Thanks Anil, and you are correct. I do not know what you think.
I do generally know what you write, that you are an authority in brain and consciousness studies, speak very well (you should do Shakespeare), straddle fences nimbly, and don’t commit to conscious AI through neuronal computation. You do favor ‘biological naturalism’ to explain consciousness, but don’t say what that is.
Here’s the thing. Though you’ve never mentioned Orch OR, it is the only biologically natural theory of consciousness. Put forth by Sir Roger Penrose and myself in mid 90s, it was one of 5 ‘major’ theories of consciousness (GNW, IIT, HOT, PC/RP, Orch OR) in the TWCF program beginning around 2018. It was selected despite being consistently criticized because quantum effects seemingly need extreme cold to avoid decoherence, loss of quantum states before quantum processes necessary for consciousness to occur. How long is that? We claim 10^-12 to 10^-6 secs would suffice (with interference beats getting down to, and BEING the EEG).
In the TWCF program we could not agree with proponents of other theories for an adversarial collaboration. They are all at levels of complex computation of simple neurons. We focused on microtubules inside neurons where anesthetics are known to organize activities, process information and mediate anesthesia.
For TWCF we predicted
1) room temperature quantum states in microtubules which could be functional
2) those quantum states would be inhibited by anesthetics.
Both were shown. Aarat Kalra working in Greg Scholes lab at Princeton used UV fluorescence at ambient temperature to trigger propagating excitons in microtubules 6.6 nm over 8 nanoseconds, both requiring quantum states. They were dampened by two types of anesthetic.
We ‘called our shots’.
pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs…
Correct me if I’m wrong but overall the TWCF program over 8 years spent $30 million dollars and produced only this one significant positive result for Orch OR for a measley $100k.
You do hold yourself up as an authority.
In 2022 you and Tim Bayne wrote a review of theories of consciousness for Nature Neuroscience Reviews with extensive discussion of the other 4 original TWCF theories, mentioning Orch OR only in a list of 20 others.
I asked you about it and sent this paper
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3578…
You said you would read it and comment but never did. You Tweeted you’d do so for the new Theories of Consciousness -The Grand Tour book in which I have a chapter. But you didn’t.
And what biological naturalism theory is there other than Orch OR? I probably sound whiney but you’re dodging Orch OR.
Maybe I’m paranoid but you and other neuro-influencers like Dave and Christof suppress and ignore Orch OR, and have for years.
Why? Is it funding from conscious Al proponents? Or… you just don’t like me? (I have been a bit obnoxious with pushback). Are you ‘quanta-phobic’?
The evidence is on our side
academic.oup.com/nc/article/…
Quantum biology is booming,
neurocomputational approaches are flailing. Warm temperature quantum gel quantum computers based on Orch OR are on their way
iopscience.iop.org/article/1…
So that’s what’s going on. You’ve been obstructing progress in my view. Depriving the public of important knowledge. There’s a whole new world inside the neuron. The tide has turned. I thought you’d want to know.