Is consciousness to be found in quantum processes in microtubules?

It is "WE" now? I see, you represent and speak for the rest of this forum now?

I would appreciate it if you stop soiling my thread with your arrogant filth.

But on second thought, your mindset is just another example of how consciousness can go wrong and is applied to destroy rather than build.

Brilliant scientific discourse is not your forte is it?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Why not stop, then?

Seems like a win-win. You don't waste your time, and we don't see obsessive screeds of half-understood junk culled from the internet.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Can you identify anyone on the forum who actually appreciates what you are writing about microtubules?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Is this a popularity contest or a science forum ? (Strike 6)

 

Why should I stop, because you don't understand what has been culled from actual scientific papers available on the internet?

 

Does moderation have anything to say about this determined sabotage of a genuine effort to inform?

 

Figured the equivalent of a "muffled snicker" caused by someone else's "wisecrack" might spur you to at least make a brief appearance -- a sign of still being among the living. But nada, as far as that happening back then.

_

 

I was considering responding , but was honor-bound by a promise I couldn't break.
Too many assumptions and prejudices running slipshot in this house.

I try to keep my room tidy and welcome to all who have a question and will take pains to answer their questions. Unfortunately there are too many trespassers who dump their trash-talk on the floor, lowering the quality of this thread which mainly consists of links to actual research papers, with as little commentary by me, lest I mispell a word and people faint in disgust from this uncouth interloper who dares engagee in scientific discourse with "establishment scientists" who cannot tolerate such brazen adventurer in their midst. (hold....gagging....ok).

Anyway, that's all in the past and if I can keep the rabble-rousers at bay, I may be able to salvage something worthwhile out of this thread that so far has garnered 52769 views and 36276 messages.

 

I believe Write4U appreciates those posts.

 

Anyway, to finally replay to one of exchemist's complaints (re Post#5)

Discovery of quantum vibrations in 'microtubules' corroborates theory of consciousness
by Elsevier

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140116085105.htm#

Commentaries on the review are:

Discovery of quantum vibrations in 'microtubules' corroborates theory of consciousness (phys.org)

and

More information: "Consciousness in the universe: A review of the 'Orch OR' theory," by Stuart Hameroff, MD, and Roger Penrose, FRS. dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.plrev.2013.08.002

Consciousness in the universe: A review of the ‘Orch OR’ theory

Abstract

Highlights

3. A finer scale of neuronal information processing
3.1. Microtubules

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Can quantum effects in the brain explain consciousness?

https://www.newscientist.com/articl...-effects-in-the-brain-explain-consciousness/#

 

The "We" dont include me... i like you'r posts... i thank ther interestin

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

For some formal papers, this may be of interest.
Referred to by

Jack A. Tuszynski
The need for a physical basis of cognitive process
Physics of Life Reviews, Volume 11, Issue 1, March 2014, Pages 79-80
Download PDF

Deepak Chopra
Reality and consciousness: A view from the East
Physics of Life Reviews, Volume 11, Issue 1, March 2014, Pages 81-82
Download PDF

Subrata Ghosh, Satyajit Sahu, Anirban Bandyopadhyay
Evidence of massive global synchronization and the consciousness
Physics of Life Reviews, Volume 11, Issue 1, March 2014, Pages 83-84
Download PDF

Chanelle C. Jumper, Gregory D. Scholes
Life—Warm, wet and noisy?
Physics of Life Reviews, Volume 11, Issue 1, March 2014, Pages 85-86
Download PDF

John Lucas
The face of freedom
Physics of Life Reviews, Volume 11, Issue 1, March 2014, Pages 87-88
Download PDF

Charles Tandy
Are you (almost) a zombie?
Physics of Life Reviews, Volume 11, Issue 1, March 2014, Pages 89-90
Download PDF

Samanta Pino, Ernesto Di Mauro
How to conciliate Popper with Cartesius
Physics of Life Reviews, Volume 11, Issue 1, March 2014, Pages 91-93
Download PDF

Stuart Hameroff, Roger Penrose
Reply to seven commentaries on “Consciousness in the universe: Review of the ‘Orch OR’ theory”
Physics of Life Reviews, Volume 11, Issue 1, March 2014, Pages 94-100
Download PDF

Jeffrey R. Reimers, Laura K. McKemmish, Ross H. McKenzie, Alan E. Mark, Noel S. Hush
The revised Penrose–Hameroff orchestrated objective-reduction proposal for human consciousness is not scientifically justified
Physics of Life Reviews, Volume 11, Issue 1, March 2014, Pages 101-103
Download PDF

Stuart Hameroff, Roger Penrose
Reply to criticism of the ‘Orch OR qubit’ – ‘Orchestrated objective reduction’ is scientifically justified
Physics of Life Reviews, Volume 11, Issue 1, March 2014, Pages 104-112
Download PDF

 

Just a little recap of what it is we are discussing.

Clarifying the Tubulin bit/qubit - Defending the Penrose-Hameroff Orch OR Model (Quantum Biology) - YouTube

 

Really? How perceptive of you.

And how do you know what I understand? What if 2-3 years later I am proven right to begin with? Would that not make you look silly?

