[mannykannot]

My issue is with how the author is using this fact as if it were an argument for the proposition that consciousness cannot be explained without invoking quantum 'weirdness' (and, conversely, will be explained with it.)

The way the author presents it seems calculated to suggest that it is a more relevant fact to his claim than it is, mainly by leaving out any context and details that show it is not.

This is not even the worst case, which I think goes to this: "Might it be that, just as quantum objects can apparently be in two places at once, so a quantum brain can hold onto two mutually-exclusive ideas at the same time?"

Note how the author phrases it in a way that would allow him to brush it off as mere speculation or analogy if he is challenged on it - a case of the motte-and-bailey tactic. I think this passage qualifies as being "not even wrong", and the whole article clearly fits Feynman's definition of cargo-cult 'science'.

Meanwhile, I have a computer that can do two tasks at the same time - does that mean that it is a quantum computer? I see D-Wave is selling quantum computers for upwards of $15M, but mine is available with bids starting at a mere $5M.

[noetic_techy]

I completely agree. It was by and large a very good article, but could have been better if it presented the other side. I'd like to know what the counter evidence is. The author seems to imply that the other side is "in the dark" on this question, and has no hypothesis and speculation of their own.