Is consciousness to be found in quantum processes in microtubules?

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

  1. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Might be the only way he gets it.

    State that consciousness is found in ATP, and not in microtubules, then every time he disagrees, post another paper about how ATP works in our brains. Then demand he disprove it.
    exchemist likes this.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    You have to be kidding! Titles don't mean anything anymore?
    So "consciousness" is a speculative projection?
    And the mathematics are suspect because they are not based on hard facts, such as people are conscious.

    And if professional scientists engage in speculative projections all the time, who then decides who is speculating? You? Don't you see that is not a valid argument? The deaf leading the blind? We do have a mess on our hands, don't we?
    Recent technical advances make it possible to perform in vitro experiments.
    Before we had rockets science was not very interested in going to the moon.
    Also called "dynamic instability" (new term?)
    much more........ Microtubules - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics
    I am 100% sure that in the history of science new terms have arisen to describe states and behaviors of new discoveries, no? You cannot not imagine that?
    No I don't agree. You do not set the standards for judging their work.
    Bring what up? I report on the current state of the science on research for discovery of the proceeses that lead to emergent "conscousness" , which I believe to be an internal experiential "field" created by the neuronal functions of data processing (especially by cellular microtubules).
    It is a cut and paste (I hope that's legal) from another site I frequent.
    The abstract of a scientific paper is supposed to summarise the main content of the paper, including any significant results obtained.
    You're right, that link to Levin was actually part of a different conversation. I withdraw it.

    But you asked who Michael Levin is .
    Michael Levin (biologist) - Wikipedia
    Last edited: Jan 10, 2023
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    I don't recall demanding anything of the sort.
    I mentioned a law of physics that is applicable to microtubule function.
    This was in context of prior post that demonstrated wave dispersion via a waveguide in helical tubes, such as microtubules.
    What is evidence without mentioning the applicable laws that regulate the evidence?
    That's where you are wrong.
    You are ignoring the basic fact that microtubules are a "common denominator" for data distribution in all Eukaryotic organisms. This data distribution follows normal laws of physics dependent on the specific function.

    There is no magic. All universal phanomena follow "guiding equations". At microtubule level that becomes difficulr due to the dynamic of an "in vitro" environment

    We know that some migrating birds use gravitational fields to navigate without mentioning microtubules. Does that make the statement invalid? Or is it not pertinent to microtubule functions?

    Hameroff, as anesthesiologist is an expert at separating consciously functioning microtubules from subconsciously functioning microtubules by rendering the conscious part of a brain unconscious while maintaining homeostatic control, all regulated by microtubules. Pretty neat huh?
    Last edited: Jan 10, 2023
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    You mentioned no law of physics, so far as I can see. What law are you thinking of?

    Nor can I trace any mention previously of wave dispersion in microtubules (as opposed to elastic waves in cables).

    If I have missed it, can you point to where it is mentioned?
  8. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Here is a small sample of research in consciousness.

    Microtubules as One-Dimensional Crystals: Is Crystal-Like Structure the Key to the Information Processing of Living Systems?
    Noemí Sanchez-Castro
    1,2, Martha Alicia Palomino-Ovando
    2, Pushpendra Singh
    3,4, Satyajit Sahu
    5, Miller Toledo-Solano
    6,*, Jocelyn Faubert
    1, J. Eduardo Lugo
    1,*, Anirban Bandyopadhyay
    4, Kanad Ray

    1 Faubert Lab, Ecole d’optométrie, Université de Montréal, Montreal, QC H3T1P1, Canada
    2 Facultad de CienciasFisico-Matematicas, Benemérita Universidad Autónoma de Puebla, Av. San Claudio y Av. 18 sur, Col. San Manuel Ciudad Universitaria, Puebla Pue. 72570, Mexico
    3 International Center for Materials and Nanoarchitectronics (MANA), Research Center for Advanced Measurement and Characterization (RCAMC), NIMS, 1-2-1 Sengen, Ibaraki, Tsukuba 3050047, Japan
    4 Amity School of Applied Sciences, Amity University, Rajasthan 303001, India
    5 Indian Institute of Technology Jodhpur, N.H. 65, Nagaur Road, Karwar, Jodhpur 342037, India
    6 CONACYT-Facultad de CienciasFisico-Matematicas, Benemérita Universidad Autónoma de Puebla, Av. San Claudio y Av. 18 sur, Col. San Manuel Ciudad Universitaria, Puebla Pue. 72570, Mexico
    Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.


