Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Don't tell that to me! Tell it to exchemist. He is the one who is deliberately trying to destroy this thread. And you are riding his coat-tails!
Last edited:
Is consciousness to be found in quantum processes in microtubules?
- Thread starter Write4U
- Start date
- Status
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Posts 1121, 1126, 1127, 1129, 1131,1132,1135,1138,1141,1143,1144,1145,1148, 1149,1151 and 1158 are blatant attempts at destroying this thread (with off-topic intelligent universe preaching).
I also wish to post a complaint.
Oh. And reporting this thread as still not on-topic.
I also wish to post a complaint.
Oh. And reporting this thread as still not on-topic.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Who is us? And pray tell, who are you? Am I one of them?
Sure, but you are not the only poster in this thread. See above.
Last edited:
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
OFF TOPIC! Are you going to list the numbers of your posts which are off topic and basically ad hominem.
When will you act in accordance to civilized posting rules. Instead of ruining my thread, why don't you just go away?
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Every one of my posts is a negation of your introduction of off-topic nonsense. That's everyone's duty as a member.
Don't be silly. I'm the only one keeping this on topic.
Since we control you - and you have been told by Moderation - you are to post nothing more except about microtubules, or you will be reported for trolling.
Now knock it off.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
James, please tell Dave to knock it off.
He is deliberately trying to destroy this thread which has taken me many hours of research to assemble and link for people's edification. There is no woo in this entire thread, except for the personal insults.
The thread is intended to present new and exciting current science and for some posters to try and bury this thread under ridicule is not doing a service to science. On the contrary, it is destructive and inhibits the free exchange of new and/or controversial emerging alternate sciences which can be discussed on the merits, instead of instant dismissal accompanied by ad hominem slurs.
You know this acrimony started a few years ago when I first mentioned Max Tegmark's mathematical universe and exchemist's initial response was that Tegmark was Jew who changed his name, as if that was of any importance to the subject of Universal properties and potentials. I guess it was his unique approach to discredit Tegmark's credentials.
You see, I take offense to that kind of posting in a science forum. But I have a generous attitude and can separate emotional outbursts from scientific knowledge.
Now can I please get back to creating references to microtubules and their possible role in the emergence of consciousness and mechanics involved in the expressions consciousness? I would appreciate that very much .
The thread was created for that purpose.
He is deliberately trying to destroy this thread which has taken me many hours of research to assemble and link for people's edification. There is no woo in this entire thread, except for the personal insults.
The thread is intended to present new and exciting current science and for some posters to try and bury this thread under ridicule is not doing a service to science. On the contrary, it is destructive and inhibits the free exchange of new and/or controversial emerging alternate sciences which can be discussed on the merits, instead of instant dismissal accompanied by ad hominem slurs.
You know this acrimony started a few years ago when I first mentioned Max Tegmark's mathematical universe and exchemist's initial response was that Tegmark was Jew who changed his name, as if that was of any importance to the subject of Universal properties and potentials. I guess it was his unique approach to discredit Tegmark's credentials.
You see, I take offense to that kind of posting in a science forum. But I have a generous attitude and can separate emotional outbursts from scientific knowledge.
Now can I please get back to creating references to microtubules and their possible role in the emergence of consciousness and mechanics involved in the expressions consciousness? I would appreciate that very much .
The thread was created for that purpose.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
You have your answer in post 1174.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Yes and that post was acknowledged and responded to with reason. You just don't seem to understand the concept of "enough is enough", so cut it out and start behaving like an adult.
p.s. I seem to recall a big problem with "hijacking threads". Instead of accusing me of hijacking my own thread , why don't you make an effort to avoid hijacking my thread, like I have made a demonstrable effort to do so myself.
Last edited:
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
I'm not preventing you from posting. I'm the one keeping it from being hijacked by you.
And you don't have to respond to every post I make to try to keep the thread on-topic.
Now stop kavetching and post something on-topic. Or don't post at all. You've been told.
Last edited:
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
LOL, apparently the irony of that statement has escaped you.
Bells
Staff member
Mod Note
Going to clear up a few things here..
You created this thread in Human Sciences or it may have been Biology originally.
I then moved it to this sub-forum because it was woo and then we basically moved all of your woo theories and posts as they cropped up throughout the forum into this thread so that you stopped spreading your woo in other threads and sub-forums. It was a toss up between Alternative Theories and Pseudoscience.. I moved it to Alternative Theories because I wanted to be kind... at the time.
