Is consciousness to be found in quantum processes in microtubules?

[Write4U]

That Time Daniel Dennett Took 200 Micrograms of LSD (In Another Timeline)

“And after seeing some surprising empirical results with his heterophenomenological
methods when examining the experience of people on psychedelics, Daniel Dennett decided to experience it for himself by taking 200 micrograms of LSD. The first thing he said to himself as he felt the first indications of the come-up was… ”

https://qualiacomputing.com/tag/gpt-3/

This is actually an interesting journey by Daniel Dennett.

He introduces GPT3 as a possible mapping device of what we we call the "easy problem" which may give some insights to the question of the "hard problem"
If the GPT3 can assist us in this analysis then we may just be on the way to solving the "qualia" problem.

Personally I see qualia as a electro-chemical imprints (engrams) on the microtubule pyramid neural patterns.


Finding the engram

• Sheena A. Josselyn,
• Stefan Köhler &
• Paul W. Frankland

Key Points

• An engram is the physical trace of a memory in the brain. Although many attempts have been made to localize engrams, the engram has remained largely elusive until now.
  
  
• Here, we develop four defining criteria for engram identification and apply these criteria to recent capture studies that have attempted to observe, erase and artificially express engrams in rodents.
  
  
• Capture studies (allocate-and-manipulate or tag-and-manipulate) allow neurons that were active at the time of learning (engram encoding) to be captured and permanently tagged for later visualization and/or manipulation.
  
  
• Observation studies have established that neurons active at the time of encoding are reactivated when the corresponding memory is retrieved.
  
  
• Erasure studies have shown that silencing of engram neurons prevents memory expression, and thus establish that activation of these neurons is necessary for successful retrieval.
  
  
• Conversely, stimulation of these engram neurons has been used effectively to induce artificial memory recovery, and thus establish that activation of engram neurons is sufficient for retrieval.

https://www.nature.com/articles/nrn4000

This was discussed by Anil Seth who posits that engrams which are stimulated by incoming electro-chemical data
trigger a "best guess" and an expectation by the brain which is then reigned in by the specific incoming data.
Seth posits that we create our reality from the inside out as much as from the outside in.
He calls it "controlled hallucinations" (without the negative connotation).

And I believe that Hameroff has properly identified the locations of the neural patterns which allow for storage and retrieval of memories (engrams). He proposes a neural pyramid consisting of MT in various configurations which allow for "fixing" electro-chemical information in long term memory.

Newswise —

Most view consciousness as an emergent property of complex computation mediated by membrane and synaptic processes among brain neurons. But despite ever-increasing detailed knowledge, the brain-as-computer approach has failed to shed light on the nature of consciousness. Accordingly, some now see the brain as a multi-scale hierarchy, resonating inside neurons with deeper, faster (quantum) vibrations in cytoskeletal microtubules, much more like an orchestra than a computer.

Multi-scale hierarchy with dipole oscillations from neuron (left) downward in size and upward in frequency through microtubule, rows of tubulin, tubulin and London force dipole networks which oscillate in the terahertz regime. Anesthetics may act (lower right) by altering these collective dipole oscillations.

In the 19th century a group of gases with diverse chemical structures were found to have a common action. When inhaled, the gases rendered humans and animals immobile, unresponsive and presumably unconscious. When the ‘anesthetic’ gas was exhaled away, the subjects ‘woke up’ and regained consciousness. For each gas, the same concentration was required to anesthetize all types of animals - salamanders, fruit flies, horses, mice and humans, the effective dosage for each gas becoming known as its ‘minimum alveolar concentration’ (‘MAC’), inversely proportional to potency. Anesthetic gases are believed to be stabilized at their targets by weak, quantum interactions known as van der Waals London forces. How do such subtle forces exert profound and selective effects on consciousness?

Seeking a unifying factor, Hans Meyer (1899) and Charles Overton (1901) discovered that anesthetic potency (1/MAC) correlated strongly with gas binding solubility in a non-polar, lipid-like medium akin to olive oil. The ‘Meyer-Overton correlation’ thus suggested anesthetics acted in, and consciousness arose from, non-polar, oil-like regions somewhere in the brain.

