Technical Version of the Orch OR Theory

Anaesthetics seem to knock out consciousness by reducing van der Waal’s forces (relatively weak quantum forces that attract different atoms or molecules to each other) in the hydrophobic pocket of tubulin molecules found inside pipe-like materials in most cells. These pipe like macromolecules are called microtubules. They are found in complex array throughout most cells but in especially complex webs and arrays in nerve cells – neurones- and in the ends of the neurones called dendrites. Anaesthetics seem to work by affecting the quantum shuttling of an electron in the hydrophobic pocket, and seem to slow down the quantum shuttling which causes van der Waal’s or London forces. Hameroff and Penrose suggest that consciousness occurs by quantum effects caused by Objective Reduction of the tubulin subunits of microtubules which have a near infinite number of conformations (shapes) in quantum geometric space-time. By choosing final conformations, an output would arise which could effect the conscious moment by conventional neuronal pathways.

Microtubules are made of protein subunits called tubulins stitched together in the shape of hollow pipes some millionths of a mm in diameter. Microtubules in the part of certain neurones called dendrites which is, to all purposes, like a wired up computer server, seem to be able to carry signals along their whole length and also to neighbouring microtubules.

However, because of the sheer number of tubulins which could vary their conformation (shape) in quantum geometric space-time, there was an almost endless number of ways that signals could be conveyed inside a single neurone alone, with the tubulins acting as switches do in a computer chip. Put together all the neurones in a brain and you have the beginnings of a vast computer network that can give rise to conscious moments or qualia. For example, a feeling of sadness, awe at a waterfall, happiness would be conscious moments. Many conscious moments one after the other make a being sentient.

At this point, it is worth mentioning that Artificial Intelligence as it presently stands cannot mimic the complexity of conscious volition by a human being. However, Hameroff and Penrose state that human consciousness is non-algorithmic. If true, this puts a severe limitation on the direction of Artificial Intelligence. However, the idea has been met with scepticism by programmers who consider that more complex algorithms will solve the problem.

Hitherto, even the most complex programming is not able to solve the problem of complete tiling an infinite surface with repeated, limited numbers of geometrical shapes. It is proposed by extension of Hameroff and Penrose’s theory that AI can never reach the quantum computational capacity of human neurones.

In humans the computational events which finally result in a fixed state of tubulin conformations is thought to be 25 milliseconds. The requirement for the OR to occur is that denderites have gap junctions. These are like open gates between neighbouring houses – imagine hundreds of houses with side gates open in a street. You could get from one end to the other end of the street quite quickly. The movement of free electrons through the tubulins in synchrony act like computer switches and are able to generate a coherent, conscious state by selectively triggering the firing of certain neurones. A great quality of microtubules is that they can relay a signal along their lengths and to neighbouring tubulins without signal diminishing – a unique quality.
This state could involve quantum tunneling to give a unity of experience which one could term as a ‘self’ identity.

The final conformational/switching state of the tubulins is not only 1 or 0 but both in superposition as you would imagine with a quantum computer qubits.

The OR part of the theory - objective reduction – is due to the final conformations in geometric space-tme and is thought to occur by self collapse due to quantum gravity and not due to the act of observation (subjective reduction). The tuning or orchestration of the final state of the tubulin molecules can be influenced by factors such as memory, synaptic inputs or axonal firing, perhaps aided by the action of microtubule associated proteins (MAPS). This would correspond to the arrival of a conscious moment.

There is a problem here. For a unified global conscious moment you need coherence which is similar to a Bose-Einstein condensate at 37oC. However, the brain is a warm and wet environment which would, under normal circumstances, disallow such a ‘condensate’ to form. However it is thought that the cytoplasm of the neurones adjacent to the dendritic microtubules exists in two phases called ‘sol’ and ‘gel’. In the sol or liquid state actin fibres are depolymerised or broken down like needles thrown down loosely (actin is like a mesh that would act as a shield for the microtubules). The tubulin molecules would be free to receive and send information in this state.

However, in the gel state which is more like a solid, the tubulin arrays are protected by a mesh of actin filaments. Because of this ordered array, the water also arranges with four bonds instead of three and becomes a crystalline arrangement. To add to this shield, the negative charged ends of the tubulin molecules stick out into the cytoplasm and attract oppositely charged ions. All three factors isolate the tubulins from the warm wet environment long enough to avoid decoherence. Taken together these events could relate to a preconscious state.

