Talk:Orchestrated objective reduction

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

Quantum computation and hypercomputation

[edit]

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

Doesn't this suggest that the turing model is not even designed to address the issue of consciousness? Turing was after intelligence. Intelligence can clearly be emulated without the emergence of a subjective experience. Watson on Jeopardy spontaneously asking "Why can't I tell the difference between a man and woman in my answers?" would be an expression of consciousness.

It strikes me that consciousness might only be verifiable with the application of intelligence but that intelligence, nor models aimed at expressing it, is not consciousness. It doesnt even seem to be obviously correlated as animals of varying intelligencea are conscious. Which means that turing machines don't get at the heart of the issue. Or as searle would say: rules and lists are never enough.User:arnshea

Other Relevant Papers

[edit]

This is actually the correct list of the papers, and so is evident that most of the titles are completely different, and moreover are irrelevant to Orch OR. Also, the fMRI or other methods of brain imaging cited have no effects on consciousness, so these are evidence against Q-mind, not support for it!

  • Kanade, T. (1980), A theory of origami world Artificial Intelligence 13:279-279-311
  • Kanade, T. (1981). Recovery of the Three-Dimensional Shape of an Object from a Single View. Artificial Intelligence 17:409-460
  • Bialek, W. & Zee, A. (1987), Statistical mechanics and invariant perception. Physical Review Letters 58:741-744
  • Bialek, W. & Sweitzer, A. (1985), Quantum Noise and the Threshold of Hearing. Physical Review Letters 54:725-728
  • Tejada, J. (1996), Does Macroscopic Quantum Coherence Occur in Ferritin?". Science 272:424a
  • Garg, A. (1996), Does Macroscopic Quantum Coherence Occur in Ferritin?". Science 272:424b
  • Warren WS, Ahn S, Mescher M, Garwood M, Ugurbil K, Richter W, Rizi RR, Hopkins J, Leigh JS (1998), MR Imaging Contrast Enhancement Based on Intermolecular Zero Quantum Coherences". Science 1998 281: 247-251
  • Rizi RR, Ahn S, Alsop DC, Garrett-Roe S, Schnall MD, Leigh JS, Warren WS (2000) “Intermolecular Zero Quantum Coherence Imaging of the Human Brain”, Magnetic Resonance in Medicine 43, 627-632.
  • Richter W, Richter M, Warren WS, Merkle H, Andersen P, Adriany G, Ugurbil K. Functional magnetic resonance imaging with intermolecular multiple-quantum coherences. Magn Reson Imaging. 2000;18:489–494.
  • Prokhorenco, V. (2006). Coherent Control of Retinal Isomerization in Bacteriorhodopsin Science 313: 1257-1261.
  • Binhi, V. & Savin, A. (2002), "Molecular gyroscopes and biological effects of very low frequency magnetic fields". Physical Review E 65:051912

Criticism and Neuroscience sections

[edit]

The Criticism section is unusual for Wiki, in that it seems to be constructed not to add to the topic but to try to tear it down without exposing the authors to counter-argument. This is particularly obvious in the 'Neuroscience' section, which seems to be authored purely to attack Penrose et al without allowing counterpoints, e.g. it claims there are no gap junctions in microglia etc but it is not up to date and offers none of the large number of references to the opposite - i.e. pushing an argument without allowing dissent. Not very Wiki? 60.226.145.226 (talk) 03:12, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the main difficulty with the Neuroscience section is that it offers its own critique as opposed to citing existing published critiques; it is essentially presenting original research.Gmusser (talk) 16:37, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gmusser - I second this. I have no remarks on the value of the argument itself, but the content of that section went against the purposes of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. I removed it today, and subsequently came to the talkpage to see if there were any similar complaints. I am glad to find that others have observed this problem. ChimaFan12 (talk) 22:18, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"... hasten the duration ..."?

[edit]

The article as of now says, "In a study Hameroff was part of, Jack Tuszyński of the University of Alberta demonstrated that anesthetics hasten the duration of a process called delayed luminescence ..."

What does that mean? Shorten the duration? Increase the speed? IAmNitpicking (talk) 03:14, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Should this article be categorized under "pseudoscience"?

[edit]

It currently is, although the word "pseudoscience" appears nowhere in the article text. ALittleClass (talk) 03:59, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]