Is consciousness to be found in quantum processes in microtubules?

[Write4U]

Boy, I bet you feel stupid now!

I would never call anyone stupid, you do! Seems to me you are projecting your expressed behavior on me.

Psychological projection is a defence mechanism in which the human ego defends itself against unconscious impulses or qualities (both positive and negative) by denying their existence in themselves while attributing them to others.[1] For example, a bully may project their own feelings of vulnerability onto the target. It incorporates blame shifting and can manifest as shame dumping.

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

 

[billvon]

40+ pages of supporting data.

Except none of it supports the idea that microtubules perform neural network function.

STRAWMAN . . . STRAWMAN

It is clear that you know as much about strawman arguments that you know about microtubules.

 

[Write4U]

Except none of it supports the idea that microtubules perform neural network function.
It is clear that you know as much about strawman arguments that you know about microtubules.

Well then let me enlighten you about microtubules and you can enlighten me about strawman arguments, OK?

Roles of Microtubules in Maintenance of Nerve Cell Networks

1. Introduction,
Recent topics of neural networking studies Various higher brain functions such as reflex, memory, emotion, imagination and so on, are supported by complicated neuronal networks. To keep the precise connections of the wires is very important for the central nerve functions. The discovery of neural stem cell provided us many clues to understand the mechanism of neural networking.

Now, we know that the networking neurons and the supportive neuroglia cells are yielded from the neural stem cells by regulation of several specific bHLH transcription factors (Sakamoto. M., et al., 2003, Liu, Y. et al., 2004, Parras, C.M. et al., 2002). In these processes, the networking cells project axons to connect the dendrite of counterpart cells precisely. Since the connections between differentiated nerve cells must be kept for the functions, the morphological disruptions lead to some neural disorders. Recent brilliant studies about the microtubule dynamics enhance our understandings of the mechanism of neural network maintenance and the disorders

A recent interesting study indicates microtubule transport systems in the dendrites play important roles in maintenance of the synaptic plasticity (Okada, D., et al., 2009). It suggests that the healthy microtubule kinetics is needed to maintenance the neural networking during the formation of memories. What microtubule is all about

2.1 Function of microtubules

The cytoskeleton is the essential infrastructure of all cells; it consists of microtubules, actin microfilament, and intermediate filaments. Microtubules are a major component of the cytoskeleton and form a highly organized network of intermingled filaments in eukaryotic cells. Microtubules are important components of several subcellular structures, including the mitotic apparatus, cilia, flagella, and neurons.

Microtubules are fundamentally composed of a protein called tubulin. Tubulin is made of α- and ┚-tubulin. The molecular weight of each is about 50 kDa. There are many microtubule-associated proteins (MAPs) (Wade, R.H., 2009) in addition to the tau protein, which contributes to the formation of microtubules. The tau protein is enriched in axons. Two types of high-molecular-weight MAPs (200-300 kDa) and the lower-molecular-weight ones (~55 kDa) have been isolated from the brain. For example, MAP2 is found in the cell body and dendrites. In addition, microtubules interact with many proteins, including motor proteins, such as kinesin and dynein.

Microtubules play many roles in cellular processes, such as cell division, cell motility, and morphogenesis, and they are required for brain function. Purich and Kristofferson (1984) have reviewed microtubule assembly. Wade has described the function of the cell division of microtubules in detail (Wade, R.H., 2009).

The motor proteins kinesin and dynein use microtubules as pathways for transport and are also involved in cell division. Microtubules organize the spatial distribution of organelles. Actin and microtubule cytoskeletons determine cell shape and polarity during morphogenesis and promote stable cell-cell and cell-matrix adhesions through their interactions with cadherins and integrins, respectively (Hall, A., 2009).

