Microtubules in the brain are supercomputers.

  • Context: Medical 
  • Thread starter Thread starter kaeksen
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Brain
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the hypothesis that microtubules in the brain function as supercomputers, a concept associated with Stuart Hameroff and Roger Penrose. Participants explore the implications of this idea within the context of neurophysiology, consciousness, and the necessity of quantum effects in brain function.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express skepticism about the Hameroff-Penrose model, arguing that classical physics can explain brain function without the need for quantum mechanics.
  • Concerns are raised regarding the ability of the brain's warm and wet environment to sustain quantum superpositions, which are posited as necessary for quantum computing.
  • A participant references a recent article discussing quantum effects in bird brains, suggesting it may have relevance to the Orch OR model, despite the lack of links to support claims.
  • There is a discussion about the implications of using the term "belief" in scientific discourse, with some arguing that it suggests dogmatism rather than a foundation based on data.
  • Some participants question the necessity of invoking non-classical physics in explaining consciousness, suggesting that it may be a new-age perspective rather than a scientifically grounded one.
  • Concerns are raised about the credibility of the Hameroff-Penrose thesis, with some participants noting that no major figures in related disciplines appear to support it.
  • There is an acknowledgment that scientific understanding is tentative and that new discoveries could potentially alter current views.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally express disagreement regarding the validity of the Hameroff-Penrose model, with multiple competing views on the necessity and role of quantum effects in brain function. The discussion remains unresolved, with no consensus reached.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the absence of adequate definitions of consciousness and the lack of evidence supporting the claims made by proponents of the quantum consciousness model. There are also references to the potential for new discoveries to change the current understanding of the topic.

kaeksen
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
Atleast if you ask Stuart Hameroff et al.
How possible do you guys think this is?
No links please, I am after your personal opinions here :)
 
Biology news on Phys.org
No links? OK. As far as I know there's nothing known in neurophysiology that can't be explained with classical physics nor is anything anticipated. That seems to be the opinion of nearly all, if not all, neuroscientists (of which I am not one). The Hameroff-Penrose idea requires non-classical physics. The brain is too warm and wet to allow quantum superposition for any length of time; such superpositions being required for a quantum computer. A classical "supercomputer" of the size contemplated seems to be out of the question. Also, as I said, no one in the field believes it's necessary to explain brain function.
 
Last edited:
That the brain is too warm and wet to maintain quantum superpositions for any length of time has been one of the main arguments against the Orch OR model of consciousness. However, there was an article several months ago on this site about the discovery of quantum effects in bird brains which had something to do with magnetism and navigation. I believe this has relevance to the Orch OR model. Wish I could find the article, but then again, you wanted no links.
 
This sounds like Penrose's The Emperor's New Mind.
 
The Emperor's New Mind, and his later, more thoroughly developed ideas in Shadows of the Mind.
 
Im not an expert in this field and without links it is going to be hard. In my opinion the idea is not supported by evidence and yet the fact the claims are still be made makes me wary (as I am of any scientist who espouses a controversial idea with little evidence). As far as I can recall many propositions of the model have been shown to be wrong.

Regardless we do not have an adequate definition of consciousness no has it ever been shown that non-quantum effects cannot produce conscious behaviour. I fail to see why quantum effects need to be bought into the field at all. It seems a bit new-age to me but supplanting mystic souls with quantum magic
 
SW VandeCarr said:
No links? OK. As far as I know there's nothing known in neurophysiology that can't be explained with classical physics nor is anything anticipated. That seems to be the opinion of nearly all, if not all, neuroscientists (of which I am not one). The Hameroff-Penrose idea requires non-classical physics. The brain is too warm and wet to allow quantum superposition for any length of time; such superpositions being required for a quantum computer. A classical "supercomputer" of the size contemplated seems to be out of the question. Also, as I said, no one in the field believes it's necessary to explain brain function.

Belief is a very odd word in this context. Sounds rather dogmatic for scientists hold that sort of opinion. I am not saying they're wrong - I tend to agree - but "belief" in science implies either a theoretical foundation well justified by the data, or a hypothesis being tested to become such a "belief". Operationally a hypothesis is "believed" and the consequences worked out, then tested against the data. Very transient beliefs result.
 
qraal said:
Belief is a very odd word in this context. Sounds rather dogmatic for scientists hold that sort of opinion. I am not saying they're wrong - I tend to agree - but "belief" in science implies either a theoretical foundation well justified by the data, or a hypothesis being tested to become such a "belief". Operationally a hypothesis is "believed" and the consequences worked out, then tested against the data. Very transient beliefs result.

In this case, I think it's an Occam's Razor issue. It hasn't been shown there's a need to invoke non-classical physics. Hameroff is an anesthesiologist and Penrose is of course a world renown mathematician. There may be a certain amount of "turf" consciousness on the part of neuroscientists involved, but the term "crackpot" is being tossed around for those who write or speak about non-classical physics in brain science. As far as I know, no major figures in any related discipline have indicated any support for the H-P thesis. But science is always tentative even if certain individuals tend to be dogmatic. A new discovery tomorrow might change the whole situation such as the recent talk about bird brains (no pun intended).
 
Last edited:
SW VandeCarr said:
A new discovery tomorrow might change the whole situation such as the recent talk about bird brains (no pun intended).

Very true, though they would still be crackpots if they made a conclusion without acceptable evidence. Even if it was proved correct later
 

Similar threads

Epothilone B study connected to 'Hard Problem of Consciousness' Model
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
Undergrad Prof Mike Wiest's proposed link between quantum and consciousness
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
Contradictory statements made by two different professors about IQ scores
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
4K
How valid is Orch-OR model? Quantum affect brains?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
9K
Human body growth in the absence of a brain
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Sex Differences in Adolescent Brain Development & Depression Risk
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
Questions about the book "Why we sleep?"
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
Maximizing Brain Health: Effective Exercises for Memory and Mental Fitness
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
EM field of cell, microtubules, quantum behavior in biological systems
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
8K
Medical What Causes the Human Brain to Believe in Fictional Phenomena?
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K