1 Introduction
The hypothesis that quantum mechanics might underlie the origin of consciousness has a long and intricate history (Jordan, 1932, 1941; , ; McFadden, 2002; McFadden and Al-Khalili, 2014; Schrödinger, 2013, 2008; Neumann, 1932; Wigner, 1961; London and Bauer, 1939; Penrose, 1989, 1994; Stapp, 1993; Jibu and Yasue, 1995; Hameroff and Penrose, 1996; Penrose and Hameroff, 2017; Ho, 2013; ; Georgiev, 2025; Fisher, 2015). In recent years, the theory of Orchestrated Objective Reductions (“Orch OR") (Penrose, 1989, 1994; Hameroff and Penrose, 1996; Hameroff, 2001; Hameroff and Penrose, 2014; Penrose and Hameroff, 2017; Tegmark, 2000; Hagan et al., 2002; McKemmish et al., 2009; Rosa and Faber, 2004) has emerged as one of the main theories for understanding the function of the brain and the essence of consciousness. However, unlike other theories, Orch OR relies on quantum oscillations from microtubules entangled among neurons across the brain, a feature which has yet to be proven, but which may be necessary for cognitive binding and zero-phase lag gamma synchrony. We attempt to strengthen Orch OR with (1) a mathematical Hamiltonian to describe the quantum-classical transition process, and (2) the perspective of complexity theory. We hope to integrate Orch OR with other models spanning many space-time scales.
Orch OR states that phenomena such as the discrete perception of time unfolding, the subjective wholeness of perception, spatio-temporal binding, causal free will (Hameroff, 2012), mechanisms of anesthesia, and the so-called “hard problem" are explainable aspects of consciousness. It organizes these phenomena within a systematic framework capable of explaining possible underlying links and offering interpretations of related philosophical issues (Wiest, 2025).
We believe that, at present, the Orch OR model represents the most comprehensive and bold attempt to propose a framework for the hard problem of consciousness and other features that are connected to it. The foundations of the Orch OR model include Penrose's objective reduction conjecture (Penrose, 1989, 1994, 1996, 2014b,a) and the concept of orchestration in neural processes (Hameroff and Penrose, 1996, 2014; Hameroff, 2001). To our knowledge, there is one computational study that reports explicit theoretical calculations estimating decoherence times and gravitational collapse times in microtubules (Hagan et al., 2002). These coherence times were estimated to range from 10−6 to 10−4 seconds. Coherence times within this range have also been observed experimentally in microtubules (Saxena et al., 2020), and are considered sufficient for Orch OR processes. We have not found theoretical or computational studies about how, e.g., textcolorvioletslower synaptic activity, membrane potentials, calcium ion flows orchestrate the quantum dynamics of the microtubules's lattice. Experimental studies have investigated electronic conduction, excitonic coupling, and electromagnetic resonances in microtubules (Sahu et al., 2013b,a, 2014; Saxena et al., 2020; Kalra et al., 2023). Additional research has explored the possibility of quantum effects in brain structures, including MRI observations of cardiac-evoked zero quantum coherence signals in the brain (Kerskens and érez, 2022), and theoretical models describing coherent excitations in biological systems (Frölich, 1968, 1970, 1975; Pokorný, 1999, 2004). These elements are combined into a framework that is both intellectually engaging and ambitious in its aim to connect gravitation, quantum physics, neuroscience, consciousness, and anesthesia.
We regard this narrative not as a finished structure, but as a foundation, an invitation to contribute with rigorous analysis and an open mind. In this paper, we identify key ideas of the Orch OR model and examine how their internal relations could be analyzed using physically grounded tools. Rather than offering a critique or a generalization, we want to integrate quantum-classical dynamics in the Orch OR framework to describe the evolution of brain structures before and after quantum state reduction. This perspective emphasizes the orchestration process and seeks to formulate it in rigorous physical and mathematical terms, by means of quantum-classical Hamiltonians (Sergi and Kapral, 2003, 2004, 2005; Grimaldi et al., 2021) and the quasi-Lie algebra of quantum-classical brackets (Sergi, 2005; Sergi et al., 2018). In doing so, we want to enlarge the possibilities of the model without altering its foundational premises. For clarity, our specific goal in this work is to propose that the framework of orchestration might find its natural formal expression within a quantum-classical theory (Sergi et al., 2023b, 2025, 2023a, 2018; Sergi, 2015, 2006, 2005; Sergi and Kapral, 2004; Sergi, 2015; Grimaldi et al., 2021). Our paper contributes to the scientific debate on the unfolding of brain dynamics at the boundary between the quantum and classical realms, and aims to help develop Orch OR into a more predictive and testable framework.
This paper is structured as follows. In Section 2, we discuss objective reduction. The second main idea of the Orch OR model, i.e., orchestration, is presented in Section 3. In Section 4, we outline a quantum-classical framework that could offer a dynamical description of the classical modulation of quantum events in Orch OR, with the aim of supporting its integration into a testable and predictive multiscale model. Section 5 addresses the quantum dynamics of microtubules. In Section 6, we describe how Professor Hameroff has skillfully used the Orch OR model, specifically the randomization of orchestrated quantum effects in microtubules, to develop a compelling narrative for explaining anesthesia. In Section 7, we discuss how the Orch OR model tackles big questions such as stimulus integration, free will, and the subjective sense of time's irreversibility associated with awareness. In Section 8 we discuss our thoughts about complexity and the meaning of quantum-classical complexity. Finally, in Section 9, we present our main conclusions and final remarks.
2 Orch OR, general relativity and quantum gravity
The orthodox interpretation of quantum mechanics considers the quantum state ontologically real (Neumann, 1932). One of its main faults is that it fails to provide a unique and rigorous account of how the classical limit emerges (Wick, 1995; Holland, 1993; Weinberg, 2013). Being a linear theory, it obeys the superposition principle, according to which a system can occupy two quantum states at the same time. If one assigns an ontological status to the quantum states, then the superposition principle does not obey the rule of reality. In the Copenhagen interpretation (Neumann, 1932), only an act of measurement can destroy a superposition and, therefore, create reality as we know it, with systems only occupying a single state at a time. However, since in the Copenhagen interpretation (Neumann, 1932), any act of measurements implies an observer and a measurement, the reality associated with it, is subjective. Typically, the collapse of the wave function is introduced in an ad hoc manner to force, although in a probabilistic way, the correspondence with the classical world. This has led to interpretations of quantum mechanics that border on metaphysics, such as the many-worlds interpretation (; ; ; Wallace, 2012; Saunders et al., 2010).
Penrose developed the idea that the probabilistic and observer-dependent nature of collapse could be dispensed with by using gravity as a constraint on the lifetime of generic superpositions. This is implemented by considering quantum superpositions not just as superpositions of physical states, but as superpositions of spacetime geometries. Drawing on Einstein's general relativity, where mass and energy curve spacetime, Penrose proposed that a quantum particle in a spatial superposition corresponds to a superposition of distinct spacetime curvatures, differing at the Planck scale. When the gravitational self-energy of this superposition reaches a certain threshold, the state undergoes an objective reduction (OR), spontaneously collapsing to a definite geometry (Penrose, 1996, 2014b,a). The timescale for quantum state reduction is determined by the gravitational self-energy EG of the difference between the mass distributions of the superposed states. This leads to the characteristic relation:
where τ is the mean lifetime of the superposition and ℏ is the reduced Planck's constant. According to Penrose (Penrose, 1996, 2014b,a, 1989, 1994), the exact time of the collapse cannot be predicted by any currently known physical law. Instead, it is hypothesized to follow a yet-to-be-formulated principle emerging from the unresolved conflict between general relativity and quantum mechanics (Penrose, 1989, 1994, 1996, 2014b,a). The law proposed in Equation 1 is said to be neither random nor algorithmically deterministic, but rather deterministic and non-computable.
Objective reduction, with its threshold time given by Equation 1, provides a physical solution to the quantum-to-classical transition (Wick, 1995; Holland, 1993; Weinberg, 2013) which is neither derived from the currently known laws of physics nor computable by any algorithms using a finite number of steps. Reasoning about Gödel's theorem and free will, Penrose concluded that objective reduction could also be the root of what he called proto-consciousness (Penrose, 1989, 1994). In fact, the central assumption of Orch OR is that consciousness arises exclusively through objective reduction (OR). More precisely, Orch OR posits that the collapse of the quantum state of the microtubule lattice within the neuronal cytoplasm constitutes a proto-conscious event. Coherent quantum dynamics entangle the quantum states of individual microtubules, producing a unified quantum state for the entire lattice (Penrose, 1994; Hameroff and Penrose, 1996, 2014; Hameroff, 2001, 2012). In summary, the OR model offers a compelling unification of quantum mechanics and gravity, and gives the Orch OR framework its unique character.
3 Orchestration
The Orch OR framework posits that each objective reduction (OR) event corresponds to a discrete moment of subjective experience, or proto-conscious qualia, occurring when quantum superpositions self-collapse into definite classical states. In this view, OR events in isolated systems would give rise to random, disconnected moments, metaphorically described as proto-conscious noise, lacking continuity, memory, or context. These have been likened to the tones of musicians individually tuning their instruments. In contrast, Orch OR proposes that in the brain, OR events are orchestrated across entangled microtubule networks, forming temporally and spatially coherent patterns of reduction. This orchestration is proposed to underlie unified conscious states, resonating and interfering across multiple scales, much like chords and harmonies in a musical composition. The orchestration, realized in part by classical processes occurring in the brain, synchronizes all OR events within individual neurons (Penrose, 1994; Hameroff and Penrose, 1996; Penrose and Hameroff, 2017; Hameroff and Penrose, 2014; Hameroff, 2001). The synchronization of multiple OR events gives rise to conscious experience.
