Is consciousness to be found in quantum processes in microtubules?

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by Write4U, Sep 8, 2018.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,451
    On page 1 of this thread, in post 5, I posted evidence that ORCH OR has lost credibility, not gained it.

    To now assert the contrary requires evidence. I see none.
     
    Last edited: Jan 9, 2023
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,451
    This is about wave propagation in waveguides.

    It is not relevant in the slightest to microtubules, let alone any role they might supposedly have in consciousness.

    This post of yours illustrates perfectly the utter failure of your critical faculties, which is what makes this thread such a pile of random junk.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    No you didn't. Did you understand the nature and specifics of the "supposed evidence"?
    If you are just going to accept any "supposed" argument as credible it is up to you to prove that argument is correct to begin with. This is what you demand of me, now I demand this of you.

    Just a few days I provided a post addressed to you about a recent Hameroff's counterargument, showing that the original critique was based on false data, but you must have missed it. Had me on ignore? See post #3532
     
  8. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,451
    Reread post 5. There is not just a single “original” critique, but numerous attempts to test its predictions, all of which have gone nowhere.
     
  9. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    This post illustrates your utter incompetence of paying attention to what was posted before I provided this link.
    Are you becoming senile or are you jumping in with kneejerk reactions to a single word?
     
  10. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,451
    OK so explain to me in a few sentences what light it sheds on the role of microtubules in consciousness.
     
  11. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    I did . Did you read post #3532? It answers the criticism you mentioned in post # 5
    Give it up already. You are just an annoyance now.
     
  12. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,451
    There is no post 3532. And 2532 is just a list of references, with no explanation.
     
  13. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    No, I don't need to do that at all. All you have to do is read what that Floquet Periodicity in relation to microtubules
     
  14. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,451
    I've read the paper you linked to in post 2542. It is a very technical engineering paper, comparing two methods for analysing dispersion in waveguides. There is no mention of microtubules. If you think there is some relevance to microtubules here you need to state what it is.
     
  15. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    Microtubules process wave functions and have helical conformation and from what I read that involves Floquet and Bloch periodicity.

    Solution of the Schrodinger equation for quasi-one-dimensional materials using helical waves
    https://arxiv.org/abs/2210.12252

    Microtubules as electron-based topological insulators

    https://arxiv.org/abs/2112.12203#

    Elastic waves in helical waveguides
    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0165212507000984?via=ihub

    Two-dimensional elastic Bloch waves in helical periodic structures
    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0020768320302481

    But you see, we are fracturing the conversation into debates about trivia, whereas you are making sweeping statements from complete ignorance on the subject, that microtubules have nothing to do with consciousness. And you are making that allegation without a shred of confirmation except your discredited post #5, Sept 13, 2018 some 2500 posts ago, and in spite of an entire field of microtubule research that is now accelerating exponentially due to ever more sophistication in making in vitro measurements that is required at variable nano scales in human scale cytological complexity.

    Cite me a paper that proposes a different theory. I'll be eager to read it.
    I have no financial axe to grind. I will accept any theory that has more promise of yielding a comprehensive answer to the question. My quest is for knowledge, not fame or fortune.

     
    Last edited: Jan 9, 2023
  16. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,451
    Fine. But the paper you linked has nothing to do with microtubules. It is about mathematical techniques for analysing dispersion in waveguides. That is all it is.

    What you have done is see the word "Floquet" and mindlessly seize on this paper as somehow supporting your ideas about microtubules, when it is utterly irrelevant. That is what I mean when I say your choice to cite this paper shows your lack of critical faculties - which is why this thread is full of almost random stuff that is irrelevant to the thread subject.

    The second and third papers of the three you have linked in the above post illustrates this yet again: zero relevance to microtubules, being about elastic (stretching and compression) waves in engineering cables!

