• another hint of quantum consciousness

    From john larkin@21:1/5 to All on Sat Sep 14 08:13:10 2024
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jan Panteltje@21:1/5 to JL@gct.com on Sat Sep 14 16:20:19 2024
    On a sunny day (Sat, 14 Sep 2024 08:13:10 -0700) it happened john larkin <JL@gct.com> wrote in <0s9bej1bhklummnn5iduadn94uvvne5k26@4ax.com>:


    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:
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Joe Gwinn@21:1/5 to john larkin on Sat Sep 14 13:03:07 2024
    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 08:13:10 -0700, john larkin <JL@gct.com> wrote:


    https://scitechdaily.com/groundbreaking-study-affirms-quantum-basis-for-consciousness-a-paradigm-shift-in-understanding-human-nature/

    Interesting way to define consciousness, the thing that goes away when
    an a general anesthetic is applied. That can be quantified.

    I wouldn't get too fired up. The researchers are undergrads, and the
    bit about microtubles originally came from Penrose, back before the Neurocomputation field had found plausible mechanisms in vector
    algebra over hyperdimensional parameter spaces.

    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From john larkin@21:1/5 to All on Sat Sep 14 10:29:34 2024
    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 16:20:19 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid>
    wrote:

    On a sunny day (Sat, 14 Sep 2024 08:13:10 -0700) it happened john larkin ><JL@gct.com> wrote in <0s9bej1bhklummnn5iduadn94uvvne5k26@4ax.com>:

    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:
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jeroen Belleman@21:1/5 to john larkin on Sat Sep 14 19:36:35 2024
    On 9/14/24 17:13, john larkin wrote:

    https://scitechdaily.com/groundbreaking-study-affirms-quantum-basis-for-consciousness-a-paradigm-shift-in-understanding-human-nature/

    Interesting way to define consciousness, the thing that goes away when
    an a general anesthetic is applied. That can be quantified.


    I paraphrase: "Since we don't know how it works, it must be quantum".
    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From john larkin@21:1/5 to All on Sat Sep 14 10:33:37 2024
    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 13:03:07 -0400, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net>
    wrote:

    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 08:13:10 -0700, john larkin <JL@gct.com> wrote:

    https://scitechdaily.com/groundbreaking-study-affirms-quantum-basis-for-consciousness-a-paradigm-shift-in-understanding-human-nature/

    Interesting way to define consciousness, the thing that goes away when
    an a general anesthetic is applied. That can be quantified.

    I wouldn't get too fired up. The researchers are undergrads, and the
    bit about microtubles originally came from Penrose, back before the >Neurocomputation field had found plausible mechanisms in vector
    algebra over hyperdimensional parameter spaces.

    Undergrads and amateurs often shake up scientific dogma.


    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From john larkin@21:1/5 to jeroen@nospam.please on Sat Sep 14 11:08:53 2024
    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 19:36:35 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
    <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

    On 9/14/24 17:13, john larkin wrote:

    https://scitechdaily.com/groundbreaking-study-affirms-quantum-basis-for-consciousness-a-paradigm-shift-in-understanding-human-nature/

    Interesting way to define consciousness, the thing that goes away when
    an a general anesthetic is applied. That can be quantified.


    I paraphrase: "Since we don't know how it works, it must be quantum".

    Or, more conventionally, "It can't be quantum because QM only works at
    liquid helium temperatures."

    That's it then: Quantum-something is merely religion. The god of the
    gaps.

    There's a lot of quantum nonsense about. This is just one example.


    Well, explain how we can name one image out of maybe a million stored
    images, in a fraction of a second.

    Face and voice recognition are similarly amazing.



    Jeroen Belleman

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Joe Gwinn@21:1/5 to john larkin on Sat Sep 14 14:38:14 2024
    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 10:33:37 -0700, john larkin <JL@gct.com> wrote:

    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 13:03:07 -0400, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net>
    wrote:

    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 08:13:10 -0700, john larkin <JL@gct.com> wrote:

    https://scitechdaily.com/groundbreaking-study-affirms-quantum-basis-for-consciousness-a-paradigm-shift-in-understanding-human-nature/

    Interesting way to define consciousness, the thing that goes away when
    an a general anesthetic is applied. That can be quantified.

    I wouldn't get too fired up. The researchers are undergrads, and the
    bit about microtubles originally came from Penrose, back before the >>Neurocomputation field had found plausible mechanisms in vector
    algebra over hyperdimensional parameter spaces.

    Undergrads and amateurs often shake up scientific dogma.

    Uncommon, but certainly not unheard of.


    Given that microtubules are very widely employed in all cells for all >>manner of purposes, blocking microtubules does not imply that quantum >>mechanics are or are not involved, as blocking anything that
    fundamental is likely to affect very many things.


    Evolution seems to use anything that works, even if scientists
    disapprove.

    True, but unhelpful. It's not enough to observe that if A is blocked,
    B stops working, and therefore the mechanism is X. There are many
    mechanisms simultaneously in action. One must methodically rule out
    all but a single X to claim causality.

    Joe Gwinn

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From john larkin@21:1/5 to All on Sat Sep 14 12:02:15 2024
    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 14:38:14 -0400, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net>
    wrote:

    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 10:33:37 -0700, john larkin <JL@gct.com> wrote:

    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 13:03:07 -0400, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net>
    wrote:

    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 08:13:10 -0700, john larkin <JL@gct.com> wrote:

    https://scitechdaily.com/groundbreaking-study-affirms-quantum-basis-for-consciousness-a-paradigm-shift-in-understanding-human-nature/

    Interesting way to define consciousness, the thing that goes away when >>>>an a general anesthetic is applied. That can be quantified.

    I wouldn't get too fired up. The researchers are undergrads, and the
    bit about microtubles originally came from Penrose, back before the >>>Neurocomputation field had found plausible mechanisms in vector
    algebra over hyperdimensional parameter spaces.

    Undergrads and amateurs often shake up scientific dogma.

    Uncommon, but certainly not unheard of.


    Given that microtubules are very widely employed in all cells for all >>>manner of purposes, blocking microtubules does not imply that quantum >>>mechanics are or are not involved, as blocking anything that
    fundamental is likely to affect very many things.


    Evolution seems to use anything that works, even if scientists
    disapprove.

    True, but unhelpful. It's not enough to observe that if A is blocked,
    B stops working, and therefore the mechanism is X. There are many
    mechanisms simultaneously in action. One must methodically rule out
    all but a single X to claim causality.

    Joe Gwinn

    I didn't claim causality, but it is possible.

    Discoveries usually happen through accident and speculation. Slapping
    down speculation leaves only accident, which is unlikely in this case.

    Designing electronics also benefits from being friendly to new ideas.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jeroen Belleman@21:1/5 to john larkin on Sat Sep 14 21:18:44 2024
    On 9/14/24 20:08, john larkin wrote:
    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 19:36:35 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
    <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

    On 9/14/24 17:13, john larkin wrote:

    https://scitechdaily.com/groundbreaking-study-affirms-quantum-basis-for-consciousness-a-paradigm-shift-in-understanding-human-nature/

    Interesting way to define consciousness, the thing that goes away when
    an a general anesthetic is applied. That can be quantified.


    I paraphrase: "Since we don't know how it works, it must be quantum".

    Or, more conventionally, "It can't be quantum because QM only works at
    liquid helium temperatures."

    That's it then: Quantum-something is merely religion. The god of the
    gaps.

    There's a lot of quantum nonsense about. This is just one example.


    Well, explain how we can name one image out of maybe a million stored
    images, in a fraction of a second.


    Yes, that's the typical comeback of religious believers.

    I don't 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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jeroen Belleman@21:1/5 to john larkin on Sat Sep 14 21:28:44 2024
    On 9/14/24 21:02, john larkin wrote:
    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 14:38:14 -0400, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net>
    wrote:

    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 10:33:37 -0700, john larkin <JL@gct.com> wrote:

    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 13:03:07 -0400, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net>
    wrote:

    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 08:13:10 -0700, john larkin <JL@gct.com> wrote:


    https://scitechdaily.com/groundbreaking-study-affirms-quantum-basis-for-consciousness-a-paradigm-shift-in-understanding-human-nature/

    Interesting way to define consciousness, the thing that goes away when >>>>> an a general anesthetic is applied. That can be quantified.

    I wouldn't get too fired up. The researchers are undergrads, and the
    bit about microtubles originally came from Penrose, back before the
    Neurocomputation field had found plausible mechanisms in vector
    algebra over hyperdimensional parameter spaces.

    Undergrads and amateurs often shake up scientific dogma.

    Uncommon, but certainly not unheard of.


    Given that microtubules are very widely employed in all cells for all
    manner of purposes, blocking microtubules does not imply that quantum
    mechanics are or are not involved, as blocking anything that
    fundamental is likely to affect very many things.


    Evolution seems to use anything that works, even if scientists
    disapprove.

    True, but unhelpful. It's not enough to observe that if A is blocked,
    B stops working, and therefore the mechanism is X. There are many
    mechanisms simultaneously in action. One must methodically rule out
    all but a single X to claim causality.

    Joe Gwinn

    I didn't claim causality, but it is possible.

    Discoveries usually happen through accident and speculation. Slapping
    down speculation leaves only accident, which is unlikely in this case.

    Designing electronics also benefits from being friendly to new ideas.


    Discoveries happen by diddling with the problem, trying out different
    things to see what happens. Once you have a collection of observations,
    some theory will form of how it all fits together. You test the theory
    by doing more experiments. If these experiments keep confirming your
    theory, then, and only then, can you claim to have discovered something.

    Just throwing harebrained ideas around leads nowhere.

    Jeroen Belleman

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Cursitor Doom@21:1/5 to Jan Panteltje on Sat Sep 14 19:48:13 2024
    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 16:20:19 GMT, Jan Panteltje wrote:

    On a sunny day (Sat, 14 Sep 2024 08:13:10 -0700) it happened john larkin <JL@gct.com> wrote in <0s9bej1bhklummnn5iduadn94uvvne5k26@4ax.com>:


    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

    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Edward Rawde@21:1/5 to john larkin on Sat Sep 14 17:04:32 2024
    "john larkin" <JL@gct.com> wrote in message news:31kbejpg6dos3fdm81oq42a4rgcenu4lk1@4ax.com...
    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 19:36:35 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
    <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

    On 9/14/24 17:13, john larkin wrote:

    https://scitechdaily.com/groundbreaking-study-affirms-quantum-basis-for-consciousness-a-paradigm-shift-in-understanding-human-nature/

    Interesting way to define consciousness, the thing that goes away when
    an a general anesthetic is applied. That can be quantified.


    I paraphrase: "Since we don't know how it works, it must be quantum".

    Or, more conventionally, "It can't be quantum because QM only works at
    liquid helium temperatures."

    That's it then: Quantum-something is merely religion. The god of the
    gaps.

    There's a lot of quantum nonsense about. This is just one example.


    Well, explain how we can name one image out of maybe a million stored
    images, in a fraction of a second.

    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


    Face and voice recognition are similarly amazing.

    But it is becoming much easier to do them without a human brain as time goes by.




    Jeroen Belleman

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Don Y@21:1/5 to Jeroen Belleman on Sat Sep 14 14:35:59 2024
    On 9/14/2024 12:28 PM, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
    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.

    Just throwing harebrained ideas around leads nowhere.

    Agreed. That's little more than high-brow bar-room chatter...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From john larkin@21:1/5 to blockedofcourse@foo.invalid on Sat Sep 14 19:26:01 2024
    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 14:35:59 -0700, Don Y
    <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:

    On 9/14/2024 12:28 PM, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
    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.


    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From john larkin@21:1/5 to jeroen@nospam.please on Sat Sep 14 19:18:54 2024
    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 21:28:44 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
    <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

    On 9/14/24 21:02, john larkin wrote:
    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 14:38:14 -0400, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net>
    wrote:

    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 10:33:37 -0700, john larkin <JL@gct.com> wrote:

    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 13:03:07 -0400, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net>
    wrote:

    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 08:13:10 -0700, john larkin <JL@gct.com> wrote:


    https://scitechdaily.com/groundbreaking-study-affirms-quantum-basis-for-consciousness-a-paradigm-shift-in-understanding-human-nature/

    Interesting way to define consciousness, the thing that goes away when >>>>>> an a general anesthetic is applied. That can be quantified.

    I wouldn't get too fired up. The researchers are undergrads, and the >>>>> bit about microtubles originally came from Penrose, back before the
    Neurocomputation field had found plausible mechanisms in vector
    algebra over hyperdimensional parameter spaces.

    Undergrads and amateurs often shake up scientific dogma.

    Uncommon, but certainly not unheard of.


    Given that microtubules are very widely employed in all cells for all >>>>> manner of purposes, blocking microtubules does not imply that quantum >>>>> mechanics are or are not involved, as blocking anything that
    fundamental is likely to affect very many things.


    Evolution seems to use anything that works, even if scientists
    disapprove.

    True, but unhelpful. It's not enough to observe that if A is blocked,
    B stops working, and therefore the mechanism is X. There are many
    mechanisms simultaneously in action. One must methodically rule out
    all but a single X to claim causality.

    Joe Gwinn

    I didn't claim causality, but it is possible.

    Discoveries usually happen through accident and speculation. Slapping
    down speculation leaves only accident, which is unlikely in this case.

    Designing electronics also benefits from being friendly to new ideas.


    Discoveries happen by diddling with the problem, trying out different
    things to see what happens. Once you have a collection of observations,
    some theory will form of how it all fits together. You test the theory
    by doing more experiments. If these experiments keep confirming your
    theory, then, and only then, can you claim to have discovered something.

    Just throwing harebrained ideas around leads nowhere.

    Certainly rejecting ideas leads nowhere.

    Who gets to define "harebrained" ideas? Should they be made illegal?

