Hameroff and Penrose have updated their Orch-OR model

What you think about how you think.
User avatar
kennyc
Has No Life
Posts: 12221
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 11:21 am
Custom Title: The Dank Side of the Moon
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Hameroff and Penrose have updated their Orch-OR model

Postby kennyc » Wed Feb 19, 2014 7:32 pm

Cygnus_X1 wrote:
The 'experience of red' is just philosophical BS.


Says who ? My qualia are the one thing about which I have more direct experience than anything else!

The Dennett school of qualia nihilism is not without its critics, and runs into numerous logical issues. It's also strange how everything is 'philosophical BS' except when Dennett, a philosopher, happens to speak.

I can fully understand that you believe and accept Dennett. That is fine. But to dismiss all else as 'BS' merely shows bias, and not rationalism.



Says me (and all the actual cognitive scientists). You are welcome to prove scientifically otherwise.


And just to clarify your misunderstanding, this has nothing to do with Dennett except that he is one of the few philosophers that actually understands science, evolution, reality and rational inquiry.

P.S. you seem to have this tendency for hero worship and appeal to authority. Science is not about that, it is about demonstrable fact and reality not what some authority figure claims.

As I said in the other thread, let the cognitive scientists work, drop the woo and speculation, time will tell. You and those like you always want to make up the answer just like religion. Science is a process (like consciousness) let it work, the answers will be forthcoming. Speculating about 'the experience of {!#%@}' or reality provides no answers, except those you fabricate out of that unsupportable speculation.
Kenny A. Chaffin
Art Gallery - Photo Gallery - Writing&Poetry - The Bleeding Edge
"Strive on with Awareness" - Siddhartha Gautama

User avatar
Cygnus_X1
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1482
Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2014 4:08 am
Location: Middle Of Nowhere

Re: Hameroff and Penrose have updated their Orch-OR model

Postby Cygnus_X1 » Wed Feb 19, 2014 7:41 pm

kennyc wrote:
Cygnus_X1 wrote:
The 'experience of red' is just philosophical BS.


Says who ? My qualia are the one thing about which I have more direct experience than anything else!

The Dennett school of qualia nihilism is not without its critics, and runs into numerous logical issues. It's also strange how everything is 'philosophical BS' except when Dennett, a philosopher, happens to speak.

I can fully understand that you believe and accept Dennett. That is fine. But to dismiss all else as 'BS' merely shows bias, and not rationalism.


Says me (and all the actual cognitive scientists). You are welcome to prove scientifically otherwise.


That is decidedly ass backwards. Everyone accepts that the Moon exists, because everyone can go out and see it. Well...everyone experiences qualia.

I don't see 'Moon deniers' out there demanding that everyone prove that the Moon is real. The onus would surely be on them to prove that it isn't !
100,000 lemmings can't be wrong.

User avatar
kennyc
Has No Life
Posts: 12221
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 11:21 am
Custom Title: The Dank Side of the Moon
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Hameroff and Penrose have updated their Orch-OR model

Postby kennyc » Wed Feb 19, 2014 7:43 pm

Cygnus_X1 wrote:
kennyc wrote:
Cygnus_X1 wrote:
The 'experience of red' is just philosophical BS.


Says who ? My qualia are the one thing about which I have more direct experience than anything else!

The Dennett school of qualia nihilism is not without its critics, and runs into numerous logical issues. It's also strange how everything is 'philosophical BS' except when Dennett, a philosopher, happens to speak.

I can fully understand that you believe and accept Dennett. That is fine. But to dismiss all else as 'BS' merely shows bias, and not rationalism.


Says me (and all the actual cognitive scientists). You are welcome to prove scientifically otherwise.


That is decidedly ass backwards. Everyone accepts that the Moon exists, because everyone can go out and see it. Well...everyone experiences qualia.

I don't see 'Moon deniers' out there demanding that everyone prove that the Moon is real. The onus would surely be on them to prove that it isn't !


:lol: :lol: :lol:

What's ass backwards is your claim. Prove it. Show me a qualia. Show me 'the experience of {!#%@}'

:lol: :lol: :lol:

You really don't get it. You are apparently so deep in this philosophical BS about consciousness that you (like they) have lost all touch with reality.
Kenny A. Chaffin
Art Gallery - Photo Gallery - Writing&Poetry - The Bleeding Edge
"Strive on with Awareness" - Siddhartha Gautama

User avatar
kennyc
Has No Life
Posts: 12221
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 11:21 am
Custom Title: The Dank Side of the Moon
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Hameroff and Penrose have updated their Orch-OR model

Postby kennyc » Wed Feb 19, 2014 7:47 pm

Shen1986 wrote:....

For me Penrose and Hameroff are a lost cause because after reading about ASIMO I get the feeling that he has already some kind of consciousness because what he can do is beyond some animals in the animal kingdom which have microtubes and should have some proto-consciousness according to their Orch-OR theory but I cannot see that in those animals.


are you talking about this? http://asimo.honda.com/
Kenny A. Chaffin
Art Gallery - Photo Gallery - Writing&Poetry - The Bleeding Edge
"Strive on with Awareness" - Siddhartha Gautama

User avatar
Cygnus_X1
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1482
Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2014 4:08 am
Location: Middle Of Nowhere

Re: Hameroff and Penrose have updated their Orch-OR model

Postby Cygnus_X1 » Wed Feb 19, 2014 7:58 pm

"drop the woo and speculation"

I would never have imagined that anyone would label the notion that qualia are real as 'woo'. Woo is fairies, leprechauns, unicorns, and ghost shows where some 'medium' hears discarnate voices. There are perfectly logical and rational and not in the least 'woo-ish' reasons for supposing the reality of qualia, not least that there are a number of severe problems with alternative 'functionalism' explanations. The best one can say is that nobody has proven it either way....and that does NOT leave a default where the non-existence of qualia is suddenly the 'scientific' stance.
100,000 lemmings can't be wrong.

User avatar
kennyc
Has No Life
Posts: 12221
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 11:21 am
Custom Title: The Dank Side of the Moon
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Hameroff and Penrose have updated their Orch-OR model

Postby kennyc » Wed Feb 19, 2014 8:01 pm

I'll be waiting on your scientific support for your claims....

....and I'm not holding my breath.
Kenny A. Chaffin
Art Gallery - Photo Gallery - Writing&Poetry - The Bleeding Edge
"Strive on with Awareness" - Siddhartha Gautama

User avatar
Cygnus_X1
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1482
Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2014 4:08 am
Location: Middle Of Nowhere

Re: Hameroff and Penrose have updated their Orch-OR model

Postby Cygnus_X1 » Wed Feb 19, 2014 8:11 pm

"Show me a qualia"

OK.....right here... :frown:

I'd say that fulfils the scientific requirement for repeatability.
100,000 lemmings can't be wrong.

User avatar
Cygnus_X1
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1482
Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2014 4:08 am
Location: Middle Of Nowhere

Re: Hameroff and Penrose have updated their Orch-OR model

Postby Cygnus_X1 » Wed Feb 19, 2014 8:22 pm

kennyc wrote:I'll be waiting on your scientific support for your claims....

....and I'm not holding my breath.


You present qualia nihilism as some sort of 'scientific' default when it is itself pure speculation. I could equally as well argue that the person arguing something as scientific that isn't so is you...as I've yet to see any scientific paper that proved the concept. There is equally no more logical reason why nihilism should be the default rather than existence. One could even argue that there is something quite absurd about arguing the non-existence of one's sole medium of information about the world !
100,000 lemmings can't be wrong.

User avatar
kennyc
Has No Life
Posts: 12221
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 11:21 am
Custom Title: The Dank Side of the Moon
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Hameroff and Penrose have updated their Orch-OR model

Postby kennyc » Wed Feb 19, 2014 8:30 pm

...The importance of qualia in philosophy of mind comes largely from the fact that it is seen as posing a fundamental problem for materialist explanations of the mind-body problem. Much of the debate over their importance hinges on the definition of the term that is used, as various philosophers emphasize or deny the existence of certain features of qualia. As such, the nature and existence of qualia are controversial.
....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia

;)

I'll be waiting...
Kenny A. Chaffin
Art Gallery - Photo Gallery - Writing&Poetry - The Bleeding Edge
"Strive on with Awareness" - Siddhartha Gautama

User avatar
Cygnus_X1
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1482
Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2014 4:08 am
Location: Middle Of Nowhere

Re: Hameroff and Penrose have updated their Orch-OR model

Postby Cygnus_X1 » Wed Feb 19, 2014 9:14 pm

kennyc wrote:
...The importance of qualia in philosophy of mind comes largely from the fact that it is seen as posing a fundamental problem for materialist explanations of the mind-body problem. Much of the debate over their importance hinges on the definition of the term that is used, as various philosophers emphasize or deny the existence of certain features of qualia. As such, the nature and existence of qualia are controversial.
....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia

;)

I'll be waiting...


Sure. Easy answer.

If qualia do not exist....well, qualia are the basic medium of consciousness. Subtract the qualia from consciousness, and what is left ? Nothing.

So, if qualia do not exist, neither does consciousness.

And yet..not even Dennett denies the existence of consciousness. That's a bit like arguing that eggs and flour and milk don't exist but cakes do.
100,000 lemmings can't be wrong.

User avatar
Shen1986
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2889
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2012 6:47 am

Re: Hameroff and Penrose have updated their Orch-OR model

Postby Shen1986 » Thu Feb 20, 2014 6:18 am

kennyc wrote:
Shen1986 wrote:....

For me Penrose and Hameroff are a lost cause because after reading about ASIMO I get the feeling that he has already some kind of consciousness because what he can do is beyond some animals in the animal kingdom which have microtubes and should have some proto-consciousness according to their Orch-OR theory but I cannot see that in those animals.


are you talking about this? http://asimo.honda.com/


Yup that one:

Abilities[edit]

ASIMO has the ability to recognize moving objects, postures, gestures, its surrounding environment, sounds and faces, which enables it to interact with humans. The robot can detect the movements of multiple objects by using visual information captured by two camera "eyes" in its head and also determine distance and direction. This feature allows ASIMO to follow or face a person when approached.[6] The robot interprets voice commands and human gestures, enabling it to recognize when a handshake is offered or when a person waves or points, and then respond accordingly.[17] ASIMO's ability to distinguish between voices and other sounds allows it to identify its companions. ASIMO is able to respond to its name and recognizes sounds associated with a falling object or collision. This allows the robot to face a person when spoken to or look towards a sound. ASIMO responds to questions by nodding or providing a verbal answer and can recognize approximately 10 different faces and address them by name.[17]


Taken from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASIMO#Abilities

What this little baby does is beyond some animals we know of.
"Death Dies Hard." - Deathstars.

User avatar
Cygnus_X1
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1482
Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2014 4:08 am
Location: Middle Of Nowhere

Re: Hameroff and Penrose have updated their Orch-OR model

Postby Cygnus_X1 » Thu Feb 20, 2014 12:21 pm

What this little baby does is beyond some animals we know of


And yet it is merely following a mechanistic set of pre-programmed orders. It is one giant 'If....then....' nested routine. I've written some absolutely humungous programs in my career, that do extremely complex tasks, and I'm not deceived that the computer running it all is actually 'thinking' in any way or is in any way 'intelligent'. If anything, the computer is merely an extension of my intelligence.

Sooner or later anyone thinking about the issue comes across the 'binding problem'....Searle's 'Chinese Room', and 100 billion ping pong balls.
100,000 lemmings can't be wrong.

donnie
Poster
Posts: 178
Joined: Wed Jan 15, 2014 3:04 pm

Re: Hameroff and Penrose have updated their Orch-OR model

Postby donnie » Thu Feb 20, 2014 12:39 pm

A lot of what the brain does you could do on a computer. Roger is claiming that the actions of consciousness are something different. He is not saying that consciousness is beyond physics either although he is saying that it's beyond the physics we know now. Shen do you agree.?
Roger claim is MAYBE that there has to be something in physics that we don't yet understand which is very important and which is of a noncomputational character.
Roger said for to the A.I people back in the late 80s. Rather than your computer doing one computation it does a lot of them all at once. This may be under certain circumstances very efficient.
It's pretty radical to say that the brain works this way. His present view is that the brain isn't exactly a quantum computer. Quantum actions are important in the way the brain works.

User avatar
kennyc
Has No Life
Posts: 12221
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 11:21 am
Custom Title: The Dank Side of the Moon
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Hameroff and Penrose have updated their Orch-OR model

Postby kennyc » Thu Feb 20, 2014 12:41 pm

Cygnus_X1 wrote:
What this little baby does is beyond some animals we know of


And yet it is merely following a mechanistic set of pre-programmed orders. It is one giant 'If....then....' nested routine. I've written some absolutely humungous programs in my career, that do extremely complex tasks, and I'm not deceived that the computer running it all is actually 'thinking' in any way or is in any way 'intelligent'. If anything, the computer is merely an extension of my intelligence.

Sooner or later anyone thinking about the issue comes across the 'binding problem'....Searle's 'Chinese Room', and 100 billion ping pong balls.


<yawn>

http://briandbuckley.com/2012/07/03/the ... -debunked/

http://www.wutsamada.com/aol/lshauser2/chinabox.html

http://cogprints.org/240/
Last edited by kennyc on Thu Feb 20, 2014 12:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Kenny A. Chaffin
Art Gallery - Photo Gallery - Writing&Poetry - The Bleeding Edge
"Strive on with Awareness" - Siddhartha Gautama

User avatar
kennyc
Has No Life
Posts: 12221
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 11:21 am
Custom Title: The Dank Side of the Moon
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Hameroff and Penrose have updated their Orch-OR model

Postby kennyc » Thu Feb 20, 2014 12:44 pm

donnie wrote:....he is saying that it's beyond the physics we know now. Shen do you agree.?
Roger claim is MAYBE that there has to be something in physics that we don't yet understand which is very important and which is of a noncomputational character. ...


donnie/mark, quit being ignorant. There are an infinite number of things we don't understand, but that doesn't mean we get to claim they are science or that they explain a particularly phenomena when we are unable to show the science behind it.

