3 ms·

Yes, but very tenuously, and as we all know correlation is not causation. Heartbeat evoked potentials are like a clock signal or drum beat through brain activit

by simonh 4y ago

Yes, but very tenuously, and as we all know correlation is not causation. Heartbeat evoked potentials are like a clock signal or drum beat through brain activity. The spin of these protons is synchronised with changes in these potentials, and the potentials play a role in cognitive function. Imagine a band playing a song. The drum beat drives the rhythm and plays a central role in whole performance, but these protons may well be like sand grains bouncing on the surface of the drum. Also bear in mind that nothing they studied or observed correlates in any way with the specific quantum processes that occur in quantum computation.

fauigerzigerk 4y ago
Great analogy! I understand what you mean.
pmoriarty 4y ago
"as we all know correlation is not causation" What is causation?
- slfnflctd 4y ago
  Hard to prove.
  - pmoriarty 4y ago
    Perhaps impossible.
gjsman-1000 4y ago
I hate the abuse of this term: "correlation is not causation." That is true - but it does not say anything about the opposite, or say that the objects are not correlated, which is often forgotten, or said with an implicit "there's a 90% chance they aren't correlated" when the statement makes no judgement whatsoever on the likelihood they are correlated. There might be a 90% chance of causation, even if the statement remains accurate. Example, this statement: Grass grows the fastest when the sun shines. Correlation is not causation - the grass does not grow solely because the sun is shining. Nevertheless the statement is true. Edit: My main point is that anything can be simply hit with: "Correlation is not causation." It's a skeptic's cop-out because, who can prove causation, really? Technically speaking, is not even gravity only assured by the anecdotes of billions of people? But sometimes it is stupid to remain a skeptic even if the two aren't the same.
- simonh 4y ago
  >But sometimes it is stupid to remain a skeptic even if the two aren't the same. Nice. There are many, many things that could be going on in these processes in the brain. The range of possible mechanisms and effects is huge, and this result gives us just a tiny bit of information, but nowhere nearly enough to determine which possibilities are more or less likely. Some journalist picked one possibility to promote because it's click-baitey, ok fine. It got me to read the article and it's interesting research so we're all good. But they've not demonstrated any quantum computational behaviour, and there are many, many other things that could be going on here that are nothing to do with quantum computation. I don't see how merely pointing out that fact is 'stupid'. Skepticism is essential to the functioning of the scientific method, it's what differentiates science from credulous and magical thinking. Yes it's a brake on selecting the best answer or result, but it's a much stronger brake on selecting incorrect answers or results and that's where it provides it's value. It's quite right and proper to put off accepting what is ultimately demonstrated to be the right answer as proven until there is no other choice.

by simonh 4y ago

fauigerzigerk 4y ago

Great analogy! I understand what you mean.

pmoriarty 4y ago

"as we all know correlation is not causation" What is causation?

slfnflctd 4y ago
Hard to prove.
- pmoriarty 4y ago
  Perhaps impossible.

gjsman-1000 4y ago

I hate the abuse of this term: "correlation is not causation." That is true - but it does not say anything about the opposite, or say that the objects are not correlated, which is often forgotten, or said with an implicit "there's a 90% chance they aren't correlated" when the statement makes no judgement whatsoever on the likelihood they are correlated. There might be a 90% chance of causation, even if the statement remains accurate. Example, this statement: Grass grows the fastest when the sun shines. Correlation is not causation - the grass does not grow solely because the sun is shining. Nevertheless the statement is true. Edit: My main point is that anything can be simply hit with: "Correlation is not causation." It's a skeptic's cop-out because, who can prove causation, really? Technically speaking, is not even gravity only assured by the anecdotes of billions of people? But sometimes it is stupid to remain a skeptic even if the two aren't the same.

simonh 4y ago
>But sometimes it is stupid to remain a skeptic even if the two aren't the same. Nice. There are many, many things that could be going on in these processes in the brain. The range of possible mechanisms and effects is huge, and this result gives us just a tiny bit of information, but nowhere nearly enough to determine which possibilities are more or less likely. Some journalist picked one possibility to promote because it's click-baitey, ok fine. It got me to read the article and it's interesting research so we're all good. But they've not demonstrated any quantum computational behaviour, and there are many, many other things that could be going on here that are nothing to do with quantum computation. I don't see how merely pointing out that fact is 'stupid'. Skepticism is essential to the functioning of the scientific method, it's what differentiates science from credulous and magical thinking. Yes it's a brake on selecting the best answer or result, but it's a much stronger brake on selecting incorrect answers or results and that's where it provides it's value. It's quite right and proper to put off accepting what is ultimately demonstrated to be the right answer as proven until there is no other choice.