Is consciousness to be found in quantum processes in microtubules?

[Write4U]

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.

Yes you did make it up. I never said it.

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.

Yet you mercilessly chide me for any minor deviation from the standard. I posted that to remind you that no one is perfect, including myself.

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.

Then heed your own advice and stop the nazi thing yourself and give me a little leeway in my narrative attemps to explain scientific concepts.

* 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?

W4U said; And nowhere have I advanced such a fantasy

I quoted you.

Where?

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.

Don't hold your breath. If you cannot follow the conversation go sit at the kids' table

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.

You just keep making up stuff. I never said anything like it. Don't try to assign statements I never made.

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.

Yes indeed, I totally reject your duplicitous attemps to distort my posts.

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

Nah, I'm done with this game.
..........

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.

Where? The facts are the exact opposite to what you are suggesting here.
I have made hundreds of substantial posts with links to the science, on the reason why microtubules are the most promising candidate for the emergence of consciousness.
Your criticisms are utterly devoid of any substantial argument or counterfactuals why all the evidence should be ignored. If you believe that you are the ultimate scientific authority, I would remind you that the Dunning-Kruger effect applies to all.

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.

If you don't read the evidence you have no standing to make that claim.

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.

Wrong again. You just keep making the wrong conclusions.
I quoted Tegmark in context of his presentation that "consciousness" is an emergent excellence of certain complex patterns.

As a physicist, Max Tegmark sees people as “food, rearranged.” That makes his answer to complicated questions like “What is consciousness?” simple: It’s just math. Why? Because it’s the patterns, not the particles, that matter.

http://www.tedxcambridge.com/talk/consciousness-is-a-mathematical-pattern/#

 

[Write4U]

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

Do your own research if you doubt my veracity or intellectual ability to make deductions from given facts.

Or not ...... it's all the same to me.

 

[river]

Write4U

Keep going !

Yes you did make it up. I never said it.
Yet you mercilessly chide me for any minor deviation from the standard. I posted that to remind you that no one is perfect, including myself.
Then heed your own advice and stop the nazi thing yourself and give me a little leeway in my narrative attemps to explain scientific concepts.


Where?
Don't hold your breath. If you cannot follow the conversation go sit at the kids' table
You just keep making up stuff. I never said anything like it. Don't try to assign statements I never made.
Yes indeed, I totally reject your duplicitous attemps to distort my posts.
Nah, I'm done with this game.
..........
Where? The facts are the exact opposite to what you are suggesting here.
I have made hundreds of substantial posts with links to the science, on the reason why microtubules are the most promising candidate for the emergence of consciousness.
Your criticisms are utterly devoid of any substantial argument or counterfactuals why all the evidence should be ignored. If you believe that you are the ultimate scientific authority, I would remind you that the Dunning-Kruger effect applies to all.
If you don't read the evidence you have no standing to make that claim.
Wrong again. You just keep making the wrong conclusions.
I quoted Tegmark in context of his presentation that "consciousness" is an emergent excellence of certain complex patterns.
http://www.tedxcambridge.com/talk/consciousness-is-a-mathematical-pattern/#

To your last statement , Tegmark , about complex patterns .

How did the mathematical patterns get there before the physical ?

 

[Write4U]

How did the mathematical patterns get there before the physical ?

After some of your questioning, I think that maybe both emerged simultaneously similar to the concept of the simultaneous emergence of measurable spacetime itself and self-organization of elements, each according to its own kind, from the same elementary particles arranged in regular and repeating patterns.

I see anything that has a regularity or repetition in pattern and behavior as have intrinsic mathematical properties.

I see "chaos" as the only state that precedes order and the orderly self-formation of patterns within chaos is caused by certain logical operators.

To wit;
It is axiomatic that a = a, b = b, c = c, which itself is a mathematical equation that leads to combinatory patterns which are based on the same form of regularity, such as "If a + b = c, then c = a + b"

I think mathematics is fundamentally based on the logical "law of necessity and sufficiency".