To suggest that this thread was started at the behest of moderators is exceptionally dishonest.
And here is the kicker, you have yet to support those actual claims.
There is little proof to support what you are claiming.
To suggest that you or anyone provided "80%" of support material to prove your claim is dishonest and frankly, bordering on a straight out lie.
To the one, you have kept posting the same thing over and over again. To the other, none of it actually shows or confirms what you are claiming.
There is no evidence. All you have are a handful of people who keep making this claim and are yet to support it. All you have done is at times, taken articles out of context, posted quotes out of context to try to misrepresent what people are saying. Nothing that you have posted prove the claim you have made.
Which now brings me to the other point.
You have rarely kept on topic of the OP and you have been treating this thread like it's your personal blog. You were warned previously about treating this like it's your personal blog. And you have this blatantly ridiculous belief that this is your thread and therefore, you can somehow do whatever you want and worse still, you think you can control who posts in here and what they post. Let me answer this..
No. The answer is no, you cannot post whatever you want, nor can you control who posts here. The only thing you can control is what you post in this thread and that is under the stipulation of this site's rules, which advise you have to keep to the thread's topic.
I would suggest you pay particular attention to:
a) This is not your house.
b) Your blindness and stubbornness when it comes to microtubules, your obsession with it does not just border on religious zealotry. It is religious zealotry. It is evangelising (which is why I included that bit from this site's rules above).
c) Your attempt to shut people down by accusing them of Trumpian behaviour - given your behaviour in this thread just makes you look foolish and childish.
You are not pursuing information. You are pursuing your obsession.
There is a vast difference between the two.
You say you are posting developing news on the subject of microtubules?
Here's one for you:
You can read the entire study here: https://www.researchgate.net/public...ns_for_Information_Processing_in_Microtubules
Just scroll down and they have posted images of the PDF of the study.
I am surprised that in all your "research" about microtubules, that you missed that one. Interesting, no?
You are essentially a guest here, as is everyone else with the exact same rights and posting privileges.
Here, I'll post it again:
This thread is not your personal blog.
You are obsessed with microtubules. Starting a blog would be better for you than posting your obsession here all over the forum.
You treat this site and this thread like it's your personal blog.
It is not. It is a public forum and members to this site are free to respond and question, query and dispute your claims.
You are required to post on topic. I'd suggest you adhere to that requirement. I moved this thread to this sub-forum so that I could dump all of your obsessive microtubules posts in other sub-forums here and try to keep you contained here to avoid issuing you with infractions. If you keep treating it like your personal blog, I will simply close the thread and then start issuing you with infractions when you permeate other threads with your obsession. That is what it is.
If you want to just have a place to post about your obsession, there are numerous sites that allows you to start a blog where you can do just that. And it's all free. At no cost to you!
blogspot.com
wordpress.org
Are two such free sites. I use these often. I would encourage you to go there if you just want to post about microtubules. You would then truly own those pages.
Going to clear up a few things here..
Actually no..
You created this thread in Human Sciences or it may have been Biology originally.
I then moved it to this sub-forum because it was woo and then we basically moved all of your woo theories and posts as they cropped up throughout the forum into this thread so that you stopped spreading your woo in other threads and sub-forums. It was a toss up between Alternative Theories and Pseudoscience.. I moved it to Alternative Theories because I wanted to be kind... at the time.
To suggest that this thread was started at the behest of moderators is exceptionally dishonest.
You have been the only one posting claims about microtubules..
And here is the kicker, you have yet to support those actual claims.
There is little proof to support what you are claiming.
To suggest that you or anyone provided "80%" of support material to prove your claim is dishonest and frankly, bordering on a straight out lie.
To the one, you have kept posting the same thing over and over again. To the other, none of it actually shows or confirms what you are claiming.
There is no evidence. All you have are a handful of people who keep making this claim and are yet to support it. All you have done is at times, taken articles out of context, posted quotes out of context to try to misrepresent what people are saying. Nothing that you have posted prove the claim you have made.
Which now brings me to the other point.
