Jump to content

Orchestrated objective reduction: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Added typo fix
Tags: Reverted Mobile edit Mobile web edit
m task, replaced: Physical Chemistry. B → Physical Chemistry B
(34 intermediate revisions by 14 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{short description|Theory of a quantum origin of consciousness}}
{{short description|Theory of a quantum origin of consciousness}}
{{multiple image|total_width=300
{{Use dmy dates|date=May 2024}}{{multiple image|total_width=300
| header_align = center
| header_align = center
| caption_align = center
| caption_align = center
Line 7: Line 7:
| footer = The founders of the theory: [[Roger Penrose]] and [[Stuart Hameroff]], respectively}}
| footer = The founders of the theory: [[Roger Penrose]] and [[Stuart Hameroff]], respectively}}


'''Orchestrated objective reduction''' ('''Orch OR''') is a theory which postulates that [[consciousness]] originates at the [[Quantum mind|quantum level]] inside [[neurons]], rather than the conventional view that it is a product of connections between neurons. The mechanism is held to be a [[quantum physics|quantum]] process called [[objective reduction]] that is orchestrated by cellular structures called [[microtubule]]s. It is proposed that the theory may answer the [[hard problem of consciousness]] and provide a mechanism for [[free will]].<ref name=frontiers>{{cite journal |doi=10.3389/fnint.2012.00093 |pmid=23091452 |pmc=3470100 |title=How quantum brain biology can rescue conscious free will |journal=Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience |volume=6 |pages=93 |year=2012 |last1=Hameroff |first1=Stuart |doi-access=free }}</ref> The hypothesis was first put forward in the early 1990s by Nobel laureate for physics, [[Roger Penrose]], and [[Anesthesiologist|anaesthesiologist]], [[Stuart Hameroff]]. The hypothesis combines approaches from [[molecular biology]], [[neuroscience]], [[pharmacology]], [[philosophy]], [[quantum information theory]], and [[quantum gravity]].<ref name=H&PvsReimers2014>{{cite journal |doi=10.1016/j.plrev.2013.11.013 |title=Reply to seven commentaries on "Consciousness in the universe: Review of the 'Orch OR' theory"|journal=Physics of Life Reviews |volume=11 |issue=1 |pages=94–100 |year=2014 |last1=Hameroff |first1=Stuart |last2=Penrose |first2=Roger |bibcode=2014PhLRv..11...94H}}</ref><ref name="Penrose2014">{{cite journal |doi=10.1007/s10701-013-9770-0 |title=On the Gravitization of Quantum Mechanics 1: Quantum State Reduction |journal=Foundations of Physics |volume=44 |issue=5 |pages=557–575 |year=2014 |last1=Penrose |first1=Roger |bibcode=2014FoPh...44..557P|s2cid=123379100 |doi-access=free }}</ref>
'''Orchestrated objective reduction''' ('''Orch OR''') is a highly controversial theory postulating that [[consciousness]] originates at the [[Quantum mind|quantum level]] inside [[neurons]] (rather than being a product of [[Neural pathway|neural connections]]). The mechanism is held to be a [[quantum physics|quantum]] process called [[objective reduction]] that is orchestrated by cellular structures called [[microtubule]]s. It is proposed that the theory may answer the [[hard problem of consciousness]] and provide a mechanism for [[free will]].<ref name=frontiers>{{cite journal |doi=10.3389/fnint.2012.00093 |pmid=23091452 |pmc=3470100 |title=How quantum brain biology can rescue conscious free will |journal=Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience |volume=6 |pages=93 |year=2012 |last1=Hameroff |first1=Stuart |doi-access=free }}</ref> The hypothesis was first put forward in the early 1990s by Nobel laureate for physics, [[Roger Penrose]], and [[Anesthesiologist|anaesthesiologist]] [[Stuart Hameroff]]. The hypothesis combines approaches from [[molecular biology]], [[neuroscience]], [[pharmacology]], [[philosophy]], [[quantum information theory]], and [[quantum gravity]].<ref name=H&PvsReimers2014>{{cite journal |doi=10.1016/j.plrev.2013.11.013 |title=Reply to seven commentaries on "Consciousness in the universe: Review of the 'Orch OR' theory"|journal=Physics of Life Reviews |volume=11 |issue=1 |pages=94–100 |year=2014 |last1=Hameroff |first1=Stuart |last2=Penrose |first2=Roger |bibcode=2014PhLRv..11...94H}}</ref><ref name="Penrose2014">{{cite journal |doi=10.1007/s10701-013-9770-0 |title=On the Gravitization of Quantum Mechanics 1: Quantum State Reduction |journal=Foundations of Physics |volume=44 |issue=5 |pages=557–575 |year=2014 |last1=Penrose |first1=Roger |bibcode=2014FoPh...44..557P|s2cid=123379100 |doi-access=free }}</ref>


While mainstream theories assert that consciousness emerges as the complexity of the [[computation]]s performed by [[cerebral cortex|cerebral]] [[neuron]]s increases,<ref name="McCulloch1943">{{cite journal | last1 = McCulloch | first1 = Warren S. | author1-link = Warren Sturgis McCulloch | last2 = Pitts | first2 = Walter | author2-link = Walter Pitts | title = A logical calculus of the ideas immanent in nervous activity | journal = Bulletin of Mathematical Biophysics | volume = 5 | issue = 4 | pages = 115–133 | year = 1943 | doi = 10.1007/bf02478259}}</ref><ref name="Hodgkin1952">{{cite journal | last1 = Hodgkin | first1 = Alan L. | author1-link = Alan Lloyd Hodgkin | last2 = Huxley | first2 = Andrew F. | author2-link = Andrew Fielding Huxley | title = A quantitative description of membrane current and its application to conduction and excitation in nerve | journal = Journal of Physiology | volume = 117 | issue = 4 | pages = 500–544 | year = 1952 | doi = 10.1113/jphysiol.1952.sp004764 | pmid = 12991237 | pmc = 1392413}}</ref> Orch OR posits that consciousness is based on [[Computability theory|non-computable]] [[quantum computing|quantum processing]] performed by [[qubits]] formed collectively on cellular microtubules, a process significantly amplified in the neurons. The qubits are based on oscillating [[dipoles]] forming [[Quantum superposition|superposed]] resonance rings in helical pathways throughout lattices of microtubules. The oscillations are either electric, due to charge separation from [[London forces]], or magnetic, due to [[electron spin]]—and possibly also due to [[nuclear spin]]s (that can remain isolated for longer periods) that occur in [[gigahertz]], [[megahertz]] and [[kilohertz]] frequency ranges.<ref name=H&PvsReimers2014/><ref name=HameroffVs7Others2014>{{cite journal |doi=10.1016/j.plrev.2013.11.014 |title=Reply to criticism of the 'Orch OR qubit' – 'Orchestrated objective reduction' is scientifically justified |journal=Physics of Life Reviews |volume=11 |issue=1 |pages=104–112 |year=2014 |last1=Hameroff |first1=Stuart |last2=Penrose |first2=Roger |bibcode=2014PhLRv..11..104H }}</ref> Orchestration refers to the hypothetical process by which connective proteins, such as [[microtubule-associated protein]]s (MAPs), influence or orchestrate qubit [[wave-function collapse|state reduction]] by modifying the spacetime-separation of their superimposed states.<ref name="Penrose-Hameroff2014">{{cite journal |doi=10.1016/j.plrev.2013.08.002 |pmid=24070914 |title=Consciousness in the universe |journal=Physics of Life Reviews |volume=11 |issue=1 |pages=39–78 |year=2014 |last1=Hameroff |first1=Stuart |last2=Penrose |first2=Roger |bibcode=2014PhLRv..11...39H |doi-access=free }}</ref> The latter is based on [[Penrose interpretation|Penrose's objective-collapse theory]] for interpreting quantum mechanics, which postulates the existence of an objective threshold governing the collapse of quantum-states, related to the difference of the [[spacetime curvature]] of these states in the universe's [[Planck scale|fine-scale]] structure.<ref>{{cite web |title=Physicists Eye Quantum-Gravity Interface |author=Natalie Wolchover |date=31 October 2013 |website=Quanta Magazine |type=Article |publisher=Simons Foundation |url=https://www.simonsfoundation.org/quanta/20131107-physicists-eye-quantum-gravity-interface/ |access-date=19 March 2014}}</ref>
While more generally accepted theories assert that consciousness emerges as the complexity of the [[computation]]s performed by [[cerebral cortex|cerebral]] [[neuron]]s increases,<ref name="McCulloch1943">{{cite journal | last1 = McCulloch | first1 = Warren S. | author1-link = Warren Sturgis McCulloch | last2 = Pitts | first2 = Walter | author2-link = Walter Pitts | title = A logical calculus of the ideas immanent in nervous activity | journal = Bulletin of Mathematical Biophysics | volume = 5 | issue = 4 | pages = 115–133 | year = 1943 | doi = 10.1007/bf02478259}}</ref><ref name="Hodgkin1952">{{cite journal | last1 = Hodgkin | first1 = Alan L. | author1-link = Alan Lloyd Hodgkin | last2 = Huxley | first2 = Andrew F. | author2-link = Andrew Fielding Huxley | title = A quantitative description of membrane current and its application to conduction and excitation in nerve | journal = Journal of Physiology | volume = 117 | issue = 4 | pages = 500–544 | year = 1952 | doi = 10.1113/jphysiol.1952.sp004764 | pmid = 12991237 | pmc = 1392413}}</ref> Orch OR posits that consciousness is based on [[Computability theory|non-computable]] [[quantum computing|quantum processing]] performed by [[qubits]] formed collectively on cellular microtubules, a process significantly amplified in the neurons. The qubits are based on oscillating [[dipoles]] forming [[Quantum superposition|superposed]] resonance rings in helical pathways throughout lattices of microtubules. The oscillations are either electric, due to charge separation from [[London forces]], or magnetic, due to [[electron spin]]—and possibly also due to [[nuclear spin]]s (that can remain isolated for longer periods) that occur in [[gigahertz]], [[megahertz]] and [[kilohertz]] frequency ranges.<ref name=H&PvsReimers2014/><ref name=HameroffVs7Others2014>{{cite journal |doi=10.1016/j.plrev.2013.11.014 |title=Reply to criticism of the 'Orch OR qubit' – 'Orchestrated objective reduction' is scientifically justified |journal=Physics of Life Reviews |volume=11 |issue=1 |pages=104–112 |year=2014 |last1=Hameroff |first1=Stuart |last2=Penrose |first2=Roger |bibcode=2014PhLRv..11..104H }}</ref> Orchestration refers to the hypothetical process by which connective proteins, such as [[microtubule-associated protein]]s (MAPs), influence or orchestrate qubit [[wave-function collapse|state reduction]] by modifying the spacetime-separation of their superimposed states.<ref name="Penrose-Hameroff2014">{{cite journal |doi=10.1016/j.plrev.2013.08.002 |pmid=24070914 |title=Consciousness in the universe |journal=Physics of Life Reviews |volume=11 |issue=1 |pages=39–78 |year=2014 |last1=Hameroff |first1=Stuart |last2=Penrose |first2=Roger |bibcode=2014PhLRv..11...39H |doi-access=free }}</ref> The latter is based on [[Penrose interpretation|Penrose's objective-collapse theory]] for interpreting quantum mechanics, which postulates the existence of an objective threshold governing the collapse of quantum-states, related to the difference of the [[spacetime curvature]] of these states in the universe's [[Planck scale|fine-scale]] structure.<ref>{{cite web |title=Physicists Eye Quantum-Gravity Interface |author=Natalie Wolchover |date=31 October 2013 |website=Quanta Magazine |type=Article |publisher=Simons Foundation |url=https://www.simonsfoundation.org/quanta/20131107-physicists-eye-quantum-gravity-interface/ |access-date=19 March 2014}}</ref>


