Is consciousness to be found in quantum processes in microtubules?

[Write4U]

Attempting to get ideas through to you seems like a hopeless pursuit. You always miss the point and go right on doing what you're doing, imagining that it is something worth spending lots of time on.

No, you are missing the point.
You are attempting to rid me of my ideas about microtubules (and the neural network) without offering a creditable alternative because you are hopelessly stuck on the "hard question" that no one has yet been able to solve.
So I am pursuing the approach that Tegmark suggests, by starting to identify "hard facts" that may be instrumental in the emergence of consciousness.
A microtubule is a "hard fact" despite your protestations. I list all the information processing functions that MT are demonstrably capable of and leave the scientific minutia to the scientist doing the actual research into the biochemical mechanics.

IMO, there is overwhelming evidence that microtubules are prominently responsible for the evolution and emergence of consciousness.
They are the single "common denominator" in all Eukaryotic life from single-celled organisms to large-brained multicellular biomes, which suggests they are responsible for the ability to evolve at all, whereas the Prokaryotes have remained in a purely biochemically reactive state without any remarkable evolutionary advances since the emergence of life itself. And why is that?
They lack microtubules!

That is incorrect. I, among other people here, have put many of your more extravagant claims in perspective. It flies over your head, every time, without fail.

What extravagant claims?

The OP asks a question as to the possibility that ORCH OR may be the most promising approach to solving the mystery of consciousness.
Apparently, in spite of the abundant information I have presented, that simple proposition has flown right over your head, every time, without fail in spite of the abundant trove of information as to the communicative abilities of microtubules.

What you have continuously done is poo poo thousands of researchers engaged in the very thing I am quoting with links to formal papers and publications. I am just a messenger and you are constantly killing the message by killing the messenger. It is an old practice to stifle newsworthy information from spreading.

Apart from that, I don't like people being wrong on the internet, so I might still pop in to correct your "work" from time to time.

I have yet to see a serious attempt to contribute.

The record here clearly shows that my interests and capabilities extend beyond obsessing over the same two or three topics endlessly.

Or inability to appreciate the Big questions.

Tell me about the tons of important and interesting science that trump the science of "consciousness"? Are you kidding me?

 

[origin]

No, you are missing the point.

Nope he is spot on, you are completely and unreasonably obsessed by this topic.

 

[Write4U]

Nope he is spot on, you are completely and unreasonably obsessed by this topic.

And why should that bother you?
Seems to me that you are completely and unreasonably obsessed with me. It's unhealthy.....

I am beginning to suspect that your disinterest is entirely due to your inability to think outside the box and abstract concepts such as consciousness are entirely beyond your ability to comprehend.

On second thought, I am no longer going be distracted by your obnoxious and utterly useless presence.
Click!

 

[origin]

And why should that bother you?

Dunno, just does.

On second thought, I am no longer going be distracted by your obnoxious and utterly useless presence.
Click!

Great, I can comment, with out your insipient replies.

 

[James R]

Write4U,

Against my better judgment, I will reply once again.

You are attempting to rid me of my ideas about microtubules (and the neural network) without offering a creditable alternative because you are hopelessly stuck on the "hard question" that no one has yet been able to solve.

Your fantasies about microtubules (call them "hypotheses" if your prefer) are not the problem. The problem is that you can't support your wild claims. Believe what you like, but so far you are completely failing to convince anybody to join you in your obsession.

It is not up to me to disprove your claims, or to offer alternatives (although, I have suggested one or two possibilities you could look into). It is up to you to convince us that your claims can stand up to scrutiny.

So I am pursuing the approach that Tegmark suggests, by starting to identify "hard facts" that may be instrumental in the emergence of consciousness.

Your worship of Tegmark is one of the other topics you're obsessed with. Tegmark doesn't even talk about microtubules, does he? You're just desperate to confect links between your obsessions.

A microtubule is a "hard fact" despite your protestations.

I do not deny the existence of microtubules.

IMO, there is overwhelming evidence that microtubules are prominently responsible for the evolution and emergence of consciousness.

IMO, there is zero evidence that microtubules are prominently responsible for the evolution and emergence of consciousness. So, nyah!

Now what are you going to do?

They are the single "common denominator" in all Eukaryotic life from single-celled organisms to large-brained multicellular biomes, which suggests they are responsible for the ability to evolve at all, whereas the Prokaryotes have remained in a purely biochemically reactive state without any remarkable evolutionary advances since the emergence of life itself.

How many other potential common denominators have you considered and rejected? None? I thought so.

Clearly you have no idea what enables the "ability to evolve at all". You're just talking nonsense.

And why is that?
They lack microtubules!

No, that's not why.

The OP asks a question as to the possibility that ORCH OR may be the most promising approach to solving the mystery of consciousness.

Anything is possible. Not much progress has been made on ORCH OR, so far, though.

Apparently, in spite of the abundant information I have presented, that simple proposition has flown right over your head, every time, without fail in spite of the abundant trove of information as to the communicative abilities of microtubules.

I think you're ignoring the communicative abilities of oil pipelines, which are comparable, no doubt.