An analogy can be made with a classical system: consider many pendulum clocks, each initially out of phase, but all mounted on the same wall. Because the shared wall transmits vibrations among the clocks, constructive and destructive interference leads them to synchronize over time. Orchestration in Orch OR is a similar process, involving ‘quantum clocks' inside neurons, with the classical processes of the brain acting as the shared “wall." This analogy aligns with more recent interpretations of microtubules as time crystals, structures that may exhibit intrinsic periodicity and support coordinated timing of OR events. (Wilczek, 2012; Zhang et al., 2017; Mi et al., 2022; Sahu et al., 2013b,a, 2014; Saxena et al., 2020).
According to Orch OR (Hameroff and Penrose, 1996; Penrose and Hameroff, 2017; Hameroff and Penrose, 2014), orchestration is caused by processes such as resonance, synaptic activity, membrane dynamics, cytoskeletal regulation [e.g., MAPs (Goodson and Jonasson, 2018; Steiner et al., 1990), microtubule-associated proteins, and CAMKII (Waxham, 2009; ; ; Vallano et al., 1985; Gradin et al., 1997; Schulman et al., 1985)], biochemical activity (e.g., calcium waves, GTP hydrolysis), and, e.g., anesthesia. These are proposed to modulate or “tune" the quantum superposition within microtubules, without collapsing it. Therefore, orchestration is the quantum coherent dynamics, embedded in the classical environment provided by brain structures, unfolding before an OR event occurs.
4 Quantum-classical theory
If the interplay between the coherent dynamics of microtubules and the dynamics of synapses, membranes, cytoskeleton, MAPs (Goodson and Jonasson, 2018; Steiner et al., 1990), calcium waves, GTP et cetera invokes both quantum and classical phenomena, then the corresponding modeling requires an advanced formalism that treats quantum and classical degrees of freedom on the same footing (Sergi et al., 2023b, 2025, 2023a, 2018; Sergi, 2015, 2006, 2005; Grimaldi et al., 2021). At the same time, expecting that quantum-classical dynamics does generate quantum transitions, destroying quantum superpositions, is not consistent with what experiments and quantum-classical theory (Sergi et al., 2023b, 2025, 2023a, 2018; Sergi, 2006, 2005; Sergi and Kapral, 2004; Sergi, 2015; Grimaldi et al., 2021) tells us regarding nonadiabatic dynamics. Quantum-classical theory allows for a consistent description of mutual influence and back-reaction between quantum and classical variables, while also enabling the derivation of correlation functions, spectra, and thermodynamic properties that can be compared directly with experimental data. Importantly, this proposal is not in opposition to Orch OR. Rather, it aims to refine and formalize some of its technical aspects, with the goal of enhancing the model's mathematical rigor and predictive power.
It is hard to dispute that orchestration operates within the domain of quantum-classical dynamics, unfolding at the boundary between quantum and classical processes in the brain. The theory of Quantum-classical systems (QCSs) (; Zhang and Balescu, 1988; Osborn and Molzahn, 1995; Osborn et al., 1999; Sergi et al., 2023b, 2025, 2023a; Sergi, 2006; Sergi et al., 2018; Sergi, 2005; Sergi and Kapral, 2004; Sergi, 2015; Grimaldi et al., 2021) provides a framework for modeling coupled subsystems with both quantum and classical features. By means of suitable generalizations, this approach can also derive the formal quantum-classical limit of completely quantum correlation functions (Sergi and Kapral, 2004), as well as treat the non-Hermitian dynamics of the quantum subsystem. (Sergi, 2015; Grimaldi et al., 2021). Besides mathematical formalism, there are many efficient algorithms that have proven to be suitable for the simulation of condensed matter systems (Martens and Fang, 1997; Horenko et al., 2002; Wan and Schofield, 2000; Santer et al., 2001; Horenko et al., 2004; Sergi et al., 2003; Sergi and Kapral, 2003, 2005; Sergi and Petruccione, 2010; Uken et al., 2013, 2011; Uken and Sergi, 2015; Sewran et al., 2015; Hanna and Kapral, 2005; Liu et al., 2022).
The theory of QCSs employs Wigner symbols to describe the statistical dynamical properties of a composite system comprising quantum and classical subsystems (Osborn and Molzahn, 1995; Osborn et al., 1999). These symbols depend on quantum variables, such as , and classical phase-space coordinates R and P, representing positions and momenta of, for example, a set of particles. When the Wigner symbol is expanded in a complete basis of the quantum subsystem, it becomes a matrix-valued Wigner function (Zhang and Balescu, 1988; ). The knowledge of a matrix-valued Wigner function allows one to calculate statistical properties by tracing over quantum operators and integrating over classical phase space. Such an approach also allows one to calculate correlation functions and nonequilibrium thermodynamic property (Sergi and Kapral, 2003, 2005).
The theory of QCSs lets one adopt a quantum statistical perspective in which ensemble averages over QCSs dynamical variables, both operators and phase space oordinates, bridge quantum and classical descriptions. Such systems naturally appear in contexts ranging from condensed matter systems (; Zhang and Balescu, 1988; Osborn and Molzahn, 1995; Osborn et al., 1999; Sergi et al., 2023b, 2025, 2023a; Sergi, 2005, 2006; Sergi et al., 2018) to quantum processes in classical gravitational fields (; Wald, 1994; Ford, 1982; Kuo and Ford, 1993; Sakharov, 1967; Visser, 2002; Verlinde, 2011; Jacobson, 1995; Oh et al., 2018; ; ; , ; Penrose, 1996, 2014b,a).
We want now to give a sketch of this theory. We consider a quantum and a classical subsystem, Q and C, respectivily. The classical approximation for C is justified because we are considering those cases in which Λ, i.e., the de Broglie wavelenght of C, is much smaller of λ, the de Broglie wavelenght of Q: Λ < < λ. The classical Hamiltonian of C is written as
where X = (R, P) is a compact notation for the phase space coordinates. The quantum Hamiltonian of Q is simply denoted by ĤQ, while the hybrid, coupling Hamiltonian is denoted by . The total Hamiltonian is
If we denote by ∇ = (∂R, ∂P) the phase space gradient, and by Ω the symplectic matrix
the theory of QCSs (; Zhang and Balescu, 1988; Osborn and Molzahn, 1995; Osborn et al., 1999; Sergi et al., 2023b, 2025, 2023a; Sergi, 2005, 2006; Sergi et al., 2018) establishes that the Wigner symbol (Osborn and Molzahn, 1995; Osborn et al., 1999) obeys the equation of motion
The RHS of the final Equation 5 introduces the quantum-classical bracket written in compact form (Sergi, 2005, 2006; Sergi et al., 2018). Equation 5 shows the detailed form of the quantum-classical bracket. The first term in the RHS of Equation 5 is the commutator is the commutator written in matrix form; the last two terms in the RHS of Equation 5 are Poisson brackets (Goldstein, 1980) written in symplectic form.
The quantum-classical bracket is a quasi-Lie bracket (Sergi, 2005, 2006; Sergi et al., 2018) that fails to satisfy the Jacobi identity:
This lack of closure of the quantum-classical algebra reflects the irreversible mixing of quantum features during the system time evolution.
Even with an initially uncorrelated state
time propagation
inevitably generates correlations even when QC coupling is weak. Our conclusion is that, despite conserving energy and probability (the propagator is unitary), the quantum-classical equation of motion in Equation 5 introduces effective irreversibility by entangling the two subsystems.
The quantum-classical bracket formalism has also been derived as a first-order approximation of the partially Wigner-transformed commutator for fully quantum bipartite systems, see (Sergi et al. 2023a) for a short derivation. It offers a consistent framework to model systems where one component is effectively classical, such as molecular dynamics with classical nuclei and quantum electrons, or quantum particles in a classical gravitational field. In these cases, subsystem energies are not conserved individually, reflecting their open-system character.
Given suitable initial conditions, Equation 5 can be integrated by a number of algorithms (Martens and Fang, 1997; Horenko et al., 2002; Wan and Schofield, 2000; Santer et al., 2001; Horenko et al., 2004; Sergi et al., 2003; Sergi and Kapral, 2003, 2005; Sergi and Petruccione, 2010; Uken et al., 2013, 2011; Uken and Sergi, 2015; Sewran et al., 2015; Hanna and Kapral, 2005; Liu et al., 2022), depending on the system and its defining parameter space. Once is known, quantum-classical statistical averages can be calculated as
while time correlation functions are defined by
where
and defined by the analogous formula to Equation 11.
We believe that the quantum-classical formalism we sketched in this section (; Zhang and Balescu, 1988; Osborn and Molzahn, 1995; Osborn et al., 1999; Sergi et al., 2023b, 2025, 2023a; Sergi, 2005, 2006; Sergi et al., 2018; Sergi and Kapral, 2004; Sergi, 2015; Grimaldi et al., 2021), and that has been applied in many works of ours (Sergi et al., 2003; Sergi and Kapral, 2003, 2005; Sergi and Petruccione, 2010; Uken et al., 2013, 2011; Uken and Sergi, 2015; Sewran et al., 2015), including some directly addressing brain dynamics (Sergi et al., 2025, 2023a), could be used to perform computer simulations within the framework of orchestration.