    Google quantum biology which was once agreed to be
    impossible.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From john larkin@21:1/5 to invalid@invalid.invalid on Sat Sep 14 19:43:11 2024
    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 17:04:32 -0400, "Edward Rawde"
    <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    "john larkin" <JL@gct.com> wrote in message news:31kbejpg6dos3fdm81oq42a4rgcenu4lk1@4ax.com...
    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 19:36:35 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
    <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

    On 9/14/24 17:13, john larkin wrote:

    https://scitechdaily.com/groundbreaking-study-affirms-quantum-basis-for-consciousness-a-paradigm-shift-in-understanding-human-nature/

    Interesting way to define consciousness, the thing that goes away when >>>> an a general anesthetic is applied. That can be quantified.


    I paraphrase: "Since we don't know how it works, it must be quantum".

    Or, more conventionally, "It can't be quantum because QM only works at
    liquid helium temperatures."

    That's it then: Quantum-something is merely religion. The god of the >>>gaps.

    There's a lot of quantum nonsense about. This is just one example.


    Well, explain how we can name one image out of maybe a million stored
    images, in a fraction of a second.

    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


    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From john larkin@21:1/5 to jeroen@nospam.please on Sat Sep 14 19:39:20 2024
    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 21:18:44 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
    <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

    On 9/14/24 20:08, john larkin wrote:
    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 19:36:35 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
    <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

    On 9/14/24 17:13, john larkin wrote:

    https://scitechdaily.com/groundbreaking-study-affirms-quantum-basis-for-consciousness-a-paradigm-shift-in-understanding-human-nature/

    Interesting way to define consciousness, the thing that goes away when >>>> an a general anesthetic is applied. That can be quantified.


    I paraphrase: "Since we don't know how it works, it must be quantum".

    Or, more conventionally, "It can't be quantum because QM only works at
    liquid helium temperatures."

    That's it then: Quantum-something is merely religion. The god of the
    gaps.

    There's a lot of quantum nonsense about. This is just one example.


    Well, explain how we can name one image out of maybe a million stored
    images, in a fraction of a second.


    Yes, that's the typical comeback of religious believers.

    I don't recall invoking religion here, or calling myself a believer. I
    was asking about image storage and high-speed matching. It's even more
    amazing when you consider all the optical distortions and viewing
    angles and changes in illumination and motion effects in real life; we
    don't match nice flat photos.

    How are our collections of images stored?

    When some people encounter an unwelcome idea, they call the people
    that they disagree with bible bangers, and assume they have won the
    argument.



    I don't know how it works. Let's find out. AI seems to be
    getting there, and it requires no quantum theory. Just loads
    of data and a lot of matrix math.

    You are determined to exclude the possibility that are brains use QM.

    Given that most all physics and chemistry is fundamentally quantum
    mechanical, why would evolution refuse to allow cells to use quantum
    effects?

    Most people don't really believe in evolution.



    Jeroen Belleman

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From john larkin@21:1/5 to john larkin on Sat Sep 14 20:03:06 2024
    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 19:39:20 -0700, john larkin <JL@gct.com> wrote:

    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 21:18:44 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
    <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

    On 9/14/24 20:08, john larkin wrote:
    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 19:36:35 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
    <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

    On 9/14/24 17:13, john larkin wrote:

    https://scitechdaily.com/groundbreaking-study-affirms-quantum-basis-for-consciousness-a-paradigm-shift-in-understanding-human-nature/

    Interesting way to define consciousness, the thing that goes away when >>>>> an a general anesthetic is applied. That can be quantified.


    I paraphrase: "Since we don't know how it works, it must be quantum".

    Or, more conventionally, "It can't be quantum because QM only works at
    liquid helium temperatures."

    That's it then: Quantum-something is merely religion. The god of the
    gaps.

    There's a lot of quantum nonsense about. This is just one example.


    Well, explain how we can name one image out of maybe a million stored
    images, in a fraction of a second.


    Yes, that's the typical comeback of religious believers.

    I don't recall invoking religion here, or calling myself a believer. I
    was asking about image storage and high-speed matching. It's even more >amazing when you consider all the optical distortions and viewing
    angles and changes in illumination and motion effects in real life; we
    don't match nice flat photos.

    How are our collections of images stored?

    When some people encounter an unwelcome idea, they call the people
    that they disagree with bible bangers, and assume they have won the
    argument.



    I don't know how it works. Let's find out. AI seems to be
    getting there, and it requires no quantum theory. Just loads
    of data and a lot of matrix math.

    You are determined to exclude the possibility that are brains use QM.

    Given that most all physics and chemistry is fundamentally quantum >mechanical, why would evolution refuse to allow cells to use quantum
    effects?

    Most people don't really believe in evolution.



    Jeroen Belleman

    It would be pretty good packing, storing one bit of data per atom.

    https://interestingengineering.com/science/wobble-nucleus-of-atom-quantum-data

    or maybe more than one.

    Nice possibilities for quantum correlation, pattern matching, too.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Edward Rawde@21:1/5 to john larkin on Sat Sep 14 23:28:40 2024
    "john larkin" <JL@gct.com> wrote in message news:kaicejdhq0cudpivno5qmtes8al3tu8hje@4ax.com...
    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 17:04:32 -0400, "Edward Rawde"
    <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    "john larkin" <JL@gct.com> wrote in message news:31kbejpg6dos3fdm81oq42a4rgcenu4lk1@4ax.com...
    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 19:36:35 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
    <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

    On 9/14/24 17:13, john larkin wrote:

    https://scitechdaily.com/groundbreaking-study-affirms-quantum-basis-for-consciousness-a-paradigm-shift-in-understanding-human-nature/

    Interesting way to define consciousness, the thing that goes away when >>>>> an a general anesthetic is applied. That can be quantified.


    I paraphrase: "Since we don't know how it works, it must be quantum".

    Or, more conventionally, "It can't be quantum because QM only works at
    liquid helium temperatures."

    That's it then: Quantum-something is merely religion. The god of the >>>>gaps.

    There's a lot of quantum nonsense about. This is just one example.


    Well, explain how we can name one image out of maybe a million stored
    images, in a fraction of a second.

    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.



    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?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Don Y@21:1/5 to Jeroen Belleman on Sat Sep 14 20:19:30 2024
    On 9/14/2024 12:18 PM, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Edward Rawde@21:1/5 to Don Y on Sat Sep 14 23:44:36 2024
    "Don Y" <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote in message news:vc5jof$1ugle$3@dont-email.me...
    On 9/14/2024 12:18 PM, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
    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.




    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Edward Rawde@21:1/5 to john larkin on Sat Sep 14 23:42:40 2024
    "john larkin" <JL@gct.com> wrote in message news:hfhcej9vlqdlpef8cadk6g74lguj5nldpj@4ax.com...
    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 21:18:44 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
    <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

    On 9/14/24 20:08, john larkin wrote:
    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 19:36:35 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
    <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

    On 9/14/24 17:13, john larkin wrote:

    https://scitechdaily.com/groundbreaking-study-affirms-quantum-basis-for-consciousness-a-paradigm-shift-in-understanding-human-nature/

    Interesting way to define consciousness, the thing that goes away when >>>>> an a general anesthetic is applied. That can be quantified.


    I paraphrase: "Since we don't know how it works, it must be quantum".

    Or, more conventionally, "It can't be quantum because QM only works at
    liquid helium temperatures."

    That's it then: Quantum-something is merely religion. The god of the
    gaps.

    There's a lot of quantum nonsense about. This is just one example.


    Well, explain how we can name one image out of maybe a million stored
    images, in a fraction of a second.


    Yes, that's the typical comeback of religious believers.

    I don't recall invoking religion here, or calling myself a believer. I
    was asking about image storage and high-speed matching. It's even more amazing when you consider all the optical distortions and viewing
    angles and changes in illumination and motion effects in real life; we
    don't match nice flat photos.

    How are our collections of images stored?

    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.


    When some people encounter an unwelcome idea, they call the people
    that they disagree with bible bangers, and assume they have won the
    argument.



    I don't know how it works. Let's find out. AI seems to be
    getting there, and it requires no quantum theory. Just loads
    of data and a lot of matrix math.

    You are determined to exclude the possibility that are brains use QM.

    Given that most all physics and chemistry is fundamentally quantum mechanical, why would evolution refuse to allow cells to use quantum
    effects?

    Most people don't really believe in evolution.

    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.




    Jeroen Belleman

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Don Y@21:1/5 to Edward Rawde on Sat Sep 14 20:53:08 2024
    On 9/14/2024 8:28 PM, Edward Rawde wrote:
    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!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Don Y@21:1/5 to Edward Rawde on Sat Sep 14 21:00:55 2024
    On 9/14/2024 8:44 PM, Edward Rawde wrote:
    "Don Y" <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote in message news:vc5jof$1ugle$3@dont-email.me...
    On 9/14/2024 12:18 PM, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to john larkin on Sun Sep 15 15:28:34 2024
    On 15/09/2024 5:02 am, john larkin wrote:
    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 14:38:14 -0400, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net>
    wrote:

    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 10:33:37 -0700, john larkin <JL@gct.com> wrote:

    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 13:03:07 -0400, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net>
    wrote:

    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 08:13:10 -0700, john larkin <JL@gct.com> wrote:


    https://scitechdaily.com/groundbreaking-study-affirms-quantum-basis-for-consciousness-a-paradigm-shift-in-understanding-human-nature/

    Interesting way to define consciousness, the thing that goes away when >>>>> an a general anesthetic is applied. That can be quantified.

    I wouldn't get too fired up. The researchers are undergrads, and the
    bit about microtubles originally came from Penrose, back before the
    Neurocomputation field had found plausible mechanisms in vector
    algebra over hyperdimensional parameter spaces.

    Undergrads and amateurs often shake up scientific dogma.

    Uncommon, but certainly not unheard of.


    Given that microtubules are very widely employed in all cells for all
    manner of purposes, blocking microtubules does not imply that quantum
    mechanics are or are not involved, as blocking anything that
    fundamental is likely to affect very many things.


    Evolution seems to use anything that works, even if scientists
    disapprove.

    True, but unhelpful. It's not enough to observe that if A is blocked,
    B stops working, and therefore the mechanism is X. There are many
    mechanisms simultaneously in action. One must methodically rule out
    all but a single X to claim causality.

    I didn't claim causality, but it is possible.

    At the "pigs might fly" level.

    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to john larkin on Sun Sep 15 15:25:11 2024
    On 15/09/2024 3:33 am, john larkin wrote:
    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 13:03:07 -0400, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net>
    wrote:

    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 08:13:10 -0700, john larkin <JL@gct.com> wrote:


    https://scitechdaily.com/groundbreaking-study-affirms-quantum-basis-for-consciousness-a-paradigm-shift-in-understanding-human-nature/

    Interesting way to define consciousness, the thing that goes away when
    an a general anesthetic is applied. That can be quantified.

    I wouldn't get too fired up. The researchers are undergrads, and the
    bit about microtubles originally came from Penrose, back before the
    Neurocomputation field had found plausible mechanisms in vector
    algebra over hyperdimensional parameter spaces.

    Undergrads and amateurs often shake up scientific dogma.

    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).

    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to john larkin on Sun Sep 15 15:31:31 2024
    On 15/09/2024 12:26 pm, john larkin wrote:
    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 14:35:59 -0700, Don Y
    <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:

    On 9/14/2024 12:28 PM, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
    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.


    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jan Panteltje@21:1/5 to jeroen@nospam.please on Sun Sep 15 05:30:12 2024
    On a sunny day (Sat, 14 Sep 2024 21:18:44 +0200) it happened Jeroen Belleman <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote in <vc4ncn$1kpl3$1@dont-email.me>:

    On 9/14/24 20:08, john larkin wrote:
    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 19:36:35 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
    <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

    On 9/14/24 17:13, john larkin wrote:


    https://scitechdaily.com/groundbreaking-study-affirms-quantum-basis-for-consciousness-a-paradigm-shift-in-understanding-human-nature/

    Interesting way to define consciousness, the thing that goes away when >>>> an a general anesthetic is applied. That can be quantified.


    I paraphrase: "Since we don't know how it works, it must be quantum".

    Or, more conventionally, "It can't be quantum because QM only works at
    liquid helium temperatures."

    That's it then: Quantum-something is merely religion. The god of the
    gaps.

    There's a lot of quantum nonsense about. This is just one example.


    Well, explain how we can name one image out of maybe a million stored
    images, in a fraction of a second.


    Yes, that's the typical comeback of religious believers.

    I don't 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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to john larkin on Sun Sep 15 15:41:38 2024
    On 15/09/2024 12:18 pm, john larkin wrote:
    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 21:28:44 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
    <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

    On 9/14/24 21:02, john larkin wrote:
    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 14:38:14 -0400, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net>
    wrote:

    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 10:33:37 -0700, john larkin <JL@gct.com> wrote:

    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 13:03:07 -0400, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net> >>>>> wrote:

    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 08:13:10 -0700, john larkin <JL@gct.com> wrote: >>>>>>

    https://scitechdaily.com/groundbreaking-study-affirms-quantum-basis-for-consciousness-a-paradigm-shift-in-understanding-human-nature/

    Interesting way to define consciousness, the thing that goes away when >>>>>>> an a general anesthetic is applied. That can be quantified.

    I wouldn't get too fired up. The researchers are undergrads, and the >>>>>> bit about microtubles originally came from Penrose, back before the >>>>>> Neurocomputation field had found plausible mechanisms in vector
    algebra over hyperdimensional parameter spaces.

    Undergrads and amateurs often shake up scientific dogma.

    Uncommon, but certainly not unheard of.


    Given that microtubules are very widely employed in all cells for all >>>>>> manner of purposes, blocking microtubules does not imply that quantum >>>>>> mechanics are or are not involved, as blocking anything that
    fundamental is likely to affect very many things.


    Evolution seems to use anything that works, even if scientists
    disapprove.

    True, but unhelpful. It's not enough to observe that if A is blocked, >>>> B stops working, and therefore the mechanism is X. There are many
    mechanisms simultaneously in action. One must methodically rule out
    all but a single X to claim causality.

    Joe Gwinn

    I didn't claim causality, but it is possible.

    Discoveries usually happen through accident and speculation. Slapping
    down speculation leaves only accident, which is unlikely in this case.

    Designing electronics also benefits from being friendly to new ideas.


