Is consciousness to be found in quantum processes in microtubules?

[DaveC426913]

Good idea. Discuss the microtubule baby - and throw out the mathematical universe bathwater.
Otherwise, you are drowning your baby (and this thread) in woo water.

 

[exchemist]

Still Off-topic, by your own admission.
Oh, you're too easy...hehe...
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=denegrade

That little "urban" joke is on you, again....

Bullshit. The meaning is the same as denigrate, so it's not something different. It is just an ignorant mis-spelling of denigrate.

https://wikidiff.com/denegrade/denigrate

So, whiew's the dickhid naow? (That's South African by the way)

But then again, if you are happy to speak "English" like some guy with a reversed baseball cap and jeans with the crotch at knee height, with the waistband of his underpants showing, there's nothing stopping you.

 

[Write4U]

Good idea. Discuss the microtubule baby - and throw out the mathematical universe bathwater.
Otherwise, you are drowning your baby (and this thread) in woo water.

The OP Title has three components to it.

a) "consciousness", the hard problem and the limits of "understanding".

"This statement is false". Think about it, and it makes your head hurt. If it’s true, it’s false. If it’s false, it’s true. In 1931, Austrian logician Kurt Gödel shocked the worlds of mathematics and philosophy by establishing that such statements are far more than a quirky turn of language: he showed that there are mathematical truths which simply can’t be proven.

In the decades since, thinkers have taken the brilliant Gödel’s result in a variety of directions–linking it to limits of human comprehension and the quest to recreate human thinking on a computer. This program explores Gödel’s discovery and examines the wider implications of his revolutionary finding. Participants include mathematician Gregory Chaitin, author Rebecca Goldstein, astrophysicist Mario Livio and artificial intelligence expert Marvin Minsky.

https://www.worldsciencefestival.com/programs/the_limits_of_understanding/

b) "quantum mechanics".

Ninety years after the historic double-slit experiment, the quantum revolution shows no sign of slowing. Join a vibrant conversation with renowned leaders in theoretical physics, quantum computation, and philosophical foundations, focused on how quantum physics continues to impact understanding on issues profound and practical, from the edge of black holes and the fibers of spacetime to teleportation and the future of computers.

https://www.worldsciencefestival.com/videos/quantum-reality-space-time-entanglement/?

c) "microtubules".

INTRODUCTION
One of the major inventions of eukaryotic cells was the evolution of cytoskeletal motors that convert the chemical energy stored in ATP into a mechanical force (150). Combined with the increasing complexity of cytoskeletal arrays of actin filaments and microtubules, this active transport enabled eukaryotic cells to attain much larger cell sizes and more sophisticated cell shapes.

Cytoskeletal motors are generally grouped on the basis of the type of filament they associate with: Kinesins and dyneins generate force along microtubules, whereas myosins do so along actin filaments.

This review presents an overview of our current understanding of the mechanisms and functions of kinesin and myosin motors, which are the only cytoskeletal motors found in spermatophytes.

Although most research so far has focused on one or the other motor type, it has become increasingly clear that the two cytoskeletal motor systems influence each other’s behavior and control cellular function in a concerted fashion.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6653565/

I started with examining the role of microtubules, a "common denominator" in the neural network of all Eukaryotic biological organisms and clearly associated with "information processing", from fundamental life forms to high intelligence level complex organisms.

But for some mysterious reason, everything that is known about microtubules is being rejected out-of-hand by you and from my standpoint, until their role is firmly established, it seem useless to even try and connect the other two components with the various MT functions, in order to fashion a viable hypothesis on the role of MT in answering the "hard question".

Until you are responsive to the work of hundreds of scientists engaged in MT research, no progress is possible and I am left with stacking links to MT research from all possible perspectives, until someone has the honesty to admit that the mounting evidence does point to the vital role MTs play in the emergence of sensory discrimination and evolution of self-referential consciousness.

 

[Write4U]

But then again, if you are happy to speak "English" like some guy with a reversed baseball cap and jeans with the crotch at knee height, with the waistband of his underpants showing, there's nothing stopping you.

