Orch-OR model new evidence??

[GustavRichter]

Hi

I am new here. I hope I am posting this into the right forum. I was just going through science daily and found this article:

 

 

 

Discovery of Quantum Vibrations in 'Microtubules' Inside Brain Neurons Supports Controversial Theory of Consciousness

Jan. 16, 2014 — A review and update of a controversial 20-year-old theory of consciousness published in Physics of Life Reviews claims that consciousness derives from deeper level, finer scale activities inside brain neurons. The recent discovery of quantum vibrations in "microtubules" inside brain neurons corroborates this theory, according to review authors Stuart Hameroff and Sir Roger Penrose. They suggest that EEG rhythms (brain waves) also derive from deeper level microtubule vibrations, and that from a practical standpoint, treating brain microtubule vibrations could benefit a host of mental, neurological, and cognitive conditions.

The theory, called "orchestrated objective reduction" ('Orch OR'), was first put forward in the mid-1990s by eminent mathematical physicist Sir Roger Penrose, FRS, Mathematical Institute and Wadham College, University of Oxford, and prominent anesthesiologist Stuart Hameroff, MD, Anesthesiology, Psychology and Center for Consciousness Studies, The University of Arizona, Tucson. They suggested that quantum vibrational computations in microtubules were "orchestrated" ("Orch") by synaptic inputs and memory stored in microtubules, and terminated by Penrose "objective reduction" ('OR'), hence "Orch OR." Microtubules are major components of the cell structural skeleton.

Orch OR was harshly criticized from its inception, as the brain was considered too "warm, wet, and noisy" for seemingly delicate quantum processes.. However, evidence has now shown warm quantum coherence in plant photosynthesis, bird brain navigation, our sense of smell, and brain microtubules. The recent discovery of warm temperature quantum vibrations in microtubules inside brain neurons by the research group led by Anirban Bandyopadhyay, PhD, at the National Institute of Material Sciences in Tsukuba, Japan (and now at MIT), corroborates the pair's theory and suggests that EEG rhythms also derive from deeper level microtubule vibrations. In addition, work from the laboratory of Roderick G. Eckenhoff, MD, at the University of Pennsylvania, suggests that anesthesia, which selectively erases consciousness while sparing non-conscious brain activities, acts via microtubules in brain neurons.

"The origin of consciousness reflects our place in the universe, the nature of our existence. Did consciousness evolve from complex computations among brain neurons, as most scientists assert? Or has consciousness, in some sense, been here all along, as spiritual approaches maintain?" ask Hameroff and Penrose in the current review. "This opens a potential Pandora's Box, but our theory accommodates both these views, suggesting consciousness derives from quantum vibrations in microtubules, protein polymers inside brain neurons, which both govern neuronal and synaptic function, and connect brain processes to self-organizing processes in the fine scale, 'proto-conscious' quantum structure of reality."

After 20 years of skeptical criticism, "the evidence now clearly supports Orch OR," continue Hameroff and Penrose. "Our new paper updates the evidence, clarifies Orch OR quantum bits, or "qubits," as helical pathways in microtubule lattices, rebuts critics, and reviews 20 testable predictions of Orch OR published in 1998 -- of these, six are confirmed and none refuted."

An important new facet of the theory is introduced. Microtubule quantum vibrations (e.g. in megahertz) appear to interfere and produce much slower EEG "beat frequencies." Despite a century of clinical use, the underlying origins of EEG rhythms have remained a mystery. Clinical trials of brief brain stimulation aimed at microtubule resonances with megahertz mechanical vibrations using transcranial ultrasound have shown reported improvements in mood, and may prove useful against Alzheimer's disease and brain injury in the future.

 

Its from: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140116085105.htm

 

I am skeptical of this whole Orch-OR model because Hameroff is a believer in Quantum Healing and things like that not to mentioned he was in What the Bleep we Know. Here is the Quantum Healing quote:

 

 

 

Stuart Hameroff, June 25 at 10:21 pm
Please see two papers (below) from Anirban Bandyopadhyay's group at NIMS in Tsukuba, Japan. They show quantum resonances in single microtubules at ambient temperature in frequency ranges from gigahertz to megahertz to 10 kilohertz, thus coherence times of 10^-4 secs at least. The frequency ranges appear to be fractal-like
Megahertz in mechanical vibration is ultrasound. Weve recently shown transcranial ultrasound improves mood. Now we are looking in the lab at ultrasound effects on development of single neurons. If ultrasound accelerates neuronal growth and development (as it should, by resonating microtubules) its a therapy for brain injury.
We hope to look at this in the next year.

