Which is why I said hypothetically…
I think you may have misused the word “hypothetically” then.
up until a year ago the very idea that quantum entanglement could happen in the brain was treated as a joke for like 30 years
I was taught Orch OR theory at university about 17 years ago.
that’s why the larger theory was instantly dismissed
Instantly dismissed by who? It’s a new theory, there will always be detractors and critics of new theories. That’s very different from being “instantly dismissed”.
givesomefucks@lemmy.world 11 hours ago
I 100% did
Then you were also taught that there was no way the brain could maintain sustained quantum entanglement
I mean, frame of reference…
You said you learned it 17 years ago, that’s not very “new”.
But compared to any other science, all of psychology is incredibly “new”.
I’m multitasking bro, this ain’t that deep
rah@hilariouschaos.com 11 hours ago
No. I’ve no idea what could have possibly brought you to that conclusion.
Please don’t try to tell me what brought you to that conclusion while multitasking. For that matter, please don’t try to tell me at all.
givesomefucks@lemmy.world 11 hours ago
Luckily it’s easy to find research from that period:
journals.aps.org/pre/…/PhysRevE.80.021912
I rember that time as well, although it seems my memory is better than yours, despite you being waaaaaaay more confident.
rah@hilariouschaos.com 11 hours ago
One paper claiming that the Orch OR model is not a feasible explanation of the origin of consciousness does not mean that the Orch OR model is not a feasible explanation of the origin of consciousness.
I’m not sure why you think my memory is in any way relevant.
There’s a significant journey from being published in a paper to being taught in classes. I was taught Orch OR somewhere between 2008 and 2010 so there’s no reason to think memory comes into it.