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.
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.
On a sunny day (Sat, 14 Sep 2024 08:13:10 -0700) it happened john larkin ><JL@gct.com> wrote in <0s9bej1bhklummnn5iduadn94uvvne5k26@4ax.com>:
ure/https://scitechdaily.com/groundbreaking-study-affirms-quantum-basis-for-consciousness-a-paradigm-shift-in-understanding-human-nat
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
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.
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
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
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.
Evolution seems to use anything that works, even if scientists
disapprove.
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
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.
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.
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-natYes, my experience too.
ure/
Interesting way to define consciousness, the thing that goes away when
an a general anesthetic is applied. That can be quantified.
In a way past present and future is known.
All is connected
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
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.
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...
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.
"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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
Evolution seems to use anything that works, even if scientists
disapprove.
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.
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
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.
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-natYes, my experience too.
ure/
Interesting way to define consciousness, the thing that goes away when
an a general anesthetic is applied. That can be quantified.
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.
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:Or, more conventionally, "It can't be quantum because QM only works at >>>> liquid helium temperatures."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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:Or, more conventionally, "It can't be quantum because QM only works at >>>>> liquid helium temperatures."
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. >>>>>>
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
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.
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?
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:Or, more conventionally, "It can't be quantum because QM only works at >>>>>> liquid helium temperatures."
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. >>>>>>>
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.
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:Or, more conventionally, "It can't be quantum because QM only works at >>>>>> liquid helium temperatures."
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. >>>>>>>
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.
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.
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?
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 differentTo be clear, you design experiments that *challenge* your theory,
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. >>>
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.
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:Or, more conventionally, "It can't be quantum because QM only works at >>>>>>> liquid helium temperatures."
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. >>>>>>>>
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
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.
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:Or, more conventionally, "It can't be quantum because QM only works at >>>> liquid helium temperatures."
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.
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
"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?
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 BellemanYes, that's the typical comeback of religious believers.
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 9/14/24 17:13, john larkin wrote:
I paraphrase: "Since we don't know how it works, it must be
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.
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.Well, explain how we can name one image out of maybe a million >>>>>>>> stored images, in a fraction of a second.
There's a lot of quantum nonsense about. This is just one
example.
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.
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:Or, more conventionally, "It can't be quantum because QM only works at >>>>> liquid helium temperatures."
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.
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.
"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:Or, more conventionally, "It can't be quantum because QM only works at >>>>>> liquid helium temperatures."
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. >>>>>>>
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.
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:Or, more conventionally, "It can't be quantum because QM only works at >>>>>>> liquid helium temperatures."
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. >>>>>>>>
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.
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: >>>>>>>>>
I wouldn't get too fired up. The researchers are undergrads, and >>>>>>>>> the
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. >>>>>>>>>
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.
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.
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.
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...I check up now and then on FLUX.AI, just for fun.
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:
I paraphrase: "Since we don't know how it works, it must be >>>>>>>>quantum".
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.
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.Well, explain how we can name one image out of maybe a million
There's a lot of quantum nonsense about. This is just one example. >>>>>>>>
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.
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} ?Of course, the machines and the code that do google's image matching >>>>> were designed by people.
Face and voice recognition are similarly amazing.
But it is becoming much easier to do them without a human brain as >>>>>>time goes by.
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'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.
I recently installed an addon to Firfefox that kills the Goggle sign-in atrocity. My life is much improved.
A while back they were looking to hire a bunch of full-stack software
types and one hardware intern.
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
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...I check up now and then on FLUX.AI, just for fun.
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:
I paraphrase: "Since we don't know how it works, it must be >>>>>>>>>quantum".
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.
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.Well, explain how we can name one image out of maybe a million >>>>>>>> stored images, in a fraction of a second.
There's a lot of quantum nonsense about. This is just one example. >>>>>>>>>
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.
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} ?Of course, the machines and the code that do google's image matching >>>>>> were designed by people.
Face and voice recognition are similarly amazing.
