Is consciousness to be found in quantum processes in microtubules?

[Write4U]

To cite a few more scientists researching the role of microtubules
References
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3297561/

Clearly this is not a fringe group with an agenda other than doing science. These people do not warrant your undeserved and uninformed derision.

Do you honestly believe that these people are dedicating their time on the study of microtubules without any evidence? Microtubules are no different than salt ?? Microtubules do not transport electro-chemical information? These people are using expensive equipment like electron microscopy just for a hoot??? Are you kidding me?

You three are expert enought your ridicule these dedicated scientists? I thought that this website defends serious scientific research instead of dismissing new science as woo and the work of religious zealots.

What are your qualifications to make sweeping statements regards the qualifications of these scientists?

You will never convince me that you can offer me greater truth than some hundred real working scientists who are in fact publishing papers, which you refuse to read . You are not speaking from objective knowledge, you are speaking with subjective prejudice.

 

[Write4U]

From the above link. And with the apparent agreement of the above mentioned scientists.

Cytoskeletal Signaling: Is Memory Encoded in Microtubule Lattices by CaMKII Phosphorylation?

Conclusion,
We demonstrate a feasible and robust mechanism for encoding synaptic information into structural and energetic changes of microtubule (MT) lattices by calcium-activated CaMKII phosphorylation. We suggest such encoded information engages in ongoing MT information processes supporting cognition and behavior, possibly by generating scale-free interference patterns via reaction-diffusion or other mechanisms. As MTs and CaMKII are widely distributed in eukaryotic cells, the hexagonal bytes and trytes suggested here may reflect a real-time biomolecular information code akin to the genetic code.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3297561/

 

[Write4U]

Update....... very recent!

*****POSTPONED*****

THE SCIENCE OF CONSCIOUSNESS CONFERENCE

ADVISORY,
TSC APRIL CONFERENCE
TO BE RESCHEDULED

Dear 'The Science of Consciousness' Conference Participants,
Due to concerns around the coronavirus (COVID-19), and in accordance with health guidance from the CDC, WHO, and other health authorities, travel restrictions and general uncertainty,

The Science of Consciousness April 2020 Conference will be rescheduled.

‘The Science of Consciousness’ (‘TSC’) is the world’s largest and longest-running interdisciplinary conference addressing fundamental questions regarding consciousness, the brain, reality and existence.

Does consciousness emerge purely from complex computation among brain neurons, or is it an intrinsic feature of the universe? What can psychedelics tell us about consciousness and reality, and how can they best be used to treat mental and cognitive disorders? How do anesthetics act to selectively block consciousness, sparing non-conscious brain functions? What structures, regions and scale of brain activities best correlate with consciousness, and how do they lead to experiential ‘qualia’? Is consciousness computation, or is it more related to resonance and vibrations? Do we have free will, and if so, how?
Does consciousness depend on quantum physics, and does it create the flow of time? What is time? Can AI machines be conscious? What is life, and is it necessary for consciousness? Could inanimate objects, simple organisms and/or plants be conscious? Can consciousness be enhanced by genetics and/or technology?

Pursuing these and other questions, ~700 scientists, philosophers, educators, academicians, students, meditators, artists, interested public and seekers from 50 countries will gather April 13-18, 2020 at Loews Ventana Canyon Resort, a plush ecolodge in the Catalina Mountains outside Tucson, Arizona. The 6-day program will consist of Plenary talk sessions, Workshops (Monday, April 13), Concurrent talk sessions, Posters, Exhibits, Social events and Entertainment in a fun, rigorous environment.

Since 1994 The Tucson Biennial Conference Series – The Science of Consciousness, has been held in Tucson Arizona with an alternate year international TSC Conference in cooperation with partner organizations and institutions. The 2021 TSC Conference is planned for May 31-June 6, 2021 in Taormina, Sicily, Italy, organized by Riccardo Manzotti and colleagues.

http://consciousness.arizona.edu/

p.s. seems I was correct in guessing the 'The Science of Consciousness" Conference is a huge Domestic and International festival.
Any critique of the scope and content of the varied and diverse subjects presented is completely misplaced.

Hameroff and Penrose are not a snake-oil salemen selling potions from a covered wagon!
6 day events require an enormous amount of planning. This is not trivial! Get real!