You have rarely kept on topic of the OP and you have been treating this thread like it's your personal blog. You were warned previously about treating this like it's your personal blog. And you have this blatantly ridiculous belief that this is your thread and therefore, you can somehow do whatever you want and worse still, you think you can control who posts in here and what they post. Let me answer this..
No. The answer is no, you cannot post whatever you want, nor can you control who posts here. The only thing you can control is what you post in this thread and that is under the stipulation of this site's rules, which advise you have to keep to the thread's topic.
I would suggest you pay particular attention to:
E13. Appropriate supporting evidence or explanations should be posted together with any opinion, especially on contentious issues. Sciforums is not your personal blog, and should not be used to promote your unsupported opinions.
[...]
E15. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence.
[...]
H3. If you post a thread, expect people to reply to it. Bear in mind that the thread is on a public forum and all members are free to contribute to it; you may not place restrictions on who may respond. (The only exception to this is threads in the Formal Debates subforum, which has its own rules.)
[...]
I26. Evangelising is where the poster’s main aim is to spread the word about his or her beliefs, without being interested in real discussion or critical analysis.
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/sciforums-site-rules.142880/
[...]
E15. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence.
[...]
H3. If you post a thread, expect people to reply to it. Bear in mind that the thread is on a public forum and all members are free to contribute to it; you may not place restrictions on who may respond. (The only exception to this is threads in the Formal Debates subforum, which has its own rules.)
[...]
I26. Evangelising is where the poster’s main aim is to spread the word about his or her beliefs, without being interested in real discussion or critical analysis.
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/sciforums-site-rules.142880/
a) This is not your house.
b) Your blindness and stubbornness when it comes to microtubules, your obsession with it does not just border on religious zealotry. It is religious zealotry. It is evangelising (which is why I included that bit from this site's rules above).
c) Your attempt to shut people down by accusing them of Trumpian behaviour - given your behaviour in this thread just makes you look foolish and childish.
Hardly. You have kept posting the same thing over and over again and you pick and choose.. At times blindly.
You are not pursuing information. You are pursuing your obsession.
There is a vast difference between the two.
You say you are posting developing news on the subject of microtubules?
Here's one for you:
Microtubule Disruption does not Impair Learning in the Unicellular Organism Paramecium: Implications for Information Processing in Microtubules
Here, we sought to test the hypothesis that microtubules are involved in memory encoding and information storage in a unicellular organism that exhibits learning. We disrupted the microtubular dynamics in the organism to see if microtubules are involved in information storage in paramecium. Our results suggested that while disrupting GABA receptor dynamics will impair paramecium learning, disruption of microtubular dynamics does not impair the learning behavior.
[...]
In the present study, we have shown that the disruption of microtubules will not cause significant impairment in learning behavior of P. caudatum. Therefore, microtubules do not seem to be necessary for memory storage and learning in P. caudatum. It is noteworthy to mention that although parbendazole concentration was two orders of magnitude more than the IC50 concentration of parbendazole in Paramecium tetraurelia and it inhibited cellular growth in an effective fashion, it did not affect the learning behavior of P. caudatum. Accordingly, previous suggestions about the involvement of tubulins and microtubules in information storage in cells organizations may need further revisitation. Additionally, if microtubules are not involved in information storage, it is hard to argue that they may be involved in information processing. Therefore, It might be reasonable to doubt the role of microtubules as fundamental structures which can support intelligent behavior(s) in an extensive range of species, as suggested by some scholars.
Here, we sought to test the hypothesis that microtubules are involved in memory encoding and information storage in a unicellular organism that exhibits learning. We disrupted the microtubular dynamics in the organism to see if microtubules are involved in information storage in paramecium. Our results suggested that while disrupting GABA receptor dynamics will impair paramecium learning, disruption of microtubular dynamics does not impair the learning behavior.
[...]
In the present study, we have shown that the disruption of microtubules will not cause significant impairment in learning behavior of P. caudatum. Therefore, microtubules do not seem to be necessary for memory storage and learning in P. caudatum. It is noteworthy to mention that although parbendazole concentration was two orders of magnitude more than the IC50 concentration of parbendazole in Paramecium tetraurelia and it inhibited cellular growth in an effective fashion, it did not affect the learning behavior of P. caudatum. Accordingly, previous suggestions about the involvement of tubulins and microtubules in information storage in cells organizations may need further revisitation. Additionally, if microtubules are not involved in information storage, it is hard to argue that they may be involved in information processing. Therefore, It might be reasonable to doubt the role of microtubules as fundamental structures which can support intelligent behavior(s) in an extensive range of species, as suggested by some scholars.
