Getting Exaflop computers by 2020:

Originally posted by DeepThought
I really don't think your contribution is adding anything at all...

Then you have not understood my line of reasoning.

Someone is saying that humans is more intelligent than a computer because we can build a computer. I say not any person can build a computer all by his own. Someone disagree with me, and I defend my standpoint.

You say think I lead to a proof that humans cannot do anything of his own, yes, it takes an effort of many people to accomplish anything new, but my point is simply that that the proposition that a human is more intelligent than a computer because people can build a computer doesn't prove anything.

If we take it from there, the line of reasoning really has a value. To deny this is trolling.

Originally posted by DeepThought
How's that different from the situation with chloroplasts?

I'm sorry, I thought you were a physicist.

Go look at the requirements for a quantum computer holding stable qubits...

Then look at what chloroplasts do...

Now you can tell us how the two are different, and how that difference is relevant.

Originally posted by DeepThought
You cannot possibly have read the entire article in the ten minutes between me posting and you replying.

It's an important part of my argument. If a single neurone is a simple structure then I'm wrong. It's not so my argument is still alive. This was the point I was making.

Your argument is only still alive IF neurons are not just complex but impossible to simulate
[or at least their computational function] in a classical Turing Machine.

Making them complex just requires a bigger computer.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Then you have not understood my line of reasoning.

Someone is saying that humans is more intelligent than a computer because we can build a computer. I say not any person can build a computer all by his own. Someone disagree with me, and I defend my standpoint.

You say think I lead to a proof that humans cannot do anything of his own, yes, it takes ...[text shortened]...

If we take it from there, the line of reasoning really has a value. To deny this is trolling.

Yeah, all right, although your points do seem pedantic sometimes.

Originally posted by googlefudge
I'm sorry, I thought you were a physicist.

Go look at the requirements for a quantum computer holding stable qubits...

Then look at what chloroplasts do...

Now you can tell us how the two are different, and how that difference is relevant.

Given the rather obvious differences between a human brain and a conventional electronic computer, which you are claiming are computationally equivalent, why do you expect a human brain to be the same as an artificial quantum machine?

Originally posted by DeepThought
You cannot possibly have read the entire article in the ten minutes between me posting and you replying.

It doesn't matter whether I read it or not. It remains the case that nothing in that article suggests that a neuron cannot be simulated with a Turing machine.

Originally posted by twhitehead
It doesn't matter whether I read it or not. It remains the case that nothing in that article suggests that a neuron cannot be simulated with a Turing machine.

How do you know if you didn't read it?

Originally posted by DeepThought
How do you know if you didn't read it?

I read enough to know. If you read more and have any evidence to the contrary, then present it. All this 'you didn't read it' stuff is just time wasting.

Originally posted by googlefudge
What are your reasons for thinking that they are?

The neutral default position is to not believe either way and you need sufficient
evidence to move in either direction.

Given that quantum computing requires maintaining delicate quantum entanglement
and superposition states which de-cohere at the slightest provocation... Why do you
believe th ...[text shortened]...

It seems more plausible a-priori given the above that human brains are not quantum computers.

Well if it's empirical evidence you want:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140116085105.htm

Originally posted by DeepThought
Given the rather obvious differences between a human brain and a conventional electronic computer, which you are claiming are computationally equivalent, why do you expect a human brain to be the same as an artificial quantum machine?

Given the rather obvious differences between a human brain and a conventional electronic computer, which you are claiming are computationally equivalent

Reading comprehension fail.

I have never said anything even remotely the sort...

You clearly have no clue what I am talking about if you are that far off base.

Originally posted by DeepThought
Well if it's empirical evidence you want:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140116085105.htm

I am aware that people have made "brain is a quantum computer" claims.

However I am also aware of the larger number of biologists who dissmiss these
claims as being nonsense, generally promoted by people who are experts [possibly]
in other feilds [like, for example, physics] butting in to subjects they don't understand.

Come back to me when mainstreem biology thinks that the brain is a quantum computer
with articles on the subject published in Nature, and not science daily.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orchestrated_objective_reduction#Criticism

Originally posted by googlefudge
I am aware that people have made "brain is a quantum computer" claims.