Here is one proof of a proposition I made several years ago and was ridiculed for having a "religion".
Feed your brain on this scientific tidbit that I projected a couple of years ago ;

Generation of Electromagnetic Field by Microtubules
Int J Mol Sci. 2021 Aug; 22(15): 8215.
Published online 2021 Jul 30. doi: 10.3390/ijms22158215

Abstract

1. Introduction

more....

2. Results

much more......

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8348406/

This was written by scientists, not theists.
So, if this is my religion, can you tell me what religion that would be? Or are you just speaking metaphorically?

p.s. Mr. Moderator, you are aware that all attacks on my character and intelligence without making a cogent argument on the merits of why that must be the case, are ad hominem, are you?

Let me keep a clean room please with reasoned scientific arguments, not cheap trolling and character assassination. It is not scientific, the standard that you keep insisting on, no?

 

Agreed. Religious beliefs will trump both science and understanding every time.

 

Let me replay what piqued my interest in the matter of consciousness a few years ago and specifically what may be responsible for its causes. I always submitted a sample of the current science at that time. A practice that was criticized at that time.

It started with this lecture by Anil Seth, who explained the isolation of the brain from the environment, except for external data received by the senses, transmuted into electrochemical bits, transmitted to the brain where that data was decoded and compared to stored data in memory, whereupon the brain could make a best guess of the meaning of the incoming data as compared to prior recorded experience. This was a Eureka moment for me, as I had never given it much thought, although I had read about Descartes' "brain in a vat", but not contemplated the staggering implications of that simple proposition.

It was then I found Stuart Haneroff's lecture and immediately became intrigued by his use of Descartes' brain in a vat analogy.
Here is one of his lectures I haven't posted yet but does go into some detail as how microtubules work and how.

I explained a long time ago that when I see "common denominators" in various physical expressions, there is "common function". in this case I started with the proposition that the microtubule network is the substrate that allows or is causal to the emergence of conscious experience. Therefore it is logical to assume that all functions that involve microtubules may contribute to the emergence of consciousness or at least reveal the forces that microtubules process.

That among other functions, microtubules are the highways along which electrochemical data is transported. You should recall this as you grilled me on the type of data that is being transported. Since then I have submitted overwhelming scientific evidence (written by scientists) of the hundreds of electric and chemical information that microtubules transport from the sensory organs to the brain via the trillions of microtubules located in the cytoskeleton, the cytoplasm, neurons inside the entirety of the body and in staggering numbers in the brain.

In the early stages of my research I did not even know what to look for and I have learned on the fly, which may account for my sometimes generalized presentations.

Then why did I not hear this from the beginning, but with the same questions you asked me years later after this site was declared a frigging church as I am trying to defend the underlying principles and concept.

Instead of a war zone, this could have been a very productive topic if the "real scientists" had found the slightest interest instead of declaring this the rantings of a religious nutcake.
This could have been
That's why you have a religion rather than a science. I'm not willing to join you in your faith. But evidence could sway me.[/quote] Give it time. I think it already is beginning to "resonate" in your brain.
The science is still very young. You are very impatient in view of how long it took for other major scientific discoveries to be refined and eventually proven.

The following quotes are from the extracts of the paper you posted. First, the abstract...

A somewhat bizarre claim which needs support. What exactly does "internal coherent electromagnetic field" mean? What makes an electromagnetic field "coherent"?

This lack of specificity makes me doubt the value of the paper right from the start.

Most likely by some of the thousand other scientists now engaged in researching this field, perhaps second only to research on cheap energy. It seems unfair to label serious researchers in this field as having drunk the microtubule kool aid. I had compiled a list of "qualified" researchers , but it would have taken 3 pages to list them all just by name and title. Check out the Quora site

Or in other peer-reviewed papers.

I cannot imagine professional scientists engaged in speculative projections based on suspect mathematics. Just look at the initial response and criticism on ORCH OR.
Today, after these objections were answered and some refined measurements of "limits" were made, ORCH OR is steadily gaining in reputation as a potential answer to the question, with some astounding much deeper implications that leave this atheist speechless.

AFAIK, any axis that returns to its original position after a variable conformation
Inner cavity excitation? As opposed to what? Is there outer cavity excitation? Or is the word "inner" superfluous?
What kind of energy is the author referring to, exactly? [/quote]
I imagine these are "new terms" applicable to a new science. I have seen microtubules referred to by several different names as if those researchers were unaware that there are several areas of inquiries and experiment, but no one is communicating with other scientists in the field.

Here is an excerpt of one of my microtubule discussions on another forum;

From Michael Levin;

Re your question:

[qiote]The question will be, “what is the evidence that we could do better if we include that?”. So my point is, I would be fine to accept the charge that I’ve ignored microtubules, and ask what the evidence is that I should be changing course. The results of everyone’s research program show clearly the relative merits of different focus areas and one needs evidence that adding favorite element X would actually make a material difference.[/quote]

Question:

No, this is the acceptance of a prior peer-reviewed claim, but without personal knowledge. This is a perfect example of a "case in point".

I think that the abstract is asking your questions.
You will find that all the answers are contained in the "proofs" described in the main body of the paper.
I look forward to your questions and shall do my best to find the most recent state of specific knowledge.

See below to answer just a couple of your questions.

 

More on the above link;

2.2. Microtubule Structure

2.3. Microtubule Oscillations

much more..... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8348406/