Is consciousness to be found in quantum processes in microtubules?

[Write4U]

Thank you CC, for that excellent analysis. So much material for research..... I love it!

 

[Contemplation]

Well, apparently the meaning of "experiential product" there is something different than intended with respect to "phenomenal consciousness", here pertaining purely to ordinary waves traveling through an ordinary medium. Experiences of the latter kind aren't attributed to them (at least in the anti-panpsychism way that a materialistic outlook conceives matter and its activity). And while Penrose believes that the wave function of QM is real, many if not the majority still consider it an abstraction. Granted, exploring P&H's hypothesis means having to contingently cater to his realism about it, but still not regard it as established fact outside this circumstance.

Returning to that quote of Chalmers', highlighted in red in your post above and repeated in entirety again at the very bottom[1]...

I finally found a reference to Whitehead and his "occasions of experience" by one of them (Hameroff). P&H have both qualia events and aspects of cognition simultaneously falling out of their "objective wave function collapse", but everything has to be globally coordinated before that happens (thus Penrose's appeal to coherence in the video). I guess they do address the hard-problem more than I thought, but there's no clarification about how experience would result from that, just that it does.

But on the other hand, even an offshoot of Russelian monism in the context of its view has to settle for such manifestations being how matter exists independent of extrinsic relational affairs or the abstract representations outputted by humans. And similarly Penrose seems to be asserting that the intrinsic state of his "orchestrated objective reduction" occurrence includes such phenomenal properties along with a bit of conceptual apprehension validating that the experience is there and/or signifying what it means.

Probably does nothing to elevate the reputation of their claims, but at least a bit of clarity (for me) on why the umbrella concept of "consciousness" is usually referenced rather than narrowing down to experience itself...

https://experts.arizona.edu/en/publ...in-of-life-how-the-brain-evolved-to-feel-good

Sir Roger Penrose proposed mental properties including qualia accompany self-collapse of the quantum wave function by objective reduction (OR), a threshold in the structure of spacetime geometry. Such OR qualia would be occurring ubiquitously in random environments throughout the universe, but be noncognitive and merely protoconscious. The Penrose-Hameroff Orch OR theory suggests OR events in cytoskeletal microtubules within brain neurons are organized, or orchestrated by inputs, memory, and vibrational resonances, and terminate by orchestrated OR to give meaningful conscious moments.

https://galileocommission.org/wp-co...e-Life-How-the-Brain-Evolved-to-Feel-Good.pdf

In this regard, Penrose OR is aligned with the process philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead (1929, 1933) who viewed consciousness as a sequence of discrete “occasions of experience.” Abner Shimony (1993) suggested Whitehead conscious events, or ‘occasions’ were equivalent to quantum state reductions, or moments of collapse of the wave function. Generally, Whitehead occasions are “simple, dull and monotonous,” and must be “combined,” or “organized” into full, rich conscious moments. Similarly, noncognitive, protoconscious qualia occurring with each OR event must be combined, organized, or orchestrated into full rich conscious experience, as described in an iconoclastic theory, orchestrated objective reduction (Orch OR) ...​

- - - - footnote - - -

[1] David Chalmers: (Moving Forward on the Problem of Consciousness): The difference between the two sorts of physics-based proposals is most apparent in the article by Hameroff and Penrose. Previous work had given me the impression that their aim was to explain consciousness wholly in terms of quantum action in microtubules; but this paper makes it explicit that consciousness is instead to be taken as fundamental. In essence, Hameroff and Penrose offer a psychophysical theory, postulating that certain quantum-mechanical reductions of the wave function, brought on when a certain gravitational threshold is attained, are each associated with a simple event of experience. They suggest a kinship with Whitehead's metaphysics; the view might also fit comfortably into the Russellian framework outlined earlier.

This is an intriguing and ambitious suggestion. Of course the details are a little sketchy: after their initial postulate, Hameroff and Penrose concentrate mostly on the physics of reduction and its functioning in microtubules, and leave questions about the explanation of experience to one side. Eventually it would be nice to see a proposal about the precise form of the psychophysical laws in this framework, and also to see how these billions of microscopic events of experience might somehow yield the remarkable structural properties of the single complex consciousness that we all possess. I am cautious about this sort of quantum-mechanical account myself, partly because it is not yet clear to me that quantum mechanics is essential to neural information-processing, and partly because it is not easy to see how quantum-level structure corresponds to the structure one finds in consciousness. But it is not impossible that a theory might address these problems. To know for sure, we will need a detailed explanatory bridge.

