However, upon skimming this article I see that it appears to be saying only that a "quantum probability model" with interference effects appears to do a better job at describing human cognition at the psychological level. This actually I think is pretty cool. It does not seem to be making the additional (in my mind unjustified) leap that, therefore, this is evidence for quantum-mechanical effects in the brain -- i.e., that there must be some neuron poised in an either-or superposition when a person's making a choice -- which is what I was afraid it'd be about. Whew.
To be fair, not having read the paper, it's not clear whether it's the author of the article or the authors of the paper are the ones that went there. :)
Oh, feel free to blame Penrose if you like. I do think it matters whether the people who are doing the work, or the person reporting on it, are the ones who are thinking along those lines, though. :)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif){kind=small}
no subject
I did no such thing.
However, upon skimming this article I see that it appears to be saying only that a "quantum probability model" with interference effects appears to do a better job at describing human cognition at the psychological level. This actually I think is pretty cool. It does not seem to be making the additional (in my mind unjustified) leap that, therefore, this is evidence for quantum-mechanical effects in the brain -- i.e., that there must be some neuron poised in an either-or superposition when a person's making a choice -- which is what I was afraid it'd be about. Whew.
whoops, I was wrong
AAARRGHHHIIILLLGETYOUPENROOOOOSEEE!!!
Re: whoops, I was wrong
It matters little
This all makes me wonder how our friend Mr. Fox is doing.
Re: It matters little