You must log in or register to comment.

dangerousamal t1_it0zp1a wrote

This is such bullshit. There's so many ifs and maybes and coulds and might be's jn that article.. It is speculation not science. It is some person commenting on research that discovered some oddities and building an extrapolated story about how our brains are universal quantum computers when the reality is that quantum fluctuations affect all matter not just brains and there's nothing special about it. Someone just wanted to get there Ant-Man quantum realm jibblies out.


ronton t1_it15nsc wrote

> It is speculation not science

Welcome to /r/singularity lol.

(Kinda kidding, kinda not. Lots of speculators around here haha)


superluminary t1_it23s5c wrote

When I was at university, a guy hooked an FPGA up to a genetic algorithm to try to evolve a radio. The circuits worked but made literally no sense and would only work on one chip. The suggestion was that the algorithm had evolved to use the physical/quantum structure of the specific matter of the specific chip it was running on.

I'd be hugely surprised if our brains were not doing something similar.


Longslide9000 t1_it33tn0 wrote

Do you have any more information on this experiment?


red75prime t1_it37hd1 wrote

Look for "An evolved circuit, intrinsic in silicon, entwined with physics." by Adrian Thompson

I'm pretty much sure that it has nothing to do with quantum computations. Quantum effects maybe (but unlikely) had a part in it, but quantum computation is an entirely different beast.


superluminary t1_it3bmhq wrote

The brain is obviously neither a quantum computer or a digital computer, but it would be surprising if evolution was not taking advantage of every property of the substrate, including things like entanglement and maybe various other properties that we don’t know about.

Evolution will make use of the material it has available


red75prime t1_it3c9ku wrote

Yes, if there's a way to utilize it in a biological system. Evolution hadn't invented macroscopic wheels after all.


dangerousamal t1_it3gjt5 wrote

It just depends on where you want to draw the line.. did evolution invent macroscopic wheels or not? One could argue it did, because all products of life are a result of evolution.. including our own inventions. Human beings are just a product of evolution.. a fact we so often forget.


Prayers4Wuhan t1_it4ku2j wrote

Right. That is what happened. Wheels are ways humans conserve energy when transporting goods. How does nature transport goods? It doesn’t. It either consumes the goods on the spot or transports the life form toward the good instead of building systems that transport the good to the life form. There’s imply was no need for a wheel. There was a need for a pump to move nutrients to other cells and so the heart was formed. Wheels that transported oxygenated blood and sugars would be a terrible invention.


dangerousamal t1_it4llfh wrote

You've kind of made my point though. You said "Wheels are ways humans conserve energy when transporting goods. How does nature transport goods? It doesn't." .. from your point of view, humans are something outside of nature.. something supernatural.. paranormal even. You seem to misunderstand the simple truth that we are a product of nature, and our inventions are also natural. We do not exist outside nature. There are also other tool using species like apes, birds, and even insects.. would you say these animals and their inventions are outside of nature also? Not to toss further rain on this parade, but actually wheels did evolve "natrually" as well -


Prayers4Wuhan t1_it4n0fe wrote

Not kind of. I did exactly that. I was agreeing with you.

It seems you’re looking to be argumentative


dangerousamal t1_ita4et4 wrote

Possibly :) as someone said above.. welcome to Reddit hahah .. It's hard to get clarity on here sometimes, particularly when multiple comment threads at the same time.


superluminary t1_it3l0ja wrote

There’s no good way to provide blood flow or muscle attachment to a rotating element though.

All mammals are quadrupeds, although some have specialised forelimbs or vestigial legs. This is a local maxima, it would be hard for evolution to produce a hexapedal biped because the extra legs would take multiple generations to become useful.


gutr_ t1_it0fm1r wrote

There is probably some virus mining bitcoin though


Early_Professor469 t1_it3nwgp wrote

right sends out signals through the electromagnetic field or something ridiculous


Shelfrock77 t1_iszyxzm wrote

This also ties into quantum physics because we have infinite universes. I don’t think people realize this but you’ll be able to talk to a bunch of copies of your brain in the cloud and you will have disagreements with your “me” clones given no time constraints. Even without all this tech, there is a high likelihood on this planet alone that you have a biological twin out there from another mother in the same century. The singularity will have more doppelgängers.


red75prime t1_it3amkf wrote

Many-worlds interpretation is just that: interpretation. You'll get exactly the same experimental results as in Copenhagen. So, no, no chatting with your doppelganger from another quantum branch.