This stinks of sock puppetry! A staunch particle physicist would say that particles are both equally particles and waves. This defies all common sense, but under the Copenhagen Interpretation there are many experimental proofs that also defy common sense. We have to develop a new type of common sense to understand it.

The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle allows a particle to act both like a particle and a wave. To understand this, we must develop a new type of common sense that is a relativistic understanding. Richard Feynman claimed that quantum mechanics was a Lorentz Invariant theory, but he was never actually able to prove this, because time is taken out of the equation. It is actually the act of observation that determines the most probable speed and position of a particle.

The problem started after Einstein published The Special Theory of Relativity in his 1905 paper, On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies.

https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

The problem was that for values where the velocity approaches the speed of light, the theory approaches either zero or infinity. This became a problem when physicists first started attempting to describe particles from the idea of their being an atomos or smallest part of matter, considering the equivalence of energy and matter; given E = m c^2.

Heisenberg found the solution to this problem by developing the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. It allows particle physicists to establish a mathematical framework where they are able to describe both particles and energy that travels at speeds close to or equal to the speed of light. It is the most fundamental basis of the standard model of quantum physics. The name stared out as quantum mechanics, since it started out being described as a mechanical system that only deals in probabilities.

The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle actually works by telling us what is the most probable speed and location of a particle at a particular time, due to the act of observation. The higher degree of certainty that an observation determines the speed, the less likely the position can be determined, and vice versa.

- Conclusion

The new type of common sense we need to develop is assuming that an observation could potentially measure a particle on the Plank Scale. The particles speed would have the highest degree of uncertainty and the amount of energy would be infinite. It would be as though the particle existed at every moment along it’s world line at once. The total energy of a particle traveling at the speed of light can only be conserved if the size of the system is infinite. It would interact with everything along its world line at once from its own reference frame. It would be limited only by the Pauli Exclusion Principle, since particles are not able to occupy the same space, where particles are limited by the Pauli Exclusion Principle and energy is not.

Once a particle acquires mass, it no longer travels the speed of light. The amount of quantum uncertainty due to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle decreases, and the probable speed and position of a particle can be determined with a higher degree of accuracy. Since it is impossible to literally imagine everything being zero and infinite at the same time, common sense would dictate that we would have to think about quantum mechanics at speeds, at least, slightly less than the speed of light or with some small value of mass.

It is impossible for an infinite amount of energy to exist at one location. It would create a black hole.

The Plank Scale can never be measured. - Max Plank

 

[Write4U]

Continuing our discovery

DNA origami boosts electrochemical biosensor performance

Modular and programmable DNA origami tiles can bind to DNA sequences (red). The resulting complexes amplify the electrochemical signal. Credit: Petteri Piskunen, Aalto University

New results provide a platform for more efficient, selective, and sensitive DNA biosensors that can be used in detecting various pathogens and diseases.

Electrochemical DNA biosensors hold significant promise for monitoring of various diseases. Overall, their detection applications are vast, from target DNA analytes such as bacterial genes and tumor sequences to clinically relevant concentrations of SARS CoV-2 biomarkers, for example.

However, to achieve appropriate sensitivity and selectivity of such systems and enable their translation from the laboratory to a clinical environment is challenging, as these approaches often involve complex chemistries, electrochemical labeling, technically challenging materials, or multistep processing.

https://phys.org/news/2023-03-dna-origami-boosts-electrochemical-biosensor.html

and continuing..

DNA origami to scale-up molecular motors

Researchers have successfully used DNA origami to make smooth-muscle-like contractions in large networks of molecular motor systems, a discovery which could be applied in molecular robotics.

The microtubule network contracting in the presence of DNA origami, kinesins, and ATP. (Matsuda K. et al., Nano Letters, April 30, 2019)

In the current study published in Nano Letters, the research team including Akira Kakugo of Hokkaido University, Akinori Kuzuya of Kansai University, and Akihiko Konagaya of Tokyo Institute of Technology developed a system combining DNA origami and microtubules. The DNA origami were formed from six DNA helices bundled together. Mixing the two components caused the microtubules to self-assemble around the DNA origami forming star-shaped structures. This self-assembly was made possible by the binding of complementary DNA strands attached to each component.