5 Microtubules and quantum dynamics
Microtubules are cylindrical polymers formed by the self-assembly of tubulin, one of the most abundant proteins in the brain and a major component of the neuronal cytoskeleton. Each tubulin dimer consists of α- and β-tubulin monomers arranged in a head-to-tail fashion, conferring intrinsic polarity to the polymer. This polarity stems from the dimer's asymmetric structure and directional polymerization (Nogales et al., 1998; ): the plus end, where β-tubulin is exposed, typically elongates more rapidly, whereas the minus end, capped by α-tubulin, is often anchored near the centrosome or within the neuronal soma. In neurons, microtubules exhibit a highly specialized organization distinct from that of other somatic cells. While axonal microtubules are uniformly oriented and continuous, dendrites and the soma contain short, discontinuous segments arranged in mixed-polarity networks (Hameroff and Watt, 1983; Hameroff, 1998; , ; Jibu et al., 1994). The mixed-polarity microtubules are particularly abundant in the somata and apical dendrites of layer 5 pyramidal neurons. This unique neuronal architecture suggests that microtubules may serve roles beyond classical structural support.
In addition to their established involvement in mitosis, axonal growth, intracellular transport, and synaptic plasticity, microtubules have also been implicated in memory mechanisms and theories of consciousness. Of particular relevance to the Orch OR framework is the observation that microtubules support a broad range of vibrational modes and electromagnetic resonances (Sahu et al., 2013b,a, 2014; Saxena et al., 2020; Kalra et al., 2023). Notably, early computational models proposed that the mixed-polarity organization of dendritic microtubules could enable recursive information processing, potentially relevant to conscious experience (Rasmussen et al., 1990). While still speculative, this hypothesis encourages further exploration of the computational functions of cytoskeletal structures in the brain. It has also been proposed that mixed-polarity microtubules can support interference patterns arising from slight frequency differences in their oscillatory behavior (Rasmussen et al., 1990). These interference effects could produce slower beat frequencies in the hertz range, potentially contributing to EEG rhythms (Hameroff and Penrose, 2014). While still speculative, this mechanism suggests a possible link between subcellular microtubule dynamics and large-scale neural activity.
According to Orch OR, a coherent quantum state can form within the hydrophobic regions of individual microtubules (Hameroff and Penrose, 1996; Penrose and Hameroff, 2017), stabilized by benzene/phenyl and indole rings. This state is proposed to involve nonlinear oscillatory dynamics of the highest occupied and lowest unoccupied molecular orbitals (HOMO and LUMO) of these aromatic structures. Quantum synchronization may lead to a unified quantum state encompassing the orbital oscillations across multiple microtubules (Hameroff and Penrose, 1996; Penrose and Hameroff, 2017), with superradiance suggested as a possible mechanism (). These orbital oscillations are hypothesized to span a broad frequency spectrum, from kilohertz to terahertz, and may contribute to the emergence of conscious experience (Hameroff and Penrose, 1996; Penrose and Hameroff, 2017). In parallel, slower oscillations corresponding to characteristic neural rhythms, alpha, beta, gamma, and theta waves, are seen as macroscopic manifestations of neuronal network activity governed by classical mechanical (Goldstein, 1980), electromagnetic (Jackson, 1998), and thermodynamic [62] principles. These considerations imply that, while Orch OR is rooted in quantum mechanics (Neumann, 1932; Weinberg, 2013), its physical framework calls for a hybrid quantum-classical description (Sergi et al., 2023b, 2025, 2023a, 2018; Sergi, 2015, 2005, 2006; Grimaldi et al., 2021). Microtubules also appear to exhibit coherent oscillations and resonances in self-similar patterns (“triplets-of-triplets”) recurring every three orders of magnitude, from hertz to kilohertz, megahertz, gigahertz, and terahertz, suggesting that they function as polyatomic “time crystals” capable of supporting Orch OR across scales (Saxena et al., 2020).
Quantum optical effects involving the π-electron resonance orbitals of aromatic rings are proposed to initiate quantum processes. Normally, the mass of electrons is negligible compared to nuclei, and their influence is ignored under the Born-Oppenheimer approximation. However, effects involving electron charge, electron-nucleus coupling under electromagnetic fields, or geometric phases in electron clouds may affect nuclear positions. For instance, if an electron undergoes a displacement or superposition on the scale of one nanometer, it could, through electrostatic or structural coupling, displace a carbon nucleus by about one femtometer (i.e., the approximate nuclear diameter). Since the Orch OR collapse time τ (see Equation 1) (Penrose, 1996, 2014b,a) is inversely related to the gravitational self-energy EG, involving more massive systems, such as nuclei, increases EG and thus shortens the collapse time.
Three hypothetical scenarios were considered (Hameroff and Penrose, 1996) for estimating EG in a single tubulin molecule: (i) partial spatial separation of 10% of its volume; (ii) full spatial separation by the diameter of a carbon nucleus (~1 fm or 10−15 m); (iii) full separation by the diameter of a nucleon (e.g., a proton or neutron). Among these, scenario (ii) produced the highest EG and the fastest collapse. This value was then used to estimate the number of tubulins required to be in superposition to match various neurophysiological timescales via Equation 1. For example, to correspond to a 25-ms gamma-synchrony EEG event, ~2 × 1010 tubulins would need to be coherently superposed. Given that a single neuron contains roughly 108-109 tubulins, such a superposition could theoretically involve just a few hundred neurons out of the brain's estimated 1011.
However, maintaining coherence for 25 ms is demanding, and premature decoherence may result in only “proto-conscious" effects. By the time of (Hameroff and Penrose 2014), experimental findings from Bandyopadhyay's group (Saxena et al., 2020) had revealed much faster collective oscillations in microtubules, ranging from kilohertz to terahertz. This led to a revised view: if Orch OR events occur at, say, 10 MHz, coherence needs to persist for only 10−7 s, a shorter, experimentally supported timescale. Nonetheless, conscious phenomena such as visual gestalts, evoked potentials, and EEG rhythms typically occur at slower frequencies, in the range of hundreds of milliseconds.
A central prediction of the Orch OR model is the emergence of synchronized quantum dipole oscillations in microtubules, in analogy with Fröhlich coherence (Frölich, 1970, 1975). Such oscillations were later discussed in the framework of microtubule dynamics (Hameroff et al., 1998; Rasmussen et al., 1990). Experimental work by Bandyopadhyay's group (Sahu et al., 2013b,a, 2014; Saxena et al., 2020) has reported fractal, scale-free resonant behavior in isolated microtubules, single tubulin proteins, and neurons, including repeating self-similar patterns across several frequency scales (Hz to THz). These observations have been interpreted as suggestive of polyatomic time-crystal-like dynamics, potentially enabling cross-scale coherence and resonant orchestration. Similar ideas were presaged in the work of (Winfree 2001), although without explicit reference to time crystals.
6 Orch OR and anesthesia
Anesthesia provides a privileged perspective on consciousness, as it selectively suppresses conscious experience while sparing other brain functions. According to the Meyer–Overton correlation (Meyer, 1937; Overton, 1901), anesthetic potency scales with solubility in non-polar environments, pointing to hydrophobic pockets in neuronal proteins. In the Orch OR framework, such environments are associated with aromatic amino acid residues in tubulin, the fundamental component of microtubules. These regions are hypothesized to support quantum coherence and serve as sites for anesthetic binding. Recent results (Kalra et al., 2023) show anesthetic-induced damping of excitonic propagation in microtubules, consistent with this view and reinforcing the role of tubulin in consciousness-related processes.
Decades of research into anesthetic mechanisms at the level of membrane receptors and ion channels, including GABAA receptors, have not yielded a comprehensive, unified explanation for the loss of consciousness. Notably, (Eger et al. 2008) concluded that no single receptor or combination of receptors could fully account for anesthetic effects. In the same study, they suggest that a “new paradigms” may be needed, one not based on specific molecular targets alone. This perspective opens the door to non-classical targets, such as the quantum-coherent structures proposed in the Orch OR framework.
Molecular and proteomic investigations have highlighted tubulin as a significant target of anesthetic action. (Pan et al. 2006) identified tubulin among a set of ~70 cytoplasmic halothane-binding proteins in mouse/human brain, indicating that half of anesthetic binding occurs beyond membrane sites. Subsequent gene expression studies (Xi et al., 2004; Kalenka et al., 2007) further implicate anesthetics in altering tubulin synthesis.
Remarkably, opto-anesthetic experiments by (Emerson et al. 2013) using a photoactive anthracene-based compound caused immediate anesthesia in transparent tadpoles upon UV illumination. Mass spectrometry analysis confirmed that the compound specifically bound to β-tubulin in microtubules. These results strongly support the case for tubulin as a biologically relevant anesthetic target and reinforce the Orch OR hypothesis linking quantum microtubule dynamics to consciousness ().
Recent observations have suggested that microtubule-stabilizing agents, such as paclitaxel and epothilone B, may modulate anesthetic sensitivity in both clinical and preclinical settings (Linganna et al., 2015; Khan et al., 2024). These findings raise the possibility of a cytoskeletal contribution to the mechanisms of anesthesia. Furthermore, computational simulations by () have proposed that anesthetics may dampen quantum van der Waals dipole oscillations among aromatic amino acids in tubulin, correlating with the Meyer-Overton rule. While such models offer an intriguing perspective aligned with quantum theories of consciousness, including the Orch OR framework, these interpretations remain speculative in the absence of direct experimental validation. It is also important to consider that alternative, classical mechanisms, such as alterations in intracellular signaling, membrane receptor dynamics, or neuronal connectivity, may equally account for the observed effects. Therefore, while the role of microtubules in anesthetic action cannot be excluded, further interdisciplinary research is needed to clarify their relevance relative to established membrane-based targets. However the Meyer-Overton correlation points to a single unitary target for all anesthetics, and the only possibility is microtubules.
