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.
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.
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.
The article does not use the term.
I’ll need a source for that.
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.
I’ll be honest and say that I did not read the article that closely because it was kind of dumb.
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.)
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.
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.