Mixing DNA-modified microtubules, DNA origami and kinesin linkers leads to star-like formations of microtubules that are connected by kinesin linkers. This network contracted dynamically when ATP energy was added. (Matsuda K. et al., Nano Letters, April 30, 2019)

This dynamic contraction only happened when the DNA origami were present, suggesting the importance of the hierarchical assembly within the microtubular network. “Further studies could lead to the use of DNA for controlled, programmable self-assembly and contraction of biomolecular motors. Such motors could find applications in molecular robotics and the development of microvalves for microfluidic devices,” says Akira Kakugo.

https://www.global.hokudai.ac.jp/blog/dna-origami-to-scale-up-molecular-motors/#

 

[Write4U]

This stinks of sock puppetry! A staunch particle physicist would say that particles are both equally particles and waves. This defies all common sense, but under the Copenhagen Interpretation there are many experimental proofs that also defy common sense. We have to develop a new type of common sense to understand it.

Wow, Are you suggesting there is not something more fundamental than particles?

When we speak of conscious thought we are not talking about particles. We are talking about "tronium", like "perceptronium".

This Physicist Says Consciousness Could Be a New State of Matter
PHYSICS15 September 2016
ByBEC CREW

The hypothesis was first put forward in 2014 by cosmologist and theoretical physicist Max Tegmark from MIT, who proposed that there's a state of matter - just like a solid, liquid, or gas - in which atoms are arranged to process information and give rise to subjectivity, and ultimately, consciousness.

The name of this proposed state of matter? Perceptronium, of course.

As Tegmark explains in his paper, published in the journal Chaos, Solitons & Fractals:

"Generations of physicists and chemists have studied what happens when you group together vast numbers of atoms, finding that their collective behaviour depends on the pattern in which they are arranged: the key difference between a solid, a liquid, and a gas lies not in the types of atoms, but in their arrangement.

In this paper, I conjecture that consciousness can be understood as yet another state of matter. Just as there are many types of liquids, there are many types of consciousness.

However, this should not preclude us from identifying, quantifying, modelling, and ultimately understanding the characteristic properties that all liquid forms of matter (or all conscious forms of matter) share."

In other words, Tegmark isn't suggesting that there are physical clumps of perceptronium sitting somewhere in your brain and coursing through your veins to impart a sense of self-awareness.

Rather, he proposes that consciousness can be interpreted as a mathematical pattern - the result of a particular set of mathematical conditions.

Just as there are certain conditions under which various states of matter - such as steam, water, and ice - can arise, so too can various forms of consciousness, he argues.

https://www.sciencealert.com/this-physicist-is-arguing-that-consciousness-is-a-new-state-of-matter

Visualize a cube and a sphere of the same volume. In addition to there exact physical properties, what is the difference afforded by each mathematical pattern?

A sphere has the emergent ability to roll on a very slight incline, whereas a cube actually has the emergent ability to resist rolling on a steeply slanted surface. i.e. a sphere possess rolltronium, whereas the cube possess statitronium (or something like it) and each ability is based on their respective mathematical patterns.

In the case of perceptronium, does it need to rely on a specific pattern or could it be an emergent property of sheer quantity of connected data processors?

When we build AI, why do we strive for quantity of ..........

GPT-4 can solve difficult problems with greater accuracy, thanks to its broader general knowledge and problem solving abilities.
https://openai.com/product/gpt-4

GPT-4 Number of Parameters

On March 29th, DeepMind published a paper, "Training Compute-Optimal Large Language Models", that shows that essentially everyone -- OpenAI, DeepMind, Microsoft, etc. -- has been training large language models with a deeply suboptimal use of compute.

Following the new scaling laws that they propose for the optimal use of compute, DeepMind trains a new, 70-billion parameter model that outperforms much larger language models, including the 175-billion parameter GPT-3 and DeepMind's own 270-billion parameter "Gopher".

https://www.metaculus.com/questions/14327/gpt-4-number-of-parameters/

 

[Contemplation]

Wow, Are you suggesting there is not something more fundamental than particles?

When we speak of conscious thought we are not talking about particles. We are talking about "tronium", like "perceptronium".

