APOD and General Astronomy Discussion Forum
https://asterisk.apod.com/
But of course you do.Chris Peterson wrote: Yeah. Penrose is one of those insane geniuses who doesn't know enough to shut up about that which he has no understanding of.
I do not authoritatively comment on subjects I'm not very familiar with. Ever.the master wrote:But of course you do. :roll:Chris Peterson wrote: Yeah. Penrose is one of those insane geniuses who doesn't know enough to shut up about that which he has no understanding of.
Really? you seem to imply you have a familiarity with the phenomenon of consciousness to come off with the statement that PenroseChris Peterson wrote: I do not authoritatively comment on subjects I'm not very familiar with. Ever.
Chris Peterson wrote: doesn't know enough to shut up about that which he has no understanding of
I have spent years studying cognitive science, and am very familiar with the current state of research on cognitive processes, decision making, and reflective consciousness. More than familiar enough to recognize that Penrose's idea made no sense when made, and can be dismissed in light of our understanding of the subject today.the master wrote:Really? you seem to imply you have a familiarity with the phenomenon of consciousness to come off with the statement that PenroseChris Peterson wrote: I do not authoritatively comment on subjects I'm not very familiar with. Ever.
Chris Peterson wrote: doesn't know enough to shut up about that which he has no understanding of
I heard Penrose give a talk at Goddard & I've read some of Penrose's popular publications:Chris Peterson wrote:
I have spent years studying cognitive science, and am very familiar with the current state of research on cognitive processes, decision making, and reflective consciousness. More than familiar enough to recognize that Penrose's idea made no sense when made, and can be dismissed in light of our understanding of the subject today.
I am also well trained in quantum mechanics, which helps me recognize when it is being used in an entirely nonsensical way.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind wrote:
<<The quantum mind or quantum consciousness group of hypotheses propose that classical mechanics cannot explain consciousness. It posits that quantum mechanical phenomena, such as quantum entanglement and superposition, may play an important part in the brain's function and could form the basis of an explanation of consciousness. Eugene Wigner developed the idea that quantum mechanics has something to do with the workings of the mind. He proposed that the wave function collapses due to its interaction with consciousness. Freeman Dyson argued that "mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent inherent in every electron.">>
I am. Because I'm familiar with the subject, and with the work of leaders in the field, who do not consider such ideas anything other than silly.neufer wrote:I know of no one who is smart enough to be able to dismiss such ideas out of hand :!:
No you're notChris Peterson wrote:I am.neufer wrote:
I know of no one who is smart enough to be able to dismiss such ideas out of hand
Believe what you want. I don't know of any cognitive scientists who take Penrose's nutty ideas seriously. He is not competent to have them. Being an expert in one area doesn't automatically make everything you say worth considering. There's a name for that fallacy.neufer wrote:No you're not :!:Chris Peterson wrote:I am.neufer wrote: I know of no one who is smart enough to be able to dismiss such ideas out of hand :!:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orchestrated_objective_reduction wrote: <<Stuart Hameroff proposed that microtubules were suitable candidates for quantum processing. Microtubules are made up of tubulin protein subunits. The tubulin protein dimers of the microtubules have hydrophobic pockets that may contain delocalized π electrons. Tubulin has other, smaller non-polar regions, for example 8 tryptophans per tubulin, which contain π electron-rich indole rings distributed throughout tubulin with separations of roughly 2 nm. Hameroff claims that this is close enough for the tubulin π electrons to become quantum entangled.
Hameroff suggested the tubulin-subunit electrons would form a Frohlich condensate, a hypothetical coherent oscillation of dipolar molecules. However, this too was rejected by Reimers' group. Hameroff then responded to Reimers. "Reimers et al have most definitely NOT shown that strong or coherent Frohlich condensation in microtubules is unfeasible. The model microtubule on which they base their Hamiltonian is not a microtubule structure, but a simple linear chain of oscillators." Hameroff reasoned that such condensate behavior would magnify nanoscopic quantum effects to have large scale influences in the brain.
