Is consciousness to be found in quantum processes in microtubules?

Status
Not open for further replies.
And? Do you realize by dismissing ORCH OR you are not talking about a scientist gone haywire, but in one fell swoop you have declared hundreds of dedicated scientists to be unfit to shine your boots. Talking about premature exaggeration?
The irony..

Orch Or is is not studied by or supported by hundreds of scientists. Less than 5 if one is lucky or being generous.

Secondly, studying microtubules as scientists are studying it, does not validate Orch Or, nor does it have anything to do with it.

Thirdly, only a couple of scientists are claiming that it is where consciousness resides, and have failed to support their claims with any valid science and they have instead catered their claims to fit studies, and they have refused to address responses that disprove their claims.

Personally, I think Hameroff and Penrose are quacks.

While your accusation of "premature exaggeration" is ironic in and of itself, given the ridiculous manner you have conducted yourself in this discussion and the manner in which you have tried to spread microtubules across the site at every given opportunity, the biggest irony is that you have probably single-handedly turned most people on this site off studies conducted regarding consciousness and even worse, microtubules when it comes to things like cancer (treatment).. Reason for that is because people will now hesitate to even discuss it or bring it up.
Did I say "single microtubules"? Where? You do realize that axons can grow up a meter, and then network with other axons.
Here is what you said:

But when you stub your toe, do you feel pain? That sensory event is transmitted by microtubules to your brain.

It's not.

Not in the way that you are describing it.

Are Microtubules the Brain of the Neuron
No evidence to suggest that it is.

probably could not do it without the microtubules inside the axons.
Then you should be looking at neurofilaments as they are more numerous in axons than microtubules.

MT are not just bricks in the cytoskeleton.
And?

I found that quoted passages get really small and hard to read.
How about you let us adjust our monitors as we see fit, and you adjust yours as you see fit.

Really, the constant and random huge bold text is kind of annoying and obnoxious. It's not adding anything to your post, aside from irritation that is.

Yes really.
I can find a quote that summarises it in a few paragraphs when it comes to their roles in neurons.

Microtubules are 20 to 25 nm diameter tubular structures that run in loose bundles around the nucleus and funnel into the base of the axonal and dendritic processes where they form parallel arrays distributed longitudinally. They are made up of dimers of α and β tubulin subunits and contain associated proteins known as microtubule associated proteins (MAPS). The MAPS regulate the polymerization of tubulin subunits to form the microtubules. The dimers of α and β tubulin subunits polymerize to form proto-filaments arranged in an a helix such that 13 dimer subunits make up each full turn of the a helix. In addition, microtubules are not continuous, and each microtubule is composed of numerous 100 nm units. Microtubules are involved in axoplasmic transport (see below).

Their role in dendrites:

The membrane of the neuron functions as a receptive surface over its entire extent; however, specific inputs (termed afferents) from other cells are received primarily on the surface of the cell body and on the surface of the specialized processes known as dendrites. The dendritic processes may branch extensively and are often covered with projections known as dendriticspines. Spines provide a tremendous increase in the surface area available for synaptic contacts. The dendritic processes and spines of neurons are essentially expansions of cytoplasm containing most of the organelles found in the cell body. Dendrites contain numerous orderly arrays of microtubules and fewer neurofilaments (see below). The microtubule associated proteins (MAPs) in the dendrite have a higher molecular weight than those found in the axon. An example is MAP2. In addition, microtubules in dendrites have their positive ends toward the cell soma. Mitochondria are often arranged longitudinally. Rough endoplasmic reticulum and ribosomes are present in large but not small dendrites. The shape and extent of the "dendritic tree" of an individual neuron is indicative of the quantity and variety of information received and processed by that neuron. The dendritic spines often contain microfilaments which is the cytoskeletalelement responsible for changes in spine shape observed in some examples of synaptic plasticity.

Soma:

The interior of the soma consists of cytoplasm, a gel within a microtrabecular lattice formed by the microtubules and associated proteins that make up the cytoskeleton.