What you have continuously done is poo poo thousands of researchers engaged in the very thing I am quoting with links to formal papers and publications.

None of the ones you've cited so far seem to be engaged in the thing you're engaged in.

Tell me about the tons of important and interesting science that trump the science of "consciousness"? Are you kidding me?

I'm not here to clue you in on Science News, Write4U. Widen your horizons. There are plenty of good science news outlets. See if you can find some. Hint: don't use the words "Tegmark" or "microtubule" in your search term.

 

[Write4U]

It is not up to me to disprove your claims, or to offer alternatives (although, I have suggested one or two possibilities you could look into). It is up to you to convince us that your claims can stand up to scrutiny.

I am not interested in theories I am interested in facts.

Remove your alternatives and nothing changes, they are theories.
Remove microtubules and conscious thought disappears. The proof lies in Alzheimers Disease and the practical use of anesthetics. There is no known substitute for rendering consciousness unconscious other than blunt trauma.

I know the burden lies with the claimant, but in the absence of alternate less complicated practical substitutes, Occam rules. There are only microtubules and their related filaments that process sensory data. There is nothing else.

I don't ask for any alternative theory, I ask for an alternative qualifying physical system. Do you have one?
I am not trying to answer the "hard question". I am posing the question in the Thread title.

I am engaged in gathering "hard facts" from which the answers will emerge spontaneously with expanded and deeper knowledge of microtubule functions. And that quest has spawned thriving research in the properties and abilities of the microtubule network and especially their functional role in the brain by hundreds, if not thousands of researchers. They are all wasting their time? Come now ... really?

So far, you are the only one that has actually made an attempt at scrutiny. And I have made an honest effort to answer your audits with research into relevant publications. I don't claim to have the answers. I am making a simple claim that there is a case that can be made for the microtubule (neural) network being the substrate from which consciousness emerges.

AFAIK, there is no other possible substitute.

I know you also think Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff are charlatans, but hey, this forum is for exposing frauds, even if they are Nobel laureates , right?
The hubris is astounding.

 

[Write4U]

IMO, there is zero evidence that microtubules are prominently responsible for the evolution and emergence of consciousness. So, nyah!

Yes there is abundant evidence that microtubules are prominently responsible for the emergence of consciousness.

How do you render a person, or any other brained organism, unconscious other than hitting them on the head with a baseball bat?

Can you answer this simple question? Hameroff can, he does it every day in his practice as anesthesiologist.
Proof is abundant, you just fail to make the connection. You advise me to widen my horizons while admonishing me that my horizons are too wide. Make up your mind and make an effort to "follow" the evidence as presented by the hard facts.

 

[Write4U]

Clearly you have no idea what enables the "ability to evolve at all". You're just talking nonsense.

Microtubules have not evolved since the appearance of Eukaryotes. That is why they are a common denominator in all Eukaryotic organisms and responsible for the evolution of sensory acuteness and eventual conscious awareness of self in relation to the environment.

It is these hard facts that are being totally ignored. Microtubules are all the same, but their incredible versatility allows them to be used for a myriad of informational duties and distributional transport of electro-chemical data throughout the body. These are "proven" hard facts and you need no longer ask for proof. Proof has been provided and all my posts confirm these hard facts. This is why I posted all those seemingly disparate functions that microtubules perform. They all deal with information processing!

My argument is that in the absence of any other "hard facts" we must accept the current science that the neural network and specifically the microtubules and related filaments and their synaptic connections are the "functional" information processors within every Eukaryotic organic system at every evolutionary stage.

And if that knowledge remains unchanged it is perfectly reasonable to propose that the microtubule network is the substrate from which consciousness emerges as a "result greater than the sum of its parts" a perfectly scientifically acceptable phenomenon.

The interesting part about my use of both "ORCH OR" and Tegmark's "Mathematical patterns" is the fact that in spite of Tegmark's opposition to ORCH OR (orchestrated objective reduction) in favor of Tononi's IIT ( integrated information theory) which actually describes the exact same concept but from slightly different perspective and most importantly, does not rule out but in fact, also requires the microtubule (neural ) network as the necessary information processing mechanism. That's a hard fact!

 

[Write4U]

On further research, perhaps microtubules have evolved specific adaptions to various functions. Apparently these changes do not affect the fundamental construction of microtubules but use variations of multiple microtubule organizational patterns for different transportation abilities.

Post-translational regulation of the microtubule cytoskeleton: mechanisms and functions
Abstract

Half a century of biochemical and biophysical experiments has provided attractive models that may explain the diverse functions of microtubules within cells and organisms. However, the notion of functionally distinct microtubule types has not been explored with similar intensity, mostly because mechanisms for generating divergent microtubule species were not yet known.

Cells generate distinct microtubule subtypes through expression of different tubulin isotypes and through post-translational modifications, such as detyrosination and further cleavage to Δ2-tubulin, acetylation, polyglutamylation and polyglycylation.

The recent discovery of enzymes responsible for many tubulin post-translational modifications has enabled functional studies demonstrating that these post-translational modifications may regulate microtubule functions through an amazing range of mechanisms.

