Is consciousness to be found in quantum processes in microtubules?

[Write4U]

You are not open to discussion, because you simply wish to berate people into submission if they question or disagree with your views on microtubules.

That is a false accusation and this, a thread which I started, is proof of that. The only people who have done the berating is you and the others who know themselves.

I presented a hypothesis developed by two eminent scientists and so far I have successfully refused to lie down and capitulate under a barrage of unsupported criticism.

I let the linked accompanying science and illustrations defend all attacks, even as that sometimes seems to be a problem when people do not bother to actually follow some of my suggested links. I guess it is a matter of trust.

But, you can't judge the veracity of a statement if you don't bother to read the actual argument in the accompanying links.

 

[Write4U]

It's as if you are starting at (a) and leaping directly to (z) and ignoring everything in between.

Everything in between you can find in the accompanying links. Instead of plagiarizing, I refer to the original author.....

p.s. if I can understand it, I'm sure you can understand it. You might want to give it try.

 

[globali]

And so it is with organic microtubules, alone they are tiny computers, in concert they are a computing network with an emergent sense of "self and purpose". This is not controversial!

LOL

You should go out and enjoy nature more!!

 

[Write4U]

LOL
You should go out and enjoy nature more!!

OK, what exactly does that lack of control mean? You are amused, why? Prone to hysterical outbursts are we? Is it a neural condition?

Do tell me what mechanism causes a daisy to grow its petals in an exponential sequence.
Pure chance or a little organic computer that forms the most efficient growth pattern of its petals which happens to be a mathematical sequence which was identified by Fibonacci and the pattern named after him? What is the code and processor that orders this pattern?

Do tell how photo synthesis works. What is the code and mechanism that produces energy from sunlight?

Do tell how quorum sensing in bacteria works so they can act in synchronicity. What is the code and mechanism that tells bacteria to become active (virulent) all at the same time?

p.s. I lived like Thoreau in No. Idaho. for 20 years in my own log cabin. Perhaps you might want to go out in nature more. You might learn to recognize the natural mathematical artistry of self-forming patterns in order to achieve maximum symmetry and stability.

p.p.s. This is the country music I like. On a quiet night,

and on a happy day,

Of course, all artistic expression is but a copy and utilization of natural phenomenal patterns.
Natura Artis Magistra.

 

[Bells]

Can a whole bunch of bees, or termites, or ants, acquire a functional "hive-mind". YES

Not really no. Because bees, termites and ants are eusocial, whereby there are different casts within each group, each has their own function to perform with clear division of labour.

WHAT IS A HIVE-MIND?

Science fiction.

How is a division of labor in cloned sisters achieved?

In eusocial groupings, it would depend on their cast or grouping.

How does a bee's "dance" convey value, location, distance? Individual computers have morphed into a communal hive-mind. In organic chemistry, this is allowed.

Bees do not have a hive mind.

And the waggle is not always for the benefit of the bee, or the hive.

AFIK the same evolutionary process is proposed in any hypothesis of a "synaptic" neural network with an emergent "awareness", in the form of a hologram or some other sense of "self'". (Anil Seth)

But, IMO, that does not describe the actual quantized (electro-chemical) processing function which, according to Hameroff and Penrose, may be demonstrated in microtubules, but not with the limiting synaptic exchanges.

I linked a very interesting paper in a previous post. Here is the link again: http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/3049/1/OOR.pdf

You really should read it.

Nor have you presented anything that falsifies the hypothesis, except derogatory comments.

I provided you with 3 links that explain why you may be incorrect.

From Hammeroff's calculations for Orch OR being wrong, to their use of cells from rat embryos that were born via c-section, but these cells do not actually exist in adults.

I have presented a wealth of evidence as described by experts in the fields of both scientific disciplines. These quotes are carefully selected to help me narrate the proposition and argument.

From mostly 2 scientists, one of whom based his theory on an incorrect calculation and proposed things that were already proven to be false.

You selected quotes that support your argument. And you do not seem too keen to actually discuss what many have pointed out if wrong.

If you refuse to read what I present, you do not have the right to criticize. I do not claim to be a scientist and that's why I do not argue against "mainstream science". But if I read and understand the narrative that accompanies a scientific hypothesis and proofs, then I can express this understanding, even though I cannot personally provide the mathematical proofs. I am a reasonably good researcher and know where to find stuff in the mainstream science library. Is that kind of research approach disallowed?