What is the final point of all these observations and hypotheses and the proof from neural correlates of consciousness, namely gamma synchrony electroencephalography (EEG) at 30-90Hz which is lost in unconsciousness and reappears in consciousness after anaesthesia?

Consciousness is non-algorithmic, definitely requires quantum effects and perhaps can only be worked with at at a quantum, non classical method. This leaves the question of who gave us this brain to make a mind – mere chance events over millions of years or the Hand of God?

I know which side I am on….

No replies on this one? this is my favorite topic.

Well my mind can definitely TRY to expand on this one-

I think consciousness, was not the divine creation of god, but the divine creation of the universe- so that goes back to the designer i feel.. is the universe its self, the universe is alive just as we are, but only the universe can't speak, walk, and talk, but only it's it own way.. many scientists, believe that we were all created form tiny particles in space during the big bang, then humans were planted on this earth by comets.

Our Consciousness is the same as the earths elements. Maybe our consciousness was created the same way the elements were created, the elements were put into a large body ( the earth) those same elements were put into a single body ( human body). It all came together to finally create human consciousness. Humans are really no different than what's out there in nature.

Okay, but i dont understand how any of this leads to Intelligent Design. I think what you wrote says a lot about how consciousness seems to manifest itself in physical reality, but it doesn't give me a strong thought that God had anything to do with it. I don't see how what you've written pushes out the conventional idea of science being at the beginning and the end.

Hero knows that I would have to agree with Cyfre here.

There is no logical connection between gods/godesses and this theory of consciousness. In essence, it is a monist theory, that consciousness is an intrinsic part of the universe.

I have issues with the theory from my own academic persepctive, but equally it can't be ruled out.

The motivation of the Orch-OR model is to explain the hard problem and save 'free will' from the eliminative materialists, I generally think it is not worthy of falling into such mysterian holes. Basically, many think that normal neurophysiological approaches cannot explain this mysterious thing called subjective experience (Qualia), but equally, I fail to see how quantum effects does any better. It just swaps one mystery for another, and is no better than current classical models. Guess it sounds good though, if we can't solve something it must be teh kwantum wurld.

I'm quite sure that quantum mechanics plays a role in all molecular interactions, just because it does. But I fail to see how suggesting quantum effects can explain why I subjectively feel fear provides any great advance on saying that neuronal networks do. Even defining the problem is an issue.

We will explain consciousness by very gradual work, it will be bottom up work. Whether that will take us to quantum entanglement, who knows...

At this point, I'm a explanatory dualist functional eliminative materialist, with a strong tendency to the eliminative side, heh.



[edit on 6-10-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by Heronumber0
Oh dear melatonin. Fair enough , you have a right to hold functionalist and materialist abeliefs regarding the appearance of consciousness but you MUST admit that there are:

1 quantum effects in the way that inert anaesthetic gases interact with the hydrophobic pockets of tubulin molecules;
2 quantum effects seem to be important in the photoreaction of bacteriochlorophyll.

As I said, I'm sure quantum effects are involved in all kinds of stuff at molecular scales, and by extension in biomolecules.

The problem here is that Orch-OR is very, very speculative at almost every level, even for anesthetic action, which can be readily explained without quantum effects. But I don't dismiss it out of hand, just think we need to base this from the brain, rather than speculative physics.

We don't even know that human behaviour is non-computable, just another assertion of the Orch-OR model. Indeed, it appears that some neural networks can predict behaviour. So, to relate this to speculative non-computable OR is tenuous at best.

The hard problem, I feel, is akin to saying 'have you really looked at your hand...no, I mean, really looked', heh.

Brain = mind. Consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, an epiphenomenon. So rather than spin into quantum waffle and defining consciousness as collapsing quantum states due to quantum gravity, I go with it is an emergent property of the flowing activity of a network of neurons. Which is actually observed and will lead to a more robust theory methinks. Just read some stuff from neuroscientists, Damasio's 1999 book is a goodun.

In other words melatonin, at each step so far quantum non-algorithmic computation seems to be involved in conciousness. Whether or not Hameroff and Penrose believe in the soul is irrelevant. They provide exactly what you guys want - scientific evidence. And they leave room for a spiritual non-physical element to assist in conscious moments. Can you argue with the science melatonin?

Not really. It is assumed to. Much of the evidence is far from provided. What is good is that they have provided falsifiable predictions. But it is still quite a vacuous theory at this point.

