Is consciousness to be found in quantum processes in microtubules?

[Bells]

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?

The same as all specialist fields of medicine.

What does an anesthesiologist earn?

What does that have to do with anything?

If I told you I earned more, does that make my point more valid?

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

Dude, you're now reaching desperate levels, to the point where you are inferring that Hameroff's salary somehow or other denotes his expertise.

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.

19 pages of repetitive stuff, zealotry and obsession, and no scientific support aside from Hameroff's own papers and studies which are skewed to support his claims.. Which is why he refuses to address studies that prove him wrong.

Some more links for you..

https://bit.ly/2C3G4G4
https://bit.ly/2C4aHey
https://bit.ly/2oBBsUt
https://bit.ly/2BXVz2f
https://bit.ly/2PBkfp7
https://bit.ly/2N66rl2
https://bit.ly/2NwgQW8
https://bit.ly/2N3NDTe

All of which either debunk it, or prove how Hameroff's claims are impossible.

 

[Write4U]

Some more links for you..

https://bit.ly/2C3G4G4
https://bit.ly/2C4aHey
https://bit.ly/2oBBsUt
https://bit.ly/2BXVz2f
https://bit.ly/2PBkfp7
https://bit.ly/2N66rl2
https://bit.ly/2NwgQW8
https://bit.ly/2N3NDTe

All of which either debunk it, or prove how Hameroff's claims are impossible.

Thank you for the links. Unfortunately I have to join to read those papers. I am denied access. Would be nice if you could quote pertinent passages. That is my habit and it avoids obstacles like this.

None of those papers at that address are worth anything to me.

 

[exchemist]

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.

Gosh yes you are right! Hameroff published a book on this in 1987 and seemingly got together with Penrose in the 1990s.

 

[Write4U]

Gosh yes you are right! Hameroff published a book on this in 1987 and seemingly got together with Penrose in the 1990s.

Yes, Hameroff's first book was "Ultimate Computing" (1987)
Penrose published "The Emperor's New Mind" (1989)
ORCH OR was submitted on 1994

Hameroff was inspired by Penrose's book to contact Penrose regarding his own theories about the mechanism of anesthesia, and how it specifically targets consciousness via action on neural microtubules. The two met in 1992, and Hameroff suggested that the microtubules were a good candidate site for a quantum mechanism in the brain. Penrose was interested in the mathematical features of the microtubule lattice, and over the next two years the two collaborated in formulating the orchestrated objective reduction (Orch-OR) model of consciousness. Following this collaboration, Penrose published his second consciousness book, Shadows of the Mind (1994).[5]

Over the years since 1994, Hameroff has been active in promoting the Orch-OR model of consciousness through his web site and lectures.[6]

Hameroff was the lead organizer of the first Tucson Toward a Science of Consciousness meeting in 1994 that brought together approximately 300 people interested in consciousness studies (e.g., David Chalmers, Christof Koch, Bernard Baars, Roger Penrose, Benjamin Libet).

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

 

[Write4U]

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

Why?

Bohm, Schroedinger and Chopra are not biologists.

Right, that's why I have not mentioned them in connection with the ORCH OR hypothesis. I thought I made that clear.....

 

[Bells]

Thank you for the links. Unfortunately I have to join to read those papers. I am denied access. Would be nice if you could quote pertinent passages. That is my habit and it avoids obstacles like this.

None of those papers at that address are worth anything to me.

I am able to access the majority of them without paying.

Click on the pdf links to the articles themselves for those ones..

https://www.jneurosci.org/content/jneuro/15/2/1587.full.pdf
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2120284/pdf/jc12761965.pdf
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1571064513001619?via=ihub

Are some examples of the ones linked above that you are claiming you cannot access.

These papers literally prove that Orch Or is not fallible. Some of the claims made by Hameroff about microtubules went against established science and were proven impossible before he even made those claims..

The very fact that you claim that none of those papers at "that" address (which ones did you mean, exactly?) are worth anything to you... Is that because they disprove Orch Or?

Hence why I think you are a zealot. You refuse to acknowledge the many studies that literally disprove it and show it is impossible..

Inquiry my butt...

Gosh yes you are right! Hameroff published a book on this in 1987 and seemingly got together with Penrose in the 1990s.

Yes. The quackery goes back to the 80's and 90's.

Hameroff had been plugging it for a while before he wrote the book. It was the book that drew Penrose to him and they latched onto each other and ran with it.

 

[Write4U]

Click on the pdf links to the articles themselves for those ones..

https://www.jneurosci.org/content/jneuro/15/2/1587.full.pdf
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2120284/pdf/jc12761965.pdf
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1571064513001619?via=ihub

Thank you, I shall and get back with you once I understand the narratives......

 

[Write4U]

Hameroff had been plugging it for a while before he wrote the book. It was the book that drew Penrose to him and they latched onto each other and ran with it.

No Hameroff had been researching cancer cures and asked then if microtubules might provide access to this "random mitosis"
Wrong. According to Hameroff's own words, he was introduced to Penrose's then new book "The Emperors Mind" and it occurred to him that as Penrose was looking for a quantum computer, his microtubules might be provide the answer to Penrose's need. Follow the chronology.
Before then Penrose was doing research on the role of microtubules in cancer.