    Discoveries happen by diddling with the problem, trying out different
    things to see what happens. Once you have a collection of observations,
    some theory will form of how it all fits together. You test the theory
    by doing more experiments. If these experiments keep confirming your
    theory, then, and only then, can you claim to have discovered something.

    Just throwing harebrained ideas around leads nowhere.

    Certainly rejecting ideas leads nowhere.

    Who gets to define "harebrained" ideas? Should they be made illegal?

    Google "quantum biology" which was once agreed to be
    impossible.

    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jan Panteltje@21:1/5 to Doom on Sun Sep 15 05:48:18 2024
    On a sunny day (Sat, 14 Sep 2024 19:48:13 -0000 (UTC)) it happened Cursitor Doom <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote in <vc4p9t$1kr26$2@dont-email.me>:

    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 16:20:19 GMT, Jan Panteltje wrote:

    On a sunny day (Sat, 14 Sep 2024 08:13:10 -0700) it happened john larkin
    <JL@gct.com> wrote in <0s9bej1bhklummnn5iduadn94uvvne5k26@4ax.com>:


    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

    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"
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-F3YgbEAEw4
    music just comes to my mind...

    Music is a nice way to
    well
    :-)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to john larkin on Sun Sep 15 15:56:16 2024
    On 15/09/2024 1:03 pm, john larkin wrote:
    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 19:39:20 -0700, john larkin <JL@gct.com> wrote:

    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 21:18:44 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
    <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

    On 9/14/24 20:08, john larkin wrote:
    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 19:36:35 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
    <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

    On 9/14/24 17:13, john larkin wrote:

    https://scitechdaily.com/groundbreaking-study-affirms-quantum-basis-for-consciousness-a-paradigm-shift-in-understanding-human-nature/

    Interesting way to define consciousness, the thing that goes away when >>>>>> an a general anesthetic is applied. That can be quantified.


    I paraphrase: "Since we don't know how it works, it must be quantum". >>>>
    Or, more conventionally, "It can't be quantum because QM only works at >>>> liquid helium temperatures."

    That's it then: Quantum-something is merely religion. The god of the >>>>> gaps.

    There's a lot of quantum nonsense about. This is just one example.


    Well, explain how we can name one image out of maybe a million stored
    images, in a fraction of a second.


    Yes, that's the typical comeback of religious believers.

    I don't recall invoking religion here, or calling myself a believer. I
    was asking about image storage and high-speed matching. It's even more
    amazing when you consider all the optical distortions and viewing
    angles and changes in illumination and motion effects in real life; we
    don't match nice flat photos.

    How are our collections of images stored?

    When some people encounter an unwelcome idea, they call the people
    that they disagree with bible bangers, and assume they have won the
    argument.



    I don't know how it works. Let's find out. AI seems to be
    getting there, and it requires no quantum theory. Just loads
    of data and a lot of matrix math.

    You are determined to exclude the possibility that are brains use QM.

    Given that most all physics and chemistry is fundamentally quantum
    mechanical, why would evolution refuse to allow cells to use quantum
    effects?

    Most people don't really believe in evolution.



    Jeroen Belleman

    It would be pretty good packing, storing one bit of data per atom.

    https://interestingengineering.com/science/wobble-nucleus-of-atom-quantum-data

    or maybe more than one.

    Nice possibilities for quantum correlation, pattern matching, too.

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

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to john larkin on Sun Sep 15 15:53:54 2024
    On 15/09/2024 12:39 pm, john larkin wrote:
    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 21:18:44 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
    <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

    On 9/14/24 20:08, john larkin wrote:
    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 19:36:35 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
    <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

    On 9/14/24 17:13, john larkin wrote:

    https://scitechdaily.com/groundbreaking-study-affirms-quantum-basis-for-consciousness-a-paradigm-shift-in-understanding-human-nature/

    Interesting way to define consciousness, the thing that goes away when >>>>> an a general anesthetic is applied. That can be quantified.


    I paraphrase: "Since we don't know how it works, it must be quantum".

    Or, more conventionally, "It can't be quantum because QM only works at
    liquid helium temperatures."

    That's it then: Quantum-something is merely religion. The god of the
    gaps.

    There's a lot of quantum nonsense about. This is just one example.


    Well, explain how we can name one image out of maybe a million stored
    images, in a fraction of a second.


    Yes, that's the typical comeback of religious believers.

    I don't recall invoking religion here, or calling myself a believer.

    But you do have a creationist approach to evolution. "Creation science"
    is what is sold to ignorant suckers, and you've bought it.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to Jan Panteltje on Sun Sep 15 17:07:39 2024
    On 15/09/2024 3:30 pm, Jan Panteltje wrote:
    On a sunny day (Sat, 14 Sep 2024 21:18:44 +0200) it happened Jeroen Belleman <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote in <vc4ncn$1kpl3$1@dont-email.me>:

    On 9/14/24 20:08, john larkin wrote:
    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 19:36:35 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
    <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

    On 9/14/24 17:13, john larkin wrote:


    https://scitechdaily.com/groundbreaking-study-affirms-quantum-basis-for-consciousness-a-paradigm-shift-in-understanding-human-nature/

    Interesting way to define consciousness, the thing that goes away when >>>>> an a general anesthetic is applied. That can be quantified.


    I paraphrase: "Since we don't know how it works, it must be quantum".

    Or, more conventionally, "It can't be quantum because QM only works at
    liquid helium temperatures."

    That's it then: Quantum-something is merely religion. The god of the
    gaps.

    There's a lot of quantum nonsense about. This is just one example.


    Well, explain how we can name one image out of maybe a million stored
    images, in a fraction of a second.


    Yes, that's the typical comeback of religious believers.

    I don't 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.

    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.

    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".

    '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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jeroen Belleman@21:1/5 to john larkin on Sun Sep 15 11:32:50 2024
    On 9/15/24 04:39, john larkin wrote:
    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 21:18:44 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
    <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

    On 9/14/24 20:08, john larkin wrote:
    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 19:36:35 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
    <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

    On 9/14/24 17:13, john larkin wrote:

    https://scitechdaily.com/groundbreaking-study-affirms-quantum-basis-for-consciousness-a-paradigm-shift-in-understanding-human-nature/

    Interesting way to define consciousness, the thing that goes away when >>>>> an a general anesthetic is applied. That can be quantified.


    I paraphrase: "Since we don't know how it works, it must be quantum".

    Or, more conventionally, "It can't be quantum because QM only works at
    liquid helium temperatures."

    That's it then: Quantum-something is merely religion. The god of the
    gaps.

    There's a lot of quantum nonsense about. This is just one example.


    Well, explain how we can name one image out of maybe a million stored
    images, in a fraction of a second.


    Yes, that's the typical comeback of religious believers.

    I don't recall invoking religion here, or calling myself a believer. I
    was asking about image storage and high-speed matching. It's even more amazing when you consider all the optical distortions and viewing
    angles and changes in illumination and motion effects in real life; we
    don't match nice flat photos.

    Believing things without evidence is what I meant by 'religious
    beliefs'. I did not intend to refer to any deity.


    How are our collections of images stored?

    When some people encounter an unwelcome idea, they call the people
    that they disagree with bible bangers, and assume they have won the
    argument.



    I don't know how it works. Let's find out. AI seems to be
    getting there, and it requires no quantum theory. Just loads
    of data and a lot of matrix math.

    You are determined to exclude the possibility that are brains use QM.

    Given that most all physics and chemistry is fundamentally quantum mechanical, why would evolution refuse to allow cells to use quantum
    effects?


    Precicely my point. We seem to agree after all.

    Jeroen Belleman

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jeroen Belleman@21:1/5 to john larkin on Sun Sep 15 11:24:08 2024
    On 9/15/24 04:18, john larkin wrote:
    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 21:28:44 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
    <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

    On 9/14/24 21:02, john larkin wrote:
    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 14:38:14 -0400, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net>
    wrote:

    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 10:33:37 -0700, john larkin <JL@gct.com> wrote:

    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 13:03:07 -0400, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net> >>>>> wrote:

    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 08:13:10 -0700, john larkin <JL@gct.com> wrote: >>>>>>

    https://scitechdaily.com/groundbreaking-study-affirms-quantum-basis-for-consciousness-a-paradigm-shift-in-understanding-human-nature/

    Interesting way to define consciousness, the thing that goes away when >>>>>>> an a general anesthetic is applied. That can be quantified.

    I wouldn't get too fired up. The researchers are undergrads, and the >>>>>> bit about microtubles originally came from Penrose, back before the >>>>>> Neurocomputation field had found plausible mechanisms in vector
    algebra over hyperdimensional parameter spaces.

    Undergrads and amateurs often shake up scientific dogma.

    Uncommon, but certainly not unheard of.


    Given that microtubules are very widely employed in all cells for all >>>>>> manner of purposes, blocking microtubules does not imply that quantum >>>>>> mechanics are or are not involved, as blocking anything that
    fundamental is likely to affect very many things.


    Evolution seems to use anything that works, even if scientists
    disapprove.

    True, but unhelpful. It's not enough to observe that if A is blocked, >>>> B stops working, and therefore the mechanism is X. There are many
    mechanisms simultaneously in action. One must methodically rule out
    all but a single X to claim causality.

    Joe Gwinn

    I didn't claim causality, but it is possible.

    Discoveries usually happen through accident and speculation. Slapping
    down speculation leaves only accident, which is unlikely in this case.

    Designing electronics also benefits from being friendly to new ideas.


    Discoveries happen by diddling with the problem, trying out different
    things to see what happens. Once you have a collection of observations,
    some theory will form of how it all fits together. You test the theory
    by doing more experiments. If these experiments keep confirming your
    theory, then, and only then, can you claim to have discovered something.

    Just throwing harebrained ideas around leads nowhere.

    Certainly rejecting ideas leads nowhere.

    Who gets to define "harebrained" ideas? Should they be made illegal?

    Google quantum biology which was once agreed to be
    impossible.


    You're suggesting that the ideas are most importatnt and come first.
    I'm saying that ideas come about because of the unexpected result
    of some experiment. Ideas don't come out of the blue. You have to
    have some familiarity with the matter to which the idea applies.

    I would never dismiss your ideas about electronics out of hand,
    but when you ramble about quantum consciousness, then I do.

    As for quantum biology, biology is complicated chemistry and
    chemistry is a complicated consequence of quantum mechanics.
    It's just a different level of abstraction. I don't suppose you
    use quantum theory to design an opamp circuit, do you?

    Jeroen Belleman

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jan Panteltje@21:1/5 to bill.sloman@ieee.org on Sun Sep 15 10:53:11 2024
    On a sunny day (Sun, 15 Sep 2024 15:56:16 +1000) it happened Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in <vc5su1$200qt$6@dont-email.me>:

    On 15/09/2024 1:03 pm, john larkin wrote:
    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 19:39:20 -0700, john larkin <JL@gct.com> wrote:

    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 21:18:44 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
    <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

    On 9/14/24 20:08, john larkin wrote:
    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 19:36:35 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
    <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

    On 9/14/24 17:13, john larkin wrote:


    https://scitechdaily.com/groundbreaking-study-affirms-quantum-basis-for-consciousness-a-paradigm-shift-in-understanding-human-nature/

    Interesting way to define consciousness, the thing that goes away when >>>>>>> an a general anesthetic is applied. That can be quantified.


    I paraphrase: "Since we don't know how it works, it must be quantum". >>>>>
    Or, more conventionally, "It can't be quantum because QM only works at >>>>> liquid helium temperatures."

    That's it then: Quantum-something is merely religion. The god of the >>>>>> gaps.

    There's a lot of quantum nonsense about. This is just one example. >>>>>>

    Well, explain how we can name one image out of maybe a million stored >>>>> images, in a fraction of a second.


    Yes, that's the typical comeback of religious believers.

    I don't recall invoking religion here, or calling myself a believer. I
    was asking about image storage and high-speed matching. It's even more
    amazing when you consider all the optical distortions and viewing
    angles and changes in illumination and motion effects in real life; we
    don't match nice flat photos.

    How are our collections of images stored?

    When some people encounter an unwelcome idea, they call the people
    that they disagree with bible bangers, and assume they have won the
    argument.



    I don't know how it works. Let's find out. AI seems to be
    getting there, and it requires no quantum theory. Just loads
    of data and a lot of matrix math.

    You are determined to exclude the possibility that are brains use QM.

    Given that most all physics and chemistry is fundamentally quantum
    mechanical, why would evolution refuse to allow cells to use quantum
    effects?

    Most people don't really believe in evolution.



    Jeroen Belleman

    It would be pretty good packing, storing one bit of data per atom.

    https://interestingengineering.com/science/wobble-nucleus-of-atom-quantum-data

    or maybe more than one.

    Nice possibilities for quantum correlation, pattern matching, too.

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

    It does all the time in RNA DNA
    I was reading this stuff this morning:
    Explaning DNA organisation in chromosomes:
    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/09/240912135801.htm
    http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sstr.202400203
    there is still a lot to learn

    design something, write some code, show us.
    plenty of broken records around, not interesting.








    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to Jeroen Belleman on Sun Sep 15 21:37:54 2024
    On 15/09/2024 7:24 pm, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
    On 9/15/24 04:18, john larkin wrote:
    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 21:28:44 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
    <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

    On 9/14/24 21:02, john larkin wrote:
    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 14:38:14 -0400, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net>
    wrote:

    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 10:33:37 -0700, john larkin <JL@gct.com> wrote:

    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 13:03:07 -0400, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net> >>>>>> wrote:

    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 08:13:10 -0700, john larkin <JL@gct.com> wrote: >>>>>>>

    https://scitechdaily.com/groundbreaking-study-affirms-quantum-basis-for-consciousness-a-paradigm-shift-in-understanding-human-nature/

    Interesting way to define consciousness, the thing that goes
    away when
    an a general anesthetic is applied. That can be quantified.

    I wouldn't get too fired up.  The researchers are undergrads, and >>>>>>> the
    bit about microtubles originally came from Penrose, back before the >>>>>>> Neurocomputation field had found plausible mechanisms in vector
    algebra over hyperdimensional parameter spaces.

    Undergrads and amateurs often shake up scientific dogma.

