Skip to the content
Aletheia

Collapse, Not Computation · source record · paper

The revised Penrose–Hameroff orchestrated objective-reduction proposal for human consciousness is not scientifically justified

Reimers, Jeffrey R.; McKemmish, Laura K.; McKenzie, Ross H.; Mark, Alan E.; Hush, Noel S. · 2014

AI-verified citationSRC-REIMERS-2014
identifier / locator
Physics of Life Reviews 11(1): 101–103. DOI: 10.1016/j.plrev.2013.11.003
url
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plrev.2013.11.003
verification note
Bibliographic record verified via Crossref (2026-08-22 run): all five authors, journal, volume 11, issue 1, pages 101–103, March 2014. Crossref holds no abstract for this comment; full text not read, so its argument is characterized here only at the level its title supports.
reliability notes
  • The principal published skeptical commentary on the 2014 revision, from quantum chemists rather than neuroscientists.
  • A three-page commentary, answered directly by Hameroff & Penrose in the same issue (DOI 10.1016/j.plrev.2013.11.014, verified via Crossref). Readers should read both.

Evidence drawn from this source

Undermines· weakORCH-E016

Quantum chemists: the revised Orch OR proposal is not scientifically justified

what the source states
A three-page commentary in Physics of Life Reviews, published alongside the Hameroff–Penrose 2014 review, titled "The revised Penrose–Hameroff orchestrated objective-reduction proposal for human consciousness is not scientifically justified." Crossref holds no abstract for this comment and this import did not read the full text, so its specific arguments are not characterized here beyond what the title states.
what we infer
Recorded for completeness as the principal published skeptical response to the current version of the theory, and graded weak deliberately — partly because it is a short commentary rather than an experimental result, and partly because this import could not read its argument. An unread critique should not carry weight merely because its title is emphatic. Hameroff and Penrose replied in the same issue, and a reader following this thread should read both rather than either.
limitations
  • Full text not read by this import; argument characterized only at the level the title supports.
  • A commentary, not new data.
  • Answered directly by the authors in the same issue; the exchange is not resolved on the public record.