Stuart Hameroff

🐇 ILLUMINATUS RESEARCH 🧐 Verified account @HeiligerSpirit · 12h

🧐🐇

Stuart, your latest explanation exposes a deeper problem with Orch OR.

You propose that anesthetics bind promiscuously throughout the body but selectively abolish consciousness by disrupting highly organized quantum states in brain microtubules.

But where is the independent experimental evidence that these special quantum states actually distinguish conscious from unconscious tissue?

You assume conscious brains possess them, assume other tissues don’t, and then use that assumption to explain consciousness.

That’s circular unless the proposed difference can be independently demonstrated.

And your claim that anesthetics produce only one effect is factually incorrect.

Volatile anesthetics also affect blood pressure, respiration, myocardial function and multiple ion channels.

Hemmings (2009) documented inhibition of neuronal voltage-gated sodium channels at clinically relevant anesthetic concentrations, including effects on presynaptic signaling.

So the claim that conventional neuronal mechanisms are unaffected is untenable.

Your dismissal of competing theories is equally problematic.

The 2025 Cogitate study challenged predictions of both IIT and GNWT, but also supported specific predictions of each. That’s experimental discrimination, not failure of neuroscience.

Meanwhile, your microtubule studies establish interesting molecular effects, including electronic excitation-energy migration. They do not demonstrate the sustained quantum superposition, gravitational objective reduction or causal necessity for consciousness proposed by Orch OR.

The fundamental distinction remains:

A molecule participating in biological activity is not automatically the origin of conscious experience.

And the fact that molecular interactions obey quantum mechanics does not establish quantum consciousness.

You repeatedly explain an interconnected living process by selecting one microscopic component and assigning it the very property you’re supposed to explain.

Here’s a testable challenge:

Measure the proposed organized quantum state independently of consciousness. Demonstrate that selectively disrupting it abolishes experience, and that restoring it restores experience, while controlling for conventional neuronal effects.

If you cannot distinguish your explanation experimentally from competing mechanisms, how can you claim it has more evidence than all competing theories combined?

You have proposed a mechanism for consciousness. You have not demonstrated that consciousness originates from it.

And my original question remains: Why must experience be produced by one isolated microscopic event rather than understood through the relationships constituting the living whole?

View quoted post on X

Benjamin🦘🇦🇺 @Benking64602975 · 11h

@StuartHameroff Can you explain to me why your experiment demonstrating super radiance in the brain, and the inhibition by anaesthetic doesn't result in the entire field finding the cash to run experiments to replicate this.

Are we looking for the truth or not?

I don't get it.

View quoted post on X

Unidentified Animal Verified account @OneSeaElephant · 11h

@StuartHameroff I'll allow myself to wildly speculate because this third ventricle thing is blatantly underappreciated and it seems to harbor some very intricate microtubule array formations ... for no very well explained reasons
x.com/OneSeaElephant…

View quoted post on X

🐇 ILLUMINATUS RESEARCH 🧐 Verified account @HeiligerSpirit · 16h

🧐🐇

Stuart, your response actually strengthens the objection to your reasoning.

First, you misrepresent the 2026 review.

Kale, Goldstein and Pandit examined evidence from 310 in-vitro studies across multiple anesthetic agents and molecular targets. They did not merely investigate propofol–ketamine combinations.

Their findings support substantial molecular promiscuity. Even if propofol and ketamine also bind tubulin, that does not invalidate the experimentally documented effects on other targets.

Second, Eger et al. (2008) did not eliminate all membrane proteins.

They explicitly retained sodium channels as plausible candidates and restricted their conclusions to inhalational anesthetic-induced immobility.

Your interpretation goes beyond their conclusions.

Third, GABA-A evidence is causal, not merely correlational.

Jurd et al. (2003) showed that a targeted receptor mutation abolished particular immobilizing effects of etomidate and propofol and substantially altered their hypnotic effects.

That is direct experimental evidence of a functionally important molecular mechanism.

Fourth, Meyer–Overton does not establish a single receptor.