Necessity and sufficiency
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Being in the purple region is sufficient for being in A, but not necessary. Being in A is necessary for being in the purple region, but not sufficient. Being in A and being in B is necessary and sufficient for being in the purple region.

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

And there is your mathematical function.

Function (mathematics)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Schematic depiction of a function described metaphorically as a "machine" or "black box" that for each input yields a corresponding output

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Function_(mathematics)

"The spontaneous logical formation of a necessary and sufficient equation".
Mathematics provides the natural "guiding equations" which interactive functions must follow, external conditions permitting.

 

[Write4U]

Were/are Microtubules a bridge in the abiogentic processes?

Microtubule Dynamics: an interplay of biochemistry and mechanics

Abstract

Microtubules are dynamic polymers of αβ-tubulin that are essential for intracellular organization and chromosome segregation. Microtubule growth and shrinkage occur via addition and loss of αβ-tubulin subunits — biochemical processes. Dynamic microtubules can also exert forces by pushing or pulling against a load – mechanical processes.

Recent advances at the intersection of biochemistry and mechanics have revealed the existence of multiple conformations of αβ-tubulin and their central role in dictating the mechanisms of microtubule dynamics and how microtubules do work. Microtubule associated proteins selectively target specific tubulin conformations to regulate microtubule dynamics, and mechanical forces can also influence microtubule dynamics by altering the balance of tubulin conformations.

Importantly, the conformational states of tubulin dimers appear to be coupled throughout the lattice, in that the conformation of one dimer affects the conformation of its nearest neighbors and beyond. This coupling provides a long-range mechanism by which MAPs and forces can modulate microtubule growth and shrinkage. These findings provide evidence that the interplay between biochemistry and mechanics is essential for the cellular functions of microtubules.

more......
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6019280/

Understanding the emergence of microbial consciousness
From a perspective of the Subject–Object Model (SOM) J. Shashi Kiran Reddy, and Contzen Pereira , Independent Research Scholar, Bangalore 560064, India

Abstract.

Microorganisms demonstrate conscious-like intelligent behaviour, and this form of consciousness may have emerged from a quantum mediated mechanism as observed in cytoskeletal structures like the microtubules present in nerve cells which apparently have the architecture to quantum compute.

This paper hypothesises the emergence of proto-consciousness in primitive cytoskeletal systems found in the microbial kingdoms of archaea, bacteria and eukarya. To explain this, we make use of the Subject-Object Model (SOM) of consciousness which evaluates the rise of the degree of consciousness to conscious behaviour in these systems supporting the hypothesis of emergence and propagation of conscious behaviour during the pre-Cambrian part of Earth’s evolutionary history.

Consciousness as proto-consciousness or sentience computed via primitive cytoskeletal structures substantiates as a driver for the intelligence observed in the microbial world during this period ranging from single-cellular to collective intelligence as a means to adapt and survive.

The growth in complexity of intelligence, cytoskeletal system and adaptive behaviours are key to evolution, and thus supports the progression of the Lamarckian theory of evolution driven by quantum mediated proto-consciousness to consciousness as described in the SOM of consciousness.

Keywords: Proto-Consciousness, cytoskeleton, Orch-OR theory, microbial intelligence, Lamarckian theory, quantum biology, SOM

1. Introduction

The most fundamental physical mechanisms which are involved in the biological systems are dealt with and studied in the new branch of science called Quantum biology.

Findings resulting from these investigations shed light on the possible role of quantum mediated processes in crafting the primitive life forms and in the emergence of conscious life.

Since biological evolution began much after the existence of energy and matter and its unanimity, the answer to the origin of life actually lies much before the emergence of viruses, bacteria, archaea and eukaryotes.

According to Gaia theory, after the formation of biological matter from chemical constituents there exists a mutual and dynamic interaction between the two resulting in the process of co-evolution. This means that biological systems interact with sur-rounding inorganic matter to form a complex, self-regulating and dynamic synergistic system of ecology which helps in perpetuating and maintaining the conditions for life (Schneider and Boston).

https://www.academia.edu/35442244/U..._Object_Model_SOM_?email_work_card=view-paper

 

[James R]

No. crystals are dense patterns of matter.

