Is consciousness to be found in quantum processes in microtubules?

[Write4U]

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

Then stay the hell out of my thread!

Your behavior is tantamount to stalking.

 

[Write4U]

Specifically adressing the possible quantum function in microtubules:

However, the Orch OR approach does acknowledge that only a situation governed by purely non-linear physics can offer circumstances where quantum wave-packets will be reduced; non-linearity must be at the heart of the theory

This paper identifies a biological condition of non-linearity providing an advantageous way to explain objective reduction, OR, of wave packets: critical instability in complexity biology, known as 'criticality' The condition provides a rigorous reason why wave packet reduction should occur; one grounded in well-accepted modern biology, complexity biology

This paper develops the idea further: it demonstrates how critical instabilities are found not in the cytoplasmic reticulum where Penrose and Hameroff site their Orch OR, but under the very circumstances where one would expect consciousness to be located: at the loci of control of biological regulatory systems Wave packet reduction can then select the future that the organism desires, doing so on a microscopic quantum level.....pdf available

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/1251/1/012019/meta

 

[river]

Years ago I read about the structure of a water droplet when they said molecules at the surface aligned as I recall perpendicular to the surface and the charge effectively pushed other limited matter to the center. The article did not say it but it occurred to me that the droplet had properties which were somewhat similar to an egg..I lost that link ( the curse of using a phone rather than a desk top) and, given you are well read ask if you have come across what I am talking about?
Alex

Thinking has changed though .

The surface has thickness , depth , greater than " a " molecule . Much , much , much ...greater .

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Much , much , much ...greater

Wow that much greater...I had no idea.
Alex

 

[river]

The surface has thickness , depth , greater than " a " molecule . Much , much , much ...greater .

Wow that much greater...I had no idea.
Alex

That much greater and now you know .

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

That much greater and now you know .

And I forgot to thank you...so thank you.
I hope you are enjoying the Easter break.
Alex

 

[river]

And I forgot to thank you...so thank you.
I hope you are enjoying the Easter break.
Alex

I am in my own way .

 

[Write4U]

But the links do not provide any actual evidence.

That is because you don't use the links I have provided and YOU only keep citing the original objections to the concept of ORCH OR, which exchemist posted in post #5 .

So who keeps repeating the same old post over and over again? I keep posting new info constantly, yet no one seems have read anything past post # 5 ! That's the one being cited over and over again and is OLD NEWS that has been addressed several times by different scientists. Look for it in some of my links.

For those who are interested in the fundamentals of dynamic information processing in microtubules, leading to consciousness awareness of meaning of the orchestrated objectively reduced information, the video in post #769 is very informative. The MT structure allows for a cascading filtration of signals with different wavelengths. It shows that microtubules have 3 crystal lattices each sensitive to specific wavelengths, which provides a comparative ability (language) which the brain can translate into a conscious experience.

 

[river]

That is because you don't use links I have provided and YOU only keep citing the original original objections to the concept of ORCH OR, which exchemist posted in post #5 .
So who keeps repeating the same old post over and over again. I keep posting new info constantly, yet no one seems have read anything past post # 5 ! That's the one being cited over and over again and is OLD NEWS!

For those who are interested in the origins and fundamentals consciousness, the video in post #769 is very informative. It shows that microtubules have 3 crystal lattices each sensitive to specific wavelengths.
This structure allows for a cascading filtration of signals with different wavelengths.

Understood Write4U

But these signals do not give rise to consciousness .

Because they are just signals , wavelengths based on the emination from a physical object . Anything in the Periodic Table .

Not from Life .

 

[Write4U]

Understood Write4U
But these signals do not give rise to consciousness .

Yesss......, they do. That's the beauty of it.

Cause and Effect is the fundamental precursor to consciousness. It is a mathematical function which is itself a quasi-intelligent function.

Because they are just signals , wavelengths based on the emination from a physical object . Anything in the Periodic Table .