So, your willingness to engage in meaningful discussion rests on "social conformity" rather than "content"?
I wonder how you process looking at Art. Do you judge Art by observing the artist's dirty sneakers?

But as long as you keep responding I will continue to try and incorporate any Off topic comments with additional published scientific information. The quoted passages are not invented by me, they are taken from what I viewed as being pertinent to support my own POV. I never refuse to incorporate any "corrections" or "refinements" into the building of a coherent hypothesis.

My narrative is dependent on "known" and published science. My narrative might lack in clarity, but that's why I provide links as the basis for my own narrative. I am not inventing new knowledge, I am trying to use existing knowledge to form a coherent argument.

Tegmark proposes that rather than asking an answer to the "hard question", we should start with "hard facts". The intent of this thread is to build a wealth of "hard facts" which may lead to the emergence of answers to the "hard question".
This is not an unscientific approach. Disorganized, yes.....

It seems that my style of narrative is disagreeable to a few. I can deal with that as long as it allows me to keep posting a growing body of evidence that my agreement with certain newer concepts on "consciousness", "QM" and the "possible role of microtubules in the experience of self-awareness", is not unreasonable at all.

We have a pretty good idea of QM, so there is no real referential problem there......

After that we can begin on the "hard question"......................................................

 

[exchemist]

So, your willingness to engage in meaningful discussion rests on "social conformity" rather than "content"?
I wonder how you process looking at Art. Do you judge Art by observing the artist's dirty sneakers?

But as long as you keep responding I will continue to try and incorporate any Off topic comments with additional published scientific information. The quoted passages are not invented by me, they are taken from what I viewed as being pertinent to support my own POV. I never refuse to incorporate any "corrections" or "refinements" into the building of a coherent hypothesis.

My narrative is dependent on "known" and published science. My narrative might lack in clarity, but that's why I provide links as the basis for my own narrative. I am not inventing new knowledge, I am trying to use existing knowledge to form a coherent argument.

Tegmark proposes that rather than asking an answer to the "hard question", we should start with "hard facts". The intent of this thread is to build a wealth of "hard facts" which may lead to the emergence of answers to the "hard question".
This is not an unscientific approach. Disorganized, yes.....

It seems that my style of narrative is disagreeable to a few. I can deal with that as long as it allows me to keep posting a growing body of evidence that my agreement with certain newer concepts on "consciousness", "QM" and the "possible role of microtubules in the experience of self-awareness", is not unreasonable at all.

We have a pretty good idea of QM, so there is no real referential problem there......

After that we can begin on the "hard question"......................................................

I've never understood the so-called "hard problem" of consciousness. I can't see what the problem is at all.

 

[Write4U]

I've never understood the so-called "hard problem" of consciousness. I can't see what the problem is at all.

Consciousness (From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
Not to be confused with Conscientiousness or Conscience.

This article is about cognition. For other uses, see Consciousness (disambiguation) and Conscious (disambiguation).
Representation of consciousness from the seventeenth century by Robert Fludd, an English Paracelsian physician.

Consciousness at its simplest is "awareness or sentience of internal or external existence".[1] Despite centuries of analyses, definitions, explanations and debates by philosophers and scientists, consciousness remains puzzling and controversial,[2] being "at once the most familiar and most mysterious aspect of our lives".

Perhaps the only widely agreed notion about the topic is the intuition that it exists.[4] Opinions differ about what exactly needs to be studied and explained as consciousness. Sometimes it is synonymous with 'the mind', other times just an aspect of mind. In the past it was one's "inner life", the world of introspection, of private thought, imagination and volition.

Today, with modern research into the brain it often includes any kind of experience, cognition,
feeling or perception. It may be 'awareness', or 'awareness of awareness', or self-awareness.

There might be different levels or orders of consciousness,[7] or different kinds of consciousness, or just one kind with different features.[8] Other questions include whether only humans are conscious or all animals or even the whole universe. The disparate range of research, notions and speculations raises doubts whether the right questions are being asked.

