Write4U: It sounds like you want to say that you believe Orch OR is right because there is no reason it "shouldn't" be right. That's not how science is done. You might take me at my word that I have a cat named Frank, because it's no skin off your nose and it will reflect poorly on me if it later turns out that I told you a lie. But nobody has proved that I have a cat named Frank. There's no good evidence that I have a cat named Frank (other than, perhaps, my stellar track record for being impeccably honest in the past). My statement that I have a cat named Frank should not, on its own, convince any dedicated scientist that I actually have a cat named Frank. That makes no difference at all! Can't you see? Assume I told you I have a pet dragon called Frank, if you like. Numerous people over the years have suggested possible reasons why I might not actually have a dragon named Frank. Some of those reasons have sounded quite plausible, but let us say that despite persistent and sometimes vehement critiques of my claim, no critique has proven fatal to the hypothesis that I actually have a dragon named Frank. Does this lack of effective critique do anything to show that I do, in fact, have a dragon named Frank? The answer ought to be clear to you: "No, it does not." But, for some reason, you seem to be struggling with this idea. My position on microtubules now has not changed from the one that I held when this thread started, when it comes to the matter of consciousness. You continue not to answer the most basic questions: What do microtubules process, exactly? How's the data encoded? What processing operations do the microtubules carry out on the data? What is the input? What is the output? How does the output differ from the input, after "processing"? Stop pretending. You need to provide some positive evidence for quantum data processing in microtubules, sufficient to establish a "cause" for consciousness. Of course, you won't be able to produce any, because nobody has been able to produce any - at least, as far as I'm aware. I agree on possibility. I don't know where I'd start to estimate a probability. But that doesn't matter, since you haven't been arguing for possibilities. You say that Orch OR explains consciousness. No ifs or buts. Don't you? Yes I have. I have proposed that consciousness arises from neural processes in the brain, but not at the quantum level and not necessarily in microtubules. This is just a hypothesis, of course, like the Orch OR hypothesis but different. Perhaps you're right that I haven't made much of an argument for my proposal. Forgive me; this out of my field(s) of expertise. Interesting. How much are you willing to bet? Better put a definite time limit on it, though, if you're serious, because "never" is a very long time indeed. There's also a complete lack of conclusive argument against the concept that I might have a pet dragon called Frank. What is needed is not arguments against your hypothesis, but good evidence for your hypothesis. See? I'm not sure you do. In science, we don't pretend that things have been proven until there's a lot of good evidence and general consensus. Orch OR lacks both sufficient evidence and consensus among the relevant experts. You're not claiming that the cause of consciousness is to be found in microtubules? Okay. Then what are you claiming? That future research might show that consciousness is due to something that happens in microtubules. If so, then we've finally reached agreement. It might show that. Or it might not. We'll have to wait and see. Are we agreed, or not? That sounds like a faith statement to me. A fervent wish. Which is fine, as far as it goes. How could you possibly know that? Why are you so confident with your "never"s and your "no one"s? Who knows what might happen tomorrow? They are excluded from the model I just proposed. Okay. Next topic then. We're done. Right?