The point is that the emitted wavelengths are shaped in specific patterns, mathematical constructs which pervade spacetime and give shape to everything. These self-forming patterns can be considered as a form of universal memory, the ability to self-form repeating patterns from specific mathematical values and functions.

This may seem esoteric, but it is demonstrably true.

Universal self-forming patterns are an expression of universal mathematical memory. 1 + 1 = 2 is a transcendent mathematical pattern. It is an immutable mathematical function, a mathematical memory. It is a universal logical phenomenon.

All of science is based on the observation and cataloguing of these patterns and their specific properties as expressed from universal memory. All objects and patterns in the universe are expressions of universal memory of relative values and mathematical functions.

Not from Life .

All of Life, all of physics! All patterns are universal mathematical constructs from "memory". We use the term all the time to indicate a physical ability to recall specific pattern. We all know of elastic memory in many objects. We may argue that these are merely physical responses, but that is the very point. These are not "just" or "mere" phenoma, they are rematkable spacetime properties which keep everything together and allow for a gradual evolution from simple patterns to more complex patterns.

A growing body of evidence supports the notion that stem cells respond to mechanical signals presented by the local extracellular matrix (ECM). ... This implies that cells remember past mechanical environments and that this memory, or mechanical dosing, may influence long-term fate, even after translocation into the body.Mar 16, 2014

https://www.nature.com/articles/nmat3889

So, we have established that mechanical (mathematical) "memory" is a fundamental property of spacetime and everything within it.

What is consciousness? Isn't consciousness the ability to experience a pattern as a recognizable object, a sensory experience of memory? An object does not even have to be conscious, as long as it can electro-chemically respond to external stimulus in a repeatedly consistent manner from mechanical memory

I am sure this is where Penrose has modelled his ORCH OR on.

This sensory electro-chemical experiential effect can already be observed in the single celled paramecium through its cilia a dynamic propulsion system driven by microtubular engines. A Paramecium swims around and bumps into objects, which makes it back off and try a new direction to get past the obstacle. But paramecium can "learn". The organism has a mathematical electro-chemical memory of prior physical experiences. When they suck up a paramecium into a pipette repeatedly, it learns to escape faster each time. This has been tested and confirmed in laboratory.

Think about this. A paramecium has only one chemical motor, a microtubule mechanical sensory ability. Yet it can learn and have experiential memory of prior states and use it to its advantage.

The slime-mold is a remarkably clever single scelled multi nucleic organism.

Slime mold or slime mould is an informal name given to several kinds of unrelated eukaryotic organisms that can live freely as single cells, but can aggregate together to form multicellular reproductive structures. Slime molds were formerly classified as fungi but are no longer considered part of that kingdom.

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

A slime mold can remember where it has been, so that it doesn't repeat unfruitful searches.
it lays a chemical track which means "I have been here before" , and the slime mold recognizes this chemical trail and "knows" that it has previously explored this area.
This is at the single celled level, you cannot get any simpler living mobile organism. It can "navigate" Does it know it navigates? I doubt it but that is a matter of sophistication, not of ability to perform a mathematically "intentional" act.

How do we experience wind? It is not the movement of a single air molecule but a pattern formed by millions of air molecules which are registered by the hairs on our skin, translated into electro-chemical qubits, transported to the brain, and subsequently "unpacked" as a sensory experience, just like any computer.

Interphase cytoplasmic microtubules in tip-growing fission yeast cells have been shown to play a particularly important role in regulating cell polarity. ... Recently, endoplasmic microtubules have been identified in tip-growing root hairs, which are an experimental system for plant cell growth.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16101908

How do we experience color? A single photon emitted from a rose will not be experienced as red individually. But a stream of photons of a certain wavelength from a rose will be optically translated into electro-chemical qubits, transported to the brain, and subsequently "unpacked" as a sensory experience of red.

