Is consciousness to be found in quantum processes in microtubules?

[Bells]

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.

From the article that you are saying "no one seems to dispute the position that" 'blah blah microtubules':

I thought George Mashour would counter the naysayers. Mashour, a professor of anaesthetics at the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor and director of its Center for Consciousness Science, first went to Tucson back in the late 1990s when he was a graduate student, and he credits Hameroff for “creating a home for this field”. This year, he co-chaired the event. So, surely, he would vigorously defend it, right?

Nope. He did note the quality of the genuinely thought-provoking plenary sessions, such as the panel on psychedelic drugs and the one on anaesthesia (which, in affecting consciousness, might shed light on the phenomenon itself). But he called the poster presentations “ridiculousness”, and was distressed by the talks that were mostly conjecture mixed with spirituality and a dash of the quantum. Still, he thought, it could have been even worse: he battled with Hameroff behind the scenes over the more extreme proposals. “That was me putting my fist down and saying we cannot accept this craziness,” Mashour says. “We don’t want the field to be marginalised because of some of the unrigorous fringe elements that show up.”

[...]

Another criticism leveled at Hameroff is that he stacks the conference with talks about his pet theory involving microtubules, the cell structures that he believes hold the key to understanding consciousness. His is not a widely shared view. As Mashour puts it: “There’s only one anesthesiologist who’s obsessed with microtubules.” You are unlikely to hear microtubules even mentioned at ASSC. Hameroff, at first, told me that there really wasn’t all that much on microtubules at the Tucson conference. When I pointed out to him that the word is used 102 times in the programme, he replied: “If that’s because of me, then good for me.”​

You clearly only read what you wanted to read.

If one one disputed it, it is because he stacked the conference with people who were in no position to dispute it. For example:

And an enthusiastic fellow demonstrated his spontaneous postural alignment technique, in which a misaligned subject’s elbow is tapped with a gold medallion while the healer intones “boy-yoi-yoing”.​

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.

This has been answered and addressed multiple times. I don't understand why you are asking it again.

There is no evidence to suggest consciousness is to be found in the "microtubule network and processes".

 

[billvon]

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.

Answer - still no. Microtubules are not necessary for consciousness, they play no essential role in consciousness, and have not been demonstrated to be needed for consciousness.

 

[Write4U]

From the article that you are saying "no one seems to dispute the position that" 'blah blah microtubules':

At last a quote. Perhaps you missed my earlier invitations for contributions pro or con. Just posting a link without at least a small quoted excerpt is not very productive. What is the salient point?

Finally you have attached a pertinent quote. It'll allow me to specifically research the why and how this perspective came about. I think there were some qualifications contained in Mashours' objections. I think he is not very interested in microtubules, he sounds like a technician concerned with the art of rendering people unconscious, rather than the actual mechanics of consciousness itself. There is only one indisputable available candidate capable of being instrumental in the emergence of consciousness, The microtubule. Hameroff has made a persuasive casein that regard. Remember how he even came to know about Penrose?

If Penrose thinks the universe is conscious , he can make that case separately. I am interested in the role of microtubules, a wide field of scientif research. You cannot ignore the importance of microtubules. You wouldn't be born without microtubules (no mitosis). Your cells wouldn't renew if it weren't for microtubules. You wouldn't be able to walk upright if it weren't for microtubules (cytoskeleton).
Dissecting the role of the tubulin code in mitosis.

Abstract,
Mitosis is an essential process that takes place in all eukaryotes and involves the equal division of genetic material from a parental cell into two identical daughter cells. During mitosis, chromosome movement and segregation are orchestrated by a specialized structure known as the mitotic spindle, composed of a bipolar array of microtubules. The fundamental structure of microtubules comprises of α/β-tubulin heterodimers that associate head-to-tail and laterally to form hollow filaments. Microtubules are modified by abundant and evolutionarily conserved tubulin posttranslational modifications (PTMs), giving these filaments the potential for a wide chemical diversity.

