1. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    53223
    13 Jun '22 16:29
    https://phys.org/news/2022-06-collapsing-theory-quantum-consciousness.html

    Which states quantum computations are the basis for consciousness.

    Penrose and Hammeroff thinks the little tubules inside Neurons could be associated with quantum computation.

    My objection to that is the latest quantum computers are up to what, 64 qbits and to be really able to leap tall buildings and such you need millions or more qbits to do real work.

    My objection is about the vast number of these tubules in the brain, it would seem if the brain was somehow involved with qbits why would it not be qbits in the millions or billions, which would imply a superhuman ability to solve problems we can't presently solve on the fastest multiprocessor supercomputers on Earth, now reaching Exabyte/sec scale.
    If qbits were being used it would seem to be a very small number of them otherwise we would be mental supermen.
  2. Standard memberSoothfast
    0,1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,
    Planet Rain
    Joined
    04 Mar '04
    Moves
    2700
    13 Jun '22 22:03
    @sonhouse said
    https://phys.org/news/2022-06-collapsing-theory-quantum-consciousness.html

    Which states quantum computations are the basis for consciousness.

    Penrose and Hammeroff thinks the little tubules inside Neurons could be associated with quantum computation.

    My objection to that is the latest quantum computers are up to what, 64 qbits and to be really able to leap tall buil ...[text shortened]... re being used it would seem to be a very small number of them otherwise we would be mental supermen.
    It may be beyond our reckoning just how much processing power it truly takes for even a sea urchin to navigate the physical universe. So perhaps billions of qbits are required for a human to be a human, or perhaps multiple tubules work in concert to simulate a single qbit, or perhaps it's all bunk. What is clear, though, is that organic brains don't work like computers, and so something different must be going on in brains.
  3. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    53223
    14 Jun '22 14:44
    @Soothfast
    If the theory is right, about radiation detection, then the idea of quantum action in our brains is proven false.
  4. SubscriberSuzianne
    Misfit Queen
    Isle of Misfit Toys
    Joined
    08 Aug '03
    Moves
    36571
    17 Jun '22 17:232 edits
    @soothfast said
    It may be beyond our reckoning just how much processing power it truly takes for even a sea urchin to navigate the physical universe. So perhaps billions of qbits are required for a human to be a human, or perhaps multiple tubules work in concert to simulate a single qbit, or perhaps it's all bunk. What is clear, though, is that organic brains don't work like computers, and so something different must be going on in brains.
    One problem is that the higher you go on the evolutionary scale, the signal-to-noise ratio goes way down. Not through less signal, but because more noise. Every thought gets tainted and disrupted by other thoughts.

    "I should tell Johnny exactly what I think of him." "But oh, wait, I don't really want to hurt his feelings, either." Maybe I should call this idea "intent-leakage". Edit: Sounds more like "intent-suppression", though.

    So we end up using vast amounts of processing power on tasks that should be simple.
  5. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    53223
    18 Jun '22 20:02
    @Suzianne
    The old 'we only use 1% of our brain theory'? If that is true then meditation and such would help cut the thought noise.
  6. Joined
    18 Jan '07
    Moves
    12361
    19 Jun '22 10:10
    @sonhouse said
    @Suzianne
    The old 'we only use 1% of our brain theory'? If that is true
    It isn't. It's been debunked again and again and again, but new age nobodies keep bringing it up all the same. I don't think that's what Suzianne was referring to, though.
  7. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    53223
    19 Jun '22 15:23
    @Shallow-Blue
    I know, it was a stupid theory designed to attract folks to their circle for supposed improvement in brain work.
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree