some now patented.

Joe Gwinn
john larkin
2024-09-15 23:41:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe Gwinn
Post by john larkin
Post by Joe Gwinn
Post by john larkin
Post by Joe Gwinn
Post by john larkin
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.
Post by john larkin
Post by Joe Gwinn
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.
I must admit that I wake up with many dazzling ideas that don't
survive morning caffination. But some of the survivors led to real
innovations, some now patented.
Joe Gwinn
One way to get something out of a narrowband filter is to stuff a lot
of wideband noise into its input.
Bill Sloman
2024-09-16 07:06:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by john larkin
Post by Joe Gwinn
Post by john larkin
Post by Joe Gwinn
Post by john larkin
Post by Joe Gwinn
Post by john larkin
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.
Post by john larkin
Post by Joe Gwinn
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.
I must admit that I wake up with many dazzling ideas that don't
survive morning caffination. But some of the survivors led to real
innovations, some now patented.
Joe Gwinn
One way to get something out of a narrowband filter is to stuff a lot
of wideband noise into its input.
Sadly, you don't seem to be a narrow-band filter. Selective, perhaps,
but not narrow-band.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Bill Sloman
2024-09-15 05:25:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by john larkin
Post by Joe Gwinn
Post by john larkin
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.
It doesn't happen very often. Laurence Bragg was an undergraduate when
he and his father invented X-ray diffraction (and got a Nobel
Prize for it) and Christopher Longuett-Higgins was an undergraduate when
he invented the explanation for bonding in B2H6

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diborane

He didn't get the Nobel Prize that was awarded in that area.

I can't think of any other examples (but I did meet both Laurence Bragg
and Christopher Longuett-Higgins, so they have stuck in my memory).
Post by john larkin
Post by Joe Gwinn
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.
Scientist don't approve or disapprove - they merely observe. You are
merely guessing.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Jeroen Belleman
2024-09-14 17:36:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by john larkin
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".
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.

Jeroen Belleman
john larkin
2024-09-14 18:08:53 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 19:36:35 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
Post by Jeroen Belleman
Post by john larkin
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."
Post by Jeroen Belleman
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.

Face and voice recognition are similarly amazing.
Post by Jeroen Belleman
Jeroen Belleman
Jeroen Belleman
2024-09-14 19:18:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by john larkin
On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 19:36:35 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
Post by Jeroen Belleman
Post by john larkin
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."
Post by Jeroen Belleman
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 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.

Jeroen Belleman
john larkin
2024-09-15 02:39:20 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 21:18:44 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
Post by Jeroen Belleman
Post by john larkin
On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 19:36:35 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
Post by Jeroen Belleman
Post by john larkin
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."
Post by Jeroen Belleman
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.
Post by Jeroen Belleman
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.
Post by Jeroen Belleman
Jeroen Belleman
john larkin
2024-09-15 03:03:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by john larkin
On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 21:18:44 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
Post by Jeroen Belleman
Post by john larkin
On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 19:36:35 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
Post by Jeroen Belleman
Post by john larkin
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."
Post by Jeroen Belleman
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.
Post by Jeroen Belleman
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.
Post by Jeroen Belleman
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.
Bill Sloman
2024-09-15 05:56:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by john larkin
Post by john larkin
On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 21:18:44 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
Post by Jeroen Belleman
Post by john larkin
On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 19:36:35 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
Post by Jeroen Belleman
Post by john larkin
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."
Post by Jeroen Belleman
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.
Post by Jeroen Belleman
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.
Post by Jeroen Belleman
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
Jan Panteltje
2024-09-15 10:53:11 UTC
Permalink
On a sunny day (Sun, 15 Sep 2024 15:56:16 +1000) it happened Bill Sloman
Post by Bill Sloman
Post by john larkin
Post by john larkin
On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 21:18:44 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
Post by Jeroen Belleman
Post by john larkin
On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 19:36:35 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
Post by Jeroen Belleman
Post by john larkin
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."
Post by Jeroen Belleman
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.
Post by Jeroen Belleman
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.
Post by Jeroen Belleman
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 Sloman
2024-09-15 11:27:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jan Panteltje
On a sunny day (Sun, 15 Sep 2024 15:56:16 +1000) it happened Bill Sloman
Post by Bill Sloman
Post by john larkin
Post by john larkin
On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 21:18:44 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
Post by Jeroen Belleman
Post by john larkin
On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 19:36:35 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
Post by Jeroen Belleman
Post by john larkin
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."
Post by Jeroen Belleman
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.
Post by Jeroen Belleman
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.
Post by Jeroen Belleman
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
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/09/240912135801.htm
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sstr.202400203
there is still a lot to learn
You have clearly yet to learn anything about error-detection and
-correction codes, which work at a much finer grain than the rotations
of the DNA double helix.
Post by Jan Panteltje
design something, write some code, show us.
plenty of broken records around, not interesting.
You are channeling John Larkin, which makes you the broken record here.

I'm not going to bother to try to perform in a way that would gratify
you or John Larkin - when I go to that sort of trouble I aim at more
discriminating audiences.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Jeroen Belleman
2024-09-15 14:44:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jan Panteltje
On a sunny day (Sun, 15 Sep 2024 15:56:16 +1000) it happened Bill Sloman
Post by Bill Sloman
Post by john larkin
Post by john larkin
On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 21:18:44 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
Post by Jeroen Belleman
Post by john larkin
On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 19:36:35 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
Post by Jeroen Belleman
Post by john larkin
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."
Post by Jeroen Belleman
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.
Post by Jeroen Belleman
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.
Post by Jeroen Belleman
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
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.
An organism with extensive DNA repair ability is Deinococcus
Radiodurans, so evolution is apparently clever enough.

Jeroen Belleman
Bill Sloman
2024-09-15 15:03:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeroen Belleman
Post by Jan Panteltje
On a sunny day (Sun, 15 Sep 2024 15:56:16 +1000) it happened Bill Sloman
Post by Bill Sloman
Post by john larkin
Post by john larkin
On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 21:18:44 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
Post by Jeroen Belleman
Post by john larkin
On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 19:36:35 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
Post by Jeroen Belleman
Post by john larkin
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."
Post by Jeroen Belleman
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.
Post by Jeroen Belleman
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.
Post by Jeroen Belleman
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
  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.
An organism with extensive DNA repair ability is Deinococcus
Radiodurans, so evolution is apparently clever enough.
The fact that it survives high radiation levels isn't evidence that it
uses an error-detection and -correction coding scheme.

https://www.nature.com/articles/nrmicro1264

doesn't make any such claim.

