Is consciousness to be found in quantum processes in microtubules?

[exchemist]

On page 1 of this thread, in post 5, I posted evidence that ORCH OR has lost credibility, not gained it.

To now assert the contrary requires evidence. I see none.

 

[Write4U]

Using Floquet Periodicity to Easily Calculate Dispersion Curves and Wave Structures of Homogeneous Waveguides

For a free pdf download see ...https://aip.scitation.org/doi/pdf/10.1063/1.5031513

 

[exchemist]

Using Floquet Periodicity to Easily Calculate Dispersion Curves and Wave Structures of Homogeneous Waveguides

For a free pdf download see ...https://aip.scitation.org/doi/pdf/10.1063/1.5031513

This is about wave propagation in waveguides.

It is not relevant in the slightest to microtubules, let alone any role they might supposedly have in consciousness.

This post of yours illustrates perfectly the utter failure of your critical faculties, which is what makes this thread such a pile of random junk.

 

[Write4U]

I provided evidence on page 1 of this thread that on the contrary it has has lost, not gained, credibility

No you didn't. Did you understand the nature and specifics of the "supposed evidence"?
If you are just going to accept any "supposed" argument as credible it is up to you to prove that argument is correct to begin with. This is what you demand of me, now I demand this of you.

Just a few days I provided a post addressed to you about a recent Hameroff's counterargument, showing that the original critique was based on false data, but you must have missed it. Had me on ignore? See post #3532

 

[exchemist]

No you didn't. Did you understand the nature and specifics of the "supposed evidence"?
If you are just going to accept any "supposed" argument as credible it is up to you to prove that argument is correct to begin with. This is what you demand of me, now I demand this of you.

Just a few days I provided a post addressed to you about a recent Hameroff's counterargument, showing that the original critique was based on false data, but you must have missed it. Had me on ignore? See post #3532

Reread post 5. There is not just a single “original” critique, but numerous attempts to test its predictions, all of which have gone nowhere.

 

[Write4U]

This post of yours illustrates perfectly the utter failure of your critical faculties, which is what makes this thread such a pile of random junk.

This post illustrates your utter incompetence of paying attention to what was posted before I provided this link.
Are you becoming senile or are you jumping in with kneejerk reactions to a single word?

 

[exchemist]

This post illustrates your utter incompetence of paying attention to what was posted before I provided this link.
Are you becoming senile or are you jumping in with kneejerk reactions to a single word?

OK so explain to me in a few sentences what light it sheds on the role of microtubules in consciousness.

 

[Write4U]

Reread post 5.

I did . Did you read post #3532? It answers the criticism you mentioned in post # 5
Give it up already. You are just an annoyance now.

 

[exchemist]

I did . Did you read post #3532? It answers the criticism you mentioned in post # 5
Give it up already. You are just an annoyance now.

There is no post 3532. And 2532 is just a list of references, with no explanation.

 

[Write4U]

OK so explain to me in a few sentences what light it sheds on the role of microtubules in consciousness.

No, I don't need to do that at all. All you have to do is read what that Floquet Periodicity in relation to microtubules

This is about wave propagation in waveguides. And especially in helical wave guides such as in microtubules, referred to in a prior quote from a scientist as requested by James R.
Your post #5 in part addressed a "water" problem inside microtubules . Have you forgotten what the claim in your post 5 was all about?

 

[exchemist]

No, I don't need to do that at all. All you have to do is read what that Floquet Periodicity in relation to microtubules

I've read the paper you linked to in post 2542. It is a very technical engineering paper, comparing two methods for analysing dispersion in waveguides. There is no mention of microtubules. If you think there is some relevance to microtubules here you need to state what it is.

 

[Write4U]

If you think there is some relevance to microtubules here you need to state what it is.

Microtubules process wave functions and have helical conformation and from what I read that involves Floquet and Bloch periodicity.

