Orchestrated objective reduction: Difference between revisions
→External links: Removed nonsense POV tags |
No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
||
(646 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Short description|Theory of a quantum origin of consciousness}} |
|||
'''Orchestrated objective reduction''' ('''Orch-OR''') is a theory of [[consciousness]], which is the joint work of theoretical physicist, [[Roger Penrose|Sir Roger Penrose]], and anesthesiologist [[Stuart Hameroff]]. Mainstream theories assume that consciousness emerges from the brain, and focus particularly on complex [[computation]] at [[synapses]] that allow communication between [[neuron]]s.{{citation needed|date=May 2013}} Orch-OR combines approaches to the problem of [[consciousness]] from the radically different angles of mathematics, physics and anesthesia. |
|||
{{Use dmy dates|date=May 2024}}{{multiple image|total_width=300 |
|||
| header_align = center |
|||
| caption_align = center |
|||
| image1 = Roger Penrose 9671.JPG |
|||
| image2 = Stuart Hameroff TASC2008.JPG |
|||
| footer = 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 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 Prize|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> |
|||
[[Roger Penrose|Penrose]] and [[Stuart Hameroff|Hameroff]] initially developed their ideas quite separately from one another, and it was only in the 1990s that they cooperated to produce the Orch-OR theory. Penrose came to the problem from the view point of mathematics and in particular [[Gödel's incompleteness theorems|Gödel's theorem]], while Hameroff approached it from a career in cancer research and [[anesthesia]] that gave him an interest in brain structures. |
|||
While other 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 state]]s, 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> |
|||
The mathematical and scientific basis of Orch-OR is universally rejected by mainstream mathematicians,<ref name=laforte_1998>LaForte, Geoffrey, Patrick J. Hayes, and Kenneth M. Ford 1998.''[http://www.cs.uwf.edu/~glaforte/papers/whyGodel.ps Why Gödel's Theorem Cannot Refute Computationalism]''. Artificial Intelligence, 104:265-286.</ref><ref name=solomon_1996>{{cite journal | authorlink = Solomon Feferman | last = Feferman | first = Solomon | year = 1996 |id = {{citeseerx|10.1.1.130.7027}} | title = Penrose's Gödelian argument | journal = PSYCHE | volume = 2 | pages = 21–32 }}</ref><ref name=krajewski_2007>Krajewski, Stanislaw 2007. ''On Gödel's Theorem and Mechanism: Inconsistency or Unsoundness is Unavoidable in any Attempt to 'Out-Gödel' the Mechanist.'' Fundamenta Informaticae 81, 173-181. Reprinted in [http://books.google.com/books?id=0jSS-3Bl06cC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA173#v=onepage&q&f=falseTopics in Logic, Philosophy and Foundations of Mathematics and Computer Science:In Recognition of Professor Andrzej Grzegorczyk (2008), p. 173]</ref> philosophers,<ref name=mindpapers>http://consc.net/mindpapers/6.1b</ref><ref name=lucas_criticisms>http://users.ox.ac.uk/~jrlucas/Godel/referenc.html</ref><ref name=Boolos_1990>[[George Boolos|Boolos, George]], et al. 1990. ''An Open Peer Commentary on The Emperor's New Mind.'' Behavioral and Brain Sciences 13 (4) 655.</ref><ref name=martin_1993>[[Martin Davis|Davis, Martin]] 1993. ''How subtle is Gödel's theorem? More on Roger Penrose.'' Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 16, 611-612. Online version at Davis' faculty page at http://cs.nyu.edu/cs/faculty/davism/</ref><ref name=lewis_1969>[[David Kellogg Lewis|Lewis, David K.]] 1969.''[http://www2.units.it/etica/2003_1/7_monographica.doc Lucas against mechanism]''. Philosophy 44 231-233.</ref><ref name=putnam_1995>[[Hilary Putnam|Putnam, Hilary]] 1995. ''Review of Shadows of the Mind.'' In Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society 32, 370-373 (also see Putnam's less technical criticisms in his [http://www.nytimes.com/books/97/04/27/nnp/17540.html New York Times review])</ref> and scientists.<ref name=Tegmark2000>{{cite journal|last=Tegmark|first=Max|title=Importance of quantum decoherence in brain processes|journal=Phys. Rev. E|year=2000|month=April|volume=61|issue=4|pages=4194|doi=10.1103/PhysRevE.61.4194|url=http://pre.aps.org/abstract/PRE/v61/i4/p4194_1|accessdate=18 November 2012}}</ref><ref name="Kikkawa1994">{{cite journal |author=Kikkawa, M., Ishikawa, T., Nakata, T., Wakabayashi, T., Hirokawa, N. |title=Direct visualization of the microtubule lattice seam both in vitro and in vivo |journal=Journal of Cell Biology |volume=127 |issue=6 |pages=1965–1971 |year=1994|pmid=7806574 |url=http://jcb.rupress.org/cgi/content/abstract/127/6/1965 |pmc=2120284 |doi= 10.1083/jcb.127.6.1965}}</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}}</ref><ref name="Georgiev2007">{{cite journal |author=Georgiev, D.D. |title=Falsifications of Hameroff-Penrose Orch OR model of consciousness and novel avenues for development of quantum mind theory |journal=NeuroQuantology |volume=5 |issue=1 |pages=145–174 |year=2007 |url=http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00003049/}}</ref><ref name="Georgiev2009a">{{cite journal |doi=10.1038/npre.2009.3860.1 |author=Georgiev, D.D. |title=Remarks on the number of tubulin dimers per neuron and implications for Hameroff-Penrose Orch |journal=NeuroQuantology |volume=7 |issue=4 |pages=677–679 |year=2009 |url=http://precedings.nature.com/documents/3860/version/1}}</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]]. |
|||
==The Penrose–Lucas argument== |
|||
The Penrose-Lucas argument states that, since humans are capable of knowing the truth of Gödel-unprovable statements, human thought is necessarily [[computable function|non-computable]].<ref name=Penrose1989/> |
|||
==Background== |
|||
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|complete]]. Furthermore, he showed that any such theory also including a statement of its own consistency is inconsistent. A key element of the proof is the use of [[Gödel numbering]] to construct a "Gödel sentence" for the theory, which encodes a statement of its own incompleteness, e.g. "This theory can't assert the truth of this statement." This statement is ''either'' true but unprovable (incompleteness) ''or'' false and provable (inconsistency). An analogous statement has been used to show that humans are subject to the same limits as machines.<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> |
|||
{{further|Penrose–Lucas argument}} |
|||
[[File:Kurt gödel.jpg|thumb|upright|Logician [[Kurt Gödel]]]] |
|||
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/> |
|||
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. |
|||