    Uncommon, but certainly not unheard of.


    Given that microtubules are very widely employed in all cells for >>>>>>> all
    manner of purposes, blocking microtubules does not imply that
    quantum
    mechanics are or are not involved, as blocking anything that
    fundamental is likely to affect very many things.


    Evolution seems to use anything that works, even if scientists
    disapprove.

    True, but unhelpful.  It's not enough to observe that if A is blocked, >>>>> B stops working, and therefore the mechanism is X.  There are many
    mechanisms simultaneously in action.  One must methodically rule out >>>>> all but a single X to claim causality.

    Joe Gwinn

    I didn't claim causality, but it is possible.

    Discoveries usually happen through accident and speculation. Slapping
    down speculation leaves only accident, which is unlikely in this case. >>>>
    Designing electronics also benefits from being friendly to new ideas.


    Discoveries happen by diddling with the problem, trying out different
    things to see what happens. Once you have a collection of observations,
    some theory will form of how it all fits together. You test the theory
    by doing more experiments. If these experiments keep confirming your
    theory, then, and only then, can you claim to have discovered something. >>>
    Just throwing harebrained ideas around leads nowhere.

    Certainly rejecting ideas leads nowhere.

    Who gets to define "harebrained" ideas? Should they be made illegal?

    Google      quantum biology     which was once agreed to be
    impossible.


    You're suggesting that the ideas are most 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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to Jan Panteltje on Sun Sep 15 21:27:44 2024
    On 15/09/2024 8:53 pm, Jan Panteltje wrote:
    On a sunny day (Sun, 15 Sep 2024 15:56:16 +1000) it happened Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in <vc5su1$200qt$6@dont-email.me>:

    On 15/09/2024 1:03 pm, john larkin wrote:
    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 19:39:20 -0700, john larkin <JL@gct.com> wrote:

    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 21:18:44 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
    <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

    On 9/14/24 20:08, john larkin wrote:
    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 19:36:35 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
    <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

    On 9/14/24 17:13, john larkin wrote:


    https://scitechdaily.com/groundbreaking-study-affirms-quantum-basis-for-consciousness-a-paradigm-shift-in-understanding-human-nature/

    Interesting way to define consciousness, the thing that goes away when >>>>>>>> an a general anesthetic is applied. That can be quantified.


    I paraphrase: "Since we don't know how it works, it must be quantum". >>>>>>
    Or, more conventionally, "It can't be quantum because QM only works at >>>>>> liquid helium temperatures."

    That's it then: Quantum-something is merely religion. The god of the >>>>>>> gaps.

    There's a lot of quantum nonsense about. This is just one example. >>>>>>>

    Well, explain how we can name one image out of maybe a million stored >>>>>> images, in a fraction of a second.


    Yes, that's the typical comeback of religious believers.

    I don't recall invoking religion here, or calling myself a believer. I >>>> was asking about image storage and high-speed matching. It's even more >>>> amazing when you consider all the optical distortions and viewing
    angles and changes in illumination and motion effects in real life; we >>>> don't match nice flat photos.

    How are our collections of images stored?

    When some people encounter an unwelcome idea, they call the people
    that they disagree with bible bangers, and assume they have won the
    argument.



    I don't know how it works. Let's find out. AI seems to be
    getting there, and it requires no quantum theory. Just loads
    of data and a lot of matrix math.

    You are determined to exclude the possibility that are brains use QM.

    Given that most all physics and chemistry is fundamentally quantum
    mechanical, why would evolution refuse to allow cells to use quantum
    effects?

    Most people don't really believe in evolution.



    Jeroen Belleman

    It would be pretty good packing, storing one bit of data per atom.

    https://interestingengineering.com/science/wobble-nucleus-of-atom-quantum-data

    or maybe more than one.

    Nice possibilities for quantum correlation, pattern matching, too.

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

    It does all the time in RNA DNA
    I was reading this stuff this morning:
    Explaning DNA organisation in chromosomes:
    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/09/240912135801.htm
    http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sstr.202400203
    there is still a lot to learn

    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.
    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jeroen Belleman@21:1/5 to Jan Panteltje on Sun Sep 15 16:44:58 2024
    On 9/15/24 12:53, Jan Panteltje wrote:
    On a sunny day (Sun, 15 Sep 2024 15:56:16 +1000) it happened Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in <vc5su1$200qt$6@dont-email.me>:

    On 15/09/2024 1:03 pm, john larkin wrote:
    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 19:39:20 -0700, john larkin <JL@gct.com> wrote:

    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 21:18:44 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
    <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

    On 9/14/24 20:08, john larkin wrote:
    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 19:36:35 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
    <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

    On 9/14/24 17:13, john larkin wrote:


    https://scitechdaily.com/groundbreaking-study-affirms-quantum-basis-for-consciousness-a-paradigm-shift-in-understanding-human-nature/

    Interesting way to define consciousness, the thing that goes away when >>>>>>>> an a general anesthetic is applied. That can be quantified.


    I paraphrase: "Since we don't know how it works, it must be quantum". >>>>>>
    Or, more conventionally, "It can't be quantum because QM only works at >>>>>> liquid helium temperatures."

    That's it then: Quantum-something is merely religion. The god of the >>>>>>> gaps.

    There's a lot of quantum nonsense about. This is just one example. >>>>>>>

    Well, explain how we can name one image out of maybe a million stored >>>>>> images, in a fraction of a second.


    Yes, that's the typical comeback of religious believers.

    I don't recall invoking religion here, or calling myself a believer. I >>>> was asking about image storage and high-speed matching. It's even more >>>> amazing when you consider all the optical distortions and viewing
    angles and changes in illumination and motion effects in real life; we >>>> don't match nice flat photos.

    How are our collections of images stored?

    When some people encounter an unwelcome idea, they call the people
    that they disagree with bible bangers, and assume they have won the
    argument.



    I don't know how it works. Let's find out. AI seems to be
    getting there, and it requires no quantum theory. Just loads
    of data and a lot of matrix math.

    You are determined to exclude the possibility that are brains use QM.

    Given that most all physics and chemistry is fundamentally quantum
    mechanical, why would evolution refuse to allow cells to use quantum
    effects?

    Most people don't really believe in evolution.



    Jeroen Belleman

    It would be pretty good packing, storing one bit of data per atom.

    https://interestingengineering.com/science/wobble-nucleus-of-atom-quantum-data

    or maybe more than one.

    Nice possibilities for quantum correlation, pattern matching, too.

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

    It does all the time in RNA DNA
    I was reading this stuff this morning:
    Explaning DNA organisation in chromosomes:
    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/09/240912135801.htm
    http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sstr.202400203
    there is still a lot to learn

    design something, write some code, show us.
    plenty of broken records around, not interesting.


    An organism with extensive DNA repair ability is Deinococcus
    Radiodurans, so evolution is apparently clever enough.

    Jeroen Belleman

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to Jeroen Belleman on Mon Sep 16 01:03:45 2024
    On 16/09/2024 12:44 am, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
    On 9/15/24 12:53, Jan Panteltje wrote:
    On a sunny day (Sun, 15 Sep 2024 15:56:16 +1000) it happened Bill Sloman
    <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in <vc5su1$200qt$6@dont-email.me>:

    On 15/09/2024 1:03 pm, john larkin wrote:
    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 19:39:20 -0700, john larkin <JL@gct.com> wrote:

    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 21:18:44 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
    <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

    On 9/14/24 20:08, john larkin wrote:
    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 19:36:35 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
    <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

    On 9/14/24 17:13, john larkin wrote:


    https://scitechdaily.com/groundbreaking-study-affirms-quantum-basis-for-consciousness-a-paradigm-shift-in-understanding-human-nature/

    Interesting way to define consciousness, the thing that goes >>>>>>>>> away when
    an a general anesthetic is applied. That can be quantified.


    I paraphrase: "Since we don't know how it works, it must be
    quantum".

    Or, more conventionally, "It can't be quantum because QM only
    works at
    liquid helium temperatures."

    That's it then: Quantum-something is merely religion. The god of >>>>>>>> the
    gaps.

    There's a lot of quantum nonsense about. This is just one example. >>>>>>>>

    Well, explain how we can name one image out of maybe a million
    stored
    images, in a fraction of a second.


    Yes, that's the typical comeback of religious believers.

    I don't recall invoking religion here, or calling myself a believer. I >>>>> was asking about image storage and high-speed matching. It's even more >>>>> amazing when you consider all the optical distortions and viewing
    angles and changes in illumination and motion effects in real life; we >>>>> don't match nice flat photos.

    How are our collections of images stored?

    When some people encounter an unwelcome idea, they call the people
    that they disagree with bible bangers, and assume they have won the
    argument.



    I don't know how it works. Let's find out. AI seems to be
    getting there, and it requires no quantum theory. Just loads
    of data and a lot of matrix math.

    You are determined to exclude the possibility that are brains use QM. >>>>>
    Given that most all physics and chemistry is fundamentally quantum
    mechanical, why would evolution refuse to allow cells to use quantum >>>>> effects?

    Most people don't really believe in evolution.



    Jeroen Belleman

    It would be pretty good packing, storing one bit of data per atom.

    https://interestingengineering.com/science/wobble-nucleus-of-atom-quantum-data

    or maybe more than one.

    Nice possibilities for quantum correlation, pattern matching, too.

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

    It does all the time in RNA DNA
    I was reading this stuff this morning:
      Explaning DNA organisation in chromosomes:
      https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/09/240912135801.htm
      http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sstr.202400203
       there is still a lot to learn

    design something, write some code, show us.
    plenty of broken records around, not interesting.

    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From john larkin@21:1/5 to jeroen@nospam.please on Sun Sep 15 08:42:38 2024
    On Sun, 15 Sep 2024 11:24:08 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
    <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

    On 9/15/24 04:18, john larkin wrote:
    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 21:28:44 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
    <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

    On 9/14/24 21:02, john larkin wrote:
    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 14:38:14 -0400, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net>
    wrote:

    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 10:33:37 -0700, john larkin <JL@gct.com> wrote:

    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 13:03:07 -0400, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net> >>>>>> wrote:

    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 08:13:10 -0700, john larkin <JL@gct.com> wrote: >>>>>>>

    https://scitechdaily.com/groundbreaking-study-affirms-quantum-basis-for-consciousness-a-paradigm-shift-in-understanding-human-nature/

    Interesting way to define consciousness, the thing that goes away when >>>>>>>> an a general anesthetic is applied. That can be quantified.

    I wouldn't get too fired up. The researchers are undergrads, and the >>>>>>> bit about microtubles originally came from Penrose, back before the >>>>>>> Neurocomputation field had found plausible mechanisms in vector
    algebra over hyperdimensional parameter spaces.

    Undergrads and amateurs often shake up scientific dogma.

    Uncommon, but certainly not unheard of.


    Given that microtubules are very widely employed in all cells for all >>>>>>> manner of purposes, blocking microtubules does not imply that quantum >>>>>>> mechanics are or are not involved, as blocking anything that
    fundamental is likely to affect very many things.


    Evolution seems to use anything that works, even if scientists
    disapprove.

    True, but unhelpful. It's not enough to observe that if A is blocked, >>>>> B stops working, and therefore the mechanism is X. There are many
    mechanisms simultaneously in action. One must methodically rule out >>>>> all but a single X to claim causality.

    Joe Gwinn

    I didn't claim causality, but it is possible.

    Discoveries usually happen through accident and speculation. Slapping
    down speculation leaves only accident, which is unlikely in this case. >>>>
    Designing electronics also benefits from being friendly to new ideas.


    Discoveries happen by diddling with the problem, trying out different
    things to see what happens. Once you have a collection of observations,
    some theory will form of how it all fits together. You test the theory
    by doing more experiments. If these experiments keep confirming your
    theory, then, and only then, can you claim to have discovered something. >>>
    Just throwing harebrained ideas around leads nowhere.

    Certainly rejecting ideas leads nowhere.

    Who gets to define "harebrained" ideas? Should they be made illegal?

    Google quantum biology which was once agreed to be
    impossible.


    You're suggesting that the ideas are most importatnt and come first.
    I'm saying that ideas come about because of the unexpected result
    of some experiment. Ideas don't come out of the blue. You have to
    have some familiarity with the matter to which the idea applies.

    I'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.


    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.


    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From john larkin@21:1/5 to All on Sun Sep 15 08:17:07 2024
    On Sun, 15 Sep 2024 15:31:31 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
    wrote:

    On 15/09/2024 12:26 pm, john larkin wrote:
    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 14:35:59 -0700, Don Y
    <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:

    On 9/14/2024 12:28 PM, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
    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.


    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From john larkin@21:1/5 to jeroen@nospam.please on Sun Sep 15 08:48:37 2024
    On Sun, 15 Sep 2024 16:44:58 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
    <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

    On 9/15/24 12:53, Jan Panteltje wrote:
    On a sunny day (Sun, 15 Sep 2024 15:56:16 +1000) it happened Bill Sloman
    <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in <vc5su1$200qt$6@dont-email.me>:

    On 15/09/2024 1:03 pm, john larkin wrote:
    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 19:39:20 -0700, john larkin <JL@gct.com> wrote:

    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 21:18:44 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
    <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

    On 9/14/24 20:08, john larkin wrote:
    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 19:36:35 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
    <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

    On 9/14/24 17:13, john larkin wrote:


    https://scitechdaily.com/groundbreaking-study-affirms-quantum-basis-for-consciousness-a-paradigm-shift-in-understanding-human-nature/

    Interesting way to define consciousness, the thing that goes away when
    an a general anesthetic is applied. That can be quantified.


    I paraphrase: "Since we don't know how it works, it must be quantum". >>>>>>>
    Or, more conventionally, "It can't be quantum because QM only works at >>>>>>> liquid helium temperatures."

    That's it then: Quantum-something is merely religion. The god of the >>>>>>>> gaps.

    There's a lot of quantum nonsense about. This is just one example. >>>>>>>>

    Well, explain how we can name one image out of maybe a million stored >>>>>>> images, in a fraction of a second.


    Yes, that's the typical comeback of religious believers.

