Is consciousness to be found in quantum processes in microtubules?

[James R]

(continued...)

Fundamental elementary particles are quanta of "values". Atoms are sets of value quanta, each with specific property values such as density, mass and weight. The Table of elements is a comprehensive set of atomic values.

By "values" do you just mean numbers?

Fundamental elementary particles obviously are not numbers.

What does "quanta of values" mean (or "value quanta")?

I agree that we humans attach numbers that we call density, mass, atomic number etc. to atoms, and use those numerical values to describe them. But you're saying that atoms are "values". What does that mean? You can't hold a number. You can't eat numbers in your breakfast cereal. Physical particles aren't "just" numbers.

I assumed that your "values" meant something more than mere numbers. But if it's just a fancy word for numbers, I think you'd be clearer if you just used the specific word you need: numbers.

Don't anthropomorphize. Look at these properties from an objective perspective.

Does the atomic number of an atom have any meaning at all, "independent of humans altogether"? In whose mind is the concept of an atomic number, if not that of a human?

Hazen cites about 6000 minerals with specific values and symbolic descriptions.

Great! So you have established that human beings classify minerals in different ways, using various symbolic descriptions. That's not something I have argued against. Where to from there?

I know what a map is.

Seriously, I don't think you do. You seem to struggle to tell the difference between objects and numbers associated with objects, for instance. You seem to struggle separating "symbolic descriptions of minerals" from minerals, for instance.

So you are declaring that all of science is merely mapping and making silly claims that the maps are the things they symbolize?

No. I'm saying that you are making silly claims that the maps are the things they symbolise. Scientists are aware of the difference (with the possible exception of Max Tegmark and his followers, perhaps).

The definition of symbolization is ;
....
3: an arbitrary or conventional sign used in writing or printing relating to a particular field to represent operations, quantities, elements, relations, or qualities

You can quote the definition, but do you actually understand it?

No 1 can be used to argue that science is a summary of faith or doctrine: a CREED, no?

I suppose anything is possible, but that would be a very poor argument to try to make.

And that makes it less important? Why does my saying it make it less valuable?

Notice that I didn't say it did.

I just wish you'd post something that would actually go some way to addressing the actual claims you keep making - the ones we're disagreeing about, rather than all this tangential fluff.

No, that is Chaos Theory!

Chaos theory has nothing to say about making physical reality out of patterns or anything like that.

Yes, I slipped. I should have said; "Electro-magnetic waves have intrinsic patterns".

Apparently, you missed my main point there, again.

I'll agree conditionally. After all waves are not objects. Of course both are expressions of patterned behavior and/or construction. Crystals anyone?

A crystal is not a pattern.

I support Tegmark's proposition that "consciousness is an emergent excellence of certain complex neural patterns".

Is that part of the Creed of Tegmark? You feel the need to avow your faith in Tegmark, regularly?

Yes, MT networks have emergent consciousness in direct relationship to neural development.

This is what you should be trying to support. So far, nada.

And No, this is not faith based anymore but falsified fact.

??? (All sorts of issues here.)

Microtubule damage (catastrophe) in the brain results in loss of brain function and consciousness. This has been proven to be responsible for the gradual onset of Alzheimer's disease and loss of memory.

As far as I'm aware, Alzheimer's disease is associated with the growth of amaloid plaques in the brain, which impede the correct functioning of the neural network.

It could well be that, in the process, some microtubules are destroyed/damaged as a sort of collateral damage?

It would be to misattribute causation to assert that memory loss is due to the microtubule damage, since memory in the brain seems to occur at the level of neurons, not microtubules.

 

[exchemist]

Write4U:

In reponse to my last post, it looks like you have mostly posted a new wall of irrelevant spam, which is exactly the kind of thing I was trying to address, in part, in my previous post.

I'm going to ignore a lot of it, and focus in a few points, if you don't mind.

Do you know what a counterfactual is?

(n.) expressing what has not happened but could, would, or might under differing conditions. A conditional statement in which the first clause is a past tense subjunctive statement expressing something contrary to fact, as in contrary to the facts of an event, situation, etc. a counterfactual idea, assumption, or argument.
​

What you're asking me, I think, has nothing to do with counterfactuals. You're saying to me "prove me wrong!" But it's not my job to prove you wrong. It's your claim. You need to prove that it is correct.

In this particular case, that's going to be hard, because the claim itself doesn't make a lot of sense, as written. If I were you, I'd just drop this silly claim and move on to something you might actually have some hope of supporting - something that actually uses language in a way that scientists normally use it would be a good start.

Is it important to your arguments about microtubules that they operate according to a completely new kind of "Darwinian evolution", then?

Good for Robert Hazen! Who is he? And so what?

I'm willing to bet that it doesn't use the term in the same way that biology does.

Great! So what?

Again, it's your claim. It's up to you to support/prove it. Not up to me to debunk it. Do your own homework; don't expect me to do it for you.