Similar articles

Tubulin post-translational modifications control neuronal development and functions.
Moutin MJ, Bosc C, Peris L, Andrieux A.Dev Neurobiol. 2021 Apr;81(3):253-272. doi: 10.1002/dneu.22774. Epub 2020 Aug 29.PMID: 33325152 Free PMC article. Review.

Post-translational modifications of tubulin: pathways to functional diversity of microtubules.
Song Y, Brady ST.Trends Cell Biol. 2015 Mar;25(3):125-36. doi: 10.1016/j.tcb.2014.10.004. Epub 2014 Nov 25.PMID: 25468068 Free PMC article. Review.

Investigating tubulin posttranslational modifications with specific antibodies.
Magiera MM, Janke C.Methods Cell Biol. 2013;115:247-67. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-407757-7.00016-5.PMID: 23973077

Tubulin post-translational modifications: encoding functions on the neuronal microtubule cytoskeleton.
Janke C, Kneussel M.Trends Neurosci. 2010 Aug;33(8):362-72. doi: 10.1016/j.tins.2010.05.001. Epub 2010 Jun 11.PMID: 20541813 Review.

Post-translational modifications of tubulin.
Magiera MM, Janke C.Curr Biol. 2014 May 5;24(9):R351-4. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2014.03.032.PMID: 24801181

See all similar articles

Structural visualization of the tubulin folding pathway directed by human chaperonin TRiC/CCT.
Gestaut D, Zhao Y, Park J, Ma B, Leitner A, Collier M, Pintilie G, Roh SH, Chiu W, Frydman J.Cell. 2022 Dec 8;185(25):4770-4787.e20. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2022.11.014.PMID: 36493755

KIF2A deficiency causes early-onset neurodegeneration.
Ruiz-Reig N, Chehade G, Hakanen J, Aittaleb M, Wierda K, De Wit J, Nguyen L, Gailly P, Tissir F.Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2022 Nov 16;119(46):e2209714119. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2209714119. Epub 2022 Nov 7.PMID: 36343267

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22086369/

Microtubule
50 languages

There are many proteins that bind to microtubules, including the motor proteins dynein and kinesin, microtubule-severing proteins like katanin, and other proteins important for regulating

microtubule dynamics.[6]
Recently an actin-like protein has been found in the gram-positive bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis, which forms a microtubule-like structure called a nanotubule, involved in plasmid segregation.[7] Other bacterial microtubules have a ring of five protofilaments.

Structure

Cartoon representation of the structure of α(yellow)/β(red)-tubulin heterodimer, GTP and GDP.[11]
In eukaryotes, microtubules are long, hollow cylinders made up of polymerised α- and β-tubulin dimers.[12] The inner space of the hollow microtubule cylinders is referred to as the lumen. The α and β-tubulin subunits are ~50% identical at the amino acid level, and both have a molecular weight of approximately 50 kDa.[13][14]

History

Tubulin and microtubule-mediated processes, like cell locomotion, were seen by early microscopists, like Leeuwenhoek (1677). However, the fibrous nature of flagella and other structures were discovered two centuries later, with improved light microscopes, and confirmed in the 20th century with the electron microscope and biochemical studies.[8]

...

The lateral association of the protofilaments generates a pseudo-helical structure, with one turn of the helix containing 13 tubulin dimers, each from a different protofilament. In the most common "13-3" architecture, the 13th tubulin dimer interacts with the next tubulin dimer with a vertical offset of 3 tubulin monomers due to the helicity of the turn.

There are other alternative architectures, such as 11-3, 12-3, 14-3, 15-4, or 16-4, that have been detected at a much lower occurrence.[18]

Microtubules can also morph into other forms such as helical filaments, which are observed in protist organisms like foraminifera.[19]

There are two distinct types of interactions that can occur between the subunits of lateral protofilaments within the microtubule called the A-type and B-type lattices. In the A-type lattice, the lateral associations of protofilaments occur between adjacent α and β-tubulin subunits (i.e. an α-tubulin subunit from one protofilament interacts with a β-tubulin subunit from an adjacent protofilament). In the B-type lattice, the α and β-tubulin subunits from one protofilament interact with the α and β-tubulin subunits from an adjacent protofilament, respectively. Experimental studies have shown that the B-type lattice is the primary arrangement within microtubules. However, in most microtubules there is a seam in which tubulin subunits interact α-β.[20]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microtubule[/quote][/quote]

 

[Write4U]

Filaments in Protists

A protist (/ˈproʊtɪst/) is any eukaryoticorganism (that is, an organism whose cells contain a cell nucleus) that is not an animal, plant, or fungus. While it is likely that protists share a common ancestor (the last eukaryotic common ancestor),[3] the exclusion of other eukaryotes means that protists do not form a natural group, or clade.[a][/quote]

Therefore, some protists may be more closely related to animals, plants, or fungi than they are to other protists. However, like the groups algae, invertebrates, and protozoans, the biological category protist is used for convenience. Others classify any unicellular eukaryotic microorganism as a protist.[4] The study of protists is termed protistology.[5]

A sampling of protists, composed of images from Wikimedia Commons. Clockwise from top left: red algae (Chondrus crispus); brown algae (Giant Kelp); ciliate (Frontonia); golden algae (Dinobryon); Foraminifera (Radiolaria); parasitic flagellate (Giardia muris); pathogenic amoeba (Acanthamoeba); amoebozoan slime mold (Fuligo septica)

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

Protist tubulins: new arrivals, evolutionary relationships and insights to cytoskeletal function, Keith Gull

The protists exhibit probably the most extravagant expression of microtubule-containing structures found in any organism.