Penrose is pushing woo. Just like theists. Just like those who believe in ghosts or magic or psychotelekenisis...it's all unsupportable speculation -- i.e. woo!
Kenny A. Chaffin
Art Gallery - Photo Gallery - Writing&Poetry - The Bleeding Edge
"Strive on with Awareness" - Siddhartha Gautama

User avatar
Cygnus_X1
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1482
Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2014 4:08 am
Location: Middle Of Nowhere

Re: Hameroff and Penrose have updated their Orch-OR model

Postby Cygnus_X1 » Thu Feb 20, 2014 12:48 pm

kennyc wrote:
Cygnus_X1 wrote:
What this little baby does is beyond some animals we know of


And yet it is merely following a mechanistic set of pre-programmed orders. It is one giant 'If....then....' nested routine. I've written some absolutely humungous programs in my career, that do extremely complex tasks, and I'm not deceived that the computer running it all is actually 'thinking' in any way or is in any way 'intelligent'. If anything, the computer is merely an extension of my intelligence.

Sooner or later anyone thinking about the issue comes across the 'binding problem'....Searle's 'Chinese Room', and 100 billion ping pong balls.


<yawn>

http://briandbuckley.com/2012/07/03/the ... -debunked/

http://cogprints.org/240/


No, the Systems Response simply comes up against the binding problem. It is not an answer to Searle to treat everything as one unified whole, when you cannot show what actually unifies it all.
100,000 lemmings can't be wrong.

donnie
Poster
Posts: 178
Joined: Wed Jan 15, 2014 3:04 pm

Re: Hameroff and Penrose have updated their Orch-OR model

Postby donnie » Thu Feb 20, 2014 1:02 pm

kennyc wrote:
donnie wrote:....he is saying that it's beyond the physics we know now. Shen do you agree.?
Roger claim is MAYBE that there has to be something in physics that we don't yet understand which is very important and which is of a noncomputational character. ...


donnie/mark, quit being ignorant. There are an infinite number of things we don't understand, but that doesn't mean we get to claim they are science or that they explain a particularly phenomena when we are unable to show the science behind it.

Penrose is pushing woo. Just like theists. Just like those who believe in ghosts or magic or psychotelekenisis...it's all unsupportable speculation -- i.e. woo!


How is this Woo.? ( Rather than your computer doing one computation it does a lot of them all at once. This may be under certain circumstances very efficient.) He has work with Hawking.The Nature of Space and Time by Hawking, S. and Penrose, R., published by Princeton University Press http://www.amazon.co.uk/Nature-Space-Pr ... 0691145709
ROGER PENROSE is a mathematical physicist; Rouse Ball Professor of Mathematics at the University of Oxford. VERY WOO

User avatar
Cygnus_X1
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1482
Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2014 4:08 am
Location: Middle Of Nowhere

Re: Hameroff and Penrose have updated their Orch-OR model

Postby Cygnus_X1 » Thu Feb 20, 2014 1:07 pm

You keep replying with refutations that have themselves been refuted or which are still the subject of controversy, and presenting them as if 'issue closed'. In this manner you present your own personal viewpoint as established science to which all else deserves a 'yawn'.

It's all rather tiresome. Were I speculating on leprechauns, I could understand the stance. But most of the issues to which you have thus responded to me are not by any means 'issue closed' and there is still wide controversy. Simply quoting the 'systems reply' to Searle, for example, fails to take into account further debate that shows the issue is by no means closed. Likewise the 'knowledge' argument for qualia has never satisfactorily been refuted. The best one can say is these arguments are ongoing. It requires a decidedly dogmatic attitude to present it otherwise.
100,000 lemmings can't be wrong.

donnie
Poster
Posts: 178
Joined: Wed Jan 15, 2014 3:04 pm

Re: Hameroff and Penrose have updated their Orch-OR model

Postby donnie » Thu Feb 20, 2014 2:04 pm

Shen1986 wrote:
kennyc wrote:
Shen1986 wrote:....

For me Penrose and Hameroff are a lost cause because after reading about ASIMO I get the feeling that he has already some kind of consciousness because what he can do is beyond some animals in the animal kingdom which have microtubes and should have some proto-consciousness according to their Orch-OR theory but I cannot see that in those animals.


are you talking about this? http://asimo.honda.com/


Yup that one:

Abilities[edit]

ASIMO has the ability to recognize moving objects, postures, gestures, its surrounding environment, sounds and faces, which enables it to interact with humans. The robot can detect the movements of multiple objects by using visual information captured by two camera "eyes" in its head and also determine distance and direction. This feature allows ASIMO to follow or face a person when approached.[6] The robot interprets voice commands and human gestures, enabling it to recognize when a handshake is offered or when a person waves or points, and then respond accordingly.[17] ASIMO's ability to distinguish between voices and other sounds allows it to identify its companions. ASIMO is able to respond to its name and recognizes sounds associated with a falling object or collision. This allows the robot to face a person when spoken to or look towards a sound. ASIMO responds to questions by nodding or providing a verbal answer and can recognize approximately 10 different faces and address them by name.[17]


Taken from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASIMO#Abilities

What this little baby does is beyond some animals we know of.


So your saying asimo has some kind of consciousness. Shen do you think consciousness is like some kind of computer programme.? And if so wouldn't a
quantum computer program be better.? If we could build one.? Quantum work's better faster than conventional classical computer right.? Rather than your computer doing one computation it does a lot of them all at once. This may be under certain circumstances very efficient And if asimo could use this. Would it make it a more effective machine.? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JODJYwYz088

A lot of what the brain does you could do on a computer.
Roger said that to the A.I people back in the late 80s. Rather than your computer doing one computation it does a lot of them all at once. This may be under certain circumstances very efficient.
It's pretty radical to say that the brain works this way. His present view is that the brain isn't exactly a quantum computer. Quantum actions are important in the way the brain works.
Last edited by donnie on Thu Feb 20, 2014 3:33 pm, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
Shen1986
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2889
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2012 6:47 am

Re: Hameroff and Penrose have updated their Orch-OR model

Postby Shen1986 » Thu Feb 20, 2014 3:03 pm

donnie wrote:So your saying asimo has some kind of consciousness. Shen do you think consciousness is like some kind of computer programme.? And if so wouldn't a quantum computer program be better.? If we could build one.? Quantum work's better faster than conventional classical computer right.? Rather than your computer doing one computation it does a lot of them all at once. This may be under certain circumstances very efficient And if asimo could use this. Would it make it a more effective machine.? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JODJYwYz088 A lot of what the brain does you could do on a computer. Roger said for to the A.I people back in the late 80s. Rather than your computer doing one computation it does a lot of them all at once. This may be under certain circumstances very efficient.It's pretty radical to say that the brain works this way. His present view is that the brain isn't exactly a quantum computer. Quantum actions are important in the way the brain works.


