Is consciousness to be found in quantum processes in microtubules?

[Write4U]

And I'm not making the argument that urea or feces are conscious.

Yes you were. I know how that statement was intended, but you made it. Own it!

You're getting it!

I am getting it, you're not!

 

[globali]

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.

This is called selection bias. For every Galileo that was called a crackpot and was eventually proven to be right, there are thousands of cases of theories that were considered crackpot and they really were. You just don't hear about them anymore. Not because they were proven wrong (their authors always moved the goalposts after negative results). But because their authors and supporters died, and the new generation of thinkers were unisterested in following them in the face of negative results or logical dead ends.

In the against the mainstream subforum or all over the internet you can find thousands of candidate Theories of Everything. Only a few of them are not ignored or ridiculed. Almost all authors use the case of Galileo to defend themselves against criticism and rejection. Since they are contradicting, the truth is that only one of the existing ones might eventually be proven to be right. Maybe none.
So an alternative theory might be proven to be right, but the chances are at most less than 1 in a thousand. Especially if strong experimental data already have been discouraging.
Bayesian inference makes it 1 in a million or so! no?

 

[Write4U]

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

Of course that's wrong if not a lie. From the horse's mouth.

My research involves a theory of consciousness which can bridge these two approaches, a theory developed over the past 20 years with eminent British physicist Sir Roger Penrose. Called ‘orchestrated objective reduction’ (‘Orch OR’), it suggests consciousness arises from quantum vibrations in protein polymers called microtubules inside the brain’s neurons, vibrations which interfere, ‘collapse’ and resonate across scale, control neuronal firings, generate consciousness, and connect ultimately to ‘deeper order’ ripples in spacetime geometry. Consciousness is more like music than computation.

Colleagues Travis Craddock and Jack Tuszynski and I also study how anesthetics act in microtubules to erase consciousness, and with Jay Sanguinetti, John JB Allen and Sterling Cooley, we are studying how transcranial ultrasound (TUS) can be used noninvasively to resonate brain microtubules and treat mental, cognitive and neurological disorders.

http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/content/overview-sh

I count 7 just in SH immediate environment. Its a quackery conspiracy!!!
Should we be looking for independent research pockets around the world? Maybe discover a grand conspiracy to sell us on the idea that consciousness is a possibility?

Talkrchestrated objective reduction
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Orchestrated_objective_reduction

 

[Write4U]

Let me repeat a question I raised a long time ago.

How many evolutionary levels of consciousness are there? Whence did consciousness start and in what organism?

Can we even begin to answer that question before we attempt to qualify OCH OR as a viable concept? Are we placing the cart before the horse?

 

[globali]

Let me repeat a question I raised a long time ago.

How many evolutionary levels of consciousness are there? Whence did consciousness start and in what organism?

Can we even begin to answer that question before we attempt to qualify OCH OR as a viable concept? Are we placing the cart before the horse?

How many evolutionary levels of vision are there? Where did vision start and in what organism?
Does this mean that we have to consider the notion that microtubules or something else actually "see" as a necesity??

Well maybe, if the person has a low to average IQ....

 

[Write4U]

This is called selection bias. For every Galileo that was called a crackpot and was eventually proven to be right, there are thousands of cases of theories that were considered crackpot and they really were. You just don't hear about them anymore. Not because they were proven wrong (their authors always moved the goalposts after negative results). But because their authors and supporters died, and the new generation of thinkers were unisterested in following them in the face of negative results or logical dead ends.

I agree. But the people who are proposing this are not crackpots to begin with. The combination of theoretical physics combined with the medical knowledge and practical experience in controlling consciousness, makes this duo eminently qualified to tackle this enduring mystery.

Methinks that their reputation would insure at least a reasonable period of time for developing and refining the concept for a testable model. So far every objection has been answered or has modified the original speculative assumptions. IMO, it is much too early to reject the entire concept, lest we throw out the baby with the bathwater.

This is one of the great questions that plague mankind. I would think that every serious person, layman or scientist, would be fascinated by this mysterious ability that evolution has bestowed on at least a part of all biological life.

I philosophy I ran across this question: Did life produce consciousness or did consciousness produce life?

