[W:926]The central evolution problem

[RAMOSS]

Penrose and Hammeroff don't speculate too much on what all this means. Penrose certainly doesn't. They are being scientific and sticking to what their observations and the evidence has shown.

The idea of quantum computing going on in the brain opens the possibility of the mind being much more than just the physical brain.

Quantum physics is not understood, not by anyone, so please don't tell me you understand quantum physics and you know that Penrose and Hammeroff are wrong. They know more about it than you.

And Tegmack is just desperate to deny any kind of "woo."

You assert a lot, you don't back up your assertion

 

[Tim the plumber]

Re: The central evolution problem

Tagmark has been searching for reasons to deny quantum consciousness all along. First he tried denying quantum processes in biological systems. Then they found it was demonstrated in plant photosynthesis and bird navigation. Tagmark was wrong. But he kept trying, can't let that quantum woo be true.

Quantum coherence has also been demonstrated in microtubules in the brain, as Hammeroff had suggested.

What has quantum comuputing in biological systems got to do with God?

So biological systems use quantum effects. Yeah, so?

Us humans use quantum computers, or will be doing soon. So ?

 

[Tim the plumber]

Penrose and Hammeroff don't speculate too much on what all this means. Penrose certainly doesn't. They are being scientific and sticking to what their observations and the evidence has shown.

The idea of quantum computing going on in the brain opens the possibility of the mind being much more than just the physical brain.

Quantum physics is not understood, not by anyone, so please don't tell me you understand quantum physics and you know that Penrose and Hammeroff are wrong. They know more about it than you.

And Tegmack is just desperate to deny any kind of "woo."

We do not know is not an excuse to invoke your particular chosen God.

 

[Angel]

Re: The central evolution problem

There is direct evidence than Penrose is wrong about quantum consciousness in the mind. It has been shown that the brain operates at a temperature too high for quantum effects to provide consciousness to happen.

https://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/9907/9907009v2.pdf

Is there direct experimental evidence behind Tegmark's criticism? Has he falsified quantum mind theory, or merely offered his critical opinion based on a mathematical analysis of already existing data? As I understand the situation, there has been no "direct evidence" as you call it falsifying the quantum mind theory, but rather only other theories.

You assert a lot, you don't back up your assertion

You assert too much.

 

[Good4Nothin]

Re: The central evolution problem

Is there direct experimental evidence behind Tegmark's criticism? Has he falsified quantum mind theory, or merely offered his critical opinion based on a mathematical analysis of already existing data? As I understand the situation, there has been no "direct evidence" as you call it falsifying the quantum mind theory, but rather only other theories.

Here is evidence that Tegmark is wrong:
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2018/11/07/219931

"That consciousness could have its′ basis in quantum computing has been speculated for many years. Unfortunately, unitary quantum gates, the main ingredient of quantum computing, are not compatible with irreversible biological systems which are effectively non-unitary. That is why Penrose and Hameroff have suggested and Hagan et al. have theoretically confirmed that long lasting coherent states may exist in microtubuli of the neuron′s cytoskeleton. Furthermore, it has been argued that microtubular processes are linked to consciousness because of how they are affected by anaesthetics. However, no experimental evidence has existed that could connect consciousness to quantum computing until now. Using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to study long-range quantum coherence in the human brain we were surprised to find that the cardiac pressure pulse evoked zero-spin echoes (ZSEs) in brain parenchyma. The ZSE signals, which are thought to be generated by long-range intermolecular zero-quantum coherence (iZQC), were higher than theoretically expected by a magnitude. In contrast, single quantum coherence (SQC) imaging, which is also indirectly related to iZQC, was not affected. These findings suggest that we observed evoked long-range quantum coherence or even concurrence of a small portion of protons. Either way, we found a direct connection to consciousness as only sporadic ZSE signals were detected during sleep while a loss of the evoked quantum effect would probably always result in unconsciousness. Consequently, the observed quantum phenomenon is a necessity for consciousness. Our findings are unexpected but in line with recent biological research and further theoretical results."

 

[zyzygy]

You assert a lot, you don't back up your assertion

There is never any backup, only bare assertion.

 

[Angel]

There is never any backup, only bare assertion.

You're talking through your hat, little buddy, and inadvertently criticizing your pal RAMOOS who offers one untestable theory as "direct evidence" of another as yet untestable theory. Two peas in a pod?

 

[Angel]

You assert a lot, you don't back up your assertion

There is never any backup, only bare assertion.

You're talking through your hat, little buddy, and inadvertently criticizing your pal RAMOOS who offers one untestable theory as "direct evidence" of another as yet untestable theory. Two peas in a pod?

The bolded preposition is a typo; it should be against. RAMOSS offers a theoretical untested criticism and objection as "direct evidence" refuting another untested theory, and you swear by it! See how this "discussion" progresses? Meanwhile your other pal Tim is raving against God and completely misses the point.

Skepticism is in poor hands these days.

 

[Good4Nothin]

We do not know is not an excuse to invoke your particular chosen God.

I never mentioned any particular chosen God. Never. And certainly not in this post.

 

[Good4Nothin]

Re: The central evolution problem

What has quantum comuputing in biological systems got to do with God?

So biological systems use quantum effects. Yeah, so?

Us humans use quantum computers, or will be doing soon. So ?