Thanks donnie. That you do not get what Penrose and Hameroff said. You now showed it. Penrose and Hameroff are claiming we have a Quantum soul which survives death which means that they are dualists. This is nonsense and yes the mind(to make it quite easy here) is like a program a program that cannot be separated from the brain itself(maybe copied but not moved into some digital form) because the brain is the mind. So it does not matter how you put it. It is still nonsense what Penrose and Hameroff are claiming.
"Death Dies Hard." - Deathstars.

User avatar
kennyc
Has No Life
Posts: 12221
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 11:21 am
Custom Title: The Dank Side of the Moon
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Hameroff and Penrose have updated their Orch-OR model

Postby kennyc » Thu Feb 20, 2014 3:10 pm

and to push that to the limit.....

consciousness .... particularly self-consciousness ... as I've said elsewhere ... is nothing but a feedback mechanism which has evolved to provide a competitive advantage.

the simplest example of this in the technological world is a thermostat as part of a heating/cooling system of a house or building. It monitors the environment and adjusts the behavior of the system to maintain particular conditions. It does this on its own completely independently. In a manner of speaking this could be said to be a 'conscious' system with the thermostat at its core.

No quantum microtubules, no qualia, no 'experience of {!#%@}' needed...
Kenny A. Chaffin
Art Gallery - Photo Gallery - Writing&Poetry - The Bleeding Edge
"Strive on with Awareness" - Siddhartha Gautama

donnie
Poster
Posts: 178
Joined: Wed Jan 15, 2014 3:04 pm

Re: Hameroff and Penrose have updated their Orch-OR model

Postby donnie » Thu Feb 20, 2014 3:18 pm

:D

donnie
Poster
Posts: 178
Joined: Wed Jan 15, 2014 3:04 pm

Re: Hameroff and Penrose have updated their Orch-OR model

Postby donnie » Thu Feb 20, 2014 3:29 pm

Shen1986 wrote:
donnie wrote:So your saying asimo has some kind of consciousness. Shen do you think consciousness is like some kind of computer programme.? And if so wouldn't a quantum computer program be better.? If we could build one.? Quantum work's better faster than conventional classical computer right.? Rather than your computer doing one computation it does a lot of them all at once. This may be under certain circumstances very efficient And if asimo could use this. Would it make it a more effective machine.? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JODJYwYz088 A lot of what the brain does you could do on a computer. Roger said for to the A.I people back in the late 80s. Rather than your computer doing one computation it does a lot of them all at once. This may be under certain circumstances very efficient.It's pretty radical to say that the brain works this way. His present view is that the brain isn't exactly a quantum computer. Quantum actions are important in the way the brain works.


Thanks donnie. That you do not get what Penrose and Hameroff said. You now showed it. Penrose and Hameroff are claiming we have a Quantum soul which survives death which means that they are dualists. This is nonsense and yes the mind(to make it quite easy here) is like a program a program that cannot be separated from the brain itself(maybe copied but not moved into some digital form) because the brain is the mind. So it does not matter how you put it. It is still nonsense what Penrose and Hameroff are claiming.


Penrose has never clamed that we have a quantum soul. Ok hemeroff has.Show me anything from youtube where penrose has stated this.? What did I ask you. (So you think asimo has some kind of consciousness. Shen do you think consciousness is like some kind of computer programme.? And if so wouldn't a
quantum computer program be better.? If we could build one.? And if asimo could use this. Would it make it a more effective machine.?).

User avatar
Cygnus_X1
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1482
Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2014 4:08 am
Location: Middle Of Nowhere

Re: Hameroff and Penrose have updated their Orch-OR model

Postby Cygnus_X1 » Thu Feb 20, 2014 5:14 pm

So your saying asimo has some kind of consciousness.


How would one ever know ? I get lambasted for allegedly not being scientific....well, science surely involves being able to physically demonstrate a hypothesis is true, and how does one do this with consciousness ?

There was an item on the BBC News web site a few days ago where scientists claim elephants are conscious and they have 'evidence' of it. There are science articles claiming that children with no cerebrum are conscious...based on them being able to 'recognise' themselves. Yet none of this really amounts to proof of consciousness.

It seems to me that some take the functionalist approach that if it behaves like it is conscious then it must be. But, in addition to Searle's Chinese room there is also the 'China Brain' objection to functionalism.

Kennyc demanded a few days back that I show him qualia. Well...I could equally as well ask, for any claim that an entity is conscious.....'show me the consciousness'.
100,000 lemmings can't be wrong.

User avatar
kennyc
Has No Life
Posts: 12221
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 11:21 am
Custom Title: The Dank Side of the Moon
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Hameroff and Penrose have updated their Orch-OR model

Postby kennyc » Thu Feb 20, 2014 5:24 pm

Cygnus_X1 wrote:
So your saying asimo has some kind of consciousness.


How would one ever know ? I get lambasted for allegedly not being scientific....well, science surely involves being able to physically demonstrate a hypothesis is true, and how does one do this with consciousness ?

There was an item on the BBC News web site a few days ago where scientists claim elephants are conscious and they have 'evidence' of it. There are science articles claiming that children with no cerebrum are conscious...based on them being able to 'recognise' themselves. Yet none of this really amounts to proof of consciousness.

It seems to me that some take the functionalist approach that if it behaves like it is conscious then it must be. But, in addition to Searle's Chinese room there is also the 'China Brain' objection to functionalism.

Kennyc demanded a few days back that I show him qualia. Well...I could equally as well ask, for any claim that an entity is conscious.....'show me the consciousness'.


Define consciousness and maybe he* can show you.

;)

*though I'm not sure who 'he' is, you need to be a bit more careful with your attributions. As it stands this appears to come from donnie/mark is it him you want to show you the consciousness or Shen?
Kenny A. Chaffin
Art Gallery - Photo Gallery - Writing&Poetry - The Bleeding Edge
"Strive on with Awareness" - Siddhartha Gautama

donnie
Poster
Posts: 178
Joined: Wed Jan 15, 2014 3:04 pm

Re: Hameroff and Penrose have updated their Orch-OR model

Postby donnie » Thu Feb 20, 2014 6:08 pm

Cygnus_X1 wrote:
So your saying asimo has some kind of consciousness.


How would one ever know ? I get lambasted for allegedly not being scientific....well, science surely involves being able to physically demonstrate a hypothesis is true, and how does one do this with consciousness ?

There was an item on the BBC News web site a few days ago where scientists claim elephants are conscious and they have 'evidence' of it. There are science articles claiming that children with no cerebrum are conscious...based on them being able to 'recognise' themselves. Yet none of this really amounts to proof of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_test

It seems to me that some take the functionalist approach that if it behaves like it is conscious then it must be. But, in addition to Searle's Chinese room there is also the 'China Brain' objection to functionalism.

Kennyc demanded a few days back that I show him qualia. Well...I could equally as well ask, for any claim that an entity is conscious.....'show me the consciousness'.