Orchestrated objective reduction has been criticized from its inception by mathematicians, philosophers,<ref name=Boolos_1990>{{cite journal | last1 = Boolos | first1 = George | author-link = George Boolos | display-authors = etal | year = 1990 | title = An Open Peer Commentary on The Emperor's New Mind. | journal = Behavioral and Brain Sciences | volume = 13 | issue = 4| page = 655 | doi = 10.1017/s0140525x00080687 | s2cid = 144905437 }}</ref><ref name=martin_1993>{{cite journal |last1=Davis |first1=Martin |title=How subtle is Gödel's theorem? More on Roger Penrose |journal=Behavioral and Brain Sciences |date=September 1993 |volume=16 |issue=3 |pages=611–612 |doi=10.1017/S0140525X00031915 |s2cid=144018337 }}</ref><ref name=lewis_1969>{{cite journal |last1=Lewis |first1=David |title=Lucas against Mechanism |journal=Philosophy |date=July 1969 |volume=44 |issue=169 |pages=231–233 |doi=10.1017/s0031819100024591 |s2cid=170411423 |doi-access=free }}</ref><ref name=putnam_1995>{{cite journal |last1=Putnam |first1=Hilary |title=Book Review: Shadows of the mind |journal=Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society |date=1 July 1995 |volume=32 |issue=3 |pages=370–374 |doi=10.1090/S0273-0979-1995-00606-3 |doi-access=free }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Putnam |first1=Hilary |title=The Best of All Possible Brains? |url=https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/books/97/04/27/nnp/17540.html |work=The New York Times |date=20 November 1994 }}</ref> and scientists.<ref name=Tegmark2000>{{cite journal|doi=10.1103/PhysRevE.61.4194|title=Importance of quantum decoherence in brain processes|journal=Physical Review E|volume=61|issue=4|pages=4194–4206|year=2000|last1=Tegmark|first1=Max|bibcode=2000PhRvE..61.4194T|arxiv=quant-ph/9907009|pmid=11088215|s2cid=17140058}}</ref><ref name=Koch2006>{{cite journal |doi=10.1038/440611a |pmid=16572152 |title=Quantum mechanics in the brain |journal=Nature |volume=440 |issue=7084 |pages=611 |year=2006 |last1=Koch |first1=Christof |last2=Hepp |first2=Klaus |bibcode=2006Natur.440..611K |s2cid=5085015 |doi-access=free }}</ref><ref name=Hepp2012>{{cite journal |last1=Hepp |first1=K. |title=Coherence and decoherence in the brain |journal=Journal of Mathematical Physics |date=September 2012 |volume=53 |issue=9 |pages=095222 |doi=10.1063/1.4752474 |bibcode=2012JMP....53i5222H }}</ref> The criticism concentrated on three issues: Penrose's interpretation of [[Gödel's incompleteness theorems|Gödel's theorem]]; Penrose's [[abductive reasoning]] linking non-computability to quantum events; and the brain's unsuitability to host the quantum phenomena required by the theory, since it is considered too "warm, wet and noisy" to avoid [[decoherence]].
Orchestrated objective reduction has been criticized from its inception by mathematicians, philosophers,<ref name=Boolos_1990>{{cite journal | last1 = Boolos | first1 = George | author-link = George Boolos | display-authors = etal | year = 1990 | title = An Open Peer Commentary on The Emperor's New Mind. | journal = Behavioral and Brain Sciences | volume = 13 | issue = 4| page = 655 | doi = 10.1017/s0140525x00080687 | s2cid = 144905437 }}</ref><ref name=martin_1993>{{cite journal |last1=Davis |first1=Martin |title=How subtle is Gödel's theorem? More on Roger Penrose |journal=Behavioral and Brain Sciences |date=September 1993 |volume=16 |issue=3 |pages=611–612 |doi=10.1017/S0140525X00031915 |s2cid=144018337 }}</ref><ref name=lewis_1969>{{cite journal |last1=Lewis |first1=David |title=Lucas against Mechanism |journal=Philosophy |date=July 1969 |volume=44 |issue=169 |pages=231–233 |doi=10.1017/s0031819100024591 |s2cid=170411423 |doi-access=free }}</ref><ref name=putnam_1995>{{cite journal |last1=Putnam |first1=Hilary |title=Book Review: Shadows of the mind |journal=Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society |date=1 July 1995 |volume=32 |issue=3 |pages=370–374 |doi=10.1090/S0273-0979-1995-00606-3 |doi-access=free }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Putnam |first1=Hilary |title=The Best of All Possible Brains? |url=https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/books/97/04/27/nnp/17540.html |work=The New York Times |date=20 November 1994 }}</ref> and scientists.<ref name=Tegmark2000>{{cite journal|doi=10.1103/PhysRevE.61.4194|title=Importance of quantum decoherence in brain processes|journal=Physical Review E|volume=61|issue=4|pages=4194–4206|year=2000|last1=Tegmark|first1=Max|bibcode=2000PhRvE..61.4194T|arxiv=quant-ph/9907009|pmid=11088215|s2cid=17140058}}</ref><ref name=Koch2006>{{cite journal |doi=10.1038/440611a |pmid=16572152 |title=Quantum mechanics in the brain |journal=Nature |volume=440 |issue=7084 |pages=611 |year=2006 |last1=Koch |first1=Christof |last2=Hepp |first2=Klaus |bibcode=2006Natur.440..611K |s2cid=5085015 |doi-access=free }}</ref><ref name=Hepp2012>{{cite journal |last1=Hepp |first1=K. |title=Coherence and decoherence in the brain |journal=Journal of Mathematical Physics |date=September 2012 |volume=53 |issue=9 |pages=095222 |doi=10.1063/1.4752474 |bibcode=2012JMP....53i5222H }}</ref> The criticism concentrated on three issues: Penrose's interpretation of [[Gödel's incompleteness theorems|Gödel's theorem]]; Penrose's [[abductive reasoning]] linking non-computability to quantum events; and the brain's unsuitability to host the quantum phenomena required by the theory, since it is considered too "warm, wet and noisy" to avoid [[decoherence]].
Line 16: Line 16:
{{further|Penrose–Lucas argument}}
{{further|Penrose–Lucas argument}}
[[File:Kurt gödel.jpg|thumb|upright|Logician [[Kurt Gödel]]]]
[[File:Kurt gödel.jpg|thumb|upright|Logician [[Kurt Gödel]]]]
In 1931, mathematician and logician [[Kurt Gödel]] [[Gödel's incompleteness theorems|proved]] that any [[effective procedure|effectively generated]] theory capable of proving basic arithmetic cannot be both [[consistency|consistent]] and [[completeness (logic)|complete]]. In other words, a mathematically sound theory lacks the means to prove itself.<ref>{{Harvnb|Hofstadter|1979|pp=476–477}}, {{Harvnb|Russell|Norvig|2003|p=950}}, {{Harvnb|Turing|1950}} under "The Argument from Mathematics" where he writes "although it is established that there are limitations to the powers of any particular machine, it has only been stated, without sort of proof, that no such limitations apply to the human intellect."</ref> However, in his first book on consciousness, ''[[The Emperor's New Mind]]'' (1989), [[Roger Penrose]] argued that Gödel-unprovable results are provable by human mathematicians.<ref name=Penrose1989/> He takes this disparity to mean that human mathematicians are not describable as formal proof systems, and are therefore running a [[computable function|non-computable algorithm]].
In 1931, mathematician and logician [[Kurt Gödel]] proved that any [[effective procedure|effectively generated]] theory capable of proving basic arithmetic cannot be both [[consistency|consistent]] and [[completeness (logic)|complete]]. In other words, a mathematically sound theory lacks the means to prove itself.<ref>{{Harvnb|Hofstadter|1979|pp=476–477}}, {{Harvnb|Russell|Norvig|2003|p=950}}, {{Harvnb|Turing|1950}} under "The Argument from Mathematics" where he writes "although it is established that there are limitations to the powers of any particular machine, it has only been stated, without sort of proof, that no such limitations apply to the human intellect."</ref> In his first book concerning consciousness, ''[[The Emperor's New Mind]]'' (1989), [[Roger Penrose]] argued that equivalent statements to "Gödel-type propositions" had recently been put forward.<ref name=Penrose1989/>


If correct, the [[Penrose–Lucas argument]] leaves the question of the physical basis of non-computable behaviour open. Most physical laws are computable, and thus algorithmic. However, Penrose determined that [[wave function collapse]] was a prime candidate for a non-computable process. In [[quantum mechanics]], particles are treated differently from the objects of [[classical mechanics]]. Particles are described by [[wave function]]s that evolve according to the [[Schrödinger equation]]. Non-stationary wave functions are [[linear combination]]s of the [[eigenstate]]s of the system, a phenomenon described by the [[superposition principle]]. When a quantum system interacts with a classical system—i.e. when an [[observable]] is measured—the system appears to [[wave function collapse|collapse]] to a random eigenstate of that observable from a classical vantage point.
Partially in response to Gödel's argument, the [[Penrose–Lucas argument]] leaves the question of the physical basis of non-[[Computable function|computable]] behaviour open. Most physical laws are computable, and thus algorithmic. However, Penrose determined that [[wave function collapse]] was a prime candidate for a non-computable process. In [[quantum mechanics]], particles are treated differently from the objects of [[classical mechanics]]. Particles are described by [[wave function]]s that evolve according to the [[Schrödinger equation]]. Non-stationary wave functions are [[linear combination]]s of the [[eigenstate]]s of the system, a phenomenon described by the [[superposition principle]]. When a quantum system interacts with a classical system—i.e. when an [[observable]] is measured—the system appears to [[wave function collapse|collapse]] to a random eigenstate of that observable from a classical vantage point.


If collapse is truly random, then no process or algorithm can deterministically predict its outcome. This provided Penrose with a candidate for the physical basis of the non-computable process that he hypothesized to exist in the brain. However, he disliked the random nature of environmentally induced collapse, as randomness was not a promising basis for mathematical understanding. Penrose proposed that isolated systems may still undergo a new form of wave function collapse, which he called objective reduction (OR).<ref name="Penrose-Hameroff2014"/>
If collapse is truly random, then no process or algorithm can deterministically predict its outcome. This provided Penrose with a candidate for the physical basis of the non-computable process that he hypothesized to exist in the brain. However, he disliked the random nature of environmentally induced collapse, as randomness was not a promising basis for mathematical understanding. Penrose proposed that isolated systems may still undergo a new form of wave function collapse, which he called objective reduction (OR).<ref name="Penrose-Hameroff2014"/>


Penrose sought to reconcile [[general relativity]] and quantum theory using his own ideas about the possible structure of [[spacetime]].<ref name=Penrose1989>{{Cite book |last=Penrose |first= Roger |author-link=Roger Penrose |title=The Emperor's New Mind: Concerning Computers, Minds and The Laws of Physics |publisher=Oxford University Press |year=1989 |page=480|isbn=978-0-19-851973-7|title-link= The Emperor's New Mind }}</ref><ref name= Penrose1994>{{Cite book |last=Penrose |first=Roger |author-link=Roger Penrose |title=Shadows of the Mind: A Search for the Missing Science of Consciousness |url=https://archive.org/details/shadowsofmindsea00penr_0/ |publisher=Oxford University Press |year=1989 |pages=416–7, 457 |isbn=978-0-19-853978-0 }}</ref> He suggested that at the [[Planck scale]] curved spacetime is not continuous, but discrete. He further postulated that each separated [[quantum superposition]] has its own piece of [[spacetime curvature]], a blister in spacetime. Penrose suggests that gravity exerts a force on these spacetime blisters, which become unstable above the Planck scale of <math>10^{-35} \text{m}</math> and collapse to just one of the possible states. The rough threshold for OR is given by Penrose's indeterminacy principle:
Penrose sought to reconcile [[general relativity]] and quantum theory using his own ideas about the possible structure of [[spacetime]].<ref name="Penrose1989">{{Cite book |last=Penrose |first=Roger |title=The Emperor's New Mind: Concerning Computers, Minds and The Laws of Physics |title-link=The Emperor's New Mind |publisher=Oxford University Press |year=1989 |isbn=978-0-19-851973-7 |pages=[https://archive.org/details/emperorsnewmindc00penr/page/108/mode/2up 108–109]}}</ref>{{Page needed|date=May 2024}}<ref name= Penrose1994>{{Cite book |last=Penrose |first=Roger |author-link=Roger Penrose |title=Shadows of the Mind: A Search for the Missing Science of Consciousness |url=https://archive.org/details/shadowsofmindsea00penr_0/ |publisher=Oxford University Press |year=1989 |pages=416–7, 457 |isbn=978-0-19-853978-0 }}</ref> He suggested that at the [[Planck scale]] curved spacetime is not continuous, but discrete. He further postulated that each separated [[quantum superposition]] has its own piece of [[spacetime curvature]], a blister in spacetime. Penrose suggests that gravity exerts a force on these spacetime blisters, which become unstable above the Planck scale of <math>10^{-35} \text{m}</math> and collapse to just one of the possible states. The rough threshold for OR is given by Penrose's indeterminacy principle:
::<math>\tau \approx \hbar/E_G</math>
::<math>\tau \approx \hbar/E_G</math>
:where:
:where:
Line 44: Line 44:
[[File:Microtubule diagram.jpg|thumb|300px|<small>'''A:'''</small> An [[axon terminal]] releases [[neurotransmitter]]s through a synapse and are received by microtubules in a neuron's [[dendritic spine]].<br><small>'''B:'''</small> Simulated microtubule tubulins switch states.<ref name=frontiers/>]]
[[File:Microtubule diagram.jpg|thumb|300px|<small>'''A:'''</small> An [[axon terminal]] releases [[neurotransmitter]]s through a synapse and are received by microtubules in a neuron's [[dendritic spine]].<br><small>'''B:'''</small> Simulated microtubule tubulins switch states.<ref name=frontiers/>]]
Hameroff proposed that microtubules were suitable candidates for quantum processing.<ref name=Hameroff1987/> Microtubules are made up of [[tubulin]] [[protein]] subunits. The tubulin protein [[Dimer (biochemistry)|dimers]] of the microtubules have [[hydrophobic]] pockets that may contain delocalized [[π electron]]s. Tubulin has other, smaller non-polar regions, for example 8 [[tryptophan]]s per tubulin, which contain π electron-rich [[indole]] rings distributed throughout tubulin with separations of roughly 2&nbsp;nm. Hameroff claims that this is close enough for the tubulin π electrons to become [[quantum entanglement|quantum entangled]].<ref name=Hameroff_2007>{{cite book |last=Hameroff |first=Stuart |author-link=Stuart Hameroff |chapter=That's life! The geometry of π electron resonance clouds |title=Quantum aspects of life |editor-last=Abbott |editor1-first=D |editor2-last=Davies |editor2-first=P |editor3-last=Pati |editor3-first=A |chapter-url=http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/documents/Hameroff_received-1-05-07.pdf |year=2008 |publisher=World Scientific |pages=403–434 |access-date=Jan 21, 2010 |archive-date=June 11, 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110611163201/http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/documents/Hameroff_received-1-05-07.pdf |url-status=dead }}</ref> During entanglement, particle states become inseparably correlated.
Hameroff proposed that microtubules were suitable candidates for quantum processing.<ref name=Hameroff1987/> Microtubules are made up of [[tubulin]] [[protein]] subunits. The tubulin protein [[Dimer (biochemistry)|dimers]] of the microtubules have [[hydrophobic]] pockets that may contain delocalized [[π electron]]s. Tubulin has other, smaller non-polar regions, for example 8 [[tryptophan]]s per tubulin, which contain π electron-rich [[indole]] rings distributed throughout tubulin with separations of roughly 2&nbsp;nm. Hameroff claims that this is close enough for the tubulin π electrons to become [[quantum entanglement|quantum entangled]].<ref name=Hameroff_2007>{{cite book |last=Hameroff |first=Stuart |author-link=Stuart Hameroff |chapter=That's life! The geometry of π electron resonance clouds |title=Quantum aspects of life |editor-last=Abbott |editor1-first=D |editor2-last=Davies |editor2-first=P |editor3-last=Pati |editor3-first=A |chapter-url=http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/documents/Hameroff_received-1-05-07.pdf |year=2008 |publisher=World Scientific |pages=403–434 |access-date=Jan 21, 2010 |archive-date=June 11, 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110611163201/http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/documents/Hameroff_received-1-05-07.pdf |url-status=dead }}</ref> During entanglement, particle states become inseparably correlated.
The quantum effects in [[tryptophan]]s were confirmed in the study from 2024 that is called [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11075083/ Ultraviolet Superradiance from Mega-Networks of Tryptophan in Biological Architectures].<ref name=":0">{{cite web |title=Ultraviolet superradiance from mega-networks of tryptophan in biological architectures |url=https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/1042789 |website=eurekalert |publisher=The Journal of Physical Chemistry}}</ref><ref name=":1">{{Cite journal |title=Ultraviolet Superradiance from Mega-Networks of Tryptophan in Biological Architectures |date=2024 |pmc=11075083 |last1=Babcock |first1=N. S. |last2=Montes-Cabrera |first2=G. |last3=Oberhofer |first3=K. E. |last4=Chergui |first4=M. |last5=Celardo |first5=G. L. |last6=Kurian |first6=P. |journal=The Journal of Physical Chemistry B |volume=128 |issue=17 |pages=4035–4046 |doi=10.1021/acs.jpcb.3c07936 |pmid=38641327 }}</ref><ref name=":2">{{Cite web |title=Ultraviolet Superradiance from Mega-Networks of Tryptophan in Biological Architectures |url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/379981591}}</ref>