Yes, the work to solve this problem probably already has been done before. No new science may even be needed. The microtubules may just be acting like springs, like you mention in your previous post. They may actually just be measuring the ponderomotive force.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponderomotive_force

This is also discussed in section 10 of Einstein’s 1905 paper.

https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

One could say that the potential difference in energy of the electron is the voltage. Then one could simply replace P with V in the theory with Ohms Law, where;

V = I |Z|e^(j arg(Z))

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_impedance

Here it is shown the equivalence of resistance and impedance. Then one could arrive at an equation which includes mass on a quantum scale which is related to an electrical theory. I don’t believe this part of Einstein’s theory has ever been tested, because of the issues involved with translating the terminology from a pre-modern physics era and the complexity of the paper.

The electrons travel down a line and when they meet a microtubule they create a resistance. The pondoromotive force always acts on the electrons in the opposite direction, making it negative for both positive and negative charges. This causes a build up of potential energy that can be measured as the total charge or amplitude of the voltage of the line.

 

[Contemplation]

Continued

Microtubules may be the best way to test section 10, since they have a constant impedance. Like I stated before, an inductor is basically a coil or closely wound up spring. No one has been able to devise a way to create a steady voltage under such circumstances. It appears that already exists in nature on a microscopic scale. Nature has seemingly already done the work for us in creating a tiny spring to measure potential energy. That was what was called for to test the theory in the paper, but it was far from the technological advancements of the time and today.

When I first read about this idea over two decades ago it was mentioned that this could possibly be considered the closest we could ever come to a theory of everything. It was unknown at the time if the Higgs Boson would ever be discovered. In order to be a complete theory of everything it would have to include the Higgs Field and possibly the tau periodic table of elements (which was denied as being experimentally verified as a candidate for dark energy until published).

https://arxiv.org/abs/2204.07269

 

[Contemplation]

One thing I find striking is that one could also update W for work with I (current) in section 10. By a simple substitution, one could cancel out the entire part of the relativistic equation by combining the two equations for work and the difference of potential energy. The result can end up being that the ponderomotive force is actually just the reciprocal of impedance.

The equation for impedance was actually never derived formally. It is an experimental abstraction where the values only approximate what was measured in experiment. The phase shift portion of the equation is commonly dropped to simplify equations, since it is mostly negligible for circuits that were standardized by Bell Labs.

The true equation for impedance may actually just be the reciprocal of the ponderomotive force.

E = I / ponderomotive force

 

[billvon]

Like I stated before, an inductor is basically a coil or closely wound up spring. No one has been able to devise a way to create a steady voltage under such circumstances.

Every buck converter in existence (and there are billions) uses an inductor to create a steady voltage. Google it.

 

[Contemplation]

Every buck converter in existence (and there are billions) uses an inductor to create a steady voltage. Google it.

The wiki states that it is a DC to DC converter. I was referring to an inductor being in series with an AC. It would actually require a frequency regulator. I have tested this in circuit simulators and it ends up crashing them a lot. I actually got one to work before, and it actually increases the amount of voltage on the line once it is regulated.

You could also have a storage capacitive circuit in parallel with a frequency regulator from an AC signal and send a feedback loop from the storage capacitive circuit to the frequency regulator to further increase the voltage in series with the inductor. This provides a huge increase to the voltage as a stair step, until the simulation crashes from obtaining too high of a value.

In theory, it would create a flux capacitor that makes scrambling plant brains possible.

 

[billvon]

I was referring to an inductor being in series with an AC.

That's how a buck converter works. A switch chops the DC to AC, then the AC is fed to an inductor. You then get a stable DC voltage out, lower than the input voltage.

It would actually require a frequency regulator. I have tested this in circuit simulators and it ends up crashing them a lot.

Then you are using them incorrectly.

 

[Contemplation]

That's how a buck converter works. A switch chops the DC to AC, then the AC is fed to an inductor. You then get a stable DC voltage out, lower than the input voltage.

Chopping DC to AC? Like, what? The only AC being generated there would be between the inductor and the capacitor. The wiki clearly says that it has a DC input and output.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_converter

The inductor would offer no resistance to the DC current. That is split between the capacitor and the load. The capacitor would act as an open circuit to the DC circuit, but some of it would be reflected, due to the ponderomotive force. This AC would then be able to pass through the capacitor as though it is a closed circuit. Then the AC is shorted that way to prevent it from going to the load. The zener diode prevents AC and only passes DC back into the input of the inductor.

This is actually a really common configuration for anytime an inductor is used to prevent changes to the voltage level caused by the ponderomotive force (reflections caused by impedance). There is nothing special about it. It has DC in and DC out, not AC in and DC out, like I mentioned.

Then you are using them incorrectly.

