Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Possible Superconductivity In the Brain? (springer.com)

Posted by EditorDavid on from the keeping-quantum-computing-in-mind dept.

"The unprecedented power of the brain suggests that it may process information quantum-mechanically," according to a new research paper. Long-time Slashdot reader time961 writes: Pavlo Mikheenko, a superconductivity researcher at the University of Oslo, has published a paper in the Journal of Superconductivity and Novel Magnetism (abstract only; arxiv pre-print here) suggesting that microtubule structures in pig neurons exhibit evidence of superconductivity that could represent a mechanism for quantum computing performed by the brain to achieve the brain's phenomenal information processing power. The observed effects (at room temperature and standard atmospheric pressure) are claimed to indicate a critical temperature of 2022 +/- 157 K, far higher than the 135 K achieved in other materials under similar conditions.

Interesting, if true.

93 of 158 comments (clear)

  1. Porcine aviation by TeknoHog · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'll believe this when these superconducting pigs levitate above magnets.

    --
    Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
    1. Re:Porcine aviation by hAckz0r · · Score: 1

      I'll believe this when these superconducting pigs levitate above magnets.

      Oh, but they already do! Unfortunately, with pigs being so intelligent, they seem to have a real phobia about being that close to liquid nitrogen. We have tried professional counselors, but we just can't seem to get them into the tube with that stuff. Who would have thought?

      Examples of diamagnetic levitation:
      https://www.ru.nl/hfml/researc...

  2. Human brain maybe a quantum computer! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    IMHO, human brain quite possibly is a quantum computer (where neurons work as qubit/qutrit registers)!

    For example, consider how we can switch from thought to thought, moment to moment, where each thought is instantly selected among (surely) astronomical number of different possibilities!
    (Instantly making a choice (solution) from a huge number of possibilities is the main power of quantum computers!)

    1. Re:Human brain maybe a quantum computer! by Mr.+Dollar+Ton · · Score: 1, Informative

      Neurons are orders of magnitude larger than the scale on which QM matters, buddy.

    2. Re:Human brain maybe a quantum computer! by Visarga · · Score: 1

      > For example, consider how we can switch from thought to thought, moment to moment, where each thought is instantly selected among (surely) astronomical number of different possibilities!

      You should read up on neural nets. Especially embeddings of words and images, and attention mechanisms. You'd be amazed that analog circuits can handle n-dimensional spaces (usually 300-1000 dimensions) for meaning representation and they can combine, select and transform those representations with ease. Another related field is probability distributions and using sampling to generate possibilities - effectively to imagine things. Current GANs (a kind of neural net) can imagine faces with photographical accuracy.

      We don't need quantum effects to explain intelligence, the magic is in the architecture of the brain.

    3. Re:Human brain maybe a quantum computer! by NicknameUnavailable · · Score: 2

      Quantum effects take place in every single cell of the body and have a curious additional effect of entanglement between particles growing in range with increasing particle count and interactions in a highly ordered system like within a cell. Hell, it was only a decade and a half ago we realized chloroplasts utilized quantum entanglement to harvest light so efficiently, the structure of heme is virtually identical and is able to act as a trigger to eject Oxygen from Iron (a pretty strong bond, otherwise.) To think nerve cells, arguably the most electrically charged portions of an organism, aren't utilizing quantum effects in their computations is the real absurdity here. There's not one single effect we've encountered in studies of physics which doesn't already exist in nature, it just took us figuring out there was an effect to know what to look for.

    4. Re:Human brain maybe a quantum computer! by Mr.+Dollar+Ton · · Score: 1

      Show us your math, or GTFO.

    5. Re:Human brain maybe a quantum computer! by NicknameUnavailable · · Score: 1

      Spoken like someone who's never read a paper on the subject in their life.

    6. Re: Human brain maybe a quantum computer! by savoirsarthe · · Score: 1

      A piece of card with two slits in it is somewhat over the Planck length too. What exactly is your point?

  3. Wrong. It is not QM, it is QFT. by Mr.+Dollar+Ton · · Score: 3, Funny

    And I suggest that the brain has unprecedented power, because it connects to superpowers present in the Dark sector via the mechanism of kinetic mixing.

    It is not science anymore, but a popularity and buzzword contest.

  4. This is Pseudoscience BS by Stormy+Dragon · · Score: 3, Informative

    This Quantum Mind crap has been around since the 90s. It's just mysticism wrapped up in new jargon to sound all sciency to people who don't know what they're talking about.