These were initially taken to imply lipid regions of neuronal membranes, but in the 1980s Nick Franks and Bill Lieb at Imperial College, London, demonstrated that anesthetics acted instead inside proteins, in non-polar, ‘hydrophobic pockets’. These water-averse, oil-like regions (‘oil and water don’t mix!’) include ‘pi resonance’ electron clouds of aromatic amino acids tryptophan, tyrosine and phenylalanine. These electron clouds are conducive to the formation of networks of London force dipoles with characteristic oscillation frequencies.

https://www.newswise.com/articles/c...ions-inside-neurons-anesthesia-study-suggests

 

[river]

That Time Daniel Dennett Took 200 Micrograms of LSD (In Another Timeline)

https://qualiacomputing.com/tag/gpt-3/

This is actually an interesting journey by Daniel Dennett.

He introduces GPT3 as a possible mapping device of what we we call the "easy problem" which may give some insights to the question of the "hard problem"
If the GPT3 can assist us in this analysis then we may just be on the way to solving the "qualia" problem.

Personally I see qualia as a electro-chemical imprints (engrams) on the microtubule pyramid neural patterns.


Finding the engram

• Sheena A. Josselyn,
• Stefan Köhler &
• Paul W. Frankland

Key Points

• An engram is the physical trace of a memory in the brain. Although many attempts have been made to localize engrams, the engram has remained largely elusive until now.
  
  
• Here, we develop four defining criteria for engram identification and apply these criteria to recent capture studies that have attempted to observe, erase and artificially express engrams in rodents.
  
  
• Capture studies (allocate-and-manipulate or tag-and-manipulate) allow neurons that were active at the time of learning (engram encoding) to be captured and permanently tagged for later visualization and/or manipulation.
  
  
• Observation studies have established that neurons active at the time of encoding are reactivated when the corresponding memory is retrieved.
  
  
• Erasure studies have shown that silencing of engram neurons prevents memory expression, and thus establish that activation of these neurons is necessary for successful retrieval.
  
  
• Conversely, stimulation of these engram neurons has been used effectively to induce artificial memory recovery, and thus establish that activation of engram neurons is sufficient for retrieval.

https://www.nature.com/articles/nrn4000

This was discussed by Anil Seth who posits that engrams which are stimulated by incoming electro-chemical data
trigger a "best guess" and an expectation by the brain which is then reigned in by the specific incoming data.
Seth posits that we create our reality from the inside out as much as from the outside in.
He calls it "controlled hallucinations" (without the negative connotation).

And I believe that Hameroff has properly identified the locations of the neural patterns which allow for storage and retrieval of memories (engrams). He proposes a neural pyramid consisting of MT in various configurations which allow for "fixing" electro-chemical information in long term memory.

Newswise —

Multi-scale hierarchy with dipole oscillations from neuron (left) downward in size and upward in frequency through microtubule, rows of tubulin, tubulin and London force dipole networks which oscillate in the terahertz regime. Anesthetics may act (lower right) by altering these collective dipole oscillations.
https://www.newswise.com/articles/c...ions-inside-neurons-anesthesia-study-suggests

And then what ? For me mind comes from the holistic brain , coming together .

Highlighted

It is both . In percentages of both . But not based on hallucinations but of tactile physical things .

 

[Write4U]

Another interesting tidbit'

Microtubules are instrumental in gravity sensing. Moreover this ability already expresses itself in the cilia of certain single celled bacteria which require a specific up/down orientation. It does so by gravity sensing and activation of cilia to attain proper orientation.