However I am also aware of the larger number of biologists who dissmiss these
claims as being nonsense, generally promoted by people who are experts [possibly]
in other feilds [like, for example, physics] butting in to subjects they don't understand.

Come back to me when mai ...[text shortened]... not science daily.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orchestrated_objective_reduction#Criticism

There is nothing in the criticisms section covering the empirical data you are insisting on ignoring. The objections are largely on theoretical grounds and the "too warm, too wet, too noisy" argument, which is basically busted. Here are the various relevant empirical papers cited in Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff's article which was not pubished in Science Daily, that was just a report on it which gave a quick summary, including the empirical data, here's a more complete list of citations for you:

Theoretical:

Stuart Hameroff and Roger Penrose.
Consciousness in the universe: A review of the ‘Orch OR’ theory.
Physics of Life Reviews, 2013
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.plrev.2013.08.002
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1571064513001188

Empirical:

G.S. Engel, T.R. Calhoun, E.L. Read, T.K. Ahn, T. Mancal, Y.C. Cheng, et al.
Evidence for wavelike energy transfer through quantum coherence in photosynthetic systems
Nature, 446 (2007), pp. 782–786

E. Gauger, E. Rieper, J.J.L. Morton, S.C. Benjamin, V. Vedral
Sustained quantum coherence and entanglement in the avian compass
http://arxiv.org/abs/0906.3725

G. Bernroider, S. Roy
Quantum entanglement of K ions, multiple channel states and the role of noise in the brain
Fluctuations and noise in biological, biophysical and biomedical systems III, Proceedings of SPIE, vol. 5841, The International Society for Optical Engineering (2005), pp. 205–214

E. Rieper, J. Anders, V. Vedral
Quantum entanglement between the electron clouds of nucleic acids in DNA
http://arxiv.org/abs/1006.4053 (2011)

G.F. Reiter, A.I. Kolesnikov, S.J. Paddison, P.M. Platzman, A.P. Moravsky, M.A. Adams, et al.
Evidence of a new quantum state of nano-confined water
http://arxiv.org/abs/1101.4994 (2011)

And the key ones:

S. Sahu, S. Ghosh, B. Ghosh, K. Aswani, K. Hirata, D. Fujita, et al.
Atomic water channel controlling remarkable properties of a single brain microtubule: correlating single protein to its supramolecular assembly
Biosens Bioelectron, 47 (2013), pp. 141–148

S. Sahu, S. Ghosh, K. Hirata, D. Fujita, A. Bandyopadhyay
Multi-level memory-switching properties of a single brain microtubule
Appl Phys Lett, 102 (2013), p. 123701

So, I think I'm looking fairly justified in my claim. At least to the extent that it's not ruled out on temperature grounds.

Originally posted by DeepThought
There is nothing in the criticisms section covering the empirical data you are insisting on ignoring. The objections are largely on theoretical grounds and the "too warm, too wet, too noisy" argument, which is basically busted. Here are the various relevant empirical papers cited in Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff's article which was not pubished in ...[text shortened]... y justified in my claim. At least to the extent that it's not ruled out on temperature grounds.

http://www.news.com.au/tablet/quantum-scientists-offer-proof-soul-exists/story-fnenjnc3-1226507686757#ixzz2B4YdvSP8

...They argue that our experience of consciousness is the result of quantum gravity effects inside these microtubules - a process they call orchestrated objective reduction (Orch-OR).

In a near-death experience the microtubules lose their quantum state but the information within them is not destroyed. Or in layman's terms, the soul does not die but returns to the universe....

you are falling for the peddlars of WOO.

Quantumn soul babble. Not credible. junk.

I mean seriousely, if that doesn't set of your bull*** detector then you don't have one.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/?s=orch-or

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/10/11/deepak-chopra-reviews-richard-dawkins/

Falsifications of Hameroff-Penrose Orch OR Model of Consciousness and Novel Avenues for Development of Quantum Mind Theory
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/3049/


http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Quantum_consciousness



This is not serious mainstreme established science

It might be possible that the brain does rely on non-classically computable quantumn effects.

However there is a massive burden of proof to climb before it would be rational to believe it is so.

And if and when that burden of proof is met you will read about it on the front cover of Nature and
every major news media outlet.

This is fringe wingnut or at best an intreuging possibility yet to be properly explored populated by wingnuts idea.