However, in his first book on consciousness, ''[[The Emperor's New Mind]]'' (1989), Penrose made Gödel's theorem the basis of what quickly became an intensely controversial claim.<ref name=Penrose1989/> He argued that while a formal proof system cannot prove its own inconsistency, Gödel-unprovable results are provable by human mathematicians. He takes this disparity to mean that human mathematicians are not describable as formal proof systems, and are not therefore running an [[computable function|computable algorithm]]. Similar claims about the implications of Gödel's theorem were originally espoused by the philosopher [[John Lucas (philosopher)|John Lucas]] of [[Merton College, Oxford]]. |
|||
{{quote|The inescapable conclusion seems to be: Mathematicians are not using a knowably sound calculation procedure in order to ascertain mathematical truth. We deduce that mathematical understanding - the means whereby mathematicians arrive at their conclusions with respect to mathematical truth - cannot be reduced to blind calculation!|Roger Penrose<ref>Roger Penrose. Mathematical intelligence. In Jean Khalfa, editor, What is Intelligence?, chapter 5, pages 107-136. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, 1994.</ref>}} |
|||
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"/> |
|||
===Criticism of the Penrose-Lucas argument=== |
|||
The Penrose-Lucas argument about the implications of Gödel's incompleteness theorem for computational theories of human intelligence has been widely criticized by mathematicians, computer scientists and philosophers,<ref name=lucas_criticisms/><ref name=mindpapers/><ref name=Boolos_1990/><ref name=martin_1993/><ref name=solomon_1996/><ref name=krajewski_2007/><ref name=laforte_1998/><ref name=lewis_1969/><ref name=putnam_1995/> and the consensus among experts in these fields is that the argument fails,<ref>Bringsford, S. and Xiao, H. 2000. ''[http://kryten.mm.rpi.edu/refute.penrose.pdf A Refutation of Penrose's Gödelian Case Against Artificial Intelligence].'' Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Artificial Intelligence 12: 307-329. The authors write that it is "generally agreed" that Penrose "failed to destroy the computational conception of mind."</ref><ref>In an article at http://www.mth.kcl.ac.uk/~llandau/Homepage/Math/penrose.html 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."</ref><ref name="Burgess">Princeton Philosophy professor John Burgess writes in ''[http://www.princeton.edu/~jburgess/Montreal.doc On the Outside Looking In: A Caution about Conservativeness]'' (published in Kurt Gödel: Essays for his Centennial, with the following comments found on [http://books.google.com/books?id=83Attf6BsJ4C&lpg=PP1&pg=PA131#v=onepage&q&f=false 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."</ref> with different authors choosing different aspects of the argument to attack.<ref name="Burgess" /><ref>Dershowitz, Nachum 2005. ''[http://www.cs.tau.ac.il/~nachumd/papers/FourSonsOfPenrose.pdf The Four Sons of Penrose]'', in ''Proceedings of the Eleventh Conference on Logic |
|||
Programming for 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.</ref> |
|||
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: |
|||
Geoffery LaForte points out that in order to know the truth of an unprovable ''Gödel sentence'', one must already know the formal system is consistent. Referencing [[Paul Benacerraf|Benacerraf]], he then demonstrates that humans cannot prove that they are consistent,<ref name=laforte_1998/> and in all likelihood human brains are inconsistent. He comically points to contradictions from within Penrose's own writings as evidence. Similarly, [[Marvin Minsky]] argues that because humans can construe false ideas to be factual, human mathematical understanding need not be consistent, and consciousness may easily have a deterministic basis.<ref>Marvin Minsky. "Conscious Machines." Machinery of Consciousness, Proceedings, National Research Council of Canada, 75th Anniversary Symposium on Science in Society, June 1991.</ref> |
|||
::<math>\tau \approx \hbar/E_G</math> |
|||
:where: |
|||
::* <math>\tau</math> is the time until OR occurs, |
|||
::* <math>E_G</math> is the gravitational self-energy or the degree of spacetime separation given by the superpositioned mass, and |
|||
::* <math>\hbar</math> is the [[reduced Planck constant]]. |
|||
Thus, the greater the mass–energy of the object, the faster it will undergo OR and vice versa. [[Mesoscopic physics|Mesoscopic]] objects could collapse on a timescale relevant to neural processing.<ref name="Penrose-Hameroff2014"/>{{additional citation needed|date=May 2013 |reason=Search for supporting evidence besides the papers from the main authors of the theory.}} |
|||
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 [[Platonism|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.<ref name="Penrose1994"/> |
|||
[[Solomon Feferman]], a professor of mathematics, logic and philosophy has made criticisms of Penrose's argument.<ref name="Feferman1996">{{cite journal |author=Feferman, S. |title=Penrose's Gödelian argument |journal=Psyche|volume=2 |pages=21–32 |year=1996 |url=http://math.stanford.edu/~feferman/papers/penrose.pdf}}</ref> He faults detailed points in Penrose's second book, ''Shadows of the Mind'', but says that he does not think that they undermine the main thrust of his argument. As a mathematician, he argues that mathematicians do not progress by computer-like or mechanistic search through proofs, but by trial-and-error reasoning, insight and inspiration, and that machines cannot share this approach with humans. However, he thinks that Penrose goes too far in his arguments. Feferman points out that everyday mathematics, as used in science, can in practice be formalized. He also rejects Penrose's [[Platonism]]. |
|||