Termite mounds require termites, or they wouldn't exist. The mounds are structures made by termites. If you want to stretch language to try to assign a feature of the termites to the mounds that they make, I guess you're free to do that, but it doesn't really help to advance any argument you're making about microtubules and consciousness.

An axiom is an assumption that somebody makes - typically a human being. Without a human being, it seems there are no axioms.

You claim that functions are observable in nature. That implies somebody doing the observing - typically a human being. Without a human being, it seems there are no observations of functions in nature.

Constants are mathematical abstractions that always have a particular numerical value. The particular values they have typically depend on a system of units being establish, which implies somebody setting up a system of units - typically a human being. Without a human being, it seems there are no natural constants.

You're begging the question (assuming what you need to prove). That's the second time, by the way; you also did it in 1, above.

You claim that functions and "natural logical processes" exist "independent of humans altogether" (my emphasis). You are yet to provide any argument, evidence or proof of your claim. That is why I call it a faith-based belief that you have.

If you really believe it, why don't you start by giving me an example of a piece of mathematics that exists independent of humans altogether? Be sure to explain how you know it exists independent of humans.

The particular issue you will face, I think, is that all mathematics is conceptual. Maths exists in somebody's mind. Functions are ideas. Constants are concepts. Without a brain to hold the concepts in mind, how can they possibly be said to exist?

Prove it.

I keep doing that, do I? Where have I insisted on any such thing? Can you point to one thing I have wrote, insisting on that?

A mineral species is rather the same as a chemical species, viz. a specific (a word that comes from the same root as "species") chemical composition. In neither sense is anything implied about analogies with biology, least of all evolution.

This seems to be yet another instance of Write4U's chronic habit of taking terms from one context, using them in another unrelated one, and then drawing a series of unwarranted inferences, cf. "function", "potential", etc.

 

[James R]

A mineral species is rather the same as a chemical species, viz. a specific (a word that comes from the same root as "species") chemical composition. In neither sense is anything implied about analogies with biology, least of all evolution.

Of course.

This seems to be yet another instance of Write4U's chronic habit of taking terms from one context, using them in another unrelated one, and then drawing a series of unwarranted inferences, cf. "function", "potential", etc.

Yes.

Write4U seems to think that reading the first couple of paragraphs of a wikipedia page on a topic (often a definition of a term, or similar) is sufficient to give him a good understanding of the entire topic, including the skills needed to apply that knowledge to a completely different context.

It's like "Wow! I just found out about point density functions! I'm sure that I can apply those to the topics of microtubules and the Tegmark faith context, because they sound really cool!" Never mind that nobody else has ever applied point density functions to either of those topics.

 

[Write4U]

A mineral species is rather the same as a chemical species, viz. a specific (a word that comes from the same root as "species") chemical composition. In neither sense is anything implied about analogies with biology, least of all evolution.

I guess you do not believe in abiogenesis then. No connection between minerals and biology. OK that solves the problem once and for all. Well done!!!

This seems to be yet another instance of Write4U's chronic habit of taking terms from one context, using them in another unrelated one, and then drawing a series of unwarranted inferences, cf. "function", "potential", etc.

Tell that to Robert Hazen.

 

[Write4U]

None of the above is worth responding to . I am going to use your strategy of fracturing everything without trying to see the underlying principles that correspond to apparently unconnected phenomena.

You are maintaining a belief system that proposes "irreducible complexity", which is a false assumption.

Everything past, present, and future "was", "is", and "will be" a product of "evolution by natural selection".

You can slice it and dice it and anthropomorphize it, but;

“Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.”
(Philip K Dick)

 

[Write4U]

None of the above is worth responding to . I am going to use your strategy of fracturing everything without trying to see the underlying principles that correspond to apparently unconnected phenomena.

You are maintaining a belief system that proposes "irreducible complexity", which is a false assumption.

Everything past, present, and future "was", "is", and "will be" a product of "evolution by natural selection".

You can slice it and dice it and anthropomorphize it.

All physical phenomena have evolved from 3 elementary particles with different "flavors" (values).

Are you going to argue with my use of the term "different flavors" by stating that term is reserved for ice cream? That's about the level of this discourse. I refuse to partake in such.

 

[Write4U]

W4U said; The definition of symbolization is ;
3: an arbitrary or conventional sign used in writing or printing relating to a particular field to represent operations, quantities, elements, relations, or qualities

James R said; You can quote the definition, but do you actually understand it?

Oh, I have a very clear understanding of the difference between natural phenomena and their human symbolic representation.

Question is ; Do you have a full and complete understanding of the definition of human "symbolization" of phenomenal existence in nature?

A crystal is not a pattern.

Ok, let's have a look shall we?

Crystals: The Form

Most minerals occur naturally as crystals. Every crystal has an orderly, internal pattern of atoms, with a distinctive way of locking new atoms into that pattern to repeat it again and again.

The shape of the resulting crystaL-such as a cube (like salt) or a six-sided form (like a snowflake)-mirrors the internal arrangement of the atoms.

