Is consciousness to be found in quantum processes in microtubules?

[river]

What I mean is to the very essence .

Life takes from the envirnoment ; energy from matter in order to exist .

 

[Write4U]

What I mean is to the very essence .

Life takes from the envirnoment ; energy from matter in order to exist .

It's not mysterious, it's an electro-chemical process of converting calories into energy. Part of the human biome processing system.
The environment is in a constant dynamic process of converting one pattern into another. It's basically a mathematical process, just as in a giant electro-chemically driven computer.

input ---> process ---> output, unceasingly every instant of time, at all physical and perhaps even quantum levels. An incalculable number of interactive processes making up our bio-sphere from moment to moment. And we are witness to it.

 

[river]

It's not mysterious, it's an electro-chemical process of converting calories into energy. Part of the human biome processing system.
The environment is in a constant dynamic process of converting one patterns into another. It's basically a mathematical process, just as in a giant computer. input ---> process ---> output, unceasingly at all physical and perhaps even Quantum levels. An incalculable number of interactive processes making up our bio-sphere.

What are these patterns based on ?

 

[Write4U]

What are these patterns based on ?

Fundamentally ;
a) mathematics; patterns such as Fibonacci sequence (a vertically balanced growth pattern)
b) fractals ; Causal Dynamical Triangulation (CDT)
c) the Platonic solids, fundamental patterns which seem to pervade the molecular world

Tegmark proposes that 32 relative numbers and a dozen equations can in principle explain all the emergent patterns in the universe, at all levels of complexity.
There is simply no "irreducible complexity". In the end it is all measurable to a high degree of "shared confidence" and agreement on certain commonly shared sensory perceptions and our experiential awareness of these patterns, with rare exceptions.

 

[river]

river said: ↑
What are these patterns based on ?

Fundamentally ;
a) mathematics; patterns such as Fibonacci sequence (a vertically balanced growth pattern)
b) fractals ; Causal Dynamical Triangulation (CDT)
c) the Platonic solids, fundamental patterns which seem to pervade the molecular world

Tegmark proposes that 32 relative numbers and a dozen equations, can in principle explain all the emergent patterns in the universe, at all levels of complexity. There is no "irreducible complexity".

Now how would any this , mathematical ideas produce anything physical without the physical already existing ?

Can't .

 

[Write4U]

Now how would any this , mathematical ideas produce anything physical without the physical already existing ?

Can't .

Three fundamental particle patterns with specific mathematical values, making up all matter in the universe. These particles are not considered to be physical objects until they mathematically self-assemble into atoms and the Table of Elements.

What Are Subatomic Particles?

Subatomic particles are the most elementary particles found in nature. The three basic subatomic particles that comprise an atom are protons, electrons, and neutrons. The historical definition of a subatomic particle was expanded over the past several decades to include elementary particles that are less complex than an atom and cannot be broken down further. The modern definition of subatomic particles breaks all of them down into either leptons or quarks.....more

https://www.tech-faq.com/subatomic-particles.html

In the physical sciences, subatomic particles are smaller than atoms.[1] They can be composite particles, such as the neutron and proton; or elementary particles, which according to the standard model are not made of other particles.[2]Particle physics and nuclear physics study these particles and how they interact.[3] The concept of a subatomic particle was refined when experiments showed that light could behave like a stream of particles (called photons) as well as exhibiting wave-like properties.

This led to the concept of wave–particle duality to reflect that quantum-scale particles behave like both particles and waves (they are sometimes described as wavicles to reflect this[citation needed]). Another concept, the uncertainty principle, states that some of their properties taken together, such as their simultaneous position and momentum, cannot be measured exactly.[4] The wave–particle duality has been shown to apply not only to photons but to more massive particles as well.

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

 

[river]

Three fundamental particle patterns with specific mathematical values, making up all matter in the universe. These particles are not considered to be physical objects until they mathematically self-assemble into atoms and the Table of Elements.

What Are Subatomic Particles?
https://www.tech-faq.com/subatomic-particles.html

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

Do you not see the problem here ?

Mathematics is trying to claim cause of existence .

Mathematics without the real physical thing , is in zero space . Non-existence .

There is nothing inherient in mathematics that brings forth manifestation of anything real .

 

[paddoboy]

Do you not see the problem here ?

Yes, the following is ignorant word salad and you do not have a bloody clue what you are trying to say..

Mathematics is trying to claim cause of existence .

Mathematics without the real physical thing , is in zero space . Non-existence .

There is nothing inherient in mathematics that brings forth manifestation of anything real .

