Is consciousness to be found in quantum processes in microtubules?

[exchemist]

Now you're talking about David Bohm (as in deBroglie-Bohm Pilot Wave), not microtubules. Does not compute, does not compute...

p.s. Implicate Order(s) are stages of extant probabilistic potentials. The emergence of an interference pattern in a double slit experiment is an expression of an Implicate Order, IMO.

p.p.s. If I need a brain operation , I'll go see Hameroff, not you. I have read his stuff and he knows what he is talking about, not you. You are being prejudicial the moment I mention a name. Not conducive to Dialogue and acquiring new knowledge.
Blind negativity is as bad as blind positivity. Neither is open to change, kinda like religion.

I've said it many times and I'll repeat once more, just for you.

The open-minded scientist is not morally obliged to listen to the ravings of every nutter on the street corner. That is not what being open-minded involves. If we did, we'd get nothing done. Furthermore, we would be encouraging nutters to think more highly of themselves and their ideas than they deserve.

Once one has read up the idea, and read the critiques of it, one is entitled to form an opinion. Thereafter, there is only a moral obligation to give the same idea more attention if new evidence is put forward that could be expected to change one's orginal assessment.

Have a nice day.

 

[origin]

Now that I think of it; human observation causes wave function collapse inside our sensory systems.

This is so annoying. You are always saying this or that causes a 'wave function' to collapse. That is an absurd way to speak.

If I jump off of a platform I can say "I fell to the ground due to gravity", but if I say "I fell to the ground due to the gravity field equations" I would sound like a nutter, or someone who had no idea what they were talking about.

The wave function didn't collapse the wave collapsed.

 

[Write4U]

This is so annoying. You are always saying this or that causes a 'wave function' to collapse. That is an absurd way to speak.

Absurd? Really?

ab·surd, adjective
wildly unreasonable, illogical, or inappropriate.
"the allegations are patently absurd"
synonyms: preposterous, ridiculous, ludicrous, farcical, laughable, risible,
idiotic, stupid, foolish, silly, inane, imbecilic, insane, harebrained, cockamamie

If I jump off of a platform I can say "I fell to the ground due to gravity", but if I say "I fell to the ground due to the gravity field equations" I would sound like a nutter, or someone who had no idea what they were talking about. The wave function didn't collapse the wave collapsed.

A short correction would have been sufficient.....
I'd rather be treated with some common courtesy and a willingness to overlook my shortcomings in formal scientific verbage. The odd part is that even as I get critiqued on my presentation, seldom does anyone tell me I'm flat wrong in content.

wave func·tion, noun, PHYSICS,
a function that satisfies a wave equation and describes the properties of a wave.

This is such an occasion. You complain about my presentation, but is it wrong?
When someone actually corrects a real error, I am always grateful and feel I have "learned".

Critiquing writing style without addressing content in a science forum is not very productive is it? Especially if it is accompanied by over the top ad hominem.


p.s. I have no objection to the transfer, but if one examines what I was really proposing you will find that I was right on topic of "Is life a dialogue or a monologue" all the time unless this was supposed to be about the non-science of religion again.

 

[Write4U]

Once one has read up the idea, and read the critiques of it, one is entitled to form an opinion. Thereafter, there is only a moral obligation to give the same idea more attention if new evidence is put forward that could be expected to change one's orginal assessment.

Problem is you don't read up on the links I provide, which always clarify my inadequacies in formal expression and usually provide new evidence which might be expected to change one's original assessment.....if only one took the time and courtesy....., I do....

If there is not enough time for that, then there should be not enough time to criticise rather than critique the post and poster.

 

[C C]

But I don't give up hope just yet. Somehow, this sounds so right.

While I've tended to doubt that microtuble processes will pan-out in a significant way, I agree with James R's apparent assessment that their hypothesis is in limbo as far as either being supported or killed-off.

In addition to Penrose and he supposedly compiling a list of purported "successes" over the years, Hameroff has responded to most criticisms, including research items like this one: Study Rules Out Fröhlich Condensates in Quantum Consciousness Model. But those counterings no longer show-up easily on the web, it takes quite a bit of digging to locate them (unless he features them on his website).