Hameroff originally suggested in the fringe ''[[Journal of Cosmology]]'' that the tubulin-subunit electrons would form a [[Bose–Einstein condensate]].<ref name="Penrose-Hameroff2011">{{cite journal
Hameroff originally suggested in the fringe ''[[Journal of Cosmology]]'' that the tubulin-subunit electrons would form a [[Bose–Einstein condensate]].<ref name="Penrose-Hameroff2011">{{cite journal
|author1=Roger Penrose |author2=Stuart Hameroff |name-list-style=amp |title= Consciousness in the Universe: Neuroscience, Quantum Space-Time Geometry and Orch OR Theory |journal= Journal of Cosmology |volume= 14 |year= 2011 |url= http://journalofcosmology.com/Consciousness160.html|archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20140207124412/http://journalofcosmology.com/Consciousness160.html|url-status= dead|archive-date= February 7, 2014}}</ref> He then proposed a [[Frohlich condensate]], a hypothetical coherent oscillation of dipolar molecules. However, this too was rejected by Reimers' group.<ref name="Reimers2009">{{cite journal |doi=10.1073/pnas.0806273106 |pmid=19251667 |pmc=2657444 |title=Weak, strong, and coherent regimes of Frohlich condensation and their applications to terahertz medicine and quantum consciousness |journal=Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences |volume=106 |issue=11 |pages=4219–4224 |year=2009 |last1=Reimers |first1=J. R. |last2=McKemmish |first2=L. K. |last3=McKenzie |first3=R. H. |last4=Mark |first4=A. E. |last5=Hush |first5=N. S. |bibcode=2009PNAS..106.4219R |doi-access=free }}</ref> Hameroff then responded to Reimers. "Reimers et al have most definitely NOT shown that strong or coherent Frohlich condensation in microtubules is unfeasible. The model microtubule on which they base their Hamiltonian is not a microtubule structure, but a simple linear chain of oscillators." Hameroff reasoned that such condensate behavior would magnify nanoscopic quantum effects to have large scale influences in the brain.
|author1=Roger Penrose |author2=Stuart Hameroff |name-list-style=amp |title= Consciousness in the Universe: Neuroscience, Quantum Space-Time Geometry and Orch OR Theory |journal= Journal of Cosmology |volume= 14 |year= 2011 |url= http://journalofcosmology.com/Consciousness160.html|archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20140207124412/http://journalofcosmology.com/Consciousness160.html|url-status= dead|archive-date= February 7, 2014}}</ref> He then proposed a [[Frohlich condensate]], a hypothetical coherent oscillation of dipolar molecules. However, this too was rejected by Reimers's group.<ref name="Reimers2009">{{cite journal |doi=10.1073/pnas.0806273106 |pmid=19251667 |pmc=2657444 |title=Weak, strong, and coherent regimes of Frohlich condensation and their applications to terahertz medicine and quantum consciousness |journal=Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences |volume=106 |issue=11 |pages=4219–4224 |year=2009 |last1=Reimers |first1=J. R. |last2=McKemmish |first2=L. K. |last3=McKenzie |first3=R. H. |last4=Mark |first4=A. E. |last5=Hush |first5=N. S. |bibcode=2009PNAS..106.4219R |doi-access=free }}</ref> Hameroff then responded to Reimers. "Reimers et al have most definitely NOT shown that strong or coherent Frohlich condensation in microtubules is unfeasible. The model microtubule on which they base their Hamiltonian is not a microtubule structure, but a simple linear chain of oscillators." Hameroff reasoned that such condensate behavior would magnify nanoscopic quantum effects to have large scale influences in the brain.


Hameroff then proposed that condensates in microtubules in one [[neuron]] can link with microtubule condensates in other neurons and [[glial cell]]s via the [[gap junctions]] of [[electrical synapse]]s.<ref name="Hameroff2006a">{{cite journal |doi=10.1097/00000542-200608000-00024 |author=Hameroff, S.R. |title=The entwined mysteries of anesthesia and consciousness |journal=Anesthesiology |volume=105 |issue=2 |pages=400–412 |year=2006 |pmid=16871075|s2cid=1655684 |doi-access=free }}</ref><ref name="Hameroff2009">{{cite journal |author= Hameroff, S. |title=The "conscious pilot"—dendritic synchrony moves through the brain to mediate consciousness |journal=Journal of Biological Physics |volume= 36 |pages= 71–93 |year=2009 |doi=10.1007/s10867-009-9148-x |pmid= 19669425 |issue= 1 |pmc= 2791805}}</ref> Hameroff proposed that the gap between the cells is sufficiently small that quantum objects can [[quantum tunneling|tunnel]] across it, allowing them to extend across a large area of the brain. He further postulated that the action of this large-scale quantum activity is the source of 40&nbsp;Hz [[gamma wave]]s, building upon the much less controversial theory that gap junctions are related to the gamma oscillation.<ref name="Bennett&Zukin2004">{{cite journal |author1=Bennett, M.V.L. |author2=Zukin, R.S. |name-list-style=amp |title=Electrical Coupling and Neuronal Synchronization in the Mammalian Brain |journal=Neuron |volume=41 |issue=4 |pages=495–511 |year=2004 |pmid=14980200 |doi=10.1016/S0896-6273(04)00043-1|s2cid=18566176 |doi-access=free }}</ref>
Hameroff then proposed that condensates in microtubules in one [[neuron]] can link with microtubule condensates in other neurons and [[glial cell]]s via the [[gap junctions]] of [[electrical synapse]]s.<ref name="Hameroff2006a">{{cite journal |doi=10.1097/00000542-200608000-00024 |author=Hameroff, S.R. |title=The entwined mysteries of anesthesia and consciousness |journal=Anesthesiology |volume=105 |issue=2 |pages=400–412 |year=2006 |pmid=16871075|s2cid=1655684 |doi-access=free }}</ref><ref name="Hameroff2009">{{cite journal |author= Hameroff, S. |title=The "conscious pilot"—dendritic synchrony moves through the brain to mediate consciousness |journal=Journal of Biological Physics |volume= 36 |pages= 71–93 |year=2009 |doi=10.1007/s10867-009-9148-x |pmid= 19669425 |issue= 1 |pmc= 2791805}}</ref> Hameroff proposed that the gap between the cells is sufficiently small that quantum objects can [[quantum tunneling|tunnel]] across it, allowing them to extend across a large area of the brain. He further postulated that the action of this large-scale quantum activity is the source of 40&nbsp;Hz [[gamma wave]]s, building upon the much less controversial theory that gap junctions are related to the gamma oscillation.<ref name="Bennett&Zukin2004">{{cite journal |author1=Bennett, M.V.L. |author2=Zukin, R.S. |name-list-style=amp |title=Electrical Coupling and Neuronal Synchronization in the Mammalian Brain |journal=Neuron |volume=41 |issue=4 |pages=495–511 |year=2004 |pmid=14980200 |doi=10.1016/S0896-6273(04)00043-1|s2cid=18566176 |doi-access=free }}</ref>


===Related experimental results===
===Related experimental results===
In April 2022, the results of two related experiments were presented at [[The Science of Consciousness]] conference:
In April 2022, the results of two related experiments were presented at [[The Science of Consciousness]] conference. In a study Hameroff was part of, [[Jack Tuszyński]] of the [[University of Alberta]] demonstrated that anesthetics hasten the duration of a process called delayed luminescence, in which microtubules and tubulins {{Nowrap|re-emit}} trapped light. Tuszyński suspects that the phenomenon has a quantum origin, with [[superradiance]] being investigated as one possibility. In the second experiment, [[Gregory D. Scholes]] and Aarat Kalra of [[Princeton University]] used lasers to excite molecules within tubulins, causing a prolonged excitation to diffuse through microtubules farther than expected, which did not occur when repeated under anesthesia.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Lewton |first1=Thomas |date=18 April 2022 |title=Quantum experiments add weight to a fringe theory of consciousness |url=https://www.newscientist.com/article/2316408-quantum-experiments-add-weight-to-a-fringe-theory-of-consciousness/ |url-access=subscription |access-date=23 April 2022 |website=[[New Scientist]]}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last1=Tangermann |first1=Victor |title=Experiment Suggests That Consciousness May Be Rooted in Quantum Physics |url=https://futurism.com/human-consciousness-quantum-physics |website=www.futurism.com |publisher=Camden Media Inc |access-date=24 April 2022}}</ref> However, diffusion results have to be interpreted carefully, since even classical diffusion can be very complex due to the wide range of length scales in the fluid filled extracellular space.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Nicholson |first1=Charles |title=The Secret World in the Gaps between Brain Cells |journal=Physics Today |date=May 2022 |volume=75 |issue=5 |pages=26–32|doi=10.1063/PT.3.4999 |bibcode=2022PhT....75e..26N |s2cid=248620292 }}</ref>

# In a study Hameroff was part of, [[Jack Tuszyński]] of the [[University of Alberta]] demonstrated that anesthetics hasten the duration of a process called delayed luminescence, in which microtubules and tubulins {{Nowrap|re-emit}} trapped light. Tuszyński suspects that the phenomenon has a quantum origin, with [[superradiance]] being investigated as one possibility (in a later study [[superradiance]] was confirmed to occur in networks of [[tryptophan]]s, which are found in [[microtubule]]s<ref name=":0" /><ref name=":1" /><ref name=":2" />). “We’re not at the level of interpreting this physiologically, saying 'Yeah, this is where consciousness begins,' but it may," [[Jack Tuszyński]] told ''New Scientist''.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Tangermann |first1=Victor |date=19 April 2022 |title=Experiment Suggests That Consciousness May Be Rooted in Quantum Physics |url=https://futurism.com/human-consciousness-quantum-physics |access-date=24 April 2022 |website=www.futurism.com |publisher=Camden Media Inc}}</ref>
# In the second experiment, [[Gregory D. Scholes]] and Aarat Kalra of [[Princeton University]] used lasers to excite molecules within tubulins, causing a prolonged excitation to diffuse through microtubules farther than expected, which did not occur when repeated under anesthesia.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Lewton |first1=Thomas |date=18 April 2022 |title=Quantum experiments add weight to a fringe theory of consciousness |url=https://www.newscientist.com/article/2316408-quantum-experiments-add-weight-to-a-fringe-theory-of-consciousness/ |url-access=subscription |access-date=23 April 2022 |website=[[New Scientist]]}}</ref> However, diffusion results have to be interpreted carefully, since even classical diffusion can be very complex due to the wide range of length scales in the fluid filled extracellular space.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Nicholson |first1=Charles |title=The Secret World in the Gaps between Brain Cells |journal=Physics Today |date=May 2022 |volume=75 |issue=5 |pages=26–32|doi=10.1063/PT.3.4999 |bibcode=2022PhT....75e..26N |s2cid=248620292 }}</ref>

In 2024, a study called Ultraviolet Superradiance from Mega-Networks of Tryptophan in Biological Architectures] whose result was published in The Journal of Physical Chemistry confirmed the quantum effect called [[superradiance]] in large networks of [[tryptophan]]s, which are found in [[microtubule]]s.<ref name=":0" /><ref name=":1" /> Large networks of [[tryptophan]]s are a warm and noisy environment, an environment in which quantum effects typically aren't expected to take place.<ref name=":0" /> The results of the study were first theoretically predicted and then experimentally confirmed by the researchers.<ref name=":0" /><ref name=":1" /> Professor [[Majed Chergui]] of The Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, who led the experimental team said "It's a beautiful result. It took very precise and careful application of standard protein spectroscopy methods, but guided by the theoretical predictions of our collaborators, we were able to confirm a stunning signature of [[superradiance]] in a micron-scale biological system".<ref name=":0" /> [[Marlan Scully]], a physics professor at [[Princeton University]], who is among other things famous for his work in the field of theoretical quantum optics, commented on the study by saying “We will certainly be examining closely the implications for quantum effects in living systems for years to come”.<ref name=":0" /> The [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11075083/ study] states "by analyzing the coupling with the electromagnetic field of mega-networks of [[tryptophan]]s present in these biologically relevant architectures, we find the emergence of collective quantum optical effects, namely, superradiant and subradiant eigenmodes (...) our work demonstrates that collective and cooperative UV excitations in mega-networks of [[tryptophan]]s support robust quantum states in protein aggregates, with observed consequences even under thermal equilibrium conditions".<ref name=":1" />


== Microtubule quantum vibration theory of anesthetic action ==
== Microtubule quantum vibration theory of anesthetic action ==


