Is consciousness to be found in quantum processes in microtubules?

[RainbowSingularity]

I haven't a clue.

it seems that nitrono's are soo unknown it is a new field in science opening up the more we learn.
who knows what they might hold

i hear scientists have managed to produce and use nitrino's to send data through rock

https://www.livescience.com/19075-neutrino-particle-communications-message.html
Message Beamed Through Rock With Exotic Particles
By Clara Moskowitz published March 16, 2012

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo...nt-through-rock-could-one-travel-back-in-time
First Neutrino Message Sent Through Rock; Could One Travel Back In Time?

March 15, 2012 4:00 PM ET

"Researchers from the University of Rochester and North Carolina State University have for the first time sent a message using a beam of neutrinos — nearly massless particles that travel at almost the speed of light," U of R reports.

And they pushed the message — which simply spelled out the world "Neutrino" — through "240 meters of stone" (787 feet).

 

[Write4U]

it seems that nitrono's are soo unknown it is a new field in science opening up the more we learn.
who knows what they might hold

i hear scientists have managed to produce and use nitrino's to send data through rock

https://www.livescience.com/19075-neutrino-particle-communications-message.html
Message Beamed Through Rock With Exotic Particles
By Clara Moskowitz published March 16, 2012

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo...nt-through-rock-could-one-travel-back-in-time
First Neutrino Message Sent Through Rock; Could One Travel Back In Time?

March 15, 2012 4:00 PM ET

Trick is receiving that message. How are you going to record it if it just passes through?
Apparently, we have millions of neutrinos pass through our bodies every day.
Doesn't seem to affect us in any way. I doubt that they have any influence on microtubules.

But if we want to keep track of this, let's start a new thread.

 

[arfa brane]

While looking for articles about complexity and information-processing networks, I found one about neurological information. It doesn't mention microtubules, but these are already well understood to be why neuron plasticity (and plasticity in any cell) exists, if not what level of information-processing occurs in them. The article says that information is stratified; neural signalling at the electronic level requires levels of stratification below it, which I guess since it's cell-based seems kind of obvious.

Anyway, a paragraph which might be of interest (my bolds):

Neurons

Neuron activity is, to some extent, reducible to chemical and electrical activity, and such activity is necessarily accompanied by an exchange of energy that follows the transfer of information between systems.

The occurrence of depolarization as a transition to $$E_{max} $$ and the maintenance of a resting state as $$E_{min} $$ may reflect coupled information-energy dynamics, and the maintenance of a negative resting membrane potential may show that depolarization requires the input of external information-energy.

In addition, while the graded potential and analog influence is clearly important, a quintessential feature of neurons is their propagation of all-or-nothing action potentials. This feature seems to mirror the discrete, granular all-or-nothing mathematical structure of physical information.

Although information is processed in the activity of the ions and neurotransmitters that generate an EPSP or IPSP, even at subthreshold levels, any transition into one state from two or more alternatives or degrees of freedom could be interpreted as carrying a single unit of information regardless of underlying dynamics. Further, that spatial and temporal summation of numerous dendritic spikes results in the propagation of a single axonal action potential–one macrostate–even suggests a compression algorithm.

--https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2016/07/06/060467.full.pdf

I also caution (myself) that the biology of cells is extremely complex, I think it might have been Feynman who said a cell is more complex than just about anything else in the universe.

 

[James R]

Write4U:

I think they are because the scientists tell me they are. That is why I quote them lest there be any misunderstanding.

I think that you quote them because you don't understand what they are saying.

There are 100+ pages with research data from hundreds of scientists and dozens of research facilities. All of them confirming and describing the functionality of microtubules in every Eukaryotic organism on earth.

And yet, with all those hundreds of pages that you say you've read and understood, you're strangely unable to give a summary of the main mechanisms by which microtubules supposedly act as "processors", when I ask you directly. It seems you can only answer with walls of cut-and-paste, most of which either do not address the question or which are clearly speculative ("If we assume this, then let's speculate about what that might mean..." etc.)

For somebody who comes across as a real enthusiast for this topic, it strikes me as strange that you can't really answer the most basic of questions about it. What do microtubules process? What's the input? What the output? What processing is done?

It's not like I need to know all the details, first up. But surely, with your extensive reading, you ought to be able to give me a one or two paragraph summary of the major findings that support your claims. Why can't you do that?

You are just acting like the climate change deniers. Refusing to acknowledge what is obvious to any reasonable mind.