I believe the problem is due to a program error that is common to occur when dealing with big numbers. I can get the simulation to get up into a very high voltage, much more than any of the components could handle, before the crash occurs.

I think I figured out how it could potentially be grounded. The most difficult part would be separating the voltage from ground with a very high difference in potential energy. It would have to be grounded by a Tesla Coil with the globe removed. The output and input of the Tesla Coil could then be switched. The input of the Tesla Coil would instead be ground, and the output would be in front of the inductor instead of using a globe.

Then it would have to be loaded with an Alcubierre Drive using a coil rotation AC voltage regulator, so it has one of those spinning things on the top like in the book A Time Machine. With one of those oscillating frequency generators that can create frequencies from ground. I was having trouble finding that one on Google. If you know what I am talking about.

 

[billvon]

Chopping DC to AC? Like, what?

Like chopping DC to AC. An image of this is shown below. The two FETs chop the DC to AC.

The only AC being generated there would be between the inductor and the capacitor.

No, the AC is generated between the switches and the inductor.

The wiki clearly says that it has a DC input and output.

Which is why it is called a switchmode (that's the AC part) DC/DC converter (that's the DC part.)

The inductor would offer no resistance to the DC current.

Which is why it is not fed with DC.

I believe the problem is due to a program error that is common to occur when dealing with big numbers. I can get the simulation to get up into a very high voltage, much more than any of the components could handle, before the crash occurs.

Again, this is not because there is a problem with the program. This is because you don't know what you are doing. I have used both PSPICE and LTSPICE to simulate switchmode power supplies.

Then it would have to be loaded with an Alcubierre Drive

That's a theoretical warp drive that has nothing to do with anything else in this thread.

If you know what I am talking about.

At this point it is clear that YOU don't know what you are talking about.

 

[Write4U]

Looking at one sensory perception of plants from a real world phenomenon.

When a seed is planted upside down, the root grows out the top but then curves down and continues to grow downward and develop normally as roots.
OTOH, the shoot starts at the bottom but then curves upward until it breaks free from the soil and continues to grow upward toward the sun.

It is proposed that roots grow downward guided by a "sense" of gravity, whereas shoots grow upward guided by a sense of sunlight, but inside the ground how does the stem know to grow "upward"?

How Do Plants Know Which Way Is Up And Which Way Is Down?

It's dark down there in the potting soil. There's no light, no sunshine. So how does it know which way is up and which way is down? It does know. Seeds routinely send shoots up toward the sky, and roots the other way. Darkness doesn't confuse them. Somehow, they get it right...

How do they know? According to botanist Daniel Chamovitz, Thomas Knight 200 years ago assumed that plants must sense gravity. They feel the pull of the Earth. Knight proved it with a crazy experiment involving a spinning plate.

He attached a bunch of plant seedlings onto a disc (think of a 78 rpm record made of wood). The plate was then turned by a water wheel powered by a local stream, "at a nauseating speed of 150 revolutions per minute for several days."

Knight wondered, would the plants respond to the centrifugal pull of gravity and point their roots to the outside of the spinning plate? When he looked...

...that's what they'd done. Every plant on the disc had responded to the pull of gravity, and pointed its roots to the outside. The roots pointed out, the shoots pointed in. So Thomas Knight proved that plants can and do sense gravitational pull.
But he couldn't explain how.

We humans have teeny crystalline stones floating in our ear cavities that literally sink in response to gravity, telling us what's up and what's down. What do plants have?

Plants have special cells right down at the tip — the very bottom — of their roots. And if you look closely, inside these cells there are dense, little ball like structures called "statoliths" which comes from the Greek, meaning "stationary stone." You can see them here.

This, suggests Professor Kiss, is how plants figure out where "down" is. They use little statolith balls as gravity receptors.

https://www.npr.org/sections/krulwi...ts-know-which-way-is-up-and-which-way-is-down

And you guessed it....

3. The Statolith

At the root tip, columella cells occupy the central part of the root cap and are characterized by the polar organization of their organelles [13]. The maintenance of this structural asymmetry of the cell relies on microtubules and the actin cytoskeleton [13,14].

In columella cells, the nucleus and the endoplasmic reticulum are located at the opposite ends of the cell and microtubules at the periphery. Despite recently being called into question [15,16], it is widely held that in roots, gravity is perceived in these columella cells by the sedimentation of starch-filled amyloplasts called statoliths.