At high concentrations (~5 [[Minimum alveolar concentration|MAC]]) the anesthetic gas [[halothane]] causes reversible depolymerization of [[microtubule]]s.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Allison|first1=A.C|last2=Nunn|first2=J.F|date=December 1968|journal=The Lancet|volume=292|issue=7582|pages=1326–1329|doi=10.1016/s0140-6736(68)91821-7|pmid=4177393|issn=0140-6736|title=Effects of General Anæsthetics on Microtubules}}</ref> This cannot be the mechanism of anesthetic action, however, because human anesthesia is performed at 1 [[minimum alveolar concentration|MAC]]. (It is important to note that neither Penrose or Hameroff ever claim that depolymerization is the mechanism of action for ORCH OR.<ref>{{cite journal | url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1571064513001188 | doi=10.1016/j.plrev.2013.08.002 | title=Consciousness in the universe | year=2014 | last1=Hameroff | first1=Stuart | last2=Penrose | first2=Roger | journal=Physics of Life Reviews | volume=11 | issue=1 | pages=39–78 | pmid=24070914 | bibcode=2014PhLRv..11...39H | s2cid=5015743 | doi-access=free }}</ref> <ref>https://bigbangpage.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/orchestrated-objective-reduction-in-microtubuls...pdf {{bare URL PDF|date=April 2023}}</ref>)
At high concentrations (~5 [[Minimum alveolar concentration|MAC]]) the anesthetic gas [[halothane]] causes reversible depolymerization of [[microtubule]]s.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Allison|first1=A.C|last2=Nunn|first2=J.F|date=December 1968|journal=The Lancet|volume=292|issue=7582|pages=1326–1329|doi=10.1016/s0140-6736(68)91821-7|pmid=4177393|issn=0140-6736|title=Effects of General Anæsthetics on Microtubules}}</ref> This cannot be the mechanism of anesthetic action, however, because human anesthesia is performed at 1 [[minimum alveolar concentration|MAC]]. (It is important to note that neither Penrose or Hameroff ever claim that depolymerization is the mechanism of action for ORCH OR.<ref>{{cite journal | doi=10.1016/j.plrev.2013.08.002 | title=Consciousness in the universe | year=2014 | last1=Hameroff | first1=Stuart | last2=Penrose | first2=Roger | journal=Physics of Life Reviews | volume=11 | issue=1 | pages=39–78 | pmid=24070914 | bibcode=2014PhLRv..11...39H | s2cid=5015743 | doi-access=free }}</ref><ref>https://bigbangpage.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/orchestrated-objective-reduction-in-microtubuls...pdf {{bare URL PDF|date=April 2023}}</ref>)
At ~1 MAC halothane, reported minor changes in tubulin protein expression (~1.3-fold) in primary cortical neurons after exposure to halothane and isoflurane are not evidence that tubulin directly interacts with general anesthetics, but rather shows that the proteins controlling tubulin production are possible anesthetic targets.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Pan|first1=Jonathan Z.|last2=Xi|first2=Jin|last3=Eckenhoff|first3=Maryellen F.|last4=Eckenhoff|first4=Roderic G.|date=July 2008|title=Inhaled anesthetics elicit region-specific changes in protein expression in mammalian brain|journal=Proteomics|volume=8|issue=14|pages=2983–2992|doi=10.1002/pmic.200800057|pmid=18655074|s2cid=24559322|issn=1615-9853|doi-access=free}}</ref>
At ~1 MAC halothane, reported minor changes in tubulin protein expression (~1.3-fold) in primary cortical neurons after exposure to halothane and isoflurane are not evidence that tubulin directly interacts with general anesthetics, but rather shows that the proteins controlling tubulin production are possible anesthetic targets.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Pan|first1=Jonathan Z.|last2=Xi|first2=Jin|last3=Eckenhoff|first3=Maryellen F.|last4=Eckenhoff|first4=Roderic G.|date=July 2008|title=Inhaled anesthetics elicit region-specific changes in protein expression in mammalian brain|journal=Proteomics|volume=8|issue=14|pages=2983–2992|doi=10.1002/pmic.200800057|pmid=18655074|s2cid=24559322|issn=1615-9853|doi-access=free}}</ref>
Further proteomic study reports 0.5 mM [<sup>14</sup>C]halothane binding to tubulin monomers alongside three dozens of other proteins.<ref name="Pan2007">{{cite journal
Further proteomic study reports 0.5 mM [<sup>14</sup>C]halothane binding to tubulin monomers alongside three dozens of other proteins.<ref name="Pan2007">{{cite journal
Line 76: Line 83:
| pmid = 17269715
| pmid = 17269715
}}</ref>
}}</ref>
In addition, modulation of microtubule stability has been reported during anthracene general anesthesia of tadpoles.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Emerson|first1=Daniel J.|last2=Weiser|first2=Brian P.|last3=Psonis|first3=John|last4=Liao|first4=Zhengzheng|last5=Taratula|first5=Olena|last6=Fiamengo|first6=Ashley|last7=Wang|first7=Xiaozhao|last8=Sugasawa|first8=Keizo|last9=Smith|first9=Amos B.|date=2013-03-29|title=Direct Modulation of Microtubule Stability Contributes to Anthracene General Anesthesia|journal=Journal of the American Chemical Society|volume=135|issue=14|pages=5389–5398|doi=10.1021/ja311171u|pmid=23484901|issn=0002-7863|pmc=3671381}}</ref>
In addition, modulation of microtubule stability has been reported during anthracene general anesthesia of tadpoles.<ref name=":3">{{Cite journal|last1=Emerson|first1=Daniel J.|last2=Weiser|first2=Brian P.|last3=Psonis|first3=John|last4=Liao|first4=Zhengzheng|last5=Taratula|first5=Olena|last6=Fiamengo|first6=Ashley|last7=Wang|first7=Xiaozhao|last8=Sugasawa|first8=Keizo|last9=Smith|first9=Amos B.|date=2013-03-29|title=Direct Modulation of Microtubule Stability Contributes to Anthracene General Anesthesia|journal=Journal of the American Chemical Society|volume=135|issue=14|pages=5389–5398|doi=10.1021/ja311171u|pmid=23484901|issn=0002-7863|pmc=3671381}}</ref> The study called [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23484901/ Direct Modulation of Microtubule Stability Contributes to Anthracene General Anesthesia] claims to provide "strong evidence that destabilization of neuronal microtubules provides a path to achieving general anesthesia".<ref name=":3" />


What might anesthetics do to microtubules to cause loss of consciousness? A highly disputed theory put forth in the mid-1990s by [[Stuart Hameroff]] and [[Sir Roger Penrose]] posits that consciousness is based on quantum vibrations in tubulin/microtubules inside brain neurons. Computer modeling of tubulin's atomic structure<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Craddock|first1=Travis J. A.|last2=St. George|first2=Marc|last3=Freedman|first3=Holly|last4=Barakat|first4=Khaled H.|last5=Damaraju|first5=Sambasivarao|last6=Hameroff|first6=Stuart|last7=Tuszynski|first7=Jack A.|date=2012-06-25|title=Computational Predictions of Volatile Anesthetic Interactions with the Microtubule Cytoskeleton: Implications for Side Effects of General Anesthesia|journal=PLOS ONE|volume=7|issue=6|pages=e37251|doi=10.1371/journal.pone.0037251|pmid=22761654|pmc=3382613|issn=1932-6203|bibcode=2012PLoSO...737251C|doi-access=free}}</ref> found that anesthetic gas molecules bind adjacent to amino acid aromatic rings of non-polar [[pi electron|π-electrons]] and that collective quantum dipole oscillations among all [[pi electron|π-electron]] resonance rings in each tubulin showed a spectrum with a common mode peak at 613 [[Tera-|T]][[Hz]].<ref name="Craddock2017">{{Cite journal|last1=Craddock|first1=Travis J. A.|last2=Kurian|first2=Philip|last3=Preto|first3=Jordane|last4=Sahu|first4=Kamlesh|last5=Hameroff|first5=Stuart R.|last6=Klobukowski|first6=Mariusz|last7=Tuszynski|first7=Jack A.|date=2017-08-29|title=Anesthetic Alterations of Collective Terahertz Oscillations in Tubulin Correlate with Clinical Potency: Implications for Anesthetic Action and Post-Operative Cognitive Dysfunction|journal=Scientific Reports|volume=7|issue=1|pages=9877|doi=10.1038/s41598-017-09992-7|pmid=28852014|pmc=5575257|issn=2045-2322|bibcode=2017NatSR...7.9877C}}</ref> Simulated presence of 8 different anesthetic gases abolished the 613 THz peak, whereas the presence of 2 different nonanesthetic gases did not affect the 613 THz peak, from which it was speculated that this 613 THz peak in microtubules could be related to consciousness and anesthetic action.<ref name="Craddock2017"/>
What might anesthetics do to microtubules to cause loss of consciousness? A highly disputed theory put forth in the mid-1990s by [[Stuart Hameroff]] and [[Sir Roger Penrose]] posits that consciousness is based on quantum vibrations in tubulin/microtubules inside brain neurons. Computer modeling of tubulin's atomic structure<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Craddock|first1=Travis J. A.|last2=St. George|first2=Marc|last3=Freedman|first3=Holly|last4=Barakat|first4=Khaled H.|last5=Damaraju|first5=Sambasivarao|last6=Hameroff|first6=Stuart|last7=Tuszynski|first7=Jack A.|date=2012-06-25|title=Computational Predictions of Volatile Anesthetic Interactions with the Microtubule Cytoskeleton: Implications for Side Effects of General Anesthesia|journal=PLOS ONE|volume=7|issue=6|pages=e37251|doi=10.1371/journal.pone.0037251|pmid=22761654|pmc=3382613|issn=1932-6203|bibcode=2012PLoSO...737251C|doi-access=free}}</ref> found that anesthetic gas molecules bind adjacent to amino acid aromatic rings of non-polar [[pi electron|π-electrons]] and that collective quantum dipole oscillations among all [[pi electron|π-electron]] resonance rings in each tubulin showed a spectrum with a common mode peak at 613 [[Tera-|T]][[Hz]].<ref name="Craddock2017">{{Cite journal|last1=Craddock|first1=Travis J. A.|last2=Kurian|first2=Philip|last3=Preto|first3=Jordane|last4=Sahu|first4=Kamlesh|last5=Hameroff|first5=Stuart R.|last6=Klobukowski|first6=Mariusz|last7=Tuszynski|first7=Jack A.|date=2017-08-29|title=Anesthetic Alterations of Collective Terahertz Oscillations in Tubulin Correlate with Clinical Potency: Implications for Anesthetic Action and Post-Operative Cognitive Dysfunction|journal=Scientific Reports|volume=7|issue=1|pages=9877|doi=10.1038/s41598-017-09992-7|pmid=28852014|pmc=5575257|issn=2045-2322|bibcode=2017NatSR...7.9877C}}</ref> Simulated presence of 8 different anesthetic gases abolished the 613 THz peak, whereas the presence of 2 different nonanesthetic gases did not affect the 613 THz peak, from which it was speculated that this 613 THz peak in microtubules could be related to consciousness and anesthetic action.<ref name="Craddock2017"/>


Another [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25714379/ study] that [[Stuart Hameroff]] was a part of claims to show "anesthetic molecules can impair π-resonance energy transfer and exciton hopping in 'quantum channels' of [[tryptophan]] rings in [[tubulin]], and thus account for selective action of anesthetics on consciousness and memory".<ref>{{Cite journal |title=Anesthetics act in quantum channels in brain microtubules to prevent consciousness |url=https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25714379/ |journal=Current Topics in Medicinal Chemistry|date=2015 |pmid=25714379 |last1=Craddock |first1=T. J. |last2=Hameroff |first2=S. R. |last3=Ayoub |first3=A. T. |last4=Klobukowski |first4=M. |last5=Tuszynski |first5=J. A. |volume=15 |issue=6 |pages=523–533 |doi=10.2174/1568026615666150225104543 }}</ref>
The 'Microtubule quantum vibration theory' of anesthetic action is controversial due to several [[Orchestrated objective reduction#Criticism|critical flaws in the premise of Orch OR]] and falsification of data used in support of the theory.<ref name="Froes1999">{{cite journal|doi=10.1073/pnas.96.13.7541 |title=Gap-junctional coupling between neurons and astrocytes in primary central nervous system cultures|journal=Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences|volume=96|issue=13|pages=7541–46|year=1999|last1=Froes|first1=M. M.|last2=Correia|first2=A. H. P.|last3=Garcia-Abreu|first3=J.|last4=Spray|first4=D. C.|last5=Campos De Carvalho|first5=A. C.|last6=Neto|first6=V. M.|bibcode=1999PNAS...96.7541F|pmc=22122|pmid=10377451|doi-access=free}}</ref>


==Criticism==
==Criticism==
{{Primary sources|section|date=February 2021}}
Orch OR has been criticized both by physicists<ref name="Tegmark2000" /><ref name="McKemmish2009">{{cite journal |last1=McKemmish |first1=Laura K. |last2=Reimers |first2=Jeffrey R. |last3=McKenzie |first3=Ross H. |last4=Mark |first4=Alan E. |last5=Hush |first5=Noel S. |title=Penrose-Hameroff orchestrated objective-reduction proposal for human consciousness is not biologically feasible |journal=Physical Review E |date=13 August 2009 |volume=80 |issue=2 |pages=021912 |doi=10.1103/PhysRevE.80.021912 |pmid=19792156 |bibcode=2009PhRvE..80b1912M |url=https://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:200232/UQ200232.pdf }}</ref><ref name="Reimers2009" /><ref name="Reimers2013">{{cite journal|last1=Reimers|first1=Jeffrey R.|last2=McKemmish|first2=Laura K.|last3=McKenzie|first3=Ross H.|last4=Mark|first4=Alan E.|last5=Hush|first5=Noel S.|year=2014|title=The revised Penrose–Hameroff orchestrated objective-reduction proposal for human consciousness is not scientifically justified|journal=Physics of Life Reviews|volume=11|issue=1|pages=101–103|bibcode=2014PhLRv..11..101R|doi=10.1016/j.plrev.2013.11.003|pmid=24268490}}</ref><ref name="Villatoro2015">{{cite web |url = https://mappingignorance.org/2015/06/17/on-the-quantum-theory-of-consciousness/ |title = On the quantum theory of consciousness |last = Villatoro |first = Francisco R. |date = June 17, 2015 |website = Mapping Ignorance |publisher = University of the Basque Country |access-date = August 18, 2018 |quote= Hameroff's ideas in the hands of Penrose have developed almost to absurdity.}}</ref> and neuroscientists<ref name="Baars2012">{{cite journal |vauthors=Baars BJ, Edelman DB | title = Consciousness, biology and quantum hypotheses | journal = Physics of Life Reviews | volume = 9 | issue = 3 | pages = 285–294 | year = 2012 | doi = 10.1016/j.plrev.2012.07.001 | pmid = 22925839| bibcode = 2012PhLRv...9..285B }}</ref><ref name="Georgiev2017">{{cite book | last = Georgiev | first = Danko D. | title = Quantum Information and Consciousness: A Gentle Introduction | publisher = CRC Press | year = 2017 | location = Boca Raton | isbn = 9781138104488 | oclc = 1003273264 | page=177|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=OtRBDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT177}}</ref><ref name="Litt2006">{{cite journal |vauthors=Litt A, Eliasmith C, Kroon FW, Weinstein S, Thagard P | title = Is the brain a quantum computer? | journal = Cognitive Science | volume = 30 | issue = 3 | pages = 593–603 | year = 2006 | doi = 10.1207/s15516709cog0000_59 | pmid = 21702826
Orch OR has been criticized both by physicists<ref name="Tegmark2000" /><ref name="McKemmish2009">{{cite journal |last1=McKemmish |first1=Laura K. |last2=Reimers |first2=Jeffrey R. |last3=McKenzie |first3=Ross H. |last4=Mark |first4=Alan E. |last5=Hush |first5=Noel S. |title=Penrose-Hameroff orchestrated objective-reduction proposal for human consciousness is not biologically feasible |journal=Physical Review E |date=13 August 2009 |volume=80 |issue=2 |pages=021912 |doi=10.1103/PhysRevE.80.021912 |pmid=19792156 |bibcode=2009PhRvE..80b1912M |url=https://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:200232/UQ200232.pdf }}</ref><ref name="Reimers2009" /><ref name="Reimers2013">{{cite journal|last1=Reimers|first1=Jeffrey R.|last2=McKemmish|first2=Laura K.|last3=McKenzie|first3=Ross H.|last4=Mark|first4=Alan E.|last5=Hush|first5=Noel S.|year=2014|title=The revised Penrose–Hameroff orchestrated objective-reduction proposal for human consciousness is not scientifically justified|journal=Physics of Life Reviews|volume=11|issue=1|pages=101–103|bibcode=2014PhLRv..11..101R|doi=10.1016/j.plrev.2013.11.003|pmid=24268490}}</ref><ref name="Villatoro2015">{{cite web |url = https://mappingignorance.org/2015/06/17/on-the-quantum-theory-of-consciousness/ |title = On the quantum theory of consciousness |last = Villatoro |first = Francisco R. |date = June 17, 2015 |website = Mapping Ignorance |publisher = University of the Basque Country |access-date = August 18, 2018 |quote= Hameroff's ideas in the hands of Penrose have developed almost to absurdity.}}</ref> and neuroscientists<ref name="Baars2012">{{cite journal |vauthors=Baars BJ, Edelman DB | title = Consciousness, biology and quantum hypotheses | journal = Physics of Life Reviews | volume = 9 | issue = 3 | pages = 285–294 | year = 2012 | doi = 10.1016/j.plrev.2012.07.001 | pmid = 22925839| bibcode = 2012PhLRv...9..285B }}</ref><ref name="Georgiev2017">{{cite book | last = Georgiev | first = Danko D. | title = Quantum Information and Consciousness: A Gentle Introduction | publisher = CRC Press | year = 2017 | location = Boca Raton | isbn = 9781138104488 | oclc = 1003273264 | page=177|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=OtRBDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT177}}</ref><ref name="Litt2006">{{cite journal |vauthors=Litt A, Eliasmith C, Kroon FW, Weinstein S, Thagard P | title = Is the brain a quantum computer? | journal = Cognitive Science | volume = 30 | issue = 3 | pages = 593–603 | year = 2006 | doi = 10.1207/s15516709cog0000_59 | pmid = 21702826
| doi-access = free }}</ref> who consider it to be a poor model of brain physiology. Orch OR has also been criticized for lacking [[explanatory power]]; the philosopher [[Patricia Churchland]] wrote, "Pixie dust in the synapses is about as explanatorily powerful as quantum coherence in the microtubules."<ref>{{cite web|url=https://patriciachurchland.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/1997-Brainshy-NonNeural-Theories-of-Conscious-Experience.pdf |title=Brainshy: Non-Neural Theories of Conscious Experience |access-date=2021-03-03 |first=Patricia S. |last=Churchland}}</ref>
| doi-access = free }}</ref> who consider it to be a poor model of brain physiology. Orch OR has also been criticized for lacking [[explanatory power]]; the philosopher [[Patricia Churchland]] wrote, "Pixie dust in the synapses is about as explanatorily powerful as quantum coherence in the microtubules."<ref>{{cite web|url=https://patriciachurchland.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/1997-Brainshy-NonNeural-Theories-of-Conscious-Experience.pdf |title=Brainshy: Non-Neural Theories of Conscious Experience |access-date=2021-03-03 |first=Patricia S. |last=Churchland}}</ref>


