Is consciousness to be found in quantum processes in microtubules?

[Write4U]

Bells said,
The irony is that you accuse others of not reading your links

No, they told me they're not reading my links......difference....

 

[Bells]

Trolling my own thread? It would have helped if you HAD MADE NOTE OF THE FACT YOU ARE EMBEDDING LINKS IN YOUR BLUE COLORED SENTENCES!

A few things to note here...

I have been using blue text for embedded links for years. I kept to it, even after the website stopped colouring the text of embedded quotes automatically. In the past, it also used to be blue. When we transitioned to this current software, I kept the same rule.

Secondly, I had even advised you on the 1st of November that the links were written in blue text. Back on page 22:

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.

Not only that, when I realised that you were deliberately ignoring links to scientific studies that showed you were wrong, I also started posting just the links... You then claimed you could not read them because they were behind a paywall, when the majority were not and all you would have had to do would be to click on the pdf button to read the studies. I then provided you with links to those as well.. You did not read them. The reason I know you did not read them is because you have continued to make the same claims, despite scientific research and studies that showed clearly, what you are pushing here is wrong and not even possible.

So, stop lying.

And you are qualified to judge?

When studies show something is not biologically possible, do you think I should ignore them because some guy who hosts mystics who claim that consciousness could allow telepathic communication with aliens says the opposite?

I was looking for links, you know, something that starts with http://, not some blue colored sentences which are used for mod notes AND ONLY SHOW UP AS LINKS WHEN YOU ACTUALLY PLACE CURSOR OVER THEM?

And I provided those to you as well.

Again, stop lying.

I told you, 8 days ago by my calendar, could be 7 for your timezone, that the blue text were embedded links. I also provided the "http" links. You ignored all of them and literally avoided answering posts that contained them.

This is repeated behaviour from you.

Exchemist posted links and texts on the front page of this thread and then again multiple pages later, that showed you were wrong. You ignored it all and failed to read any of it.

And given there were numerous occasions where you were embedding links in your posts without any identifier, such as different coloured text or underlined to suggest that it is a link, you aren't really one to talk.

Hello! An actual link instead of a hidden link embedded in an innocuous sentence. See how easy that is! No chance for confusion. It's a true link, praise the lord....

Lying again.

What you are calling proper links were provided numerous times. You were also told that the blue text were embedded links.

Really, you are simply digging a hole for yourself now.

Not by that name. google shows the name And I have to wade through a dozen papers written by others. NOT MY RESPONSIBILITY.

But that's not what you said originally.. Here, let me remind you:

Who is Binmoller? Do a google and see what turns up....... No link to a paper. A useless quote.

It took me several minutes to even find this "important paper" which apparently has nothing to do with debunking ORCH OR or the ability of microtubules to act as the consciousness generating microtubular network.
Research article

So now you are claiming that google shows the name and you have to wade through dozens of papers written by others?

When before you claimed that you did a google search and you had no links to papers?

Which is it?

Why are you lying?

Yes.

A true zealot. You are like a Trump voter. Trump says he did something and his supporters will argue he never did it.

Where is the endorsement by either author?

Endorsement?

The quote about the soul was a direct quote from Hameroff.

That was his direct response.

Are you calling him a liar now?

 

[Bells]

Another hidden link!

Yes. I tried to hide it by making it stand out by changing the colour of the text and I really tried to hide it by informing you that the blue text in my post were embedded links days ago... Thank god I'm not a spy.

Do you know what is funnier, Write4U?

You have tried to dodge those studies by again whining about embedded links, even when they weren't embedded.

It's fairly standard behaviour. Seen it all before. You aren't the first, nor will you be the last.

And now, to address your trolling:

Yes it is. They are called microtubules.

Your protestations do nothing to alter the fact that ORCH OR addresses something that exists in the microtubules of all flora and fauna. That you see it differently does nothing to alter the theory. It is not intended nor presented as a religion, by either men.

Seriously, this is what you are going with?

Read the text again:

Orch OR also required gap junctions between neurons and glial cells,[42] yet Binmöller et. al. proved in 1992 that these don't exist in the adult brain.[66]​

And because you are apparently functionally apparently dishonest that being told that something is a link is apparently not enough, here is the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orchestrated_objective_reduction#Criticism

Did you read that?

At some point, it will have to sink in that Orch Or also involves other parts of cells. The gap junction that Orch Or requires, does not exist in the adult brain.

What part of that did you not understand, exactly?

p.s. You have not answered the role of quantum in photosynthesis

Do you mean quantum yield?

Why are you still dodging the frigging obvious by bringing up something completely unrelated?