Covid-19 has a "proof-reading stage" in it's RNA replication mechanism,
which makes it less likely to make replication errors, but it isn't any
kind of error-detection and correction coding scheme.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
john larkin
2024-09-15 15:48:37 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 15 Sep 2024 16:44:58 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
Post by Jeroen Belleman
Post by Jan Panteltje
On a sunny day (Sun, 15 Sep 2024 15:56:16 +1000) it happened Bill Sloman
Post by Bill Sloman
Post by john larkin
Post by john larkin
On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 21:18:44 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
Post by Jeroen Belleman
Post by john larkin
On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 19:36:35 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
Post by Jeroen Belleman
Post by john larkin
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."
Post by Jeroen Belleman
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.
Post by Jeroen Belleman
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.
Post by Jeroen Belleman
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
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.
An organism with extensive DNA repair ability is Deinococcus
Radiodurans, so evolution is apparently clever enough.
Jeroen Belleman
We would die of cancer before we were born if we didn't have error
correction in cell division.
Cursitor Doom
2024-09-15 17:03:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by john larkin
On Sun, 15 Sep 2024 16:44:58 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
Post by Jeroen Belleman
Post by Jan Panteltje
On a sunny day (Sun, 15 Sep 2024 15:56:16 +1000) it happened Bill
Post by Bill Sloman
Post by john larkin
Post by john larkin
On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 21:18:44 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
Post by Jeroen Belleman
Post by john larkin
On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 19:36:35 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
Post by Jeroen Belleman
Post by john larkin
https://scitechdaily.com/groundbreaking-study-affirms-quantum-
basis-for-consciousness-a-paradigm-shift-in-understanding-human-nature/
Post by john larkin
Post by Jeroen Belleman
Post by Jan Panteltje
Post by Bill Sloman
Post by john larkin
Post by john larkin
Post by Jeroen Belleman
Post by john larkin
Post by Jeroen Belleman
Post by john larkin
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."
Post by Jeroen Belleman
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.
Post by Jeroen Belleman
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.
Post by Jeroen Belleman
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
Post by john larkin
Post by Jeroen Belleman
Post by Jan Panteltje
Post by Bill Sloman
Post by john larkin
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
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.
Post by john larkin
Post by Jeroen Belleman
An organism with extensive DNA repair ability is Deinococcus
Radiodurans, so evolution is apparently clever enough.
Jeroen Belleman
We would die of cancer before we were born if we didn't have error
correction in cell division.
At least that would solve the population explosion. What are we at now? 9
billion? And they've all decided to join us in N. America and Europe for
some reason.
Bill Sloman
2024-09-16 07:19:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by john larkin
Post by john larkin
On Sun, 15 Sep 2024 16:44:58 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
Post by Jeroen Belleman
Post by Jan Panteltje
On a sunny day (Sun, 15 Sep 2024 15:56:16 +1000) it happened Bill
Post by Bill Sloman
Post by john larkin
Post by john larkin
On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 21:18:44 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
Post by Jeroen Belleman
Post by john larkin
On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 19:36:35 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
Post by Jeroen Belleman
Post by john larkin
https://scitechdaily.com/groundbreaking-study-affirms-quantum-
basis-for-consciousness-a-paradigm-shift-in-understanding-human-nature/
Post by john larkin
Post by Jeroen Belleman
Post by Jan Panteltje
Post by Bill Sloman
Post by john larkin
Post by john larkin
Post by Jeroen Belleman
Post by john larkin
Post by Jeroen Belleman
Post by john larkin
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."
Post by Jeroen Belleman
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.
Post by Jeroen Belleman
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.
Post by Jeroen Belleman
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
Post by john larkin
Post by Jeroen Belleman
Post by Jan Panteltje
Post by Bill Sloman
Post by john larkin
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
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.
And frequently the only feasible mode of interaction. You wouldn't be
interested in ingenious electronic design (which I can do) or
ground-breaking computer coding.
Post by john larkin
Post by john larkin
Post by Jeroen Belleman
An organism with extensive DNA repair ability is Deinococcus
Radiodurans, so evolution is apparently clever enough.
We would die of cancer before we were born if we didn't have error
correction in cell division.
At least that would solve the population explosion. What are we at now? 9
billion? And they've all decided to join us in N. America and Europe for
some reason.
The reason is obvious enough. Advanced industrial economies can feed a
lot of people and offer lots of well-paying jobs that are easier than
agricultural labour. Since the resident populations have stopped having
enough kids to replace themselves, they need the immigrants.

It also increases the genetic diversity of the population, which is
usually held to be a good thing.

The blood-line that produced Cursitor Doom clearly needs to be diluted.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
john larkin
2024-09-16 14:59:18 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 15 Sep 2024 17:03:40 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
Post by john larkin
Post by john larkin
On Sun, 15 Sep 2024 16:44:58 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
Post by Jan Panteltje
On a sunny day (Sun, 15 Sep 2024 15:56:16 +1000) it happened Bill
Post by Bill Sloman
Post by john larkin
Post by john larkin
On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 21:18:44 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
Post by Jeroen Belleman
Post by john larkin
On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 19:36:35 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
Post by Jeroen Belleman
Post by john larkin
https://scitechdaily.com/groundbreaking-study-affirms-quantum-
basis-for-consciousness-a-paradigm-shift-in-understanding-human-nature/
Post by john larkin
Post by Jan Panteltje
Post by Bill Sloman
Post by john larkin
Post by john larkin
Post by Jeroen Belleman
Post by john larkin
Post by Jeroen Belleman
Post by john larkin
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."
Post by Jeroen Belleman
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.
Post by Jeroen Belleman
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.
Post by Jeroen Belleman
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
Post by john larkin
Post by Jan Panteltje
Post by Bill Sloman
Post by john larkin
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
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.
Bill Sloman
2024-09-16 16:14:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by john larkin
On Sun, 15 Sep 2024 17:03:40 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
Post by john larkin
Post by john larkin
On Sun, 15 Sep 2024 16:44:58 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
Post by Jan Panteltje
On a sunny day (Sun, 15 Sep 2024 15:56:16 +1000) it happened Bill
Post by Bill Sloman
Post by john larkin
Post by john larkin
On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 21:18:44 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
Post by Jeroen Belleman
Post by john larkin
On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 19:36:35 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
Post by Jeroen Belleman
Post by john larkin
https://scitechdaily.com/groundbreaking-study-affirms-quantum-
basis-for-consciousness-a-paradigm-shift-in-understanding-human-nature/
Post by john larkin
Post by Jan Panteltje
Post by Bill Sloman
Post by john larkin
Post by john larkin
Post by Jeroen Belleman
Post by john larkin
Post by Jeroen Belleman
Post by john larkin
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."
Post by Jeroen Belleman
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.
Post by Jeroen Belleman
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.
Post by Jeroen Belleman
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
Post by john larkin
Post by Jan Panteltje
Post by Bill Sloman
Post by john larkin
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
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.
John Larkin does tend to extrapolate his own behavior when it comes to
understanding other people's motivations.