[[David Chalmers]] argues against quantum consciousness. He instead discusses how [[quantum mechanics]] may relate to [[Mind–body dualism|dualistic consciousness]].<ref name="Chalmers2003">{{cite book |author1=Stephen P. Stich |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=NEGK_ZStddkC&q=dualistic+consciousness&pg=PA126 |title=The Blackwell Guide to Philosophy of Mind |author2=Ted A. Warfield |date=15 April 2008 |publisher=John Wiley & Sons |isbn=9780470998755 |page=126}}</ref> Chalmers is skeptical that any new physics can resolve the [[hard problem of consciousness]].<ref name="Chalmers1995">{{cite journal |author = David J. Chalmers|author-link=David Chalmers|title = Facing Up to the Problem of Consciousness |journal = Journal of Consciousness Studies|volume = 2 |issue = 3 |year = 1995 |pages = 200–219 |url = http://consc.net/papers/facing.html}}</ref><ref name="Chalmers1997">{{cite book |last1=Chalmers |first1=David J. |title=The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Fundamental Theory |date=1997 |publisher=Oxford University Press |location=New York |isbn=978-0-19-511789-9 |edition=Paperback}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |author=David Chalmers |title=The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Fundamental Theory |isbn=978-0-19-510553-7 |url-access=registration |url=https://archive.org/details/consciousmindins00chal |publisher=Oxford University Press |year=1996 }}</ref> He argues that quantum theories of consciousness suffer from the same weakness as more conventional theories. Just as he argues that there is no particular reason why particular macroscopic physical features in the brain should give rise to consciousness, he also thinks that there is no particular reason why a particular quantum feature, such as the EM field in the brain, should give rise to consciousness either.<ref>{{cite book |author=David Chalmers |title=The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Fundamental Theory |isbn=978-0-19-510553-7 |url-access=registration |url=https://archive.org/details/consciousmindins00chal |publisher=Oxford University Press |year=1996 }}</ref>
[[David Chalmers]] argues against quantum consciousness. He instead discusses how quantum mechanics may relate to [[Mind–body dualism|dualistic consciousness]].<ref name="Chalmers2003">{{cite book |author1=Stephen P. Stich |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=NEGK_ZStddkC&q=dualistic+consciousness&pg=PA126 |title=The Blackwell Guide to Philosophy of Mind |author2=Ted A. Warfield |date=15 April 2008 |publisher=John Wiley & Sons |isbn=9780470998755 |page=126}}</ref> Chalmers is skeptical that any new physics can resolve the [[hard problem of consciousness]].<ref name="Chalmers1995">{{cite journal |author = David J. Chalmers|author-link=David Chalmers|title = Facing Up to the Problem of Consciousness |journal = Journal of Consciousness Studies|volume = 2 |issue = 3 |year = 1995 |pages = 200–219 |url = http://consc.net/papers/facing.html}}</ref><ref name="Chalmers1997">{{cite book |last1=Chalmers |first1=David J. |title=The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Fundamental Theory |date=1997 |publisher=Oxford University Press |location=New York |isbn=978-0-19-511789-9 |edition=Paperback}}</ref><ref name="David Chalmers 1996">{{cite book |author=David Chalmers |title=The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Fundamental Theory |isbn=978-0-19-510553-7 |url-access=registration |url=https://archive.org/details/consciousmindins00chal |publisher=Oxford University Press |year=1996 }}</ref> He argues that quantum theories of consciousness suffer from the same weakness as more conventional theories. Just as he argues that there is no particular reason why particular macroscopic physical features in the brain should give rise to consciousness, he also thinks that there is no particular reason why a particular quantum feature, such as the EM field in the brain, should give rise to consciousness either.<ref name="David Chalmers 1996"/>


===Decoherence in living organisms===
===Decoherence in living organisms===
Line 96: Line 102:
In 2009, Reimers ''et al.'' and McKemmish ''et al.,'' published critical assessments. Earlier versions of the theory had required tubulin-electrons to form either [[Bose–Einstein condensate|Bose–Einstein]]s or [[Herbert Fröhlich|Frohlich]] condensates, and the Reimers group noted the lack of empirical evidence that such could occur. Additionally they calculated that microtubules could only support weak 8&nbsp;MHz coherence. McKemmish ''et al.'' argued that [[Aromaticity|aromatic molecules]] cannot switch states because they are delocalised; and that changes in tubulin protein-conformation driven by [[Guanosine triphosphate|GTP]] conversion would result in a prohibitive energy requirement.<ref name="McKemmish2009"/><ref name="Reimers2009"/><ref name="Reimers2013" />
In 2009, Reimers ''et al.'' and McKemmish ''et al.,'' published critical assessments. Earlier versions of the theory had required tubulin-electrons to form either [[Bose–Einstein condensate|Bose–Einstein]]s or [[Herbert Fröhlich|Frohlich]] condensates, and the Reimers group noted the lack of empirical evidence that such could occur. Additionally they calculated that microtubules could only support weak 8&nbsp;MHz coherence. McKemmish ''et al.'' argued that [[Aromaticity|aromatic molecules]] cannot switch states because they are delocalised; and that changes in tubulin protein-conformation driven by [[Guanosine triphosphate|GTP]] conversion would result in a prohibitive energy requirement.<ref name="McKemmish2009"/><ref name="Reimers2009"/><ref name="Reimers2013" />


In 2022, a group of Italian researchers performed several experiments that falsified a related hypothesis by physicist Lajos Diósi.<ref>{{cite news |title=Collapsing a leading theory for the quantum origin of consciousness |url=https://phys.org/news/2022-06-collapsing-theory-quantum-consciousness.html |work=phys.org |date=13 June 2022 }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Derakhshani |first1=Maaneli |last2=Diósi |first2=Lajos |last3=Laubenstein |first3=Matthias |last4=Piscicchia |first4=Kristian |last5=Curceanu |first5=Catalina |title=At the crossroad of the search for spontaneous radiation and the Orch OR consciousness theory |journal=Physics of Life Reviews |date=1 September 2022 |volume=42 |pages=8–14 |doi=10.1016/j.plrev.2022.05.004 |pmid=35617922 |bibcode=2022PhLRv..42....8D |s2cid=248868080 }}</ref>
In 2022, a group of Italian physicists conducted several experiments that failed to provide evidence in support of a gravity-related quantum collapse model of consciousness, weakening the possibility of a quantum explanation for consciousness.<ref>{{cite news|title=Collapsing a leading theory for the quantum origin of consciousness|url=https://phys.org/news/2022-06-collapsing-theory-quantum-consciousness.html|work=phys.org|date=13 June 2022}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last1=Derakhshani|first1=Maaneli|last2=Diósi|first2=Lajos|last3=Laubenstein|first3=Matthias|last4=Piscicchia|first4=Kristian|last5=Curceanu|first5=Catalina|title=At the crossroad of the search for spontaneous radiation and the Orch OR consciousness theory|journal=Physics of Life Reviews|date=1 September 2022|volume=42|pages=8–14|doi=10.1016/j.plrev.2022.05.004|pmid=35617922|bibcode=2022PhLRv..42....8D|s2cid=248868080}}</ref>


===Neuroscience===
===Neuroscience===
Line 105: Line 111:
Hameroff's 1998 hypothesis required that cortical [[dendrites]] contain primarily 'A' lattice microtubules,<ref name="Hameroff1998">{{cite journal |last1=Stuart |first1=Hameroff |title=Quantum computation in brain microtubules? The Penrose–Hameroff 'Orch OR' model of consciousness |journal=Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences |date=15 August 1998 |volume=356 |issue=1743 |pages=1869–1896 |doi=10.1098/rsta.1998.0254 |bibcode=1998RSPTA.356.1869H }}</ref> but in 1994 Kikkawa ''et al.'' showed that all ''in vivo'' microtubules have a 'B' lattice and a seam.<ref name="Kikkawa1994">{{cite journal |doi=10.1083/jcb.127.6.1965 |title=Direct visualization of the microtubule lattice seam both in vitro and in vivo |journal=The Journal of Cell Biology |volume=127 |issue=6 |pages=1965–1971 |year=1994 |last1=Kikkawa |first1=M. |pmc=2120284 |pmid=7806574}}</ref><ref name="Kikkawa2006">{{cite journal |author=Kikkawa, M., Metlagel, Z. |title=A molecular "zipper" for microtubules |journal=Cell |volume=127 |issue=7 |pages=1302–1304 |year=2006 |pmid=17190594 | doi=10.1016/j.cell.2006.12.009|s2cid=31980600 |doi-access=free }}</ref>
Hameroff's 1998 hypothesis required that cortical [[dendrites]] contain primarily 'A' lattice microtubules,<ref name="Hameroff1998">{{cite journal |last1=Stuart |first1=Hameroff |title=Quantum computation in brain microtubules? The Penrose–Hameroff 'Orch OR' model of consciousness |journal=Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences |date=15 August 1998 |volume=356 |issue=1743 |pages=1869–1896 |doi=10.1098/rsta.1998.0254 |bibcode=1998RSPTA.356.1869H }}</ref> but in 1994 Kikkawa ''et al.'' showed that all ''in vivo'' microtubules have a 'B' lattice and a seam.<ref name="Kikkawa1994">{{cite journal |doi=10.1083/jcb.127.6.1965 |title=Direct visualization of the microtubule lattice seam both in vitro and in vivo |journal=The Journal of Cell Biology |volume=127 |issue=6 |pages=1965–1971 |year=1994 |last1=Kikkawa |first1=M. |pmc=2120284 |pmid=7806574}}</ref><ref name="Kikkawa2006">{{cite journal |author=Kikkawa, M., Metlagel, Z. |title=A molecular "zipper" for microtubules |journal=Cell |volume=127 |issue=7 |pages=1302–1304 |year=2006 |pmid=17190594 | doi=10.1016/j.cell.2006.12.009|s2cid=31980600 |doi-access=free }}</ref>


Orch OR also required [[gap junctions]] between neurons and glial cells,<ref name="Hameroff1998"/> yet Binmöller ''et al.'' proved in 1992 that these don't exist in the adult brain.<ref name="Binmoller1992">{{cite journal |author1=F. J. Binmöller |author2=C. M. Müller |name-list-style=amp |title = Postnatal development of dye-coupling among astrocytes in rat visual cortex |journal = Glia |volume = 6 |issue = 2 |year = 1992 |pages = 127–137 |pmid= 1328051 |doi=10.1002/glia.440060207|s2cid=548862 }}</ref> In vitro research with [https://openwetware.org/wiki/Bitan-Lab_wiki:_Primary_neuronal_culture primary neuronal cultures] shows evidence for electrotonic (gap junction) coupling between ''immature'' neurons and [[astrocytes]] obtained from rat [[embryo]]s extracted prematurely through [[Cesarean section]];<ref name="Froes1999"/> however, the Orch OR claim is that ''mature'' neurons are electrotonically coupled to astrocytes in the adult brain. Therefore, Orch OR contradicts the well-documented ''electrotonic decoupling'' of neurons from astrocytes in the process of neuronal [[Cellular differentiation|maturation]], which is stated by Fróes ''et al.'' as follows: "junctional communication may provide metabolic and electrotonic interconnections between neuronal and astrocytic networks at early stages of neural development and such interactions are weakened as differentiation progresses."<ref name="Froes1999"/>
Orch OR also required [[gap junctions]] between neurons and glial cells,<ref name="Hameroff1998"/> yet Binmöller ''et al.'' proved in 1992 that these do not exist in the adult brain.<ref name="Binmoller1992">{{cite journal |author1=F. J. Binmöller |author2=C. M. Müller |name-list-style=amp |title = Postnatal development of dye-coupling among astrocytes in rat visual cortex |journal = Glia |volume = 6 |issue = 2 |year = 1992 |pages = 127–137 |pmid= 1328051 |doi=10.1002/glia.440060207|s2cid=548862 }}</ref> In vitro research with primary neuronal cultures shows evidence for electrotonic (gap junction) coupling between ''immature'' neurons and [[astrocytes]] obtained from rat [[embryo]]s extracted prematurely through [[Cesarean section]];<ref name="Froes1999">{{cite journal |last1=Froes |first1=M. M. |last2=Correia |first2=A. H. P. |last3=Garcia-Abreu |first3=J. |last4=Spray |first4=D. C. |last5=Campos De Carvalho |first5=A. C. |last6=Neto |first6=V. M. |year=1999 |title=Gap-junctional coupling between neurons and astrocytes in primary central nervous system cultures |journal=Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences |volume=96 |issue=13 |pages=7541–46 |bibcode=1999PNAS...96.7541F |doi=10.1073/pnas.96.13.7541 |pmc=22122 |pmid=10377451 |doi-access=free}}</ref> however, the Orch OR claim is that ''mature'' neurons are electrotonically coupled to astrocytes in the adult brain. Therefore, Orch OR contradicts the well-documented ''electrotonic decoupling'' of neurons from astrocytes in the process of neuronal [[Cellular differentiation|maturation]], which is stated by Fróes ''et al.'' as follows: "junctional communication may provide metabolic and electrotonic interconnections between neuronal and astrocytic networks at early stages of neural development and such interactions are weakened as differentiation progresses."<ref name="Froes1999"/>


