Consider the lifecycle of a butterfly: learn how to navigate as larvae/caterpillar, learn how to identify appropriate food, flee danger, find a place to build a cocoon, perform a metamorphosis, learn to fly, instinctively navigate across a continent - all with one million neurons. All on a trickle of electricity.
Meanwhile, a self-driving car with laser arrays, cameras, GPS, and a quarter rack of computer equipment can't reliably move when the options are forward, reverse, turn left, turn right.
Focusing the puny brainpower of something like a ringworm at a specific problem may result in some basic (as compared to a human brain) learning ability, navigation, and pattern matching, but there's a reason the "real" breakthrough is always just around the corner. No one in AI or neurology wants to admit that the traditional model of neurons and synapses could simply be wrong.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orchestrated_objective_reducti... [2] https://www.molbiolcell.org/doi/full/10.1091/mbc.e16-05-0271
I think hallucinogens might "turn the dial" on our quantum consciousness and "tune you in" to different parts of the signal, possibly meaning they can "entangle" the quantum structures in our minds with persistent information structures present somewhere. Maybe they do this randomly, or perhaps each drug is "frequency locked" to some particular part of the "spectrum" (not that I think it's anything so simple as a spectrum defined by a couple of parameters like 'virbation frequency' or whatever, but...), because there are often the same qualia reported for some chemicals independent of the person or setting (like DMT, apparently everybody on that saw an entity once).
Maybe the way chems affect us like this, is the same with getting into altered states without drugs. Or, to take a line from the matrix, "disrupt your input/output carrier signal" (as the red pill did).
I'd be interested in a quantum theory where this statement made sense, to be sure.
Penrose's ideas about quantum consciousness are widely challenged and not the mainstream, and his basing it on the Incompleteness Theorems is especially problematic, as those only even make sense in the context of certain kinds of formal systems. The later Orch-OR theory has been falsified, in fact:
particularly 2nd one. seems very interesting. really appreciate! :P;) xx fascinating both :p ;)xxx
It's Sir Roger Penrose & Dr. Stuart Hameroff talking about the physics of consciousness - for the first time I think a truly compelling idea of what consciousness is in a scientific way that could potentially be empirically measured. They mention the use of psychedelics to create more "conscious moments" - and funnily enough in this piece, Bill Atkinson talks about pockets of consciousness.
I wonder if there is really an argument to say that A) We have conscious beings on Earth due to some kind of quantum effect in our space (that is we really are just the bi-product of the quantum process in our universe) and B) Psychedelics can make humans more in-tune to quantum effects that give rise to consciousness - but as to your point I agree you don't need them for brilliant ideas.