Axon:

The other type of process in the idealized neuron is the axon. Each neuron has only one axon and it is usually straighter and smoother than the dendritic profiles. Axons also contain bundles of microtubules and neurofilaments and scattered mitochondria. The most MAPs in an axon have a lower molecular weight than those in the dendrite. A predominant MAP in axons is tau. Microfilaments within the axon are usually associated with an area adjacent to the plasmalemma and often are the most dense at the nodes of Ranvier. Beyond the initial segments, the axoplasm lacks rough endoplasmic reticulum and free ribosomes. The branches of axons are known as axon collaterales. The axon itself is often surrounded by a membranous material, called the myelin sheath, formed by glia cells. The myelin sheath acts to insulate the plasmalemma of the axon in a way that necessitates the more rapid spread of the depolarization of the plasmalemma and increases the speed of conduction of the nerve impulse (see Chapter 3).


Restrictions restrictions.
Sorry, it does take a lot of room to extol all the virtues of microtubules. (20 pages!) That was my point.....
Do you view a prohibition on lying and exaggeration to be a restriction?

Because thus far, you have made wild claims that are completely unsupported and unfounded. Do you think the demand that you not do that is a restriction?

You aren't extolling the virtues of microtubules. You are acting like a religious zealot.

For example:
No he goes by size and weight of the patient. It is the microtubules that are rendered unconscious (inoperative). And then only some of the brain microtubules.
Still unproven.

Nothing you have posted supports your own claims..
 
You think it's a waste product. That doesn't mean that consciousness isn't found there. After all, every single living thing that exhibits consciousness generates urea. When they stop generating urea, they lose consciousness (and then die.)
Is that not backward? When you lose consciousness and die you cease generating urea.....difference..
They are far more essential to consciousness than microtubules. You can be conscious without working microtubules; you can't be conscious if you are not generating urea.
And that makes urea causal to consciousness? That does not follow.
One might make a case that all conscious animals produce feces. Does that mean feces are conscious?
 
The irony..

Orch Or is is not studied by or supported by hundreds of scientists. Less than 5 if one is lucky or being generous.

Secondly, studying microtubules as scientists are studying it, does not validate Orch Or, nor does it have anything to do with it.

Thirdly, only a couple of scientists are claiming that it is where consciousness resides, and have failed to support their claims with any valid science and they have instead catered their claims to fit studies, and they have refused to address responses that disprove their claims.

Personally, I think Hameroff and Penrose are quacks.

While your accusation of "premature exaggeration" is ironic in and of itself, given the ridiculous manner you have conducted yourself in this discussion and the manner in which you have tried to spread microtubules across the site at every given opportunity, the biggest irony is that you have probably single-handedly turned most people on this site off studies conducted regarding consciousness and even worse, microtubules when it comes to things like cancer (treatment).. Reason for that is because people will now hesitate to even discuss it or bring it up.

Here is what you said:



It's not.

Not in the way that you are describing it.


No evidence to suggest that it is.


Then you should be looking at neurofilaments as they are more numerous in axons than microtubules.


And?


How about you let us adjust our monitors as we see fit, and you adjust yours as you see fit.

Really, the constant and random huge bold text is kind of annoying and obnoxious. It's not adding anything to your post, aside from irritation that is.


I can find a quote that summarises it in a few paragraphs when it comes to their roles in neurons.

Microtubules are 20 to 25 nm diameter tubular structures that run in loose bundles around the nucleus and funnel into the base of the axonal and dendritic processes where they form parallel arrays distributed longitudinally. They are made up of dimers of α and β tubulin subunits and contain associated proteins known as microtubule associated proteins (MAPS). The MAPS regulate the polymerization of tubulin subunits to form the microtubules. The dimers of α and β tubulin subunits polymerize to form proto-filaments arranged in an a helix such that 13 dimer subunits make up each full turn of the a helix. In addition, microtubules are not continuous, and each microtubule is composed of numerous 100 nm units. Microtubules are involved in axoplasmic transport (see below).