Well, that settles that. Baby rats confirm ORCH OR is woo. How simple. It's a wonder that Hameroff and Penrose even finished HS.

Are you seriously that much of a zealot that you are willing to make yourself look like a complete idiot? You are not an idiot Write4U. Stop lowering yourself to the point that you come off looking like you are for a theory that you seem to be so desperate to believe in, that you are willing to be a zealot for..

Here is the text again:

In vitro research with primary neuronal cultures shows evidence for electrotonic (gap junction) coupling between immature neurons and astrocytes obtained from rat embryos extracted prematurely through Cesarean section,[67] however, the Orch-OR claim is that mature neurons are electrotonically coupled to astrocytes in the adult brain. Therefore, Orch OR contradicts the well-documented electrotonic decoupling of neurons from astrocytes in the process of neuronal maturation, which is stated by Fróes et al. as follows: "junctional communication may provide metabolic and electrotonic interconnections between neuronal and astrocytic networks at early stages of neural development and such interactions are weakened as differentiation progresses."[67]​

Orch Or is based on something that is biologically impossible in an adult brain.

Do you understand now?

Yes I already posted that and this is just repeating what I already addressed..

And that has been "debunked" also? Seems like you are addressing ORCH OR as a project by HS kids at a science fair.

And your trolling goes up another notch..

Yes and I was the first one to post that link, but no one read it and therefore I am now accused of ignoring it. I don't have the time to decypher your blue coded links which only show as links when the cursor is actually placed on the sentence. I am not yet to the point where I need to place my my cursor over sentences to read what it says.

You have avoided every single study that distinctly proves Hameroff and Penrose are wrong. Why do you think we are this far into this thread, Write4U? Because we enjoy your ramblings?

You are peddling woo. Literally.

No lies, just your unusual way of posting links. Now that I know your little confusing trick, Ill place my cursor on every sentence you utter, so that I won't miss the hidden links.

You are lying again. And I have shown just how much. Then again, you are someone who alters quotes to change the context and meaning of those quotes to try to support your theory. I cannot say I am surprised.

I mean sure, if you want to try to argue that I have been trying to confuse you about how I post links, by following a method I have used for years and years on this site and have never changed how I do it, and I even directly told you that the blue text were embedded links over a week ago... That this is somehow apparently trying to trick you.. Good luck with that.

He did what? Acknowledge the interest by spiritually minded persons?

And come to think of it, is "entanglement over distances" a spiritual concept? Is quantum a spiritual concept?
Can someone explain the difference?

Good grief..

 

[Bells]

The fact that linked text is very hard to spot is a constant source of frustration for me and, I'll hazard, other people as well.
Here, it is problematic enough to exacerbate an already lively conversation.
It is a pity the overlords that built and maintain the site have passed into history - its such a simple fix.

It is hard to argue that it is hard to spot when I change the colour of the text and even told him over a week ago, that the blue text were embedded links.

In the past, this website change the colour of embedded links to blue. I kept the same format when we changed software to avoid any confusion. I have used that blue text to signify it is an embedded link for years and years.

 

[Write4U]

Hameroff said,
"Neuroscience and mainstream philosophy attacked our theory even before it was published, and continue to do so. Nonetheless Orch OR remains viable, completely consistent with known neuroscience and can also account for aspects of the soul".

To call this woo is cherry-picking because it assumes the statement is an endorsement. It is not an endorsement. Yes, for those who are inclined to look at more spirtual side of QM and entanglement. Further in the article, Hameroff clearly divorces himself from any religious aspects.

It moves to Woo Woo here

No, the observation itself is a true statement, whether the concept itself is true is irrelevant. Some spiritualists seem to identify with the concept. That does not make the concept itself woo, it just means that it is all encompassing and what better theory than an "all encompassing" theory?

Debating The Big Wow,

Plato had suggested an abstract world of pure truth, form, aesthetic and ethical values. Beginning with mathematical laws, Penrose placed Plato’s world in patterns of Planck scale geometry. So the fundamental Planck scale may encode the cosmic blueprint ..

. This concept is proposed by Renate Loll, in the hypothesis of CDT (causal dynamical triangulation)

Causal dynamical triangulation (abbreviated as CDT) theorized by Renate Loll, Jan Ambjørn and Jerzy Jurkiewicz, and popularized by Fotini Markopoulou and Lee Smolin, is an approach to quantum gravity that like loop quantum gravity is background independent.

This means that it does not assume any pre-existing arena (dimensional space), but rather attempts to show how the spacetime fabric itself evolves.

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

This theory assigns a fractal nature to the universe and we return to Plato.