Solution of the Schrodinger equation for quasi-one-dimensional materials using helical waves
https://arxiv.org/abs/2210.12252

Microtubules as electron-based topological insulators
https://arxiv.org/abs/2112.12203#

Elastic waves in helical waveguides
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0165212507000984?via=ihub

Two-dimensional elastic Bloch waves in helical periodic structures
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0020768320302481

But you see, we are fracturing the conversation into debates about trivia, whereas you are making sweeping statements from complete ignorance on the subject, that microtubules have nothing to do with consciousness. And you are making that allegation without a shred of confirmation except your discredited post #5, Sept 13, 2018 some 2500 posts ago, and in spite of an entire field of microtubule research that is now accelerating exponentially due to ever more sophistication in making in vitro measurements that is required at variable nano scales in human scale cytological complexity.

Cite me a paper that proposes a different theory. I'll be eager to read it.
I have no financial axe to grind. I will accept any theory that has more promise of yielding a comprehensive answer to the question. My quest is for knowledge, not fame or fortune.

 

[exchemist]

Microtubules process wave functions and have helical conformation and from what I read that involves Floquet and Bloch periodicity.

Microtubules as electron-based topological insulators
https://arxiv.org/abs/2112.12203#

Elastic waves in helical waveguides
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0165212507000984?via=ihub

Two-dimensional elastic Bloch waves in helical periodic structures
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0020768320302481

But you see, we are fracturing the conversation into debates about trivia, whereas you are making sweeping statements from complete ignorance on the subject, that microtubules have nothing to do with consciousness. And you are making that allegation without a shred of confirmation except your discredited post #5, Sept 13, 2018 some 2500 posts ago, and in spite of an entire field of microtubule research that is now accelerating exponentially due to ever more sophistication in making in vitro measurements that is required at variable nano scales in human scale cytological complexity.

Cite me a paper that proposes a different theory. I'll be eager to read it.
I have no financial axe to grind. I will accept any theory that has more promise of yielding a comprehensive answer to the question. My quest is for knowledge, not fame or fortune.

Fine. But the paper you linked has nothing to do with microtubules. It is about mathematical techniques for analysing dispersion in waveguides. That is all it is.

What you have done is see the word "Floquet" and mindlessly seize on this paper as somehow supporting your ideas about microtubules, when it is utterly irrelevant. That is what I mean when I say your choice to cite this paper shows your lack of critical faculties - which is why this thread is full of almost random stuff that is irrelevant to the thread subject.

The second and third papers of the three you have linked in the above post illustrates this yet again: zero relevance to microtubules, being about elastic (stretching and compression) waves in engineering cables!

By the way, Bloch waves are a means of modelling extended quantum phenomena, such as the wave functions of delocalised electrons in an extended periodic potential that one finds in a metallic crystal. The individual atomic orbitals of the valence shell merge into what is almost a continuum of what are in effect "giant" molecular orbitals, extending throughout the crystal structure. Any structure with periodic repeating units and with the possibility of delocalised electrons might be modelled in this way. (It does not seem clear that microtubules have delocalised electrons that could participate in such a thing.) Bloch waves can also be used to model the quantisation of vibrational modes of crystal lattices, in terms of so-called "phonons" . These are the vibrational analogues of the electronic example, in which the vibrational wave functions of individual atom-atom bonds become merged into a single "giant" series of vibrations that extend throughout the crystal. More here: https://safeswisscloud.com/en/blog/1929-bloch-wave-electron-waves-crystal/

Floquet's theorem is a just a mathematical technique concerning differential equations that underpins Bloch's Theorem - and thus the Bloch model above. References to Floquet will thus crop up in a variety of fields in which mathematical analysis of waves is required.

99% of these will have bugger-all to do with microtubules, as the irrelevance of your examples above illustrates.

You have no idea what you are reading and no idea what you are doing. You are worse at identifying items of relevance than a YouTube algorithm. This thread is consequently full of shit.

 

[James R]

Write4U:

Can you do no better than to cut and paste random parts of a paper, as you did above and now in post #2540?

You claim to have a good understanding of what you're reading, but whenever specific questions are put to you all you do, essentially, is to say "It's all there is the paper ... somewhere. Go read it for yourself."

I think it's just a faith-based statement on your part that the answers to all questions about microtubules are to be found somewhere in these papers you're dredging up.