I'm interested in calling out intellectual errors. The people who make
the errors don't like this much. From time to time I do say nice things
about people, but John Larkin doesn't read comments about other people.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Cursitor Doom
2024-09-18 17:07:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by john larkin
On Sun, 15 Sep 2024 17:03:40 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
Post by john larkin
Post by john larkin
On Sun, 15 Sep 2024 16:44:58 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
Post by Jan Panteltje
On a sunny day (Sun, 15 Sep 2024 15:56:16 +1000) it happened Bill
Post by Bill Sloman
Post by john larkin
Post by john larkin
On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 21:18:44 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
Post by Jeroen Belleman
Post by john larkin
On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 19:36:35 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
Post by Jeroen Belleman
Post by john larkin
https://scitechdaily.com/groundbreaking-study-affirms-
quantum-
Post by john larkin
Post by john larkin
basis-for-consciousness-a-paradigm-shift-in-understanding-human-nature/
Post by john larkin
Post by Jan Panteltje
Post by Bill Sloman
Post by john larkin
Post by john larkin
Post by Jeroen Belleman
Post by john larkin
Post by Jeroen Belleman
Post by john larkin
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."
Post by Jeroen Belleman
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.
Post by Jeroen Belleman
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.
Post by Jeroen Belleman
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
Post by john larkin
Post by Jan Panteltje
Post by Bill Sloman
Post by john larkin
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
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!
Bill Sloman
2024-09-19 04:16:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cursitor Doom
Post by john larkin
On Sun, 15 Sep 2024 17:03:40 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
Post by Cursitor Doom
Post by john larkin
On Sun, 15 Sep 2024 16:44:58 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
Post by Jan Panteltje
On a sunny day (Sun, 15 Sep 2024 15:56:16 +1000) it happened Bill
Post by john larkin
On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 21:18:44 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
Post by john larkin
On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 19:36:35 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
<snip>
Post by Cursitor Doom
Post by john larkin
Post by Cursitor Doom
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.
Cursitor Doom finds that much easier than correcting the misconceptions
that earned him the barbs.
Post by Cursitor Doom
Must be 5 months now since I resolved to do so - at your request!
John Larkin is another who resents well-informed criticism, and comforts
himself with the idea that it isn't well-informed.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Bill Sloman
2024-09-19 04:17:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cursitor Doom
Post by john larkin
On Sun, 15 Sep 2024 17:03:40 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
Post by Cursitor Doom
Post by john larkin
On Sun, 15 Sep 2024 16:44:58 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
Post by Jan Panteltje
On a sunny day (Sun, 15 Sep 2024 15:56:16 +1000) it happened Bill
Post by john larkin
On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 21:18:44 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
Post by john larkin
On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 19:36:35 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
<snip>
Post by Cursitor Doom
Post by john larkin
Post by Cursitor Doom
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.
Cursitor Doom finds that much easier than correcting the misconceptions
that earned him the barbs.
Post by Cursitor Doom
Must be 5 months now since I resolved to do so - at your request!
John Larkin is another who resents well-informed criticism, and comforts
himself with the idea that it isn't well-informed.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Bill Sloman
2024-09-16 07:08:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by john larkin
On Sun, 15 Sep 2024 16:44:58 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
Post by Jeroen Belleman
Post by Jan Panteltje
On a sunny day (Sun, 15 Sep 2024 15:56:16 +1000) it happened Bill Sloman
Post by Bill Sloman
Post by john larkin
Post by john larkin
On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 21:18:44 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
Post by Jeroen Belleman
Post by john larkin
On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 19:36:35 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
Post by Jeroen Belleman
Post by john larkin
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."
Post by Jeroen Belleman
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.
Post by Jeroen Belleman
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.
Post by Jeroen Belleman
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
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.
An organism with extensive DNA repair ability is Deinococcus
Radiodurans, so evolution is apparently clever enough.
We would die of cancer before we were born if we didn't have error
correction in cell division.
Perhaps, but it isn't any kind of sophisticated error-detection or
correction.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Edward Rawde
2024-09-15 03:42:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by john larkin
On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 21:18:44 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
Post by Jeroen Belleman
Post by john larkin
On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 19:36:35 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
Post by Jeroen Belleman
Post by john larkin
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."
Post by Jeroen Belleman
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?
Likely in a way which is similar to the way
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AlphaGo_Zero
stores its ability to play the game.

So we may never know how the human brain stores images.
We just know it does.
It may not be possible to know how, and why would we need to know how?
Not knowing how won't stop us making AI which is cleverer than us.
Post by john larkin
When some people encounter an unwelcome idea, they call the people
that they disagree with bible bangers, and assume they have won the
argument.
Post by Jeroen Belleman
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.
Even if that's true, it's likely because it doesn't easily map to the average human lifetime.
Because it took rather longer than a human lifetime.
So long, that even a human imagination can't begin to imagine how long it took and what happened over that time.
Post by john larkin
Post by Jeroen Belleman
Jeroen Belleman
Bill Sloman
2024-09-15 05:53:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by john larkin
On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 21:18:44 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
Post by Jeroen Belleman
Post by john larkin
On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 19:36:35 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
Post by Jeroen Belleman
Post by john larkin
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."
Post by Jeroen Belleman
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.
But you do have a creationist approach to evolution. "Creation science"
is what is sold to ignorant suckers, and you've bought it.
Post by john larkin
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?
We do know a bit about that. Why don't you try to find out.
Post by john larkin
When some people encounter an unwelcome idea, they call the people
that they disagree with bible bangers, and assume they have won the
argument.
Sadly. you are a bible banger, though you don't know enough to realise it.
Post by john larkin
Post by Jeroen Belleman
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.
That's not what he is doing. Nobody has yet found evidence that would
make it necessary to postulate that the brain (as opposed to the eye)
uses quantum entanglement.
Post by john larkin
Given that most all physics and chemistry is fundamentally quantum
mechanical, why would evolution refuse to allow cells to use quantum
effects?
Evolution uses what has worked before. It doesn't make giant leaps.

Every evolutionary development has to work pretty much as well as the
previous version.
Post by john larkin
Most people don't really believe in evolution.
Not in evolution as you understand it, because you don't understand
evolution as well as you should.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Jeroen Belleman
2024-09-15 09:32:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by john larkin
On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 21:18:44 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
Post by Jeroen Belleman
Post by john larkin
On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 19:36:35 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
Post by Jeroen Belleman
Post by john larkin
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."
Post by Jeroen Belleman
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.
Post by john larkin
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.
Post by Jeroen Belleman
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
john larkin
2024-09-15 16:02:03 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 15 Sep 2024 11:32:50 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
Post by Jeroen Belleman
Post by john larkin
On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 21:18:44 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
Post by Jeroen Belleman
Post by john larkin
On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 19:36:35 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
Post by Jeroen Belleman
Post by john larkin
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."
Post by Jeroen Belleman
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.
Post by Jeroen Belleman
Post by john larkin
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.
Post by Jeroen Belleman
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
Bill Sloman
2024-09-16 07:25:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by john larkin
On Sun, 15 Sep 2024 11:32:50 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
Post by Jeroen Belleman
Post by john larkin
On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 21:18:44 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
Post by Jeroen Belleman
Post by john larkin
On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 19:36:35 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
Post by Jeroen Belleman
Post by john larkin
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."
Post by Jeroen Belleman
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.
That's the way you see it. You are susceptible to lots of lying
propaganda aimed at gullible twits, and resent being jeered for you
incompetence in critical thinking.
Post by john larkin
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.
There are few more that a more intelligent boss might add. Someone who
didn't confuse shot noise and Johnson noise, for example.
--
Bill Sloman, sydney
Don Y
2024-09-15 03:19:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeroen Belleman
Yes, that's the typical comeback of religious believers.
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.
Note how *quickly* an internet search turns up hits that you
wouldn't *think* of exploring, left to your own grey matter.

