Is consciousness to be found in quantum processes in microtubules?

[billvon]

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?

Might be the only way he gets it.

State that consciousness is found in ATP, and not in microtubules, then every time he disagrees, post another paper about how ATP works in our brains. Then demand he disprove it.

 

[Write4U]

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?

w4u said;
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"?

You have to be kidding! Titles don't mean anything anymore?

I cannot imagine professional scientists engaged in speculative projections based on suspect mathematics.
Take it from me: professional scientists do that all the time.

So "consciousness" is a speculative projection?
And the mathematics are suspect because they are not based on hard facts, such as people are conscious.

And if professional scientists engage in speculative projections all the time, who then decides who is speculating? You? Don't you see that is not a valid argument? The deaf leading the blind? We do have a mess on our hands, don't we?

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.

w4u said,
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?

Recent technical advances make it possible to perform in vitro experiments.
Before we had rockets science was not very interested in going to the moon.

w4u said;
AFAIK, any axis that returns to its original position after a variable conformation

What is a "variable conformation"?

Also called "dynamic instability" (new term?)

To maintain the dynamic instability, microtubules consume energy by the hydrolysis of GTP. β-Tubulin has a GTP-hydrolyzing activity that is strongly activated when the dimer is incorporated into the polymer.

much more........ Microtubules - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics

w4u said:
I imagine these are "new terms" applicable to a new science.

You imagine?

I am 100% sure that in the history of science new terms have arisen to describe states and behaviors of new discoveries, no? You cannot not imagine that?

I am sure that all peer reviewed published papers represent exactly what the authors mean to say.

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?

No I don't agree. You do not set the standards for judging their work.

And if not, then why did you bring it up?

Bring what up? I report on the current state of the science on research for discovery of the proceeses that lead to emergent "conscousness" , which I believe to be an internal experiential "field" created by the neuronal functions of data processing (especially by cellular microtubules).

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

It is a cut and paste (I hope that's legal) from another site I frequent.

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

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

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

You're right, that link to Levin was actually part of a different conversation. I withdraw it.

But you asked who Michael Levin is .
Michael Levin (biologist) - Wikipedia

 

[Write4U]

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 don't recall demanding anything of the sort.

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.

I mentioned a law of physics that is applicable to microtubule function.

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

This was in context of prior post that demonstrated wave dispersion via a waveguide in helical tubes, such as microtubules.
What is evidence without mentioning the applicable laws that regulate the 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?

That's where you are wrong.
You are ignoring the basic fact that microtubules are a "common denominator" for data distribution in all Eukaryotic organisms. This data distribution follows normal laws of physics dependent on the specific function.

There is no magic. All universal phanomena follow "guiding equations". At microtubule level that becomes difficulr due to the dynamic of an "in vitro" environment

We know that some migrating birds use gravitational fields to navigate without mentioning microtubules. Does that make the statement invalid? Or is it not pertinent to microtubule functions?

Hameroff, as anesthesiologist is an expert at separating consciously functioning microtubules from subconsciously functioning microtubules by rendering the conscious part of a brain unconscious while maintaining homeostatic control, all regulated by microtubules. Pretty neat huh?

 

[exchemist]

I don't recall demanding anything of the sort.
I mentioned a law of physics that is applicable to microtubule function. This was in context of prior post that demonstrated wave dispersion via a waveguide in helical tubes, such as microtubules.
What is evidence without mentioning the applicable laws that regulate the evidence?
That's where you are wrong.
You are ignoring the basic fact that microtubules are a "common denominator" for data distribution in all Eukaryotic organisms. This data distribution follows normal laws of physics dependent on the specific function.

There is no magic. All universal phanomena follow "guiding equations". At microtubule level that becomes difficulr due to the dynamic of an "in vitro" environment

We know that some migrating birds use gravitational fields to navigate without mentioning microtubules. Does that make the statement invalid? Or is it not pertinent to microtubule functions?

Hameroff, as anesthesiologist is an expert at separating consciously functioning microtubules from subconsciously functioning microtubules by rendering the conscious part of a brain unconscious while maintaining homeostatic control, all regulated by microtubules. Pretty neat huh?

You mentioned no law of physics, so far as I can see. What law are you thinking of?

Nor can I trace any mention previously of wave dispersion in microtubules (as opposed to elastic waves in cables).

If I have missed it, can you point to where it is mentioned?

 

[Write4U]

Here is a small sample of research in consciousness.

Microtubules as One-Dimensional Crystals: Is Crystal-Like Structure the Key to the Information Processing of Living Systems?
by
Noemí Sanchez-Castro
1,2, Martha Alicia Palomino-Ovando
2, Pushpendra Singh
3,4, Satyajit Sahu
5, Miller Toledo-Solano
6,*, Jocelyn Faubert
1, J. Eduardo Lugo
1,*, Anirban Bandyopadhyay
4, Kanad Ray

1 Faubert Lab, Ecole d’optométrie, Université de Montréal, Montreal, QC H3T1P1, Canada
2 Facultad de CienciasFisico-Matematicas, Benemérita Universidad Autónoma de Puebla, Av. San Claudio y Av. 18 sur, Col. San Manuel Ciudad Universitaria, Puebla Pue. 72570, Mexico
3 International Center for Materials and Nanoarchitectronics (MANA), Research Center for Advanced Measurement and Characterization (RCAMC), NIMS, 1-2-1 Sengen, Ibaraki, Tsukuba 3050047, Japan
4 Amity School of Applied Sciences, Amity University, Rajasthan 303001, India
5 Indian Institute of Technology Jodhpur, N.H. 65, Nagaur Road, Karwar, Jodhpur 342037, India
6 CONACYT-Facultad de CienciasFisico-Matematicas, Benemérita Universidad Autónoma de Puebla, Av. San Claudio y Av. 18 sur, Col. San Manuel Ciudad Universitaria, Puebla Pue. 72570, Mexico
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.