    I don't recall invoking religion here, or calling myself a believer. I >>>>> was asking about image storage and high-speed matching. It's even more >>>>> amazing when you consider all the optical distortions and viewing
    angles and changes in illumination and motion effects in real life; we >>>>> don't match nice flat photos.

    How are our collections of images stored?

    When some people encounter an unwelcome idea, they call the people
    that they disagree with bible bangers, and assume they have won the
    argument.



    I don't know how it works. Let's find out. AI seems to be
    getting there, and it requires no quantum theory. Just loads
    of data and a lot of matrix math.

    You are determined to exclude the possibility that are brains use QM. >>>>>
    Given that most all physics and chemistry is fundamentally quantum
    mechanical, why would evolution refuse to allow cells to use quantum >>>>> effects?

    Most people don't really believe in evolution.



    Jeroen Belleman

    It would be pretty good packing, storing one bit of data per atom.

    https://interestingengineering.com/science/wobble-nucleus-of-atom-quantum-data

    or maybe more than one.

    Nice possibilities for quantum correlation, pattern matching, too.

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

    It does all the time in RNA DNA
    I was reading this stuff this morning:
    Explaning DNA organisation in chromosomes:
    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/09/240912135801.htm
    http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sstr.202400203
    there is still a lot to learn

    design something, write some code, show us.
    plenty of broken records around, not interesting.


    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From john larkin@21:1/5 to All on Sun Sep 15 08:45:25 2024
    On Sun, 15 Sep 2024 21:37:54 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
    wrote:

    On 15/09/2024 7:24 pm, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
    On 9/15/24 04:18, john larkin wrote:
    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 21:28:44 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
    <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

    On 9/14/24 21:02, john larkin wrote:
    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 14:38:14 -0400, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net> >>>>> wrote:

    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 10:33:37 -0700, john larkin <JL@gct.com> wrote: >>>>>>
    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 13:03:07 -0400, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net> >>>>>>> wrote:

    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 08:13:10 -0700, john larkin <JL@gct.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>

    https://scitechdaily.com/groundbreaking-study-affirms-quantum-basis-for-consciousness-a-paradigm-shift-in-understanding-human-nature/

    Interesting way to define consciousness, the thing that goes >>>>>>>>> away when
    an a general anesthetic is applied. That can be quantified.

    I wouldn't get too fired up.  The researchers are undergrads, and >>>>>>>> the
    bit about microtubles originally came from Penrose, back before the >>>>>>>> Neurocomputation field had found plausible mechanisms in vector >>>>>>>> algebra over hyperdimensional parameter spaces.

    Undergrads and amateurs often shake up scientific dogma.

    Uncommon, but certainly not unheard of.


    Given that microtubules are very widely employed in all cells for >>>>>>>> all
    manner of purposes, blocking microtubules does not imply that
    quantum
    mechanics are or are not involved, as blocking anything that
    fundamental is likely to affect very many things.


    Evolution seems to use anything that works, even if scientists
    disapprove.

    True, but unhelpful.  It's not enough to observe that if A is blocked, >>>>>> B stops working, and therefore the mechanism is X.  There are many >>>>>> mechanisms simultaneously in action.  One must methodically rule out >>>>>> all but a single X to claim causality.

    Joe Gwinn

    I didn't claim causality, but it is possible.

    Discoveries usually happen through accident and speculation. Slapping >>>>> down speculation leaves only accident, which is unlikely in this case. >>>>>
    Designing electronics also benefits from being friendly to new ideas. >>>>>

    Discoveries happen by diddling with the problem, trying out different
    things to see what happens. Once you have a collection of observations, >>>> some theory will form of how it all fits together. You test the theory >>>> by doing more experiments. If these experiments keep confirming your
    theory, then, and only then, can you claim to have discovered something. >>>>
    Just throwing harebrained ideas around leads nowhere.

    Certainly rejecting ideas leads nowhere.

    Who gets to define "harebrained" ideas? Should they be made illegal?

    Google      quantum biology     which was once agreed to be
    impossible.


    You're suggesting that the ideas are most 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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From john larkin@21:1/5 to jeroen@nospam.please on Sun Sep 15 09:02:03 2024
    On Sun, 15 Sep 2024 11:32:50 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
    <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

    On 9/15/24 04:39, john larkin wrote:
    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 21:18:44 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
    <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

    On 9/14/24 20:08, john larkin wrote:
    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 19:36:35 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
    <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

    On 9/14/24 17:13, john larkin wrote:

    https://scitechdaily.com/groundbreaking-study-affirms-quantum-basis-for-consciousness-a-paradigm-shift-in-understanding-human-nature/

    Interesting way to define consciousness, the thing that goes away when >>>>>> an a general anesthetic is applied. That can be quantified.


    I paraphrase: "Since we don't know how it works, it must be quantum". >>>>
    Or, more conventionally, "It can't be quantum because QM only works at >>>> liquid helium temperatures."

    That's it then: Quantum-something is merely religion. The god of the >>>>> gaps.

    There's a lot of quantum nonsense about. This is just one example.


    Well, explain how we can name one image out of maybe a million stored
    images, in a fraction of a second.


    Yes, that's the typical comeback of religious believers.

    I don't recall invoking religion here, or calling myself a believer. I
    was asking about image storage and high-speed matching. It's even more
    amazing when you consider all the optical distortions and viewing
    angles and changes in illumination and motion effects in real life; we
    don't match nice flat photos.

    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.




    How are our collections of images stored?

    When some people encounter an unwelcome idea, they call the people
    that they disagree with bible bangers, and assume they have won the
    argument.



    I don't know how it works. Let's find out. AI seems to be
    getting there, and it requires no quantum theory. Just loads
    of data and a lot of matrix math.

    You are determined to exclude the possibility that are brains use QM.

    Given that most all physics and chemistry is fundamentally quantum
    mechanical, why would evolution refuse to allow cells to use quantum
    effects?


    Precicely my point. We seem to agree after all.

    Jeroen Belleman

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From john larkin@21:1/5 to invalid@invalid.invalid on Sun Sep 15 09:08:33 2024
    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 23:28:40 -0400, "Edward Rawde"
    <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    "john larkin" <JL@gct.com> wrote in message news:kaicejdhq0cudpivno5qmtes8al3tu8hje@4ax.com...
    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 17:04:32 -0400, "Edward Rawde"
    <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    "john larkin" <JL@gct.com> wrote in message news:31kbejpg6dos3fdm81oq42a4rgcenu4lk1@4ax.com...
    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 19:36:35 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
    <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

    On 9/14/24 17:13, john larkin wrote:

    https://scitechdaily.com/groundbreaking-study-affirms-quantum-basis-for-consciousness-a-paradigm-shift-in-understanding-human-nature/

    Interesting way to define consciousness, the thing that goes away when >>>>>> an a general anesthetic is applied. That can be quantified.


    I paraphrase: "Since we don't know how it works, it must be quantum".

    Or, more conventionally, "It can't be quantum because QM only works at >>>> liquid helium temperatures."

    That's it then: Quantum-something is merely religion. The god of the >>>>>gaps.

    There's a lot of quantum nonsense about. This is just one example.


    Well, explain how we can name one image out of maybe a million stored
    images, in a fraction of a second.

    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.



    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Cursitor Doom@21:1/5 to john larkin on Sun Sep 15 17:03:40 2024
    On Sun, 15 Sep 2024 08:48:37 -0700, john larkin wrote:

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

    On 9/15/24 12:53, Jan Panteltje wrote:
    On a sunny day (Sun, 15 Sep 2024 15:56:16 +1000) it happened Bill
    Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in <vc5su1$200qt$6@dont-email.me>:

    On 15/09/2024 1:03 pm, john larkin wrote:
    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 19:39:20 -0700, john larkin <JL@gct.com> wrote:

    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 21:18:44 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
    <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

    On 9/14/24 20:08, john larkin wrote:
    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 19:36:35 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
    <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

    On 9/14/24 17:13, john larkin wrote:


    https://scitechdaily.com/groundbreaking-study-affirms-quantum- basis-for-consciousness-a-paradigm-shift-in-understanding-human-nature/ >>>>>>>>>>
    Interesting way to define consciousness, the thing that goes >>>>>>>>>> away when an a general anesthetic is applied. That can be
    quantified.


    I paraphrase: "Since we don't know how it works, it must be
    quantum".

    Or, more conventionally, "It can't be quantum because QM only
    works at liquid helium temperatures."

    That's it then: Quantum-something is merely religion. The god of >>>>>>>>> the gaps.

    There's a lot of quantum nonsense about. This is just one
    example.


    Well, explain how we can name one image out of maybe a million >>>>>>>> stored images, in a fraction of a second.


    Yes, that's the typical comeback of religious believers.

    I don't recall invoking religion here, or calling myself a
    believer. I was asking about image storage and high-speed matching. >>>>>> It's even more amazing when you consider all the optical
    distortions and viewing angles and changes in illumination and
    motion effects in real life; we don't match nice flat photos.

    How are our collections of images stored?

    When some people encounter an unwelcome idea, they call the people >>>>>> that they disagree with bible bangers, and assume they have won the >>>>>> argument.



    I don't know how it works. Let's find out. AI seems to be getting >>>>>>> there, and it requires no quantum theory. Just loads of data and a >>>>>>> lot of matrix math.

    You are determined to exclude the possibility that are brains use
    QM.

    Given that most all physics and chemistry is fundamentally quantum >>>>>> mechanical, why would evolution refuse to allow cells to use
    quantum effects?

    Most people don't really believe in evolution.



    Jeroen Belleman

    It would be pretty good packing, storing one bit of data per atom.

    https://interestingengineering.com/science/wobble-nucleus-of-atom- quantum-data

    or maybe more than one.

    Nice possibilities for quantum correlation, pattern matching, too.

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

    It does all the time in RNA DNA I was reading this stuff this morning:
    Explaning DNA organisation in chromosomes:
    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/09/240912135801.htm
    http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sstr.202400203
    there is still a lot to learn

    design something, write some code, show us.
    plenty of broken records around, not interesting.

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

    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Edward Rawde@21:1/5 to john larkin on Sun Sep 15 13:19:58 2024
    "john larkin" <JL@gct.com> wrote in message news:pc1eej9v5j8i25qm38l4jffodn7eb4c2f6@4ax.com...
    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 23:28:40 -0400, "Edward Rawde"
    <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    "john larkin" <JL@gct.com> wrote in message news:kaicejdhq0cudpivno5qmtes8al3tu8hje@4ax.com...
    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 17:04:32 -0400, "Edward Rawde"
    <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    "john larkin" <JL@gct.com> wrote in message news:31kbejpg6dos3fdm81oq42a4rgcenu4lk1@4ax.com...
    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 19:36:35 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
    <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

    On 9/14/24 17:13, john larkin wrote:

    https://scitechdaily.com/groundbreaking-study-affirms-quantum-basis-for-consciousness-a-paradigm-shift-in-understanding-human-nature/

    Interesting way to define consciousness, the thing that goes away when >>>>>>> an a general anesthetic is applied. That can be quantified.


    I paraphrase: "Since we don't know how it works, it must be quantum". >>>>>
    Or, more conventionally, "It can't be quantum because QM only works at >>>>> liquid helium temperatures."

    That's it then: Quantum-something is merely religion. The god of the >>>>>>gaps.

    There's a lot of quantum nonsense about. This is just one example.


    Well, explain how we can name one image out of maybe a million stored >>>>> images, in a fraction of a second.

    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.



    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.


    A while back they were looking to hire a bunch of full-stack software
    types and one hardware intern.


    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From john larkin@21:1/5 to invalid@invalid.invalid on Sun Sep 15 11:47:08 2024
    On Sun, 15 Sep 2024 13:19:58 -0400, "Edward Rawde"
    <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    "john larkin" <JL@gct.com> wrote in message news:pc1eej9v5j8i25qm38l4jffodn7eb4c2f6@4ax.com...
    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 23:28:40 -0400, "Edward Rawde"
    <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    "john larkin" <JL@gct.com> wrote in message news:kaicejdhq0cudpivno5qmtes8al3tu8hje@4ax.com...
    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 17:04:32 -0400, "Edward Rawde"
    <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    "john larkin" <JL@gct.com> wrote in message news:31kbejpg6dos3fdm81oq42a4rgcenu4lk1@4ax.com...
    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 19:36:35 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
    <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

    On 9/14/24 17:13, john larkin wrote:

    https://scitechdaily.com/groundbreaking-study-affirms-quantum-basis-for-consciousness-a-paradigm-shift-in-understanding-human-nature/

    Interesting way to define consciousness, the thing that goes away when >>>>>>>> an a general anesthetic is applied. That can be quantified.


    I paraphrase: "Since we don't know how it works, it must be quantum". >>>>>>
    Or, more conventionally, "It can't be quantum because QM only works at >>>>>> liquid helium temperatures."

    That's it then: Quantum-something is merely religion. The god of the >>>>>>>gaps.

    There's a lot of quantum nonsense about. This is just one example. >>>>>>>

    Well, explain how we can name one image out of maybe a million stored >>>>>> images, in a fraction of a second.

    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.



    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.



    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Edward Rawde@21:1/5 to john larkin on Sun Sep 15 15:00:28 2024
    "john larkin" <JL@gct.com> wrote in message news:0naeej138o8cftms0eve74d89v7gn89525@4ax.com...
    On Sun, 15 Sep 2024 13:19:58 -0400, "Edward Rawde"
    <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    "john larkin" <JL@gct.com> wrote in message news:pc1eej9v5j8i25qm38l4jffodn7eb4c2f6@4ax.com...
    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 23:28:40 -0400, "Edward Rawde"
    <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    "john larkin" <JL@gct.com> wrote in message news:kaicejdhq0cudpivno5qmtes8al3tu8hje@4ax.com...
    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 17:04:32 -0400, "Edward Rawde"
    <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    "john larkin" <JL@gct.com> wrote in message news:31kbejpg6dos3fdm81oq42a4rgcenu4lk1@4ax.com...
    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 19:36:35 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
    <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

    On 9/14/24 17:13, john larkin wrote:

    https://scitechdaily.com/groundbreaking-study-affirms-quantum-basis-for-consciousness-a-paradigm-shift-in-understanding-human-nature/

    Interesting way to define consciousness, the thing that goes away when
    an a general anesthetic is applied. That can be quantified.