The Penrose–Lucas argument was criticized by mathematicians,<ref name=laforte_1998>LaForte, Geoffrey, Patrick J. Hayes, and Kenneth M. Ford 1998.''[https://web.archive.org/web/20060901233518/http://www.cs.uwf.edu/~glaforte/papers/whyGodel.ps Why Gödel's Theorem Cannot Refute Computationalism]''. Artificial Intelligence, 104:265–286.</ref><ref name=solomon_1996>{{cite journal | author-link = Solomon Feferman | last = Feferman | first = Solomon | year = 1996 |citeseerx = 10.1.1.130.7027 | title = Penrose's Gödelian argument | journal = [[Psyche (consciousness journal)|Psyche]] | volume = 2 | pages = 21–32 }}</ref><ref name=krajewski_2007>{{cite journal |last1=Krajewski |first1=Stanisław |title=On Gödel's Theorem and Mechanism: Inconsistency or Unsoundness is Unavoidable in any Attempt to 'Out-Gö del' the Mechanist |journal=Fundamenta Informaticae |date=2007 |volume=81 |issue=1–3 |pages=173–181 |url=https://content.iospress.com/articles/fundamenta-informaticae/fi81-1-3-11 }}</ref> computer scientists,<ref name=putnam_1995/> and philosophers,<ref name=mindpapers>{{cite web|url=http://consc.net/mindpapers/6.1b |title=MindPapers: 6.1b. Godelian arguments |publisher=Consc.net |access-date=2014-07-28}}</ref><ref name=lucas_criticisms>{{cite web|url=http://users.ox.ac.uk/~jrlucas/Godel/referenc.html |title=References for Criticisms of the Gödelian Argument |publisher=Users.ox.ac.uk |date=1999-07-10 |access-date=2014-07-28}}</ref><ref name=Boolos_1990/><ref name=martin_1993/><ref name=lewis_1969/> and the consensus among experts in these fields is that the argument fails,<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Bringsjord |first1=Selmer |last2=Xiao |first2=Hong |title=A refutation of Penrose's Gödelian case against artificial intelligence |journal=Journal of Experimental & Theoretical Artificial Intelligence |date=July 2000 |volume=12 |issue=3 |pages=307–329 |doi=10.1080/09528130050111455 |s2cid=5540500 |url=http://cogprints.org/553/3/pen.sel8.pdf }}</ref><ref>In an article at {{cite web |url=http://www.mth.kcl.ac.uk/~llandau/Homepage/Math/penrose.html |title=King's College London - Department of Mathematics |access-date=2010-10-22 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20010125011300/http://www.mth.kcl.ac.uk/~llandau/Homepage/Math/penrose.html |archive-date=2001-01-25 }} 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."</ref><ref name="Burgess">Princeton Philosophy professor John Burgess writes in ''[http://www.princeton.edu/~jburgess/Montreal.doc On the Outside Looking In: A Caution about Conservativeness]'' (published in Kurt Gödel: Essays for his Centennial, with the following comments found on [https://books.google.com/books?id=83Attf6BsJ4C&pg=PA131 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."</ref> with different authors attacking different aspects of the argument.<ref name="Burgess" /><ref>[[Nachum Dershowitz|Dershowitz, Nachum]] 2005. ''[http://www.cs.tau.ac.il/~nachumd/papers/FourSonsOfPenrose.pdf 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.</ref> [[Marvin Minsky|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.<ref>Marvin Minsky. "Conscious Machines." Machinery of Consciousness, Proceedings, National Research Council of Canada, 75th Anniversary Symposium on Science in Society, June 1991.</ref> [[Solomon Feferman|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.<ref name=solomon_1996/> |
|||
[[John Searle]] criticizes Penrose's appeal to Gödel as resting on the fallacy that all computational algorithms must be capable of mathematical description. As a counter-example, Searle cites the assignment of [[Vehicle registration plate|license plate number]]s to specific [[vehicle identification number]]s, in order to register a vehicle. According to Searle, no mathematical function can be used to connect a known VIN with its LPN, but the process of assignment is quite simple—namely, "first come, first served"—and can be performed entirely by a computer.<ref>Searle, John R. ''The Mystery of Consciousness''. 1997. ISBN 0-940322-06-4. pp 85–86.</ref> |
|||
==Orch OR== |
|||
Another critic, [[Charles Seife]], has said, "Penrose, the Oxford mathematician famous for his work on tiling the plane with various shapes, is one of a handful of scientists who believe that the ephemeral nature of consciousness suggests a quantum process."{{citation needed|date=May 2013}} |
|||
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 [[microtubule]]s within neurons were suitable candidate sites for quantum processing, and ultimately for consciousness.<ref name="Hameroff1982">{{cite journal |last1=Hameroff |first1=Stuart R. |last2=Watt |first2=Richard C. |title=Information processing in microtubules |journal=Journal of Theoretical Biology |date=October 1982 |volume=98 |issue=4 |pages=549–561 |doi=10.1016/0022-5193(82)90137-0 |pmid=6185798 |bibcode=1982JThBi..98..549H }}</ref><ref name="Hameroff1987">{{cite book |author=Hameroff, S.R. |title=Ultimate Computing |publisher=[[Elsevier]] |year=1987 |url=https://archive.org/details/ultimatecomputin00hame |isbn=978-0-444-70283-8 }}</ref> Throughout the 1990s, the two collaborated on the Orch OR theory, which Penrose published in ''[[Shadows of the Mind]]'' (1994).<ref name=Penrose1994/> |
|||
Hameroff's contribution to the theory derived from his study of the neural [[cytoskeleton]], and particularly on microtubules.<ref name=Hameroff1987/> 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.<ref name=Hameroff1987/> |
|||
==Objective reduction== |
|||
{{main|Penrose interpretation}} |
|||
If correct, the Penrose–Lucas argument creates a need to understand the physical basis of non-computational behaviour in the brain.{{citation needed|date=May 2013}} Most physical laws are computable, and thus algorithmic. However, Penrose determined that [[wave function collapse]] was a prime candidate for a non-computable process. |
|||
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. |
|||
In [[quantum mechanics]], particles are treated differently from the macroscopic objects of [[classical mechanics]]. Particles are described not by [[position (vector)|position vectors]], but by [[wave function]]s, which 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 an random eigenstate of the [[observable]] from a classical vantage point. |
|||
===Microtubule computation=== |
|||
If collapse is truly random, then there is no process or algorithm that 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{{citation needed|date=April 2012}} that isolated systems may still undergo a new form of [[wave function collapse]], which he calls objective reduction (OR). |
|||
[[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 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 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 |
|||
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 |authorlink=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=0-19-851973-7}}</ref><ref name= Penrose1994>{{Cite book |last=Penrose |first=Roger |authorlink=Roger Penrose |title=Shadows of the Mind: A Search for the Missing Science of Consciousness |publisher=Oxford University Press|year=1989 |page= 457 |isbn=0-19-853978-9}}</ref> He suggested that at the [[Planck scale]] curved [[spacetime]] is not continuous, but discretized. Penrose postulates 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 of the particle. The threshold for Penrose OR is given by his indeterminacy principle ''t'' = ''ħ''/''E'', where ''t'' is the time until OR occurs, ''E'' is the gravitational self-energy or the degree of spacetime separation given by the superpositioned mass, ''ħ'' is the [[reduced Planck constant]]. Thus, the greater the mass-energy of the object, the faster it will undergo OR, and vice versa. Atomic-level superpositions would require 10 million years to reach OR threshold, while an isolated 1 [[kilogram]] object would reach OR threshold in only 10<sup>−37</sup>s. However objects somewhere between these two scales could collapse on a timescale relevant to neural processing.{{fact|date=May 2013}} |