Abstract

Each tubulin protein molecule on the cylindrical surface of a microtubule, a fundamental element of the cytoskeleton, acts as a unit cell of a crystal sensor. Electromagnetic sensing enables the 2D surface of microtubule to act as a crystal or a collective electromagnetic signal processing system. We propose a model in which each tubulin dimer acts as the period of a one-dimensional crystal with effective electrical impedance related to its molecular structure.

Based on the mathematical crystal theory with one-dimensional translational symmetry, we simulated the electrical transport properties of the signal across the microtubule length and compared it to our single microtubule experimental results. The agreement between theory and experiment suggests that one of the most essential components of any Eukaryotic cell acts as a one-dimensional crystal.

Keywords: microtubule; tubulin; crystal; transmission network

https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4352/11/3/318

continued...

 

[Write4U]

continued..

1. Introduction

In the past, several theoretical studies were completed by physicists on the vibrational characteristics of bio-living systems, which are currently becoming more attractive research domains in the present. State-of-the-art tools are used to detect vibrational aspects and principle authentication.

Traditional theoretical methods are not sufficient to understand the process of biological systems [1,2]. The cooperative interaction between individual components of the developed dynamic system of the biological system changes in a specific fashion [3]. Biological materials show complex vibrational patterns.

In other words, solid structures have a crystalline structure and the translational symmetry/spatial periodicity confirms them as an integrated mechanical system, which is well known in solid-state physics or lattice theory.

The lattice, known as the base, can be found by the duplication of building elements [4]. The electrons interact with the atomic lattice with atomic potentials. The electronic bandgap is generated when an electronic state does not exist for a certain energy range [5].

Consequently, a wide range of man-made systems is inspired by the design and organization of such biological systems, which include some of their properties. Whereby we have photonic crystals (crystals in which phonons interact with the periodic variation of elasticity and mass of structure elements) and phononic crystals (crystals in which photons are affected by the variation of the dielectric constant of structure) [6,7].

However, there are many examples of photonic crystals [8] in nature, such as the Chrysinaresplendens beetle in which 120 layers produce color, commonly known as one-dimensional photonic crystals [9]. More, a two-dimensional photonic crystal film is found in the peacock Pavomuticus, which is composed of more than ten-unit cells in thickness, and that layer has a highly reflective nature and provides a saturated color.

The interactive wavelength is determined by the lattice parameters of the layers [10]. Neurofilament and microfilaments are not photonic crystals, although they form the basic features of neurons, they carry out information processing during the cell division process and serve as carriers of vesicles and several components in the biological system. Crystalline structures are found in various forms in nature. Bressloff PC & Cowan JD [11] present a model of pattern formation in the primary visual cortex (V1) of the brain that considers a crystalline structure.

In order to understand biological systems more broadly, an interdisciplinary approach based on mathematical and physical sciences can make a significant contribution as biological crystal structures are not limited to photonic domains. The propagation of electromagnetic quanta through a biological lattice leads to a wide range of applications.

For example, quantized energy propagation can have applications in wireless electromagnetic fields in medical treatment. The microtubule is the closest candidate related to it.

Microtubules in living cells are organized as networks (where they regularly shrink and grow) and in neurons (where they form highly complex networks with neurons and microfilaments, which generate large-scale communication pathways).

To demonstrate the function of cells, microtubules are interconnected through multiple proteins (Figure 1a). The outer and inner diameter voids of the microtubule cylinder are approximately 25 nm and 15 nm respectively and they are found in animals from 200 nm to 25 µm [12]. The length of the dimer unit is 8 nm distributed over a Gaussian distribution with a 2 nm standard deviation and 13 protofilaments are present in the cylindrical surface of the microtubule [13]. The protofilaments are tightly bound from the inside and have weak ties between them, forming 2D sheets that are wrapped with a tube through the nucleation process [14]. Each monomer of the lattice of the microtubule has H12- a small C-terminal helix, which emits after a sequence of amino acids that extend from the microtubule surface.

Crystals 11 00318 g001 550

Figure 1. (a) Sketch of a microtubule. (b) Simple drawing of a single photonic crystal layered with 18° tilt.

https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4352/11/3/318

 

[Write4U]

continued...

This approximate sequence is known as tubulin tail (TT). TTs have a length of about 4–5 nm when they become completely uncontaminated, protrude from the microtubule (MT) surface into the slurry, and form the rough surface of the microtubule filaments. The TTs are key for MT interactions with related proteins. In addition, TTs from a beta-tubulin monomer could increase or decrease H12 length and consequently the beta-TT length [15,16].This property would be of importance as we model the transport properties in microtubules because TT’s flexibility could significantly act on the ionic current flow across the microtubule surface.

