The only thing that this article mentions is a hypothesis about microtubule vibrations (?), no arguments. No mention of the double slit experiment either

Edit: I found this article about this topic:
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com...about-reality/

The results of the double slit experiment support some of Penrose's ideas. There's countless articles out there about it, but here's one that goes more into the experiment. It makes a case for and against Penrose's overall umbrella of ideas: I just don't consider the "against' arguments to be as relevant considering what has been observed elsewhere. It makes for good reading in any case though.

BBC - The strange link between the human mind and quantum physics

Well damn MM the double slit experiment is classic observation effect evidence

Dude, I know. That doesn't mean it has anything to say about consciousness.

I skimmed through the article: it's cool. It mainly says that quantum theory might play a part in how our brain works, which is something different from what I was talking about: it seems implausible but might be true for all I know, and as far as I'm concerned that still lies within the definition of consciousness just being mechanical and instinctive.
The article itself talks about a variation on the thought experiment that I mentioned: measurements after a particle goes through the slit still collapses the wave function. Hence it is neither a measurement, or our consciousness, influencing the particle.

All processes are mechanical. That's not the point. The million dollar question is whether or not life forms persist in some way after death. That's where the interest in exploring the link between the mind and quantum physics comes from.

How would that relate to the persistence of life after death?

Sorry for my interjections but if there’s something about consciousness that extends beyond biology you don’t have stone cold proof it dies with this person.

Because the underlying assumption is that if consciousness is nothing more than instinct or whatever, then there's "nothing more" to a life form and therefore "you" die when your body dies. Penrose's ideas challenge this, and the results of the double slit experiment (taken on it's own terms as it was originally done) also challenge this because it should be impossible that observing something would change or effect any kind of outcome of a particle in a material sense. And yet the outcome does change depending on whether or not there is an observer present. The other interpretation involving the semantics of "weak measurements" is an attempt to repudiate the results, but I don't think it makes a strong case.

The interest in quantum mechanics, outside of how it challenges our perceptions of the principles that underpin reality, is that there are enough threads and inconsistencies from both experimentation and theory in this field to give rise to the idea that human beings are "more" than just instinct and that our thoughts and sense of self have "weight" beyond mere brain function.

Sometimes I think there should be a quantum physics fallacies because every time someone wants to argue in favor of something counterintuitive or even seemingly impossible the point to quantum physics and say see the impossible is possible.

Does Penrose deal with the problem of causation? Just because observing something changes the outcome doesn’t necessarily mean the observation causes the change. The answer could be found in panpsychism. The photons know they’re being observed. ****ing both are absurd but the whole goddamn thing seems impossible so something is going on.