Can consciousness be found in the mathematical nature of spacetime? Is spacetime a quasi-conscious mathematical field(s)? Is Mathematics a quasi-intelligent essence of the universe?

 

[Write4U]

How many evolutionary levels of vision are there? Where did vision start and in what organism?

It started a long long time ago as a light sensitive patch on a simple organism. Eyesight is an evolved experiential ability.

Does this mean that we have to consider the notion that microtubules or something else actually "see" as a necesity??

No one claims microtubules are conscious. But they are organic polymer processors. At what time could a trillion organic polymer processors functioning in unison acquire an awareness of the collective, if at all? Insects can and they have only a tiny brain, but they do have microtubules.

That's point, no? Consciousness is not a necessity for physical existence. So how did it evolve in biological organisms? That's the whole question.

Can't you see that it all started with the physical creation of fundamental chemical elements and that chemical evolutionary interaction has caused the progression from pure physical chemistry to a metaphysical conscious awareness of relationship and interaction of "self with the environment"? That's an incredible leap in complexity, by any standard.

 

[globali]

I agree. But the people who are proposing this are not crackpots to begin with. The combination of theoretical physics combined with the medical knowledge and practical experience in controlling consciousness, makes this duo eminently qualified to tackle this enduring mystery.

Methinks that their reputation would insure at least a reasonable period of time for developing and refining the concept for a testable model.

I respect anyone that has an idea. But i don't place authority above evidence. That was the reason they dismayed Galileo in the first place despite all the evidence. Because they respected Aristotle and though that Aristotle couldn't be wrong.
Lesson learned!!! Evidence is the greatest authority.

Methinks that their reputation would insure at least a reasonable period of time for developing and refining the concept for a testable model.

Part of the excitement in the scientific community a few decades ago was that the theory was testable. Exchemist provided you with high quality research that falsified the original claims.
If i understand well, there were some modifications from the initial claims, to keep the theory alive (iow to move the goalposts).

There is a tiny chance that you are right, but i am having so much fun debunking your arguments (or any other crackpot arguments), while knowing that by 99.999% the theory is wrong!!!

 

[globali]

Can't you see that it all started with the physical creation of fundamental chemical elements and that chemical evolutionary interaction has caused the progression from pure physical chemistry to a metaphysical conscious awareness of relationship and interaction of "self with the environment"?

No! you should try a plan B
Is there an alternative to that?

 

[Write4U]

Lesson learned!!! Evidence is the greatest authority.

LOL, there is a slight qualitative difference in knowledge. God has persisted for 3000 years!

I've visited a lot of sites of various acknowledged theoretical thinkers. All of them metioned the existence of ORCH OR , but none of them denied the theoretical possibility. This is no longer a small scientific community of crackpots.
Study of the brain is the new "undiscovered territory".

Study of the Brain

The brain is the single most important structure in our bodies. From our study of the brain we can tell that the brain controls most of human thought and emotion. When you sit and think about it, the brain is also the coolest thing about you. Every time you think about anything- it is your brain. When you feel pain of pleasure- it comes from your brain. Its all about the brain!!!

https://www.appsychology.com/Book/Biological/ways_to_study_the_brain.htm

Can there be any objection to selecting microtubules in the brain as part of this Study?

 

[Write4U]

No! you should try a plan B
Is there an alternative to that?

Not that I know of. This is it for now. It's just a start.

 

[globali]

how many times are you gonna post this?

Why didn't you mention the work of Deepak Chopra on your reference list?

 

[Write4U]

how many times are you gonna post this?

Until everyone has seen it so that they can understand Hameroff's perspective and approach to the problem.

Why didn't you mention the work of Deepak Chopra on your reference list?

Deepak Chopra is not a physical scientist, he's a philosopher.

I also did not list David Bohm or Edwin Schroedinger. They're dead and cannot defend themselves against spurious attacks and science had not yet progressed as it has today.

Kinda like Aristotle, a scientist can only test what they can logically deduce from evidence.
Newton was a perfect example of getting it almost right based on incomplete information.
Their flawed hypotheses were from ignorance, not incompetency.