These structures — flagella, cilia, axostyles, spindles and a veritable constellation of microtubule bundles and cortical arrays — provide shape, form, motility, anchorage and apparatuses for feeding.

The cytoskeletal structures have a precise order (i.e. size, position and number) that must be replicated and segregated with fidelity at each division, some components being inherited conservatively and others semi-conservatively. Intriguingly, it is now apparent that much of the high-order organisation, which was recognised and described by light and electron microscopy during the last century, is a reflection of molecular polarities set by assembly of constituent proteins. Tubulins and microtubules lie at the heart of this morphogenetic pattern.

Introduction: tubulins — α to η

The proteins that form the microtubule wall — α and β tubulin — were first characterised over 30 years ago. They were found to assemble with an intrinsic polarity.

Some 12 years ago, γ tubulin was first identified in Aspergillus nidulans in a genetic screen. It was found to be located in microtubule organising centres (MTOCs), where it plays an essential role in initiating microtubule assembly [1].

These three tubulins appear to be present in all eukaryotes and are the only tubulins in some eukaryotes, indicating that this is the minimal set required to define microtubule function in these organisms. The importance of this ‘minimal set’ is illustrated by the fact that the reduced genome of the secondary endosymbiont of the cryptomonad Guillardia theta contains α, β and γ tubulin genes [2].

http://users.path.ox.ac.uk/~kgull/pdf/2001_gull_1.pdf

Note that protist already display various abilities of microtubules regulating specific reactions to external stimuli.
At this fundamental stage, microtubules already control the quasi-intelligent behavior of the organisms.

 

[Write4U]

And before this Prokaryotic bacteria already used a simpler form of tubulins for information processing, such as "quorum sensing".

Microtubules in bacteria: Ancient tubulins build a five-protofilament homolog of the eukaryotic cytoskeleton

more.....
Abstract

Microtubules play crucial roles in cytokinesis, transport, and motility, and are therefore superb targets for anti-cancer drugs. All tubulins evolved from a common ancestor they share with the distantly related bacterial cell division protein FtsZ, but while eukaryotic tubulins evolved into highly conserved microtubule-forming heterodimers, bacterial FtsZ presumably continued to function as single homopolymeric protofilaments as it does today.

Microtubules have not previously been found in bacteria, and we lack insight into their evolution from the tubulin/FtsZ ancestor. Using electron cryomicroscopy, here we show that the tubulin homologs BtubA and BtubB form microtubules in bacteria and suggest these be referred to as "bacterial microtubules" (bMTs). bMTs share important features with their eukaryotic counterparts, such as straight protofilaments and similar protofilament interactions. bMTs are composed of only five protofilaments, however, instead of the 13 typical in eukaryotes.

These and other results suggest that rather than being derived from modern eukaryotic tubulin, BtubA and BtubB arose from early tubulin intermediates that formed small microtubules. Since we show that bacterial microtubules can be produced in abundance in vitro without chaperones, they should be useful tools for tubulin research and drug screening.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22162949/

 

[James R]

Write4U:

Remove microtubules and conscious thought disappears.

If you remove the brain then conscious thought disappears. That doesn't mean the microtubules are the culprit. You need to prove that.

The proof lies in Alzheimers Disease and the practical use of anesthetics.

Where can I read this proof that microtubules are responsible for consciousness, as established by studies of Alzheimer's and anesthetics?

There is no known substitute for rendering consciousness unconscious other than blunt trauma.

You just mentioned anaesthetics. Also, there's this thing called sleep...

There are only microtubules and their related filaments that process sensory data. There is nothing else.

You have yet to show that microtubules process any data at all.

I don't ask for any alternative theory, I ask for an alternative qualifying physical system. Do you have one?

Yes. It's called a brain.

I am making a simple claim that there is a case that can be made for the microtubule (neural) network being the substrate from which consciousness emerges.

When do you plan on getting around to making your case?

I know you also think Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff are charlatans, but hey, this forum is for exposing frauds, even if they are Nobel laureates , right?

I do not think Penrose is a charlatan. Please don't put words in my mouth. I don't know enough about Hammeroff to have an opinion on whether he is a charlatan. I suspect, due to the company he keeps, that he probably isn't, but anything is possible.

 

[James R]

Yes there is abundant evidence that microtubules are prominently responsible for the emergence of consciousness.

What's the single best piece of evidence you know of that supports that contention?

How do you render a person, or any other brained organism, unconscious other than hitting them on the head with a baseball bat?

Bore them to sleep?