Platonic information embedded (perhaps evolving) since the Big Bang (Big Wow?) in nonlocal patterns in quantum logic repeating at varying scales…like a hologram throughout the universe. Call it quantum logic of the universe (QLU).

Here Penrose clearly refers to David Bohm's Holographic Universe.

While working on plasmas at the Lawrence Radiation laboratory in California in the 1940s, Bohm noticed that once electrons were in a plasma (which has a high density of electrons and positive ions), they stopped behaving like individual particles and started behaving like a unit. It seemed as if the sea of electrons was somehow alive. He thought then that there was a deeper cause behind the random nature of the subatomic world.

Bohm came up with an idea of the quantum potential to suggest that subatomic particles are highly complex, dynamic entities that follow a precise path which is determined by subtle forces. In his view the quantum potential pervades all space and guides the motion of particles by providing information about the whole environment.

For Bohm, all of reality was a dynamic process in which all manifest objects are in a state of constant flux. By introducing the concepts of “implicate order” and “explicate order”, Bohm argued that the empty space in the universe contained the whole of everything. It is the source of explicate order, the order of the physical world, and is a realm of pure information. From it, the physical, observable phenomena unfold, and again, return to it. This unfolding of the explicit order from the subtle realm of the implicate order, and the movement of all matter in terms of enfolding and unfolding, is what Bohm called the Holomovement.

https://futurism.com/david-bohm-and-the-holographic-universe

Not the "Holy movement"......

In his 1989 book The Emperor's New Mind, Penrose suggested that such information/logic could influence our conscious perceptions and choices. Although Penrose avoided any reference to religion or spirituality, others were struck by potential analogies to divine guidance, the way of the Tao, may the force be with you, etc.

As explained in this posit later in the exchange..

Plato had suggested an abstract world of pure truth, form, aesthetic and ethical values. Beginning with mathematical laws, Penrose placed Plato’s world in patterns of Planck scale geometry. So the fundamental Planck scale may encode the cosmic blueprint ... Platonic information embedded (perhaps evolving) since the Big Bang (Big Wow?) in nonlocal patterns in quantum logic repeating at varying scales…like a hologram throughout the universe. Call it quantum logic of the universe (QLU).

https://www.theatlantic.com/daily-dish/archive/2007/03/debating-the-big-wow/229894/

And in Tegmark's mathematical (quasi-intelligent) universe all this becomes possible.......

 

[Write4U]

Read the text again:
Orch OR also required gap junctions between neurons and glial cells,[42] yet Binmöller et. al. proved in 1992 that these don't exist in the adult brain.[66

And you accept that without question? This was later addressed and rebutted by Hameroff, which apparently you conveniently missed.

 

[Write4U]

It is hard to argue that it is hard to spot when I change the colour of the text and even told him over a week ago, that the blue text were embedded links.

In the past, this website change the colour of embedded links to blue. I kept the same format when we changed software to avoid any confusion. I have used that blue text to signify it is an embedded link for years and years.

And why should I have to spot anything at all. The standard way of quoting from a website is to quote bracket a pertinent passage and present the reader with the actual website address for confirmation and for further reading .

Embedding a website in a:

Uh huh..

, is not good reference practice, IMO. Why should anyone be required to place cursor on a random utterance to see what website this refers to??? It is neither clever nor informative, it's just plain stupid, IMO.

Please Bells, let it go before Exchemist asks you; "Bells, a serious question: are you on the autistic spectrum, by any chance?"

 

[Bells]

And you accept that without question? This was later addressed and rebutted by Hameroff, which apparently you conveniently missed.

Missed?

No.

But he was still wrong. Here is a link (read point 2 of the many many claims by Hameroff that were falsified): http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/3049/1/OOR.pdf

And why should I have to spot anything at all. The standard way of quoting from a website is to quote bracket a pertinent passage and present the reader with the actual website address for confirmation and for further reading .

Spot?

No.

The blue text is very obvious. Especially after I directly told you that the blue text were embedded links, as addressed in previous posts.

Secondly, you did not seem to have an issue with embedding links in quotes at the start of this thread.. For example, from the first page.. A post by exchemist:

There is no evidence that microtubules are tiny quantum computers.