The organelle that is responsible is the Muller vesicle

Loxodes

Both genera in the family Loxodidae have organelles known as Müller (or Müllerian) vesicles, which are involved in the sensing of gravity. They are about 7 µm across, and contain a membrane-covered mineral body known as a statolith. In Loxodes, the statolith is mostly composed of barium salts, compared to Remanella, where they are mostly strontium. Its structure and function resembles the statocyst of some animals.[4]

Loxodes uses its Müller's vesicle to distinguish between up and down (geotaxis or gravitaxis), which it uses as a stimulus in addition to the oxygen concentration to orient itself in the water column. When oxygen concentrations are high, Loxodes tends to swim downwards, and vice versa.[7]

• 
  Species of Loxodes containing significantly large green-colored algae. Scale bar: 10 µm.[8]
  
  
• Detail showing a Müller vesicle (top arrow).[8]
• 
• Loxodes ciliate eating a long cyanobacteria

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loxodes

 

[James R]

Essentially, this thread is now just Write4U's blog.

 

[Write4U]

"A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence." - David Hume.

 

[James R]

"A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence." - David Hume.

Most of your content in this thread does not directly deal with your unsupported beliefs. It's just about neuroscience and stuff.

That, specifically, it does not address the ostensible topic of this thread.

 

[Write4U]

Most of your content in this thread does not directly deal with your unsupported beliefs. It's just about neuroscience and stuff.

No, it is a evolutionary history of sensory refinements and the enormous neural complexity that is needed to process the data .

That, specifically, it does not address the ostensible topic of this thread.

What do you expect. Answers?

How about a general overview of the evolutionary processes and refinement of rudimentary chemical reactions ?
I am already down to apparent sensory awareness of gravity (such as up or down) in single celled organisms and closer still with the remarkable phenomenon of photosynthesis. We are getting close to some form of Penrose's panpsychism, a few more steps down the ladder and we enter the reality of what Hameroff calls quantum "bings" and the beginning of self-referential differential equations, where functional non-conscious self-awareness gets it's beginning.

I may be wrong, but that's how I see it, and all my "information" is in a effort to support my fundamental position that asks if some form of unconsciousness awareness begins at quantum.

The lack of refutation (I stipulate to a few factual errors which were addressed and resolved) in any of the associated sciences tells me I'm on the right path.

I am not compiling "hard questions". I am compiling "hard facts" and I believe that I am building an overall evolutionary picture of the hierarchical evolution of human conscious awareness and where/when it started.

This not my personal blog, there have been several interesting discussion about the implications of my posts. I welcome discussion. I am trying to be an asset to the Forum. I don't know why there should be resistance to my contributions, which I believe are based on good selective articles and links.

If you are complaining about the number of pages devoted to the subject, I must ask if the subject matters warrants a thorough investigation?

I have said before that science has become a fractured world of specific dedicated research in small individual aspects of the neural system in biological life.

It is left up to the philosophers to make sense of the trillions of bits and pieces that make up the puzzle.

 

[Write4U]

Most of your content in this thread does not directly deal with your unsupported beliefs. It's just about neuroscience and stuff.

That, specifically, it does not address the ostensible topic of this thread.

Perhaps you've noticed that I am working my way down to the OP question. I believe it's called reductionism.

We're already down to photosynthesis and gravitational positioning in single celled organisms. We're getting closer to quantum and what Hameroff calls "bing" events.

Why are scientists like Tononi, Dennett, Tegmark, Muller, Chalmers, Penrose, Hameroff called charlatans? Does anybody have a clue to the most important question that concerns humans?

Historical predecessors

Hard problem of consciousness

The hard problem of consciousness has scholarly antecedents considerably earlier than Chalmers, as Chalmers himself has pointed out.[28][note 2] Among others, thinkers who have made arguments similar to Chalmers' formulation of the hard problem include Isaac Newton,[29] John Locke,[30] Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz,[31][32] John Stuart Mill, and Thomas Henry Huxley.[33]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness

Their focus always was on the data processing. My focus is on the data processors, the "hard facts".

 

[James R]

No, it is a evolutionary history of sensory refinements and the enormous neural complexity that is needed to process the data .
What do you expect. Answers?

I expected some discussion about the evidence that points to quantum processes happening in microtubules. That's the thread topic, isn't it? But there's been none of that lately.

How about a general overview of the evolutionary processes and refinement of rudimentary chemical reactions ?

To what end? How would that advance your claim?