|||
|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 and Penrose contested the conclusion, considering that Reimers's microtubule model was oversimplified.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Hameroff |first=Stuart |last2=Penrose |first2=Roger |date=2014-03-01 |title=Consciousness in the universe: A review of the ‘Orch OR’ theory |url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1571064513001188 |journal=Physics of Life Reviews |volume=11 |issue=1 |pages=39–78 |doi=10.1016/j.plrev.2013.08.002 |issn=1571-0645|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 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> |
|||
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 completely algorithmically. Rather, states are selected by a "non-computable" influence embedded in the [[Planck]] scale of spacetime geometry. Penrose claims that such information is [[Platonism|Platonic]], representing pure mathematical truth, aesthetic, and ethical values at the Planck scale. This relates to Penrose's ideas concerning the three worlds: physical, mental, and the Platonic mathematical world. In his theory, the Platonic world corresponds to the geometry of fundamental spacetime that is claimed to support non-computational thinking.{{citation needed|date=May 2013}} |
|||
===Related experimental results=== |
|||
There is no evidence for Penrose's objective reduction, but the theory is considered testable, and plans exist to carry out a relevant experiment.<ref name="Marshall2003">{{cite journal |author=Marshall, W., Simon, C., Penrose, R., and Bouwmeester, D. |title=Towards quantum superpositions of a mirror |journal=Physical Review Letters |volume=91 |issue=13 |pages=130401 |year=2003 |pmid=14525288|arxiv=quant-ph/0210001 |doi=10.1103/PhysRevLett.91.130401 |bibcode=2003PhRvL..91m0401M}}</ref> |
|||
==== Superradiance ==== |
|||
==The creation of the Orch-OR model== |
|||
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 2024 study, superradiance was confirmed to occur in networks of [[tryptophan]]s, which are found in microtubules).<ref name=":0">{{cite web |date=April 29, 2024 |title=Ultraviolet superradiance from mega-networks of tryptophan in biological architectures |url=https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/1042789 |access-date=2024-10-03 |website=[[EurekAlert]]}}</ref><ref name=":1">{{Cite journal |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. |date=2024 |title=Ultraviolet Superradiance from Mega-Networks of Tryptophan in Biological Architectures |journal=The Journal of Physical Chemistry B |volume=128 |issue=17 |pages=4035–4046 |doi=10.1021/acs.jpcb.3c07936 |pmc=11075083 |pmid=38641327}}</ref> Tuszyński told ''New Scientist'' that "We're not at the level of interpreting this physiologically, saying 'Yeah, this is where consciousness begins,' but it may."<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=Futurism |publisher=Camden Media Inc}}</ref> |
|||
When he wrote his first consciousness book, ''The Emperor's New Mind'' in 1989, Penrose lacked a detailed proposal for how such quantum processes could be implemented in the brain. Subsequently, Hameroff read ''The Emperor's New Mind'' and suggested to Penrose that certain structures within brain cells (neurons) were suitable candidate sites for quantum processing and ultimately for consciousness.<ref name= "Hameroff1982">{{cite journal |doi=10.1016/0022-5193(82)90137-0 |author=Hameroff, S.R., and Watt, R.C. |title=Information processing in microtubules |journal=Journal of Theoretical Biology |volume=98 |issue=4 |pages=549–561 |year=1982 |url= http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/documents/informationprocessing_hameroff_000.pdf |pmid=6185798}}</ref><ref name="Hameroff1987">{{cite book |author=Hameroff, S.R. |title=Ultimate Computing |publisher=[[Elsevier]] |year= 1987 |url=http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/ultimatecomputing.html |isbn=0-444-70283-0}}</ref> The Orch-OR theory arose from the cooperation of these two scientists, and was developed in Penrose's second consciousness book ''[[Shadows of the Mind]]'' (1994).<ref name=Penrose1994/> |
|||
The 2024 study, called Ultraviolet Superradiance from Mega-Networks of Tryptophan in Biological Architectures and published in ''[[The Journal of Physical Chemistry]]'', confirmed superradiance in networks of tryptophans.<ref name=":0" /><ref name=":1" /> Large networks of tryptophans are a warm and noisy environment, in which quantum effects typically are not expected to take place.<ref name=":0" /> The results of the study were theoretically predicted and then experimentally confirmed by the researchers.<ref name=":0" /><ref name=":1" /> [[Majed Chergui]], who led the experimental team, stated that "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 physicist well-known for his work in the field of theoretical quantum optics, said "We will certainly be examining closely the implications for quantum effects in living systems for years to come."<ref name=":0" /> The study states that "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."<ref name=":1" /> |
|||
Hameroff's contribution to the theory derived from studying brain cells (neurons). His interest centered on the [[cytoskeleton]], which provides an internal supportive structure for neurons, and particularly on the [[microtubule]]s,<ref name=Hameroff1987/> which are the most important component of the cytoskeleton. 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.<ref name=Hameroff1987/> |
|||
===Microtubule |
==== Microtubule quantum vibration theory of anesthetic action ==== |
||
In an 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 |date=May 2022 |title=The Secret World in the Gaps between Brain Cells |journal=Physics Today |volume=75 |issue=5 |pages=26–32 |bibcode=2022PhT....75e..26N |doi=10.1063/PT.3.4999 |s2cid=248620292}}</ref> |
|||
Hameroff proposed that microtubules were suitable candidates for quantum processing.<ref name=Hameroff1987/> Microtubules are made up of [[tubulin]] [[protein]] subunits. The tubulin protein dimers of the microtubules have [[hydrophobic]] pockets which might 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 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 |authorlink=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 |url=http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/documents/Hameroff_received-1-05-07.pdf |year=2008 |publisher=World Scientific |pages=403–434 |accessdate=Jan 21, 2010}}</ref> During entanglement, particles' states become inseparably correlated. |