The notion is mere speculation. The Orch-R concept of Penrose and Hameroff has made a number of false predictions and is fairly thoroughly discredited. I quote from the Wiki article on "Quantum Mind":

" Hameroff provided a hypothesis that microtubules would be suitable hosts for quantum behavior.[20] Microtubules are composed of tubulin protein dimer subunits. The dimers each have hydrophobic pockets that are 8 nm apart and that may contain delocalized pi electrons. Tubulins have other smaller non-polar regions that contain pi electron-rich indole rings separated by only about 2 nm. Hameroff proposed that these electrons are close enough to become entangled.[21] Hameroff originally suggested the tubulin-subunit electrons would form a Bose–Einstein condensate, but this was discredited.[22] He then proposed a Frohlich condensate, a hypothetical coherent oscillation of dipolar molecules. However, this too was experimentally discredited.[23]

However, Orch-OR made numerous false biological predictions, and is not an accepted model of brain physiology.[24] In other words, there is a missing link between physics and neuroscience,[25] for instance, the proposed predominance of 'A' lattice microtubules, more suitable for information processing, was falsified by Kikkawa et al.,[26][27] who showed all in vivo microtubules have a 'B' lattice and a seam. The proposed existence of gap junctions between neurons and glial cells was also falsified.[28] Orch-OR predicted that microtubule coherence reaches the synapses via dendritic lamellar bodies (DLBs), however De Zeeuw et al. proved this impossible,[29] by showing that DLBs are located micrometers away from gap junctions.[30]

In January 2014, Hameroff and Penrose claimed that the discovery of quantum vibrations in microtubules by Anirban Bandyopadhyay of the National Institute for Materials Science in Japan in March 2013[31] corroborates the Orch-OR theory.[15][32]

Although these theories are stated in a scientific framework, it is difficult to separate them from the personal opinions of the scientist. The opinions are often based on intuition or subjective ideas about the nature of consciousness."

It's not doing very well, is it?

You had no issues with it.

Again on the front page, you posted various quotes, and embedded links inside those quotes without anything to define that they were in fact links, and you did not even bother to link or say where you got those quotes from:

http://www.sciforums.com/threads/is...rocesses-in-microtubules.161187/#post-3542431

Nor did you have an issue when C C embedded links and indented the quoted material in a similar manner that I have used in this thread and basically everywhere on this site for years:

http://www.sciforums.com/threads/is...es-in-microtubules.161187/page-2#post-3542581

You also did not have an issue when Dave embedded a link, using blue text (bold mind you):

http://www.sciforums.com/threads/is...es-in-microtubules.161187/page-2#post-3542608

Just as you did not seem to have an issue with copying and pasting chunks of text and images and providing a link that did not contain those images or parts of the text you quoted:

http://www.sciforums.com/threads/is...es-in-microtubules.161187/page-3#post-3549029

So you will excuse me if I do not take your whining about embedded links, that are a different colour as the normal text and after I had directly told you that that colour signified an embedded link in my posts, seriously.

is not good reference practice, IMO. Why should anyone be required to place cursor on a random utterance to see what website this refers to??? It is neither clever nor informative, it's just plain stupid, IMO.

As noted above, you do not seem to have an issue when others do it, nor when you do it yourself.

I have followed this exact same practice for over a decade on this website. And I even told you over a week ago, that the blue text were embedded links. Is it harder to place your cursor over text you were told are embedded links as opposed to a line of text that has "http" in it? Because right now, you are reaching ridiculous levels of avoidance and dishonesty.

You, on the other hand, posted chunks of texts from other websites without providing any links, you copied and pasted images from other websites without reference, you altered quotes to get it to suit and match your narrative and claims in this thread, have repeatedly quoted people out of context.

Do you really think you have a leg to stand on at the moment?

Because all I am seeing from you at the moment is whining and still dodging and avoiding the fact that Orch Or has been falsified repeatedly.

Please Bells, let it go before Exchemist asks you; "Bells, a serious question: are you on the autistic spectrum, by any chance?"

No.

Can you stop dodging now and address the fact that Hameroff and Penrose's claims and theories have been falsified or debunked or rebutted or any other term you wish to take issue with?

Or are you going to whine about something else? Perhaps the size of my font? Not bold enough for you?

24 points of Hameroff and Penrose's theory falsified - posted once again: THIS IS A LINK >>>>>>>>>>> http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/3049/1/OOR.pdf <<<<<<<<< THIS IS A LINK

And just in case you are going to argue that Hameroff addressed this:

Hameroff insisted in a 2013 interview that those falsifications were invalid, but did not provide any explanation where the falsifications fail.[76]

THIS IS A LINK >>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orchestrated_objective_reduction#Criticism <<<<<<<<<< THIS IS A LINK​

 

[RainbowSingularity]

post it sticky note to self come back with popcorn

 

[exchemist]

And why should I have to spot anything at all. The standard way of quoting from a website is to quote bracket a pertinent passage and present the reader with the actual website address for confirmation and for further reading .