Recent experimental work (Kalra et al., 2023) has been interpreted as supporting key predictions of the Orch OR model (Hameroff, 2001) by reporting that ultraviolet-induced exciton propagation through microtubules exceeded classical expectations in range and duration, suggesting a quantum optical effect. Moreover, this exciton propagation was reportedly inhibited by clinically relevant anesthetics, including isoflurane and etomidate. While these findings are noteworthy and deserve further investigation, it is important to interpret them with caution. The identification of quantum effects in biological systems at physiological temperature remains technically challenging and open to alternative explanations, such as nonlinear electrodynamical effect (Miller, 2012; Duan et al., 2017; Smirne et al., 2019; Kassal et al., 2013; ). In particular, the relation between exciton dynamics and consciousness, as well as the generalizability of such results beyond in vitro systems, remains to be established. We welcome such studies as valuable contributions to the ongoing exploration of consciousness mechanisms but do not regard them as conclusive evidence in favor of any single theoretical framework.
It has been proposed that collective microtubule time crystal behavior enables consciousness to transcend scale (Hameroff and Penrose, 1996; Penrose and Hameroff, 2017; Saxena et al., 2020). Anesthesia acts to block consciousness at the level of terahertz in the microtubules which would otherwise scale up and slow down/interfere with slower visual scenes, conscious epochs, and EEG. Each Orch OR event occurs, selecting conscious perceptions and choices, and classical states of microtubules to enact causal action. Quantum superposition resumes, and isolated quantum events oscillate with classical interludes for output and inputs.
7 Orch OR and neuroscience
In addition to conscious moments, quantum effects have been proposed to be necessary for the integration of sensory stimuli (Ghazanfar and Schröeder, 2006; Stein and Stanford, 2008), the spatio-temporal binding of conscious experience (Treisman, 1996; Singer, 2001; Revonsuo, 1999), and the phenomenon of brain-wide zero-phase lag gamma synchrony (Heise et al., 2025; ; Viriyopase et al., 2012; Uhlhaas et al., 2009), all of which may raise challenges exceeding the explanatory power of computational models found in the literature (Hameroff, 2022).
In some theoretical frameworks, consciousness and free will are regarded as illusory constructs, i.e., as non-active factors (Morsella et al., 2009, 2016). In contrast, other approaches consider them to be interconnected and ontologically real phenomena, emerging either through evolutionary processes (Georgiev, 2024b; Ginsburg and Jablonka, 2019, 2022) or from quantum effects (Stapp, 1993; Jibu and Yasue, 1995; Ho, 2013; ; Georgiev, 2025; Fisher, 2015). Orch OR highlights the fact that for consciousness (Georgiev, 2024a; Humphrey, 1983) and free will (Stillman et al., 2011; ; ) to be genuinely real, they must elude algorithmic description (Penrose, 1989, 1994). An automaton, whose thoughts and behaviors are generated solely through computation, would be functionally equivalent to a zombie, fully determined by its programming, and lacking subjective experience or autonomy. This suggests the logical need to invoke a non-computational physical process to account for the existence of real consciousness and free will. In the Orch OR model, building on Penrose's ideas about quantum gravity (Penrose, 1996, 2014b,a), the collapse of the quantum state provides a paradigmatic example of a non-algorithmic process (Neumann, 1932; Wigner, 1961; London and Bauer, 1939; Stapp, 1993). The hypothesis that microtubules might serve as the molecular substrate channeling this quantum state reduction to spatiotemporal scales relevant for consciousness originates from the work of Stuart Hameroff (, ; Jibu et al., 1994).
An important point shared by the Orch OR model (Hameroff, 2012) and the quantum-classical approach (Sergi et al., 2023b, 2025, 2023a; Sergi, 2005, 2006; Sergi et al., 2018; Sergi and Kapral, 2004; Sergi, 2015; Grimaldi et al., 2021) is the breaking of time-reversal symmetry. Whether this asymmetry stems from a deterministic, non-computable law governing quantum state reduction, or from nonadiabatic transitions and interactions with dissipative classical environments, time-irreversible dynamics appears intrinsically linked to the conscious perception of the unidirectional flow of time. As noted by (Smolin 2013), and discussed in our previous work (Sergi et al., 2023b, 2025, 2023a; Sergi, 2005, 2006; Sergi et al., 2018; Sergi and Kapral, 2004; Sergi, 2015; Grimaldi et al., 2021), the breaking of time-reversal symmetry is one of the most immediate and profound features of conscious experience. We all perceive time as flowing in one direction. While unitary quantum dynamics is fundamentally time-symmetric, the introduction of a collapse mechanism modifies this symmetry: past and future are no longer equivalent. In quantum-classical dynamics, a similar asymmetry emerges as an effective description through nonadiabatic transitions.
When quantum-classical equations of motion are written in the adiabatic basis, the matrix-valued Wigner function's dynamics is realized through the propagation of swarms of independent trajectories whose piecewise adiabatic propagation is interspersed by quantum transitions. In such a case, the propagation of the off-diagonal elements of the matrix-valued Wigner function directly provides information about the lifetime of superpositions (coherences). This approach is not in contradiction with the bold ideas proposed by Hameroff and Penrose (Penrose, 1994; Hameroff and Penrose, 1996; Penrose and Hameroff, 2017; Hameroff and Penrose, 2014; Hameroff, 2001, 2012, 2022). In fact, the computer simulation of the nonadiabatic dynamics of the matrix-valued Wigner function requires sampling the times at which the quantum transitions occur. Orch OR, specifically Equation 1, provides a physically motivated law, albeit non-computable, for sampling the times of the quantum jumps, which lead to dephasing. While such a law cannot be implemented directly in quantum-classical simulations, it can be approximated using a stochastic algorithm. Quantum-classical computer models may also be useful to study how the classical environment can modulate the creation of superpositions. In this case, the dynamical contributions to analyze are the transitions from the occupations, i.e., the diagonal terms of the matrix-valued Wigner function, to the coherences.
8 Quantum-classical complexity
Consciousness is an extraordinarily complex phenomenon (; Nagel, 1974), spanning multiple levels of organization, from physical and biological substrates to cognitive and psychological dimensions (Edelman and Tononi, 2000; Tononi, 2004). Any comprehensive theory must therefore account for this multi-layered nature without neglecting essential aspects such as subjective experience and emotion. It remains an open question whether emotion can exist independently of consciousness (; LeDoux, 1996), or whether all affective processes presuppose some degree of conscious awareness. Moreover, consciousness exhibits quantitative variations, from coma to hypervigilance (Laurey, 2005), and qualitative differences, ranging from full self-consciousness (Northoff and Panksepp, 2013) (as in awake humans) to its absence (as in normal dreaming).
These features suggest that consciousness should be approached as a genuine complex system (; Werner, 2007; Kelso, 1995; ; ), characterized by hierarchical organization (Werner, 2007), nonlinearity (Kelso, 1995), and emergent behavior (). Typically, the behavior of complex systems () cannot be captured by a single mathematical model; instead, a plurality of irreducible models is required to reflect its many facets. Within the various models that study consciousness, the Orch OR framework occupies a special position, as it addresses the hard problem of consciousness directly. From the perspective of complex systems, quantum-classical systems have two desirable features. The first is that they integrate both quantum mechanics and classical mechanics through a quasi-Lie algebraic structure (Sergi, 2005, 2006; Sergi et al., 2018). This highlights that quantum-classical systems paradigmatically require more than one theoretical model for their description. Second, using the laws of statistical mechanics, they can represent various hierarchical organizations across scales, from the quantum world of atoms and molecules to the macroscopic world of thermodynamics.
This discussion about complex phenomena resisting reduction to a single model, echoes Aristotle's reflections on the problem of definition. Aristotle recognized that not everything admits a precise and univocal definition. Certain concepts are too complex, articulated, or context-dependent to be captured by a single formulation. This view is developed in works such as the Metaphysics, Topics, and Nicomachean Ethics. In particular, Aristotle emphasized that universal and fundamental concepts often have multiple meanings and, therefore, cannot be explained through a single definition (Metaphysics IV, 2, 1003a33). If there is an area in the natural sciences where this epistemic principle is especially evident, it is in the life sciences. Fundamental questions such as “What is life?” (Schrödinger, 2013) or “What is consciousness?” (; Nagel, 1974; Edelman and Tononi, 2000; Tononi, 2004; ; LeDoux, 1996; Laurey, 2005; Northoff and Panksepp, 2013) resist reduction to a single concept or explanation. This line of reasoning suggests that only multidisciplinary efforts can truly illuminate complex systems.
9 Conclusive remarks
The Orchestrated Objective Reduction (Orch OR) model is an intriguing and detailed theory providing a framework for the hard problem of consciousness. It is grounded in the hypothesis that consciousness is non-computable, yet deterministic, and fundamentally linked to the objective reduction of quantum states, a proposal that aims to unify the quantum measurement problem and the hard problem of consciousness within a single physical framework. Orch OR strongly advocates the role of the microtubule lattice as the physical substrate of quantum processes inside neurons. In addition, it proposes orchestration, arising from the dynamics of classical neuronal networks, astrocytes, and other brain structures, modulates these quantum processes. Orch OR also proposes that anesthetics act primarily by damping quantum oscillations (e.g., spin transfer, dipole oscillations) within microtubules, while the lattice itself remains polymerized at clinical concentrations. Disassembly may occur only at higher doses (Hameroff and Watt, 1983; Hameroff, 1998; , ; Jibu et al., 1994; Hagan et al., 2002), suggesting that the brain may operate analogously to a quantum computer at the sub-neuronal level (Hameroff, 2022).
