10 ms·

Quantum Vibrations Inside Brain Corroborate 20-Year-Old Theory of Consciousness

60 points by wikiburner 13y ago

thirdtruck 13y ago
> They will engage skeptics in a debate on the nature of consciousness, and Bandyopadhyay and his team will couple microtubule vibrations from active neurons to play Indian musical instruments. “Consciousness depends on anharmonic vibrations of microtubules inside neurons, similar to certain kinds of Indian music, but unlike Western music, which is harmonic,” Hameroff explains. Did they really posit a connection between quantum and sonic vibrations (a huge and "woo-woo-y" leap) in the context of consciousness? > “The origin of consciousness reflects our place in the universe, the nature of our existence. Did consciousness evolve from complex computations among brain neurons, as most scientists assert? Or has consciousness, in some sense, been here all along, as spiritual approaches maintain?” ask Hameroff and Penrose in the current review. And they're suggesting that consciousness is intrinsic to quantum systems? I think I missed some of the connections between the two. For that matter, I'm still of a position that the very idea of "consciousness" is an artifact of the brain's anthropocentric and self-image-preserving post ergo hoc systems, as opposed to anything concrete. Compare it to software: we "see" operating systems, drivers, apps, and the like, but those are all labels of our invention. It's ultimately nothing but ones and zeros.
- omarchowdhury 13y ago
  Way to conflate the qualitative into the quantitative, the mark of materialism.
  - jessaustin 13y ago
    More details, please.
    - omarchowdhury 13y ago
      http://www.academia.edu/882409/The_Reign_of_Quantity_and_Signs_of_the_Times_Rene_Guenon http://www.academia.edu/882409/The_Reign_of_Quantity_and_Sig...
      - thirdtruck 13y ago
        I don't always cite "tl;dr". But when I do, it's in regards to over 300 pages of half-century-old metaphysical text. But on a more serious note, is a more concise counter-argument available, one that takes the latest discoveries of neuroscience into account? And if I see any appeals to consequences in the explanation, I won't bother reading more of it.
  - thirdtruck 13y ago
    You have correctly identified my position. Congratulations? I assume there's a larger discussion about the challenge of disambiguating quora et al from neurological heuristics embedded in that observation.
- selimthegrim 13y ago
  Really, raags as molecular vibrations? Now I've heard it all. Which wavelength is thumri? At the risk of a terrible pun, as they say in Hindi, "Whose raag are they chanting to (alaapna)"? Anharmonic in this sense does not mean "pentatonic scale" (or 6 or 12 tones). Anharmonic means I add a perturbation term to the harmonic oscillator and my sums over oscillator strengths end up evaluating differently. It is a common beginning exercise in QM and QFT to calculate anharmonic corrections for simple cases like phi^4 [1][2] [1] http://www.kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~kyodo/kokyuroku/contents/pdf/0968-4.pdf http://www.kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~kyodo/kokyuroku/contents/pd... [2] http://books.google.com/books?id=AeOaij02QcwC&pg=PA57&lpg=PA57&dq=C.M.Bender+and+T.T.Wu&source=bl&ots=I5IWTzPUNZ&sig=N_mTXQbtLsiNZsuKq3dXHvTnW9M&hl=en&sa=X&ei=du_ZUsy6EcaxoQTR2IHQDg&ved=0CFkQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=C.M.Bender%20and%20T.T.Wu&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=AeOaij02QcwC&pg=PA57&lpg=PA...
codex 13y ago
Penrose has for years been advocating against strong AI, instead arguing that there "magic stuff" in the brain that prevents conciousness from arising in a machine. Great mathematician, but totally off his rocker here, which is outside his field. His arguments make no sense. Someone spewing his quackery without his credentials would be laughed out of the room.
- jblow 13y ago
  The only scientific viewpoint is that we do not know whether or not strong AI is possible. Materialists think it probably is, since they can't see any reason why not. But we don't understand intelligence so we don't know if we are missing something. Meanwhile, there are plenty of reasonable reasons not to be a materialist. As a meta-comment, I find the condescension in your comment unnecessary. Why is he "spewing" and why is it "quackery"? Did he not publish a testable, falsifiable theory? Isn't that what science is?
  - anaphor 13y ago
    "Strong AI" is completely meaningless. Strong AI = whatever isn't human basically. The actual argument that "Strong AI" is meant to support is this: You can't create a Strong AI because Strong AIs can only exist in intelligent beings and computers aren't intelligent, therefore computer scientists are wasting their time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room
    - Ygg2 13y ago
      I don't get it. Strong AI is just a model of the mind that is indistinguishable or better than the original model. Think of it this way. If you were to do a double scale, full 3D model of earth, with all pieces intact wouldn't it just be a bigger earth on which you could live and do stuff?
