exchemist
Valued Senior Member
Are these on brain research, which you claimed Hameroff has researched in depth?
Is consciousness to be found in quantum processes in microtubules?
- Thread starter Write4U
- Start date
- Status
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
None of it brain research.
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
Hameroff does have some papers:
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?oi=gsb40&q=stuart hameroff&lookup=0&hl=en
For example
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/abs/10.1098/rsta.1998.0254
From glancing at it, most of it seems to be overviews of his ideas, him trying to explain his speculations to scientific audiences. Most of his accounts seem to lean towards quantum physics, the idea seemingly being that if he can show that quantum processes occur in microtubules, then microtubules may be quantum computers and that just might have something to do with consciousness.
Wouldn't every atom and molecule host quantum processes? So why aren't nucleic acids, proteins and cell membranes, crystals and even the chair you are sitting in supposedly quantum computers? Why aren't they all minds? Why aren't they all conscious? Why all the fascination with microtubules?
I'm a little put off by all the emphasis on physics, especially quantum physics which seemingly veers into "woo" whenever a layman touches it. And Hameroff is a layman. (Penrose has less excuse.) In fact quantum physics seems to me to be a bit of a red-herring/straw-man (aunt Sally for you Brits). It deftly diverts attention away from the speculation's real weakness: what exactly connects all of this quantum speculation to consciousness? And how precisely is that connection supposed to work? That's supposed to be the revolutionary scientific advance in all this after all, so it needs to be addressed straight on.
That's a job for the cell biologists, the neuroscientists, computer and cognitive scientists, to say nothing of the philosophers of mind. Not so much the quantum physicists.
And what's more, there doesn't really seem to be any kind of research program here. (If we want to draw a science/pseudoscience distinction, that might be one place to draw it.) We don't see Orch-OR explaining anything. At least not in any way beyond hand-waving (may be quantum computers which may have something to do with whatever is to be explained). Never any actual detailed elucidations of the mechanism of what's to be explained, nothing that's precise enough to be actually tested.
It's just speculations and that's all that it's ever been.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?oi=gsb40&q=stuart hameroff&lookup=0&hl=en
For example
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/abs/10.1098/rsta.1998.0254
From glancing at it, most of it seems to be overviews of his ideas, him trying to explain his speculations to scientific audiences. Most of his accounts seem to lean towards quantum physics, the idea seemingly being that if he can show that quantum processes occur in microtubules, then microtubules may be quantum computers and that just might have something to do with consciousness.
Wouldn't every atom and molecule host quantum processes? So why aren't nucleic acids, proteins and cell membranes, crystals and even the chair you are sitting in supposedly quantum computers? Why aren't they all minds? Why aren't they all conscious? Why all the fascination with microtubules?
I'm a little put off by all the emphasis on physics, especially quantum physics which seemingly veers into "woo" whenever a layman touches it. And Hameroff is a layman. (Penrose has less excuse.) In fact quantum physics seems to me to be a bit of a red-herring/straw-man (aunt Sally for you Brits). It deftly diverts attention away from the speculation's real weakness: what exactly connects all of this quantum speculation to consciousness? And how precisely is that connection supposed to work? That's supposed to be the revolutionary scientific advance in all this after all, so it needs to be addressed straight on.
That's a job for the cell biologists, the neuroscientists, computer and cognitive scientists, to say nothing of the philosophers of mind. Not so much the quantum physicists.
And what's more, there doesn't really seem to be any kind of research program here. (If we want to draw a science/pseudoscience distinction, that might be one place to draw it.) We don't see Orch-OR explaining anything. At least not in any way beyond hand-waving (may be quantum computers which may have something to do with whatever is to be explained). Never any actual detailed elucidations of the mechanism of what's to be explained, nothing that's precise enough to be actually tested.
It's just speculations and that's all that it's ever been.
Last edited:
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
Yes exactly. Hameroff has papers, nobody denies that, but not on brain research. There is a speculative hypothesis, described a fair bit in papers, but no evidence to support it.
Regarding Penrose, as I understand it he came to the conclusion, for mathematical reasons, that the reasoning of the brain must be "non-algorithmic" and thus in his view it could not be wholly analogous to the way a man-made computer works. Which if true is a very interesting insight. He seems to have latched onto quantum computing as a way round this conundrum.
So we have two dots, a long way apart, but very little attempt to join them and certainly no observational evidence. And subsequently, several people have falsified some of the predictions made in the course of trying to join those dots.
While ideas in science sometime languish and then are revived, this one seems to have the makings of a dead end.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Please stay out of my thread!
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Dug up some more recent stuff.
Rather than loss of interest, there seems to be a growing interest in this concept!
A series of lectures on ORCH OR. The Science of Consciousness Interlaken - Switzerland - June 25-28, 2019 Plenary 1: June 26, 2019
Here is one that seems a comprehensive overview, not necessarily all by Hameroff, but apparently there is great interest in this subject.
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=science of consciousness 2019 interlaken
This one is on brain function.
http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/content/orch-or-quantum
Rather than loss of interest, there seems to be a growing interest in this concept!
