New evidence in support of quantum consciousness

[MD]

Discovery of quantum vibrations in 'microtubules' inside brain neurons supports controversial theory of consciousness

"Orch OR was harshly criticized from its inception, as the brain was considered too "warm, wet, and noisy" for seemingly delicate quantum processes. However, evidence has now shown warm quantum coherence in plant photosynthesis, bird brain navigation, our sense of smell, and brain microtubules."

"The recent discovery of warm temperature quantum vibrations in microtubules inside brain neurons by the research group led by Anirban Bandyopadhyay, PhD, at the National Institute of Material Sciences in Tsukuba, Japan (and now at MIT), corroborates the pair's theory and suggests that EEG rhythms also derive from deeper level microtubule vibrations."

"In addition, work from the laboratory of Roderick G. Eckenhoff, MD, at the University of Pennsylvania, suggests that anesthesia, which selectively erases consciousness while sparing non-conscious brain activities, acts via microtubules in brain neurons."

The implications if this theory is right are:

1) There are aspects of the mind which are non computational
2) Consciousness is embedded in the geometry of space and time, it is a property of the universe

 

[George-ananda]

Dear Readers,

My son and I went downstairs with the Mr. Science kit he got for Christmas and independently verified these findings. (Fortunately, his one aunt had bought him the 'quantum microtubules' attachment set at the mall.)

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

While I find this interesting, and even believe some of it, I doubt the science behind it, mostly because quantum physics itself is not 100%. There's still alot about quantum physics we don't understand, so trying to apply such findings to religious ideas, at least at this stage, is jumping the gun a little.

 

[idav]

While I find this interesting, and even believe some of it, I doubt the science behind it, mostly because quantum physics itself is not 100%. There's still alot about quantum physics we don't understand, so trying to apply such findings to religious ideas, at least at this stage, is jumping the gun a little.

It is proof that our biological systems utilize quantum qualities, I would think so but that is where the article notes contention. It doesnt really tell us that consiousness involves qm, as th op states, but it does show it certainly is in the realm of possibility.

 

[outhouse]

2) Consciousness is embedded in the geometry of space and time, it is a property of the universe

There are absolutely no ties that are credible.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

2) Consciousness is embedded in the geometry of space and time, it is a property of the universe

Yeah, that doesn't appear to in any way follow from these results.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

The implications if this theory is right are:

1) There are aspects of the mind which are non computational

Not exactly: "Orch OR suggests consciousness consists of discrete moments, each an ‘orchestrated’ quantum-computational process"

Hameroff, S., & Penrose, R. (2013). Consciousness in the universe: A review of the ‘Orch OR’theory. Physics of life reviews.

That's from the main citation in your link. It's also a bit of a problem, and not because Hameroff & Penrose assert consciousness to be a computational process. It is problematic because quantum computation, at least as far as quantum computability is concerned, cannot compute anything which could bot be computed by a computer. Hence one of their critical commentaries:

"Hameroff and Penrose provide only a vague set of qubit possibilities. By not specifying the qubits in the current review they fail to provide a means by which the postulated links between quantum gravity and conscious behaviour could be assessed. In previous versions of Orch OR, they did define a qubit that at the time might have been considered a reasonable proposition to advance and test. They proposed that conformational switching produced a coupled electron–vibration qubit that interacted with the cellular environment through associated large changes in microtubule structure and with quantum gravity via the significant mass displacement associated with the vibration. Coupled electron–vibration qubits are indeed considered as possibilities for use in modern quantum information technologies. Quantum coherence was postulated to be provided by Fröhlich condensation, a predicted but unobserved macroscopic quantum effect. The original proposal thus contained a critical testable hypothesis.