    By the way, Bloch waves are a means of modelling extended quantum phenomena, such as the wave functions of delocalised electrons in an extended periodic potential that one finds in a metallic crystal. The individual atomic orbitals of the valence shell merge into what is almost a continuum of what are in effect "giant" molecular orbitals, extending throughout the crystal structure. Any structure with periodic repeating units and with the possibility of delocalised electrons might be modelled in this way. (It does not seem clear that microtubules have delocalised electrons that could participate in such a thing.) Bloch waves can also be used to model the quantisation of vibrational modes of crystal lattices, in terms of so-called "phonons" . These are the vibrational analogues of the electronic example, in which the vibrational wave functions of individual atom-atom bonds become merged into a single "giant" series of vibrations that extend throughout the crystal. More here: https://safeswisscloud.com/en/blog/1929-bloch-wave-electron-waves-crystal/

    Floquet's theorem is a just a mathematical technique concerning differential equations that underpins Bloch's Theorem - and thus the Bloch model above. References to Floquet will thus crop up in a variety of fields in which mathematical analysis of waves is required.

    99% of these will have bugger-all to do with microtubules, as the irrelevance of your examples above illustrates.

    You have no idea what you are reading and no idea what you are doing. You are worse at identifying items of relevance than a YouTube algorithm. This thread is consequently full of shit.
     
    Last edited: Jan 9, 2023
    James R likes this.
  17. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    Write4U:

    Can you do no better than to cut and paste random parts of a paper, as you did above and now in post #2540?

    You claim to have a good understanding of what you're reading, but whenever specific questions are put to you all you do, essentially, is to say "It's all there is the paper ... somewhere. Go read it for yourself."

    I think it's just a faith-based statement on your part that the answers to all questions about microtubules are to be found somewhere in these papers you're dredging up.

    The one I commented on above doesn't even seem to have been peer reviewed. Was it?
     
    exchemist likes this.
  18. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,451
    Yes, I was wondering about that. It seems very poorly written, containing a lot of ill-defined terms and a number of what look like unsubstantiated claims.
     
  19. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    Is it your claim that the brain is digital? If not, what do you mean by "bits"? What did Anil Seth mean?
    I hope you realise that the brain in a vat scenario is philosophy, not science.
    I think that's a dangerous assumption to make. For instance, the notion of "convergent evolution" is well known to biologists. Similarity of physical expression certainly need not imply common descent, for instance.
    This is the controversial proposition you need to prove. It ought to be the end point of any argument you want to make, not the starting point.

    By making it your starting point, you've created a religion belief for yourself, rather than exploring a scientific hypothesis.
    Vast over-reach is what it is, not logic.
    A transport mechanism is not a processor. That's a point I have put to you many times. What you need to establish is processing of this "data" by the microtubules.
    So microtubules are like a conveyor belt that transports chemicals from one place to another?

    How would that cause consciousness? They have conveyor belts in the Amazon warehouse, but I don't think the warehouse is conscious.
    Like I said, it is hardly worth the effort, trying to get sensible information out of you. Any interest on my part is typically met by a wall of random cut-and-paste from you. You seem quite unable to answer the most basic questions about microtubules and the claims you make about them.
    I'm not impatient. On the contrary, I'd say it is you who is impatient that the world at large comes to acknowledge the Power of the Microtubule.

    I am not a microbiologist. I am well aware that there are experts in microbiology who are quite capable and willing to evaluate any research conducted on microtubules. What I know, as a non-expert, is that the microbiology community is not currently abuzz with breathless excitement about how microtubules will or have solved the problem of consciousness. Bear in mind that the hypothesis you're so fond of is now 40 years old, or so. Why, then, if this is such a promising area for research, does it so often seem to be the case that only people on the fringes are publishing anything about microtubules and their role in consciousness? Why aren't the prestigious journals full of amazing new findings about the wonders of microtubules?

    I'd say you know even less about microbiology than I do. Yet you have this faith that the whole microtubule idea will pan out. That doesn't seem to be a belief that is based on evidence. It's a religion for you.
    Most likely? Don't you know? You claim to have read widely and to have understood what you read. But whenever I put something like this to you, only vague responses come back. You claim to have done the work so that I don't have to, don't you? What have you discovered from your wide reading? What, in particular, did you learn from the article you thought was important enough to cut and paste to this thread, just now?
    What criteria did you use to decide whether they were "qualified"?
    Take it from me: professional scientists do that all the time.

    The thing that separates the good ones from the bad ones is that the good ones know when they are speculating and take great care to distinguish in their communications the things they can support with evidence from the thought bubbles they know they cannot (yet) support.
    It is really gaining in reputation? In which circles? What are the major recent findings that have the experts excited? Can you summarise?
    What is a "variable conformation"?
    You imagine?