Then we're back to square one.

Refer to my post #2129, above, where I wrote this:

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.

There's really not much else to say on this point. Until you work out the difference between a mathematical concept and physical matter, you're just going to remain hopelessly stuck in the nonsense.

Anyway, moving on...

I asked you to define "value", first and foremost. As subsidiary questions, I asked you to define a number of other terms and to give specific examples of each one. The best you could manage in response was to post one or two word responses, which I assume you mean to be examples. You couldn't manage to define your terms at all. That inability really is a telling mark against taking you seriously.

Here's your best try at a definition of "value":

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

Then we have, later:

Potential = That which may become reality (see dictionary)

You lost track of your thought processes before you could think up a definition of "inherent excellence" or "intrinsic excellence", but reading between the lines it seems to me that in your mind those terms are equivalent to your meaning of the word "potential". The evidence for that is that when I asked you "what is an 'intrinsic excellence'?" your reply was to give a definition of the word "potential".

So, putting the mess of muddy thinking all together, what do we find when we try to extract meaning?

"Value" indicates an "inherent potential or excellence". But that is tautological, since an "intrinsic excellence" is apparently the same thing as an "inherent potential". So, let's ignore the term "excellence" from now on; it adds nothing to the discussion.

So, boil it down, boil is down. "Value" indicates an "inherent potential" and a "potential" is "that which may become reality (see dictionary)".

I take it that a "value" is something that "may become reality". The implication of that is that values don't yet have any reality, but they might at some stage in the future.

Bottom line, then: an "intrinsic value" is a "value" that is intrinsic to some object or system, which somehow measures some kind of possibility of "becoming reality" at some future time. I will work with this definition unless and until you provide a clearer definition.

I now turn to your examples.

1. As an example of a "causal potential", you suggested "mass".
Using your terminology, mass is something "that may become reality". Since this apparently hasn't happened yet, I take it that the "causal potential" of mass would be the possibility that, at some future time, mass might become reality and somehow affect something else (in reality?)

2. As an example of a "value potential" you suggested "gravity".
My first problem is the term "value potential". Previously, you said that "Value" indicates "inherent potential", so it follows that a "value potential" is an "inherent potential potential". That seems, at best, redundant. Is a "value potential" the same as a "value", then? Or is a "value potential" the same as a "potential"? Either way, one of those words is redundant, the way you have defined them.

Moving on... What does this tell us about gravity, then?

Using your definition, I learn that gravity measures some kind of possibility of something becoming reality at some future time. But I don't know what you're talking about; you haven't explained what the future thing would be, other than to say that whatever it is, it isn't a number.

3. As an example of a "value result" you suggested "warped spacetime".
My first problem with this is that a "value" is only something that has the possibility of becoming reality. I don't understand how there can be a "result" before anything becomes reality. A "value result" would be "result that may become reality", perhaps?

I have no idea why "warped spacetime" would be a good example of a "value result". Why isn't "mass" a value result, too? How about "gravity"? Are all three "value results"? If not, what distinguishes them?

The problem with fuzzy definitions is that they just create confusion and ambiguity, rather than helping to resolve it.

Are you starting to understand the issues I have with your definitions, yet?

No

A flat-out refusal to define your terms shows that you aren't serious about doing any science.

 

[James R]

Deterministic algorithm

A standard definition of the term "deterministic algorithm" does not help me to unpack your idiosyncratic use of the term "value". Can you see why?

Please give one specific example of a quality that has units.

The entire human symbolic representation of measurement of natural phenomena.

What are the units of "the entire human symbolic representation of measurement of natural phenomena"? Be specific.

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

No. "Values" in the sense of "possibilities of becoming reality" are not really part of physics.

Because the universe does not symbolize anything, humans do.

I'm glad we finally agree on that.

Recall how, previously, you claimed there were universal "values" that exist completely independently of human beings.