 

[river]

river said: ↑
Do you not see the problem here ?

Yes, the following is ignorant word salad and you do not have a bloody clue what you are trying to say..

But I do .

river said: ↑
Mathematics is trying to claim cause of existence .

Mathematics without the real physical thing , is in zero space . Non-existence .

There is nothing inherient in mathematics that brings forth manifestation of anything real .

Said

 

[Write4U]

Do you not see the problem here ?
Mathematics is trying to claim cause of existence .

No, that's not correct. Mathematics is a claim of function not of cause.

Mathematics without the real physical thing , is in zero space . Non-existence .

Mathematics become expressed with existence. They are a latent excellence which is functionally instrumental to the unfolding of our universal geometry and all subsequent patterns. All patterns are an expression of a mathematical function.

There is nothing inherent in mathematics that brings forth manifestation of anything real .

There is no claim that mathematics are causal. The claim is that causality is processed in accordance with a mathematical function. 1 + 1 = 2 ...Difference....

The universe is mathematical in "essence". All existence continues via mathematical functions and increasing self-ordering complexity. Mathematics are a self-referential function, think about it.
Mathematics is a quasi intelligent property of our observable spacetime.

 

[paddoboy]

But I do .



Said

Yeah, about as much a clue as you have about spacetime curvature.

 

[C C]

Now how would any this , mathematical ideas produce anything physical without the physical already existing ?

Can't .

Well, there is presentism, which is the popular or commonsense view of time (and most scientists who are not GR savvy probably still embrace it, as well as philosophers slanted toward phenomenal realism). Wherein any state of so-called "physical existence" is apparently a vulnerable and extremely short-lived product of a regulating process (little more than the progress of a non-personal, objective dream that's internally coherent rather than garbled). Apart from attributing the maintenance of its order to a brute "it just reliably happens", then if you happen to be a believer in presentism (which again, could be the majority of even educated people), then you may need a provenance of generative principles that is not only governing the development of this ephemeral brand of existence but continually annihilating and creating/replacing a global state of the cosmos with a new version slightly modified at the sub-atomic level.

The alternative of a four-dimensional model of time (aka "eternalism") -- in its most rudimentary, simplistic expression -- doesn't literally need generative slash regulating principles (represented mathematically or otherwise) since all the differences co-exist along with the order they're conceived as conforming to (vaguely analogous to all the frames of a movie-film co-existing together, or the pages of a flip-book). By a global configuration of particles NOT ephemerally enduring for a mere yoctosecond or less, the universe in that context really would be more substantive, material or "physical" (actually deserving the labels with respect to such usually not being interpreted in ordinary language use as referencing abstraction). Instead of winking in and out (so to speak), the particles become permanent worm-like, twisting, interwoven spaghetti structure.

It's really quite astonishing that humans venture or make other ontological assertions before we've settled the issue of time (as in an enduring final consensus among experts), since the latter can potentially torpedo or undermine whatever we've been variously claiming in the rest of the territory over the centuries.

 

[Write4U]

It's really quite astonishing that humans venture or make other ontological assertions before we've settled the issue of time (as in an enduring final consensus among experts), since the latter can potentially torpedo or undermine whatever we've been variously claiming in the rest of the territory over the centuries.

Can you give an example of such a potential problem?

Is it necessary to even consider time as a potential influence to physical phenomena and the rest of the dynamic territory at all?

AFAIK, time is not a causal part of a physical function and is only an emergent result of measurable chronological duration of a function, somewhat like geometrics are the emergent result of measurable connected distances in arbitrary units, which become part of the total resulting equation.

 

[Write4U]

It seems that we might add "micro-filaments" to the list of the emergent "conscious network" in the brain.
Microfilament

Microfilament Definition
Microfilaments, also called actin filaments, are polymers of the protein actin that are part of a cell’s cytoskeleton. The cytoskeleton is the network of protein filaments that extends throughout the cell, giving the cell structure and keeping organelles in place. Microfilaments are the smallest filaments of the cytoskeleton. They have roles in cell movement, muscle contraction, and cell division.

Microfilaments are the thinnest filaments of the cytoskeleton, with a diameter of about 6 to 7 nanometers. A microfilament begins to form when three G-actin proteins come together by themselves to form a trimer. Then, more actin binds to the barbed end. The process of self-assembly is aided by autoclampin proteins, which act as motors to help assemble the long strands that make up microfilaments. Two long strands of actin arrange in a spiral in order to form a microfilament.

these filaments self-assemble inside the cytoplasm of the cell.