Call me stupid, but it is simply not obvious to me that microtubules "process" any kind of "data". You'll have to explain it to me. A couple of paragraphs ought to be able to convey the basics and describe the main lines of evidence in support. Can you do this, or not?

Apparently you have no knowledge of any alternate neural models of any kind.

Let's assume you're right. List two or three "alternate neural models" for me, and explain the positives and negatives of each of the competing models. A few paragraphs ought to be enough to educate me on the basics. You've done all the reading and spent years understanding this stuff, so this should be a breeze for you. Right?

Yet it is your claim that the scientist I quote have no clue and are just engaging in speculative assumptions.

Only the second half of that is right, and that's because, according to my reading of your quotes, that's what they tell me they are doing. I said nothing about having no clue.

Perhaps the question of consciousness doesn't interest you.

It interests me. It's an interesting problem. I do not, by any means, claim to be any kind of expert on the question, so my mind is open to explanations that are supported by evidence. I'm also open to speculation, if the problem is not solved (and I don't think it is). However, I think we need to be very careful about claiming that speculations are reality, without sufficient evidence. Understand?

Why are you trying to obstruct this?

I'm not. I'm trying to push you towards the realisation that you're making overblown, so-far-unevidenced claims about microtubules.

But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe you can give a clear explanation in your own words in your next post. Let's see.

Let me repeat the declarative statement of the current state of science in this area.

"Models of the mind are based on the idea that neuron microtubules can perform computation"

This looks like a declarative statement that models of the mind in this area start from the assumption that microtubules perform computation, somehow. I don't have a problem with that, but that's different from your claim that evidence shows that that microtubules perform computation.

 

[river]

Write4U:


I think that you quote them because you don't understand what they are saying.

And yet, with all those hundreds of pages that you say you've read and understood, you're strangely unable to give a summary of the main mechanisms by which microtubules supposedly act as "processors", when I ask you directly. It seems you can only answer with walls of cut-and-paste, most of which either do not address the question or which are clearly speculative ("If we assume this, then let's speculate about what that might mean..." etc.)

For somebody who comes across as a real enthusiast for this topic, it strikes me as strange that you can't really answer the most basic of questions about it. What do microtubules process? What's the input? What the output? What processing is done?

It's not like I need to know all the details, first up. But surely, with your extensive reading, you ought to be able to give me a one or two paragraph summary of the major findings that support your claims. Why can't you do that?

Call me stupid, but it is simply not obvious to me that microtubules "process" any kind of "data". You'll have to explain it to me. A couple of paragraphs ought to be able to convey the basics and describe the main lines of evidence in support. Can you do this, or not?

Let's assume you're right. List two or three "alternate neural models" for me, and explain the positives and negatives of each of the competing models. A few paragraphs ought to be enough to educate me on the basics. You've done all the reading and spent years understanding this stuff, so this should be a breeze for you. Right?

Only the second half of that is right, and that's because, according to my reading of your quotes, that's what they tell me they are doing. I said nothing about having no clue.

It interests me. It's an interesting problem. I do not, by any means, claim to be any kind of expert on the question, so my mind is open to explanations that are supported by evidence. I'm also open to speculation, if the problem is not solved (and I don't think it is). However, I think we need to be very careful about claiming that speculations are reality, without sufficient evidence. Understand?

I'm not. I'm trying to push you towards the realisation that you're making overblown, so-far-unevidenced claims about microtubules.

But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe you can give a clear explanation in your own words in your next post. Let's see.

"Models of the mind are based on the idea that neuron microtubules can perform computation"

This looks like a declarative statement that models of the mind in this area start from the assumption that microtubules perform computation, somehow. I don't have a problem with that, but that's different from your claim that evidence shows that that microtubules perform computation.

Highlighted

They do . But based on the physical form . Naturally .

 

[James R]

river,

Buzz off. Clearly you don't have anything useful to add to this discussion.

 

[Write4U]

Write4U:
I think that you quote them because you don't understand what they are saying.

I don't need to understand everything they are saying as long as it tends to confirm my intuitive logical deduction.
All I need to do is make you understand what they are saying. Do you understand what they are saying?
If you do then my job is done because it shows that I have conveyed the information in an understandable form.

And yet, with all those hundreds of pages that you say you've read and understood, you're strangely unable to give a summary of the main mechanisms by which microtubules supposedly act as "processors", when I ask you directly. It seems you can only answer with walls of cut-and-paste, most of which either do not address the question or which are clearly speculative ("If we assume this, then let's speculate about what that might mean..." etc.)