The issue for you is that I read what you presented..

I have not watched the videos for reasons that should be clear.

Is it forbidden to cite Einstein when talking about GR? Is it forbidden to cite the scientists that are proposing the ORCH OR theory?

Hey look, more exaggerations.

That is a false accusation and this, a thread which I started, is proof of that. The only people who have done the berating is you and the others who know themselves.

I presented a hypothesis developed by two eminent scientists and so far I have successfully refused to lie down and capitulate under a barrage of unsupported criticism.

Is that why you have deliberately ignored the 3 links I posted that refute what you have posted?

I let the linked accompanying science and illustrations defend all attacks, even as that sometimes seems to be a problem when people do not bother to actually follow some of my suggested links. I guess it is a matter of trust.

But, you can't judge the veracity of a statement if you don't bother to read the actual argument in the accompanying links.

Which is ironic given you have ignored the links provided to you.

Everything in between you can find in the accompanying links. Instead of plagiarizing, I refer to the original author.....

p.s. if I can understand it, I'm sure you can understand it. You might want to give it try.

You have new links? Are they so small that they are being held in the microtubules?

 

[Yazata]

I am arguing that microtubules have the potential to be organic computers.

Maybe. So far, the argument seems to merely be that microtubules are composed of molecules, atoms in molecules influence each other (at the quantum level), so they might behave like the array of little semiconductor switches on a microprocessor chip.

Maybe, maybe not. I'm not prepared to say that any complex whole composed of parts that influence each other is a computer, let alone a mind. Nor am I sure why microtubules should receive special consideration in this regard. Wouldn't any large macromolecular structure do, or an assemblage of atoms like a crystal?

All kinds of information processing has already been demonstrated on DNA strands, where much of the DNA seems to be productive of proteins and RNAs that behave as initiators and suppressors involved in controlling when and in what order other parts of the DNA (the genes) are allowed to express themselves. But nobody that I'm aware of is proposing control of gene expression as the secret of mind. Despite the fact that molecular biology looks more and more like computer science every year.

Clever molecular biologists have already created simple little computers on artificial DNA strands.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_computing

But let me ask you; Can we argue that insects are organic computers?

Sure we can argue that. I'm inclined to think that it has some truth.

Does a bee have a mind of it's own? NO.

What's the difference between a 'computer' and a 'mind'? (I'm inclined to say 'not much'.) There's big philosophy of mind issues there. (Just wait till you get CC going on it. It's her thing.)

Can a whole bunch of bees, or termites, or ants, acquire a functional "hive-mind". YES

I'm not entirely clear on what you mean by 'hive mind'. But I agree that collections of rather simple interacting parts can display complex and unexpected behaviors. (That's the usual line of thinking with neurons, isn't it?)

And so it is with organic microtubules, alone they are tiny computers, in concert they are a computing network with an emergent sense of "self and purpose". This is not controversial!

Of course it's controversial.

It's playing fast and loose with the question of whether microtubules process information and function as computers, replacing the question whether they do with a flat assertion that they in fact do. Except nobody really knows that. It's just Penrose and Hameroff's speculation.

Then similar slight-of-hand is used to move from computers to "emergent sense of 'self and purpose'". That ignores all kinds of big-time issues in the philosophy of mind.

Plus there's all the "quantum" stuff. Some people seem to think that the connection between interaction between atoms in molecules and mind becomes more plausible when the word "quantum" is tossed into the steaming pot. But we don't really have any explanation of how or why.

Which creates a huge red-herring, where everyone ends up arguing about quantum properties in microtubules. Which is of doubtful relevance to the whole argument, in my opinion.

 

[Write4U]

Not really no. Because bees, termites and ants are eusocial, whereby there are different casts within each group, each has their own function to perform with clear division of labour.

First, division of labor switches. Young bees tend to eggs, as they mature they switch to other responsibilities. And how do they learn the retraining of skills? All females are identical clones. They learn via chemical language!

Science fiction.

No, that is cherry picking from literature. The common definition is:

hive mind or hive·mind, noun,
the property of apparent sentience in a colony of social insects acting as a single organism, each insect performing a specific role for the good of the group.

Psychology, Sociology.