Their role in dendrites:

The membrane of the neuron functions as a receptive surface over its entire extent; however, specific inputs (termed afferents) from other cells are received primarily on the surface of the cell body and on the surface of the specialized processes known as dendrites. The dendritic processes may branch extensively and are often covered with projections known as dendriticspines. Spines provide a tremendous increase in the surface area available for synaptic contacts. The dendritic processes and spines of neurons are essentially expansions of cytoplasm containing most of the organelles found in the cell body. Dendrites contain numerous orderly arrays of microtubules and fewer neurofilaments (see below). The microtubule associated proteins (MAPs) in the dendrite have a higher molecular weight than those found in the axon. An example is MAP2. In addition, microtubules in dendrites have their positive ends toward the cell soma. Mitochondria are often arranged longitudinally. Rough endoplasmic reticulum and ribosomes are present in large but not small dendrites. The shape and extent of the "dendritic tree" of an individual neuron is indicative of the quantity and variety of information received and processed by that neuron. The dendritic spines often contain microfilaments which is the cytoskeletalelement responsible for changes in spine shape observed in some examples of synaptic plasticity.

Soma:

The interior of the soma consists of cytoplasm, a gel within a microtrabecular lattice formed by the microtubules and associated proteins that make up the cytoskeleton.

Axon:

The other type of process in the idealized neuron is the axon. Each neuron has only one axon and it is usually straighter and smoother than the dendritic profiles. Axons also contain bundles of microtubules and neurofilaments and scattered mitochondria. The most MAPs in an axon have a lower molecular weight than those in the dendrite. A predominant MAP in axons is tau. Microfilaments within the axon are usually associated with an area adjacent to the plasmalemma and often are the most dense at the nodes of Ranvier. Beyond the initial segments, the axoplasm lacks rough endoplasmic reticulum and free ribosomes. The branches of axons are known as axon collaterales. The axon itself is often surrounded by a membranous material, called the myelin sheath, formed by glia cells. The myelin sheath acts to insulate the plasmalemma of the axon in a way that necessitates the more rapid spread of the depolarization of the plasmalemma and increases the speed of conduction of the nerve impulse (see Chapter 3).



Do you view a prohibition on lying and exaggeration to be a restriction?

Because thus far, you have made wild claims that are completely unsupported and unfounded. Do you think the demand that you not do that is a restriction?

You aren't extolling the virtues of microtubules. You are acting like a religious zealot.

For example:

Still unproven.

Nothing you have posted supports your own claims..

My only minor quibble with what you have written would be in describing Penrose and Hameroff as quacks. What I think I see with them is what has happened to a number of other eminent scientists late in life. Linus Pauling went in for strange theories about VitaminC. Schrödinger started speculations about consciousness. Tesla, famously, went completely nuts. You sometimes see the same thing with businessmen who eventually crash and burn. There is always the danger, for a professionally successful person, of becoming overconfident and starting to believe your own bullshit.

I think this is a sort of late-life, semi-bullshit hobby of Penrose and Hameroff, who otherwise are - or were - very capable scientists.
 
Is that not backward? When you lose consciousness and die you cease generating urea.....difference.. And that makes urea causal to consciousness? That does not follow. One might make a case that all conscious animals produce feces. Does that mean feces are conscious?
You make a good argument! At least as strong as the argument that microtubules are conscious.
 
Bells said,
I can find a quote that summarises it in a few paragraphs when it comes to their roles in neurons.
and
Do you view a prohibition on lying and exaggeration to be a restriction?
It's ironic that you should use the information that I provided in order to call me a lying religious zealot , which btw. is a utterly false analogy.

Thinking that an "elan vital" is responsible for consciousness is religious zealotry. I am atheist.

Fact is that I have time and time again stated that I am making an inquiry, not positing a formal hypothesis.
ORCH OR is NOT MY THEORY, it was proposed by Hameroff and Penrose. I am an interested by-stander who is intrigued by the question of emergent consciousness.

Fact is that for some obscure reason you are engaged in hysterical personal ad hominem about my veracity and intellectual capacity. Not very objective.

If you are going to use my quoted passages which attempting to hang me with, at least give me credit for recognizing and providing the information . You seriously believe that I post things without reading what it says?

Are you taking credit for my research??????
 
Last edited:
Fact is that I have time and time again stated that I am making an inquiry, not a formal hypothesis.
You've tried this defense before. It's not valid.

