I’d recommend this excellent series if you want a good grounding:

https://www.rigb.org/explore-science/explore/video/arrows-time-back-future-1999

And I also found this video which I haven’t watched but I expect will be good and probably attacks your pondering more directly:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_0o2fJhtSc

Hence, the Orch OR model is not a feasible explanation of the origin of consciousness.

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.

it seems my memory is better than yours

I’m not sure why you think my memory is in any way relevant.

Published 13 August, 2009

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.

Then you were also taught that there was no way the brain could maintain sustained quantum entanglement

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.

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 (see, for example: oxygen theory of combustion). That’s very different from being “instantly dismissed”.

what actually makes consciousness in a brain is (hypothetically, technically) microtubules

This is only a proposed theory, it’s very far from accepted fact.

when we observe them they will always be in the same state?

The two particles are in different but directly related states. For example in some circumstances with two entangled photons, it will necessarily be the case that one photon has horizontal polarisation and the other vertical polarisation. The two will never have the same polarisation.

You can’t know which photon is in which state without measuring one. The effect of taking the measurement travels faster than the speed of light. Measurement is not manipulating though; you can’t say “I want this photon to be measured as vertically polarised”, you can only ask “what is the polarisation of this photon?”. So you can’t transmit information faster than light, unfortunately.

Are you able to explain succinctly what you mean by “selected” so that we can communicate? That page is pretty dense and opaque.

selected

What do you mean by that? What does it mean to “select” something in the context of a neural net with input nodes and output nodes?

the model was planning

How have you come to that conclusion?

LLM limitations like “they only predict the next token” and other things that have already been falsified

What do LLMs do beyond predicting the next token?

Like a Transformer…?

Giving up advancements in science and technology is stagnation.

That’s not what I’m suggesting. I’m suggesting giving up some particular, potential advancements in science and tecnology, which is a whole different kettle of fish and does not imply stagnation.

Thinking it’s a good idea to not do anything until people are fed and housed is stagnation.

Why do you think that?

stagnation

Why do you see feeding and housing everyone as stagnation?

The people who are motivated by advancing technology, aren’t motivated to overcome corruption, incline equality, to replace economic systems, etc.

That seems a bit presumptuous. Why do you think people who are motivated to advance technology aren’t motivated to overcome corruption, etc.?

All you’d be doing is stifling innovation, improvement, a reason for hope in the future

I disagree. I don’t see why focussing on feeding and housing people implies stifling innovation. And do you not see feeding and housing everyone to be an improvement and a reason for hope in the future?

We already have the resources and technology to do this

But not the will. Because people are focused on building spaceplanes instead of focused on what matters.

Here’s an idea: why not take care of people’s basic needs like water, food and shelter, and then build a spaceplane?