The colored atom in the upper left corner is an impurity in the structure of this diamond. Impurities such as this cause the different colors of diamonds.

http://www.smithsonianeducation.org/educators/lesson_plans/minerals/minerals_crystals.html#

Patterns in nature;

Examples of patterns in nature, including the golden spiral, the golden ratio and fractal self-similar structures. From left to right, (a) a nautilus shell, a galaxy, a sunflower, a desert plant; (b) a storm formation, a fern bud, an ocean wave, a finger print; (c) fractal properties in a branched tree, a leaf, river bed formation, a cast of human lungs. (Online version in colour.)

https://www.researchgate.net/figure...l-the-golden-ratio-and-fractal_fig2_330531039

It appears that you do not have a full understanding of what the word "pattern" symbolizes.

Patterns in nature


Natural patterns form as wind blows sand in the dunes of the Namib Desert. The crescent shaped dunes and the ripples on their surfaces repeat wherever there are suitable conditions.

Patterns of the veiled chameleon, Chamaeleo calyptratus, provide camouflage and signal mood as well as breeding condition.

Patterns in nature

Patterns in nature are visible regularities of form found in the natural world. These patterns recur in different contexts and can sometimes be modelled mathematically. Natural patterns include symmetries, trees, spirals, meanders, waves, foams, tessellations, cracks and stripes.[1] Early Greek philosophers studied pattern, with Plato, Pythagoras and Empedocles attempting to explain order in nature. The modern understanding of visible patterns developed gradually over time.

In the 19th century, the Belgian physicist Joseph Plateau examined soap films, leading him to formulate the concept of a minimal surface.

The German biologist and artist Ernst Haeckel painted hundreds of marine organisms to emphasise their symmetry.

Scottish biologist D'Arcy Thompson pioneered the study of growth patterns in both plants and animals, showing that simple equations could explain spiral growth.

In the 20th century, the British mathematician Alan Turing predicted mechanisms of morphogenesis which give rise to patterns of spots and stripes.

The Hungarian biologist Aristid Lindenmayer and the French American mathematician Benoît Mandelbrot showed how the mathematics of fractals could create plant growth patterns.

Mathematics, physics and chemistry can explain patterns in nature at different levels and scales. Patterns in living things are explained by the biological processes of natural selection and
sexual selection.

Studies of pattern formation make use of computer models to simulate a wide range of patterns

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

The brain receives and processes sensory electrochemical data patterns which it translates into subjective experience of patterns, such as shapes, colors, sounds, etc.

All of human experiential reality consists of observation and translation of expressed patterns in a very narrow range of the totality of existent patterns in nature.

 

[Write4U]

By "values" do you just mean numbers?

Another one of your anthropomorphisms.

Numbers and letters are human symbols for particular sets of values used in measurement of universal spatial and temporal values. All spacetime phenomena have an intrinsic value or sets of values.

Why Do Particles Have Flavors?

Flavor is the name scientists give to different versions of the same type of particle. For instance, quarks (which make up the protons and neutrons inside atoms) come in six flavors: up, down, top, bottom, strange and charm. Particles called leptons, a category that includes electrons, also come in six flavors, each with a different mass.

https://www.livescience.com/18141-wacky-physics-particle-flavors.html#

These "values" existed since the beginning of the universe and will exist long after humans have disappear in the mists of history, along with their symbolic representations of natural properties and associated intrinsic and/or causal values. And it will make no difference whatsoever.
The Universe doesn't care about our mathematics. We care about Universal mathematics.

 

[James R]

Oh, I have a very clear understanding of the difference between natural phenomena and their human symbolic representation.

No, I don't think so. For instance, you've provided another example of your confusion in the same post.

I told you "crystals are not patterns". Your first response is to quote something that starts with this:

"Most minerals occur naturally as crystals. Every crystal has an orderly, internal pattern of atoms..."​

See how it says that crystals have patterns? Nowhere does it say that crystals are patterns.

Your brain seems to just automatically ignore any such distinction, skipping over it as if the difference in wording isn't important. It's like your brain won't let you see any difference, for some reason. Probably your Tegmarkian indoctrination, I'm guessing.

By "values" do you just mean numbers?

Another one of your anthropomorphisms.

I asked you a question. I'm not anthropomorphising anything. Why didn't you attempt to answer the question I asked you?

Numbers and letters are human symbols for particular sets of values used in measurement of universal spatial and temporal values. All spacetime phenomena have an intrinsic value or sets of values.

Define "value".

If a "value" is not just a number, what is it?

If you cannot explain what you mean in clear terms, then it's just pointless bullshit word salad. Don't you realise that?

These "values" existed since the beginning of the universe...

We can't have a discussion about these "values" you're so keen on until you explain what they are. In the meantime, everything you write about "universal values" is useless fluff.

 

[James R]

Here are some other questions you ignored, Write4U.

I think it's time you tried to address some of them, don't you?