Hameroff proposed that condensates in microtubules in one neuron can link with microtubule condensates in other neurons and glial cells via the gap junctions of electrical synapses. Hameroff proposed that the gap between the cells is sufficiently small that quantum objects can tunnel across it, allowing them to extend across a large area of the brain. He further postulated that the action of this large-scale quantum activity is the source of 40 Hz gamma waves, building upon the much less controversial theory that gap junctions are related to the gamma oscillation.>>
You're just falling deeper into the pseudoscience morass.neufer wrote:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orchestrated_objective_reduction wrote: <<Stuart Hameroff proposed that microtubules were suitable candidates for quantum processing. Microtubules are made up of tubulin protein subunits. The tubulin protein dimers of the microtubules have hydrophobic pockets that may contain delocalized π electrons. Tubulin has other, smaller non-polar regions, for example 8 tryptophans per tubulin, which contain π electron-rich indole rings distributed throughout tubulin with separations of roughly 2 nm. Hameroff claims that this is close enough for the tubulin π electrons to become quantum entangled.
Hameroff suggested the tubulin-subunit electrons would form a Frohlich condensate, a hypothetical coherent oscillation of dipolar molecules. However, this too was rejected by Reimers' group. Hameroff then responded to Reimers. "Reimers et al have most definitely NOT shown that strong or coherent Frohlich condensation in microtubules is unfeasible. The model microtubule on which they base their Hamiltonian is not a microtubule structure, but a simple linear chain of oscillators." Hameroff reasoned that such condensate behavior would magnify nanoscopic quantum effects to have large scale influences in the brain.
Hameroff proposed that condensates in microtubules in one neuron can link with microtubule condensates in other neurons and glial cells via the gap junctions of electrical synapses. Hameroff proposed that the gap between the cells is sufficiently small that quantum objects can tunnel across it, allowing them to extend across a large area of the brain. He further postulated that the action of this large-scale quantum activity is the source of 40 Hz gamma waves, building upon the much less controversial theory that gap junctions are related to the gamma oscillation.>>
Believe what you want. There are no theories of consciousness...just hypotheses.Chris Peterson wrote:
You're just falling deeper into the pseudoscience morass.
All well accepted modern theories of consciousness are independent of the biological details of the brain.
You're quite mistaken about that. I don't think you're keeping up with the work. (I think there's a good chance that we're less than a decade from self-aware machines.)neufer wrote:Believe what you want. There are no theories of consciousness...just hypotheses.Chris Peterson wrote:
You're just falling deeper into the pseudoscience morass.
All well accepted modern theories of consciousness are independent of the biological details of the brain.
Penrose is smart. I don't know if he's smarter than me or not. I know he's not orders of magnitude smarter than either of us.(And Penrose is one or two orders of magnitude smarter than either of us.)
I think there's a good chance that you, yourself, are FAR from being self-aware.Chris Peterson wrote:You're quite mistaken about that. I don't think you're keeping up with the work.neufer wrote:Believe what you want. There are no theories of consciousness...just hypotheses.Chris Peterson wrote:
You're just falling deeper into the pseudoscience morass.
All well accepted modern theories of consciousness are independent of the biological details of the brain.
(I think there's a good chance that we're less than a decade from self-aware machines.)
Penrose is smart. I don't know if he's smarter than me or not. I know he's not orders of magnitude smarter than either of us.neufer wrote:
(And Penrose is one or two orders of magnitude smarter than either of us.)
From The Queen via Alice, but actually the words of the good Mr. Dodgson... "When I was younger, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast." I can only manage two.Fred the Cat wrote:I’m certainly no expert but I do find the topic fascinating. The sentence “Might it be that, just as quantum objects can apparently be in two places at once, so a quantum brain can hold onto two mutually-exclusive ideas at the same time?” evokes thoughts that our brain has a conscious-subconscious relationship. ...