    1. Re:This is Pseudoscience BS by ceoyoyo · · Score: 2

      The idea was proposed by Sir Roger Penrose. He got the sir part for being a scientist. It was a serious idea. Substructures within neurons could plausibly (especially in 1989) exhibit some quantum mechanical properties. The idea didn't work out.

      The better part of a decade later the woo factory decided quantum was synonymous with magic.

    2. Re:This is Pseudoscience BS by Stormy+Dragon · · Score: 2

      Roger Penrose also hasn't published any significant research since the 90s because he turned into a crank and has been spending his time appearing at "conciousness studies" conferences.

    3. Re:This is Pseudoscience BS by Stormy+Dragon · · Score: 4, Interesting

      And believe me, it's sad to see one of our great minds turn into a nut.

      I minored in physics at Penn State in the late 90s when he was at the Penn State Institute for Gravitation and the Cosmos at Penn State, so I actually attended some of the original lectures he gave on QM. It was just as nutty back then. He basically dreamed up an entirely new particle that didn't exist in the standard model and which had never been detected and then postulated it interacted with microtubules in some unknown way to cause some unknown effect and *MAGIC* consciousness happens.

      Even though it was known at the time that's not what microtubules do and that there's no way a neuron could maintain quantum decoherence long enough for it to have any effect on its synaptic function.

      It is and always was a bunch of wishful thinking because Penrose personally couldn't deal with the idea free-will may be an illusion.

    4. Re:This is Pseudoscience BS by gweihir · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Well, since all attempts to model a human mind conventionally have failed and since quantum stuff is pretty much the only additional mechanism Physics currently offers, it does have a point. I do agree that it is mysticism. But unless Physics finds something else that could explain the mind (seems rather unlikely at this stage), mysticism is pretty much the only possible explanation. Yes, I find this unsatisfactory too. But this does not blind me to the known facts.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    5. Re:This is Pseudoscience BS by gweihir · · Score: 1

      ...the idea free-will may be an illusion.

      If free will is an illusion, then it cannot be an idea. The whole thing is pseudo-profound bullshit.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    6. Re:This is Pseudoscience BS by qubezz · · Score: 1

      We seem to equate our understanding of the brain to the machines that are commonplace in the time. No, it's not like a steam engine or water mill any more than it is like a computer or superconductor.

    7. Re:This is Pseudoscience BS by Immerman · · Score: 2

      Have their been any realistic attempts to model a brain? Last I heard, the most sophisticated neural structure modeled was something like part of a rat's motor cortex, and the results were very promising

      Lets be clear that neural networks are not even remotely close to modeling a brain - even if you created one from a full connectome mapping of a human brain (which last I heard we weren't anywhere close to creating) you'd be modeling a network of dozens (hundreds?) of wildly different types of massively complex, asychronous neurons as a network incredibly simple synchronous identical fuzzy logic gates. If you got anything remotely resembling a human mind out of such a gross oversimplification it would be a miracle.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    8. Re:This is Pseudoscience BS by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      Critical temperature of 2000K is, uh, kind of a giveaway. Around the melting point of nickel.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    9. Re:This is Pseudoscience BS by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      Well, since all attempts to model a human mind conventionally have failed and since quantum stuff is pretty much the only additional mechanism Physics currently offers, it does have a point.

      All attempts to cure the common cold have so far, failed. Should we also wave the quantum mechanical wand for that?

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    10. Re:This is Pseudoscience BS by Tough+Love · · Score: 5, Informative

      Have their been any realistic attempts to model a brain?

      Still not quite able to model C elegans. Rather a long way from modelling an ant, let alone human consciousness.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    11. Re:This is Pseudoscience BS by ArchieBunker · · Score: 1

      Bono and the remaining members of the Bee Gees are also Sir. That isn't saying much.

      --
      Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
    12. Re:This is Pseudoscience BS by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      Argument by analogy, as useless as most argument by analogy. And you worked a false premise in there too: nobody I know understands the brain as a kind of computer. But we have analyzed the anatomy of the brain sufficiently to be sure that it is, ahem, a kind of neural network. How does that work for your steam engine analogy?

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    13. Re:This is Pseudoscience BS by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      Since most neural networks are purely Turing machines, it doesn't work as well as you might think. There are many useful models from computational analysis, but the phsyical 3D network of neurons with analog signals triggering timing based changes with no clock frequency and a rather non-binary set of signals due to accumulation of multiple signals, it's not modeled as well as one might hope with a computable binary system.

      There are many parallels, especially as neural nets have grown more and more complex and displayed some very interesting emergent behavior. But the model has quite a few limits.

    14. Re:This is Pseudoscience BS by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      No, they have not been able to model the human mind because it's too big, the most they've done with neural network processing is very tiny stuff. And the neurons in the brain are analog devices, not digital.