Cancer cells escape from the controls on cell division:

1. What is cancer?Cancer is essentially a disease of mitosis - the normal 'checkpoints' regularing mitosis are ignored or overriden by the cancer cell. Cancer begins when a single cell is transformed, or converted from a normal cell to a cancer cell. Often this is because of a change in function of one of several genes that normally function to control growth. (ie. the cell cycle gene p53, the "guardian of the genome" that is mutated in over 50% of all human cancers) or supress tumor formation (ie the "Breast Cancer Gene" BRCA 1) .

Once these crucial Cell Cycle genes start behaving abnormally, cancer cells start to proliferate wildly by repeated, uncontrolled mitosis.

Unlike normal cells, cancer cells ignore the usual density-dependent inhibition of growth, multiplying after contact with other cells are made, piling up until all nutrients are exhausted.

https://www.biology.iupui.edu/biocourses/N100H/ch8mitosis.html

This gave Hameroff a deep insight into the functions of microtubules and when he read Penrose's book it ocurred to him that Penrose in his quest for OR might be looking for microtubules as the Orchestra.

Neither one had ever met before.

 

[Write4U]

If I told you I earned more, does that make my point more valid?

If it was in the field of expertise, yes. When you are making a good living in a professional capacity, why give that up for a wild goose chase?

It's not that he is looking for grants to fund his research. A powerful motive for cheating or offering false data. Why should these respected scientists want to be subjected to ridicule?

 

[Bells]

No Hameroff had been researching cancer cures and asked then if microtubules might provide access to this "random mitosis"

Indeed..

At the very beginning of Hameroff's career, while he was at Hahnemann, cancer-related research work piqued his interest in the part played by microtubules in cell division, and led him to speculate that they were controlled by some form of computing.
​

Sounds even more like a quack.

Wrong. According to Hameroff's own words, he was introduced to Penrose's then new book "The Emperors Mind" and it occurred to him that as Penrose was looking for a quantum computer, his microtubules might be provide the answer to Penrose's need.

You are absolutely correct.

It was vice versa in how they met.

Follow the chronology.

Of the unholy coupling...

Before then Penrose was doing research on the role of microtubules in cancer.

Don't you mean Hameroff?

This gave Hameroff a deep insight into the functions of microtubules and when he read Penrose's book it ocurred to him that Penrose in his quest for OR might be looking for microtubules as the Orchestra.

Neither one had ever met before.

And the rest, as they say, is history..

 

[Write4U]

Don't you mean Hameroff?

Yes and no. I wanted to say that Penrose was looking for a biological machine that could handle qu-bits.. Hameroff thought he had that machine and if true, that would be a wonderful marriage.

I really don't know why this is so incredible to you. Can you give me a reason for this total and utter rejection of a concept that is new. Is it the tangential association with more esoteric eastern philosophy? IMO, that is entirely apart from the concept of biological qu-bits, which might lie hidden in chemistry. I am not convinced that quantum has to occur only at Planck scale.
What would be the objection to chemical information packets? Microtubules handle packets of chemical information of various kinds and are instrumental for mitosis, a unique computing ability.

I am absolutely convinced both scientist are acting in good faith. The term unholy alliance is an unfortunate choice IMO. It reminds me of religious persecution. If they are wrong, they are wrong, That does not make them demons. And that door is not yet closed, AFAIK.

 

[Write4U]

Sounds even more like a quack.

Why? Microtubules produce an incredible product, a copy of the original. IMO, that is an extraordinary ability in bio-chemical computation.

 

[billvon]

Why? Microtubules produce an incredible product, a copy of the original. IMO, that is an extraordinary ability in bio-chemical computation.

You mean they are like - seeded crystals? Not that incredible, and not a computational ability.

 

[exchemist]

Yes and no. I wanted to say that Penrose was looking for a biological machine that could handle qu-bits.. Hameroff thought he had that machine and if true, that would be a wonderful marriage.

I really don't know why this is so incredible to you. Can you give me a reason for this total and utter rejection of a concept that is new.

First, it is NOT "new". It has been around since the 1990s - as I have discovered. That is over twenty years now.

Second, Bells will no doubt answer for herself, but as far as I and probably most other readers of this thread are concerned, the thing is that in science one needs a hypothesis to stand up when tested against observation. This is basic Karl Popper, right?

This hypothesis has been tested in several ways by various people and has failed every time. The details are in post 5 (yes really, post FIVE) of this thread, and I repeated them in post 398, twenty pages later, for anyone who had missed them first time round. It has yet to make even one correct prediction, so far as I can tell, whereas it has made numerous false ones.

In science, that is what a dud theory does - and it fades out, just as this one is doing.

 

[DaveC426913]

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

This is not the first time that's been told to him.

He did the exact thing with his "quasi-intelligent universe" shiny thing.

I definitely don't believe in a supreme being, I just happen to believe that the universe itself is quasi-intelligent - and here's 500 posts, saying it 500 times.