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

Do you know how this works? If not, don't you want to know?

 

[exchemist]

Consciousness (From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
Not to be confused with Conscientiousness or Conscience.

This article is about cognition. For other uses, see Consciousness (disambiguation) and Conscious (disambiguation).
Representation of consciousness from the seventeenth century by Robert Fludd, an English Paracelsian physician.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness

Do you know how this works? If not, don't you want to know?

Yes, I think I do.

 

[Write4U]

Yes, I think I do.

You have the solution to the "hard problem"...???

Please...I am all ears, I want to know whether it agrees with my current intuition or not. I am not prejudiced. I just want to learn.

 

[exchemist]

You have the solution to the "hard problem"...???

Please...I am all ears, I want to know whether it agrees with my current intuition or not. I am not prejudiced. I just want to learn.

I'd happily discuss it with someone who can hold up one end of a rational conversation. In fact, I think it may have come up, tangentially, in discussions involving James and perhaps Bells, on previous occasions. But I'm not going to get into any of that with you, any more than I would with River.

 

[Write4U]

I'd happily discuss it with someone who can hold up one end of a rational conversation. In fact, I think it may have come up, tangentially, in discussions involving James and perhaps Bells, on previous occasions. But I'm not going to get into any of that with you, any more than I would with River.

Yes, I expected that evasion.
How about I step back and let You and James and Bells answer the OP question. I am glad to give the floor to anyone who can teach all readers who may be interested in hearing answers to this important subject.

I provided many pieces (hard facts) of the puzzle. I'm waiting for someone who can piece them together and create a narrative that answers the "hard question".

Being a layman, I've put in my five cents worth, but I am open and eager to hear a more rigorous scientific aspect and consideration.

You say you can help in that area, but then you refuse to post in this thread, which asks the question in all seriousness and desire to understand. C'mon, man.

 

[exchemist]

Yes, I expected that evasion.
How about I step back and let You and James and Bells answer the OP question. I am glad to give the floor to anyone who can teach all readers who may be interested in hearing answers to this important subject.

I provided many pieces (hard facts) of the puzzle. I'm waiting for someone who can piece them together and create a narrative that answers the "hard question".

Being a layman, I've put in my five cents worth, but I am open and eager to hear a more rigorous scientific aspect and consideration.

You say you can help in that area, but then you refuse to post in this thread, which asks the question in all seriousness and desire to understand. C'mon, man.

The answer to the OP question is "not so far as we can tell" and I gave you that answer in post 5 (five) of this thread. No evidence to the contrary has been produced in the thread since, even though we are now at post 1371.

The "hard problem" of consciousness is a quite different issue from the question asked in the OP, as someone able to hold up one end of a rational conversation would immediately recognise. I make no offer to "help" with this, since nobody able to hold up one end of a rational conversation is currently active on this thread and because it would in any case be off-topic. But, for the record, I think Massimo Pigliucci is the clearest thinker on the subject that I've come across.

 

[Write4U]

The "hard problem" of consciousness is a quite different issue from the question asked in the OP, as someone able to hold up one end of a rational conversation would immediately recognise.

Really? What you are refusing to acknowledge is that the OP question first requires an answer to the "hard problem" of consciousness, before the question can be addressed if the microtubule network and functions are (can be) the physical processing platform for an emergent phenomenon of "self-aware consciousness".

What you are proposing is that we can answer the role of microtubules vis-a-vis consciousness without learning what constitutes "conscious self-awareness", simply by rejecting the role of microtubules. Is that even scientific?

"Noah, build me an ark".
"Yes Lord, what's an Ark"?
"Never mind about Arks, just build me something that's big and floats, ok?
Thank you for expaining Lord......

In January 2014, Hameroff and Penrose claimed that the discovery of quantum vibrations in microtubules by Anirban Bandyopadhyay of the National Institute for Materials Science in Japan in March 2013[31] corroborates the Orch-OR theory.[15][32]

Although these theories are stated in a scientific framework, it is difficult to separate them from the personal opinions of the scientist. The opinions are often based on intuition or subjective ideas about the nature of consciousness."