      Also the articles linking of superconductivity with quantum computing is just silliness.

    15. Re:This is Pseudoscience BS by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Well, neural network computing does model analog processes. It's only done digitally because it's being done on a digital computer. The clock isn't there because the neural network needs it, but because the program simulating the network uses a clock in it's algorithm and it sits on top of a typical digital computer. Most programming languages are also based around sequential processing (ie, update simulated neuron 1, then update simulated neuron 2, then...).

    16. Re:This is Pseudoscience BS by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Attempts to _model_ the common cold are pretty good. Your analogy is flawed.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    17. Re:This is Pseudoscience BS by gweihir · · Score: 1

      No, they have not been able to model the human mind because it's too big

      That is just speculation, i.e. it is not necessary the core problem and if it is a problem, it may not be the only one.

      the most they've done with neural network processing is very tiny stuff. And the neurons in the brain are analog devices, not digital.

      What tells you artificial neural networks are even the right model?

      Also the articles linking of superconductivity with quantum computing is just silliness.

      That I can agree on. Especially as we still do not know whether quantum computing does actually work for anything meaningful.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    18. Re:This is Pseudoscience BS by Uecker · · Score: 1

      Consciousnesses and free-will can exist even with a traditional model of the brain as a machine. I never understood why people see a fundamental problem here and then feel the need to introduce magical "solution" to this problem based on pseudo-science. The contradiction appears if you think about yourself as some ghost sitting elsewhere that controls the body. Then everything which is locally decided (by neurons etc) takes away the freedom of the ghost to control the body. But if you think about consciousness and free-will as an emergent property there is no contradiction. Having an explanation of some process on the level of neurons does not mean it can not be a free decision when described at a higher level. They are both the same so saying one controls (or takes freedom away) from the other does not make any sense.

    19. Re:This is Pseudoscience BS by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      Mine was not an analogy, it was reductio ad absurdum.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    20. Re:This is Pseudoscience BS by Falconnan · · Score: 1

      Ooh... We need to be careful not to make Penrose's mistake, though. Free will is a dangerous topic for so many reasons, including how the debate is framed. Free will in the moment may be very different than what happens under careful deliberation. One is based on heuristics and instinct, the other on deeper mental states.

      Microtubules as a path for coherent electrons is pretty unlikely, yes. One would have to first explain how one maintains a coherent state in such a noisy environment, then they'd have to explain how such a phenomenon results in a biologically relevant computational output. Finally, you'd need to be able to explain why we haven't clearly observed it, and figure out a way to do so.

      Let's be clear: It hasn't been ruled out, but what little evidence there is for quantum phenomena in biological systems is equivocal at best for most purposes. Superposition was looked at as a possible mechanism for photosynthetic energy transfer, but the experiments are not conclusive, as the results point to other, less "quantum" mechanisms being at least as likely.

      Quacks have hijacked the debate, yes. Absolutely. But how neurons make decisions about when and how to fire is still not clear. What may have driven Penrose to look at microtubules may in part relate to the extremely fine control apparent in nervous system development. And on the face of it, the interiors of the tubules themselves are about 12 nm in diameter, so one could see the logic applied (even if incorrectly).

      So could consciousness be a phenomenon leveraging quantum processes? Sure. But there's no evidence, and the necessary experiments have never been designed to test it. Though I admit... I'd love to see it.

    21. Re:This is Pseudoscience BS by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      I am not sure you know what a neural net is, or a Turing machine. There is such a thing but this is a combination of neural networks and state machines. And "physical 3D network of neurons"... WTH are you talking about?

      Please at least read the Wikipedia article on neural nets.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    22. Re:This is Pseudoscience BS by dwpro · · Score: 1

      Do you need to be conscious of free will to have it? We have pretty good evidence the mind makes itself up well before we are conscious of the decision: https://brainworldmagazine.com...

      --
      Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. -- Susan Ertz
    23. Re:This is Pseudoscience BS by Visarga · · Score: 1

      Nah, the brain injects tons of randomness in its signals. Free will is just randomness filtered through past experience. We don't need quantum effects for 'free will'.

    24. Re:This is Pseudoscience BS by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      The Wikipedia articles reinforce my points. For example, "n common ANN implementations, the signal at a connection between artificial neurons is a real number, and the output of each artificial neuron is computed by some non-linear function of the sum of its inputs.". Nerves, do not rely on rely on real numbers. They rely on triggered impulses, extremely timing and physical structure sensitive, and without the time signal normally used by digital systems to ensure that signals are transmitted consistently in of the two binary states of the particular circuit at the particular juncture. The so-called "Neural Turing Machine" you mentioned is yet another digital neural network, bound by the digitally bound phase state of its binary components. It may be a very useful and interesting model, but it's unsurprising that these tools have not given a full understanding of the human mind when they're a very distinct physical model of how even rudimentary components, nerves, work.