All animal are conscious. I think elephants pass the mirror test. They can recognize they own reflection in a mirror. So they self aware. And they are only 9 animal's who pass the test. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_test Not sure if anybody can Define consciousness.? But we can define what it means. Being self aware.

User avatar
Shen1986
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2889
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2012 6:47 am

Re: Hameroff and Penrose have updated their Orch-OR model

Postby Shen1986 » Thu Feb 20, 2014 6:27 pm

donnie wrote:Penrose has never clamed that we have a quantum soul. Ok hemeroff has.Show me anything from youtube where penrose has stated this.? What did I ask you. (So you think asimo has some kind of consciousness. Shen do you think consciousness is like some kind of computer programme.? And if so wouldn't a quantum computer program be better.? If we could build one.? And if asimo could use this. Would it make it a more effective machine.?).


Hameroff and Penrose wrote together the paper so, they agree on a Quantum soul:

Consciousness in the universe: A review of the ‘Orch OR’ theory
Stuart Hameroff a, , 1, , Roger Penrose b, 2


Taken from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 4513001188

Here is the paper:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 4513001188

A Quantum computer is more powerful. So yes. However if we build a Quantum Computer the computer will not have consciousness..

Also another problem if we create consciousness even thanks to a Quantum Computer then there is still no soul or a afterlife.. So this whole theory is worth nothing.
"Death Dies Hard." - Deathstars.

User avatar
Shen1986
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2889
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2012 6:47 am

Re: Hameroff and Penrose have updated their Orch-OR model

Postby Shen1986 » Thu Feb 20, 2014 6:31 pm

Cygnus_X1 wrote:There was an item on the BBC News web site a few days ago where scientists claim elephants are conscious and they have 'evidence' of it. There are science articles claiming that children with no cerebrum are conscious...based on them being able to 'recognise' themselves. Yet none of this really amounts to proof of consciousness.


Elephants are conscious also like some apes and even birds. I am certain of that.

However I am skeptical of conscious children without a cerebrum or other people like that however it is open to debate because the brain can adapt(there was a person who had almost the whole brain flooded and could have a quasi normal life) to many things also like the organisms however even when the children are conscious they are not on our "normal" level of consciousness.
"Death Dies Hard." - Deathstars.

donnie
Poster
Posts: 178
Joined: Wed Jan 15, 2014 3:04 pm

Re: Hameroff and Penrose have updated their Orch-OR model

Postby donnie » Thu Feb 20, 2014 7:03 pm

Shen1986 wrote:
donnie wrote:Penrose has never clamed that we have a quantum soul. Ok hemeroff has.Show me anything from youtube where penrose has stated this.? What did I ask you. (So you think asimo has some kind of consciousness. Shen do you think consciousness is like some kind of computer programme.? And if so wouldn't a quantum computer program be better.? If we could build one.? And if asimo could use this. Would it make it a more effective machine.?).


Hameroff and Penrose wrote together the paper so, they agree on a Quantum soul:

Consciousness in the universe: A review of the ‘Orch OR’ theory
Stuart Hameroff a, , 1, , Roger Penrose b, 2


Taken from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 4513001188

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 4513001188

A Quantum computer is more powerful. So yes. However if we build a Quantum Computer the computer will not have consciousness..

Also another problem if we create consciousness even thanks to a Quantum Computer then there is still no soul or a afterlife.. So this whole theory is worth nothing.



Shen what you think the paper is about.?
Penrose Has never said we have a Quantum soul. And if he has show me. All he has said is that the brain is not a classical computer. The A.I guy's hated that and said proof it. Penrose is not biologist and need it a mechanism (he knows nothing about biology because he is a mathematical physicist. Step up hemeroff and his microtubules. Don't mix up what hemeroff is saying about a soul and what Penrose is saying about we have a soul. Not sure why hemeroff went they for it.
Last edited by donnie on Thu Feb 20, 2014 7:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Hybr1d
Poster
Posts: 109
Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2014 9:19 pm
Custom Title: Agnostic Pantheist
Location: East Coast, USA

Re: Hameroff and Penrose have updated their Orch-OR model

Postby Hybr1d » Thu Feb 20, 2014 7:08 pm

donnie wrote:
Shen1986 wrote:
donnie wrote:Penrose has never clamed that we have a quantum soul. Ok hemeroff has.Show me anything from youtube where penrose has stated this.? What did I ask you. (So you think asimo has some kind of consciousness. Shen do you think consciousness is like some kind of computer programme.? And if so wouldn't a quantum computer program be better.? If we could build one.? And if asimo could use this. Would it make it a more effective machine.?).


Hameroff and Penrose wrote together the paper so, they agree on a Quantum soul:

Consciousness in the universe: A review of the ‘Orch OR’ theory
Stuart Hameroff a, , 1, , Roger Penrose b, 2


Taken from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 4513001188

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 4513001188

A Quantum computer is more powerful. So yes. However if we build a Quantum Computer the computer will not have consciousness..

Also another problem if we create consciousness even thanks to a Quantum Computer then there is still no soul or a afterlife.. So this whole theory is worth nothing.



Shen what you think the paper is about.?
Penrose Has never said we have a Quantum soul. And if he has show me. All he has said is that the brain is not a classical computer. The A.I guy's hated that and said proof it. Penrose is not biologist and need it a mechanism (he knows nothing about biology because he is a mathematical physicist and needed a mechanism. Step up hemeroff and his microtubules. Don't mix up what hemeroff is saying about a soul and what Penrose is saying.


The arguments are correlative see here - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WXTX0IUaOg
Him and Hameroff are going to be debating at - http://www.consciousness.arizona.edu/

April 23rd(Penrose), and April 25th(Hameroff)^

They went over and wrote the review(2013) together and the paper mentions(multiple times) the instance of quantum soul. Which would indicate Penrose agrees with the quantum consciousness proposition also if his theory is correct it would remain entangled and leak out. Thus giving rise to a soul.

However whether the theory is true or false remains to be seen. We will know one way or another where the evidence points within the next five years or so. Also watch this interview here for more information - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpUVot-4GPM
"Is this real, or is this just a ride?" Other people have remembered, and they come back to us, and they say, "Hey - don't worry, don't be afraid EVER because, this is just a ride." We always kill those good guys who try and tell us that. Jesus - murdered; Martin Luther King - murdered; Malcolm X - murdered; Gandhi - murdered; John Lennon - murdered; Reagan... wounded HAHA! But it doesn't matter because: It's just a ride." - Bill Hicks

A Quantum Vacuum is not nothing.

User avatar
Hybr1d
Poster
Posts: 109
Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2014 9:19 pm
Custom Title: Agnostic Pantheist
Location: East Coast, USA

Re: Hameroff and Penrose have updated their Orch-OR model

Postby Hybr1d » Thu Feb 20, 2014 7:28 pm

Shen1986 wrote:
donnie wrote:Penrose has never clamed that we have a quantum soul. Ok hemeroff has.Show me anything from youtube where penrose has stated this.? What did I ask you. (So you think asimo has some kind of consciousness. Shen do you think consciousness is like some kind of computer programme.? And if so wouldn't a quantum computer program be better.? If we could build one.? And if asimo could use this. Would it make it a more effective machine.?).