Or, how AI can "hallucinate".

"Experts" can explain how the *technology* works but can't explain
how a specific "conclusion" came about (without resorting to
reducing it to a hodge-podge of numerical probabilities).

Asking an AI to justify its answer would be an amusing exercise.
Edward Rawde
2024-09-15 03:44:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Y
Post by Jeroen Belleman
Yes, that's the typical comeback of religious believers.
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.
Note how *quickly* an internet search turns up hits that you
wouldn't *think* of exploring, left to your own grey matter.
Or, how AI can "hallucinate".
"Experts" can explain how the *technology* works but can't explain
how a specific "conclusion" came about (without resorting to
reducing it to a hodge-podge of numerical probabilities).
Asking an AI to justify its answer would be an amusing exercise.
The same is true for a fair number of people I know.
Don Y
2024-09-15 04:00:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Edward Rawde
Post by Don Y
Post by Jeroen Belleman
Yes, that's the typical comeback of religious believers.
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.
Note how *quickly* an internet search turns up hits that you
wouldn't *think* of exploring, left to your own grey matter.
Or, how AI can "hallucinate".
"Experts" can explain how the *technology* works but can't explain
how a specific "conclusion" came about (without resorting to
reducing it to a hodge-podge of numerical probabilities).
Asking an AI to justify its answer would be an amusing exercise.
The same is true for a fair number of people I know.
No doubt.

But, most people have some *sense* for how they came to a
particular conclusion -- even if their reasoning is flawed.
An AI just spits out a set of coefficients to "justify"
it's "conclusion".

I have been very deliberate in the design of the AIs in my
current project. I carefully consider what I will let them
"see" in making their decisions. This, so the decision
making process is based on the sorts of "data" that a
human would LIKELY consider in those decisions.

E.g., when deciding whether or not to irrigate, I let it
consider the recent and projected *weather* (along with
the "needs" of the plants in question) -- but, not what
I ate for breakfast! This to ensure it doesn't note
a correlation between my breakfast choices and the need
for supplemental water (perhaps I subconsciously have
been watering on days when I make scrambled eggs? If
so, then *why*??)

Note that this may cripple the pattern matching (learning)
ability of the AI. But, makes it easier to notice WHY it
made a particular decision based on the facts that "should"
influence that decision.
Jan Panteltje
2024-09-15 05:30:12 UTC
Permalink
On a sunny day (Sat, 14 Sep 2024 21:18:44 +0200) it happened Jeroen Belleman
Post by Jeroen Belleman
Post by john larkin
On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 19:36:35 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
Post by Jeroen Belleman
Post by john larkin
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."
Post by Jeroen Belleman
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 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.
Jeroen Belleman
Do not get blinded by what you think you know
We are like ants in a garden
Those have no idea of how big the world is, what humans do, traffic rules, radio, teefee
and yet those ants have their own rules and understanding some of that we do not even know in depth.
And all those stars and even more planets... and life... and 'origin'.
Locked up in a few tunnels shooting marbles ... look at the sky for a change...
I am not religious, but have surely had cosmic experiences..
'tronics is fun, to play, but what are we and how are we used in the greater view of things..
all is connected
Bill Sloman
2024-09-15 07:07:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jan Panteltje
On a sunny day (Sat, 14 Sep 2024 21:18:44 +0200) it happened Jeroen Belleman
Post by Jeroen Belleman
Post by john larkin
On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 19:36:35 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
Post by Jeroen Belleman
Post by john larkin
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."
Post by Jeroen Belleman
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 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.
Do not get blinded by what you think you know.
Jan Panteltje thinks that the Le Sage theory of gravity is a tenable theory.
Post by Jan Panteltje
We are like ants in a garden
Those have no idea of how big the world is, what humans do, traffic rules, radio, teefee
and yet those ants have their own rules and understanding some of that we do not even know in depth.
And all those stars and even more planets... and life... and 'origin'.
We do understand a good bit more than ants do, and lots of us understand
a good deal more than Jan Panteltje does.
Post by Jan Panteltje
Locked up in a few tunnels shooting marbles ... look at the sky for a change...
I am not religious, but have surely had cosmic experiences..
He means "comic".
Post by Jan Panteltje
'tronics is fun, to play, but what are we and how are we used in the greater view of things..
all is connected.
But Jan has been wired in incorrectly.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Edward Rawde
2024-09-14 21:04:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by john larkin
On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 19:36:35 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
Post by Jeroen Belleman
Post by john larkin
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."
Post by Jeroen Belleman
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.
In a way which is similar to the way this does it.
https://www.google.com/search?&q=eiffel+tower&udm=2
Just in reverse.
So choose any of the above images and save it.
Now go here
https://images.google.com/
And upload the image and see how long it takes for the words "eiffel tower" to appear.

Also it's possible you might not know the correct spelling.
https://www.google.com/search?&q=ifle+tower&udm=2
Post by john larkin
Face and voice recognition are similarly amazing.
But it is becoming much easier to do them without a human brain as time goes by.
Post by john larkin
Post by Jeroen Belleman
Jeroen Belleman
john larkin
2024-09-15 02:43:11 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 17:04:32 -0400, "Edward Rawde"
Post by Edward Rawde
Post by john larkin
On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 19:36:35 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
Post by Jeroen Belleman
Post by john larkin
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."
Post by Jeroen Belleman
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.
In a way which is similar to the way this does it.
https://www.google.com/search?&q=eiffel+tower&udm=2
Just in reverse.
So choose any of the above images and save it.
Now go here
https://images.google.com/
And upload the image and see how long it takes for the words "eiffel tower" to appear.
Also it's possible you might not know the correct spelling.
https://www.google.com/search?&q=ifle+tower&udm=2
Post by john larkin
Face and voice recognition are similarly amazing.
But it is becoming much easier to do them without a human brain as time goes by.
Of course, the machines and the code that do google's image matching
were designed by people.
Edward Rawde
2024-09-15 03:28:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by john larkin
On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 17:04:32 -0400, "Edward Rawde"
Post by Edward Rawde
Post by john larkin
On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 19:36:35 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
Post by Jeroen Belleman
Post by john larkin
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."
Post by Jeroen Belleman
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.
In a way which is similar to the way this does it.
https://www.google.com/search?&q=eiffel+tower&udm=2
Just in reverse.
So choose any of the above images and save it.
Now go here
https://images.google.com/
And upload the image and see how long it takes for the words "eiffel tower" to appear.
Also it's possible you might not know the correct spelling.
https://www.google.com/search?&q=ifle+tower&udm=2
Does the lack of response here mean that you agree that I provided a valid explanation of how
"we can name one image out of maybe a million stored images, in a fraction of a second." ?