Statoliths, denser than the cytoplasm, occupy the center of the cell and are packed in a dense mesh of actin filaments (AFs) which links them both to each other and to the plasma membrane [13,17].

The gravity-driven redistribution of statoliths stimulates a signaling cascade which is initially cell-autonomous but results in the cell-to-cell asymmetric movement of auxin and a directional growth response [18].

However, as previously noted, both the identity of the mechano-receptors that are hypothesized to sense statolith sedimentation and its immediate signaling cascade are unknown [19].

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7020169/

Perhaps we don't know how, but we do know they do, and that is yet another "hard fact" of microtubular function.

If plants have an internal physical pattern that is sensitive to external influences, is it a stretch to imagine an emergent evolutionary sophistication in these sensory abilities, until the organism develops a fully functional unconscious homeostasis, but then in addition, an emergent sensory self-awareness of these external conditions and pressures, and choice of physical response?

 

[Write4U]

The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle actually works by telling us what is the most probable speed and location of a particle at a particular time, due to the act of observation. The higher degree of certainty that an observation determines the speed, the less likely the position can be determined, and vice versa.

But this where Penrose disagrees with the Copenhagen interpretation. He proposes that it is the quantum wave collapse of superposed particles causes a "bing", a moment of universal consciousness.
IOW the observer has no part in the collapse but can only observe the result.
---------------------------------------|------------------------------------------
BING
|

| |
BING OBSERVATION
-----------------------------------------|-------------------|-----------------------

I am not qualified to comment on the merits, but somehow that seems right.
How can an observation at a distance affect a wave function? A rock in the ocean only collapses that portion of the wave function that actually hits the rock at the rock's location, nothing else.
I can understand that the wave function collapses at the point of the observer, when it hits the retina in the case of a human observer.
IOW the collapse creates a moment of perceptronium.

 

[Write4U]

And this sounded very interesting to me.

Information in Plants: The Informational Model of the Plant Cells and Plant Structures
Florin Gaiseanu1, 2
1Department of Science and Technology of Information, Institute of Microtechnology, Bucharest, Romania
2Department of Science and Technology of Information, Center of Microelectronics, Barcelona, Spain
...........

Figure 1. Schematic representation of the informational system of the eukaryotic cell, for animals and plants; the plant cells possess walls providing the structure support and chloroplasts, as a specific food provider by the light-assisted photosynthesis process.

As the living cell, the elemental unit of all other living multicellular structures, shows the same basic informational structure like the multicellular organisms with more evolved organization, communicating/collaborating all of them for the survival of the whole, even if the individual sacrifice is necessary, indicates the possibility to define a conscious level, even if rudimentary, in the inferior organisms, which can be defined as proto-consciousness.

Whereas some behaviors can be biologically programmed (synthetically represented by PIS) [37], cognition requires a minimal form of autonomy of the organism that involves memory, choice, and decision making [23], which is actually represented by OIS, on the entire living structures range [37]. We may understand therefore that the informational system of the living structures (ISLS), from eukaryotic/prokaryotic cells to plants (ISPS) and animals, actuates not only to assure a “blind” execution of the metabolic/reproduction tasks inherited from the anterior generations of a species, but works also in function of the actual, time-scaled conditions of environment and of own status, adjusting the parameters of internal actuation (growth, development, movement, to specify only a few of them), expressed accordingly by their attitude/informational output [59], as a reaction of OIS for short-term period, but also on a long-term scale by epigenetic processes, transgenerationally transmitted [45].

Actually, the evolution could not be possible without an individual informational system, interconnecting the living structures with their environment, which allows the adaptive adjustments of their functions/operability. Each organism/species lives in its own world, developing its own proper characteristic informational features and IC orienting system in their environment [34], according to the local conditions [60], as the information system of the living structure shows.

