Is consciousness to be found in quantum processes in microtubules?

[TheVat]

Which reminds me of the so-called Hard Problem as it crops up in AI research and people wring their hands over what a machine could have as phenomenal experience or qualia. I recently read a paper by psychologist Robert Epstein that has been nudging me to review my notions of the popular analogies between human brains and digital processors as we know them. The Epstein paper dashed some cold water in my face, especially regarding how little we know about the causal operations of brains. Is the computationalist view just...not even wrong?

https://aeon.co/essays/your-brain-does-not-process-information-and-it-is-not-a-computer

(Sorry, I don't find a good teaser quote for this. It just needs to be read. But if you're short of time, or averse to clicking on links, I can swing by tomorrow and try to summarize)

 

[C C]

Question: Does the observer need to be physical?

It could even be an instrument, especially since that's the only way humans have for "seeing" or measuring at that level. How a tightly organized object (rather than a loose aggregate) would exist to itself is not how it would dependently "exist" outside itself with respect to relationships to other receivers of information (that are complex enough to generate outer representations of it from that data).

What if the observer (guiding principle) is mathematical in essence?

Since immaterial or reified abstract entities, whether governing principles or otherwise, would be non-extended (spaceless) and would undergo no change (timeless), they would seem to be "blind" with respect to whatever they would be regulating. Receiving "updates" that affected them (observation) would accordingly change them and undermine their absolute status. (Another excuse for callous or indifferent "gods", I suppose -- the asymmetry of dishing it out but not accepting anything in return. )

There would be no actual "place" or location for such a Platonistic realm other than a hierarchical one of perhaps asserting that it is "prior-in-rank" to its spatiotemporal counterpart.

Mathematical platonism is any metaphysical account of mathematics that implies mathematical entities exist, that they are abstract, and that they are independent of all our rational activities. For example, a platonist might assert that the number pi exists outside of space and time and has the characteristics it does regardless of any mental or physical activities of human beings. Mathematical platonists are often called “realists,” although, strictly speaking, there can be realists who are not platonists because they do not accept the platonist requirement that mathematical entities be abstract.

Mathematical platonism enjoys widespread support and is frequently considered the default metaphysical position with respect to mathematics. This is unsurprising given its extremely natural interpretation of mathematical practice. https://iep.utm.edu/mathplat/​

After all, a singularity is a mathematical value. A dynamic singularity is a force.

Well, the meaning of the concept varies in different contexts, disciplines, or purposes -- especially if including the figurative uses.
_

 

[C C]

I used to say, elsewhere in cyberspace, that neuroscience is what brains look like from the outside while qualia are what they look like from the inside. C C quote of Michael Lockwood reminds me there are better ways to say this. (also one can take "inside" too literally, and easily satirize such aphorisms) [...]

Charles Peirce had an earlier version back in the 19th-century. I don't know whether it inspired various later conceptions or not. One might even torturously extend the ancestry of the intrinsic/extrinsic dichotomy back to Kant's thing-in-itself.

Charles Peirce: "...Viewing a thing from the outside, considering its relations of action and reaction with other things, it appears as matter. Viewing it from the inside, looking at its immediate character as feeling, it appears as consciousness." --Man's Glassy Essence

Of course, only something like a brain or other equivalent has the cognitive apparatus to verify that some phenomenal circumstance is indeed present or "showing itself".
_

 

[C C]

Which reminds me of the so-called Hard Problem as it crops up in AI research and people wring their hands over what a machine could have as phenomenal experience or qualia. I recently read a paper by psychologist Robert Epstein that has been nudging me to review my notions of the popular analogies between human brains and digital processors as we know them. The Epstein paper dashed some cold water in my face, especially regarding how little we know about the causal operations of brains. Is the computationalist view just...not even wrong?

https://aeon.co/essays/your-brain-does-not-process-information-and-it-is-not-a-computer

(Sorry, I don't find a good teaser quote for this. It just needs to be read. But if you're short of time, or averse to clicking on links, I can swing by tomorrow and try to summarize)

Epstein seems to advocate a "transducer theory of mind" that is welcomed here by Michael Egnor, who is a proponent of Intelligent Design.

