Stuart Hameroff's ideas.

Well surely the equation deterministically predicts the evolution of the wavefunction except that from time to time some entity observes the wavefunction and 'collapses' it? That is exactly what I mean.
Well surely that depends on what the aggregate is? I mean if it is a true random number generator, then it is by definition not predictable in the aggregate.
Well my intuition tells me that we control our bodies by 'observing' wave function collapses within our brains and controlling the outcome.

Henry Stapp showed that that process can allow the observer to control a physical system.
Thaybe I'll skip on that.

I agree about Sheldrake, but remember his work always references experiments. I feel theorising can drift way off the mark - the scientific community really needs to stop being afraid of the inexplicable and devise lots of thought-provoking experiments.

David

Ah it has been some time since I opened a physics text book, I was thinking more about stuff like half-lives and photon reflection off glass than the Schrodinger Equation [as means of measurement though the connection to what you were saying should have occurred to me].

I'm not sure there can be a true random number generator if you mean it genuinely has no probability distribution?

Stapp's idea is interesting but controversial. But yes it might be true somehow.

I agree there should be more experiments. It would be interesting to see Tom Campbell and Sheldrake team up. I am hoping whatever big results Hammeroff is set to publish with his colleagues is good enough to really push for, at the very least, the position that quantum biology is involved with consciousness.