3.1 Function of microtubules in neuronal cells

In neurons, microtubules play a variety of roles in brain function. As in many other cells, microtubules form organized structures within a cell that can act as structural scaffolds. With respect to specific for neuron, microtubules have three functions. First, the stabilization of microtubules is sufficient to induce axon formation during neuronal development, and they act as signal molecules for initial neuronal polarization (Witte H et al., 2008). Second, the development of dendritic spines that are major sites of excitatory synaptic input is regulated by microtubules (Gu, J., et al., 2008). Third, microtubules participate in the trafficking of synaptic cargo molecules that are essential for synapse formation, function, and plasticity. Cargos are transported between axons and dendrites mediated by motor proteins moving along microtubules to their plus or minus ends (Hirokawa N and Takemura, R., 2005). The motor proteins are the minus-end directed dynein and plus-end directed kinesins (Schliwa, M., 2003, Vale, R.D., 2003).

On the other hand, several studies have shown the importance of the actin-based transport mechanism at excitatory synapses. Actin, which is abundant in highly dynamic structures, such as growth cones and dendritic spines, receives the cargo following passage of the microtubules. Neuronal transmission is achieved partly by collaboration of both microtubules and actins.....more

https://cdn.intechopen.com/pdfs/24871/InTech- Roles_of_microtubules_in_maintenance_of_nerve_cell_networks.pdf

Now tell me the intricate mechanics of a strawman argument, please. I just can't wait...

 

[Bells]

Still no evidence that consciousness can be found in microtubules.

 

[Write4U]

OK, for good measure,

Microtubules are small tubes formed by thirteen filamentous strands. Each filament is composed of a chain of protein called tubulin. Microtubules in a neuron are used to transport substances to different parts of the cell. For example, neurotransmitters are made in the cell body close to the nucleus, but need to travel long distances to the end of axons where they will be used for synaptic transmission. Microtubules are the route via which these essential molecules are transported from the site of synthesis to where they are needed.

Advanced,

Microtubules, neurofilaments, and microfilaments compose the cytoskeletal elements of a neuron. The earliest accounts of these cellular structures included the writing of not only Ramon y Cajal, the neuroanatomist, but also Freud and Alzheimer in their studies of cellular motility and tubules. Very recent molecular research has expanded our understanding of these elements of cell architecture, motility, and shape (Nixon, 1998). Neurons appear to differ in the properties of their cytoskeleton that may reflect functional characteristics, including susceptibility to injury and ability to repair following injury.

Cytoskeletal elements are synthesized in the cell body of a neuron, but delivered throughout the length of the neuron's axon (which composes approximately 99% of the neuron's structure) where they form large molecular assemblies or matrices.

Until recently it was believed that the cytoskeletal structure was fairly homogeneous throughout the length of the axon. More recent evidence, however, indicates otherwise. For example, in mammalian peripheral neurons neurofilament protein content decreases almost 2-fold distally (away from the cell body), while microtubule content increases moving away from the cell body. Neurofilaments collect locally in regions of myelination in response to signals emanating from the oligodendrocyte. The neurofilament also increases the caliber of the axon underlying myelinated segments of normal neurons.....more

https://psych.athabascau.ca/html/Psych402/Biotutorials/1/microtubules.shtml

 

[Write4U]

Still no evidence that consciousness can be found in microtubules.

Does the OP ask a question or make a statement?
But one question at a time, please.
I am still dealing with rejection of the fact that microtubules are the major constituent of neurons and neural activity, let alone any connection with consciousness.

p.s. Bells, do you believe there is evidence that consciousness can be found in humans? Let's start with hard facts, before we ask the hard questions.

 

[exchemist]

Does the OP ask a question or make a statement?
But one question at a time, please.
I am still dealing with rejection of the fact that microtubules are the major constituent of neurons and neural activity, let alone any connection with consciousness.

p.s. Bells, do you believe there is evidence that consciousness can be found in humans? Let's start with hard facts, before we ask the hard questions.

This is pure trolling now.

1) Referring to the question in the thread title is deeply disingenuous. You have been asserting throughout that microtubules do process information and thus give rise to consciousness.

2) Nobody has, at any point, "rejected" the idea that microtubules are present in neurons. Whether they are, or are not, the "major constituent", whatever that means, has never been discussed. As constituents of the neuron cell, they inevitably play a role in what the neurons do. This is however irrelevant to the subject of the thread.