* Do you know what a counterfactual is?
* Is it important to your arguments about microtubules that they operate according to a completely new kind of "Darwinian evolution"?
* Can you point to one thing I have wrote where I insist that humans have unnatural abilities which cannot be found elsewhere in the universe?
* By "values" do you just mean numbers?
* What does "quanta of values" mean (or "value quanta")?
* Does the atomic number of an atom have any meaning at all, "independent of humans altogether"? In whose mind is the concept of an atomic number, if not that of a human?

And those are just the direct questions I asked you, which you ignored. You also completely failed to engage with any of the substantive criticisms of your position that I posted in my previous two posts. Why?

 

[Write4U]

I told you "crystals are not patterns". Your first response is to quote something that starts with this:

"Most minerals occur naturally as crystals. Every crystal has an orderly, internal pattern of atoms..."​

See how it says that crystals have patterns? Nowhere does it say that crystals are patterns.

You've got to be kidding. I won't even bother to answer that.

Probably your Tegmarkian indoctrination, I'm guessing.

You are becoming a rather mixed up pattern yourself.

I'm not anthropomorphising anything.

Yes you are.

Why didn't you attempt to answer the question I asked you?

I did. You must have missed it in the part you decided to ignore.

Define "value". If a "value" is not just a number, what is it?

I never said it is not a number, You invented that error all by yourself. Values can be symbolized with numbers, they can also be symbolized by other description of an intrinsic excellence.
It is a generic term addressing the inherent causal potential of an object or a set of objects regardless of origin, that can interact with other "value potentials" to produce a new "value result"

Fundamentally, all causally deterministic processes depend on;

"causal input value" --> deterministic mathematical function --> "resulting output value"

Clear enough?

Humans have assigned different symbolic unit names and numbers dependent on their utility to scientific observation and algebraic codification. In science "quality" and "quantity" of various universal phenomena are symbolically expressed in specific units of specific values.

If you cannot explain what you mean in clear terms, then it's just pointless bullshit word salad. Don't you realise that?

I didn't know that I needed to explain this simple generic equation. It seems rather obvious to me if you leave humans out of the equation.

We can't have a discussion about these "values" you're so keen on until you explain what they are. In the meantime, everything you write about "universal values" is useless fluff.

I await your response with bated breath. I hope you can force yourself to only consider the inherent mathematically patterned nature of the universe, which allows our human mind to understand most of the universal processes by means of symbolically representing universal mathematically guided deterministic processes.

 

[Write4U]

Here are some other questions you ignored, Write4U.
I think it's time you tried to address some of them, don't you?

Have at it.

* Do you know what a counterfactual is?* Yes.
* Is it important to your arguments about microtubules that they operate according to a completely new kind of "Darwinian evolution"?* They don't, you made that up.
* Can you point to one thing I have wrote where I insist that humans have unnatural abilities which cannot be found elsewhere in the universe?* The proper term is "I have written". And nowhere have I advanced such a fantasy
* By "values" do you just mean numbers?* See above
* What does "quanta of values" mean (or "value quanta")?* A quantum with a specific excellence or value.
* Does the atomic number of an atom have any meaning at all, "independent of humans altogether"? In whose mind is the concept of an atomic number, if not that of a human? * Let's see if it does.

The atomic number or proton number (symbol Z) of a chemical element is the number of protons found in the nucleus of every atom of that element. The atomic number uniquely identifies a chemical element. It is identical to the charge number of the nucleus. In an uncharged atom, the atomic number is also equal to the number of electrons.

Hence every atom has its own unique set of values which sets it apart from other atoms, regardless of human presence.

Humans are not required for any natural non-human phenomenon to have causal potentials. This is just one more fabricated subjective interpretation that you are attributing to me.
Frankly, I am beginning to doubt that you can even imagine a universe without humans.
I know, it's a stretch.

And those are just the direct questions I asked you, which you ignored. You also completely failed to engage with any of the substantive criticisms of your position that I posted in my previous two posts. Why?

AFAIK, you have not made substantive criticisms of my position other than dismissal without any justification for that dismissal and accusing me of being some raving nutcase. In my book that is NOT substantive criticism.

 

[Write4U]

Engram (neuropsychology)

An engram is a unit of cognitive information imprinted in a physical substance, theorized to be the means by which memories are stored[1] as biophysical or biochemical[2] changes in the brain or other biological tissue, in response to external stimuli.

The exact mechanism and location of neurologically defined engrams has been a focus of persistent research for many decades

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engram_(neuropsychology)#

Engrams are acquired by the phosphorylation of MT which locks the "memory" data for long periods of time, whereas synaptic memories are of short duration.

FIGURE 1:
Orientation of microtubules in CNS neurons. A group of neurons (cortical or hippocampal) showing apical dendrites, basal dendrites, and axons. Insets show microtubule orientation in dendrites and axons. Microtubules are composed of stable (purple) and dynamic (pink) regions. Dynamic regions undergo polymerization and depolymerization, termed dynamic instability. Arrows indicate that microtubules are oriented antiparallel in dendrites (plus and minus ends distal) and parallel in axons (plus ends distal).