But then, perhaps a "value" is not symbolisable? Is that what you're saying? These "values" are, after all, only possibilities of something or other becoming reality, apparently.

Show me a "=" sign in the universe.

Equations have equals signs. That's what the word "equation" literally implies: equality.

Previously, you claimed, in effect, that equations exist independently of human beings. Are you now changing your mind about that? If so, then we are in agreement, finally, on that point as well.

No, you are not trying at all.

I am writing many more words that you are (not counting your cut-and-pastes from other sites).

I admit, I'm on the point of writing you off as a hopeless case. It doesn't seem to matter to you whether the terminology you use makes any sense, for instance. It's like you've constructed your own private universe in which things only have to have meaning for you. If you can't actually explain your ideas to other people, or you aren't interested in doing so, what are you doing posting on a forum like this one?

You are dissecting my posts with brutal insistence on convention.

I'm trying to get you to think critically!

Random sciency-sounding words might sound impressive, or look impressive when you write them down, but if you insist on using terms like "potential" and "value" in a way that nobody else does, while refusing to (or being unable to) define your terms, you're not communicating. You're lost in a private world.

You are not trying to look at things from different creative perspectives at all.

Your creative use of the idea of a "value" strikes me as being something like an impressionist painting. The "vibe" sort of looks good on the screen, and it gives you a warm fuzzy feeling and some sense of familiarity with some other ill-defined things, but when you look closely at it, the whole thing just devolves into a fuzzy collection of impressionistic colours.

Remember what you set out to do in this thread: to establish that "consciousness is found in quantum processes in microtubules". All this nonsense about "values" and "potentials" and "intrinsic excellences" is completely irrelevant to the hard science of trying to work out why we are conscious, or even what's going on in microtubules. Can't you see that?

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

Well, yes. I can look up "value" in the dictionary. I can look up "potential" in the dictionary. But when those two words are put into conjunction ("value potential") in the way you have attempted to do it, there's such a drastic departure from common usage that all meaning is lost.

 

[James R]

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)

Hameroff is one of the founders of the "consciousness in microtubules" idea, is he not? You can't find a less biased opinion?

 

[James R]

The facts are the exact opposite to what you are suggesting here.
I have made hundreds of substantial posts with links to the science, on the reason why microtubules are the most promising candidate for the emergence of consciousness.

What's your best evidence for microtubules being the reason why we are conscious?

Your criticisms are utterly devoid of any substantial argument or counterfactuals why all the evidence should be ignored.

You're using the word "counterfactual" in a non-standard way again. I thought you said you knew what it means.

My main criticisms have been, all along, that the scientific papers and opinions you have been citing do not establish what you think they establish. Nobody has proven that microtubules are conscious, or that consciousness comes from anything that happens in microtubules. Nobody has even made a good argument linking consciousness and actual evidence gained by examining the functioning of microtubules, as far as I'm aware. Certainly you haven't.

If you believe that you are the ultimate scientific authority...

I'm merely telling you why what you've been posting hasn't convinced me.

More broadly, you might like to investigate how many other scientists are convinced that consciousness is to be found in microtubules.

It seems to me that this is a fringe theory. Which doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong, of course. I just think it would be a mistake to think that there's currently any good evidence that any processes in microtubules, let alone "quantum processes", play any role at all in consciousness.

I have never pretended to be an expert on microtubules, or any kind of Ultimate Scientific Authority. I could always be wrong. But then again, so could you. So could Hammeroff. etc.

If you don't read the evidence you have no standing to make that claim.

I've read what you have presented. You have not made a convincing case, so far. That's all I can say. If you want to convince me, you'll need to come up with a better presentation and/or argument for your case.

Wrong again. You just keep making the wrong conclusions.

Your version of Tegmark's ideas is barely coherent. See my post above, where I unpack your "values", for instance.

Are you really confident that it's me who is making the wrong conclusions, and not you?

I quoted Tegmark ....

Yes. Yes. Is Tegmark the Ultimate Scientific Authority, then?

And does the truth or falsity of a scientific idea rest on the authority of the person putting it forward, anyway? Food for thought.