Researchers have discovered a thick band of microtubules in certain neurons in the retina that they believe acts as a transport road for mitochondria that help provide energy required for visual processing. ... The retina is a layer of tissue in the back of the eye that converts light into nerve impulses.Jun 29, 2015

Researchers have discovered a thick band of microtubules in certain neurons in the retina that they believe acts as a transport road for mitochondria that help provide energy required for visual processing. The findings appear in the July issue of The Journal of General Physiology.

The retina is a layer of tissue in the back of the eye that converts light into nerve impulses. The retina contains small, specialized neurons called bipolar cells that transmit information from light-sensitive photoreceptor cells to ganglion neurons, which send information to the brain for interpretation as images.

https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2015-06/rup-am062415.php

It is the patterns of particles received by our senses which are all translated into electro-chemical information (qubits), transported to the brain, and subsequently retranslated as an experiential event, a cognitive construct which is compared to memories of similar patterns in the brain.

As Anil Seth states, we create our reality as much from the inside out from memory as from the outside in from sensory observation of recognizable universal mathematical patterns.

Human just have evolved a very sophisticated microtubular memory network, but we are not alone by a long shot.
A sunflower can already detect and track the sun's radiation.

Photoperiodism is the ability to use light to track time. Plants can tell the time of day and time of year by sensing and using various wavelengths of sunlight.

https://courses.lumenlearning.com/wm-biology2/chapter/plant-responses-to-light/

I hope I have shown some of the various stages of increasing consciousness in the processing of cognizable xterior and interior stimuli.

 

[Write4U]

Just for clarity of the level at which organism apply mathematical functions for efficient survival purposes.

A Map of the US...Made of Slime Mold | Popular Science

A slime mold design highway system that took human highway planners and engineers decades to map and construct. We could even name the slime mold highways with the numbers of our human designed highways.

Interstate Highways

p.s. There is no functional difference between human observation of sunlight's physical (mathematical) wavelengths and a sunflower's observation of specific physical mathematical
wavelengths of sunlight. Both observational mechanics result in the same experiential "knowledge" methods of observation. The one difference between a brainless organisms unconscious knowledge and reaction to external stimulus and human conscious knowledge and reaction to external stimulus, is that where the "self" (pattern) of an inanimate machine or a chemical pattern doesn't know it knows and responds from an autonomous mathematical function, humans have evolved an awareness of knowing that we know and evolve a volitional self which gives us a measure of choice in anticipating future nehavior from best guesses based on our memories. This is the evolution of an emergent sensory awareness starting from "Cause->Effect, to chemical interactions producing repeating self-forming patterns, to electro/chemical reaction's ability to produce dynamic actions in specific responses to external and internal stimuli, to the final evolved state of sensory awareness from abstract perspectives and the ability for long range projections based on long term memory in the human brain.

The last ability may have been from a mutative fusion of two common chromosomes in our common ancestor, resulting in the only non-cosmetic real difference between Homo Sapiens and all other hominid species. Human chromosome 2 is a fusion of chromosome 2p and chromosome 2q, in all other Great Apes.

I think that where we acquired abstract "consious self-awareness", that makes us the most mentally evolved species. Note that there are many species with individual abilities that are far superior to humans, but no known intelligent organism has the exquisite versatility of "anticipation" and "planning".

"I think , therefore I am", and it's cousin, "From memory, I project myself into existence."

 

[Bells]

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.

Of course. It's everyone else but you who is wrong..

You claim to not give a hoot about his perspective, but a few posts ago you were praising him for apparently seeing things as you see them because you were determined to change the actual meaning of his words. It's actually quite astonishing how you think this is acceptable behaviour.

That is because you don't use the links I have provided and YOU only keep citing the original objections to the concept of ORCH OR, which exchemist posted in post #5 .

What part of:

I have read your links and found them lacking.

Did you not understand exactly?

I read your links and I also read other websites, which I have linked throughout this thread, in direct response to your links.

Telling me to keep reading the ones you provide, when I already have and told you repeatedly that I had.. Do you hope that I will be converted or something?

