4 ms·

Quantum vibrations in 'microtubules' in brain supports theory of consciousness

26 points by arikrak 13y ago

jliptzin 13y ago
Previous discussion here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7079547 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7079547
Udo 13y ago
This is very old pseudoscience with a recycled thin veneer of freshness. The idea that "quantum vibrations" in neuronal "microtubules" lead to decidedly macroscopic effects like detectable EEG signals is absurd on many levels, including spatial and temporal scope. There's also the small problem of neuron behavior modeling. Our existing biochemical and information-theoretical models are a very good match for the behavior of neurons. The urge of tacking on some unneeded extra mystery baggage to distort a set of models that were already both well rooted in empirical data and accessible to rational analysis is an act of religiosity. It comes from, and speaks to people who share, a deep instinctive bias towards a metaphysical theory of consciousness - presumably because a purely physical model would be considered too mundane. The mere wish for a literal metaphysical transcendence does not make it true though, and in my opinion it also trivializes the amazing hardware that allows us to experience life.
- winfred 13y ago
  Thanks. I suspected something was wrong when the authors posed the question: "Has consciousness, in some sense, been here all along, as spiritual approaches maintain?"
dchichkov 13y ago
[sarcasm] Quantum vibrations in 'microcircuits' in the CPU supports theory of computativiness. [/sarcasm]
lutusp 13y ago
I feel sorry for people who don't know who the "researchers" behind this article are and their histories. Ordinarily the identity of people behind a scientific theory should be irrelevant, unless the theory is based on rhetoric rather than replicable evidence and is as unfalsifiable as this one is.
pyalot2 13y ago
A theory is useless if it isn't testable/falsifiable. It's actually not a theory at that point. You don't have a theory of consciousness, period. And attributing something you can't explain, to a physical effect you don't understand is pure new-age pseudoscience babble. Reverse the deflector polarity, fire photon torpedoes, beam me up.
- arikrak 13y ago
  "Our new paper... reviews 20 testable predictions of Orch OR published in 1998 – of these, six are confirmed and none refuted." http://phys.org/news/2014-01-discovery-quantum-vibrations-microtubules-corroborates.html http://phys.org/news/2014-01-discovery-quantum-vibrations-mi...

26 points by arikrak 13y ago

Previous discussion here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7079547 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7079547

Udo 13y ago

This is very old pseudoscience with a recycled thin veneer of freshness. The idea that "quantum vibrations" in neuronal "microtubules" lead to decidedly macroscopic effects like detectable EEG signals is absurd on many levels, including spatial and temporal scope. There's also the small problem of neuron behavior modeling. Our existing biochemical and information-theoretical models are a very good match for the behavior of neurons. The urge of tacking on some unneeded extra mystery baggage to distort a set of models that were already both well rooted in empirical data and accessible to rational analysis is an act of religiosity. It comes from, and speaks to people who share, a deep instinctive bias towards a metaphysical theory of consciousness - presumably because a purely physical model would be considered too mundane. The mere wish for a literal metaphysical transcendence does not make it true though, and in my opinion it also trivializes the amazing hardware that allows us to experience life.

winfred 13y ago
Thanks. I suspected something was wrong when the authors posed the question: "Has consciousness, in some sense, been here all along, as spiritual approaches maintain?"

dchichkov 13y ago

[sarcasm] Quantum vibrations in 'microcircuits' in the CPU supports theory of computativiness. [/sarcasm]

lutusp 13y ago

I feel sorry for people who don't know who the "researchers" behind this article are and their histories. Ordinarily the identity of people behind a scientific theory should be irrelevant, unless the theory is based on rhetoric rather than replicable evidence and is as unfalsifiable as this one is.

pyalot2 13y ago

A theory is useless if it isn't testable/falsifiable. It's actually not a theory at that point. You don't have a theory of consciousness, period. And attributing something you can't explain, to a physical effect you don't understand is pure new-age pseudoscience babble. Reverse the deflector polarity, fire photon torpedoes, beam me up.

arikrak 13y ago
"Our new paper... reviews 20 testable predictions of Orch OR published in 1998 – of these, six are confirmed and none refuted." http://phys.org/news/2014-01-discovery-quantum-vibrations-microtubules-corroborates.html http://phys.org/news/2014-01-discovery-quantum-vibrations-mi...