| > There's little in there about consciousness. The article is more upfront about it. The reason why the paper doesn't lean on that too heavily is so it can evade scrutiny. > I'm not a big fan of this brand of dogmatic skepticism. I don't understand why skepticism about most things is okay, but when it comes to doubting claims about a supernatural "quantum" effect without any experimental evidence pointing to its veracity, that's suddenly considered too skeptical? > Just admit we don't, as a species know. Exactly! That's why it's not okay to just make stuff up and assert it must be true because it jibes with your spiritual worldview. We don't know if the proposed quantum effects exist, and until someone shows they do, there is no reason to believe so. It's also worth noting that the proposed quantum woo doesn't solve any outstanding problem in neurobiology, they just love to make it look that way by having it address self-referential issues. All that crap boils down to proclaiming that the actual open questions in neurobiology are unanswerable because an inherently inscrutable magical field does all the real work. |