    I paraphrase: "Since we don't know how it works, it must be quantum". >>>>>>>
    Or, more conventionally, "It can't be quantum because QM only works at >>>>>>> liquid helium temperatures."

    That's it then: Quantum-something is merely religion. The god of the >>>>>>>>gaps.

    There's a lot of quantum nonsense about. This is just one example. >>>>>>>>

    Well, explain how we can name one image out of maybe a million stored >>>>>>> images, in a fraction of a second.

    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.



    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.




    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.



    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From john larkin@21:1/5 to john larkin on Sun Sep 15 12:00:48 2024
    On Sun, 15 Sep 2024 08:45:25 -0700, john larkin <JL@gct.com> wrote:

    On Sun, 15 Sep 2024 21:37:54 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
    wrote:

    On 15/09/2024 7:24 pm, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
    On 9/15/24 04:18, john larkin wrote:
    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 21:28:44 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
    <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

    On 9/14/24 21:02, john larkin wrote:
    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 14:38:14 -0400, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net> >>>>>> wrote:

    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 10:33:37 -0700, john larkin <JL@gct.com> wrote: >>>>>>>
    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 13:03:07 -0400, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net> >>>>>>>> wrote:

    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 08:13:10 -0700, john larkin <JL@gct.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>

    https://scitechdaily.com/groundbreaking-study-affirms-quantum-basis-for-consciousness-a-paradigm-shift-in-understanding-human-nature/

    Interesting way to define consciousness, the thing that goes >>>>>>>>>> away when
    an a general anesthetic is applied. That can be quantified. >>>>>>>>>
    I wouldn't get too fired up.  The researchers are undergrads, and >>>>>>>>> the
    bit about microtubles originally came from Penrose, back before the >>>>>>>>> Neurocomputation field had found plausible mechanisms in vector >>>>>>>>> algebra over hyperdimensional parameter spaces.

    Undergrads and amateurs often shake up scientific dogma.

    Uncommon, but certainly not unheard of.


    Given that microtubules are very widely employed in all cells for >>>>>>>>> all
    manner of purposes, blocking microtubules does not imply that >>>>>>>>> quantum
    mechanics are or are not involved, as blocking anything that >>>>>>>>> fundamental is likely to affect very many things.


    Evolution seems to use anything that works, even if scientists >>>>>>>> disapprove.

    True, but unhelpful.  It's not enough to observe that if A is blocked, >>>>>>> B stops working, and therefore the mechanism is X.  There are many >>>>>>> mechanisms simultaneously in action.  One must methodically rule out >>>>>>> all but a single X to claim causality.

    Joe Gwinn

    I didn't claim causality, but it is possible.

    Discoveries usually happen through accident and speculation. Slapping >>>>>> down speculation leaves only accident, which is unlikely in this case. >>>>>>
    Designing electronics also benefits from being friendly to new ideas. >>>>>>

    Discoveries happen by diddling with the problem, trying out different >>>>> things to see what happens. Once you have a collection of observations, >>>>> some theory will form of how it all fits together. You test the theory >>>>> by doing more experiments. If these experiments keep confirming your >>>>> theory, then, and only then, can you claim to have discovered something. >>>>>
    Just throwing harebrained ideas around leads nowhere.

    Certainly rejecting ideas leads nowhere.

    Who gets to define "harebrained" ideas? Should they be made illegal?

    Google      quantum biology     which was once agreed to be
    impossible.


    You're suggesting that the ideas are most 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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Joe Gwinn@21:1/5 to john larkin on Sun Sep 15 18:46:56 2024
    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 12:02:15 -0700, john larkin <JL@gct.com> wrote:

    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 14:38:14 -0400, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net>
    wrote:

    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 10:33:37 -0700, john larkin <JL@gct.com> wrote:

    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 13:03:07 -0400, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net> >>>wrote:

    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 08:13:10 -0700, john larkin <JL@gct.com> wrote:

    https://scitechdaily.com/groundbreaking-study-affirms-quantum-basis-for-consciousness-a-paradigm-shift-in-understanding-human-nature/

    Interesting way to define consciousness, the thing that goes away when >>>>>an a general anesthetic is applied. That can be quantified.

    I wouldn't get too fired up. The researchers are undergrads, and the >>>>bit about microtubles originally came from Penrose, back before the >>>>Neurocomputation field had found plausible mechanisms in vector
    algebra over hyperdimensional parameter spaces.

    Undergrads and amateurs often shake up scientific dogma.

    Uncommon, but certainly not unheard of.


    Given that microtubules are very widely employed in all cells for all >>>>manner of purposes, blocking microtubules does not imply that quantum >>>>mechanics are or are not involved, as blocking anything that >>>>fundamental is likely to affect very many things.


    Evolution seems to use anything that works, even if scientists >>>disapprove.

    True, but unhelpful. It's not enough to observe that if A is blocked,
    B stops working, and therefore the mechanism is X. There are many >>mechanisms simultaneously in action. One must methodically rule out
    all but a single X to claim causality.

    Joe Gwinn

    I didn't claim causality, but it is possible.

    Discoveries usually happen through accident and speculation. Slapping
    down speculation leaves only accident, which is unlikely in this case.

    Designing electronics also benefits from being friendly to new ideas.

    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Joe Gwinn@21:1/5 to jeroen@nospam.please on Sun Sep 15 18:54:38 2024
    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 21:28:44 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
    <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

    On 9/14/24 21:02, john larkin wrote:
    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 14:38:14 -0400, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net>
    wrote:

    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 10:33:37 -0700, john larkin <JL@gct.com> wrote:

    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 13:03:07 -0400, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net>
    wrote:

    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 08:13:10 -0700, john larkin <JL@gct.com> wrote:


    https://scitechdaily.com/groundbreaking-study-affirms-quantum-basis-for-consciousness-a-paradigm-shift-in-understanding-human-nature/

    Interesting way to define consciousness, the thing that goes away when >>>>>> an a general anesthetic is applied. That can be quantified.

    I wouldn't get too fired up. The researchers are undergrads, and the >>>>> bit about microtubles originally came from Penrose, back before the
    Neurocomputation field had found plausible mechanisms in vector
    algebra over hyperdimensional parameter spaces.

    Undergrads and amateurs often shake up scientific dogma.

    Uncommon, but certainly not unheard of.


    Given that microtubules are very widely employed in all cells for all >>>>> manner of purposes, blocking microtubules does not imply that quantum >>>>> mechanics are or are not involved, as blocking anything that
    fundamental is likely to affect very many things.


    Evolution seems to use anything that works, even if scientists
    disapprove.

    True, but unhelpful. It's not enough to observe that if A is blocked,
    B stops working, and therefore the mechanism is X. There are many
    mechanisms simultaneously in action. One must methodically rule out
    all but a single X to claim causality.

    Joe Gwinn

    I didn't claim causality, but it is possible.

    Discoveries usually happen through accident and speculation. Slapping
    down speculation leaves only accident, which is unlikely in this case.

    Designing electronics also benefits from being friendly to new ideas.


    Discoveries happen by diddling with the problem, trying out different
    things to see what happens. Once you have a collection of observations,
    some theory will form of how it all fits together. You test the theory
    by doing more experiments. If these experiments keep confirming your
    theory, then, and only then, can you claim to have discovered something.

    Yes, this is by far the usual path.


    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Cursitor Doom@21:1/5 to john larkin on Sun Sep 15 23:48:32 2024
    On Sun, 15 Sep 2024 11:47:08 -0700, john larkin wrote:

    On Sun, 15 Sep 2024 13:19:58 -0400, "Edward Rawde"
    <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    "john larkin" <JL@gct.com> wrote in message >>news:pc1eej9v5j8i25qm38l4jffodn7eb4c2f6@4ax.com...
    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 23:28:40 -0400, "Edward Rawde"
    <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    "john larkin" <JL@gct.com> wrote in message >>>>news:kaicejdhq0cudpivno5qmtes8al3tu8hje@4ax.com...
    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 17:04:32 -0400, "Edward Rawde"
    <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    "john larkin" <JL@gct.com> wrote in message >>>>>>news:31kbejpg6dos3fdm81oq42a4rgcenu4lk1@4ax.com...
    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 19:36:35 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
    <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

    On 9/14/24 17:13, john larkin wrote:

    https://scitechdaily.com/groundbreaking-study-affirms-quantum- basis-for-consciousness-a-paradigm-shift-in-understanding-human-nature/ >>>>>>>>>
    Interesting way to define consciousness, the thing that goes >>>>>>>>> away when an a general anesthetic is applied. That can be
    quantified.


    I paraphrase: "Since we don't know how it works, it must be >>>>>>>>quantum".

    Or, more conventionally, "It can't be quantum because QM only
    works at liquid helium temperatures."

    That's it then: Quantum-something is merely religion. The god of >>>>>>>>the gaps.

    There's a lot of quantum nonsense about. This is just one example. >>>>>>>>

    Well, explain how we can name one image out of maybe a million
    stored images, in a fraction of a second.

    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.



    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.



    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?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From john larkin@21:1/5 to All on Sun Sep 15 16:41:27 2024
    On Sun, 15 Sep 2024 18:46:56 -0400, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net>
    wrote:

    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 12:02:15 -0700, john larkin <JL@gct.com> wrote:

    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 14:38:14 -0400, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net>
    wrote:

    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 10:33:37 -0700, john larkin <JL@gct.com> wrote:

    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 13:03:07 -0400, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net> >>>>wrote:

    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 08:13:10 -0700, john larkin <JL@gct.com> wrote:

    https://scitechdaily.com/groundbreaking-study-affirms-quantum-basis-for-consciousness-a-paradigm-shift-in-understanding-human-nature/

    Interesting way to define consciousness, the thing that goes away when >>>>>>an a general anesthetic is applied. That can be quantified.

    I wouldn't get too fired up. The researchers are undergrads, and the >>>>>bit about microtubles originally came from Penrose, back before the >>>>>Neurocomputation field had found plausible mechanisms in vector >>>>>algebra over hyperdimensional parameter spaces.

    Undergrads and amateurs often shake up scientific dogma.

    Uncommon, but certainly not unheard of.


    Given that microtubules are very widely employed in all cells for all >>>>>manner of purposes, blocking microtubules does not imply that quantum >>>>>mechanics are or are not involved, as blocking anything that >>>>>fundamental is likely to affect very many things.


    Evolution seems to use anything that works, even if scientists >>>>disapprove.

    True, but unhelpful. It's not enough to observe that if A is blocked,
    B stops working, and therefore the mechanism is X. There are many >>>mechanisms simultaneously in action. One must methodically rule out
    all but a single X to claim causality.

    Joe Gwinn

    I didn't claim causality, but it is possible.

    Discoveries usually happen through accident and speculation. Slapping
    down speculation leaves only accident, which is unlikely in this case.

    Designing electronics also benefits from being friendly to new ideas.

    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From john larkin@21:1/5 to cd999666@notformail.com on Sun Sep 15 18:06:21 2024
    On Sun, 15 Sep 2024 23:48:32 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:

    On Sun, 15 Sep 2024 11:47:08 -0700, john larkin wrote:

    On Sun, 15 Sep 2024 13:19:58 -0400, "Edward Rawde"
    <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    "john larkin" <JL@gct.com> wrote in message >>>news:pc1eej9v5j8i25qm38l4jffodn7eb4c2f6@4ax.com...
    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 23:28:40 -0400, "Edward Rawde"
    <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    "john larkin" <JL@gct.com> wrote in message >>>>>news:kaicejdhq0cudpivno5qmtes8al3tu8hje@4ax.com...
    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 17:04:32 -0400, "Edward Rawde"
    <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    "john larkin" <JL@gct.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>news:31kbejpg6dos3fdm81oq42a4rgcenu4lk1@4ax.com...
    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 19:36:35 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
    <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

    On 9/14/24 17:13, john larkin wrote:

    https://scitechdaily.com/groundbreaking-study-affirms-quantum- >basis-for-consciousness-a-paradigm-shift-in-understanding-human-nature/ >>>>>>>>>>
    Interesting way to define consciousness, the thing that goes >>>>>>>>>> away when an a general anesthetic is applied. That can be
    quantified.


    I paraphrase: "Since we don't know how it works, it must be >>>>>>>>>quantum".

    Or, more conventionally, "It can't be quantum because QM only
    works at liquid helium temperatures."

    That's it then: Quantum-something is merely religion. The god of >>>>>>>>>the gaps.

    There's a lot of quantum nonsense about. This is just one example. >>>>>>>>>

    Well, explain how we can name one image out of maybe a million >>>>>>>> stored images, in a fraction of a second.

    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.



    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.



    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to john larkin on Mon Sep 16 16:40:33 2024
    On 16/09/2024 1:17 am, john larkin wrote:
    On Sun, 15 Sep 2024 15:31:31 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
    wrote:

    On 15/09/2024 12:26 pm, john larkin wrote:
    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 14:35:59 -0700, Don Y
    <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:

    On 9/14/2024 12:28 PM, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
    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.


    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.

    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.

    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to john larkin on Mon Sep 16 16:45:14 2024
    On 16/09/2024 1:45 am, john larkin wrote:
    On Sun, 15 Sep 2024 21:37:54 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
    wrote:

    On 15/09/2024 7:24 pm, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
    On 9/15/24 04:18, john larkin wrote:
    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 21:28:44 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
    <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

    On 9/14/24 21:02, john larkin wrote:
    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 14:38:14 -0400, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net> >>>>>> wrote:

    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 10:33:37 -0700, john larkin <JL@gct.com> wrote: >>>>>>>
    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 13:03:07 -0400, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net> >>>>>>>> wrote:

    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 08:13:10 -0700, john larkin <JL@gct.com> wrote:

    <snip>

    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to john larkin on Mon Sep 16 16:57:13 2024
    On 16/09/2024 1:42 am, john larkin wrote:
    On Sun, 15 Sep 2024 11:24:08 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
    <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

    On 9/15/24 04:18, john larkin wrote:
    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 21:28:44 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
    <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

    On 9/14/24 21:02, john larkin wrote:
    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 14:38:14 -0400, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net> >>>>> wrote:

    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 10:33:37 -0700, john larkin <JL@gct.com> wrote: >>>>>>
    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 13:03:07 -0400, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net> >>>>>>> wrote:

    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 08:13:10 -0700, john larkin <JL@gct.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>

    https://scitechdaily.com/groundbreaking-study-affirms-quantum-basis-for-consciousness-a-paradigm-shift-in-understanding-human-nature/

    Interesting way to define consciousness, the thing that goes away when
    an a general anesthetic is applied. That can be quantified.