You can read the entire study here: https://www.researchgate.net/public...ns_for_Information_Processing_in_Microtubules
Just scroll down and they have posted images of the PDF of the study.
I am surprised that in all your "research" about microtubules, that you missed that one. Interesting, no?
Again, this isn't your house.
You are essentially a guest here, as is everyone else with the exact same rights and posting privileges.
You missed the point that he was addressing. You quoted it and then answered something else entirely.
Here, I'll post it again:
This forum is not your personal blog.
This thread is not your personal blog.
You are obsessed with microtubules. Starting a blog would be better for you than posting your obsession here all over the forum.
You treat this site and this thread like it's your personal blog.
It is not. It is a public forum and members to this site are free to respond and question, query and dispute your claims.
You are required to post on topic. I'd suggest you adhere to that requirement. I moved this thread to this sub-forum so that I could dump all of your obsessive microtubules posts in other sub-forums here and try to keep you contained here to avoid issuing you with infractions. If you keep treating it like your personal blog, I will simply close the thread and then start issuing you with infractions when you permeate other threads with your obsession. That is what it is.
If you want to just have a place to post about your obsession, there are numerous sites that allows you to start a blog where you can do just that. And it's all free. At no cost to you!
blogspot.com
wordpress.org
Are two such free sites. I use these often. I would encourage you to go there if you just want to post about microtubules. You would then truly own those pages.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
You may want to mention your own personal involvement in creating the current off-topic atmosphere. And all those off-topic posts including this one by me, were and are in response to off-topic posts by others, many including #1182, offered by you. If you check back you will see that my off-topic posts are always in response to an off topic post by someone else. If you check the post numbers you will see that all my posts are and were in response to a previous (off-topic) post by others. I do not create the off-topic atmosphere, you do, and with great disrespect to boot.
As I said before, I do not introduce the off-topic subjects. Others did and do, but you are now even falsely accusing me of introducing off-topic posts. That is a blatant lie, and if you don't know the difference then I question your mental capacity for objective thought altogether.
Are you going to pursue this off-topic subject any further? Is that your intention?
Last edited:
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
You've been told at least 9 previous times by me, and now twice by Moderation.
With all due respect and courtesy: shut up and post some on-topic support of this alt theory. Or post nothing, if you have nothing new to add. Otherwise it will be reported as deliberate and willful trolling.
Bells
Staff member
The real absurdity here is that you rather pursue off topic subjects and whine about off-topic post, than address a study about microtubules that I linked in my previous post, which shows that your claims about microtubules are wrong..Welcome to the theater of the absurd.....
Life to me is in everything physical , elements , atoms , sub-atomics etc Write4U , Life Energy uses the real physical world to manifest its self . Minerals are needed by all Living Forms. We Humans need Iron to carry oxygen in our blood . Zinc , Iodine etc.
What I'm saying is this , Life is intelligent and consciousness . But it needs the physical Universe to manifest its self. Life can not evolve to its full potential in void space .
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Octopi have Copper (hemocyanin) as their blood oxygen carrier . Their blood is blue instead of red.
What you may not know is that many minerals are created by living organisms. Watch this video by Robert Hazen.
No one is proposing that the universe is void. There is apparently sufficient energy for life to mathematically evolve to its full potential. The earth is a perfect example of a non-sentient, quasi-intelligent evolved biome, teeming with life from the very subtle to gross expression in our observable reality.
What I am saying that the Universe needs not be conscious to behave in a quasi-intelligent manner. All that evolution requires is a dynamical mathematical environment. The fractal function is mathematical in nature but not conscious or alive. Yet it is capable of expressing itself in the most complex and efficient patterns everywhere we look throughout the universe.
Life itself needs not necessarily be consciously intelligent. There are many examples of non-sentient non-living dynamical (quasi-living) patterns, such as viruses, which function with great mathematical precision, as ordered by the mathematical essence of spacetime acting on the interchange of relative "values" and mathematical "functions".
You're going to have to define the fundamental parameters of "consciousness" , and that's what this thread attempts to facilitate.
Last edited:
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
What does any of this have to do with microtubules?
- Status