No that is not true.
I always try to select papers that advance a specific microtubule role or function.
I don't see what is unclear about scientific statements like:

Microtubules in a neuron are used to transport substances to different parts of the cell. For example, neurotransmitters are made in the cell body close to the nucleus, but need to travel long distances to the end of axons where they will be used for synaptic transmission.
https://psych.athabascau.ca/html/Psych402/Biotutorials/1/microtubules.shtml

For somebody who comes across as a real enthusiast for this topic, it strikes me as strange that you can't really answer the most basic of questions about it. What do microtubules process? What's the input? What the output? What processing is done?

The most basic question about microtubules is "are they instrumental in data processing". The answer appears to be a firm "yes".
The problem with the question is that microtubules are involved in ALL data processing throughout the entire body. Microtubules are present in every cell of every living Eukaryotic organism. Microtubules control cell shape and function of every cell including neural cells. Microtubules are responsible for accurate cell division
of every single cell during mitosis. That alone should qualify as a computational data processing function.

It's not like I need to know all the details, first up. But surely, with your extensive reading, you ought to be able to give me a one or two paragraph summary of the major findings that support your claims. Why can't you do that?

I have but when I express my understanding in my own syntax I get accused of not being scientific. Can't win for losing.
Hence my current preference is to use quoted passages of what I believe are informative messages as described by real scientists, in the hope that they may stir interest in the reader and motivate him/her into further research on their own

Call me stupid, but it is simply not obvious to me that microtubules "process" any kind of "data". You'll have to explain it to me. A couple of paragraphs ought to be able to convey the basics and describe the main lines of evidence in support. Can you do this, or not?

The quotes I have provided do describe a range of data processes by microtubules and related filaments. You have indicated that you refuse to read them. I am not here to engage in endless debate about trivia. I am here to present an overview with selected quotes from serious scientist engaged in the most ambitious journey of discovery ever, the journey into the nanoworld of living organisms,

Let's assume you're right. List two or three "alternate neural models" for me, and explain the positives and negatives of each of the competing models. A few paragraphs ought to be enough to educate me on the basics. You've done all the reading and spent years understanding this stuff, so this should be a breeze for you. Right?

To my knowledge there is no alternate competing model. All models rely on microtubules as the single common denominator of data processing in all Eukaryotic life, from plants to bacteria, to humans to whales, to octopi.

Only the second half of that is right, and that's because, according to my reading of your quotes, that's what they tell me they are doing. I said nothing about having no clue.

But you are dismissing all the quoted passages because you say that I have no clue. And that is a false argument. This area of scientific inquiry does not depend on my expertise, it depends on the expertise of the scientists I quote.
No one is required to explain E = Mc^2 in "their own words". Einstein is the definitive authority.

It interests me. It's an interesting problem. I do not, by any means, claim to be any kind of expert on the question, so my mind is open to explanations that are supported by evidence. I'm also open to speculation if the problem is not solved (and I don't think it is). However, I think we need to be very careful about claiming that speculations are reality, without sufficient evidence. Understand?

I am so happy to hear that a least I have stirred some interest where once there was outright rejection and relegation to "pseudo-science" category accompanied by derisive ad hominems from several other posters.

I'm not. I'm trying to push you towards the realisation that you're making overblown, so-far-unevidenced claims about microtubules.

I think I am only making claims that are self-evident or have been made by serious scientists engaged in the detailed exploration of a new area of scientific research.

But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe you can give a clear explanation in your own words in your next post. Let's see.

This is what I do not understand. Why should I use my own words, when there are better quoted passages available. Noone gets asked to recite Shakespeare in "their own words".

"Models of the mind are based on the idea that neuron microtubules can perform computation"

This looks like a declarative statement that models of the mind in this area start from the assumption that microtubules perform computation, somehow. I don't have a problem with that, but that's different from your claim that evidence shows that microtubules perform computation.

Not when those microtubules prove to be functional in the model. That is why I provide quoted passages and a link to the research facility.
I let the scientists speak for themselves as to the results of the experiments.
I am not researching the science on my own. I am researching the science via the scientists doing the science. What better presentation can be made than quoting the source?
I have been told in no uncertain terms that presentation in my own words does not meet the required standard of scientific linguistics.
Ok , I am flexible, I'll quote the scientists to avoid unnecessary confusion in terminology. I believe that is called "due diligence" .