- undoware 13y ago
  yes. And yet here, for the first time, is evidence he might have been right. This is where we all look at our shoes and mutter something about burdens of proof. Note that it is still possible to describe consciousness as a computer -- it just has to be a quantum one. I find a lot of us techies relax around strong materialist positions (Penrose, Churchland, Searle) once you have coerced your interlocutor into admitting that there is no way of proving that there isn't an abstract(able) substrate. We can probably all agree that my Core i7 is not a mind. The disagreement amounts to whether or not a computing substrate of which all the relevant components have tidy classical explanations can be a mind, and after reading this, my fence-sitting on that issue is done. Without a single example of a functioning classical-mechanical mind, and strong evidence that quantum effects are nurtured within the brain, it would appear the magical-thinking quantum-worshipping nonsense-spouting materialist weirdos have it this time. Dammit.
transfire 13y ago
Just b/c there is quantum activity in the microtubules doesn't mean that is the seat of consciousness. When you get down to it, the whole body is a quantum system. So I really find this off base.
- jblow 13y ago
  Well wait a minute. They predicted "there is quantum activity in the microtubules". Almost everyone said "you are crazy, that's impossible". If it turns out indeed that there is, then this was a successful scientific prediction, in the style of predicting the structure of DNA or the existence of the neutrino. You are right, it doesn't mean that this is the seat of consciousness, but it doesn't mean it isn't, either. Further investigation would be required. But saying it's "off base" just because you don't like the thesis is exactly the opposite of what science is supposed to be. It is scientism, not science.
  - magicalist 13y ago
    > Almost everyone said "you are crazy, that's impossible" according to the article's narrative, at least... > You are right, it doesn't mean that this is the seat of consciousness, but it doesn't mean it isn't, either. Further investigation would be required True. But it could also of course be His Noodly Appendage at work in each of those microtubules. Extraordinary claims, extraordinary evidence, etc. I think what the GP was objecting to was that there's no more reason to jump to the article's conclusion than an infinite number of other conclusions based on the evidence at hand, and it's sloppy science to imply otherwise.
    - jblow 13y ago
      Untrue, because the reason the microtubule coherence was posited in the first place, at all, was as an origin of consciousness. There wasn't another reason to presuppose it. So the fact that the activity exists does have information content with respect to the central thesis. It certainly doesn't prove it, but it moves the needle. Analogy: Suppose the Earth is covered with clouds and we have never seen the sky, we have not invented space ships yet, etc. Nobody knows why tides happen. Someday someone predicts there is a GIANT rock orbiting the Earth not too far away, and everyone says that is crazy. But eventually you send a rocket up with a camera, and you see this giant rock there! Whoa. Since the tides caused you to look for the rock, and you found the rock, you have reason to suspect the rock does cause the tides. Maybe it doesn't -- further verification is required. But the big rock is evidence, it moves the needle. That is what science is, is making testable predictions and then testing them and then letting the results of those tests help you understand what is going on in the world. Invoking the FSM or discounting evidence, because it doesn't match preconceived notions, is in fact the kind of thing that is the bane of science and always looks embarrassing / shameful in retrospect. I would hope that people at HN understand science well enough to see this pattern and not participate. P.S. Re the "according to the article's narrative" snipe, uhh, some of us have been following this issue since the 90s when the idea was proposed. "You guys are crazy" is an accurate description of the majority consensus.
nyan_sandwich 13y ago
>quantum >vibrations >consciousness Reverend Bayes says 99% probability of quackery.
abalone 13y ago
Anytime you hear the word "consciousness" in the field of neuroscience, expect a barrage of pseudo-scientific sloppy reasoning to follow. Even if there are quantum effects involved in the operation of the brain, or any other organ of the body, the idea that they are responsible for this thing called "consciousness" anymore than action potentials or chemical messengers is a gigantic, unsupported assumption. More likely the words "quantum" and "microtubule vibrations" sounds sufficiently mysterious to appeal to the casual reader's dualist bias. A proper scientific study into "X", whether X be consciousness or anything else, would begin by defining it concretely.
- thirdtruck 13y ago
  "Consciousness of the gaps", to summarize.
username223 13y ago
Why am I not surprised that this involves microtubules? Kurzweil meets Penrose meets Indian mysticism -- it's hard to imagine a denser nexus of consciousness-related quackery.