 

[Bells]

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.

Hameroff has been peddling this since the 80's. Penrose since the nineties, mostly.

So it's not something that Hameroff has been pushing in his dotage. He's been pushing consciousness and microtubules claims since the 80's.

_______________________________________________________________

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.

Why are you again posting what I said out of context?

Do you understand that the manner in which you do this is exceptionally dishonest? What is wrong with you?

Is this how you think you should conduct yourself?

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

You may be an atheist, but you are preaching like a zealot.

Fact is that I have time and time again stated that I am making an inquiry, not positing a formal hypothesis.

And this is where you come completely undone.

People make an inquiry and it is answered.

You aren't making an inquiry.

You are preaching. None stop. You keep posting the same thing over and over again. You insert your beliefs into other discussions, the latest being the blood and veins thread. Even when people say "no", they aren't interested, you keep pushing. Like a zealot.

So cut the utter BS that you are making an inquiry.

No one is buying it. You are here to preach and push a claim and you are trying to pass it off as scientific fact.

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.

It is not your theory, but you are pushing it here.

There is no scientific evidence to support Orch Or. So why are you still pushing it?

You aren't an interested bystander. A bystander would have moved on after numerous studies showed that Orch Or was not fallible. Instead, you keep making the same claims over and over and over again, refusing to address studies that show it is wrong and cannot work (you have ignored numerous links and studies because they disprove it and you do it repeatedly)... It may not be your theory, but you are the one pushing it here like a zealot.

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

I'm not hysterical Write4U. I'm not the one losing the proverbial contents of my larger intestines because someone is not taking microtubules seriously, so therefore, one must write in massive coloured font, because apparently that makes more sense. You are.

The manner in which you are behaving when it comes to the subject of microtubules has literally turned people off even discussing it.

For example, I would love to start a discussion about inhibitors in regards to cancer treatments. And I will not, because of you. And I have a vested interest in wanting to know more about these treatments, but I would not dare to even broach the subject on this site, because you are so obsessed with "microtubules" that you would infect the discussion with Hameroff, Penrose and consciousness. You simply cannot help yourself.

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?

Your quoted passage?

I quoted from another site. Did you write it? I am going to hazard a guess that you are not a professor of neurobiology and anatomy.

Are you taking credit for my research??????

Have you lost your mind? Are you microtubules tangled up?

The person who wrote what I quoted is a Professor from the University of Texas's McGovern Medical School.

Why are you trying to take credit for his work?

Unless you are Professor Waymire, it's not your work or your research.

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.

The issue for you is that you are ignoring science, by listening to what is tantamount to a quasi religious belief about consciousness.

Hameroff has repeatedly refused to address several scientific studies that disprove his 'theory'.

And when studies completely prove that what they are proposing is impossible, Hameroff and Penrose retrofitted their theories to try to make it fit.

So you will understand that I literally chortle at your analogy and comparison.

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.

Are you sure about that?

Because scientists have been dismissing and showing that it is wrong for years. Hameroff and Penrose have either tried to change their theory to try to make it fit (they still haven't), or have simply ignored those studies.

In other words, they are selling quackery, with no scientific proof to back themselves up and they are dismissing all evidence against them.

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.

Just as latching onto one thing and one thing only and demanding it is fact is wrong.

Zealots, religious or otherwise, follow the same pattern. You are currently in the proselytizing phase.

 

[Write4U]

If Descartes' "brain in a vat" works, it would follow that this method can be applied in practice.

 

[Write4U]

Hameroff has been peddling this since the 80's. Penrose since the nineties, mostly.

So it's not something that Hameroff has been pushing in his dotage. He's been pushing consciousness and microtubules claims since the 80's.

I call that dedication.

_______________________________________________________________

Is this how you think you should conduct yourself?

I have conducted myself in admirable manner, considering...........

You may be an atheist, but you are preaching like a zealot.

And how precisely should I conduct myself? Why don't you look in the mirror and ask if you conduct yourself in an admirable manner.

And this is where you come completely undone.

No, this is where you are coming undone.

People make an inquiry and it is answered.]

"No" is not an answer. it's a denial.

You aren't making an inquiry.