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5221613/

Author Summary

Memory is understood as strengthened synaptic connections among neurons. Paradoxically components of synaptic membranes are relatively short-lived and frequently re-cycled while memories can last a lifetime. This suggests synaptic information is encoded at a deeper, finer-grained scale of molecular information within post-synaptic neurons.

Long-term memory requires genetic expression, protein synthesis, and delivery of new synaptic components. How are these changes guided on the molecular level? The calcium-calmodulin dependent protein kinase II (CaMKII) has been heavily implicated in the strengthening of active neural connections.

CaMKII interacts with various substrates including microtubules (MTs). MTs maintain cellular structure, and facilitate cellular cargo transport, effectively controlling neural architecture. Memory formation requires reorientation of this network. Could CaMKII-MT interactions be the molecular level encoding required to orchestrate neural plasticity?

Using molecular modeling and electrostatic profiling, we show a precise matching between the spatial dimensions, geometry and electrostatics of CaMKII and MTs, and calculate the potential information capacity and bio-energetic parameters of such interactions. Results suggest signaling and encoding in MTs offers rapid, robust information processing with a large potential for memory storage, reflecting a general code for MT-based memory in neurons and other eukaryotic cells.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3297561/

 

[Write4U]

The model of local axon homeostasis - explaining the role and regulation of microtubule bundles in axon maintenance and pathology
Ines Hahn, André Voelzmann, Yu-Ting Liew, Beatriz Costa-Gomes, and Andreas Prokop

Axons are the slender, cable-like, up to meter-long projections of neurons that electrically wire our brains and bodies. In spite of their challenging morphology, they usually need to be maintained for an organism's lifetime. This makes them key lesion sites in pathological processes of ageing, injury and neurodegeneration. The morphology and physiology of axons crucially depends on the parallel bundles of microtubules (MTs), running all along to serve as their structural backbones and highways for life-sustaining cargo transport and organelle dynamics.

Introduction

Axons are the slender, cable-like extensions of nerve cells which form the nerves and nerve tracts that wire our brain and body, sending neuronal messages in highly regulated manners. With diameters of only 0.1-15μm [1], they extend over distances of up to a meter in humans. To adopt such a unique morphology and physiology, axons display many specialised features (Fig. (Fig.11).

Fig. 1
Specific properties of axons. Axons during the growth cone stage are shown in (a) and after synaptic maturation in (b), differing primarily in certain stage-specific specialisations including growth cones, synapses, electrical properties and glial interactions (here myelination [389, 392]). The core machinery in the axon shaft can be expected to be similar at both stages: parallel continuous bundles of extended but discontinuous MTs run all along axons serving as a structural backbone (see Fig. Fig.2),2), a transport highway for axonal trafficking (driven by motor proteins), and a source for 'off-track' MTs contributing to morphogenetic processes including branch formation, directed axon growth and synapse formation/plasticity (green, orange, blue curved arrows); MT bundles are interspersed with longitudinal actin trails [18, 24], continuous networks of (smooth) endoplasmic reticulum [44, 393], and other membranous organelles including mitochondria [45]; axonal membranes display regularly spaced periodic rings of cortical actin [20, 21], a high number of ion-specific channel proteins and transporters to conduct nerve impulses [394], as well as adhesions with external structures including fasciculating parallel axons (not shown), glial processes [395] and synaptic partner cells [396]; a degree of independence from cell-body derived proteins is provided by local translation machinery [397–399] or supply from surrounding glia cells (not shown; [400–403]). Note that the axon diameter in the region between glia cells in B (referred to as Node of Ranvier) usually has a much smaller diameter than the rest of the axon [1]

The importance of microtubule bundles for axon biology

As illustrated in Fig. Fig.1,1, the cytoskeleton of the axon shaft consists of straight parallel bundles of MTs, which are interspersed with intermediate filaments (not shown [16]) and longitudinal actin fibres called 'actin trails' [17, 18] - all running through a sleeve of cortical actin [19] which is now known to consist of evenly spaced periodic rings; these rings have been proposed to consist either of short and adducin-capped actin filaments [20, 21] or of two long intertwined actin filaments [22]. Significant deviations from this organisation, not to be considered in this review, exist at axon initial segments (not shown in Fig. Fig.1),1), growth cones and synapses [23–26].

Of the three cytoskeleton classes, intermediate filaments were suggested by anatomical, developmental and genetic studies to regulate axon diameters, and their axonal aggregation is a hallmark of many neurodegenerative diseases [1, 27–30]. However, intermediate filament aggregations are not necessarily the cause, but can be the consequence of axon decay [30–32]. Notably, Neurofilament-H-lacZ mutant mice or Quiver mutant quail completely lack axonal intermediate filaments, but develop and breed fairly normally [33, 34]. Furthermore, various arthropods form axons of defined diameters in the absence of any axonal intermediate filaments [35–37].

In contrast to the moderate roles of intermediate filaments, actin and microtubules (MT) are essential for all stages of neuronal development and maintenance [37–39]. This review will be dedicated to the role and regulation of MTs.