 

[James R]

Write4U:

I don't need to understand everything they are saying as long as it tends to confirm my intuitive logical deduction.

Confirmation bias writ large. Only see what you want to see. No need to understand anything. Just go with your gut feeling.

All I need to do is make you understand what they are saying. Do you understand what they are saying?

At the level you and I are discussing this, yes, I think I understand what they are saying. They are making speculative models about the possible role that microtubules might play in consciousness, possibly through some kind of process going on at the quantum level. They are saying that if the assumptions of their models turn out to be true, then there will be particular implications for a theory of consciousness etc.

On an unrelated topic, a lot of your quotes talk about what seem to me to be uncontroversial findings about the functions of microtubules - e.g. they are elements that help maintain the structural integrity of cells.

I always try to select papers that advance a specific microtubule role or function.

Many of which are completely irrelevant to your central claim about the role of microtubules in consciousness.

I don't see what is unclear about scientific statements like [snip]

That's not unclear. I'm quite happy to accept that microtubules are used to transport substances to different parts of a cell, as the quote states. I am questioning your assertion that, as well as doing that transport, they also do some "data processing" of some sort. You say they are processors Yet you can't tell me what they process or what the processing involves.

The most basic question about microtubules is "are they instrumental in data processing". The answer appears to be a firm "yes".

So what do they process, exactly? How's the data encoded? What processing operations do the microtubules carry out on the data? What is the input? What is the output? How does the output differ from the input, after "processing"?

The problem with the question is that microtubules are involved in ALL data processing throughout the entire body.

So you say.

Microtubules are present in every cell of every living Eukaryotic organism. Microtubules control cell shape and function of every cell including neural cells.

How do they "control" cell shape? Which particular functions do they control?

Is all of this control happening purely at the quantum level? How do you know?

Microtubules are responsible for accurate cell division of every single cell during mitosis.

Responsible in what way? What do they actually do during cell division? Can you give me a one-paragraph summary?

That alone should qualify as a computational data processing function.

Computational? How so?

The quotes I have provided do describe a range of data processes by microtubules and related filaments.

Give one example. A paragraph should be enough to explain it to me. No need to cover all the details.

I am not here to engage in endless debate about trivia. I am here to present an overview with selected quotes from serious scientist engaged in the most ambitious journey of discovery ever, the journey into the nanoworld of living organisms,

I keep inviting you to give an overview. Instead, you produce random snippets of mostly cut-and-paste text on various topics that mention the word "microtubule". You say you've been following this research for years. But then, you also seem to be saying that you don't think you need to understand any of it, as long as it feels right to you and tends to confirm your "intuitive deductions".

To my knowledge there is no alternate competing model. All models rely on microtubules as the single common denominator of data processing in all Eukaryotic life, from plants to bacteria, to humans to whales, to octopi.

It seems you have forgotten an idea I put to you previously. That idea hypothesises that consciousness arises from activity at the neural level rather than at the microtubule level. The idea is that quantum processing and so on is not necessary for consciousness - the job can possibly be done just via nerve impulses, neurotransmitters and the usual supra-quantum apparatus of the nervous system.

As far as I can tell, there's no compelling evidence that any processing happens in microtubules at the quantum level, or that such processing is necessary for consciousness. That's not to say that doesn't happen, of course. I'm just saying the jury is out, as far as I can tell. But for some reason, you think otherwise - or, perhaps more accurately - wish it to be otherwise.

But you are dismissing all the quoted passages because you say that I have no clue.

No. I am only dismissing the ones that have nothing to do with any "processing" in microtubules, as irrelevant to what you and I are discussing. I think that research into the structural role that microtubules play in cells and stuff like that could well be valuable - certainly as valid as other kinds of scientific research. I'm also happy for scientists to look for quantum processes in microtubules and things like that. If they want to do that, I say go to it! My issue is with your overblown claims that there is already proof that microtubules are the key to consciousness, because as far as I can tell there isn't.

No one is required to explain E = Mc^2 in "their own words". Einstein is the definitive authority.

That's wrong. If somebody starts making claims about E=mc^2 - especially claims that don't seem to be supported by anything in the scientific literature - then the very first thing they need to do is to show that they understand what E=mc^2 is about, and why it is the way it is. A scientist can't do any useful science unless they understand the fundamentals of the science they are trying to advance.

