Is consciousness to be found in quantum processes in microtubules?

[Write4U]

That's nice.
But I was not addressing the image.

Ah, you mean that after perusing the Illustration, you saw the "nice" part. Kudos. Why do you think I put in the research and post it to accompany and clarify my commentary? In the real world I receive a little more respect for my efforts than in this forum. It's discouraging and not conducive to constructive discourse.

You altered a quote from an article and made it appear to be something else altogether..

(I made specific note of the edit for ALL to see).

...................ARE YOU BLIND???????.......................

No subversion or misdirection. I added that to the original sentence in the spirit of clarity. If you give it some thought, I'm sure you will see my honorable intentions.

If you don't read what I post and can't see why I make reference to it, you still don't understand how you are misjudging my motives. It does not speak well of your objectivity. It makes you a zealot.

If you are confused by my narratives ask for clarification. I'll be happy to take all the time to correct any misunderstanding. Just be civil about it and DON'T CALL ME DISHONEST!

It's an ad hominem and NOT PRODUCTIVE.

And if you think that staying with the OP is being obsessive, "that's a good thing" , no?

After all the accusations of me posting unrelated materials here and there, I would hope that for once I am staying within thread topic. It's my thread.

Now you come here as admin and accuse me of being obsessive because I stay on topic ???
Make up your mind if you want to be a troll or an admin. I know what I am, do you know what you are?

 

[exchemist]

If microtubules are responsible for "orientation", might that suggest potential for "sensitivity to fields", such as EM fields, magnetic fields, gravitational fields?

No.

 

[Write4U]

No.

What makes you reject that notion?

Model of Magnetic Field-Induced Mitotic Apparatus Reorientation in Frog Eggs

1961; Hyman and White, 1987), rather than shape effects, is the primary determinant of the normal cell-division pattern. In addition, we presume that the mitotic structure (MS), which consists of chromosomes, microtubules, and centro-somes, is approximately cylindrically symmetric and its magnetic properties are anisotropic with the same symmetry.

ABSTRACT;
Recent experiments have shown that intense static magnetic fields can alter the geometry of the early cell cleavages of Xenopus laevis eggs. The changes depend on field orientation, strength, and timing. We present a model that qualitatively accounts for these effects and which presumes that the structures involved in cell division are cylindrically symmetric and diamagnetically anisotropic and that the geometry of the centrosome replication and spreading processes dictates the nominal cleavage geometry. Within this model, the altered cleavage geometry results from the magnetic field-induced realignment of mitotic structures, which causes a realignment of the centrosome replication and spreading processes.

https://www.cell.com/biophysj/pdf/S0006-3495(02)75482-9.pdf

 

[billvon]

Is consciousness to be found in quantum processes in microtubules?

Nope. No evidence that this is the case.

 

[Write4U]

Sorry, I was distracted.. The point I was trying to make is that microtubules have positive and negative poles.

AFAIK, an object with polarity will always tend to point to the magnetic north, no?

 

[DaveC426913]

AFAIK, an object with polarity will always tend to point to the magnetic north, no?

No.

 

[Write4U]

Nope. No evidence that this is the case.

I agree. However, Consciousness exists and is some form of emergent property from a set of physical attributes.

The trick is to find candidates that may accommodate such a network. It has always been assumed that, apart from some esoteric spiritual cause, the neural network was responsible for an emergent consciousness.

Well, within the neural network, the microtubules seem to be promising candidates for such a function.

Don't take my word for it. There are great minds who are intrigued by the capabilities of microtubules.
I'm merely providing as much evidence as I can find on the internet, and posing the question.

To reject the concept is premature, just as it is premature to make any definitive statement at this time.

I am really a little more objective and judicious as most here seem to think.

 

[Write4U]

No.

Oh, ok. What then are these people trying to say?

Model of Magnetic Field-Induced Mitotic Apparatus Reorientation in Frog Eggs, rather than shape effects, is the primary determinant of the normal cell-division pattern. In addition, we presume that the mitotic structure (MS), which consists of chromosomes, microtubules, and centro-somes, is approximately cylindrically symmetric and its magnetic properties are anisotropic with the same symmetry.

https://www.cell.com/biophysj/pdf/S0006-3495(02)75482-9.pdf

Is this not true or am I misunderstanding the meaning of that little abstract?

