What better way to prove that you understand mind and consciousness is there than build a true electronic brain? A computer (or computer type machine) that is aware of it’s own existence? I have yet to read anything about anyone who knows how to do this. (I know there are a lot of people who believe it can be done.) If you know of anybody like that have them send me the plans. I’d love to learn at last what it is that makes us conscious,

Well, that's the general gist of what they're going for. Though I haven't heard about anybody actually building a conscious machine yet. Hopes appear to be pinned at this point on development of quantum computation, which will open up the massive parallel power mere zeroes and ones can't approach. But that's probably another decade or two away unless something anomalous happens… §;o)

I personally suspect they might get a glimmer of self-awareness from a qubit machine, and it will certainly qualify as 'intelligent' as our zero/one machines do right now (that's why we use them to do the grunt computations for us). But I suspect the computational capabilities of neurons are much, much more sophisticated than just three-state qubits. There may be four or more states of tubulin. Once they understand the dynamics of state-switching, it won't be that difficult to design artificial proteins for the purpose. They're already working on using DNA to encode the programs, so in the future our conscious computing machines might look a bit like brains in aquariums (Ugh!!!).

Obviously, there are quite a few who aren't shy of putting real money into testing Penrose-Hameroff's theoretical ideas, despite general "huh?" from the laity. If it works - even on a rudimentary level - Hameroff will be vindicated, and it won't matter at all that nobody knows what the extremal is. Penrose's theory will advance too, and that will be strong indication that consciousness is a fundamental parameter of our spacetime that seeks to express itself through matter/energy.

I know that a lot of people believe that the origin of life is natural, but how exactly did nature actually do it?

If it turns out that we can tap into a fundamental to create organic-like machines that express consciousness, I suspect the very definition of 'natural' will have to undergo some retrofitting. It won't tell us how the pieces-parts managed to assemble themselves into the first cellular life, but it will tell us that life is 'intelligently designed'.

I’m not so much have an advocate of ID as I am a believer that there are limits to science. Of course, those limits could change with new discoveries but for the moment the origin of life, and the origin of consciousness and mind lie beyond those limits.

Sometimes I get frustrated enough to wish I could box 'science' on its ears for being so danged dumb. But most of its most stringent limitations are those it collectively imposes on itself because it's so scared of what it might find out. That's a problem of boxed-in metaphysics, not necessarily a limitation on nature at all. A matter of asking the wrong questions, complicated by a priori walls around what questions CAN be asked.

Quite apart from the religion vs. atheism public face of these debates, there is a different kind of fear that fuels the doctrinal engine of academic 'orthodoxy'. If you're a scientist working in the proprietary labs of industry I've heard that the very first thing you have to learn is to UN-learn what you've been taught about the brick wall around causation. I keep noting the number of cutting-edge researchers (on things like prions, MTs, etc. pertinent to the semi-public consciousness quest) who disappear behind the privatized funding without so much as a by-your-leave, often leaving the public end of things bereft of those who know the most about details. So once-fascinating lists become just more cranky philosophical slap-fests. Oh, well… it's a good training ground.

The problem with the quest's largely private funding situation is that the hands-on science goes 'underground' - unavailable to the public until and unless they come up with a designed product (or accidental discovery that can be turned into a product) that can be peddled to the masses at great cost. What it is and how it works is something not even FDA cares to know these days, when Big Pharma can go ahead and invent diseases and conditions out of whole cloth just so they can sell you their 'cures'. Restless Leg Syndrome, anyone? [sheesh!]

We weren’t meant to live forever. (At least not here.) But, children are not supposed to die before their parents.

You know, I've heard that a lot. And having experienced it, I can tell you it most certainly FEELS horribly wrong. But it also seems to be one of those quirks of human consciousness that appeal to demonstrably non-existent ideals that even more demonstrably don't apply to life and death on planet earth. Look around - children die every minute of every day, all over the world parents lose their children and feel that they've been wronged by the universe.

And if they manage to live past puberty, we start wars and send our young out to die on forgotten battlefields (so we can still live and be rich). Molech isn't the only bloodthirsty god humans ever came up with! Like 'True Justice', the idea that children shouldn't die before their parents is something that humans feel very strongly *should be*, but *is not*.

After awhile, if you live long enough to experience enough of what we call "injustice," you begin to wonder how in the world natural, accidental critters like us could ever have ideated and internalized such silly notions in the first place. Under a strict materialist view such as NDS 'orthodoxy' imposes, there's simply no excuse for it. By rights, complaining about injustice would be considered a serious mental illness, since there's no such thing as justice to appeal to!