|||
At high concentrations (~5 [[Minimum alveolar concentration|MAC]]) the anesthetic gas [[halothane]] causes reversible depolymerization of microtubules.<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]]. (Neither Penrose or Hameroff 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>{{Cite web |last=Hameroff |first=Stuart |last2=Penrose |first2=Roger |date=1996 |title=Orchestrated Objective Reduction of Quantum Coherence in Brain Microtubules: The "Orch OR" Model for Consciousness |url=https://bigbangpage.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/orchestrated-objective-reduction-in-microtubuls...pdf |website=bigbangpage.com}}</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 |
|||
Hameroff originally suggested the tubulin-subunit electrons would form a [[Bose-Einstein condensate]], but this was discredited.<ref name="Penrose-Hameroff2011"/> He then proposed a Frohlich condensate, a hypothetical coherent oscillation of dipolar molecules. However, this too has been experimentally discredited.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Reimers|first=Jeffrey R.|coauthors=McKemmish, Laura K.; McKenzie, Ross H.; Mark, Alan E.; Hush, Noel S.|title=Weak, strong, and coherent regimes of Fröhlich condensation and their applications to terahertz medicine and quantum consciousness|journal=PNAS|date=17|year=2009|month=March|volume=106|issue=11|pages=4219-4224|doi=10.1073/pnas.0806273106|url=http://www.pnas.org/content/106/11/4219.full|accessdate=10 June 2013}}</ref> Hameroff suggested that such condensate behavior would magnify nanoscopic quantum effects to have large scale influences in the brain. |
|||
| last1 = Pan |
|||
| first1 = Jonathan Z. |
|||
| last2 = Xi |
|||
| first2 = Jin |
|||
| last3 = Tobias |
|||
| first3 = John W. |
|||
| last4 = Eckenhoff |
|||
| first4 = Maryellen F. |
|||
| last5 = Eckenhoff |
|||
| first5 = Roderic G. |
|||
| title = Halothane binding proteome in human brain cortex |
|||
| journal = Journal of Proteome Research |
|||
| volume = 6 |
|||
| number = 2 |
|||
| pages = 582–592 |
|||
| doi = 10.1021/pr060311u |
|||
| year = 2007 |
|||
| pmid = 17269715 |
|||
}}</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 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" /> |
|||
A highly disputed theory put forth in the mid-1990s by Hameroff and 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 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" /> |
|||
Hameroff 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}}</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 [[gamma wave]]s. Here, Hameroff built upon<ref>Specifically, he cites: |
|||
* {{cite journal |author=Buhl, D.L., Harris, K.D., Hormuzdi, S.G., Monyer, H., and Buzsaki, G. |title=Selective Impairment of Hippocampal Gamma Oscillations in Connexin-36 Knock-Out Mouse In Vivo |journal= Journal of Neuroscience |volume=23 |issue=3|pages=1013–1018 |year=2003 |pmid=12574431}} |
|||
* {{cite journal |doi=10.1016/S0165-0173(97)00031-3 |author=Dermietzel, R. |title=Gap junction wiring: a 'new' principle in cell-to-cell communication in the nervous system? |journal=Brain Research Reviews |volume=26 |issue=2–3 |pages=176–183 |year=1998 |pmid=9651521}} |
|||
* {{cite journal |doi=10.1038/28184 |author=Draguhn, A., Traub, R.D., Schmitz, D., and Jefferys, J.G.R. |title=Electrical coupling underlies high-frequency oscillations in the hippocampus in vitro |journal=Nature |volume=394 |issue=6689 |pages=189–192 |year=1998|pmid=9671303|bibcode = 1998Natur.394..189D }} |
|||
* {{cite journal |author=Fries, P., Schroder, J.-H., Roelfsema, P.R., Singer, W., and Engel, A.K. |title=Oscillatory Neuronal Synchronization in Primary Visual Cortex as a Correlate of Stimulus Selection |journal=Journal of Neuroscience |volume=22 |issue=9|pages=3739–3754 |year=2002 |pmid=11978850}} |
|||
* {{cite journal |doi=10.1038/47029 |author=Galarreta, M., and Hestrin, S. |title=A network of fast-spiking cells in the neocortex connected by electrical synapses |journal=Nature |volume=402 |issue=6757 |pages=72–75 |year=1999 |pmid=10573418|bibcode = 1999Natur.402...72G }} |
|||
* {{cite journal |doi=10.1038/47035 |author=Gibson, J.R., Beierlein, M., and Connors, B.W. |title=Two networks of electrically coupled inhibitory neurons in neocortex |journal=Nature |volume=402 |issue=6757 |pages=75–79 |year=1999 |pmid=10573419|bibcode = 1999Natur.402...75G }} |
|||
* {{cite journal |doi=10.1016/j.bbamem.2003.10.023 |author=Hormuzdi, S.G., Filippov, M.A., Mitropoulou, G., Monyer, H., and Bruzzone, R.|title=Electrical synapses: a dynamic signaling system that shapes the activity of neuronal networks |journal=Biochimica et Biophysica Acta |volume=1662 |issue=1–2 |pages=113–137 |year=2004 |pmid=15033583}} |
|||
* {{cite journal |doi=10.1016/j.brainresbull.2003.07.004 |author=LeBeau, F.E.N., Traub, R.D., Monyer, H., Whittington, M.A., and Buhl, E.H. |title=The role of electrical signaling via gap junctions in the generation of fast network oscillations |journal=Brain Research Bulletin |volume=62 |issue=1 |pages=3–13 |year=2003 |pmid=14596887}} |
|||
* {{cite journal |doi=10.1016/S0166-2236(99)01497-6 |author=Velazquez, J.L.P., and Carlen, P.L. |title=Gap junctions, synchrony and seizures |journal=Trends in Neurosciences |volume=23 |issue=2 |pages=68–74 |year=2000 |pmid=10652547}} |
|||
* {{cite journal |doi=10.1016/S0165-0173(99)00061-2 |author=Rozental, R., and de Carvalho, A.C.C. |title=Introduction |journal=Brain Research Reviews |volume=32 |issue=1 |pages=1–2 |year=2000 |pmid=10751650}}</ref> the much less controversial theory that gap junctions are related to the gamma oscillation.<ref name="Bennett&Zukin2004">{{cite journal |author=Bennett, M.V.L., and Zukin, R.S. |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}}</ref> |
|||
Another study that 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> |
|||
===Consequences=== |
|||
The Orch-OR theory combines the Penrose-Lucas argument with Hameroff's hypothesis on quantum processing in microtubules. Altogether, it proposes that when condensates in the brain undergo an objective reduction of their wave function, their collapse connects non-computational decision making to experiences embedded in the fundamental geometry of spacetime. |
|||
