Quantum Mechanics and Consciousness

<< < (11/12) > >>

bluegray (September 19, 2009, 19:37:01 PM):
Continuing with the information gained by interpolation argument here: http://forum.skeptic.za.org/science-and-technology/digitisation-interpolation-and-information/

BTW. If that last comment to Petey had anything to do with the 'Skeptical ability' rating, it's misplaced ;)
Peter Grant (September 20, 2009, 12:33:28 PM):
Thanks, for the record I don't recall voting anyone down so far. I have voted up a few of those who said nice things about atheism though. :)
Irreverend (September 20, 2009, 14:00:10 PM):
Then I offer my sincere apologies to the forum generally and Peter in particular for having misread him on that score. I see the knock I handed out has been undone - thanks Mr Admin.
bluegray (September 20, 2009, 20:15:53 PM):
Peter, I moved your post here: http://forum.skeptic.za.org/science-and-technology/digitisation-interpolation-and-information/msg5763/#msg5763
Teleological (November 02, 2009, 07:43:43 AM):
Penrose-Hameroff orchestrated objective-reduction proposal for human consciousness is not biologically feasible
Penrose and Hameroff have argued that the conventional models of a brain function based on neural networks alone cannot account for human consciousness, claiming that quantum-computation elements are also required. Specifically, in their Orchestrated Objective Reduction (Orch OR) model [R. Penrose and S. R. Hameroff, J. Conscious. Stud. 2, 99 (1995)], it is postulated that microtubules act as quantum processing units, with individual tubulin dimers forming the computational elements. This model requires that the tubulin is able to switch between alternative conformational states in a coherent manner, and that this process be rapid on the physiological time scale. Here, the biological feasibility of the Orch OR proposal is examined in light of recent experimental studies on microtubule assembly and dynamics. It is shown that the tubulins do not possess essential properties required for the Orch OR proposal, as originally proposed, to hold. Further, we consider also recent progress in the understanding of the long-lived coherent motions in biological systems, a feature critical to Orch OR, and show that no reformation of the proposal based on known physical paradigms could lead to quantum computing within microtubules. Hence, the Orch OR model is not a feasible explanation of the origin of consciousness.

From the conclusion:
The Penrose-Hameroff Orch OR model has attracted much attention and much debate since it was initially proposed in part because it holds the fascinating possibility of quantum mechanical effects playing a central role in cognitive function, and in part because, at least superficially, the model appears physically reasonable. Here we have shown that when tested objectively the basic physical assumptions upon which the Orch OR model depends simply do not hold either from a structural, dynamic or energetic perspective and we hope that with this work we can finally put to rest this intriguing but fundamentally flawed model of cognitive function.

Oh well, there you have it, fundamentally flawed it seems :P.
Would be interesting to see the responses to this article from the protagonists of the Penrose-Hameroff Orch OR model proposal not?


[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Skeptic Forum Board Index

Non-mobile version of page