Very strange… §;o)

Those who react emotionally to the very idea are displaying their fear of the anomalous. I'm not afraid of it - I ARE anomalous! There is no sound scientific reason to ignore the odd manifestations, though if you're just going for a 'norm' you can safely exclude them to get your working definitions.

In the late 19th century physicists thought they were close to closing the book on physics. There was optimism that just about every significant discovery that needed to be made had been made. All that needed to be worked out were some of the details. Lord Kelvin said that there remained two troublesome anomalies that needed to be resolved. One had to do the velocity of light; the other dealt with black body radiation. Did it even cross Kelvin’s mind that these two little anomalies might lead to two new theories? Two new experimentally supported theories did arise in the early 20th century. Two new theories that still haven’t been reconciled. Of course, I’m talking about Einsteins theories of special and general relativity (which grew out of the speed of light anomaly) and quantum physics (the black body anomaly.)

This should be a cautionary tale to any scientist that that doesn’t take anomalies seriously.

Anomalies may be hiding new scientific discoveries and theories. I think there are a number anomalies surrounding the so called modern evolutionary theory that should be given a closer look.

Thank you for the Joejohn Mcfadded and MLU link. I was actually more interested in what he had to say about AI. As a real life designer I’m intrigued by the whole idea of AI. In fact, designing something using some new theoretical insight is the best way to prove your theory is correct. What better proof was there of nuclear fission than the A-bomb? Nuclear fusion…the H-bomb?

What better way to prove that you understand mind and consciousness is there than build a true electronic brain? A computer (or computer type machine) that is aware of it’s own existence? I have yet to read anything about anyone who knows how to do this. (I know there are a lot of people who believe it can be done.) If you know of anybody like that have them send me the plans. I’d love to learn at last what it is that makes us conscious,

The same goes for the origin of life. Of course, the creation of artificial life would only prove that an intelligence (us) could bring about the origin of life. To prove, on the other hand, that life could have in principle come about by an unplanned, unguided natural process you would have to somehow get intelligence out of the loop. I know that a lot of people believe that the origin of life is natural, but how exactly did nature actually do it?

I’m not so much have an advocate of ID as I am a believer that there are limits to science. Of course, those limits could change with new discoveries but for the moment the origin of life, and the origin of consciousness and mind lie beyond those limits.

You also wrote earlier:

I have studied these things to great depth (for me, anyway). I could happily have spent my whole life not concerned about the nature of consciousness, but then I encountered a miracle of consciousness rather spectacular even if short in duration (his funeral was 16 years ago today).

I remember you talking about this before. If I remember accurately it was a son you lost, am I correct?

I’ve known people who have lost children and I know it is one of the tougher things, if not toughest things, for people go through. For example, I know of several people who have lost very young children (3-6 years of age) two to cancer, and one in the crash of a small plane. The plane victim was particularly tragic because he died in the plane his father was piloting. Badly injured himself this man pulled his 3 year son from the wreckage of the burning plane, but it was already too late. Peter had died instantly on impact.

Another person I met, lost his 20 year old daughter to a cerebral hemorrhage. It was especially cruel the way it happened. Shephenie, his beautiful and musically talented daughter, had been away from home on a year long mission trip. The night she arrived home there was an impromptu party, a gathering of family and friends to welcome her. Of course, she was overjoyed to see everyone, but then she got a head ache. A few hours later she died in a hospital emergency hospital room.

Personally, I lost both parents after long periods of illness. That was hard, but it is something that I have come to accept as part of life. We weren’t meant to live forever. (At least not here.) But, children are not supposed to die before their parents.

I’m sure our resident critics will have something to say about this. We have heard it before: how can a loving and omniscient God allow bad things to happen to such good people? But, ironically, those questions didn’t destroy the faith of these people. They used their faith to confront their suffering. That is what faith is for.

You know if someone could prove to me that all the argument for design were truly nonsense, I don’t think it would destroy my faith. It wouldn’t destroy it because I know too many people like these.

JOHN_A_DESIGNER: Notice that I said “over and over again.” … What I was questioning was whether it could happen over and over again in the universe.

Yes, I read that. I also read the word "could". The answer remains; it happened once, there is evidence that it happened due to natural causes, and there is evidence these conditions are not unique. That's how it "could" happen. That doesn't mean it does happen, or that it's a necessary event, or at what frequency it might occur.

