Is consciousness to be found in quantum processes in microtubules?

[billvon]

I am pointing out your behavior. Feel free to change it if you like.

It's "meaningless".

Your behavior is? OK then.

True, that is is the easy problem. I'm after the "hard problem"

I don't think you clearly understand what you are talking about.

You are missing the difference between "packets of information", the data (values), and the "processors of information", the dynamic physical processes which translate the data into "perception" (functions which yield consciousness).

Nope. You need potassium for both.

True, you posted that trees have no microtubules

Again, no, I never claimed that. You are very confused. Is this what you meant by describing your behavior as "meaningless?"

 

[Write4U]

A self-referencing system between two points yields a wave function. A self-referential triangle yields a life cycle.

IMO, its very simplicity of a structural, polarized self-referential self organizing "processor" makes the microtubule the ideal fundamental "functional dynamical processor" of the entire processing system and all its sensory stimuli at a micro level of the biological organism.

The microtubule is a "common denominator" in all of biology (including the evolutionary precursor in the prokaryote organisms) and in identical form in all eukaryotic organisms, just arranged in different patterns. Other than going purely chemical, the microtubule consists of two organic chemicals in a self-assembling organization, and a mobile tau particle which is able to shorten or lengthen size or direct where to park, in order to perform a series of "exquisite tuning" to all wave frequencies measurable at that very fine scale.

Such as found in the eyes of birds, able to "detect" very weak magnetic fields and follow these fields to a known destination. Would that count as a quantum function? I don't know....
Such as found in "sounding" ocean dwellers.

But I do like what I see from what we do know about their versatility in function and overwhelming numbers (trillions) of microtubules in the human body and living things.

If a chemical soup can create biological "life", then the networked processing complexities of microtubules can perhaps create biological "consciousness"?

Hehe, "to the symphony of life, no one has the score". No one except microtubules.......

Intelligence was made "necessary" by the increasingly complex evolutionary of even the most fundamental natural patterns in spacetime. Fractal structures are but one example.

And I believe there is a universal "law of neccessity"

Philosophical connections
With nature/nurture controversy

Other 'deterministic' theories actually seek only to highlight the importance of a particular factor in predicting the future. These theories often use the factor as a sort of guide or constraint on the future. They need not suppose that complete knowledge of that one factor would allow us to make perfect predictions.

Psychological determinism can mean that humans must act according to reason, but it can also be synonymous with some sort of Psychological egoism. The latter is the view that humans will always act according to their perceived best interest.

Linguistic determinism claims that our language determines (at least limits) the things we can think and say and thus know. The Sapir–Whorf hypothesis argues that individuals experience the world based on the grammatical structures they habitually use.

Economic determinism attributes primacy to economic structure over politics in the development of human history. It is associated with the dialectical materialism of Karl Marx.

Technological determinism is a reductionist theory that presumes that a society's technology drives the development of its social structure and cultural values.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism#With_nature/nurture_controversy

 

[billvon]

But I do like what I see from what we do know about their versatility in function and overwhelming numbers (trillions) of microtubules in the human body and living things.

Agreed. Unfortunately, your "liking" things doesn't mean anything in terms of the validity of the argument.

If any chemical soup can create "life", then the networked processing complexities of microtubules can perhaps create "consciousness"?

No on both counts, as is easily proven.

 

[Write4U]

Agreed. Unfortunately, your "liking" things doesn't mean anything in terms of the validity of the argument.

No on both counts, as is easily proven.

I take it you do not believe in abiogenesis?

 

[Write4U]

Mod Note

No he did not.

Stop lying. This is no longer deemed accidental, nor could it be blamed on stupidity. Your lying is malicious as it is intended to alter the context and content of his post to suit your narrative.

Follow the sequence.

billvon wrote,
Venus flytraps are far from the most complex plants out there - and none of them have brains. I recommend "The Hidden Life of Trees" for an overview. Nothing about microtubules in there, though.

As if that was proof of anything?
Which prompted me to write

W4U wrote,
Well then you haven't done due dilligence. Without microtubules there would be no trees. How's that?

billvon wrote,
Another completely meaningless statement. Without carbon there would be no trees. How's that? (Answer - just as meaningless.)

He did say that. Hence my allegorical reference to show the difference. And my later explanation

W4u wrote,
True, you posted that trees have no microtubules, and therein lies your error in fact and subsequent error in logic.
Due dilligence......

Perhaps I should have used the term "inferred" rather than you "posted" it.
Allow me to modify that statement;
True, you inferred that trees have no microtubules. That is why you specifically mentioned it. No?
Moreover, I also explained why the example itself was illogical in concept. See post # 657

billvon wrote,
And potassium does a lot of polarization of brain cells, and without it we could not form "consciousness." That does not mean that potassium is conscious, or is an irreplaceable component to consciousness.