Hameroff and Penrose wrote together the paper so, they agree on a Quantum soul:

Consciousness in the universe: A review of the ‘Orch OR’ theory
Stuart Hameroff a, , 1, , Roger Penrose b, 2


Taken from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 4513001188

Here is the paper:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 4513001188

A Quantum computer is more powerful. So yes. However if we build a Quantum Computer the computer will not have consciousness..

Also another problem if we create consciousness even thanks to a Quantum Computer then there is still no soul or a afterlife.. So this whole theory is worth nothing.


You cannot prove or disprove those statements at all. Why post them? Opinion? You should say so if this is the case.

My opinion: If one were to design a quantum computer and Orch Or is true than said machine would also abide by there rules(if you have even read the paper). As such the quantum computer would be conscious and the consciousness therein would remain entangled after the quantum computer/AI's death. In this instance there would be no structure remaining to hold that quantum information, and it would disperse, such as it does upon human death in accordance with the theory. I would imagine as well upon powering down a quantum computer/artificial intelligence it would be akin to a human being going to sleep.
"Is this real, or is this just a ride?" Other people have remembered, and they come back to us, and they say, "Hey - don't worry, don't be afraid EVER because, this is just a ride." We always kill those good guys who try and tell us that. Jesus - murdered; Martin Luther King - murdered; Malcolm X - murdered; Gandhi - murdered; John Lennon - murdered; Reagan... wounded HAHA! But it doesn't matter because: It's just a ride." - Bill Hicks

A Quantum Vacuum is not nothing.

donnie
Poster
Posts: 178
Joined: Wed Jan 15, 2014 3:04 pm

Re: Hameroff and Penrose have updated their Orch-OR model

Postby donnie » Thu Feb 20, 2014 9:24 pm

Hybr1d wrote:
Shen1986 wrote:
donnie wrote:Penrose has never clamed that we have a quantum soul. Ok hemeroff has.Show me anything from youtube where penrose has stated this.? What did I ask you. (So you think asimo has some kind of consciousness. Shen do you think consciousness is like some kind of computer programme.? And if so wouldn't a quantum computer program be better.? If we could build one.? And if asimo could use this. Would it make it a more effective machine.?).


Hameroff and Penrose wrote together the paper so, they agree on a Quantum soul:

Consciousness in the universe: A review of the ‘Orch OR’ theory
Stuart Hameroff a, , 1, , Roger Penrose b, 2


Taken from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 4513001188

Here is the paper:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 4513001188

A Quantum computer is more powerful. So yes. However if we build a Quantum Computer the computer will not have consciousness..

Also another problem if we create consciousness even thanks to a Quantum Computer then there is still no soul or a afterlife.. So this whole theory is worth nothing.


You cannot prove or disprove those statements at all. Why post them? Opinion? You should say so if this is the case.

My opinion: If one were to design a quantum computer and Orch Or is true than said machine would also abide by there rules(if you have even read the paper). As such the quantum computer would be conscious and the consciousness therein would remain entangled after the quantum computer/AI's death. In this instance there would be no structure remaining to hold that quantum information, and it would disperse, such as it does upon human death in accordance with the theory. I would imagine as well upon powering down a quantum computer/artificial intelligence it would be akin to a human being going to sleep.



Shen what you think the paper is about.?
Penrose Has never said we have a Quantum soul. And if he has show me. All he has said is that the brain is not a classical computer. The A.I guy's hated that and said proof it. Penrose is not biologist and need it a mechanism (he knows nothing about biology because he is a mathematical physicist. Step up hemeroff and his microtubules. Don't mix up what hemeroff is saying about a soul and what Penrose is saying about. We have a soul. Not sure why hemeroff went they for it. Penrose never.
So Orch-OR is about do we have a soul. It's Roger claim is MAYBE that there has to be something in physics that we don't yet understand which is very important and which is of a noncomputational character.
You see he is using mathematical association.
Roger said for to the A.I people back in the late 80s. Rather than your computer doing one computation it does a lot of them all at once. This may be under certain circumstances very efficient.
The human brain is not a classical computer. It's a Quantum computer. (work's using Quantum.)
If you want a artificial intelligence HAS to use/be Quantum. The I.A community did not like this. And there's a big engineering problem to face. So some year's later we are trying to build QC trust it would work a lot better than a classical computer. I think now the A.I community now come around and are spending a lot of money trying to build one. That's what he waned.
If you guy's want to know if there is a soul. JUST set up a scientist experiment like DR sam. So nobody see the picture but says I saw this and that we know its BS. There see the picture then its real.

User avatar
Hybr1d
Poster
Posts: 109
Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2014 9:19 pm
Custom Title: Agnostic Pantheist
Location: East Coast, USA

Re: Hameroff and Penrose have updated their Orch-OR model

Postby Hybr1d » Thu Feb 20, 2014 9:43 pm

donnie wrote:Shen what you think the paper is about.?
Penrose Has never said we have a Quantum soul. And if he has show me. All he has said is that the brain is not a classical computer. The A.I guy's hated that and said proof it. Penrose is not biologist and need it a mechanism (he knows nothing about biology because he is a mathematical physicist. Step up hemeroff and his microtubules. Don't mix up what hemeroff is saying about a soul and what Penrose is saying about. We have a soul. Not sure why hemeroff went they for it. Penrose never.
So Orch-OR is about do we have a soul. It's Roger claim is MAYBE that there has to be something in physics that we don't yet understand which is very important and which is of a noncomputational character.
You see he is using mathematical association.
Roger said for to the A.I people back in the late 80s. Rather than your computer doing one computation it does a lot of them all at once. This may be under certain circumstances very efficient.
The human brain is not a classical computer. It's a Quantum computer. (work's using Quantum.)
If you want a artificial intelligence HAS to use/be Quantum. The I.A community did not like this. And there's a big engineering problem to face. So some year's later we are trying to build QC trust it would work a lot better than a classical computer. I think now the A.I community now come around and are spending a lot of money trying to build one. That's what he waned.
If you guy's want to know if there is a soul. JUST set up a scientist experiment like DR sam. So nobody see the picture but says I saw this and that we know its BS. There see the picture then its real.


This re-posted retort is both undecipherable and illogical. Penrose and Hameroff put forth the same theory and have the same belief. They both wrote it, and the paper itself implies we have a quantum soul giving rise to our consciousness. The paper is about consciousness not just our brains being quantum machines. Read the scientific literature before you debate it, please. Penrose has a speech in April titled "Consciousness in the Universe."

http://www.spinvestigations.org/Sir_Roger_Penrose.pdf

Also watch this entire video Penrose is mentioned as avoiding discussing his opinions on an NDE -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpUVot-4GPM

They both wrote the paper that implies a quantum soul, if Penrose believed in the contrary he would have wrote that himself.
"Is this real, or is this just a ride?" Other people have remembered, and they come back to us, and they say, "Hey - don't worry, don't be afraid EVER because, this is just a ride." We always kill those good guys who try and tell us that. Jesus - murdered; Martin Luther King - murdered; Malcolm X - murdered; Gandhi - murdered; John Lennon - murdered; Reagan... wounded HAHA! But it doesn't matter because: It's just a ride." - Bill Hicks

A Quantum Vacuum is not nothing.

