Inasmuch as I don’t want to discredit any theory without proof of their wrongness, this is so out there it’s a bit fantastical. More importantly it seems like a

Inasmuch as I don’t want to discredit any theory without proof of their wrongness, this is so out there it’s a bit fantastical. More importantly it seems like a solution in search of a problem. As one philosopher is quoted in the criticism section of the Wikipedia article on this theory: “ Pixie dust in the synapses is about as explanatorily powerful as quantum coherence in the microtubules.” I’m not going to say Penrose should stick to stuff he knows about; after all schrodingers hypothesis about life were prescient and chilling to read even today. But if some dudes gonna make theories about things he’s not an expert in, he better make sure it’s at least slightly warranted and a bit more rigorous. The other issue is that confluence of two disparate fields Always attracts cooky theories like this because no expert in the individual field (at least the good ones) would feel qualified to comment about the other field they have limited knowledge about, so there’s a vanishingly small number of people who can mount a real defense against this. Fields like quantum consciousness, longevity research and crypto are further fueled by stoners who think they’ve figured out the universe because they had an acid trip. So it’s even more of a futile exercise to try and correct these people. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orchestrated_objective_reduction https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orchestrated_objective_reduc...