Of course, just because he parries attacks doesn't mean they carry weight (each is subject to the evaluation of onlookers). This particular faultfinding from Tegmark is actually very old:

We refuted Tegmark in the same journal in which he published a year later (see Hagan et al, 2001). Tegmark calculated a microtubule decoherence time of only 10^-13 secs, but he used a superposition separation distance of 24 nanometers, a term in the denominator of the decoherence time formula. In Orch OR the separation is the Fermi length, 7 orders of magnitude smaller, correcting microtubule decoherence time to 10^-6 secs. We found a few other mistakes which brought our calculated decoherence time to 10^-4 secs, later shown experimentally by Bandyopadhyay’s group (all references are in the 2014 Orch OR review paper). Tegmark refuted his own model, not ours. http://www.brainpreservation.org/sc...to-brain-preservation-uploading-and-identity/​

One of the earliest criticisms has arguably fallen to the wayside with regard to the force it once had: That the biological domain was too "hot" and macroscopic for quantum effects to ever find applicability there. (quantum biology).

Publicity wise, Hameroff has been his own worst enemy by straying off into all sorts of appended speculative territory during interviews in questionable places, in a kind of Jack Sarfatti like fashion.
~

 

[Write4U]

Publicity wise, Hameroff has been his own worst enemy by straying off into all sorts of appended speculative territory during interviews in questionable places,

I agree.
From a Tegmark paper on decoherence, I ran across this;

Perhaps the most concrete one is that of Penrose [2], proposing that this takes place in microtubules, the ubiquitous hollow cylinders that among other things help cells maintain their shapes. It has been argued that microtubules can process information like a cellular automaton [20], and Penrose suggests that they operate as a quantum computer. This idea has been further elaborated employing string theory methods

and

. For instance, Stapp has argued that interaction with the environment is probably small enough to be unimportant for certain neural processes [28], whereas Zeh [29], Zurek [30], Scott [31], Hawking [32] and Hepp [33] have conjectured that environment-induced coherence will rapidly destroy macrosuperpositions in the brain. It is therefore timely to try to settle the issue with detailed calculations of the relevant decoherence rates.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/9907009.pdf

Anybody ever had a head-ache? How many degrees of temperature fluctuations cause neural decoherence in the brain? At 105 F people usually become disoriented and "incoherent". At higher temperatures or direct exposure, brain death often follows. Sun-stroke?

Are these not indications that the environment indeed has a great effect on brain function?
Moreover, would these symptoms not tend to support rather than argue against neural quantum decoherence in microtubules?

 

[DaveC426913]

If anyone wants to pursue the microtubules hypothesis in fiction - read Robert J. Sawyer's Quantum Night.
He leverages the microtubules in an interesting way - extrapolating three groups into which all humans fit: P-zombies, psychopaths and conscious-with-conscience. And catastrophic events (such as near-death experiences) can flip you from one state to the other.

RJS is Canada's golden child for speculative fiction writing. He's won a metric buttload (~28) of awards (including Hugo, Nebula and Robert Heinlein Awards) all around the world for his writing. His "Flash Forward" novel became a TV series by the same name.

 

[Write4U]

This is so annoying. You are always saying this or that causes a 'wave function' to collapse. That is an absurd way to speak.

I don't know what you are on about. I rechecked my sources and the expression "wave function collapse" is specifically addressed and defined exactly as I wanted to present it.
Wiki;

In quantum mechanics, wave function collapse is said to occur when a wave function—initially in a superposition of several eigenstates—appears to reduce to a single eigenstate (by "observation"). It is the essence of measurement in quantum mechanics and connects the wave function with classical observables like position and momentum.

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

Any other complaints and derogatory statements? Keep 'em coming boys.......

 

[RainbowSingularity]

That's quite a mental exercise. So, having said all that, do you still feel like an accident?

i spent 2 years polling new mothers.
around 45% of them reported the pregnancy(and birth of current children living) unintentional.

while many are wraped up in their own emotional dogma around feelings of being wanted. the reality of this is a health issue in my opinion.
best practice is ideal, but mostly 1 out of 2 kids is not going to be best practice pre pregnancy.

how do you quantify that in a medical best possible outcome scenario for total national health delivery ?

pro activeness is the only possible solution.
spending tax payer money on education and services.
its outcome is far more beneficial than anything else possible.

which is why i am pro universal health care with private health care as an after event.
the reality is private health care can not provide for 50% of new born children.

 

[exchemist]

Problem is you don't read up on the links I provide, which always clarify my inadequacies in formal expression and usually provide new evidence which might be expected to change one's original assessment.....if only one took the time and courtesy....., I do....

If there is not enough time for that, then there should be not enough time to criticise rather than critique the post and poster.

Have a nice day.

 

[Write4U]

While this proposition by Matthew Fisher does not specifically address microtubular computing, it uses brain neural networks as a quantum computing system. The acceptance of biological quantum computing systems is becoming more popular , it seems. All we need to figure out is which biological system is the most likely candidate for a possible biological quantum computing system.