I may be wrong, but that's how I see it, and all my "information" is in a effort to support my fundamental position that asks if some form of unconsciousness awareness begins at quantum.

My point is that most of the information you're bringing is utterly irrelevant to that fundamental position.

If you are complaining about the number of pages devoted to the subject, I must ask if the subject matters warrants a thorough investigation?

Who is investigating whether quantum processes occur in microtubules?

Why are scientists like Tononi, Dennett, Tegmark, Muller, Chalmers, Penrose, Hameroff called charlatans?

Are they called charlatans? By whom? This is news to me.

Does anybody have a clue to the most important question that concerns humans?

Seriously, get a grip. The question of where consciousness comes from is hardly the most pressing issue currently facing humanity.

 

[Write4U]

I expected some discussion about the evidence that points to quantum processes happening in microtubules. That's the thread topic, isn't it? But there's been none of that lately.

OK, this is a recent report on ORCH OR. If this sounds like more of the same it is, but the confidence factor has gone up considerably and IMO that's worth something.
I have not seen any further attempts of trying to debunk the concept and research. I think those early issues have been satisfactorily addressed.

‘Orch OR’ is the most complete, and most easily falsifiable theory of consciousness
Stuart Hameroff
Received 02 Sep 2020, Published online: 24 Nov 2020

Abstract

The ‘Orch OR’ theory attributes consciousness to quantum computations in microtubules inside brain neurons. Quantum computers process information as superpositions of multiple possibilities (quantum bits or qubits) which, in Orch OR, are alternative collective dipole oscillations orchestrated (‘Orch’) by microtubules.

These orchestrated oscillations entangle, compute, and terminate (‘collapse of the wavefunction’) by Penrose objective reduction (‘OR’), resulting in sequences of Orch OR moments with orchestrated conscious experience (metaphorically more like music than computation). Each Orch OR event selects microtubule states which govern neuronal functions. Orch OR has broad explanatory power, and is easily falsifiable.

Keywords: Consciousness, microtubule, Orch OR, quantum computing, anesthesia, tubulin, orchestrated objective reduction, pyramidal neuron.

Orch OR and the brain Orch OR are likely in cortical layer five pyramidal neurons whose dendrites and soma 1) have large arrays of mixed polarity, antiparallel microtubules, optimal for interference and recursive processing, 2) are crossroads of ascending, and horizontal cortical-cortical interactions, and 3) have apical dendrites responsible for EEG (Figure 2).

Figure 2. A multi-scale hierarchy in which Orch OR can occur. From left, cortical pyramidal neuron, microtubule network, single microtubule, row of tubulins displaying collective dipoles, tubulin with pi resonance amino acid rings and anesthetic binding sites (spheres), pi resonance dipole oscillations with anesthetic dampening. At bottom, self-similar dynamical activity repeats at different scales (Sahu et al 2014; Saxena et al, 2020)

Figure 2. A multi-scale hierarchy in which Orch OR can occur. From left, cortical pyramidal neuron, microtubule network, single microtubule, row of tubulins displaying collective dipoles, tubulin with pi resonance amino acid rings and anesthetic binding sites (spheres), pi resonance dipole oscillations with anesthetic dampening. At bottom, self-similar dynamical activity repeats at different scales (Sahu et al 2014; Saxena et al, 2020)

Falsifiability

Quantum interference ‘beats’ in tubulin and microtubules (‘Orch’) will be sought experimentally in a top laboratory, and if detected, exposed to anesthetic gases as part of the Templeton World Charity Foundation Program ‘Accelerating Research on Consciousness’

https://www.templetonworldcharity.org/our-priorities/accelerating-research- consciousness,
http://osf.io/zqnjd/

A correlation between anesthetic dampening of quantum beats in microtubules, and anesthetic clinical potency would validate ‘Orch’ as a (sub-)neural correlate of consciousness. If quantum interference in tubulin/microtubules is not found, or if found is not dampened by anesthetics, then Orch (and Orch OR) would be falsified.