 

[James R]

Microtubules have not evolved since the appearance of Eukaryotes.

How do you know?

That is why they are a common denominator in all Eukaryotic organisms and responsible for the evolution of sensory acuteness and eventual conscious awareness of self in relation to the environment.

Please explain what the microtubules do that makes them responsible for any kind of evolution. How do the microtubules cause something to evolve?

Microtubules are all the same, but their incredible versatility allows them to be used for a myriad of informational duties and distributional transport of electro-chemical data throughout the body.

What's an "informational duty", exactly?

My argument is that in the absence of any other "hard facts" we must accept the current science that the neural network and specifically the microtubules and related filaments and their synaptic connections are the "functional" information processors within every Eukaryotic organic system at every evolutionary stage.

Nonsense!

First, this is not a finding of any "current science" I'm aware of. Second, you've given no reason at all for making microtubules some kind of default explanation. Worse, you've failed to show they can explain any aspect of consciousness at all.

The interesting part about my use of both "ORCH OR" and Tegmark's "Mathematical patterns" is the fact that in spite of Tegmark's opposition to ORCH OR (orchestrated objective reduction) in favor of Tononi's IIT ( integrated information theory) which actually describes the exact same concept but from slightly different perspective and most importantly, does not rule out but in fact, also requires the microtubule (neural ) network as the necessary information processing mechanism. That's a hard fact!

Word salad.

 

[Write4U]

If you remove the brain then conscious thought disappears. That doesn't mean the microtubules are the culprit. You need to prove that.

Hameroff proves it every time he anesthetizes a person.
He is the one claiming that it is the microtubules that respond to aesthetics and cause unconsciousness.

The Biology of General Anesthesia from Paramecium to Primate
Max B. Kelz1,2,3 and George A. Mashour4,5,6 1Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, University of Pennsylvania, Perelman School of Medicine, 3620 Hamilton Walk, 334 John Morgan Building, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA 2Center for Sleep and Circadian Neurobiology, University of Pennsylvania, Translational Research Laboratories, 125 S. 31st St., Philadelphia, PA 19104-3403, USA 3Mahoney Institute for Neuroscience, University of Pennsylvania, Clinical Research Building, 415 Curie Blvd, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA 4Department of Anesthesiology, University of Michigan, 7433 Medical Science Building 1, 1150 West Medical Center Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA 5Center for Consciousness Science, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA 6Neuroscience Graduate Program, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA Correspondence: kelz@pennmedicine.upenn.edu (M.B.K.), gmashour@med.umich.edu (G.A.M.) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2019.09.071

General anesthesia serves a critically important function in the clinical care of human patients. However, the anesthetized state has foundational implications for biology because anesthetic drugs are effective in organisms ranging from paramecia, to plants, to primates. Although unconsciousness is typically considered the cardinal feature of general anesthesia, this endpoint is only strictly applicable to a select subset of organisms that are susceptible to being anesthetized.

We review the behavioral endpoints of general anesthetics across species and propose the isolation of an organism from its environment — both in terms of the afferent arm of sensation and the efferent arm of action — as a generalizable definition. We also consider the various targets and putative mechanisms of general anesthetics across biology and identify key substrates that are conserved, including cytoskeletal elements, ion channels, mitochondria, and functionally coupled electrical or neural activity.

All connected by the microtubule network.

We conclude with a unifying framework related to network function and suggest that general anesthetics — from single cells to complex brains — create inefficiency and enhance modularity, leading to the dissociation of functions both within an organism and between the organism and its surroundings. Collectively, we demonstrate that general anesthesia is not restricted to the domain of modern medicine but has broad biological relevance with wide-ranging implications for a diverse array of species

Moreover, it is the gradual onset of microtubule catastrophe that causes Alzheimer's disease.

Microtubule dynamics and the neurodegenerative triad of Alzheimer's disease: The hidden connection
Roland Brandt1, Lidia Bakota1
© 2017 International Society for Neurochemistry.

Abstract

Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the most common neurodegenerative disorder and is, on a histopathological level, characterized by the presence of extracellular amyloid plaques composed of the protein fragment Aβ, and intracellular neurofibrillary tangles, which contain the microtubule-associated protein tau in a hyperphosphorylated state.

In AD defects in microtubule (MT) assembly and organization have also been reported; however, it is unclear whether MT abnormalities have a causal and early role in the disease process or represent a common end point downstream of the neurodegenerative cascade.

Recent evidence indicates that microtubule-stabilizing drugs prevent axonopathy in animal models of tauopathies and reverse Aβ-induced loss of synaptic connectivity in an ex vivo model of amyloidosis. This could suggest that MT dysfunction connects some of the degenerative events and provides a useful target to simultaneously prevent several neurodegenerative processes in AD.

Here, we describe how changes in the structure and dynamics of MTs are involved in the different aspects of the neurodegenerative triad of AD. We discuss evidence that MTs are affected both by tau-dependent and tau-independent mechanisms but appear to be regulated in a distinct way in different neuronal compartments.