      By "physical 3D network of neurons", I referred to the physical structure of nerves, especially physical networks of them such as in the brain. Data is contained in their physical layout, in what components are connected and even pass through where. Many of the effects are not _digital_. They foster or hinder other signals in ways that have been studied, but have proven awkward to fully replicate. If you're interested, I'd suggest you look at the neurology of the human retina and the pre-processing there provides the basis of color detection. A great deal of vision, and perception, is based on "edge detection". Detecting contrast involves feedback that neural networks have attempted to emulate, but because the physical structure of nerves is dynamic, not aligned in a completely predictable layout o, and the signals are triggered events in an analog physical structure rather than clock driven binary values, there are many subtle differences in the handling of partial signals and of signal timing that get lost in almost all if not all "neural networks".

      This is not to deny the useful of neural networks. But it's unclear to me that they model genuine neurology well.

    25. Re:This is Pseudoscience BS by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      Well, since all attempts to model a human mind conventionally

      Have their been any realistic attempts to model a brain?

      The brain and mind are not the same thing. The brain is a physical structure and the mind is a different thing. There are plenty of incomplete models of the brain whilst modelling consciousness has been the occupation of philosophy for thousands of years. Science based in materialism forms the theory of consciousness as an emergent property of matter so any discussion is already precluding matter as an emergent property of consciousness because science can't explain it.

      Also the discussion is limited by the concept of a human being only having one "mind" and what happens to it when we sleep. What about neuronal material distributed through the body, for example the digestive system has enough of this to make a brain the size of a cat how does that affect the model.

      Science maybe able to explain the brain however it is out of its depth when it tries to discuss the mind and like a monkey with an iPad when it comes to discussing consciousness.

      One thing is for sure, we're an arrogant species looking for answers that require humility.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    26. Re:This is Pseudoscience BS by Uecker · · Score: 1

      I think free-will can exist without consciousness. And yes, I think it makes sense that a decision must exist before we can become aware of it. How could it be different?

    27. Re:This is Pseudoscience BS by dwpro · · Score: 1

      I have no idea how it can be at all. It seems to me the definition ceases to lose meaning if the part of the mind that 'thinks' it's making a choice isn't actually driving the decision.

      --
      Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. -- Susan Ertz
    28. Re:This is Pseudoscience BS by Gavagai80 · · Score: 1

      The brain and mind are not the same thing.

      The brain is the physical model of the mind, as presented through the senses and mind of an observer. Just as a rock our physical model of how it is to observe/interact with a rock, rather than a non-interacting rock in itself.

      If you believe mind is some nebulous other thing which the brain, try having a brain injury. Or just a swift knock on the head. See how well the brain damage describes the state of your consciousness then.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    29. Re:This is Pseudoscience BS by Uecker · · Score: 1

      There is no evidence. But there is not even a single good argument (not even to speak of a theory) why the features of quantum mechanics would somehow help to explain free-will. It is just sloppy thinking along the lines: Well, we do not understand how consciousness and free-will works and we also find quantum mechanics a mysterious and fascinating so how about QM explains consciousness. Of course, postulation the connection between two not fully understood things is not an explanation in the sense of science.

    30. Re:This is Pseudoscience BS by Uecker · · Score: 1

      I don't understand. A part of the brain that would make the decision. After the decision is made the brain (maybe other parts) may become aware of it. What does not make sense?

    31. Re:This is Pseudoscience BS by dwpro · · Score: 1

      It makes perfect sense,it just not align with any definition of free will that posits a self-aware 'mind' making a conscious decision to do something of its own volition. I think it's fair to say the standard definition of free will means something more like: a human will consciously 'make up his mind' as opposed to his mind making the conscious part of him aware of what's its decided already.

      --
      Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. -- Susan Ertz
    32. Re:This is Pseudoscience BS by Herve5 · · Score: 1

      Don't be so sad : here in France we have the guys that believe in the power of water (infinite dilutions, homeopathy etc.) and managed to get their paper published in Nature some years ago.
      In each and every pharmacy you find, prominently exposed, zillions of homeopathic pills, and indeed you'd better be prudent when talking about it, given the number of folks that BELIEVE...

