Into the Sub-Quantum .
Is consciousness to be found in quantum processes in microtubules?
- Thread starter Write4U
- Start date
- Status
Into the Sub-Quantum .
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
I addressed this unsubstantiated notion of "quantum vibrations" in post 5 (five) of this thread.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
I am addressing the later substantiated proofs of EM activity in microtubules
see posts # 2362, 2370, 2372
Why do you bother? It's not like he's going to say "oh, sorry, I can't substantiate that so I retract that" or "here's a study done at Michigan State that proves what I was saying." He's going to post something unrelated, and if you challenge him on THAT, he's going to post something even less related, and continue the process until you give up.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Yes well, you wouldn't know if I posted something related. You don't read anything I post. And that seems to be norm of the vehement critics.
The people that have actually read some of the material don't blindly and ignorantly dismiss what I have posted, including many references to studies done by qualified research facilities like Michigan State.
The irony is stunning. One poster tells me I only quote material from research facilities , and then another comes along and tells me I do not quote material from bonafide research facilities. Sort it out among yourselves please, before you bother me with conflicting ad hominem.
What you completely miss is that everything I post is related by a "common denominator",
to wit; microtubules.
You have no clue as to what they do, yet you are arrogant enough to pass "uninformed critique".
Learn what they do, then come back and correct any errors in my understanding of the role microtubules play in the human biome. I've provided abundant reference material.
Then I'll listen. Today, you have no standing in the matter.
Last edited:
Why do we fight? MICROTUBULES!
What tells me I am right? MICROTUBULES!
What will let us win the war? MICROTUBULES!
Who will pay my tab at the bar? MICROTUBULES!
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
You've just been reported for falsely attributing those statements to me. I never said those things.
I'm getting tired of your ignorant ad hominem. Grow up !
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
You're perfectly right of course. He's just desperate for anyone at all to respond - even to the extent of being prepared to engage (if that's the word) with the inanities of river. Generally I leave him alone.
It was the irony of his calling James dumb in post 2396, when it was he that had misunderstood the paper he was quoting, that suckered me into responding.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
@ James R
I have posted it before but this more comprehensive refresher may answer some of your questions.
Microtubule ionic conduction and its implications for higher cognitive functions
Travis J A Craddock1, Jack A Tuszynski, Avner Priel, Holly Freedman
I have posted it before but this more comprehensive refresher may answer some of your questions.
Microtubule ionic conduction and its implications for higher cognitive functions
Travis J A Craddock1, Jack A Tuszynski, Avner Priel, Holly Freedman
- PMID: 20589950
- DOI: 10.1142/s0219635210002421
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20589950/
Last edited:
Which is why I didn't put any quotes there! Those are my claims. Microtubules will freshen your breath and pay your bills. They will turn a 98 pound weakling into a He-Man. They will bring consciousness to the unconscious and solace to the weary. They will solve the trouble in River City. They are not going to pay a lot for that muffler.
And I can prove all of that! Why, just ask and I will post an article about flagella.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Reported for off-topic comment.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Re microtubule role in transport of electrochemical data;
Ion Permeability of a Microtubule in Neuron Environment
Chun Shen1, Wanlin Guo1
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jpclett.8b00324
Abstract
Ion Permeability of a Microtubule in Neuron Environment
Chun Shen1, Wanlin Guo1
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jpclett.8b00324
Abstract
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29617570/
Write4U:
For whatever reason, you have formed fixed opinions on a few topics of scientific speculation, which you spend most of your time here trying to defend. Unfortunately for you, you can't back up your most extravagant claims because you have over-stated what the relevant scientists have been saying on those matters. The best you can do, without admitting that you're trying to defend the indefensible, is to try to distract attention away from your claims, which you mostly seem to do by posting quotes and references that talk around the general topics you're interested in but do not directly address your claims.
