Talk:Orch-OR

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Socrates
Philosophy Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.

This article should be little more than a stub. Penrose's ideas on this topic have no scientific validity. Microtubules can't vibrate in the low Reynolds number environment of the cytoplasm! IlliniWikipedian 17:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe I've heard that criticism before. Doesn't that violate Wikipedia's rules against original research? ;-) But actually, I don't think the point is valid. The idea is that viscosity renders rapid motion with respect to the cytoplasm impossible. But objects at finite temperature also vibrate in place! And since a microtubule actually consists of thousands of coupled subunits, there is certainly scope for quite complicated vibrational dynamics to arise... You might be interested in Keskin et al's work on fluctuation dynamics in the tubulin dimer. Mporter 05:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but the text on such a controversial and, let's be frank, not widely accepted subject needs to be written in a much, much more balanced way. Bardon Dornal 13:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I generally agree, but I think there may be more to it than that. For one, Orch-OR seems to be a not terribly obvious expansion of Penrose's original proposals. Those appear to be limited to GR as a "counteracting" force on quantum evolution, in that GR will force a superposition to collapse (measurement-free, importantly) into a single observable for what appear to be really simple reasons. In a recent talk for the Perimeter Institute, there no mention at all of the microtubulin side of things. Frankly, from this outsider's perspective, I'm not sure why there ever was any work down this direction -- it seems premature at a minimum.
So the problem is that there should really be an article on OR itself. This is notably interesting right now, because they are actually going to test it in a lab shortly. OR makes physical predictions that differ from pure-collapse models over short time scales, time scales that can be "easily" duplicated with modern equipment.
Maury 22:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Theory vs Fact

I am totally confused, reading this article, between the parts which mean "the theory says this" and the parts which mean "reputable scientific testing has shown this to be true". I suggest that someone who is familiar with orch or separates the two into different sections of the article. I was debating whether to mark it as unverified, but separation would be better. If nobody here has the knowledge + time to do this, it should be marked. Ricky 14:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


Actually, it's a little more complicated than that, because the whole matter rests on the question of "do the distance scales involved make quantum issues relevant?". In this case, there are a few unproven assumptions, and definite correspondences that the theory could explain, if true. Much like String theory, Orch-OR allows one to derive the observables in a handy way, but explains by way of structures that are extremely difficult or perhaps impossible to observe. So; there are maybe three categories instead of two. There is "conjecture and unprovable speculation," there is "reasonable development, given the assumptions," and there is "these are the actual observables, and how they correspond with what the theory predicts." I'm trying to make better sense of this topic myself, and I expect I'll do some editing here. I want to clean up the whole quantum mind topic range, to make it more accurately describe what those who come to the topic believe in, while better qualifying what is factual, and stressing what we actually know (or don't know).

I expect that will be a lot of work! JonathanD 02:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The facts in Orch OR are very few, and a lot of biological mismodelling is there - for example the DLB biology, where paper by De Zeew et al., 1995 is quoted as reference but the De Zeew paper says exactly the opposite. More on the Orch OR has been released at PhilSci: Georgiev, Danko (2006) Falsifications of Hameroff-Penrose Orch OR Model of Consciousness and Novel Avenues for Development of Quantum Mind Theory. I hope someone may use the paper uploaded PhilSci and sort out, what is reliable fact in Orch OR, and what is sci fi construction. Danko Georgiev MD 11:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Penrose's collapse theory vs. The Penrose-Hameroff consciousness theory

It should be emphasised that the theory proceeds in two stages -- a theory about collapse, and a theory about consciousness. It is possible for the first to succeed while the second fails. The collapse theory and the consciousness theory should perhaps be placed into separate articles. The collapse theory (Objective Reduction) could then be linked into the interpretation of quantum mechanics article which currently does not mention spontaneous collapse models.1Z 17:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

    • I agree with this observation and I like the suggestion --Myscience 21:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Testing the theory

The article states: "20 testable predictions of Orch OR were published in 1998. A number of these have been validated, others are being tested. Orch OR is falsifiable".