You don't have to have a teleological view to think that intelligence is not unique in the universe.

Davis: Although biological determinists strongly deny that there is any actual design, or preordained goal, involved in their proposals, the idea that the laws of nature may be slanted towards life, even if not contradicting the letter of Darwinism, certainly offends its spirit. It slips an element of teleology back into nature a century and a half after Darwin banished it.

And all this time I thought the universe was slanted towards making rocks.

You asked "how possibly", which I answered. We have one instance of life evolving by natural causes. That leads to the hypothesis that Earth is not unique. This hypothesis has been fruitful, leading to the discovery of extrasolar macromolecules, extrasolar planets and advances in abiogenetics. It is certainly not conclusive, the biggest question for most scientists being the frequency of life.

After quoting me you immediately took me out of context.

I said: How possibility could a blind, undirected “natural” process lead to advanced intelligence over and over again?”

Notice that I said “over and over again.” I was willing to give the benefit of the doubt to the idea that it could have happened at least once. (Though personally I remain skeptical of even that.)

Obviously, someone like Gould was also willing to assume that advanced intelligence evolved at least one time–here. What I was questioning was whether it could happen over and over again in the universe. (Gould, Simpson and Mayr basically asked the same question which they answered in the negative.)

For SETI to be viable project, intelligent life needs to have evolved, not just someplace else in the universe, but someplace close by within our own galaxy. Gould’s argument suggest that that would be highly unlikely. If we describe Gould’s position as dysteleological how do we describe a process that leads to intelligence over and over again in the universe? At the very least it is less dysteleological, isn’t it?

Davies fully appreciated there would be resistance to his arguments. He writes: “Although biological determinists strongly deny that there is any actual design, or preordained goal, involved in their proposals, the idea that the laws of nature may be slanted towards life, even if not contradicting the letter of Darwinism, certainly offends its spirit. It slips an element of teleology back into nature a century and a half after Darwin banished it.” (p263)

JOHN_A_DESIGNER: [Davies] argues that there two basic points of view. The first is that evolution is some kind of “drunken walk” or “cosmic lottery.” The second is that evolution is a “ladder of progress.” The first is a dysteleological view; the second is very obviously teleological.

No, it's not obviously teleological. As Davies founds his argument on a faulty assumption, the rest of his argument is not supported.

Evolving organisms, by the principle of fecundity, tend to fill niches as they become available. That includes nearby niches that require incremental increases in complexity (such as by increasing cooperation among kin). Think of it as water poured against a wall (of zero complexity). The water will tend to spread away from the wall (into increasing complexity). This would be a tendency, but not purposeful.

JOHN_A_DESIGNER: How possibility could a blind, undirected “natural” process lead to advanced intelligence over and over again?

Zachriel: Big Bang to stars to heavy metals to a watery world to evolution to technology. Most scientists have no problem with this. We have at least one example, an apparently natural process, and important evidence that terrestrial conditions are not unique.

JOHN_A_DESIGNER: I think there is very little we can conclude scientifically from just one data set and some thin circumstantial evidence from deep space.

You asked "how possibly", which I answered. We have one instance of life evolving by natural causes. That leads to the hypothesis that Earth is not unique. This hypothesis has been fruitful, leading to the discovery of extrasolar macromolecules, extrasolar planets and advances in abiogenetics. It is certainly not conclusive, the biggest question for most scientists being the frequency of life.

JOHN_A_DESIGNER: Can you scientifically prove that life, the universe and mankind have no kind of ultimate purpose?

Zachriel: my argument is not that the universe lacks design, but that there is no *scientific* evidence to support a claim of teleology in biology.

Zachriel: Another way to consider it is that "purpose" is a human construct. We misapply the concept to a rock rolling down a hill when we say the rock's purpose is to reach the lowest point.

Though Davies is welcome to his metaphysics, he's not welcome to improperly ascribing it to others. I'm sure some SETI researchers may be teleological in their thinking, but most claim to base their hypothesis on a far-reaching extrapolation of current scientific knowledge.

Davies is simply following the arguments of George Simpson, Ernst Mayr, and Stephen J Gould their logical conslusion. For example, Gould writes: “We are glorious accidents of an unpredictable process with no drive to complexity; not the expected results of evolutionary principles that yearn to produce a creature capable of understanding the mode of its own necessary construction.” (p270)

Gould of course is famous for arguing that if you wiped all life off the face of the earth and started again with just microbes it is very improbable evolution would retrace its steps and end up with some kind of intelligence. Furthermore, if there is no intrinsic drive towards complexity we can reasonably expect it would get no further than microbes.