In recent years, the concept of a "tubulin code" has emerged as an extra layer of regulation governing microtubule function. A range of tubulin isoforms, each with a diverse set of PTMs, provides a readable code for microtubule motors and other microtubule-associated proteins. This chapter focuses on the complexity of tubulin PTMs with an emphasis on detyrosination and summarizes the methods currently used in our laboratory to experimentally manipulate these modifications and study their impact in mitosis. © 2018 Elsevier Inc.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29804676

As Mashour puts it: “There’s only one anesthesiologist who’s obsessed with microtubules.” You are unlikely to hear microtubules even mentioned at ASSC. Hameroff, at first, told me that there really wasn’t all that much on microtubules at the Tucson conference. When I pointed out to him that the word is used 102 times in the programme, he replied: “If that’s because of me, then good for me.”

Yes, Hameroff knows and wants to talk about microtubules, Penrose wants to talk about quantum. Anything wrong with that?
It is useless to involve Hameroff in any deep discussion of quantum. It's not his expertise, as he readily admits.
OTOH, it is useless to involve Penrose in a deep discussion about microtubules. It is not his expertise, as he readily admits.

Penrose:There are two other words I do not understand, awareness and intelligence.
Well, why am I talking about things when I do not know what they really mean? It is probably because I am a mathematician and mathematicians do not mind so much about that sort of thing. They do not need precise definitions of the things they are talking about, provided they can say something about the connections between them.

You haven't heard a single word from me about associated philosophers who are interested in the subject of "consciousness" .

• The Large, the Small and the Human Mind (1997).[/quote]

I haven't invoked Chopra or even Penrose's perspective on microtubules, other than that he is the quantum guy, whereas Hameroff is the microtubule guy.

Does life in some way make use of the potentiality for vast quantum superpositions, as would be required for serious quantum computation? How important are the quantum aspects of DNA molecules? Are cellular microtubules performing some essential quantum roles? Are the subtleties of quantum field theory important to biology? Shall we gain needed insights from the study of quantum toy models? Do we really need to move forward to radical new theories of physical reality, as I myself believe, before the more subtle issues of biology — most importantly conscious mentality — can be understood in physical terms?

How relevant, indeed, is our present lack of understanding of physics at the quantum/classical boundary? Or is consciousness really “no big deal,” as has sometimes been expressed?
It would be too optimistic to expect to find definitive answers to all these questions, at our present state of knowledge, but there is much scope for healthy debate...

• Foreword (March 2007) to Quantum Aspects of Life (2008), by Derek Abbott.

And as far as I can see, the debate continues, whereas you just want to shut it down. After all the whole thing is a hoax perpetrated by two charlatans, right? It's just woo, spouted by quacks and charlatans, right? I disagree, I think there is something there. I don't know what, but it isn't spiritual, it's biological.

I am furthering the conversation, that doesn't make me an idiot, does it?

Keep the info coming. This thread is bathed in sunlight. Nothing gets hidden because it is an "inconvenient truth".
I have no personal axe to grind here. I am just a very interested person and who isn't interested in this question which a few thousand years old.

​

 

[Write4U]

Answer - still no. Microtubules are not necessary for consciousness, they play no essential role in consciousness, and have not been demonstrated to be needed for consciousness.

(bolded mine)
You cannot make that definitive statement. You accuse me of making definitive statements, yet you are doing it now. Page 5 again or is the entire thread wasted on this useless stupid little microtubule that somehow seems to be involved in every information control function in our body, especially in brain function.

Then what does? Something in our brains is demonstrating consciousness, that hard fact is undeniable. If you are so sure that it is not the microtubules in our neural network, can you offer an alternative candidate?
God? Is that the only alternative?

Absence of proof is not proof of absence, it's proof of insufficient knowledge.

 

[billvon]

Page 5 again or is the entire thread wasted on this useless stupid little microtubule that somehow seems to be involved in every information control function in our body, especially in brain function.

So is sodium. So I could just as validly claim that consciousness is found in sodium.

Then what does? Something in our brains is demonstrating consciousness, that hard fact is undeniable. If you are so sure that it is not the microtubules in our neural network, can you offer an alternative candidate?