 

[Write4U]

A flat-out refusal to define your terms shows that you aren't serious about doing any science.

You're displaying a flat out refusal to make an effort to understand what I am posting.
I have never claimed that I am doing formal science. I have claimed that I try to report on formal science.

And calling me a nazi of any kind is an unforgivable ad hominem. If anything you are the nazi!

 

[Write4U]

Hameroff is one of the founders of the "consciousness in microtubules" idea, is he not? You can't find a less biased opinion?

Einstein was one of the founders of "relativity", was he not . Shall we assume that he was biased and therefore wrong?

 

[Write4U]

A standard definition of the term "deterministic algorithm" does not help me to unpack your idiosyncratic use of the term "value". Can you see why?

Do you understand my meaning?

What are the units of "the entire human symbolic representation of measurement of natural phenomena"? Be specific.

Why? The term "units" is a generic term and has a range of applications. Take your pick.

No. "Values" in the sense of "possibilities of becoming reality" are not really part of physics.

Nothing in the sense of human symbolism are part of RW physics.

I'm glad we finally agree on that.

How generous of you.

Recall how, previously, you claimed there were universal "values" that exist completely independently of human beings. But then, perhaps a "value" is not symbolisable? Is that what you're saying? These "values" are, after all, only possibilities of something or other becoming reality, apparently.

Every description of a physical property is the symbolization of a value, implied or expressed.

Equations have equals signs. That's what the word "equation" literally implies: equality.

You don't say.

Previously, you claimed, in effect, that equations exist independently of human beings. Are you now changing your mind about that? If so, then we are in agreement, finally, on that point as well.

You are anthropomorphizing again! "equation" is a symbolic term to describe a natural function .

e·qua·tion
noun1.

MATHEMATICS

1. a statement that the values of two mathematical expressions are equal (indicated by the sign =)

Which is a human symbolic description of a functional truth in nature.

Axiom

Mathematicians assume that axioms are true without being able to prove them. However this is not as problematic as it may seem, because axioms are either definitions or clearly obvious, and there are only very few axioms. For example, an axiom could be that a + b = b + a for any two numbers a and b.

https://mathigon.org/world/Axioms_and_Proof

I am writing many more words that you are (not counting your cut-and-pastes from other sites).

"Tell us, in your own words". What are your own words and where do they come from?

I admit, I'm on the point of writing you off as a hopeless case. It doesn't seem to matter to you whether the terminology you use makes any sense, for instance. It's like you've constructed your own private universe in which things only have to have meaning for you. If you can't actually explain your ideas to other people, or you aren't interested in doing so, what are you doing posting on a forum like this one?

Explanations is all you ask from me and I have done so. Do you understand my explanations? If not, perhaps I should write you off as a hopeless case.

You already put me in pseudo-science. Are you now going to trash all of my posts. I would just as soon trash 90 % of the posts by the "science experts" on this forum. There is nothing to be learned here that I cannot look up.

At least I try to bring some new perspectives into the conversation, but apparently you are incapable of thinking outside the box. What are you doing here then? Is this a college course with grading or a discussion forum on the sciences, and religions, and para-normal phenomena? Why are you picking on me?

I'm trying to get you to think critically!

About what? I am trying to get you to discuss microtubules and you just keep refusing to do so on pretense that I don't know what I am talking about.
Is it because you are unfamiliar with the science and refuse to "learn" something new? I bet I am better informed on microtubules than you are. Try to learn something from me.

Random sciency-sounding words might sound impressive, or look impressive when you write them down, but if you insist on using terms like "potential" and "value" in a way that nobody else does, while refusing to (or being unable to) define your terms, you're not communicating. You're lost in a private world.

No you refuse to look at my terms in a generic way. Have you heard of "common denominators" rather than fractured individually specified properties.

Did you know there are at least four different terms for "microtubules". Do we attack every scientist who uses a different symbol or do we try to understand what the symbolic term stands for in a generic way.