A series of lectures on ORCH OR. The Science of Consciousness Interlaken - Switzerland - June 25-28, 2019 Plenary 1: June 26, 2019
Here is one that seems a comprehensive overview, not necessarily all by Hameroff, but apparently there is great interest in this subject.
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=science of consciousness 2019 interlaken
This one is on brain function.
Last edited:
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
Neither link is evidence of "growing interest".
One is Hameroff's own website - on which, by the way, I notice the last publication mentioned was 4 years ago.
The other is the conference in Interlaken, organised by.........Hameroff.
When you can point to some serious research activity or symposia that do not involve Hameroff, that might be more persuasive. At the moment it looks like a one-man marketing campaign rather than science.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
New term; connectomics, plural
The succes or failure of a conference depends on the number of attendees and the participating scientists, not who organizes it.
Check out the participating scientists. I see about 10 lectures (1 by Hameroff);
Apparently, the last few lectures were about 2 months ago. Seems there is continued activity and the subject is far from closed.
I gather there are some 10,000 people intersted or associated. The host speaker mentions a membership of between small and about 20,000, i.e. about 10,000?
And who would you recommend should organize such a conference"?
Would you condemn a conference on GR organized by Einstein?
The succes or failure of a conference depends on the number of attendees and the participating scientists, not who organizes it.
Check out the participating scientists. I see about 10 lectures (1 by Hameroff);
https://www.tsc2019-interlaken.ch/
Apparently, the last few lectures were about 2 months ago. Seems there is continued activity and the subject is far from closed.
Last edited:
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Is that what you think science is? "Stuff we already know"?
So - non-science then?
Science is a process, not a dictionary.
Don't worry, I don't read anything you write, I just read the replies.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
The last video I posted is very interesting in gaining understanding some the fundamental problems and the various approaches to solutions.
IMO, this is worthy of the attention of all who are even mildly interested in "consciousness research". Do take the time, it's worth it!
IMO, this is worthy of the attention of all who are even mildly interested in "consciousness research". Do take the time, it's worth it!
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Watch the last video I posted. This is "cutting edge" research in "consciousness".
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Then please refrain from rude comments directed at me. Thank you.
Last edited:
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
First, thanks for posting in a fair and balanced manner. As to your conclusion, I believe it may be premature and the research in consciousness is current and diverse.
If you check the video on page # 548 (3 separate lectures), you will see that the clinical research in it's "various forms" is very current and some of it is not specifically related to ORCH OR but is parallel research being enthusiastically being pursued. Very informative!!!
There are about 6 tangently related paths, each has it own "name". ORCH OR is just one path being investigated. But ORCH OR is the first hypothesis that introduced me to the clinical world of "consciousness".
Hence my first loyalty to the concept of microtubular involvement in consciousness.
I am fascinated by all research that may lead to perhaps the greatest scientific discovery of all time, "what produces consciousness".......
.Did you know that certain biological cells actually produce light when properly stimulated? Something that can be exquisitely observed in bioluminescent bacteria and their ability for "quorum sensing" and when a chemical quantitative threshold is reached and all bacteria repond in synchronicity.
What are the evolutionary abilities and limitations of the human organism?
Last edited:
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
That's really not responsive. The question was "how much do we know about consciousness, a lot, some, a little"?
I know I know very little, that's why I have a very broad landscape and try to find connecting "common denominators" instead of "situational differences".
After watching the videos of the conference in Switzerland, I am hooked more than ever on following the new sciences developing just from the many ways to understand some of the "concepts of consciousness"
Last edited:
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Another piece of information from a species that cannot be further removed from mammals as can be imagined. They are completely alien to humans, but very smart and certainly conscious.
An interesting example of an organism able to perfectly blend with their environment by eyesight, and in technicolor which is very interesting being that octopuses are colorblind. How does it perceive color? Octopuses have three layers of cells named chromatophores, which respond to different wave lengths, and by stretching and contracting of these cells can assume any color, shade and hue. This seems to involve microtubules.
How do Octopuses Change Color?
Here’s everything you ever wanted to know about chromatophores.
How do octopuses think?
An interesting example of an organism able to perfectly blend with their environment by eyesight, and in technicolor which is very interesting being that octopuses are colorblind. How does it perceive color? Octopuses have three layers of cells named chromatophores, which respond to different wave lengths, and by stretching and contracting of these cells can assume any color, shade and hue. This seems to involve microtubules.
How do Octopuses Change Color?
Here’s everything you ever wanted to know about chromatophores.
How do octopuses think?
Last edited:
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
It was really more addressing this: "What science? Stuff we already know and does not tell us anything new about consciousness?"
As in: science isn't about "what we already know", as you seem to be suggesting.
It's a process of hypothesizing and testing and following the evidence.
And your conscious microtubules aren't supported but by the most tenuous of connections.
(That being said, I know that responding to you simply gives you another excuse to reiterate your mantras, in the hope that one day, when the revolution comes, history will say "it all started here with Write4U, who first coined the term [blah blah]". So, here's your excuse; I did you a solid. Have at it.)
It's not his fault; his microtubules are making him do it.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Can you suggest a better alternative?
Mantra:
"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."
- Status