The thermally disordered environment of the brain has led some authors to question the feasibility of Orch OR. In particular, (Tegmark 2000) performed calculations on a model of the microtubule environment. His analysis suggested that decoherence would occur extremely rapidly, on timescales ranging from 10−13 to 10−20 s, effectively making quantum mechanical effects implausible as meaningful contributors to information processing in the brain. (McKemmish et al. 2009) concurred with (Tegmark, 2000) conclusions criticizing the much longer decoherence timescales proposed in (Penrose and Hameroff 2017) and (Hagan et al. 2002). Similarly, (Rosa and Faber 2004) argued that environmental interactions alone are sufficient to account for decoherence in the brain, removing the need for quantum gravitational effects (Penrose, 1996, 2014b,a).
We want to comment on these criticisms. It is important to note that the interior of microtubules is hydrophobic, potentially providing a protective environment that delays decoherence. Acknowledging this, more realistic models of the microtubule interior have yielded revised estimates, extending coherence times by approximately seven orders of magnitude beyond Tegmark's values (Hagan et al., 2002), potentially reaching 10–100 μs. Although still shorter than typical neural timescales (; Kandel et al., 2012), these megahertz frequency durations may nonetheless permit a meaningful contribution of quantum effects to neural dynamics (Liu et al., 2024).
First-principles Car-Parrinello simulations of the chromophore of the photoactive yellow protein (Sergi et al., 2001) support the notion that structural confinement can suppress decoherence. Additionally, the ability of rigid biomolecular cages to sustain quantum coherence by reducing thermal fluctuations is increasingly recognized in the field of quantum biology (Mukamel, 1997; Prokhorenko et al., 2006). These insights also raise deeper questions about how thermodynamic temperature is defined in nonequilibrium biological systems (Hayashi and ichi Sasa, 2004; Hayashi et al., 2020).
There is also another subtle issue to consider. Decoherence per se does not determine the classical limit or the disappearance of quantum effects (Weinberg, 2013). Decoherence makes the density matrix of the system diagonal in a preferred basis (usually the energy basis). However, this still means that the system may have a non-zero probability of occupying different states. Instead, to have a true classical limit, however, systems must occupy single definite states (Weinberg, 2013). This can be achieved only through quantum state collapse, which Penrose's objective reduction guarantees (Penrose, 1989, 1994, 1996, 2014b,a).
Beyond the hard problem, there are many other unanswered questions about consciousness. For instance, the relationship between emotions and conscious awareness is not understood (; LeDoux, 1996). Conscious states also vary widely, from coma to hypervigilance (Laurey, 2005), and from full self-awareness to its absence, as in dreaming (Northoff and Panksepp, 2013). These features point to consciousness as a complex system (; Werner, 2007; Kelso, 1995; ; ), marked by hierarchy (Werner, 2007), nonlinearity (Kelso, 1995), and emergence (). As with other complex systems (), it likely requires multiple mathematical models, each capturing a different and irreducible perspective on the whole.
To address some of these problems, in this paper we propose the application of the quantum-classical theory illustrated in (Sergi et al. 2023b), (Sergi et al. 2025), (Sergi et al. 2023a), (Sergi 2005), (Sergi 2006), (Sergi et al. 2018), (Sergi and Kapral 2004), (Sergi 2015), and (Grimaldi et al. 2021). This approach describes the transition across scales from the quantum level to the classical level of heavy atoms or macromolecules, and further up to thermodynamic behavior and transport phenomena. Conceptually, it is appealing to address consciousness-related phenomena through a theory that unifies quantum and classical descriptions. Quantum-classical theory naturally captures hierarchical, multiscale processes, ranging from the atomic level to thermodynamic regimes, and may therefore provide a suitable model for the layered complexity of brain function. Its predictive power derives from the calculation of quantum-classical averages and correlation functions (; Zhang and Balescu, 1988; Osborn and Molzahn, 1995; Osborn et al., 1999; Sergi et al., 2023b, 2025, 2023a; Sergi, 2005, 2006; Sergi et al., 2018; Sergi and Kapral, 2004; Sergi, 2015; Grimaldi et al., 2021; Martens and Fang, 1997; Horenko et al., 2002; Wan and Schofield, 2000; Santer et al., 2001; Horenko et al., 2004; Sergi et al., 2003; Sergi and Kapral, 2003, 2005; Sergi and Petruccione, 2010; Uken et al., 2013, 2011; Uken and Sergi, 2015; Sewran et al., 2015; Hanna and Kapral, 2005; Liu et al., 2022), providing a robust and versatile computational framework.
Our aim is not to introduce an alternative to Orch OR; rather, our approach is intended as a complementary tool. It is a proposal for integrating quantum-classical theory within the Orch OR framework. On one hand, it may provide a numerical strategy for Equation 1 sampling nonadiabatic transition times, which, in quantum-classical dynamics, correspond to losses and revivals of coherence. On the other hand, it may serve to model how classical brain structures modulate quantum states in microtubules and related substrates.
As a next step, we plan to develop numerical models for the computer simulation of ion-channel behavior, axonal electrodynamics, spin dynamics of Posner molecules, and other relevant systems under nonequilibrium conditions. These simulations aim to assess whether quantum features, nonlinear dynamics, chaos, or frustration contribute significantly to the emergence of consciousness.
Statements
Author contributions
AS: Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft. AM: Writing – review & editing. GM: Writing – review & editing. MC: Writing – review & editing. SM: Writing – review & editing. GR: Writing – review & editing. M-FK: Writing – review & editing. MN: Writing – review & editing.
Funding
The author(s) declare that financial support was received for the research and/or publication of this article. This work has been funded through the MUR project PRIN2022 EnantioSelex (grant number 2022P9F79R).
Acknowledgments
We are grateful to the referee for their thorough and passionate engagement with our work. Their critical observations and constructive suggestions, particularly concerning the scope and framing of the Orch OR model, have contributed significantly to the improvement of this paper.
Conflict of interest
GR was employed at Neuroelectrics. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. The author(s) declared that they were an editorial board member of Frontiers, at the time of submission. This had no impact on the peer review process and the final decision.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declare that no Gen AI was used in the creation of this manuscript.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
1
AdlerS. L. (1982). Einstein gravity as a symmetry-breaking effect. Rev. Mod. Phys. 54:729. 10.1103/RevModPhys.54.729
2
BabcockN. S.Montes-CabreraG.OberhoferK. E.CherguiM.CelardoG. L.KurianP.et al. (2024). Ultraviolet superradiance from mega-networks of tryptophan in biological architectures. J. Phys. Chem. B128:4035. 10.1021/acs.jpcb.3c07936
3
BalescuR. (1975). Equilibrium and Nonequilibrium Statistical Mechanics. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
4
BalescuR.ZhangW. Y. (1988). Kinetic equation, spin hydrodynamics and collisional depolarization rate in a spin polarized plasma. J. Plasma Phys. 40:215. 10.1017/S0022377800013234
5
BaratierJ.PerisL.BrocardJ.Gory-FaurèS.DufourF.BoscC.et al. (2006). Phosphorylation of microtubule-associated protein STOP by calmodulin kinase II. J. Biol. Chem. 281:19561. 10.1074/jbc.M509602200
6
Bar-YamY. (1993). Dynamics of Complex Systems. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.
7
BaumeisterR. (2008). Free will in scientific psychology. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 3:14. 10.1111/j.1745-6916.2008.00057.x
8
BaumeisterR. F.CrescioniA.AlquistJ. L. (2011). Free will as advanced action control for human social life and culture. Neuroethics1:1. 10.1007/s12152-010-9058-4
9
BeylerR. (1994). From Positivism to Organicism: Pascual Jordan's Interpretations of Modem Physics in Cultural Contex [PhD Thesis]. Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.
10
BeylerR. (1996). Targeting the organism. The scientific and cultural context of Pascual Jordan's quantum biology. Isis87:248. 10.1086/357483
11
BirrellN. D.DaviesP. C. W. (1982). Quantum Field Theory in Curved Space. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511622632
12
BoucherW.TranschenJ. (1988). Semiclassical physics and quantum fluctuations. Phys. Rev. D37:3522. 10.1103/PhysRevD.37.3522
13
BriggsJ. S. A. (2011). Equivalence of quantum and classical coherence in electronic energy transfer. Phys. Rev. E83:051911. 10.1103/PhysRevE.83.051911
14
ByrneJ. H. J. L. (2009). From Molecules to Networks: An Introduction to Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
15
CampoA. T.VázquezY.ÁlvarezM.ZainosA.Rossi-PoolR.DecoG.et al. (2019). Feed-forward information and zero-lag synchronization in the sensory thalamocortical circuit are modulated during stimulus perception. PNAS116:7513. 10.1073/pnas.1819095116
16
ChalmersD. J. (1995). Facing up to the problem of consciousness. J. Conscious. Stud. 2:200.
17
ChialvoD. R. (2010). Emergent complex neural dynamics. Nat. Phys. 6:744. 10.1038/nphys1803
18
CraddockT. J. A.GeorgeM. S.FreedmanH.BarakatK. H.DamarajuS.HameroffS.et al. (2012a). Computational predictions of volatile anesthetic interactions with the microtubule cytoskeleton: implications for side effects of general anesthesia. PLoS ONE7:e37251. 10.1371/journal.pone.0037251
19
CraddockT. J. A.HameroffS. R.AyoubA. T.KlobukowskiM.TuszynskiJ. A. (2015). Anesthetics act in quantum channels in brain microtubules to prevent consciousness. Curr. Top. Med. Chem. 15:523. 10.2174/1568026615666150225104543
20
CraddockT. J. A.KurianP.PretoJ.HameroffK. S.TuszynskiS. R. J. A. (2017). Anesthetic alterations of collective terahertz oscillations in tubulin correlate with clinical potency: implications for anesthetic action and post-operative cognitive dysfunction. Sci. Rep. 7, 9877–10134. 10.1038/s41598-017-09992-7
21
CraddockT. J. A.TuszynskiJ. A.HameroffS. (2012b). cytoskeletal signaling: is memory encoded in microtubule lattices by CaMKII phosphorylation?PLoS Comput. Biol. 8:e1002421. 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002421
22
DamasioA. R. (1994). Descartes' Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain. New York, NY: Putnam.