I am so happy to hear that a least I have stirred some interest where once there was outright rejection and relegation to "pseudo-science" category accompanied by derisive ad hominems from several other posters.

It's not you. As I said earlier, I have been aware of Penrose and Hammeroff's initial speculations about microtubules since Penrose published The Emperor's New Mind. I didn't agree with his conclusions in that book then, and I still don't agree with them now, on the main topic in that work. The microtubule thing was a tacked-on speculation in that book and I don't know whether Penrose himself spent much time pursuing it. Basically, it has the status of a thought bubble at the time.

I think I am only making claims that are self-evident...

You're not. If the truth of your claims was self-evident, you and I wouldn't be having this discussion.

I am not researching the science on my own.

At best, you're doing meta-research. At worst, you're wasting your time reading literature that you don't understand.

 

[Write4U]

Confirmation bias writ large. Only see what you want to see. No need to understand anything. Just go with your gut feeling.

And you consider that some kind of victory?
Being that I have never claimed to be a scientist I believe that would rate as a hollow victory.
Note that the OP asks a question and does not make a declarative statement that I need to defend in scientific terms.

The better question is if my scientific shortcomings affect the validity of the science? The answer to that is no.
This is why I am loath to place my own brand on the science and have chosen to report by means of quoting the scientist that can and do explain the details in the quoted citations.

What is the citation?

A “citation” is the way you tell your readers that certain material in your work came from another source. It also gives your readers the information necessary to find the location details of that source on the reference or Works Cited page. A citation must include a set of parentheses.

https://www.marian.edu/docs/default...uments/what-is-citation.pdf?sfvrsn=76a375fd_2

I won't even address the rest of that rant. Obviously, you are NOT interested in the subject. If you were you'd be thanking me for doing all this work which probably amounts to a good number of college credits if it was to be graded as research material.

I do not consider you competent to grade my research so I shall just continue doing exactly what I have been doing. I believe the number of views indicates some general interest by visitors. I believe the thread is an asset to the forum despite your attempts to derail the science contained in the thread.

 

[Write4U]

At best, you're doing meta-research.

Thank you . I consider that a compliment.

At worst, you're wasting your time reading literature that you don't understand

And you believe you are qualified to make that clinical diagnosis? Or are you going by your gut feeling?

 

[Write4U]

You're not. If the truth of your claims was self-evident, you and I wouldn't be having this discussion.

We would not need to have this discussion if you would deign to read the material I provide. In your lofty position as science advisor why should you stoop to reading the trash that was selected by a rank amateur. You would not want to waste your valuable time on such nonsense, right?

Perhaps it is you who has decided to remain ignorant of the science . You're not reading the quoted passages or checking out the links I provide. You are really not in a position to judge my worth as researcher and proposal writer.

If you did you'd see that many things have become self-evident as the science in this area is progressing and knowledge is accumulating. We are long past your initial questions and objections. You are way behind the times, James.
If you are interested in the subject do a little reading on the current research and be surprised by the state of knowledge in this area.

 

[Write4U]

That idea hypothesises that consciousness arises from activity at the neural level rather than at the microtubule level

That statement shows your ignorance of the role microtubules play in neurons.
I'm not even going to bother explaining. You don't understand the role of microtubules except for a few old descriptions that describe only a very small portion of the total microtubule properties and functions known at that time.
Check out a few of the links I have provided. The title and quoted passages indicate the specific subject matter that relates to and requires microtubule and related filament functions.

You declare that this is just random selection of any publication that mentions microtubules.
That is the same as you declaring that trees don't make a forest because I offer a list of different individual species that may be found in a forest.
It's my gut feeling that you have become a victim of fractured specialization in science......

 

[Write4U]

e.g. they are elements that help maintain the structural integrity of cells.

And how do they manage that? Have you ever asked those questions?

As previously posted;

the cytoskeleton
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/sanjacinto-biology1/chapter/the-cytoskeleton/

How do microtubules manage to walk? Pseudopodia.

Mechanisms of regulation of pseudopodial activity by the microtubule system
A D Bershadsky1, J M Vasiliev

Abstract

Polarization of pseudopodial activity may develop spontaneously or be induced by external signals; this polarization is stabilized by cytoskeletal mechanisms. We have studied the mechanisms of microtubule-dependent control of the polarization of pseudopodial activity.

Experiments with cultured fibroblasts exposed to drugs specifically inhibiting or enhancing polymerization of microtubules show that an intact microtubule system is essential, not only for restricting pseudopodial activity to certain sites at the cell edge, but also for enhancing this polarized activity.

