Talk:Orchestrated objective reduction/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

A Small Request...

WingGundam, this issue is more complicated than you think, and neither of us have any final say in it. That said, I think you're misrepresenting the state of affairs right now because of your own views on the subject.

For one, the Gödel-Turing argument has some things going for it. Gödel himself gave a version of it in the Gibbs Lecture, prior to John Lucas, and the argument has been retooled by Selmer Bringsjord and others over the issue of hypercomputation (though Bringsjord's refutation of Penrose's argument is a rather hand-wavy rebuttal to both the Halting Problem and Gödel's Theorems themselves...): http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.91.5786&rep=rep1&type=pdf.

Penrose has addressed many of the criticisms in the essays "Beyond the Doubting of a Shadow" and "What Gaps? Reply to Grush and Churchland". This is significant because the criticisms of the arguments (Whiteley sentence, unsound system, unknowably huge algorithm for humans) have been amply addressed (in Penrose's writings and those of others: http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/3751287?uid=3739728&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21102539778617, http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/3751512?uid=3739728&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21102539778617) and mostly ignored.

I've received note that Hameroff has admitted his errors, but it must be said that the model was open-ended and prone to more discoveries being made as time went on. And the Journal of Cosmology was not his response to Reimers and McKemmish. The actual response was presented at the TSC 2010 convention: http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/PNAS.htm.

Your citation of Georgiev is rather misleading, since it seems he has his own version of OR as the basis of consciousness in the brain: http://cogprints.org/4463/2/tucson_2003.pdf. On the Quantum Mind talk page, you can find his critique of Hameroff's proposal as well as his critique of Tegmark!

Here's a good summary of the state of the hypothesis, complete with citations of articles that back up the idea: http://www.quantumbionet.org/admin/files/Massimo%20Pregnolato%20-%20Rita%20Pizzi%202011.pdf.

Either give the groups involved a fair shake or delete the article altogether. 24.192.195.236 (talk) 17:35, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• "I think you're misrepresenting ... because of your own views on the subject" — stop accusing others of dishonesty and misrepresentation. stop accusing others of bias against you. Jesus Christ, stop making ad hominem attacks. This violates the rule of WP:AGF, and the spirit of editing Wikipedia.

"the Journal of Cosmology was not his response..." — Bear in mind, I didn't write most of this article. But I can remove this citation if it's inappropriate.

[1] is not a reliable source.

[2] is not a reliable source.

[3] is not a reliable source.

"This is significant because the criticisms of the arguments ... have been addressed ... and mostly ignored." — No, they haven't.

We cannot present the Penrose-Lucas argument as if it's accepted, nor as if its criticisms have been satisfactorily addressed, unless you can provide an independent, secondary or tertiary source which states that the philosophical community has accepted his argument. They haven't, so this article documents the argument and prominent criticisms.

"Hameroff has admitted his errors, but ... the model was open-ended and prone to" — a classic symptom of moving the goalposts

"Penrose has addressed many of the criticisms in the essays" — This article must document Orch-OR as viewed by the scientific community in reliable, published literature. We cannot use Penrose's and Hameroff's primary sources for anything beyond basic facts of the theory. In particular, analysis of criticisms and rebuttals of the theory must come from independent, reliable, secondary sources. We cannot use someone's Powerpoint presentation, nor the QuantumConsciousness website, nor the Quantumbionet website. Those are not reliable sources.

In the absence of an independent, reliable analysis of Orch-OR, or broad scientific support for such an ambitious theory, we MUST view it skeptically under WP:FRINGE. And as the SEP states "From a philosophical perspective, their proposal has occasionally received outspoken rejection... [It] represents a highly speculative approach with conceptual problems and without plausible concrete ideas for empirical confirmation."

Instead of spraying unreliable citations, why not post a proposed change/edit here? —wing gundam 00:31, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

• I never accused you of dishonesty against ME. I just have a problem with the fact that you keep calling it "pseudoscience" when it still has a good amount of credibility behind it. 24.192.195.236 (talk) 03:36, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Sure. 24.192.195.236 (talk) 03:36, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

It's the transcript of the presentation he gave at the TSC 2010 conference. You can find the video online if you want. I've also received word from him that the peer-reviewed version will be out this fall, with commentary by Reimers, McKemmish, et al. When it comes out, you can probably post it. 24.192.195.236 (talk) 03:36, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

It has links TO reliable sources. That's why I presented it to you. Of course I wasn't going to use it as a source. I was using it as a list of more reliable articles. I am allowed to do that. 24.192.195.236 (talk) 03:36, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Once again, see above. 24.192.195.236 (talk) 03:36, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Er... yeah, they have. Open up Penrose's 1994 book and you'll find pretty much every objection answered in detail. 24.192.195.236 (talk) 03:36, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

There are many who still sympathize with Lucas and Penrose's position. The claims of eliminative materialists have responses on their channel. At least give the responses rather than just the counterarguments. 24.192.195.236 (talk) 03:36, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Er... no. It's an example of a flexible hypothesis. The central argument remains the same. This isn't the same as being ad-hoc. 24.192.195.236 (talk) 03:36, 10 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.124.163.95 (talk)

There are links TO the sources in those papers. Why is "QuantumConsciousness" not reliable? It contains links to all of Hameroff et al.'s papers. The actual papers are presented IN those pages. You can find them with a quick search, and many of them are reliable. 24.192.195.236 (talk) 03:36, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes. "Occasionally received" cannot be emphasized enough. 24.192.195.236 (talk) 03:36, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I'll propose the changes/edits as soon as the material has been looked at with a closer eye. I don't even buy Orch-OR completely, and I think work needs to be done on this article. 24.192.195.236 (talk) 03:36, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

• Fixed your post, 24.192.195.236. Try not to fuck with other's comments. 165.124.163.95 (talk) 20:02, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry. Bad habit. I usually try to respond to people point-by-point. 24.192.195.236 (talk) 03:02, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I would like to express support for wing gundam. He actually explained well (!) why Orch-OR is viewed as pseudoscience and the article should not be more positive about the merits of Orch-OR, namely, only Hameroff himself and a bunch of people lacking formal training in neuroscience and molecular biology are able to "see" some positive merit in Orch-OR. There are no solid publications by independent researchers (i.e. not Hameroff's co-authors) who evaluated Orch OR in positive terms, so the claim cannot be validated according to Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion of content. And to answer one question posed by 24.192.195.236 - Q: Why is "QuantumConsciousness" not reliable? A: Something called conflict of interest - you don't expect to find on Hameroff's homepage thorough discussion on what qualifies his sci-fi theory as pseudoscience, do you? Danko Georgiev (talk) 12:43, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

And a minor comment on "Your citation of Georgiev is rather misleading, since it seems he has his own version of OR as the basis of consciousness in the brain". I am supportive of some ideas by Roger Penrose (one of them is the necessity of objective reduction in QM), but I don't see any positive contribution by Hameroff to Penrose's ideas. In contrast, much harm is done, as now many cannot think about Penrose's ideas without somehow mentioning Hameroff's sci-fi stuff somewhere. It should be noted that Penrose's 1989 book was published before he knew Hameroff, and exactly because of the 1989 book Hameroff contacted Penrose and proposed collaboration. Danko Georgiev (talk) 12:50, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, in that case, why don't you defend Penrose's arguments regarding the Gödel-Turing theorems? 69.14.156.143 (talk) 18:49, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Did I say that I agree with Penrose's Godelian argument!? Actualy, I have written 2 entries in PlanetMath on the topic: Penrose’s first Gödelian argument and Penrose’s second Gödelian argument. What I said is that I agree with some of Penrose's ideas in his book, but none of Hameroff's ideas. At this point, I don't think I need to write specifically on what points I agree with Penrose. Danko Georgiev (talk) 22:27, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Can we get a better description?

Forgive me, but the text isn't clear how this is suppose to work. Non-computable algorithm? What is that? Microtubules and connective proteins influence or orchestrate the state reduction of the qubits by modifying the spacetime-separation of their superimposed states. Is there a step by step description of what Penrose is talking about? I know a little of quantum physics and quite a bit of inorganic + organic chemistry. For now, the article looks like a lot of quantum jargon. Vmelkon (talk) 20:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

The "Non-computable algorithm" I believe is a mistake, and should be replaced by "Non-computable physical procedures" or something along this line. It is exactly the "algorithmic" part of Hard-AI that Penrose had been attacking in his 90s books. Now for a more clear description of the theory, probably you have to resort to the original papers (try the 2013 Elsevier) or secondary articles and videos to get a more precise description; there are plenty in the refs. You may feel that the root-papers are incomplete, but remember that we are still talking about a "theory", a "conjecture". Nevertheless, I believe that eventually you will come to agree that the sentences of the article you mentioned indeed summarize accurately the contents of the papers. In any case, the organization of this page's contents need rework mainly for eliminating redundancy. Sperxios (talk) 12:44, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

A Big Request ... Inclusion of Stuart Hameroff - Deepak Chopra collaboration

Even though some have small requests such as making the Orch-OR article sound more positive, I believe the Orch-OR article misses important content on the so called Orch-OR "updates" done in the past couple of years. I personally would be happy to see a special section on the Hameroff-Chopra collaboration, on the quantum soul diffusing out in the Universe through entanglements after the death, and other such revolutionary insights some of which were reported in Morgan Freeman's Through the Wormhole. Danko Georgiev (talk) 13:06, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I would definitley second that request. Adding these references to where the bulk of support for Orch-OR lies will likely result in it being seen in the appropriate context. Fisman (talk) 07:47, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Hey, Danko, they've responded to the claims of people who have "widely rejected" the idea: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1571064513001188. 69.14.156.143 (talk) 18:44, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

And by the way, these speculations on Hameroff's part don't "reveal the true motivation" for Orch-OR. It's just an extension of what's already there. Nothing more. 69.14.156.143 (talk) 18:48, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

If you include stuff like that it'll definitely make Penrose look like he associates with kooks! :-) 129.132.209.90 (talk) 00:00, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Weird quote

Another critic, Charles Seife, has said, "Penrose, the Oxford mathematician famous for his work on tiling the plane with various shapes, is one of a handful of scientists who believe that the ephemeral nature of consciousness suggests a quantum process."

I'm not sure what this quote brings at all, so I removed it altogether. What it can bring to the article completely eludes me. If someone finds it insightful, feel free to put it back.217.13.235.58 (talk) 12:55, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Aticle 2015-08-01

[[4]] Quantum Cognition: The possibility of processing with nuclear spins in the brain 1Department of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106

Matthew P. A. Fisher

(Dated: September 1, 2015)

The possibility that quantum processing with nuclear spins might be operative in the brain is explored. Phos- phorus is identified as the unique biological element with a nuclear spin that can serve as a qubit for such

putative quantum processing - a neural qubit - while the phosphate ion is the only possible qubit-transporter.

We identify the “Posner molecule”, Ca9(PO4)6, as the unique molecule that can protect the neural qubits on very

long times and thereby serve as a (working) quantum-memory. A central requirement for quantum-processing

is quantum entanglement. It is argued that the enzyme catalyzed chemical reaction which breaks a pyrophos- phate ion into two phosphate ions can quantum entangle pairs of qubits. Posner molecules, formed by binding

such phosphate pairs with extracellular calcium ions, will inherit the nuclear spin entanglement. A mechanism

for transporting Posner molecules into presynaptic neurons during vesicle endocytosis is proposed. Quantum

measurements can occur when a pair of Posner molecules chemically bind and subsequently melt, releasing a

shower of intra-cellular calcium ions that can trigger further neurotransmitter release and enhance the probability

of post-synaptic neuron firing. Multiple entangled Posner molecules, triggering non-local quantum correlations

of neuron firing rates, would provide the key mechanism for neural quantum processing. Implications, both in

vitro and in vivo, are briefly mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.47.37.101 (talk) 20:01, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

20 predictions

Well, Hameroff&Penrose have been at it again recently and published a review of their theory including rebuttals by their critics: Discovery of Quantum Vibrations in 'Microtubules' Inside Brain Neurons Supports Controversial Theory of Consciousness How much of this news has already been integrated into the article? I am especially interested in these "20 predictions". As written in the wikipedia article here, most of these predictions have already been refuted. However, according to the news article it is claimed that none of the 20 predictions have been refuted, and that, in fact, several of them have been confirmed. I haven't been looking at the bottom of this, but perhaps it would be interesting to list each prediction in table form including the alleged confirmation and refutation. How about that? Fedor (talk) 13:08, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Do you expect Hameroff to admit his predictions were refuted? Did you find somebody else making press conference to say that Orch OR has been amazingly confirmed? I understand well that when a person is interested in something he wants to know more if the topic is worthy or not. I was quite interested in Orch OR in 2002, but my enthusiasm for it has since completely vanished. Everything I tested, starting from the molecular biology of microtubules to mathematical structure of quantum mechanics, contradicts Hameroff's writings. You can find some of my articles in Research Gate to do some reading on the problems of Orch OR, then think for yourself. Danko Georgiev (talk) 14:56, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Ofcourse the theory is not confirmed, as you said. But it has started to receive more attention. Very recently Penrose received a prize for this theory: http://newswise.com/articles/sir-roger-penrose-receives-bhaumik-prize-in-consciousness-research-at-tucson-conference

Of course it is related to the university and residency of Hamerrof, Arizona, but nevertheless, Mr Mani Bhaumik, a UCLA physicist, would certainly have other bushiness to attend to than to award prizes to Englishmen with brain-dead theories.

Danko Georgiev: Casting doubt on Hameroff's motives and intellectual honesty is not a valid argument, but an ad hominem. Why wouldn't we expect Hameroff to admit any mistakes or problems to his theory? You seemed to have decided beforehand that he is some charlatan or at the very least in serious denial. That casts a shadow over everything you claim here. I could easily turn it around: Why would we expect 'you' or any of Hameroff's opponent to admit to making errors? That won't get us very far. Let's focus on the facts instead. Amphioxys (talk) 11:06, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, I added a proposed table below the fold here. The predictions are taken from: http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/penrose-hameroff/quantumcomputation.html Fedor (talk) 11:35, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

The review that the article refers to has been directed above. Look for the "sciencedirect" link just above here. In my opinion, I would say that Hameroff is being a little too enthusiastic here, since, while the A-lattice thing isn't that big of an issue, it's probably not true (Kikkawa's 1994 work...). That said, it is looking good, and with the flexibility of the proposal, coupled with recent work on topological quantum computation and Bandyopadhyay's material, the model has been significantly cleaned up, while still retaining its key premises. 69.14.156.143 (talk) 21:25, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

table (work in progress)

Claim	Refutation	Alleged confirmation
Neuronal microtubules are directly necessary for consciousness
1. Synaptic sensitivity and plasticity correlate with cytoskeletal architecture/activities in both pre­synaptic and post­synaptic neuronal cytoplasm.	Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Fusce quis malesuada massa, id scelerisque magna. Pellentesque elementum sodales tortor.	Nulla sed lorem sit amet metus lobortis tristique sed in quam. Ut pretium neque eu turpis tempus, sed porttitor odio bibendum. Phasellus auctor sollicitudin faucibus.
2. Actions of psychoactive drugs including antidepressants involve neuronal microtubules.
3. Neuronal microtubule­stabilizing/protecting drugs may prove useful in Alzheimer's disease, ischemia, and other conditions.
Microtubules communicate by cooperative dynamics of tubulin subunits
4. Laser spectroscopy (e.g. Vos et al, 1993) will demonstrate coherent gigaHz Frhlich excitations in microtubules.
5. Dynamic vibrational states in microtubule networks correlate with cellular activity.
6. Stable patterns of microtubule­cytoskeletal networks (including neurofilaments) and intra­microtubule diversity of tubulin states correlate with memory and neural behavior.
7. Cortical dendrites contain largely "A­lattice" microtubules (compared to "B­lattice" microtubule, A­lattice microtubules are preferable for information processingTuszynski et al., 1995)
Quantum coherence occurs in microtubules
8. Studies similar to the famous "Aspect experiment" in physics (which verified non­local quantum correlations­­Aspect et al., 1982) will demonstrate quantum correlations between spatially separated microtubule subunit states a) on the same microtubule, b) on different microtubules in the same neuron, c) on microtubules in different neurons connected by gap junctions.
9. Experiments with SQUIDs (Superconducting Quantum Interference Device) such as those suggested by Leggett (1984) will detect phases of quantum coherence in microtubules.
10. Coherent photons will be detected from microtubules.
Microtubule quantum coherence requires isolation by cycles of surrounding actin­gelation
11. Neuronal microtubules in cortical dendrites and other brain areas are intermittently surrounded by tightly cross-linked actin gels.
12. Cycles of gelation and dissolution in neuronal cytoplasm occur concomitantly with membrane electrical activity (e.g. synchronized 40 Hz activities in dendrites).
13. The sol­gel cycles surrounding microtubules are regulated by calcium ions released and reabsorbed by calmodulin associated with microtubules.
Macroscopic quantum coherence occurs among MT in hundreds/thousands of distributed neurons and glia linked by gap junctions
14. Electrotonic gap junctions link synchronously firing networks of cortical neurons, and thalamo­cortical networks
15. Quantum tunneling occurs across gap junctions.
16. Quantum correlation occurs between microtubule subunit states in different neurons connected by gap junctions (the microtubule "Aspect experiment" in different neurons)
The amount of neural tissue involved in a conscious event is inversely proportional to the event time by E=hbar/T
17. The amount of neural mass involved in a particular cognitive task or conscious event (as measurable by near­future advances in brain imaging techniques) is inversely proportional to the pre­conscious time (e.g. visual perception, reaction times).
An isolated, unperturbed quantum system self­collapses according to E=hbar/T
18. Isolated technological quantum superpositions will self­collapse according to E=/T. (Preliminary discussions of such experiments involving superposition of crystals have begun between Roger Penrose and Anton Zeilinger.)
Microtubule­based cilia/centriole structures are quantum optical devices
19. Microtubule­based cilia in rods and cones directly detect visual photons and connect with retinal glial cell microtubule via gap junctions.

Tagged for Cleanup due to "bias/missing rebuttals"

Dear User:109.153.177.43, you recently tagged this article for Cleanup-tagging due to: highly biased, not up-to-date on valid rebuttals from theorists". Would you mind listing the references missing from the rebuttals? Sperxios (talk) 21:08, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Also dear User:86.155.32.46, see the same sentence for your tagging on 1st Feb 2015 edit (oldid=645146501).

Please, refrain from applying invasive edits when not logged-in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.191.4.14 (talk) 17:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

References

Microtubule A- or B-lattice

I am sure that the editor who inserted the following text had good intentions, but as I will explain it is completely wrong, so it would be best if editors without degree in molecular biology restrain themselves from editing topics that they do not understand. The text is: "However, the recent research by Anirban Bandyopadhyay showed that microtubules can change their structure from B-lattice to A-lattice as part of the processing of information, and tubulin in microtubules exists in multiple states" So let me explain what is wrong: experiments IN VITRO have clearly shown that B-lattice microtubules can exist, and that microtubles can flip from one lattice to another. Also numerous in vitro studies have shown that microtubules with 12, 14, 15 etc protofilaments (PFs) can form (all in vivo microtubules have 13). Hameroff and Tuszynski were aware of all that published literature and made a guess that what happens in vitro, should happen in vivo as well. It is very difficult to design an experiment to check the status of microtubules IN VIVO, but Kikkawa and colleagues were able to do exactly that - they performed Quick-Freeze Deep-Etching technique, which allowed to check what the structure of microtubules in the brain looks like. If the microtubules were undergoing transitions from A- to B-lattice in vivo, it would be expected that at any given moment in time, there will be some percentage of A-lattice microtubules and some percentage of B-lattice microtubules. After the freezing, the microtubules cannot undergo further transitions, and the ratio of A- to B-lattice microtubules could be determined. What Kikkawa found is that 100% of IN VIVO microtubles have B-lattice. Citing more and more in vitro experiments, done by Anirban Bandyopadhyay or others, is IRRELEVANT. Orch OR prediction has been found to be false in 1994 and the result has been published in one of the premier journals on molecular and cell biology, namely the Journal of Cell Biology. If Hameroff was actually more carefully reading what others published, he would not have done his wrong prediction four years later in 1998! Danko Georgiev (talk) 21:15, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

It seems that quote is still in the article three years after your objection... 137.101.94.106 (talk) 00:06, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Article update

In 2014 and 2015, very important developments of the theory took place and many aspects of it were proven by experiments. The article stops only in 2013 and criticisms dating back to that year. In the meantime, I find it necessary to inform the reader with a warning, and then, update the page. Even the pages dedicated only to the 2 scientists speak, in a very vague way, of the research that took place in 2014 and 2015. In detail I saw that the Evidences section talks about it, albeit in a vague way. But the criticism section has remained dated and does not incorporate this new data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.163.248.1 (talk) 17:06, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

You need to be more specific than that if you want to change anything here. jps (talk) 12:22, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Question about the controversy of this topic

Hello, across the internet many people seem very opposed to this topic. I have only read Emperor's New Mind and seen a documentary about the same book by Penrose. However from what I know, Penrose puts forth so many arguments that I am not sure exactly which one/ones people disagree with. From what I understand, Penrose's main point can be surmised this way. Let A be a turing machine, for every decision a person makes throughout their life machine A enumerates said decision and prints it as the decimal expansion of a real number. Penrose argues that no such machine can exist or else we could use it to solve Turing's famous halting problem. Also, according to Penrose, This speaks nothing of approximating the behavior of a human arbitrarily close, only of predicting with certainty the way any specific human will behave arbitrarily far into the future. Because of this, Penrose claims that this implies that some of human thinking must inherently be non-algorithmic. The arguments that Penrose stitches together, to my knowledge, no one would dispute on their own, eg. Turing's proof that the halting problem is unsolvable in the general case, or Cantor's proof that more numbers exist between zero and one than integers. Is it controversial in that these arguments cannot be applied the way that Penrose applies them? It seems to me that most rebuttal's are against his theories of quantum gravity. Quantum Gravity however is a field difficult to be taken seriously in anyway, since, to my knowledge, most physicists believe that nothing can be known at that scale. Most theories I've encountered about quantum gravity make little sense to begin with, so I guess Penrose isn't any different that way. I just wonder if anybody has addressed the other points??2602:304:5964:8F39:18E:C2D3:46AF:FE57 (talk) 20:07, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

The claim that "no such machine can exist or else we could use it to solve Turing's famous halting problem" assumes that conscious decisions are undecidable. It's circular reasoning at best. Just because we have not yet successfully predicted every human decision does not mean that it is impossible to do so. Weather is a good analogy. We still cannot predict the weather with absolute certainty -- it is way beyond our computational capability. But that does not mean that the weather is "undecidable". Turning's halting problem is a beautiful proof because it requires no assumptions about what is or is not decidable to make its point. Penrose's argument assumes a decidability character of consciousness that is arguable at best. jps (talk) 12:28, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Quantum computation in off the shelf graphics cards?

Hi, have to be careful but I think there's evidence for semi classical interaction in graphics cards. My research clearly shows that certain components are able to show inter-processor electron leakage under specific conditions, though not normally used in this way people who overclock cards often get strange effects. As this (used to be) TS SCI I only mention it as better technologies already exist. It was discovered independently here 88.81.156.140 (talk) 07:52, 26 March 2021 (UTC) and as yet hasn't been replicated. The really strange thing is that it only happens on old cards that have seen some use, under specific conditions that I discovered its possible to make one use a machine version of intuition to "guess" a normally impossible AES key that would require an absurd amount of processor time if certain aspects like the file content and offset are known.

2022 Experiments

Thanks for the additions here. I found a second citation which I've added even though it's not great - there is no paywall. There is also a paper in 'Nature' https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-10068-4 maybe primary source. Appears to be a different experiment further substantiating the hypothesis.Thelisteninghand (talk) 17:23, 24 April 2022 (UTC)