User avatar
Hybr1d
Poster
Posts: 109
Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2014 9:19 pm
Custom Title: Agnostic Pantheist
Location: East Coast, USA

Re: Hameroff and Penrose have updated their Orch-OR model

Postby Hybr1d » Thu Feb 20, 2014 9:54 pm

This is the viable Orch Or theory and based on said theory this paper on the quantum soul was written by Stuart Hameroff and Deepak Chopra( Deepak is kinda woo if you ask me)

http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/doc ... ulchap.pdf

Viable but not entirely provable(or non-provable) yet^

Do I believe it myself?
I'm skeptical however it is possible and makes sense in numerous ways.
So you have a maybe from me, and on that note I'm done debating on this specific topic.
Good day to you all.
"Is this real, or is this just a ride?" Other people have remembered, and they come back to us, and they say, "Hey - don't worry, don't be afraid EVER because, this is just a ride." We always kill those good guys who try and tell us that. Jesus - murdered; Martin Luther King - murdered; Malcolm X - murdered; Gandhi - murdered; John Lennon - murdered; Reagan... wounded HAHA! But it doesn't matter because: It's just a ride." - Bill Hicks

A Quantum Vacuum is not nothing.

donnie
Poster
Posts: 178
Joined: Wed Jan 15, 2014 3:04 pm

Re: Hameroff and Penrose have updated their Orch-OR model

Postby donnie » Fri Feb 21, 2014 1:14 am

Hybr1d wrote:
donnie wrote:Shen what you think the paper is about.?
Penrose Has never said we have a Quantum soul. And if he has show me. All he has said is that the brain is not a classical computer. The A.I guy's hated that and said proof it. Penrose is not biologist and need it a mechanism (he knows nothing about biology because he is a mathematical physicist. Step up hemeroff and his microtubules. Don't mix up what hemeroff is saying about a soul and what Penrose is saying about. We have a soul. Not sure why hemeroff went they for it. Penrose never.
So Orch-OR is about do we have a soul. It's Roger claim is MAYBE that there has to be something in physics that we don't yet understand which is very important and which is of a noncomputational character.
You see he is using mathematical association.
Roger said for to the A.I people back in the late 80s. Rather than your computer doing one computation it does a lot of them all at once. This may be under certain circumstances very efficient.
The human brain is not a classical computer. It's a Quantum computer. (work's using Quantum.)
If you want a artificial intelligence HAS to use/be Quantum. The I.A community did not like this. And there's a big engineering problem to face. So some year's later we are trying to build QC trust it would work a lot better than a classical computer. I think now the A.I community now come around and are spending a lot of money trying to build one. That's what he waned.
If you guy's want to know if there is a soul. JUST set up a scientist experiment like DR sam. So nobody see the picture but says I saw this and that we know its BS. There see the picture then its real.


This re-posted retort is both undecipherable and illogical. Penrose and Hameroff put forth the same theory and have the same belief. They both wrote it, and the paper itself implies we have a quantum soul giving rise to our consciousness. The paper is about consciousness not just our brains being quantum machines. Read the scientific literature before you debate it, please. Penrose has a speech in April titled "Consciousness in the Universe."

http://www.spinvestigations.org/Sir_Roger_Penrose.pdf

Also watch this entire video Penrose is mentioned as avoiding discussing his opinions on an NDE -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpUVot-4GPM

They both wrote the paper that implies a quantum soul, if Penrose believed in the contrary he would have wrote that himself.




So which science journal was this published in.?

User avatar
Shen1986
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2889
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2012 6:47 am

Re: Hameroff and Penrose have updated their Orch-OR model

Postby Shen1986 » Fri Feb 21, 2014 6:33 am

Hybr1d wrote:However whether the theory is true or false remains to be seen. We will know one way or another where the evidence points within the next five years or so. Also watch this interview here for more information - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpUVot-4GPM


This video was already discussed here if I remember. I posted a thread about it. Another problem is that Hameroff is lying there in the start he claims that none of his 20 predictions were disproved that it a lie:

Further to this, in 1998, Hameroff made 20 testable predictions related to his proposal.[39] However, most of these proposals have been disproven. The proposed predominance of 'A' lattice microtubules, more suitable for information processing, has been falsified by Kikkawa et al.,[40][41] who showed that all in vivo microtubules have a 'B' lattice and a seam. The suggestion of coherent photons has been disproven, as has the existence of gap junctions between neurons and glial cells,[42] and the proposal that photons do not decohere in the retina.[43]


Taken from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orchestrat ... _reduction

Another problem is that there is already criticism to this "new" upgrage. Kenny posted one and there is more on the Internet so sorry to burst the bubble but they are wrong again and the only evidence they have is from a follower of Deepak Chopra which I posted here.. So I would take that with a great skeptical look on this and I think it is wrong.
"Death Dies Hard." - Deathstars.

User avatar
Shen1986
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2889
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2012 6:47 am

Re: Hameroff and Penrose have updated their Orch-OR model

Postby Shen1986 » Fri Feb 21, 2014 6:45 am

Hybr1d wrote:You cannot prove or disprove those statements at all. Why post them? Opinion? You should say so if this is the case.My opinion: If one were to design a quantum computer and Orch Or is true than said machine would also abide by there rules(if you have even read the paper). As such the quantum computer would be conscious and the consciousness therein would remain entangled after the quantum computer/AI's death. In this instance there would be no structure remaining to hold that quantum information, and it would disperse, such as it does upon human death in accordance with the theory. I would imagine as well upon powering down a quantum computer/artificial intelligence it would be akin to a human being going to sleep.


For you information Hybr1d. I have read the papers and keep these threads updated. The problem with this woo is that its woo. People who work with Quantum Computers are skeptical of the claims of Penrose and Hameroff and that for a good reason. So far we build ASIMO and we did not needed no Quantum Mechanics to begin with or not even microtubes and that robot can do many things which some animals cannot and those have mictrotubes to begin with and according to Hameroff and Penrose should have some form of Quantum Soul or proto-consciousness. Also another problem is that their model gives no answer, even Chalmers is against it and there are others who claim it is all woo. I will not even start that they cite parapsychology papers of Dean Radin and Dem Beryl. Just read the thread and you will see the errors. Not to mentioned a criticism wrote by scientists on the the new paper posted by Kenny:

Here take a look at this another critic:

I think Keegan provides a great set of references, but I just wanted to expand on his answer in a little bit more detail. Penrose and Hameroff's ideas are mentioned a lot on the internet and although they are often debunked, you can never do it enough. I want to discuss (1) what microtubules are and (2) are there quantum effects in them? And, more importantly, (3) does that even matter? and (4) is any of this new?
What are microtubules?