  9. Write4U Valued Senior Member


    1. Introduction
    Crystals 11 00318 g001 550

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Figure 1. (a) Sketch of a microtubule. (b) Simple drawing of a single photonic crystal layered with 18° tilt.
  10. Write4U Valued Senior Member

  11. Write4U Valued Senior Member


    2. Results
    2.1. Crystal Model
    Crystals 11 00318 g002 550

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Figure 2. A sketch showing tubulin monomer physical model.
    Both resistances are given by the following: (see link)

    Crystals 11 00318 g003 550

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Figure 3. Transmission model.
    Crystals 11 00318 g004 550

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Figure 4. The equivalent transmission model used in the analysis.
    2.2. Finite Element Analysis
    Crystals 11 00318 g005 550

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Figure 5. Finite element simulated microtubule (MT) structure. (see link)[/quote]
    Last edited: Jan 10, 2023
  12. Write4U Valued Senior Member


    3. Discussion

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Figure 6. Comparison of experimental (a) and theoretical (b) electrical transport bands.
    Crystals 11 00318 g007 550

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Figure 7. Finite element simulations of (Hx+Hy)/‖Hx+Hy‖" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: border-box; max-height: none; display: inline; line-height: normal; text-align: left; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; border: 0px; padding: 0px; margin: 0px; position: relative;">(Hx+Hy)/∥Hx+Hy∥ compared with experimental current distribution measurements at different frequencies [37]. (a) 30 MHz, (b) 101 MHz, (c) 113MHz, and (d) 185 MHz. The simulation shows similar patterns as the experimental current distributions for frequencies up to 113 MHz. Nonetheless, for the frequency of 185 MHz the experimental pattern is replicated only in two layers (shown by asterisks). Microtubule’s STM images are taken while pumping materials using a GHz antenna. We have described the experimental details in earlier works [21,22,29,37]. ( see link)
  13. Write4U Valued Senior Member


    4. Conclusions
    (more....see link)
    Author Contributions

  14. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Too much .... ?
  15. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member


    I believe I previously gave up on you in this thread because trying to get anything useful out of you about research into the potential role of microtubules in consciousness seems to be a fruitless exercise. Somehow, I've ended up back here again, but I think it's time for me to leave again. I don't think you're even aware that most of the stuff you're posting is entirely irrelevant, and the rest you don't understand well enough to be able to think about it meaningfully, let alone to be able to explain it to somebody else who isn't already an expert in the field.

    I don't know what you think you're achieving. It's nice to have a hobby, I guess, but what do you find fulfilling about spending your time sourcing obscure scientific papers on topics you don't understand? Is it that you feel like having the papers is equivalent to understanding them, which therefore makes you feel like an expert on this particular topic, perhaps? Beats me. Wouldn't it be more satisfying to find a hobby where, at the end of the day, you have something to show for the effort you've put in? You know, something you've created yourself, like a piece of art or a car engine that works, or something. With this, all you have to show for your effort is, in effect, a hard drive full of papers you don't understand, that are already available elsewhere to those who have the necessary training to understand them.

    Since your latest reply to me is such a mess of blather, I don't think a further reply from me to what you wrote will be useful. But I suppose I can take a look and select out anything that might help you, if only you would listen.

    Warning: this is going to sound harsh. I can't say I understand what motivates you, because I really don't. I hope you can see that I'm actually trying to help you to stop wasting your own time, though I don't expect you will take it that way.
  16. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Notice that you completely failed to address the specific question I asked you. It wasn't about what a qubit is; indeed, I didn't mention that word. Specifically, it was about what you claim. Apparently, you can't even organise your thoughts sufficiently to answer that kind of simple question.

    And no, I'm not going to watch your irrelevant 17 minute video.
    You missed the point of my comment, there. Paraphrasing, you said that you think if you can find "common denominators" among things then that would point towards a "common function". That is incorrect. Correlations, which are what "common denominators" often are, need not point to anything that is actually significant or "common" to the things you're attempting to compare.

    This is why you thought it relevant to post a paper on the physics of a specific waveguide configuration and then went on to argue to exchemist essentially that because you've seen the word "waveguide" thrown around in the context of microtubules, then anything you can dig up about waveguides will somehow be relevant to solving the problem of consciousness in the microtubules. Never mind that the waveguide paper you found makes not a single mention of microtubules.