Sure. Sodium. Everything conscious has sodium in its neural network.

 

[Write4U]

What we have so far;
Consciousness is an emergent quality of brain function? Yes.
Consciousness is an emergent quality of the neural network function of the brain? Yes.
Consciousness is an emergent quality of the microtubular function in the neural network of the brain? Are you crazy???

 

[Write4U]

So is sodium. So I could just as validly claim that consciousness is found in sodium.
Sure. Sodium. Everything conscious has sodium in its neural network.

Noo, that is a patently wrong strawman argument..
That's not talking about an information processor. That's talking about the information being processed, difference! The sensory experience of salty taste is delivered to you by the brain via microtubules, whether you like it or not.

The microtubule consists of two tubulins only, a tubulin dimer, self-organized into an electro-chemical information processor. You cannot deny this , you have 43 pages of proof in front of you. At least that I can claim as fact.
Microtubules form the scaffolding for information processing, a major component of the biological computer hardware, the processing network.

 

[billvon]

Noo, that is a patently wrong strawman argument..

Pretty clear you don't understand what a strawman argument is.

The microtubule consists of two tubulins only, a tubulin dimer, self-organized into an electro-chemical information processor. You cannot deny this , you have 43 pages of proof in front of you. At least that I can claim as fact.

Yep.

Microtubules form the scaffolding for information processing, a major component of the biological computer hardware, the processing network.

So does the endoplasmic reticulum. That has as much claim to be the scaffolding for information processing.

 

[Write4U]

Pretty clear you don't understand what a strawman argument is.

Yes, you just made one .

Yep.

We have agreement that microtubules are electro-chemical information processors!

So does the endoplasmic reticulum. That has as much claim to be the scaffolding for information processing.

OK, that is definitely a better example. What do you make of this?

The role of microtubules in transport between the endoplasmic reticulum and Golgi apparatus in mammalian cells. Palmer KJ1, Watson P, Stephens DJ.

Abstract,
The organization of intracellular compartments and the transfer of components between them are central to the correct functioning of mammalian cells. Proteins and lipids are transferred between compartments by the formation, movement and subsequent specific fusion of transport intermediates. These vesicles and membrane clusters must be coupled to the cytoskeleton and to motor proteins that drive motility.

Anterograde ER (endoplasmic reticulum)-to-Golgi transport, and the converse step of retrograde traffic from the Golgi to the ER, are now known to involve coupling of membranes to the microtubule cytoskeleton. Here we shall discuss our current understanding of the mechanisms that link membrane traffic in the early secretory pathway to the microtubule cytoskeleton in mammalian cells. Recent data have also provided molecular detail of functional co-ordination of motor proteins to specify directionality, as well as mechanisms for regulating motor activity by protein phosphorylation.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15649125

Microtubules and the endoplasmic reticulum are highly interdependent structures. Terasaki M, Chen LB, Fujiwara K.

Abstract,
The interrelationships of the endoplasmic reticulum (ER), microtubules, and intermediate filaments were studied in the peripheral regions of thin, spread fibroblasts, epithelial, and vascular endothelial cells in culture. We combined a fluorescent dye staining technique to localize the ER with immunofluorescence to localize microtubules or intermediate filaments in the same cell. Microtubules and the ER are sparse in the lamellipodia, but intermediate filaments are usually completely absent.

These relationships indicate that microtubules and the ER advance into the lamellipodia before intermediate filaments. We observed that microtubules and tubules of the ER have nearly identical distributions in lamellipodia, where new extensions of both are taking place. We perturbed microtubules by nocodazole, cold temperature, or hypotonic shock, and observed the effects on the ER distribution.

On the basis of our observations in untreated cells and our experiments with microtubule perturbation, we conclude that microtubules and the ER are highly interdependent in two ways: (a) polymerization of individual microtubules and extension of individual ER tubules occur together at the level of resolution of the fluorescence microscope, and (b) depolymerization of microtubules does not disrupt the ER network in the short term (15 min), but prolonged absence of microtubules (2 h) leads to a slow retraction of the ER network towards the cell center, indicating that over longer periods of time, the extended state of the entire ER network requires the microtubule system.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3533956[/quote]

 

[billvon]

Yes, you just made one.

