Talk:Orchestrated objective reduction

message: I have watched with amusement over the years as repeated attempts have been made in this talk section to take this theory down, and all have failed. Yes, it is still alive and well :)
-----  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.147.26.215 (talk) 12:34, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm guessing that you are Vahe Gurzadyan? Can you guess what gave you away?137.205.183.109 (talk) 16:56, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Update

message: 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)
thread_title:  Theory vs Fact 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Penrose's collapse theory vs. The Penrose-Hameroff consciousness theory 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  This definitely has to mention what the predictions are. Otherwise it's just propaganda. Thehotelambush 03:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Testing the theory 

message: 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)
thread_title:  The Penrose collapse theory 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Libet and time 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Neutrality 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Just a suggestion 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Proposal to remove disputed neutrality tag

message: 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)
replies: text: Easy to open Pandora's box. The slightly mangled state of the existing article results partly from a struggle to agree neutrality. I've looked at the article and in practise opening up to a more general readership looks to require a substantially different and longer article with all sorts of possible problems on agreement. However, I will try out something aimed at the more general reader.Persephone19 (talk) 08:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

text: This page has been tagged as being too technical for most readers to understand since May of 2008, but the present page has been improved since then, so I am removing the tag.  Also, WP:TECHNICAL: says "Technical templates added without explanation are likely to be either ignored or removed", and this one was added without an explanation and in the wrong location. Guy Macon 23:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of Disputed Neutrality Tag

message: I have had a first shot at a major re-edit, with a view to improving the accessibility for the general reader. Perhaps others would like to improve on this or make suggestions for improvements. Persephone19 (talk) 14:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Major Edit

message: How about some external links?
e.g.,
Penrose's replies to various criticisms
A lecture with a general overview Sir Roger Penrose's view on 'Science And The Mind'.
Ufoolme (talk) 20:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd not heard the online talk before. I have put both the links into the 'see also' section. Persephone19 (talk) 18:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: External Links?

message: Hi all. I have just released in Nature precedings one recent manuscript, which actually destroys the whole Orch OR by pointing to a goof, which presumably is done by Hameroff in 1996 when he and Roger Penrose calculated the first estimates about the number of tubulins involved and Orch OR and respectively the number of "conscious neurons". The estimate by Hameroff of 10^7 for the number of tubulin dimers per neuron is two orders of magnitude less compared to the calculated by me number of 1.3 \times 10^9. Hameroff and many other people following Hameroff have cited Yu and Baas (1994) article for the number 10^7, however what actually Yu and Baas have measured is the total microtubule length in a single axonal projection being 56 micrometers long. If someone wants to use the figure from my manuscript, please feel free to do so. see Georgiev, Danko. Remarks on the number of tubulin dimers per neuron and implications for Hameroff-Penrose Orch OR. Available from Nature Precedings <http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/npre.2009.3860.1> (2009) Regards, Danko Georgiev MD (talk) 10:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: At first glance I can't see that this is conclusive. Looking at the 1998 paper again, it seems that Hameroff needed the 2x10^10 tubulins and therefore arbitrarily went for 10% of what he thought was the number of tubulins in a neuron. But presumably he could have selected a larger or smaller percentage to give him the final total that he wanted. No doubt you can throw some light on this. Persephone19 (talk) 19:53, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the discussion is ongoing in the comment section of my preprint Remarks on the number of tubulin dimers per neuron and implications for Hameroff-Penrose Orch OR. Hameroff already contradicts himself and decided to replace part of these 15 pyramidal neurons with glial cells or GABA interneurons. I have replied why the "inflation argument", which reduces the number of coherent tubulins per neuron cannot work. Also please check the figures published by Hameroff - did he say that per MT there is for example only a single superposed tubulin?? Danko Georgiev MD (talk) 00:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  FYI, Hameroff uses your 10^9-tubulin-per-neuron calculation in his most recent paper on Orch-OR. It doesn't impact the model at all, and it likely never did, since, in the old model, the number of tubulin required for a conscious moment was calculated ahead of time. The model is also exploratory. It was meant to explore certain possibilities over how Penrose's OR could occur in the brain, and with the new data in Hameroff's paper, it seems to be much cleaner than the guesswork they were (admittedly!) making earlier. 69.14.156.143 (talk) 13:36, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