- vixen99 13y ago
  I suppose there's nothing like argument-free abuse to feel you've wrapped up a subject and feel a wee bit superior to it all especially when the proponents are persons of undisputed attainment in their respective fields.
  - username223 13y ago
    You may or may not be aware that the study of consciousness attracts an amazing number of quacks and loonies. Penrose may be a good physicist, but that has very little to do with his credibility on neuroscience. If you want to read smart things about consciousness, look to people who study actual brains; Mike Gazzaniga was one of the better ones, at least 10 years ago. EDIT: also Patricia Churchland, who comes at it as a philosopher, but takes the time to learn the neurology.
mgraczyk 13y ago
I'm generally very skeptical of authors or papers that make claims about "quantum processes" and consciousness because they are generally written by people who know very little about neurology and even less about quantum physics. Ask them about quantum entanglement, and you'll generally get a misguided interpretation based on a decades old mistake in reasoning that has long since been corrected [1][2]. However, I decided to give this paper a try not because I expected there to be any actual content, but just to see why otherwise intelligent people would be drawn to what I consider to be obvious pseudoscience. I didn't read the whole thing, but from what I know of quantum mechanics and QFT (standard undergraduate course load) I didn't see anything wildly misguided. This tells me that one of two things are true. 1. This paper describes a legitimate link between a non-classical process occurring in the brain that may "cause" consciousness. I do not know enough about the brain to rigorously evaluate the claims. 2 (more likely). Quantum physics is hard, even for scientists. Neither of the paper's author's are physicists, and neither have done any _recent_ meaningful work in any subfield of physics. I would expect that groundbreaking work in physics would require ideas beyond an undergraduate level, but I did not see any physics in the paper I didn't understand. It looks like at the very least, there is room for a false positive. What I mean by "false positive" is that sometimes not about A will cause you to reason that Q->C even when the truth is A->Q and A->C (correlation does not imply causation...). For example, it could be that the electrical signals of the brain that cause consciousnes + quantum effect, but if the same signals were running through a semiconductor we would instead see a different quantum effect (depletion zones, electron holes...). If our brains were made of 5nm CMOS transistors, a non-physicist might see quantum tunneling and conclude that it somehow caused consciousness. I think the most important thing for non-physicists like me to remember about papers like this is that although sometimes scientists make important discoveries outside their fields we should allow specialists in the area to evaluate the non-physicists claims before believing them ourselves. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mysticism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mysticism [2] http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/76036/how-does-qft-help-with-entanglement http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/76036/how-does-qf... EDIT Penrose did important work on the nature of black holes ~40 years ago. At one point in time he was a real physicist.
- carbocation 13y ago
brudgers 13y ago
I read the headline. I thought "Penrose." I clicked the link. I thought "Yep". In some respects, the internet never changes. If only there was quantum corroboration for objectivism.
dzhiurgis 13y ago
They mention that anaesthesia targets microtubules, hence stopping quantum process. Anyone else wondering whether psychedelics enhance quantum processes (although I remember reading that LSD mechanism of action breaks links between neurons).
- dnautics 13y ago
  LSD's first-order mechanism is known, like all tryptamines it's a 5HT receptor binder. It's a fairly complicated tryptamine, though, what is more bizarre is that for simple tryptamines there are incredibly complex differences in effect for small changes in the molecule, and the rationale for 'second-order' differences in pschedelicity is generally unknown. There are some hand-wavey explanations about differential binding for different 5HT receptor classes with different prevalences in different parts of the brain. (I would strongly recommend reading TIHKAL/PIHKAL if you're interested, to get an idea of what I'm talking about). In general, though, tryptamines effects (including LSD) are unlikely to involve microtubules, since they are charged, water soluble and don't cross inside the neurons (where microtubules are) so easily. I would also generally posit that visual hallucinogens do not generally require MT/Quantum 'involvement'. The visual cortex is incredibly well-characterized, and relative to the rest of the brain well-understood in the absence of a strong MT hypothesis. Moreover, visual cortex-like applications are very amenable to neural network solutions in silico (e.g. ocr) and these ANNs also don't require a strong MT hypothesis.