No-one is suggesting that Google does it exactly the same way the human brain does
but you asked for an explanation of how it is possible.
Post by john larkin
Post by Edward Rawde
Post by john larkin
Face and voice recognition are similarly amazing.
But it is becoming much easier to do them without a human brain as time goes by.
Of course, the machines and the code that do google's image matching
were designed by people.
You mean like
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AlphaGo_Zero
is just code so all it can do is something like
if {player makes this move} then {respond with that move} ?

If you're going to stick with the idea that something designed people then what designed the thing which designed people and what
designed the thing which designed the thing which designed people?

What are you going to say when a thing designed by people becomes able to design electronic circuits better than you can?
Don Y
2024-09-15 03:53:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Edward Rawde
No-one is suggesting that Google does it exactly the same way the human brain does
but you asked for an explanation of how it is possible.
Few *human* thought processes are understood in enough detail
that a "mechanical" algorithm can accurately model/mimic them.
Yet, many algorithms can approach problems in more clever
ways than humans would -- /if humans were constrained to
sequential thought/.

For a trivial example, consider how Boyer-Moore approaches
string matching; doubtful that anyone *consciously* uses a
similar approach when manually tasked with such a task!
john larkin
2024-09-15 16:08:33 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 23:28:40 -0400, "Edward Rawde"
Post by Edward Rawde
Post by john larkin
On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 17:04:32 -0400, "Edward Rawde"
Post by Edward Rawde
Post by john larkin
On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 19:36:35 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
Post by Jeroen Belleman
Post by john larkin
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."
Post by Jeroen Belleman
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.
In a way which is similar to the way this does it.
https://www.google.com/search?&q=eiffel+tower&udm=2
Just in reverse.
So choose any of the above images and save it.
Now go here
https://images.google.com/
And upload the image and see how long it takes for the words "eiffel tower" to appear.
Also it's possible you might not know the correct spelling.
https://www.google.com/search?&q=ifle+tower&udm=2
Does the lack of response here mean that you agree that I provided a valid explanation of how
"we can name one image out of maybe a million stored images, in a fraction of a second." ?
No-one is suggesting that Google does it exactly the same way the human brain does
but you asked for an explanation of how it is possible.
Post by john larkin
Post by Edward Rawde
Post by john larkin
Face and voice recognition are similarly amazing.
But it is becoming much easier to do them without a human brain as time goes by.
Of course, the machines and the code that do google's image matching
were designed by people.
You mean like
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AlphaGo_Zero
is just code so all it can do is something like
if {player makes this move} then {respond with that move} ?
If you're going to stick with the idea that something designed people then what designed the thing which designed people and what
designed the thing which designed the thing which designed people?
What are you going to say when a thing designed by people becomes able to design electronic circuits better than you can?
I check up now and then on FLUX.AI, just for fun.

A while back they were looking to hire a bunch of full-stack software
types and one hardware intern.
Edward Rawde
2024-09-15 17:19:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by john larkin
On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 23:28:40 -0400, "Edward Rawde"
Post by Edward Rawde
Post by john larkin
On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 17:04:32 -0400, "Edward Rawde"
Post by Edward Rawde
Post by john larkin
On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 19:36:35 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
Post by Jeroen Belleman
Post by john larkin
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."
Post by Jeroen Belleman
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.
In a way which is similar to the way this does it.
https://www.google.com/search?&q=eiffel+tower&udm=2
Just in reverse.
So choose any of the above images and save it.
Now go here
https://images.google.com/
And upload the image and see how long it takes for the words "eiffel tower" to appear.
Also it's possible you might not know the correct spelling.
https://www.google.com/search?&q=ifle+tower&udm=2
Does the lack of response here mean that you agree that I provided a valid explanation of how
"we can name one image out of maybe a million stored images, in a fraction of a second." ?
No-one is suggesting that Google does it exactly the same way the human brain does
but you asked for an explanation of how it is possible.
Post by john larkin
Post by Edward Rawde
Post by john larkin
Face and voice recognition are similarly amazing.
But it is becoming much easier to do them without a human brain as time goes by.
Of course, the machines and the code that do google's image matching
were designed by people.
You mean like
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AlphaGo_Zero
is just code so all it can do is something like
if {player makes this move} then {respond with that move} ?
If you're going to stick with the idea that something designed people then what designed the thing which designed people and what
designed the thing which designed the thing which designed people?
What are you going to say when a thing designed by people becomes able to design electronic circuits better than you can?
I check up now and then on FLUX.AI, just for fun.
I've never used it.
I have a general dislike of "sign up with Google" etc and pay a monthly subscription if you want anything worth using.
My last interaction with schematic/pcb software a few weeks ago was getting some Protel99SE files into KiCad.
That and simulating an LTC4267-3 circuit in LTSpice.
Post by john larkin
A while back they were looking to hire a bunch of full-stack software
types and one hardware intern.
john larkin
2024-09-15 18:47:08 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 15 Sep 2024 13:19:58 -0400, "Edward Rawde"
Post by Edward Rawde
Post by john larkin
On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 23:28:40 -0400, "Edward Rawde"
Post by Edward Rawde
Post by john larkin
On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 17:04:32 -0400, "Edward Rawde"
Post by Edward Rawde
Post by john larkin
On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 19:36:35 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
Post by Jeroen Belleman
Post by john larkin
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."
Post by Jeroen Belleman
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.
In a way which is similar to the way this does it.
https://www.google.com/search?&q=eiffel+tower&udm=2
Just in reverse.
So choose any of the above images and save it.
Now go here
https://images.google.com/
And upload the image and see how long it takes for the words "eiffel tower" to appear.
Also it's possible you might not know the correct spelling.
https://www.google.com/search?&q=ifle+tower&udm=2
Does the lack of response here mean that you agree that I provided a valid explanation of how
"we can name one image out of maybe a million stored images, in a fraction of a second." ?
No-one is suggesting that Google does it exactly the same way the human brain does
but you asked for an explanation of how it is possible.
Post by john larkin
Post by Edward Rawde
Post by john larkin
Face and voice recognition are similarly amazing.
But it is becoming much easier to do them without a human brain as time goes by.
Of course, the machines and the code that do google's image matching
were designed by people.
You mean like
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AlphaGo_Zero
is just code so all it can do is something like
if {player makes this move} then {respond with that move} ?
If you're going to stick with the idea that something designed people then what designed the thing which designed people and what
designed the thing which designed the thing which designed people?
What are you going to say when a thing designed by people becomes able to design electronic circuits better than you can?
I check up now and then on FLUX.AI, just for fun.
I've never used it.
I have a general dislike of "sign up with Google" etc and pay a monthly subscription if you want anything worth using.
My last interaction with schematic/pcb software a few weeks ago was getting some Protel99SE files into KiCad.
That and simulating an LTC4267-3 circuit in LTSpice.
One Flux concept is collaborative design, multiple people having
simultaneous access to a schematic or PCB or code. That's insane.
Post by Edward Rawde
Post by john larkin
A while back they were looking to hire a bunch of full-stack software
types and one hardware intern.
I recently installed an addon to Firfefox that kills the Goggle
sign-in atrocity. My life is much improved.
Edward Rawde
2024-09-15 19:00:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by john larkin
On Sun, 15 Sep 2024 13:19:58 -0400, "Edward Rawde"
Post by Edward Rawde
Post by john larkin
On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 23:28:40 -0400, "Edward Rawde"
Post by Edward Rawde
Post by john larkin
On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 17:04:32 -0400, "Edward Rawde"
Post by Edward Rawde
Post by john larkin
On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 19:36:35 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
Post by Jeroen Belleman
Post by john larkin
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."
Post by Jeroen Belleman
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.
In a way which is similar to the way this does it.
https://www.google.com/search?&q=eiffel+tower&udm=2
Just in reverse.
So choose any of the above images and save it.
Now go here
https://images.google.com/
And upload the image and see how long it takes for the words "eiffel tower" to appear.
Also it's possible you might not know the correct spelling.
https://www.google.com/search?&q=ifle+tower&udm=2
Does the lack of response here mean that you agree that I provided a valid explanation of how
"we can name one image out of maybe a million stored images, in a fraction of a second." ?
No-one is suggesting that Google does it exactly the same way the human brain does
but you asked for an explanation of how it is possible.
Post by john larkin
Post by Edward Rawde
Post by john larkin
Face and voice recognition are similarly amazing.
But it is becoming much easier to do them without a human brain as time goes by.
Of course, the machines and the code that do google's image matching
were designed by people.
You mean like
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AlphaGo_Zero
is just code so all it can do is something like
if {player makes this move} then {respond with that move} ?
If you're going to stick with the idea that something designed people then what designed the thing which designed people and
what
designed the thing which designed the thing which designed people?
What are you going to say when a thing designed by people becomes able to design electronic circuits better than you can?
I check up now and then on FLUX.AI, just for fun.
I've never used it.
I have a general dislike of "sign up with Google" etc and pay a monthly subscription if you want anything worth using.
My last interaction with schematic/pcb software a few weeks ago was getting some Protel99SE files into KiCad.
That and simulating an LTC4267-3 circuit in LTSpice.
One Flux concept is collaborative design, multiple people having
simultaneous access to a schematic or PCB or code. That's insane.
Maybe, but you're likely to find that they attract users who think it will make their lives easier.
Maybe it will at some future time.
Post by john larkin
Post by Edward Rawde
Post by john larkin
A while back they were looking to hire a bunch of full-stack software
types and one hardware intern.
I recently installed an addon to Firfefox that kills the Goggle
sign-in atrocity. My life is much improved.
I mostly ignore Google sign in. uBlock Origin can probably kill it but no need.
Don Y
2024-09-16 08:21:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Edward Rawde
Maybe, but you're likely to find that they attract users who think it will make their lives easier.
Maybe it will at some future time.
Few "sizeable" projects are handled by single developers.
VCSs impose order on projects where multiple entities are
examining, correcting and modifying a single document store.