Embedding a website in a: , is not good reference practice, IMO. Why should anyone be required to place cursor on a random utterance to see what website this refers to??? It is neither clever nor informative, it's just plain stupid, IMO.

Please Bells, let it go before Exchemist asks you; "Bells, a serious question: are you on the autistic spectrum, by any chance?"

The reason I asked you is that there are a couple of guys on another forum, even more tolerant of fruitcakes than this one, who argue like you:
- obsession with one topic,
- inability to concede a point in argument and
- wild swings in attitude towards the people they debate with.

Both admit to being on the spectrum.

 

[Write4U]

And just in case you are going to argue that Hameroff addressed this:

Hameroff insisted in a 2013 interview that those falsifications were invalid, but did not provide any explanation where the falsifications fail.[76]

Interesting. Lets examine what Hameroff actually said.

I would have linked the Youtube video that this link [76] leads to. I'll play it here so all can see how Hameroff personally answers the attacks on his theory that microtubules are essentially biological quantum processors (computers).

Dr. Stuart Hameroff is a Professor of Anesthesiology and Psychology, and Director of the Center for Consciousness Studies at the University of Arizona. Together with British quantum physicist Sir Roger Penrose, Hameroff is the co-author of the controversial Orch OR model of consciousness.

This does bring up the question how plants use quantum mechanics to generate photosynthesis.
Plants Use Quantum Physics to Survive

Plants are able to harvest as much as 95 percent of the sunlight they soak up, instantly converting this solar energy into chemical energy, in 1 million billionth of a second, in a process called photosynthesis.

The new Science study on purple bacteria, which also photosynthesize, gives more support to the idea that plants use quantum mechanics to achieve this near-perfect efficiency. A trick of quantum physics called coherence, the researchers suggest, helps the energy of the elementary particles of light, called photons, find the most efficient path to a plant's (or purple bacterium's) so-called reaction center, where the light's energy fuels the reaction that produces carbohydrates.

https://www.livescience.com/37746-plants-use-quantum-physics.html

Do plants have emotions? They do have phototropism as part of the photosynthesis system, so at what point does a plant become aware of the direction the sunlight comes from? Cognition of wave frequencies? If this is a quantum function, then what forbids the same ability in other biological organisms that require dynamic action, such as vision, calculation, and mobility.

Human eyesight is also a light gathering system which can convert light frequencies into recognizable patterns in the brain. Is that not also a quantum function? Where is the fundamental difference? It cannot be some superficial detail which basically reveals our own ignorance of quantum mechanics at different levels.

We know QM works, really well, and it seems to me that consciousness requires something that works really, really well. QM works really, really well on all the plants that use photosynthesis. QM is a clear candidate for processing consciousness in animals, including humans, IMO.
The rest becomes purely mathematical.

 

[exchemist]

The reason I asked you is that there are a couple of guys on another forum, even more tolerant of fruitcakes than this one, who argue like you:
- obsession with one topic,
- inability to concede a point in argument and
- wild swings in attitude towards the people they debate with.

Both admit to being on the spectrum.

Addendum: One of them is Reiku. (Gareth Meredith).

 

[exchemist]

We know QM works, really well, and it seems to me that consciousness requires something that works really, really well. QM works really, really well on all the plants that use photosynthesis. QM is a clear candidate for processing consciousness in animals, including humans, IMO.
The rest becomes purely mathematical.

This, surely, must be the most persuasive argument yet.

The Victoria Line, on the London Underground, works really, really well. Perhaps it too is involved in processing consciousness. I mean, it stands to reason......

 

[Bells]

Interesting. Lets examine what Hameroff actually said.

I would have linked the Youtube video that this link [76] leads to. I'll play it here so all can see how Hameroff personally answers the attacks on his theory that microtubules are essentially biological quantum processors (computers).

You do realise that he fails to explain how or why the falsifications fail, right? In the video you linked.. You basically proved my point for me.

This does bring up the question how plants use quantum mechanics to generate photosynthesis.
Plants Use Quantum Physics to Survive

And I see we are back to dodging!

Do plants have emotions? They do have phototropism as part of the photosynthesis system, so at what point does a plant become aware of the direction the sunlight comes from? Cognition of wave frequencies? If this is a quantum function, then what forbids the same ability in other biological organisms that require dynamic action, such as vision, calculation, and mobility.

No, they are not. <<<<< Link embedded there!! >>>>>>

Human eyesight is also a light gathering system which can convert light frequencies into recognizable patterns in the brain. Is that not also a quantum function? Where is the fundamental difference? It cannot be some superficial detail which basically reveals our own ignorance of quantum mechanics at different levels.