 

[Write4U]

Note of interest regarding David Chalmers;

The philosopher David Chalmers has speculated that consciousness may be a fundamental property of nature existing outside the known laws of physics. Others—often branded “mysterians”—claim that subjective experience is simply beyond the capacity of science to explain.

http://nautil.us/issue/47/consciousness/roger-penrose-on-why-consciousness-does-not-compute

Does this scientist sound like he has an agenda or can his judgement be trusted?
Any members of Sciforums belonging to the class "mysterians" per chance?

 

[exchemist]

Update....... very recent!

*****POSTPONED*****

THE SCIENCE OF CONSCIOUSNESS CONFERENCE

ADVISORY,
TSC APRIL CONFERENCE
TO BE RESCHEDULED

Dear 'The Science of Consciousness' Conference Participants,
Due to concerns around the coronavirus (COVID-19), and in accordance with health guidance from the CDC, WHO, and other health authorities, travel restrictions and general uncertainty,

The Science of Consciousness April 2020 Conference will be rescheduled.

‘The Science of Consciousness’ (‘TSC’) is the world’s largest and longest-running interdisciplinary conference addressing fundamental questions regarding consciousness, the brain, reality and existence.

Does consciousness emerge purely from complex computation among brain neurons, or is it an intrinsic feature of the universe? What can psychedelics tell us about consciousness and reality, and how can they best be used to treat mental and cognitive disorders? How do anesthetics act to selectively block consciousness, sparing non-conscious brain functions? What structures, regions and scale of brain activities best correlate with consciousness, and how do they lead to experiential ‘qualia’? Is consciousness computation, or is it more related to resonance and vibrations? Do we have free will, and if so, how?
Does consciousness depend on quantum physics, and does it create the flow of time? What is time? Can AI machines be conscious? What is life, and is it necessary for consciousness? Could inanimate objects, simple organisms and/or plants be conscious? Can consciousness be enhanced by genetics and/or technology?

Pursuing these and other questions, ~700 scientists, philosophers, educators, academicians, students, meditators, artists, interested public and seekers from 50 countries will gather April 13-18, 2020 at Loews Ventana Canyon Resort, a plush ecolodge in the Catalina Mountains outside Tucson, Arizona. The 6-day program will consist of Plenary talk sessions, Workshops (Monday, April 13), Concurrent talk sessions, Posters, Exhibits, Social events and Entertainment in a fun, rigorous environment.

Since 1994 The Tucson Biennial Conference Series – The Science of Consciousness, has been held in Tucson Arizona with an alternate year international TSC Conference in cooperation with partner organizations and institutions. The 2021 TSC Conference is planned for May 31-June 6, 2021 in Taormina, Sicily, Italy, organized by Riccardo Manzotti and colleagues.

http://consciousness.arizona.edu/

p.s. seems I was correct in guessing the 'The Science of Consciousness" Conference is a huge Domestic and International festival.
Any critique of the scope and content of the varied and diverse subjects presented is completely misplaced.

Hameroff and Penrose are not a snake-oil salemen selling potions from a covered wagon!
6 day events require an enormous amount of planning. This is not trivial! Get real!

1) The existence of this conference is merely evidence that a number of people (a handful of scientists, no doubt, but also plenty of non-scientists such as philosophers, "meditators" and "seekers") are interested in the general topic of "consciousness". This is an extremely broad subject, as indicated by the description of the scope of the conference. There is no mention of microtubules, I notice.

2) The conference is organised by......Hameroff, and one other. He has done this every year for a while.

Needless to say, the existence of this annual bunfight of Hameroff's is not evidence that microtubules process information and thus lead to consciousness.

So, here we have yet another piece of irrelevant crap, lobbed in to obscure the lack of evidence for the Orch-OR hypothesis.

 

[exchemist]

Note of interest regarding David Chalmers;
http://nautil.us/issue/47/consciousness/roger-penrose-on-why-consciousness-does-not-compute

Does this scientist sound like he has an agenda or can his judgement be trusted?
Any members of Sciforums belonging to the class "mysterians" per chance?

Chalmers is a philosopher, not a scientist. He will have done no experimental work on microtubules, needless to say.

So this is just more irrelevant crap, thrown in to obscure the lack of evidence for the Orch-OR hypothesis.