And my response,

W4U wrote,
You are missing the difference between "packets of information", the data (values), and the "processors of information", the dynamic physical processes which translate the data into "perception" (functions which yield consciousness).

Another completely meaningless statement. Without carbon there would be no trees. How's that? (Answer - just as meaningless.)​

See above.....

A carbon atom is not anywhere near the same thing as a microtubule. Just look at their patterns....

However, a carbon or graphene network will provide the next generation of AI computers. The functional abilities emerge as made "necessary by the existing dynamic conditions" with increasing size and complexity of a very simple fractal pattern.

Microtubules are a fractal pattern, thats why they facilitate mitosis. Self-replication is in their program.. This is why I identify them as having a form of quasi-intelligence, a hierarchical chronology of sophistication in information processing functions.
Add time and evolution ...........

 

[exchemist]

I understood that just rigging a camera observing the slits would affect the result.
Does the observer or the camera collapse the wave function in the double slit experiment? https://physics.stackexchange.com/q...lapse-the-wave-function-in-the-double-slit-ex

Either way there would not be a hard-wired connection. How does it work without physical connections?

I find it interesting - and typically devious of you, in that strange way you have - that you have chosen to copy the question from physics stack exchange, but do not show us the answers this person got. (This sort of behaviour is why you annoy us all). The question was answered quite clearly, in fact. Since I have no doubt you have read the answers, why do you persist in asking me, all over again?

But I'll tell you anyway, since there may be other readers of this thread. The prevailing modern view seems to be that it is measurement, i.e. interaction of the QM system with the detector, that "collapses" the wave function.

If it were really the act of conscious observation that did it, then one would be saying that the dial or screen would change when the experimenter went off to get a cup of coffee, or when he was reading his newspaper. Furthermore, you would have the problem of what would the dial or screen look like if observed by the laboratory cat, or perhaps even by a passing wasp. It gets ridiculous and not very useful to suppose such things. As Einstein is supposed to have said, "I prefer to think the moon is till there when I am not looking at it."

 

[exchemist]

I take it you do not believe in abiogenesis?

Bizarre non-sequitur. What is this? An attempt to divert the thread onto another topic, just to keep it going?

 

[Michael 345]

Might be of interest to some

A natural biomolecule has been measured acting like a quantum wave for the first time

https://www-technologyreview-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.technologyreview.com/s/614688/a-natural-biomolecule-has-been-measured-acting-in-a-quantum-wave-for-the-first-time/amp/?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQCKAE%3D#referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.technologyreview.com%2Fs%2F614688%2Fa-natural-biomolecule-has-been-measured-acting-in-a-quantum-wave-for-the-first-time%2F

 

[exchemist]

Might be of interest to some

A natural biomolecule has been measured acting like a quantum wave for the first time

https://www-technologyreview-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.technologyreview.com/s/614688/a-natural-biomolecule-has-been-measured-acting-in-a-quantum-wave-for-the-first-time/amp/?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQCKAE%3D#referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.technologyreview.com%2Fs%2F614688%2Fa-natural-biomolecule-has-been-measured-acting-in-a-quantum-wave-for-the-first-time%2F

Very nice experiment, but let's stamp out the the potential for woo in this before Write4U grabs it and runs away with it, leveraging his ignorance to make wild extrapolations.

This result is totally unsurprising and exactly what QM predicts. QM says there is a wavelength associated with all matter. However, by de Broglie's relation: λ=h/p, the wavelength is inversely proportional to the momentum, p, of the entity. So more massive entities have shorter and shorter wavelengths, and for macroscopic-scale objects it is so short as to be negligible: there are, effectively, no fuzzy edges or interference patterns any more. So for these we can use the comparative simplicity of Newtonian mechanics.

The polypeptides these experimenters have used fall somewhere in between the very wavelike behaviour of electrons and the very un-wavelike behaviour of cricket balls. The clever bit of the experiment has been the detection of very small-scale interference effects from these short polypeptide molecules. That's it. No special quantum "dimensions" or "vibration" behaviour to biomolecules, or any sh1t like that. You would get exactly the same results with an inorganic molecule of similar mass.

 

[Bells]

Mod Note

Follow the sequence.

I did. I suggest you take a few moments and read what he actually said instead of inventing what you believe he said.

As if that was proof of anything?

Billvon basically stated that there was nothing in the book about microtubules. Read his sentence again:

"Nothing about microtubules in there, though."​

At no time did he say that microtubules do not exist in trees. He said the book he referenced made no mention about microtubules.