We argue that modulation of MT dynamics could be of potential benefit but needs to be precisely controlled in a cell and compartment-specific manner to avoid harmful side effects. This article is part of the series "Beyond Amyloid".

Keywords: cytoskeleton; dendritic spines; microtubule dynamics; tau protein.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28267200/

and related astrocytes that are connected via the microtubule (axonal) network

3. Astrocytes are Intimately Associated with Neuronal Functions

Astrocytes not only regulate blood flow, but also transfer mitochondria to neurons, and supply the building blocks of neurotransmitters, which fuel neuronal metabolism [2,11,57]. In addition, astrocytes can phagocytose synapses, alter neurotrophin secretion, and clear debris [14,58].

The crosstalk between astrocytes and neurons appears to begin during development; gliogenesis and synaptogenesis occur concurrently in the brain, and glial cell maturation marks the end of the synaptogenic and neuroplastic periods [59].

Besides astrocyte–neuron metabolic cooperation, astrocytic processes show little overlap with neighboring astrocytes [33]. Rather, functional networks form via gap junctions between neighboring astrocytes and contribute to highly organized anatomical domains [60].

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6562853/#

Note that any actual communication requires axonal (microtubular) transport of action potentials (a) and synapses are the terminal ends of microtubule bundles inside axons.

Dynamic microtubules at the synapse
Abstract

Microtubules (MTs) are a fundamental cytoskeletal component that give neurons structure and are the primary polymer system for long distance transport of cargo throughout the cytoplasm. Although neurons are highly polarized and their structure is often maintained throughout the life of an organism, MTs can remain dynamic in axons and dendrites, undergoing bouts of polymerization and depolymerization, referred to as dynamic instability.

Furthermore, MTs can be nucleated outside of the centrosome or MT organizing center (MTOC) that is located in the cell body, allowing dynamic formation and branching of MT polymers throughout the neuron. Together, these recent findings point to a much more dynamic landscape of microtubules in developing and mature neurons than was previously appreciated. Here we will focus on recent studies that show MT dynamics are playing a role at the synapse, both post-synaptically in dendrites and pre-synaptically in axons.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7423735/

 

[Write4U]

How do you know?

It has been noted that the fundamental self-organization of the Eukaryotic microtubule has not changed since the first time it evolved from the prokaryotic simpler version.
It's like asking if Graphene atomic polymer structure has evolved.

There are related filaments and organelles that work in tandem with microtubules, but the main information highways are microtubules in the cytoskeleton, cytoplasm, and neuronal axons.

Please explain what the microtubules do that makes them responsible for any kind of evolution. How do the microtubules cause something to evolve?

That was not the question. The question was how microtubules evolved ..... difference.

But to answer your question. Genetic mutation happens during mitosis and microtubules are the "duplicating machine" via the mitotic spindle.

During mitosis, microtubules similarly extend outward from duplicated centrosomes to form the mitotic spindle, which is responsible for the separation and distribution of chromosomes to daughter cells. The centrosome thus plays a key role in determining the intracellular organization of microtubules, although most details of its function remain a mystery.

Figure 11.39
Intracellular organization of microtubules. The minus ends of microtubules are anchored in the centrosome. In interphase cells, the centrosome is located near the nucleus and microtubules extend outward to the cell periphery. During mitosis, duplicated (more...)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK9932/#

Microtubules are all the same, but their incredible versatility allows them to be used for a myriad of informational duties and distributional transport of electro-chemical data throughout the body.

JR: What's an "informational duty", exactly?

That which natural selection has selected for best performance The Eukaryotic microtubule is able to process more complex forms of information than the Prokaryotic simpler version and that allowed for greater evolutionary diversity in Eukaryotic organisms as is self-evident.

Biological Information
First published Thu Oct 4, 2007; substantive revision Wed Mar 23, 2016

Since the 1950s, the concept of information has acquired a strikingly prominent role in many parts of biology. This enthusiasm extends far beyond domains where the concept might seem to have an obvious application, such as the biological study of perception, cognition, and language, and now reaches into the most basic parts of biological theory.

Hormones and other cellular products through which physiological systems are regulated are typically described as signals. Descriptions of how genes play their causal role in metabolic processes and development are routinely given in terms of “transcription”, “translation”, and “editing”.

The most general term used for the processes by which genes exert their effects is “gene expression”. The fates of cells in a developing organism are explained in terms of their processing of “positional information” given to them from surrounding cells and other factors.

Many biologists think of the developmental processes by which organisms progress from egg to adult in terms of the execution of a “developmental program”. Other biologists have argued for a pivotal role for information in evolution rather than development: John Maynard Smith and Eors Szathmáry (for example) suggest that major transitions in evolution depend on expansions in the amount and accuracy with which information is transmitted across generations. And some have argued that we can only understand the evolutionary role of genes by recognizing an informational “domain” that exists alongside the domain of matter and energy.

more.... https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/information-biological/

W4U: My argument is that in the absence of any other "hard facts" we must accept the current science that the neural network and specifically the microtubules and related filaments and their synaptic connections are the "functional" information processors within every Eukaryotic organic system at every evolutionary stage of that organism.

JR: Nonsense!