OK, you claim to have the answer. So what is your objective conclusion about "consciousness" and how it becomes manifests in reality?

There is no evidence that microtubules are tiny quantum computers.

So that is your contribution to the conversation?
I have provided links to several papers which support the notion that MT are "information processors at nano-scales and that MT networks are responsible for sensory information transmission to the brain.
Moreover, the Pyramidal cells have been identified as electro-chemical memory storage sites and recall processors and transport systems.

It's not doing very well, is it?

At the time you asked, I answered you honestly.

Since then it's clear that MT are nano-scale bipolar coiled information processors. If that qualifies them as quantum computers is another question, but major strides are being made in resent research, some of which may be found in this thread. (see post #1335 and 1336)

I would say that today research study of MT functions is doing quite well, thank you.

 

[Write4U]

Kinesthesia

David Bohm advanced the view that quantum physics meant that the old Cartesian model of reality – that there are two kinds of substance, the mental and the physical, that somehow interact – was too limited. To complement it, he developed a mathematical and physical theory of "implicate" and "explicate" order.

He also believed that the brain, at the cellular level, works according to the mathematics of some quantum effects, and postulated that thought is distributed and non-localised just as quantum entities are.

kinaesthesia (or kinesthesia), is the sense of self-movement and body position.[3] It is sometimes described as the "sixth sense".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bohm#

Proprioception

Proprioception is mediated by proprioceptors, mechanosensory neurons located within muscles, tendons, and joints.

There are multiple types of proprioceptors which are activated during distinct behaviors and encode distinct types of information: limb velocity and movement, load on a limb, and limb limits. Vertebrates and invertebrates have distinct but similar modes of encoding this information.

The central nervous system integrates proprioception and other sensory systems, such as vision and the vestibular system, to create an overall representation of body position, movement, and acceleration

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

 

[Write4U]

But, for the record, I think Massimo Pigliucci is the clearest thinker on the subject that I've come across.

Massimo Pigliucci the philosopher?

On consciousness
Pigliucci has criticized David Chalmers' Hard Problem of Consciousness, and he similarly is a critic of panpsychism. While he is a realist about consciousness, he thinks that claiming there is a distinction between the so called hard and easy problems of consciousness is a category error.

However, he agrees with Daniel Dennett.

Category mistake (error)

The term "category-mistake" was introduced by Gilbert Ryle in his book The Concept of Mind (1949) to remove what he argued to be a confusion over the nature of mind born from Cartesian metaphysics. Ryle argued that it was a mistake to treat the mind as an object made of an immaterial substance because predications of substance are not meaningful for a collection of dispositions and capacities

He goes on to argue that the Cartesian dualism of mind and body rests on a category mistake. In the philosophy of the mind, Ryle's category mistake argument can be used to support eliminative materialism. By using the argument, one can attack the existence of a separate, distinct mind. The argument concludes that minds are not conscious, but a collective predicate for a set of observable behaviour and unobservable dispositions.

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

Daniel Dennett, Philosophy of mind

Dennett has remarked in several places (such as "Self-portrait", in Brainchildren) that his overall philosophical project has remained largely the same since his time at Oxford. He is primarily concerned with providing a philosophy of mind that is grounded in empirical research.

Empirical research, yesss. That's what I'm searching for, empirical research!

In his original
dissertation, Content and Consciousness, he broke up the problem of explaining the mind into the need for a theory of content and for a theory of consciousness.

A Theory of Content and A Theory of Consciousness.

His approach to this project has also stayed true to this distinction. Just as Content and Consciousness has a bipartite structure, he similarly divided Brainstorms into two sections. He would later collect several essays on content in The Intentional Stance and synthesize his views on consciousness into a unified theory in Consciousness Explained. These volumes respectively form the most extensive development of his views.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Dennett#Philosophy_of_mind

Where does Daniel Dennett depart from the work done by the hundreds of scientists mentioned in this thread as being engaged in exactly what Dennet "thinks" should be the preferred approach to the "easy question", the "hard question" and the known "hard facts"?

