Princeton Philosophy professor John Burgess writes in On the Outside Looking In: A Caution about Conservativeness (published in Kurt Gödel: Essays for his Centennial, with the following comments found on pp. 131–132) that "the consensus view of logicians today seems to be that the Lucas–Penrose argument is fallacious, though as I have said elsewhere, there is at least this much to be said for Lucas and Penrose, that logicians are not unanimously agreed as to where precisely the fallacy in their argument lies. There are at least three points at which the argument may be attacked."
Hameroff, Stuart; Penrose, Roger (2014). “Reply to seven commentaries on "Consciousness in the universe: Review of the 'Orch OR' theory"”. 《Physics of Life Reviews》 11 (1): 94–100. Bibcode:2014PhLRv..11...94H. doi:10.1016/j.plrev.2013.11.013.
Hameroff, Stuart; Penrose, Roger (2014). “Reply to criticism of the 'Orch OR qubit' – 'Orchestrated objective reduction' is scientifically justified”. 《Physics of Life Reviews》 11 (1): 104–112. Bibcode:2014PhLRv..11..104H. doi:10.1016/j.plrev.2013.11.014.
Davis, Martin (September 1993). “How subtle is Gödel's theorem? More on Roger Penrose”. 《Behavioral and Brain Sciences》 16 (3): 611–612. doi:10.1017/S0140525X00031915. S2CID144018337.
Putnam, Hilary (1995년 7월 1일). “Book Review: Shadows of the mind”. 《Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society》 32 (3): 370–374. doi:10.1090/S0273-0979-1995-00606-3.
Reimers, Jeffrey R.; McKemmish, Laura K.; McKenzie, Ross H.; Mark, Alan E.; Hush, Noel S. (2014). “The revised Penrose–Hameroff orchestrated objective-reduction proposal for human consciousness is not scientifically justified”. 《Physics of Life Reviews》 11 (1): 101–103. Bibcode:2014PhLRv..11..101R. doi:10.1016/j.plrev.2013.11.003. PMID24268490.
Derakhshani, Maaneli; Diósi, Lajos; Laubenstein, Matthias; Piscicchia, Kristian; Curceanu, Catalina (2022년 9월 1일). “At the crossroad of the search for spontaneous radiation and the Orch OR consciousness theory”. 《Physics of Life Reviews》 42: 8–14. Bibcode:2022PhLRv..42....8D. doi:10.1016/j.plrev.2022.05.004. PMID35617922.
Stuart, Hameroff (1998년 8월 15일). “Quantum computation in brain microtubules? The Penrose–Hameroff 'Orch OR' model of consciousness”. 《Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences》 356 (1743): 1869–1896. Bibcode:1998RSPTA.356.1869H. doi:10.1098/rsta.1998.0254.
F. J. Binmöller; C. M. Müller (1992). “Postnatal development of dye-coupling among astrocytes in rat visual cortex”. 《Glia》 6 (2): 127–137. doi:10.1002/glia.440060207. PMID1328051.
Friedrich Beck; John C. Eccles (1998). “Quantum processes in the brain: A scientific basis of consciousness”. 《Cognitive Studies: Bulletin of the Japanese Cognitive Science Society》 5 (2): 95–109. doi:10.11225/jcss.5.2_95.
Hameroff, Stuart; Penrose, Roger (2014). “Reply to seven commentaries on "Consciousness in the universe: Review of the 'Orch OR' theory"”. 《Physics of Life Reviews》 11 (1): 94–100. Bibcode:2014PhLRv..11...94H. doi:10.1016/j.plrev.2013.11.013.
Hameroff, Stuart; Penrose, Roger (2014). “Reply to criticism of the 'Orch OR qubit' – 'Orchestrated objective reduction' is scientifically justified”. 《Physics of Life Reviews》 11 (1): 104–112. Bibcode:2014PhLRv..11..104H. doi:10.1016/j.plrev.2013.11.014.
Reimers, Jeffrey R.; McKemmish, Laura K.; McKenzie, Ross H.; Mark, Alan E.; Hush, Noel S. (2014). “The revised Penrose–Hameroff orchestrated objective-reduction proposal for human consciousness is not scientifically justified”. 《Physics of Life Reviews》 11 (1): 101–103. Bibcode:2014PhLRv..11..101R. doi:10.1016/j.plrev.2013.11.003. PMID24268490.