What about that is nonsense?
And please stop denying without explanation. It is in no way informative or constructive. It's just annoying.

First, this is not a finding of any "current science" I'm aware of.

So, if you are not aware of something, it does not exist?

Second, you've given no reason at all for making microtubules some kind of default explanation. Worse, you've failed to show they can explain any aspect of consciousness at all.

I never claimed I have an answer to the "hard question". I am posing the question, which you continuously dismiss as pseudoscience. It is Penrose and Hameroff that claim to have an answer. And they have the bona fides. In your expert opinion, are they spouting pseudo-science?
Assuming that all necessary parts for emergent consciousness already exist, Tegmarks suggestion to begin with identifying "hard facts" seemed to me an eminently reasonable approach. But apparently, Tegmark is also a dilettante according to your "considered opinion", no?

The interesting part about my use of both "ORCH OR" and Tegmark's "Mathematical patterns" is the fact that in spite of Tegmark's opposition to ORCH OR (orchestrated objective reduction) in favor of Tononi's IIT ( integrated information theory) which actually describes the exact same concept but from a slightly different perspective and most importantly, does not rule out but in fact, also requires the microtubule (neural ) network as the necessary information processing mechanism. That's a hard fact!

JR: Word salad.

No it isn't, it is an axiomatic fact!
Read it again and think about its implication. Perhaps it will make more sense to you then.

Theories can change, but biological physics does not.

Microtubules are a common denominator of ALL Eukaryotic life. They control cell division, a fundamental functional property of complex biological organisms. They have been there since the beginning of self-replicating biology.

 

[James R]

Write4U:

Hameroff proves it every time he anesthetizes a person.

No. Please find out what the word "proves" means.

He is the one claiming that it is the microtubules that respond to aesthetics and cause unconsciousness.

Is he? What evidence does he have that his claim is correct? Why don't you present any relevant evidence?

The Biology of General Anesthesia from Paramecium to Primate

An article that makes no mention of microtubules. Irrelevant.

Moreover, it is the gradual onset of microtubule catastrophe that causes Alzheimer's disease.

No expert on Alzheimer's agrees with you.

Microtubule dynamics and the neurodegenerative triad of Alzheimer's disease: The hidden connection

Relevant quotes from the information you extracted:

"... it is unclear whether MT abnormalities have a causal and early role in the disease process or represent a common end point downstream of the neurodegenerative cascade."

"This could suggest that MT dysfunction connects some of the degenerative events..."

"We argue that modulation of MT dynamics could be of potential benefit..."​

This doesn't read like any kind of proof.

3. Astrocytes are Intimately Associated with Neuronal Functions

Another article that makes no mention of microtubules. Irrelevant.

Dynamic microtubules at the synapse

Discusses microtubules as structural components of cells. Ho hum.

It has been noted that the fundamental self-organization of the Eukaryotic microtubule has not changed since the first time it evolved from the prokaryotic simpler version.

Cite one reputable place where this has been noted.

That was not the question.

You made another claim you found you couldn't support. Now you're backing off and trying to change the subject. Okay. Let's move on.

But to answer your question. Genetic mutation happens during mitosis and microtubules are the "duplicating machine" via the mitotic spindle.

Cite one reputable source that supports your claim.

Microtubules are all the same, but their incredible versatility ...

They are all the same but all different? Which is it?

That which natural selection has selected for best performance...

Why are you never able to properly define the terms you use? Why do you always retrospectively try to jury-rig a half-arsed attempt to justify what you wrote?

You ought to stop using terms whose meanings you don't know. Stop making stuff up.

The Eukaryotic microtubule is able to process more complex forms of information than the Prokaryotic simpler version and that allowed for greater evolutionary diversity in Eukaryotic organisms as is self-evident.

It is not self-evident. You have done nothing to show that it is evident, let alone self-evident. This is your religion speaking, not science.

Biological Information

Another article that makes zero mention of microtubules. Irrelevant.

What about that is nonsense?
And please stop denying without explanation. It is in no way informative or constructive. It's just annoying.

What is annoying is that I've told you over and over again where the holes are in your religion. Instead of taking that on board, instead you keep spamming out irrelevant articles, making stuff up and generally completely failing to support any of your extravagant claims. Your only skill appears to be cutting and pasting. There is very little understanding to be seen.

So, if you are not aware of something, it does not exist?

That was an invitation to you to go away and find something relevant. You have failed to do that, again.

I never claimed I have an answer to the "hard question". I am posing the question, which you continuously dismiss as pseudoscience.

What are you talking about? How can a question be pseudoscience?

It is Penrose and Hameroff that claim to have an answer.

Do they? Cite one place where Penrose claims to have the answer.

And they have the bona fides.

Penrose is a mathematician, primarily, not a biologist. I don't know what Hammeroff's qualifications are.

In your expert opinion, are they spouting pseudo-science?

We can talk about specific examples of their work, if you like. It is very hard to generalise.

Assuming that all necessary parts for emergent consciousness already exist, Tegmarks suggestion to begin with identifying "hard facts" seemed to me an eminently reasonable approach.

