|
(November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
This talk feels wrong on too many levels.
He compares two boxes, a 'quantum' box that we don't understand and a 'classical' box that we don't understand either. He then proceeds to argue that the effect of certain drugs fit the quantum box better than the classical box. But how can you argue this without a physical or at least computational description of the box? Now it just depends on how much magic you assign to each box.
I agree the discussion needs to get back to a small set of neurons.
(November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
oh, and ill quote myself as some google fanboys downvoted my statement of pwnage:
Scientists have most recently proven that thoughts and decision are formed up to 10 seconds before the person even becomes aware of them. Quantum states are not stable for 10 seconds.
(November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
brain: operates on a strategic scale, millions of neurons generate thoughts thoughout large parts of the brain. quantum mechanical source of thought here ? nah, bullshit
(November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
atoms arent functional units of the brain
(November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
surely you must realize that the qubits on the d-wave aqc are themselves much larger than microtubuli, and can yet perform quantum calculations. And it seems obvious that the microtubules are not the smallest functional unit in the brain, since the'yre by no means atomic. The classical neurodynamics paradigm is not complete or correct.
(November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
geordie rose who is the founder of the company, give a talk in immortality institute, clearly stated the quantum effect is helpful but not essential in the brain function, because the brain is so warm and wet for quantum computing to carry out, there is no laser, no superconductor and no NMR in there, those things are fairly impossible to be naturally evolved
but do not they think quantum computer maybe even a more superiors form of intelligence than the brain spike
(November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
quantum mechanic is flawed to build such a device, one of my friend told me
(November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Understanding quantum mechanics isn't the issue. It's understanding why taking a measurement collapses probabilities into observables that is the pressing problem. (There are other interpretations of QM, but that's the common Copenhagen interpretation and it is exactly why quantum computers will be so affective.)
(November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Anyone who is not shocked by quantum theory has not understood it
-Niels Bohr
(November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
If these theories were bad enough, only then would they be excluded from Google videos. |