How valid is Orch-OR model? Quantum affect brains?

In summary: Penrose has written extensively on the topic and has laid out his arguments in detail. Second, consciousness is not a problem that can be solved by science at this point. There is a lot of disagreement on how to go about solving it and no clear consensus. Third, if Orch-OR is false then it doesn't really matter whether or not you believe in free will; the model has nothing to say about that. Fourth, please start a new thread about Orch-OR if you have something specific to say about it; this one is already long enough.In summary, the Orch-OR model has been discredited and there is no evidence to support it.
  • #1
Boy@n
250
0
I have read several threads about Penrose-Hameroff Orch-OR model trying to explain (human) consciousness by processes within microtubules (brains stuff) using quantum interpretation.

I only saw beliefs and opinions, but no strong argument, less so evidence, for or against Orch-OR...

I am inclined to think this is worthy to investigate further on, even if most of the current scientists are not fond on this (simple) idea.

Can anyone point me to serious article/discussion regarding this?

Your personal view interests me too.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Biology news on Phys.org
  • #2
The Orch-OR model has pretty much been discredited. If you check the wikipedia entry you will find explanations and links to studies that have shown its premises and conclusions to be false. The most relevant passage is the final one;
wikipedia said:
Orch OR is no longer considered a good candidate for a quantum source of consciousness. In 2009, Jeffrey Reimers et al. showed that coherent Fröhlich condensates, the states Hameroff and Penrose implicated as the basis of Orch OR, could not exist in biological tissue. They found that coherent Fröhlich condensates of the sort required by Orch OR would require temperatures of between several thousand to several million kelvins, an environment not possible in biological tissue. If the energy required to keep the oscillators in a coherent state for the required 500 ms came from a chemical source, it would require the energy equivalent of a C-C bond being formed or broken every picosecond. The GTP mechanism proposed by Hameroff and Penrose would require the hydrolysis to GDP of approximately 4 or 5 GTP molecules every picosecond, a phenomenon that does not appear to occur in biological systems.
EDIT: Also note that this thread does not conform to the philosophy guideline rules (they are right there at the top of the philosophy forum). Due to this the thread has been moved to Biology and the free will question removed. Please read the discussions that have already occurred regarding the latter topic and if you think you have something separate to say start a new thread along those lines in the correct (i.e. rule abiding) manner. Please do not try to include Orch-OR until you have learned about it.
 
Last edited:
  • #3
My main point was connecting the ideas of free-will and Orch OR model, and I'd say that discussing free-will shall stay a philosophical question for some time.

It is quite obvious that we have a great model of micro-cosmo (quantum mechanics, where common logic fails) and macro-cosmo (classical model, where logic seems natural and highest truth of known reality), yet we aren't able to connect the two well, and here is where Orch OR stepped in. It might be false, but it also might just be incomplete...

I don't believe that Penrose would spend years of dedicated thinking and in writing three books on something which would be so far away from the truth.

Anyway, if known physical and biological truths can explain consciousness then why don't we see a simplest of life forms which would be made in a laboratory? And if we once achieve that, will we ever be able to make a self-aware robots?

Orch OR says nope, while leading AI scientists says yes, by claiming consciousness can be perfectly explained by current science, while not giving us anything real to base that belief on.
 
  • #4
Boy@n said:
My main point was connecting the ideas of free-will and Orch OR model, and I'd say that discussing free-will shall stay a philosophical question for some time.
And as I said there have already been many discussions regarding free will that you should familiarise yourself with first. Also if you do not understand Orch-OR or any of the science involved how can you possibly hope to have a good discussion of it?
Boy@n said:
It is quite obvious that we have a great modelof micro-cosmo (quantum mechanics, where common logic fails) and macro-cosmo (classical model, where logic seems natural and highest truth of known reality), yet we aren't able to connect the two well, and here is where Orch OR stepped in. It might be false, but it also might just be incomplete...
It's hard to see how you could class a flawed theory as "incomplete". Its very premise has been shown to be untenable; it requires huge energies and temperatures that do not and cannot occur in biology. You are being highly unscientific here; the case for Orch-OR has not been made and you cannot get around that by just assumption that it is incomplete.

Nether-the-less consciousness is an active area of research and there are many different groups working towards solving the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness" . If you are interested you should read up on this before latching on to a theory that has been mostly discredited.
Boy@n said:
I don't believe that Penrose would spend years of dedicated thinking and in writing three books on something which would be so far away from the truth.
First things first; get rid of this notion of "truth". Science works on data and predictive models to explain said data. And seriously, you can't believe that someone would spend years dedicated to a personal theory that doesn't comply with what we know? Billions of people do that daily.
Boy@n said:
Anyway, if known physical and biological truths can explain consciousness then why don't we see a simplest of life forms which would be made in a laboratory? And if we once achieve that, will we ever be able to make a self-aware robots?
We cannot explain consciousness yet; see the hard problem of consciousness link above.
Boy@n said:
Orch OR says nope, while leading AI scientists says yes, by claiming consciousness can be perfectly explained by current science, while not giving us anything real to base that belief on.
No one has said this. At the most they may say that there is currently no reason to think that anything but classical physics is needed to produce consciousness and that quantum effects play no special role.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #5
Just when I'm starting to tackle another topic here comes an issue regarding consciousness.:biggrin: Very fast reponse and brief comment before my guests arrive for dinner and kids knock at the door for Halloween! Update on October 27, 2011 from the U.S. National Library of Medicine – U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and National Institutes of Health said , “If you've ever fainted, you are not alone - at least one third of people faint sometime in their lives. Fainting is a temporary loss of consciousness. You lose muscle control at the same time, and may fall down. Most people recover quickly and completely. . . Some causes of fainting include heat or dehydration, Emotional distress, Standing up too quickly, Certain medicines, Drop in blood sugar, Heart problems . . ." http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/fainting.html
I don't consider those causes to be a 'quantum affect that pertains to the brain'.
 

1. What is the Orch-OR model?

The Orch-OR (Orchestrated Objective Reduction) model is a scientific theory proposed by neuroscientist Stuart Hameroff and physicist Roger Penrose. It suggests that consciousness arises from quantum processes in the microtubules of neurons in the brain.

2. What evidence supports the validity of the Orch-OR model?

The Orch-OR model is based on a combination of quantum theory, neuroscience, and philosophy. Supporters of this model point to various experiments and observations, such as the discovery of microtubules in neurons and the phenomenon of quantum entanglement, as evidence for its validity.

3. How does quantum mechanics affect the brain?

The Orch-OR model proposes that quantum mechanics plays a crucial role in the functioning of the brain and the emergence of consciousness. It suggests that quantum processes in the microtubules of neurons are responsible for the integration and organization of information in the brain, leading to conscious experience.

4. What criticisms have been raised against the Orch-OR model?

Critics of the Orch-OR model argue that it is a highly speculative and unproven theory. They point out that the proposed quantum processes in the brain have not been observed and that the model does not fully account for the complexity of consciousness and the brain.

5. Is the Orch-OR model widely accepted in the scientific community?

The Orch-OR model is a controversial theory and is not widely accepted in the scientific community. While it has gained some support, many scientists remain skeptical and believe that more evidence is needed to validate the model. Further research and experimentation are necessary to fully understand the role of quantum mechanics in the brain and consciousness.

Similar threads

Replies
10
Views
11K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
25
Views
997
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
4
Views
976
  • Biology and Medical
Replies
1
Views
820
Replies
14
Views
896
Replies
2
Views
214
Replies
13
Views
7K
Replies
4
Views
3K
Back
Top