No. A strawman argument is where you reconstruct someone else's argument to make it easier to argue against.

This would be a strawman argument: "Oh, so you claim microtubules are conscious? So a bucket of them would be super conscious? That's ridiculous!"

My apologies if you actually believe that, but since you did not SAY that, it's a strawman argument.

This is not:

"Sodium is just as essential to neural function is, therefore is as much of a candidate for consciousness as microtubules are." I am not restating your argument; I am stating my own argument.

See the difference?

We have agreement that microtubules are electro-chemical information processors!

No, we don't. We agree they are microstructures with a lot of functions in cells. (Similar to the reticulum.)

The role of microtubules in transport between the endoplasmic reticulum and Golgi apparatus in mammalian cells. Palmer KJ1, Watson P, Stephens DJ.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15649125

Microtubules and the endoplasmic reticulum are highly interdependent structures. Terasaki M, Chen LB, Fujiwara K.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3533956

Right; there are microtubules in retuculi. So what?

Surely you do not think that since microtubules have a lot of functions, that proves they are responsible for consciousness? Again - you can make exactly the same argument for sodium.

 

[Write4U]

No. A strawman argument is where you reconstruct someone else's argument to make it easier to argue against.

Yes and that's what you just did. Salt is not a dynamic object its a chemical compound. A bucketful of salt is a bucket full of salt. OTOH, a trillion microtubular network processing information makes a conscious human. Humans are conscious. That's a fact and this quality is a result of human neural functions, with MT as the information processing mecahnism.

This would be a strawman argument: "Oh, so you claim microtubules are conscious? So a bucket of them would be super conscious? That's ridiculous!"

No it is like saying a MT is a processor and a bucketful (trillion) throughout the body make a super processor, with emergent super qualities, such as sensory experiences, dynamic volational movement, self-orientation in one's environment, and arguing the merits of its own ingredients which have an evolved emergent quality of consciousness.

My apologies if you actually believe that, but since you did not SAY that, it's a strawman argument.

No need to apologize.

This is not: "Sodium is just as essential as a neural function is, therefore is as much of a candidate for consciousness as microtubules are." I am not restating your argument; I am stating my own argument. See the difference?

Oh yes I see the difference. Salt does not make you smart. Salt just helps in keeping you alive. Salt has nothing to do with consciousness. OTOH, microtubules keep you alive by distributing the right amounts of salt to places in the body where it is needed, a quasi-intelligent action.

No, we don't. We agree they are microstructures with a lot of functions in cells. (Similar to the reticulum.) Right; there are microtubules in retuculi. So what?

So what? Perhaps MT make the reticuli function the way they do and definitely provide the transport mechanism for the stuff the reticuli make, via the MT information delivery system.

Connecting the Cytoskeleton to the Endoplasmic Reticulum and Golgi
Pinar S.Gurel Anna L.Hatch Henry N.Higgs

A tendency in cell biology is to divide and conquer. For example, decades of painstaking work have led to an understanding of endoplasmic reticulum (ER) and Golgi structure, dynamics, and transport. In parallel, cytoskeletal researchers have revealed a fantastic diversity of structure and cellular function in both actin and microtubules.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982214005983

Note the information transport mechanism between the MT and the mitochondria. The ER makes informational stuff, the MT transports the information all the way up to the brain where necessary. The ER does not have a network, they are individual constructs which rely on MT to distribute the informational stuff they make.

Surely you do not think that since MT have a lot of functions, that proves they are responsible for consciousness?

Consciousness is an emergent phenomenon from the entire information processing network.
Also note the abundance of actin at the neural synapses.

The more sophisticated the information processing the greater the emergent consciousness of the experiential information. This can be demonstrated with emergent sophistication of sensory processing and the resulting increased awareness of the source and meaning of sensory perception and internal control interoception.