 

[Bells]

Ah, you mean that after perusing the Illustration, you saw the "nice" part. Kudos.

I find it truly astonishing that you have never had anyone say "that's nice" to you in that kind of context..

Why do you think I put in the research and post it to accompany and clarify my commentary? In the real world I receive a little more respect for my efforts than in this forum. It's discouraging and not conducive to constructive discourse.

You posted something that was not about microtubules, and certainly not about "microtubular catastrophe", and you openly altered a quote to make it appear as though it was. And I will address this further in a bit.

And if you expect to be respected when you behave that way, then you are way more out of it than even I gave you credit for.

No subversion or misdirection. I added that to the original sentence in the spirit of clarity. If you give it some thought, I'm sure you will see my honorable intentions.

If you don't read what I post and can't see why I make reference to it, you still don't understand how you are misjudging my motives. It does not speak well of your objectivity. It makes you a zealot.

If you are confused by my narratives ask for clarification. I'll be happy to take all the time to correct any misunderstanding. Just be civil about it and DON'T CALL ME DISHONEST!

It's an ad hominem and NOT PRODUCTIVE.

And if you think that staying with the OP is being obsessive, "that's a good thing" , no?

After all the accusations of me posting unrelated materials here and there, I would hope that for once I am staying within thread topic. It's my thread.

Now you come here as admin and accuse me of being obsessive because I stay on topic ???
Make up your mind if you want to be a troll or an admin. I know what I am, do you know what you are?

The issue you have at the moment is that I am reading what you are posting and linking.

When you take to openly misrepresenting articles and links, by having a leading text talking about "microtubular catastrophe", and then openly altering a quote to make it seem as though the 'tangled filaments' mentioned in the quote were actually about microtubules, in a bid to support your claims or to try to give your claims some validity, then one could say you are a zealot and being dishonest. But most importantly, within the context of this discussion, you were deliberately deceptive and you broke the rules in the worst way, and then whined when called out on it.

You should follow a simple premise.. If you cannot support your claims, do not make the claim, and then hit google doing word searches in articles, and then take to posting things out of context, or take to adding or inserting in words into quotes from those articles, to try to pass it off as being about your claims or, as you foolishly tried to argue to keep it on topic.. Because the article you linked was not about microtubules or microtubular catastrophe, as you tried to claim was an example of such in your opening words in that post before linking and posting the altered quote and then posted the image from it that labeled cells healthy and unhealthy neurons...

If you cannot support your claim, do not make the claim.

Now back to regular programming..

 

[billvon]

Don't take my word for it. There are great minds who are intrigued by the capabilities of microtubules.

Sure. They are interesting. Consciousness is not found there.

You see these memes pop up all the time. I remember back in the 1980's interferon was going to cure cancer, stop all viral infections in their tracks and end Parkinson's disease - basically bring a new revolution to medicine. Turns out it's just a moderately interesting set of proteins that have some clinical applications. But that didn't stop publications with more hype than intelligence from declaring it the end-all and be-all of medicine.

Best to avoid such mindless hype IMO.

 

[Write4U]

Nope. No evidence that this is the case.

What is your minimum required sensory ability for consciousness? What would serve as evidence?

IMO, there is no way to measure any form of consciousness except by physical responses to stimulation.

Is a paramecium conscious? It can avoid obstacles.
Is a slime-mold conscious? It can solve mazes by marking where it has been.
Are bacteria conscious? They communicate via "quorum sensing"

At what point does "sensitivity to stimulation" turn into "conscious experience of stimulation"?

Again Anil Seth's profound statement; "You don't have to be smart to feel pain, but you probably have to be alive".

And if that is the minimum requirement the line becomes very fuzzy.
At what point does a bio-chemical pattern become alive and conscious?

 

[Write4U]

I find it truly astonishing that you have never had anyone say "that's nice" to you in that kind of context..

I choose to interpret it that way. I can exercise that flexibility.
I have enough "likes" to feel comfortable with my contributions to this forum.

 

[Write4U]

You posted something that was not about microtubules, and certainly not about "microtubular catastrophe", and you openly altered a quote to make it appear as though it was. And I will address this further in a bit.

Yeah well, try to keep up.

If you cannot support your claim, do not make the claim.

I am not making a claim, when will you understand that? The OP asks a question!
I am making a proposition to consider microtubules as a possible candidate, based on available information and evidence on the internet. I am supporting all my speculations with actual scientific evidence albeit in "illustrative" and "narrative" form rather than mathematical equations.

