And then there's this:

That's a super cool video.

More research must be done, but if the idea survives the test of criticism it seems to support punctuated equilibrium.

So, I'm wrong again, eh? :sad:

Being wrong is the best thing ever. It is the fundamental unit of learning.

Yeah, yeah, pass the sauce.

Right so, change of poem then.

Drunken Doughnut

Danny Doughnut is my name
Denying minds is my game
Wrote myself a book or two
They don't make sense, but who are you?

I've talked at TED and Oxford too
Taught those stiffs a thing or two
I'm not here and neither are you
The mind is false, the illusion true

All was well 'til experiments proved
My theories wrong, my followers fools
But I've made enough to keep me in booze
Heads I win, tails you lose!

I agree.

Being wrong, and realizing it, is like removing a splinter which also gives me a new perspective.

At one point I thought it a pain but I've come to see how being wrong is the better joy than being right.

Being wrong, and realizing it, is like removing a splinter — Moliere

I never am wrong, so I wouldn't know. Always I realise I was wrong when I have just changed my mind. :cool:

I never am wrong, — unenlightened

's true, that.

And then there's this: — unenlightened

Unfortunately, that new finding has blown things out of proportion in science media. We already know that quantum mechanical processes occur in biological systems and it's nice that there's some evidence for that happening in us, but people falling into the conclusion that consciousness is definitely a quantum mechanical process missed that this is not proven yet. And seen as how neural networks simulate similar behaviors, it may just be that these quantum mechanical processes are necessary for neurons to function properly, but a single neuron function does not equal consciousness as far as we know today. We still seem to need the sum of all parts to produce consciousness.

Reminds me about the recent news of Princeton team copying a fruit fly brain. And how science influencers and media started talking about it in the form of some cyberpunk uploading of our mind into a computer. But the problem is that just a copy isn't enough, we need to understand how the chemicals that flow through the brain affect the brain, but we don't know yet what the "cocktail effect" of many different chemical compounds do with out brain so how do we simulate it enough to effectively give the full experience of a fruit fly? And if microtubules are part of the neuron function, and that quantum mechanical process isn't accounted for, the neurons might not act between each other in the way needed for accurate simulation.

I generally agree with this. My previous comments here have, of course, been somewhat lacking in seriousness.

Neat thread. I for one love a good witty analysis/introspection/musing or what have you.

For what it's worth, keep in mind. A 20,000 year old rock carving will carbon date the same whether it's been preserved for 20,000 years or freshly chiseled 20 minutes ago. If a few factors are managed properly, no man nor his instruments of science would tell the difference.

How refreshing to think about what is normally not.

A 20,000 year old rock carving will carbon date the same whether it's been preserved for 20,000 years or freshly chiseled 20 minutes ago. — Outlander

Yes, but it looks as though you have misunderstood the science being reported. It's not carbon dating.
The sooty carbon layers from fire smoke deposits mark the annual layers of limestone deposit that build up in layers on the roof of the cave. This produces a barcode of thicker and thinner layers that can be matched over many years just the same way that tree rings can be matched so that a library can be built up from these flakes producing a continuous record of the years of habitation, and particular flakes can be associated with identifiable remains or artefacts of neanderthal or h.sapiens occupation and that enables them to say with confidence that they are occupying the cave if not at the same time, then at most one year apart. Carbon dating cannot get anything like that close, of course.

people falling into the conclusion that consciousness is definitely a quantum mechanical process missed that this is not proven yet. — Christoffer

I missed where people were falling into that conclusion. "Is Human Consciousness Quantum After All?" is the subtitle. And at the end of the video, the guy says. This is super exciting because maybe Penrose and Hameroff were right ...", having noted at the beginning that no one had taken their ideas seriously for years.

And of course it is only a very partial explanation at best, of something that every living cell has, that is possibly a precursor of what we might recognise as consciousness.