A Neuroscience Theory That Actually Helps Explain the Brain
https://mindmatters.ai/2021/08/a-neuroscience-theory-that-actually-helps-explain-the-brain/

- - - - - - -

Below is another article by Epstein that arguably clarifies where he's coming from a bit better.

Your Brain Is Not a Computer. It Is a Transducer
https://www.discovermagazine.com/mind/your-brain-is-not-a-computer-it-is-a-transducer

What if evolution, at some point, produced a special kind of transducer that could shift signals from the physical world as we know it to a very different kind of world? Nearly all religions teach that immaterial realms exist that transcend the reality we know. For Christians and Muslims, those realms are Heaven and Hell. ​

Hmm...

This brings me, reluctantly, to the recent rise of “postmaterialist” science, or at least postmaterialist psychology. The latter is marked by — or perhaps blemished by — the founding of the journal Spirituality in Clinical Practice by the American Psychological Association (APA) in 2014 and the founding of the Association for the Advancement of Postmaterialistic Sciences in 2017. (Disclosure: I have been a full member of the APA since 1983.)

Postmaterialism is all about controlled experiments that have supposedly proved, or at least supported, claims that mediums can communicate with the dead, that ghosts will happily comply when we ask them to climb into little boxes in a laboratory, that people can send their thoughts to strangers in another room telepathically, and that future events can somehow travel backward in time to impact people’s current behavior.

I am so tempted here to start naming names and tearing down reputations, but my musical mom raised me better than that. I will say this: One of the early papers published in that new APA journal — a paper that was accepted without peer review — demonstrated thinking so shoddy it startled me.

Fortunately, I don’t need to tear apart shoddy thinking or flawed experiments to advocate for transduction theory. In fact, if this theory proves to be valid, every fantasy of the postmaterialists will be fulfilled — every fantasy except one, that is, and that is the postmaterialist claim itself. That’s because parallel universes are not wispy, physics-free spiritual entities; according to many mainstream physicists, they are just non-obvious companions of the material universe in which we happen to live.​

_

 

[TheVat]

Below is another article by Epstein that arguably clarifies where he's coming from a bit better.

Thanks. I hadn't realized he drank deep of the Dualist Koolaid. Kind of a variant on God of the Gaps, then. The digital processing analogy doesn't explain the brain very well, so maybe this weird transducer theory will. Epstein tries to disavow the supernatural but then seems to dive right into it looking for some other dimension where mind comes from. My inner Ockham balks at all this, but at least he is trying to satisfy the scientific requirement of testability. The lucidity examples he offers are intriguing, though seem anecdotal and missing needed data.

I need to look back through this impressive thread, and do some catching up. It's rare to find a 143 page thread on Penrose's quantum brain theory, Orch OR, and related matters. I've seen a fair number of science forae just dismiss it in a couple pages of "the brain cannot support quantum operations, being too hot, wet, and noisy."

 

[C C]

[...] My inner Ockham balks at all this, but at least he is trying to satisfy the scientific requirement of testability. The lucidity examples he offers are intriguing, though seem anecdotal and missing needed data.

Yah, his background doesn't necessarily suggest an all around way-way-out mindset... maybe only a couple steps past Donald D. Hoffman level on this idea (the latter extreme degree of indirect realism or perception actually not being anything new at all in philosophy).

I need to look back through this impressive thread, and do some catching up. It's rare to find a 143 page thread on Penrose's quantum brain theory, Orch OR, and related matters. I've seen a fair number of science forae just dismiss it in a couple pages of "the brain cannot support quantum operations, being too hot, wet, and noisy."