 

[Write4U]

In his original dissertation, Content and Consciousness, Dennett broke up the problem of explaining the mind into the need for a theory of content and for a theory of consciousness.

I am working on compiling "content", the "hard facts", and that includes the "hard fact" that we "experience consciousness". Facts cannot be denied and it is always a good practice to take inventory before assigning a value to the stocked merchandise and by extension a value to the business itself.

p.s. If you want to argue that this thread is not about business and therefore Off Topic, let me remind you that you are fond of using "metaphor" yourself. Moreover you have even accused me of not being able to understand a metaphor when I see it. Your hubris is astounding.

Examples of Hubris: ... Darcy in Pride and Prejudice nearly loses Elizabeth by having excessive pride in himself and his social status

 

[Bells]

Mod Note

The Universe has no mathematical properties? Try doing science without the maths, see how far you get. No my definition of MT is a self-organizing nano-scale bi-polar variable coil which processes and transports electro-chemical information. Electro-chemical properties consist of discrete values and mathematical functions. But you can post anything you like and even intentionally try to torpedo an IMPORTANT scientific subject?
Then why don't you offer real science to the conversation? Are you suggesting the Topic of Consciousness belongs in Pseudoscience?
You have not offered anything that falsifies any of my posts. All I see is denial without reasons for denial. No positive contributions from you on this IMPORTANT SCIENTIFIC SUBJECT yet.

One of the biggest issues in this thread (aside from the most obvious one that you are wholly incapable of supporting your theory or sticking to the actual topic and you instead spam this thread with videos and articles with utter shite) is your dishonesty and misrepresentations.

For example:

Are you suggesting the Topic of Consciousness belongs in Pseudoscience?

You are not discussing the subject or topic of consciousness. Nor have you ever actually attempted to.

You have instead vomited a so called theory and tried to pass it on as fact and thrown a tantrum and at times lied when challenged on it.

At no time has Dave suggested that the subject of consciousness belongs in Pseudoscience.

He was quite clear that this thread belongs in pseudoscience because you are peddling woo.

And truth be told, you are.

To put it bluntly.

It is not the subject of consciousness that belongs in Pseudoscience.

It is you.

And he's correct. This thread does belong in Pseudoscience.

Because you spend more time just posting videos and linking studies without even bothering to comment or post discussion points about what you are posting - to the one, people get warnings for doing that usually.. to the other, you are not even posting things that even pertain to this thread's topic - which is whether consciousness can be found in the quantum processes in microtubules.

You are now trying to evade the thread topic so that you can spam it with off-topic shite, by suggesting that it can be broken down into three completely separate and unrelated components.

Frankly, you are a bees dick from my closing it because a) you haven't supported any of your claims and b) you veer off topic constantly and post things out of context, off topic and without even bothering to explain what you are posting.

There are no redeeming features to this thread - aside from the many, maaaany attempts by everyone who spent time and effort posting links and explaining where you are wrong, which you disregarded and spammed videos and various off topic links in response.

So this thread will go to pseudoscience. And if you keep going off topic, it will close and go to the cesspool.

To remind you yet again.

This is not your personal blog.

You can't just post or link just videos and links without any context or discussion points or that do not even address this thread's topic and subject.

 

[Write4U]

Write4U said;↑ Now that I think of it; human observation causes wave function collapse inside our sensory systems.

This is so annoying. You are always saying this or that causes a 'wave function' to collapse. That is an absurd way to speak. If I jump off of a platform I can say "I fell to the ground due to gravity", but if I say "I fell to the ground due to the gravity field equations" I would sound like a nutter, or someone who had no idea what they were talking about.

I agree, but that is not what I said. You're putting words in my mouth that I never uttered.

The wave function didn't collapse the wave collapsed.

