Is consciousness to be found in quantum processes in microtubules?

[Write4U]

This may be of interest.
Descartes’s Philosophy and its modern interpretation (Brain-in-a-vat Theory)

“While I wanted to think everything false, it must necessarily be that I who thought was something; and remarking that this truth, I think, therefore I am, was so solid and so certain that all the most extravagant suppositions of the sceptics were incapable of upsetting it.”

https://elmarhussein.wordpress.com/...-modern-interpretation-brain-in-a-vat-theory/

Our "self" does not create thoughts in the brain, thoughts in the brain create our "self"

 

[billvon]

Not on your life...I've just begun. I know I'm on the right track.

Vizzini: But it's so simple. All I have to do is divine from what I know of you. Are you the sort of man who would put the poison into his own goblet, or his enemy's?

Now, a clever man would put the poison into his own goblet,because he would know that only a great fool would reach for what he was given. I'm not a great fool, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you. But you must have known I was not a great fool; you would have counted on it, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me.

Man in Black: You've made your decision then?

Vizzini: Not remotely. Because iocane comes from Australia, as everyone knows. And Australia is entirely peopled with criminals. And criminals are used to having people not trust them, as you are not trusted by me. So I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you.

Man in black: Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.

Vizzini: Wait till I get going!

 

[Write4U]

Vizzini: But it's so simple. All I have to do is divine from what I know of you. Are you the sort of man who would put the poison into his own goblet, or his enemy's?

Yes I saw the movie.
I don't deal in poison. I'll drink the wine before I hand it to you.

You are the one spreading poison. No one knows what the hell you are talking about except that is certainly not related to microtubules. You are the one presenting duplicity and introducing doubt as to my character.

If you want to play poker, I'm all in and my cards are on the table. If you have a better hand show me, or fold and slink away.

 

[billvon]

You are the one spreading poison. No one knows what the hell you are talking about except that is certainly not related to microtubules. You are presenting the duplicity and introducing doubt as to my character. If you want to play poker, I'm all in and my cards are on the table, and if you have a better hand show me, or fold and slink away.

SAAVIK: May I ask how you dealt with the test?
KIRK: You may ask.
(pause)
KIRK: That's a little joke.
SAAVIK: Humor. It is a difficult concept. It is not . . . logical.

 

[Write4U]

SAAVIK: May I ask how you dealt with the test?
KIRK: You may ask.
(pause)
KIRK: That's a little joke.
SAAVIK: Humor. It is a difficult concept. It is not . . . logical.

To the mods, please remove this post to a thread dealing with Humor. The persistent intentional distraction from this important OP topic is becoming tiresome.

 

[Write4U]

Just for the record,

As you were made aware repeatedly, the studies linked were flawed to begin with. Hammeroff and his cohorts have been unable to actually answer for those flaws.

Well that just proves you haven't read some pertinent links. The initial objections to the quantum concept have been satisfactorily addressed. Moreover, the concepts of quantum mechanics itself are undergoing modification, due to new good science.

Nature does not need to copy laboratory testing conditions. Laboratories are not always able to test natural conditions,...difference.

Macroscopic quantum phenomena

Macroscopic quantum phenomena
refer to processes showing quantum behavior at the macroscopic scale, rather than at the atomic scale where quantum effects are prevalent.

The best-known examples of macroscopic quantum phenomena are superfluidity and superconductivity; other examples include the quantum Hall effect, giant magnetoresistance and topological order. Since 2000 there has been extensive experimental work on quantum gases, particularly Bose–Einstein condensates.

Exactly the processes cited in the initial objections.

Between 1996 and 2016 six Nobel Prizes were given for work related to macroscopic quantum phenomena.[1] Macroscopic quantum phenomena can be observed in superfluid helium and in superconductors,[2] but also in dilute quantum gases, dressed photons such as polaritons and in laser light. Although these media are very different, their behavior is very similar as they all show macroscopic quantum behavior and to such extent they all can be referred to as quantum fluids.

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

 

[exchemist]

To the mods, please remove this post to a thread dealing with Humor. The persistent intentional distraction from this important OP topic is becoming tiresome.