The mere mention of “quantum consciousness” makes most physicists cringe, as the phrase seems to evoke the vague, insipid musings of a New Age guru. But if a new hypothesis proves to be correct, quantum effects might indeed play some role in human cognition.

Matthew Fisher, a physicist at the University of California, Santa Barbara, raised eyebrows late last year when he published a paper in Annals of Physicsproposing that the nuclear spins of phosphorus atoms could serve as rudimentary “qubits” in the brain — which would essentially enable the brain to function like a quantum computer.

https://www.quantamagazine.org/a-new-spin-on-the-quantum-brain-20161102/

This is exciting news as each researcher will bring new info to the table.
However, IMO, this example from Hameroff may well demonstrate the greater likelihood that microtubules are ultimately better equipped to act as quantum computers than neural synapses.

Being that microtubules have identified information processing capabilities and are present in almost all biological life, IMO, it makes them a very good candidate, perhaps even more suitable than gross neural networks.

What Do Microtubules Do?
Tubulin contains two polypeptide subunits, and dimers of these subunits string together to make long strands called protofilaments. Thirteen protofilaments then come together to form the hollow, straw-shaped filaments of microtubules.

Microtubules are ever-changing, with reactions constantly adding and subtracting tubulin dimers at both ends of the filament (Figure 1). The rates of change at either end are not balanced — one end grows more rapidly and is called the plus end, whereas the other end is known as the minus end.

In cells, the minus ends of microtubules are anchored in structures called microtubule organizing centers (MTOCs). The primary MTOC in a cell is called the centrosome, and it is usually located adjacent to the nucleus.

https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/microtubules-and-filaments-14052932

 

[Write4U]

I don't think the idea has many fans among current physicists or biologists. My own opinion is that neurological processes are mostly happening on scales that would tend to wash out any significant quantum effects. In other words, I don't think that consciousness will ultimately be explained by appealing to quantum uncertainty in microtubules.

I appreciate your caution, but in view that consciousness is not peculiarly human but exists almost everywhere in biology in varying degrees of sophistication, it seems logical to assume a common physical characteristic which allows a biological organism to acquire the ability to consciously and dynamically interact with its environment.

One such common physical aspect is the microtubule, which can found in single celled organisms as well as humans and all other living things.

Oddly the worm C-Elegans seems not to have microtubules in its neural system (synapses) which is well mapped. But when its neural system is stimulated with electricity, it does not respond to the stimulation, i.e. no consciousness.

OTOH, the much smaller and simpler single-celled Paramecium has no synapses, but does have microtubules (flagella) which allow it to swim and navigate. This single-celled organism appears to be conscious as demonstrated by its sexual behavior, the only time when both partners do not perceptibly move to avoid touch.....

 

[gamelord]

Then the question remains, how is everything conscious at the same time? Only one being can be conscious at any particular conscious frame of reference.

 

[Write4U]

Then the question remains, how is everything conscious at the same time? Only one being can be conscious at any particular conscious frame of reference.

Yes, it's called "relativity". Each "observer" experiences reality from their own perspective of their unique position in spacetime....

Anil Seth proposes that "relativity" is experienced by humans as "controlled hallucinations".
When our controlled hallucinations agree, we call it "reality". It's by common agreement.

 

[iceaura]

I appreciate your caution, but in view that consciousness is not peculiarly human but exists almost everywhere in biology in varying degrees of sophistication, it seems logical to assume a common physical characteristic which allows a biological organism to acquire the ability to consciously and dynamically interact with its environment.

Consciousness is a high level pattern - substrates do not comprise the patterns that form on them.

 

[Write4U]

Consciousness is a high level pattern - substrates do not comprise the patterns that form on them.

Is the brain not the substrate for the formation of consciousness? The brain features several billion microtubules, which process trillions of bits of incoming external and internal information.

And according to Anil Seth our brain has a self-referential mechanism, which IMO has evolved into a consciousness generating process. We generate our reality inside the brain and verify it's "best guess" of what's out there by comparing the compiled internal image from our sensory experiences with the objects we are observing.

The proof of this proposition is found in the fact that we don't always get it right!
Optical illusion is just one area where the brain can be "fooled" into the wrong conscious experience of vision!

https://www.ted.com/talks/anil_seth_how_your_brain_hallucinates_your_conscious_reality

IMO, this very basic process in all brained organisms has evolved to a very high degree of sophistication in abstract thought, whereas in most animals it is only adapted to specific needs, although it seems many animals have the ability for basic planning such as in pack hunters.