The mechanism in microtubules looks like the quantum coherence in photosynthesis
proteins, which apparently needs coherent mechanical vibration for the quantum states.
So ultrasound mechanical vibrations can stimulate quantum coherence in microtubules.
That's quantum healing.

 

Its from: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/deepak-chopra/scientists-and-scholars-i_b_3543037.html

 

Here is the original paper which the published:

 

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1571064513001188

 

Here is Hameroffs rebuttal to criticism:

 

 

 

Orch OR has been criticized repeatedly since its inception. Here we review and summarize major criticisms and responses.

Grush and Churchland[153] took issue with the Gödelʼs theorem argument, as well as several biological factors. One objection involved the MT-disabling drug colchicine which treats diseases such as gout by immobilizing neutrophil cells which cause painful inflammation in joints. Neutrophil mobility requires cycles of MT assembly/disassembly, and colchicine prevents re-assembly, impairing neutrophil mobility and reducing inflammation. Grush and Churchland pointed out that patients given colchicine do not lose consciousness, concluding that microtubules cannot be essential for consciousness. Penrose and Hameroff [12] responded point-by-point to every objection, e.g. explaining that colchicine does not cross the blood brain barrier, and so doesnʼt reach the brain, and that brain neurons donʼt disassemble/re-assemble anyway. Colchicine infused directly into the brains of animals does cause severe cognitive impairment and apparent loss of consciousness [154].

A-lattice vs B-lattice microtubules. MTs have two types of hexagonal lattices, A and B. Tubulin is a peanut-shaped dimer with alpha and beta monomers. In a 13 protofilament MT A-lattice, tubulin–tubulin sideways interaction occur between alpha monomer on one tubulin, and beta tubulin on the other (alpha–beta, and beta–alpha) [155]. This gives a seamless lattice and Fibonacci geometry which are optimal for quantum computing, and preferred in Orch OR. In the B-lattice, sideways interactions are alpha–alpha and beta–beta, except for a vertical seam of (A-lattice-like) alpha–beta and beta–alpha. Orch OR has predicted A-lattice MTs, but critics point to analysis of MTs from neurons, e.g. from whole mouse brains which are said to show predominantly B-lattice MTs. However these ‘B-lattice’ [156] and [157] brain MTs have multiple seams involving 4 or more or protofilaments, so A-lattice configuration occurs in a third of so-called B-lattice MTs. Other work shows mixed A and B lattice microtubules [158].

Orch OR is expected to occur in only a fraction of suitable dendritic and somatic MTs, and perhaps only transiently, and partially. Bandyopadhyay [142] has preliminary evidence MTs may switch between A- and B-lattice configurations. The MT A-lattice configuration may be rare, exist transiently as patches in otherwise B-lattice MTs, and be specifically involved in quantum coherence, Orch OR and consciousness.

Georgiev[159] questioned Orch OR on the basis of ‘not enough tubulins’. By τ≈ℏ/EG, the superposition (EG) required for 25 ms Orch OR events is about 2×1010 tubulins. Depending on the number of tubulins per neuron, and the percent of tubulin involvement, predictions can be made for the number of neurons, and percent of brain involvement, for Orch OR conscious events. This percentage may be small, as for example superconductors have only a tiny percentage of components in quantum states. Moreover A-lattice MTs (or A-lattice portions of B-lattice MTs) may be relatively rare, and distributed throughout many neurons. In any case, it might be that many more tubulins are involved (such as in some versions of the beat frequency approach), e.g. 1018 tubulins, 109 neurons, one percent of the brain. It should be noted that Orch OR is the only theory able to meaningfully entertain such quantitative speculation.