MTs are predominantly negatively charged, chiefly on their outward surface. Thus, each MT attracts a positive counter of ions near its surface, while negative ions of the cytosol are repelled in such a way that form depletion layers around the microtubule. The thickness of the depletion layer is known as the Bjerrum length lB, which is the length from the surface of the microtubule where the thermal energy is equal to the coulomb energy of the screened surface charges [14].

This length greatly determines MT’s electric properties. Additionally, the final spatial arrangement of MT protofilaments can be seen as a tilted multilayer structure with a unit cell of 8 nm (Figure 1b). In this way, we can make explicit the method by which wave-like activity emerges from neuronal activity [17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25].

Researchers believe that the dissemination of information in neural networks occurs at synaptic junctions, while experimental evidence suggests that microtubules may function as RAM, which demands correction more accurately than at a synaptic junction. It is also noteworthy that a sequence of protein molecules has to undergo a conformational chain in a particular order to open the ion channel.

Therefore, vibration is key to the conventional understanding of membranes and ionic-based information processing. Although the terms of neural oscillations [26,27,28] in brain activity are mostly preferred with electrical impulses through membrane molecules, and the oscillatory term of the brain refers to the rhythm of electrical activity [29,30] in the central nervous system, CNS, and this can form the microtubule from the transmission system of the electromagnetic quanta [31,32].

Poznanski and Cacha have considered “protein polarization as a mechanism by way of passive dendrites becoming active by treating the dipolar core as a conductor of current based on the assumption that interactions between individual moving charges can be treated as a homogeneous intracellular medium of constant conductivity and permittivity in space and time.”.

As can be seen in Figure 1, the MT can be represented as a structure whose permittivity and permeability parameters are changing periodically. Sahu S, et al. proposed that the “water channel and protein molecule together control the emergent properties of the material” [21]. These facts play an important role in MT modeling as electromagnetic quanta processing crystals.

A theoretical model is suggested for magnetoencephalography (MEG) and electroencephalography (EEG) that is based on the activity of cortical networks and the transmission line model [20]. The theory of brain waves is defined theoretically based on synaptic action properties that can infer many silent features and some experimental findings using the characteristic of the forward and backward propagating wave.

We speculate that brain waves can be thought of as Bloch waves that may provide important mechanisms for consistent large-scale integration between brain regions [17,18,24].In this work, we study, experimentally and theoretically, electrical transport properties within tubulin-based microtubules (MT). Using the above MTs properties and symmetry we model them as a periodic crystal with a defect and compare the experimental transmission with our model predicted transmission spectrum.

https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4352/11/3/318

 

[Write4U]

continued.....

2. Results
2.1. Crystal Model

We suppose that there is a flow of water and ions from one end of the MTs to the other, produced by the concentration gradient and by inherent electrical fields generated by the charge of the protein spread aligned to every one of the 13 protofilaments. On top of that, the globe-like configuration of tubulin dimers engenders tiny orifices that can be regarded as channels connecting the outer and the inner surfaces of a microtubule. In these straits, we should expect further escape of water molecules, which would be capable of rectifying the currents along with the depletions of the Bjerrum layer around a microtubule [23].

Moreover, if the water channel is released, the microtubule loses all its unique vibrational properties, and, thus, the water channel controls all optical and electronic properties of the microtubule [20].

Therefore, our work is based on the theory used for electromagnetic radiation in periodic layered media, but, in the present case, we will consider electromagnetic resonance-induced water and ionic flows as ion current waves traveling in a periodic structure. The MT or neuronic crystal period will consist of the tubulin dimer unit (alpha- and beta-tubulin together). The reason for this is because they fold differently, creating two intertwined helicoidal structures. We can model each tubulin monomer as two perpendicular hollow cylinders [23] as depicted in Figure 2. Every monomer has a series resistance RSI(I = β) and parallel resistance Rpi and to keep the model as simple as possible neither capacitance nor inductance effects are taken into account.

Crystals 11 00318 g002 550

Figure 2. A sketch showing tubulin monomer physical model.
Both resistances are given by the following: (see link)

Crystals 11 00318 g003 550

Figure 3. Transmission model.
Crystals 11 00318 g004 550

Figure 4. The equivalent transmission model used in the analysis.

The transfer matrix in a unit-cell is given as follows: (See link). We used the Fourier transform technique for the synthesis of the optical thin film to obtain the best theoretical fit. We followed the method developed in [35], where further details can be found. (see link)

2.2. Finite Element Analysis

It was possible to perform full-wave finite element simulations (FEMLAB 3.1, COMSOL AB, Burlington, MA, USA) on a shorter MT version (Length of 304 nm). The monomers’ lengths were 4 nm each. The final layer sequence was similar to the one described before. The only difference was that it contained only 6 cavities with the same order nLownHighnLownHighnLownDnLownHighnLownHigh" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: border-box; max-height: none; display: inline; line-height: normal; text-indent: 0px; text-align: left; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; border: 0px; padding: 0px; margin: 0px; position: relative;">nLownHighnLownHighnLownDnLownHighnLownHigh.