Davies writes: “I agree with Gould. A trend of increasing complexity would provide evidence or purpose in the universe.”

Zach: Big Bang to stars to heavy metals to a watery world to evolution to technology. Most scientists have no problem with this. We have at least one example, an apparently natural process, and important evidence that terrestrial conditions are not unique.

I think there is very little we can conclude scientifically from just one data set and some thin circumstantial evidence from deep space. That is why questions about extra terrestrial life are, at the present, primarily philosophical and theological ones.

Can you scientifically prove that life, the universe and mankind have no kind of ultimate purpose?

He told me that NASA still used Newtonian physics for spacecraft navigation. “It’s more than accurate enough,” he explained, “to get us anywhere we need to go in the solar system.”

Yeah. I can get from here to the grocery store - or even all the way to Florida - without GPS too. My understanding of north, south, east and west, as well as my knowledge of geography and ability to read maps, is more than accurate enough to get me anywhere I need to go in this country. GPS was invented by men for men (who never ask directions). §;o)

An analogy can be made here with QM based theories of consciousness, which at present are not well established at all.

I've never diminished the usefulness of examining or understanding any of the particular attributes and aspects of consciousness-in-action, and for most people that's all they need to know (some don't even care to know that much). I am interested in the actual physical mechanisms on the physical, molecular level because it was on this level that the seriously anomalous manifestations I witnessed 'came through'. There's a receiver in our heads as well as a generator and a transmitter (insert techno-analogy here), and it boils down to the actual biophysical mechanisms.

On that level of physicality, quantum forces play significant roles. Particularly in the very specialized cells of our CPU organ. These mechanisms are more than mere logic gates, gap junctions and 'neural nets'. To examine and try to quantify their operations doesn't require descent into universal parameters (how many dimensions are there - really?), the nature of gravity (unknown), or subdividing time into units so small they're as hard to grasp as eternity is. Dealing with quantum events in the brain on the time-level requires mere nano and mili divisions. FAPP.

Individual researchers, specialists and/or interested laymen can choose the levels at which they care to understand the processes. You can think in terms of fields and information exchange and come out knowing a lot. Others can think in terms of logic gates, gap junctions, biophoton firing and neural net excitations and come out knowing a lot. I went looking deeper because I wanted to know on a different level. But that level wasn't all the way to the first femtosecond of the Big Bang, it was right there in my son's head.

However, find something from QM that might suggest some practical solution to a problem and sure it is worth considering.

Hameroff's theory of PCC/NCCs via Orch-OR is "good enough for gub'ment work" per MY problem - the attempt to understand a miracle. That's starting with the amazingly anomalous and working backwards into 'what does science know?'. Most scientists (and engineers) are simply trying to quantify and control the normal. The anomalous - though demonstrably existent - doesn't factor in their approach and isn't present in their conclusions. But I've always figured that any ToE [Theory of Everything] that cannot explain the anomalous as well as the norm isn't worth its title.

First, question we need to ask ourselves is: How do we begin to objectively study something (consciousness) that is basically subjective?

All empirical experience is basically subjective. It's only objective when we agree to label it such because two or more people agree about the descriptions of what was experienced. That's semantics, not empirical experience itself. Our beginnings are predicated upon which level we care to approach, that's all.

You said it yourself:

I also think that there are three basic concepts that we need to consider that might at least give us some kind of quasi-objective framework. The three concepts can be summarized with three words: (1)field, (2)flow and (3)focus.

1. Field. The quantum forces involved in PCC/NCC-level operations are field phenomena.

2. Flow. The directionality of time at this level of examination is discrete - determined by "irreversible events" that translate to "collapse of wavefunction" in standard QM, even if you don't believe in Copenhagen. To work with the phenomena in the lab or try to understand them in broader context, acceptance of the notion of collapse is required. FAPP. Once collapse has occurred, the system can't go back to being what it was before it collapsed - the event is "irreversible," and this gives time a definite direction in physical reality, not just in subjective experience.

3. Focus. You place this aspect at the level of awareness, which works for the level of examination you've chosen. That's fine. I've chosen to examine the level of awareness that might lend understanding to the anomalous ability to see and interact with people in a distant location focused on this person. He couldn't control it, but in his state of mind it seemed perfectly normal - just happens. "Grandpa was here, you just missed him. There were a bunch of people with him, they were singing and clapping, it was nice."