You realise that Hameroff's theory about the retina was also falsified, yes?

We know QM works, really well, and it seems to me that consciousness requires something that works really, really well.

So does my washing machine.

QM works really, really well on all the plants that use photosynthesis. QM is a clear candidate for processing consciousness in animals, including humans, IMO.

That's nice. But you have not provided any actual scientific proof to back your claims.

So, finished dodging yet?

 

[Write4U]

This, surely, must be the most persuasive argument yet.

Lets ask, is it true that plants use QM in photosynthesis? If so, why should that not be part of human ability, or as entangled particles in a bird's eyes so it can navigate the earth's magnetic fields. Are these animals more conscious or aware than humans? As Hameroff states, QM has been proven to work in nature and in biological organisms. Why then should it not work for humans? Are humans exempt from universal forces? If the reverse were true and nothing in biology utilizes quantum function, it would be reasonable to accept the fact that humans are also not subject to quantum mechanics. But that is not the case.

The Victoria Line, on the London Underground, works really, really well. Perhaps it too is involved in processing consciousness. I mean, it stands to reason......

Is it an electronically automated system?

 

[Write4U]

No, they are not

I did not say plants are conscious. No need to comment at all. But being that you cited this link, here is an excerpt

Plant neurobiologist Monica Gagliano of the University of Sydney who was not involved with the paper criticizes the authors for not working towards a better scientific understanding of what consciousness is, according to The Guardian.

“If we think we already know how things are and fail to continuously question our own assumptions, but construct our claims on a system of beliefs we are dearly attached to, then we are in deep trouble and miss the opportunity for true scientific discovery to occur,” says Gagliano to The Guardian.

Gagliano studies plant communication and consciousness and is one the leading researchers in plant neurobiology.

https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/botanists-say-plants-are-not-conscious-66101

You realise that Hameroff's theory about the retina was also falsified, yes?

Wrong, it is not Hameroff's theory. But it does provide an independent source confirming quantum functions in biology as well as in inanimate matter.

Migration via quantum mechanics

Perhaps even more fascinating is that European Robins might do a better job of detecting quantum entanglement than physics labs currently can. A group of physicists from the University of Oxford have proposed that entanglement could last in a bird’s retina for 100 microseconds, whereas physicists have only been able to make the interaction last for 80 microseconds – despite cooling their experiments to just above absolute zero.

The studies have implications beyond birds as well. A number of fish, reptiles, insects and even mammals are thought to use magnetic fields to navigate.

http://physicscentral.com/explore/action/pia-entanglement.cfm

Hameroff uses this new information to bolster his argument that biological systems can and are using quantum mechanics. There is nothing wrong with that.

 

[Yazata]

Everybody is throwing around the word "proof". I don't think that anyone has produced any literal proofs. (Penrose can no doubt produce mathematical proofs for various mathematical conclusions, but I doubt very much whether any of them would be relevant regarding this subject.)

What people are presenting are arguments (often inchaoate) for or against what looks to my eye like a philosophical speculation: this exceedingly vague and impressionistic theory-of-mind, which has never to my knowledge been laid out in clear enough detail to be "disproved" (assuming that such a thing is even possible in science).

I don't see Orch-OR as it stands as being a coherent theory, as something that can be proven or disproven. It's lots of different ideas and assertions all mixed up together. There are so many moving parts, many of which seemingly have only tangential relevance to the fundamental assertions, that any "disproof" can be easily met by changing some auxiliary assumptions somewhere else in the thesis.

Here's my current (as of right now) opinion of the Penrose-Hameroff argument. My view is a work in progress and may be different tomorrow if I read a better explanation somewhere:

1. Neurons aren't just analogous to wires in an electronic device, they are processors. I'm not totally opposed to this one and think that there may be considerable truth to it, though I'm not comfortable pushing it nearly as far as Penrose and Hameroff appear to want to. My own view of neurons is that they are best thought of as switches, as something analogous to transistors in electronics let's say, though probably more capable than transistors (activation functions and so on). I still damnably persist in thinking of them as components in a much larger neural process, not as being in themselves fanciful loci of consciousness.

2. Penrose's Godel's theorem argument. I'm not in any way convinced by that. How is Godel's theorem applicable outside mathematics? I'm guessing that part of the problem here is Penrose-the-mathematician/mathematical-physicist imaging thought as a physical process that must conform to a mathematical description that effectively turns the process into the formal equivalent of a system of mathematical proofs. So the physical process of thought must conform to what Penrose imagines the mathematical constraints to be. (Which neatly ignores analogy, flights of imaginative fancy and lots of psychological processes that don't look like mathematical calculations at all.)