The one I commented on above doesn't even seem to have been peer reviewed. Was it?

 

[exchemist]

Write4U:

Can you do no better than to cut and paste random parts of a paper, as you did above and now in post #2540?

You claim to have a good understanding of what you're reading, but whenever specific questions are put to you all you do, essentially, is to say "It's all there is the paper ... somewhere. Go read it for yourself."

I think it's just a faith-based statement on your part that the answers to all questions about microtubules are to be found somewhere in these papers you're dredging up.

The one I commented on above doesn't even seem to have been peer reviewed. Was it?

Yes, I was wondering about that. It seems very poorly written, containing a lot of ill-defined terms and a number of what look like unsubstantiated claims.

 

[James R]

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 ...

Is it your claim that the brain is digital? If not, what do you mean by "bits"? What did Anil Seth mean?

It was then I found Stuart Haneroff's lecture and immediately became intrigued by his use of Descartes' brain in a vat analogy.

I hope you realise that the brain in a vat scenario is philosophy, not science.

I explained a long time ago that when I see "common denominators" in various physical expressions, there is "common function".

I think that's a dangerous assumption to make. For instance, the notion of "convergent evolution" is well known to biologists. Similarity of physical expression certainly need not imply common descent, for instance.

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.

This is the controversial proposition you need to prove. It ought to be the end point of any argument you want to make, not the starting point.

By making it your starting point, you've created a religion belief for yourself, rather than exploring a scientific hypothesis.

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.

Vast over-reach is what it is, not logic.

That among other functions, microtubules are the highways along which electrochemical data is transported.

A transport mechanism is not a processor. That's a point I have put to you many times. What you need to establish is processing of this "data" by the microtubules.

You should recall this as youv 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.

So microtubules are like a conveyor belt that transports chemicals from one place to another?

How would that cause consciousness? They have conveyor belts in the Amazon warehouse, but I don't think the warehouse is conscious.

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.

Like I said, it is hardly worth the effort, trying to get sensible information out of you. Any interest on my part is typically met by a wall of random cut-and-paste from you. You seem quite unable to answer the most basic questions about microtubules and the claims you make about them.

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.

I'm not impatient. On the contrary, I'd say it is you who is impatient that the world at large comes to acknowledge the Power of the Microtubule.

I am not a microbiologist. I am well aware that there are experts in microbiology who are quite capable and willing to evaluate any research conducted on microtubules. What I know, as a non-expert, is that the microbiology community is not currently abuzz with breathless excitement about how microtubules will or have solved the problem of consciousness. Bear in mind that the hypothesis you're so fond of is now 40 years old, or so. Why, then, if this is such a promising area for research, does it so often seem to be the case that only people on the fringes are publishing anything about microtubules and their role in consciousness? Why aren't the prestigious journals full of amazing new findings about the wonders of microtubules?

I'd say you know even less about microbiology than I do. Yet you have this faith that the whole microtubule idea will pan out. That doesn't seem to be a belief that is based on evidence. It's a religion for you.

Most likely by some of the thousand other scientists now engaged in researching this field, perhaps second only to research on cheap energy.

Most likely? Don't you know? You claim to have read widely and to have understood what you read. But whenever I put something like this to you, only vague responses come back. You claim to have done the work so that I don't have to, don't you? What have you discovered from your wide reading? What, in particular, did you learn from the article you thought was important enough to cut and paste to this thread, just now?

I had compiled a list of "qualified" researchers , but it would have taken 3 pages to list them all just by name and title.

What criteria did you use to decide whether they were "qualified"?

I cannot imagine professional scientists engaged in speculative projections based on suspect mathematics.

Take it from me: professional scientists do that all the time.

The thing that separates the good ones from the bad ones is that the good ones know when they are speculating and take great care to distinguish in their communications the things they can support with evidence from the thought bubbles they know they cannot (yet) support.

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.

It is really gaining in reputation? In which circles? What are the major recent findings that have the experts excited? Can you summarise?

AFAIK, any axis that returns to its original position after a variable conformation

What is a "variable conformation"?