      --
      Herve S.
    33. Re:This is Pseudoscience BS by Uecker · · Score: 1

      But the difference only comes from artificially splitting mind, and brain into unrelated parts. But if the mind is an emergent property of the while brain as a system this does not make any sense. The part which makes the decision and the part which becomes aware of are all integrated into a complex system which together produces the mind. So it is not a contradiction that the mind makes the decision and is aware of it and the same time different parts of the brain are involved in this process.

    34. Re: This is Pseudoscience BS by Viol8 · · Score: 1

      I dont think anything written by that odious crank Hubbard can be taken on any kind of authority or have any useful insights beyond the psychology 101 he based his entire cult on.

    35. Re: This is Pseudoscience BS by Viol8 · · Score: 1

      Oops , my mistake, wrong author. Ignore previous post.

    36. Re:This is Pseudoscience BS by Falconnan · · Score: 1

      Agreed. However, there is a modicum of logic to the notion of looking for a possible connection. Free will by definition has to be at least partially non-deterministic. As quantum mechanics is the only realm of physics which is non-deterministic, if one presumes free will exists, it suggests (weakly) there may be an aspect of consciousness which is driven by a mechanism which draws on uncertainty principles.

      The weakness of the above proposition is that the logic is inductive, not reductive. While inductive logic is horrible for judging evidence, it has often yielded fruit when used to suggest places to look for evidence. The appropriate place for this hypothesis until experiments which can accurately test what to look for is, "Interesting but unlikely idea". Deriding the idea, until ruled out, is just as erroneous as embracing it before supporting evidence exists. Lack of an immediate test doesn't make it pseudoscience. Let some experimental specialists put together a plan, test it, and let the evidence decide.

      I'd frankly love it to be true. I don't expect it to be, but it would be helpful to know if it is true or false to a higher degree of certainty. One thing is certain: Evolution has come up with ingenious solutions to physical problems. If such a mechanism exists to make use of this phenomenon in non-laboratory conditions, this could be how we find it (or rule out it's possible).

    37. Re:This is Pseudoscience BS by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      The brain and mind are not the same thing.

      The brain is the physical model of the mind, as presented through the senses and mind of an observer. Just as a rock our physical model of how it is to observe/interact with a rock, rather than a non-interacting rock in itself.

      Yours is a rather obvious conclusion based on the limitations materialism. Your perception is that the brain is also one thing, when it is not. The reptilian and mammalian brain are separate from the neocortex. Prioritising activation of these primitive complexes over the neo-cortex, as in the case of amygdala activation stressing the hypothalamus pituitary adrenal axis, will very quickly illustrate to you that the mind and brain(s) are two distinctly separate entities.

      Your analogy of a rock is poor. I would suggest instead considering a computer which, whilst still a primitive example, is closer in complexity to a brain yet distinctly separate from the software running on it.

      If you believe mind is some nebulous other thing which the brain, try having a brain injury. Or just a swift knock on the head.

      I have had, and recovered from a mid level brain injury. The impact was bad enough to give me a very clear indication that the mind and brain are two very separate things. Despite massive pain when trying to cogitate my consciousness was unaffected, furthermore other aspects of "mind" became, and remain available even after I have fully recovered. Neuroplasticity is a wonderful thing.

      See how well the brain damage describes the state of your consciousness then.

      You are confusing consciousness with cognition, which are again different complexes. As for describing the state of consciousness, I have just finished writing a book where I propose a simplified model for consciousness and the complex substrates that surround it leveraged from my experiences of brain injury that provided the fulcrum for understanding that which had been previously hidden.

      The final limitation of your thought form being that you also consider consciousness to be the same thing as mind. I would ask you to consider your consciousness from the perspective of dreaming and ask you if awareness of your sense of self changes? It is clear to me that during sleep my brain still exists and that unconsciousness has claimed my mind only to return when I wake. So the unconscious "mind" occupying the brain during sleep certainly differs from the conscious "mind", yet awareness of self remains across both states, a paradox not considered by a materialistic model.

      Whilst my own work is an abstraction of reality the model was developed as a tool to assist in overcoming psychological abuse. At almost 200,000 words across four volumes the psychiatrists, psychologists and other professionals who have assessed my work have encouraged me to publish it. With humility I can say that the extreme cognition required to overcome the covert psychological abuse of the sociopaths I had the misfortune to encounter teaches you a great deal about this subject.

      Whilst intelligent, this thread lacks the wisdom required to delve deeply into this subject based on the limitations of the scientific model which itself is a product of mind as inadequate as my own pithy offerings. I cite the oft quoted When your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail as the encultured materialism that science offers to those who attempt to evolve their own mind.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    38. Re:This is Pseudoscience BS by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      methinks alcohol, weed and LSD are more fun then a knock on the head to get the point across?