There are plenty of theorists and researchers across a dozen or so scientific and philosophical fields from all over the world involved in the well-funded quest for consciousness. Most are working from semi-objective (agreed-upon) data. They don't need me (beyond my participation in synesthesia research, as a subject). Even that low level of participation begins with the anomalous, so I think there is value to the project from that approach. Just like I think there is value to the project of understanding general biology and evolution from the teleological approach.

Those who react emotionally to the very idea are displaying their fear of the anomalous. I'm not afraid of it - I ARE anomalous! There is no sound scientific reason to ignore the odd manifestations, though if you're just going for a 'norm' you can safely exclude them to get your working definitions.

There are a number of working definitions out there, particular to the levels of examination, the fields of study, and the personal abilities of the researchers. Johnjoe McFadden has an interesting field theory you'd probably enjoy. If you ignore unwarranted conclusions.

Here is his 'Machines Like Us' interview.

Science investigates the natural world of matter and energy in space and time. Our bodies are made of matter and energy interacting in space and time. Thus I presume there are physical mechanisms for the operations and expressions of consciousness. So do Penrose and Hameroff. Quantifying those mechanisms doesn't tell us anything about the actual nature of consciousness, it just tells us it's got some cool mechanisms of expression that make use of biophysics and biochemistry in a most impressive manner.

Several years ago I got a chance to talk to a real “rocket scientist“, (actually an engineer) from NASA, who had something to do with designing navigation systems for some of NASA’s deep space probes. I asked him if NASA ever used Einstein’s theory of gravity for interplanetary navigation. He told me that NASA still used Newtonian physics for spacecraft navigation. “It’s more than accurate enough,” he explained, “to get us anywhere we need to go in the solar system.”

My point is, that even though as everyone knows that Einstein’s conception of gravity has displaced Newton’s; Newton is still practical. An analogy can be made here with QM based theories of consciousness, which at present are not well established at all.

I guess it might be because I work in the engineering field and we engineers and designers are, by necessity very pragmatic. Our job is to find real solutions that really work in the real world. I like to find practical steps to solve a problem. So, I approach the problem of consciousness the same way.

However, find something from QM that might suggest some practical solution to a problem and sure it is worth considering.

First, question we need to ask ourselves is: How do we begin to objectively study something (consciousness) that is basically subjective?

The second question is: Are we really trying to understand consciousness, or is it something that we already understand? In which case maybe what we are really trying to understand is how conscious agents (humans or animals) interact with an objective, out there world.

I also think that there are three basic concepts that we need to consider that might at least give us some kind of quasi-objective framework. The three concepts can be summarized with three words: (1)field, (2)flow and (3)focus.

(1) Field is no doubt a concept that is a very familiar one in physics, but I also think that it is very useful in trying to conceptualize consciousness. We are after all conscious of a multi-faceted perceptual field. This field is not only of things out side us, but also of internal, thoughts, feeling and imaginings.

(2)However, this field exists in a flow of time. Remember William James talked about a stream of consciousness. Combine field with flow and that is where (or maybe more accurately when) we have the experience of our “personal now” (or PN). I think that Planck time may be a useful concept here for establishing some kind of limit. After all, Planck time (PT) is the shortest theoretical duration in which anything could happen. However, I think that it would be a stretch to say that our conscious experience happens within PT. I think it is too brief for anything like conscious thought to occur. The more I think about it the more I believe that my experience of my PN is actually spread over some period of time. How long is this time? Obviously long enough to give me that fleeting experience of my PN. Is my PN like a discrete frame in a movie? Possibly. But it could also be something of moving field, which is momentarily unified but continuously changing.

(3)Finally focus is exactly what the word suggests. I am able to focus on particular things within my personal field of consciousness. This brings in other important concepts like volition and intentionality. While we might intuitively think that consciousness is something passive I don’t think that consciousness would be possible without an active, and interactive component. For example, when we think, we make deliberate choices about what to think about.

Well, these are some of my thoughts about how we can perhaps begin study consciousness in at least a semi-objective manner.

Of course, I’m just a layperson who hasn’t studied these things to great depth, but “serious” scholars of consciousness like John Searle and David Chalmers concur that QM models of consciousness don‘t shed much light in understanding consciousness. Searle has said quite flippantly , it is just using “one mystery to explain another.”

