The critical analysis the Penrose–Hameroff theory of consciousness. Part 1

Abstract

It has been over 20 years since the theory of consciousness Penrose–Hameroff was launched. During this time it has not received significant evidence and was subjected to a thorough critique by many prominent scientists. Insolvency of this theory was proclaimed by such authority as Stephen Hawking. Despite all this, Penrose–Hameroffs theory continues to appear in the scientific community and to be advertised in popular literature as a major achievement of consciousness studies. This situation prompts a detailed review and additional critical analysis of the theory of the Penrose–Hameroff. It is understood that one of the reasons for the “support” of this theory is that its co-author and principal founder is a prominent scientist of our time, a mathematician and a specialist in the field of cosmology and astrophysics, Sir Roger Penrose. The article discusses in detail the basic tenets of the theory, the essence of which is associated with the operation of “"objective reduction» ” (OR) as a quantum computing in the brain microtubules. It has been shown that the basic provisions of the theory is based on a number of Penrose’s hypotheses about the future physical theories, which are yet to be created to achieve a quantum-mechanical explanation of consciousness and brain activity. A critique by such experts as A. Shimoni, N. Cartwright, S. Hawking that appeared soon after the appearance of the theory is considered. We should underline special importance of the critical arguments of S. Hawking. He makes a number of reasons, from the standpoint of quantum mechanics. They imply that the objective reduction of the wave function as a form of decoherence can occur through interaction with environment factors or due to fluctuations of space-time. Therefore there is no need to bring order to explain quantum gravity. Especially since according to Penrose, the objective effect of the reduction is so small that it can not be experimentally separated from decoherence caused by interaction with the environment. Hawking stressed that Penrose leaves aside the key questions of the theory of mind about the specific properties of consciousness (what we call in the philosophical language “subjective reality” and associate with the problem of “other minds”). The article underlines the high relevance of the problem of consciousness in modern conditions, discusses methodological issues of constructing a theory of consciousness and related philosophical problems. It is shown that the failure of physicalist approach to the explanation of consciousness is also seen from the standpoint of quantum mechanics. Over the past 20 years, science has made a huge step forward. This applies not only to the biological disciplines, information and cognitive technologies, but to the physics itself, the development of nanotechnology and the whole NBICS convergence system. But all this did not affect in any significant degree of speculation and conceptual problems of “theory” of the Penrose–Hameroff. No “fundamentally new OR-theory” has appeared, no new laws of physics were discovered, whuch, as Penrose hoped, would confirm his hypothesis. To a thorough critical arguments against the theory of Penrose–Hameroff discussed in the article, we can add a number of other counter-arguments, also concerning experimental base of Hameroff research, that will be presented in the second part of the article.