My impression is that you spend your time searching the web for statements (whether in or out of context) that you think support the opinions you already have, without ever applying a skeptical lens to any of it. I also think that part of the problem is that you're out of your depth in reading a lot of the peer-reviewed literature on microtubules. You might vaguely understand the abstract of a paper, but you don't have the tools to critique the content yourself.
As for myself, I am not one to claim expertise in an area where I have none. I freely admit that I have not looked up and read any of the complete papers that you have cited on microtubules. Nor would I expect to understand all their contents if I did. But I don't need to go into that level of detail to critique your claims, here. All I need to do is to observe that none of the quotes that you provide in support of your central claims (e.g. microtubes are "processors" of some kind of unspecified data) actually lend direct support to that idea. At best, some of the quotes seem to suggest that such a thing might be possible, hypothetically, but admit that this has not yet been shown.
It's all well and good for you say "I only provide quotes from scientists working in the field of microtubules" and the like, but if those quotes don't support the conclusions you're trying to draw then they are worthless (for that particular purpose).
I have already said that I have no problem at all with scientists working to understand more about microtubules. That kind of stuff is standard scientific research. I also have no problem at all with scientists who propose that microtubules might have some role to play in consciousness. That is standard scientific speculation. My problem is with you, who continues to claim, without good evidence, that somebody somewhere has proven that microtubules are The Explanation of consciousness. Because nobody has done that.
Here are the central questions you need to address, again. I will put them here in bold type:
What do microtubules 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"?
Here's an idea: try to write down a brief list, perhaps in dot-point form, of the main arguments that lead you to believe that quantum processes in microtubules are the cause of consciousness. Preferably, you should start with the basics and build the argument, point by point.
We can delve into any disputed details later, after you've posted the summary of your argument.
How does that sound?
It's not like you and I are in a contest, Write4U.
For whatever reason, you have formed fixed opinions on a few topics of scientific speculation, which you spend most of your time here trying to defend. Unfortunately for you, you can't back up your most extravagant claims because you have over-stated what the relevant scientists have been saying on those matters. The best you can do, without admitting that you're trying to defend the indefensible, is to try to distract attention away from your claims, which you mostly seem to do by posting quotes and references that talk around the general topics you're interested in but do not directly address your claims.
My impression is that you spend your time searching the web for statements (whether in or out of context) that you think support the opinions you already have, without ever applying a skeptical lens to any of it. I also think that part of the problem is that you're out of your depth in reading a lot of the peer-reviewed literature on microtubules. You might vaguely understand the abstract of a paper, but you don't have the tools to critique the content yourself.
As for myself, I am not one to claim expertise in an area where I have none. I freely admit that I have not looked up and read any of the complete papers that you have cited on microtubules. Nor would I expect to understand all their contents if I did. But I don't need to go into that level of detail to critique your claims, here. All I need to do is to observe that none of the quotes that you provide in support of your central claims (e.g. microtubes are "processors" of some kind of unspecified data) actually lend direct support to that idea. At best, some of the quotes seem to suggest that such a thing might be possible, hypothetically, but admit that this has not yet been shown.
It's all well and good for you say "I only provide quotes from scientists working in the field of microtubules" and the like, but if those quotes don't support the conclusions you're trying to draw then they are worthless (for that particular purpose).
I have already said that I have no problem at all with scientists working to understand more about microtubules. That kind of stuff is standard scientific research. I also have no problem at all with scientists who propose that microtubules might have some role to play in consciousness. That is standard scientific speculation. My problem is with you, who continues to claim, without good evidence, that somebody somewhere has proven that microtubules are The Explanation of consciousness. Because nobody has done that.
My answer to the question, based on the evidence I've seen so far, is "I don't know". As I understand it, your answer is "yes", but so far you've been unable to set out the evidence that led you to that conclusion in a paragraph or two, despite my inviting you to do that over and over again.
Here are the central questions you need to address, again. I will put them here in bold type:
What do microtubules 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"?
I wouldn't be posting in this thread if I had no interest in the subject. I'm not a fanboy like you are, I'll freely admit, but that does not mean I have no interest.