3) Your question to Bells is a deeply stupid and pointless one. Presumably it is designed to annoy, as I can see no other reason for asking it. The (trivially obvious) answer to this question sheds no light, whatsoever, on anything about the mechanisms underlying consciousness, which is supposedly the subject of this thread of yours.

 

[Write4U]

This is pure trolling now.

1) Referring to the question in the thread title is deeply disingenuous. You have been asserting throughout that microtubules do process information and thus give rise to consciousness.[/quote] Can I voice my opinion on an issue. Did I ever claim to have the authority to make an educated judgement on the question; "is consciousness to be found in quantum processes in microtubules", as proposed by Hameroff and Penrose?

2) Nobody has, at any point, "rejected" the idea that microtubules are present in neurons.

Yes they have.

Whether they are, or are not, the "major constituent", whatever that means, has never been discussed. As constituents of the neuron cell, they inevitably play a role in what the neurons do. This is however irrelevant to the subject of the thread.

Yes, yes, I know, salt is also a constituent of cells. No, the denial was that microtubules are biologocal sensory information processors, which is the basis for the hypothesis that the entire neural network's biological sensory information processes may well yield an emergent and evolving quality of consciousness. You called me an idiot for even asking p[ositing that demonstrated fact.

3) Your question to Bells is a deeply stupid and pointless one. Presumably it is designed to annoy, as I can see no other reason for asking it. The (trivially obvious) answer to this question sheds no light, whatsoever, on anything about the mechanisms underlying consciousness, which is supposedly the subject of this thread of yours.

Actually it does very much so. I cited Max Tegmark as having posited that very perspective.
"Instead of asking the "hard question" that we should begin with the "hard fact" that humans are conscious", and that this is a product of existing human neurological network and functional processing of sensory information. Strange, when a scientist says it, no one dares to make a remark, when I say the same thing I am a Troll.
It is so obvious. You see yourself as the truth police and have assumed responsibility for enforcing the law that only old and tired science can be discussed. No, no, no new ideas. No new explorations. After all, science is set in stone and there is no room for revision or refinement. Is that the new model for scientific inquiry?

Moreover there are abundant citations of the popularly accepted belief that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain's neural network and functions, and not the product of some supernatural intervention or an evolved quality.

Frankly I don't give a hoot what you say. I have lost respect for you a long time ago. You never had any respect for me. That's the difference.
You are duplicitous in your selective cherry picking. If I say something that is still being researched and debated, I'm an idiot. If I say something which has been demonstrated and proven, it not relevant. Well, bully for you!
You've dug such a negative hole that you just cannot let go. Keep digging! I'll keep learning and gaining knowledge.
I'll remind you when I am proven right on some of my basic assumptions.
You just keep referring to page # 5 if that makes you feel more comfortable.

btw, guess what I just ran across. Looks like some very interesting observations. I'll post it for your perusal.

A New Theory Explains How Consciousness Evolved
A neuroscientist on how we came to be aware of ourselves.
MICHAEL GRAZIANO, JUNE 6, 2016

Ever since Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species in 1859, evolution has been the grand unifying theory of biology. Yet one of our most important biological traits, consciousness, is rarely studied in the context of evolution. Theories of consciousness come from religion, from philosophy, from cognitive science, but not so much from evolutionary biology. Maybe that’s why so few theories have been able to tackle basic questions such as: What is the adaptive value of consciousness? When did it evolve and what animals have it?

The Attention Schema Theory (AST), developed over the past five years, may be able to answer those questions. The theory suggests that consciousness arises as a solution to one of the most fundamental problems facing any nervous system: Too much information constantly flows in to be fully processed. The brain evolved increasingly sophisticated mechanisms for deeply processing a few select signals at the expense of others, and in the AST, consciousness is the ultimate result of that evolutionary sequence. If the theory is right—and that has yet to be determined—then consciousness evolved gradually over the past half billion years and is present in a range of vertebrate species.