 

[globali]

Right, that's why I have not mentioned them in connection with the ORCH OR hypothesis. I thought I made that clear.....

Are you trolling us? You don't mention Bohm, Schroediger and Chopra because biology is not their expertise but yet you are referencing Penrose's work and use his name as an authority here?

If it was in the field of expertise, yes. When you are making a good living in a professional capacity, why give that up for a wild goose chase?

It's not that he is looking for grants to fund his research. A powerful motive for cheating or offering false data. Why should these respected scientists want to be subjected to ridicule?

Why supporting delusional grandiose claims?
Life lesson number one: Never underestimate the other guy's greed

This hypothesis has been tested in several ways by various people and has failed every time. The details are in post 5 (yes really, post FIVE) of this thread, and I repeated them in post 398, twenty pages later, for anyone who had missed them first time round. It has yet to make even one correct prediction, so far as I can tell, whereas it has made numerous false ones.

Exactly.
If you continue to support a theory that has been falsified several times, you need to analyze it with yourself. Maybe there are hidden psychological reasons you deny giving up being a useful.....tool by promoting other people's crackpoteries.

 

[globali]

Are you trolling us? You don't mention Bohm, Schroediger and Chopra because biology is not their expertise but yet you are referencing Penrose's work and use his name as an authority here?
.

Also, don't get me wrong, but a practising anesthesiologist does not spend his days conducting basic research in neuroscience. An anesthesiologist is a physician that deals with patients in critical conditions or extreme illness. This includes cardiovascular collapse, severe infections, severe lung conditions, infections, strokes, epilepsy, etc.
They also practise anesthesia during surgeries. This means that they sedate patients and then they are looking at instruments that monitor vital signs, such as heart rate, pressure, oxygen, acidity, etc. They don't overthink how brain cells work. They don't have the instruments to do that. As a matter of fact, if the patient's vitals are stable, it is highly likely that they are rather discussing about football games or christmas shopping.....
So if a working anesthesiologist proposes an idea about basic neuroscience research, he is not exactly considered an expert. Especially if all neuroscientists disagree with his ideas.

Its like if a nephrologist proposes a radical new theory about how the heart works. Suppose you are a cardiologist and you disagree with the theory. Also all of your fellow cardiologists disagree. What are the odds that the theory is correct? One in a million i would say.....
Of course, if the cardiologists are right, this is not news. If the nephrologist is right, then this is big news and people will hear about it. This makes some people think that whenever a nephrologist has a theory about the heart, which all cardiologists disregard, then usually the nephrologist is right.!!!!

 

[Write4U]

This is not the first time that's been told to him.

He did the exact thing with his "quasi-intelligent universe" shiny thing.

I definitely don't believe in a supreme being, I just happen to believe that the universe itself is quasi-intelligent - and here's 500 posts, saying it 500 times.

Yes, not anything spiritual. I am impressed with Tegmarks Mathematical Universe.. Anything wrong with that?

 

[Write4U]

Are you trolling us? You don't mention Bohm, Schroediger and Chopra because biology is not their expertise but yet you are referencing Penrose's work and use his name as an authority here?

I minor oversight on your part. Penrose is the co-author with Hameroff of ORCH OR . Can't very well not mention him. His expertise is not microtubules, its QM

Why supporting delusional grandiose claims?

It's really a small claim. Microtubules are incredibly small.....

Life lesson number one: Never underestimate the other guy's greed

You think I need lessons in life?

If you continue to support a theory that has been falsified several times, you need to analyze it with yourself. Maybe there are hidden psychological reasons you deny giving up being a useful.....tool by promoting other people's crackpoteries.

Well as long as there are religions I can afford myself the luxury of investigating interesting ideas.

 

[Write4U]

Also, don't get me wrong, but a practising anesthesiologist does not spend his days conducting basic research in neuroscience. An anesthesiologist is a physician that deals with patients in critical conditions or extreme illness. This includes cardiovascular collapse, severe infections, severe lung conditions, infections, strokes, epilepsy, etc.

Read the definition.

They also practise anesthesia during surgeries. This means that they sedate patients and then they are looking at instruments that monitor vital signs, such as heart rate, pressure, oxygen, acidity, etc. They don't overthink how brain cells work. They don't have the instruments to do that. As a matter of fact, if the patient's vitals are stable, it is highly likely that they are rather discussing about football games or christmas shopping.....

Yes and it takes 12 years to become qualified in that minor scholastic accomplishment. Are you mad?

So if a working anesthesiologist proposes an idea about basic neuroscience research, he is not exactly considered an expert. Especially if all neuroscientists disagree with his ideas.

Oh please.........

Its like if a nephrologist proposes a radical new theory about how the heart works. Suppose you are a cardiologist and you disagree with the theory. Also all of your fellow cardiologists disagree. What are the odds that the theory is correct? One in a million i would say.....
Of course, if the cardiologists are right, this is not news. If the nephrologist is right, then this is big news and people will hear about it. This makes some people think that whenever a nephrologist has a theory about the heart, which all cardiologists disregard, then usually the nephrologist is right.!!!!

Utter nonsense. Why are you even posting here? You haven't read or understood a word of anything that is being discussed.