text:  I'd like to talk about your "Falsification of the Hameroff Model" paper as well. It's riddled with errors that need to be addressed (they never relied on Freudian psychology, nor did they think gamma synchrony "causes consciousness"), and IMO, it shouldn't be included on this page for that reason. 69.14.156.143 (talk) 13:36, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  On the number of Tubulin dimers per neuron 

message: :1. "obviously true" - this is misleading phrasing, the Goedel's theorems says that if the formal system is consistent then the Goedel sentence is true, however humans so far do not have shown special abilities to see directly whether a formal system is consistent or not. There are many known examples where contradictions are discovered in formal systems with classical example being the Russel's paradox in set theory, which then further evolved into ZFC set theory due to change of several comprehension axioms, etc.
:2. "notably by philosophers" - critique by philosophers, who are not specialists in logic is not notable - there are several good critiques by mathematicians, which are indeed notable because are due to experts in logic - e.g. S. Feferman (Department of Mathematics, Stanford University) - 1995 http://math.stanford.edu/~feferman/papers/penrose.pdf
:: Philosophers are specialists in logic, hence Philosophy of logic.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.232.204.150 (talk) 05:27, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Few philosophers are specialists in logic and among these are not those who philosophize on the mind-brain problem. By the way, my thesis was that an opinion from mathematician is more worthy than the opinion of a philosopher, because mathematicians and philosophers have different background knowledge, etc. Danko Georgiev (talk) 05:31, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious claims

message: "These pockets contain atoms with electrons called π electrons, which are electrons in the reactive outer shell of the atom that are not bonded to other atoms" is wrong! Particularly pi electrons are bonded to other atoms, because they participate in pi-bonds. As in my previous edits, I will provide wiki-link to pi electrons, and delete popular and misleading explanation, which is chemically wrong. By the way, I checked Hameroff's chapter "That is life!" and i could not find claim that these are not bonded. The description of Van der Waals forces is something different and explains how one can induce dipole. Also the taxol-binding hydrophobic pockets were actually 8 nm away, and the tryptophans that are separated 2 nm away do not form pockets, just represent nonpolar region within the tubulin. These are not small details, especially for someone who cares about chemistry. Danko Georgiev MD (talk) 00:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, thanks for correcting these errors. Persephone19 (talk) 16:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Pi electron]]s

message: Persephone and Danko: Thanks for your relentless work from an appreciative (and highly entertained!) reader. Gwideman (talk) 12:51, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Awesome talk page 

message: Even though some have small requests such as making the Orch-OR article sound more positive, I believe the Orch-OR article misses important content on the so called Orch-OR "updates" done in the past couple of years. I personally would be happy to see a special section on the Hameroff-Chopra collaboration, on the quantum soul diffusing out in the Universe through entanglements after the death, and other such revolutionary insights some of which were reported in Morgan Freeman's Through the Wormhole. Danko Georgiev (talk) 13:06, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I would definitley second that request. Adding these references to where the bulk of support for Orch-OR lies will likely result in it being seen in the appropriate context. Fisman (talk) 07:47, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hey, Danko, they've responded to the claims of people who have "widely rejected" the idea: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1571064513001188. 69.14.156.143 (talk) 18:44, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

text:  And by the way, these speculations on Hameroff's part don't "reveal the true motivation" for Orch-OR. It's just an extension of what's already there. Nothing more. 69.14.156.143 (talk) 18:48, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: If you include stuff like that it'll definitely make Penrose look like he associates with kooks! :-) 129.132.209.90 (talk) 00:00, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: A Big Request ... Inclusion of [[Stuart Hameroff]] - [[Deepak Chopra]] collaboration

message: A note that the section concerning this theory in the Quantum_mind page is marked as slightly troubled reference-wise, and that that section might be going into too much detail considering this page exists for those that want details.  Also see that page/section for a link to news about a renewed initiative in 2013/2014 by the theory's authors. (140.232.0.70 (talk) 19:06, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corresponding Quantum_mind page section 

message: Dear User:109.153.177.43, you recently tagged this article for Cleanup-tagging due to: highly biased, not up-to-date on valid rebuttals from theorists". Would you mind listing the references missing from the rebuttals? Sperxios (talk) 21:08, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tagged for Cleanup due to "bias/missing rebuttals" 

