The answer to your three questions:Greylorn Ell wrote:I wasn't aware of that criticism, and appreciate the information. It would not be a criticism of mine, since I have a different take on QM than most.Ginkgo wrote:You are probably referring to the "too warm. too noisy and too wet" criticism leveled at Hameroff. This was a criticism lead by a group of Australian scientists that were particularly critical of Hameroff idea that microtubules could carry out a a quantum function in such an environment. So, yes one of the criticism was with the maths.Greylorn Ell wrote:
Yes re: the thesis. The Penrose-edited boat-anchor of a book, "Consciousness and the Universe," leads with Stuart Hameroff's presentation. Moreover, I've discussed his ideas with a mathematician friend who has studied the same source. Our conclusion is that the Hameroff-Penrose model of consciousness does not work.
At the time Hameroff took the criticism on board and actively worked toward resolving some of the problems. Other researches became interested as well. Hameroff's theory is a scientific theory so it can subjected to the scientific method. Time will tell if the theory can be confirmed or rejected based on the the evidence.
Scientists have been trying to figure out how photosynthesis works for a long time. The last I read, a few were pursuing QM effects as a way to explain some odd chemical activity that doesn't quite fit classical chemical models. I don't have a reference to that research, but if it turns out that plant-leaves use quantum trickery to drive biochemical processes with photons, objections to biological QM based upon temperature and humidity seem irrelevant.
I'm delighted to learn that. Several questions, which may be too personal for a reply.Ginkgo wrote:Yes, I am in to that sort of stuff myself.Greylorn Ell wrote: Any theory that confines consciousness to the human brain is incorrect, because there are plenty of well documented instances of OOB (Out of Body) experiences. (e.g: Pam Reynolds' surgery.) "Ghosts" are real. I once owned a house occupied by one, a child who had found his only release from pain, and who had died there. He was a friendly spook who had prevented intrusions into my home on several occasions, but when I learned of his reality I was compelled to help him leave and get on with his pursuit of consciousness in another body.
Of course that is an easily dismissible personal anecdote, so dismiss it. Nonetheless if you are curious about reality, peruse other books on the subject of OOBs. There are several.
May I also recommend extended data-gathering in the area of parapsychology? Telepathy works. So does telekinesis. The "dog whisperer" manages unruly beasts with the power of mind, while distracting viewers with words that dogs do not understand.
1. Does your curiosity stem from personal experience (as does mine) or theoretical info?
2. Any relationship between paranormal experience and your philosophical curiosity?
3. What are your thoughts about my argument that, given the reality of psychic phenomena, any model of the mind that confines it to the brain is obviously faulty?
I learned about Gray's experiment because I was searching not for quantum effects in the brain, but for wave effects. Beon Theory requires some kind of wave model of information/energy transfer, and it would seem that such a model would also help account for parapsychological effects.Ginkgo wrote:Greylorn Ell wrote:
Lest I forget, a neurological experiment performed by Charles Gray et.al. a few decades back showed clear evidence that data within the brain could be transmitted from one part of the brain to another without neural connections. The H-P model does not account for that.
That is correct, expect quantum information using microtubules is not transferred via neural connections.
Thank you for the insights. You make sense.Ginkgo wrote:This is because it is really two theories in one. Firstly, there is the Penrose-Hameroff Orch-OR model and there is the Hameroff metaphysical theory that is an extension of the Orch-OR. Penrose is firstly scientist and a mathematician, so as far as he is concerned consciousness occurs within the brain. Hameroff, being a scientist and a metaphysician takes it a step further and claims the information model of the Och-OR is also applicable to the micro universe as well. So such things as spirits and OBE are part of Hameroff's theory of consciousness. Hameroff often has to explain this point of difference.Greylorn Ell wrote: Then move on to the extensive evidence for reincarnation. It will show you that there is an essential component of mind, memory included, that cannot be accounted for by any theory that declares the human brain to be the entire mechanism of mind.
I am certain that both Penrose and Hameroff know this, so am puzzled by their development of a theory that fails to account for it.
Where did you learn so much about Hameroff?
My only knowledge of Hameroff is via the interweb.
I have discussed consciousness with David Chalmers.
Consciousness has only become an interest much later in life.