This was not a post about God. It was about evolution theory and materialist philosophy.

What Penrose and Hammeroff have been saying is in opposition to your materialist theory of consciousness. You would know that, had you paid attention.

Evidence in favor of Penrose and Hammeroff has been increasing. Even you aren't trying to deny it. You aren't calling it pseudoscience or woo. It is real science. And it happens to be bad for materialist theories of consciousness.

AI researchers aren't happy. They thought they would be building artificial brains any day now. Well I guess not.

 

[Good4Nothin]

The bolded preposition is a typo; it should be against. RAMOSS offers a theoretical untested criticism and objection as "direct evidence" refuting another untested theory, and you swear by it! See how this "discussion" progresses? Meanwhile your other pal Tim is raving against God and completely misses the point.

Skepticism is in poor hands these days.

We are skeptics, they are dogmatic materialists.

 

[Angel]

We are skeptics, they are dogmatic materialists.

You're right, of course. I fell prey to the myth promoted here and throughout the internet that the dogmatic yelping of the pack has teeth.

 

[Tim the plumber]

Re: The central evolution problem

Here is evidence that Tegmark is wrong:
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2018/11/07/219931

"That consciousness could have its′ basis in quantum computing has been speculated for many years. Unfortunately, unitary quantum gates, the main ingredient of quantum computing, are not compatible with irreversible biological systems which are effectively non-unitary. That is why Penrose and Hameroff have suggested and Hagan et al. have theoretically confirmed that long lasting coherent states may exist in microtubuli of the neuron′s cytoskeleton. Furthermore, it has been argued that microtubular processes are linked to consciousness because of how they are affected by anaesthetics. However, no experimental evidence has existed that could connect consciousness to quantum computing until now. Using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to study long-range quantum coherence in the human brain we were surprised to find that the cardiac pressure pulse evoked zero-spin echoes (ZSEs) in brain parenchyma. The ZSE signals, which are thought to be generated by long-range intermolecular zero-quantum coherence (iZQC), were higher than theoretically expected by a magnitude. In contrast, single quantum coherence (SQC) imaging, which is also indirectly related to iZQC, was not affected. These findings suggest that we observed evoked long-range quantum coherence or even concurrence of a small portion of protons. Either way, we found a direct connection to consciousness as only sporadic ZSE signals were detected during sleep while a loss of the evoked quantum effect would probably always result in unconsciousness. Consequently, the observed quantum phenomenon is a necessity for consciousness. Our findings are unexpected but in line with recent biological research and further theoretical results."

How does that invoke some sort of God thing then?

 

[Tim the plumber]

Re: The central evolution problem

This was not a post about God. It was about evolution theory and materialist philosophy.

What Penrose and Hammeroff have been saying is in opposition to your materialist theory of consciousness. You would know that, had you paid attention.

Evidence in favor of Penrose and Hammeroff has been increasing. Even you aren't trying to deny it. You aren't calling it pseudoscience or woo. It is real science. And it happens to be bad for materialist theories of consciousness.

AI researchers aren't happy. They thought they would be building artificial brains any day now. Well I guess not.

Quantum effects are part of the material universe.

How does biology making use of them (I don't know if that is true, the above passage I 3/4 understood so...) change evolution?

 

[Good4Nothin]

Re: The central evolution problem

How does that invoke some sort of God thing then?

I keep telling you, over and over, this post is not about God.

 

[Good4Nothin]

Re: The central evolution problem

Quantum effects are part of the material universe.

How does biology making use of them (I don't know if that is true, the above passage I 3/4 understood so...) change evolution?

Do some reading.

 

[Tim the plumber]

Re: The central evolution problem

Do some reading.

So when asked to explain why this shows any problem with evolution you run away.

Be more honest. You will not like it at first but you will like it quickly.

 

[zyzygy]

Re: The central evolution problem

I keep telling you, over and over, this post is not about God.

Yes it is. Come clean.

 

[zyzygy]

Re: The central evolution problem

So when asked to explain why this shows any problem with evolution you run away.

Be more honest. You will not like it at first but you will like it quickly.

When he's backed into a corner he resorts to insults.

 

[zyzygy]

We are skeptics, they are dogmatic materialists.

You are far from being a skeptic!:lamo

 

[Angel]

Re: The central evolution problem

When he's backed into a corner he resorts to insults.

Play nice, ladies.

 

[Angel]

Re: The central evolution problem

Yes it is. Come clean.

Come again? How is it about God? Tell us.

 

[Angel]

You are far from being a skeptic!:lamo

She's far closer than you are, judging from the scientism and dogma in your posts.

 

[Good4Nothin]

Re: The central evolution problem

So when asked to explain why this shows any problem with evolution you run away.

Be more honest. You will not like it at first but you will like it quickly.

I didn't say this showed a problem with evolution. We are currently on a side topic about neuroscience and consciousness, not evolution. You don't make the slightest effort to keep track of what we are talking about.

 

[Tim the plumber]

Re: The central evolution problem

Come again? How is it about God? Tell us.

It is about how the very well and obvious working theory of evolution is supposed to have a problem in it in that you want there to be a guiding hand of intelligence otherwise known as God.

It is plain and always has been.

Not that you really thought otherwise. Just more lying. Who exactly do you think you are kidding?