3 ms·

I can't name you concrete examples, because I've encountered this too many times. But here are general categories in which those interpretations fall: - The ph

by m1el 8y ago

I can't name you concrete examples, because I've encountered this too many times. But here are general categories in which those interpretations fall: - The physicists just can't measure precise enough, so they think in probabilities. Also known as "hidden variables". This is wrong. Bell test demonstrates the opposite. - "Observing" a particle can change it state, therefore observer can change everything, therefore our minds are all-mighty. - We don't understand "quantum" and we don't understand minds. A mind "can't just work on classical computation alone" and quantum computation is more powerful. Therefore minds are "quantum". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WXTX0IUaOg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WXTX0IUaOg

justin66 8y ago
> I can't name you concrete examples, because I've encountered this too many times. It's actually kind of hard to know where you're coming from as far as critiquing the state of philosophy when you list something like #2, which is anonymous, cartoonishly stupid, and perhaps not representative of anything, alongside Roger Penrose, whose work is at least interesting.
- m1el 8y ago
  As interesting the assumption that mind can't work on classical computation could be, it's still not grounded in anything but assumption of humans being special. It's also wrong to take two unknowns and assume they have the same explanation.
Balgair 8y ago
Penrose is a smart guy, but he's advocating for stuff that's not seen in experiments. Your CNS is decidedly 'classical' and is not doing quantum thingys (any more so than all things are quantum-y). The synapse, though still a bit murky and under study, is not doing quantum-only stuff.
- adrianN 8y ago
  I don't believe that our brains are quantum computers, but I don't think we know enough about how the CNS works to completely rule it out. Quantum effects have been observed in living organisms [1], so the "it's a warm soup" argument is not sufficient. [1] https://phys.org/news/2014-01-quantum-mechanics-efficiency-photosynthesis.html https://phys.org/news/2014-01-quantum-mechanics-efficiency-p...

by m1el 8y ago

justin66 8y ago

> I can't name you concrete examples, because I've encountered this too many times. It's actually kind of hard to know where you're coming from as far as critiquing the state of philosophy when you list something like #2, which is anonymous, cartoonishly stupid, and perhaps not representative of anything, alongside Roger Penrose, whose work is at least interesting.

m1el 8y ago
As interesting the assumption that mind can't work on classical computation could be, it's still not grounded in anything but assumption of humans being special. It's also wrong to take two unknowns and assume they have the same explanation.

Balgair 8y ago

Penrose is a smart guy, but he's advocating for stuff that's not seen in experiments. Your CNS is decidedly 'classical' and is not doing quantum thingys (any more so than all things are quantum-y). The synapse, though still a bit murky and under study, is not doing quantum-only stuff.

adrianN 8y ago
I don't believe that our brains are quantum computers, but I don't think we know enough about how the CNS works to completely rule it out. Quantum effects have been observed in living organisms [1], so the "it's a warm soup" argument is not sufficient. [1] https://phys.org/news/2014-01-quantum-mechanics-efficiency-photosynthesis.html https://phys.org/news/2014-01-quantum-mechanics-efficiency-p...