I must say I didn't try to understand what resurrected this thread but sure think that I'll never understand it anyway.
Is consciousness to be found in quantum processes in microtubules?
- Thread starter Write4U
- Start date
- Status
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
I got responses from River and Dennis Tate and it was only good manners to acknowledge the responders.
Moreover, I believe it is one of the most promising avenues to discovery of consciousness.
AFAIK, both ORCH OR ( Orchestrated Objective Reduction) and IIT (Intergrated Information Theory) employ microtubules as the most promising candidates for orchestrated reductive information processing.
"Consciousness" is one of the great mysteries, just as "Life" used to be.
Last edited:
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
And plants don't feel either.
Feel is a term reserved for nervous systems, which a plant does not have.
Plants undergo a simple, localized and determinate chemical reaction that causes the bending. That is not what the term "feeling" is generally applied to.
Google has this to say (but feel free to read up on it):
"Under normal light conditions auxins are spread out in the plant. But when sunlight varies, auxin is broken down on the sunnier side of the stem. The higher concentration of auxin on the shady side causes the plant cells on that side to grow more so it bends toward the light."
That has nothing to do with a nervous system, or anything to do with feeling. It is a straight-forward, direct chemical reaction, occurring site-specifically and independently. There is no communication with other parts of the plant, let alone a non-existent nervous system.
Otherwise you might as well claim that a bicycle "feels" its skin wearing away as it rusts in the rain.
Last edited:
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Objectively, Feel = Detect
I agree n that context, but it is also applicable to the definition of "responding to outside stimulus" (detect). Hence the term "proto".
Protoconsciousness
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-017-0373-4_14
I think it has something to do with universal mathematics, like the "differential equation"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differential_equation
Last edited:
Dennis Tate
Banned
Which would tend to make alternative ideas on Wave Theory would tend to be very interesting to him.
No, leaves have evolved heliotropic abilities.
http://lifeofplant.blogspot.com/2011/03/heliotropism.html
Heliotropism is a proto form of evolving sentience sentience.
Would you say that there might be a possible connection between these abilities that plants have with the alternative theory on
climate change of putting carbon back into the soil?
Carbon Farming: Harnessing The Power of The Soil
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
Wave theory is not a matter of debate. The mathematics of waves was set out centuries ago.
Physical theories that invoke waves, or wavelike properties, are something different.
Even for those, no physicist will waste time on manifestly idiotic ideas like those of Tejman. (M.D.) Tejman seems to be a very old physician, who has gone a bit senile and believes that, just because he is a doctor, he has something worthwhile to say about physics. But he deludes himself. He is talking rubbish.
He may appeal to you, because you are looking for some woo in your life, but to anyone who knows a bit of physical science it is clear he is awa' wi' the faeries.
Dennis Tate
Banned
Virtually every subject is a matter of debate during a time period when INFORMATION and understanding of that information is DOUBLING within a matter of months!
In my opinion.... any physicist who would not give the Chaim Henry Tejman M. D. theories a serious look... .is deliberately condemning themselves to IGNORANCE!!!!!!!!!
His theories are so above anything like them out there that I have ran into so far... that he is in another league.......
I would love it if you knew of even better writings than his......
but so far I certainly don't.
Is he the guy who wants evolutionary theory reinvented?
Dennis Tate
Banned
Yes... I have gotten the impression that that is one of his goals but he is very old now so he needs for somebody else to build on the foundation that he laid for us.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
But you said yourself that you are a "mere janitor", right? So what makes you think you know enough science to determine what makes scientific sense and what is hogwash?
Whereas I do at least have a degree in physical science. So I have some idea of what makes scientific sense, when it comes to physics and chemistry, even if I admit I am rusty when it comes to the details
.No one is under any obligation to stop and listen to the ravings of every nutcase on the street corner. If we did, we would never get anything done. There are so many nutcases about. We make judgements about who to listen and who to ignore, all the time, and we are right to do so.
On the internet, it is even worse. On the internet virtual street corner, every nutter in the world can make his pitch for attention, across the globe. Nutters, cranks and charlatans abound. So we have to be even more selective, if we are not to get side-tracked by garbage.
This Tejman (M.D.) person is a total nobody. He has no track record in science at all. So we don't owe what this guy says a second look because of who he is. That's the first point.
Secondly, what he says is obvious garbage. It claims everything we know is wrong, while explaining none of the thousands of things that current theories do explain. And he offers zero observational evidence that anything he says has any basis in fact. So it's just not science at all. It's woo, made up crap, gibberish.