1. a collective consciousness, analogous to the behavior of social insects, in which a group of people become aware of their commonality and think and act as a community, sharing their knowledge, thoughts, and resources:the global hive mind that has emerged with sites like Twitter and Facebook.
2. such a group mentality characterized by uncritical conformity and loss of a sense of individuality and personal accountability.

1. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/hive-mind

   In eusocial groupings, it would depend on their cast or grouping.

   But how do individuals learn the skills required?

   The division of labor creates specialized behavioral groups within an animal society which are sometimes called castes. Eusociality is distinguished from all other social systems because individuals of at least one caste usually lose the ability to perform at least one behavior characteristic of individuals in another caste.

   Even humans have trouble in retraining. How do you get an ant to do what is required? All female ants are clones

   Eusociality exists in certain insects, crustaceans and mammals. It is mostly observed and studied in the Hymenoptera

   (ants, bees, and wasps) and in Isoptera (termites). A colony has caste differences: Queens and reproductive males take the roles of the sole reproducers, while soldiers and workers work together to create a living situation favorable for the brood.

   Andthe workers are all clones but performing different tasks. How do they learn that?

 

[Write4U]

Page2

Bees do not have a hive mind.

And that's wherein the mystery lies. How does a hive-mind emerge when many insects congregate? This form of "group communication" already appears in bacterial colonies. There it is called "quorum sensing".

And the waggle is not always for the benefit of the bee, or the hive.

Dance language as a language!

If the dance is not a language, why use the term language at all? A form of language, a pseudo -language, a quasi-language?

I linked a very interesting paper in a previous post. Here is the link again: http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/3049/1/OOR.pdf
You really should read it.

Thank you for the link. Something to get one's teeth in....
This struck me as a very interesting final summary.

As stated in the beginning of this paper the purpose of the current work is to outline a research programme that will put the Q-mind theory on stable scientific grounds.

WOW, more research in the field of Q-mind? Seems Hameroff and Penrose are not the only ones pursuing the proposition. That their hypotheses don't agree is irrelevant. The concept is being seriously considered. Unfortunately I have yet to see a serious proposal other than ORCH OR

Unfortunately at the present time a lot of pseudo-scientific concepts are patronized under the name quantum mind and this has negative effect on the development of the very idea of quantum effects in brain as explanation of some features of consciousness such as nonlocality and noncomputable evolution

Oh I see. My research is true, other people's research is merely woo? The Dunning-Kruger effect does not discriminate.

I see no rejection of the Q-mind idea, merely a critique of ORCH OR. And the article readily admits the science is in still in its infancy, as do Hameroff and Penrose. I'm sure no one expects research at this level is a "piece of pie".

I provided you with 3 links that explain why you may be incorrect.
From Hammeroff's calculations for Orch OR being wrong, to their use of cells from rat embryos that were born via c-section, but these cells do not actually exist in adults.

Yes, c-section is very common in nature....

From mostly 2 scientists, one of whom based his theory on an incorrect calculation and proposed things that were already proven to be false.
You selected quotes that support your argument. And you do not seem too keen to actually discuss what many have pointed out if wrong.

That is just not true Bells. I have begged for information other than from Hameroff, et al. Finally you have obliged and I am grateful for the time you took. I have provided an initial response, but I am still reading and processing the information.

This subject fascinates me......

I do find it remarkable that in spite of the admission of emergent consciousness being so readily discussed, that only H and P have presented a positive paper and all responses are negative, but without offering an alternative perspective.

The issue for you is that I read what you presented..

Absolutely, how else would you or I know what we are talking about. It's a matter of courtesy.

I have not watched the videos for reasons that should be clear.

More than clear, it is reflected in your responses.

Hey look, more exaggerations.

Typical response. Citing the author of a theory is an exagerration?

Is that why you have deliberately ignored the 3 links I posted that refute what you have posted?

Well, I do read the links which are provided by other posters. This takes time and time to form responses.

Which is
ironic given you have ignored the links provided to you.

Which is ironic, given that you just admitted to not reading my links.

You have new links?

I do now!

Give me time, I'll respond., trust me.........

 

[Write4U]

Of course it's controversial.

It's playing fast and loose with the question of whether microtubules process information and function as computers, replacing the question whether they do with a flat assertion that they in fact do. Except nobody really knows that. It's just Penrose and Hameroff's speculation.