Paradigm cases

Conscious vs nonconscious .
I strongly dispute that Orch OR fails to distinguish conscious from non-conscious processes. Under anesthesia (Orch OR prevented), non-conscious evoked potentials can continue by 1) membrane and synaptic activities, and 2) non-quantum microtubule processes. 3) Quantum computations in microtubules (‘Orch’) which don’t reach threshold may have sub-conscious influence (e.g., dreams).

Small network criterion Can 10 neuron networks be conscious? With approximately 108 tubulins/neuron (109 tubulins/10 neurons), by t = ħ/EG, 109 tubulins would require 500 msec to reach threshold for a low intensity, low content conscious moment. But microtubule quantum states are shown to persist only 0.1 msec. A 10 neuron network is unlikely to sustain ‘Orch’ for 500 msec, although it’s possible.

Reduced brain volume and normal function Figure 3 in Doerig et al. (2020) shows the brain of a person with markedly reduced brain volume, but normal cognition and consciousness. Brain compensation by neuronal and synaptic plasticity directly requires microtubules.

Minimization of mysteries Orch OR has been derided for seeming to invoke a mythical ‘law of minimization of mysteries’ to explain both quantum mechanics and consciousness. But wouldn’t ‘Occam’s razor’ favor a ‘minimization of mysteries’? Indeed, Orch OR may also help explain other mysteries including how anesthesia works, the origin and evolution of life, free will, the flow of time, memory, dreams, and how general relativity relates to quantum mechanics.

Conclusion

Spanning disciplines and scale, with high explanatory power, Orch OR is the most complete theory of consciousness. But if quantum interference in microtubules (‘Orch’) cannot be demonstrated, or if demonstrated, proves insensitive to anesthesia, Orch OR will be falsified. Orch OR is the most complete, and most easily falsifiable theory of consciousness.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17588928.2020.1839037

Seriously, get a grip. The question of where consciousness comes from is hardly the most pressing issue currently facing humanity.

How many active threads are about inherent consciousness, intelligence, self-awareness?
I believe AI , and specifically GPT3 is the topic of the day.

I think you will admit that mapping brain activity at nano scales is a daunting task , especially as no brain is exactly the same as another. There is no detailed blueprint, yet.

 

[billvon]

I expected some discussion about the evidence that points to quantum processes happening in microtubules. That's the thread topic, isn't it?

Not really, not for him. It's more of a religious belief. There are 2000 posts in this thread and most are his; this is clearly more than just a discussion about science for him.

When it comes to religion, if someone believes something that's harmless, even if I think it's silly and nonsensical - I'm fine with that. (As long as they don't try to integrate it into a school curriculum, or start deciding that nonbelievers must die.)

 

[Write4U]

Not really, not for him. It's more of a religious belief. There are 2000 posts in this thread and most are his; this is clearly more than just a discussion about science for him.

When it comes to religion, if someone believes something that's harmless, even if I think it's silly and nonsensical - I'm fine with that. (As long as they don't try to integrate it into a school curriculum, or start deciding that nonbelievers must die.)

You do realize that this not only off topic, but also completely and utterly untrue.

Start a new thread with your claim that Write4U is a harmless religious nut, but please don't clutter this thread with nonsense. I have spent too much time on research and of the science to waste my time defending it here.

I am prevented from even mentioning it in any other thread.
"At long last, have you left no sense of decency?".

 

[billvon]

I am prevented from even mentioning it in any other thread.

A wise decision by the management, and also a reason that any discussion of your religion MUST take place here if you are to have any opportunity to reply.

 

[Write4U]

Then why

A wise decision by the management, and also a reason that any discussion of your religion MUST take place here if you are to have any opportunity to reply.

Then why do you see fit to harass me with falsehoods here?

Leave me in peace with my non existent religion You have never heard me express belief in a god.
Do I say science is your religion every time you post and express a belief? Or are you empty of belief in anything at all? You certainly believe you have a duty to follow and harass me everywhere I go. It's your religion.

Strange how microtubules in the human brain work in mysterious ways. It's almost like a quantum uncertainty.

 

[billvon]

Leave me in peace with my non existent religion.

No worries! You can believe whatever you like.