I do indeed know far better writings than those of Tejman. (M.D.). They are the writings of people like Newton, Maxwell, Faraday, Mendele'ev, Einstein, Planck, Rutherford, Schrodinger, Dirac, Heisenberg, Pauli and many more, including, more humbly, the writings of those that taught me at university, like Prof Charles Coulson, Prof Richard Wayne or Prof Peter Atkins.
If you want to know what physical science has to say about the world, I recommend you to look up articles about what some of these people (not perhaps the ones that taught me*) contributed to human knowledge.
*Although Coulson in fact was the person who coined the expression "the God of the Gaps", as it happens.
Last edited:
Dennis Tate
Banned
But you said yourself that you are a "mere janitor", right? So what makes you think you know enough science to determine what makes scientific sense and what is hogwash?
Whereas I do at least have a degree in physical science. So I have some idea of what makes scientific sense, when it comes to physics and chemistry, even if I admit I am rusty when it comes to the details
No one is under any obligation to stop and listen to the ravings of every nutcase on the street corner. If we did, we would never get anything done. There are so many nutcases about. We make judgements about who to listen and who to ignore, all the time, and we are right to do so.
On the internet, it is even worse. On the internet virtual street corner, every nutter in the world can make his pitch for attention, across the globe. Nutters, cranks and charlatans abound. So we have to be even more selective, if we are not to get side-tracked by garbage.
This Tejman (M.D.) person is a total nobody. He has no track record in science at all. So we don't owe what this guy says a second look because of who he is. That's the first point.
Secondly, what he says is obvious garbage. It claims everything we know is wrong, while explaining none of the thousands of things that current theories do explain. And he offers zero observational evidence that anything he says has any basis in fact. So it's just not science at all. It's woo, made up crap, gibberish.
I do indeed know far better writings than those of Tejman. (M.D.). They are the writings of people like Newton, Maxwell, Faraday, Mendele'ev, Einstein, Planck, Rutherford, Schrodinger, Dirac, Heisenberg, Pauli and many more, including, more humbly, the writings of those that taught me at university, like Prof Charles Coulson, Prof Richard Wayne or Prof Peter Atkins.
If you want to know what physical science has to say about the world, I recommend you to look up articles about what some of these people (not perhaps the ones that taught me*) contributed to human knowledge.
*Although Coulson in fact was the person who coined the expression "the God of the Gaps", as it happens.
Back in 1990 I went through a philosophical crisis as I ran into negative near death experiences so.... i prayed....
and I asked for wisdom... and I submitted a bid, offer, proposed investment, wager, bet based on Leviticus 16:10
"but the goat on which the lot fell for Aza'zel shall be presented alive before the LORD
to make atonement over it, that it may be sent away into the wilderness
to Aza'zel." (Leviticus 16:10)
I postulated an infinite number of time lines... beginning from any point in time from the invention of Adam and Eve until then....
and I offered to come back an infinite number of times in order to pay off the "debt and guilt of Azazel"... whatever that meant.....
Within a couple of weeks I heard an audible voice while I was praying..... (I was also taking a nutritional product invented by Kark Jurak that
tends to oxygenate the blood so I was becoming somewhat "psychic" at that time)... anyway..... the audible voice stated.... "Ask of Me whatever you want and
I will give it to you?" I actually questioned if the voice could be from the dark side of the force...... so I was rather cautious in my reply......
I replied essentially ..... "If you really want to do something for me ... then go as close as you can still go to YHWH and ask for more wisdom than Christ while he was alive.....
to be given to CrazyTate... so that I can play my father the Devil a good game of chess with five billion unlimited movement variables?"
No kidding... that is the summary what I asked for and sure.... over thirty years later and I feel that I was led step by step by step by step to
nothing less than what I term.... "Unified Field Theory of Modern World Problems" and each step is actually amazingly simple.......
I agree with near death experiencer Dannion Brinkley that we humans need to be told what we actually are.....
that is a necessary first step......
I was angry with Jesus based on the idea of "many called, few chosen, a broad way leading to destruction and many going in threat, a narrow way leading to life and few finding it..... plus evidence for some sort of hell that I had not taken seriously until around 1990.
So.... I self identified more so with Yom Kippur than Passover....
I plead guilty to being a child of Satan in many ways..... I sure did read lots of his books, watched lots of his movies.....
got into lots of his general type of ego trips.... so..... I felt that the latter day fulfillment of Yom Kippur would diverge from the fulfillment of Passover
two millennia ago..... but be based on it.......
Dennis Tate
Banned
I think that it caught my attention.....
I regard this general topic as being of great importance.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Please start a new thread in the appropriate forum.
(There you go W4U, I'm helping your thread. I don't have a vendetta against you, just against forum pollution.)
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
You do realise that this has nothing at all to do with my post, do you?