Tuszynski et al.[160] questioned how extremely weak gravitational energy in the DP version of OR could influence tubulin protein states. With 2×1010 tubulins for 25 ms Orch OR, EG would be roughly 10−10 eV (10−29 joules), seemingly insignificant compared to ambient energy kT at 10−4 eV. All this serves to illustrate the fact that the energy EG does not actually play a role in physical processes as an energy, in competition with other energies that are driving the physical (chemical, electronic) processes of relevance. As stated in Section 5.1, EG is, instead, an energy uncertainty—and it is this uncertainty that allows quantum state reduction to take place without violation of energy conservation. The fact that EG is far smaller than the other energies involved in the relevant physical processes is a necessary feature of the consistency of the OR scheme, particularly with regard to energy conservation. It does not supply the energy to drive the physical processes involved, but it provides the energy uncertainty that allows the freedom for processes having virtually the same energy as each other to be alternative actions. In practice, all that EG is needed for is to tell us how to calculate the lifetime τ of the superposition. EG would enter into issues of energy balance only if gravitational interactions between the parts of the system were important in the processes involved. (The Earthʼs gravitational field plays no role in this either, because it cancels out in the calculation of EG.) No other forces of nature directly contribute to EG, which is just as well, because if they did, there would be a gross discrepancy with observational physics.

Tegmark[161] published a critique of Orch OR based on his calculated decoherence times for microtubules of 10−13 seconds at biological temperature, far too brief for physiological effects. However Tegmark didnʼt include Orch OR stipulations and in essence created, and then refuted his own quantum microtubule model. He assumed superpositions of solitons separated from themselves by a distance of 24 nanometers along the length of the microtubule. As previously described, superposition separation in Orch OR is at the Fermi length level of atomic nuclei, i.e. 7 orders of magnitude smaller than Tegmarkʼs separation value, thus underestimating decoherence time by 7 orders of magnitude, i.e. from 10−13 s to microseconds at 10−6 seconds. Hagan et al. [162] used Tegmarkʼs same formula and recalculated microtubule decoherence times using Orch OR stipulations, finding 10−4 to 10−3 seconds, or longer. In any case, experimentally, Bandyopadhyayʼs group has found 10 kHz resonance, i.e. 10−4 seconds coherence times. Also, as stated earlier, there are versions of the beat-frequency scheme that would require much shorter decoherence times, though at the expense of correspondingly larger bodies of material being involved in the quantum-coherent states.

Koch and Hepp[163] challenged Orch OR with a thought experiment, describing a person observing a superposition of a cat both dead and alive with one eye, the other eye distracted by a series of images (‘binocular rivalry’). Without explaining how an observable superposition of this kind could be prepared (where according to OR, by τ≈ℏ/EG, the cat would already be either dead or alive long before being observed), they asked ‘Where in the observerʼs brain would reduction occur?’, apparently assuming Orch OR followed the version of the Copenhagen interpretation in which conscious observation, in effect, causes quantum state reduction (placing consciousness outside science). This is precisely the opposite of Orch OR in which consciousness is the orchestrated quantum state reduction given by OR. But in the straightforward case of conscious observation of an already dead or alive cat, reduction (Orch OR) and consciousness would most likely occur in dendritic–somatic microtubules in neurons in visual and associative cortex and other brain areas, anatomically the same as in neuronal-based theories, except at an additional, ‘deeper order’.

Orch OR can (at least in principle) account for the related issue of bistable perceptions (e.g. the famous face/vase illusion, or Necker cube). Non-conscious superpositions of both possibilities (face and vase) during pre-conscious quantum superposition then reduce by OR at time τ≈ℏ/EG to a conscious perception of one or the other, face or vase. The reduction could be taken to occur among microtubules within neurons in various areas of visual and pre-frontal cortex and other brain regions, again the same as neuronal-based theories but at a deeper, quantum level inside neurons.

Reimers et al.[164] described three types of Fröhlich condensation (weak, strong and coherent, the first classical and the latter two quantum). They validated 8 MHz coherence measured in microtubules by Pokorný [134] and [135] as weak condensation. Based on simulation of a 1-dimensional linear chain of tubulin dimers representing a microtubule, they concluded that only weak Fröhlich condensation occurs in microtubules. Claiming that Orch OR requires strong or coherent Fröhlich condensation, they concluded Orch OR is invalid. However Samsonovich et al. [165] simulated a microtubule as a 2-dimensional lattice plane with toroidal boundary conditions and found Fröhlich resonance maxima at discrete locations in super-lattice patterns on the simulated microtubule surface which precisely matched experimentally observed functional attachment sites for microtubule-associated proteins (MAPs). In any case, these simulations are superseded by experimental evidence for gigahertz, megahertz and kilohertz resonance discovered in single MTs by the Bandyopadhyay group (‘Bandyopadhyay coherence’, ‘BC’)

McKemmish et al.[166] challenged the Orch OR contention that tubulin switching is mediated by London forces, pointing out that mobile π electrons in a benzene ring (e.g. a phenyl ring without attachments) are completely delocalized, and hence cannot switch between states, nor exist in superposition of both states. Agreed; a single benzene cannot engage in switching. London forces occur between two or more π electron cloud ring structures, or other non-polar groups. A single benzene ring cannot support London forces. It takes two (or more) to tango. Orch OR has always maintained two or more non-polar groups are necessary, and now invokes contiguous arrays of such groups in quantum channels through tubulin and through microtubules. Moreover we now add the possibility that magnetic spin dipoles mediate Orch OR.