Yes I am. I am telling you. Are you able to read my mind now? Amazing feat, almost religious.

You are preaching. None stop. You keep posting the same thing over and over again. You insert your beliefs into other discussions, the latest being the blood and veins thread. Even when people say "no", they aren't interested, you keep pushing. Like a zealot.

None stop? And what about the people who are interested? Are you playing censor of what can be discussed in my thread?
You don't have to read anything I say. In fact, I'd rather you don't. Your truly interrupting my OP.

So cut the utter BS that you are making an inquiry.

So cut the utter BS that you are acting in my best interest. It's clear you don't like me. Well tough on you, who are you?.......

No one is buying it. You are here to preach and push a claim and you are trying to pass it off as scientific fact.

And you are speaking for whom?

It is not your theory, but you are pushing it here.

Well, shame on me. When are you going to rag on religious zealots who come pushing God on me? Oh, you are religious? Ok, that explains the vehement, almost hysterical objections to anything sciency.

There is no scientific evidence to support Orch Or. So why are you still pushing it?

Because you do not speak from"knowledge" and do not have the scientific authority to judge.

You aren't an interested bystander. A bystander would have moved on after numerous studies showed that Orch Or was not fallible.

Numerous studies? Where?
What on earth do you expect from a totally new field of inquiry about "consciousness"?
Instant gratification? Very American of you.

Instead, you keep making the same claims over and over and over again, refusing to address studies that show it is wrong and cannot work (you have ignored numerous links and studies because they disprove it and you do it repeatedly)... It may not be your theory, but you are the one pushing it here like a zealot.

What numerous studies? SHOW ME!

I'm not hysterical Write4U.

Yes you are.

I'm not the one losing the proverbial contents of my larger intestines because someone is not taking microtubules seriously

No that's Billvon.

so therefore, one must write in massive coloured font, because apparently that makes more sense. You are.

As do you. The difference is when I highlight something it is worthy of extra attention.

The manner in which you are behaving when it comes to the subject of microtubules has literally turned people off even discussing it.

That's not worthy of an answer.

For example, I would love to start a discussion about inhibitors in regards to cancer treatments. And I will not, because of you. And I have a vested interest in wanting to know more about these treatments, but I would not dare to even broach the subject on this site, because you are so obsessed with "microtubules" that you would infect the discussion with Hameroff, Penrose and consciousness. You simply cannot help yourself.

I inhibit your scientific expression of your vast knowledge in "inhibitors"?

Your quoted passage?

Yes, that passage quoting someone else words, which you then attributed to me. A clear example of kill the messenger.

I quoted from another site. Did you write it? I am going to hazard a guess that you are not a professor of neurobiology and anatomy.

Did I take credit for writing it or are you now in the thought police. Minority Report?

Have you lost your mind? Are you microtubules tangled up?

No, microtubules do not get tangled up. Tau particles do and that causes microtubular catastrope.

The person who wrote what I quoted is a Professor from the University of Texas's McGovern Medical School.

Wonderful, Did you you offer a link?

Why are you trying to take credit for his work?

You're going off the rails now.

Unless you are Professor Waymire, it's not your work or your research.

Thank you for the information, I'll look him up.

The issue for you is that you are ignoring science, by listening to what is tantamount to a quasi religious belief about consciousness.

"quasi religious" ? exactly what does that mean. Can I say that you are quasi religiously persecuting me? Do you know what "consciousness" is?

Hameroff has repeatedly refused to address several scientific studies that disprove his 'theory'.

According to whom? Links please.

And when studies completely prove that what they are proposing is impossible, Hameroff and Penrose retrofitted their theories to try to make it fit.

And that is not allowed?

So you will understand that I literally chortle at your analogy and comparison.

Chortle away.

Are you sure about that?

Yes.

Because scientists have been dismissing and showing that it is wrong for years. Hameroff and Penrose have either tried to change their theory to try to make it fit (they still haven't), or have simply ignored those studies.

Who?

In other words, they are selling quackery, with no scientific proof to back themselves up and they are dismissing all evidence against them.

That's an ad hominem and it is up to you provide evidence.