2a. Overly technical stuff about computation and algorithms (see above). I'm even less persuaded. I don't think that neural networks work in algorithmic fashion anyway. Minds (beyond the level of simple invertebrates anyway) aren't just executing preexisting programs. They seem to operate more along the lines of pattern-recognition systems.) Our thinking process often isn't logical at all, but rather a series of things that remind us of other things. So proof theory wouldn't seem to apply.

3. The associated assertion that classical mechanics is inadequate for explaining consciousness but quantum mechanics supposedly can. That needs a lot more argument than it's received. How would quantum mechanics achieve this wonder? Left standing on its own without further justification, this step looks to my eye like where the 'secret sauce' is introduced, the magic ingredient.

4. The implicit assumption that 'consciousness' is well enough defined and well enough understood to fit into a scientific theory and to receive a scientific explanation in the first place. I'm not even convinced that we can recognize it when we encounter it. (That's relevant to our relations with other animal species and will crop up again with AIs.) We need to have a much better understanding of what consciousness is, when it is and isn't present, and how we can possibly tell, before we can start imagining scientific explanations for it. (In my opinion the whole topic of consciousness is kind of disaster-area in the contemporary philosophy of mind and is probably being grievously misconceived. So I don't expect much progress in this area for some time. Too many people following David Chalmers' pied-piper song.)

5. The assertion that microtubules in cells are the site where consciousness originates because it's supposedly where all this hypothetical quantum processing takes place. W4U seems to me to be fixated on Microtubules!!! So he posts anything that he can find on the internet that makes microtubules seem cool and important, as if it's somehow relevant to and furthers the Penrose-Hameroff theory-of-mind. As far as I'm personally concerned, excessive focus on microtubules doesn't seem to be where my understanding of basic cell biology is pointing. So W4U seemingly wants me to change my whole view of cell biology which I'm not willing to do at this point.

5a. Penrose jumps in by introducing incomprehensibly (to me anyway) complex and technical vocabulary derived from physics. (Entanglement! Bose-Einstein condensates! Eigenstates! And (God help us) London forces!!! Hold Exchemist back!)

5b. This is one area where Orch-OR does make testable predictions. So that's a positive. It's where Bandyopadhyay's criticisms gain traction. Yet this only addresses particular parts of step 5a above, parts upon which the whole hypothesis doesn't seem to depend, making it relatively easy to readjust the assumptions of the hypothesis so that the criticisms no longer apply. (That's typically true with any scientific hypothesis, making the idea of definitive disconfirmation something of a myth in my opinion.) So far from being the slam-dunk that Bells is trying to portray them as being, these "disproofs" seem weak, tangential and easily evaded to me.

5c. The problem is that this is where the thing veers off the main track onto a tangential spur-line. All this quantum mechanical physical-chemistry stuff is fine and dandy, even kind of interesting in its own way, but it doesn't really address the fundamental weakness of the speculation in steps 1 through 4 above. This is all supposed to be a theory of consciousness, right? So why are people discussing Frolich condensates (whatever they are)?

What do Frolich condensates even have to do with consciousness???

That's where the connection hasn't been made to my satisfaction.

 

[Bells]

I did not say plants are conscious. No need to comment at all. But being that you cited this link, here is an excerpt

So you were trolling with off topic comments while still dodging?

Okay then..

Wrong, it is not Hameroff's theory. But it does provide an independent source confirming quantum functions in biology as well as in inanimate matter.

Are you now saying that the Orch Or is not Hameroff's theory?

Hameroff uses this new information to bolster his argument that biological systems can and are using quantum mechanics. There is nothing wrong with that.

Still dodging..

 

[exchemist]

Everybody is throwing around the word "proof". I don't think that anyone has produced any literal proofs. (Penrose can no doubt produce mathematical proofs for various mathematical conclusions, but I doubt very much whether any of them would be relevant regarding this subject.)

What people are presenting are arguments (often inchaoate) for or against what looks to my eye like a philosophical speculation: this exceedingly vague and impressionistic theory-of-mind, which has never to my knowledge been laid out in clear enough detail to be "disproved" (assuming that such a thing is even possible in science).

I don't see Orch-OR as it stands as being a coherent theory, as something that can be proven or disproven. It's lots of different ideas and assertions all mixed up together. There are so many moving parts, many of which seemingly have only tangential relevance to the fundamental assertions, that any "disproof" can be easily met by changing some auxiliary assumptions somewhere else in the thesis.