So who keeps repeating the same old post over and over again? I keep posting new info constantly, yet no one seems have read anything past post # 5 ! That's the one being cited over and over again and is OLD NEWS that has been addressed several times by different scientists. Look for it in some of my links.

For those who are interested in the fundamentals of dynamic information processing in microtubules, leading to consciousness awareness of meaning of the orchestrated objectively reduced information, the video in post #769 is very informative. The MT structure allows for a cascading filtration of signals with different wavelengths. It shows that microtubules have 3 crystal lattices each sensitive to specific wavelengths, which provides a comparative ability (language) which the brain can translate into a conscious experience.

You keep posting the same thing.

Once again, we've read your links. They don't prove what you are claiming.

 

[Write4U]

Of course. It's everyone else but you who is wrong..

Who have I called wrong? Seems to me you are calling me wrong. Moreover you are calling some very knowledgeable scientists wrong without haveing any knowledge of the subject yourself.
Stop your duplicitous accusations, please.

You claim to not give a hoot about his perspective, but a few posts ago you were praising him for apparently seeing things as you see them because you were determined to change the actual meaning of his words. It's actually quite astonishing how you think this is acceptable behaviour.

I see, my acknowledged appreciation of what I perceived as an act of generosity by exchemist makes me a bad guy?
Stop your duplicitous accusations, please.

Did you not understand exactly?

I did not understand your misspelling of the word "grandeur", which apparently you still haven't noticed and is an indication of your lack of attention to anything I post, even after I brought it to your attention by posting a quote of your error.

You are clearly only skimming and not giving any thought to what I post and the links I provide. I don't care if you disagree with me, but I do disagree with the way you are unfairly applying your power as moderator and sling your ad hominems at me while I try to maintain my civility in the face of your provocative language.

I am the injured party here, Bells, not you! I have not broken any rules and there is no reason for you to interfere with my attempts to analyze a proposed hypothesis by acknowledged brilliant scientific minds such as Roger Penrose

Roger Penrose, Mathematician
Sir Roger Penrose OM FRS is an English mathematical physicist, mathematician and philosopher of science. He is Emeritus Rouse Ball Professor of Mathematics in the University of Oxford, an emeritus fellow of Wadham College, Oxford and an honorary fellow of St John's College, Cambridge. Wikipedia

and Stuart Hameroff, a dedicated practicing anesthesiologists, which you have slandered to your everlasting shame.

Stuart Hameroff, Anesthesiologist
Stuart Hameroff is an anesthesiologist and professor at the University of Arizona known for his studies of consciousness and his controversial contention that consciousness originates from quantum states in neural microtubules. He is the lead organizer of the Science of Consciousness conference. Wikipedia

You are not insulting me, you are insulting them and the only basis for your vehement objection to my presentation is an old and subsequently addressed critique of the original paper. Do you even remember who wrote that critique? What do you know about the brain and microtubules that gives you standing to make a "authoritative" comment on the subject?

What is your knowledge of the subject that you can so confidently support the critique of that original paper as coming from a more qualified source than the authors of that original paper? Climbing the band-wagon per chance?

I do not claim authorship of anything. Your accusations are completely misplaced, prejudicial, and duplicitous in nature.

 

[Write4U]

Reply to criticism of the ‘Orch OR qubit’ – ‘Orchestrated objective reduction’ is scientifically justified

The critical commentary by Reimers et al.

[1] regarding the Penrose–Hameroff theory of ‘orchestrated objective reduction’ (‘Orch OR’) is largely uninformed and basically incorrect, as they solely criticize non-existent features of Orch OR, and ignore (1) actual Orch OR features, (2) supportive evidence, and (3) previous answers to their objections (Section 5.6 in our review [2]). Here we respond point-by-point to the issues they raise.