Other biology-based criticisms have been offered, including a lack of explanation for the probabilistic release of [[neurotransmitter]] from presynaptic [[axon terminal]]s<ref name="Beck1992">{{cite journal |last1=Beck |first1=F |last2=Eccles |first2=J C |title=Quantum aspects of brain activity and the role of consciousness |journal=Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences |date=December 1992 |volume=89 |issue=23 |pages=11357–11361 |doi=10.1073/pnas.89.23.11357 |pmid=1333607 |bibcode=1992PNAS...8911357B |pmc=50549 |doi-access=free }}</ref><ref name="Beck1996">{{cite journal | author = Friedrich Beck | title = Can quantum processes control synaptic emission? | year = 1996 | journal = International Journal of Neural Systems | volume = 7 | issue = 4 | pages = 343–353 | doi = 10.1142/S0129065796000300 | pmid = 8968823| bibcode = 1995IJNS....6..145A }}</ref><ref name="Beck1998">{{cite journal |author1=Friedrich Beck |author2=John C. Eccles | title = Quantum processes in the brain: A scientific basis of consciousness | year = 1998 | journal = Cognitive Studies: Bulletin of the Japanese Cognitive Science Society | volume = 5 | issue = 2 | pages = 95–109 | doi = 10.11225/jcss.5.2_95 }}</ref> and an error in the calculated number of the tubulin dimers per cortical neuron.<ref name="YuBaas1994">{{cite journal | pmc=6577472| doi=10.1523/jneurosci.14-05-02818.1994 |title=Changes in microtubule number and length during axon differentiation |journal=The Journal of Neuroscience |volume=14 |issue=5 |pages=2818–2829 |year=1994 |last1=Yu |first1=W. |last2=Baas |first2=PW | pmid=8182441 |s2cid=11922397 |doi-access=free }}</ref>
Other biology-based criticisms have been offered, including a lack of explanation for the probabilistic release of [[neurotransmitter]] from presynaptic [[axon terminal]]s<ref name="Beck1992">{{cite journal |last1=Beck |first1=F |last2=Eccles |first2=J C |title=Quantum aspects of brain activity and the role of consciousness |journal=Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences |date=December 1992 |volume=89 |issue=23 |pages=11357–11361 |doi=10.1073/pnas.89.23.11357 |pmid=1333607 |bibcode=1992PNAS...8911357B |pmc=50549 |doi-access=free }}</ref><ref name="Beck1996">{{cite journal |author=Beck |first=Friedrich |year=1996 |title=Can quantum processes control synaptic emission? |journal=International Journal of Neural Systems |volume=7 |issue=4 |pages=343–353 |bibcode=1995IJNS....6..145A |doi=10.1142/S0129065796000300 |pmid=8968823}}</ref><ref name="Beck1998">{{cite journal |last1=Beck |first1=Friedrich |last2=Eccles |first2=John C. |year=1998 |title=Quantum processes in the brain: A scientific basis of consciousness |journal=Cognitive Studies: Bulletin of the Japanese Cognitive Science Society |volume=5 |issue=2 |pages=95–109 |doi=10.11225/jcss.5.2_95}}</ref> and an error in the calculated number of the tubulin dimers per cortical neuron.<ref name="YuBaas1994">{{cite journal | pmc=6577472| doi=10.1523/jneurosci.14-05-02818.1994 |title=Changes in microtubule number and length during axon differentiation |journal=The Journal of Neuroscience |volume=14 |issue=5 |pages=2818–2829 |year=1994 |last1=Yu |first1=W. |last2=Baas |first2=PW | pmid=8182441 |s2cid=11922397 |doi-access=free }}</ref>


In 2014, Penrose and Hameroff published responses to some criticisms and revisions to many of the theory's peripheral assumptions, while retaining the core hypothesis.<ref name="H&PvsReimers2014" /><ref name="HameroffVs7Others2014" />
In 2014, Penrose and Hameroff published responses to some criticisms and revisions to many of the theory's peripheral assumptions, while retaining the core hypothesis.<ref name="H&PvsReimers2014" /><ref name="HameroffVs7Others2014" />
Line 127: Line 133:


==External links==
==External links==
* [http://consciousness.arizona.edu/ Center for Consciousness Studies homepage]
* [http://consciousness.arizona.edu/ Center for Consciousness Studies]
* [http://www.quantum-mind.co.uk Quantum-Mind]
* [http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/ Hameroff's "Quantum Consciousness" site]
* [http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/ Hameroff's "Quantum Consciousness" site]
* {{Cite web |last1=Hameroff |first1=Stuart |last2=Bandyopadhyay |first2=Anirban |last3=Lauretta |first3=Dante |author-link3=Dante Lauretta |date=2024-05-08 |title=Consciousness came before life |url=https://iai.tv/articles/life-and-consciousness-what-are-they-auid-2836 |website=[[Institute of Art and Ideas]] |language=en-GB}}
* [http://online.kitp.ucsb.edu/plecture/penrose/ Roger Penrose (1999) Science and the Mind. Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics Public Lectures, May 12, 1999.]
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20160514103339/http://online.kitp.ucsb.edu/plecture/penrose/ Penrose, Roger (1999). "Science and the Mind". Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics Public Lectures.]


{{Roger Penrose}}
{{Roger Penrose}}

Revision as of 00:07, 8 July 2024

The founders of the theory: Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff, respectively

Orchestrated objective reduction (Orch OR) is a highly controversial theory postulating that consciousness originates at the quantum level inside neurons (rather than being a product of neural connections). The mechanism is held to be a quantum process called objective reduction that is orchestrated by cellular structures called microtubules. It is proposed that the theory may answer the hard problem of consciousness and provide a mechanism for free will.[1] The hypothesis was first put forward in the early 1990s by Nobel laureate for physics, Roger Penrose, and anaesthesiologist Stuart Hameroff. The hypothesis combines approaches from molecular biology, neuroscience, pharmacology, philosophy, quantum information theory, and quantum gravity.[2][3]

While more generally accepted theories assert that consciousness emerges as the complexity of the computations performed by cerebral neurons increases,[4][5] Orch OR posits that consciousness is based on non-computable quantum processing performed by qubits formed collectively on cellular microtubules, a process significantly amplified in the neurons. The qubits are based on oscillating dipoles forming superposed resonance rings in helical pathways throughout lattices of microtubules. The oscillations are either electric, due to charge separation from London forces, or magnetic, due to electron spin—and possibly also due to nuclear spins (that can remain isolated for longer periods) that occur in gigahertz, megahertz and kilohertz frequency ranges.[2][6] Orchestration refers to the hypothetical process by which connective proteins, such as microtubule-associated proteins (MAPs), influence or orchestrate qubit state reduction by modifying the spacetime-separation of their superimposed states.[7] The latter is based on Penrose's objective-collapse theory for interpreting quantum mechanics, which postulates the existence of an objective threshold governing the collapse of quantum-states, related to the difference of the spacetime curvature of these states in the universe's fine-scale structure.[8]

Orchestrated objective reduction has been criticized from its inception by mathematicians, philosophers,[9][10][11][12][13] and scientists.[14][15][16] The criticism concentrated on three issues: Penrose's interpretation of Gödel's theorem; Penrose's abductive reasoning linking non-computability to quantum events; and the brain's unsuitability to host the quantum phenomena required by the theory, since it is considered too "warm, wet and noisy" to avoid decoherence.

Background

Logician Kurt Gödel

In 1931, mathematician and logician Kurt Gödel proved that any effectively generated theory capable of proving basic arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete. In other words, a mathematically sound theory lacks the means to prove itself.[17] In his first book concerning consciousness, The Emperor's New Mind (1989), Roger Penrose argued that equivalent statements to "Gödel-type propositions" had recently been put forward.[18]

Partially in response to Gödel's argument, the Penrose–Lucas argument leaves the question of the physical basis of non-computable behaviour open. Most physical laws are computable, and thus algorithmic. However, Penrose determined that wave function collapse was a prime candidate for a non-computable process. In quantum mechanics, particles are treated differently from the objects of classical mechanics. Particles are described by wave functions that evolve according to the Schrödinger equation. Non-stationary wave functions are linear combinations of the eigenstates of the system, a phenomenon described by the superposition principle. When a quantum system interacts with a classical system—i.e. when an observable is measured—the system appears to collapse to a random eigenstate of that observable from a classical vantage point.

If collapse is truly random, then no process or algorithm can deterministically predict its outcome. This provided Penrose with a candidate for the physical basis of the non-computable process that he hypothesized to exist in the brain. However, he disliked the random nature of environmentally induced collapse, as randomness was not a promising basis for mathematical understanding. Penrose proposed that isolated systems may still undergo a new form of wave function collapse, which he called objective reduction (OR).[7]

Penrose sought to reconcile general relativity and quantum theory using his own ideas about the possible structure of spacetime.[18][page needed][19] He suggested that at the Planck scale curved spacetime is not continuous, but discrete. He further postulated that each separated quantum superposition has its own piece of spacetime curvature, a blister in spacetime. Penrose suggests that gravity exerts a force on these spacetime blisters, which become unstable above the Planck scale of and collapse to just one of the possible states. The rough threshold for OR is given by Penrose's indeterminacy principle:

where:
  • is the time until OR occurs,
  • is the gravitational self-energy or the degree of spacetime separation given by the superpositioned mass, and
  • is the reduced Planck constant.

Thus, the greater the mass–energy of the object, the faster it will undergo OR and vice versa. Mesoscopic objects could collapse on a timescale relevant to neural processing.[7][additional citation(s) needed]

An essential feature of Penrose's theory is that the choice of states when objective reduction occurs is selected neither randomly (as are choices following wave function collapse) nor algorithmically. Rather, states are selected by a "non-computable" influence embedded in the Planck scale of spacetime geometry. Penrose claimed that such information is Platonic, representing pure mathematical truths, which relates to Penrose's ideas concerning the three worlds: the physical, the mental, and the Platonic mathematical world. In Shadows of the Mind (1994), Penrose briefly indicates that this Platonic world could also include aesthetic and ethical values, but he does not commit to this further hypothesis.[19]

The Penrose–Lucas argument was criticized by mathematicians,[20][21][22] computer scientists,[12] and philosophers,[23][24][9][10][11] and the consensus among experts in these fields is that the argument fails,[25][26][27] with different authors attacking different aspects of the argument.[27][28] Minsky argued that because humans can believe false ideas to be true, human mathematical understanding need not be consistent and consciousness may easily have a deterministic basis.[29] Feferman argued that mathematicians do not progress by mechanistic search through proofs, but by trial-and-error reasoning, insight and inspiration, and that machines do not share this approach with humans.[21]

Orch OR

Penrose outlined a predecessor to Orch OR in The Emperor's New Mind, coming to the problem from a mathematical viewpoint and in particular Gödel's theorem, but lacked a detailed proposal for how quantum processes could be implemented in the brain. Stuart Hameroff separately worked in cancer research and anesthesia, which gave him an interest in brain processes. Hameroff read Penrose's book and suggested to him that microtubules within neurons were suitable candidate sites for quantum processing, and ultimately for consciousness.[30][31] Throughout the 1990s, the two collaborated on the Orch OR theory, which Penrose published in Shadows of the Mind (1994).[19]

Hameroff's contribution to the theory derived from his study of the neural cytoskeleton, and particularly on microtubules.[31] As neuroscience has progressed, the role of the cytoskeleton and microtubules has assumed greater importance. In addition to providing structural support, microtubule functions include axoplasmic transport and control of the cell's movement, growth and shape.[31]

Orch OR combines the Penrose–Lucas argument with Hameroff's hypothesis on quantum processing in microtubules. It proposes that when condensates in the brain undergo an objective wave function reduction, their collapse connects noncomputational decision-making to experiences embedded in spacetime's fundamental geometry. The theory further proposes that the microtubules both influence and are influenced by the conventional activity at the synapses between neurons.

Microtubule computation

A: An axon terminal releases neurotransmitters through a synapse and are received by microtubules in a neuron's dendritic spine.
B: Simulated microtubule tubulins switch states.[1]

Hameroff proposed that microtubules were suitable candidates for quantum processing.[31] Microtubules are made up of tubulin protein subunits. The tubulin protein dimers of the microtubules have hydrophobic pockets that may contain delocalized π electrons. Tubulin has other, smaller non-polar regions, for example 8 tryptophans per tubulin, which contain π electron-rich indole rings distributed throughout tubulin with separations of roughly 2 nm. Hameroff claims that this is close enough for the tubulin π electrons to become quantum entangled.[32] During entanglement, particle states become inseparably correlated. The quantum effects in tryptophans were confirmed in the study from 2024 that is called Ultraviolet Superradiance from Mega-Networks of Tryptophan in Biological Architectures.[33][34][35]

Hameroff originally suggested in the fringe Journal of Cosmology that the tubulin-subunit electrons would form a Bose–Einstein condensate.[36] He then proposed a Frohlich condensate, a hypothetical coherent oscillation of dipolar molecules. However, this too was rejected by Reimers's group.[37] Hameroff then responded to Reimers. "Reimers et al have most definitely NOT shown that strong or coherent Frohlich condensation in microtubules is unfeasible. The model microtubule on which they base their Hamiltonian is not a microtubule structure, but a simple linear chain of oscillators." Hameroff reasoned that such condensate behavior would magnify nanoscopic quantum effects to have large scale influences in the brain.

