I think you're probably missing a number of the important details. In the Penrose/Hammerof model, they're explicitly saying that humans are observed to generate problem solutions that could not have been generated by a purely classical computing process, therefore, the brain must exploit some specific quantum phenomenon.
When you talk about QM a a theory of how the world operates, there are wide ranges of QM. Everything from predicting the structure and energy states of a molecule, to how P/N junctions work, to quantum computers. Now, for the first one (molecules), the vast majority of QM is just giving ways to compute the electron density and internuclear distances using some fairly straightforward and noncontroversial approaches.
For the other ones (P/N junctions, QC computers, etc), those involve exploiting very specific and surprising aspects of quantum theory: one of quantum tunnelling, quantum coherence, or quantum entanglement (ordered from least counterintuitive to most). We have some evidence already that there are some biological processes that exploit tunnelling and coherence, but none that demonstrate entanglement.
Personally, I think most people think the alternative to Penrose- the brain does not compute non-computable functions, and does not exploit or need to exploit any quantum phenomena (expect perhaps tunnelling) to achieve its goals.
Now, if we were to have hard evidence supporting the idea that brains use entanglement to solve problems: well, that would be pretty amazing and would upend large parts of modern biology adn technology research.
The Brian using entanglement would completely destroy modern physics as we know it, the effect on biology would be tiny by comparison.
Your other points are based on such fundamental misunderstanding that it’s hard to respond. Saying something isn’t the output of classical computing processes while undemonstrated, is then used to justify saying they must therefore use Quantum Phenomenon. But logically not everything that is either classical or Quantum so even that logical inference is unjustified. Logically it’s like saying well it’s not a soda so it must be a rock.
PS: If people where observed to solve problems that can’t be solved by classical computer processing that would be a really big deal. As in show up on Nightly News, and win people Nobel prizes big. Needless to say it hasn’t happened.
The set of problems that are computable by a classical computer are the same set of problems computable by a quantum computer. I think you might be misstating the Penrose argument/position.
I should have said "problems which do not have computable solutions" rather than "set of problems computable by a quantum computer", which seems fairly pedestrian compared to what Penrose is saying.
When you talk about QM a a theory of how the world operates, there are wide ranges of QM. Everything from predicting the structure and energy states of a molecule, to how P/N junctions work, to quantum computers. Now, for the first one (molecules), the vast majority of QM is just giving ways to compute the electron density and internuclear distances using some fairly straightforward and noncontroversial approaches.
For the other ones (P/N junctions, QC computers, etc), those involve exploiting very specific and surprising aspects of quantum theory: one of quantum tunnelling, quantum coherence, or quantum entanglement (ordered from least counterintuitive to most). We have some evidence already that there are some biological processes that exploit tunnelling and coherence, but none that demonstrate entanglement.
Personally, I think most people think the alternative to Penrose- the brain does not compute non-computable functions, and does not exploit or need to exploit any quantum phenomena (expect perhaps tunnelling) to achieve its goals.
Now, if we were to have hard evidence supporting the idea that brains use entanglement to solve problems: well, that would be pretty amazing and would upend large parts of modern biology adn technology research.