    Do you agree with me, then, that these particular authors haven't explained themselves adequately? Or can you tell what they mean from the paper?

    Do you perhaps think that I lack the requisite background to understand the paper? If so, do you understand it, then? And if not, then why did you bring it up?
    Who is Michael Levin? Is this a direct communication to you from him, or one you're cutting and pasting from some discussion elsewhere?

    And how is this relevant to what we've been discussing?
    The abstract of a scientific paper is supposed to summarise the main content of the paper, including any significant results obtained.
    Will I?

    Please point me towards the specific pages or sections that contain the answers to my questions, then.

    Why can't you answer the questions, using what you gleaned from the paper?
    This paper doesn't have the most recent state of specific knowledge? Why bring it up, then?
     
  20. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    What difference does that make? It's the principle that counts.
    In this case, microtubule processes are subject to "guided" principles. This is what allows for "understanding", or as Anil Seth posits "controlled hallucinations".

    Do you know this has nothing to do with processing dispersed waves in microtubules, in a manner that potentially may lend itself to awareness of the results?

    I believe that periodicity is intimately connected to baseline comparisons the brain is engaged in when trying to make a "best guess" of what the data represents.
     
  21. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    Are going to write Penrose and ask him what he means by "qubits".
    Watch the 17 min Ted talk. Trust me, this is time well-spent . It would ne so much easier if people actually took a few minutes to find what it is I am talking about.
    Your brain hallucinates your conscious reality | Anil Seth - YouTube
    It is a perfect metaphor of what happens in the RW. (watch the Seth talk)
    You have never heard me say that. In fact I agree with Hazen that there might be several origins in different places on earth and almost certainly in the universe.
    lol, what do yuo think I am doing? I am gathering data from all possible corners that have a "common denominator", namely microtubules.
    I guess Galileo was overreaching also? he was found guilty of heresy. Are you playing at being the Science Inquisition?
    Do you not see you have this completely turned upside-down? I make a scientific proposition and I am branded a heretic by the people who see Science as their religion. How's that?

    C'mon, how many times do I have to post scientific papers that prove microtubules are both processors and transport systems. You are still underestimating the incredible versatility of this macromolecule.
    Electric field around microtubules

    Abstract
    much more...... Electric field around microtubules - ScienceDirect
    And what controls the conveyor belts and the selection of goods from specific locations? Type in a coded and presto, as by magic the item appears, ready for packing.
    Well, about 2000 posts ago you could have said: "ok, lets assume you are right", and we could have gone to the next step of why and how. But you are still fighting the idea that microtubules are the only viable candidate for explaining how sentience emerges, being that they are a "common denominator" information transport system in ALL Eukaryotic life. Does that not pique your curiosity?
    They are, you're not looking!

    The reason why it is taking so long is that all studies of "emergent consciousness" must be performed in vitro under conditions of consciousness. We are dealing at nanoscale with possible quantum processes.
    Are you aware of anything capable of in vitro observing what goes on in the brain, other than PET scans that is nowhere near capable of observing nano scale processes, that have not even been formulated.

    As Tegmark says 'we have all the necessary physical equipment present, as evidenced by our consciousness.

    There is no magic involved. Penrose goes a lot deeper and proposes a dimensional possibility.
    There you go again, the Science Inquisition.

    I gotta run.
     
    Last edited: Jan 9, 2023
  22. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,635
    Just as an FYI putting "proofs" in quotes means that they are not really proofs.
     
  23. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,451
    What?

    It's not up to me to show there is no connection between a paper on the mathematics of wave dispersion and microtubules. That is mad. You might as well demand I show there is no connection between some random paper on earthquakes, or cosmology, and microtubules. I have simply pointed out that the paper itself makes no reference at all to microtubules: indeed, it is about something else entirely, viz. mathematical analysis of wave dispersion in a waveguide.

    It is up to you to show there is such a connection, because it is you that is citing it as evidence.

    Or shall I start filling this thread with random papers on any subject I like, on the basis that they have not been shown to be irrelevant to microtubules?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page