    This is not to say that a paper on waveguide physics could never be relevant to waves in microtubules. But it would be up to you to make the appropriate connection and to show how the relevant physics applies in microtubules, since the paper itself does even start to do that job.

    This kind of irrelevance comes up so often with you that a lot of your posts in this thread do nothing to address the central question of the thread, because they reference material that actually makes no mention of that question and is about something that is either unconnected, or which would need to be connected explicitly by you. But you lack the understanding and the expertise to make those kinds of connections. All you can do, apparently, is to search for buzz words and pull together papers which all mention the same buzz word (whichever one happens to capture your interest at that moment).
    Yes. "microtubules" is the buzz word, and if you google it you'll get all kinds of hits. You're collecting stamps, essentially. You have a hard drive full of papers you can't do anything with (except to cut and paste random parts to this thread), which is a bit like having a stamp album full of stamps whose worth you can't determine.
    You just earned yourself some more points on the Crackpot Index by comparing yourself to Galileo. Not something you should be proud of.

    Galileo was a scientist - actually among the first who could properly be called that in the modern sense. Galileo formulated hypotheses and - this is important - conducted careful observations and experiments himself to test them. Unlike, say, Artistotle with his version of physics, Galileo was very much a man who did not overreach (at least, not in his scientific treatises). Galileo did not have faith-based beliefs like you do; he was careful to base his scientific claims on evidence.

    So, no, I'm afraid you don't measure up very well to Galileo, Write4U. But what did you expect? The man was a towering figure in the history of human thought. If not for him, you probably wouldn't have the computer you're reading this on.
    Your pet hypothesis (well, one of the three) is that microtubules are somehow responsible for consciousness. But you don't know how that works, exactly, and you can't demonstrate that your hypothesis is true. The details are not even particularly coherent, since you're unable to even explain your own thoughts when asked for details.

    What makes you think you're doing science, there?
    I have asked you, but I have yet to see any paper that shows microtubules processing quantum data (if that is your claim, in the vein of Penrose and Hammeroff) or, indeed, do any other "data processing".

    You assume that somewhere in your drive full of random papers that mention microtubules, there must surely be the proof of your claim. But you can't produce it, or cobble it together yourself. Which means that you do not have an evidence-based belief. You have a religion. Worship at the altar of the Great Microtubule, for surely it has been revealed that the Mystery of Consciousness is solved!
    Like Gods, microtubules can be all things to all people. I get it. That's how religion works. They are whatever you need them to be.
    News flash! Everything has electric fields around it.
    You need to show how you're right. I don't want to join your religion.

    So, you're trying to put the cart before the horse. Try it the other way round. Don't ask me to drink the kool aid and tell me that after I've done that everything will be explained. Try explaining the why and how first. Then I'll evaluate the strength of your evidence for myself and make an evidenced-based decision about its value rather than a faith-based one that rests on how much I do or do not trust you to know The Truth.
    Vast over-reach again. How can you be so blissfully unaware of what you're doing when you make statements like that?

    Specifically, think about the steps you have taken to rule out all other potential candidates for explaining how sentience emerges, such that you're left only with the Great and Powerful Microtubule as the sole viable explanation. What were those step? Oh, that's right. There weren't any. You didn't even consider what the other candidates might be, let alone try to rule them out.

    You have a religion. You're so into it that you believe you have all the bases covered, when you have in fact investigated nothing.
    Do you know what the term "in vitro" means? Maybe now would be a good time to look it up. It's another term you keep misusing.
    Are we? How are you dealing with that, exactly?
    You seem to be saying that it is impossible to establish the role of microtubules in consciousness since there's no way we can observe it experimentally.

    If that's the case, why do you believe that microtubules have a role in consciousness? Think about it. It can't be an evidenced-based reason, because you're telling me it's impossible to collect the relevant evidence. Don't skip over this; it's important. Think.
    Last edited: Jan 10, 2023
  17. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    ?? So it is possible or not possible? You seem to have contradicted yourself in consecutive sentences.
    There you go again. What on earth is a "dimensional possibility" and what is it a possibility for? This is just random scattergun blather from you.
    Put it this way: there are a lot of kooks who have PhDs. Also, expertise in one narrow area certainly does not necessarily translate to expertise in unrelated fields.
    We were talking about speculative projections based on suspect mathematics, there. Remember?
    If you really want to talk about specific mathematics, we can. But I doubt you understand any of the mathematical models that might be relevant to EM waves or qubits in microtubules well enough to discuss them meaningfully. So why bluff?
    Try to focus on what is being discussed. Your mind is wandering.
    That's the exact opposite to what you said above. So which is it?
    Demonstrable nonsense. Where do you get such ideas?
    So I ask you what a "variable conformation" is, because it is a term you used in your post. Your response is not to define the term you used, but to suggest that it might be equivalent to another term that is also undefined by you.