As I noted previously, your dishonesty and lying is malicious.

Worse still, you refuse to concede the point that he did not actually say what you are claiming he said and you continue to try to excuse your lies.

This is despicable.

He did say that. Hence my allegorical reference to show the difference.

No, he did not actually say that.

These lies have to stop.

His actual words:

Without carbon there would be no trees.

You blatantly lied and created a strawman:

But then, I don't post that trees have no carbon, you do........

He said trees would not exist without carbon. And in that he is absolutely correct.

You lied and keep claiming he said that trees have no carbon and worse yet, thinking you were on a dumbass roll, you inserted a smiley emoji because you are dishonest enough to think you had a 'gotcha' moment.

Perhaps I should have used the term "inferred" rather than you "posted" it.
Allow me to modify that statement;
True, you inferred that trees have no microtubules. That is why you specifically mentioned it. No?
Moreover, I also explained why the example itself was illogical in concept. See post # 657

He did not infer that trees have no microtubules, nor did he infer or even suggest that trees have no carbon.

Stop lying.

I'm really tired of having to deal with your dishonesty Write4U.

You deliberately post things out of context and quote people out of context to answer to things others were not even saying, you lie openly, you alter quotes to suit your narrative and you insert words into quotes to do so, you deliberately and repeatedly lie about what others have said to again, make it suit your argument or so you can create an argument.

If you were dumb, I would base your behaviour on stupidity.

But you aren't dumb.

So that means that this is deliberate. Dumb is somewhat excusable.

This, on the other hand, is not.

So I would strongly suggest you stop.

A carbon atom is not anywhere near the same thing as a microtubule. Just look at their patterns....

However, a carbon or graphene network will provide the next generation of AI computers. The functional abilities emerge as made "necessary by the existing dynamic conditions" with increasing size and complexity of a very simple fractal pattern.

Microtubules are a fractal pattern, thats why they facilitate mitosis. Self-replication is in their program.. This is why I identify them as having a form of quasi-intelligence, a hierarchical chronology of sophistication in information processing functions.
Add time and evolution ...........

And in your response to him, you deliberately quoted him out of context and again lied about what he was saying.

This is repetitive behaviour from you and very very dishonest. Please stop..

I've asked you to not do this before but you keep doing it.

And even after you were told to stop, you are doing it again:

I take it you do not believe in abiogenesis?

Stop lying.

At no time did he say that.

I'm not kidding Write4U. You keep acting like a dishonest hack, I will moderate you like one.

Enough is enough. This is your last warning.

 

[billvon]

I take it you do not believe in abiogenesis?

Your "take" is incorrect. Abiogenesis happened, by definition.

 

[Write4U]

Continuing the research. Please note that I am refraining from comment. Adress any critiques to the authors of the paper and leave me or attacks on my character out of it, please.

Discovery of quantum vibrations in 'microtubules' inside brain neurons supports controversial theory of consciousness

Summary:
A review and update of a controversial 20-year-old theory of consciousness claims that consciousness derives from deeper level, finer scale activities inside brain neurons. The recent discovery of quantum vibrations in "microtubules" inside brain neurons corroborates this theory, according to review authors. They suggest that EEG rhythms (brain waves) also derive from deeper level microtubule vibrations, and that from a practical standpoint, treating brain microtubule vibrations could benefit a host of mental, neurological, and cognitive conditions.

Orch OR was harshly criticized from its inception, as the brain was considered too "warm, wet, and noisy" for seemingly delicate quantum processes.

However, evidence has now shown warm quantum coherence in plant photosynthesis, bird brain navigation, our sense of smell, and brain microtubules.

The recent discovery of warm temperature quantum vibrations in microtubules inside brain neurons by the research group led by Anirban Bandyopadhyay, PhD, at the National Institute of Material Sciences in Tsukuba, Japan (and now at MIT), corroborates the pair's theory and suggests that EEG rhythms also derive from deeper level microtubule vibrations.

In addition, work from the laboratory of Roderick G. Eckenhoff, MD, at the University of Pennsylvania, suggests that anesthesia, which selectively erases consciousness while sparing non-conscious brain activities, acts via microtubules in brain neurons.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140116085105.htm

 

[exchemist]

Continuing the research. Please note that I am refraining from comment. Adress any critiques to the authors of the paper and leave me or attacks on my character out of it, please.

Discovery of quantum vibrations in 'microtubules' inside brain neurons supports controversial theory of consciousness
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140116085105.htm

What you seem to have discovered in your "research" is none other than the very same review, written in 2014 by Penrose and Hameroff themselves, which was dismissed in the final two paras of the extract I quoted in post FIVE of this thread, and again in post 398.