I imagine these are "new terms" applicable to a new science.

You imagine?

Do you agree with me, then, that these particular authors haven't explained themselves adequately? Or can you tell what they mean from the paper?

Do you perhaps think that I lack the requisite background to understand the paper? If so, do you understand it, then? And if not, then why did you bring it up?

Here is an excerpt of one of my microtubule discussions on another forum;

From Michael Levin;

Who is Michael Levin? Is this a direct communication to you from him, or one you're cutting and pasting from some discussion elsewhere?

And how is this relevant to what we've been discussing?

I think that the abstract is asking your questions.

The abstract of a scientific paper is supposed to summarise the main content of the paper, including any significant results obtained.

You will find that all the answers are contained in the "proofs" described in the main body of the paper.

Will I?

Please point me towards the specific pages or sections that contain the answers to my questions, then.

Why can't you answer the questions, using what you gleaned from the paper?

I look forward to your questions and shall do my best to find the most recent state of specific knowledge.

This paper doesn't have the most recent state of specific knowledge? Why bring it up, then?

 

[Write4U]

Fine. But the paper you linked has nothing to do with microtubules. It is about mathematical techniques for analysing dispersion in waveguides. That is all it is.

What difference does that make? It's the principle that counts.
In this case, microtubule processes are subject to "guided" principles. This is what allows for "understanding", or as Anil Seth posits "controlled hallucinations".

Do you know this has nothing to do with processing dispersed waves in microtubules, in a manner that potentially may lend itself to awareness of the results?

I believe that periodicity is intimately connected to baseline comparisons the brain is engaged in when trying to make a "best guess" of what the data represents.

 

[Write4U]

Is it your claim that the brain is digital? If not, what do you mean by "bits"? What did Anil Seth mean?

Are going to write Penrose and ask him what he means by "qubits".
Watch the 17 min Ted talk. Trust me, this is time well-spent . It would ne so much easier if people actually took a few minutes to find what it is I am talking about.
Your brain hallucinates your conscious reality | Anil Seth - YouTube

I hope you realise that the brain in a vat scenario is philosophy, not science.

It is a perfect metaphor of what happens in the RW. (watch the Seth talk)

I think that's a dangerous assumption to make. For instance, the notion of "convergent evolution" is well known to biologists. Similarity of physical expression certainly need not imply common descent, for instance.

You have never heard me say that. In fact I agree with Hazen that there might be several origins in different places on earth and almost certainly in the universe.

This is the controversial proposition you need to prove. It ought to be the end point of any argument you want to make, not the starting point.

lol, what do yuo think I am doing? I am gathering data from all possible corners that have a "common denominator", namely microtubules.

By making it your starting point, you've created a religion belief for yourself, rather than exploring a scientific hypothesis.
Vast over-reach is what it is, not logic.

I guess Galileo was overreaching also? he was found guilty of heresy. Are you playing at being the Science Inquisition?

The 1578 edition of the Directorium Inquisitorum (a standard Inquisitorial manual) spelled out the purpose of inquisitorial penalties: ... quoniam punitio non refertur primo & per se in correctionem & bonum eius qui punitur, sed in bonum publicum ut alij terreantur, & a malis committendis avocentur (translation: "... for punishment does not take place primarily and per se for the correction and good of the person punished, but for the public good in order that others may become terrified and weaned away from the evils they would commit").

Do you not see you have this completely turned upside-down? I make a scientific proposition and I am branded a heretic by the people who see Science as their religion. How's that?

A transport mechanism is not a processor. That's a point I have put to you many times. What you need to establish is processing of this "data" by the microtubules.

C'mon, how many times do I have to post scientific papers that prove microtubules are both processors and transport systems. You are still underestimating the incredible versatility of this macromolecule.

Despite their high degree of evolutionary conservation, microtubules can show different behaviours, properties or even structures between species and cell types or even within single cells owing to the incorporation of different tubulin isotypes and their PTM. Tubulin isotypes
The tubulin code and its role in controlling microtubule properties and functions | Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology

So microtubules are like a conveyor belt that transports chemicals from one place to another? Yes, their surface microtubules are highways with many "off-ramps" to specific sites. In addition microtubules generate electric fields.

