While it may be an interesting read, it sounds like the researchers have lost their objectivity and are perhaps prioritizing getting published. Microtubules and quantum states, in this context, sound almost like what Gwyneth Paltrow sells when she imagines science to promote her Goop products.

The source here is biased but the two scientists discussed are for once not complete crackpots. They are at least advancing a scientifically testable hypothesis. And in fact, they themselves indicated recently that it's probably within a year or two of being scientifically [in]validated, which should answer the question definitively.

On the other hand, last time I checked Hameroff's web site, it hadn't been updated in a couple of years, which was not too impressive. I'll chalk that up to "absent-minded professor" for now, but he could also be hiding from unfavorable outcomes.

A problem with this is implicit in the language of the article. Upon death, the alleged quantum state of the micro-tubules in which they feel consciousness resides, is admittedly lost. But the data "can't" be lost, but is "dissipated" to the "universe at large". And the key word here is "dissipated". Of course it is. The whole universe is in a sense information, but the key is how it's organized -- in this case, in the "quantum states" of the microtubules. The state is lost, which means context is lost at the very least, and then of course the organization dissolves and is, as they themselves put it, "dissipated". It's like blowing up a car with C4 or some other powerful explosive. The car's "state" is "lost" and the information that made up that car -- the molecular bonds, the form, the connection and shape of everything, "dissipates". No one seriously suggests a car afterlife, the car for all practical transportation purposes is gone forever, even though the molecules and energy endure in some form.

There's no reason to think it's any different for human consciousness.

But I give them props for at least coming up with a testable hypothesis. Now very soon we'll see if they accept the verdict of science if it's not favorable to them. Last I knew, independent researchers were constructing experiments that should [dis]prove the hypothesis.

What usually happens though is that the persons advancing such hypotheses object that the experiments are fundamentally flawed. For example double blind experiments with homeopathic remedies that saw no benefit, were literally discounted because the researchers didn't believe in the outcome, thus causing quantum flux or some such bullshit. Experimental outcomes don't depend on religious or religious-like faith or credulousness. Something is so, or not, regardless of what people [mis]believe. No special frame of mind is required, other than deep respect for actual facts.

Sounds nonsensical and looks like a tabloid site.