No further comment on it is required.

What this does show, however, is that you did not bother to read posts 5 or 398.

 

[billvon]

Continuing the research. Please note that I am refraining from comment.

And, apparently, refraining from reading.

 

[Write4U]

Stop lying!

The recent discovery of warm temperature quantum vibrations in microtubules inside brain neurons by the research group led by Anirban Bandyopadhyay, PhD, at the National Institute of Material Sciences in Tsukuba, Japan (and now at MIT), corroborates the pair's theory and suggests that EEG rhythms also derive from deeper level microtubule vibrations.

In addition, work from the laboratory of Roderick G. Eckenhoff, MD, at the University of Pennsylvania, suggests that anesthesia, which selectively erases consciousness while sparing non-conscious brain activities, acts via microtubules in brain neurons.

Hameroff, Penrose? Where, except in reference to ORCH OR.

Don't bother to comment. I won't be checking mail from SF for awhile.
I have more productive discussions elsewhere.

​

 

[exchemist]

Stop lying!

The recent discovery of warm temperature quantum vibrations in microtubules inside brain neurons by the research group led by Anirban Bandyopadhyay, PhD, at the National Institute of Material Sciences in Tsukuba, Japan (and now at MIT), corroborates the pair's theory and suggests that EEG rhythms also derive from deeper level microtubule vibrations.

In addition, work from the laboratory of Roderick G. Eckenhoff, MD, at the University of Pennsylvania, suggests that anesthesia, which selectively erases consciousness while sparing non-conscious brain activities, acts via microtubules in brain neurons.

Hameroff, Penrose? Where, except in reference to ORCH OR.

Don't bother to comment. I won't be checking mail from SF for awhile.
I have more productive discussions elsewhere.

​

I quote from the opening section of your link:
"The recent discovery of quantum vibrations in "microtubules" inside brain neurons corroborates this theory, according to review authors Stuart Hameroff and Sir Roger Penrose."

So the review your linked article is reporting is one written by Penrose and Hameroff, in 2014. They claimed, in this review, that this Japanese work corroborates their theory. That's all. Nobody else seems to have endorsed the claim.

 

[Write4U]

Perhaps of interest;

Optical trap provides new insights into motor molecules -- nature's ultimate nanomachines

"This is one of the most efficient engines anyone has ever seen," Shaevitz noted. "Some estimates put it at near 100 percent efficiency. It's an amazing little thing."

https://news.stanford.edu/news/2003/march5/tweezers-35.html

 

[DaveC426913]

Perhaps of interest;

Optical trap provides new insights into motor molecules -- nature's ultimate nanomachines

https://news.stanford.edu/news/2003/march5/tweezers-35.html

Well, it may have been interesting a decade and a half ago, when that article was published, but it's kind of dated now. If one keeps up with the times, they've come a long way.

Here's a 3D rendered animation of the "hand-over-hand" method of locomotion - in myocin, rather than kenesin.

 

[exchemist]

Perhaps of interest;

Optical trap provides new insights into motor molecules -- nature's ultimate nanomachines


https://news.stanford.edu/news/2003/march5/tweezers-35.html

This (fifteen year old) article has nothing to do with either quantum processes or consciousness, needless to say, so it is irrelevant to the topic of the thread.

 

[Write4U]

Well, it may have been interesting a decade and a half ago, when that article was published, but it's kind of dated now. If one keeps up with the times, they've come a long way.

Here's a 3D rendered animation of the "hand-over-hand" method of locomotion - in myocin, rather than kenesin.

If it is that old then why are you spelling myosin incorrectly?

There is also a third transport protein, i.e dynein

However, unlike kinesin, dynein cannot mediate transport by itself.

This (fifteen year old) article has nothing to do with either quantum processes or consciousness, needless to say, so it is irrelevant to the topic of the thread.

How do you know that what we are seeing is not a type of quantum processing? Ever heard of macroscopic quantum functions?
It has to do with microtubules and what they can do, including using quantum processes.

Emergence of the Macroscopic Quantum Superposition State in Microtubules*

ABSTRACT,
Many researchers conceive communication in Microtubules (MTs), and established theoretical models to show both classical and quantum information processing. In this paper, we studied the usually neglected interactions between the electronic dipole of water molecules in microtubules and the quantized electromagnetic radiation field. We find that the emergence collective coherent radiation, and it can turn into macroscopic quantum superposition state when passing through MTs. This could have a fundamental role in the quantum information processing.

https://file.scirp.org/pdf/JMP_2013061314481961.pdf

Is that relevant to the topic of the thread? Take your time. I won't be back for another couple of weeks. Maybe I can dig up something more recent in this now thriving field of research in "microtubules".