Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Second opinion please

  1. Mar 1, 2007 #1
    About a week ago i opened a topic in the mind/brain forum, in which i asked if it was likely that our brains evolved to use quantum computing, since that would offer an advantage for survival. In it i posted a link to physorg article which showed that some organisms are sensitive to phase information. The topic was called "evolved to use quantum computing". Vanesch replied that quantum computing in the brain was unlikely but that some people still think its possible, and q_goest said something about the nature of computation. I didnt say anything else in the topic.

    Then a few days later the topic was suddenly gone and i got an infraction for 'misinformation'. All i did in the topic was ask a question (about the likelyhood of ...), so i couldnt have spread misinformation. I contacted the moderator for an explanation, and he said that vanesch explained that quantum computing is infeasable in the brain (which is what i asked in the first place and still isnt misinformation on my side). So i asked again what the misinformation on my side was, but i got no further response. I tried again and sent a message to the moderator, showing that this is a valid topic for the forum, because its discussed in academic circles, and i also showed him experimental evidence that strongly suggests quantum effects take place in neurons - regardless of any theoretical explanation. All in the hope of getting the topic back.

    Now its a few days later, the moderator doesnt reply or explain whats going on, the topic is still gone, and i still have an infraction.
    Could i get a second opinion? I dont know where the topic is now, but it should be visible to moderators somewhere.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Mar 1, 2007 #2
    He's probably asking you to back up your story with links or some such, I've got caught out by the I'm not claiming it's right thing, anyone know? Sometimes the mods get it wrong and are over zealous, it's rare but it does happen, anyway go over his head if your that concerned and take it up with the Admin.

    In my case I didn't bother, it's simply not that important, but it sounds like you have a real grievance, Mentors are human(well vaguely:smile: give 'em chocolate and you'll see what I mean)They make mistakes. If it's truly an overzealous reaction the admins/concensus of the republic of mentors, will overturn the decision.

    Oh and by the way there are many papers on quantum consciousness, in fact hundreds, and in fact it's often hard to find one on classical consciousness these days, if you ever decide to put up the topic again, check out the current Mind and Brain Science section, I personally made great strides to put up an actual peer reviewed paper on the subject, this very day, because I was worried if I didn't I'd be labelled as spreading misinformation. Bear it in mind.

    Mind you I'm still of the opinion that it's bunk ATM, but I'm keeping an open mind.

    https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=158691

    <Dubious link removed - Zz>

    FYI, do the research if it's in anyway controversial, it's fringe science, but it's becoming more common, doesn't mean it's right, but take care.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 1, 2007
  4. Mar 1, 2007 #3
    I got an infraction a month ago by the same moderator which i think was a misunderstanding. I didnt care about it, so i let it rest. Now that i got another one, im worried this is a 3-strike-out situation. Ive been here for over a year(or 2?) and i know i dont do ad hominems and i also dont open ridiculous topics or spread misinformation.

    I saw the new topic by q_goest and put my own link in there, see if it changes ur mind about it being bunk :smile: Btw i did look into the subject before i opened the topic and came across the discussion between hameroff and tegmark (tegmark claims to have wrecked hameroffs orch-or, but hameroff has the latest(2002) reply to his criticism), so i opened the topic to find out what the current status of the whole thing was. So i thought it was allowed in the mind/brain forum (where else would i ask the question?).
     
    Last edited: Mar 1, 2007
  5. Mar 2, 2007 #4
    Well there's no way you can argue with peer reviewed papers, so next time you want to ask the question put said links up and there's little the moderators can do or would want to do I suspect, if it's peer reviewed then the only thing I suspect you can do is argue with the authority of the reviewers.

    Look at it this way would you rather they were over zealous or under zealous?

    My advice is first contact the mentor see what his/her position is if you get no joy then take it higher and see if you can get a second opinion.