Hameroff then proposed that condensates in microtubules in one neuron can link with microtubule condensates in other neurons and glial cells via the gap junctions of electrical synapses.[38][39] Hameroff proposed that the gap between the cells is sufficiently small that quantum objects can tunnel across it, allowing them to extend across a large area of the brain. He further postulated that the action of this large-scale quantum activity is the source of 40 Hz gamma waves, building upon the much less controversial theory that gap junctions are related to the gamma oscillation.[40]

In April 2022, the results of two related experiments were presented at The Science of Consciousness conference:

  1. In a study Hameroff was part of, Jack Tuszyński of the University of Alberta demonstrated that anesthetics hasten the duration of a process called delayed luminescence, in which microtubules and tubulins re-emit trapped light. Tuszyński suspects that the phenomenon has a quantum origin, with superradiance being investigated as one possibility (in a later study superradiance was confirmed to occur in networks of tryptophans, which are found in microtubules[33][34][35]). “We’re not at the level of interpreting this physiologically, saying 'Yeah, this is where consciousness begins,' but it may," Jack Tuszyński told New Scientist.[41]
  2. In the second experiment, Gregory D. Scholes and Aarat Kalra of Princeton University used lasers to excite molecules within tubulins, causing a prolonged excitation to diffuse through microtubules farther than expected, which did not occur when repeated under anesthesia.[42] However, diffusion results have to be interpreted carefully, since even classical diffusion can be very complex due to the wide range of length scales in the fluid filled extracellular space.[43]

In 2024, a study called Ultraviolet Superradiance from Mega-Networks of Tryptophan in Biological Architectures] whose result was published in The Journal of Physical Chemistry confirmed the quantum effect called superradiance in large networks of tryptophans, which are found in microtubules.[33][34] Large networks of tryptophans are a warm and noisy environment, an environment in which quantum effects typically aren't expected to take place.[33] The results of the study were first theoretically predicted and then experimentally confirmed by the researchers.[33][34] Professor Majed Chergui of The Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, who led the experimental team said "It's a beautiful result. It took very precise and careful application of standard protein spectroscopy methods, but guided by the theoretical predictions of our collaborators, we were able to confirm a stunning signature of superradiance in a micron-scale biological system".[33] Marlan Scully, a physics professor at Princeton University, who is among other things famous for his work in the field of theoretical quantum optics, commented on the study by saying “We will certainly be examining closely the implications for quantum effects in living systems for years to come”.[33] The study states "by analyzing the coupling with the electromagnetic field of mega-networks of tryptophans present in these biologically relevant architectures, we find the emergence of collective quantum optical effects, namely, superradiant and subradiant eigenmodes (...) our work demonstrates that collective and cooperative UV excitations in mega-networks of tryptophans support robust quantum states in protein aggregates, with observed consequences even under thermal equilibrium conditions".[34]

Microtubule quantum vibration theory of anesthetic action

At high concentrations (~5 MAC) the anesthetic gas halothane causes reversible depolymerization of microtubules.[44] This cannot be the mechanism of anesthetic action, however, because human anesthesia is performed at 1 MAC. (It is important to note that neither Penrose or Hameroff ever claim that depolymerization is the mechanism of action for ORCH OR.[45][46]) At ~1 MAC halothane, reported minor changes in tubulin protein expression (~1.3-fold) in primary cortical neurons after exposure to halothane and isoflurane are not evidence that tubulin directly interacts with general anesthetics, but rather shows that the proteins controlling tubulin production are possible anesthetic targets.[47] Further proteomic study reports 0.5 mM [14C]halothane binding to tubulin monomers alongside three dozens of other proteins.[48] In addition, modulation of microtubule stability has been reported during anthracene general anesthesia of tadpoles.[49] The study called Direct Modulation of Microtubule Stability Contributes to Anthracene General Anesthesia claims to provide "strong evidence that destabilization of neuronal microtubules provides a path to achieving general anesthesia".[49]

What might anesthetics do to microtubules to cause loss of consciousness? A highly disputed theory put forth in the mid-1990s by Stuart Hameroff and Sir Roger Penrose posits that consciousness is based on quantum vibrations in tubulin/microtubules inside brain neurons. Computer modeling of tubulin's atomic structure[50] found that anesthetic gas molecules bind adjacent to amino acid aromatic rings of non-polar π-electrons and that collective quantum dipole oscillations among all π-electron resonance rings in each tubulin showed a spectrum with a common mode peak at 613 THz.[51] Simulated presence of 8 different anesthetic gases abolished the 613 THz peak, whereas the presence of 2 different nonanesthetic gases did not affect the 613 THz peak, from which it was speculated that this 613 THz peak in microtubules could be related to consciousness and anesthetic action.[51]

Another study that Stuart Hameroff was a part of claims to show "anesthetic molecules can impair π-resonance energy transfer and exciton hopping in 'quantum channels' of tryptophan rings in tubulin, and thus account for selective action of anesthetics on consciousness and memory".[52]

Criticism

Orch OR has been criticized both by physicists[14][53][37][54][55] and neuroscientists[56][57][58] who consider it to be a poor model of brain physiology. Orch OR has also been criticized for lacking explanatory power; the philosopher Patricia Churchland wrote, "Pixie dust in the synapses is about as explanatorily powerful as quantum coherence in the microtubules."[59]

David Chalmers argues against quantum consciousness. He instead discusses how quantum mechanics may relate to dualistic consciousness.[60] Chalmers is skeptical that any new physics can resolve the hard problem of consciousness.[61][62][63] He argues that quantum theories of consciousness suffer from the same weakness as more conventional theories. Just as he argues that there is no particular reason why particular macroscopic physical features in the brain should give rise to consciousness, he also thinks that there is no particular reason why a particular quantum feature, such as the EM field in the brain, should give rise to consciousness either.[63]

Decoherence in living organisms

In 2000 Max Tegmark claimed that any quantum coherent system in the brain would undergo effective wave function collapse due to environmental interaction long before it could influence neural processes (the "warm, wet and noisy" argument, as it later came to be known).[14] He determined the decoherence timescale of microtubule entanglement at brain temperatures to be on the order of femtoseconds, far too brief for neural processing. Christof Koch and Klaus Hepp also agreed that quantum coherence does not play, or does not need to play any major role in neurophysiology.[15][16] Koch and Hepp concluded that "The empirical demonstration of slowly decoherent and controllable quantum bits in neurons connected by electrical or chemical synapses, or the discovery of an efficient quantum algorithm for computations performed by the brain, would do much to bring these speculations from the 'far-out' to the mere 'very unlikely'."[15]

In response to Tegmark's claims, Hagan, Tuszynski and Hameroff claimed that Tegmark did not address the Orch OR model, but instead a model of his own construction. This involved superpositions of quanta separated by 24 nm rather than the much smaller separations stipulated for Orch OR. As a result, Hameroff's group claimed a decoherence time seven orders of magnitude greater than Tegmark's, although still far below 25 ms. Hameroff's group also suggested that the Debye layer of counterions could screen thermal fluctuations, and that the surrounding actin gel might enhance the ordering of water, further screening noise. They also suggested that incoherent metabolic energy could further order water, and finally that the configuration of the microtubule lattice might be suitable for quantum error correction, a means of resisting quantum decoherence.[64][65]

In 2009, Reimers et al. and McKemmish et al., published critical assessments. Earlier versions of the theory had required tubulin-electrons to form either Bose–Einsteins or Frohlich condensates, and the Reimers group noted the lack of empirical evidence that such could occur. Additionally they calculated that microtubules could only support weak 8 MHz coherence. McKemmish et al. argued that aromatic molecules cannot switch states because they are delocalised; and that changes in tubulin protein-conformation driven by GTP conversion would result in a prohibitive energy requirement.[53][37][54]

In 2022, a group of Italian physicists conducted several experiments that failed to provide evidence in support of a gravity-related quantum collapse model of consciousness, weakening the possibility of a quantum explanation for consciousness.[66][67]

Neuroscience

Hameroff frequently writes: "A typical brain neuron has roughly 107 tubulins (Yu and Baas, 1994)", yet this is Hameroff's own invention, which should not be attributed to Yu and Baas.[68] Hameroff apparently misunderstood that Yu and Baas actually "reconstructed the microtubule (MT) arrays of a 56 μm axon from a cell that had undergone axon differentiation" and this reconstructed axon "contained 1430 MTs ... and the total MT length was 5750 μm."[68] A direct calculation shows that 107 tubulins (to be precise 9.3 × 106 tubulins) correspond to this MT length of 5750 μm inside the 56 μm axon.

Hameroff's 1998 hypothesis required that cortical dendrites contain primarily 'A' lattice microtubules,[69] but in 1994 Kikkawa et al. showed that all in vivo microtubules have a 'B' lattice and a seam.[70][71]

Orch OR also required gap junctions between neurons and glial cells,[69] yet Binmöller et al. proved in 1992 that these do not exist in the adult brain.[72] In vitro research with primary neuronal cultures shows evidence for electrotonic (gap junction) coupling between immature neurons and astrocytes obtained from rat embryos extracted prematurely through Cesarean section;[73] however, the Orch OR claim is that mature neurons are electrotonically coupled to astrocytes in the adult brain. Therefore, Orch OR contradicts the well-documented electrotonic decoupling of neurons from astrocytes in the process of neuronal maturation, which is stated by Fróes et al. as follows: "junctional communication may provide metabolic and electrotonic interconnections between neuronal and astrocytic networks at early stages of neural development and such interactions are weakened as differentiation progresses."[73]

Other biology-based criticisms have been offered, including a lack of explanation for the probabilistic release of neurotransmitter from presynaptic axon terminals[74][75][76] and an error in the calculated number of the tubulin dimers per cortical neuron.[68]

In 2014, Penrose and Hameroff published responses to some criticisms and revisions to many of the theory's peripheral assumptions, while retaining the core hypothesis.[2][6]