No, it wouldn't.
Okay. I've been trying to help you, so you don't waste even more time, but in the end your time is yours to do with as you please.
Views is already hard to unpack. You and I alone probably account for a fair number of page views of this thread, for instance. It's not each person is only counted once.
Don't be silly. I haven't tried to derail the science at any point in this thread.
Based on your posts to this thread, yes, I believe I am qualified to judge this matter. This is not about mental illness, though, if that's what you were trying to imply with that comment.
I skim through all of the "material" you provide. I trust you to provide the parts that you believe most support your arguments, so I do not click through the original papers etc. most of the time. See above for further explanation. I also sometimes stop reading if I read far enough to discover that a quoted paper has nothing to do with "processing" or quantum stuff or consciousness - the points of contention in this thread.
To a degree, that's true, of course. One must make choices in life about how to use one's time productively, how to make the best use of one's skills, how to allocate time among competing attractions. We're only on this planet for a short time. Nobody can be an expert on everything. Choices must be made and priorities set.
Who knows? Maybe I am in such a position, or maybe not. I'm just some guy on the internet; you only have my words by which to judge me.
Yes.
That's not apparent to me from the material you have posted so far.
Okay. You have to choose how to use your time too. I understand.
You're probably right. If only there was somebody who could provide a concise summary of their role...
Maybe your trees somehow do make the forest you want them to make. All I can say is that this is not apparent to me from what you have posted.
Here's an idea: try to write down a brief list, perhaps in dot-point form, of the main arguments that lead you to believe that quantum processes in microtubules are the cause of consciousness. Preferably, you should start with the basics and build the argument, point by point.
We can delve into any disputed details later, after you've posted the summary of your argument.
How does that sound?
Maybe. That's potentially a trap that any specialist can fall into. All I can say is that I try to keep my scientific interests moderately eclectic, and I also pay attention to quite a lot of things that have little or nothing to do with science.It's my gut feeling that you have become a victim of fractured specialization in science......
Last edited:
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
No James, I search the web for all critiques, good or bad, but so far ORCH OR has withstood all objections, albeit with some modifications of the original hypothesis. A good thing!
But there is no falsification anywhere that has not been successfully countered. No offered objection has proved fatal to the hypothesis. And as with any major conceptual model, it has withstood some vehement and persistent critique.
As to applying a skeptical mind, I am not aware of any valid discreditation of the hypothesis. There is no compelling reason to believe my understanding is misplaced and in error. Why not join me in the research?
You can only bring up vague doubts while I keep providing answers to every objection that has been raised. Why not satisfy yourself that my argument is based on sound science performed by qualified scientists.
Is it just possible that I am correct in my understanding? And if not, on what demonstrable flaw do you rest your objections. So far, aside from the assertion that I must be incompetent to make and present a persuasive argument., there has been no single request made that I have not satisfactorily answered.
If you do not read my quoted passages and especially the highlighted portions how can you make any judgement at all. If I can find common qualities in the various and variable microtubule arrangements that allow for the processing of different forms of data and no one can come up with a better model, I must assume that so far my instincts have served me well.
p.s. Due to prior circumstances, I may lack in formal education but that does not make me stupid. Ignorance can be cured with research. So far I believe my research has produced a large body of knowledge on what is a thriving area of scientific inquiry that has been in no way been displaced by anything else resembling Science.
So far my OP question has not been definitively answered or debunked. So I labor on in the hope that new information will have exciting news about the emergent quality of consciousness.
Write4U:
Suppose that numerous people over the years have suggested possible reasons why I might not actually have a cat named Frank. Some of those reasons might be more plausible than others, but let us say that despite persistent and sometimes vehement critique, no critique has proven fatal to the hypothesis that I have a cat named Frank.
Does this prove that I have a cat named Frank? The answer is a clear an unambiguous "No, it does not."
