The question is not whether “quantum computers can fundamentally be more efficient then classical computers”, but if quantum mechanical entanglement can be used by the brain, which seems to be improbable.
I asked a professor of biophysics about this issues, he knew about the result concerning photosynthesis and was pretty sure that QM does not matter for simulating the brain.
I was trying to express in my post that the extra efficiency gained from a switch to quantum computers only matters when it makes the simulation practical rather impractical with the current resources. This transition would only happen if the brain used quantum algorithms with a fundamental advantage over classical computing, which I assigned a low probability to. Meaning that a QM computer would probably not be necessary.
It sounds like we agree in conclusion but are failing to comunicate some details or disagree on some details.
The question is not whether “quantum computers can fundamentally be more efficient then classical computers”, but if quantum mechanical entanglement can be used by the brain, which seems to be improbable. I asked a professor of biophysics about this issues, he knew about the result concerning photosynthesis and was pretty sure that QM does not matter for simulating the brain.
I was trying to express in my post that the extra efficiency gained from a switch to quantum computers only matters when it makes the simulation practical rather impractical with the current resources. This transition would only happen if the brain used quantum algorithms with a fundamental advantage over classical computing, which I assigned a low probability to. Meaning that a QM computer would probably not be necessary.
It sounds like we agree in conclusion but are failing to comunicate some details or disagree on some details.