Reimers et al.
… For quantum information processing one must have quantum information storage units such as qubits… the involvement of quantum gravity in the manifestation of consciousness would need to be described in terms of how quantum gravity affected the operation of these qubits …

Stuart Hameroff and Roger Penrose:
Basically true. And this is just what we have done. Qubits involve (1) superposition of alternative possible states, and (2) a mechanism by which the possible states reduce, or collapse to definite states.

With regard to point (1), any type of superposed state can, in principle, serve as a qubit, e.g. simultaneous alternative electric charge location, spin, dipole orientation, photon polarization, Fock state, topological pathway (‘braid’), or current flow direction (e.g. superconducting Josephson junctions).

In Orch OR, the qubit involves electric dipole orientations in ‘quantum channels’ within each tubulin (microtubule subunit proteins), and between such tubulins along helical pathways through microtubule lattices. The dipoles occur due to coupled London force attractions among phenyl and indole rings of aromatic amino acids (tryptophan, phenylalanine and tyrosine) which comprise ‘quantum channels’. The coupled dipoles oscillate between alternative orientations, and become superpositions of both states to function as qubits (Fig. 1b, and Figs. 5–7 in our review)......more

(a) old paper, not fully developed........................
(b) Schematic cartoon version of the Orch OR qubit developed since 2002 (following identification of tubulin structure by electron crystallography [4], [5]). Each tubulin is shown to have 9 rings representing 32 actual phenyl or indole rings per tubulin, with coupled, oscillating London force dipole orientations among rings traversing ‘quantum channels’, aligning with rings in adjacent tubulins in helical pathways through microtubule lattices. On the right, superposition of alternative tubulin and helical pathway dipole states. There is no conformational flexing. Mechanical displacement occurs at the femtometer level of tubulin atomic nuclei (not shown). Reimers et al. continually, and exclusively, criticize the obsolete, non-implemented version on left (a), and ignore the actual Orch OR dipole pathway qubit version on right (b).

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1571064513001917

 

[Write4U]

OK, in fairness of objective reporting, here is an example of the objections to ORCH OR.
IMO, it is filled with "spooky language" of vague generalities which merely indicate a lack of knowledge rather than knowledge which falsifies the hypothesis.
Here goes, the case against ORCH OR.
Consciousness, biology and quantum hypotheses.

Abstract
Natural phenomena are reducible to quantum events in principle, but quantum mechanics does not always provide the best level of analysis. The many-body problem, chaotic avalanches, materials properties, biological organisms, and weather systems are better addressed at higher levels. Animals are highly organized, goal-directed, adaptive, selectionist, information-preserving, functionally redundant, multicellular, quasi-autonomous, highly mobile, reproducing, dissipative systems that conserve many fundamental features over remarkably long periods of time at the species level. Animal brains consist of massive, layered networks of specialized signaling cells with 10,000 communication points per cell, and interacting up to 1000 Hz. Neurons begin to divide and differentiate very early in gestation, and continue to develop until middle age.

So far this wonderful complexity suggests a real possibility of an emergent transcendent property we call consciousness

Waking brains operate far from thermodynamic equilibrium under delicate homeostatic control, making them extremely sensitive to a range of physical and chemical stimuli, highly adaptive, and able to produce a remarkable range of goal-relevant actions.

Exactly how sensitive are brains to a range of physical and chemical stimuli? Just because we are as yet unable to grow a brain in a vat and have to restrict our experiments to extremely cold environment to be able to get anything to work at all, which is clearly not anywhere near an accurate presentation of quantum functions in nature. By this standard quantum can only occur in deep space.

Consciousness is "a difference that makes a difference" at the level of massive neuronal interactions in the most parallel-interactive anatomical structure of the mammalian brain, the cortico-thalamic (C-T) system. Other brain structures are not established to result in direct conscious experiences, at least in humans. However, indirect extra-cortical influences on the C-T system are pervasive. Learning, brain plasticity and major life adaptations may require conscious cognition. While brains evolved over hundreds of millions of years, and individual brains grow over months, years and decades, conscious events appear to have a duty cycle of ∼100 ms, fading after a few seconds. They can of course be refreshed by inner rehearsal, re-visualization, or attending to recurrent stimulus sources.

