THE QUANTUM THREAD IN LIVING MATTER

ApricotFowl

Recent advances at the interface of physics and biology have reignited a profound question: How quantum is life? This article examines the potential role of quantum phenomena, such as coherence, entanglement, and tunnelling, in living systems, particularly focusing on the brain and consciousness. Drawing from evidence in photosynthetic energy transfer, avian magnetoreception, and enzymatic catalysis, it evaluates whether biological structures can sustain quantum effects under physiological conditions. The discussion integrates key theoretical models, including the Orchestrated Objective Reduction (Orch-OR) theory and the spin chemistry hypothesis, assessing their implications for neural computation and the emergence of consciousness.

Download Essay PDF File

ShockwaveRider

Penrose does interesting work, but the newest Random Time Crystal indicates his math is already outdated, because metaphysics simply don't apply in our universe. In a universal recursion in the principle of identity, consciousness itself can be viewed as merely an emergent effect, and the observer must decide for themselves if they're conscious when they stub their toe. Either he can account for time itself being simultaneously random and fated, and Microsoft spending a trillion dollars on research for a time machine, his work is starting to look antiquated.

The Chinese banned the use of time travel, officially, in their mass media, twenty years ago.

ApricotFowl

Thanks for sharing this. You raise several intriguing points. Penrose’s ideas are controversial, and I agree that newer work on time symmetry, temporal order, and even “time-crystal-like ” systems challenge parts of his early framework. My essay doesn’t rely on his metaphysics being right; I referenced him mainly because Orch-OR forces a testable biological locus, which is rare in quantum-mind discussions.

I agree that consciousness can still be emergent in an entirely physical, non-metaphysical universe. That possibility is precisely why we need experiments rather than assumptions. Whether quantum effects matter is an empirical question, not a philosophical commitment.

Your point about cultural attitudes toward time travel is interesting, though my focus was on biological mechanisms rather than metaphysical or political interpretations. Still, it shows how diverse the conceptual landscape is around these topics.

Happy to hear more of your perspective, especially on which empirical signatures you find most convincing or least plausible.

marcovici alexandru

A)
theare are other materials for threads beside microtubules i remember seeing a long time ago aprox 3-8 years
how can be artificially be made with various widths and atomic tile spirals and layers

Still, humility is vital. The quantum mind hypothesis is not a license for mysticism

humility should not be an inhibitor to try new experiments ,
maybe the mind is completely classical and quantum is everything around it
ok so tomorrow quantum effects are being proved to exist in the brain neurons etc , then what , what does this imply?

C) understanding how to build self aware robots should not bring them in to wide spread use

ok so lets say robot building seems plausible , is there something else worth researching beside that ?
that deserve to be a priority

maybe there are other unknown fields of science not yet even imagined other types of "dark matter" (that does not play a role in unusual gravitational acceleration profile for galaxies)

ApricotFowl

Thanks for sharing these thoughtful points. I’ll respond to each briefly:

A)
You’re right that microtubules aren’t the only candidate structures. There are proposals involving actin filaments, ion channels, synaptic proteins, and even enzymatic “pockets” that might sustain spin protection or coherence. My point in the essay wasn’t to claim that microtubules are the answer, but rather that any candidate must be tied to specific, falsifiable mechanisms; otherwise, we drift into speculation. If newer artificial structures show coherence advantages, that actually strengthens the argument that biology could evolve similar architectures.

B)
I agree. Humility shouldn’t stop experimentation. What I meant is that humility should stop over-interpretation. Whether the brain uses quantum effects or not, the implications will depend on where those effects sit in the chain:
If they enhance timing or sensitivity, the consequence is better models of computation.
If they meaningfully shape integrative processes, we gain a deeper mechanistic understanding of the bridge between biophysics and cognition.
Neither automatically implies mysticism or metaphysics. It simply widens the explanatory map.

C)
Regarding self-aware machines, I agree entirely that standing does not necessarily mean immediate deployment. Many fields deserve parallel priority, from non-neuronal forms of cognition to exotic condensed-matter systems and unexplored biological information carriers. Even “dark biology” (unknown biochemical families, non-standard informational substrates, or unimagined organisational principles) could be as transformative as dark matter is for cosmology.

My broader view is that the quantum mind question is a gateway question: whether the result is positive or negative, it forces the development of better tools, deeper experiments, and more disciplined ways of linking physics to biology. And that opens doors to those other unexplored fields you mentioned.

I'm happy to hear your further thoughts; you’re clearly thinking beyond the usual boundaries.