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?
No doubt there are sophisticated machines emerging with complex behaviour but they cannot mimic human behaviour in its apparent irrationality and emotionality which you well know melatonin.
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.
It does not support the case for a soul, it just gives the possibility that the OR moment where consciousness emerges can be determined by a non-physical or 'other' element which is not amenable for measurement - a bit like strings in string theory. This possibility is enough for believers to be heartened by quantum discovery.
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.
Of course speculation is easy but let's point to all the primary and secondary sources which give credence to the theory and allow the possibility of 'something else' to be involved in the OR moment.
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.
Exactly, it is verifiable/falsifiable and stands on a rationalist platform - I thought that would appeal to the rationalist, deterministic reductionist in you.
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.
But at least he can point to some solid evidence of a correlation. I thought that the whole problem was based around the difficulty of defining consciousness in neurocognitive science? Hameroff et al have a model which is becoming more important in describing consciousness from the recent discoveries of coherent systems in hot environments. I admit OR is a theoretical problem at present but the theory is reasonably complete in four proposed crucial areas:
1. Preconscious moments to conscious monents can be brought about by the appearance of final conformation of superpositioned tubulins;
2. Non local quantum entanglements can correlate with associative memory and non-local emotional effects;
3. Quantum superpositioning of tubulin subunits can correlate with subconscious processes or dreams;
4. Quantum coherence and transmissibility of information in synchrony can lead to the unified sense of self.
Yes, all are physical models but there is space for the soul for in the Objective Reduction but of course there can be a physical explanation for this from neural firing.
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.
You know that Tegmark miscalculated, as much as I do. He avoided discussion of anti decoherence mechanisms in dendritic microtubules including the presence of stabilising actin gels and Debye 'membranes' of counterions surrounding the poles of microtubules (incidentally a unique feature of brain microtubules). The time for decoherence is lengthened by factors enough to allow qualia to emerge.
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.
OK so are there any references which disprove/falsify it as a neural correlate of consciousness? This would appeal to my rationality if it can be experimentally falsified. But can it?
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?'.
I thought the intensity of the OR moemt would be affected by the varying intensity of the OR which was the stuff about reduced Planck's constant divided by time. More intense red = larger E = shorter t. Just a thought (no pun intended).
By the way, conventional feedback, feed forward loops etc.. with some pixie dust still need the pixie dust to interact at the molecular level don't they?
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?
Ha! Ha! melatonin - like the way you did that. You seem to have a low opinion of human consciousness. However, what worries me is that you strive for empirical evidence yet when it is presented you seem to abandon your neutrality and go back to the evolutionary imperative.
I've pulled this from wiki:
Experiments in the 1970s by Benjamin Libet suggested that conscious experience of sensory inputs requires up to 500 msec of brain activity, but is referred backward in time to the initial input. Quantum mechanics allows backward time effects as long as causal paradox is not possible
