No, I mean the cut-off date in which an article is deemed considered outdated and obsolete. What is your cut-off date?
This is not what the article suggests…
“Even more exciting, with the emergence of new drugs, new research methods, and new quantum technologies, this theory is constantly being enriched and perfected. Especially in the research of anesthesiology (96-100), memory (71), cognition (42,101-103), neural synchrony (104) and vision (49), mounting results and evidence indicated the Orch-OR theory could be self-explanatory and could be invoked to many different conscious backgrounds. More recently, Li et al . found that xenon’s (one kind of anesthetic) nuclear spin could impair its own anesthetic power, which involves a neural quantum process (105). Thus, the quantum theory of consciousness is increasingly gaining more supporters.”
No, it is not healthy skepticism you are displaying here. Instead, it is paranoia and personal bias. The article was cited by multiple other articles that obviously saw nothing wrong with the 2019 article:
There are 4 explanations as to why the Orch-OR theory lacks acceptance from the scientific consensus. Two out of the four are based on subjective reasons. Here is my analysis:
The first explanation is that the Orch-OR theory was falsified or the authors failed to address a major flaw(s).
The criticisms raised on their theory have all been adequately addressed in their 2014 peer-reviewed article that was published in a highly prestigious journal. It is highly unlikely that such a high impact journal like Physics of life reviews would publish their article if those objections were fatal or relevant.
For instance, although there are fraudulent articles that can and do get passed peer-review even in highly prestigious journals, Physics of life review has a special feature where additional experts can make up to 5 replies each after an article is published in which the editor informally reads those comments. In this particular case, the editor extended it to 7 replies from various outside sources and experts in which Penrose and Hammeroff adequately addressed all with replies of their own.
I say “adequately” because the editor informally peer-reviews it himself. They also have been bringing their theory in front of skeptics in conferences and publish subsequent articles afterwards to be scrutinized even more:
The Quantum Origin of Life: How the Brain Evolved to Feel Good — University of Arizona (elsevier.com)
Full article: ‘Orch OR’ is the most complete, and most easily falsifiable theory of consciousness (tandfonline.com)
Discovery of quantum vibrations in ‘microtubules’ corroborates theory of consciousness (phys.org)
Lastly, I just gave you a recent review article on their work that does not suggest there is a criticism or objection they failed to adequately address. Thus, unless there is a new peer-reviewed criticism of their article after 2019, this explanation must be ruled out until further noticed.
The second explanation is that the evidence is not convincing enough to warrant 51% acceptance or more.
Although only 6 out of 20 predictions have been confirmed for a quantum mind, most of the 14 other predictions survived falsification from testing. According to Karl Popper’s falsifiability principle, a theory is truly tested when it has survived falsification. More importantly, materialism in general has been officially disproven and there is a consensus on this as well, which means materialistic assumptions do not have preferred status but violate Occam’s razor. Thus, we can rule this out as well until further noticed.
"The third explanation is that not enough of the old school paradigm of scientists have died off. "
According to Max Planck, the founder of quantum physcists:
“A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”
This principle, which was famously laid out by German theoretical physicist Max Planck in 1950 along with Thomas Kuhn, has actually been confirmed according to a new study:
For example, In regards to String Theory status as a Theory of Everything, Physicist Frank Close is blunt: “[M]any physicists have developed theories of great mathematical elegance, but which are beyond the reach of empirical falsification, even in principle. The uncomfortable question that arises is whether they can still be regarded as science.” Well, not by traditional standards, to be sure.
But string theorists offer a number of defences. They seek to change the rules, to allow “non-empirical theory confirmation,” or otherwise loosen the standards for science. At Nature, we learned in 2015 that feuding physicists were turning to philosophy for help, in “a debate over the integrity of the scientific method itself.”
At Smithsonian, theoretical physicist Brian Greene admits, “Evidence that the universe is made of strings has been elusive for 30 years, but the theory’s mathematical insights continue to have an alluring pull.” He adds, “I now hold only modest hope that the theory will confront data during my lifetime.”
Nevertheless, Evidence or no, string theory remains popular. Skeptical Columbia mathematician Peter Woit wonders why: “The result of tens of thousands of papers and more than 30 years of work is that all the evidence is that if you can get something this way that looks at all like the Standard Model, you can get anything. Normally when that happens you simply acknowledge the problem and give up, but for some reason that hasn’t happened.” In any event, string theorists have grown comfortable with their lack of evidence.