In a study published in August 2024, an undergraduate group led by a [[Wellesley College]] professor found that rats given [[Epothilone|epothilone B]], a drug that binds to microtubules, took over a minute longer to fall unconscious when exposed to an anesthetic gas.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2024-09-06 |title=Study Supports Quantum Basis of Consciousness in the Brain |url=https://neurosciencenews.com/quantum-process-consciousness-27624/ |access-date=2024-10-04 |website=Neuroscience News |language=en-US}}</ref> |
|||
The theory further proposes that the microtubules both influence and are influenced by the conventional activity at the synapses between neurons. The ''Orch'' in Orch-OR stands for orchestrated, where ''orchestration'' refers to the hypothetical process by which connective proteins, known as microtubule-associated proteins (MAPs) influence or orchestrate the quantum processing of the microtubules. |
|||
Further to this, in 1998, Hameroff made 20 testable predictions related to his proposal.<ref name="Hameroff1998">{{cite journal |author=Hameroff, S.R. |title=Quantum Computation In Brain Microtubules? The Penrose-Hameroff "Orch OR" model of consciousness |journal=Philosophical Transactions Royal Society London (A) |volume=356 |pages=1869–1896 |year=1998 |url=http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/penrose-hameroff/quantumcomputation.html}}</ref> However, most of these proposals have been falsified. The proposed predominance of 'A' lattice microtubules, more suitable for information processing, has been falsified by Kikkawa ''et al.'',<ref name="Kikkawa1994"/><ref name="Kikkawa2006"/> who showed that all in vivo microtubules have a 'B' lattice and a seam. The suggestion of coherent photons has been falsified, as has the existence of gap junctions between neurons and glial cells,<ref name="Binmöller 1992">{{cite journal |
|||
|author = F. J. Binmöller & C. M. Müller |
|||
|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 |
|||
}}</ref> and the proposal that photons do not decohere in the retina.<ref name="Georgiev2011">{{cite journal |author=Georgiev, D. |title=Photons do collapse in the retina not in the brain cortex: Evidence from visual illusions |journal=Neuroquantology |volume=9 |issue=2 |pages=206–231 |year=2011 |arxiv=quant-ph/0208053|bibcode = 2002quant.ph..8053G }}</ref> |
|||
==Criticism== |
==Criticism== |
||
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 [[neuroscientist]]s<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 |
|||
The main objection to Hameroff's hypothesis is that any quantum coherent system in the brain would undergo [[wave function collapse]] due to environmental interaction long before it could ever influence neural processes. [[Max Tegmark]] determined the decoherence timescale of microtubule entanglement to be extremely rapid.<ref name=Tegmark2000/> Tegmark developed a model for time to decoherence, and from this calculated that microtubule quantum states could exist, but would be sustained for only a [[femtosecond]]s (fs) timescale at brain temperatures, far too brief to be relevant to neural processing. Quantum decoherence in photosynthetic energy transfer has been recently observed to last for 660 fs<ref name="Engel2007">{{cite journal |doi= 10.1038/nature05678 |author= Engel, G.S., Calhoun, T.R., Read, E.L., Ahn, T.-K., Mancal, T., Cheng, Y.-C., Blankenship, R.E., and Fleming, G.R. |title=Evidence for wavelike energy transfer through quantum coherence in photosynthetic systems |journal=Nature |volume=446 |issue= 7137 |pages=782–786 |year=2007 |pmid= 17429397|bibcode = 2007Natur.446..782E }}</ref> rather than the 25 [[millisecond]]s required by Orch-OR, and this is compatible with Tegmark's calculations. More recent papers involving Guerreshi, G., Cia, J., Popescu, S. and Briegel, H.<ref name="Cai2010">{{cite journal |doi=10.1103/PhysRevE.82.021921 |last1=Cai |first1=J. |last2=Popescu |first2=S. |last3=Briegel |first3=H. |title=Persistent dynamic entanglement from classical motion: How bio-molecular machines can generate non-trivial quantum states |journal=Physical Review E |volume=82 |pages=021921 |arxiv = 0809.4906 |bibcode = 2010PhRvE..82b1921C }}</ref><ref name="Guerreschi2011">{{cite journal |arxiv=1111.2126vl |date=9 Nov 2011 |last1=Guerreschi |first1=G. |last2=Cai |first2=J. |last3=Popescu |first3=S. |last4=Briegel |first4=H. |title=Persistent dynamic entanglement for classical motion: How bio-molecular machines can generate non-trivial quantum states}}</ref> are looking to improve their model of entanglement in protein, a test which could falsify theories of non-trivial coherence or entanglement in protein. |
|||
| 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 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"/> |
|||
In response to Tegmark, physicists Scott Hagan, Jack Tuszynski and Hameroff<ref name="Hagan2002">{{cite journal |doi=10.1103/PhysRevE.65.061901 |author=Hagan, S., Hameroff, S., and Tuszyński, J. |title=Quantum Computation in Brain Microtubules? Decoherence and Biological Feasibility |journal=Physical Review E |volume=65 |pages=061901 |arxiv=quant-ph/0005025 |year=2002|bibcode = 2002PhRvE..65f1901H |issue=6 }}</ref><ref name="Hameroff2006b">{{Cite book |author=Hameroff, S. |contribution=Consciousness, Neurobiology and Quantum Mechanics |editor-last=Tuszynski |editor-first=Jack |title=The Emerging Physics of Consciousness |publisher=Springer |pages=193–253 |year=2006 |postscript=<!-- Bot inserted parameter. Either remove it; or change its value to "." for the cite to end in a ".", as necessary. -->{{inconsistent citations}}}}</ref> 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, but still well short of the 25 ms required if the quantum processing in the theory was to be linked to the 40 Hz gamma synchrony, as Orch-OR suggested. To bridge this gap, the group made a series of proposals. It was supposed that the interiors of neurons could alternate between [[liquid]] and [[gel]] states. In the gel state, it was further hypothesized that the water electrical dipoles are oriented in the same direction, along the outer edge of the microtubule tubulin subunits. |
|||
===Decoherence in living organisms=== |
|||
Hameroff et al. proposed that this ordered water could screen any quantum coherence within the tubulin of the microtubules from the environment of the rest of the brain. Each tubulin also has a negatively charged tail, which attracts positively charged ions. It is suggested that this could provide further screening. Also, they suggest that microtubules could be pumped into a coherent state by biochemical energy. Finally, it is suggested that the configuration of the microtubule lattice might be suitable for [[quantum error correction]], a means of resisting quantum decoherence. Others have suggested that microtubule coherence may reach the synapses via dendritic lamellar bodies, where it both influences synaptic firing, and is transmitted across the synaptic cleft to other neurons.<ref name="Georgiev2007"/><ref name="Georgiev2009a"/> |