Not everybody's cup of tea, but I've got a soft spot for it via Penrose's original books being my first introduction to a mind/body problem. Before then, I'd never even stopped and wondered about "What is this phantasm stuff I'm seeing, hearing, feeling? There's no capacity for harboring secret manifestations attributed by physics to matter or electrochemical activity."
_

 

[Write4U]

I like the way Lockwood answers the classic thought experiment called Mary in the Black and White Room. There is an intrinsic knowledge of seeing red that Mary can only have when she emerges from the room for the first time and sees objects that are red

I have shown this before, but it bears repeating.
Colorblinf people who see colors for the first time and enter a whole new reality they never knew existed.
The emotional expressions speak clearly how the brain discovers and processes new information, leaving the "person" in tears. A newly discovered reality.

 

[Pinball1970]

I have shown this before, but it bears repeating.
Colorblinf people who see colors for the first time and enter a whole new reality they never knew existed.
The emotional expressions speak clearly how the brain discovers and processes new information, leaving the "person" in tears. A newly discovered reality.

Explained biochemically.

 

[Pinball1970]

I have shown this before, but it bears repeating.
Colorblinf people who see colors for the first time and enter a whole new reality they never knew existed.
The emotional expressions speak clearly how the brain discovers and processes new information, leaving the "person" in tears. A newly discovered reality.

If genuine, I do not have any science, citations on this.
If genuine it is no more mysterious than giving a diabetic insulin or an asthmatic salbutamol

 

[Write4U]

Mathematical platonism enjoys widespread support and is frequently considered the default metaphysical position with respect to mathematics. This is unsurprising given its extremely natural interpretation of mathematical practice. https://iep.utm.edu/mathplat/

Thank you!
I have found out that my intuitive understanding of the universe is called; Mathematical Platonism.

Now I can verify my prima facie understanding against existing theory.

I need to look back through this impressive thread, and do some catching up. It's rare to find a 143 page thread on Penrose's quantum brain theory, Orch OR, and related matters. I've seen a fair number of science forae just dismiss it in a couple pages of "the brain cannot support quantum operations, being too hot, wet, and noisy."

Thank you TheVat (Descartes?), for your kind remarks. It makes my (modest) efforts worthwhile.

 

[Pinball1970]

Thanks. I hadn't realized he drank deep of the Dualist Koolaid. Kind of a variant on God of the Gaps, then. The digital processing analogy doesn't explain the brain very well, so maybe this weird transducer theory will. Epstein tries to disavow the supernatural but then seems to dive right into it looking for some other dimension where mind comes from. My inner Ockham balks at all this, but at least he is trying to satisfy the scientific requirement of testability. The lucidity examples he offers are intriguing, though seem anecdotal and missing needed data.

I need to look back through this impressive thread, and do some catching up. It's rare to find a 143 page thread on Penrose's quantum brain theory, Orch OR, and related matters. I've seen a fair number of science forae just dismiss it in a couple pages of "the brain cannot support quantum operations, being too hot, wet, and noisy."

A lot of woo associated with this.

 

[Pinball1970]

Thank you!
I have found out that my intuitive understanding of the universe is called; Mathematical Platonism.

I REALLY doubt that, your knowledge of mathematics by your own admission is zero.

I have watched this thread and kept my head down but enough is enough.

State your knowledge of the platonic approach and also understanding of the cell biology, nerve and endocrine physiology and biochemistry.

State it.

 

[Pinball1970]

I have shown this before, but it bears repeating.
Colorblinf people who see colors for the first time and enter a whole new reality they never knew existed.
The emotional expressions speak clearly how the brain discovers and processes new information, leaving the "person" in tears. A newly discovered reality.