Are these unjustified assumptions an important part of your religion?

But apparently, Tegmark is also a dilettante according to your "considered opinion", no?

As far as I'm aware, he has never discussed microtubules. Why you bring him up would be a mystery, were we not already aware that your idol worship of him requires that you try to pull him into every conversation.

No it isn't, it is an axiomatic fact!

An axiom of your religion, perhaps. Please find out what the words "axiom" and "fact" mean.

Read it again and think about its implication. Perhaps it will make more sense to you then.

Why don't you try re-writing your word salad so it at least makes grammatical sense, instead?

Theories can change, but biological physics does not.

Biological physics is theories.

Microtubules are a common denominator of ALL Eukaryotic life.

As structural components of cells, that is hardly surprising, or big news.

They control cell division, a fundamental functional property of complex biological organisms.

How do they "control" cell division?

They have been there since the beginning of self-replicating biology.

Since cells evolved, you mean? Okay. So what?

 

[Write4U]

W4U : I don't ask for any alternative theory, I ask for an alternative qualifying physical system. Do you have one?

Yes. It's called a brain.

Right, and the brain among a few other things, consists of 100 billion neurons connected by 1000 trillion synapses, fed by microtubules in the axons.

https://www.quora.com/What-is-inside-the-axon-of-a-human-neuron

Note that the microtubules inside the axons are cross-linked with each other. Actin filaments do also transport information but as is obvious, only over short distances and would seem to be more part of the homeostatic maintenance system.

and

https://www.researchgate.net/figure...-cone-stage-are-shown-in-a-and_fig3_337145613

Discovery of quantum vibrations in 'microtubules' inside brain neurons supports controversial theory of consciousness
Date: January 16, 2014
Source: Elsevier
Summary:

A review and update of a controversial 20-year-old theory of consciousness claims that consciousness derives from deeper level, finer scale activities inside brain neurons. The recent discovery of quantum vibrations in "microtubules" inside brain neurons corroborates this theory, according to review authors.

They suggest that EEG rhythms (brain waves) also derive from deeper level microtubule vibrations, and that from a practical standpoint, treating brain microtubule vibrations could benefit a host of mental, neurological, and cognitive conditions.

....

Lead author Stuart Hameroff concludes, "Orch OR is the most rigorous, comprehensive and successfully-tested theory of consciousness ever put forth. From a practical standpoint, treating brain microtubule vibrations could benefit a host of mental, neurological, and cognitive conditions."

The review is accompanied by eight commentaries from outside authorities, including an Australian group of Orch OR arch-skeptics. To all, Hameroff and Penrose respond robustly.

Penrose, Hameroff and Bandyopadhyay will explore their theories during a session on "Microtubules and the Big Consciousness Debate" at the Brainstorm Sessions, a public three-day event at the Brakke Grond in Amsterdam, the Netherlands, January 16-18, 2014.

They will engage skeptics in a debate on the nature of consciousness, and Bandyopadhyay and his team will couple microtubule vibrations from active neurons to play Indian musical instruments. "Consciousness depends on anharmonic vibrations of microtubules inside neurons, similar to certain kinds of Indian music, but unlike Western music which is harmonic," Hameroff explains.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140116085105.htm[/quote]

So when you speak about "brain" you are speaking about microtubules as the active processors of sensory information at the conscious level 3 and almost certainly playing a major part in the emergence of consciousness.

 

[Write4U]

No. Please find out what the word "proves" means.

I know a little about mathematics. You have used the term out of context many times yourself.
I remember you saying, " the burden of proof rests on the claimant". Sound familiar?
The term is used by many scientists when gathering evidence through repeated testing.

What is the first level of proof in the scientific method?

The Scientific Method starts with a question, and background research is conducted to try to answer that question. If you want to find evidence for an answer or an answer itself then you construct a hypothesis and test that hypothesis in an experiment.

Concept of scientific proof

While the phrase "scientific proof" is often used in the popular media,[22] many scientists and philosophers have argued that there is really no such thing as infallible proof.

For example, Karl Popper once wrote that "In the empirical sciences, which alone can furnish us with information about the world we live in, proofs do not occur, if we mean by 'proof' an argument which establishes once and for ever the truth of a theory."[23][24]

However, in contrast to the ideal of infallible proof, in practice theories may be said to be proved according to some standard of proof used in a given inquiry.[26][27] In this limited sense, proof is the high degree of acceptance of a theory following a process of inquiry and critical evaluation according to the standards of a scientific community.[26][27]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence#Concept_of_scientific_proof

Hameroff tests his hypothesis every day in his daily practice of rendering people unconscious and restoring them back to consciousness.

When he says I can prove that I can render people unconscious and return them back to consciousness, there can be no argument to deny the truth of that statement.

Let it be known that an anesthesiologist is a "speialist in the field of neurology.

 

[Write4U]

Since cells evolved, you mean? Okay. So what?

No, when cells mutate the mitotic spindle copies the mutation and that cell enters the gene pool if it survives then it can be said to have evolved. Most mutations do not survive, thus that "strain" goes extinct.