I assume this refers to OR as a theory of collpase, which is indeed testable. It is difficult to see how it could be tested as a claim about consciousness1Z 17:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

In fact 19 of the predictions refer to predictions to do with microtubules, quantum coherence in the brain etc and only one refers to OR. However, Penrose in 2004 and 2006 has mentioned schemes to test OR, and there might actually be one in a few years. Persephone19 20:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
This can be slightly updated in line with Hameroff's latest publication. A few of the testable predictions have been validated, such as signalling along microtubules, correlation of synaptic activity with cytoskeletal change, action of psychoactive drugs on microtubules and gap junction mediation of gamma (40Hz) synchrony. Other predictions are said to be currently under test. Persephone19 17:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
This definitely has to mention what the predictions are. Otherwise it's just propaganda. Thehotelambush 03:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Here are the 20 predictions in abbreviated form: 1) Synaptic sesnitivity and plasticity correlates with cytoskeletal architecture and activity.2) Microtubules involved with the action of psychoactive drugs. 3) Drugs acting on microtubules to prove useful with Alzheimers and other brain diseases. 4) Laser spectroscopy will demomstrate coherent excitations in microtubules. 5) Vibrational states in microtubular networks correlate with cellular activity. 6) Stable patterns in cytoskeletal networks correlate with memory and other brain functions. 7) Cortical dendrites shown to have predominantly 'A' lattice microtubules, which are more suitable for information processing. 8) Demonstration of quantum correlations between microtubules, including microtubules in different neurons. 9) Experiments with superconducting quantum interference device (SQUID) to demonstrate quantum coherence in microtubules. 10) Coherent photons will be detected emitted from microtubules. 11) Microtubules in cortical dendrites intermittently surrounded by tightly cross linked actin gels. 12) Cycles of gelation in neuronal cytoplasm correlated with 40Hz oscillation on cell membranes. 13) Gelation cycles shown to be regulated by calcium ions. 14) Gap junction shown to link synchronously firing cortical neurons and thalamocortical network. 15) Quantum tunnelling at gap junctions demonstrated. 16) Quantum correlation shown between microtubules in different neurons connected by gap junctions. 17) Neural mass involved in a cognitive task is inversley proportional to precognitive time. 18) Isolated quantum superpositions collapse spontaneously in a timespan governed by Penrose's E=h bar/t, effectively the greater the energy involved the faster the time to collapse. This is the only prediction related to Penrose's orchestrated reduction. The others are all brain related. 19) Microtubule based cilia in rods and cones detect photons and connect with retinal gial cell microtubules via gap junctions. 20) The fossil record will show that organism emerged in the early Cambrain with a complex cytoskeleton and the capability for quantum isolation. The full text of this can be found on pp. 242-4 of 'The Emerging Physics of Consciousness' Ed. Jack Tuszynski, in Hameroff's chapter entitled 'Consciousness, neurobiology and quantum mechanics. Persephone19 21:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Penrose collapse theory

The article states: "Penrose considered superposition as a separation in underlying reality at its most basic level, the Planck scale. Tying quantum superposition to general relativity, he identified superposition as spacetime curvatures in opposite directions, hence a separation in fundamental spacetime geometry. However, according to Penrose, such separations are unstable and will reduce at an objective threshold, hence avoiding multiple universes."

This passage is riddled with errors. I suggest replacing it with a paragraph taken ftom Penrose's own writings.1Z 18:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quantum computation and hypercomputation

The article states: "Quantum computation had been suggested by Paul Benioff, Richard Feynman and David Deutsch in the 1980s. The idea is that classical information, e.g. bit states of either 1 or 0, could also be quantum superpositions of both 1 and 0 (quantum bits, or qubits). Such qubits interact and compute by nonlocal quantum entanglement, eventually being measured/observed and reducing to definite states as the solution. Quantum computations were shown to have enormous capacity if they could be constructed e.g. using qubits of ion states, electron spin, photon polarization, current in Josephson junction, quantum dots etc. During quantum computation, qubits must be isolated from environmental interaction to avoid loss of superposition, i.e. “decoherence”."