I don't think so. Even the definition of a microtubules contains reference to information processing. Seems that the basic chemistry is well explained.
I don't think anyone disputes that, in a broad sense, microtubules are biological computers. They process information and produce results, the very definition of computing.

All kinds of information processing has already been demonstrated on DNA strands, where much of the DNA seems to be productive of proteins and RNAs that behave as initiators and suppressors involved in controlling when and in what order other parts of the DNA (the genes) are allowed to express themselves. But nobody that I'm aware of is proposing control of gene expression as the secret of mind. Despite the fact that molecular biology looks more and more like computer science every year.

Clever molecular biologists have already created simple little computers on artificial DNA strands.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_computing

Yesss...very exciting stuff. This is the slow unraveling of nature's secrets.

Bio computers use systems of biologically derived molecules—such as DNA and proteins—to perform computational calculations involving storing, retrieving, and processing data.

The development of biocomputers has been made possible by the expanding new science of nanobiotechnology. The term nanobiotechnology can be defined in multiple ways; in a more general sense, nanobiotechnology can be defined as any type of technology that uses both nano-scale materials (i.e. materials having characteristic dimensions of 1-100 nanometers) and biologically based materials.[1]

A more restrictive definition views nanobiotechnology more specifically as the design and engineering of proteins that can then be assembled into larger, functional structures[2][3] The implementation of nanobiotechnology, as defined in this narrower sense, provides scientists with the ability to engineer biomolecular systems specifically so that they interact in a fashion that can ultimately result in the computational functionality of a computer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_computing

It is my firm belief that if we can make artificial copies of natural functions, these functions already exist in nature in some form. To think otherwise is hubris, IMO.

 

[Bells]

First, division of labor switches. Young bees tend to eggs, as they mature they switch to other responsibilities. And how do they learn the retraining of skills? All females are identical clones. They learn via chemical language!

Only if you are trying to reinvent the bee..

Male bees (drones) could be classified as "clones" as they come from unfertilised eggs, so they only receive the queen's dna, but this does not allow for mutations, so I do not think that 'clones' is the correct term.. Female bees are not clones, as the queen will mate with several males to produce the female worker bees, who tend to the eggs, etc.. Female bees are sisters.

No, that is cherry picking from literature. The common definition is:

And it does not actually exist outside of science fiction.

But how do individuals learn the skills required?

For bees, it depends on the day of their life cycle.

Even humans have trouble in retraining.

But they aren't "retraining".

For bees, their role is dependent on their life cycle. What female worker bees do in the hive and outside of it, is dependent on how old they are. If we were to take your argument at face value, we would be saying that a baby going from crawling to walking was somehow "retraining".

How do you get an ant to do what is required?

I don't know about you, but I threaten my ants with the bottom of my foot or bug spray to get them to perform for dinner guests...

In all seriousness, ants are known to actually teach interactively.

So, to answer your question... To get an ant to do what is required, the ant will be taught and will learn to do what is required.

All female ants are clones

What is it with you and female clones?

Unless you are talking about the all female ant species in the Amazon that reproduces by cloning, no, in the greater majority of ant species, the female ants are not clones. They are sisters. Not clones.

Andthe workers are all clones but performing different tasks. How do they learn that?

Workers tend to be female for the most part. Ergo, they are not clones but sisters. Since female workers are from fertilised eggs..

And that's wherein the mystery lies. How does a hive-mind emerge when many insects congregate?

It's not a hive mind. The female queen gives off pheromones as she leaves the colony and others follow her to try to mate with her and set up a new colony.

This form of "group communication" already appears in bacterial colonies. There it is called "quorum sensing".

Not the same thing at all.

If the dance is not a language, why use the term language at all? A form of language, a pseudo -language, a quasi-language?

Where did I say it is not a language?

You seem to be attributing things to me that I did not actually say, to form an argument I did not actually make, in order to respond to me. My comment was that the waggle was not always effective. You are responding to something else entirely.

WOW, more research in the field of Q-mind? Seems Hameroff and Penrose are not the only ones pursuing the proposition. That their hypotheses don't agree is irrelevant. The concept is being seriously considered. Unfortunately I have yet to see a serious proposal other than ORCH OR

No one has said that it is not seriously considered in this thread, so I do not exactly understand what you are going on about here.

