What do microtubules do? They make copies, no?
My point still stands.
No he isn't, Penrose is. Hameroff just wants to work with microtubules.
Are you sure about that?
In the words of Hameroff:
First, by soul I mean that consciousness (and/or unconscious processes) may be accompanied by: 1) nonlocal interconnectedness among living beings, 2) interaction with a Platonic wisdom, or cosmic intelligence inherent in the universe, and 3) existence outside the body.
I am not claiming proof of the soul, but of a scientifically plausible explanation for it based on these three factors. The potential explanation involves quantum theory, a poorly understood but indisputably accurate field of science. Orch OR proposes that consciousness is a sequence of momentary frames, or conscious events occurring in the brain roughly 40 times per second (faster or slower depending on arousal etc), coupled to high frequency EEG brain waves called gamma synchrony.
[...]
Neuroscience and mainstream philosophy attacked our theory even before it was published, and continue to do so. Nonetheless Orch OR remains viable, completely consistent with known neuroscience and can also account for aspects of the soul.
1) Interconnectedness among living beings can be accounted for by nonlocal quantum entanglement. 2) Interaction with cosmic intelligence may be influence by Penrose noncomputable Platonic wisdom embedded in Planck scale geometry. 3) Existence outside the body: According to Orch OR, consciousness occurs at the fundamental level of Planck scale geometry, normally in and around microtubules between our ears. But when brain coherence is lost, quantum information related to consciousness and the unconscious mind remain in the universe, distributed but still entangled.
So I believe that science can in principle accommodate the soul through the application of quantum mechanics to neuroscience.
And it doesn't end there. Since you ignored the other link, which dealt specifically with Hameroff's Science of Consciousness conference, and how a plethora of scientists were now refusing to go, because
Hameroff was essentially going down a religious and mysticism route...
Hameroff, an anesthesiologist with an angular gray goatee, a bulldog manner, and a penchant for bowling shirts, is the author of articles with quizzical titles like "Quantum Walks in Brain Microtubules — a Biomolecular Basis for Quantum Cognition?" While the Science of Consciousness event has, technically, three program chairs and an advisory committee, it is more or less the Stuart Show. He decides who will and who will not present. And, to put it nicely, not everyone is in love with the choices he makes. To put it less nicely: Some consciousness researchers believe that the whole shindig has gone off the rails, that it’s seriously damaging the field of consciousness studies, and that it should be shut down.
[...]
For a while, Chalmers and Hameroff ran the Tucson conference together, back when it was called "Toward a Science of Consciousness," a slightly more humble label for a fledgling field. But Chalmers quietly withdrew as co-organizer a few years back — so quietly that Wikipedia has yet, as I write this, to notice the change. While Chalmers may be open to more crazy-seeming ideas than most, Tucson had grown too crazy even for him. "I was always trying to drag it back to the mainstream," he says. "It got far enough out there that I no longer felt comfortable with it being my product."
Honestly, it’s always been a little out there. In the 1990s, some researchers complained that there was too much attention paid to wild ideas at Tucson, and so they started their own conference and organization, the Association for the Scientific Study of Consciousness, which held its first meeting in 1997. ASSC became Tucson’s more buttoned-down sibling. Scan the program for its forthcoming meeting this summer and you’ll see sessions on the "cortical and subcortical mechanisms of conscious perception" and "understanding the neurocognitive underpinnings of voluntary act." For a session on "Sustained Spiritualization of ‘Sant-Su’ Scheme Toddlers Evolving the Race of Supermen," you’ll need to go to Tucson.
Chalmers is among the few researchers who maintain a presence in both camps, and he paints a happy face on the schism. But he can’t completely disguise his discomfort with what Tucson has become, or with some of the speakers who now share the stage. While he’s too polite to name names, Chalmers does wonder aloud "whether the conference should be revolving around spiritual gurus."
The gurus he mentions are the likes of Deepak Chopra, who are also invited to speak at the "Science of Consciousness" conference..
While Chopra attracts one sort of audience, he drives another one away — including scientists like David Cox. A professor of biology and computer science at Harvard, Cox was recently named director of the MIT-IBM Watson Artificial Intelligence Lab; he was invited to speak at Tucson about brain mapping. He declined, explaining in an email to Hameroff that "I wouldn’t expect a geophysicist to go to a conference where ‘Flat Earthers’ were given equal platform, nor would I expect astrophysicists to attend a conference populated by astrologers." It wasn’t just Chopra, though. Other sessions set off his alarm bells, like the ones on quantum energy. "They say it’s quantum something or other, and it doesn’t make any sense. The evidence there is just so uncompelling," Cox says. "It’s like they’re looking for magic dust."
Hakwan Lau has gone to Tucson in the past, but he didn’t show up this year and doesn’t plan to attend in the future. Lau, an associate professor of cognitive psychology at the University of California at Los Angeles, is a longtime consciousness researcher who was inspired by David Chalmers’s work in the 1990s and pursued consciousness even though he was warned he would never get tenure if he did (lo and behold, he got tenure). Lau considers what Tucson has become an embarrassment. "It would be better for the field if it didn’t exist," he says.
During an interview, Hameroff then dismissed scientists and biologists, suggesting they were snotty and academic snobs for their distaste at his pushing mysticism with his Orch Or - which people accused him of stacking the conference with instead of dealing with what can be proven.
So, you may want to revise your beliefs in regards to Hameroff.
Where did I claim it is a sound theory?
You really are terrible at this.
Ahh, I see . Physics and Biology are incompatible and never the twain shall meet?
I don't know what you are seeing, because you have this repulsive tendency to deliberately take things out of context and be dishonest.
) that you are speaking totally ex ano. 