See also

References

  1. ^ a b Hameroff, Stuart (2012). "How quantum brain biology can rescue conscious free will". Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience. 6: 93. doi:10.3389/fnint.2012.00093. PMC 3470100. PMID 23091452.
  2. ^ a b c Hameroff, Stuart; Penrose, Roger (2014). "Reply to seven commentaries on "Consciousness in the universe: Review of the 'Orch OR' theory"". Physics of Life Reviews. 11 (1): 94–100. Bibcode:2014PhLRv..11...94H. doi:10.1016/j.plrev.2013.11.013.
  3. ^ Penrose, Roger (2014). "On the Gravitization of Quantum Mechanics 1: Quantum State Reduction". Foundations of Physics. 44 (5): 557–575. Bibcode:2014FoPh...44..557P. doi:10.1007/s10701-013-9770-0. S2CID 123379100.
  4. ^ McCulloch, Warren S.; Pitts, Walter (1943). "A logical calculus of the ideas immanent in nervous activity". Bulletin of Mathematical Biophysics. 5 (4): 115–133. doi:10.1007/bf02478259.
  5. ^ Hodgkin, Alan L.; Huxley, Andrew F. (1952). "A quantitative description of membrane current and its application to conduction and excitation in nerve". Journal of Physiology. 117 (4): 500–544. doi:10.1113/jphysiol.1952.sp004764. PMC 1392413. PMID 12991237.
  6. ^ a b Hameroff, Stuart; Penrose, Roger (2014). "Reply to criticism of the 'Orch OR qubit' – 'Orchestrated objective reduction' is scientifically justified". Physics of Life Reviews. 11 (1): 104–112. Bibcode:2014PhLRv..11..104H. doi:10.1016/j.plrev.2013.11.014.
  7. ^ a b c Hameroff, Stuart; Penrose, Roger (2014). "Consciousness in the universe". Physics of Life Reviews. 11 (1): 39–78. Bibcode:2014PhLRv..11...39H. doi:10.1016/j.plrev.2013.08.002. PMID 24070914.
  8. ^ Natalie Wolchover (31 October 2013). "Physicists Eye Quantum-Gravity Interface". Quanta Magazine (Article). Simons Foundation. Retrieved 19 March 2014.
  9. ^ a b Boolos, George; et al. (1990). "An Open Peer Commentary on The Emperor's New Mind". Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 13 (4): 655. doi:10.1017/s0140525x00080687. S2CID 144905437.
  10. ^ a b Davis, Martin (September 1993). "How subtle is Gödel's theorem? More on Roger Penrose". Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 16 (3): 611–612. doi:10.1017/S0140525X00031915. S2CID 144018337.
  11. ^ a b Lewis, David (July 1969). "Lucas against Mechanism". Philosophy. 44 (169): 231–233. doi:10.1017/s0031819100024591. S2CID 170411423.
  12. ^ a b Putnam, Hilary (1 July 1995). "Book Review: Shadows of the mind". Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society. 32 (3): 370–374. doi:10.1090/S0273-0979-1995-00606-3.
  13. ^ Putnam, Hilary (20 November 1994). "The Best of All Possible Brains?". The New York Times.
  14. ^ a b c Tegmark, Max (2000). "Importance of quantum decoherence in brain processes". Physical Review E. 61 (4): 4194–4206. arXiv:quant-ph/9907009. Bibcode:2000PhRvE..61.4194T. doi:10.1103/PhysRevE.61.4194. PMID 11088215. S2CID 17140058.
  15. ^ a b c Koch, Christof; Hepp, Klaus (2006). "Quantum mechanics in the brain". Nature. 440 (7084): 611. Bibcode:2006Natur.440..611K. doi:10.1038/440611a. PMID 16572152. S2CID 5085015.
  16. ^ a b Hepp, K. (September 2012). "Coherence and decoherence in the brain". Journal of Mathematical Physics. 53 (9): 095222. Bibcode:2012JMP....53i5222H. doi:10.1063/1.4752474.
  17. ^ Hofstadter 1979, pp. 476–477, Russell & Norvig 2003, p. 950, Turing 1950 under "The Argument from Mathematics" where he writes "although it is established that there are limitations to the powers of any particular machine, it has only been stated, without sort of proof, that no such limitations apply to the human intellect."
  18. ^ a b Penrose, Roger (1989). The Emperor's New Mind: Concerning Computers, Minds and The Laws of Physics. Oxford University Press. pp. 108–109. ISBN 978-0-19-851973-7.
  19. ^ a b c Penrose, Roger (1989). Shadows of the Mind: A Search for the Missing Science of Consciousness. Oxford University Press. pp. 416–7, 457. ISBN 978-0-19-853978-0.
  20. ^ LaForte, Geoffrey, Patrick J. Hayes, and Kenneth M. Ford 1998.Why Gödel's Theorem Cannot Refute Computationalism. Artificial Intelligence, 104:265–286.
  21. ^ a b Feferman, Solomon (1996). "Penrose's Gödelian argument". Psyche. 2: 21–32. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.130.7027.
  22. ^ Krajewski, Stanisław (2007). "On Gödel's Theorem and Mechanism: Inconsistency or Unsoundness is Unavoidable in any Attempt to 'Out-Gö del' the Mechanist". Fundamenta Informaticae. 81 (1–3): 173–181.
  23. ^ "MindPapers: 6.1b. Godelian arguments". Consc.net. Retrieved 28 July 2014.
  24. ^ "References for Criticisms of the Gödelian Argument". Users.ox.ac.uk. 10 July 1999. Retrieved 28 July 2014.
  25. ^ Bringsjord, Selmer; Xiao, Hong (July 2000). "A refutation of Penrose's Gödelian case against artificial intelligence" (PDF). Journal of Experimental & Theoretical Artificial Intelligence. 12 (3): 307–329. doi:10.1080/09528130050111455. S2CID 5540500.
  26. ^ In an article at "King's College London - Department of Mathematics". Archived from the original on 25 January 2001. Retrieved 22 October 2010. L.J. Landau at the Mathematics Department of King's College London writes that "Penrose's argument, its basis and implications, is rejected by experts in the fields which it touches."
  27. ^ a b Princeton Philosophy professor John Burgess writes in On the Outside Looking In: A Caution about Conservativeness (published in Kurt Gödel: Essays for his Centennial, with the following comments found on pp. 131–132) that "the consensus view of logicians today seems to be that the Lucas–Penrose argument is fallacious, though as I have said elsewhere, there is at least this much to be said for Lucas and Penrose, that logicians are not unanimously agreed as to where precisely the fallacy in their argument lies. There are at least three points at which the argument may be attacked."
  28. ^ Dershowitz, Nachum 2005. The Four Sons of Penrose, in Proceedings of the Eleventh Conference on Logic for Programming, Artificial Intelligence, and Reasoning (LPAR; Jamaica), G. Sutcliffe and A. Voronkov, eds., Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 3835, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 125–138.
  29. ^ Marvin Minsky. "Conscious Machines." Machinery of Consciousness, Proceedings, National Research Council of Canada, 75th Anniversary Symposium on Science in Society, June 1991.
  30. ^ Hameroff, Stuart R.; Watt, Richard C. (October 1982). "Information processing in microtubules". Journal of Theoretical Biology. 98 (4): 549–561. Bibcode:1982JThBi..98..549H. doi:10.1016/0022-5193(82)90137-0. PMID 6185798.
  31. ^ a b c d Hameroff, S.R. (1987). Ultimate Computing. Elsevier. ISBN 978-0-444-70283-8.
  32. ^ Hameroff, Stuart (2008). "That's life! The geometry of π electron resonance clouds" (PDF). In Abbott, D; Davies, P; Pati, A (eds.). Quantum aspects of life. World Scientific. pp. 403–434. Archived from the original (PDF) on 11 June 2011. Retrieved 21 January 2010.
  33. ^ a b c d e f g "Ultraviolet superradiance from mega-networks of tryptophan in biological architectures". eurekalert. The Journal of Physical Chemistry.
  34. ^ a b c d e Babcock, N. S.; Montes-Cabrera, G.; Oberhofer, K. E.; Chergui, M.; Celardo, G. L.; Kurian, P. (2024). "Ultraviolet Superradiance from Mega-Networks of Tryptophan in Biological Architectures". The Journal of Physical Chemistry B. 128 (17): 4035–4046. doi:10.1021/acs.jpcb.3c07936. PMC 11075083. PMID 38641327.
  35. ^ a b "Ultraviolet Superradiance from Mega-Networks of Tryptophan in Biological Architectures".
  36. ^ Roger Penrose & Stuart Hameroff (2011). "Consciousness in the Universe: Neuroscience, Quantum Space-Time Geometry and Orch OR Theory". Journal of Cosmology. 14. Archived from the original on 7 February 2014.
  37. ^ a b c Reimers, J. R.; McKemmish, L. K.; McKenzie, R. H.; Mark, A. E.; Hush, N. S. (2009). "Weak, strong, and coherent regimes of Frohlich condensation and their applications to terahertz medicine and quantum consciousness". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 106 (11): 4219–4224. Bibcode:2009PNAS..106.4219R. doi:10.1073/pnas.0806273106. PMC 2657444. PMID 19251667.
  38. ^ Hameroff, S.R. (2006). "The entwined mysteries of anesthesia and consciousness". Anesthesiology. 105 (2): 400–412. doi:10.1097/00000542-200608000-00024. PMID 16871075. S2CID 1655684.
  39. ^ Hameroff, S. (2009). "The "conscious pilot"—dendritic synchrony moves through the brain to mediate consciousness". Journal of Biological Physics. 36 (1): 71–93. doi:10.1007/s10867-009-9148-x. PMC 2791805. PMID 19669425.
  40. ^ Bennett, M.V.L. & Zukin, R.S. (2004). "Electrical Coupling and Neuronal Synchronization in the Mammalian Brain". Neuron. 41 (4): 495–511. doi:10.1016/S0896-6273(04)00043-1. PMID 14980200. S2CID 18566176.
  41. ^ Tangermann, Victor (19 April 2022). "Experiment Suggests That Consciousness May Be Rooted in Quantum Physics". www.futurism.com. Camden Media Inc. Retrieved 24 April 2022.
  42. ^ Lewton, Thomas (18 April 2022). "Quantum experiments add weight to a fringe theory of consciousness". New Scientist. Retrieved 23 April 2022.
  43. ^ Nicholson, Charles (May 2022). "The Secret World in the Gaps between Brain Cells". Physics Today. 75 (5): 26–32. Bibcode:2022PhT....75e..26N. doi:10.1063/PT.3.4999. S2CID 248620292.
  44. ^ Allison, A.C; Nunn, J.F (December 1968). "Effects of General Anæsthetics on Microtubules". The Lancet. 292 (7582): 1326–1329. doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(68)91821-7. ISSN 0140-6736. PMID 4177393.
  45. ^ Hameroff, Stuart; Penrose, Roger (2014). "Consciousness in the universe". Physics of Life Reviews. 11 (1): 39–78. Bibcode:2014PhLRv..11...39H. doi:10.1016/j.plrev.2013.08.002. PMID 24070914. S2CID 5015743.
  46. ^ https://bigbangpage.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/orchestrated-objective-reduction-in-microtubuls...pdf [bare URL PDF]
  47. ^ Pan, Jonathan Z.; Xi, Jin; Eckenhoff, Maryellen F.; Eckenhoff, Roderic G. (July 2008). "Inhaled anesthetics elicit region-specific changes in protein expression in mammalian brain". Proteomics. 8 (14): 2983–2992. doi:10.1002/pmic.200800057. ISSN 1615-9853. PMID 18655074. S2CID 24559322.
  48. ^ Pan, Jonathan Z.; Xi, Jin; Tobias, John W.; Eckenhoff, Maryellen F.; Eckenhoff, Roderic G. (2007). "Halothane binding proteome in human brain cortex". Journal of Proteome Research. 6 (2): 582–592. doi:10.1021/pr060311u. PMID 17269715.
  49. ^ a b Emerson, Daniel J.; Weiser, Brian P.; Psonis, John; Liao, Zhengzheng; Taratula, Olena; Fiamengo, Ashley; Wang, Xiaozhao; Sugasawa, Keizo; Smith, Amos B. (29 March 2013). "Direct Modulation of Microtubule Stability Contributes to Anthracene General Anesthesia". Journal of the American Chemical Society. 135 (14): 5389–5398. doi:10.1021/ja311171u. ISSN 0002-7863. PMC 3671381. PMID 23484901.
  50. ^ Craddock, Travis J. A.; St. George, Marc; Freedman, Holly; Barakat, Khaled H.; Damaraju, Sambasivarao; Hameroff, Stuart; Tuszynski, Jack A. (25 June 2012). "Computational Predictions of Volatile Anesthetic Interactions with the Microtubule Cytoskeleton: Implications for Side Effects of General Anesthesia". PLOS ONE. 7 (6): e37251. Bibcode:2012PLoSO...737251C. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0037251. ISSN 1932-6203. PMC 3382613. PMID 22761654.
  51. ^ a b Craddock, Travis J. A.; Kurian, Philip; Preto, Jordane; Sahu, Kamlesh; Hameroff, Stuart R.; Klobukowski, Mariusz; Tuszynski, Jack A. (29 August 2017). "Anesthetic Alterations of Collective Terahertz Oscillations in Tubulin Correlate with Clinical Potency: Implications for Anesthetic Action and Post-Operative Cognitive Dysfunction". Scientific Reports. 7 (1): 9877. Bibcode:2017NatSR...7.9877C. doi:10.1038/s41598-017-09992-7. ISSN 2045-2322. PMC 5575257. PMID 28852014.
  52. ^ Craddock, T. J.; Hameroff, S. R.; Ayoub, A. T.; Klobukowski, M.; Tuszynski, J. A. (2015). "Anesthetics act in quantum channels in brain microtubules to prevent consciousness". Current Topics in Medicinal Chemistry. 15 (6): 523–533. doi:10.2174/1568026615666150225104543. PMID 25714379.
  53. ^ a b McKemmish, Laura K.; Reimers, Jeffrey R.; McKenzie, Ross H.; Mark, Alan E.; Hush, Noel S. (13 August 2009). "Penrose-Hameroff orchestrated objective-reduction proposal for human consciousness is not biologically feasible" (PDF). Physical Review E. 80 (2): 021912. Bibcode:2009PhRvE..80b1912M. doi:10.1103/PhysRevE.80.021912. PMID 19792156.
  54. ^ a b Reimers, Jeffrey R.; McKemmish, Laura K.; McKenzie, Ross H.; Mark, Alan E.; Hush, Noel S. (2014). "The revised Penrose–Hameroff orchestrated objective-reduction proposal for human consciousness is not scientifically justified". Physics of Life Reviews. 11 (1): 101–103. Bibcode:2014PhLRv..11..101R. doi:10.1016/j.plrev.2013.11.003. PMID 24268490.
  55. ^ Villatoro, Francisco R. (17 June 2015). "On the quantum theory of consciousness". Mapping Ignorance. University of the Basque Country. Retrieved 18 August 2018. Hameroff's ideas in the hands of Penrose have developed almost to absurdity.
  56. ^ Baars BJ, Edelman DB (2012). "Consciousness, biology and quantum hypotheses". Physics of Life Reviews. 9 (3): 285–294. Bibcode:2012PhLRv...9..285B. doi:10.1016/j.plrev.2012.07.001. PMID 22925839.
  57. ^ Georgiev, Danko D. (2017). Quantum Information and Consciousness: A Gentle Introduction. Boca Raton: CRC Press. p. 177. ISBN 9781138104488. OCLC 1003273264.
  58. ^ Litt A, Eliasmith C, Kroon FW, Weinstein S, Thagard P (2006). "Is the brain a quantum computer?". Cognitive Science. 30 (3): 593–603. doi:10.1207/s15516709cog0000_59. PMID 21702826.
  59. ^ Churchland, Patricia S. "Brainshy: Non-Neural Theories of Conscious Experience" (PDF). Retrieved 3 March 2021.
  60. ^ Stephen P. Stich; Ted A. Warfield (15 April 2008). The Blackwell Guide to Philosophy of Mind. John Wiley & Sons. p. 126. ISBN 9780470998755.
  61. ^ David J. Chalmers (1995). "Facing Up to the Problem of Consciousness". Journal of Consciousness Studies. 2 (3): 200–219.
  62. ^ Chalmers, David J. (1997). The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Fundamental Theory (Paperback ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-511789-9.
  63. ^ a b David Chalmers (1996). The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Fundamental Theory. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-510553-7.
  64. ^ Hagan, S.; Hameroff, S. R.; Tuszyński, J. A. (2002). "Quantum computation in brain microtubules: Decoherence and biological feasibility". Physical Review E. 65 (6): 061901. arXiv:quant-ph/0005025. Bibcode:2002PhRvE..65f1901H. doi:10.1103/PhysRevE.65.061901. PMID 12188753. S2CID 11707566.
  65. ^ Tuszynski, Jack A, ed. (2006). The Emerging Physics of Consciousness. The Frontiers Collection. pp. 193–253. Bibcode:2006epc..book.....T. doi:10.1007/3-540-36723-3. ISBN 978-3-540-23890-4.
  66. ^ "Collapsing a leading theory for the quantum origin of consciousness". phys.org. 13 June 2022.
  67. ^ Derakhshani, Maaneli; Diósi, Lajos; Laubenstein, Matthias; Piscicchia, Kristian; Curceanu, Catalina (1 September 2022). "At the crossroad of the search for spontaneous radiation and the Orch OR consciousness theory". Physics of Life Reviews. 42: 8–14. Bibcode:2022PhLRv..42....8D. doi:10.1016/j.plrev.2022.05.004. PMID 35617922. S2CID 248868080.
  68. ^ a b c Yu, W.; Baas, PW (1994). "Changes in microtubule number and length during axon differentiation". The Journal of Neuroscience. 14 (5): 2818–2829. doi:10.1523/jneurosci.14-05-02818.1994. PMC 6577472. PMID 8182441. S2CID 11922397.
  69. ^ a b Stuart, Hameroff (15 August 1998). "Quantum computation in brain microtubules? The Penrose–Hameroff 'Orch OR' model of consciousness". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences. 356 (1743): 1869–1896. Bibcode:1998RSPTA.356.1869H. doi:10.1098/rsta.1998.0254.
  70. ^ Kikkawa, M. (1994). "Direct visualization of the microtubule lattice seam both in vitro and in vivo". The Journal of Cell Biology. 127 (6): 1965–1971. doi:10.1083/jcb.127.6.1965. PMC 2120284. PMID 7806574.
  71. ^ Kikkawa, M., Metlagel, Z. (2006). "A molecular "zipper" for microtubules". Cell. 127 (7): 1302–1304. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2006.12.009. PMID 17190594. S2CID 31980600.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  72. ^ F. J. Binmöller & C. M. Müller (1992). "Postnatal development of dye-coupling among astrocytes in rat visual cortex". Glia. 6 (2): 127–137. doi:10.1002/glia.440060207. PMID 1328051. S2CID 548862.
  73. ^ a b Froes, M. M.; Correia, A. H. P.; Garcia-Abreu, J.; Spray, D. C.; Campos De Carvalho, A. C.; Neto, V. M. (1999). "Gap-junctional coupling between neurons and astrocytes in primary central nervous system cultures". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 96 (13): 7541–46. Bibcode:1999PNAS...96.7541F. doi:10.1073/pnas.96.13.7541. PMC 22122. PMID 10377451.
  74. ^ Beck, F; Eccles, J C (December 1992). "Quantum aspects of brain activity and the role of consciousness". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 89 (23): 11357–11361. Bibcode:1992PNAS...8911357B. doi:10.1073/pnas.89.23.11357. PMC 50549. PMID 1333607.
  75. ^ Beck, Friedrich (1996). "Can quantum processes control synaptic emission?". International Journal of Neural Systems. 7 (4): 343–353. Bibcode:1995IJNS....6..145A. doi:10.1142/S0129065796000300. PMID 8968823.
  76. ^ Beck, Friedrich; Eccles, John C. (1998). "Quantum processes in the brain: A scientific basis of consciousness". Cognitive Studies: Bulletin of the Japanese Cognitive Science Society. 5 (2): 95–109. doi:10.11225/jcss.5.2_95.