Therefore, within the debates evoking pro [61] and contra [62] arguments of a minimal consciousness in plants, it should be taken into account the definition of a proto/minimal consciousness promoted in this work, valid taking into account the fundamental characteristics of the informational system on the entire scale. Human consciousness cannot be taken thus as a reference and cannot be compared with other forms, because each species lives in its own system of reference, with own perception and interpretation level/model, but what is common is the similar structure of the informational system and its components, expressed each of them in specific way/fashion on the organizational/evolutionary scale.

more .......
https://www.researchgate.net/public...Model_of_the_Plant_Cells_and_Plant_Structures

 

[Contemplation]

But this where Penrose disagrees with the Copenhagen interpretation. He proposes that it is the quantum wave collapse of superposed particles causes a "bing", a moment of universal consciousness.
IOW the observer has no part in the collapse but can only observe the result.
---------------------------------------|------------------------------------------
BING
|

| |
BING OBSERVATION
-----------------------------------------|-------------------|-----------------------

I am not qualified to comment on the merits, but somehow that seems right.
How can an observation at a distance affect a wave function? A rock in the ocean only collapses that portion of the wave function that actually hits the rock at the rock's location, nothing else.
I can understand that the wave function collapses at the point of the observer, when it hits the retina in the case of a human observer.
IOW the collapse creates a moment of perceptronium.

One could update the equation for frequency in section 7 of Einstein’s 1905 paper,

f’ = f sqrt( ( 1 + v/c ) / ( 1 - v/c )

The paper doesn’t specify the direction of motion, but it actually hints towards it by stating that v = - c , f’ = infinity. It is commonly known that as an object approaches the speed of light that it is redshifted. As v increases f’ also increases.

In either form, I can obtain the same result when v = 0, f’=f

The prime frame in the special theory of relativity is actually a co-moving frame of reference that acts against the other co-ordinate plane. It seems as though f’ is acting equally and opposite to f when it collides and has zero instantaneous velocity at one moment in time.

It could possibly be a pseudo force generated by this co-moving frame that prevents everything from traveling the speed of light. It would be a force really similar to epsilon in the theory, except it pushes against frequencies instead of space. The reason for this is because he used Galilean Relativity, kind of like how Jesus was a Jew.

 

[James R]

Moderator note: Contemplation has been warned for trolling.

The previous post is off-topic and nonsensical - too stupid by half, even for the Pseudoscience forum.

 

[Write4U]

continuing with the formation and function of microtubular Astrocytes and Oligodendrocytes

BRAIN & NERVOUS SYSTEM
What Are Glial Cells and What Do They Do?
By Adrienne Dellwo Updated on March 10, 2023
Medically reviewed by Brigid Dwyer, MD

These cells have an important role in supporting the brain
There are different types of glial cells and each one has a specific role in helping your central nervous system (CNS)—which is made up of your brain and the nerves of your spinal column—work right.

There are five types of glial cells in your CNS:
Astrocytes
Oligodendrocytes
Microglia
Ependymal cells
Radial glia1

You also have glial cells in your peripheral nervous system (PNS), which is made up of all the nerves in your body that are away from your spine (like your arms and legs).

The two types of glial cells in the PNS are:
Schwann cells
Satellite cells1

What Makes Up the Peripheral Nervous System?
Astrocytes
The most common type of glial cell in the CNS is the astrocyte or astroglia. The "astro" part of the name is because the cells have projections that make them look star-shaped.
There are different kinds of astrocytes. For example, protoplasmic astrocytes have thick projections with lots of branches. Fibrous astrocytes have long, slender arms with few branches.
Protoplasmic astrocytes are generally found among neurons in the gray matter of the brain while the fibrous ones are typically found in white matter.

While they're found in different places, they do similar jobs, including:
Regulating neurotransmitters: Neurons communicate using chemical messengers called neurotransmitters.1 Once the message is delivered, neurotransmitters hang around until an astrocyte recycles them. This reuptake process is the target of many medications, including antidepressants.

What Happens If Astrocytes Don't Work?
Astrocyte dysfunction has been linked to neurodegenerative diseases, including:
Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS or Lou Gehrig's disease)
Huntington's chorea
Parkinson's disease

more..... https://www.verywellhealth.com/what-are-glial-cells-and-what-do-they-do-4159734

Journal of Neuroscience 1 July 1997, 17 (13) 4921-4932; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.17-13-04921.1997
Microtubule Organization and Stability in the Oligodendrocyte
Katharine F. Lunn, Peter W. Baas and Ian D. Duncan

Fig. 1. Distribution of microtubules in the cell body and processes of a cultured oligodendrocyte. Optical sections of ∼0.6 μm axial resolution through an oligodendrocyte labeled with an anti-β-tubulin primary antibody and an FITC-labeled secondary antibody, and examined by confocal microscopy. Microtubules are present throughout the cell body and processes of this cell and have a filamentous appearance, forming a meshwork in the perinuclear cytoplasm and parallel arrays in the processes. There is no evidence of discrete microtubule organizing structures in this cell. Scale bar, 10 μm.