Here is the ACTUAL science view.

https://www.aao.org/eye-health/tips-prevention/do-color-blindness-correcting-glasses-work

 

[exchemist]

Thanks. I hadn't realized he drank deep of the Dualist Koolaid. Kind of a variant on God of the Gaps, then. The digital processing analogy doesn't explain the brain very well, so maybe this weird transducer theory will. Epstein tries to disavow the supernatural but then seems to dive right into it looking for some other dimension where mind comes from. My inner Ockham balks at all this, but at least he is trying to satisfy the scientific requirement of testability. The lucidity examples he offers are intriguing, though seem anecdotal and missing needed data.

I need to look back through this impressive thread, and do some catching up. It's rare to find a 143 page thread on Penrose's quantum brain theory, Orch OR, and related matters. I've seen a fair number of science forae just dismiss it in a couple pages of "the brain cannot support quantum operations, being too hot, wet, and noisy."

If you read the first half dozen pages you will find we did much the same. The rest of this thread is just Write4U's scrapbook of anything and everything, however tangentially, related in some way to microtubules that he has scraped off the internet. There is barely anything further on Orch OR or Penrose. That's why it got moved to Pseudo.

 

[Write4U]

I've seen a fair number of science forae just dismiss it in a couple pages of "the brain cannot support quantum operations, being too hot, wet, and noisy."

There is barely anything further on Orch OR or Penrose. That's why it got moved to Pseudo.

Right on queue. But then the record will show your own ignorance about ORCH OR and the role microtubules play in this hypothesis and trying to dismiss it in a couple of uninformed posts.

Apparently, you are missing the point that you are included in the group The Vat identified as prematurely dismissing ORCH OR and the role microtubules play, because of some "tangentially" related quantum equation.

@ The Vat,
Here is link to all posts mentioning Penrose and Hameroff.
http://sciforums.com/search/62590323/?q=penrose, hameroff&t=post&o=date&c[thread]=161187

All other posts are to demonstrate the incredible versatility of MT and the role they play in cellular and neural communication and data transport.

And what makes the microtubule network the clear candidate for generating consciousness is the sheer number of MT and related filaments that comprise the total data distributing network that employs trillions of microtubules connected by hundreds of trillions of synapses. There simply isn't another organelle that can do what microtubules can do.

There is no choice. Apparently, Penrose was intrigued by the concept.

 

[TheVat]

If you read the first half dozen pages you will find we did much the same. The rest of this thread is just Write4U's scrapbook of anything and everything, however tangentially, related in some way to microtubules that he has scraped off the internet. There is barely anything further on Orch OR or Penrose. That's why it got moved to Pseudo.

I looked. Thanks. Somewhat disappointing, as I was hoping for a broader examination of computationalism, pitted against Penrosian ideas about nonalgorithmic cognition (which iirc he sometimes called nonalgorithmic action, to underscore the peculiar physics). I don't see evidence re microtubules that really points to a Bose Einstein Condensate, but was hoping the thread might zoom back to Penrose's (which my autocorrect tried to fix as Penises) larger dissent against functionalism (brain = fancy Turing machine). Still, I appreciate Write4U sticking with the topic after an apparently rocky start and attempting to delve into the very challenging fields of cytology and quantum theory.

 

[TheVat]

And what makes the microtubule network the clear candidate for generating consciousness is the sheer number of MT and related filaments

It may not be quite the numbers game you're seeing.

The decoherence timescale of microtubule entanglement at body temps would be in femtoseconds, much too quick for any qubit signal processing. Without getting too far into this, there are also evolutionary biological reasons to doubt a brain would develop an ability to host a BEC.

 

[Write4U]

I like the way Lockwood answers the classic thought experiment called Mary in the Black and White Room. There is an intrinsic knowledge of seeing red that Mary can only have when she emerges from the room for the first time and sees objects that are red.

Yes, but would that indicate that the brain is hardwired to assign colors to wavelengths?

How is it that a colorblind person does recognize colors when he she has never seen that color before.
Does it mean that the brain is preprogrammed to interpret colors?