Of course whether they believe in the soul is irrelevant. Even their own theory doesn't speak to such a thing.

I just say that the Designer conferred us with consciousness or drives it in some way, allowing the Devil a route in to pervert us. Can you prove me wrong?

You can say what you like. But even if this theory is found to eventually be a good theory, it still won't support your theological position. Sorry that is the case. I'm sure the devil also perverts lugworms as well, with them possessing microtubules an all.

I like how you say 'can you argue with the science...?', then go off into theology and ask me to disprove you. That's quite funny, didn't need the cheering up though, as 12-10 did the job

[edit on 7-10-2007 by melatonin]

I tend to believe that we humans can not understand what drives our will of emotion. To try to, just leads to our destruction. Because the life force that we came from, is the life force that drives this Universe. That is something we can not contain, quantamize nor control.

Our universe is in a constant battle between dark matter and pure energy. It recycles over and over, By doing so, our Universe gets bigger and bigger. This isn't hard to understand, because it's science, nature, religion, philosophy, and the idea of emotion and free-will combined to explain how our Universe operates. We just can't take anything at face vale, we want to discover more, and that just leads to us discovering the Universe even more, and creating weapons and destructive forces based on it. That drive to destroy, is driven by the want to create. It's a never ending cycle. It's nature, plain and simple. The sun gives light. Nature is attracted to light. Most earthly species have used this light for purposes bigger than themselves; procreation, which is a constant striving for more energy.

We are not even a blip on the Universial radar, but we play a major roll in making it bigger. The more pure energy grows here in earth, the more energy in our Universe grows. Maybe the final Universal apocalypse will happen trillions of years from now when the Universe(s) finally grows into a pure energetic state free of the opposite driving force. Then there will be nothing but light, the light that drives our consciousness. But we have ignored that light, and choose to go the opposite direction and use it for negative purposes. Consciousness can be negative or positive. But it's a never-ending battle between "good" and "evil".

It's more of a philisophical view with minor religious undertones. But I feel modern science in a negative force that drives the negative and tries to make human beings the final say. The human ego is nothing. This is what we fail we realize.

Sorry if this doesn't make sense, and for typos. It's late and I'm just thinking through my fingers, haha.




[edit on 7-10-2007 by tobiascore]

Hi Heronumber0

As you already know I do find this theory interesting, altough I'm not going to actively support it since I don't know anything about brain mechanics.

My problem with your interpretation is that there is nothing in this theory or in what the authors have to say that implies anything to do with the divine/supernatural. What they are saying is that consciousness is the result of quantum fluctuations of micro tubules inside the neurones, and the quantum world is just another aspect of the physical world. But in this way humans are not special, every animal has micro tubules.

Originally posted by Heronumber0
However, Hameroff has used Ockham's razor in his initial hypothesis that is 'anaesthetic action on hydrophobic pockets of dendritic brain proteins inhibit electron resonance' causing a lack of consciousness so that the mediation of consciousness involves such quantum effects. Moreover, the brain microtubules have unique complex array functions and a profusion of gap junction linked dendritic webs crucial to the theory.

He can use Ockham's razor as much as he likes, but until he can actually provide reliable evidence for much of his assertions, his hypothesis is just that, a hypothesis.

I think you are referring to work which states that anaesthetics act upon ligand -gated ion channels or receptors. However, Hameroff et al assert that anaesthetics appear to have opposite effects on these channels including potentiation of excitatory channels or inhibitory effects, so that the field is still in confusion at this stage. Additionally Hameroff point out 'many drugs bind to these channels/receptors but do not cause anaesthesia'. This is not speculative physics but raw biochemistry.

Yes, Hameroff asserts a lot. At least one hypothesis has actual evidence. The biochemical theory has numerous studies that shows the alteration GABA, NMDA, and of other receptors in general anesthesia.

You (and Hameroff) are throwing out recent research that is out there showing evidence of the involvement of all kinds of neurochemical mechanisms for something that is merely an assertion. The research is focusing on such mechanisms, so Hameroff can assert all he likes. This all post-dates his own hypothesis, which is now essentially defunct.

This is why many are starting to see Hameroff as a crank. I don't, I think he has ideas that have value for research, even if we can show that pure neurochemistry can account for anesthetic action, it doesn't mean that microtubule interactions are not important in cognition and consciousness.

