> so blithely assume so easily that there is no quantum effect in the brain structure. He is following the mainstream opinion on this view, so does not have to

> so blithely assume so easily that there is no quantum effect in the brain structure. He is following the mainstream opinion on this view, so does not have to justify it in detail. Almost nobody subscribes to Penrose's proposal. > Our best approximations of intelligence are analogous to the comparison between sewing by hand vs the mechanics of a sewing machine, only the sewing machine remains far inferior (at least for now). There's a blithe assumption of your own, which you don't attempt to justify. Newell and Simon's physical symbol system hypothesis is still taken seriously by mainstream AI, and it has the opposing view: that intelligence is a computational process, and thus we understand many fundamental things about it already. I'm not taking a position here, just clarifying what the dominant positions are right now. Also, sewing machines are better at sewing than 99% of people by any metric I can think of, and faster than 100% of people. They also do probably >90% of all the sewing on the planet. So I don't think your analogy does the work you intended.