There you go! The very complexity of the brains neural networks may well produce an emergent extra-sensory consciousness, just as wetness is an emergent property of a pattern of H2O molecules.

These very distinctive brain events are needed when animals seek out and cope with new, unpredictable and highly valued life events, such as evading predators, gathering critical information, seeking mates and hunting prey. Attentional selection of conscious events can be observed behaviorally in animals showing coordinated receptor orienting, flexible responding, alertness, emotional reactions, seeking, motivation and curiosity, as well as behavioral surprise and cortical and autonomic arousal.

Autonomic indeed. Autonomic functions are not designed for conscious perception. They are control mechanisms that keep us alive. That does not mean they don't function via quantum principles.

Brain events corresponding to attentional selection are prominent and widespread. Attention generally results in conscious experiences, which may be needed to recruit widespread processing resources in the brain.

Precisely. Attentional brainfunctions require consciousness. Autonomous brain functions do not require consciousness. This does not mean that all brain functions are unconscious or need to be conscious.

Many neuronal processes never become conscious, such as the balance system of the inner ear. An air traveler may "see" the passenger cabin tilt downward as the plane tilts to descend for a landing. That visual experience occurs even at night, when the traveler has no external frame of spatial reference. The passenger's body tilt with respect to gravity is detected unconsciously via the hair cells of the vestibular canals, which act as liquid accelerometers. However, that sensory activity is not experienced directly. It only becomes conscious via vision and the body senses. The vestibular sense is therefore quite different from visual perception, which "reports" accurately to a conscious field of experience, so that we can point accurately to a bright star on a dark night. Vestibular input is also precise but unconscious.

You bet it is. It is our attentional brain function that makes a best guess as to the vestibular input.

Conscious cognition is therefore a distinct kind of brain event. Many of its features are well established, and must be accounted for by any adequate theory. No non-biological examples are known.

And what does that prove?

Penrose and Hameroff have proposed that consciousness may be viewed as a fundamental problem in quantum physics.

Specifically, their 'orchestrated objective reduction' (Orch-OR) hypothesis posits that conscious states arise from quantum computations in the microtubules of neurons.

That is common accepted science.

However, a number of microtubule-associated proteins are found in both plant and animal cells (like neurons) and plants are not generally considered to be conscious.

Really, plants do not have o responses to exterior stimuli?

Current quantum-level proposals do not explain the prominent empirical features of consciousness.

There are no current proposals of any kind that explain the prominent empirical features of consciousness. That is a perfectly circular argument.

Notably, they do not distinguish between closely matched conscious and unconscious brain events, as cognitive-biological theories must. About half of the human brain does not support conscious contents directly, yet neurons in these "unconscious" brain regions contain large numbers of microtubules.

So some microtubules are not used for conscious experience. microtubules are used in mitosis. Should we consciously experience cell division?

QM phenomena are famously observer-dependent, but to the best of our knowledge it has not been shown that they require a conscious observer, as opposed to a particle detector.

Right, the brain does not need to consciously perceive quantum phenomena. I t only needs to function that way.

Conscious humans cannot detect quantum events "as such" without the aid of special instrumentation. Instead, we categorize the wavelengths of light into conscious sensory events that neglect their quantum mechanical properties.

A totally useless statement.

In science the burden of proof is on the proposer, and this burden has not yet been met by quantum-level proposals. While in the future we may discover quantum effects that bear distinctively on conscious cognition 'as such,' we do not have such evidence today.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22925839[/quote]
Well that is what we are trying to discover, no? You want to start with demanding proofs before we know how to pose the question?
Nothing in this refutation refutes anything. It merely say that nothing has been proved yet. OK.