Axons contain bundles of MTs that run along the entire length of their shafts (Fig. (Fig.1);1); these bundles are essential for axon biology in at least three ways (details in Table Table1):1): as structural backbones (Fig. (Fig.2),2), as highways for axonal transport and organelle dynamics, and as source for splaying MTs that can contribute to axon morphogenesis or physiology. Maintaining MT bundles is therefore crucial for axon longevity. Accordingly, there are prominent and numerous genetic links from MT regulators to hereditary neurodegenerative disorders (Suppl. Mat. in [46]), and axon decay is a frequent side effect of MT-targeting chemotherapies [53–56].

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6842214/

continued.........

 

[Write4U]

.....continued

Actin and Microtubules in Cell Motility: Which One is in Control?
Sandrine Etienne-Manneville,
First published: 04 June 2004
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0854.2004.00196.x
Citations: 221

PDF

Abstract

The cytoskeleton is composed of three distinct elements: actin microfilaments, microtubules and intermediate filaments. The actin cytoskeleton is thought to provide protrusive and contractile forces, and microtubules to form a polarized network allowing organelle and protein movement throughout the cell.

Intermediate filaments are generally considered the most rigid component, responsible for the maintenance of the overall cell shape. Cytoskeletal elements must be coordinately regulated for the cell to fulfill complex cellular functions, as diverse as cell migration, cell adhesion and cell division.

Coordination between cytoskeletal elements is achieved by signaling pathways, involving common regulators such as the Rho guanosine-5′-triphosphatases (GTPases). Furthermore, evidence is now accumulating that cytoskeletal elements participate in regulating each other.

As a consequence, although their functions seem well defined, they are in fact overlapping, with actin playing a role in membrane trafficking and microtubules being involved in the control of protrusive and contractile forces. This cytoskeletal crosstalk is both direct and mediated by signaling molecules. Cell motility is a well-studied example where the interplay between actin and microtubules appears bidirectional. This leads us to wonder which, if any, cytoskeletal element leads the way.

Microtubules and Actin Cooperate to Polarize

Many cell functions rely on the generation of a polarized cell response. Cell polarization is the result of two distinct phenomena: first, an ‘intrinsic’ cell polarization enabling the cell to organize its cytoskeletal elements in a polarized manner; second, a direction-sensing mechanism, which allows a cell to orient its intrinsic polarity axis in response to extracellular cues.

For instance, during cell migration, direction sensing orients the cell towards a chemoattractant gradient, whereas intrinsic polarization leads to concomitant protrusive and contractile activities at opposite cellular locations. In the case of differentiating neurons, intrinsic polarization allows the differentiation of the axon to one side and dendrites to the other. Sensing mechanisms control the direction of growth of the elongating axon in response to guidance cues.

Morphologic changes have been frequently used as a read out for intrinsic polarity. However, as discussed above, in most cell types, actin and microtubules are both required for generating these changes. To precisely characterize intrinsic polarity, a careful analysis of actin and microtubule organization should be carried out independently of morphologic changes

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1600-0854.2004.00196.x

 

[James R]

Write4U,

You've got to be kidding. I won't even bother to answer that.

Do you agree with me that crystals are not patterns, then? If your answer is "no", then you should have bothered thinking carefully about your response the first time.

You are becoming a rather mixed up pattern yourself.

Ah, an insult. Do you feel better about yourself, now?

Yes you are.

Unable to explain or justify your claims, you settle for pointless repetition.

I never said [value] is not a number, You invented that error all by yourself.

So, when you write "value", you just mean a number? Yes or no? I ask because you seem confused.

Values can be symbolized with numbers, they can also be symbolized by other description of an intrinsic excellence.

Give me an example of a "value" that can be symbolised with a number and also with a description of an intrinsic excellence.

What is an "intrinsic excellence"? Please define that, while you're at it.

It is a generic term addressing the inherent causal potential of an object or a set of objects regardless of origin, that can interact with other "value potentials" to produce a new "value result"

Sounds like more word salad.

Define "causal potential" and give at least one specific example of a "causal potential".
Define "value potential" and give at least one specific example of a "value potential".
Define "value result" and give at least one specific example of a "value result".

If you feel the need to use terms like "value potential" when all you really mean is a number with units, then that's obfuscation, in my opinion. Is there more to it? Am I missing something?

Fundamentally, all causally deterministic processes depend on;

"causal input value" --> deterministic mathematical function --> "resulting output value"

Clear enough?

No.

Define "causally deterministic processes" please.
Define "causal input value" and give at least one specific example of a causal input value.
Define "deterministic mathematical function" and give at least one specific example of one.
Define "Output value" and give at least one specific example of an "output value".

When you've done all that, pick at least one "causally deterministic process" and explain to me what the "causal input value" of the process is, what "deterministic mathematical function" is involved and what the "resulting output value" of the process is. Be specific.