pavelrub 13y ago
Currently 90% of the comments here are meaningless guesses and opinions written by people who haven't read anything and/or know nothing about the mentioned theory, the new findings or the physics involved. I wish there was somebody here who have actually read the mentioned papers, knows something about the relevant physics, is aware of the prior criticism of Orch-OR, and can say what, if anything, the new findings mean for Orch-OR and for its critics.
- waterlesscloud 13y ago
  The comments on this story make me seriously consider abandoning HN altogether.
benched 13y ago
No matter how many words people spend on writing about consciousness, not once have I ever seen anyone say anything revealing about consciousness. (And yes, I have read all the usual suspects.)
- slurry 13y ago
  I find a good initial test of writings about consciousness is to ask "would Ray Kurzweil or his website get excited about this?" If the answer is no - perhaps the material is too dry, language-oriented, technical (in a non-sexy field), or cynical to be exciting - it is probably worth reading. Like, off the top of my head, Kant or Hume. Plenty of contemporary people working away thanklessly as well, probably, too; but it's not my field. But even then, it more likely qualifies as "useful" rather than "revealing". Because there are no big easy-to-grasp-and-broadcast flashes of blinding insight. In the field of consciousness or any other.
shoyer 13y ago
I recently finished my physics PhD focused on quantum effects in photosynthesis, and I saw Hameroff and Bandyopadhyay's talks at Google's "Quantum Biology" workshop back in 2010. These guys live in a bizarre alternate universe where a number of legitimate experimental results and calculations based on real physics add up to striking conclusions with no basis in reality. They are happy to combined many random factoids -- anything that vaguely supports their ideas -- and pretend that the combination is convincing evidence. For example, the authors hypothesize that the spin of magnetic dipoles could be quantum bits used for information processing in microtubules. As support, they cite experimental evidence for resonances in electrical conductance in microtubules at certain RF frequencies. But coherent motion of electrons is a totally different physical phenomena than coherent spin. The most amazing thing to me is that these guys do manage to operate in their own parallel academic universe, with their own journals, conferences and (most frighteningly) funding. As I found out at the Google workshop (which had been basically hijacked by these guys), the Air Force Office of Scientific Research (AFOSR) has been funding this fellow Bandyopadhyay's experiments that, at the Google conference, he was touting as "experimental evidence for a topological quantum computing in the brain." An AFOSR officer I talked to was very proud about this project. In my view this is basically a criminal misuse of US taxpayer money (probably 100k/year).
- selimthegrim 13y ago
  No offense, but wasn't your advisor on the FMO complex coherence train for the longest time before they found another chromophore[1] that rendered many coherence projections spurious? [1]http://condensedconcepts.blogspot.com/2012/07/details-do-matter-in-photosynthesis.html?m=1 http://condensedconcepts.blogspot.com/2012/07/details-do-mat...
  - shoyer 13y ago
    There has been plenty of hype about quantum coherence in photosynthesis, too, which I have played a part in debunking [1]. It is clear (in my opinion) that quantum coherent motion not play a large role in energy transfer in photosynthesis, but I think the jury is still out on whether or not it plays a small role or none at all. Part of the answer may depend on how "coherence" is defined. I do have a number of objections to the conclusions drawn in the paper discussed in the blog post you link to (about the 8th chromophore). For more details, you can see a paper I wrote a few years ago [2]. I don't agree with the interpretation that "The energy transfer is incoherent in the native complex." This is still a rather large point of contention among scholars in this field. The differences between quantum computing in the brain and quantum coherence in photosynthesis are actually rather large. There is actual, essentially undisputed evidence for quantum coherence in photosynthesis (in the experiments). There is a real scientific process going on with interactions between experiment/theory. Moreover, the people who did the over-hyped experiments a few years ago that were published in Nature/Science have moved on from claiming it is "quantum computing in biology" when further evidence and analyses came out against it. Hameroff and Penrose seem to be sticking to their original ideas even though they have been thoroughly debunked. [1] http://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/12/6/065041/ http://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/12/6/065041/ [2] http://stephanhoyer.com/pubs/PhysRevE.86.041911.pdf http://stephanhoyer.com/pubs/PhysRevE.86.041911.pdf