McKemmish et al. further assert that tubulin switching in Orch OR requires significant conformational structural change, and that the only mechanism for such conformational switching is due to GTP hydrolysis, i.e. conversion of guanosine triphosphate (GTP) to guanosine diphosphate (GDP) with release of phosphate group energy, and tubulin conformational flexing. McKemmish et al. correctly point out that driving synchronized MT oscillations by hydrolysis of GTP to GDP and conformational changes would be prohibitive in terms of energy requirements and heat produced. This is agreed. However, we clarify that tubulin switching in Orch OR need not actually involve significant conformational change, that electron cloud dipoles (London forces), or magnetic spin dipoles are sufficient for bit-like switching, superposition and qubit function (Fig. 5, Fig. 6 and Fig. 7). We acknowledge tubulin conformational switching as discussed in early Orch OR publications and illustrations do indicate significant conformational changes. They are admittedly, though unintentionally, misleading. Discovery of gigahertz, megahertz and kilohertz BC in single microtubules supports dipole states providing a favorable signal with regard to the underlying ideas of Orch OR.

The only tubulin conformational factor required in Orch OR is superposition separation at the level of atomic nuclei, e.g. 2.5 Fermi length for carbon nuclei (2.5 femtometers; 2.5×10−15 meters). This shift may be accounted for by electronic cloud dipoles with Mossbauer nuclear recoil and charge effects [90] and [91]. Tubulin switching in Orch OR requires neither GTP hydrolysis nor significant conformational changes, depending on collective London force dipoles, or magnetic spin dipoles in quantum channels of aromatic rings (Fig. 5, Fig. 6 and Fig. 7).

 

Its from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1571064513001188

 

Here are the predictions:

 

 

 

5.7. Testable predictions of Orch OR – current status

Orch OR involves numerous fairly specific and essentially falsifiable hypotheses. In 1998 twenty testable predictions of Orch OR in 9 general categories were published [15]. They are reviewed here with our comments on their current status in italics.

Neuronal microtubules are directly necessary for cognition and consciousness
1.
Synaptic plasticity correlates with cytoskeletal architecture/activities. The current status of this is unclear, although microtubule networks do appear to define and regulate synapses.
2.
Actions of psychoactive drugs, including antidepressants, involve neuronal microtubules. This indeed appears to be the case. Fluoxitene (Prozac) acts through microtubules[167]; anesthetics also act through MTs[86].
3.
Neuronal microtubule stabilizing/protecting drugs may prove useful in Alzheimerʼs disease. There is now some evidence that this may be so; for example, MT-stabilizer epithilone is being tested in this way[168].
Microtubules communicate by cooperative dynamics
4.
Coherent gigahertz excitations will be found in microtubules. Indeed; in some remarkable new research, Anirban Bandyopadhyayʼs group has found coherent gigahertz, megahertz and kilohertz excitations in single MTs [88] and [89].
5.
Dynamic microtubule vibrations correlate with cellular activity. Evidence on this issue is not yet clear, although mechanical megahertz vibrations (ultrasound) do appear to stimulate neurons and enhance mood[127].
6.
Stable microtubule patterns correlate with memory. The evidence concerning memory encoding in MTs remains unclear, though synaptic messengers CaMKII and PkMz do act through MTs. Each CaMKII may encode (by phosphorylation) 6 information bits to 6 tubulins in a microtubule lattice.
7.
‘EPR-like’ non-local correlation between separated microtubules. This is not at all clear, but such things are very hard to establish (or refute) experimentally. Bandyopadhyayʼs group is testing for ‘wireless’ resonance transfer between separated MTs[142].
Quantum coherence occurs in microtubules
8.
Phases of quantum coherence will be detected in microtubules. There appears to be some striking evidence for effects of this general nature in Bandyopadhyayʼs recent results [88] and [89], differing hugely from classical expectations, where electrical resistance drops dramatically, at certain very specific frequencies, in a largely-temperature independent and length-independent way.
9.
Cortical dendrites contain largely ‘A-lattice’, compared to B-lattice, microtubules. Although there is some contrary evidence to this assertion, the actual situation remains unclear. Orch OR has been criticized because mouse brain microtubules are predominantly B lattice MTs. However these same mouse brain MTs are partially A-lattice configuration, and other research shows mixed A and B lattice MTs [156], [157] and [158]. Bandyopadhyay has preliminary evidence that MTs can shift between A- and B-lattice configurations[142], and A-lattices may be specific for quantum processes. Orch OR could also utilize B lattices, although apparently not as efficiently as A-lattice. In any case, A-lattice MTs could well be fairly rare, specific for quantum effects, and sufficient for Orch OR since the A-lattice may be needed only in a fraction of MTs in dendrites and soma, and perhaps only transiently.
10.
Coherent photons will be detected from microtubules. A positive piece of evidence in this direction is the detection of gigahertz excitations in MTs by Bandyopadhyayʼs group, which may be interpreted as coherent photons [88] and [89].
Microtubule quantum coherence is protected by actin gelation
11.
Dendritic–somatic microtubules are intermittently surrounded by tight actin gel. This is perhaps a moot point, now, in view of recent results by Bandyopadhyayʼs group, as it now appears that coherence occurs at warm temperature without actin gel.
12.
Cycles of actin gelation and solution correlate with electrophysiology, e.g. gamma synchrony EEG. Again, this now appears to be a moot point, for the same reason as above.
13.
Sol–gel cycles are mediated by calcium ion flux from synaptic inputs. No clear evidence, but again a moot point.
Macroscopic quantum coherence occurs among hundreds of thousands of neurons and glia inter-connected by gap junctions