The cat problem has a solution, I should mention. All it needs is for somebody to say "Show me your cat (preferably with his name tag attached)!" If I can't produce Frank, then there's going to be a strong presumption that Frank doesn't exist. "Oh, he's at the vet this week, so I can't show him to you". Well, maybe. "Next week should be fine then, right?" You see how this is going to go.
Show me your cat, Write4U.
Let's say that I claim that I have a cat named Frank. It is a falsifiable hypothesis that I do, in fact, have a cat named Frank.
Suppose that numerous people over the years have suggested possible reasons why I might not actually have a cat named Frank. Some of those reasons might be more plausible than others, but let us say that despite persistent and sometimes vehement critique, no critique has proven fatal to the hypothesis that I have a cat named Frank.
Does this prove that I have a cat named Frank? The answer is a clear an unambiguous "No, it does not."
Could you be correct that consciousness is due to quantum processes in microtubules? Yes, you could be correct. All I can say is that, based on the evidence I have seen so far, I'm not convinced, for similar reasons why you should not be convinced that I have a cat named Frank.
The cat problem has a solution, I should mention. All it needs is for somebody to say "Show me your cat (preferably with his name tag attached)!" If I can't produce Frank, then there's going to be a strong presumption that Frank doesn't exist. "Oh, he's at the vet this week, so I can't show him to you". Well, maybe. "Next week should be fine then, right?" You see how this is going to go.
What do microtubules 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"?
Show me your cat, Write4U.
I didn't call you stupid.
INTERLUDE
While mainstream theories assert that consciousness emerges as the complexity of the computations performed by cerebralneurons increases,[4][5] Orch OR posits that consciousness is based on non-computablequantum processing performed by qubits formed collectively on cellular microtubules, a process significantly amplified in the neurons. The qubits are based on oscillating dipoles forming superposed resonance rings in helical pathways throughout lattices of microtubules. The oscillations are either electric, due to charge separation from London forces, or magnetic, due to electron spin—and possibly also due to nuclear spins (that can remain isolated for longer periods) that occur in gigahertz, megahertz and kilohertz frequency ranges.[2][6] Orchestration refers to the hypothetical process by which connective proteins, such as microtubule-associated proteins (MAPs), influence or orchestrate qubit state reduction by modifying the spacetime-separation of their superimposed states.[7] The latter is based on Penrose's objective-collapse theory for interpreting quantum mechanics, which postulates the existence of an objective threshold governing the collapse of quantum-states, related to the difference of the spacetime curvature of these states in the universe's fine-scale structure.[8]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orchestrated_objective_reduction
Have a tip of finger understanding of the above. Big part of my incredulity "How are the scientists testing for said position they are proposing / holding?
Have (has) the scientists / science progressed to the ability to make predictions?
This is what I notice in that:
In other words, Orch OR is a bunch of assertions that discuss hypothetical processes in which microtubules are postulated to oscillate, possibly electrically, possibly magnetically or possibly due to nuclear spins. Penrose postulates that such oscillations might govern the collapse of quantum states, and that these quantum states might play some role in consciousness.
Did I miss anything?
Where is the "this stuff has all be proven by X, Y and Z"?
And is wikipedia really the best you can do at this point in the discussion?