60 points by wikiburner 13y ago

> They will engage skeptics in a debate on the nature of consciousness, and Bandyopadhyay and his team will couple microtubule vibrations from active neurons to play Indian musical instruments. “Consciousness depends on anharmonic vibrations of microtubules inside neurons, similar to certain kinds of Indian music, but unlike Western music, which is harmonic,” Hameroff explains. Did they really posit a connection between quantum and sonic vibrations (a huge and "woo-woo-y" leap) in the context of consciousness? > “The origin of consciousness reflects our place in the universe, the nature of our existence. Did consciousness evolve from complex computations among brain neurons, as most scientists assert? Or has consciousness, in some sense, been here all along, as spiritual approaches maintain?” ask Hameroff and Penrose in the current review. And they're suggesting that consciousness is intrinsic to quantum systems? I think I missed some of the connections between the two. For that matter, I'm still of a position that the very idea of "consciousness" is an artifact of the brain's anthropocentric and self-image-preserving post ergo hoc systems, as opposed to anything concrete. Compare it to software: we "see" operating systems, drivers, apps, and the like, but those are all labels of our invention. It's ultimately nothing but ones and zeros.

omarchowdhury 13y ago
Way to conflate the qualitative into the quantitative, the mark of materialism.
- jessaustin 13y ago
  More details, please.
  - omarchowdhury 13y ago
    http://www.academia.edu/882409/The_Reign_of_Quantity_and_Signs_of_the_Times_Rene_Guenon http://www.academia.edu/882409/The_Reign_of_Quantity_and_Sig...
    - thirdtruck 13y ago
      I don't always cite "tl;dr". But when I do, it's in regards to over 300 pages of half-century-old metaphysical text. But on a more serious note, is a more concise counter-argument available, one that takes the latest discoveries of neuroscience into account? And if I see any appeals to consequences in the explanation, I won't bother reading more of it.
- thirdtruck 13y ago
  You have correctly identified my position. Congratulations? I assume there's a larger discussion about the challenge of disambiguating quora et al from neurological heuristics embedded in that observation.
selimthegrim 13y ago
Really, raags as molecular vibrations? Now I've heard it all. Which wavelength is thumri? At the risk of a terrible pun, as they say in Hindi, "Whose raag are they chanting to (alaapna)"? Anharmonic in this sense does not mean "pentatonic scale" (or 6 or 12 tones). Anharmonic means I add a perturbation term to the harmonic oscillator and my sums over oscillator strengths end up evaluating differently. It is a common beginning exercise in QM and QFT to calculate anharmonic corrections for simple cases like phi^4 [1][2] [1] http://www.kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~kyodo/kokyuroku/contents/pdf/0968-4.pdf http://www.kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~kyodo/kokyuroku/contents/pd... [2] http://books.google.com/books?id=AeOaij02QcwC&pg=PA57&lpg=PA57&dq=C.M.Bender+and+T.T.Wu&source=bl&ots=I5IWTzPUNZ&sig=N_mTXQbtLsiNZsuKq3dXHvTnW9M&hl=en&sa=X&ei=du_ZUsy6EcaxoQTR2IHQDg&ved=0CFkQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=C.M.Bender%20and%20T.T.Wu&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=AeOaij02QcwC&pg=PA57&lpg=PA...

codex 13y ago

Penrose has for years been advocating against strong AI, instead arguing that there "magic stuff" in the brain that prevents conciousness from arising in a machine. Great mathematician, but totally off his rocker here, which is outside his field. His arguments make no sense. Someone spewing his quackery without his credentials would be laughed out of the room.