Humans have assigned different symbolic unit names and numbers dependent on their utility to scientific observation and algebraic codification. In science "quality" and "quantity" of various universal phenomena are symbolically expressed in specific units of specific values.

What are the units of a quality? Please give one specific example of a quality that has units.

Define "algebraic codification" and show how it applies to a specific "symbolic unit name and number".

You write "specific units of specific values". I take it, therefore, that your claim is that "value" have units. Is a value just a number with units, or something else, then?

I keep asking. You keep failing to specific what you mean. I think you don't actually have a clear idea about what you mean when you talk about "values".

I didn't know that I needed to explain this simple generic equation.

I've studied science and this is the first time I've seen your "simple generic equation", despite the fact that you claim it is something well known "in science". It's not even an equation, as far as I can tell. Equations always contain an equals (=) sign, in my experience.

It seems rather obvious to me if you leave humans out of the equation.

I don't care what seems obvious to you. I'm trying to understand what you mean. I can't read your mind. I can only read your words.

I hope you can force yourself to only consider the inherent mathematically patterned nature of the universe, which allows our human mind to understand most of the universal processes by means of symbolically representing universal mathematically guided deterministic processes.

I don't see any need to force myself to do that, so far, especially as your terms are so vague and ill-defined at this point. Maybe it will make more sense if you can ever manage to dredge up some working definitions of the terms you're using. Let's hope we see some progress on that in your next reply.

 

[James R]

* Is it important to your arguments about microtubules that they operate according to a completely new kind of "Darwinian evolution"?* They don't, you made that up.

It seemed to be what you were telling me in one of your responses, so I didn't "make it up". So, standard evolutionary theory applies to microtubules. Good. One less thing to worry about.

* Can you point to one thing I have wrote where I insist that humans have unnatural abilities which cannot be found elsewhere in the universe?* The proper term is "I have written".

Be careful if you want to start getting high and mighty correcting my grammar, spelling or whatever. I will be sure to return the favour if you really want to go down that path. What happened there, in case you are wondering, is that I wrote a couple of different versions of that sentence. One said "Can you point to one thing I wrote where..." and the other said "Can you point to one thing I have written where...". I settled on "wrote", but accidentally failed to delete the word "have" in making that edit. I didn't spend a lot of time proof-reading, as you might be able to tell. And even if I had noticed the error, I might have left it, figuring that you'd understand my meaning anyway.

Do you think you can agree to be a little less prissy about the whole grammar nazi thing, would you prefer that we both correct each other's typos, grammatical mistakes etc. from now on? Let me know.

And nowhere have I advanced such a fantasy

I quoted you.

* What does "quanta of values" mean (or "value quanta")?* A quantum with a specific excellence or value.

Using the undefined word "value" in your definition of "quanta of values" doesn't help me much. And now you have also introduced the idea of a "specific excellence", also undefined so far. I'll wait for your response to my previous post before commenting further on this.

* Does the atomic number of an atom have any meaning at all, "independent of humans altogether"? In whose mind is the concept of an atomic number, if not that of a human?

.... Hence every atom has its own unique set of values which sets it apart from other atoms, regardless of human presence.

The "values" you quoted in support of this appear to be numbers (some of which have units). You have not yet established that these numbers that atoms have exist independently of human presence.

On the other hand, I don't think you really understand what I'm getting at with this particular objection, so it's probably easier just to drop it for now. There are bigger fish to fry.

Humans are not required for any natural non-human phenomenon to have causal potentials.

I don't know what that means. Maybe after you next post...

Frankly, I am beginning to doubt that you can even imagine a universe without humans.

Why?

I have no problem with a universe without humans. Humans have barely been around for 1 million years. The universe is 13 billion years old. Mostly, the universe has got along just fine without humans.

AFAIK, you have not made substantive criticisms of my position ...

Nonsense. I have substantially criticised your confusion about the difference between a mathematical concept and a physical thing. I have also substantially criticised your empty claims that microtubules are the seat of consciousness.

In the latter case, it's not that you're necessarily wrong, it's just that you believe you have good evidence for your claim for some reason, but you're yet to show me anything that actually establishes your central claim, or even supports it to any substantive degree.

I have been very clear about why I disagree with at least one of your heroes, Max Tegmark, and his "mathematical universe" idea. But I also think that he would freely admit that he has no proof of that idea, whereas you seem to think you have some.[/quote]

 

[James R]

Engrams are acquired by the phosphorylation of MT which locks the "memory" data for long periods of time, whereas synaptic memories are of short duration.

Is this your idea, or it is a statement from the authors of the paper you cited?

 

[Write4U]

Write4U,
Do you agree with me that crystals are not patterns, then? If your answer is "no", then you should have bothered thinking carefully about your response the first time.

No. crystals are dense patterns of matter.

Ah, an insult. Do you feel better about yourself, now?

Tit for tat

Unable to explain or justify your claims, you settle for pointless repetition.

the continual misinterpretation of my posts forces me to repeat them from different perspectives, in the hope that eventually the gist of my posts will be understood

So, when you write "value", you just mean a number? Yes or no? I ask because you seem confused.