Gap junctions between glia and neurons have not been found, but gap junction interneurons interweave the entire cortex.
14.
Electrotonic gap junctions synchronize neurons. Gap junction interneurons do appear to mediate gamma synchrony EEG [49], [50], [51], [52], [53] and [54].
15.
Quantum tunneling occurs across gap junctions. As yet untested.
16.
Quantum correlations between microtubules in different neurons occurs via gap junctions. As yet untested. However Bandyopadhyay has preliminary evidence that spatially separated MTs, perhaps even in different neurons, become entangled in terms of their BC resonances[142], so gap junctions may be unnecessary for Orch OR.
The amount of neural tissue involved in a conscious event is inversely related to the event time byτ≈ℏ/EG
17.
Functional imaging and electrophysiology will show perception and response time shorter with more neural mass involved. As a ‘prediction’ of Orch OR, the status of this is not very clear; moreover it is very hard to provide any clear estimate of the neural mass that is involved in a ‘perception’. As a related issue, there does appear to be evidence for some kind of scale-invariance in neurophysiological processes (Section3.2 [76] and [77]).
An unperturbed isolated quantum state self-collapses (OR) according toτ≈ℏ/EG
18.
Technological quantum superpositions will be shown to undergo OR by τ≈ℏ/EG. Various experiments are being developed which should supply an answer to this fundamental question[108], but they appear to remain several years away from being able to achieve firm conclusions.
Microtubule-based cilia/centrioles are quantum optical devices
19.
Microtubule-based cilia in retinal rod and cone cells detect photon quantum information. This appears to be untested, so far.
A critical degree of microtubule activity enabled consciousness during evolution
20.
Fossils will show organisms from early Cambrian (540 million years ago), had sufficient microtubule capacity for OR by τ≈ℏ/EG of less than a minute, perhaps resulting in rudimentary Orch OR, consciousness and the ‘Cambrian evolutionary explosion’. It is clearly hard to know an answer to this one, particularly because the level of consciousness in extinct creatures would be almost impossible to determine. However present day organisms looking remarkably like early Cambrian creatures (actinosphaerum, nematodes) are known to have over 109tubulins[56].
It would appear that the expectations of Orch OR have fared rather well so far, and it gives us a viable scientific proposal aimed at providing an understanding of the phenomenon of consciousness. We believe that the underlying scheme of Orch OR has a good chance of being basically correct in its fundamental conceptions.

 

Its from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1571064513001188

 

If someone who knows more about QM or things like that would like to have a look at this because I have a problem to believe into this and I would like to know what a person in QM would say about it. I would be very glad. Thanks for reading this and thanks for your time.