However, I would point out that posting things on a discussion board indicates that you actually want to discuss them. If you don't want your religion discussed/questioned there's a simple answer for you - don't post about it here.

 

[Write4U]

No worries! You can believe whatever you like.

However, I would point out that posting things on a discussion board indicates that you actually want to discuss them. If you don't want your religion discussed/questioned there's a simple answer for you - don't post about it here.

What an odd observation and conclusion. I post here with the specific intent of having discussion on the science. I have issued invitations to all who may be interested many times and I have had some very interesting and productive conversations, with several people.

OTOH it is you who does not come here to discuss the topic other than to ridicule. When have you contributed anything substantial to this thread?

 

[billvon]

OTOH it is you who does not come here to discuss the topic other than to ridicule. When have you contributed anything substantial to this thread?

Well, let's see. My very first post was in response to a video you posted purporting to show neural activity in the brain. I said "the videos don't show neural activity real time. Most neurons fire at rates between 3-20 times per second, which is a rate you can't really see on a video. That would equate to a "processing speed" of .00002 MHz (or .00000002GHz.) But that's deceptive, because we have 100 billion neurons all working away at that same slow rate."

I know, heresy, right? Such posts make you angry.

 

[Write4U]

Deleted for duplication

 

[Write4U]

Well, let's see. My very first post was in response to a video you posted purporting to show neural activity in the brain. I said "the videos don't show neural activity real time. Most neurons fire at rates between 3-20 times per second, which is a rate you can't really see on a video. That would equate to a "processing speed" of .00002 MHz (or .00000002GHz.) But that's deceptive, because we have 100 billion neurons all working away at that same slow rate."

Not to mention that each neuron may have as many as 7000 synapses.

But I am really interested in your conclusion from those facts? Does the data you cite falsify ORCH OR?
And what was my response to that conclusion? Did I reject your post as wrong or irrelevant?

I see no provocation in these facts. I have referred to several early objections by other scientists interested in brain function. A few posts ago I even referred to early objections to ORCH OR by scientists and that those concerns (such as temperature and wetness) had been satisfactorily resolved by the Hameroff/Penrose team .

I know, heresy, right? Such posts make you angry.

Now that prejudicial statement bothers me.
I cannot imagine why I would get angry at such a post. I can imagine thanking you and asking what such scientific facts mean, just as I am doing now. Do the facts you cite falsify ORCH OR?

I have never pretended to do the science. I read narratives and conclusions from what I believe to be reliable scientific sources. If you ever furnished me with a conclusion, I would have done further research about how and why your conclusions would be relevant, as I am planning to do from the information you just presented.

Give me a few days to find relevant data from other sources. I hope they agree with you. That would be nice and add pertinent information to the thread.

I am not here to debate, I am here to learn, because I have no fixed beliefs, and am open to any and all verifiable scientific facts.

 

[river]

Not to mention that each neuron may have as many as 7000 synapses.

But I am really interested in your conclusion from those facts? Does the data you cite falsify ORCH OR?
And what was my response to that conclusion? Did I reject your post as wrong or irrelevant?

I see no provocation in these facts. I have referred to several early objections by other scientists interested in brain function. A few posts ago I even referred to early objections to ORCH OR by scientists and that those concerns (such as temperature and wetness) had been satisfactorily resolved by the Hameroff/Penrose team .
Now that prejudicial statement bothers me.
I cannot imagine why I would get angry at such a post. I can imagine thanking you and asking what such scientific facts mean, just as I am doing now. Do the facts you cite falsify ORCH OR?

I have never pretended to do the science. I read narratives and conclusions from what I believe to be reliable scientific sources. If you ever furnished me with a conclusion, I would have done further research about how and why your conclusions would be relevant, as I am planning to do from the information you just presented.

Give me a few days to find relevant data from other sources. I hope they agree with you. That would be nice and add pertinent information to the thread.

I am not here to debate, I am here to learn, because I have no fixed beliefs, and am open to any and all verifiable scientific facts.

The Key to all of this is the understanding memory . Without memory all this is moot . And Memory started as a Life Form .