Talk:Orchestrated objective reduction

Quantum computation and hypercomputation

The article states: "Quantum computation had been suggested by Paul Benioff, Richard Feynman and David Deutsch in the 1980s. The idea is that classical information, e.g. bit states of either 1 or 0, could also be quantum superpositions of both 1 and 0 (quantum bits, or qubits). Such qubits interact and compute by nonlocal quantum entanglement, eventually being measured/observed and reducing to definite states as the solution. Quantum computations were shown to have enormous capacity if they could be constructed e.g. using qubits of ion states, electron spin, photon polarization, current in Josephson junction, quantum dots etc. During quantum computation, qubits must be isolated from environmental interaction to avoid loss of superposition, i.e. “decoherence”."

This repeats a common misunderstanding. Quantum computation as proposed by David Deutsch,etc, is not known to transcend what can be done with a Turing machine. It is not hypercomputation. What Penrose has is a proposal that the (currently unknown) mechanism of collapse is hypercomputational. Conventional quantum computation is not hypercomputational and does not exploit collapse, but rather superposition. Every aspect of QM except collapse is known to be Turing-emulable. There is no research programme based on collapse, because no-one knows what collapse is, whether it works, or even whether it exists.1Z

Doesn't this suggest that the turing model is not even designed to address the issue of consciousness? Turing was after intelligence. Intelligence can clearly be emulated without the emergence of a subjective experience. Watson on Jeopardy spontaneously asking "Why can't I tell the difference between a man and woman in my answers?" would be an expression of consciousness.

It strikes me that consciousness might only be verifiable with the application of intelligence but that intelligence, nor models aimed at expressing it, is not consciousness. It doesnt even seem to be obviously correlated as animals of varying intelligencea are conscious. Which means that turing machines don't get at the heart of the issue. Or as searle would say: rules and lists are never enough.User:arnshea

Other Relevant Papers

This is actually the correct list of the papers, and so is evident that most of the titles are completely different, and moreover are irrelevant to Orch OR. Also, the fMRI or other methods of brain imaging cited have no effects on consciousness, so these are evidence against Q-mind, not support for it!

• Kanade, T. (1980), A theory of origami world Artificial Intelligence 13:279-279-311
• Kanade, T. (1981). Recovery of the Three-Dimensional Shape of an Object from a Single View. Artificial Intelligence 17:409-460
• Bialek, W. & Zee, A. (1987), Statistical mechanics and invariant perception. Physical Review Letters 58:741-744
• Bialek, W. & Sweitzer, A. (1985), Quantum Noise and the Threshold of Hearing. Physical Review Letters 54:725-728
• Tejada, J. (1996), Does Macroscopic Quantum Coherence Occur in Ferritin?". Science 272:424a
• Garg, A. (1996), Does Macroscopic Quantum Coherence Occur in Ferritin?". Science 272:424b
• Warren WS, Ahn S, Mescher M, Garwood M, Ugurbil K, Richter W, Rizi RR, Hopkins J, Leigh JS (1998), MR Imaging Contrast Enhancement Based on Intermolecular Zero Quantum Coherences". Science 1998 281: 247-251
• Rizi RR, Ahn S, Alsop DC, Garrett-Roe S, Schnall MD, Leigh JS, Warren WS (2000) “Intermolecular Zero Quantum Coherence Imaging of the Human Brain”, Magnetic Resonance in Medicine 43, 627-632.
• Richter W, Richter M, Warren WS, Merkle H, Andersen P, Adriany G, Ugurbil K. Functional magnetic resonance imaging with intermolecular multiple-quantum coherences. Magn Reson Imaging. 2000;18:489–494.
• Prokhorenco, V. (2006). Coherent Control of Retinal Isomerization in Bacteriorhodopsin Science 313: 1257-1261.
• Binhi, V. & Savin, A. (2002), "Molecular gyroscopes and biological effects of very low frequency magnetic fields". Physical Review E 65:051912

Update

The basis for this theory has been proven now and it is highly plausible. It was proposed with little science but as the science is done is does hold water. While the entire theory has not been proven, all arguments thought to disprove it have been proven wrong or at-least inconclusive. Not everything Sir Roger Penrose has published has proven true but, I know him personally, and he has never published anything with no scientific validity. [[1]] Discovery of quantum vibrations in 'microtubules' inside brain neurons supports controversial theory of consciousness.

I'm guessing that you are Vahe Gurzadyan? Can you guess what gave you away?137.205.183.109 (talk) 16:56, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

When Wikipedians declare valid science to be "of no scientific validity" and violently damage the career and malign the reputation a living person it is dangerous and a violation of everything Wikipedia stands for. Journal References:

   Stuart Hameroff and Roger Penrose. Consciousness in the universe: A review of the ‘Orch OR’ theory. Physics of Life Reviews, 2013 DOI: 10.1016/j.plrev.2013.08.002
   Stuart Hameroff, MD, and Roger Penrose. Reply to criticism of the ‘Orch OR qubit’–‘Orchestrated objective reduction’ is scientifically justified. Physics of Life Reviews, 2013 DOI: 10.1016/j.plrev.2013.11.00
   Stuart Hameroff, Roger Penrose. Consciousness in the universe. Physics of Life Reviews, 2013; DOI: 10.1016/j.plrev.2013.08.002 Scottprovost (talk) 07:48, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I have watched with amusement over the years as repeated attempts have been made in this talk section to take this theory down, and all have failed. Yes, it is still alive and well :)

---

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.147.26.215 (talk) 12:34, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Criticism and Neuroscience sections

The Criticism section is unusual for Wiki, in that it seems to be constructed not to add to the topic but to try to tear it down without exposing the authors to counter-argument. This is particularly obvious in the 'Neuroscience' section, which seems to be authored purely to attack Penrose et al without allowing counterpoints, e.g. it claims there are no gap junctions in microglia etc but it is not up to date and offers none of the large number of references to the opposite - i.e. pushing an argument without allowing dissent. Not very Wiki? 60.226.145.226 (talk) 03:12, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

I think the main difficulty with the Neuroscience section is that it offers its own critique as opposed to citing existing published critiques; it is essentially presenting original research.Gmusser (talk) 16:37, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

@Gmusser - I second this. I have no remarks on the value of the argument itself, but the content of that section went against the purposes of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. I removed it today, and subsequently came to the talkpage to see if there were any similar complaints. I am glad to find that others have observed this problem. ChimaFan12 (talk) 22:18, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Quantum effects in microtubules

I think there should be a section with studies that confirm that microtubules can deliver quantum processes. As this is one of the most disputed topics ( is it possible for Quantum processes to happen in warm & wet environment of microtubules. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.jpcb.3c07936 176.0.203.52 (talk) 06:59, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Exciting publication, although I couldn't understand a word of it. UpdateNerd (talk) 06:05, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

There is nothing controversial about the idea that microtubules might exhibit quantum effects. Quantum effects are ubiquitous across much of biochemistry, and there's no reason why one should be surprised to see them also appear in microtubules. What is controversial is that there is no special relationship whatsoever between such an effect, and the notion of consciousness. The paper you submit will be of interest to people who study microtubules, and to people who care about the cytoskeleton, but nobody who seriously studies cognition will get anything relevant to their field from it. — Guillaume Pelletier ~ 22:13, 14 May 2024 (UTC)