A paramecium can swim via a MT motor, it experiences external stimuli and reacts and has the ability to learn some very rudimentary physical responses, but it is not conscious, it is not sophisticated enought to process complex information. But the MT cilia enables it to swim and change direction. A proto sentient motive ability.

A slime mold has observable experiential abilities. It is a single celled multi neucleus organism, a pseudopod, which means it walks by means of MT dynamic processes. No brain, but it can do some very extraordinary things and has a sense of time via its large number of semi-autonomous MT processes working in tandem. A more sophisticated organism with a MT network. A quasi-sentience.

Animals have extraordinary experiential abilities provided by their enormous MT network (perhaps in tandem with Endoplasmic and Golgi processors). But those processors do not transport information, they make it.

Again - you can make exactly the same argument for sodium.

No you cannot. Salt is not a processor, it is a chemical informational pattern being processed by the neural network.

A mountain of salt is amountain of salt. A body with a trillion microtubules can walk, talk, see, smell, touch, taste and argue in the abstract due to its ability to process enormous amount of information simultaniously.

Actin

Actin is a highly abundant intracellular protein present in all eukaryotic cells and has a pivotal role in muscle contraction as well as in cell movements. Actin also has an essential function in maintaining and controlling cell shape and architecture. It is the essential building block of the microfilament system, a cytoskeletal structure that complements two other cytoskeletal structures (the microtubules and the intermediate filaments).

In low-salt buffers actin exists as a monomeric protein (globular actin, G-actin), but it polymerizes under physiological salt conditions into a double helical 10-nm-thick filament structure (filamentous actin, F-actin).

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/neuroscience/actin

What is so controversial about that? You want something extra? An "elan vital', a "god"? Or just a very advanced evolved emergent self-aware mental abilities and an extremely sophisticated form of "fight or flight" response?

 

[exchemist]

And as far as I can see, the debate continues, ...

I am furthering the conversation, that doesn't make me an idiot, does it?

​

Yes it does.

There is no "debate", at least, not in any intelligent sense. All there is is you, obstinately restating, over and over again, something that nobody agrees with while throwing in piles of irrelevant crap about microtubules that provides zero evidence of information processing.

 

[Write4U]

Yes it does.

There is no "debate", at least, not in any intelligent sense. All there is is you, obstinately restating, over and over again, something that nobody agrees with while throwing in piles of irrelevant crap about microtubules that provides zero evidence of information processing.

At least I am having a good time stretching my mind and learning new things every day. Seems you are just miserable. I suggest you give my thread wide berth. It might improve your constitution.

Information Processing in Brain Microtubules, Jean Faber, Renato Portugal, Luiz Pinguelli Rosa

Models of the mind are based on the possibility of computing in brain microtubules. From this point of view, information processing is the fundamental issue for understanding the brain mechanisms that produce consciousness.

The cytoskeleton polymers could store and process information through their dynamic coupling mediated by mechanical energy. We analyze the problem of information transfer and storage in brain microtubules, considering them as a communication channel. We discuss the implications of assuming that consciousness is generated by the subneuronal process.

. https://arxiv.org/abs/q-bio/0404007

Who should I believe, them or you?

 

[billvon]

Yes and that's what you just did.

You do not understand what a strawman is.

Salt is not a dynamic object its a chemical compound. A bucketful of salt is a bucket full of salt.

And a bucketful of microtubules is a bucket full of microtubules. But when combined with a neural network, both help mentation (and consciousness) occur.

OTOH, a trillion microtubular network processing information makes a conscious human.

Complete, unsupported, BS.

You take a bucket of microtubules and have it implement a neural network and then you might have something. Until then, you are just wishing for unicorns and rainbows.

 

[Write4U]

You take a bucket of microtubules and have it implement a neural network and then you might have something. Until then, you are just wishing for unicorns and rainbows.

Are you a unicorn or a conscious person? Do you doubt your own existence? Are you a body and brain with an evolved self-awareness? What are you objecting to? That you exist and can say "I think, therefore I am"?
Your existence as a self-aware sentient organism is a "hard fact". The "hard problem" is our lack of knowledge of the mechanism that makes us self -aware.