Here's my current (as of right now) opinion of the Penrose-Hameroff argument. My view is a work in progress and may be different tomorrow if I read a better explanation somewhere:

1. Neurons aren't just analogous to wires in an electronic device, they are processors. I'm not totally opposed to this one and think that there may be considerable truth to it, though I'm not comfortable pushing it nearly as far as Penrose and Hameroff appear to want to. My own view of neurons is that they are best thought of as switches, as something analogous to transistors in electronics let's say, though probably more capable than transistors (activation functions and so on). I still damnably persist in thinking of them as components in a much larger neural process, not as being in themselves fanciful loci of consciousness.

2. Penrose's Godel's theorem argument. I'm not in any way convinced by that. How is Godel's theorem applicable outside mathematics? I'm guessing that part of the problem here is Penrose-the-mathematician/mathematical-physicist imaging thought as a physical process that must conform to a mathematical description that effectively turns the process into the formal equivalent of a system of mathematical proofs. So the physical process of thought must conform to what Penrose imagines the mathematical constraints to be. (Which neatly ignores analogy, flights of imaginative fancy and lots of psychological processes that don't look like mathematical calculations at all.)

2a. Overly technical stuff about computation and algorithms (see above). I'm even less persuaded. I don't think that neural networks work in algorithmic fashion anyway. Minds (beyond the level of simple invertebrates anyway) aren't just executing preexisting programs. They seem to operate more along the lines of pattern-recognition systems.) Our thinking process often isn't logical at all, but rather a series of things that remind us of other things. So proof theory wouldn't seem to apply.

3. The associated assertion that classical mechanics is inadequate for explaining consciousness but quantum mechanics supposedly can. That needs a lot more argument than it's received. How would quantum mechanics achieve this wonder? Left standing on its own without further justification, this step looks to my eye like where the 'secret sauce' is introduced, the magic ingredient.

4. The implicit assumption that 'consciousness' is well enough defined and well enough understood to fit into a scientific theory and to receive a scientific explanation in the first place. I'm not even convinced that we can recognize it when we encounter it. (That's relevant to our relations with other animal species and will crop up again with AIs.) We need to have a much better understanding of what consciousness is, when it is and isn't present, and how we can possibly tell, before we can start imagining scientific explanations for it. (In my opinion the whole topic of consciousness is kind of disaster-area in the contemporary philosophy of mind and is probably being grievously misconceived. So I don't expect much progress in this area for some time. Too many people following David Chalmers' pied-piper song.)

5. The assertion that microtubules in cells are the site where consciousness originates because it's supposedly where all this hypothetical quantum processing takes place. W4U seems to me to be fixated on Microtubules!!! So he posts anything that he can find on the internet that makes microtubules seem cool and important, as if it's somehow relevant to and furthers the Penrose-Hameroff theory-of-mind. As far as I'm personally concerned, excessive focus on microtubules doesn't seem to be where my understanding of basic cell biology is pointing. So W4U seemingly wants me to change my whole view of cell biology which I'm not willing to do at this point.

5a. Penrose jumps in by introducing incomprehensibly (to me anyway) complex and technical vocabulary derived from physics. (Entanglement! Bose-Einstein condensates! Eigenstates! And (God help us) London forces!!! Hold Exchemist back!)

5b. This is one area where Orch-OR does make testable predictions. So that's a positive. It's where Bandyopadhyay's criticisms gain traction. Yet this only addresses particular parts of step 4a above, parts upon which the whole hypothesis doesn't seem to depend, making it relatively easy to readjust the assumptions of the hypothesis so that the criticisms no longer apply. (That's typically true with any scientific hypothesis, making the idea of definitive disconfirmation something of a myth in my opinion.) So far from being the slam-dunk that Bells is trying to portray them as being, these "disproofs" seem weak, tangential and easily evaded to me.

5c. The problem is that this is where the thing veers off the main track onto a tangential spur-line. All this quantum mechanical physical-chemistry stuff is fine and dandy, even kind of interesting in its own way, but it doesn't really address the fundamental weakness of the speculation in steps 1 through 4 above. This is all supposed to be a theory of consciousness, right? So why are people discussing Frolich condensates (whatever they are)?

What do Frolich condensates even have to do with consciousness???

That's where the connection hasn't been made to my satisfaction.

Relax. London forces are just what you may have learned about as "van der Waals" forces: the weak forces of attraction between all molecules, even non-polar ones, which are responsible for such substances eventually condensing to liquid and solid states, at low enough temperatures.

 

[billvon]

This, surely, must be the most persuasive argument yet.

The Victoria Line, on the London Underground, works really, really well. Perhaps it too is involved in processing consciousness. I mean, it stands to reason......

Agreed. It's only logical. Further, since it works really well, it must be conscious - just like plants.