Functions of Microfilaments

Muscle Contraction
One of the most important roles of microfilaments is to contract muscles. There is a high concentration of microfilaments in muscle cells, where they form myofibrils, the basic unit of the muscle cell. Actin is an indispensable protein for muscle movement, and microfilaments are often called actin filaments because actin is so prominent in the muscular system of the body. In muscle cells, actin works together with the protein myosin to allow the muscles to contract and relax. Here, neither actin nor myosin can work properly without the other, and they form a complex called actomyosin. Groups of actomyosin are found in sarcomeres, the basic unit of muscle tissue......more

https://biologydictionary.net/microfilament/

 

[Write4U]

Love this......Microtubules, assemble: New research may lead to better understanding of self-organization in cells
by Harvard University

The microtubules organize into networks that spontaneously contract. Credit: Needleman Lab/HarvardSEAS

What bones are to bodies, the cytoskeleton is to cells. The cytoskeleton maintains cellular structure, builds appendages like flagella and, together with motor proteins, powers cellular movement, transport, and division. Microtubules are a critical component of the cytoskeleton, vital for cell division and, because of that, an excellent target for chemotherapy drugs.

Microtubules can spontaneously self-organize, transforming from many singular components into one large cellular structure capable of performing specific tasks. Think Transformers. How they do that, however, has remained unclear.

https://phys.org/news/2016-01-microtubules-self-organization-cells.html[/quote]

 

[C C]

Can you give an example of such a potential problem?

Thought I just did? A representational approach or model that maps the developmental differences and interactional relationships of entities of the perceived world in a static way-- that is then is also reified as a claim about what meta-phenomenal existence is (or had that purpose to begin with) -- is exemplifying or slotting itself in eternalism. But if presentism were instead the case, that ontological claim is reduced to shambles. Vice versa.

Ironically, both presentism and eternalism dissolve the idea of "time" as consisting of regions (past, future) and also that supposed "temporal flow" in conscious experience being objectively eliminated. Presentism does hang on to the "present" region, but without past/future it becomes an otiose distinction. And time(?) certainly doesn't "flow" in presentism since there is no past existing different state and no future existing different state to transit to.

Paul Davies: In daily life we divide time into three parts: past, present and future. [...] Whereas other types of motion relate one physical process to another, the putative flow of time relates time to itself. Posing the simple question “How fast does time pass?” exposes the absurdity of the very idea. --THAT MYSTERIOUS FLOW ... SciAm ... Sep 2002

Is it necessary to even consider time as a potential influence to physical phenomena and the rest of the dynamic territory at all?

AFAIK, time is not a causal part of a physical function and is only an emergent result of measurable chronological duration of a function, somewhat like geometrics are the emergent result of measurable connected distances in arbitrary units, which become part of the total resulting equation.

Practical representational systems that are tools -- purely for the sake of understanding, predicting and manipulating the experienced world, and they remain that way (i.e., are not hijacked for ontological assertions about existence or ultimate reality) can operate either way according to which perspective is either convenient or irrelevant. Including the idea of whatever is "flowing" if that could be made coherent -- which, when getting right down to it, would seem to require a fourth formal conception in the philosophy of time (or else introduction of a subspecies in eternalism). Not just the three possibilities resting on the table if one includes GBU. I consider the latter kind of superfluous in that upon inspection it seems to slippery slide into either of the other two -- that's why I didn't bother to include it.

 

[Write4U]

Paul Davies: In daily life we divide time into three parts: past, present and future. [...] Whereas other types of motion relate one physical process to another, the putative flow of time relates time to itself. Posing the simple question “How fast does time pass?” exposes the absurdity of the very idea. --THAT MYSTERIOUS FLOW ... SciAm ... Sep 2002

Oh I totally agree with that. IMO, what we have named Time, is result of an emergent duration of (measurable arbitrary units) of "time" related to the dynamic event.

 

[river]

Paul Davies: In daily life we divide time into three parts: past, present and future. [...] Whereas other types of motion relate one physical process to another, the putative flow of time relates time to itself. Posing the simple question “How fast does time pass?” exposes the absurdity of the very idea. --THAT MYSTERIOUS FLOW ... SciAm ... Sep 2002

Putative , commonly accepted , or supposed .

, assume to exist or to have existed .

 

[Write4U]

Putative , commonly accepted , or supposed .

assume to exist or to have existed .

And exposed as an absurd idea......

 

[river]

New
↑
Putative , commonly accepted , or supposed .

assume to exist or to have existed .

And exposed as an absurd idea......

Time is an absurd idea . In that it effects anything , anything at all . Time effects no thing , ever .