      These are simply impairments of perception.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    39. Re:This is Pseudoscience BS by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Hahaha, yes. Incidentally "emergent property" = "Poof and it was there! Nobody knows how or why!" It is just a scientific way of saying "we have no clue".

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    40. Re:This is Pseudoscience BS by gweihir · · Score: 1

      So, to use a much simpler example, a physical computer is the physical model of all the software can run on it?
      Sorry, but these simplistic models break down completely when taxed by actual complexity.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    41. Re:This is Pseudoscience BS by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Indeed. Interface problems. Also, some parts of the services the mind uses (for example, most/all of concrete memory) do also run in the brain. Does not mean the complete thing does.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    42. Re:This is Pseudoscience BS by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Not really. That one requires some skill, which is lacking in your presentation.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    43. Re:This is Pseudoscience BS by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      I'm familiar with the neurology of the retina and visual cortex thank you. You would seem to have your own private definition of Turing machine. Please, at least say state machine, and you're still wrong.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    44. Re:This is Pseudoscience BS by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      OK, today I learned that the signal on a neural axon may be richer that a single scalar frequency value, in particular, inter-pulse intervals are known to carry information for some neurons. So I agree that the current conception of neural networks is too simplistic, or too unlike the real thing to be able to imitate it accurately. And now I got what I wanted, clear evidence that the total bandwidth of the brain is higher than has been fashionable to suppose. Not stupidly magical like the parent article proposes, but orders of magnitude beyond the 100 billion simple processing elements we get just by counting neurons.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    45. Re:This is Pseudoscience BS by The123king · · Score: 1

      It's hardly pseudoscience. Very little is known about the way the brain and consciousness operate, so pretty much any theory on its operation could be valid. I myself believe the brain works on the quantum level in some way. It's hard to persuade me otherwise, when we have pretty solid evidence that plants use a href="https://phys.org/news/2014-01-quantum-mechanics-efficiency-photosynthesis.html">quantum effects to create sugars. If plants use quantum effects, is it really that much of a stretch to believe a much more complicated organism also utilises quantum phenomena?

      --
      If you gave me a choice between a printer and a giraffe with explosive diarrhoea, i'll get my ladder and my raincoat
    46. Re:This is Pseudoscience BS by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      So, to use a much simpler example, a physical computer is the physical model of all the software can run on it?

      No, it is a substrate upon which potential software runs. It is not useful in and of itself but as a tool that demonstrates the existence of layered "concept complexes".

      Sorry, but these simplistic models break down completely when taxed by actual complexity.

      Obviously because it is not a model, it is an analogy offered to move from a rock analogy to the idea of concept complexes in concrete form. I don't use them in my book as anything other that an oversimplification that introduces concept complexes. I built an abstract model of consciousness as a tool for resolving mental health issues that includes the appropriate concept complexes for the reader to use. In and of itself it is not the focus of the book but a backdrop for understanding the machinations of psychological abuse so that healing can occur.

      My point here is that humans are extreme concept complexes and there is no analogy that can be drawn that is of much use in building an understanding of humans as beings.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    47. Re:This is Pseudoscience BS by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      Hahaha, yes. Incidentally "emergent property" = "Poof and it was there! Nobody knows how or why!" It is just a scientific way of saying "we have no clue".

      Exactly!

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    48. Re: This is Pseudoscience BS by Dread_ed · · Score: 1

      Yes! And not only that we have no way of knowing or predicting, but also that with complete knowledge of the antecedents the product is still unknowable.

      Study hydrogen and oxygen independently forever and you will never be able to deduce the properties of water. Emergence is real, a result of chaos creating order, and each new order so creatied leading to new chaos which again engenders another level of order. Nested, interrelated, dependent, inseparable, non-linear, and nondeterministic.

      This is intrinsic to the form of the universe and is scale independent.

      --
      When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
    49. Re:This is Pseudoscience BS by Stormy+Dragon · · Score: 1

      That sort of appeal to ignorance (we don't know how X works, therefore any explanation is valid) is the essence of pseudoscience.

    50. Re:This is Pseudoscience BS by BringsApples · · Score: 1

      "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win”

      --Mahatma Gandhi

      --
      Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
    51. Re:This is Pseudoscience BS by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      What part of the "Turing machine" definition is missing from most neural networks? Most of them have more than sufficient hardware to run the logical processes of a Turing machine. The lack of the appropriate program may hinder them from the classic definition, but that's what a modified program is for. I see your point that a "state machine" may better capture their limitations. Personally, I have been dealing with "state machines" which have no input lately: you've reminded me that inputs are part of the definition, so that description can be apropos.