    What this looks like, to me, is that you used the term "variable conformation" without having a clue what it means, or indeed whether it actually means anything at all. Then, when called on your bullshit, you offer up another term whose meaning you don't know.

    Am I right?

    Can you not see any problem with this? Why pretend to knowledge that you don't have? Why use big words you don't understand? What do you think you're achieving with that nonsense? Who do you think you're fooling, and why do you want to fool them? I think it's because you have a religion and you're very keen to proselytise for it, even to the extent of making shit up. Am I right?
    Yes, they have. Those who have introduced new terms have defined them and understood them. As for you, that doesn't seem to be what happens when you use a new term or make one up. Instead we tend to see you reach for the nearest dictionary to find a similar word, after you've been called out, or else post something irrelevant about the word being used in a context different to the one you were talking about.
    So can you summarise the main results of the paper for me, or can't you? Do you understand what you read, or don't you?

    In your judgment, as somebody who has read the paper and who claims to understand it, is it a valuable paper or not? What was the main reason you posted it? What does it show? How does its content support your claims?
    The paper.
    Can you report the main significant findings of that paper, or can't you? In your own words.
    Last edited: Jan 10, 2023
  18. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Yes. You reproduced what looks like most of an article. Here's the short version, from the abstract:

    Based on the mathematical crystal theory with one-dimensional translational symmetry, we simulated the electrical transport properties of the signal across the microtubule length and compared it to our single microtubule experimental results. The agreement between theory and experiment suggests that one of the most essential components of any Eukaryotic cell acts as a one-dimensional crystal.
    In other words, they modelled electrical signal propagation through a microtubule, essentially by assuming that the microtubule acts like a cylindrical waveguide. Since microtubules are, apparently, more or less cylindrical, this makes sense.

    The hard part, I imagine, would be making the experimental measurements since these things are small. So, well done on that.

    So what have we learned? Microtubules tend to behave like similar cylindrical objects when they carry electrical signals of a certain type.

    I would put this in the category of an expected and unsurprising result. That is not to take away from the work these experimentalists put into doing the experiment, or from the value of testing the model experimentally.

    Is this relevant to consciousness? I can't see any obvious reason why it would be, and I don't think the authors talk about that at all. So, for the current thread, it's more or less irrelevant.
    Last edited: Jan 10, 2023
  19. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Sorry, that should read "in vivo". Thanks for the reminder.
  20. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    In this case the common denominator is not a correlation. It is the "same" thing, a polymer made of just 2 monomers , which has remained unchanged since the emergence of Eukaryotic organisms and is so versatile that it literally supports the incredible variety of Eukaryotic species on earth. Each species exhibiting forms of awareness to its environment, regulated by microtubule triggered responses. Draw your own conclusions.
  21. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    I welcome correction. I have never claimed that I have all the answers.
    My aim is to paint a background by which the microtubule can be held as the background substrate from which consciousness emerges. I paint only in broad strokes because all I seek is a general understanding.

    I have no desire to get into a discussion of laboratory minutia. That is outside my scope of knowledge.
  22. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    You mentioned the word "bit" and I replied with "qubit".
    I don't make this claim, Penrose does.

    And in a general sense what is the difference between a "bit" and a "qubit". They both describe data, no? I originally used the term bit merely to indicate data. That was just using the term as a generality. Now you want me to describe the properties of a "bit? I don't need to. This is a conversational thread about "hard facts" that are known or are in process of testing.

    I am not writing a formal paper, I am merely trying to assemble "known facts" so that some pattern will emerge that points to the emergence of consciousness in living organisms, from simple kinetic response in bacteria to abstract thought in humans.
  23. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Why is it up to me to give you the science? I give you the property, you're supposed to know the science.

    This is not a classroom. Moreover you have already reduced this thread to pseudo-science.
    Now you want a formal treatise?

    I like correction, but I am still waiting for a constructive contribution from somebody. So far it is just street brawl.

Share This Page