Derakhshani, Maaneli; Diósi, Lajos; Laubenstein, Matthias; Piscicchia, Kristian; Curceanu, Catalina (2022년 9월 1일). “At the crossroad of the search for spontaneous radiation and the Orch OR consciousness theory”. 《Physics of Life Reviews》 42: 8–14. Bibcode:2022PhLRv..42....8D. doi:10.1016/j.plrev.2022.05.004. PMID35617922.
Stuart, Hameroff (1998년 8월 15일). “Quantum computation in brain microtubules? The Penrose–Hameroff 'Orch OR' model of consciousness”. 《Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences》 356 (1743): 1869–1896. Bibcode:1998RSPTA.356.1869H. doi:10.1098/rsta.1998.0254.
In an article at “King's College London - Department of Mathematics”. 2001년 1월 25일에 원본 문서에서 보존된 문서. 2010년 10월 22일에 확인함. L.J. Landau at the Mathematics Department of King's College London writes that "Penrose's argument, its basis and implications, is rejected by experts in the fields which it touches."
mappingignorance.org
Villatoro, Francisco R. (2015년 6월 17일). “On the quantum theory of consciousness”. 《Mapping Ignorance》. University of the Basque Country. 2018년 8월 18일에 확인함. Hameroff's ideas in the hands of Penrose have developed almost to absurdity.
Reimers, Jeffrey R.; McKemmish, Laura K.; McKenzie, Ross H.; Mark, Alan E.; Hush, Noel S. (2014). “The revised Penrose–Hameroff orchestrated objective-reduction proposal for human consciousness is not scientifically justified”. 《Physics of Life Reviews》 11 (1): 101–103. Bibcode:2014PhLRv..11..101R. doi:10.1016/j.plrev.2013.11.003. PMID24268490.
Derakhshani, Maaneli; Diósi, Lajos; Laubenstein, Matthias; Piscicchia, Kristian; Curceanu, Catalina (2022년 9월 1일). “At the crossroad of the search for spontaneous radiation and the Orch OR consciousness theory”. 《Physics of Life Reviews》 42: 8–14. Bibcode:2022PhLRv..42....8D. doi:10.1016/j.plrev.2022.05.004. PMID35617922.
F. J. Binmöller; C. M. Müller (1992). “Postnatal development of dye-coupling among astrocytes in rat visual cortex”. 《Glia》 6 (2): 127–137. doi:10.1002/glia.440060207. PMID1328051.
Princeton Philosophy professor John Burgess writes in On the Outside Looking In: A Caution about Conservativeness (published in Kurt Gödel: Essays for his Centennial, with the following comments found on pp. 131–132) that "the consensus view of logicians today seems to be that the Lucas–Penrose argument is fallacious, though as I have said elsewhere, there is at least this much to be said for Lucas and Penrose, that logicians are not unanimously agreed as to where precisely the fallacy in their argument lies. There are at least three points at which the argument may be attacked."
Davis, Martin (September 1993). “How subtle is Gödel's theorem? More on Roger Penrose”. 《Behavioral and Brain Sciences》 16 (3): 611–612. doi:10.1017/S0140525X00031915. S2CID144018337.
In an article at “King's College London - Department of Mathematics”. 2001년 1월 25일에 원본 문서에서 보존된 문서. 2010년 10월 22일에 확인함. L.J. Landau at the Mathematics Department of King's College London writes that "Penrose's argument, its basis and implications, is rejected by experts in the fields which it touches."
Hofstadter 1979 괄호 없는 하버드 인용 error: 대상 없음: CITEREFHofstadter1979 (help), Russell & Norvig 2003 괄호 없는 하버드 인용 error: 대상 없음: CITEREFRussellNorvig2003 (help), Turing 1950 괄호 없는 하버드 인용 error: 대상 없음: CITEREFTuring1950 (help) under "The Argument from Mathematics" where he writes "although it is established that there are limitations to the powers of any particular machine, it has only been stated, without sort of proof, that no such limitations apply to the human intellect."