We checked the transmission properties of this shorter MT version and it retained the mean transmission peaks (not shown). The equivalent refractive indices for each monomer were the same as before. A plane wave with an amplitude of 35KV/m" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: border-box; max-height: none; display: inline; line-height: normal; text-indent: 0px; text-align: left; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; border: 0px; padding: 0px; margin: 0px; position: relative;">35KV/m excited the MT at an angle of 18 degrees. This value is inferred from the experimental values reported [20] that is 3.5 V/100 microns. In Figure 5 we observe the simulated MT structure.

Crystals 11 00318 g005 550

Figure 5. Finite element simulated microtubule (MT) structure. (see link)

https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4352/11/3/318[/quote]

 

[Write4U]

continued...

3. Discussion

We detected experimentally the microtubule’s electrical transport properties and following various protocols we measured the transmission spectra across the single microtubule. For over a decade we have published a series of experimental measurements where transmissions of various carriers have been measured using quantum tunneling [21,22,29,31].

Figure 6a shows MT’s electrical transport bands for a spectral bandwidth spanning from 10 KHz to 250 MHz. The MT length was 1500 nm. We simulated the power and transport band of MT as shown in Figure 6a from the electrical parameters obtained from the model created.

Figure 6. Comparison of experimental (a) and theoretical (b) electrical transport bands.

The built model has two open parameters as the length of beta-TT and the propagation velocity of ions. We found the finest value of beta-TT length are 0.09 nm, 0.47 nm, and 1.28 nm and 2.65 m/s for the propagation velocity. Although, the model is simple and could speculate the whole electrical band structure (see Figure 6).

These results highlight the fact that molecular configurational outcomes are significant in microtubules because these outcomes could modulate energy transportation.

Indeed, simply changing β-TTs’ lengths drastically modifies the electrical impedances to create the electrical band structure.

Other results that support the idea of standing wave formation are presented in [21,37] where scanning tunneling images (STM) of a single microtubule were presented. After an AC signal is pumped over the microtubule at a particular frequency, the STM images of the induced current were recorded.

From the images, one can clearly observe different ion current configurations that might be thought of as ion current modes similar to electromagnetic modes in a photonic crystal. Along the same lines, the appearance of these ion current modes only happens when water is presented. That is if the water is out of the MT core, the STM images cannot be taken, and the MT disintegrates as the researchers scan it. This also reinforces the idea that water is necessary to create ion waves that later could form standing waves within the MT. From the finite element analysis (Figure 7) we can observe that simulation describes fairly well the experimental current distribution for different applied AC voltage frequencies up to 113 MHz (Figure 7a–c). Nonetheless, for the frequency of 185 MHz the experimental pattern is replicated only in two layers (shown by asterisks).

Crystals 11 00318 g007 550

Figure 7. Finite element simulations of (Hx+Hy)/‖Hx+Hy‖" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: border-box; max-height: none; display: inline; line-height: normal; text-align: left; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; border: 0px; padding: 0px; margin: 0px; position: relative;">(Hx+Hy)/∥Hx+Hy∥ compared with experimental current distribution measurements at different frequencies [37]. (a) 30 MHz, (b) 101 MHz, (c) 113MHz, and (d) 185 MHz. The simulation shows similar patterns as the experimental current distributions for frequencies up to 113 MHz. Nonetheless, for the frequency of 185 MHz the experimental pattern is replicated only in two layers (shown by asterisks). Microtubule’s STM images are taken while pumping materials using a GHz antenna. We have described the experimental details in earlier works [21,22,29,37]. ( see link)

https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4352/11/3/318

 

[Write4U]

cntinued......

4. Conclusions

From this analysis, we can conclude that MT is a one-dimensional structure with linear translational symmetry, but it would be interesting to use a helicoidal symmetry to make our results more realistic. Another important restriction of our model is that capacitance and inductance effects were not taken into account, which is equivalent to neglect energy emission or absorption by MT’s dimers. These effects can modulate electrical transmission peaks’ amplitudes and bandwidths. In future work, the model can be improved by taking into account both aspects.

(more....see link) https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4352/11/3/318
Author Contributions
References

