[quote=“martin-peter-clarke, post:316, topic:7725, full:true”]
It’s not even wrong.
Orch OR has been criticized both by physicists[13][37][33][38][39] and neuroscientists[40][41][42] who consider it to be a poor model of brain physiology . Orch OR has also been criticized for lacking explanatory power; the philosopher Patricia Churchland wrote, “Pixie dust in the synapses is about as explanatorily powerful as quantum coherence in the microtubules.”
Intelligence without intentionality is instinctive. And meaningless unless it’s in an Alsatian or octopus. That single and colonial microscopic organisms are efficient doesn’t make them intelligent in any way. Intentionality emerges way, even quasi- or ‘sort of’, up the hierarchy of complexity.
No, it is just not wrong, the jury is still out on the various models, each dealing with the distribution, storage and processing of data in the brain and individual cells as can be observed in single celled organisms, that show rudimentary signs of a form of quasi-intelligence.
As to the initial objections to ORCH OR, look a the dates of those objections. It was all about wetness and temperature . This is now old news and has all been addressed and resolved, with some minor adjustments in the original data base.
But no one claims a actual solution yet. These are all just hypotheses, being formulated.
The ORCH OR model is still being developed , as are IIT, MEG, and several other “field theories”. It is one of today’s most researched areas of science, now that we can look at nano scale dynamics and actually see what goes on in the neural system and when they occur.
For instance, the "mirror neural system " is one area of great interest as it allows a person to experience the same emotion by watching another person’s behavior.
Ever winched when you observed someone stub their toe or slammed a door on their fingers?
Why would you wince? You don’t feel the actual pain. Yet your brain triggered the same electro-chemical response mechanics that made your motor system react “as if” you had stubbed your toe.
Think about that. It’s a remarkable conscious observational phenomenon. It is these demonstrable brain functions that may eventually unlock some of the more subtle physical processes within the brain.
Tegmark himself posits that consciousness is an emergent property based on existing brain processes and not on some external force . He makes the salient point that if there was an external force interfering with the normal physics, that variance should be observable, measurable and become part of the physical data.
Models of consciousness
Anil Seth (2007), Scholarpedia, 2(1):1328. doi:10.4249/scholarpedia.1328 revision #132493 [link to/cite this article]
Curator: Anil Seth, University of Sussex, UK
A model of consciousness is a theoretical description that relates brain properties of consciousness (e.g., fast irregular electrical activity, widespread brain activation) to phenomenal properties of consciousness (e.g., qualia, a first-person-perspective, the unity of a conscious scene). Because of the diverse nature of these properties (Seth et al. 2005), useful models can be either mathematical/logical or verbal/conceptual.
Models of consciousness - Scholarpedia
It is indisputably true that consciousness originates in the brain and if Penrose’s deductive reasoning is sound, then the microtubules in the brain and indeed the entire body may be responsible for an evolved sensitivity in sensory data processing leading to a conscious emotional experience.