Electric field around microtubules

Abstract

Living cells are organized by the cytoskeleton with a fundamental role of microtubules. The mechanisms of organization are largely unknown. We analyze the vibrations in the microtubules which are polar and are accompanied by polarization waves. Oscillating electric field generated around microtubules can be as high as 105 Vm−1 and may have an important role in information system and mass transport in living cells. Energy from hydrolysis of guanosine triphosphate (GTP) stored in microtubules can excite the vibrations above thermodynamic equilibrium level.

much more...... Electric field around microtubules - ScienceDirect

How would that cause consciousness? They have conveyor belts in the Amazon warehouse, but I don't think the warehouse is conscious.

And what controls the conveyor belts and the selection of goods from specific locations? Type in a coded and presto, as by magic the item appears, ready for packing.

Like I said, it is hardly worth the effort, trying to get sensible information out of you. Any interest on my part is typically met by a wall of random cut-and-paste from you. You seem quite unable to answer the most basic questions about microtubules and the claims you make about them. [/quote it be that you are asking the wrong questions from a prior bias.
[quote/]I'm not impatient. On the contrary, I'd say it is you who is impatient that the world at large comes to acknowledge the Power of the Microtubule.

Well, about 2000 posts ago you could have said: "ok, lets assume you are right", and we could have gone to the next step of why and how. But you are still fighting the idea that microtubules are the only viable candidate for explaining how sentience emerges, being that they are a "common denominator" information transport system in ALL Eukaryotic life. Does that not pique your curiosity?

I am not a microbiologist. I am well aware that there are experts in microbiology who are quite capable and willing to evaluate any research conducted on microtubules. What I know, as a non-expert, is that the microbiology community is not currently abuzz with breathless excitement about how microtubules will or have solved the problem of consciousness. Bear in mind that the hypothesis you're so fond of is now 40 years old, or so. Why, then, if this is such a promising area for research, does it so often seem to be the case that only people on the fringes are publishing anything about microtubules and their role in consciousness? Why aren't the prestigious journals full of amazing new findings about the wonders of microtubules?

They are, you're not looking!

The reason why it is taking so long is that all studies of "emergent consciousness" must be performed in vitro under conditions of consciousness. We are dealing at nanoscale with possible quantum processes.
Are you aware of anything capable of in vitro observing what goes on in the brain, other than PET scans that is nowhere near capable of observing nano scale processes, that have not even been formulated.

As Tegmark says 'we have all the necessary physical equipment present, as evidenced by our consciousness.

There is no magic involved. Penrose goes a lot deeper and proposes a dimensional possibility.

I'd say you know even less about microbiology than I do. Yet you have this faith that the whole microtubule idea will pan out. That doesn't seem to be a belief that is based on evidence. It's a religion for you.

There you go again, the Science Inquisition.

I gotta run.

 

[billvon]

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.

Just as an FYI putting "proofs" in quotes means that they are not really proofs.

 

[exchemist]

What difference does that make? It's the principle that counts.
In this case, microtubule processes are subject to "guided" principles. This is what allows for "understanding", or as Anil Seth posits "controlled hallucinations".

Do you know this has nothing to do with processing dispersed waves in microtubules, in a manner that potentially may lend itself to awareness of the results?

I believe that periodicity is intimately connected to baseline comparisons the brain is engaged in when trying to make a "best guess" of what the data represents.

What?

It's not up to me to show there is no connection between a paper on the mathematics of wave dispersion and microtubules. That is mad. You might as well demand I show there is no connection between some random paper on earthquakes, or cosmology, and microtubules. I have simply pointed out that the paper itself makes no reference at all to microtubules: indeed, it is about something else entirely, viz. mathematical analysis of wave dispersion in a waveguide.

It is up to you to show there is such a connection, because it is you that is citing it as evidence.

Or shall I start filling this thread with random papers on any subject I like, on the basis that they have not been shown to be irrelevant to microtubules?