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:
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.
Typical advice
OP didn’t ask for advice.
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?
a movie to return them to Pegasus, which never happened
It happened in comic books instead.
Nobody knows. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness
“niceness” from incels is very different from genuine niceness with no ulterior motive
I disagree.
its very easy to detect when someone is being Actually nice, and someone is faking a niceness.
That seems very naive to me.
one short two word sentence does not fit the rest of what he is saying
I disagree. The two word sentence fits precisely everything else he said, which seems to describe exactly the same behaviour with exactly the same end goal as he had originally. There doesn’t seem to be any difference between “before” and “after”.
versus being nice as a means toward being his better self
No, OP said “which worked”, which implies that his being nice was not just a means toward being his better self but also a means to get what he wanted from other people. Like before.
deleted by creator
Not because it will gain you something.
OP saying “which worked” implies he hoped it would gain him something.
Everyone knows you’re not being nice, you’re trying to manipulate them.
I was trying to be nice so they would want to be with me, not because I wanted to be nice.
After that I worked on myself.
worked on being more pleasant to be around.
Just be nice to people and don’t expect anything
show interest in other people’s hobbies - genuinely.
Which worked. By being less self absorbed and focused on getting a girlfriend, I became someone who was attractive
I see, so rather than trying to make people want to be with you by being nice, you should be nice to people and then they’ll be attracted to you. Uhh… wut? Sounds like you haven’t changed at all.
trying to manipulate
Which worked
How is what you did “after” different from what you did “before”?
No, they don’t :-(