Penrose for the win!
Ugh, nothing has been confirmed; some interesting modeling and theoretical conjecturing was performed. The rest is grandiosity on the part of the article.
(Also, why was the link to a comment near the bottom of the article, rather than to where it began?)
Probably because OP is an idiot.
Very fair point and I have a biased interest in confirming this outcome given my research in quantum computing but it irks me endlessly that science has devolved to something like marketing and confirmation bias.
Just to be clear: the science is fine; I skimmed through the publications and they did not come across as being obviously problematic. It is the reporting that was grandiose.
Again, fair point. These “journalists” know very little about what they’re reporting on.
Your link is to a comment at the bottom of the page. Is that significant, or accidental?
Why does this link go to a comment?
Oh, I see. Because the comment is by the poster.
I’m skeptical
You should be. Is there a particular reason why?
I’m not a neuroscientist so there’s a lot about human biology and cognition I still don’t understand (and apparently neither do some neuroscientists), but still have great confidence in my own related research without ever having dissected a human brain.
Quantum coherence does not generally extend beyond the scale of an atom or a molecule, which is why building a quantum computer is so hard. It is not impossible that biological systems have evolved a mechanism for quantum coherence on the scale claimed at the relatively high temperatures at which living systems operate, but there is a high burden of proof to demonstrating that the barriers to achieving this have indeed been breached.
There is no such thing as “Quantum Activity”.
I agree that the article exhibits unmerited grandiosity, but, having said that, “quantum activity” is a real thing insofar as it is a shorthand for quantum coherence extending to a (relatively) macroscopic scale. However, it is really difficult for quantum coherence to exist at such a scale, especially at room temperature, so there is a high burden of evidence that I do not see as having been met to be considered “confirmed”.
Additionally, although there are efficiencies that life may be able to take advantage of if it can exploit quantum effects, I am not convinced at all that these efficiencies need to be used for life or consciousness to be able to exist. This actually goes along with your underlying point, which is that it is not clear that we need fancy mechanisms as a sort of magic touch to explain all of these things.
I agree that the article exhibits unmerited grandiosity,
The article does not use the term.
“quantum activity” is a real thing insofar as it is a shorthand for quantum coherence extending to a (relatively) macroscopic scale
I’ll need a source for that.
This actually goes along with your underlying point, which is that it is not clear that we need fancy mechanisms as a sort of magic touch to explain all of these things.
If you look closely enough, everything is “quantum”. Something being “quantum” is simply a matter of not being able to get away with using a simplification. I don’t really see why that would matter. That this question has nothing to do with consciousness is obvious.
The article does not use the term.
I’ll be honest and say that I did not read the article that closely because it was kind of dumb.
I’ll need a source for that.
Quantum coherence is a real thing; “quantum activity” is not, except insofar as it is a very sloppy sort of shorthand for referring to quantum coherence existing at a macroscopic scale. (Put another way: my explanation of what was meant by this term was being incredibly charitable by presuming this was a good term to be using at all.)
If you look closely enough, everything is “quantum”. Something being “quantum” is simply a matter of not being able to get away with using a simplification. I don’t really see why that would matter.
Because macroscopic systems where you cannot get away with making this simplification exhibit really cool behaviors that can be exploited; superconductors are one such example, and quantum computers are (potentially) another.
That this question has nothing to do with consciousness is obvious.
I agree completely that it is not likely to be either necessary or sufficient for the brain to be a quantum computer to explain consciousness.