Just as latching onto one thing and one thing only and demanding it is fact is wrong.

Oh, I see, you are instituting a whole new way of study . If you are interested in one thing, by all means diversify your approach to the subject? Show me where I said ORCH OR is fact. You can't and there is the crux of your dishonest accusations without providing any proofs at all. Just unsupported statements about a subject you know no more about than I.

Zealots, religious or otherwise, follow the same pattern. You are currently in the proselytizing phase.

I am proselytizing "further research", anything wrong with that?.

Where are the links to further research? With a few appreciated exceptions, I see only "No", ad nauseum. And that is a meaningless answer.

 

[Write4U]

Can we get back on topic? Its such an interesting area of research, in spite of the unqualified distractions.

 

[Write4U]

Hameroff has been peddling this since the 80's. Penrose since the nineties, mostly

Peddling, you mean like a snake oil salesman? Do you know what it takes to become an anesthesiologist? Do you know how much a busy anesthesiologhist earns from his practice?

How long does it take to become an anesthesiologist?

Counting four years of undergraduate study, four years of medical school, and four years of residency, it takes twelve years to become an anesthesiologist.

Some medical students enroll in combined six-year undergraduate and medical school programs, which can reduce the time needed to begin a career.

Additional time may be needed after completion of the residency to pursue fellowships or to achieve state licensure or board certification.

What does an anesthesiologist earn?

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average yearly pay for anesthesiologists in the United States was $232,830 in 2010. The median yearly pay was $407,292 in that year.

https://www.howtobecome.com/how-to-become-an-anesthesiologist

Peddling? Please....come to your senses.

You insist that I own what I posit, Well I have some 19 pages to show what I brought to the table.
OTOH, if you posit that ORCH OR has been debunked, then you own that judgement as well.
What have you brought to the table ? Derision, not much more.

At least I bring enthusiasm tempered by experience......its a good thing, trust me.

 

[globali]

Until everyone has seen it so that they can understand Hameroff's perspective and approach to the problem. Deepak Chopra is not a physical scientist, he's a philosopher.

I also did not list David Bohm or Edwin Schroedinger. They're dead and cannot defend themselves against spurious attacks and science had not yet progressed as it has today.

Kinda like Aristotle, a scientist can only test what they can logically deduce from evidence.
Newton was a perfect example of getting it almost right based on incomplete information.
Their flawed hypotheses were from ignorance, not incompetency.

Newton also did some "out-of-expertise" grandiose claims in alchemy and theology!!
You mean we should revisit those theories?

Bohm, Schroedinger and Chopra are not biologists.

 

[Bells]

I have conducted myself in admirable manner, considering...........

Let's see, you have lied, changed context of people's words, altered quotes so that it supports your claims and then tried to claim it was a mistake when you realised you'd been caught out, despite my repeatedly telling you and also linking the original text, so the whole mistake thing does not wash. You have taken to lecturing, preaching and whining when you are told to stop being dishonest.

Do you consider that to be admirable?

And how precisely should I conduct myself? Why don't you look in the mirror and ask if you conduct yourself in an admirable manner.

Mirrors all shattered on account of being hideous.

Secondly, I am not the one making claims and then failing to back them up and demanding that people take me seriously.

I admire your enthusiasm, I truly do. But you are obsessed and because of that obsession, you have lost sight of reality.

No, this is where you are coming undone.

They say imitation can be flattering... In this case, it's kind of weird and childish.

Yes I am. I am telling you. Are you able to read my mind now? Amazing feat, almost religious.

Again, weird and childish..

When people make inquiries, it's usually because they want an answer or want opinions. You don't. 22 pages now of people trying to give you answers and opinions, linking studies and papers, and you have ignored all of it, and you just keep repeating the same unfounded claims like it's a mantra. As has been noted by others and myself, this is not an inquiry. This is an obsession.

None stop? And what about the people who are interested? Are you playing censor of what can be discussed in my thread?
You don't have to read anything I say. In fact, I'd rather you don't. Your truly interrupting my OP.