Your creative use of the idea of a "value" strikes me as being something like an impressionist painting. The "vibe" sort of looks good on the screen, and it gives you a warm fuzzy feeling and some sense of familiarity with some other ill-defined things, but when you look closely at it, the whole thing just devolves into a fuzzy collection of impressionistic colours.

There you go. You do understand, but it is just a little too generically abstract for you?

Remember what you set out to do in this thread: to establish that "consciousness is found in quantum processes in microtubules". All this nonsense about "values" and "potentials" and "intrinsic excellences" is completely irrelevant to the hard science of trying to work out why we are conscious, or even what's going on in microtubules. Can't you see that?

No, and you are wrong in your conclusion. The OP asks a question, divisible into two separate propositional possibilities.

Well, yes. I can look up "value" in the dictionary. I can look up "potential" in the dictionary. But when those two words are put into conjunction ("value potential") in the way you have attempted to do it, there's such a drastic departure from common usage that all meaning is lost.

No, they are not. I specifically use as many generic terms as I can to avoid exactly this constant grilling on specific details. Generic terms describe common denominators with several, sometimes many, "synonymous" other terms. Take the one that fits.

What are synonyms?
1 : one of two or more words or expressions of the same language that have the same or nearly the same meaning in some or all senses.
2a : a word or phrase that by association is held to embody something (such as a concept or quality)

SYNONYMS FOR potential
Compare Synonyms

• hidden, likely,,possible, probable, budding, future, abeyant, conceivable, dormant, embryonic, imaginable,
• implied, inherent, latent, lurking, plausible, prepatent, quiescent, thinkable, undeveloped, unrealized

https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/potential

SYNONYMS FOR excellence
Compare Synonyms

• greatness, merit, perfection, purity, quality, supremacy, virtue, arete, class, distinction, eminence
• excellency, fineness, goodness, preeminence, transcendence, worth, high quality, superbness, éclat

https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/excellence

 

[James R]

Write4U:

You're displaying a flat out refusal to make an effort to understand what I am posting.

I'm not the one who is ignoring entire posts full of questions that an honest interlocutor would be happy to answer. You are.

I have never claimed that I am doing formal science. I have claimed that I try to report on formal science.

Okay. I think I'm out of this conversation with you.

If you're not actually interested in getting a scientific answer to the question in the thread title, I don't see much point in trying to engage you in further discussion about it.

Do you understand my meaning?

No. There's an entire post that you ignored, for example, discussing your "meaning" of terms like "value", "potential", "excellence" etc.

I asked you to define your terms. You are unable or unwilling to do that, so you and I are done with discussing anything to do with those things from now on.

This will not prevent me from commenting on your posts as I see fit. I just will not be trying to engage with you in a conversation, because clearly that is a waste of my time.

You are anthropomorphizing again! "equation" is a symbolic term to describe a natural function .

Until you manage to define "value" clearly, I'm not going to bother trying to dig into what a "natural function" might be.

Explanations is all you ask from me and I have done so. Do you understand my explanations?

No, because you use terms in ways that are idiosyncratic to yourself and when asked to define them you are unable or unwilling to do so. That makes trying to understand your explanations a complete waste of my time, so I'm out. Understand?

If not, perhaps I should write you off as a hopeless case.

Do what you like. I no longer care.

You already put me in pseudo-science.

Your belief that the answers to consciousness lies in microtubules is a pseudoscientific belief. It literally is not based on any science, but you try to dress it up and pretend that it is.

Are you now going to trash all of my posts.

I don't know what you mean by that.

I would just as soon trash 90 % of the posts by the "science experts" on this forum. There is nothing to be learned here that I cannot look up.

Another good reason why I should not waste more of my time, as a science expert, on you.

At least I try to bring some new perspectives into the conversation, but apparently you are incapable of thinking outside the box.

You have to have a good understanding of what's in the box before you can start thinking outside it. All great discoveries have that in common. You're not interested in the box, apparently.

What are you doing here then?

Mostly, I'm trying to help people like you.

Is this a college course with grading or a discussion forum on the sciences, and religions, and para-normal phenomena?