    I wouldn't get too fired up. The researchers are undergrads, and the >>>>>>>> bit about microtubles originally came from Penrose, back before the >>>>>>>> Neurocomputation field had found plausible mechanisms in vector >>>>>>>> algebra over hyperdimensional parameter spaces.

    Undergrads and amateurs often shake up scientific dogma.

    Uncommon, but certainly not unheard of.


    Given that microtubules are very widely employed in all cells for all >>>>>>>> manner of purposes, blocking microtubules does not imply that quantum >>>>>>>> mechanics are or are not involved, as blocking anything that
    fundamental is likely to affect very many things.


    Evolution seems to use anything that works, even if scientists
    disapprove.

    True, but unhelpful. It's not enough to observe that if A is blocked, >>>>>> B stops working, and therefore the mechanism is X. There are many >>>>>> mechanisms simultaneously in action. One must methodically rule out >>>>>> all but a single X to claim causality.

    Joe Gwinn

    I didn't claim causality, but it is possible.

    Discoveries usually happen through accident and speculation. Slapping >>>>> down speculation leaves only accident, which is unlikely in this case. >>>>>
    Designing electronics also benefits from being friendly to new ideas. >>>>>

    Discoveries happen by diddling with the problem, trying out different
    things to see what happens. Once you have a collection of observations, >>>> some theory will form of how it all fits together. You test the theory >>>> by doing more experiments. If these experiments keep confirming your
    theory, then, and only then, can you claim to have discovered something. >>>>
    Just throwing harebrained ideas around leads nowhere.

    Certainly rejecting ideas leads nowhere.

    Who gets to define "harebrained" ideas? Should they be made illegal?

    Google quantum biology which was once agreed to be
    impossible.


    You're suggesting that the ideas are most importatnt and come first.
    I'm saying that ideas come about because of the unexpected result
    of some experiment. Ideas don't come out of the blue. You have to
    have some familiarity with the matter to which the idea applies.

    I'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.


    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).

    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.

    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to Joe Gwinn on Mon Sep 16 17:03:10 2024
    On 16/09/2024 8:54 am, Joe Gwinn wrote:
    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 21:28:44 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
    <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

    On 9/14/24 21:02, john larkin wrote:
    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 14:38:14 -0400, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net>
    wrote:

    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 10:33:37 -0700, john larkin <JL@gct.com> wrote:

    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 13:03:07 -0400, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net> >>>>> wrote:

    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 08:13:10 -0700, john larkin <JL@gct.com> wrote: >>>>>>

    https://scitechdaily.com/groundbreaking-study-affirms-quantum-basis-for-consciousness-a-paradigm-shift-in-understanding-human-nature/

    Interesting way to define consciousness, the thing that goes away when >>>>>>> an a general anesthetic is applied. That can be quantified.

    I wouldn't get too fired up. The researchers are undergrads, and the >>>>>> bit about microtubles originally came from Penrose, back before the >>>>>> Neurocomputation field had found plausible mechanisms in vector
    algebra over hyperdimensional parameter spaces.

    Undergrads and amateurs often shake up scientific dogma.

    Uncommon, but certainly not unheard of.


    Given that microtubules are very widely employed in all cells for all >>>>>> manner of purposes, blocking microtubules does not imply that quantum >>>>>> mechanics are or are not involved, as blocking anything that
    fundamental is likely to affect very many things.


    Evolution seems to use anything that works, even if scientists
    disapprove.

    True, but unhelpful. It's not enough to observe that if A is blocked, >>>> B stops working, and therefore the mechanism is X. There are many
    mechanisms simultaneously in action. One must methodically rule out
    all but a single X to claim causality.

    Joe Gwinn

    I didn't claim causality, but it is possible.

    Discoveries usually happen through accident and speculation. Slapping
    down speculation leaves only accident, which is unlikely in this case.

    Designing electronics also benefits from being friendly to new ideas.


    Discoveries happen by diddling with the problem, trying out different
    things to see what happens. Once you have a collection of observations,
    some theory will form of how it all fits together. You test the theory
    by doing more experiments. If these experiments keep confirming your
    theory, then, and only then, can you claim to have discovered something.

    Yes, this is by far the usual path.


    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.

    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to john larkin on Mon Sep 16 17:06:06 2024
    On 16/09/2024 9:41 am, john larkin wrote:
    On Sun, 15 Sep 2024 18:46:56 -0400, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net>
    wrote:

    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 12:02:15 -0700, john larkin <JL@gct.com> wrote:

    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 14:38:14 -0400, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net>
    wrote:

    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 10:33:37 -0700, john larkin <JL@gct.com> wrote:

    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 13:03:07 -0400, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net> >>>>> wrote:

    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 08:13:10 -0700, john larkin <JL@gct.com> wrote: >>>>>>

    https://scitechdaily.com/groundbreaking-study-affirms-quantum-basis-for-consciousness-a-paradigm-shift-in-understanding-human-nature/

    Interesting way to define consciousness, the thing that goes away when >>>>>>> an a general anesthetic is applied. That can be quantified.

    I wouldn't get too fired up. The researchers are undergrads, and the >>>>>> bit about microtubles originally came from Penrose, back before the >>>>>> Neurocomputation field had found plausible mechanisms in vector
    algebra over hyperdimensional parameter spaces.

    Undergrads and amateurs often shake up scientific dogma.

    Uncommon, but certainly not unheard of.


    Given that microtubules are very widely employed in all cells for all >>>>>> manner of purposes, blocking microtubules does not imply that quantum >>>>>> mechanics are or are not involved, as blocking anything that
    fundamental is likely to affect very many things.


    Evolution seems to use anything that works, even if scientists
    disapprove.

    True, but unhelpful. It's not enough to observe that if A is blocked, >>>> B stops working, and therefore the mechanism is X. There are many
    mechanisms simultaneously in action. One must methodically rule out
    all but a single X to claim causality.

    Joe Gwinn

    I didn't claim causality, but it is possible.

    Discoveries usually happen through accident and speculation. Slapping
    down speculation leaves only accident, which is unlikely in this case.

    Designing electronics also benefits from being friendly to new ideas.

    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to john larkin on Mon Sep 16 17:08:20 2024
    On 16/09/2024 1:48 am, john larkin wrote:
    On Sun, 15 Sep 2024 16:44:58 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
    <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

    On 9/15/24 12:53, Jan Panteltje wrote:
    On a sunny day (Sun, 15 Sep 2024 15:56:16 +1000) it happened Bill Sloman >>> <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in <vc5su1$200qt$6@dont-email.me>:

    On 15/09/2024 1:03 pm, john larkin wrote:
    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 19:39:20 -0700, john larkin <JL@gct.com> wrote:

    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 21:18:44 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
    <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

    On 9/14/24 20:08, john larkin wrote:
    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 19:36:35 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
    <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

    On 9/14/24 17:13, john larkin wrote:


    https://scitechdaily.com/groundbreaking-study-affirms-quantum-basis-for-consciousness-a-paradigm-shift-in-understanding-human-nature/

    Interesting way to define consciousness, the thing that goes away when
    an a general anesthetic is applied. That can be quantified. >>>>>>>>>>

    I paraphrase: "Since we don't know how it works, it must be quantum". >>>>>>>>
    Or, more conventionally, "It can't be quantum because QM only works at >>>>>>>> liquid helium temperatures."

    That's it then: Quantum-something is merely religion. The god of the >>>>>>>>> gaps.

    There's a lot of quantum nonsense about. This is just one example. >>>>>>>>>

    Well, explain how we can name one image out of maybe a million stored >>>>>>>> images, in a fraction of a second.


    Yes, that's the typical comeback of religious believers.

    I don't recall invoking religion here, or calling myself a believer. I >>>>>> was asking about image storage and high-speed matching. It's even more >>>>>> amazing when you consider all the optical distortions and viewing
    angles and changes in illumination and motion effects in real life; we >>>>>> don't match nice flat photos.

    How are our collections of images stored?

    When some people encounter an unwelcome idea, they call the people >>>>>> that they disagree with bible bangers, and assume they have won the >>>>>> argument.



    I don't know how it works. Let's find out. AI seems to be
    getting there, and it requires no quantum theory. Just loads
    of data and a lot of matrix math.

    You are determined to exclude the possibility that are brains use QM. >>>>>>
    Given that most all physics and chemistry is fundamentally quantum >>>>>> mechanical, why would evolution refuse to allow cells to use quantum >>>>>> effects?

    Most people don't really believe in evolution.



    Jeroen Belleman

    It would be pretty good packing, storing one bit of data per atom.

    https://interestingengineering.com/science/wobble-nucleus-of-atom-quantum-data

    or maybe more than one.

    Nice possibilities for quantum correlation, pattern matching, too.

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

    It does all the time in RNA DNA
    I was reading this stuff this morning:
    Explaning DNA organisation in chromosomes:
    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/09/240912135801.htm
    http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sstr.202400203
    there is still a lot to learn

    design something, write some code, show us.
    plenty of broken records around, not interesting.


    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to john larkin on Mon Sep 16 17:25:45 2024
    On 16/09/2024 2:02 am, john larkin wrote:
    On Sun, 15 Sep 2024 11:32:50 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
    <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

    On 9/15/24 04:39, john larkin wrote:
    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 21:18:44 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
    <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

    On 9/14/24 20:08, john larkin wrote:
    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 19:36:35 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
    <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

    On 9/14/24 17:13, john larkin wrote:

    https://scitechdaily.com/groundbreaking-study-affirms-quantum-basis-for-consciousness-a-paradigm-shift-in-understanding-human-nature/

    Interesting way to define consciousness, the thing that goes away when >>>>>>> an a general anesthetic is applied. That can be quantified.


    I paraphrase: "Since we don't know how it works, it must be quantum". >>>>>
    Or, more conventionally, "It can't be quantum because QM only works at >>>>> liquid helium temperatures."

    That's it then: Quantum-something is merely religion. The god of the >>>>>> gaps.

    There's a lot of quantum nonsense about. This is just one example. >>>>>>

    Well, explain how we can name one image out of maybe a million stored >>>>> images, in a fraction of a second.

    Yes, that's the typical comeback of religious believers.

    I don't recall invoking religion here, or calling myself a believer. I
    was asking about image storage and high-speed matching. It's even more
    amazing when you consider all the optical distortions and viewing
    angles and changes in illumination and motion effects in real life; we
    don't match nice flat photos.

    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.

    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to john larkin on Mon Sep 16 17:39:29 2024
    On 16/09/2024 4:47 am, john larkin wrote:
    On Sun, 15 Sep 2024 13:19:58 -0400, "Edward Rawde"
    <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    "john larkin" <JL@gct.com> wrote in message news:pc1eej9v5j8i25qm38l4jffodn7eb4c2f6@4ax.com...
    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 23:28:40 -0400, "Edward Rawde"
    <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    "john larkin" <JL@gct.com> wrote in message news:kaicejdhq0cudpivno5qmtes8al3tu8hje@4ax.com...
    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 17:04:32 -0400, "Edward Rawde"
    <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    "john larkin" <JL@gct.com> wrote in message news:31kbejpg6dos3fdm81oq42a4rgcenu4lk1@4ax.com...
    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 19:36:35 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
    <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

    On 9/14/24 17:13, john larkin wrote:

    <snip>

    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to Cursitor Doom on Mon Sep 16 17:19:34 2024
    On 16/09/2024 3:03 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
    On Sun, 15 Sep 2024 08:48:37 -0700, john larkin wrote:

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

    On 9/15/24 12:53, Jan Panteltje wrote:
    On a sunny day (Sun, 15 Sep 2024 15:56:16 +1000) it happened Bill
    Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in <vc5su1$200qt$6@dont-email.me>: >>>>
    On 15/09/2024 1:03 pm, john larkin wrote:
    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 19:39:20 -0700, john larkin <JL@gct.com> wrote: >>>>>>
    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 21:18:44 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
    <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

    On 9/14/24 20:08, john larkin wrote:
    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 19:36:35 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
    <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

    On 9/14/24 17:13, john larkin wrote:


    https://scitechdaily.com/groundbreaking-study-affirms-quantum-
    basis-for-consciousness-a-paradigm-shift-in-understanding-human-nature/

    Interesting way to define consciousness, the thing that goes >>>>>>>>>>> away when an a general anesthetic is applied. That can be >>>>>>>>>>> quantified.


    I paraphrase: "Since we don't know how it works, it must be >>>>>>>>>> quantum".

    Or, more conventionally, "It can't be quantum because QM only >>>>>>>>> works at liquid helium temperatures."

    That's it then: Quantum-something is merely religion. The god of >>>>>>>>>> the gaps.

    There's a lot of quantum nonsense about. This is just one
    example.


    Well, explain how we can name one image out of maybe a million >>>>>>>>> stored images, in a fraction of a second.


    Yes, that's the typical comeback of religious believers.

    I don't recall invoking religion here, or calling myself a
    believer. I was asking about image storage and high-speed matching. >>>>>>> It's even more amazing when you consider all the optical
    distortions and viewing angles and changes in illumination and
    motion effects in real life; we don't match nice flat photos.

    How are our collections of images stored?

    When some people encounter an unwelcome idea, they call the people >>>>>>> that they disagree with bible bangers, and assume they have won the >>>>>>> argument.



    I don't know how it works. Let's find out. AI seems to be getting >>>>>>>> there, and it requires no quantum theory. Just loads of data and a >>>>>>>> lot of matrix math.