In other experiments, extension of pseudopods and polarization of cultured fibroblasts was enhanced by N-ras proto-oncogene over-expression or by phorbol ester induced activation of protein kinase C. This enhancement of polarization was accompanied in both cases by significant activation of the motility of vesicular organelles.

Microtubules in the elongated processes of these cells were enriched in detyrosinated (Glu) alpha tubulin. Colcemid inhibited both organelle motility and cell process extension in this cell system. Intracellular injection of antibody to kinesin, the protein that moves vesicles toward the plus (distal) end of microtubules, mimicked some effects of microtubule-depolymerizing drugs on cell shape and pseudopodial activity.

On the basis of these data it is suggested that, at least in fibroblasts, microtubules direct and enhance the outward component of cortical flow essential for pseudopod extension. This control may be associated with the organelle transport function of microtubules. A model of the stabilization of polarization by reorganization of both the actin cortex and the microtubule system is proposed and discussed.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8165577/

Similar articles

• The polarization of the motile cell.
  Nabi IR.J Cell Sci. 1999 Jun;112 ( Pt 12):1803-11. doi: 10.1242/jcs.112.12.1803.PMID: 10341200 Review

 

[Write4U]

Question was how many and what type chemicals are influential in microtuble processes.
Unfortunately it takes more than a few paragraphs as suggested.

The chemical complexity of cellular microtubules: tubulin post-translational modification enzymes and their roles in tuning microtubule functions
Christopher P. Garnham1 and Antonina Roll-Mecak1,2,*
Author information Copyright and License information Disclaimer

Abstract

Cellular microtubules are marked by abundant and evolutionarily conserved post-translational modifications that have the potential to tune their functions. This review focuses on the astonishing chemical complexity introduced in the tubulin heterodimer at the post-translational level and summarizes the recent advances in identifying the enzymes responsible for these modifications and deciphering the consequences of tubulin’s chemical diversity on the function of molecular motors and microtubule associated proteins.

Introduction

Microtubules are dynamic polymers essential for cell morphogenesis, cell division, and intracellular transport. Microtubules perform their diverse cellular functions by forming suprastructures with highly distinctive geometries and dynamic behaviours: the radial cytoplasmic array, the stable short parallel axonemal array, the dynamic bipolar spindle array, the long tiled axonal array or the highly complex dendritic array. Microtubules are hollow cylindrical polymers of ~ 25 nm diameter of highly variable lengths. Their building block is the α/β heterodimer. Repeating α/β-tubulin heterodimers form a protofilament and typically thirteen protofilaments associate laterally to form the microtubule.

How does a single building block, the α/β-tubulin heterodimer, create the diverse microtubule functions observed in cells? The answer lies in the myriad of cytoskeletal regulators that act on microtubules as well as the genetic and chemical diversity of tubulin itself.

In many eukaryotes, particularly higher vertebrates, both α- and β-tubulin are encoded by multigene families—comprising, for instance, six and seven genes, respectively, in humans [Sullivan 1988]. While tubulin isotypes are restricted to specialized cells, most tissues express several, thus possibly creating many combinations of α/β heterodimers. Most microtubules are made of mixtures of isotypes, while some contain predominantly a single isotype [Miller et al. 2010].

Different isotypes can have specific functions, and one isotype is not always interchangeable with another [Nielsen et al. 2001]. For example, the divergent β-tubulin found in platelets localizes to the marginal band and is important for giving platelets their discoid shape [Schwer et al. 2001].

Presently we still know very little about the effects of tubulin isotype composition on polymer assembly and dynamics, although several studies support the idea that microtubule dynamics can be modulated by titrating tubulin isotype levels [Lu and Luduena 1994; Panda et al. 1994; Newton et al. 2002] and that microtubule associated proteins can differentially interact with different tubulin isotypes [Lu et al. 2004].

A second layer of complexity is added to the tubulin dimer by highly diverse post-translational modifications. This review focuses primarily on the types of post-translational modifications found on tubulin, the enzymes responsible for these modifications and the consequences of this chemical diversity on the function of molecular motors and microtubule associated proteins (MAPs).