23
D'ArianoG. M.FagginF. (2002). “Hard problem and free will: an information-theoretical approach,” in Artificial Intelligence Versus Natural Intelligence, ed. ScardigliF. (Cham).
24
DehaeneS.ChangeuxJ. P. (2011). Experimental and theoretical approaches to conscious processing. Neuron70:200. 10.1016/j.neuron.2011.03.018
25
DesaiA.MitchisonT. J. (1997). Microtubule polymerization dynamics. Annu. Rev. Cell Dev. Biol. 13:83. 10.1146/annurev.cellbio.13.1.83
26
DeutschD. (1997). The Fabric of Reality. New York, NY: Penguin Books.
27
DeWittB. S. (1970). Quantum mechanics and reality. Phys. Today23:30. 10.1063/1.3022331
28
DeWittB. S.GrahamN. (eds.) (1973). The Many-Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
29
DiósiL. (1987). A universal master equation for the gravitational violation of quantum mechanics. Phys. Lett. A120:377. 10.1016/0375-9601(87)90681-5
30
DiósiL. (1989). Models for universal reduction of macroscopic quantum fluctuations. Phys. Rev. A40:1165. 10.1103/PhysRevA.40.1165
31
DuanH.-G.ProkhorenkoV. I.CogdellR. J.AshrafK.StevensaA. L.ThorwartM.et al. (2017). Nature does not rely on long-lived electronic quantum coherence for photosynthetic energy transfer. PNAS114:8493. 10.1073/pnas.1702261114
32
EdelmanG. M.TononiG. (2000). Universe of Consciousness: How Matter Becomes Imagination. New York, NY: Basic Books.
33
EgerE.RainesD. E.ShaferS. L.HemmingsH. C. J.HughC. J.SonnerJ. M.et al. (2008). Is a new paradigm needed to explain how inhaled anesthetics produce immobility?Anesth. Analg. 107:832. 10.1213/ane.0b013e318182aedb
34
EmersonD. J.WeiserB. P.PsonisJ.LiaoZ.TaratulaO.FiamengoA.et al. (2013). Direct modulation of microtubule stability contributes to anthracene general anesthesia. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 135, 5389–5398. 10.1021/ja311171u
35
FisherM. P. A. (2015). Quantum cognition: the possibility of processing with nuclear spins in the brain. Ann. Phys. 362:593. 10.1016/j.aop.2015.08.020
36
FordL. H. (1982). Gravitational radiation by quantum systems. Ann. Phys. 144:2238. 10.1016/0003-4916(82)90115-4
37
FrölichH. (1968). Long-range coherence and energy storage in biological systems. Int. J. Quantum Chem. 2:641. 10.1002/qua.560020505
38
FrölichH. (1970). Long-range coherence and the actions of enzymes. Nature228:1093. 10.1038/2281093a0
39
FrölichH. (1975). The extraordinary dielectric properties of biological materials and the action of enzymes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA72:4211. 10.1073/pnas.72.11.4211
40
GeorgievD. D. (2024a). Causal potency of consciousness in the physical world. Int. J. Mod. Phys. B38:2450256. 10.1142/S0217979224502564
41
GeorgievD. D. (2024b). Evolution of consciousness. Life14:48. 10.3390/life14010048
42
GeorgievD. D. (2025). Quantum information theoretic approach to the hard problem of consciousness. BioSystems251:105458. 10.1016/j.biosystems.2025.105458
43
GhazanfarA. A.SchröederC. E. (2006). Is neocortex essentially multisensory?Trends Cogn. Sci. 10:278. 10.1016/j.tics.2006.04.008
44
GinsburgS.JablonkaE. (2019). The Evolution of the Sensitive Soul. Cambridge MA: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/11006.001.0001
45
GinsburgS.JablonkaE. (2022). Picturing the Mind: Consciousness through the Lens of Evolution. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
46
GoldsteinH. (1980). Classical Mechanics. Addison-Wesley, London.
47
GoodsonH. V.JonassonE. M. (2018). Microtubules and microtubule-associated proteins. Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Biol. 10:a022608. 10.1101/cshperspect.a022608
48
GradinM. H.MarklundU.LarssonN.ChatilaT. A.GullbergM. (1997). Regulation of microtubule dynamics by Ca21/calmodulin-dependent kinase IV/Gr-dependent Phosphorylation of oncoprotein 18. Mol. Cell. Biol. 17:3459. 10.1128/MCB.17.6.3459
49
GrimaldiA.SergiA.MessinaA. (2021). Evolution of a non-Hermitian quantum single-molecule junction at constant temperature. Entropy23:147. 10.3390/e23020147
50
HaganS.HameroffS. R.TuszyńskiJ. A. (2002). Quantum computation in brain microtubules: Decoherence and biological feasibility. Phys. Rev. E65, 061901–10134. 10.1103/PhysRevE.65.061901
51
HameroffS. (1998). Anesthesia, consciousness and hydrophobic pockets–a unitary quantum hypothesis of anesthetic action. Toxicol. Lett. 31:100. 10.1016/S0378-4274(98)00162-3
52
HameroffS. (2012). How quantum brain biology can rescue conscious free will. Front. Integr. Neurosci. 6:93. 10.3389/fnint.2012.00093
53
HameroffS. (2022). Consciousness, cognition and the neuronal cytoskeleton - a new paradigm needed in neuroscience. Front. Mol. Neurosci. 15:869935. 10.3389/fnmol.2022.869935
54
HameroffS.PenroseR. (1996). Orchestrated reduction of quantum coherence in brain microtubules: a model for consciousness. Math. Comput. Simul. 40:45. 10.1016/0378-4754(96)80476-9
55
HameroffS.PenroseR. (2014). Consciousness in the universe: areview of the ‘Orch OR' theory. Phys. Life Rev. 11:39. 10.1016/j.plrev.2013.08.002
56
HameroffS.RasmussenS.ManssonB. (1998). “Molecular automata in microtubules: basic computational logic of the living state," in Biological Coherence and Response to External Stimuli, ed. FröhlichH. (Berlin: Springer), 242–264.
57
HameroffS. R. (2001). Orch OR is the most complete, and most easily falsifiable theory of consciousness. Cogn. Neurosci. 12:74. 10.1080/17588928.2020.1839037
58
HameroffS. R.WattR. C. (1983). Do anesthetics act by altering electron mobility?Anesth. Analg. 62:936. 10.1213/00000539-198310000-00015
59
HannaG.KapralR. (2005). Quantum-classical liouville dynamics of nonadiabatic proton transfers. J. Chem. Phys. 122:244505. 10.1063/1.1940051
60
HayashiK.HasegawaS.NiwaS. (2020). What is the temperature of a cell?Europhys. News51:48. 10.1051/epn/2020510
61
HayashiK.ichi SasaS. (2004). Effective temperature in nonequilibrium steady states of langevin systems with a tilted periodic potential. Phys. Rev. E69:066119. 10.1103/PhysRevE.69.066119
62
HeiseK.-F.AlbouyG.DolfenN.PeetersR.MantiniD.SwinnenS. P.et al. (2025). Induced zero-phase synchronization as a potential neural code for optimized visuomotor integration. Brain Stimul. 18:756. 10.1016/j.brs.2025.03.019
63
HoM.-W. (2013). The Rainbow and the Worm. The Physics of Organisms. Singapore: World Scientific.
64
HollandP. R. (1993). The Quantum Theory of Motion: An Account of the de Broglie-Bohm Causal Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics., Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511622687
65
HorenkoI.SalzmannC.SchmidtB.SchütteC. (2002). Quantum-classical liouville approach to molecular dynamics: surface hopping gaussian phase-space packets. J. Chem. Phys. 117, 11075. 10.1063/1.1522712
66
HorenkoI.SchmidtB.SchütteC. (2004). Fully adaptive propagation of the quantum-classical liouville equation. J. Chem. Phys. 120:8913. 10.1063/1.1691015
67
HumphreyN. (1983). Consciousness Regained: Chapters in the Development of Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
68
JacksonJ. D. (1998). Classical Electrodynamics. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
69
JacobsonT. (1995). Thermodynamics of spacetime: the Einstein equation of state. Phys. Rev. Lett. 75:1260. 10.1103/PhysRevLett.75.1260
70
JibuM.HaganS.HameroffS. R.PribramK. H.YasueK. (1994). Quantum optical coherence in cytoskeletal microtubules: implications for brain functions. Biosystems32:195. 10.1016/0303-2647(94)90043-4
71
JibuM.YasueK. (1995). Quantum Brain and Consciousness. An Introduction. Berlin: Springer. 10.1075/aicr.3
72
JordanP. (1932). Die quantenmechanik und die grundprobleme der biologie und psychologie. Naturwissenschaften30:54. 10.1007/BF01494844
73
JordanP. (1941). Die Physik und das Geheimnis des organischen Lebens. Braunschweig: Friedr. Vieweg & Sohn.