The quantum effects on bacteriochlorophyll, for example, seem to point to a quantum choice of photons for particular efficient pathways for photosynthesis. There is solid, falsifiable/replicable/valid evidence to indicate that gamma synchrony EEG is a suitable correlate for consciousness. Loss of consciousness ties in with the disappearance of 'frontal posterior gamma EEG coherence' (Hameroff).

Hey, so were showing localisation of action in the brain, kinda makes sense, what with all the functional stuff we know

I've worked with people who study the binding problem, so I know about gamma EEG. Many studies show how gamma activity increases during anesthesia. So, considering we have microtubules all over the brain, do we have areas that are conscious, and others that aren't? Gamma synchrony is, again, interesting, but speculative as the fundamental source of consciousness.

Maybe we have some effect that causes disruption of synchronised information processing, that ebb and flow of neural activity

None of the current directions of research (except for Hameroff and his old abandoned theory) focus on quantum effects maybe that's because there is no empirical support that they are important.

The dendritic depolarisation events and synchrony seem to have been confirmed by many studies melatonin. We have reproducibility and potential hypothesis falsifiability rolled into one neat package. This does not seem like quantum waffle to me - albeit as a non-neuroscientist. Moreover, there are numerous studies to show that 'dendritic-dendritic gap junction circuits of cortical interneurones and selected primary neurones in concert with GABA inhinitory chemical synapses specifically mediate gamma synchrony' (Hameroff) - is this not the same place that the Orch OR events occur? Mere coincidence or verifiable/falsifiable work?

We don't even have evidence that OR occurs, never mind that it does inside microtubules...

Indeed, it is generally accepted that this would require the alteration of quantum theory to enable OR.

I have to disagree here. The above valid and reliable evidence seems to point to the OrchOR theory as having some validity.

Far from it. As I said, it is interesting. But it suggests to me that at most consciousness would involve quantum computation and neurocomputation. Still don't see the link to actual subjective feelings from a wave collapse inside a microtubule.

We have a speculation that gamma synchrony is a fundamental correlate of consciousness, a speculation that gamma synchrony is sourced from quatum activity in microtubules, and more speculation that microtubules house speculated OR events.

If you think that collapsing wave functions answers the question of why I subjectively feel fear better than the ebb and flow of neural activity, fine. I don't see how different this is at the root. Both are material explanations, involving raw physics. One says free will is the result of the slight bit of randomness inherent to this speculative idea, the other that behaviour can just appear random, but is determinstic at a more detailed level.

I suppose I could say that because chemistry underlies neural activity and consciousness, chemical reactions undergo moments of consciousness, heh. Makes as much sense.

Yes but do you have the same neurophysiological umiquness that you have in the human brain in terms of dendritic gap junctions, actin microfilament networks, tubulin numbers or the coherence caused by pumping heat?

Your completely missing the big points I raised earlier.

1. We have no evidence that OR events even occur

2. We have no evidence that humans behaviour is non-computable. Penrose's musings on this are generally rejected in a number of ways (from Godels to artificial neural networks).

These are absolutely fundamental to the hypothesis. I think it was chalmers himself who said something like 'basically it's a case of consciousness is mysterious, quantum theory is mysterious, maybe there is a link'.

If you think that uniqueness between species for their cognition and behaviour can be broken down to microtubules, I can't help you.

Does it support my theological position? It certainly does not dismiss it, which is the beauty of it.

There's not much that can dismiss your theological position. Even elimative materialism wouldn't with a bit of magic.

That was rather silly of me. However I can't help making the connection because the OrchOR model leaves it wide open. Cyfre and possibly Multi 1's consider the original OR moment from the inception of the Universe and have a point:

But there is no logical connection. Quantum mechanics is just another physical theory. To suggest it has any inherent mysticism is the provence of the mysterians.

Essentially that's what many people want. Keep the human brain mysterious - add a bit of the magical pixie dust of kwantum feery.

As for the 12-10 score - good luck and who would have believed it? However most Scots will be supporting anybody who plays against England.

Aye, normally the way. I'll be cheering you on though. Be a great final if we met there.

[edit on 7-10-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by Heronumber0
Darkside and melatonin. I take your points on board and I would never wish to get into a detailed argument with a PhD neuroscientist melatonin because I don't have the neurophysiological knowledge required

Oh, no. Don't defer to me. I have issues with Hameroff's ideas, but I really don't dismiss it completely. I think there is a possibility that microtubules do something important in the brain. But I just can't see how that is a sufficient answer to explain the sort of hard problem of consciousness that Chalmers thinks is a big issue. It really does seem a cop-out. I could see microtubules being involved alongside neurons and all the classical stuff which together result in this thing we call consciousness. It needn't be one or t'other.

