Thank you.
I read what you write, and evaluate your level of understanding based on that.
Let me replay what piqued my interest in the matter of consciousness a few years ago and specifically what may be responsible for its causes. I always submitted a sample of the current science at that time. A practice that was criticized at that time.
It started with this lecture by Anil Seth, who explained the isolation of the brain from the environment, except for external data received by the senses, transmuted into electrochemical bits, transmitted to the brain where that data was decoded and compared to stored data in memory, whereupon the brain could make a best guess of the meaning of the incoming data as compared to prior recorded experience. This was a Eureka moment for me, as I had never given it much thought, although I had read about Descartes' "brain in a vat", but not contemplated the staggering implications of that simple proposition.
Anil Seth explains more from the TED stage.
https://www.npr.org/transcripts/654730916
It was then I found Stuart Haneroff's lecture and immediately became intrigued by his use of Descartes' brain in a vat analogy.
Here is one of his lectures I haven't posted yet but does go into some detail as how microtubules work and how.
Your scattergun quotes and almost random pickings from the papers are evidence of your level of understanding.
I explained a long time ago that when I see "common denominators" in various physical expressions, there is "common function". in this case I started with the proposition that the microtubule network is the substrate that allows or is causal to the emergence of conscious experience. Therefore it is logical to assume that all functions that involve microtubules may contribute to the emergence of consciousness or at least reveal the forces that microtubules process.
That among other functions, microtubules are the highways along which electrochemical data is transported. You should recall this as you grilled me on the type of data that is being transported. Since then I have submitted overwhelming scientific evidence (written by scientists) of the hundreds of electric and chemical information that microtubules transport from the sensory organs to the brain via the trillions of microtubules located in the cytoskeleton, the cytoplasm, neurons inside the entirety of the body and in staggering numbers in the brain.
In the early stages of my research I did not even know what to look for and I have learned on the fly, which may account for my sometimes generalized presentations.
Do you realise that I haven't ever claimed that your big picture hypothesis is wrong? The problem is that, so far, you've been unable to support your wilder claims (including your main one) with appropriate evidence.
Then why did I not hear this from the beginning, but with the same questions you asked me years later after this site was declared a frigging church as I am trying to defend the underlying principles and concept.
Instead of a war zone, this could have been a very productive topic if the "real scientists" had found the slightest interest instead of declaring this the rantings of a religious nutcake.
This could have been
That's why you have a religion rather than a science. I'm not willing to join you in your faith. But evidence could sway me.[/quote] Give it time. I think it already is beginning to "resonate" in your brain.
The science is still very young. You are very impatient in view of how long it took for other major scientific discoveries to be refined and eventually proven.
Okay. Let's go through your latest post in some detail and work out to what extent the paper supports your claims. Of course, I've done this several times before with other things you have posted and it has had no impact on your faith, so to expect a different result this time would be naively optimistic.
The following quotes are from the extracts of the paper you posted. First, the abstract...
A somewhat bizarre claim which needs support. What exactly does "internal coherent electromagnetic field" mean? What makes an electromagnetic field "coherent"?
This lack of specificity makes me doubt the value of the paper right from the start.
"Supposed to be"? Supposed by whom? People who have already drunk the microtubule kool aid, perhaps.
Most likely by some of the thousand other scientists now engaged in researching this field, perhaps second only to research on cheap energy. It seems unfair to label serious researchers in this field as having drunk the microtubule kool aid. I had compiled a list of "qualified" researchers , but it would have taken 3 pages to list them all just by name and title. Check out the Quora site
Okay. I assume the maths is all in the paper somewhere.
Or in other peer-reviewed papers.
I cannot imagine professional scientists engaged in speculative projections based on suspect mathematics. Just look at the initial response and criticism on ORCH OR.
Today, after these objections were answered and some refined measurements of "limits" were made, ORCH OR is steadily gaining in reputation as a potential answer to the question, with some astounding much deeper implications that leave this atheist speechless.
What does "helical and axial periodicity" mean? Axial periodicity in particular. What can be periodic about an axis?
AFAIK, any axis that returns to its original position after a variable conformation
Inner cavity excitation? As opposed to what? Is there outer cavity excitation? Or is the word "inner" superfluous?
What kind of energy is the author referring to, exactly? [/quote]
I imagine these are "new terms" applicable to a new science. I have seen microtubules referred to by several different names as if those researchers were unaware that there are several areas of inquiries and experiment, but no one is communicating with other scientists in the field.
Here is an excerpt of one of my microtubule discussions on another forum;
Michael Levin is an American developmental and synthetic biologist at Tufts University, where he is the Vannevar Bush Distinguished Professor. Levin is a director of the Allen Discovery Center at Tufts University and Tufts Center for Regenerative and Developmental Biology.
Wikipedia
From Michael Levin;
Re your question:
Might you be able to suggest an informed educating response to the complaint that you might be ignoring microtubules?
I studied microtubules a lot, in our work on left-right patterning (not cilia, intracellular microtubule organization center), and a bit in planaria patterning. But I would answer a different way.
The bottom line is that everyone has a favorite mechanism. Some people will say you have to study mitochondria, nuclear envelope, ER, golgi, ordered water, ultraweak photons, and on and on it goes.
No one has to study everything - the question is: by studying bioelectricity, we have achieved what we’ve achieved, not needing microtubules. If your colleague is interested in microtubules, he will have achieved whatever advances he’s achieved by focusing on that at the expense of other things. Someone else could tell us that we’re both missing the boat by not focusing on infrared radiation from the DNA or whatever.
[qiote]The question will be, “what is the evidence that we could do better if we include that?”. So my point is, I would be fine to accept the charge that I’ve ignored microtubules, and ask what the evidence is that I should be changing course. The results of everyone’s research program show clearly the relative merits of different focus areas and one needs evidence that adding favorite element X would actually make a material difference.[/quote]
Otherwise, we all think others are failing to focus on whatever our favorite thing is
Question:
How does your work impact current advances in understanding those very fascinating biological components?
We’ve actually found that microtubules set up some ion channel distribution in early LR asymmetry, and also reflect the bioelectric axial patterning in planaria. Please find attached a few papers.
Best,
Mike
James R said: Wait. It looks like "supposed to" only means that the author(s) assume this is what happens, without evidence. Is that right?
No, this is the acceptance of a prior peer-reviewed claim, but without personal knowledge. This is a perfect example of a "case in point".
So, the abstract is quite unhelpful. Let's dig in. I'll do that in the next post.
I think that the abstract is asking your questions.
You will find that all the answers are contained in the "proofs" described in the main body of the paper.
I look forward to your questions and shall do my best to find the most recent state of specific knowledge.
See below to answer just a couple of your questions.