 

[Michael 345]

Consciousness at basic level is being awake and aware (a process)

Discussion about what the processing unit is made of, microtubules, in essence does not matter, except for treatment of malfunction

If anyone thinks microtubules don't do the processing of numerous senses flooding the body and translate those inputs into being awake and aware, what are the alternative(s) structures for such a task?

 

[exchemist]

Consciousness at basic level is being awake and aware (a process)

Discussion about what the processing unit is made of, microtubules, in essence does not matter, except for treatment of malfunction

If anyone thinks microtubules don't do the processing of numerous senses flooding the body and translate those inputs into being awake and aware, what are the alternative(s) structures for such a task?

That, however, is not the claim put forward in this thread. Everyone knows microtubules are found in the cellular machinery, though the processing in the brain is thought to derive from the "switches" - synapses - between cells rather than microtubules, I think.

The claim that is the subject of this thread is that consciousness arises from "quantum processes" in microtubules. In post 5, I drew attention to the lack of evidence for this hypothesis. Nothing that has been posted since changes that.

 

[Michael 345]

The claim that is the subject of this thread is that consciousness arises from "quantum processes" in microtubules. In post 5, I drew attention to the lack of evidence for this hypothesis. Nothing that has been posted since changes that.

So am I right you are OK with
"switches" - synapses - between cells being the processors but not going a further step down to
"quantum processes" in microtubules ?

Did I get that right?

Crudely put electrical valves ✓, microprocessor X

 

[Write4U]

Thank you exchemist for that generous shift in perspective. I am in total agreement that the quantum question has not been resolved one way or the other.

But I am encouraged that, instead of outright rejection, we have advanced to the question of macro-quantum functions which was the basis for the original objections.

Since then this has been addressed and while not yet definetively proved in a laboratory, it has been theorized as not impossible. The question of wetness and temperature do not seem so daunting anymore.....
Let's be patient and see where the research leads us in the quantum direction.

Most revolutionary theories take a long time to address and refine all the possible obstacles which might falsify the concept. It seems we are at this stage now.

After all we are still talking about Quantum Mechanics and Macro-quantum is a new perspective.

 

[exchemist]

So am I right you are OK with
"switches" - synapses - between cells being the processors but not going a further step down to
"quantum processes" in microtubules ?

Did I get that right?

Crudely put electrical valves ✓, microprocessor X

The analogy is not exact.The "quantum computing" claim involves exploiting entanglement. Hameroff and Penrose proposed this, known as the "Orch-R" hypothesis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orchestrated_objective_reduction,
based on an argument to do with the diameter and geometry of microtubules and the presence of π-bonding.

(Nobody has yet built a quantum computer, but the theory of how it could works seems to be fairly well-established.)

The scientific community remans very sceptical of Orch-R, both for theoretical reasons and due to the falsification of many of its predictions. As outlined in post 5.

 

[exchemist]

Thank you exchemist for that generous shift in perspective. I am in total agreement that the quantum question has not been resolved one way or the other.

But I am encouraged that, instead of outright rejection, we have advanced to the question of macro-quantum functions which was the basis for the original objections.

Since then this has been addressed and while not yet definetively proved in a laboratory, it has been theorized as not impossible. The question of wetness and temperature do not seem so daunting anymore.....
Let's be patient and see where the research leads us in the quantum direction.

Most revolutionary theories take a long time to address and refine all the possible obstacles which might falsify the concept. It seems we are at this stage now.

After all we are still talking about Quantum Mechanics and Macro-quantum is a new perspective.

I have not changed my perspective one iota since post 5.

 

[Write4U]

I have not changed my perspective one iota since post 5.

Well, this is the first time I have heard you agree with anything I have posted in regard to microtubules. (forget the quantum aspect for a moment) .

So far I have been kicked around pretty good.

Please don't spoil this moment of clarity for all concerned.

 

[Bells]

Just for the record,

Why?

I wasn't clear enough the dozens of times before?

Well that just proves you haven't read some pertinent links.

I did. Unfortunately for you and I, I read all the links you posted and hence why I was able to previously point out how you openly posted quotes out of context and misrepresented what you were linking.

You keep saying people have not read your links.

We have.

And we still do not believe what you are claiming.