We tested this hypothesis and found two fatal shortcomings, resulting in it being withdrawn from Orch OR in this current review. First, we showed the conformational switch was not a vibration, as is required for the qubit, but instead involves an irreversible chemical reaction. Second, we examined the postulate that Fröhlich condensation could deliver unprecedented quantum coherence in a qubit involving electronic motion. Whilst Fröhlich proposed that the coupled non-linear equations that he solved would show Bose–Einstein-like behaviour, we found that instead a Fröhlich condensate would be extremely incoherent. Further, we showed that significant classical effects of Fröhlich condensation did not manifest unless the system was very far from thermal equilibrium, with component parts needing to be at temperatures in excess of 500 K for room-temperature operation. Fröhlich condensation could not sustain quantum coherence in biological systems and could not support Orch OR.

Reimers, J. R., McKemmish, L. K., McKenzie, R. H., Mark, A. E., & Hush, N. S. (2013). The revised Penrose-Hameroff orchestrated objective-reduction proposal for human consciousness is not scientifically justified: Comment on" Consciousness in the universe: A review of the 'Orch OR' theory" by Hameroff and Penrose. Physics of life reviews.

2) Consciousness is embedded in the geometry of space and time, it is a property of the universe

Alas, even if quantum consciousness is on the right track, the entirety of quantum physics is largely incompatible with the geometries, models, and theories of space, time, and spacetime.

I swear physicists do this deliberately just to keep getting paid AND see how gullible the rest of the science community is.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

The implications if this theory is right are:



Not exactly: "Orch OR suggests consciousness consists of discrete moments, each an ‘orchestrated’ quantum-computational process"

Hameroff, S., & Penrose, R. (2013). Consciousness in the universe: A review of the ‘Orch OR’theory. Physics of life reviews.

That's from the main citation in your link. It's also a bit of a problem, and not because Hameroff & Penrose assert consciousness to be a computational process. It is problematic because quantum computation, at least as far as quantum computability is concerned, cannot compute anything which could bot be computed by a computer. Hence one of their critical commentaries:

"Hameroff and Penrose provide only a vague set of qubit possibilities. By not specifying the qubits in the current review they fail to provide a means by which the postulated links between quantum gravity and conscious behaviour could be assessed. In previous versions of Orch OR, they did define a qubit that at the time might have been considered a reasonable proposition to advance and test. They proposed that conformational switching produced a coupled electron–vibration qubit that interacted with the cellular environment through associated large changes in microtubule structure and with quantum gravity via the significant mass displacement associated with the vibration. Coupled electron–vibration qubits are indeed considered as possibilities for use in modern quantum information technologies. Quantum coherence was postulated to be provided by Fröhlich condensation, a predicted but unobserved macroscopic quantum effect. The original proposal thus contained a critical testable hypothesis.

We tested this hypothesis and found two fatal shortcomings, resulting in it being withdrawn from Orch OR in this current review. First, we showed the conformational switch was not a vibration, as is required for the qubit, but instead involves an irreversible chemical reaction. Second, we examined the postulate that Fröhlich condensation could deliver unprecedented quantum coherence in a qubit involving electronic motion. Whilst Fröhlich proposed that the coupled non-linear equations that he solved would show Bose–Einstein-like behaviour, we found that instead a Fröhlich condensate would be extremely incoherent. Further, we showed that significant classical effects of Fröhlich condensation did not manifest unless the system was very far from thermal equilibrium, with component parts needing to be at temperatures in excess of 500 K for room-temperature operation. Fröhlich condensation could not sustain quantum coherence in biological systems and could not support Orch OR.

Reimers, J. R., McKemmish, L. K., McKenzie, R. H., Mark, A. E., & Hush, N. S. (2013). The revised Penrose-Hameroff orchestrated objective-reduction proposal for human consciousness is not scientifically justified: Comment on" Consciousness in the universe: A review of the 'Orch OR' theory" by Hameroff and Penrose. Physics of life reviews.


Alas, even if quantum consciousness is on the right track, the entirety of quantum physics is largely incompatible with the geometries, models, and theories of space, time, and spacetime.