If it were true that you are merely making an inquiry, you have your answer: no.

What's happening is that you are advocating the hypothesis, here. So regardless of who came up with it, you are defending and promoting it.

And not the first time for this defense - often enough to make it onto the wheel:

W4U-dbm.png
 
Last edited:
You make a good argument! At least as strong as the argument that microtubules are conscious.
No, its not an argument at all. I merely showed it in starker language.
Your argument is literally bullshit.
 
Last edited:
Exactly. So you've switched from inquiring to advocating.
Own that. Stop hiding behind references.
Yes, I am advocating for refraining from premature judgement, such as "just say no". What qualifies you to offer that dismissal with such certainty? Do you have sufficient qualification to make that judgement or are you just riding the popular bandwagon?
 
What qualifies you to offer that dismissal with such certainty?
You qualified us. You asked us, here.

I'm simply saying stop pretending you're simply asking. You're not. The arguments being addressed are the ones you are making, because Penrose et al are not here; you are.

Carry on, just take ownership.
 
As to religious zealotry, you may want to revisit the story of Galileo. He was not just called a crackpot, he was called a heretic, with a real chance of being put to death. And that was by very pious people.

To accuse me of religious zealotry is duplicitous, whereas you zealously keep denying the possibility that Hameroff and Penrose may have "something", even if it is not necessarily ORCH OR. The hypothesis has not yet been formally debunked and so far all objections have been answered, but still the ad hominems against them are being slung around. "Crackpots", "Quacks", "Senile old men who were once brilliant scientists". I find that offensive and certainly disrespectful to fellow scientists.

Is that kind of language conducive to researching a new possible approach to an age-old unanswered question?
Noone has yet put forth anything that offers more promise than ORCH OR.

Critique is fine, not offering a persuasive reason for the critique is wrong.
 
Yes it is, as is yours! You get it.
Noooooo, you don't get away with that duplicitous statement.

You are the one making the ridiculous argument that waste products are conscious, not I.
I don't even make the argument that microtubules are conscious.

You are the crackpot now, by your own words. It pains me to say it, but you leave me no choice.
 
Last edited:
Noooooo, you don't get away with that duplicitous statement.
You are the one making the ridiculous argument that waste products are conscious, not I.
Right. I am making the ridiculous argument that waste products are conscious. You are making the ridiculous argument that microtubules are conscious. Equally valid, equally supportable.
You are the crackpot now, by your own words. It pains me to say it, but you leave me no choice.
If you think I am a crackpot, I must be making a lot of sense! Like Trump calling me an idiot.
 
Right. I am making the ridiculous argument that waste products are conscious. You are making the ridiculous argument that microtubules are conscious. Equally valid, equally supportable.
No, no, no, no, no, and again NO, I am not that ridiculous argument that microtubules are conscious. My understanding of microtubules is that they are functional processors.
Can your brain process that information or are you still obsessed with urea?

If you think I am a crackpot, I must be making a lot of sense! Like Trump calling me an idiot.
No its more like you are Trump making a definitive statement.

Bahhh, enough of this mindless pissing contest. Click
 
Last edited:
You qualified us. You asked us, here.
Yes, I asked for input. I di not ask for inqualified dismissal.
I'm simply saying stop pretending you're simply asking. You're not. The arguments being addressed are the ones you are making, because Penrose et al are not here; you are.
That is precisely why I am not representing Penrose at all. I do not have the qualifications. I reserve judgement until all the facts are in, and they are not by a long shot.
]
Carry on, just take ownership.
I do not own the hypothesis. I am interested in the concept and seek more information. I gave you the reasons why I am interested in the concept. I'll own my thoughts on the matter, not the hypothesis by two respected scientists.

If I cite Einstein, do I own E = Mc^2 ? Can I patent it? Maybe receive a nobel prize?
 
If I cite Einstein, do I own E = Mc^2 ?
The correct analogy would be that if you cited Einstein, and then added all your own conjectures on top of his, and people said 'no, that's not valid', you cannot say 'Well don't blame me - this is Einstein's idea.'
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top