This is a current topic of scientific inquiry. And as they say "a picture is worth a thousand words" . But only to those who actually look.

 

[Write4U]

And, damn it....here I am trying to provide an informational library for discussion of current sciene, and I get sucked into a mudraking contest.
If you have nothing of interest to offer other than an attack on my honor, I'd just as soon not have you respond to my "inquiry" at all. I don't need that kind of shit.

I expect visitors to this thread to exhibit civil behavior. Or else stay the hell out of here!

I seek information, not questions about my veracity........bah!

 

[billvon]

What is your minimum required sensory ability for consciousness?

An arbitrarily small ability. A human consciousness that could only perceive 1 and 0, and output 1 and 0, could still be fully conscious, and could communicate via Morse.

 

[Write4U]

An arbitrarily small ability. A human consciousness that could only perceive 1 and 0, and output 1 and 0, could still be fully conscious, and could communicate via Morse.

Why human consciousness per se? Is there only human consciousness? Of course not. Every biological object that is alive and responds to stimulation is a potential candidate for sensory awareness and by extension consciousness.

Several insects communicate long distance with pheromones, as far as twenty miles to signal a potential mate, who then can follow the pheromone trail to the female to mate.

OK. I firmly believe that microtubules meet that requirement. They are an unchanged functional common property of ALL Eukaryotic biological living organisms, since from the Prokaryotic epoch, where they existed in a simpler form because they only needed to execute simple RNA instructions, instead of the more complicated DNA instructions of modern Eukaryotic organisms.

If you can make an exact copy of a cell, it is a little more complicated than "one and/or zero". A slime mold can do "one and/or zero".

A Microtubule is an expert at "one and zero". It is a dynamic self-referential polymer, AFAIK.

 

[DaveC426913]

This:

AFAIK, an object with polarity will always tend to point to the magnetic north, no?

does not follow from the article.

https://www.cell.com/biophysj/pdf/S0006-3495(02)75482-9.pdf

1. In the 65 references to 'magnetic field', the article never once hints at anything to do with Earth's magnetic field.
2. What they do say, five times, is an intense magnetic field (therefore artificial).
3. And not merely intense - sufficiently intense - which means "as strong as we need to make it to get a result".

 

[Beer w/Straw]

Are microtubules mentioned in psychology or neurology?

:EDIT:

Do viruses have microtubules?

 

[Write4U]

This: does not follow from the article.

Model of Magnetic Field-Induced Mitotic Apparatus Reorientation in Frog Eggs, rather than shape effects, is the primary determinant of the normal cell-division pattern

What does follow is that magnetic fields seem to have influence over microtubular action. That is what it says, no?

1. In the 65 references to 'magnetic field', the article never once hints at anything to do with Earth's magnetic field.
2. What they do say, five times, is an intense magnetic field (therefore artificial).
3. And not merely intense - sufficiently intense - which means "as strong as we need to make it to get a result".

I'll stipulate to that. I seemed to remember an article that homing birds like pigeons might be using microtubules in orientation to the various magnetic fields , but true, not necessarily the Magnetic Pole...
A poetic liberty?

 

[Write4U]

Are microtubules mentioned in psychology or neurology?

They're certainly mentioned in neurology.
But I would think that until we can establish an actual connection between "thought" and microtubules, it cannot be addressed through psychology.

Do viruses have microtubules?

From what I can read, its hard to tell. Apparently, viruses don't have any of the parts you would normally think of when you think of a cell. They have no nuclei, mitochondria, or ribosomes. Some viruses do not even have cytoplasm. In the absence of all those "normal" features, there is no need for microtubules and maybe the reason why viruses are not considered living, but "quasi-living" organisms.

Maybe a virus uses the cell's microtubular functions.

A virus is a biological agent that reproduces inside the cells of living hosts. When infected by a virus, a host cell is forced to produce thousands of identical copies of the original virus at an extraordinary rate.

And this process uses microtubules.

Unlike most living things, viruses do not have cells that divide; new viruses are assembled in the infected host cell. But unlike still simpler infectious agents, viruses contain genes, which gives them the ability to mutate and evolve. Over 5,000 species of viruses have been discovered.

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

And in context of consciousness, I don't give viruses a big chance of ever becoming conscious.....they don't have microtubules....