This repeats a common misunderstanding. Quantum computation as proposed by David Deutsch,etc, is not known to transcend what can be done with a Turing machine. It is not hypercomputation. What Penrose has is a proposal that the (currently unknown) mechanism of collapse is hypercomputational. Conventional quantum computation is not hypercomputational and does not exploit collapse, but rather superposition. Every aspect of QM except collapse is known to be Turing-emulable. There is no research programme based on collapse, because no-one knows what collapse is, whether it works, or even whether it exists.1Z

[edit] Libet and time

The article states: "Experiments in the 1970s by Benjamin Libet suggested that conscious experience of sensory inputs requires up to 500 ms of brain activity, but is referred backward in time to the initial input. Quantum mechanics allows backward time effects as long as causal paradox is not possible (killing your grandmother, preventing your birth is one commonly cited example). Backward referral of unconscious quantum information avoids possible causal paradox, and could explain Libet’s results, real time unified sensory experience and conscious control, rescuing consciousness from the unfortunate role of illusory epiphenomenon."

This is a complete misrepresentation of Benjamin Libet's work. He nowhere invokes literal time travel. His "backwards referral" is no more time travel than manipulating the timestamps of files on a computer.1Z 18:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Motivation: The Hard Problem vs. super-Turing mathematicians.

It should be made clearer that the "problem of consciousness" Penrose (rather than Hameroff) is addressing is not the standard one as understood by philosophers, ie the hard problem. Penrose introduces his own version of the problem of consciousness with the controversial argument that human mathematicians can do things that no computer can. (Argument originated by John Lucas). AFAIK, it was Hameroff who suggested that . "Precursors of conscious experience (proto-conscious qualia) are postulated to exist as fundamental, irreducible components of the universe like mass, spin or charge embedded at the Planck scale since the Big Bang." Despite the phraseology, this is an essentially metaphysical claim, and not an uncommon one. It could be bolted on to any other physical theory. Thus, the Penrose-Hameroff theory does not come to a *physical* resolution of the *standard* problem of consciousness. It has a physical proposal to sole the idiosyncratic Lucas-Penrose problem of super-Turing mathematicians, and a metaphysical solution (not original) to the hard problem of consciousness as widely understood. 1Z 18:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The thing I find odd about all of this is that Penrose's alternate mechanics indirectly solves the observer problem.
I have never heard of an "observer problem". There is a measurement problem and consciousness causes collapse is one, highly controversial, proposal to solve it. If you think all approaches to the Measurement Problem must involve consciousness or observers, you are mistaken.1Z 20:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
As I understand it, he basically posits that small spacial distributions of probability are self-collapsed by gravity. So this being the case, why posit that there is a built-in "universal consciousness quanta"?
His theory of measurement/collapse does not depend on his theory of consciousness. His theory of conciousness is built on his theory of measurement/collapse.1Z 20:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
This is clearly due to me not understanding what they are really saying -- but that's my point, this article doesn't really get the the root of it, IMHO. Maury 21:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Penrose thinks there is something not governed by algorithms in the brain. The only process in the universe that is not governed by algorithms appears to be the collapse of the wave function. As normally described this is random and not apparently very helpful for mathematical understanding, hence the proposition of a version of collapse which is non-random but also non-computable. Is this metaphysical? I am not sure in what sense the word is being used here. However, Penrose and Hammeroff assert plausible tests both for objective reduction of the wave function and for quantum coherence and other features in the brain. Persephone19 20:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to re-ask my question. If one removes all mentions of brains and consciousness, does Penrose's wavefunction collapse physics still work? IE, do you need a brain, or just gravity? The recent talk I saw seemed to suggest the later, but I came in half way. Maury 19:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
The OR collapse is first given as a resolution of the wave function collapse problem. This is best described in Penrose's second book, 'Shadows of the Mind' and particularly in Chapter 6, especially 6.10 and 6.11, pp335-9. This chapter follows on a long discussion of the problems in quantum theory. The part about the brain comes later. If Penrose's scheme is right, OR collapses would have been happening billions of years before the first brains evolved. Persephone19 18:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Ok, that's the feeling I got from the talk. But in retrospect I realize I asked the question incorrectly: forget brains, that's not what I meant, I meant "some sort of mechanical-like OR collapsing gizmo". IE, does Penrose's OR require anything other than gravity at all? (BTW, I'm ordering the book as I type this...) Maury 20:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
As I understand it, the superpositions are reduced by gravity alone. The only qualification is that in the later version of the theory in 'Shadows of the Mind', the reduction does not automatically cut in at the Planck Length. Instead the system becomes unstable from this point on, and liable to reduction, on the principle that the greater the difference between the superpositions the shorter the expected time to reduction. The process is compared to the decay of an unstable uranium nucleus.Persephone19 17:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Right, ok, so I think the talk I saw was basically what you have described here. And it's particularly interesting too, because it has clearly testable predictions that are currently under experiment (or will be shortly). I think this is the first direct test of a quantum formalism in a while now.
But of course I can't help coming back to my first, potentially rhetorical, question: why would Penrose be drawn off into this highly speculative topic? I'm all for musings, but by creating an early connection between his QM formalism and consciousness, I personally feel the former was "tainted" by the generally poor reception of the later.
Back to reality: this thread suggests that there should be a single complete article on OR alone. I'm going to get a copy of Shadows ASAP, but I also have his latest "big book" at home which I'm sure covers much of this as well. Maury 19:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