Microtubules are a structure in the cytoskeleton that are found in all dividing eukaryotic cells and in most differentiated cell types (Desai & Mitchison, 1997). They are by no means exclusive to neurons, so if you think they bestow consciousness then you have to grant consciousness to all eukaryotes (something that most philosophers would find strange), or you are back at the same difficulty as before in trying to explain how networks of microtubules give rise to consciousness and thus postulating them as your basic units instead of neurons gives you no explanatory power.

Related discussions:

Which organisms have the neuroanatomy Roger Penrose supposes play a role in consciousness?.
Are there quantum effects in microtubules?

In the video, Hameroff describes quantum and classic effects as a ying-and-yang. This is a very misleading picture, for a physicist the world is fundamentally quantum but at large sizes, and high temperatures (i.e. a lot of interaction with an external environment) is well described by our more intuitive laws of classical physics. Thus, the question isn't are there quantum effects, but are the quantum effects significant enough to cause non-classical consequences? Note, that most of chemistry can't be properly explained by classical physics, so every chemical reaction needs quantum effects to make sense, but we don't suggest that this makes every chemical reaction conscious.

The exciting part is that quantum effects do matter in (a non-trivial way) in some biological systems; most notably in photosynthesis (Engel et al, 2007). In particular, a certain energy perturbation after a photon is absorbed follows a quantum random walk, and one could speculate that this can be used for quantum computing, but there is no reason to expect it.

Microtubules are small enough to not completely rule out quantum effects. They are rope like polymers that grow to a length of about 25 micrometers (25000 nm), and have an outer-diameter of around 25 nm or about 200 atoms across. Researchers commonly use quantum dots to play with quantum effects, and these are typically spheres on the order of 10 to 50 atoms in diameter. Note, that we don't know how to couple 5000 quantum dots in one coherent chain (how many you would need to get the length of a microtubule).

However, the issue physicists usually raise, is not one of size but of the time that the microtubule would need to maintain coherence (i.e. a pure quantum state). The reason photosynthesis uses a quantum random walk, is because a classical one would not be fast enough to find a binding site. Thus, in that case the timescales involved are miniscule. The timescales involved in the function of microtubules are much longer, and physicists believe that their state is not coherence for that length of time (Tegmark, 2000).
Even if microtubules are quantum, so what?

This is the real clincher, suppose quantum effects are important to microtubules. Suppose that whole networks of microtubules are able to keep coherent entanglement between. Heck, suppose that the brain is a giant quantum computer. So what?

For a lot of people (like Hameroff), there is this misconception that classical physics does not allow for free well but quantum mechanics does because of wave function collapse. Thankfully, we have Conway & Kochen's (2006) free will theorem which says (more or less), any free will you give to an observer/experimenter in your philosophy of quantum mechanics, you will also have to give that some amount of agency to electrons and other subatomic particles. In other words, if your interpretation of quantum mechanics somehow gives you free-will then it is a trivial kind of free will that every particle in the universe has. Of course, this argument can be explored in much more depth, but I suggest reading someone that is familiar with quantum computing (Aaronson, 2013) instead of Hameroff.

For Penrose (see The Emperor's New Mind) consciousness is non-algorithmic and he suggests that a magical quantum computer could do these non-algorithmic tasks. The reason I use 'magical' is because a real quantum computer is Turing-complete, if a classical computer cannot solve a problem then neither can a quantum one (of course, if a classical computer can solve a problem, then quantum one can as well and might be able to do it qualitatively faster). For a nice computer science debunking of this part of Penrose's argument take a look a Scott Aaronson's lecture notes.
Is any of this even new?

For me, the most disappointing part of this pseudoscience is its lack of novelty. The basic philosophical urge underlying Hameroff's speculation is an over-application of reductionism: consciousness can't be something emergent, there has to be a basic essence to it. Since he can't take the dualist stance of Descartes, he instead postulates that it is"quantum magic". Even this use of quantum magic isn't original—it was an extremely popular type of hokum in the 70s that has been called quantum mysticism.


Taken from: http://cogsci.stackexchange.com/questio ... omputation
"Death Dies Hard." - Deathstars.

User avatar
Shen1986
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2889
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2012 6:47 am

Re: Hameroff and Penrose have updated their Orch-OR model

Postby Shen1986 » Fri Feb 21, 2014 6:47 am

donnie wrote:So which science journal was this published in.?


Read the link where I cite the paper..
"Death Dies Hard." - Deathstars.

User avatar
Cygnus_X1
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1482
Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2014 4:08 am
Location: Middle Of Nowhere

Re: Hameroff and Penrose have updated their Orch-OR model

Postby Cygnus_X1 » Fri Feb 21, 2014 1:14 pm

I don't agree with Orch-OR ( which sounds like something out of Skyrim ), but I do agree with a point Hameroff makes regarding standard AI research...

There comes a point where much maligned 'philosophy' is not just woo but is more concerned with defining ontology. Nowhere is this more the case than with behaviourist and functionalist models of understanding, intelligence, and consciousness.

The real issue is that before we can say we have created these things, we need to define what they actually are. In that sense the Turing test has it round the wrong way. Rather than starting out with some pre-defined definition for understanding, it leaves it all down to some partial third party observer to arbitrarily decide whether some test has been 'passed'. You can pluck a figure out of the air for whatever the 'pass' mark for the Turing test might be.

And that is precisely why Searle's 'Chinese room' exists. Whether you think the Chinese room is utter nonsense or not, it most certainly does do what its original intention was....which was a call for a clear ontology. The real issue ( as Searle has himself said ) is NOT whether the Chinese room is valid or not, but just how do you concisely define what 'understanding' is.

The same applies to Chalmers p-zombies. The issue is NOT whether they literally exist, but that they once again raise the question of definitions. The p-zombie is merely a tool for asking 'how do you know that this or that critter or machine is conscious ?'

The point Hameroff correctly makes is that no such definitions actually exist, and that AI functionalists have no real idea whether 'if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck' does actually apply for understanding and consciousness.

Clearly, it is impossible to be certain some state has actually been reached, if nobody can rigidly define what that state actually is.
100,000 lemmings can't be wrong.

User avatar
kennyc
Has No Life
Posts: 12221
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 11:21 am
Custom Title: The Dank Side of the Moon
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Hameroff and Penrose have updated their Orch-OR model

Postby kennyc » Fri Feb 21, 2014 1:19 pm

Wrong.

The issue is what is real, not idiotic claims that can't be scientifically, rationally investigated.

As I've already told you. Consciousness is simple. You just don't get it cause you are too much a
believer in the philosophical woo (which has no scientific basis or support).
Kenny A. Chaffin
Art Gallery - Photo Gallery - Writing&Poetry - The Bleeding Edge
"Strive on with Awareness" - Siddhartha Gautama


Return to “Brain, Mind, & Consciousness”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests