Yeah... i think i already agree with the person disagreeing with you just based on this description. "world class abacus" is not an accurate description of what a quantum computer is.
I’m also not a neuroscientist or a physicist though, so this is just my relative layman’s take.
0: https://www.the-scientist.com/infographics/infographic--quan...
Quantum Biology: The Hidden Nature of Nature - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADiql3FG5is
An Introduction to Quantum Biology - with Philip Ball - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLeEsYDlXJk
As an amateur, my instinct is that the mystery of the observer "causing" wave function collapse is the best clue we have either way.
I wouldn’t be surprised if we are just weighted neurons, or if we do something quantum too. I doubt the something quantum will be the same as what our quantum computers do.
Source https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/does-consciousness-cau...
Quantum Biology: The Hidden Nature of Nature - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADiql3FG5is
An Introduction to Quantum Biology - with Philip Ball - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLeEsYDlXJk
I realize this isn't quite the answer you were looking for, but I thought it was worth mentioning.
I personally think this idea that there is some obvious categorical distinction between hard "physical" quantum phenomena and classically probabilistic ones is a fallacy. Quantum theory is in some sense just probability theory with more features.
More and more researchers are catching onto this and I think that's really exciting.
It would be like adding a classical computer we don't know how to turn on; it won't help anything if we don't know how to use it.
My gut feeling is that even if we use some probabilistic quantum compute it should be transferable to normal compute. Also animals vs human don't have enough difference to assume we are special.