|||
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).<ref name=Tegmark2000/> He determined the decoherence timescale of microtubule entanglement at brain temperatures to be on the order of [[femtosecond]]s, far too brief for neural processing. [[Christof Koch]] and [[Klaus Hepp]] also agreed that [[Coherence (physics)#Quantum coherence|quantum coherence]] does not play, or does not need to play any major role in [[neurophysiology]].<ref name=Koch2006/><ref name=Hepp2012/> 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'."<ref name=Koch2006/> |
|||
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 force|Debye]] layer of [[counterion]]s 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.<ref name="Hagan2002">{{cite journal|last1=Hagan|first1=S.|last2=Hameroff|first2=S. R.|last3=Tuszyński|first3=J. A.|year=2002|title=Quantum computation in brain microtubules: Decoherence and biological feasibility|journal=Physical Review E|volume=65|issue=6|pages=061901|arxiv=quant-ph/0005025|bibcode=2002PhRvE..65f1901H|doi=10.1103/PhysRevE.65.061901|pmid=12188753|s2cid=11707566}}</ref><ref name="Hameroff2006b">{{cite book |doi=10.1007/3-540-36723-3 |title=The Emerging Physics of Consciousness |series=The Frontiers Collection |year=2006 |bibcode=2006epc..book.....T |isbn=978-3-540-23890-4 |url=https://cds.cern.ch/record/1338905 |editor-last1=Tuszynski |editor-first1=Jack A |pages=193–253 }}</ref> |
|||
Several other criticisms have come to the fore over the years. Papers by Georgiev, D.<ref name="Georgiev2007"/><ref name="Georgiev2009a"/> point to a number of problems with Hameroff's proposals, including a lack of explanation for the probabilistic firing of axonal synapses, an error in the calculated number of the tubulin dimers per cortical neuron, and mismodelling of dendritic lamellar bodies (DLBs) discovered by De Zeeuw ''et al.'',<ref name="DeZeeuw1995">{{cite journal |author=De Zeeuw, C.I., Hertzberg, E.L., Mugnaini, E. |title=The dendritic lamellar body: A new neuronal organelle putatively associated with dendrodentritic gap junctions |journal=Journal of Neuroscience |volume=15 |issue=2 |pages=1587–1604 |year=1995 |pmid=7869120}}</ref> which showed that the DLBs are located micrometers away from gap junctions. Further Hameroff's hypothesis that cortical dendrites would be shown to contain mainly 'A' lattice microtubules was experimentally disproved by Kikkawa ''et al''<ref name="Kikkawa1994"/><ref name="Kikkawa2006"/> which showed that all in vivo microtubules have a 'B' lattice and a seam. |
|||
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 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" /> |
|||
Recently the debate has focused round papers by Reimers ''et al.'' <ref name="Reimers2009">{{cite journal |author=Reimers, J.R., McKemmish, L.K., McKenzie, R.H., Mark, A.E., and Hush, N.S. |title=Weak, strong, and coherent regimes of Fröhlich condensation and their applications to terahertz medicine and quantum consciousness |journal=Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences |volume=106 |pages=4219–4224 |year=2009 |doi=10.1073/pnas.0806273106 |pmid=19251667|bibcode = 2009PNAS..106.4219R |issue=11 |pmc=2657444 }}</ref> and McKemmish ''et al.'' <ref name=" McKemmish2009">{{cite journal |author=McKemmish, L.K., Reimers, J.R., McKenzie, R.H., Mark, A.E., and Hush, N.S. |title=Penrose-Hameroff orchestrated objective-reduction proposal for human consciousness is not biologically feasible |journal=Physical Review E |volume=80 |pages=021912–021916 |year=2009 |url=http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevE.80.021912 |doi= 10.1103/PhysRevE.80.021912|bibcode = 2009PhRvE..80b1912M |issue=2 }}</ref> and Hameroff's replies to these,<ref name= "Penrose-Hameroff2011">{{cite journal |
|||
|author= Roger Penrose & Stuart Hameroff |
|||
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> |
|||
|title= Consciousness in the Universe: Neuroscience, Quantum Space-Time Geometry and Orch OR Theory |
|||
|journal= Journal of Cosmology |
|||
===Neuroscience=== |
|||
|volume= 14 |
|||
{{further|Neuroscience}} |
|||
|issue= |
|||
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> |
|||
|pages= |
|||
|year= 2011 |
|||
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" /> |
|||
|url= http://journalofcosmology.com/Consciousness160.html |
|||
}}</ref> which is not regarded as being independently reviewed. The Reimers paper claimed that microtubules could only support 'weak' 8 MHz coherence, but that the Orch-OR proposals required a higher rate of coherence. Hameroff, however, claims that 8 MHz coherence is sufficient to support the Orch-OR proposal. McKemmish ''et al.'' makes two claims; firstly that aromatic molecules cannot switch states because they are delocalised. Hameroff, however, claims that he is referring to the behaviour of two or more electron clouds; secondly McKemmish shows that changes in tubulin conformation driven by GTP conversion would result in a prohibitive energy requirement. Against this, Hameroff claims that all that is required is switching in electron cloud dipole states produced by [[London force]]s. |
|||
==See also== |
==See also== |
||
{{cols}} |
|||
* [[Copenhagen interpretation]] |
|||
* [[Electromagnetic theories of consciousness]] |
* [[Electromagnetic theories of consciousness]] |
||
* [[Holonomic brain theory]] |
* [[Holonomic brain theory]] |
||
Line 105: | Line 117: | ||
* [[Quantum Aspects of Life|''Quantum Aspects of Life'' (book)]] |
* [[Quantum Aspects of Life|''Quantum Aspects of Life'' (book)]] |
||
* [[Quantum mind]] |
* [[Quantum mind]] |
||
* [[ |
* [[Quantum cognition]] |
||
{{colend}} |
|||
==References== |
==References== |
||
Line 111: | Line 124: | ||
==External links== |
==External links== |
||
* [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://online.kitp.ucsb.edu/plecture/penrose/ Roger Penrose (1999) Science and the Mind. Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics Public Lectures, May 12, 1999.] |
|||
* {{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}} |
|||
* [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}} |
|||
{{Consciousness}} |
|||
[[Category:Quantum mind]] |
[[Category:Quantum mind]] |
||
[[Category: |
[[Category:Quantum biology]] |
Latest revision as of 11:44, 5 November 2024
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 other 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
[edit]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
[edit]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
[edit]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.