“The fourth explanation is that its just philosophical/religious bias.”
A study was conducted by the Rice University sociologist Elaine Ecklund reported in 2005 that surveyed over 1,600 faculty members at elite research universities. What Ecklund discovered was that the beliefs of scientists in God or not are typically formed before they chose their career path to go into science. It was when they were adolescents or younger, and then they chose to go into a particular field of study. She says their unbelief is for the reasons that typically attend adolescent unbelief.
For instance, “ they were not raised in a religious home; they have had bad experiences with religion; they disapprove of God or see God as too changeable.” Her research shows that this idea that science and the study of science produces unbelief is, in fact, a sociological myth. Elaine Howard Ecklund, Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really Think (New York: Oxford University Press, 2010). p. 17.
Despite no evidence, failed predictions, lack of falsifiability, and inability to explain the cosmological constant, String theory is still considered a theory of everything and the most popular quantum theory of gravity. On the other hand, the Orch-theory has a lot of evidence supporting it from many different fields, several predictions confirmed, and the rest have not been refuted after testing. Most importantly, its touted to explain the cosmological constant, which is one of the biggest problems in physics. Despite all this, it is not even mentioned as a potential candidate for a quantum theory of gravity or theory of everything among many others.
In conclusion, the lack of consensus for the Orch-theory does not create a reasonable doubt as to whether the theory is true or not because the overwhelming evidence clearly shows that the Orch-theory’s lack of scientific consensus is based on subjective reasons. In fact, this 3 min youtube video actually provides solid proof of this reality:
No, the theory is there to link the observer effect in quantum physics with consciousness, which is all that is needed to also link it to evolution in regards to origin of life experiments and beyond.
No, the quantum erasure experiment are intended to prove the conscious observer plays a fundamental role. It’s called “It from bit”. Please read this article to help you understand the Participatory Universe interpretation of quantum mechanics and how those experiments confirm it:
Do Our Questions Create the World? - Scientific American Blog Network
The crucial part of this quote is “can be described by” . Description is not identity . If I describe you in an article, that does not mean that this description is you.
Again, it does not state, or imply, that life is “a non-local mathematical wave function”.
Wrong, wrong and wrong . It is not a “study”, it is not an ‘update’ of Yockey’s work (and in fact makes no mention of his work) and does not appear to make the claim that “There is nothing in the physico-chemical world [apart from life] that resembles reactions being determined by the genetic code”.
I’d say that you were “throwing everything at the wall and seeing what sticks”, but given your abysmally low success rate, it would seem more accurate to state that you’re “throwing everything at a Teflon-coated wall and seeing that nothing sticks”.
I actually did not reference that source for that reason but whatever. Here is a source that does seem to be more consistent with those claims according to your liking:
It is not the case. Consider that you may want to stop making claims about things you don’t know about. It’s also confused, as you claimed to be listing basic types, not large groups of basic types. And again, why would there even be such things as groups of basic types?
Again, if this is not the case, then nevermind. I will change the questions to “How many basic types are there?” and leave out the “groups”.
No, it doesn’t. You are confusing mere similarity with nested hierarchy, which you should not do. Everything you say about evolution is word salad.
HGT from viruses does not just create similarities between organisms but it also potentially masquerades as nested hierarchies according to studies.
There’s nothing of substance in that claim. You’re just mixing quantum jargon to make it sound sophisticated.
Suffice to say that ‘quantum’ behavior only affects at extremely small scales, this can be proved mathematically using the de Broglie equation. You won’t see any significant wave-like behavior in anything bigger than an atom, let alone in DNA.
Experiments in quantum physics have confirmed that “ the classical Newtonian laws emerge out of the quantum laws .” In other words, the classical world is the same as the quantum world where what happens at the quantum world would directly affect the classical world.
http://meetings.aps.org/Meeting/MAR07/Event/57254
In fact, a team of scientists have even succeeded in putting an object large enough to be visible to the naked eye into a mixed quantum state of moving and not moving. “ These experiments show that the principles of quantum mechanics can apply to everyday objects as well as atomic-scale particles ”. Thus, you cannot separate the two realms because quantum mechanics is ultimately fundamental.