Even before the evolution of a central brain, nervous systems took advantage of a simple computing trick: competition. Neurons act like candidates in an election, each one shouting and trying to suppress its fellows. At any moment only a few neurons win that intense competition, their signals rising up above the noise and impacting the animal’s behavior. This process is called selective signal enhancement, and without it, a nervous system can do almost nothing.

Covert attention isn’t intangible. It has a physical basis, but that physical basis lies in the microscopic details of neurons, synapses, and signals. The brain has no need to know those details. The attention schema is therefore strategically vague. It depicts covert attention in a physically incoherent way, as a non-physical essence. And this, according to the theory, is the origin of consciousness. We say we have consciousness because deep in the brain, something quite primitive is computing that semi-magical self-description....more.

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/06/how-consciousness-evolved/485558/

happy reading.... maybe even a comment.....[/quote]

 

[Write4U]

Your question to Bells is a deeply stupid and pointless one. Presumably it is designed to annoy, as I can see no other reason for asking it. The (trivially obvious) answer to this question sheds no light, whatsoever, on anything about the mechanisms underlying consciousness, which is supposedly the subject of this thread of yours.

Tell that to Max Tegmark, he said it.

Consciousness is a Mathematical Pattern: Max Tegmark at TEDxCambridge 2014 (Full Transcript)

Because we can now start, instead of starting by asking the hard question of why some arrangements of particles feel conscious, we can start with a hard fact, that some arrangement of particles like your brains, are conscious; and not others.

We can ask, “What are these special physical properties these arrangements have to have to be conscious?” Neuroscientists have had a lot of progress recently, including right here, in figuring out what subjective experiences correspond to different neuron firing patterns in your brain, which they call neural correlates of consciousness. I want to generalize this idea and ask what subjective experiences correspond to different kind of particle motions, which you might call physical correlates of consciousness.....more

https://singjupost.com/consciousnes...egmark-at-tedxcambridge-2014-full-transcript/

 

[Bells]

Does the OP ask a question or make a statement?

Are we supposed to ignore your factual statements throughout this entire thread?

But one question at a time, please.

This is some base level trolling now:

I am still dealing with rejection of the fact that microtubules are the major constituent of neurons and neural activity, let alone any connection with consciousness.

You have taken what has been said and twisted it into something else to further portray yourself as a sort of victim.

To the one, you are really bad at this. To the other, you are stupid enough to think that you are being clever.

No one has denied that microtubules are a part of neurons. So can the lies and misrepresentations. No one is buying it.

I and the rest of us have consistently said that there is no evidence that consciousness resides in microtubules.

p.s. Bells, do you believe there is evidence that consciousness can be found in humans?

Since you are trying to emulate Tegmark, shall I say that it resides in a new state of matter?

I mean look, it's gotten to the point now where I will just treat such questions with the lack of reverence they deserve. In other words, if you ask really stupid questions, you'll get an equally stupid answer.

Let's start with hard facts, before we ask the hard questions.

I don't think you'd know what any of it would be even if it slapped you in the face with a neon sign..

You see, it's the disingenuous bullshit that you try to pull that makes you out to be a dishonest hack. For example:

Moreover there are abundant citations of the popularly accepted belief that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain's neural network and functions, and not the product of some supernatural intervention or an evolved quality.

Pure drivel, given no one here has tried to argue that consciousness is of supernatural origin. At all. You are literally lying about what others have argued in this thread.

The gist against your claims is that there is no evidence to support your claim.

To try to give your claims any form of validity, you attempt to alter the narrative, context and content of what others have said to you about this.

As I noted above, disingenuous hack.

 

[billvon]

Well then let me enlighten you about microtubules and you can enlighten me about strawman arguments, OK?

I already did. Refer to my earlier definition.

Now tell me the intricate mechanics of a strawman argument, please. I just can't wait...

Do you have some sort of reading disability?

I am still dealing with rejection of the fact that microtubules are the major constituent of neurons and neural activity

Really? More "major" than DNA? Cell nuclei? Ribosomes? The Krebs cycle? Mitochondria? Cell membranes? More major than all of those?

Perhaps a basic biology course would help you out here.

 

[Write4U]

I and the rest of us have consistently said that there is no evidence that consciousness resides in microtubules.