This figure illustrates waves of differing wavelengths/frequencies. At the top of the figure, the red wave has a long wavelength/short frequency. Moving from top to bottom, the wavelengths decrease and frequencies increase.



Light that is visible to humans makes up only a small portion of the electromagnetic spectrum.

https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-fmcc-intropsychmaster/chapter/waves-and-wavelengths/#

Seems to me that the various sensory abilities are a result of evolution and are hardwired in the brain. It is defects in the sensory organs that create a false reality for the observer. It is after the defect has been corrected that the brain can recognize the wavelengths for their true (approximation) expectation in the brain.
It is amazing to see colorblind people enter a colored reality for the first time.

 

[C C]

It's not total colorblindness where the person only sees shades of gray, or even where a particular type of photoreceptor is absent (limiting the range of colors seen). But the glasses treat conditions where there is inability to discriminate between two colors sufficiently, or colors are very faded, etc. Even then they can't deliver completely normal vision (just improved), and results may vary from individual to individual.

Some of the videos might or might not have a staged aspect (I honestly don't know -- would like to believe that's not the case). Akin to those videos where various Zoomers claim to be listening to a classic rock band for the first time in their lives (because that attracts old Baby Boomers who like to see the reactions): First time EVER hearing Led Zeppelin "Whole Lotta Love"

_

 

[Write4U]

Somewhat disappointing, as I was hoping for a broader examination of computationalism, pitted against Penrosian ideas about nonalgorithmic cognition (which iirc he sometimes called nonalgorithmic action, to underscore the peculiar physics)

I am not a scientist and the maths are beyond my ability. When I fundamentally understand a published scientific narrative I feel no need for details. But I always accompany my sparse narratives with links to and quotes from peer reviewed papers, complete with the maths where available.

It may not be quite the numbers game you're seeing.

I used not so much just the numbers in individual organisms as much as it is a "common denominator" in all Eukaryotic organisms that display some form of reactive behaviors in their relationship to the environment.

I have not heard anyone propose another systemic quality that is common to all living things from single-celled paramecium to multicelled whales that can detect and react to specific external and internal stimuli.

Even an almost completely unrelated species such as Atlantic Squid has microtubules as the cellular and axonal data transport system in all arms and tentacles.
Analysis of Microtubules in Isolated Axoplasm from the Squid Giant Axon

Microtubules have been studied extensively since the buffer conditions for in vitro polymerization were first described. As a result, the biochemistry and biophysics of microtubule dynamics is relatively well understood in the test tube. However, our understanding of microtubules in situ is limited at best. In cells, microtubules exhibit considerable diversity at the molecular level, including tubulin isotypes, posttranslational modifications, and associated proteins.

Microtubules in different cell types or even in different subcellular compartments may exhibit strikingly different properties with regard to dynamics, composition and function. This heterogeneity is particularly striking in neurons, where the bulk of the microtubules are not associated with the microtubule-organizing center, yet may exhibit exceptional stability.

The answers to questions about the functional diversity of neuronal microtubules may be critical for understanding many aspects of neuronal development, function and pathology.

One obstacle to characterizing specific populations of neuronal microtubules is the complexity of nervous tissue. Separating neuronal microtubules from glial microtubules, dendritic microtubules from axonal or cell body microtubules is effectively impossible when using brain tissue as a source, so any studies on the biochemistry and biophysics of neuronal microtubules from brain reflect the properties of a mixed pool. The problem is compounded by the fact that a large fraction of neuronal tubulin is lost during standard preparations of brain tubulin and this population of stable microtubules has received little attention, despite representing more than 50% of axonal tubulin in mature neurons.

Isolated axoplasm from the squid giant axon provides a unique model system for studying exclusively axonal microtubules both in situ and in vitro. Although isolated axoplasm has not been widely used, experiments using this model have provided novel insights into the axonal cytoskeleton and studies on axoplasm have the potential to produce additional insights.

more.... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4460999/