 

[exchemist]

To cite a few more scientists researching the role of microtubules
References
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3297561/

Clearly this is not a fringe group with an agenda other than doing science. These people do not warrant your undeserved and uninformed derision.

Do you honestly believe that these people are dedicating their time on the study of microtubules without any evidence? Microtubules are no different than salt ?? Microtubules do not transport electro-chemical information? These people are using expensive equipment like electron microscopy just for a hoot??? Are you kidding me?

You three are expert enought your ridicule these dedicated scientists? I thought that this website defends serious scientific research instead of dismissing new science as woo and the work of religious zealots.

What are your qualifications to make sweeping statements regards the qualifications of these scientists?

You will never convince me that you can offer me greater truth than some hundred real working scientists who are in fact publishing papers, which you refuse to read . You are not speaking from objective knowledge, you are speaking with subjective prejudice.

Absolutely they are working without any evidence. There is no evidence and they do not offer any. This is just computational modelling, of one part of the hypothesised process, done in 2012, by three scientists, ..............one of whom is Hameroff, continuing to grind his axe.

Basically, all this crap you are shovelling into the thread is your version of the Gish Gallop. You hope that by chucking in any old thing you find on a web search, vaguely connected in some way to either microtubules or consciousness, you will overload the willingness of readers to sift through and point out that none of it provides observational support for the Orch-OR hypothesis.

The Wiki article in post 5 stands. There is no part of the Orch-OR hypothesis that has been corroborated by experiment, and plenty of reason, both experimental and theoretical, to doubt it, as post 5 outlines.

 

[exchemist]

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.

Do you really not understand the difference between a microprocessor and an electric cable?

 

[exchemist]

Specifically adressing the possible quantum function in microtubules: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/1251/1/012019/meta

This paper does not discuss microtubules at all, so far as I can see.

The paper seems to be devoted to arguing that Penrose and Hameroff are wrong in thinking any hypothesised wave packet reduction occurs in the endoplasmic reticulum.

 

[Write4U]

Chalmers is a philosopher, not a scientist. He will have done no experimental work on microtubules, needless to say.

So this is just more irrelevant crap, thrown in to obscure the lack of evidence for the Orch-OR hypothesis.

You are the one citing his name.

 

[Write4U]

Absolutely they are working without any evidence. There is no evidence and they do not offer any. This is just computational modelling, of one part of the hypothesised process, done in 2012, by three scientists, ..............one of whom is Hameroff, continuing to grind his axe.

Basically, all this crap you are shovelling into the thread is your version of the Gish Gallop. You hope that by chucking in any old thing you find on a web search, vaguely connected in some way to either microtubules or consciousness, you will overload the willingness of readers to sift through and point out that none of it provides observational support for the Orch-OR hypothesis.

The Wiki article in post 5 stands. There is no part of the Orch-OR hypothesis that has been corroborated by experiment, and plenty of reason, both experimental and theoretical, to doubt it, as post 5 outlines.

We have gone beyond the ORCH OR argument. You are disputing that microtubules are biological information processors.

 

[Write4U]

Do you really not understand the difference between a microprocessor and an electric cable?

I understand the difference between an information transport wire and an interactive network of transport wires and biological microprocessors. Microtubules are pervasive and active in both.

 

[Write4U]

This paper does not discuss microtubules at all, so far as I can see.

The paper seems to be devoted to arguing that Penrose and Hameroff are wrong in thinking any hypothesised wave packet reduction occurs in the endoplasmic reticulum.

This paper shows over one hundred dedicated scientists working on the problem of consciouosness. I
ll post it again.
References
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3297561/

 

[Write4U]

This paper does not discuss microtubules at all, so far as I can see.
The paper seems to be devoted to arguing that Penrose and Hameroff are wrong in thinking any hypothesised wave packet reduction occurs in the endoplasmic reticulum.

Post #822 ?

Instability physics: Consciousness and collapse of the wave function

True, this paper addresses ORCH OR and that this does not reside in endoplasmic reticuli, because it reside in other microtubular organizations.

So what is your point?

 

[exchemist]

I understand the difference between an information transport wire and an interactive network of transport wires and biological microprocessors. Microtubules are pervasive and active in both.