Is it possible that the hard problem is hard because it's not a problem?

I'll try to answer the rest later. Tea-time and then rugby to attend to.



[edit on 7-10-2007 by melatonin]

Oh, no. Don't defer to me. I have issues with Hameroff's ideas, but I really don't dismiss it completely. I think there is a possibility that microtubules do something important in the brain. But I just can't see how that is a sufficient answer to explain the sort of hard problem of consciousness that Chalmers thinks is a big issue. It really does seem a cop-out. I could see microtubules being involved alongside neurons and all the classical stuff which together result in this thing we call consciousness. It needn't be one or t'other.

Is it possible that the hard problem is hard because it's not a problem?

I'll try to answer the rest later. Tea-time and then rugby to attend to.

OK, OK. I thought I was punching above my weight here - my field is biochemistry and molecular biology. However, I tried to make the point that there IS real science that supports the OrchOR model and that there is a case to be made for a soul to give subjective experience to an individual although it is a hard point to explain using OR. I just thought that turning to epiphenomenal events was a cop-out, like saying that human experience is similar to the foam in a washing up bowl. However, putting the AI problem on centre stage, it appeals to me to think that computer algorithms cannot copy complex human actions or thoughts.

I agree that there is no direct evidence for OR but it is valid as a quantum theory, no? Does quantum theory not need to be rewritten anyway? If we consider that the tubulins act as qubits and that the superpositioned masses in geometric space time can be described by by the indeterminacy principle and that E=h/t with E =mass of superpositioned tubulins; h = reduced Planck constant and t=time for OR (a conscious moment) to occur, then 't' tallies with actual numbers of tubulins in dendritic microtubules and the time required for one cycle of gamma synchrony - 25 milliseconds.

Moreover, if there is not a proper arrangement of tubulins with actin gels and microtubule associated proteins then the time taken for OR is too long for the conscious moment in for example a potato.

I like the fact that the mechanism implies quantum computation to underly normal neurological events so, yes, it does not matter which mechanism as long as the output is the same.

As for evidence, consider that 'warm quantum states have been detected in semiconductors' (Lau et al 2006, Stern et al 2006) as evidence for Frohlich coherence (also shown in lasers). I have already mentioned the molecular quantum interactions of psychoactive compounds and receptors (Brookes et al , 2006). Confusion in drugs binding ligand-gated ion channels/receptors (Hameroff, 2006). High intensity conscious experience in Tibetan monks causes high frequency and coherence (high E and low t) gamma EEG synchrony (Lutz et al , 2004) which seems to be an indirect measure to show the appearance of OR. Also Tegmark in his rebuttal ignored the means available for microtubules to avoid decoherence and therefore ended up in erroneous calculation of the time required for formation of a conscious moment.

Finally, at the moment, for evidence of gamma synchrony involving gap junctions see Fukuda et al , 2006. You will have to search these up though - sorry about that. I'll compile a proper list later.

However, there is the possibility that consciousness occurs by other means in other organisms, but that it is a different, non human sort of consciousness. I would still stand by my last post then.

Incidentally melatonin, the microtubule model insinuates into the classical model - they are not mutually exclusive if I read it properly.





[edit on 7/10/2007 by Heronumber0]

[edit on 7/10/2007 by Heronumber0]

Originally posted by Heronumber0
OK, OK. I thought I was punching above my weight here - my field is biochemistry and molecular biology.

And my own is really psychology and neuroscience. But even if we disagree on some issues this is still worth discussing methinks.

Consciousness is a very interesting subject, and I don't think we can dismiss anything at this point, well except for true dualism, heh.

And I think this is what you are clinging to.

However, I tried to make the point that there IS real science that supports the OrchOR model and that there is a case to be made for a soul to give subjective experience to an individual although it is a hard point to explain using OR. I just thought that turning to epiphenomenal events was a cop-out, like saying that human experience is similar to the foam in a washing up bowl. However, putting the AI problem on centre stage, it appeals to me to think that computer algorithms cannot copy complex human actions or thoughts.

But you do understand that there are artificial neural networks that can predict and model behaviour? Moreover, that we are really only talking about a decade or so for real artificial networks/models to have been developed?

Also, I don't think the Orch-OR model in any way supports the case for a soul. It really is just another physicalist theory, it just adds of quantum effects, allowing some randomness and possibly, therefore, free will.

I don't really see that the ability for randomness is free will anyway. We don't even know if quantum mechanics is truly random and that hidden variables exist that will show it to be another deterministic theory, speculation is easy.

I agree that there is no direct evidence for OR but it is valid as a quantum theory, no? Does quantum theory not need to be rewritten anyway? If we consider that the tubulins act as qubits and that the superpositioned masses in geometric space time can be described by by the indeterminacy principle and that E=h/t with E =mass of superpositioned tubulins; h = reduced Planck constant and t=time for OR (a conscious moment) to occur, then 't' tallies with actual numbers of tubulins in dendritic microtubules and the time required for one cycle of gamma synchrony - 25 milliseconds.

I don't think OR is valid as quantum theory as far as being verified empirically. The likes of Penrose know how controversial it is. But it is testable.

But you see, the problems I have is just simply saying that gamma synchrony = cognitive binding = microtubules = consciousness. Even Koch has abandoned the idea that gamma synchrony solves the binding problem.

I read a new article the other week showing the involvement of alpha bands in consciousness. It's just toooooo simplistic to say just 'it's gamma stuff'/microtubules/dendrites. This is where I think Hameroff is lacking.

I like the fact that the mechanism implies quantum computation to underly normal neurological events so, yes, it does not matter which mechanism as long as the output is the same.

And this is the big issue. Even if we find that some sort of quantum effect is involved in cognition, it doesn't really mean we can lay consciousness at its feet. It really isn't that simple. It might just be another computational process.

High intensity conscious experience in Tibetan monks causes high frequency and coherence (high E and low t) gamma EEG synchrony (Lutz et al , 2004) which seems to be an indirect measure to show the appearance of OR. Also Tegmark in his rebuttal ignored the means available for microtubules to avoid decoherence and therefore ended up in erroneous calculation of the time required for formation of a conscious moment.

But not everyone accepts this. Some think Tegmark is correct, some don't. Hameroff has to make another ton of assertions to get his numbers to work. What Tegmark hasn't done is falsified the idea, because the real empirical evidence is not really there to make the judgment. Much of this is mathmatical speculation with little basis in the brain at this point.

For the gamma synchrony, see earlier. It is still speculation that gamma synchrony is the answer. When we find that the original proponent can so readily abandon his own theory, we need to take note.

Finally, at the moment, for evidence of gamma synchrony involving gap junctions see Fukuda et al , 2006. You will have to search these up though - sorry about that. I'll compile a proper list later.

But this still doesn't answer the real questions. Gamma synchrony has to come from somewhere, but what it means is something else entirely. Gap junctions are already suggested to be involved in neuronal communication.

However, there is the possibility that consciousness occurs by other means in other organisms, but that it is a different, non human sort of consciousness. I would still stand by my last post then

OK. Lets gets down to the nitty-gritty, heh.

Lets say that OR is correct. That microtubules do contain this feature. We see quantum entanglement and quantum computerisation in the brain.

Where are we now?

I don't see any solutions to the hard problem here at all. Think about what subjective awareness is. The hard problem says 'how do I subjectively experience redness?' or 'how do I subjectively experience a recalled Proustian memory?'.

Both of these require sensory input. So, we are back to functional/modular theories of the brain with primary sensory areas and association cortices, information storage, and frontal executive funtions, influenced by homeostatic and motivational interactions via subcortical systems, with consciousness involving a binding of all these. But with added pixie dust.

Currently, we view consciousness as the emergent property of a network of neural activity. Even if we add quantum effects to it, it doesn't really change anything. The OR model requires an orchestrated network. So the problem now includes microtubules, neurons, and synchronised ebb and flow of quantum effects and chemicals. It's still a physicalist theory with consciousness a by-product of the physical world. An epiphenomena?

I don't really see how this is that different from what we have already. Well, except that some see it as more mysterious. The quantum effects may be no more than a speedier computational process than some indication of conscious moments.

But I know that Hameroff just wants to push this further than the science will support. Good luck to him, as he leaves science when he does so.

Incidentally melatonin, the microtubule model insinuates into the classical model - they are not mutually exclusive if I read it properly.

Aye, I know.

[edit on 7-10-2007 by melatonin]