[deleted] t1_it0i4mi wrote



Shelfrock77 t1_it0ifc5 wrote

As a programmer, I tend to agree with multiverse theory


HeinrichTheWolf_17 t1_it1tzdh wrote

Save your anti Rick speech for the Council of Ricks, terror Rick!

Hey, save your Rick rules for the sheep Ricks, Rick pig!

Fuck me pal! Fuck you? No no no no, fuck me!


[deleted] t1_it0ii20 wrote



NefariousNaz t1_it0k0so wrote

They're not more likely interpretations.

A lot of scientists feel like the many worlds interpretation is the most likely interpretation just following the data.

It doesn't sound like you're that well versed on the subject.


-ZeroRelevance- t1_it1400g wrote

Yeah, there’s no ‘more likely’ interpretation, because we literally have no evidence for anything just yet. It could be Many Worlds, it could be Copenhagen, it could be Superdeterminism. As it stands, we have no way to know.


Shelfrock77 t1_it1alc3 wrote

What if it’s all truth even when there are clear contrast. This is how we change/reprogram our thoughts.


Shelfrock77 t1_it0itd9 wrote

Name a few and i’ll talk about how they fit into multiverse theory.


[deleted] t1_it0k3kj wrote



3Quondam6extanT9 t1_it0v3rn wrote

Let's correct some misunderstandings. Yes, he is using theories to infer absolute conclusive statements, but those theories aren't "debunked" because they are unfalsifiable. Thats not how it works. If it cannot be demonstrated or proven then it's simply a model. Nothing about it is debunked besides external claims that don't align with the existing models.

It is however ridiculous that he assumes his opinion is meant to be taken as a given. I also believe in multiverse theory on top of many other concepts, but I would never be so presumptive as to state my beliefs as fact.


Shelfrock77 t1_it11ga4 wrote

“It is however ridiculous that he assumes his opinion is meant to be taken as a given. I also believe in multiverse theory on top of many other concepts, but I would never be so presumptive as to state my beliefs as fact.”

Lol you are chasing your own tail with me bro, we have no free will. Much love ❤️


3Quondam6extanT9 t1_it264v0 wrote

Not chasing anything. I put a lot of stock into multiverse theory as well as quantum consciousness, but they are both models for now. Untill proven otherwise, such as in the example of the recent evidence for entanglement, I can only treat them as theories.


NefariousNaz t1_it0w88h wrote

It doesn't sound like you know what you're talking about. It being unfalsifiable doesn't mean that it is debunked. It just means that it cannot be empirically proven over other competing interpretations, which also are probably unfalsifiable as well.

I actually don't favor many worlds interpretation, but that does not preclude it as there's no way to test and verify any model currently.

Additionally there are also other models of how a multiverse would exist. If the universe goes on for infinite, or if there are multiple bubble universes with own big bang/creation event which would give the same affect. All unfalsifiable btw because it extends outside the scope of any measurement that we can ever make.


onyxengine t1_it11wl5 wrote

Unfalsifiable just means we don’t have the capacity to verify, not that it can’t be the case because we can’t verify it.


siqiniq t1_it1fagk wrote

That’s a strange way to say it. I’d say “quantum computation uses our brains”


socialkaosx t1_it1r2pk wrote

Such random news does appear all the time, and in the meantime we will continue to be in the same place for the next 100 years


ArgentStonecutter t1_it3k07h wrote

They may have shown entangled states of loosely distributed molecules throughout the brain correlated to brain activity, but I see no reason to leap to any conclusions about consciousness.


ImoJenny t1_it3q32b wrote


This has big implications for the nature of consciousness, the pointlessness of cryogenics, and the folly of digital mind upload attempts.


WeeaboosDogma t1_it410e0 wrote

Hey MA, c'mere!

New material dialectics being proposed in a news article. We need the new dose of how new physical knowledge and common knowledge impacts our new immaterial ideas about the human condition and metaphysics!


MA, put down your Theosophy book, your Kabbalah can wait, we gotta see language and culture change in real time.


DakPara t1_it3426r wrote

I see zero need to even suggest human brain function relies on quantum computation.

“Brain Water”? Really?


apollyoneum1 t1_it3wfk2 wrote

It’s the only way we solve the problem of free will.