We are all interested Write4U. Unfortunately you are incapable of being able to recognise that and you instead berate us with unfounded claims and frankly, bizzare claims with zero basis in science. As I told you before, I don't think any of us would ever dare begin a thread to discuss the role of microtubules in things like brain injuries, brain tumours or cancer (both of which interest me greatly) and treatments that target microtubules and other organelles because you are incapable of not going on and on about Hameroff and Penrose. A thread about neurons saw you spam it with microtubules, Hameroff and Penrose. It's not that people are not interested. It's that we are not interested in how you respond to it.

So cut the utter BS that you are acting in my best interest. It's clear you don't like me. Well tough on you, who are you?.......

I am Bells.

And I don't dislike or not like you, Write4U. And I am concerned, because you are obsessed. And to be honest, I am curious as to what is driving that obsession.

Because this is not an interest. It goes beyond that.

For example, I am interested in treatments that inhibit or suppress microtubules, because I have survived cancer and I have two parents who have cancer, one who is recovering from a primary brain lymphoma and the other, cancer that has spread from the bowel, to lung and now is in the liver and god knows where else. And he was given a drug that was an inhibitor and it made him horrifically sick, to the point where they have had to stop his treatments for now. The other was given drugs and inhibitors, and other drugs that had to break through the brain barrier.. But I would never start such a thread here, not because of the others taking part in this thread. But because of you. You cannot help yourself.

Well, shame on me. When are you going to rag on religious zealots who come pushing God on me? Oh, you are religious? Ok, that explains the vehement, almost hysterical objections to anything sciency.

*Raise eyebrows*

Numerous studies? Where?

I have provided numerous links in various posts in this thread.. I even provided some in my previous post.

What on earth do you expect from a totally new field of inquiry about "consciousness"?
Instant gratification? Very American of you.

I'm not American.

Secondly, it's not a new field of study. They have been studying microtubules since the 1940's-1950's.

What numerous studies? SHOW ME!

Again, I have provided numerous links in my previous posts to you. Demanding people keep linking things and then refusing to read them is essentially trolling.

Yes you are.

Uh huh..

You are the one doing the whole "SHOW ME!".. No one else is. Calm down. Sheesh.

As do you. The difference is when I highlight something it is worthy of extra attention.

Is this including the time(s) you altered quotes or posted quoted out of context to support your claims?

I inhibit your scientific expression of your vast knowledge in "inhibitors"?

No. Your zealotry inhibits my desire to discuss it.

Yes, that passage quoting someone else words, which you then attributed to me. A clear example of kill the messenger.

I would suggest you go back, read what I said. Slowly.

At no time did I attribute those paragraphs to you. You attributed it to yourself, claimed it was your work and your research:

• I say that I can summarise what microtubules do in a few paragraphs (after you started going on about how you can't condense it to a page), and I quote and link to the site where I got those few paragraphs from.

• You respond by essentially accusing me of stealing your research:

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??????

So you can stop lying now.

Did I take credit for writing it or are you now in the thought police. Minority Report?

Wow, you have lost your mind..

Wonderful, Did you you offer a link?

Yeah, I did.

The blue text in my posts are embedded links, Write4U. You didn't realise that? I have provided you with numerous links in my previous responses to you. Your repeated demands that I provide more and more links is trolling:

Do you know what "consciousness" is?

Isn't that the great question?

But thus far, you have not provided any evidence that it can stem from microtubules, or that they are little quantum computers.

According to whom? Links please.

You are just trolling now. You quote where I link and you ask me for a link?

And that is not allowed?

They can do whatever they want. But such actions simply prove the point that what they are proposing is wrong. It removes what little credibility they had left.

That's an ad hominem and it is up to you provide evidence.

I did. Several links.
You should read them.

Oh, I see, you are instituting a whole new way of study . If you are interested in one thing, by all means diversify your approach to the subject? Show me where I said ORCH OR is fact. You can't and there is the crux of your dishonest accusations without providing any proofs at all. Just unsupported statements about a subject you know no more about than I.

Because you're just making an inquiry and then pitching a fit when people tell you it's wrong?

I am proselytizing "further research", anything wrong with that?.

Which begs the question.. Why are you dismissing all research that dismisses it and shows it cannot work?

I have linked several and you have ignored each one.