This includes provisions to notify folks who happen to be
working with a particular "module" so they are alerted that
someone else has made a change to it; presumably this means
the "new" version now works better (more correctly) than the
version you might be using so its in your best interest to
see what's happened to the module before moving too far
down range.

Of course, this only works when there is a discipline imposed on
the development team. Many people don't like having to play by
"rules" so disdain anything that imposes same.

I am tickled when a colleague discovers a problem or an improvement
to a piece of code or a bit of hardware as that saves *me* from
having to make the same discovery (or, worse, risk NOT making it!).

It's also an excellent mechanism for rewinding the development
clock to determine where a particular problem crept into the
design. (We had a problem some years ago when someone made
a presumably simple change to a FET used on one of the boards
that, later, presented problems. "Why was this change made?
Is the problem because of the change or just brought to light
by it??")

It's also a requirement for many structured design policies
(ISO9000, et al.)
john larkin
2024-09-16 15:14:49 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 16 Sep 2024 01:21:41 -0700, Don Y
Post by Don Y
Post by Edward Rawde
Maybe, but you're likely to find that they attract users who think it will make their lives easier.
Maybe it will at some future time.
Few "sizeable" projects are handled by single developers.
VCSs impose order on projects where multiple entities are
examining, correcting and modifying a single document store.
This includes provisions to notify folks who happen to be
working with a particular "module" so they are alerted that
someone else has made a change to it; presumably this means
the "new" version now works better (more correctly) than the
version you might be using so its in your best interest to
see what's happened to the module before moving too far
down range.
Of course, this only works when there is a discipline imposed on
the development team. Many people don't like having to play by
"rules" so disdain anything that imposes same.
I am tickled when a colleague discovers a problem or an improvement
to a piece of code or a bit of hardware as that saves *me* from
having to make the same discovery (or, worse, risk NOT making it!).
It's also an excellent mechanism for rewinding the development
clock to determine where a particular problem crept into the
design. (We had a problem some years ago when someone made
a presumably simple change to a FET used on one of the boards
that, later, presented problems. "Why was this change made?
Is the problem because of the change or just brought to light
by it??")
It's also a requirement for many structured design policies
(ISO9000, et al.)
Software design is different from hardware. Software is less wrecked
by having multiple simultaneous authors.

Software is mostly verified by testing and iteration, and is usually
shipped with lots of bugs anyhow. Software bugs are quickly fixable:
hack the code and push out an update. Version 123.17.91b or something.

Hardware takes a lot longer to revise and to implement updates in the
field. Much more expensive too. So it's better to have one really good
person be in charge and responsible.

The difference is compounded by the trend of having armies of
reasonably skilled programmers around, and precious few decent circuit
designers.
Bill Sloman
2024-09-16 16:06:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by john larkin
On Mon, 16 Sep 2024 01:21:41 -0700, Don Y
<snip>
Post by john larkin
Software design is different from hardware. Software is less wrecked
by having multiple simultaneous authors.
Software is mostly verified by testing and iteration, and is usually
hack the code and push out an update. Version 123.17.91b or something.
Hardware takes a lot longer to revise and to implement updates in the
field. Much more expensive too. So it's better to have one really good
person be in charge and responsible.
Preferably named John Larkin.

Somebody has to take the responsibility for signing off on the
modifications. This doesn't mean that the design shouldn't be looked at
by a bunch of people who know enough to make useful suggestions.

It's called a design review if it happens when the design is more or
less complete, or brainstorming when it happens in the early stages of
the project.

Different points of view are frequently helpful, and a slightly outside
observer can catch when a group has succumbed to tunnel vision.