The chemical complexity of the microtubule

Tubulins and microtubules are subject to evolutionarily conserved and developmentally regulated post-translational modifications, including the removal and subsequent addition of the C-terminal tyrosine in α-tubulin [Barra et al. 1973], the non-reversible removal of the conserved penultimate glutamate residue of α-tubulin [Paturle-Lafanechere et al. 1991], acetylation of α-tubulin [L'Hernault and Rosenbaum 1983; L'Hernault and Rosenbaum 1985], poly-glutamylation of α- and β-tubulin [Edde et al. 1990; Alexander et al. 1991; Redeker et al. 1992; Rudiger et al. 1992], poly-glycylation of α- and β-tubulin [Redeker et al. 1994], phosphorylation of β-tubulin [Eipper 1972] and palmitoylation of α-tubulin [Caron 1997; Ozols and Caron 1997; Caron et al. 2001].

Acetylation of β-tubulin has also been reported recently [Chu et al. 2011] and this addition most likely signals that we do not yet have a complete compendium of tubulin post-translational modifications. Expansion of tubulin’s post-translational repertoire coincides with increased metazoan complexity and the highest density and variety of post-translational modifications is found in especially complex microtubule arrays like those of neurons or cilia.

The diversity of the tubulin repertoire is evident both at the cellular and subcellular levels. At the subcellular level, post-translational modifications mark distinct subpopulations of microtubules in the cell. These marks may serve to locally adapt microtubules for specific functions: thus, microtubules oriented towards a wound in a confluent monolayer of cells are enriched in detyrosination [Bre et al. 1991; Nagasaki and Gundersen 1996], microtubules in a newly extended neurite that is destined to become the axon are enriched in acetylation and poly-glutamylation [Hammond et al. 2010], astral microtubules are tyrosinated, spindle microtubules are enriched in detyrosination [Gundersen et al. 1984; Gundersen and Bulinski 1986], while microtubules in cilia, flagella or basal bodies are acetylated [Piperno and Fuller 1985] as well as heavily poly-glutamylated [Edde et al. 1990] and poly-glycylated [Levilliers et al. 1995; Verhey and Gaertig 2007; Fukushima et al. 2009; Wloga and Gaertig 2010].

.......more
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3459347/

And that is just the microtubules involved in cellular regulation. We haven't yet touched on microtubules found in the brain, because of the inaccesibility to invasive discovery.

 

[Write4U]

On Brain Microtubules

Discovery of quantum vibrations in 'microtubules' inside brain neurons supports controversial theory of consciousness
Date: January 16, 2014

The recent discovery of warm temperature quantum vibrations in microtubules inside brain neurons by the research group led by Anirban Bandyopadhyay, PhD, at the National Institute of Material Sciences in Tsukuba, Japan (and now at MIT), corroborates the pair's theory and suggests that EEG rhythms also derive from deeper level microtubule vibrations. In addition, work from the laboratory of Roderick G. Eckenhoff, MD, at the University of Pennsylvania, suggests that anesthesia, which selectively erases consciousness while sparing non-conscious brain activities, acts via microtubules in brain neurons.

"The origin of consciousness reflects our place in the universe, the nature of our existence. Did consciousness evolve from complex computations among brain neurons, as most scientists assert? Or has consciousness, in some sense, been here all along, as spiritual approaches maintain?" ask Hameroff and Penrose in the current review. "This opens a potential Pandora's Box, but our theory accommodates both these views, suggesting consciousness derives from quantum vibrations in microtubules, protein polymers inside brain neurons, which both govern neuronal and synaptic function, and connect brain processes to self-organizing processes in the fine scale, 'proto-conscious' quantum structure of reality."

After 20 years of skeptical criticism, "the evidence now clearly supports Orch OR," continue Hameroff and Penrose. "Our new paper updates the evidence, clarifies Orch OR quantum bits, or "qubits," as helical pathways in microtubule lattices, rebuts critics, and reviews 20 testable predictions of Orch OR published in 1998 -- of these, six are confirmed and none refuted.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140116085105.htm

Please note that as atheist, I am very skeptical in regards to extrasensory consciousness outside of brain function. I am glad that the article allows for a choice of interpretation.

 

[Write4U]

It seems you have forgotten an idea I put to you previously. That idea hypothesises that consciousness arises from activity at the neural level rather than at the microtubule level. The idea is that quantum processing and so on is not necessary for consciousness - the job can possibly be done just via nerve impulses, neurotransmitters and the usual supra-quantum apparatus of the nervous system.

I believe you are really unaware of how dumb that sounds.
You just have no idea that it is the microtubules inside the neurons (axons) that perform those very "jobs" you just mentioned.