And all that without being able to present a definition of consciousness. You wouldn't know consciousness if you saw it. Let me rephrase, we all know we are conscious, we just don't know what causes it.

Pure drivel, given no one here has tried to argue that consciousness is of supernatural origin. At all. You are literally lying about what others have argued in this thread.

You may think that, but until I hear someone say that consciousness is an emergent phenomenon of our current neural network, I must assume you are imagining some extra-ordinary external ingredient.
If not why are we not in agreement on this simple truth.

The gist against your claims is that there is no evidence to support your claim.

I gathered that and it is no reason to dismiss it out of hand. That is like saying QM is woo because there is no physical evidence to support the claim, but we know that it works. I see Consciousness in the same light. There is not yet physical evidence how it works, but we know consciousness works and is a product of our neural network, the mechanism that processes sensory information. Does that warrant a firing squad?

 

[Write4U]

Perhaps a basic biology course would help you out here

Perhaps a more open mind might help you out here.

 

[Write4U]

Since you are trying to emulate Tegmark, shall I say that it resides in a new state of matter?

I can go with that. Is there any evidence that our brains possess a hereto unidentified matter? It would have to be a product of the neural network, no? Surely not something outside the body? I believe Tegmark called it "computronium".
OTOH, can we say like Penrose does, that it does not reside in a new state of matter, but is a product of then quantum function.?
And that the candidate for either process may well lie in the extraordinary information processing abilities of microtubules?

See, all it takes is a proposition that opens up the entire conversation. Closed minds are incapable of producing a new state of matter....

That is all I ask for. Exploring possibilities, not utter rejection of anything "new", because there is no evidence. Right, that's why it is new.

 

[billvon]

Perhaps a more open mind might help you out here.

I doubt it.

Your definition of an open mind seems to be "believe in cool stuff no matter how woo." I have a job where my work product has to, you know, work when it's done. So I can't really take the approach of "throw whatever shit is cool in there; who cares if it's valid! It's cool!"

My wife is a doctor. She's the same way. She can't just say "hey, sounds cool, let me give that a try!" Evidence based medicine doesn't really work that way.

So no, I'm not that open minded from your perspective. I don't believe the flat Earthers. I don't believe the anti-vaxxers. I don't believe the people who think that 5G causes COVID-19. I don't believe the 9/11 Truthers. If that makes me closed minded from your perspective, well - I can live with that.

In the meantime, learn some biology. It will help you understand this stuff.

 

[Write4U]

In the meantime, learn some biology. It will help you understand this stuff.

I believe that, regardless of your formal education or expertise, at this time I know more about what has been written about microtubules than you do.
And we are not talking about medicine which your wife prescribes to cure people. That is the information what microtubules process. I am talking about the microtubules which process the medicine your wife prescribes to cure people.
Ask your wife about Alzheimer's and Hameroff's research showing that catastrophic destruction of microtubules is the cause of Alzheimer's. Do you doubt his expertise also? Don't bother, I know the answer. It's predictable.

 

[Bells]

And all that without being able to present a definition of consciousness. You wouldn't know consciousness if you saw it. Let me rephrase, we all know we are conscious, we just don't know what causes it.

And people did not think I could type while in a coma.....

You may think that, but until I hear someone say that consciousness is an emergent phenomenon of our current neural network, I must assume you are imagining some extra-ordinary external ingredient.
If not why are we not in agreement on this simple truth.

You haven't figured it out yet? Noone will say anything because we all know you will twist whatever we say into "microtubules".

I gathered that and it is no reason to dismiss it out of hand. That is like saying QM is woo because there is no physical evidence to support the claim, but we know that it works. I see Consciousness in the same light. There is not yet physical evidence how it works, but we know consciousness works and is a product of our neural network, the mechanism that processes sensory information. Does that warrant a firing squad?

Again, any attempt to have a valid discussion would result in your twisting it into microtubules.