This examination is not an inductive but a deductive exercise. We begin with an observable fact, not a suspected condition or a logical assumption.
There is no "garbage in garbage out" . We know the result of Self-aware sentience, we just need to figure out the mathematical equations that produce it.

I believe that the evidence shows we are a body full of trillions networked microtubule filaments which were and are instrumental in building our bodies through cellular mitosis and the construction of the cytoskeleton wich gives the human body form throughout our physical existence. It is an indisputable fact that humans are conscious organisms being kept physiaclly alive by the quasi-intelligent function of microtubules, via a host of life sustaining functional neural communications throughout and between the entire microtubular cytoskeleton and the body's neural network and the brain and with the help of symbiotic bacteria which perform tasks the body is unable to perform.

A human is a sentient microbiome.

About the Human Microbiome

The Human Microbiome is the collection of all the microorganisms living in association with the human body. These communities consist of a variety of microorganisms including eukaryotes, archaea, bacteria and viruses.

Bacteria in an average human body number ten times more than human cells, for a total of about 1000 more genes than are present in the human genome. Because of their small size, however, microorganisms make up only about 1 to 3 percent of our body mass (that's 2 to 6 pounds of bacteria in a 200-pound adult). [/quote]

These microbes are generally not harmful to us, in fact they are essential for maintaining health. For example, they produce some vitamins that we do not have the genes to make, break down our food to extract nutrients we need to survive, teach our immune systems how to recognize dangerous invaders and even produce helpful anti-inflammatory compounds that fight off other disease-causing microbes.

An ever-growing number of studies have demonstrated that changes in the composition of our microbiomes correlate with numerous disease states, raising the possibility that manipulation of these communities could be used to treat disease.

https://www.hmpdacc.org/overview/

Every human you see is proof of these simple facts. Instead of asking what causes consciousness, you must begin by admitting we are conscious and that consciousness is the emergent product of our personal neural information processes. There is no demonstrable other causality involved other than our bodies and brains and their evolved interactive sensory properties and abilities.

You argument of denial is completely misplaced. The physical organic evidence is before you and there are no miracles involved in the creation of living biological organism with various functional conscious abilities. Any other imagined causal function is purely imaginary and cannot rest on any function apart from our bodies and brains. Denial of these facts is just silly and childish.

Humans are organic machines controlled by neural informational processes specifically performed by microtubules and other biological information processors, some consciously controlled by the brain as the perception of exterior sensory stimuli, some unconsciously controlled by the brain as interoception of internal sensory stimuli.

Every microtubule is a self-assembled self-regulating organic tubulin information processor and has evolved into a self-implemented and autonomous functional cytoskeleton and neural network which is pervasive throughout the body and controls most, if not all of its functional abilities and processes.

Catastrophic failure of microtubules in the brain immediately results in the onset of Alzheimer's disease which eventually renders the brain unable to retain coherency and results in the destruction of the volitional self.

If you deny this physical evidence, then you are invoking a supernatural causality. Interestingly, I am actively experiencing your stubborn rejection of what is indisputable true and your insistence of a causal function outside the human body, it's neural network and brain. It is your stubborn refusal to even look at what is before you which convinces me I am on the right path. My proposition only lacks detail not logic. I am sure you are aware of my dedication to presenting only demonstrable facts. This only leaves you with nothing that is disputable. Perhaps with the exception of ORCH OR which is not my hypothesis to begin with. I simply don't know but take Penrose as a reliable source to begin with. I never start a conversation with "you're an idiot". It's not nice.

Microtubules in health and degenerative disease of the nervous system

Abstract,
Microtubules are essential for the development and maintenance of axons and dendrites throughout the life of the neuron, and are vulnerable to degradation and disorganization in a variety of neurodegenerative diseases. Microtubules, polymers of tubulin heterodimers, are intrinsically polar structures with a plus end favored for assembly and disassembly and a minus end less favored for these dynamics. In the axon, microtubules are nearly uniformly oriented with plus ends out, whereas in dendrites, microtubules have mixed orientations.

