4.7 Article

Penrose-Hameroff orchestrated objective-reduction proposal for human consciousness is not biologically feasible

Journal

PHYSICAL REVIEW E
Volume 80, Issue 2, Pages -

Publisher

AMER PHYSICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevE.80.021912

Keywords

biology computing; brain models; neural nets; quantum computing

Funding

  1. International Institute for Complex Adaptive Matter (I2CAM)
  2. USA National Science Foundation (NSF)
  3. Australian Research Council (ARC)
  4. Direct For Mathematical & Physical Scien [844115] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  5. Division Of Materials Research [844115] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Penrose and Hameroff have argued that the conventional models of a brain function based on neural networks alone cannot account for human consciousness, claiming that quantum-computation elements are also required. Specifically, in their Orchestrated Objective Reduction (Orch OR) model [R. Penrose and S. R. Hameroff, J. Conscious. Stud. 2, 99 (1995)], it is postulated that microtubules act as quantum processing units, with individual tubulin dimers forming the computational elements. This model requires that the tubulin is able to switch between alternative conformational states in a coherent manner, and that this process be rapid on the physiological time scale. Here, the biological feasibility of the Orch OR proposal is examined in light of recent experimental studies on microtubule assembly and dynamics. It is shown that the tubulins do not possess essential properties required for the Orch OR proposal, as originally proposed, to hold. Further, we consider also recent progress in the understanding of the long-lived coherent motions in biological systems, a feature critical to Orch OR, and show that no reformation of the proposal based on known physical paradigms could lead to quantum computing within microtubules. Hence, the Orch OR model is not a feasible explanation of the origin of consciousness.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available