Nope, it's only a "quantum effect" the same way everything else is: quantum physics underlies the mechanism, they don't [i[]use[/i] quantum effects per se.
Nope, yourself. It is not the same. They have evolved a process that specifically uses quantum processes, unlike other processes in organisms which of course on one level have quantum phenomena present, but are not specifically utilized as they are in this case in the sensory apparatus of the birds. The same goes for the photosynthesis process in the bacteria I linked to. The organism is specifically utilizing a process dependent on quantum processes. In fact the scientists noted that the mechanism is similar to that used in magnetoscopes. In other words the sensory system is like one of out tools and no doubt evolved because the tool worked. What part of the liver, the kidneys, the genitals or some other part of the body evolved due to the fact that a specific quantum effect made that organ work better? You are going against the understanding of the scientists involved.
Ah no, it's actually science: what we know defines what we know to be possible. It limits what's worth exploring because some things are impossible based on what we do know.
Actually it is all on probabilities, given what we know. You spoke in certain terms. I presented examples of things that would have been ruled out by the given knowledge at various time periods, but you ignored this. This is why scientists explore things that would have seemed unbelievably unlikely at earlier times.
Hardly the same thing at all.
Not an argument. Come on D, you usually do better than this.
How is it unscientific? We know about energy transmission (inverse square law and all) and it's requirements, we know about transmitters/ receivers...
Yeah, and the oceanographers and fluid scientists knew all about waves and oceans and fluid physics. Except they didnt. And no one knew that a living organism could utilize quantum parallel processing, as the aforementioned bacteria use, could create photon utilization efficiency at such amazing levels. In fact they would have written off such high levels of effective use as not possible.
Yup, again it's not quantum effects per se.
Well, gosh I guess the scientists involved are wrong. You should write to them and correct them. My specific question to Graham Fleming was Do you know any other organisms that utililize quantum processes?
and he refered me to the studies of birds and how their sensory systems utilize the quantum zeno effect. .
And neither is that: to maintain superposition the particle must be isolated - as soon as it comes into contact with another they both decohere and lose their "fuzziness". As David Deutsch said "the brain is too wet and hot for entanglement to take place".
(Deutsch quote from The Psychic Tourist, William Little, Icon Books 2010).
1 - I did not say that this article on the brain indicated quatum processes in the brain. I linked to it as an example that the brain is, continually, turning out to be more complicated than previously realized. 2 - again it is bad science to rule out things in general based on current knowledge. Of course it is generally practical to choose research based on what seems likely now given current knowledge, but that is different from making statements based on speculation as if they were based on knowledge.