Do watch the Hameroff presentation. He is an anesthesiologist and knows where "consciousness" resides in the brain. Indeed it is the level 3 area of the brain, the portion which is rendered unconscious during operations.

Relative to the other two "subconscious" control levels and their platforms which occur in separate areas of the brain, the conscious part is relatively small, but I bet it is larger in humans than in other self-conscious species.

 

[iceaura]

Is the brain not the substrate for the formation of consciousness?

Yep.

The brain features several billion microtubules, which process trillions of bits of incoming external and internal information.

And so they are the substrate for the patterns that form among them.

 

[Write4U]

Yep.
And so they are the substrate for the patterns that form among them.

yes, and it is those patterns which eventually lead to "cognition" and still later to "anticipation".

Humans consciously verify what we experience. Eventually that leads to anticipation and that leads to the evolution of abstract thought.

The brainless slime-mold already has the ability to anticipate environmental conditions.
Timing seems to be a fundamental asset for organic life and does not necessarily constitute a response to an existing condition, but also to anticipated conditions.. The organism's physics can learn to mathematically anticipate future events.
Insects respond to atmospheric pressure fluctuations from approaching weather fronts. They start feeding!

IMO, these computational abilities is provided by micro-tubules and "experienced" by the organism from purely "electro-chemical" reactions to sophisticated analysis of "emotional" responses. In all cases the transfer of information involves a moment of "ping" when a treshold has been passed and a quantum collapse occurs "fixing" the moment. It is the totality of quantum pings which form the recognizable repeating patterns in nature
(witness the interference patterns in the double slit experiment).

Note: Microtubules are nano sized structures and are much smaller than neurons. Yet they perform almost all internal and external information sharing in addition to offer structural integrity of neurons themselves. I find that remarkable and note-worthy.

Interestingly, the computer industry is experimenting with vertical stacking of semi-conductors as they have reached the limits of Moore's law of size reduction on a horizontal scale. We are beginning to copy micro-tubular structures.......

Natura artis magistra!

 

[gamelord]

Personally, I find it fascinating just how fast the brain can perform such massive operations. I know it uses electricity to send signals, but it seems like there has to be some kind of cellular movement that is faster that the typical videos showing cellular behaviors. Maybe there is a scientific explanation, but it does seem like there is some kind of "otherworldly monitor" which processes the immediate, real time effects.

 

[Write4U]

There is no evidence that microtubules are tiny quantum computers.

It depends on how you define "computer" and "computational abilities",
I see a chemical reaction as a computational function (transmission of "information = values")

Just from a cursory examination, it is clear to me that computational processes and functions occur in microtubules, which are not only instrumental in providing a cellular structural skeleton to keep an organism consisting of 95% water from collapsing like a limp noodle, but also acts as an information sharing network which is distributed throughout the body.

Microtubules are one of the principal components of the cytoskeleton that build up the structure and shape of the cell (Figure 1). They are also important in a number of other cellular processes, such as cell division and transportation. Extending from a central microtubule-organizing center, they display a polar structure that is highly conserved in evolution, reflected in a striking similarity of microtubules across almost all species (Janke C, 2014).

Of the proteins detected in the Cell Atlas, 390 proteins (2%) have been experimentally shown to localize to the microtubule cytoskeleton and its substructures microtubule ends, cleavage furrow, cytokinetic bridge, midbody, midbody ring, and mitotic spindle (Figure 2 and 3).

Functional enrichment analysis of the microtubule-localizing proteins shows highly enriched GO-terms for biological processes related to cytoskeleton organization, cell movement and cell division (Figure 4). More than half of the proteins detected at the microtubules also localize to other cellular compartments, most commonly to nucleoplasm, cytosol and vesicles (Figure 5).

https://www.proteinatlas.org/cell
https://www.proteinatlas.org/humancell/microtubules

and for Animation;

Cilia and Flagella: Structure and Movement
Swimming is the major form of movement exhibited by sperm and by many protozoans. Some cells are propelled at velocities approaching 1 mm/s by the beating of cilia and flagella, flexible membrane extensions of the cell. Cilia and flagella range in length from a few microns to more than 2 mm in the case of some insect sperm flagella.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK21698/

It's the microtubules that drive this engine for animation.

Well, videos don't show neural activity real time. Most neurons fire at rates between 3-20 times per second, which is a rate you can't really see on a video. That would equate to a "processing speed" of .00002 MHz (or .00000002GHz.) But that's deceptive, because we have 100 billion neurons all working away at that same slow rate.

Think of the number of apparently "sensory" and "memory" functional microtubules contained in those neurons.

Besides they "look like" little computers......