[Ender]

Hello GustavRichter,

 

I'm not a super expert in QM (even though I'm studying to get there) but I've read a lot about this Orch-Or theory

and I've really been fascinated by it. I think the theory is not very famous and it's just making its way through the science community,

just because it "mixes" QM with consciousness and the self. It may be deemed to be a bit new age, trying to give an explanation of how this

strange phenomenon of awareness was born. Personally, I don't see the theory as a new age thing. I just wanna see

things in a clear way and if this means breaking the mainstream view which, sometimes, doesn't even address the

problem of consciousness directly, I'm happy to do so.

 

 

I think it's a hard question for a quantum physicist, to give a personal opinion about the theory.

That's because it does not only involve QM, but also that complex piece of flesh that we have in our cranium.

It does not only involve quantum entanglement and the problem of decoherence and superposition, but also

the structure of the microtubules and the "environment" in which the orchestrated objective reduction must take place, the brain.

That's the reason why Sir. Penrose is a mathematician/physicist and Dr. Hameroff is an anesthesiologist and is more

competent in the studies of the brain structure and functions.

 

 

My personal opinion is that I wouldn't just put aside the theory, only because it's a bit non-mainstream, you know.

It still hasn't been attacked in such a way to say "It has more evidence against it than in its favour" and it's, probably,

one of the few candidates right now. I mean, if QM rule the universe, why shouldn't it rule our brain and mind too?

(if we find the real evidence of some sort of collapse of this brain function).

There's been this experiment (maybe you've heard of it, if not I recommend you check it out) called

the "double slit experiment" which showed, simply put, that a particle behaves as a wave if you don't make a measurement on it.

That means that a single particle exists in different states and interferes with itself until you measure it,

until you have certain information about its position. What does it mean?

Some have come to the conclusion that consciousness has to be involved in some kind of way

(even though it's not very clear, at least to me, whether a conscious observer is needed in order to make reality

behave in a certain way or not) or maybe that this could be the key to understanding it.

The point is, that QM is probably the weirdest thing that scientists have found since the origins of the studies

and it is still not completely understood. On the other hand, consciousness also has a great reputation for

being mysterious, because it is something subjective and not easy (at all) to measure in an objective, absolute way.

Let's put the two together and see what comes out (why not?)..

 

 

I've read that the theory also involves quantum gravity, which makes everything a bit more difficult, since we don't really have a theory

for quantum gravity.. It's still an open study I guess. I like the theory because it's new and quite original,

but I cannot say that I'm completely convinced until, we find striking evidence for it.

Right now, it's all about if you think of consciousness as some secondary not-really-important event, or

as a fundamental matter (as it is in the theory, because it also revolutionizes the nature of reality at a fundamental level).

 

 

Hope mine wasn't only blathering and that it was of some kind of help.

Edited February 6, 2014 by Ender

[Lizzie L]

The biggest problem it seems to me with the theory, not that it isn't fascinating, is that it's trying to solve a problem that may not even be a problem. From the paper:

 

The ‘hard problem’ What is the nature of phenomenal experience, and what distinguishes conscious from non-conscious cognition? Perception and behavior may be accompanied or driven by phenomenal conscious awareness, experience, or subjective feelings, composed of what philosophers call ‘qualia’ [19]. However perception and behavior may at other times be unaccompanied by consciousness. We could have evolved as full-time non-conscious ‘zombies’ performing complex ‘auto-pilot’ behaviors without conscious awareness. How and why do we have phenomenal consciousness, an ‘inner life’ of subjective experience?

(my bold)

 

The entire theory assumes that the bolded is true. I think it is false. And if it's false, then what they have is an interesting possible layer of complexity in our models of how oscillations arise and are modulate din the brain, but no particular breakthrough with regard to consciousness specifically.

 

This is also a bit of a giveaway IMO:

 

How does consciousness arise from neurocomputation? Some contend that consciousness emerges from computational complexity due to firings and other brain electrical activity [37] and [38]. However neither the specific neuronal activities contributing to complexity, nor any predicted complexity threshold for emergence of consciousness have been put forth. Nor is there a sense of how complexity per se could give rise to discrete conscious moments.

 

Firstly, why should there be a "threshold"? That seems to assume that consciousness is an all-or-nothing state rather than minimally to maximally present. And lots of "specific neuronal activities" have been "put forth" to account for conscious experience. Edelman and Tononi, for a start. And why should we think there is such a thing as "discrete conscious moments"? The authors just assume there are. I don't think that assumption is justified.