The minimal exercise of explaining a design to somebody else is always
worthwhile.
Post by john larkin
The difference is compounded by the trend of having armies of
reasonably skilled programmers around, and precious few decent circuit
designers.
When you have an attention-seeking peacock in charge of the circuit
designers, you do tend to lose the competent people who can gets jobs
someplace else.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Jan Panteltje
2024-09-17 04:57:32 UTC
Permalink
On a sunny day (Mon, 16 Sep 2024 08:14:49 -0700) it happened john larkin
Post by john larkin
On Mon, 16 Sep 2024 01:21:41 -0700, Don Y
Post by Don Y
Post by Edward Rawde
Maybe, but you're likely to find that they attract users who think it will make their lives easier.
Maybe it will at some future time.
Few "sizeable" projects are handled by single developers.
VCSs impose order on projects where multiple entities are
examining, correcting and modifying a single document store.
This includes provisions to notify folks who happen to be
working with a particular "module" so they are alerted that
someone else has made a change to it; presumably this means
the "new" version now works better (more correctly) than the
version you might be using so its in your best interest to
see what's happened to the module before moving too far
down range.
Of course, this only works when there is a discipline imposed on
the development team. Many people don't like having to play by
"rules" so disdain anything that imposes same.
I am tickled when a colleague discovers a problem or an improvement
to a piece of code or a bit of hardware as that saves *me* from
having to make the same discovery (or, worse, risk NOT making it!).
It's also an excellent mechanism for rewinding the development
clock to determine where a particular problem crept into the
design. (We had a problem some years ago when someone made
a presumably simple change to a FET used on one of the boards
that, later, presented problems. "Why was this change made?
Is the problem because of the change or just brought to light
by it??")
It's also a requirement for many structured design policies
(ISO9000, et al.)
Software design is different from hardware. Software is less wrecked
by having multiple simultaneous authors.
Software is mostly verified by testing and iteration, and is usually
hack the code and push out an update. Version 123.17.91b or something.
Hardware takes a lot longer to revise and to implement updates in the
field. Much more expensive too. So it's better to have one really good
person be in charge and responsible.
The difference is compounded by the trend of having armies of
reasonably skilled programmers around, and precious few decent circuit
designers.
At least in my case, with version update of code I wrote,
the new version has more features.
program-0.3 versus program-0.4
or have or support a different target, for example x86 or / and ARM.
Not so many bug fixes...
With hardware itself you may be stuck, but you can bring out a new model :-)
Same as with cars..
john larkin
2024-09-17 14:25:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jan Panteltje
On a sunny day (Mon, 16 Sep 2024 08:14:49 -0700) it happened john larkin
Post by john larkin
On Mon, 16 Sep 2024 01:21:41 -0700, Don Y
Post by Don Y
Post by Edward Rawde
Maybe, but you're likely to find that they attract users who think it will make their lives easier.
Maybe it will at some future time.
Few "sizeable" projects are handled by single developers.
VCSs impose order on projects where multiple entities are
examining, correcting and modifying a single document store.
This includes provisions to notify folks who happen to be
working with a particular "module" so they are alerted that
someone else has made a change to it; presumably this means
the "new" version now works better (more correctly) than the
version you might be using so its in your best interest to
see what's happened to the module before moving too far
down range.
Of course, this only works when there is a discipline imposed on
the development team. Many people don't like having to play by
"rules" so disdain anything that imposes same.
I am tickled when a colleague discovers a problem or an improvement
to a piece of code or a bit of hardware as that saves *me* from
having to make the same discovery (or, worse, risk NOT making it!).
It's also an excellent mechanism for rewinding the development
clock to determine where a particular problem crept into the
design. (We had a problem some years ago when someone made
a presumably simple change to a FET used on one of the boards
that, later, presented problems. "Why was this change made?
Is the problem because of the change or just brought to light
by it??")
It's also a requirement for many structured design policies
(ISO9000, et al.)
Software design is different from hardware. Software is less wrecked
by having multiple simultaneous authors.
Software is mostly verified by testing and iteration, and is usually
hack the code and push out an update. Version 123.17.91b or something.
Hardware takes a lot longer to revise and to implement updates in the
field. Much more expensive too. So it's better to have one really good
person be in charge and responsible.
The difference is compounded by the trend of having armies of
reasonably skilled programmers around, and precious few decent circuit
designers.
At least in my case, with version update of code I wrote,
the new version has more features.
program-0.3 versus program-0.4
or have or support a different target, for example x86 or / and ARM.
Not so many bug fixes...
With hardware itself you may be stuck, but you can bring out a new model :-)
Same as with cars..
We treat a software release package just like any other engineering
document. It has a drawing number and a revision letter.