I have studied these things to great depth (for me, anyway). I could happily have spent my whole life not concerned about the nature of consciousness, but then I encountered a miracle of consciousness rather spectacular even if short in duration (his funeral was 16 years ago today). A dozen 'scientific experts' - an entirely meaningless term in a court of law, I assure you - testified under oath that what occurred was indeed a genuine miracle, and that "finding of fact" was duly entered into the record.

Yet because I lived in immediate close proximity to that miracle for two and a half months every day and night, I recognized it depended on the physical in order to express the miraculous. So I went looking for what science knew about such things. I found the never-ending argumentation and a little bit of creative thinking. They basically don't know enough about it to even agree it exists.

Some of what was physically manifesting through the dramatically altered-by-injury consciousness mechanisms in my son's head was indeed completely without precedent (in anyone's experience I'm aware of), and didn't come from around here. Here being the materialistic universe of matter, energy and spacetime. Manifestations of spiritual beings. The ability to see and interact with the people who were fervently praying for him in distant parts of the country and world. The channeling of loved ones long dead to deliver messages to we who loved him so completely…

"Everything will be all right."

But he died. For awhile there he was an open window into some great "More" out there beyond physical manifestation. And yes, for all the pain and sorrow, I do believe everything is all right.

I just wanted to get some idea of the physical mechanisms, perhaps to account for how such things might conceivably turn into an open window on a whole different reality under extreme circumstances. I found a couple of semi-acceptable starts on that theme in the scientific quest. One of those was Penrose-Hameroff.

I don't buy the graviton thing, and it is for all intents and purposes an unfalsifiable extrapolation based on a priori commitment to a standard model I rejected decades ago because it's not just 'incomplete', it's flat-out wrong. But at current and projected scientific abilities I cannot expect much more than what's offered - a collapsing extremal of baseline fundamental nature, even if there's no such thing as actually collapsed extremals. A graviton wouldn't do the job even if I accepted RQFT, but a monopole of some variety would.

Have you ever heard of a "Dirac string?" It's a wholly conceptual open connection to some other place/reality that must be present whenever a 'hedgehog vector' interacts here in our spacetime. This is a possible answer to my question about the open window. Either way, there is more to this thing we call consciousness than physics or biology can ever explain in materialistic terms. I know this by direct empirical experience. Thus it doesn't bother me if others who don't have that experience don't believe in the "More."

I do think that there is merit in what Hameroff tries to do by trying to find correlation between consciousness with time. I also think the concept “Planck time” (PT) might be conceptually fruitful. However, that is a starting point not an end point.

We do not have a good handle on time. I have long suspected the true nature of our reality is inextricably bound to the phenomenon - which I also believe to be 'real' and not psychological. I think that if we had an understanding of the true nature of time we would have answers to a good many questions that currently get filed under the heading of Mystery/Miracle.

But that's just me. §;o)

I was really open to the idea that quantum mechanics might explain some things about consciousness. I came away with the impression that while Penrose and Hameroff are brilliant men, they haven’t grappled with the real problem of consciousness. For example, while both men. I think, allude to the “hard problem” of consciousness I believe Orch-OR goes anywhere towards resolving this issue. My impression is that they alluded to it, and then conveniently forgot about it.

The 'Hard Problem' is something that awaits a philosophical framework that doesn't yet exist. What Penrose and Hameroff have done is attempt to quantify the physical mechanisms of consciousness.

Not everyone believes that there is such a thing as consciousness. The philosophical battle rages on, unabated and fraught with the most ridiculous postulations imaginable. But the scientific quest for quantification is important to those funding it - those filthy rich AI-Guys who have so long dreamed of conscious machines and artificial immortality (uploaded minds). It's just another existential angst-inspired search for a way outta here alive.

A raging against the materialist machine, by materialist machinists, that's all. Science investigates the natural world of matter and energy in space and time. Our bodies are made of matter and energy interacting in space and time. Thus I presume there are physical mechanisms for the operations and expressions of consciousness. So do Penrose and Hameroff. Quantifying those mechanisms doesn't tell us anything about the actual nature of consciousness, it just tells us it's got some cool mechanisms of expression that make use of biophysics and biochemistry in a most impressive manner.

FWIW, Penrose is a Platonist philosophically, Hameroff some sort of Buddhist-New Ager. Everyone has metaphysical beliefs, including scientists. At least they're not metaphysical materialists.