1Z, please respond at the bottom of the thread, it's hard to follow your posts otherwise. Anyway we're all quite aware of the different approaches to the measurement problem, which should have been clear from the following discussion. The issue that we're trying to understand is why he would go on to develop a theory of consciousness based on it, something that is so completely different that there doesn't appear to be any connection. Oh, I'm perfectly aware that they attempted to link the two, but given the fragile basis for the claim it seems odd anyone even bothered. As one reviewer put it, the basic line of reasoning is "quantum is weird, consciousness is weird too, they must be related!". And you definitely seem to re-enforce my opinion that OR should be split out. Maury 22:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it's just that Penrose had approached things from the other angle. At the end of the 1980s, he decided for whatever reason to address the problem of consciousness. He formed the (highly contentious) view that the Godel Theorem meant that there was something non-computable in human mathematical understanding. Only after this did he go looking for its physical basis. He homed in on the collapse because this was not governed by algorithms. But the collapse is random and pretty useless for mathematical understanding. Hence the suggestion that the new type of collapse, OR, might be non-computable. However, OR's non-computability is not just a convenient hypothesis, there is a at least a small amount of supporting argument for why OR might be non-computable. In fact, there are really three questions. (1) Does OR exist? (2) Is it non-computable? (3)Does it have any connection with what goes on in the brain?
One thing I would add is that whatever you may think of Penrose arguments, the review you quote is an absolute travesty. Penrose's line of argument is something like what I've tried to outline above, and he never argued anything as idiotic as that the two things had to be connected simply because they were mysterious or weird. Persephone19 14:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality

It seems a pity that the dispute over the neutrality has not been resolved despite more than a year of discussion recorded above. Reading the article again, the main problem seems to be in the questions section that forms the second half of the paper. This tends to read as if it were dispatching the arguments against quantum consciousness once and for all. In particular the discussion about possible screening of the microtubules needs to make it clear that there is no definite evidence that such screening would prove effective. I think the problem could be resolved by integrating the answers to the questions into the main part of the text, where some of the points are already touched on. I will attempt this soon if no one's going to have a stab at achieving neutrality. This would be an editorial exercise leaving as little as possible of the actual material changed. Persephone19 19:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC) d a

I just called up this article hoping to find some useful information to inform a discussion I'm having. I find the neutrality of this article highly suspect, and will not use it as a significant source. The "Questions" section also caught my eye as reading more like propaganda than anything else. --Skidoo 01:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you about the questions section drifting away from the desired neutrality, which is why I intend to have a go at editing this by mid-September, if no one else wants to do anything. However, I think it's an over reaction not to use the article at all, as the better bits give a reasonably accurate version of the Penrose/Hameroff position, and even the 'propaganda' bits do at least deal with topics that have been widely discussed in the literature. Persephone19 13:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Editing of article