Microtubules in developing neurons typically have a stable domain toward the minus end and a labile domain toward the plus end. This domain structure becomes more complex during neuronal maturation when especially stable patches of polyaminated tubulin become more prominent within the microtubule.

Microtubules are the substrates for molecular motor proteins that transport cargoes toward the plus or minus end of the microtubule, with motor-driven forces also responsible for organizing microtubules into their distinctive polarity patterns in axons and dendrites.

A vast array of microtubule-regulatory proteins impart direct and indirect changes upon the microtubule arrays of the neuron, and these include microtubule-severing proteins as well as proteins responsible for the stability properties of the microtubules.

During neurodegenerative diseases, microtubule mass is commonly diminished, and the potential exists for corruption of the microtubule polarity patterns and microtubule-mediated transport. These ill effects may be a primary causative factor in the disease or may be secondary effects, but regardless, therapeutics capable of correcting these microtubule abnormalities have great potential to improve the status of the degenerating nervous system.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5079814/

 

[exchemist]

At least I am having a good time stretching my mind and learning new things every day. Seems you are just miserable. I suggest you give my thread wide berth. It might improve your constitution.

Information Processing in Brain Microtubules, Jean Faber, Renato Portugal, Luiz Pinguelli Rosa . https://arxiv.org/abs/q-bio/0404007

Who should I believe, them or you?

This paper was written for a conference in 2003. That is 17 years ago.

And it presents NO experimental data. All it is is, as it says, a discussion of the implications of assuming - assuming - that consciousness is generated by subneuronal processes.

So it is just an intellectual exploration of the idea, without presenting any evidence that microtubules have anything to do with consciousness. There is nothing concrete in this paper for you to "believe".

Yet, rather comically, you present this old speculation as if it were hot new evidence of the validity of the Orch-OR hypothesis.

It seems to me the ball is still in your court to show you are not, as I suggested you are, a stubborn idiot.

 

[Write4U]

Yet, rather comically, you present this old speculation as if it were hot new evidence of the validity of the Orch-OR hypothesis.

Well, obviously you did not notice that specific post had nothing to do with ORCH OR. It was in response to to your sweeping statement; "microtubules that provides zero evidence of information processing.", which is clearly false. Hence the reminder; Information Processing in Brain Microtubules.

It has been proven beyond a shadow of doubt that MT are information processors. If anything the redundancy in my posts do show that is beyond dispute and is fundamentally the gist of the proposition that MT are instrumental in the emergent phenomenon of consciousness. The ORCH OR is basically just one of several proposed mechanics. GiulioTononi has his own hypothesis

Tononi also developed the "Integrated Information Theory (IIT): a scientific theory of what consciousness is, how it can be measured, how it is correlated with brain states, and why it fades when we fall into dreamless sleep and returns when we dream. The theory is being tested with neuroimaging, transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), and computer models.[14] His work has been described as "the only really promising fundamental theory of consciousness" by collaborator Christof Koch.

When you cite General Relativity, that is a paper written one hundred and thirteen years ago. Does that invalidate General Relativity?
I can understand your objections to ORCH OR, but you are acting as if microtubules don't even exist and if they do they have no function whatever. That is bad critique. Way over the top.

Are you still telling me that Brain microtubules do not process information" Citing an old paper is proof of lack of evidence? Hameroff is not the only kid on the block, you know, but you are so fixated on Hameroff, you have lost complete sight of the vibrant research in the field of "consciousness" and what causes it, ORCH OR or not.[/quote]

 

[Write4U]

Just one of ten pages in Google.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=does integrated information theory cite microtubules&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart
Integrated Information Theory (IIT) (Phi)
Section I: Background

"Given a particular brain, with its neurons and axons, dendrites and synapses, one can, in principle, accurately compute the extent to which this brain is integrated. From this calculation, the theory derives a single number, ɸ (pronounced “fi”). Measured in bits, ɸ denotes the size of the conscious repertoire associated with any network of causally interacting parts. Think of ɸ as the synergy of the system. The more integrated the system is, the more synergy it has, the more conscious it is. […]

One unavoidable consequence of IIT is that all systems that are sufficiently integrated and differentiated will have some minimal consciousness associated with them: not only our beloved dogs and cats but also mice, squid, bees and worms. Indeed, the theory is blind to synapses and to all-or-none pulses of nervous systems.