You have had nearly 50 pages in which to demonstrate this, and you have presumably now picked your best examples in reaction to my recent challenge. Yet none of the last 5 citations of yours, all of which I have looked at and commented on, have contained a shred of evidence for microtubules being information processors.

This paper shows over one hundred dedicated scientists working on the problem of consciouosness. I
ll post it again.
References
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3297561/

1) No, it does not show anything like 100 scientists working on "the problem of consciousness".

2) It says nothing about microtubules.

 

[exchemist]

Post #822 ?

Instability physics: Consciousness and collapse of the wave function

True, this paper addresses ORCH OR and that this does not reside in endoplacmic reticuli, because it reside in other microtubular organizations.

So what is your point?

Endoplasmic reticuli.

What, then, are these other "microtubular organisations" referred to in this paper? I see no mention of these.

 

[exchemist]

You are the one citing his name.

Whut?

 

[Write4U]

Sorry, my mistake. It was Bells who linked a very negative review by Tom Bartlett of the 2018 annual conference on consciousness in the Arizona desert in which he claims it followed an anything-goes approach with some seriously wacky theories

Bells said; 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.

The linked review by Tom Bartlett specifically mentions some of the scheduled subjects, to which Bells added her own personal contribution, undoubtedly after reading the entire review. From that review;

David Chalmers is the closest thing consciousness studies has to a rock star. I sat down with Chalmers – a professor of philosophy and neural science at New York University and co-director of its Center for Mind, Brain and Consciousness – near the pool at the Loews Ventana Canyon Resort (“You can consider us your desert oasis”), which is located on Tucson’s northern edge at the base of the Catalina Mountains. At each Tucson conference, Chalmers climbs on stage and gamely, perhaps a tad drunkenly, bellows his way through Zombie Blues, an original composition with informative lyrics such as: “I act like you act, I do what you do / But I don’t know what it’s like to be you / What consciousness is, I ain’t got a clue.”

The zombies in question are the philosophical variety – the ones that are not conscious, but are eerily adept at faking it. It’s a concept that is useful for illustrating the oddly personal nature of consciousness, and how difficult it is to verify in others or to satisfactorily define. The seeds for this idea can be traced back to Descartes, but Chalmers really ran with it in his 1996 book, The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Fundamental Theory. In short, I can be reasonably confident that I am conscious, but I kind of have my doubts about you.

The Tucson conference more or less made Chalmers. He submitted an abstract for the inaugural gathering, in 1994, on what he called The Hard Problem of Consciousness. He was still in his 20s and had just completed his PhD in philosophy and cognitive science at Indiana University at Bloomington, under Douglas Hofstadter of Gödel, Escher, Bach fame.

As Hameroff tells it, Chalmers prowled the stage during his presentation “dancing like Mick Jagger with his hair down to his ass”. It is a vivid image, if a bit overstated: the videotape shows Chalmers with shoulder-length hair stationed behind a lectern. But, while he lacked moves like Jagger’s, that 26-minute lecture established Chalmers as a thinker to be reckoned with and goosed a nascent field into greater prominence.

This is the review Bells used to base her negative exclamation "he's a quack" on. Who does that even address.?

 

[billvon]

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"?

Enough with the strawmen. Now you are just looking stupid.

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

Complete, unsupported BS.

I am putting you in the column of people who believe that vaccines cause autism, that the Earth is flat and that 9/11 was an inside job. They all do exactly the same thing you do - make some BS statement and then support it by creating strawmen and then arguing for THEM.

"Oh, so you think the WTC, a steel and concrete building, collapsed because steel and concrete are WEAK? Well, let me post these 47 references that show that concrete and steel are STRONG! Boy, I bet you feel stupid now!"

 

[Write4U]

Enough with the strawmen. Now you are just looking stupid.
Complete, unsupported BS.

40+ pages of supporting data.

I am putting you in the column of people who believe that vaccines cause autism, that the Earth is flat and that 9/11 was an inside job. They all do exactly the same thing you do - make some BS statement and then support it by creating strawmen and then arguing for THEM.

LAME STRAWMAN ARGUMENT!

"Oh, so you think the WTC, a steel and concrete building, collapsed because steel and concrete are WEAK? Well, let me post these 47 references that show that concrete and steel are STRONG! Boy, I bet you feel stupid now!"

BURNING STRAWMAN ARGUMENT!

We can bring a haystack if you like.