Now revisit Anil Seth and his lecture on "controlled hallucinations" being the result of the brain's "best guess" of what it perceives consciously from perception and the exquisite unconscious control of it's interoceptive regulation of the internal organs

 

[billvon]

Wow that much greater...I had no idea.
Alex

Yeah, I always thought it was just much, much greater.

 

[Bells]

Who have I called wrong? Seems to me you are calling me wrong. Moreover you are calling some very knowledgeable scientists wrong without haveing any knowledge of the subject yourself.
Stop your duplicitous accusations, please.

I have repeatedly said that there is no evidence to support their claims.

I see, my acknowledged appreciation of what I perceived as an act of generosity by exchemist makes me a bad guy?
Stop your duplicitous accusations, please.

Speaking of duplicitous accusations..

You have this inane habit of deliberately taking things out of context... Not to mention the whole bolding of sentences..

I did not understand your misspelling of the word "grandeur", which apparently you still haven't noticed and is an indication of your lack of attention to anything I post, even after I brought it to your attention by posting a quote of your error.

Because focusing on a typo is more important than addressing the actual point that was being made.

You are clearly only skimming and not giving any thought to what I post and the links I provide. I don't care if you disagree with me, but I do disagree with the way you are unfairly applying your power as moderator and sling your ad hominems at me while I try to maintain my civility in the face of your provocative language.

Maintain civility? Is that what you are calling it?

Interesting.

Secondly, your dishonest in the manner in which you take things out of context to get it to fit into what you are trying to argue has been problematic for a long time in this thread. Once again, I have read the links you posted and once again, found them lacking in evidence for your claims.

Thirdly, the manner in which you imply I am abusing my "power as moderator" implies that I am issuing you with warnings or have moderated you directly. The only thing I have done has been to request, after numerous members filed reports against you, that you keep your microtubules to one thread and this thread was moved to this sub-forum because once again, there is no evidence to support the claim that consciousness can be found in the quantum processes in microtubules. I have also been forced to move posts you have made in other threads, off topic posts mind you, about microtubules, to this thread. I have never issued you with an infraction. To suggest that I am abusing my "power as moderator" is exceptionally dishonest on your part and again points to your continued dishonesty..

Finally, provocative language, given you have been spouting rubbish to such an extent that we had to try to keep your posts about microtubules contained to one thread because you were infecting the forum with it is a bit rich. You couldn't even contain yourself in a thread about the world's reaction to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

I am the injured party here, Bells, not you! I have not broken any rules and there is no reason for you to interfere with my attempts to analyze a proposed hypothesis by acknowledged brilliant scientific minds such as Roger Penrose

You can post whatever the hell you want, but you are again asked to keep your microtubules to this thread and to stop posting off topic stuff in other threads about microtubules.

You are also asked to stop making factual claims when you are unable to back it up with any actual proof..

And you certainly will have to put up with people questioning and disagreeing with you and even telling you that you are wrong, because, and this is the most important thing that I can try to again get across to you:

Sciforums is not your personal blog site.​

and Stuart Hameroff, a dedicated practicing anesthesiologists, which you have slandered to your everlasting shame.

He's a quack << --- [this is an embedded link] who is also unable to cope with any criticism and questions about his claims and theory..

You are not insulting me, you are insulting them and the only basis for your vehement objection to my presentation is an old and subsequently addressed critique of the original paper. Do you even remember who wrote that critique? What do you know about the brain and microtubules that gives you standing to make a "authoritative" comment on the subject?

I'm fine calling them quacks.

And I have read enough to understand that they have proven diddly.

Also, it was several months since I linked that critique - much has happened since them. So no, I don't remember the name of the author(s) - I remember I posted one by an Australian scientist who tore the theory to shreds though.

What is your knowledge of the subject that you can so confidently support the critique of that original paper as coming from a more qualified source than the authors of that original paper? Climbing the band-wagon per chance?

This has been addressed throughout the thread.

You can go back and read through my posts here if you want an answer to that question.

And yeah, I think they are quacks.