INTERLUDE
While mainstream theories assert that consciousness emerges as the complexity of the computations performed by cerebralneurons increases,[4][5] Orch OR posits that consciousness is based on non-computablequantum processing performed by qubits formed collectively on cellular microtubules, a process significantly amplified in the neurons. The qubits are based on oscillating dipoles forming superposed resonance rings in helical pathways throughout lattices of microtubules. The oscillations are either electric, due to charge separation from London forces, or magnetic, due to electron spin—and possibly also due to nuclear spins (that can remain isolated for longer periods) that occur in gigahertz, megahertz and kilohertz frequency ranges.[2][6] Orchestration refers to the hypothetical process by which connective proteins, such as microtubule-associated proteins (MAPs), influence or orchestrate qubit state reduction by modifying the spacetime-separation of their superimposed states.[7] The latter is based on Penrose's objective-collapse theory for interpreting quantum mechanics, which postulates the existence of an objective threshold governing the collapse of quantum-states, related to the difference of the spacetime curvature of these states in the universe's fine-scale structure.[8]
While mainstream theories assert that consciousness emerges as the complexity of the computations performed by cerebralneurons increases,[4][5] Orch OR posits that consciousness is based on non-computablequantum processing performed by qubits formed collectively on cellular microtubules, a process significantly amplified in the neurons. The qubits are based on oscillating dipoles forming superposed resonance rings in helical pathways throughout lattices of microtubules. The oscillations are either electric, due to charge separation from London forces, or magnetic, due to electron spin—and possibly also due to nuclear spins (that can remain isolated for longer periods) that occur in gigahertz, megahertz and kilohertz frequency ranges.[2][6] Orchestration refers to the hypothetical process by which connective proteins, such as microtubule-associated proteins (MAPs), influence or orchestrate qubit state reduction by modifying the spacetime-separation of their superimposed states.[7] The latter is based on Penrose's objective-collapse theory for interpreting quantum mechanics, which postulates the existence of an objective threshold governing the collapse of quantum-states, related to the difference of the spacetime curvature of these states in the universe's fine-scale structure.[8]
In other words, Orch OR is a bunch of assertions that discuss hypothetical processes in which microtubules are postulated to oscillate, possibly electrically, possibly magnetically or possibly due to nuclear spins. Penrose postulates that such oscillations might govern the collapse of quantum states, and that these quantum states might play some role in consciousness.
Did I miss anything?
Where is the "this stuff has all be proven by X, Y and Z"?
And is wikipedia really the best you can do at this point in the discussion?
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Should I care? If you say you have a cat named Frank I believe you because there is no reason why you should NOT have a cat named Frank.
OTOH, if you said you had a lion named Frank, I would ask you where you kept it and then judge the veracity of your statement on that answer.
So far I have answered all questions with scientific clarity (quoting scientists) and there is no reason for your insistence on refusing to consider my sources. You took an initial prejudicial position and now you are loath to even say; "well W4U, after all the stuff you have come up with, you may just have a point" .
I am not advancing anything that is not possible and from the evidence, is highly probable.
You still have not made a cogent argument that proposes a different model. I am willing to bet that there will never be a better model, first, that MT are critically instrumental in the emergence of conscious thought, and second, that quantum function may well be involved in this process. And that absence of one does not invalidate the other.
Yes, there is a complete lack of a valid argument against the concept of MT involvement in the emergence of consciousness. And I am not alone in this.
This is not maverick speculation.
The OP poses a question and the abstract posits an answer accompanied by numerous supporting research.
I understand the scientific method, but you are not reading the supporting material, yet you persist in declaring that my "initial interest" is not based on solid logical arguments unless I have definitive proof of my proposition. I believe I have accumulated sufficient proofs to make a claim that further research will produce continued supporting data.
I am NOT claiming truth . I am expressing high confidence in my initial understanding of the problems involved in providing an answer to the "hard question" and I am confident that MT will eventually provide the answers. No one has sufficient argument to make a persuasive counter argument to the MT model as proposed by several approaches to the question.
MTs are not excluded from any existing proposed model ! Consider that.
I make no claims other than that I believe that consciosness may well be found in the combined and orchestrated microtubular functions in EVERY cell throughout the entire body
Last edited:
I agree not there
Which is why I asked
Well I don't really consider myself in the discussion
Put Write4U on Iggy when he went into finger wagging school master mode
Testing the ideas put forward seems to be any impossible hurdle to overcome
But even if such hurdle were overcome I would contend the WHY? remains
HOW (or WHY) do the processes of chemicals and electrical impulses upgrade from just being processes of chemicals and electrical impulses to a super overriding contemplative, entity, a knowing entity, a knowing entity which understands it is knowing entity which understands itself
Getting dizzy here
Coffee time
- Status