At least in principle, the incredibly complex molecular interactions within a single cell have nonzero ɸ. In the limit, a single hydrogen ion, a proton made up of three quarks, will have a tiny amount of synergy, of ɸ. In this sense, IIT is a scientific version of panpsychism, the ancient and widespread belief that all matter, all things, animate or not, are conscious to some extent" Christof Koch A "Complex" Theory of Consciousness: Is complexity the secret to sentience, to a panpsychic view of consciousness? Scientific American July 1, 2009

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-theory-of-consciousness/

"in recent years, functional quantum biology has been recognized at ambient temperatures in photosynthesis, bird navigation, olfaction, and in microtubules. Single, isolated microtubules and bundles of microtubules inside active neurons have been shown to have quantum resonant vibrations in megahertz and kilohertz frequencies (Ghosh et al., 2014; Sahu, Ghosh, Ghosh, et al., 2013; Sahu, Ghosh, Hirata, Fujita, & Bandyopadhyay, 2013).

Orch OR further suggests microtubule vibrations (e.g., in megahertz) interfere to cause music-like (electrophysiological) “beats” seen as EEG rhythms (Hameroff & Penrose, 2014).

Indeed, microtubule resonant vibrations, and consciousness, have been said to resemble music more than computation (Ghosh et al., 2014; Hameroff, 2015). Recent evidence also shows that anesthetics (which selectively erase consciousness) act on microtubules rather than membrane receptors as is generally assumed (Emerson et al., 2013). The maverick Orch OR theory has far more supportive evidence than any mainstream approaches to consciousness"

 

[exchemist]

Well, obviously you did not notice that specific post had nothing to do with ORCH OR. It was in response to to your sweeping statement; "microtubules that provides zero evidence of information processing.", which is clearly false. Hence the reminder; Information Processing in Brain Microtubules.

It has been proven beyond a shadow of doubt that MT are information processors. If anything the redundancy in my posts do show that is beyond dispute and is fundamentally the gist of the proposition that MT are instrumental in the emergent phenomenon of consciousness. The ORCH OR is basically just one of several proposed mechanics. GiulioTononi has his own hypothesis When you cite General Relativity, that is a paper written one hundred and thirteen years ago. Does that invalidate General Relativity?
I can understand your objections to ORCH OR, but you are acting as if microtubules don't even exist and if they do they have no function whatever. That is bad critique. Way over the top.

Are you still telling me that Brain microtubules do not process information" Citing an old paper is proof of lack of evidence? Hameroff is not the only kid on the block, you know, but you are so fixated on Hameroff, you have lost complete sight of the vibrant research in the field of "consciousness" and what causes it, ORCH OR or not.

Yes, there is no evidence, so far as I am aware, that microtubules are information processors. I certainly do not believe you have provided any. What is for sure that citing an old paper with no experimental results in it is not evidence.

And I have not mentioned Hameroff.

 

[Write4U]

Yes, there is no evidence, so far as I am aware, that microtubules are information processors. I certainly do not believe you have provided any. What is for sure that citing an old paper with no experimental results in it is not evidence.
And I have not mentioned Hameroff.

I have provided plenty of video evidence of information processing, but for some reason youdo not consider video as evodence . That's why you never look at the supporting videos I provide. I cannot bring you a laboratory other than by video.

But tell me, what do you consider information processing in biological systems? I can't see where our definition of "information" can be so different that whay I consider as clear evidemce of information processing you don't see that or don't consider it information processing. Most curious, seriously.

It is difficult to show proof of microtubule transport because it is at nano-scale and requires electron microscopy.

But here are a few live pictures of microtubular information processing, i.e. providing the transport network which facilitates distribution of electro-chemical information throughout the body.

If you will take the few minutes to actually see live electronmicroscope videos of information transport mechanisms via microtubules. There are several methods of information processing in cells, involving microtubules.

and