Hameroff originally suggested in the fringe Journal of Cosmology that the tubulin-subunit electrons would form a Bose–Einstein condensate.[33] He then proposed a Frohlich condensate, a hypothetical coherent oscillation of dipolar molecules. However, this too was rejected by Reimers's group.[34] Hameroff and Penrose contested the conclusion, considering that Reimers's microtubule model was oversimplified.[35]
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.[36][37] 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.[38]
Related experimental results
[edit]Superradiance
[edit]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 2024 study, superradiance was confirmed to occur in networks of tryptophans, which are found in microtubules).[39][40] Tuszyński told New Scientist that "We're not at the level of interpreting this physiologically, saying 'Yeah, this is where consciousness begins,' but it may."[41]
The 2024 study, called Ultraviolet Superradiance from Mega-Networks of Tryptophan in Biological Architectures and published in The Journal of Physical Chemistry, confirmed superradiance in networks of tryptophans.[39][40] Large networks of tryptophans are a warm and noisy environment, in which quantum effects typically are not expected to take place.[39] The results of the study were theoretically predicted and then experimentally confirmed by the researchers.[39][40] Majed Chergui, who led the experimental team, stated that "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."[39] Marlan Scully, a physicist well-known for his work in the field of theoretical quantum optics, said "We will certainly be examining closely the implications for quantum effects in living systems for years to come."[39] The study states that "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."[40]
Microtubule quantum vibration theory of anesthetic action
[edit]In an 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]
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. (Neither Penrose or Hameroff 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]
A highly disputed theory put forth in the mid-1990s by Hameroff and 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 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]
In a study published in August 2024, an undergraduate group led by a Wellesley College professor found that rats given epothilone B, a drug that binds to microtubules, took over a minute longer to fall unconscious when exposed to an anesthetic gas.[53]
Criticism
[edit]Orch OR has been criticized both by physicists[14][54][34][55][56] and neuroscientists[57][58][59] 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."[60]
David Chalmers argues against quantum consciousness. He instead discusses how quantum mechanics may relate to dualistic consciousness.[61] Chalmers is skeptical that any new physics can resolve the hard problem of consciousness.[62][63][64] 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.[64]
Decoherence in living organisms
[edit]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.[65][66]
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.[54][34][55]
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.[67][68]
Neuroscience
[edit]Biology-based criticisms have been offered, including a lack of explanation for the probabilistic release of neurotransmitter from presynaptic axon terminals[69][70][71] and an error in the calculated number of the tubulin dimers per cortical neuron.[72]
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
[edit]References
[edit]- ^ 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.
- ^ 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.
- ^ 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.
- ^ 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.
- ^ 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.
- ^ 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.
- ^ 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.
- ^ Natalie Wolchover (31 October 2013). "Physicists Eye Quantum-Gravity Interface". Quanta Magazine (Article). Simons Foundation. Retrieved 19 March 2014.
- ^ 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.
- ^ 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.
- ^ a b Lewis, David (July 1969). "Lucas against Mechanism". Philosophy. 44 (169): 231–233. doi:10.1017/s0031819100024591. S2CID 170411423.
- ^ 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.
- ^ Putnam, Hilary (20 November 1994). "The Best of All Possible Brains?". The New York Times.
- ^ 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.
- ^ 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.
- ^ 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.
- ^ 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."
- ^ 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.
- ^ 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.
- ^ LaForte, Geoffrey, Patrick J. Hayes, and Kenneth M. Ford 1998.Why Gödel's Theorem Cannot Refute Computationalism. Artificial Intelligence, 104:265–286.
- ^ a b Feferman, Solomon (1996). "Penrose's Gödelian argument". Psyche. 2: 21–32. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.130.7027.
- ^ 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.
- ^ "MindPapers: 6.1b. Godelian arguments". Consc.net. Retrieved 28 July 2014.
- ^ "References for Criticisms of the Gödelian Argument". Users.ox.ac.uk. 10 July 1999. Retrieved 28 July 2014.
- ^ 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.
- ^ 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."
- ^ 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."
- ^ 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.
- ^ Marvin Minsky. "Conscious Machines." Machinery of Consciousness, Proceedings, National Research Council of Canada, 75th Anniversary Symposium on Science in Society, June 1991.
- ^ 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.
- ^ a b c d Hameroff, S.R. (1987). Ultimate Computing. Elsevier. ISBN 978-0-444-70283-8.
- ^ 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.
- ^ 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.
- ^ 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.
- ^ Hameroff, Stuart; Penrose, Roger (1 March 2014). "Consciousness in the universe: A review of the 'Orch OR' theory". Physics of Life Reviews. 11 (1): 39–78. doi:10.1016/j.plrev.2013.08.002. ISSN 1571-0645.
- ^ 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.
- ^ 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.
- ^ 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.
- ^ a b c d e f "Ultraviolet superradiance from mega-networks of tryptophan in biological architectures". EurekAlert. 29 April 2024. Retrieved 3 October 2024.
- ^ a b c d 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.
- ^ Tangermann, Victor (19 April 2022). "Experiment Suggests That Consciousness May Be Rooted in Quantum Physics". Futurism. Camden Media Inc. Retrieved 24 April 2022.
- ^ Lewton, Thomas (18 April 2022). "Quantum experiments add weight to a fringe theory of consciousness". New Scientist. Retrieved 23 April 2022.
- ^ 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.
- ^ 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.
- ^ 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.
- ^ Hameroff, Stuart; Penrose, Roger (1996). "Orchestrated Objective Reduction of Quantum Coherence in Brain Microtubules: The "Orch OR" Model for Consciousness" (PDF). bigbangpage.com.
- ^ 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.
- ^ 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.
- ^ 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.
- ^ 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.
- ^ 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.
- ^ 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.
- ^ "Study Supports Quantum Basis of Consciousness in the Brain". Neuroscience News. 6 September 2024. Retrieved 4 October 2024.
- ^ 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.
- ^ 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.
- ^ 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.
- ^ 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.
- ^ Georgiev, Danko D. (2017). Quantum Information and Consciousness: A Gentle Introduction. Boca Raton: CRC Press. p. 177. ISBN 9781138104488. OCLC 1003273264.
- ^ 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.
- ^ Churchland, Patricia S. "Brainshy: Non-Neural Theories of Conscious Experience" (PDF). Retrieved 3 March 2021.
- ^ Stephen P. Stich; Ted A. Warfield (15 April 2008). The Blackwell Guide to Philosophy of Mind. John Wiley & Sons. p. 126. ISBN 9780470998755.
- ^ David J. Chalmers (1995). "Facing Up to the Problem of Consciousness". Journal of Consciousness Studies. 2 (3): 200–219.
- ^ 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.
- ^ a b David Chalmers (1996). The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Fundamental Theory. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-510553-7.
- ^ 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.
- ^ 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.
- ^ "Collapsing a leading theory for the quantum origin of consciousness". phys.org. 13 June 2022.
- ^ 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.
- ^ 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.
- ^ 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.
- ^ 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.
- ^ 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.
External links
[edit]- Center for Consciousness Studies
- Hameroff's "Quantum Consciousness" site
- Hameroff, Stuart; Bandyopadhyay, Anirban; Lauretta, Dante (8 May 2024). "Consciousness came before life". Institute of Art and Ideas.
- Penrose, Roger (1999). "Science and the Mind". Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics Public Lectures.