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
I suspect the recent influx of new members Luchito, Dicart, Steve Kinko, even Dennis Tate, are all sock puppets of various past members who have returned to flog their anti-science.
Dennis Tate
Banned
You asked me a question..... that was my answer!
But you said yourself that you are a "mere janitor", right? So what makes you think you know enough science to determine what makes scientific sense and what is hogwash?
Whereas I do at least have a degree in physical science. So I have some idea of what makes scientific sense, when it comes to physics and chemistry, even if I admit I am rusty when it comes to the details
.......
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
I am not aware of an alternative theory other than the current scientific concensus on climate change.
However, you may want to take a look at the oft reviled, most ecologically beneficial plant in existence, Hemp.
1 acre of Hemp can scrub and fix as much carbon as 20 acres of trees and provide raw material for 1000+ commercial products. http://www.andykerr.net/hemp-environmental-benefits#
One thing is absolutely clear. All that we see and experience on earth is the result of 13.8 billion years of universal evolution and 4.543 billion years of terrestrial evolution by implacable natural selection, guided by the mathematical processing and pattern formation of relational values. The logic of this mathematical ordering system is indisputable, IMO.
In his book "Wholeness and the Implicate order, David Bohm describes this chronology as an hierarchy of orders, from the very subtle inherent potentials (implicate) of chaos, to gross expression of orderly patterns in (explicate) reality.
In his book "A Mathematical Universe" Max Tegmark advances the mathematical nature of universal dynamics. His claim is that the universe does not have "some" mathematical properties, but that it has "only" mathematical properties, a hypothesis which is supported by our increasing knowledge of physics.
Mathematical universe hypothesis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_universe_hypothesis
The Evolution of the Universe
GALAXY CLUSTER is representative of what the universe looked like when it was 60 percent of its present age. The Hubble Space Telescope captured the image by focusing on the cluster as it completed 10 orbits. This image is one of the longest and clearest exposures ever produced. Several pairs of galaxies appear to be caught in one another’s gravitational field. Such interactions are rarely found in nearby clusters and are evidence that the universe is evolving.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-evolution-of-the-universe/
All these natural phenomena behave in accordance to their relational values via mathematical guiding algorithms.
In spite of many protestations I like to think that the universe functions in a non-sentient, but physically reactive quasi-intelligent mathematical manner, which over time evolved into more or less sentient awareness of self in relation to the environment in biological organisms on earth, for one. No magic, just a mathematical ordering from simple patterns into ever greater complexity.
Last edited:
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
But you said yourself that you are a "mere janitor", right? So what makes you think you know enough science to determine what makes scientific sense and what is hogwash?
Whereas I do at least have a degree in physical science. So I have some idea of what makes scientific sense, when it comes to physics and chemistry, even if I admit I am rusty when it comes to the details
No one is under any obligation to stop and listen to the ravings of every nutcase on the street corner. If we did, we would never get anything done. There are so many nutcases about. We make judgements about who to listen and who to ignore, all the time, and we are right to do so.
On the internet, it is even worse. On the internet virtual street corner, every nutter in the world can make his pitch for attention, across the globe. Nutters, cranks and charlatans abound. So we have to be even more selective, if we are not to get side-tracked by garbage.
This Tejman (M.D.) person is a total nobody. He has no track record in science at all. So we don't owe what this guy says a second look because of who he is. That's the first point.
Secondly, what he says is obvious garbage. It claims everything we know is wrong, while explaining none of the thousands of things that current theories do explain. And he offers zero observational evidence that anything he says has any basis in fact. So it's just not science at all. It's woo, made up crap, gibberish.
I do indeed know far better writings than those of Tejman. (M.D.). They are the writings of people like Newton, Maxwell, Faraday, Mendele'ev, Einstein, Planck, Rutherford, Schrodinger, Dirac, Heisenberg, Pauli and many more, including, more humbly, the writings of those that taught me at university, like Prof Charles Coulson, Prof Richard Wayne or Prof Peter Atkins.
If you want to know what physical science has to say about the world, I recommend you to look up articles about what some of these people (not perhaps the ones that taught me*) contributed to human knowledge.
*Although Coulson in fact was the person who coined the expression "the God of the Gaps", as it happens.
And Halton Arp and Hans Alfven .
Dennis Tate
Banned
Now that you have brought the word "microtubules" to my attention I am noticing them in more places.
I listened to several youtube lectures by Roger Penrose a few days ago..... and sure enough.. .the word "microtubules" came up.
Do you happen to know if the word "microtubules" corresponds with the word "hosepipe" as used by Oskar Klein in this article on String Theory from back in the 1990's?
- Status