74
KalenkaA.HinkelbeinJ. R. E. FJr.KuschinskyW.WaschkeK. F.MaurerM. H. (2007). The effects of sevoflurane anesthesia on rat brain proteins: a proteomic time-course analysis. Anesth. Analg. 104:1129. 10.1213/01.ane.0000260799.37107.e6
75
KalraA. P.BennyA.TravisS. M.ZizziE. A.Morales-SanchezA.OblinskyiestD. G.et al. (2023). Electronic energy migration in microtubules. ACS Cent. Sci. 9:352. 10.1021/acscentsci.2c01114
76
KandelE. R.SchwartzJ. H.JessellT. M.SiegelbaumS. A.HudspethA. (2012). Principles of Neural Science. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
77
KassalI.Yuen-ZhouJ.Rahimi-KeshariS. (2013). Does coherence enhance transport in photosyntesis?J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 4:362. 10.1021/jz301872b
78
KelsoJ. A. S. (1995). Dynamic Patterns: The Self-Organization of Brain and Behavior. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
79
KerskensC. M.érezD. L. (2022). Experimental indications of non-classical brain functions. J. Phys. Commun. 6:105001. 10.1088/2399-6528/ac94be
80
KhanS.HuangY.TimucinD.BaileyS.LeeS.LopesJ.et al. (2024). Microtubule-stabilizer epothilone b delays anesthetic-induced unconsciousness in rats. J. Clini. Anesth. 11:0.1523/ENEURO.0291-24. 10.1523/ENEURO.0291-24.2024
81
KuoC.-I.FordL. H. (1993). Semiclassical gravity theory and quantum fluctuations. Phys. Rev. D7:4510. 10.1103/PhysRevD.47.4510
82
LaureyS. (2005). The neural correlate of (un)awareness: lessons from the vegetative state. Trends Cogn. Sci. 9:556. 10.1016/j.tics.2005.10.010
83
LeDouxJ. (1996). The Emotional Brain. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
84
LingannaR. E.LevyW. J.DmochowskiI. J.EckenhoffR. G.SpeckR. M. (2015). Taxane modulation of anesthetic sensitivity in surgery for nonmetastatic breast cancer. J. Clin. Anesth. 27:481. 10.1016/j.jclinane.2015.05.001
85
LiuZ.ChenY.-C.AoP. (2024). Entangled biphoton generation in the myelin sheath. Phys. Res. E110:024402. 10.1103/PhysRevE.110.024402
86
LiuZ.SergiA.HannaG. (2022). A deterministic mixed quantum-classical dynamics approachs. Appl. Sci. 12:7022. 10.3390/app12147022
87
LondonF.BauerE. (1939). La théorie de l'observation en mécanique quantique. Paris: Hermann.
88
MartensC. C.FangJ. Y. (1997). Semiclassical limit molecular dynamics on multiple electronic surfaces. J. Chem. Phys. 106:4918. 10.1063/1.473541
89
McFaddenJ. (2002). Quantum Evolution. New York, NY: Norton.
90
McFaddenJ.Al-KhaliliJ. (2014). Life on the Edge. The Coming of Age of Quantum Biology. London: Bantam Press.
91
McKemmishL. K.ReimersJ. R.McKenzieR. H.MarkA. E.HushN. S. (2009). Penroff-hameroff orchestrated objective-reduction proposal for human consciousness is not biologically feasible. Phys. Rev. E80:021912. 10.1103/PhysRevE.80.021912
92
MeyerK. H. (1937). Contributions to the theory of narcosis. Trans. Faraday Soc. 33:1062. 10.1039/tf9373301062
93
MiX.IppolitiM.QuintanaC.GreeneA.ChenZ.GrossJ.et al. (2022). Time-crystalline eigenstate order on a quantum processor. Nature601:531. 10.1038/s41586-021-04257-w
94
MillerW. H. (2012). Perspective: quantum or classical coherence?J. Chem. Phys. 136:210901. 10.1063/1.4727849
95
MorsellaE.GodwinC. A.JantzT. K.KriegerS. C.GazzaleyA. (2016). Homing in on consciousness in the nervous system: an action-based synthesis. Behav. Brain Sci. 39:e168. 10.1017/S0140525X15000643
96
MorsellaE.KriegerS. C.BarghJ. A. (2009). The passive frame theory: consciousness as a passive integrator of unconscious processes. Psychol. Rev. 116:545.
97
MukamelS. (1997). Trees to trap photons. Nature388:425. 10.1038/41219
98
NagelT. (1974). What is it like to be a bat?Philos. Rev. 83:435. 10.2307/2183914
99
NeumannJ. V. (1932). Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
100
NogalesE.WolfS. J.DowningK. H. (1998). Structure of the alpha beta tubulin dimer by electron crystallography. Nature391:199. 10.1038/34465
101
NorthoffG.PankseppJ. (2013). The trans-species concept of self and the subcortical-cortical midline system. Trends Cogn. Sci. 12:259. 10.1016/j.tics.2008.04.007
102
OhE.ParkI. Y.SinS.-J. (2018). Complete einstein equations from the generalized first law of entanglement. Phys. Rev. D98:026020. 10.1103/PhysRevD.98.026020
103
OsbornT. A.Kondrat'evaM. F.TabiszG. C.McQuarrieB. R. (1999). Mixed weyl symbol calculus and spectral line shape theory. J. Phys. A Math. Gen. 32:4149. 10.1088/0305-4470/32/22/315
104
OsbornT. A.MolzahnF. H. (1995). Moyal quantum mechanics: the semiclassical heisenberg dynamics. J. Plasma Phys. 241:71. 10.1006/aphy.1995.1057
105
OvertonC. E. (1901). Studienüber die Narkose: zugleich ein Beitrag zur allgemeinen Pharmakologie. Jena: Gustav Fischer.
106
PanJ. Z.XiJTobiasJ. W.EckenhoffM. F.EckenhoffR. G. (2006). Halothane binding proteome in human brain cortex. J. Proteome Res. 6, 582–592. 10.1021/pr060311u
107
PenroseR. (1989). The Emperor's New Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780198519737.001.0001
108
PenroseR. (1994). Shadows of the Mind: A Search for the Missing Science of Consciousness. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
109
PenroseR. (1996). On gravity's role in quantum state reduction. Gen. Relati. Gravitat. 8:581. 10.1007/BF02105068
110
PenroseR. (2014a). On the gravitization of quantum mechanics 1: quantum state reduction. Found. Phys. 44:557. 10.1007/s10701-013-9770-0
111
PenroseR. (2014b). Quantum computation, entanglement and state reduction. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. A356:1927. 10.1098/rsta.1998.0256
112
PenroseR.HameroffS. (2017). “Consciousness and the universe,” in Quantum Physics, Evolution, Brain and Mind, eds. PenroseR.HameroffS.KakS. (Cambridge MA: Cosmology Science), 8–47.
113
PokornýJ. (1999). Conditions for coherent vibrations in cytoskeleton. Bioelectrochem. Bioenergetics48:267. 10.1016/S0302-4598(99)00016-1
114
PokornýJ. (2004). Excitation of vibrations in microtubules in living cells. Bioelectrochemistry63:321. 10.1016/j.bioelechem.2003.09.028
115
ProkhorenkoV. I.NagyA. M.WaschukS. A.BrownL. S.BirgeR. R.MillerR. J. D.et al. (2006). Coherent control of retinal isomerization in bacteriorhodopsin. Science313:1257. 10.1126/science.1130747
116
RasmussenS.SmartJ.KauffmanS. (1990). Cytoskeletal logic: a model for molecular computation via Boolean operations in microtubules and microtubule-associated proteins. BioSystems. 24:61.
117
RevonsuoA. (1999). Binding and the phenomenal unity of consciousness. Conscious. Cogn. 8:173. 10.1006/ccog.1999.0384
118
RosaL. P.FaberJ. (2004). Quantum models of the mind: are they compatible with environment decoherence?Phys. Rev. E70:031902. 10.1103/PhysRevE.70.031902
119
SahuS.GhoshS.FujitaD.BandyopadhyayA. (2014). Live visualizations of single isolated tubulin protein self-assembly via tunneling current: effect of electromagnetic pumping during spontaneous growth of microtubule. Sci. Rep. 4:7303. 10.1038/srep07303
120
SahuS.GhoshS.GhoshB.AswaniK.HirataK.FujitaD.et al. (2013a). Atomic water channel controlling remarkable properties of a single brain microtubule: correlating single protein to its supramolecular assembly. Biosens. Bioelectron. 47:141. 10.1016/j.bios.2013.02.050
121
SahuS.GhoshS.HirataK.FujitaD.BandyopadhyayA. (2013b). Multi-level memory-switching properties of a single brain microtubule. Appl. Phys. Lett. 102:123701. 10.1063/1.4793995
122
SakharovA. D. (1967). Vacuum quantum fluctuations in curved space and the theory of gravitation. Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR177:70.