    If it's any consolation I have been here for three years and never received an infraction until recently now I too have two, so I'm in exactly the same position.:smile:

    Just put big bold flags up saying this is controversial, I in no way know if this is true can anyone provide more reliable information, and try to use irrefutable sources, that way no one can question the veracity of your links as you've already made it clear that you have no idea.
     
    Last edited: Mar 2, 2007
  6. Mar 2, 2007 #5
    This is the only link i posted in the topic:
    Their work was published in Science. I didnt claim this was quantum computing, but i offered it as an example that organisms can be susceptible to quantum information. The authors themselves ask whether biological systems designed (evolved) themselves to make use of such effects. So its relevant to my question of 'evolved to use quantum comp.' Also published in Science is this one (tegmarks criticism of quantum mind): http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/brain.html

    Ill try thanks. I thought this feedback forum would do.

    At least im not the only one then. Did u manage to get rid of the infraction?
    Also is this infraction stuff all the result of some new policy?
     
    Last edited: Mar 2, 2007
  7. Mar 2, 2007 #6
    The first one was for putting up graphs from a WHO report with no link, so fair enough.

    The second I decided not to pursue although I thought I had a case, I decided life is too short though.

    But I'd be interested to see what happens with yours as it sounds like yours is even more open and shut than mine, go for it, see what is said. As I say everyone makes mistakes, if there wrong and your infraction was the result of an overzealous decision, I'm sure a consensus of opinion of their peers will find the same, if not, what have you lost?

    By the way and to reiterate why I don't dismiss this sort of thing out of hand: NASA published a paper, which I caught a glimpse of in NS magazine that shows that DNA uses principals in decoherence to more effectively find gene sequences for replication, using quantum principals it can find and copy genes quicker.

    If at the fundamental level of enzymes and DNA which obviously are of a size to feel QM effects, and 3 pre-eminent biologists and NASA have published said paper, who is going to argue?

    I wish I could find the paper, but it's too recent to be in the public domain. However a search of NS archives will no doubt turn up the report based on the paper.

    Bearing this in mind I think it's idiotic to dismiss QM from any field of nanoscience out of hand, but of course that is my personal opinion, it may well be a load of old tosh, but I'm not making an allegation it is arbitrarilly and I'm perfectly willing to discuss it scientifically, albeit somewhat cynically.
     
    Last edited: Mar 2, 2007
  8. Mar 2, 2007 #7

    ZapperZ

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    I need to step in here because, again, you simply have not gotten it, even after repeated explanations from me.

    1. If someone cites a published work and then ask "Look, this sounds interesting. Can someone tell me if this is true?", then this is a perfectly VALID question to ask! In fact, these are the type of questions we welcome very much on PF. Finding legitimate physics issues to be discussed in what makes PF a valuable place. This is NOT what is under contention here.

    2. However, you are confusing (1) with "Oh, I don't quite know exactly how to answer your question, but here are a few links here that may address it. Now I don't quite understand these things, so I have no idea if these are right or not."

    (2) is what you often do! In your attempt to "help", you made no hesitation in making citations of things that YOU admitted that you do not understand! The threads often end up being an utter mess of confusion. This is what you were told NOT to do! I specifically remember telling you to not respond to such things and DEFER the question to others who may actually know what they're talking about!

    Do not try to offer an answer when you do not understand what it is. It is as simple as that!

    Zz.
     
  9. Mar 2, 2007 #8

    Moonbear

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    No, it's all the result of a long-existing policy against overly speculative posting, as specified in our forum guidelines. A theoretical paper (improperly cited as provided to me...do you think I don't check these things?) that mentions quantum mechanics in a section entitled "Speculative Implications" and acknowledges the idea is dismissed by most, and pretty implausible (it's a section of the paper that gets into philosophical implications rather than science) is not going to bolster your argument. Since you obviously don't understand your own sources, you have no place proposing theories related to them. The infraction points stand, and this thread is locked, because we are not going to continue the deleted discussion here.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Second opinion please
  1. My opinion (Replies: 5)

  2. Second warning dispute (Replies: 2)

Loading...