message: Hello, across the internet many people seem very opposed to this topic. I have only read Emperor's New Mind and seen a documentary about the same book by Penrose. However from what I know, Penrose puts forth so many arguments that I am not sure exactly which one/ones people disagree with. From what I understand, Penrose's main point can be surmised this way. Let A be a turing machine, for every decision a person makes throughout their life machine A enumerates said decision and prints it as the decimal expansion of a real number. Penrose argues that no such machine can exist or else we could use it to solve Turing's famous halting problem. Also, according to Penrose, This speaks nothing of approximating the behavior of a human arbitrarily close, only of predicting with certainty the way any specific human will behave arbitrarily far into the future. Because of this, Penrose claims that this implies that some of human thinking must inherently be non-algorithmic. The arguments that Penrose stitches together, to my knowledge, no one would dispute on their own, eg. Turing's proof that the halting problem is unsolvable in the general case, or Cantor's proof that more numbers exist between zero and one than integers. Is it controversial in that these arguments cannot be applied the way that Penrose applies them? It seems to me that most rebuttal's are against his theories of quantum gravity. Quantum Gravity however is a field difficult to be taken seriously in anyway, since, to my knowledge, most physicists believe that nothing can be known at that scale. Most theories I've encountered about quantum gravity make little sense to begin with, so I guess Penrose isn't any different that way. I just wonder if anybody has addressed the other points??2602:304:5964:8F39:18E:C2D3:46AF:FE57 (talk) 20:07, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The claim that "no such machine can exist or else we could use it to solve Turing's famous halting problem" assumes that conscious decisions are undecidable. It's circular reasoning at best. Just because we have not yet successfully predicted every human decision does not mean that it is impossible to do so. Weather is a good analogy. We still cannot predict the weather with absolute certainty -- it is way beyond our computational capability. But that does not mean that the weather is "undecidable". Turning's halting problem is a beautiful proof because it requires no assumptions about what is or is not decidable to make its point. Penrose's argument assumes a decidability character of consciousness that is arguable at best. jps (talk) 12:28, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about the controversy of this topic 

message: I am sure that the editor who inserted the following text had good intentions, but as I will explain it is completely wrong, so it would be best if editors without degree in molecular biology restrain themselves from editing topics that they do not understand. The text is:
"However, the recent research by Anirban Bandyopadhyay showed that microtubules can change their structure from B-lattice to A-lattice as part of the processing of information, and tubulin in microtubules exists in multiple states" So let me explain what is wrong: experiments IN VITRO have clearly shown that B-lattice microtubules can exist, and that microtubles can flip from one lattice to another. Also numerous in vitro studies have shown that microtubules with 12, 14, 15 etc protofilaments (PFs) can form (all in vivo microtubules have 13). Hameroff and Tuszynski were aware of all that published literature and made a guess that what happens in vitro, should happen in vivo as well. It is very difficult to design an experiment to check the status of microtubules IN VIVO, but Kikkawa and colleagues were able to do exactly that - they performed Quick-Freeze Deep-Etching technique, which allowed to check what the structure of microtubules in the brain looks like. If the microtubules were undergoing transitions from A- to B-lattice in vivo, it would be expected that at any given moment in time, there will be some percentage of A-lattice microtubules and some percentage of B-lattice microtubules. After the freezing, the microtubules cannot undergo further transitions, and the ratio of A- to B-lattice microtubules could be determined. What Kikkawa found is that 100% of IN VIVO microtubles have B-lattice. Citing more and more in vitro experiments, done by Anirban Bandyopadhyay or others, is IRRELEVANT. Orch OR prediction has been found to be false in 1994 and the result has been published in one of the premier journals on molecular and cell biology, namely the Journal of Cell Biology. If Hameroff was actually more carefully reading what others published, he would not have done his wrong prediction four years later in 1998! Danko Georgiev (talk) 21:15, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Microtubule A- or B-lattice

message: Forgive me, but the text isn't clear how this is suppose to work. Non-computable algorithm? What is that? Microtubules and connective proteins influence or orchestrate the state reduction of the qubits by modifying the spacetime-separation of their superimposed states. Is there a step by step description of what Penrose is talking about? I know a little of quantum physics and quite a bit of inorganic + organic chemistry. For now, the article looks like a lot of quantum jargon. Vmelkon (talk) 20:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The "Non-computable algorithm" I believe is a mistake, and should be replaced by "Non-computable physical procedures" or something along this line. It is exactly the "algorithmic" part of Hard-AI that Penrose had been attacking in his 90s books.  Now for a more clear description of the theory, probably you have to resort to the original papers (try the 2013 Elsevier) or secondary articles and videos to get a more precise description; there are plenty in the refs.  You may feel that the root-papers are incomplete, but remember that we are still talking about a "theory", a "conjecture".  Nevertheless, I believe that eventually you will come to agree that the sentences of the article you mentioned indeed summarize accurately the contents of the papers.  In any case, the organization of this page's contents need rework mainly for eliminating redundancy. Sperxios (talk) 12:44, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we get a better description? 