123
SanterM.MantheU.StockG. (2001). Quantum-classical liouville description of multidimensional nonadiabatic molecular dynamics. J. Chem. Phys. 114:2001. 10.1063/1.1336576
124
SaundersS.BarrettJ.KentA.WallaceD. (Eds.) (2010). Many Worlds? Everett, Quantum Theory, & Reality. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199560561.001.0001
125
SaxenaK.SinghP.SahooP.SahuS.GhoshS.RayK.et al. (2020). Fractal, scale free electromagnetic resonance of a single brain extracted microtubule nanowire, a single tubulin protein and a single neuron. Fractal Fract. 4:11. 10.3390/fractalfract4020011
126
SchrödingerE. (2008). My View of the World. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
127
SchrödingerE. (2013). What is Life?, Mind and Matter, and Autobiographical Sketches. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
128
SchulmanH.KuretJ.JeffersonA. B.NoseP. S.SpitzerK. H. (1985). Ca2+/calmodulin-dependent microtubule-associated protein 2 kinase: broad substrate specificity and multifunctional potential in diverse tissues. Biochemistry24:5320. 10.1021/bi00341a008
129
SergiA. (2005). Non-hamiltonian commutators in quantum mechanics. Phys. Rev. E72:066125. 10.1103/PhysRevE.72.066125
130
SergiA. (2006). Statistical mechanics of quantum-classical systems with holonomic constraints. J. Chem. Phys. 124:024110. 10.1063/1.2159477
131
SergiA. (2015). Embedding quantum systems with a non-conserved probability in classical environments. Theor. Chem. Acc. 134:79. 10.1007/s00214-015-1679-6
132
SergiA.GruningM.FerrarioM.BudaF. (2001). Density functional study of the photoactive yellow protein's chromophore. J. Phys. Chem. B30:4386. 10.1021/jp002270+
133
SergiA.HannaG.GrimaudoR.MessinaA. (2018). Quasi-lie brackets and the breaking of time-translation symmetry for quantum systems embedded in classical baths. Symmetry10:518. 10.3390/sym10100518
134
SergiA.KapralR. (2003). Quantum-classical dynamics of nonadiabatic chemical reactions. J. Chem. Phys. 118:8566. 10.1063/1.1566731
135
SergiA.KapralR. (2004). Quantum-classical limit of quantum correlation functions. J. Chem. Phys. 121:7565. 10.1063/1.1797191
136
SergiA.KapralR. (2005). Nonadiabatic chemical reaction. Comput. Phys. Commun. 169:400. 10.1016/j.cpc.2005.03.088
137
SergiA.LambertoD.MiglioreA.MessinaA. (2023a). Quantum-classical hybrid systems and ehrenfest theorem. Entropy25:602. 10.3390/e25040602
138
SergiA.McKernanD.CiccottiG.KapralR. (2003). Simulating quantum dynamics in classical environments. Theor. Chem. Acc. 110:49. 10.1007/s00214-003-0456-0
139
SergiA.MessinaA.SaijaR.MartinoG.CaccamoM. T.KuoM.-F.et al. (2025). Time-irreversible quantum-classical dynamics of molecular models in the brain. Symmetry17:285. 10.3390/sym17020285
140
SergiA.MessinaA.VicarioC. M.MartinoG. (2023b). A quantum-classical model of brain dynamics. Entropy25, 592–10134. 10.3390/e25040592
141
SergiA.PetruccioneF. (2010). Sampling quantum dynamics at long time. Phys. Rev. E81:032101. 10.1103/PhysRevE.81.032101
142
SewranS.ZloshchastievK. G.SergiA. (2015). Non-hamiltonian modeling of squeezing and thermal disorder in driven oscillators. J. Stat. Phys. 159, 10127–10134. 10.1007/s10955-015-1193-1
143
SingerW. (2001). Consciousness and the binding problem. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 929:123. 10.1111/j.1749-6632.2001.tb05712.x
144
SmirneA.EgloffDìaz, M. G.PlenioM. B.HuelgaS. F. (2019). Coherence and non-classicality of quantum Markov processes. Quantum Sci. Technol. 4:01LT01. 10.1088/2058-9565/aaebd5
145
SmolinL. (2013). Time Reborn: From the Crisis in Physics to the Future of the Universe. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
146
StappH. P. (1993). Mind, Matter, and Quantum Mechanics. Berlin: Springer. 10.1007/978-3-662-08765-7
147
SteinB.StanfordT. (2008). Multisensory integration: current issues from the perspective of the single neuron. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 9:255. 10.1038/nrn2331
148
SteinerB.MandelkowE.-M.BiernatJ.GustkeN.MeyerH. E.SchmidtB.et al. (1990). Phosphorylation of microtubule-associated protein tau: identification of the site for Ca2+-calmodulin dependent kinase and relationship with tau phosphorylation in Alzheimer tanglesa. EMBO J. 9:3593. 10.1002/j.1460-2075.1990.tb07563.x
149
StillmanT. F.BaumeisterR. F.MeleA. R. (2011). Free will in everyday life: autobiographical accounts of free and unfree actions. Philos. Psychol. 24:381. 10.1080/09515089.2011.556607
150
TegmarkM. (2000). The importance of quantum decoherence in brain processes. Phys. Rev. E, 61:4194. 10.1103/PhysRevE.61.4194
151
TononiG. (2004). An information integration theory of consciousness. BMC Neurosci. 5:42. 10.1186/1471-2202-5-42
152
TreismanA. (1996). The binding problem. Curr. Opin. Neurobiol. 6:171. 10.1016/S0959-4388(96)80070-5
153
UhlhaasP. J.PipaG.LimaB.MelloniL.NeuenschwanderS.NikolićD.et al. (2009). Neural synchrony in cortical networks: history, concept and current status. Front. Integr. Neurosci. 3:17. 10.3389/neuro.07.017.2009
154
UkenD. A.SergiA. (2015). Quantum dynamics of a plasmonic metamolecule with a time-dependent driving. Theor. Chem. Accounts134:141. 10.1007/s00214-015-1749-9
155
UkenD. A.SergiA.PetruccioneF. (2011). Stochastic simulation of nonadiabatic dynamics at long time. Phys. Scr. 143:014024. 10.1088/0031-8949/2011/T143/014024
156
UkenD. A.SergiA.PetruccioneF. (2013). Filtering schemes in the quantum-classical Liouville approach to non-adiabatic dynamics. Phys. Rev. E88:033301. 10.1103/PhysRevE.88.033301
157
VallanoM. L.GoldenringJ. R.BuckholzT. M.LarsonR. E.DelorenzoR. J. (1985). Separation of endogenous calmodulin- and cAMP-dependent kinases from microtubule preparations. Proc. Nad. Acad. Sci. 82:3202. 10.1073/pnas.82.10.3202
158
VerlindeE. (2011). On the origin of gravity and the laws of newton. JHEP29:29. 10.1007/JHEP04(2011)029
159
ViriyopaseA.BojakI.ZeitlerM.GielenS. (2012). When long-range zero-lag synchronization is feasible in cortical networks. Front. Comput. Neurosci. 6:49. 10.3389/fncom.2012.00049
160
VisserM. (2002). Sakharov's induced gravity: a modern perspective. Mod. Phys. Lett. A17:977. 10.1142/S0217732302006886
161
WaldR. M. (1994). Quantum Field Theory in Curved Spacetime and Black Hole Thermodynamics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
162
WallaceD. (2012). The Emergent Multiverse: Quantum Theory According to the Everett Interpretation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199546961.001.0001
163
WanC. C.SchofieldJ. (2000). Mixed quantum-classical molecular dynamics: aspects of the multithreads algorithm. J. Chem. Phys. 113:704754. 10.1063/1.1313525
164
WaxhamM. N. (2009). “Calcium-calmodulin kinase II (CaMKII) in learning and memory,” in Encyclopedia of Neuroscience (Amsterdam: Elsevier), 581–586. 10.1016/B978-008045046-9.00818-4
165
WeinbergS. (2013). Lectures on Quantum Mechanics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139236799
166
WernerG. (2007). Brain dynamics across levels of organization. J. Physiol. 101:273. 10.1016/j.jphysparis.2007.12.001
167
WickD. (1995). The Infamous Boundary. Boston, MA: Birkhäuser. 10.1007/978-1-4612-5361-7
168
WiestM. C. (2025). A quantum microtubule substrate of consciousness is experimentally supported and solves the binding and epiphenomenalism problems. Neurosci. Conscious. 2025:niaf011. 10.1093/nc/niaf011
169
WignerE. P. (1961). “Remarks on the mind-body question,” in The Scientist Speculates, ed. GoodI. J. (London: Heinemann), 284–302.
170
WilczekF. (2012). Quantum time crystals. Phys. Rev. Lett. 109:160401. 10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.160401
171
WinfreeA. (2001). The Geometry of Biological Time. New York, NY: Springer. 10.1007/978-1-4757-3484-3
172
XiJ.LiuR.AsburyG. R.EckenhoffM. F.EckenhoffR. G. (2004). Inhalational anesthetic-binding proteins in rat neuronal membranes. J. Biol. Chem. 279:19628. 10.1074/jbc.M313864200
173
ZhangJ.HessP. W.KyprianidisA.BeckerP.LeeA.SmithJ.et al. (2017). Observation of a discrete time crystal. Nature543:217. 10.1038/nature21413
174
ZhangW. Y.BalescuR. (1988). Statistical mechanics of a spin-polarized plasma. J. Plasma Phys. 40:199. 10.1017/S0022377800013222
Summary
Keywords
consciousness, neuroscience, microtubules, Orch OR, quantum, quantum-classical dynamics, complexity
Citation
Sergi A, Messina A, Martino G, Caccamo MT, Magazù S, Ruffini G, Kuo M-F and Nitsche MA (2025) The quantum-classical complexity of consciousness and orchestrated objective reduction. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 19:1630906. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2025.1630906
Received
18 May 2025
Accepted
29 July 2025
Published
05 September 2025
Volume
19 - 2025
Edited by
Michael C. Wiest, Wellesley College, United States
Reviewed by
Stuart Hameroff, University of Arizona, United States
Updates
Copyright
© 2025 Sergi, Messina, Martino, Caccamo, Magazù, Ruffini, Kuo and Nitsche.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Alessandro Sergi asergi@unime.it
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.