A relationship between anesthetic potency and lipid solubility cannot identify one unique molecular target. Multiple pathways can converge on the same physiological endpoint.

And ordinary quantum-mechanical van der Waals interactions do not establish the sustained quantum superpositions required by Orch OR.

Fifth, you keep asking for evidence supporting other consciousness theories.

Del Cul et al. (2007) demonstrated late distributed cortical activation associated with conscious perception, supporting Global Workspace predictions.

Casali et al. (2013) developed the Perturbational Complexity Index, independently validated in 2016, demonstrating measurable relationships between complex cortical dynamics and conscious states.

Neither proves a complete consciousness theory. But neither does your microtubule research.

Here is the central inconsistency:

You demand that competing theories explain every anesthetic through one molecular mechanism, yet you have not experimentally demonstrated that your proposed microtubule quantum state is necessary for consciousness.

Your 2017 study modeled oscillatory effects. It did not directly measure those oscillations in living neurons, establish their necessity for experience, or demonstrate gravitational objective reduction.

And the deeper question remains unanswered:

Why assume that one microscopic event generates experience rather than investigating how experience and physical processes arise within the larger relational reality?

You have evidence that microtubules participate in interesting molecular processes.

You do not yet have evidence that those processes are the origin of consciousness.

That distinction is fundamental, and no amount of criticism directed at competing theories can eliminate it.

View quoted post on X

🐇 ILLUMINATUS RESEARCH 🧐 Verified account @HeiligerSpirit · 19h

🧐🐇

Stuart, I checked your 2017 paper carefully. The most revealing contradiction is in your own discussion.

Craddock et al. (2017) explicitly state that further tests on other proteins, including GABA-A receptors, are needed to determine whether the proposed oscillatory mechanism is unique to tubulin or applies more generally.

Your own paper leaves precisely the exclusivity you now claim unestablished.

And let’s distinguish calculation from experiment.

Your reported correlations between anesthetic potency and tubulin oscillation shifts come from molecular docking, quantum chemistry and theoretical modeling. They are not direct measurements of those predicted oscillations in living neurons.

You correctly included the nonanesthetics F6 and TFMB. That’s a useful model discrimination test, but it does not establish a necessary mechanism of consciousness.

Now to your claim that membrane proteins have no significant evidence.

Jurd et al. (2003) demonstrated that a targeted GABA-A receptor mutation dramatically changes the behavioral and electrophysiological effects of etomidate and propofol.

Kim et al. (Nature, 2020) directly resolved anesthetic binding sites on GABA-A receptors, supported by functional measurements.

And a 2026 review examining 310 in-vitro studies found extensive evidence for multiple molecular targets of anesthetic drugs.

There is no scientific requirement that every anesthetic act through one identical receptor. Different molecular pathways can converge on similar physiological outcomes.

As for picrotoxin: Its toxicity doesn’t negate the observation reported in Kalra et al. (2023). A nonanesthetic, convulsant compound also altered the optical microtubule measurement. That challenges the specificity of the measurement as an anesthesia marker, although further controls are needed.

And your argument about consciousness being impossible to measure creates another problem.

If we cannot directly measure subjective experience, how can you claim to have established that a particular quantum state is necessary for it?

Behavior, physiological measurements and subjective reports provide indirect evidence. The same evidential limitations apply to your theory.

The distinction you keep avoiding is this:

A correlation between anesthetic potency and a modeled molecular effect is not a demonstration that the effect generates consciousness.

And even a demonstrated causal role in anesthesia would not, by itself, establish Penrose’s objective reduction or explain subjective experience.

Your own 2017 paper explicitly acknowledges the need for experimental confirmation of the proposed connection to consciousness.

So my question is simple:

What independent experiment demonstrates that your specific microtubule quantum mechanism is necessary for conscious experience, rather than merely one molecular process affected by anesthetics?

Until that distinction is demonstrated, claiming that Orch OR uniquely explains biological consciousness goes beyond your evidence.

The issue isn’t whether your molecular results are interesting. It’s whether they establish the conclusions you’re drawing from them.

View quoted post on X