No, and without any confusion "value" indicates an inherent potential or excellence that may become expressed.

Give me an example of a "value" that can be symbolised with a number and also with a description of an intrinsic excellence.

mass/gravity

What is an "intrinsic excellence"? Please define that, while you're at it.

Potential = That which may become reality (see dictionary)

Sounds like more word salad

Interesting use of the word "salad"

Define "causal potential" and give at least one specific example of a "causal potential".

"mass"

Define "value potential" and give at least one specific example of a "value potential".

"gravity"

Define "value result" and give at least one specific example of a "value result".

"warped spacetime"

If you feel the need to use terms like "value potential" when all you really mean is a number with units, then that's obfuscation, in my opinion. Is there more to it? Am I missing something?

Yes, numbers do not exist in reality, they are human symbolic representations of inherent physical values or excellence.

No.

Determinism?

Define "causally determinist processes" please.
Define "causal input value" and give at least one specific example of a causal input value.
Define "deterministic mathematical function" and give at least one specific example of one.
Define "Output value" and give at least one specific example of an "output value".

No

When you've done all that, pick at least one "causally deterministic process" and explain to me what the "causal input value" of the process is, what "deterministic mathematical function" is involved and what the "resulting output value" of the process is. Be specific.

Deterministic algorithm

Formally, a deterministic algorithm computes a mathematical function; a function has a unique value for any input in its domain, and the algorithm is a process that produces this particular value as output.

What are the units of a quality? Please give one specific example of a quality that has units.

The entire human symbolic representation of measurement of natural phenomena.

Define "algebraic codification" and show how it applies to a specific "symbolic unit name and number".

a + b = c

You write "specific units of specific values". I take it, therefore, that your claim is that "value" have units. Is a value just a number with units, or something else, then?

As countlessly explained previously, values can be identified and codified with a host of human symbolic representations. I believe it is called "physics".

I keep asking. You keep failing to specific what you mean. I think you don't actually have a clear idea about what you mean when you talk about "values".

Because the universe does not symbolize anything, humans do.

I've studied science and this is the first time I've seen your "simple generic equation", despite the fact that you claim it is something well known "in science". It's not even an equation, as far as I can tell. Equations always contain an equals (=) sign, in my experience.

Show me a "=" sign in the universe. It's a human symbolic representation of an implied result. It does not exist except as an abstract anthropomorphized symbol.
This is a simple generic equation "input --> function --> output", symbolized as "a + b = c"

I don't care what seems obvious to you. I'm trying to understand what you mean. I can't read your mind. I can only read your words.

No, you are not trying at all. You are dissecting my posts with brutal insistence on convention. You are not trying to look at things from different creative perspectives at all.

I don't see any need to force myself to do that, so far, especially as your terms are so vague and ill-defined at this point. Maybe it will make more sense if you can ever manage to dredge up some working definitions of the terms you're using. Let's hope we see some progress on that in your next reply.

All my working definitions may be found in the common dictionary, if not in scientific jargon, like "spooky action at a distance".

This is the best I can do and it is a hell of a lot better than most of the drivel and endless bickering and ad hominem that is rampant here.

 

[Write4U]

Is this your idea, or it is a statement from the authors of the paper you cited?

It is a statement from a bona fide research scientist.
Stuart Hameroff specializes in research on Alzheimer's disease which causes "loss of memory" (microtubules catastrophe)

Center for Consciousness Studies University of Arizona, Anesthesiology
Summary:

Despite a century of research, memory encoding in the brain has remained mysterious. Neuronal synaptic connection strengths are involved, but synaptic components are short-lived while memories last lifetimes. This suggests synaptic information is encoded and hard-wired at a deeper, finer-grained molecular scale.

Microtubules are cylindrical hexagonal lattice polymers of the protein tubulin, comprising 15 percent of total brain protein. Microtubules define neuronal architecture, regulate synapses, and are suggested to process information via interactive bit-like states of tubulin. But any semblance of a common code connecting microtubules to synaptic activity has been missing. Until now.

The standard experimental model for neuronal memory is long term potentiation (LTP) in which brief pre-synaptic excitation results in prolonged post-synaptic sensitivity. An essential player in LTP is the hexagonal enzyme calcium/calmodulin-dependent protein kinase II (CaMKII).

Upon pre-synaptic excitation, calcium ions entering post-synaptic neurons cause the snowflake-shaped CaMKII to transform, extending sets of 6 leg-like kinase domains above and below a central domain, the activated CaMKII resembling a double-sided insect. Each kinase domain can phosphorylate a substrate, and thus encode one bit of synaptic information.

Ordered arrays of bits are termed bytes, and 6 kinase domains on one side of each CaMKII can thus phosphorylate and encode calcium-mediated synaptic inputs as 6-bit bytes. But where is the intra-neuronal substrate for memory encoding by CaMKII phosphorylation? Enter microtubules

....... more

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/03/120309103701.htm