Medical Microtubules in the brain are supercomputers.

[kaeksen]

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 :)

 

[SW VandeCarr]

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.

 

[stevenstritt]

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.

 

[Borek]

This sounds like Penrose's The Emperor's New Mind.

 

[stevenstritt]

The Emperor's New Mind, and his later, more thoroughly developed ideas in Shadows of the Mind.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

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

 

[qraal]

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.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

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).

 

[Ryan_m_b]

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