People are simply questioning your motives and why you are ignoring everything else to come up with some bizarre and at times incorrect claims. To wit, the links provided question orch or for valid reasons. They point out the fact that incorrect calculations were used to come up with the theory, and the lack of explanations from Hameroff and Penrose, just as they question how and why they refer to studies to support their theories when those studies do not actually pertain to what they are proposing.

Oh I see. My research is true, other people's research is merely woo? The Dunning-Kruger effect does not discriminate.

I see no rejection of the Q-mind idea, merely a critique of ORCH OR. And the article readily admits the science is in still in its infancy, as do Hameroff and Penrose. I'm sure no one expects research at this level is a "piece of pie".

Wow..

Just..

Wow..

Yes, c-section is very common in nature....

More misrepresentations. How strange and unusual.

That is just not true Bells. I have begged for information other than from Hameroff, et al. Finally you have obliged and I am grateful for the time you took. I have provided an initial response, but I am still reading and processing the information.

This subject fascinates me......

I do find it remarkable that in spite of the admission of emergent consciousness being so readily discussed, that only H and P have presented a positive paper and all responses are negative, but without offering an alternative perspective.

Umm they (other scientists) are not admitting of emergent consciousness in microtubules. At all.

Again, you are going from (a) to (z) and ignoring everything in between.

Typical response. Citing the author of a theory is an exagerration?

But that is not what you are doing.

Which is ironic, given that you just admitted to not reading my links.

I read your links, which I clearly stated. I just did not watch the videos.

Which you acknowledged above but now seem to be arguing that I admitted to not 'reading' your links...?

Once again, making up arguments with which to prattle over.

I do now!

Give me time, I'll respond., trust me.........

That's not what I was asking.

Something something about honesty goes here. Either that, or you completely forget or deliberately misrepresent what others are saying and responding to you..

 

[Write4U]

In all seriousness, ants are known to actually teach interactively.

So, to answer your question... To get an ant to do what is required, the ant will be taught and will learn to do what is required.

So ants can learn? Thank you! And how do they do that?

Many animals can learn behaviours by imitation, but ants may be the only group apart from

mammals where interactive teaching has been observed. A knowledgeable forager of Temnothorax albipennis will lead a naive nest-mate to newly discovered food by the process of tandem running. The follower obtains knowledge through its leading tutor. The leader is acutely sensitive to the progress of the follower and slows down when the follower lags and speeds up when the follower gets too close.[99]

Interesting that the teacher should understand the emotional state of her student.
But leading a novice to a food source is not teaching it very much. AFAIK, scent is usually the method to mark paths. But do you think this is sufficient explanation how living organisms actually learn things?
What is it that allows for a change in chemistry in the organisms to allow for immediate evolution of information processing on the fly? How does a slime-mold learn? How does any animal learn?

The question is not if organism can learn (evolve epigenetically), we KNOW they can, and at many levels of sophistication, question is how they and humans actually can learn. What is it that changes and determines the expression of new behaviors. How does thinking emerge?

What organic mechanism allows for storage and retrieval of new information? Is this a conscious process or are there other paths to "learning and applying"?
That is the OP question!

p.s. Thank you Bells for the links. I love honey bees! http://glenn-apiaries.com/principles.html

 

[Bells]

So ants can learn?

It would seem so..

Thank you! And how do they do that?

By teaching..

Interesting that the teacher should understand the emotional state of her student.

I don't think emotional state has anything to do with it..

Do you think this is sufficient explanation how living organisms actually learn things?

Each has their own way.

What is it that allows for a change in chemistry in the organisms to allow for immediate evolution of information processing on the fly?

Pretty sure it's not "immediate evolution"..

In other words, the leader ant noticing or observing other ants lagging behind and slowing down to match their pace as it's teaching them how to get to a new food source, did not immediately evolve to do so when it noticed other ants lagging behind.

Nor are they evolving "on the fly"..

How does a slime-mold learn?

Are you talking about how they can sometimes anticipate periodic events?

They don't know how or why they do it. Just that some can.

How does any animal learn.

Depends on the animal.

The question is not if organism can learn (evolve on the fly)

Your terminology is part of the problem.

we KNOW they can, it is how they and humans actually do learn. What organic mechanism allows for storage and retrieval of new information? Is this a conscious process or are there other paths to "learning and applying"?

Neurons.

p.s. Thank you Bells for the links. I love honey bees!

Then perhaps you should take some time and get to know about them instead of posting things that are so incorrect.