Why distinguish between a major rev and a minor rev? A change is a
change.
Cursitor Doom
2024-09-15 23:48:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by john larkin
On Sun, 15 Sep 2024 13:19:58 -0400, "Edward Rawde"
Post by Edward Rawde
Post by john larkin
On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 23:28:40 -0400, "Edward Rawde"
Post by Edward Rawde
Post by john larkin
On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 17:04:32 -0400, "Edward Rawde"
Post by Edward Rawde
Post by john larkin
On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 19:36:35 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
Post by Jeroen Belleman
Post by john larkin
https://scitechdaily.com/groundbreaking-study-affirms-quantum-
basis-for-consciousness-a-paradigm-shift-in-understanding-human-nature/
Post by john larkin
Post by Edward Rawde
Post by john larkin
Post by Edward Rawde
Post by john larkin
Post by Edward Rawde
Post by john larkin
Post by Jeroen Belleman
Post by john larkin
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."
Post by Jeroen Belleman
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.
In a way which is similar to the way this does it.
https://www.google.com/search?&q=eiffel+tower&udm=2 Just in reverse.
So choose any of the above images and save it.
Now go here https://images.google.com/
And upload the image and see how long it takes for the words "eiffel
tower" to appear.
Also it's possible you might not know the correct spelling.
https://www.google.com/search?&q=ifle+tower&udm=2
Does the lack of response here mean that you agree that I provided a
valid explanation of how "we can name one image out of maybe a million
stored images, in a fraction of a second." ?
No-one is suggesting that Google does it exactly the same way the
human brain does but you asked for an explanation of how it is
possible.
Post by john larkin
Post by Edward Rawde
Post by john larkin
Face and voice recognition are similarly amazing.
But it is becoming much easier to do them without a human brain as time goes by.
Of course, the machines and the code that do google's image matching
were designed by people.
You mean like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AlphaGo_Zero is just code
so all it can do is something like if {player makes this move} then
{respond with that move} ?
If you're going to stick with the idea that something designed people
then what designed the thing which designed people and what designed
the thing which designed the thing which designed people?
What are you going to say when a thing designed by people becomes able
to design electronic circuits better than you can?
I check up now and then on FLUX.AI, just for fun.
I've never used it.
I have a general dislike of "sign up with Google" etc and pay a monthly
subscription if you want anything worth using.
My last interaction with schematic/pcb software a few weeks ago was
getting some Protel99SE files into KiCad.
That and simulating an LTC4267-3 circuit in LTSpice.
One Flux concept is collaborative design, multiple people having
simultaneous access to a schematic or PCB or code. That's insane.
Post by Edward Rawde
Post by john larkin
A while back they were looking to hire a bunch of full-stack software
types and one hardware intern.
I recently installed an addon to Firfefox that kills the Goggle sign-in
atrocity. My life is much improved.
Yeah, I just love Google having all my passwords, it's so convenient (for
them!) isn't it?
Seriously - which add-on did you use for this?
john larkin
2024-09-16 01:06:21 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 15 Sep 2024 23:48:32 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
Post by john larkin
Post by john larkin
On Sun, 15 Sep 2024 13:19:58 -0400, "Edward Rawde"
Post by Edward Rawde
Post by john larkin
On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 23:28:40 -0400, "Edward Rawde"
Post by Edward Rawde
Post by john larkin
On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 17:04:32 -0400, "Edward Rawde"
Post by Edward Rawde
Post by john larkin
On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 19:36:35 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
Post by Jeroen Belleman
Post by john larkin
https://scitechdaily.com/groundbreaking-study-affirms-quantum-
basis-for-consciousness-a-paradigm-shift-in-understanding-human-nature/
Post by john larkin
Post by Edward Rawde
Post by john larkin
Post by Edward Rawde
Post by john larkin
Post by Edward Rawde
Post by john larkin
Post by Jeroen Belleman
Post by john larkin
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."
Post by Jeroen Belleman
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.
In a way which is similar to the way this does it.
https://www.google.com/search?&q=eiffel+tower&udm=2 Just in reverse.
So choose any of the above images and save it.
Now go here https://images.google.com/
And upload the image and see how long it takes for the words "eiffel
tower" to appear.
Also it's possible you might not know the correct spelling.
https://www.google.com/search?&q=ifle+tower&udm=2
Does the lack of response here mean that you agree that I provided a
valid explanation of how "we can name one image out of maybe a million
stored images, in a fraction of a second." ?
No-one is suggesting that Google does it exactly the same way the
human brain does but you asked for an explanation of how it is
possible.
Post by john larkin
Post by Edward Rawde
Post by john larkin
Face and voice recognition are similarly amazing.
But it is becoming much easier to do them without a human brain as time goes by.
Of course, the machines and the code that do google's image matching
were designed by people.
You mean like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AlphaGo_Zero is just code
so all it can do is something like if {player makes this move} then
{respond with that move} ?
If you're going to stick with the idea that something designed people
then what designed the thing which designed people and what designed
the thing which designed the thing which designed people?
What are you going to say when a thing designed by people becomes able
to design electronic circuits better than you can?
I check up now and then on FLUX.AI, just for fun.
I've never used it.
I have a general dislike of "sign up with Google" etc and pay a monthly
subscription if you want anything worth using.
My last interaction with schematic/pcb software a few weeks ago was
getting some Protel99SE files into KiCad.
That and simulating an LTC4267-3 circuit in LTSpice.
One Flux concept is collaborative design, multiple people having
simultaneous access to a schematic or PCB or code. That's insane.
Post by Edward Rawde
Post by john larkin
A while back they were looking to hire a bunch of full-stack software
types and one hardware intern.
I recently installed an addon to Firfefox that kills the Goggle sign-in
atrocity. My life is much improved.
Yeah, I just love Google having all my passwords, it's so convenient (for
them!) isn't it?
Seriously - which add-on did you use for this?
Google Sign-in Popup Blocker. It's in the Firefox extensions set.
Cursitor Doom
2024-09-16 13:02:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by john larkin
On Sun, 15 Sep 2024 23:48:32 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
Post by john larkin
Post by john larkin
On Sun, 15 Sep 2024 13:19:58 -0400, "Edward Rawde"
Post by Edward Rawde
Post by john larkin
On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 23:28:40 -0400, "Edward Rawde"
Post by Edward Rawde
Post by john larkin
On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 17:04:32 -0400, "Edward Rawde"
Post by Edward Rawde
Post by john larkin
On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 19:36:35 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
Post by Jeroen Belleman
Post by john larkin
https://scitechdaily.com/groundbreaking-study-affirms-quantum-
basis-for-consciousness-a-paradigm-shift-in-understanding-human-nature/
Post by john larkin
Post by Edward Rawde
Post by john larkin
Post by Edward Rawde
Post by john larkin
Post by Edward Rawde
Post by john larkin
Post by Jeroen Belleman
Post by john larkin
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."
Post by Jeroen Belleman
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.
In a way which is similar to the way this does it.
https://www.google.com/search?&q=eiffel+tower&udm=2 Just in reverse.
So choose any of the above images and save it.
Now go here https://images.google.com/
And upload the image and see how long it takes for the words
"eiffel tower" to appear.
Also it's possible you might not know the correct spelling.
https://www.google.com/search?&q=ifle+tower&udm=2
Does the lack of response here mean that you agree that I provided a
valid explanation of how "we can name one image out of maybe a
million stored images, in a fraction of a second." ?
No-one is suggesting that Google does it exactly the same way the
human brain does but you asked for an explanation of how it is
possible.
Post by john larkin
Post by Edward Rawde
Post by john larkin
Face and voice recognition are similarly amazing.
But it is becoming much easier to do them without a human brain as
time goes by.
Of course, the machines and the code that do google's image
matching were designed by people.
You mean like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AlphaGo_Zero is just
code so all it can do is something like if {player makes this move}
then {respond with that move} ?
If you're going to stick with the idea that something designed
people then what designed the thing which designed people and what
designed the thing which designed the thing which designed people?
What are you going to say when a thing designed by people becomes
able to design electronic circuits better than you can?
I check up now and then on FLUX.AI, just for fun.
I've never used it.
I have a general dislike of "sign up with Google" etc and pay a
monthly subscription if you want anything worth using.
My last interaction with schematic/pcb software a few weeks ago was
getting some Protel99SE files into KiCad.
That and simulating an LTC4267-3 circuit in LTSpice.
One Flux concept is collaborative design, multiple people having
simultaneous access to a schematic or PCB or code. That's insane.
Post by Edward Rawde
Post by john larkin
A while back they were looking to hire a bunch of full-stack
software types and one hardware intern.
I recently installed an addon to Firfefox that kills the Goggle
sign-in atrocity. My life is much improved.
Yeah, I just love Google having all my passwords, it's so convenient
(for them!) isn't it?
Seriously - which add-on did you use for this?
Google Sign-in Popup Blocker. It's in the Firefox extensions set.
Thanks!
Bill Sloman
2024-09-16 07:39:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by john larkin
On Sun, 15 Sep 2024 13:19:58 -0400, "Edward Rawde"
Post by john larkin
On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 23:28:40 -0400, "Edward Rawde"
Post by john larkin
On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 17:04:32 -0400, "Edward Rawde"
Post by john larkin
On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 19:36:35 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
<snip>
Post by john larkin
One Flux concept is collaborative design, multiple people having
simultaneous access to a schematic or PCB or code. That's insane.
It does required meticulous version control, with every change
documented and explained.

When I was working at EMI Central Research and designing onto single AO
schematic diagrams on drawing boards, all the drawing boards were in the
area where we drank out coffee, which lead to a lot of half-finished
cups of coffee when we gathered around one or other of the drawing boards.

The boss got the nick-name "Puker" on account of his capacity to come up
with revoltingly effective short cuts. He had his name on some twenty
-odd patents at the time. The biography of Alan Dower Blumlien (who also
worked at EMI Central Research, if a lot earlier - he died in 1942 -
does emphasise that he did look over a lot of people's shoulders in a
thoroughly helpful way

<snip>
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Loading...