Byrne, J.H.; Schultz, S.G. Introduction to Membrane Transport and Bioelectricity; Raven Press, University of Delaware: Newark, DE, USA, 1988. [Google Scholar]
Gilbert, S.F.; Sarkar, S. Embracing complexity: Organicism for the 21st century. Dev. Dyn. 2000, 219, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Lugo, J.E.; Doti, R.; Agarwal, R.; Ray, K.; Faubert, J. Physical Analogies in Biology: From Photons, Phonons, Bloch Waves to Non Linear Oscillators. Adv. Sci. Eng. Med. 2015, 7, 62–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Kittel, C. Crystal Structure. Introduction to Solid State Physics, 8th ed.; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2005; pp. 3–6. [Google Scholar]
Prather, D.W. Photonic Crystals, Theory, Applications and Fabrication; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
Hussein, M.I. Reduced Bloch mode expansion for periodic media band structure calculations. In Proceedings of the Royal Society of London A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences; The Royal Society: London, UK, 2009; pp. 2825–2848. [Google Scholar]
Joannopoulos, J.D.; Johnson, S.G.; Winn, J.N.; Meade, R.D. Photonic Crystals Molding the Flow of Light; Princeton University press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
Vigneron, J.P.; Simonis, P. Natural photonic crystals. Phys. B Condens. Matter 2012, 407, 4032–4036. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Onslow, H. The Iridescent Colours of Insects. Nature 1920, 106, 181–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Zi, J.; Yu, X.; Li, Y.; Hu, X.; Wang, X.; Liu, X.; Fu, R. Coloration strategies in peacock feathers. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2003, 100, 12576–12578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
Bressloff, P.C.; Cowan, J.D. Thevisualcortexasacrystal. Phys. D Nonlinear Phenom. 2002, 173, 226–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
Li, D.; Zhao, J. Exact solitary wave and periodic solitary wave solutions for the shallow water wave equation. Chin. Phys. Lett. 2009, 26, 5–8. [Google Scholar]
Mozziconacci, J.; Sandblad, L.; Wachsmuth, M.; Brunner, D.; Karsenti, E. Tubulin dimers oligomerize before their incorporation into microtubules. PLoS ONE 2008, 3, e3821. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Chrétien, D.; Fuller, S.D.; Karsenti, E. Structure of growing microtubule ends:Two-dimensional sheets close in to tubes at variable rates. J. Cell Biol. 1995, 129, 1311–1328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Georgiev, D.; Papaioanou, S.; Glazebrook, J. Neuronic system inside neurons: Molecular biology and biophysics of neuronal microtubules. Biomed. Rev. 2004, 15, 67–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
Luchko, T.; Huzil, J.T.; Stepanova, M.; Tuszynski, J. Conformational analysis of the carboxy-terminaltails of human β-tubulin isotypes. Biophys. J. 2008, 94, 1971–1982. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
Feinerman, O.; Segal, M.; Moses, E. Signal propagation along unidimensional neuronal networks. J. Neurophysiol. 2005, 94, 3406–3416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Huang, X.; Troy, W.C.; Yang, Q.; Ma, H.; Laing, C.R.; Schiff, S.J.; Wu, J.-Y. Spiral waves in disinhibited mammalian neocortex. J. Neurosci. 2004, 24, 9897–9902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
Minoura, I.; Muto, E. Dielectric measurement to find individual microtubules using the electro orientation method. Biophys. J. 2006, 90, 3739–3748. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
Ray, K.; Roy, M.K. A theoretical basis for surges of electroencephalogram activity and vivid mental sensation during neardeath experience. Int. J. Eng. Sci. Technol. 2010, 2, 5484. [Google Scholar]
Sahu, S.; Ghosh, S.; Ghosh, B.; Aswani, K.; Hirata, K.; Fujita, D.; Bandyopadhyay, A. Atomic water channel controlling remarkable properties of a single brain microtubule:correlating single protein to its supramolecular assembly. Biosens. Bioelectron. 2013, 47, 141–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
Sahu, S.; Ghosh, S.; Hirata, K.; Fujita, D. A Bandyopadhyay Multi-level memory-switching properties of a single brain microtubule. Appl. Phys. Lett. 2013, 102, 123701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Satarić, M.V.; Ilić, D.I.; Ralević, N.; Tuszynski, J.A. A nonlinear model of ionic wave propagation along microtubules. Eur. Biophys. J. 2009, 38, 637–647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Ray, K.; Roy, M.K. A theoretical basis for brain waves with implications for a large scale integration required for cognitiveprocesses. In Proceedings of the 9th IEEE International Conference on Cognitive Informatics, Beijing, China, 7–9 July 2010; pp. 436–440. [Google Scholar]
Llinás, R. The intrinsic electrophysiological properties of mammalian neurons:insights into central nervous system function. Science 1988, 242, 1654–1664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Başar, E. Brain oscillations in neuro psychiatric disease. Dialogues. Clin. Neurosci. 2013, 15, 291–300. [Google Scholar]
Bódizs, R.; Kis, T.; Lázár, A.S.; Havrán, L.; Rigó, P.; Clemens, Z.; Halász, P. Prediction of general mental ability based on neural oscillation measures of sleep. J. Sleep Res. 2005, 14, 285–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Moran, L.V.; Hong, L.E. High vs low frequency neural oscillations in schizophrenia. Schizophr. Bull. 2011, 37, sbr056. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Komal, S.; Pushpendra, S.; Pathik, S.; Satyajit, S.; Subrata, G.; Kanad, R.; Daisuke, F. DaisukeFujita and Anirban Bandyopadhyay Fractal, scale free electromagnetic resonance of a single brain extracted microtubule nanowire, a single tubulin protein and a single neuron. Fractal Fract. 2020, 4, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
Pushpendra, S.; Subrata, G.; Pathik, S.; Kanad, R.; Fujita, D.; Bandyopadhyay, A. Reducing the Dimension of a Patch-Clamp to the Smallest Physical Limit Using a Coaxial Atom Probe. Prog. Electromagn. Res. B 2020, 89, 29–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Ray, K.; Agarwal, R.; Cacha, L.A.; Poznanski, R.R. Protein Polarization Induced Bloch Waves in Axonal Fibres. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on VibrationProblems, Lisbon, Portugal, 9–12 September 2013. [Google Scholar]
Wang, K.; Rappel, W.-J.; Levine, H. Cooperativity can reduce stochasticity in intracellular calcium dynamics. Phys. Biol. 2004, 1, 27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
Alberts, B.; Bray, D.; Hopkin, K.; Johnson, A.D.; Lewis, J.; Raff, M. Essential Cell Biology: An Introduction to the Molecular Biology of the Cell; Garland Science Publishing: NewYork, NY, USA, 1998. [Google Scholar]
Yeh, P. Optical Waves in Layered Media; Wiley-Interscience: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
Dobrowolski, J.A.; Lowe, D. Optical thin film synthesis program based on the use of Fourier transforms. Appl. Opt. 1978, 17, 3039–3050. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
Jackson, D.R. Plane Wave Propagation and Reflection. In The Electrical Engineering Handbook; Chen, W.-K., Ed.; Elsevier Academic Press: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2004; pp. 513–524. [Google Scholar]
Sahu, S.; Ghosh, S.; Fujita, D.; Bandyopadhyay, A. Live visualizations of single isolated tubulin protein self-assembly via tunneling current: Effect of electromagnetic pumping during spontaneous growth of microtubule. Sci. Rep. 2014, 4, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