And hence the issue.. You are basing your theories and using bees as examples, and you are basing it on things that are incorrect about bees to prop up your argument.

It is patently astonishing, to be honest.

 

[Write4U]

Neurons.
They don't know how or why they do it. Just that some can.

I see, well that solves that. Thanks for the lesson. I feel that my understanding of emergent consciousness has improved considerably....I'm evolving as we speak...

 

[Bells]

I see, well that solves that. Thanks for the lesson. I feel that my understanding of emergent consciousness has improved considerably....I'm evolving as we speak...

Why are you chopping and changing my post like that and posting what I said so far out of context?

That is inherently dishonest.

You seem to do that when you are confronted with your blatant errors. You dodge it by posting things out of context and essentially being really dishonest.

Why do you do that?

And then you wonder why people respond to you in such a negative manner?

 

[Write4U]

Why are you chopping and changing my post like that and posting what I said so far out of context?

That is inherently dishonest.

You seem to do that when you are confronted with your blatant errors. You dodge it by posting things out of context and essentially being really dishonest.

Why do you do that?

And then you wonder why people respond to you in such a negative manner?

Are you telling me that that post contained information?
I didn't alter your sentences. Just combined the two I wished to answer into one quote.
Here is the entire post.

It would seem so..
1. By teaching..
2. I don't think emotional state has anything to do with it..
3. Each has their own way.
4. Pretty sure it's not "immediate evolution"..6.
5. In other words, the leader ant noticing or observing other ants lagging behind and slowing down to match their pace as it's teaching them how to get to a new food source, did not immediately evolve to do so when it noticed other ants lagging behind.
6. Nor are they evolving "on the fly"..
7. Are you talking about how they can sometimes anticipate periodic events?
8. They don't know how or why they do it. Just that some can.
9. Depends on the animal.
10. Your terminology is part of the problem.
11. Neurons.

Then perhaps you should take some time and get to know about them instead of posting things that are so incorrect.

And hence the issue.. You are basing your theories and using bees as examples, and you are basing it on things that are incorrect about bees to prop up your argument.

It is patently astonishing, to be honest.

And what is it that you want from me after all this diatribe?

I'm learning from you. Im just not learning anything about consciousness.......

 

[Write4U]

Pretty sure it's not "immediate evolution"..

In other words, the leader ant noticing or observing other ants lagging behind and slowing down to match their pace as it's teaching them how to get to a new food source, did not immediately evolve to do so when it noticed other ants lagging behind.

Nor are they evolving "on the fly"..

You may want to read up on "Evolutionary Epistemology"

 

[Bells]

Are you telling me that that post contained information?
I didn't alter your sentences. Just combined the two I wished to answer into one quote.
Here is the entire post.

You combined two responses, to two completely different questions, to address a completely different issue..

It is dishonest.

You have thus far failed to address the fact that you posited your position by using bees, but in doing so, you were completely incorrect about bees (and ants for that matter)..

Instead, you post what I say out of context to argue something else..

You do it all the time.

Why do you do that?

Do you understand how that is dishonest?

And what is it that you want from me after all this diatribe?

I'm learning from you. Im just not learning anything about consciousness.......

I actually want you to address the fact that you posited a position about consciousness on bees as you did and you were completely wrong.

Why are you dodging that?

For example, I point out, with supporting links that the cells used in the study are not adult cells, but embryonic cells of mice that were removed from their mother, which is a glaring issue in their proposition and yours for that matter. And you respond by taking it completely out of context (it's a running theme with you) and essentially respond to something else altogether:

Yes, c-section is very common in nature....

Do you understand how that is dishonest?

Just as your repeated arguments about "hive minds", using bees as examples, their status and roles within the hives.. All of which was completely and utterly incorrect.. And you were basing your argument on something that was wrong.

You immediately respond by deliberately posting things out of context to answer to completely different things, thereby avoiding the fact that you were wrong.. Repeatedly.

Hence why I said earlier that you have absolutely no interest in an actual discussion. You just want to be the zealot and essentially preach, even if you have to act in such a dishonest manner to do so.

You may want to read up on "Evolutionary Epistemology"

You may want to address what I was actually answering, where you noted that ants were apparently immediately evolving to teach other ants.. Remember your words? "On the fly"?

Instead of again taking what I said out of context to avoid your own argument, to answer to something else entirely.