I have posted all this before, but you just don't read it.

The microtubule cytoskeleton acts as a key downstream effector of neurotransmitter signaling

Abstract

Microtubules are well known to play a key role in the trafficking of neurotransmitters to the synapse. However, less attention has been paid to their role as downstream effectors of neurotransmitter signaling in the target neuron. Here, we show that neurotransmitter-based signaling to the microtubule cytoskeleton regulates downstream microtubule function through several mechanisms. These include tubulin posttranslational modification, binding of microtubule-associated proteins, release of microtubule-interacting second messenger molecules, and regulation of tubulin expression levels.

We review the evidence for neurotransmitter regulation of the microtubule cytoskeleton, focusing on the neurotransmitters serotonin, melatonin, dopamine, glutamate, glycine, and acetylcholine. Some evidence suggests that microtubules may even play a more direct role in propagating action potentials through conductance of electric current. In turn, there is evidence for the regulation of neurotransmission by the microtubule cytoskeleton.

...more
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20687109/

 

[Write4U]

continued....

Contextuality in Neurobehavioural and Collective Intelligence Systems

Abstract:

Contextuality is often described as a unique feature of the quantum realm, which distinguishes
it fundamentally from the classical realm. This is not strictly true, and stems from decades
of the misapplication of Kolmogorov probability. Contextuality appears in Kolmogorov theory
(observed in the inability to form joint distributions) and in non-Kolmogorov theory (observed in
the violation of inequalities of correlations). Both forms of contextuality have been observed in
psychological experiments, although the first form has been known for decades but mostly ignored.

The complex dynamics of neural systems (neurobehavioural regulatory systems) and of collective
intelligence systems (social insect colonies) are described. These systems are contextual in the first
sense and possibly in the second as well. Process algebra, based on the Process Theory of Whitehead,
describes systems that are generated, transient, open, interactive, and primarily information-driven,
and seems ideally suited to modeling these systems. It is argued that these dynamical characteristics
give rise to contextuality and non-Kolmogorov probability in spite of these being entirely
classical systems.

Keywords: process; process algebra; contextuality; neurodynamics; collective intelligence; social
insects; information dynamics; salience

,,,more
https://www.mdpi.com › pdf

 

[exchemist]

I believe you are really unaware of how dumb that sounds.
You just have no idea that it is the microtubules inside the neurons (axons) that perform those very "jobs" you just mentioned.

I have posted all this before, but you just don't read it.

The microtubule cytoskeleton acts as a key downstream effector of neurotransmitter signaling

Abstract

...more
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20687109/

This suggests microtubules may play a role in the response of the neuron to which the signal has been transmitted by a neurotransmitter. There is nothing whatever about quantum effects or consciousness here.

So what James says is perfectly correct.

 

[river]

Write4U said: ↑
I believe you are really unaware of how dumb that sounds.
You just have no idea that it is the microtubules inside the neurons (axons) that perform those very "jobs" you just mentioned.

I have posted all this before, but you just don't read it.

The microtubule cytoskeleton acts as a key downstream effector of neurotransmitter signaling

Abstract

...more
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20687109/

So the shape of the microtubule cytoskeleton guides the signal ?

 

[Write4U]

This suggests microtubules may play a role in the response of the neuron to which the signal has been transmitted by a neurotransmitter. There is nothing whatever about quantum effects or consciousness here.

So what James says is perfectly correct.

Post # 2395 has something about quantum vibrations.

Also check posts # 2362, 2370, 2372 for indications of EM activity in MT.

Discovery of quantum vibrations in 'microtubules' inside brain neurons supports controversial theory of consciousness

Moreover, it is now established that MTs are instrumental in EM transmission and I believe that is by definition a quantum function, no?

The quantum nature of EM radiation and its interaction with matter

Although classical physics had explained most of its behavior as a result of its wave nature, Planck and Einstein showed that electromagnetic (EM) radiation behaves as if its energy is carried at the nanoscale in small bundles, or quanta (plural of quantum), of energy with particle-like characteristics. The behavior of EM radiation in its interactions with matter is, in fact, where this quantum nature is most clearly revealed.

http://guweb2.gonzaga.edu/faculty/cronk/CHEM101pub/EM-quanta.html

I just don't think that Penrose would commit to an unproven hypothesis if he did not see some "potential" in the concept of microtubules being able to transmit EM information.
Lest we forget, he just received a Nobel prize and they don't award that honor to incompetent fools.