Abstract
The oligodendrocyte is the glial cell responsible for the formation and maintenance of CNS myelin. Because the development of neuronal morphology is known to depend on the presence of highly organized microtubule arrays, it may be hypothesized that the properties of microtubules influence the form and function of oligodendrocytes.

The goals of the present study were to define the physical attributes of microtubules in oligodendrocytes maintained in vitro. The results of electron and confocal microscopy indicate that microtubules are present throughout the cell bodies and large and small processes of oligodendrocytes and are rarely associated with discrete microtubule-organizing centers.

A modified “hooking” protocol demonstrated that the polarity orientation of microtubules is uniformly plus-end distal in small oligodendrocyte processes, compared with a nonuniform, predominantly plus-end distal orientation in large processes. Oligodendrocytes were exposed to the microtubule-depolymerizing drug nocodazole to examine microtubule stability in these cells. The results suggest that oligodendrocyte microtubules can be resolved into at least three distinct microtubule populations that differ in their kinetics of depolymerization in the presence of nocodazole.

These findings suggest that the properties of the oligodendrocyte microtubule array reflect the functions of the different regions of this highly specialized cell.

more... https://www.jneurosci.org/content/17/13/4921#

The following link is to a list of additional microtubule functions. By placing cursor over the Title will activate a sidebar with the article's Abstract.
https://www.jneurosci.org/keyword/microtubule

 

[Write4U]

Just ran across an interesting post from an earlier time and showing an in-depth look at cellular mechanics

How Tiny Cell Proteins Generate Force To 'Walk'
ScienceDaily (Dec. 4, 2008) — MIT researchers have shown how a cell motor protein exerts the force to move, enabling functions such as cell division.

Kinesin, a motor protein that also carries neurotransmitters, "walks" along cellular beams known as microtubules. For the first time, the MIT team has shown at a molecular level how kinesin generates the force needed to step along the microtubules.

Microtubules, quantum physics, and consciousness? They form tracks for neurotransmitters to be transported and can possibly act as quantum computational structures. Also, see the mice below. The researchers, led by Matthew Lang, associate professor of biological and mechanical engineering, report their findings in the Nov. 24 online early issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Because kinesin is involved in organizing the machinery of cell division, understanding how it works could one day be useful in developing therapies for diseases involving out-of-control cell division, such as cancer.

The protein consists of two "heads," which walk along the microtubule, and a long "tail," which carries cargo. The heads take turns stepping along the microtubule, at a rate of up to 100 steps (800 nanometers) per second.

In the PNAS paper, Lang and his colleagues offer experimental evidence for a model they reported in January in the journal Structure. Their model suggests — and the new experiments confirm — that a small region of the protein, part of which joins the head and tail is responsible for generating the force needed to make kinesin walk. Two protein subunits, known as the N-terminal cover strand and neck linker, line up next to each other to form a sheet, forming the cover-neck bundle that drives the kinesin head forward.
"This is the kinesin power stroke," said Lang. Next, Lang's team plans to investigate how the two kinesin heads communicate with each other to coordinate their steps.

Lead author of the PNAS paper is Ahmad Khalil, graduate student in mechanical engineering. Other MIT authors of the paper are David Appleyard, a graduate student in biological engineering; Anna Labno, a recent MIT graduate; Adrien Georges, a visiting student in Lang's lab; and Angela Belcher, the Germehausen Professor of Materials Science and Engineering and Biological Engineering. This work is a close collaboration with authors Martin Karplus of Harvard and Wonmuk Hwang of Texas A&M.
The research was funded by the National Institutes of Health and the Army Research Office Institute of Collaborative Biotechnologies.

http://sciforums.com/threads/biomolecular-machines.86313/#post-2144690

 

[Write4U]

Discovered another source of interest with microtubules

Yale School of Medicine
Showing 180 results for 'microtubules'

The focus of our work is cell biology of microtubule motors. We want to understand how motor proteins organize the cytoplasm and drive cellular asymmetry

"All Wired Up: Revealing the Photophysical and Electrostatic Properties of Microtubules"

Aarat Kalra | Cytoskeletal Nanostructures and Excitonics

I will be discussing how microtubules and microtubule motors drive the growth of axons in Drosophila neurons and how this process is regulated

Speaker Vladimir Gelfand, PhD

more...... https://medicine.yale.edu/lab/colon_ramos/search/?q=microtubules