The delivery is bad. But the content is even worse.

The initial objections to the quantum concept have been satisfactorily addressed.

And as has been pointed out repeatedly and addressed repeatedly with links, it was not addressed at all.

But like all zealots, you refuse to accept it and demand it has been.

Just as you keep insisting we read your links and despite having read them, you keep telling us to keep reading them - because apparently the 10th time around the we are meant to fall into line or something?

Nature does not need to copy laboratory testing conditions. Laboratories are not always able to test natural conditions,...difference.

How about I go out into the woods and pick a mushroom and tell you you should lick it because I'm pretty sure it's good for whatever ailment you may have. Would you take my word for it? What if I told you that testing is not necessary to see if it's safe or even for your ailment, because well, a lab is not going to be able to replicate its effects such as if you licked the mushroom in a woodland setting, as that's where it has it's best effects, a few seconds after picking it.

You'd be fine with that, yeah?

Thank you exchemist for that generous shift in perspective. I am in total agreement that the quantum question has not been resolved one way or the other.

Why are you changing what he is saying? His perspective has not changed from the start of this thread - it was his first post in this thread actually. There was no shift in perspective.

Here is what he said in post 5:

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?

He literally says:

In post 5, I drew attention to the lack of evidence for this hypothesis. Nothing that has been posted since changes that.

And you are suggesting he has had a change in perspective?

Have you been licking various mushrooms in local forests?

 

[exchemist]

Well, this is the first time I have heard you agree with anything I have posted in regard to microtubules. (forget the quantum aspect for a moment) .

So far I have been kicked around pretty good.

Please don't spoil this moment of clarity for all concerned.

Just to make things crystal clear, then:

1) You have been kicked around deservedly, for persistently trying to introduce irrelevant rubbish about microtubules to numerous threads on other subjects. You have become a joke.
2) When it comes to this thread, you continue to post reams of irrelevant rubbish, about anything at all to do microtubules, whether it relates to consciousness or not.
3) On the actual subject of this thread, you have failed to find anything new relating to Orch-R since the highly unpersuasive 2014 paper that was mentioned in post 5 (five). And we are now at post 816, 18 months later.
4) My own position on Orch-R remains what it has been since the start of this increasingly pointless thread. I cannot see why you would claim it has changed, unless you are an idiot.

 

[river]

Write4U wrote from post # 776

As Tegmark posited, instead of asking the hard question of what causes consciuosness in the brain, we can begin with the hard fact that the brain does cause consciousness.

Disagree

The Brain does not cause consciousness ; Life does . Of which the Brain is also about .

The Brain is beyond just being about chemicals and electric circuits . Information .

( The more complex becomes the chemisrty and bio-chemistry , the more evolved , in a particular , the more evolved it will become , generally , their are always exceptions of course ) .

The Brain thinks .

This is undisputably true and allows us to examine the physical brain patterns which are causal to consciousness, rather than looking for an " extra special - ingredient "

Life energy ( the extra special , ingredient ) , which leads to thinking .

 

[Write4U]

Just to make things crystal clear, then:

3) On the actual subject of this thread, you have failed to find anything new relating to Orch-R since the highly unpersuasive 2014 paper that was mentioned in post 5 (five). And we are now at post 816, 18 months later.
4) My own position on Orch-R remains what it has been since the start of this increasingly pointless thread. I cannot see why you would claim it has changed, unless you are an idiot.

Just to make it crystal clear, it seems that you don't even know the full expression of the term ORCH OR, else you would not repeatedly post the wrong intitials ORCH R.

Get your terms straight and then we can discuss your objections to the quantum part of the theory.....

 

[exchemist]

Just to make it crystal clear, it seems that you don't even know the full expression of the term ORCH OR, else you would not repeatedly post the wrong intitials ORCH R.

Get your terms straight and then we can discuss your objections to the theory.....

I have no interest in discussing this, and least of all with a stubborn idiot.

 

[Write4U]

He literally says:
And you are suggesting he has had a change in perspective?

I don't give a hoot what exchemist's perspective is, or yours for that matter. He cannot even identify the theory correctly, let alone discuss the quantum aspects of it. You just don't have a clue at all of what I am talking about.