Of course not. If it was, you would have flunked out long ago.

Why are you picking on me?

And now we get to it.

Asking you reasonable questions is, in your mind, picking on you. You don't like to be tied down. You want all your ideas to float freely, unimpeded by any reference to reality or to coherency. So, when somebody asks you to get into specific, you get all upset. You like to think of yourself as a "big picture" man. The details will sort themselves out (maybe), so don't worry about them. What's important is the belief system - the superficial attractiveness of the ideas. The shiny baubles dangling temptingly in front of you. You want to float with the balloons, feet off the floor, and you don't want anybody pulling you down to Earth.

It's okay. I'll stop bursting your balloons, at least directly. You can have your fantasies. Talk to Magical Realist or Q-reeus, perhaps. They'll believe just about anything and might like to join you in your fantasy world.

About what?

About your faith-based beliefs, of course. I've been trying to get you to reflect on what the science says, but you're not interested.

Is it because you are unfamiliar with the science and refuse to "learn" something new? I bet I am better informed on microtubules than you are. Try to learn something from me.

The impression I get from you is that you have a largish body of completely disorganised knowledge snippets regarding microtubules. Your understanding of the scientific papers you have read on them is superficial at best. You regularly assume that carefully hedged scientific statements are general claims to great new discoveries about the causes of consciousness etc.

It seems highly unlikely that I will learn anything useful about microtubules directly from you. If I was really interested in the topic, I would need to go and read the actual literature on it. Given that I'm not a biologist or neurologist, I'm sure there would be a lot in the current research literature that I would not understand without undertaking more basic studies first.

On the other hand, even without having a complete understanding of the relevant literature, I am certainly sufficiently qualified to spot flaws in your thinking and assumptions on the topic. And that's all I really need to do here.

No you refuse to look at my terms in a generic way.

The problem is that all of your terms apply only in a "generic way". For you, "value" means generically the same thing as "potential", which means generically the same thing as "specific excellence". For you "equation" means generically the same thing as "function", and there's no real difference between a "natural function" and a "mathematical function".

When all your terms mean effectively the same thing, there's no way to unpack what you're actually talking about from one minute to the next.

The OP asks a question, divisible into two separate propositional possibilities.

There are actually no questions in the OP. I checked. You posted the OP to publish your own personal opinions on microtubules. Probably I should have realised then that you weren't interested in having an actual meaningful discussion about your opinions.

Generic terms describe common denominators with several, sometimes many, "synonymous" other terms. Take the one that fits.

This is why you're unable to communicate your ideas clearly to other people, or even to pull them apart for yourself to see what might be wrong with them. You just spend your time making terms "fit" whatever it is that you currently want to believe.

Anyway, I'm done. You can keep blathering on about nothing in this thread to your heart's content.

 

[Write4U]

It's okay. I'll stop bursting your balloons, at least directly. You can have your fantasies. Talk to Magical Realist or Q-reeus, perhaps. They'll believe just about anything and might like to join you in your fantasy world.

They seem to understand what I'am saying and certainly do not always agree with me.

This is why you're unable to communicate your ideas clearly to other people, or even to pull them apart for yourself to see what might be wrong with them. You just spend your time making terms "fit" whatever it is that you currently want to believe.

Are you saying you understand what I am saying and do not agree with me, or are you saying you do not understand what I am saying and do not agree with me?

But thank you for your effort to correct my communication style.

 

[James R]

They seem to understand what I'am saying and certainly do not always agree with me.

Realise that Magical Realist has a mind that is so open that he is unlikely to care whether you're right or wrong, or even making sense, as long as you're posting fringe ideas.

Realise also that Q-reeus is probably happy with whatever you post as long as you're fighting what he perceives as the "establishment", because to him most things are a conspiracy among authority figures.

But they can, of course, tell you what they think directly. I wouldn't presume to speak for them.

Are you saying you understand what I am saying and do not agree with me, or are you saying you do not understand what I am saying and do not agree with me?

