This is what I always find weird about some areas of modern science is the completly inability to hold new ideas without an ability to abstract away the need for the direct evidence; if this encourages someone to find something that can be wholy described (rather than be called "spirital essence" as so many things previously were we now give names too).

Isn't this what most of science was built upon - Is he right or wrong? Sometimes a need for minds who can push ideas into scientific thinking.

If that wasn't the case, then we might not even have Quantum Physics as it is today...

Unlike medical cranks out there, Penrose has (far as I've seen) never said anything of this is definitive - only that there is the potential in his theory that Orch-OR is the likely seat of conciousness.

Oh this is super cool, thanks for sharing. I have strong (admittedly mostly irrational) inclinations against determinism, seeing something like this is exciting. Definitely going to have to give it a read.

Sapolski's take on determinism was really a low blow for me, and I've since seen several other intellectuals I respect very highly espouse similar views, and there was a point where I would have agreed in my adolescence, but I've since then developed away from that course of thinking. I often wonder if it's a rationalization which is necessary for the framework of the theory of everything to be coherent.

The problem with arguing quantum non-determinism gives rise to consciousness is that it doesn't really give you free will, it just implies the consciousness is an unpredictable process.

But a quantum physicist would then ask "to what degree?" because quantum mechanics is very deterministic over large sample sizes (and a few trillion proteins in the brain would be a very large sample).

More importantly though, free will implies the ability to make a choice and that has problems when you invoke quantum indeterminacy to explain it: you don't get "a choice" you get random chance deciding things (and other depressing ideas like "human consciousness can't be backed up, saved or transferred - we really are trapped in these meat prisons and doomed to suffer).

If randomness is all that's needed, you can produce it with a random number generator.

Sure, but are we not precluding that the forces which gave rise to the genesis and evolution of life were able to search and select for functional quantum phenomena? We're talking about processes that can turn a pile of water, salt, sugar, nitrogen, and some vitamins into an obscenely complex, highly adaptable, self-replicating, self-regulating machine which can produce a variety of different micro and macromolecules in a baffling concert of physics and chemistry at scales and complexity humans can hardly work at, and certainly not so majestically.

And we've also got eyes, which in principal means that many life forms already have quantum-sensitive apparati, right? Magnetoreceptors as well, and they're also found in "lower lifeforms" in various different forms from the basest phototaxis to extraordinarily refined lens systems which can numerous wavelengths.

And then I suppose when talking in scale — what does it actually mean — to flip that coin when you've only got an N of one in reality.

Of course I would have to concede that I accept an element, even a large one of determinacy, but my experience also precludes the idea of it existing exclusively. I'm really just pattering away right now, frankly I know very little of quantum physics (nothing, really) it's just nice to know someone is willing to furnish a hypothesis contrary to what I believe is the consensus on the topic.

> He’s clearly a smart guy… but also has some hot takes.

I'm good with that as Penrose is very clear where the uncontroversial science ends and the hot takes begin; he doesn't try to "peddle" anything. "Here is my hot take and this is the TRUTH" is something I have problems with, "here's my hot take a lot of people will disagree with, but I think it may be true because [...]" isn't; and is often even valuable even if the hot take turns out to be wrong, because it exposes shortcomings, omissions, or other things that are not yet entirely clear.