Is consciousness to be found in quantum processes in microtubules?

Yes you were. I know how that statement was intended, but you made it. Own it!

I am getting it, you're not!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This is called selection bias. For every Galileo that was called a crackpot and was eventually proven to be right, there are thousands of cases of theories that were considered crackpot and they really were. You just don't hear about them anymore. Not because they were proven wrong (their authors always moved the goalposts after negative results). But because their authors and supporters died, and the new generation of thinkers were unisterested in following them in the face of negative results or logical dead ends.

In the against the mainstream subforum or all over the internet you can find thousands of candidate Theories of Everything. Only a few of them are not ignored or ridiculed. Almost all authors use the case of Galileo to defend themselves against criticism and rejection. Since they are contradicting, the truth is that only one of the existing ones might eventually be proven to be right. Maybe none.
So an alternative theory might be proven to be right, but the chances are at most less than 1 in a thousand. Especially if strong experimental data already have been discouraging.
Bayesian inference makes it 1 in a million or so! no?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Of course that's wrong if not a lie. From the horse's mouth.

http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/content/overview-sh

I count 7 just in SH immediate environment. Its a quackery conspiracy!!!
Should we be looking for independent research pockets around the world? Maybe discover a grand conspiracy to sell us on the idea that consciousness is a possibility?

Talk

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

rchestrated objective reduction
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Orchestrated_objective_reduction

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Let me repeat a question I raised a long time ago.

How many evolutionary levels of consciousness are there? Whence did consciousness start and in what organism?

Can we even begin to answer that question before we attempt to qualify OCH OR as a viable concept? Are we placing the cart before the horse?

 

How many evolutionary levels of vision are there? Where did vision start and in what organism?
Does this mean that we have to consider the notion that microtubules or something else actually "see" as a necesity??

Well maybe, if the person has a low to average IQ....

 

I agree. But the people who are proposing this are not crackpots to begin with. The combination of theoretical physics combined with the medical knowledge and practical experience in controlling consciousness, makes this duo eminently qualified to tackle this enduring mystery.

Methinks that their reputation would insure at least a reasonable period of time for developing and refining the concept for a testable model. So far every objection has been answered or has modified the original speculative assumptions. IMO, it is much too early to reject the entire concept, lest we throw out the baby with the bathwater.

This is one of the great questions that plague mankind. I would think that every serious person, layman or scientist, would be fascinated by this mysterious ability that evolution has bestowed on at least a part of all biological life.

I philosophy I ran across this question: Did life produce consciousness or did consciousness produce life?

Can consciousness be found in the mathematical nature of spacetime? Is spacetime a quasi-conscious mathematical field(s)? Is Mathematics a quasi-intelligent essence of the universe?

 

It started a long long time ago as a light sensitive patch on a simple organism. Eyesight is an evolved experiential ability.

No one claims microtubules are conscious. But they are organic polymer processors. At what time could a trillion organic polymer processors functioning in unison acquire an awareness of the collective, if at all? Insects can and they have only a tiny brain, but they do have microtubules.

That's point, no? Consciousness is not a necessity for physical existence. So how did it evolve in biological organisms? That's the whole question.

Can't you see that it all started with the physical creation of fundamental chemical elements and that chemical evolutionary interaction has caused the progression from pure physical chemistry to a metaphysical conscious awareness of relationship and interaction of "self with the environment"? That's an incredible leap in complexity, by any standard.

 

I respect anyone that has an idea. But i don't place authority above evidence. That was the reason they dismayed Galileo in the first place despite all the evidence. Because they respected Aristotle and though that Aristotle couldn't be wrong.
Lesson learned!!! Evidence is the greatest authority.

Part of the excitement in the scientific community a few decades ago was that the theory was testable. Exchemist provided you with high quality research that falsified the original claims.
If i understand well, there were some modifications from the initial claims, to keep the theory alive (iow to move the goalposts).

There is a tiny chance that you are right, but i am having so much fun debunking your arguments (or any other crackpot arguments), while knowing that by 99.999% the theory is wrong!!!

 

No! you should try a plan B
Is there an alternative to that?

 

LOL, there is a slight qualitative difference in knowledge. God has persisted for 3000 years!

I've visited a lot of sites of various acknowledged theoretical thinkers. All of them metioned the existence of ORCH OR , but none of them denied the theoretical possibility. This is no longer a small scientific community of crackpots.
Study of the brain is the new "undiscovered territory".

