Talk:Orch-OR

History of this article

This article was published in Wikipedia and featured on the Webpage of Stuart Hameroff, one of the co-founders of this well-known theory of consciousness. Since then, the page has lost interesting features (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orch-OR). For instance, the "questions" section is lost and there is an overemphasis on criticisms. Usual problems with WP. I consider that this article is lively and fascinating. I see it as a an example of what CZ should look like; it is written in a style that is simiar to the Life article. Of course, I'm not saying it can't be improved. But some of WP's "improvements" should be avoided. Pierre-Alain Gouanvic 22:32, 25 April 2008 (CDT)

I have some problems with this article. This theory has attracted virtually no interest from academic neuroscientists; the Annals paper cited here has been cited just 20 times. Personally I am unsurprised, I don't personally see anything of substance or significance in the theory, but see many errors of fact in this article. As it is a WP import I've left it (for now) but flagged it as a WP import pending other views. It could be trimmed back and given a fair face here, but my view is that this falls below any notability threshold among fringe theories, and I don't really think it's worth the candle. Personal view- harmless nonsense.Gareth Leng 17:07, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I cannot judge the quality of this article myself and trust your opinion. Moreover, the mere fact that it is a direct WP import and is said to be copied from the website of one of the proponents of the theory makes it a candidate for removal. But even though it is not a topic as "popular" as Ormus it justifies a page, I think. Roger Penrose is well-known and recognized as a theoretical physicist and mathematician (though not as neuroscientist). This, I think makes even a bogus theory "notable". My approach would be to blank the page, and then use a (more critically) rewritten version of the lead as a short article on the subject (that may or may not be extended later). --Peter Schmitt 11:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'll give that a try.Gareth Leng 20:40, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Gareth, looks good. I moved the sentence about neuroscientists response to the first paragraph since, in this short synopsis, it acts as the lead. You can move it back if your looking for the article to develop differently. D. Matt Innis 12:51, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Being someone with very little knowledge of this model or any models of consciousness for that matter, this article reads as if it is a legitimate possibility, at least as viable as any model of consciousness. Is that the case, or should we clarify that better? D. Matt Innis 13:01, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I vaguely remember reading The Emperor's New Mind, but don't remember it very well. As the text reads right now, I am unclear what is meant by "algorithmic computation" being insufficient. That, in and of itself, isn't outside mainstream computer science, where neural and semantic nets aren't always called algorithmic -- things requiring pattern recognition often are not. What is unclear is if he is alluding to things that are outside Turing or Godel scope. As it reads, there's almost an Intelligent Design flavor. Could someone clarify? Howard C. Berkowitz 14:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)