MDPI and ACS Style
Sanchez-Castro, N.; Palomino-Ovando, M.A.; Singh, P.; Sahu, S.; Toledo-Solano, M.; Faubert, J.; Lugo, J.E.; Bandyopadhyay, A.; Ray, K. Microtubules as One-Dimensional Crystals: Is Crystal-Like Structure the Key to the Information Processing of Living Systems? Crystals 2021, 11, 318. https://doi.org/10.3390/cryst11030318
AMA Style
Sanchez-Castro N, Palomino-Ovando MA, Singh P, Sahu S, Toledo-Solano M, Faubert J, Lugo JE, Bandyopadhyay A, Ray K. Microtubules as One-Dimensional Crystals: Is Crystal-Like Structure the Key to the Information Processing of Living Systems? Crystals. 2021; 11(3):318. https://doi.org/10.3390/cryst11030318
Chicago/Turabian Style
Sanchez-Castro, Noemí, Martha Alicia Palomino-Ovando, Pushpendra Singh, Satyajit Sahu, Miller Toledo-Solano, Jocelyn Faubert, J. Eduardo Lugo, Anirban Bandyopadhyay, and Kanad Ray. 2021. "Microtubules as One-Dimensional Crystals: Is Crystal-Like Structure the Key to the Information Processing of Living Systems?" Crystals 11, no. 3: 318. https://doi.org/10.3390/cryst11030318
https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4352/11/3/318

 

[Write4U]

Too much .... ?

 

[James R]

Write4U:

I believe I previously gave up on you in this thread because trying to get anything useful out of you about research into the potential role of microtubules in consciousness seems to be a fruitless exercise. Somehow, I've ended up back here again, but I think it's time for me to leave again. I don't think you're even aware that most of the stuff you're posting is entirely irrelevant, and the rest you don't understand well enough to be able to think about it meaningfully, let alone to be able to explain it to somebody else who isn't already an expert in the field.

I don't know what you think you're achieving. It's nice to have a hobby, I guess, but what do you find fulfilling about spending your time sourcing obscure scientific papers on topics you don't understand? Is it that you feel like having the papers is equivalent to understanding them, which therefore makes you feel like an expert on this particular topic, perhaps? Beats me. Wouldn't it be more satisfying to find a hobby where, at the end of the day, you have something to show for the effort you've put in? You know, something you've created yourself, like a piece of art or a car engine that works, or something. With this, all you have to show for your effort is, in effect, a hard drive full of papers you don't understand, that are already available elsewhere to those who have the necessary training to understand them.

Since your latest reply to me is such a mess of blather, I don't think a further reply from me to what you wrote will be useful. But I suppose I can take a look and select out anything that might help you, if only you would listen.

Warning: this is going to sound harsh. I can't say I understand what motivates you, because I really don't. I hope you can see that I'm actually trying to help you to stop wasting your own time, though I don't expect you will take it that way.

 

[James R]

(continued...)

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

Notice that you completely failed to address the specific question I asked you. It wasn't about what a qubit is; indeed, I didn't mention that word. Specifically, it was about what you claim. Apparently, you can't even organise your thoughts sufficiently to answer that kind of simple question.

And no, I'm not going to watch your irrelevant 17 minute video.

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.

You missed the point of my comment, there. Paraphrasing, you said that you think if you can find "common denominators" among things then that would point towards a "common function". That is incorrect. Correlations, which are what "common denominators" often are, need not point to anything that is actually significant or "common" to the things you're attempting to compare.

This is why you thought it relevant to post a paper on the physics of a specific waveguide configuration and then went on to argue to exchemist essentially that because you've seen the word "waveguide" thrown around in the context of microtubules, then anything you can dig up about waveguides will somehow be relevant to solving the problem of consciousness in the microtubules. Never mind that the waveguide paper you found makes not a single mention of microtubules.

This is not to say that a paper on waveguide physics could never be relevant to waves in microtubules. But it would be up to you to make the appropriate connection and to show how the relevant physics applies in microtubules, since the paper itself does even start to do that job.