It's a mixture. On the broad question of your beliefs that microtubules are the solution to the problem of explaining consciousness, I disagree with you. I understand enough of what you think about microtubules to be able to judge that you're most likely misinterpreting some of the science, or else jumping on a bandwagon with people who are making claims they can't really support. On the level of specifics, since you are unable or unwilling to define the terms you're using, I can only guess at what you might mean. So, if I understand you, it's only because I guessed right, not because you communicated effectively. On the other hand, I have commented on some specific areas where what you have written actually makes no sense. You mostly ignored the parts of my posts (indeed, at least one entire post) where I made those comments and asked you to clarify. Apparently, you were unwilling or unable to do so.

But thank you for your effort to correct my communication style.

It's not your communication style that is the problem. Did you take in anything I said in my previous posts?

 

[Write4U]

It's not your communication style that is the problem. Did you take in anything I said in my previous posts?

AFAIK, you have not posted anything of real substance on the subject other than telling me that I and the scientists I quote were all wrong, but without the "why they were wrong".

And if you believe that I was negligent in responding to your posts, I believe you have been negligent in reading the supporting articles and abstracts of the science that would have clarified any of the generic terms I used because they did use the proper language which I would not presume to copy verbatim as my own.

The difference between your responses and mine is that when I respond to all of your criticisms, it takes me many hours of research and up to three pages of explanations to respond to you, whereas you read my stuff and just respond with; "wrong, explain;" wrong, explain"; "wrong, explain"; "wrong, explain", which takes very little time.

If you had done a little due diligence, many of your questions would have been answered by just reading the accompanying scientific material, which I was interpreting and yes, on occasion, perhaps inadequately so.

I have never claimed to be a scientist. I am just a reporter, writing "headlines" and a blurp on the subject.

p.s. The thread Title does ask the question. All of my posts were propositional and probative.

 

[river]

Write4U

After some of your questioning, I think that maybe both emerged simultaneously similar to the concept of the simultaneous emergence of measurable spacetime itself and self-organization of elements, each according to its own kind, from the same elementary particles arranged in regular and repeating patterns.

I see anything that has a regularity or repetition in pattern and behavior as have intrinsic mathematical properties.

True

But the substance of the pattern , the real thing , something that is tactile , is physical . Mathematics on its own can not produce a physical thing . Hence mathematics is consequence of the physical , not the other way around . Hence again mathematics is governed by the physical .

 

[Write4U]

Write4U



True

But the substance of the pattern , the real thing , something that is tactile , is physical . Mathematics on its own can not produce a physical thing . Hence mathematics is consequence of the physical , not the other way around . Hence again mathematics is governed by the physical .

I understand what you are saying and it is entirely reasonable. However, I am trying to go one step deeper and ask, what causes the regular self-assembly of same molecules, a process that already begins in total chaos. Is the formation of every H2O molecule a random event or do the inherent chemical values of H and O make it "necessary" that H2O forms and then can become expressed in different physical forms, depending on environment conditions.

p.s. I just learned that ice is a crystal mineral (R. Hazen).

 

[river]

river said: ↑
Write4U



True

But the substance of the pattern , the real thing , something that is tactile , is physical . Mathematics on its own can not produce a physical thing . Hence mathematics is consequence of the physical , not the other way around . Hence again mathematics is governed by the physical .

I understand what you are saying and it is entirely reasonable. However, I am trying to go one step deeper and ask, what causes the regular self-assembly of same molecules, a process that already begins in total chaos. Is the formation of every H2O molecule a random event or do the inherent chemical values of H and O make it "necessary" that H2O forms and then can become expressed in different physical forms, depending on environment conditions.

p.s. I just learned that ice is a crystal mineral (R. Hazen).

Highlighted

Their properties . Spin , magnetic field , mass , vibration and environment in which they are in .

 

[Write4U]

Highlighted

Their properties . Spin , magnetic field , mass , vibration and environment in which they are in .

But these properties are acquired during the self-assembly of atoms.
I cannot see any randomness in any of these regular processes. When there are patterns there is mathematics.