Study of the Brain

https://www.appsychology.com/Book/Biological/ways_to_study_the_brain.htm

Can there be any objection to selecting microtubules in the brain as part of this Study?

 

Not that I know of. This is it for now. It's just a start.

 

how many times are you gonna post this?

Why didn't you mention the work of Deepak Chopra on your reference list?

 

Until everyone has seen it so that they can understand Hameroff's perspective and approach to the problem.

Deepak Chopra is not a physical scientist, he's a philosopher.

I also did not list David Bohm or Edwin Schroedinger. They're dead and cannot defend themselves against spurious attacks and science had not yet progressed as it has today.

Kinda like Aristotle, a scientist can only test what they can logically deduce from evidence.
Newton was a perfect example of getting it almost right based on incomplete information.
Their flawed hypotheses were from ignorance, not incompetency.

 

If Descartes' "brain in a vat" works, it would follow that this method can be applied in practice.

 

I call that dedication.

_______________________________________________________________

I have conducted myself in admirable manner, considering...........

And how precisely should I conduct myself? Why don't you look in the mirror and ask if you conduct yourself in an admirable manner.

No, this is where you are coming undone.

"No" is not an answer. it's a denial.

Yes I am. I am telling you. Are you able to read my mind now? Amazing feat, almost religious.

None stop? And what about the people who are interested? Are you playing censor of what can be discussed in my thread?
You don't have to read anything I say. In fact, I'd rather you don't. Your truly interrupting my OP.

So cut the utter BS that you are acting in my best interest. It's clear you don't like me. Well tough on you, who are you?.......

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

And you are speaking for whom?

Well, shame on me. When are you going to rag on religious zealots who come pushing God on me? Oh, you are religious? Ok, that explains the vehement, almost hysterical objections to anything sciency.

Because you do not speak from"knowledge" and do not have the scientific authority to judge.

Numerous studies? Where?
What on earth do you expect from a totally new field of inquiry about "consciousness"?
Instant gratification? Very American of you.

What numerous studies? SHOW ME!

Yes you are.

No that's Billvon.

As do you. The difference is when I highlight something it is worthy of extra attention.

That's not worthy of an answer.

I inhibit your scientific expression of your vast knowledge in "inhibitors"?

Yes, that passage quoting someone else words, which you then attributed to me. A clear example of kill the messenger.

Did I take credit for writing it or are you now in the thought police. Minority Report?

No, microtubules do not get tangled up. Tau particles do and that causes microtubular catastrope.

Wonderful, Did you you offer a link?

You're going off the rails now.

Thank you for the information, I'll look him up.

"quasi religious" ? exactly what does that mean. Can I say that you are quasi religiously persecuting me? Do you know what "consciousness" is?

According to whom? Links please.

And that is not allowed?

Chortle away.

Yes.

Who?

That's an ad hominem and it is up to you provide evidence.

Oh, I see, you are instituting a whole new way of study . If you are interested in one thing, by all means diversify your approach to the subject? Show me where I said ORCH OR is fact. You can't and there is the crux of your dishonest accusations without providing any proofs at all. Just unsupported statements about a subject you know no more about than I.

I am proselytizing "further research", anything wrong with that?.

Where are the links to further research? With a few appreciated exceptions, I see only "No", ad nauseum. And that is a meaningless answer.

 

Can we get back on topic? Its such an interesting area of research, in spite of the unqualified distractions.

 

Peddling, you mean like a snake oil salesman? Do you know what it takes to become an anesthesiologist? Do you know how much a busy anesthesiologhist earns from his practice?

How long does it take to become an anesthesiologist?

What does an anesthesiologist earn?

https://www.howtobecome.com/how-to-become-an-anesthesiologist

Peddling? Please....come to your senses.

You insist that I own what I posit, Well I have some 19 pages to show what I brought to the table.
OTOH, if you posit that ORCH OR has been debunked, then you own that judgement as well.
What have you brought to the table ? Derision, not much more.

At least I bring enthusiasm tempered by experience......its a good thing, trust me.

 

Newton also did some "out-of-expertise" grandiose claims in alchemy and theology!!
You mean we should revisit those theories?

Bohm, Schroedinger and Chopra are not biologists.