      If you can name a single modern neural network that is not based on a computational device with a defined output derivable from their defined inputs, I shall be very surprised. Do you know of any with even a "random" functionality in them? Because it's not been common in my experience with the systems.

    52. Re:This is Pseudoscience BS by The123king · · Score: 1

      Just because it has no proof to back it up, doesn't mean it's not true science. Until last year, Gravitational waves had no proof, but i wouldn't call them pseudoscience. Unless of course, you're saying that the Big Bang, gravitons, string theory, etc etc are all pseudoscience.

      Just because there's no hard evidence to back up a theory doesn't make it pseudoscience.

      --
      If you gave me a choice between a printer and a giraffe with explosive diarrhoea, i'll get my ladder and my raincoat
    53. Re:This is Pseudoscience BS by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      You clearly have no idea what a "theory" is in science.

      To qualify as a scientific theory, there has to be at least some indirect evidence supporting it,
      such as an underlying theory that does has evidence. Your example of gravitational waves having
      "no proof" is incorrect, since gravitational wave theory is in turn based
      on the well established principals of relativity theory.

      This "quantum consciousness" rubbish is nothing but idle speculation.

    54. Re:This is Pseudoscience BS by Uecker · · Score: 1

      Agreed. However, there is a modicum of logic to the notion of looking for a possible connection. Free will by definition has to be at least partially non-deterministic

      No, I don't think so. Something is free when it is controlled by itself and not restricted from the outside. It is free if it follows its own internal processes which could be deterministic or not. Whether a decision is made by a deterministic algorithm or role of dice simply has no logical relationship to whether it is free or non-free.
      Yes, I know many people think otherwise, but I think they are wrong.

    55. Re:This is Pseudoscience BS by The123king · · Score: 1

      It's not idle speculation. There has been real scientific papers written about this. https://plato.stanford.edu/ent...

      --
      If you gave me a choice between a printer and a giraffe with explosive diarrhoea, i'll get my ladder and my raincoat
    56. Re:This is Pseudoscience BS by Falconnan · · Score: 1

      Okay... But if you didn't have the choice on setting up that deterministic system, then you still end up back to the beginning. The philosophical implications of consciousness being deterministic are vast. Depending on viewpoint, it could be argued you have returned to the notion of essentially being a biological robot. None of your choices were really choices. Free will itself is relatively poorly defined, which muddles things a lot as well. But as soon as determinism comes in, you have no real choices, regardless of beauty of the illusion to the contrary. Determinism, by definition, implies a predetermined outcome.

      Non-deterministic doesn't mean random, though. If a study finds under a specific condition 75% of people will do a thing, that implies that there is a choice. 25% of people make a different choice. This isn't inconsistent with QM (though that by itself is almost meaningless). But randomness is rare at best in nature. So the first thing we need to do is truly define what is meant by certain terms: Deterministic, non-deterministic, free will, choice, random, etc.

      You used the phrase, "Something is free when it is controlled by itself and not restricted from the outside." Except there are physical laws that will always operate on the thing controlling itself. To be honest, your definition of free will could be considered a minimal definition of omnipotence. I think I understand your intent, and I don't precisely disagree. I just think none of us knows really what the nature of the thing is we're trying to test for. It makes designing a good test nigh impossible.

  5. Size doesn't matter by ron_ivi · · Score: 1

    Quantum computers are about the size of a person: https://www.google.com/search?... While I agree all this brain stuff is nonsense; the size is kinda irrelevant.

    1. Re:Size doesn't matter by Mr.+Dollar+Ton · · Score: 1

      No, the size of the quantum computer is much smaller. The rest is the infrastructure that allows it to exist. Now go back to the original comment, reread it and maybe you'll understand my point.

    2. Re:Size doesn't matter by omnichad · · Score: 2

      Or maybe reread what you just said. Neurons are infrastructure, possibly something that contains a quantum component of some sort. Not that I necessarily agree, but what you're saying doesn't rule out the OP.

    3. Re:Size doesn't matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      does the paper argue that neurons, as a unit are QM? or does it suggest that much smaller structures within the neuron, which may exploit QM, could explain high processing power. to use your analogy, just as the infrastructure is large (cooling and such) for rudimentary quantum computers humans are building, the neuron could also primarily be 'support infrastructure' for much smaller QM objects within the neuron.

    4. Re:Size doesn't matter by Mr.+Dollar+Ton · · Score: 1

      Yes, the OP argues precisely that. Now go get a cookie, and tell your mother I said hello.