I have as promised in previous postings undertaken a substantial editing of the Orch OR article, with the aim of eventually getting rid of the disputed neutrality tag at the top. At the same time, I have left almost all of the original material. The main change has been to get rid of the 'Questions' section, which has been criticised as propaganda. However, most of the material from this has been integrated into the main part of the article. I have also sprinkled in more neutrality tags in the form of conditional verbs or 'the theory suggests' etc. I have brought in a small amount of new material, mainly a para on research suggesting the need for quantum computing in the brain, reports of some experiments relevant to quantum coherence in the brain and a list of the 20 tests proposed by asically Hameroff, which was already mentioned in the old form of the article. Lastly there are a lot more references. The hope is that we can use the new version of the article and changes to it to move towards a consensus on neutrality. Persephone19 18:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Is there anyone out there? I thought the sunstantial editing would generate quite a lot of discussion, But not so. I would now suggest that the present article could do with further streamlining to make it to the point. Apart from various minor editing, I would suggest the following. (1) Takeout the second part of para 2, basically the diversion into artificial intelligence etc. (2) Take out the bit about fullerene technology and the rest of that para down from there. (3) Take out the para on why Orch OR events cause subjective experience and the subsequent long para re the Big Bang.(4) Take out the end part of the para that refers to Alfred North Whitehead and the subsequent para on consciousnesss as a sequence of discrete events and the next one on frequency of quantum events. (5) In the 'Decoherence section' take out the second half of para 3. (6) Abbreviate the bit on Hameroff's replies on objections other than decoherence and the subsequent para on Libet.
All or most of these things can be found in the Penrose/Hameroff literature but some might be more suited to 600 page books that can afford to be discursive rather than a short article that arguable needs to get the gist of the theory over without getting bogged down in peripherals such as Libet and time.
I will leave this for two weeks now to await other ideas, objections or any one else who wants to edit. Persephone19 14:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Just a suggestion

There is dispute on the netrality of this article. However, this article isn't about whether Orch-OR is TRUE, it's just a description of orch-OR as a hypothesis. As such, a verbatim description of the hypothesis is, pretty much by definition, undisputable: whether or not it is TRUE, it IS what it is.

Personally, I would suggets that stating the hypothesis in a one-sided fashion, with just a subsection describing disputation, is a fair representation of teh topic, as long as it is clear in the introduction that it is only a hypothesis. 81.132.76.139 17:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


The article has been altered since the neutrality dispute started with an aim to making it less slanted. I take your comment as a tentative step towards a consensus from removing the disputed neutrality label. Persephone19 22:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal to remove disputed neutrality tag

The article has been given a second re-edit primarily aimed at ending the neutrality dispute. After the first re-edit there was only one comment on 4th October which I take as broadly supportive of a neutrality rating. I suggest giving it three weeks, and if there are no comments critical of neutrality by the end of that, the tag should be removed. Persephone19 19:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with that. Also could someone please commnent on the statement at the end of the microtubules article that Orch-OR is regarded with skepticism in the scientific community. Many thanks! Amit@Talk 13:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of Disputed Neutrality Tag

The version of this article which existed until 4th October could be argued to have overstepped the limits of neutrality, particularly in the question and answer section in the second half of the article, which tended to convey the impression of the theory as fact rather than speculative hypothesis.

The first revision of the article on 4th October mainly edited the question and answer section, attempting to retain relevant material in a form that stressed the element of speculation.

The second revision on 22nd October simplified the article by removing or reducing discussion of some non-core aspects of the theory.

Discussion has been invited so as to achieve consensus. Two postings appear favourable and there have been no negative postings. I accept that a wider discussion would have been desirable in arriving at a consensus. However, it seems desirable to move on given the substantial changes in the article.

If you still feel that the article is not neutral, please make the criticism specific so that the editors can try and rectify any problems. Persephone19 11:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)



This article may be too technical for a general audience.
Please help improve this article by providing more context and better explanations of technical details to make it more accessible, without removing technical details.
69.140.152.55 (talk) 21:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)