    You are determined to exclude the possibility that are brains use >>>>>>> QM.

    Given that most all physics and chemistry is fundamentally quantum >>>>>>> mechanical, why would evolution refuse to allow cells to use
    quantum effects?

    Most people don't really believe in evolution.



    Jeroen Belleman

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

    or maybe more than one.

    Nice possibilities for quantum correlation, pattern matching, too.

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

    It does all the time in RNA DNA I was reading this stuff this morning: >>>> Explaning DNA organisation in chromosomes:
    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/09/240912135801.htm
    http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sstr.202400203
    there is still a lot to learn

    design something, write some code, show us.
    plenty of broken records around, not interesting.

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

    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.

    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Don Y@21:1/5 to Edward Rawde on Mon Sep 16 01:21:41 2024
    On 9/15/2024 12:00 PM, Edward Rawde wrote:
    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.)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Cursitor Doom@21:1/5 to john larkin on Mon Sep 16 13:02:29 2024
    On Sun, 15 Sep 2024 18:06:21 -0700, john larkin wrote:

    On Sun, 15 Sep 2024 23:48:32 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:

    On Sun, 15 Sep 2024 11:47:08 -0700, john larkin wrote:

    On Sun, 15 Sep 2024 13:19:58 -0400, "Edward Rawde"
    <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    "john larkin" <JL@gct.com> wrote in message >>>>news:pc1eej9v5j8i25qm38l4jffodn7eb4c2f6@4ax.com...
    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 23:28:40 -0400, "Edward Rawde"
    <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    "john larkin" <JL@gct.com> wrote in message >>>>>>news:kaicejdhq0cudpivno5qmtes8al3tu8hje@4ax.com...
    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 17:04:32 -0400, "Edward Rawde"
    <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    "john larkin" <JL@gct.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>news:31kbejpg6dos3fdm81oq42a4rgcenu4lk1@4ax.com...
    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 19:36:35 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
    <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

    On 9/14/24 17:13, john larkin wrote:

    https://scitechdaily.com/groundbreaking-study-affirms-quantum- >>basis-for-consciousness-a-paradigm-shift-in-understanding-human-nature/ >>>>>>>>>>>
    Interesting way to define consciousness, the thing that goes >>>>>>>>>>> away when an a general anesthetic is applied. That can be >>>>>>>>>>> quantified.


    I paraphrase: "Since we don't know how it works, it must be >>>>>>>>>>quantum".

    Or, more conventionally, "It can't be quantum because QM only >>>>>>>>> works at liquid helium temperatures."

    That's it then: Quantum-something is merely religion. The god of >>>>>>>>>>the gaps.

    There's a lot of quantum nonsense about. This is just one >>>>>>>>>>example.


    Well, explain how we can name one image out of maybe a million >>>>>>>>> stored images, in a fraction of a second.

    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.



    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.



    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!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From john larkin@21:1/5 to cd999666@notformail.com on Mon Sep 16 07:59:18 2024
    On Sun, 15 Sep 2024 17:03:40 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:

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

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

    On 9/15/24 12:53, Jan Panteltje wrote:
    On a sunny day (Sun, 15 Sep 2024 15:56:16 +1000) it happened Bill
    Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in <vc5su1$200qt$6@dont-email.me>: >>>>
    On 15/09/2024 1:03 pm, john larkin wrote:
    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 19:39:20 -0700, john larkin <JL@gct.com> wrote: >>>>>>
    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 21:18:44 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
    <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

    On 9/14/24 20:08, john larkin wrote:
    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 19:36:35 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
    <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

    On 9/14/24 17:13, john larkin wrote:


    https://scitechdaily.com/groundbreaking-study-affirms-quantum- >basis-for-consciousness-a-paradigm-shift-in-understanding-human-nature/ >>>>>>>>>>>
    Interesting way to define consciousness, the thing that goes >>>>>>>>>>> away when an a general anesthetic is applied. That can be >>>>>>>>>>> quantified.


    I paraphrase: "Since we don't know how it works, it must be >>>>>>>>>> quantum".

    Or, more conventionally, "It can't be quantum because QM only >>>>>>>>> works at liquid helium temperatures."

    That's it then: Quantum-something is merely religion. The god of >>>>>>>>>> the gaps.

    There's a lot of quantum nonsense about. This is just one
    example.


    Well, explain how we can name one image out of maybe a million >>>>>>>>> stored images, in a fraction of a second.


    Yes, that's the typical comeback of religious believers.

    I don't recall invoking religion here, or calling myself a
    believer. I was asking about image storage and high-speed matching. >>>>>>> It's even more amazing when you consider all the optical
    distortions and viewing angles and changes in illumination and
    motion effects in real life; we don't match nice flat photos.

    How are our collections of images stored?

    When some people encounter an unwelcome idea, they call the people >>>>>>> that they disagree with bible bangers, and assume they have won the >>>>>>> argument.



    I don't know how it works. Let's find out. AI seems to be getting >>>>>>>> there, and it requires no quantum theory. Just loads of data and a >>>>>>>> lot of matrix math.

    You are determined to exclude the possibility that are brains use >>>>>>> QM.

    Given that most all physics and chemistry is fundamentally quantum >>>>>>> mechanical, why would evolution refuse to allow cells to use
    quantum effects?

    Most people don't really believe in evolution.



    Jeroen Belleman

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

    or maybe more than one.

    Nice possibilities for quantum correlation, pattern matching, too.

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

    It does all the time in RNA DNA I was reading this stuff this morning: >>>> Explaning DNA organisation in chromosomes:
    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/09/240912135801.htm
    http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sstr.202400203
    there is still a lot to learn

    design something, write some code, show us.
    plenty of broken records around, not interesting.

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

    That's why he's here.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From john larkin@21:1/5 to blockedofcourse@foo.invalid on Mon Sep 16 08:14:49 2024
    On Mon, 16 Sep 2024 01:21:41 -0700, Don Y
    <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:

    On 9/15/2024 12:00 PM, Edward Rawde wrote:
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to john larkin on Tue Sep 17 02:14:19 2024
    On 17/09/2024 12:59 am, john larkin wrote:
    On Sun, 15 Sep 2024 17:03:40 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:

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

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

    On 9/15/24 12:53, Jan Panteltje wrote:
    On a sunny day (Sun, 15 Sep 2024 15:56:16 +1000) it happened Bill
    Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in <vc5su1$200qt$6@dont-email.me>: >>>>>
    On 15/09/2024 1:03 pm, john larkin wrote:
    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 19:39:20 -0700, john larkin <JL@gct.com> wrote: >>>>>>>
    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 21:18:44 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
    <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

    On 9/14/24 20:08, john larkin wrote:
    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 19:36:35 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
    <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

    On 9/14/24 17:13, john larkin wrote:


    https://scitechdaily.com/groundbreaking-study-affirms-quantum-
    basis-for-consciousness-a-paradigm-shift-in-understanding-human-nature/ >>>>>>>>>>>>
    Interesting way to define consciousness, the thing that goes >>>>>>>>>>>> away when an a general anesthetic is applied. That can be >>>>>>>>>>>> quantified.


    I paraphrase: "Since we don't know how it works, it must be >>>>>>>>>>> quantum".

    Or, more conventionally, "It can't be quantum because QM only >>>>>>>>>> works at liquid helium temperatures."

    That's it then: Quantum-something is merely religion. The god of >>>>>>>>>>> the gaps.

    There's a lot of quantum nonsense about. This is just one >>>>>>>>>>> example.


    Well, explain how we can name one image out of maybe a million >>>>>>>>>> stored images, in a fraction of a second.


    Yes, that's the typical comeback of religious believers.

    I don't recall invoking religion here, or calling myself a
    believer. I was asking about image storage and high-speed matching. >>>>>>>> It's even more amazing when you consider all the optical
    distortions and viewing angles and changes in illumination and >>>>>>>> motion effects in real life; we don't match nice flat photos.

    How are our collections of images stored?

    When some people encounter an unwelcome idea, they call the people >>>>>>>> that they disagree with bible bangers, and assume they have won the >>>>>>>> argument.



    I don't know how it works. Let's find out. AI seems to be getting >>>>>>>>> there, and it requires no quantum theory. Just loads of data and a >>>>>>>>> lot of matrix math.

    You are determined to exclude the possibility that are brains use >>>>>>>> QM.

    Given that most all physics and chemistry is fundamentally quantum >>>>>>>> mechanical, why would evolution refuse to allow cells to use
    quantum effects?

    Most people don't really believe in evolution.



    Jeroen Belleman

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

    or maybe more than one.

    Nice possibilities for quantum correlation, pattern matching, too. >>>>>>
    If evolution is that clever, why doesn't it exploit error-detecton >>>>>> and -correction coding?
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    It does all the time in RNA DNA I was reading this stuff this morning: >>>>> Explaning DNA organisation in chromosomes:
    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/09/240912135801.htm
    http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sstr.202400203
    there is still a lot to learn

    design something, write some code, show us.
    plenty of broken records around, not interesting.

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

    That's why he's here.

    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to john larkin on Tue Sep 17 02:06:35 2024
    On 17/09/2024 1:14 am, john larkin wrote:
    On Mon, 16 Sep 2024 01:21:41 -0700, Don Y
    <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:

    On 9/15/2024 12:00 PM, Edward Rawde wrote:

    <snip>

    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.

    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.
    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jan Panteltje@21:1/5 to JL@gct.com on Tue Sep 17 04:57:32 2024
    On a sunny day (Mon, 16 Sep 2024 08:14:49 -0700) it happened john larkin <JL@gct.com> wrote in <16igejdcnbt2c79g1357ushokss8pt2ugj@4ax.com>:

    On Mon, 16 Sep 2024 01:21:41 -0700, Don Y
    <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:

    On 9/15/2024 12:00 PM, Edward Rawde wrote:
    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.

    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..

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From john larkin@21:1/5 to All on Tue Sep 17 07:25:06 2024
    On Tue, 17 Sep 2024 04:57:32 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid>
    wrote:

    On a sunny day (Mon, 16 Sep 2024 08:14:49 -0700) it happened john larkin ><JL@gct.com> wrote in <16igejdcnbt2c79g1357ushokss8pt2ugj@4ax.com>:

    On Mon, 16 Sep 2024 01:21:41 -0700, Don Y
    <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:

    On 9/15/2024 12:00 PM, Edward Rawde wrote:
    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.

    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Cursitor Doom@21:1/5 to john larkin on Wed Sep 18 17:07:02 2024
    On Mon, 16 Sep 2024 07:59:18 -0700, john larkin wrote:

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

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

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

    On 9/15/24 12:53, Jan Panteltje wrote:
    On a sunny day (Sun, 15 Sep 2024 15:56:16 +1000) it happened Bill
    Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
    <vc5su1$200qt$6@dont-email.me>:

    On 15/09/2024 1:03 pm, john larkin wrote:
    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 19:39:20 -0700, john larkin <JL@gct.com>
    wrote:

    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 21:18:44 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
    <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

    On 9/14/24 20:08, john larkin wrote:
    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 19:36:35 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
    <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

    On 9/14/24 17:13, john larkin wrote:


    https://scitechdaily.com/groundbreaking-study-affirms-
    quantum- >>basis-for-consciousness-a-paradigm-shift-in-understanding-human-nature/ >>>>>>>>>>>>
    Interesting way to define consciousness, the thing that goes >>>>>>>>>>>> away when an a general anesthetic is applied. That can be >>>>>>>>>>>> quantified.


    I paraphrase: "Since we don't know how it works, it must be >>>>>>>>>>> quantum".

    Or, more conventionally, "It can't be quantum because QM only >>>>>>>>>> works at liquid helium temperatures."

    That's it then: Quantum-something is merely religion. The god >>>>>>>>>>> of the gaps.

    There's a lot of quantum nonsense about. This is just one >>>>>>>>>>> example.


    Well, explain how we can name one image out of maybe a million >>>>>>>>>> stored images, in a fraction of a second.


    Yes, that's the typical comeback of religious believers.

    I don't recall invoking religion here, or calling myself a
    believer. I was asking about image storage and high-speed
    matching.
    It's even more amazing when you consider all the optical
    distortions and viewing angles and changes in illumination and >>>>>>>> motion effects in real life; we don't match nice flat photos.

    How are our collections of images stored?

    When some people encounter an unwelcome idea, they call the
    people that they disagree with bible bangers, and assume they
    have won the argument.



    I don't know how it works. Let's find out. AI seems to be
    getting there, and it requires no quantum theory. Just loads of >>>>>>>>> data and a lot of matrix math.

    You are determined to exclude the possibility that are brains use >>>>>>>> QM.

    Given that most all physics and chemistry is fundamentally
    quantum mechanical, why would evolution refuse to allow cells to >>>>>>>> use quantum effects?

    Most people don't really believe in evolution.



    Jeroen Belleman

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

    or maybe more than one.

    Nice possibilities for quantum correlation, pattern matching, too. >>>>>>
    If evolution is that clever, why doesn't it exploit error-detecton >>>>>> and -correction coding?
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    It does all the time in RNA DNA I was reading this stuff this
    morning:
    Explaning DNA organisation in chromosomes:
    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/09/240912135801.htm
    http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sstr.202400203
    there is still a lot to learn

    design something, write some code, show us.
    plenty of broken records around, not interesting.

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

    That's why he's here.

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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to Cursitor Doom on Thu Sep 19 14:16:55 2024
    On 19/09/2024 3:07 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
    On Mon, 16 Sep 2024 07:59:18 -0700, john larkin wrote:

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

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

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

    On 9/15/24 12:53, Jan Panteltje wrote:
    On a sunny day (Sun, 15 Sep 2024 15:56:16 +1000) it happened Bill
    Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
    <vc5su1$200qt$6@dont-email.me>:

    On 15/09/2024 1:03 pm, john larkin wrote:
    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 19:39:20 -0700, john larkin <JL@gct.com>
    wrote:

    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 21:18:44 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
    <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

    On 9/14/24 20:08, john larkin wrote:
    On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 19:36:35 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
    <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

    On 9/14/24 17:13, john larkin wrote:

    <snip>

    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.

    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)