message: Another critic, Charles Seife, has said, "Penrose, the Oxford mathematician famous for his work on tiling the plane with various shapes, is one of a handful of scientists who believe that the ephemeral nature of consciousness suggests a quantum process."
I'm not sure what this quote brings at all, so I removed it altogether. What it can bring to the article completely eludes me. If someone finds it insightful, feel free to put it back.217.13.235.58 (talk) 12:55, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weird quote 

message: []
Quantum Cognition: The possibility of processing with nuclear spins in the brain
1Department of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106
Matthew P. A. Fisher
(Dated: September 1, 2015)
The possibility that quantum processing with nuclear spins might be operative in the brain is explored. Phos-
phorus is identified as the unique biological element with a nuclear spin that can serve as a qubit for such
putative quantum processing - a neural qubit - while the phosphate ion is the only possible qubit-transporter.
We identify the “Posner molecule”, Ca9(PO4)6, as the unique molecule that can protect the neural qubits on very
long times and thereby serve as a (working) quantum-memory. A central requirement for quantum-processing
is quantum entanglement. It is argued that the enzyme catalyzed chemical reaction which breaks a pyrophos-
phate ion into two phosphate ions can quantum entangle pairs of qubits. Posner molecules, formed by binding
such phosphate pairs with extracellular calcium ions, will inherit the nuclear spin entanglement. A mechanism
for transporting Posner molecules into presynaptic neurons during vesicle endocytosis is proposed. Quantum
measurements can occur when a pair of Posner molecules chemically bind and subsequently melt, releasing a
shower of intra-cellular calcium ions that can trigger further neurotransmitter release and enhance the probability
of post-synaptic neuron firing. Multiple entangled Posner molecules, triggering non-local quantum correlations
of neuron firing rates, would provide the key mechanism for neural quantum processing. Implications, both in
vitro and in vivo, are briefly mentioned.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.47.37.101 (talk) 20:01, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aticle 2015-08-01 

message: In 2014 and 2015, very important developments of the theory took place and many aspects of it were proven by experiments. The article stops only in 2013 and criticisms dating back to that year. In the meantime, I find it necessary to inform the reader with a warning, and then, update the page. Even the pages dedicated only to the 2 scientists speak, in a very vague way, of the research that took place in 2014 and 2015. In detail I saw that the Evidences section talks about it, albeit in a vague way. But the criticism section has remained dated and does not incorporate this new data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.163.248.1 (talk) 17:06, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: You need to be more specific than that if you want to change anything here. jps (talk) 12:22, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article update 

message: Hi, have to be careful but I think there's evidence for semi classical interaction in graphics cards.
My research clearly shows that certain components are able to show inter-processor electron leakage under specific
conditions, though not normally used in this way people who overclock cards often get strange effects.
As this (used to be) TS SCI I only mention it as better technologies already exist.
It was discovered independently here 88.81.156.140 (talk) 07:52, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quantum computation in off the shelf graphics cards? 

message: Thanks for the additions here.  I found a second citation which I've added even though it's not great - there is no paywall.  There is also a paper in 'Nature' https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-10068-4 maybe primary source. Appears to be a different experiment further substantiating the hypothesis.Thelisteninghand (talk) 17:23, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  2022 Experiments 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Criticism and Neuroscience sections 

message: I think there should be a section with studies that confirm that microtubules can deliver quantum processes. As this is one of the most disputed topics ( is it possible for Quantum processes to happen in warm & wet environment of microtubules.
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.jpcb.3c07936 176.0.203.52 (talk) 06:59, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Exciting publication, although I couldn't understand a word of it. UpdateNerd (talk) 06:05, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

text: There is nothing controversial about the idea that microtubules might exhibit quantum effects. Quantum effects are ubiquitous across much of biochemistry, and there's no reason why one should be surprised to see them also appear in microtubules. What is controversial is that there is no special relationship whatsoever between such an effect, and the notion of consciousness. The paper you submit will be of interest to people who study microtubules, and to people who care about the cytoskeleton, but nobody who seriously studies cognition will get anything relevant to their field from it. — Guillaume Pelletier ~ 22:13, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quantum effects in microtubules