I swear physicists do this deliberately just to keep getting paid AND see how gullible the rest of the science community is.

I still remember that quantum physics lecture you posted on here from Susskind and I just remember thinking "they're making it all up".

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I still remember that quantum physics lecture you posted on here from Susskind and I just remember thinking "they're making it all up".

If I suddenly stop posting, it's because the physics cabal has shoved me in a wormhole to silence me. In that event, I bequeath to you the task of uncovering this clearly worldwide, deeply ingrained, and extremely powerful conspiracy. The world must know!!!!

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

If I suddenly stop posting, it's because the physics cabal has shoved me in a wormhole to silence me. In that event, I bequeath to you the task of uncovering this clearly worldwide, deeply ingrained, and extremely powerful conspiracy. The world must know!!!!

I shall do so with great fervor and ignorance!!

 

[Contemplative Cat]

It isn't contrary to experience if one meditates a lot.

 

[Yadon]

I wonder why some religious folks are so set on "proving" their beliefs in the realm of science. It really ruins spirituality. It's like trying to say that art is physics.

 

[LuisDantas]

It is at least a bit odd to expect to prove that anything is "quantum based" (sorry, I can't think of a better description) before we have a fair understanding of quantum physics.

Besides, isn't essentially everything that exists as matter subject to quantum physics anyway? In and of itself, to say that our brain operate on quantum principles is no more revealing than to say that they are made of atoms and molecules.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

before we have a fair understanding of quantum physics.

This requires some qualification. We have an excellent understanding of quantum mechanics, if by quantum mechanics one means the statistical mechanics used to successfully predict that systems prepared in some specified manner will yield some set of probabilistic results.

In other words, if we understand physical systems in quantum mechanics to mean "functions in an abstract mathematical space" with no clear relation to reality, then we have an excellent understanding. If we take "a fair understanding" to mean that we know how the math relates to the physical/natural/non-mathematical world, then we have no such understanding.

Besides, isn't essentially everything that exists as matter subject to quantum physics anyway?

It should be, yes. But this is part of the problem. Back when "classical physics" was just "physics", the divide between chemistry and physics was in many ways less than that between quantum mechanics and relativistic physics. Fluid mechanics differed from "Newtonian" (point-particle) mechanics, but such distinctions were more reflections on the differences between states of matter than reflective of any contradictory understanding of the natural world or physical reality. Everything was just "physics".

Quantum mechanics describes systems as existing in multiple states at the same time. The "wave-particle" duality is a misnomer. It exists because the notion of particles had been part of physics since the beginning and wave mechanics of various sorts had followed not long after. "Waves" were defined in most respects by the ways in which they were not particles. Thus, wave-particle duality means something that renders obsolete both waves and particles (except for approximations in applied physics, engineering, etc.).

The problem is we do not experience anything like what quantum mechanics (or QFT, QCD, QED, etc.) describe. You don't exist in two places at once, I don't find myself affecting some object miles away instantaneously, and we don't find that whether water remains water depends on how we observe it. Our world of "classical physics" should be derivable from quantum mechanics, but even aside from the incompatibilities or issues between QM and relativity, all we can derive is predictions about the ways in which the quantum realm and all it's residents and dynamics will vanish.

In and of itself, to say that our brain operate on quantum principles is no more revealing than to say that they are made of atoms and molecules.

To say that our brains operate "on quantum principles" is to say that our brains are distinct from any known system and incompatible with standard models of modern physics. The quantum-to-classical transition is precisely why it is meaningful to speak of things like neural networks in terms of classical physics and usually impossible to do so using quantum mechanics. A car does not "operate" using "quantum principles" because "quantum principles" include (or perhaps even exist entirely as) that which does not describe the macroscopic realm.

 

[LuisDantas]

Thanks. It will take a while for me to wrap my head around that, but I must thank you right now for the careful and considerate clarifications.