But it is becoming much easier to do them without a human brain as >>>>>>>time goes by.
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'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.
I recently installed an addon to Firfefox that kills the Goggle sign-in
A while back they were looking to hire a bunch of full-stack software
types and one hardware intern.
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?
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:Or, more conventionally, "It can't be quantum because QM only works at >>>>>>>> liquid helium temperatures."
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. >>>>>>>>>
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.
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:Or, more conventionally, "It can't be quantum because QM only works at >>>>> liquid helium temperatures."
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. >>>>>>
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.
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:
One Flux concept is collaborative design, multiple people having
simultaneous access to a schematic or PCB or code. That's insane.
On Sun, 15 Sep 2024 08:48:37 -0700, john larkin wrote:
On Sun, 15 Sep 2024 16:44:58 +0200, Jeroen Bellemanbasis-for-consciousness-a-paradigm-shift-in-understanding-human-nature/
<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-
quantum-dataYes, that's the typical comeback of religious believers.I paraphrase: "Since we don't know how it works, it must be >>>>>>>>>> quantum".
Interesting way to define consciousness, the thing that goes >>>>>>>>>>> away when an a general anesthetic is applied. That can be >>>>>>>>>>> quantified.
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.Well, explain how we can name one image out of maybe a million >>>>>>>>> stored images, in a fraction of a second.
There's a lot of quantum nonsense about. This is just one
example.
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-
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.
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.
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.
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...I check up now and then on FLUX.AI, just for fun.
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:
I paraphrase: "Since we don't know how it works, it must be >>>>>>>>>>quantum".
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.
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.Well, explain how we can name one image out of maybe a million >>>>>>>>> stored images, in a fraction of a second.
There's a lot of quantum nonsense about. This is just one >>>>>>>>>>example.
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.
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} ?Of course, the machines and the code that do google's imageFace and voice recognition are similarly amazing.
But it is becoming much easier to do them without a human brain as >>>>>>>>time goes by.
matching were designed by people.
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'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.
I recently installed an addon to Firfefox that kills the GoggleA while back they were looking to hire a bunch of full-stack
software types and one hardware intern.
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.
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 BellemanYes, that's the typical comeback of religious believers.
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 9/14/24 17:13, john larkin wrote:
I paraphrase: "Since we don't know how it works, it must be >>>>>>>>>> quantum".
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.
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.Well, explain how we can name one image out of maybe a million >>>>>>>>> stored images, in a fraction of a second.
There's a lot of quantum nonsense about. This is just one
example.
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.
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.)
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 Bellemanbasis-for-consciousness-a-paradigm-shift-in-understanding-human-nature/ >>>>>>>>>>>>
<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-
quantum-dataYes, that's the typical comeback of religious believers.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.Well, explain how we can name one image out of maybe a million >>>>>>>>>> stored images, in a fraction of a second.
There's a lot of quantum nonsense about. This is just one >>>>>>>>>>> example.
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-
If evolution is that clever, why doesn't it exploit error-detecton >>>>>> and -correction coding?
or maybe more than one.
Nice possibilities for quantum correlation, pattern matching, too. >>>>>>
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.
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:
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.
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.
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..
On Sun, 15 Sep 2024 17:03:40 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom <cd999666@notformail.com> wrote:quantum- >>basis-for-consciousness-a-paradigm-shift-in-understanding-human-nature/ >>>>>>>>>>>>
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-
If evolution is that clever, why doesn't it exploit error-detecton >>>>>> and -correction coding?Yes, that's the typical comeback of religious believers.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.Well, explain how we can name one image out of maybe a million >>>>>>>>>> stored images, in a fraction of a second.
There's a lot of quantum nonsense about. This is just one >>>>>>>>>>> example.
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. >>>>>>
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.
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:
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!
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 415 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 109:28:06 |
Calls: | 8,692 |
Calls today: | 1 |
Files: | 13,259 |
Messages: | 5,948,494 |