Can you clarify?
From Wiki, I get this information which seems to confirm my use of the term wave-function in regard to "consciousness"

Does consciousness collapse the wave function?
The von Neumann–Wigner interpretation, also described as "consciousness causes collapse [of the wave function]", is an interpretation of quantum mechanics in which consciousness is postulated to be necessary for the completion of the process of quantum measurement.

Von Neumann–Wigner interpretation - Wikipedia

Does the use of wave function in this excerpt annoy you?

Wave Function

in quantum mechanics, a variable quantity that mathematically describes the wave characteristics of a particle. The value of the wave function of a particle at a given point of space and time is related to the likelihood of the particle’s being there at the time.

By

analogy with waves such as those of sound, a wave function, designated by the Greek letter psi, Ψ, may be thought of as an expression for the amplitude of the particle wave (or de Broglie wave), although for such waves amplitude has no physical significance. The square of the wave function, Ψ2, however, does have physical significance: the probability of finding the particle described by a specific wave function Ψ at a given point and time is proportional to the value of Ψ2.

https://www.britannica.com/science/wave-function

Can you clarify your objection to my use of the term "wave-function" in context of consciousness, without resorting to false metaphor?
Seems to me, if I had used the term "wave collapse in the brain" someone would have corrected me on that point, no?

 

[exchemist]

It depends on how you define "computer" and "computational abilities",
I see a chemical reaction as a computational function (transmission of "information = values")

Just from a cursory examination, it is clear to me that computational processes and functions occur in microtubules, which are not only instrumental in providing a cellular structural skeleton to keep an organism consisting of 95% water from collapsing like a limp noodle, but also acts as an information sharing network which is distributed throughout the body.
https://www.proteinatlas.org/cell
https://www.proteinatlas.org/humancell/microtubules

and for Animation; https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK21698/

It's the microtubules that drive this engine for animation.
Think of the number of apparently "sensory" and "memory" functional microtubules contained in those neurons.

Besides they "look like" little computers......

You are now replying, randomly, to a post Origin made almost two years ago on this thread.

I think you must be mentally ill.

 

[Write4U]

Anyway, a nice illustration of the mititotic function, facilitated by the microtubular mitotic spindle.

A kinetochore (/kɪˈnɛtəkɔːr/, /-ˈniːtəkɔːr/) is a disc-shaped protein structure associated with duplicated chromatids in eukaryotic cells where the spindle fibers attach during cell division to pull sister chromatids apart.[1]

Image of a human cell showing microtubules in green, chromosomes (DNA) in blue, and kinetochores in pink

The kinetochore assembles on the centromere and links the chromosome to microtubule polymers from the mitotic spindle during mitosis and meiosis. Its proteins also help to hold the sister chromatids together and play a role in chromosome editing.[2] Details of the specific areas of origin are unknown.

Monocentric organisms, including vertebrates, fungi, and most plants, have a single centromeric region on each chromosome which assembles a single, localized kinetochore. Holocentric organisms, such as nematodes and some plants, assemble a kinetochore along the entire length of a chromosome.

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

Question: Is it possible that the neural network in biological organisms make excellent "antennas"? Think of the implications.....

 

[Write4U]

Write4U said: ↑ I am still waiting for anyone to offer a viable alternative instead of verbal sticks and stones.

I have, several times. Deep neural networks. Why are you unable to process that?

What do you mean by Deep Neural Networks? Are you talking about AI?

What is meant by deep neural network?

A deep neural network is a neural network with a certain level of complexity, a neural network with more than two layers. Deep neural networks use sophisticated mathematical modeling to process data in complex ways.Apr 13, 2018

Techopedia explains Deep Neural Network

A neural network, in general, is a technology built to simulate the activity of the human brain – specifically, pattern recognition and the passage of input through various layers of simulated neural connections.

https://www.techopedia.com/definition/32902/deep-neural-network

All Biological Neural networks consist of microtubules, intermediate filaments and microfilaments. That's what I have been telling you all along. Why are you unable to process that?

http://www.biology.arizona.edu/cell_bio/tutorials/cytoskeleton/page1.html[/quote]

Here is talk about deep neural function of microtubules.