jblow 13y ago
The only scientific viewpoint is that we do not know whether or not strong AI is possible. Materialists think it probably is, since they can't see any reason why not. But we don't understand intelligence so we don't know if we are missing something. Meanwhile, there are plenty of reasonable reasons not to be a materialist. As a meta-comment, I find the condescension in your comment unnecessary. Why is he "spewing" and why is it "quackery"? Did he not publish a testable, falsifiable theory? Isn't that what science is?
- anaphor 13y ago
  "Strong AI" is completely meaningless. Strong AI = whatever isn't human basically. The actual argument that "Strong AI" is meant to support is this: You can't create a Strong AI because Strong AIs can only exist in intelligent beings and computers aren't intelligent, therefore computer scientists are wasting their time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room
  - Ygg2 13y ago
    I don't get it. Strong AI is just a model of the mind that is indistinguishable or better than the original model. Think of it this way. If you were to do a double scale, full 3D model of earth, with all pieces intact wouldn't it just be a bigger earth on which you could live and do stuff?
undoware 13y ago
yes. And yet here, for the first time, is evidence he might have been right. This is where we all look at our shoes and mutter something about burdens of proof. Note that it is still possible to describe consciousness as a computer -- it just has to be a quantum one. I find a lot of us techies relax around strong materialist positions (Penrose, Churchland, Searle) once you have coerced your interlocutor into admitting that there is no way of proving that there isn't an abstract(able) substrate. We can probably all agree that my Core i7 is not a mind. The disagreement amounts to whether or not a computing substrate of which all the relevant components have tidy classical explanations can be a mind, and after reading this, my fence-sitting on that issue is done. Without a single example of a functioning classical-mechanical mind, and strong evidence that quantum effects are nurtured within the brain, it would appear the magical-thinking quantum-worshipping nonsense-spouting materialist weirdos have it this time. Dammit.

transfire 13y ago

Just b/c there is quantum activity in the microtubules doesn't mean that is the seat of consciousness. When you get down to it, the whole body is a quantum system. So I really find this off base.

jblow 13y ago
Well wait a minute. They predicted "there is quantum activity in the microtubules". Almost everyone said "you are crazy, that's impossible". If it turns out indeed that there is, then this was a successful scientific prediction, in the style of predicting the structure of DNA or the existence of the neutrino. You are right, it doesn't mean that this is the seat of consciousness, but it doesn't mean it isn't, either. Further investigation would be required. But saying it's "off base" just because you don't like the thesis is exactly the opposite of what science is supposed to be. It is scientism, not science.
- magicalist 13y ago
  > Almost everyone said "you are crazy, that's impossible" according to the article's narrative, at least... > You are right, it doesn't mean that this is the seat of consciousness, but it doesn't mean it isn't, either. Further investigation would be required True. But it could also of course be His Noodly Appendage at work in each of those microtubules. Extraordinary claims, extraordinary evidence, etc. I think what the GP was objecting to was that there's no more reason to jump to the article's conclusion than an infinite number of other conclusions based on the evidence at hand, and it's sloppy science to imply otherwise.
  - jblow 13y ago
    Untrue, because the reason the microtubule coherence was posited in the first place, at all, was as an origin of consciousness. There wasn't another reason to presuppose it. So the fact that the activity exists does have information content with respect to the central thesis. It certainly doesn't prove it, but it moves the needle. Analogy: Suppose the Earth is covered with clouds and we have never seen the sky, we have not invented space ships yet, etc. Nobody knows why tides happen. Someday someone predicts there is a GIANT rock orbiting the Earth not too far away, and everyone says that is crazy. But eventually you send a rocket up with a camera, and you see this giant rock there! Whoa. Since the tides caused you to look for the rock, and you found the rock, you have reason to suspect the rock does cause the tides. Maybe it doesn't -- further verification is required. But the big rock is evidence, it moves the needle. That is what science is, is making testable predictions and then testing them and then letting the results of those tests help you understand what is going on in the world. Invoking the FSM or discounting evidence, because it doesn't match preconceived notions, is in fact the kind of thing that is the bane of science and always looks embarrassing / shameful in retrospect. I would hope that people at HN understand science well enough to see this pattern and not participate. P.S. Re the "according to the article's narrative" snipe, uhh, some of us have been following this issue since the 90s when the idea was proposed. "You guys are crazy" is an accurate description of the majority consensus.

nyan_sandwich 13y ago

>quantum >vibrations >consciousness Reverend Bayes says 99% probability of quackery.

abalone 13y ago

Anytime you hear the word "consciousness" in the field of neuroscience, expect a barrage of pseudo-scientific sloppy reasoning to follow. Even if there are quantum effects involved in the operation of the brain, or any other organ of the body, the idea that they are responsible for this thing called "consciousness" anymore than action potentials or chemical messengers is a gigantic, unsupported assumption. More likely the words "quantum" and "microtubule vibrations" sounds sufficiently mysterious to appeal to the casual reader's dualist bias. A proper scientific study into "X", whether X be consciousness or anything else, would begin by defining it concretely.