 

[iceaura]

If you had watched the video you'd know what I'm talking about and will have learned about microtubular versatility in processing information and controlling powers when arrayed in a pyramidal pattern.

That's also true of DNA, RNA, certain proteins, neurons, synapses, glial cells, etc.
It's also true of transistors, vacuum tubes, switches, cells in general, and the sand on a beach.

The physical brain is substrate. Substrates do not determine patterns.

 

[Write4U]

That's also true of DNA, RNA, certain proteins, neurons, synapses, glial cells, etc.

No it is not. In that list there are only four items involved in processing of information, i.e. microtubules, synapses, glial cells, neurons. OTOH, DNA, RNA, and Proteins are information.
Neurons, synapses, glial cells are processors. In addition, microtubules are also responsible for the building and development of the cells themselves in addition to the neural processors and transport scaffolding,

Microtubules Are Critical for Radial Glial Morphology: Possible Regulation by MAPs and MARKs

These results together with the known ability of microtubule affinity-regulating kinases to regulate microtubule organization suggest that microtubules and MAPs are critical for the morphology of radial glia.

As noted earlier, microtubules completely reorganize during mitosis, providing a dramatic example of the importance of their dynamic instability. The microtubule array present in interphase cells disassembles and the free tubulin subunits are reassembled to form the mitotic spindle , which is responsible for the separation of daughter chromosomes ( Figure 11.42 ).

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK9932

IMO, chromosomes are the storage devices for genetic code which is translated by the microtubules during mitosis.

AFAIK, there seems to be no other permanent memory storage device in the brain except pyramidal microtubules. Hameroff explain why and how these pyramidal structures may function as memory devices.

Structures and Functions of Microtubules
Microtubules are filamentous intracellular structures that are responsible for various kinds of movements in all eukaryotic cells. Microtubules are involved in nucleic and cell division, organization of intracellular structure, and intracellular transport, as well as ciliary and flagellar motility.

Because the functions of microtubules are so critical to the existence of eukaryotic cells (including our own), it is important that we understand their composition, how they are assembled and disassembled, and how their assembly/disassembly and functions are regulated by cells.

https://www.ruf.rice.edu/~bioslabs/studies/invertebrates/microtubules.html

A self-referential system?

It's also true of transistors, vacuum tubes, switches, cells in general, and the sand on a beach.

Well perhaps it might be more accurate to posit that all those objects were made by a computer, except sand, which is a result of friction.

The physical brain is substrate. Substrates do not determine patterns.

"Neural substrates". Medical Dictionary. Farlex. Retrieved 27 January 2019. Neural substrates are functional units of the central nervous system, often composed of a series of structural units which may be widely separated anatomically but which interact to support or drive complex nervous system functions, such as hunger and sleepiness. They are the counterparts of simple centers, e.g. the respiratory center, which control simple physiological mechanisms.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neural_substrate

 

[Write4U]

You may want to address what I was actually answering, where you noted that ants were apparently immediately evolving to teach other ants.. Remember your words? "On the fly"?

I am working on a fuller response to your rant, but this is an example where you misunderstood me and I'm not sure if I am responsible for that misunderstanding.

I noted that the young ants (not the teachers) were evolving "on the fly" as they were being taught how to find food or how to tend to eggs, and eventually how to do other new housekeeping chores as they mature. It seems that learning is a form of evolving on the fly.

I am still not sure about your osition on hive-minds, but this is the definitiom I use.

Definition of hive mind
1: the collective mental activity expressed in the complex, coordinated behavior of a colony of social insects (such as bees or ants) regarded as comparable to a single mind controlling the behavior of an individual organism. The tiny bees in a hive are more or less unaware of their colony, but their collective hive mind transcends their small bee minds.

p.s. thanks for bringing something to my attention about bees which is really bizarre, in regard to the haploid nature of drones.
This I had never heard of when talking to several beekeeper friends of mine. If only someone ever had mentioned "haploid" to me. I coulda looked it up. I consider it a lost opportunity.......

The passing of genetic codes in bees is really strange and unlike most other modern biological species.

Haplodiploidy is a sex-determination system in which males develop from unfertilized eggs and are haploid, and females develop from fertilized eggs and are diploid.[1] Haplodiploidy is sometimes called arrhenotoky.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplodiploidy

But of course that does not have anything to do with consciousness.