This kind of irrelevance comes up so often with you that a lot of your posts in this thread do nothing to address the central question of the thread, because they reference material that actually makes no mention of that question and is about something that is either unconnected, or which would need to be connected explicitly by you. But you lack the understanding and the expertise to make those kinds of connections. All you can do, apparently, is to search for buzz words and pull together papers which all mention the same buzz word (whichever one happens to capture your interest at that moment).

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

Yes. "microtubules" is the buzz word, and if you google it you'll get all kinds of hits. You're collecting stamps, essentially. You have a hard drive full of papers you can't do anything with (except to cut and paste random parts to this thread), which is a bit like having a stamp album full of stamps whose worth you can't determine.

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

You just earned yourself some more points on the Crackpot Index by comparing yourself to Galileo. Not something you should be proud of.

Galileo was a scientist - actually among the first who could properly be called that in the modern sense. Galileo formulated hypotheses and - this is important - conducted careful observations and experiments himself to test them. Unlike, say, Artistotle with his version of physics, Galileo was very much a man who did not overreach (at least, not in his scientific treatises). Galileo did not have faith-based beliefs like you do; he was careful to base his scientific claims on evidence.

So, no, I'm afraid you don't measure up very well to Galileo, Write4U. But what did you expect? The man was a towering figure in the history of human thought. If not for him, you probably wouldn't have the computer you're reading this on.

I make a scientific proposition and I am branded a heretic by the people who see Science as their religion. How's that?

Your pet hypothesis (well, one of the three) is that microtubules are somehow responsible for consciousness. But you don't know how that works, exactly, and you can't demonstrate that your hypothesis is true. The details are not even particularly coherent, since you're unable to even explain your own thoughts when asked for details.

What makes you think you're doing science, there?

C'mon, how many times do I have to post scientific papers that prove microtubules are both processors and transport systems.

I have asked you, but I have yet to see any paper that shows microtubules processing quantum data (if that is your claim, in the vein of Penrose and Hammeroff) or, indeed, do any other "data processing".

You assume that somewhere in your drive full of random papers that mention microtubules, there must surely be the proof of your claim. But you can't produce it, or cobble it together yourself. Which means that you do not have an evidence-based belief. You have a religion. Worship at the altar of the Great Microtubule, for surely it has been revealed that the Mystery of Consciousness is solved!

You are still underestimating the incredible versatility of this macromolecule.

Like Gods, microtubules can be all things to all people. I get it. That's how religion works. They are whatever you need them to be.

Electric field around microtubules

News flash! Everything has electric fields around it.

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.

You need to show how you're right. I don't want to join your religion.

So, you're trying to put the cart before the horse. Try it the other way round. Don't ask me to drink the kool aid and tell me that after I've done that everything will be explained. Try explaining the why and how first. Then I'll evaluate the strength of your evidence for myself and make an evidenced-based decision about its value rather than a faith-based one that rests on how much I do or do not trust you to know The Truth.

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.

Vast over-reach again. How can you be so blissfully unaware of what you're doing when you make statements like that?

Specifically, think about the steps you have taken to rule out all other potential candidates for explaining how sentience emerges, such that you're left only with the Great and Powerful Microtubule as the sole viable explanation. What were those step? Oh, that's right. There weren't any. You didn't even consider what the other candidates might be, let alone try to rule them out.

You have a religion. You're so into it that you believe you have all the bases covered, when you have in fact investigated nothing.

The reason why it is taking so long is that all studies of "emergent consciousness" must be performed in vitro under conditions of consciousness.

Do you know what the term "in vitro" means? Maybe now would be a good time to look it up. It's another term you keep misusing.

We are dealing at nanoscale with possible quantum processes.

Are we? How are you dealing with that, exactly?

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.

You seem to be saying that it is impossible to establish the role of microtubules in consciousness since there's no way we can observe it experimentally.

If that's the case, why do you believe that microtubules have a role in consciousness? Think about it. It can't be an evidenced-based reason, because you're telling me it's impossible to collect the relevant evidence. Don't skip over this; it's important. Think.

 

[James R]

(continued...)

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

?? So it is possible or not possible? You seem to have contradicted yourself in consecutive sentences.

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

There you go again. What on earth is a "dimensional possibility" and what is it a possibility for? This is just random scattergun blather from you.

You have to be kidding! Titles don't mean anything anymore?

Put it this way: there are a lot of kooks who have PhDs. Also, expertise in one narrow area certainly does not necessarily translate to expertise in unrelated fields.

So "consciousness" is a speculative projection?

We were talking about speculative projections based on suspect mathematics, there. Remember?

And the mathematics are suspect because they are not based on hard facts, such as people are conscious.

If you really want to talk about specific mathematics, we can. But I doubt you understand any of the mathematical models that might be relevant to EM waves or qubits in microtubules well enough to discuss them meaningfully. So why bluff?

And if professional scientists engage in speculative projections all the time, who then decides who is speculating? You? Don't you see that is not a valid argument? The deaf leading the blind? We do have a mess on our hands, don't we?

Try to focus on what is being discussed. Your mind is wandering.

Recent technical advances make it possible to perform in vitro experiments.

That's the exact opposite to what you said above. So which is it?

Before we had rockets science was not very interested in going to the moon.

Demonstrable nonsense. Where do you get such ideas?

Also called "dynamic instability" (new term?)