I can go with that. Is there any evidence that our brains possess a hereto unidentified matter? It would have to be a product of the neural network, no? Surely not something outside the body? I believe Tegmark called it "computronium".
OTOH, can we say like Penrose does, that it does not reside in a new state of matter, but is a product of then quantum function.?
And that the candidate for either process may well lie in the extraordinary information processing abilities of microtubules?

Why don't you ask Tegmark?

https://journals.aps.org/pre/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevE.61.4194

See, all it takes is a proposition that opens up the entire conversation. Closed minds are incapable of producing a new state of matter....

That is all I ask for. Exploring possibilities, not utter rejection of anything "new", because there is no evidence. Right, that's why it is new.

You are wholly incapable of having this discussion rationally or even with an open mind as is clearly evidenced by rubbish like this:

I believe that, regardless of your formal education or expertise, at this time I know more about what has been written about microtubules than you do.
And we are not talking about medicine which your wife prescribes to cure people. That is the information what microtubules process. I am talking about the microtubules which process the medicine your wife prescribes to cure people.
Ask your wife about Alzheimer's and Hameroff's research showing that catastrophic destruction of microtubules is the cause of Alzheimer's. Do you doubt his expertise also? Don't bother, I know the answer. It's predictable.

Delusions of grandeur...

Please seek help.

 

[Write4U]

And people did not think I could type while in a coma.....

That is patently untrue.

You haven't figured it out yet? Noone will say anything because we all know you will twist whatever we say into "microtubules".
Again, any attempt to have a valid discussion would result in your twisting it into microtubules.

This is a thread about microtubules, in case you missed that minor consideration.

Why don't you ask Tegmark?

Ask him what? If he wrote what I quoted? I heard him say it as well.

https://journals.aps.org/pre/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevE.61.4194

This?
To use one of your diversionary ploys, that was written in 1999 and has since been successfully addressed and resolved, and has been posted by me previously. I am not wasting my time to look for it. If you had read my quoted excerpts and referenced links, you would have seen the refutation of that objection. Don't place your ignorance of the history at my doorstep. I have provided plenty of referential materials at you disposal. You even complained about it, now you say there isn't enough material? Or is it that you did not read ALL of the links, but only those that furthered your argument, like citing Page #5 ad nauseam, which I have also shown to have been addressed by Hameroff et al and satisfactorily resolved.

You are wholly incapable of having this discussion rationally or even with an open mind as is clearly evidenced by rubbish like this:

Like what?

Delusions of grandeur...

Great, you finally got the spelling right. If you are going to insult someone it's best to get the spelling right the first time, don't you agree?

Please seek help.

I have given help in public service most of my life and have been very successful at it.
Don't presume you know anything about me.

 

[billvon]

I believe that, regardless of your formal education or expertise, at this time I know more about what has been written about microtubules than you do.

I am sure you believe that. Just as QQ believes he knows more than anyone about COVID-19 and "pressure harvesting," and River believes he knows more than anyone else about physics, and Jan Ardena thinks he knows more than anyone else about evolution. Lot of that going on here, so you are in good company.

And we are not talking about medicine which your wife prescribes to cure people. That is the information what microtubules process. I am talking about the microtubules which process the medicine your wife prescribes to cure people. Ask your wife about Alzheimer's and Hameroff's research showing that catastrophic destruction of microtubules is the cause of Alzheimer's. Do you doubt his expertise also? Don't bother, I know the answer. It's predictable.

Whose? The expertise of Alois Alzheimer? No, I don't doubt his expertise. And he never, not once, ascribed the disease named after him to microtubules.

Alzheimer's occurs when plaques form within the brain. They are made of protein fragments, and as they build up, they block neuronal communication. They also stimulate the creation of tau proteins within cells, and these tau proteins congregate and kill the cell. They destroy the endoplasmic reticulum, the mitochondria, the ribosomes and yes, even the microtubules in the cell membrane. All of them disintegrate because the cell dies. Adding a bunch of microtubules back would do . . . jack shit, because the neuron is dead. It is the NEURON, not the magic microtubules, that make the brain work like it does.

 

[exchemist]

Almost 900 posts in, and not a single reference to any observational evidence that microtubules process information.