thirdtruck 13y ago
"Consciousness of the gaps", to summarize.

username223 13y ago

Why am I not surprised that this involves microtubules? Kurzweil meets Penrose meets Indian mysticism -- it's hard to imagine a denser nexus of consciousness-related quackery.

vixen99 13y ago
I suppose there's nothing like argument-free abuse to feel you've wrapped up a subject and feel a wee bit superior to it all especially when the proponents are persons of undisputed attainment in their respective fields.
- username223 13y ago
  You may or may not be aware that the study of consciousness attracts an amazing number of quacks and loonies. Penrose may be a good physicist, but that has very little to do with his credibility on neuroscience. If you want to read smart things about consciousness, look to people who study actual brains; Mike Gazzaniga was one of the better ones, at least 10 years ago. EDIT: also Patricia Churchland, who comes at it as a philosopher, but takes the time to learn the neurology.

mgraczyk 13y ago

I'm generally very skeptical of authors or papers that make claims about "quantum processes" and consciousness because they are generally written by people who know very little about neurology and even less about quantum physics. Ask them about quantum entanglement, and you'll generally get a misguided interpretation based on a decades old mistake in reasoning that has long since been corrected [1][2]. However, I decided to give this paper a try not because I expected there to be any actual content, but just to see why otherwise intelligent people would be drawn to what I consider to be obvious pseudoscience. I didn't read the whole thing, but from what I know of quantum mechanics and QFT (standard undergraduate course load) I didn't see anything wildly misguided. This tells me that one of two things are true. 1. This paper describes a legitimate link between a non-classical process occurring in the brain that may "cause" consciousness. I do not know enough about the brain to rigorously evaluate the claims. 2 (more likely). Quantum physics is hard, even for scientists. Neither of the paper's author's are physicists, and neither have done any _recent_ meaningful work in any subfield of physics. I would expect that groundbreaking work in physics would require ideas beyond an undergraduate level, but I did not see any physics in the paper I didn't understand. It looks like at the very least, there is room for a false positive. What I mean by "false positive" is that sometimes not about A will cause you to reason that Q->C even when the truth is A->Q and A->C (correlation does not imply causation...). For example, it could be that the electrical signals of the brain that cause consciousnes + quantum effect, but if the same signals were running through a semiconductor we would instead see a different quantum effect (depletion zones, electron holes...). If our brains were made of 5nm CMOS transistors, a non-physicist might see quantum tunneling and conclude that it somehow caused consciousness. I think the most important thing for non-physicists like me to remember about papers like this is that although sometimes scientists make important discoveries outside their fields we should allow specialists in the area to evaluate the non-physicists claims before believing them ourselves. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mysticism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mysticism [2] http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/76036/how-does-qft-help-with-entanglement http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/76036/how-does-qf... EDIT Penrose did important work on the nature of black holes ~40 years ago. At one point in time he was a real physicist.

carbocation 13y ago

brudgers 13y ago

I read the headline. I thought "Penrose." I clicked the link. I thought "Yep". In some respects, the internet never changes. If only there was quantum corroboration for objectivism.

dzhiurgis 13y ago

They mention that anaesthesia targets microtubules, hence stopping quantum process. Anyone else wondering whether psychedelics enhance quantum processes (although I remember reading that LSD mechanism of action breaks links between neurons).

dnautics 13y ago
LSD's first-order mechanism is known, like all tryptamines it's a 5HT receptor binder. It's a fairly complicated tryptamine, though, what is more bizarre is that for simple tryptamines there are incredibly complex differences in effect for small changes in the molecule, and the rationale for 'second-order' differences in pschedelicity is generally unknown. There are some hand-wavey explanations about differential binding for different 5HT receptor classes with different prevalences in different parts of the brain. (I would strongly recommend reading TIHKAL/PIHKAL if you're interested, to get an idea of what I'm talking about). In general, though, tryptamines effects (including LSD) are unlikely to involve microtubules, since they are charged, water soluble and don't cross inside the neurons (where microtubules are) so easily. I would also generally posit that visual hallucinogens do not generally require MT/Quantum 'involvement'. The visual cortex is incredibly well-characterized, and relative to the rest of the brain well-understood in the absence of a strong MT hypothesis. Moreover, visual cortex-like applications are very amenable to neural network solutions in silico (e.g. ocr) and these ANNs also don't require a strong MT hypothesis.