  6. As an unrelated side note... by Rei · · Score: 2

    I've been gathering peoples' reactions to this study in the comments sections of news articles for my paper, "Catchphrase Hokum: Assessing The Public's Willingness To Believe Anything That Uses Buzzwords And Was Published In A Journal With A Five-Year Impact Factor Less Than One", which has been accepted for publication in the journal Gullibility.

    --
    Musk needs a safer hobby than Twitter. Fire juggling? Cage fighting? Solo hot air balloon trips?
    1. Re:As an unrelated side note... by dissy · · Score: 1

      I've been gathering peoples' reactions to this study

      Oh, well if it's for science... *hands over sample vial containing my reaction*

  7. bunch of nonsense by Goldsmith · · Score: 5, Informative

    I am a condensed matter physicist.

    This paper measures normal nonlinear electrochemical effects and assumes they're superconducting. Further, there is a misunderstanding of what quantized conductance means, and how to demonstrate that quantized conductance is being measured.

    There is no evidence presented of superconductivity, and no good argument for why it would be expected. It's a bit embarrassing that the author is a Physics professor.

    1. Re:bunch of nonsense by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Just shows that Physics has gotten overly complex. I know it deals with a real object, buts if it were not I would call the whole thing an utter design failure.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    2. Re:bunch of nonsense by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      Physics always was overly complex. When we get to be God then we will design the universe much more simply, won't we?

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
  8. Re:Something WRONG ! by omnichad · · Score: 1

    The original article says The estimated critical temperature of superconducting network in the brains is
    rather high: 2063±114 K. Not sure what it means, but doesn't match the summary at all.

  9. Re: "Interesting, if true!" by aliquis · · Score: 1

    I saw a Twitter tweet about how Neil A. backwards was alien. How about that?!

  10. Re:Something WRONG ! by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

    I expect if you got the pig's brain up to even 1000 K it would stop superconducting....

  11. Re: Something WRONG ! by omnichad · · Score: 1

    I could have used quotation marks around the original article text: "The estimated critical temperature of superconducting network in the brains is
    rather high: 2063±114 K. "

  12. Re:Something WRONG ! by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

    I expect if you got the pig's brain up to even 1000 K it would stop superconducting....

    But at 71C, that same pig would be...delicious.

  13. Microtubules by Dan+East · · Score: 1

    I remember microtubule structures in the brain making the news around 20 years ago. At the time there was some speculation that they might provide some other mechanism in which information transfer could occur, and if I remember correctly, it was through sympathetic resonance.

    --
    Better known as 318230.
  14. God. Continuously. Invents. Science. by GillBates0 · · Score: 1

    Full stop.

    --
    An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam
  15. Re:Something WRONG ! by novakyu · · Score: 1

    As nutty as the paper sounds, this alone isn't dispositive enough to dismiss it out of hand. These transition temperatures don't have to obey some kind of order. For example, the Fermi temperature of most metals is far in excess of their melting temperatures, which is why free electron model describes metal behaviors so well.

    Having said that, at those temperatures, if there is to be any superconductivity, it's clearly not through formation of Cooper pairs, or frankly any phenomena where quantum coherences are important.

  16. Re:It's tremendous! by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

    Oh come on mods, that was super funny

    --
    When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
  17. Re:Photosynthesis by Darinbob · · Score: 1

    Everything is built on top of quantum particles and effects. Electricity is a quantum effect. So technically you can throw the quantum buzzword at anything and be correct while simultaneously not saying anything of value.

  18. Re: "Interesting, if true!" by twosat · · Score: 2

    Neil Armstrong written backwards is "Gnorts, Mr Alien"

  19. Re:It's tremendous! by mukinrestak · · Score: 1

    It was definitely a cut above the usual anti-Trump spam.

  20. Re: Brain Conductivity by MrKaos · · Score: 1

    I just decided that I give very little fuck about other people and that improved my sleep tenfold

    Perhaps they feel the same about you.

    --
    My ism, it's full of beliefs.
  21. Critical field? by ka9dgx · · Score: 1

    Assume for the moment that our memories are stored in superconducting qubits, and the critical temperature really is 2000K, what is the critical field required to erase someone's memories completely at body temperature(310k)? Surely this is a simple matter for someone good at physics to figure out.

  22. Moore's Law is still in play by theCat · · Score: 1

    The /. post right above this one posits that the looming end of Moore's Law (the seeming endless improvements in computational throw) will spell the end of AI improvements so that we will never see "self-improving" AI.

    I think both premises are premature. Once computation moves into the quantum realm -- including biological computing -- AI will find a fertile playground and will quickly outstrip human limits.

    Good luck with all that, everyone.

    --
    =^..^= all your rodent are belong to us
  23. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion