Great. Two guys way ahead of their respective disciplines. They agree EM fields control life over many scales and frequencies. Where do the fields come from, and what biology primarily receives and responds to them?
Is it membranes? They’re clearly involved. But are they in charge? Are they governing Earl’s top-down message? Michael’s xenobots ?
Earl didn’t say. I don’t think so.
They discussed transcending scale, like the same information in milliseconds at small scales, then slower at higher frequencies and several neurons
Multiscale frequency systems are well served by time crystals, it looks more and more that life is organized by microtubule time crystals in hertz through gigahertz.
https://t.co/RMGLwDUvml
There are two gorillas in the living room, unmentioned;
1) Consciousness: Behavior in pursuit of drive, goals, intentionality is likely trying to feel good, to access or obtain pleasure. The most basic of organic molecules, e.g. amino acid phenylalanine is very much like dopamine, the ‘pleasure molecule’.
Proto-Consciousness by Penrose OR can be a low level fundamental process, accessed by simple quantum biology.
No need for complexitg. Worms, amoeba, insects must have feelings to grow and survive.
2. Microtubules.
What generates these fields with frequencies spanning hertz, kilohertz, megahertz, gigahertz snd terahertz? What receives them??
Microtubules,
Where is memory encoded?
Microtubules.,
Plasticity.
Microtubules
Memory
I’ll bet lunch Mike’s xenobots are controlled by microtubules in search of pleasure,
Gotta sleep. Jet lagged from India. Flying to San Diego for rural Transduction theory conference
Back soon on Platonic Realm.
Smaller may be better when it comes to transistors.
But what if the next leap in computing is embedding geometries that compute through resonance itself?
Enter quartz crystals.
They’re already extraordinary:
stable oscillators,
coherent frequency regulators,
piezoelectric transducers.
But viewed another way, they are structured resonant manifolds.
Traditional silicon computing pushes electrons through etched pathways.
Crystalline computing could eventually work more through:
wave interference,
phase coupling,
standing resonances,
topological information flow.
Less “current moving through wires.”
More geometry constraining the possible states information can occupy.
Which is interesting because the same structures keep reappearing everywhere:
helices,
lattices,
toroids,
braids,
crystal symmetries.
Biology uses them.
Plasma uses them.
Photonics uses them.
Even AI latent spaces increasingly resemble them.
At a certain point it becomes difficult to ignore: geometry may not just carry computation.
The geometry itself is the computation.
Tegmark erred by 7 orders of magnitude and was refuted. https://t.co/t9ybyQpkIb
Orch OR has more direct evidence than other theories
https://t.co/F78JBR23qh
Which have none
LLMs reflect conventional wisdom not scientific truth.
Roger Penrose, Nobel Prize-winning physicist and mathematician, explains why we should stop calling it AI and start calling it "artificial cleverness":
He believes the entire field is mislabelled, and the label itself is doing damage.
His objection is simple but cuts deep:
"The name is wrong. It's not artificial intelligence. It's not intelligence. Intelligence would involve consciousness. Well, if it's a machine, it's not conscious."
For Penrose, people have confused raw computing power with genuine understanding.
"People have lost the plot. They've lost it in the power of computing. The thing is that computers have got so powerful that they've lost the thread of what they're doing. But I think consciousness is something different. It's not computational."
He believes the term itself has hypnotized people into a category error:
"People are so hypnotized. The trouble is that AI is a bad term. It means artificial intelligence. Now intelligence in my view is conscious. That's what intelligence is about."
So he proposes a rename. Artificial Cleverness. AC instead of AI.
To illustrate the distinction, Penrose draws on his experience teaching mathematics:
"You have mathematics students. Some of them understand what they're doing. Some are just clever. They can repeat what they've learned. They know how to do it very cleverly. They can calculate very well, but they don't necessarily understand what they're doing."
That gap, between calculating well and actually understanding, is the gap Penrose sees between today's machines and genuine intelligence.
Cleverness can be manufactured. Consciousness, in his view, cannot.
So the question worth sitting with: when we call a system "intelligent," are we describing what it does, or quietly assuming something about what it is?
I am optimistic that we will one day make contact to extraterrestrials because I don't think that the speed of light is a fundamental limit. Here I explain why and I have a brief summary below.