pavelrub 13y ago

Currently 90% of the comments here are meaningless guesses and opinions written by people who haven't read anything and/or know nothing about the mentioned theory, the new findings or the physics involved. I wish there was somebody here who have actually read the mentioned papers, knows something about the relevant physics, is aware of the prior criticism of Orch-OR, and can say what, if anything, the new findings mean for Orch-OR and for its critics.

waterlesscloud 13y ago
The comments on this story make me seriously consider abandoning HN altogether.

benched 13y ago

No matter how many words people spend on writing about consciousness, not once have I ever seen anyone say anything revealing about consciousness. (And yes, I have read all the usual suspects.)

slurry 13y ago
I find a good initial test of writings about consciousness is to ask "would Ray Kurzweil or his website get excited about this?" If the answer is no - perhaps the material is too dry, language-oriented, technical (in a non-sexy field), or cynical to be exciting - it is probably worth reading. Like, off the top of my head, Kant or Hume. Plenty of contemporary people working away thanklessly as well, probably, too; but it's not my field. But even then, it more likely qualifies as "useful" rather than "revealing". Because there are no big easy-to-grasp-and-broadcast flashes of blinding insight. In the field of consciousness or any other.

shoyer 13y ago

I recently finished my physics PhD focused on quantum effects in photosynthesis, and I saw Hameroff and Bandyopadhyay's talks at Google's "Quantum Biology" workshop back in 2010. These guys live in a bizarre alternate universe where a number of legitimate experimental results and calculations based on real physics add up to striking conclusions with no basis in reality. They are happy to combined many random factoids -- anything that vaguely supports their ideas -- and pretend that the combination is convincing evidence. For example, the authors hypothesize that the spin of magnetic dipoles could be quantum bits used for information processing in microtubules. As support, they cite experimental evidence for resonances in electrical conductance in microtubules at certain RF frequencies. But coherent motion of electrons is a totally different physical phenomena than coherent spin. The most amazing thing to me is that these guys do manage to operate in their own parallel academic universe, with their own journals, conferences and (most frighteningly) funding. As I found out at the Google workshop (which had been basically hijacked by these guys), the Air Force Office of Scientific Research (AFOSR) has been funding this fellow Bandyopadhyay's experiments that, at the Google conference, he was touting as "experimental evidence for a topological quantum computing in the brain." An AFOSR officer I talked to was very proud about this project. In my view this is basically a criminal misuse of US taxpayer money (probably 100k/year).

selimthegrim 13y ago
No offense, but wasn't your advisor on the FMO complex coherence train for the longest time before they found another chromophore[1] that rendered many coherence projections spurious? [1]http://condensedconcepts.blogspot.com/2012/07/details-do-matter-in-photosynthesis.html?m=1 http://condensedconcepts.blogspot.com/2012/07/details-do-mat...
- shoyer 13y ago
  There has been plenty of hype about quantum coherence in photosynthesis, too, which I have played a part in debunking [1]. It is clear (in my opinion) that quantum coherent motion not play a large role in energy transfer in photosynthesis, but I think the jury is still out on whether or not it plays a small role or none at all. Part of the answer may depend on how "coherence" is defined. I do have a number of objections to the conclusions drawn in the paper discussed in the blog post you link to (about the 8th chromophore). For more details, you can see a paper I wrote a few years ago [2]. I don't agree with the interpretation that "The energy transfer is incoherent in the native complex." This is still a rather large point of contention among scholars in this field. The differences between quantum computing in the brain and quantum coherence in photosynthesis are actually rather large. There is actual, essentially undisputed evidence for quantum coherence in photosynthesis (in the experiments). There is a real scientific process going on with interactions between experiment/theory. Moreover, the people who did the over-hyped experiments a few years ago that were published in Nature/Science have moved on from claiming it is "quantum computing in biology" when further evidence and analyses came out against it. Hameroff and Penrose seem to be sticking to their original ideas even though they have been thoroughly debunked. [1] http://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/12/6/065041/ http://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/12/6/065041/ [2] http://stephanhoyer.com/pubs/PhysRevE.86.041911.pdf http://stephanhoyer.com/pubs/PhysRevE.86.041911.pdf