So I ask you what a "variable conformation" is, because it is a term you used in your post. Your response is not to define the term you used, but to suggest that it might be equivalent to another term that is also undefined by you.

What this looks like, to me, is that you used the term "variable conformation" without having a clue what it means, or indeed whether it actually means anything at all. Then, when called on your bullshit, you offer up another term whose meaning you don't know.

Am I right?

Can you not see any problem with this? Why pretend to knowledge that you don't have? Why use big words you don't understand? What do you think you're achieving with that nonsense? Who do you think you're fooling, and why do you want to fool them? I think it's because you have a religion and you're very keen to proselytise for it, even to the extent of making shit up. Am I right?

I am 100% sure that in the history of science new terms have arisen to describe states and behaviors of new discoveries, no? You cannot not imagine that?

Yes, they have. Those who have introduced new terms have defined them and understood them. As for you, that doesn't seem to be what happens when you use a new term or make one up. Instead we tend to see you reach for the nearest dictionary to find a similar word, after you've been called out, or else post something irrelevant about the word being used in a context different to the one you were talking about.

No I don't agree. You do not set the standards for judging their work.

So can you summarise the main results of the paper for me, or can't you? Do you understand what you read, or don't you?

In your judgment, as somebody who has read the paper and who claims to understand it, is it a valuable paper or not? What was the main reason you posted it? What does it show? How does its content support your claims?

Bring what up?

The paper.

I report on the current state of the science on research for discovery of the proceeses that lead to emergent "conscousness" , which I believe to be an internal experiential "field" created by the neuronal functions of data processing (especially by cellular microtubules).

Can you report the main significant findings of that paper, or can't you? In your own words.

 

[James R]

Too much .... ?

Yes. You reproduced what looks like most of an article. Here's the short version, from the abstract:

Based on the mathematical crystal theory with one-dimensional translational symmetry, we simulated the electrical transport properties of the signal across the microtubule length and compared it to our single microtubule experimental results. The agreement between theory and experiment suggests that one of the most essential components of any Eukaryotic cell acts as a one-dimensional crystal.
​

In other words, they modelled electrical signal propagation through a microtubule, essentially by assuming that the microtubule acts like a cylindrical waveguide. Since microtubules are, apparently, more or less cylindrical, this makes sense.

The hard part, I imagine, would be making the experimental measurements since these things are small. So, well done on that.

So what have we learned? Microtubules tend to behave like similar cylindrical objects when they carry electrical signals of a certain type.

I would put this in the category of an expected and unsurprising result. That is not to take away from the work these experimentalists put into doing the experiment, or from the value of testing the model experimentally.

Is this relevant to consciousness? I can't see any obvious reason why it would be, and I don't think the authors talk about that at all. So, for the current thread, it's more or less irrelevant.

 

[Write4U]

Do you know what the term "in vitro" means? Maybe now would be a good time to look it up. It's another term you keep misusing.

Sorry, that should read "in vivo". Thanks for the reminder.

 

[Write4U]

Correlations, which are what "common denominators" often are, need not point to anything that is actually significant or "common" to the things you're attempting to compare.

In this case the common denominator is not a correlation. It is the "same" thing, a polymer made of just 2 monomers , which has remained unchanged since the emergence of Eukaryotic organisms and is so versatile that it literally supports the incredible variety of Eukaryotic species on earth. Each species exhibiting forms of awareness to its environment, regulated by microtubule triggered responses. Draw your own conclusions.

 

[Write4U]

Warning: this is going to sound harsh. I can't say I understand what motivates you, because I really don't. I hope you can see that I'm actually trying to help you to stop wasting your own time, though I don't expect you will take it that way.

I welcome correction. I have never claimed that I have all the answers.
My aim is to paint a background by which the microtubule can be held as the background substrate from which consciousness emerges. I paint only in broad strokes because all I seek is a general understanding.

I have no desire to get into a discussion of laboratory minutia. That is outside my scope of knowledge.

 

[Write4U]

Notice that you completely failed to address the specific question I asked you. It wasn't about what a qubit is; indeed, I didn't mention that word. Specifically, it was about what you claim. Apparently, you can't even organise your thoughts sufficiently to answer that kind of simple question.

You mentioned the word "bit" and I replied with "qubit".
I don't make this claim, Penrose does.

And in a general sense what is the difference between a "bit" and a "qubit". They both describe data, no? I originally used the term bit merely to indicate data. That was just using the term as a generality. Now you want me to describe the properties of a "bit? I don't need to. This is a conversational thread about "hard facts" that are known or are in process of testing.

I am not writing a formal paper, I am merely trying to assemble "known facts" so that some pattern will emerge that points to the emergence of consciousness in living organisms, from simple kinetic response in bacteria to abstract thought in humans.

 

[Write4U]

This is not to say that a paper on waveguide physics could never be relevant to waves in microtubules. But it would be up to you to make the appropriate connection and to show how the relevant physics applies in microtubules, since the paper itself does even start to do that job.

Why is it up to me to give you the science? I give you the property, you're supposed to know the science.

This is not a classroom. Moreover you have already reduced this thread to pseudo-science.
Now you want a formal treatise?

I like correction, but I am still waiting for a constructive contribution from somebody. So far it is just street brawl.