I do not claim authorship of anything. Your accusations are completely misplaced, prejudicial, and duplicitous in nature.

Right..

Some of us still remember your hive mind arguments earlier in this thread..

As I said.. quacks..

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Yeah, I always thought it was just much, much greater.

I think it is actually a poofteenth less than that but certainly within a smidge of where river called it.
Alex

 

[Write4U]

Some of us still remember your hive mind arguments earlier in this thread..

Some Intriguing New Hints About What Ant Consciousness Is Really Like

They build cities. They farm. They make war. Ants do a lot of things that seem uncannily human — and yet they’re profoundly alien, part of a hive mind called a social organism. What does that feel like to each individual ant? Now a new scientific paper suggests that there is always doubt in the hive mind.

Over at New Scientist, Karl Gruber describes the work of two scientists who recently published a paper in Proceedings of the Royal Society B about a strange form of ant behavior. When ants go in search of food, they lay down a “scent trail” behind them that serves as a kind of chemical signpost for other members of their colony. But what happens when ants return to their own scent paths, and discover that the food it points to is gone?

Basically, the researchers found two clues about ant consciousness. One, as Czaczkes suggests, it appears that ants experience uncertainty. They “question their own knowledge,” wondering whether they are on the trail to an actual reward, versus a possible reward. This questioning is at the root of a sophisticated mental modeling technique called metacognition.

This finding also suggests that individual ant agency is a key part of the social organism. These ants are not blindly following in the scent paths of their sisters. They are always revising those paths, and seem open at any time to reconsidering a particular direction. Without individual ants making these choices, the colony would collapse.

Even though ants work collectively, often sacrificing their lives in extraordinarily selfless ways to save the colony, they are also working as individuals. Perhaps being part of a social organism doesn’t feel that much different from being part of human civilization after all.

https://gizmodo.com/some-intriguing-new-hints-about-what-ant-consciousness-1711031054

Read the full scientific paper at Proceedings of the Royal Society B

 

[Write4U]

He's a quack << --- [this is an embedded link] who is also unable to cope with any criticism and questions about his claims and theory..

Apart from the colorfull description of the speakers and a completely unscientific description of the event itself (some kind of festival?). I did find a reference to one scientist who addresses the consciousness question substantially without all the external distractions and which I have cited repeatedly as a reference to consult.

Not everyone shares Chalmers’s neuro-scepticism. In a 2016 essay for Aeon, Anil Seth, a professor of cognitive and computational neuroscience at the University of Sussex, who also spoke at Tucson this year, proposed “the real problem of consciousness”, a phrase intended as a poke at Chalmers.

Seth argues that we should be spending our time unpacking the biological mechanisms of consciousness rather than hunting for mysterious workarounds. The back-and-forth between those who believe the answer to consciousness lies solely inside the brain, and those who believe it is the brain plus something else, has long been a source of tension in consciousness studies. And while most of the neuroscientists I spoke with share Seth’s view

, it is a testament to the influence of Chalmers’s 1994 presentation that it is still being attacked all these years later.

Everybody gets attacked, most often by people who have no standing in the field at all.

I also like Max Tegmark's perspective that consciousness is an emergent mathematical pattern from existing biological conditions, which of course does not really conflict with any of the mechanics of consciousness. He proposes that instead of asking the hard question of why or when some particle arrangements produce consciousness, we can start with the hard fact that some arrangements of particles such as our brains do produce consciousness. All we need to do is find the relative values and mathematical functions involved.

And no on seems to dispute the position that, setting aside the quantum aspect, the microtubule (neural) network is the seat of consciousness. To me, the question of a quantum function is of secondary importance. This would be at a level much to small for us to actually experience these processes.

I want to know where consciousness resides or emerges from, regardless of the exact biological processes.

So the OP question can also be posed as "Is consciousness to be found in the microtubule network and processes"?
Do you have an answer to that? If we can agree on that, we might make progress.

If not, I'd like to hear why not, other than derogatory comments.