Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by Write4U, Sep 8, 2018.
By making exact copies of the cell with "exquisite fidelity" as demonstrated by Drew Berry.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
This shows your ignorance of the debate. I have posted several quotes and links about Tegmark's objection to ORCH OR. Here is the debate, but I know you won't bother to watch it. So you will remain ignorant of that "fact".
You're not getting it at all, do you?
Everything I have posted is related in some way. You just keep complaining that I don't know what I am talking about, while you actually demonstrates your ignorance in this particular area of science.
I speak only about "common denominators" but appears you don't know what that means or "implies".
And an article specifically addressing electrical activity in microtubules.
Microtubule Electrical Oscillations and Hippocampal Function
Maria del Rocio Cantero, Horacio F. Cantiello
Laboratorio de Canales Iónicos, Instituto Multidisciplinario de Salud, Tecnología y Desarrollo (IMSaTeD, CONICET-UNSE) Santiago del Estero, Argentina
That is what I have been wondering all this time. I am the one who posed the question which you placed in the subforum "pseudoscience". Ask yourself why you made this kneejerk decision and since then have constantly barraged me with ad hominem.
The question is valid and I have been researching and reporting on the concept that microtubules are information processors and therefore must be related to the emergent phenomenon of conscious information processing.
You keep accusing me of something that I am not trying to do. I have taken a position and am trying to find confirmation of my initial intuitive assumption.
And before you get on your horse about "intuition", I don't give a damn about what you think. My native mathematical intuition has never failed me and during several years of reporting on this subject, many recent discoveries are beginning to confirm my original "insight", given the limited information available at that time.
You have clearly demonstrated a general ignorance of the subject and you refuse to do any research on this yourself. Yet you presume to tell me I am ignorant and unable to understand even the simplest concepts as if I was besotted with religious fervor, a subject that is totally irrelevant and off-topic to the subject at hand. If I were a moderator I would have banned you a long time ago for breaking just about every rule of this forum. For shame.
You have been so wrong from the very beginning, in spite of overwhelming evidence that I have presented, it's becoming pathetic.
You are still stuck in 1st grade in the class on microtubules. Try and catch up.
"microtubules give structure to cells"
Applied biological physics such as anesthesia is not theory. It renders people into totally oblivious objects and then back into people again. Theory ? Give me a break will you!
I think I'll take another vacation from this tedious engagement.
Bye, bye. See you next month, unless I am otherwise occupied.
To be fair, what I wrote is that as far as I was aware, Tegmark had not discussed microtubules. I am happy to receive new information (new to me, that is) on that.
It appears that Tegmark wrote a paper in 2002 that purported to show that quantum coherence in microtubules is untenable for "long enough" periods of time (to account for such things as the observed frequencies of typical brainwaves, if I understand correctly). Apparently, Hammeroff and Penrose disputed facets of Tegmark's analysis, such that they now claim that Tegmark's analysis is incorrect and that they have shown that the required level of coherence is plausible.
So, Tegmark has commented on microtubules. It does not seem to me that he is on the bandwagon for microtubules, however. One reason for that is that he appears to have his own ideas about the hard problem of consciousness, which differ in their fundamentals from the microtubule theory put forward by Penrose and Hammeroff.
Well, as it turns out, you were wrong. I did bother to watch the video in post #2682. Not the whole 2 and a half hours, but enough to get something of the gist of the arguments being put forward by the three participants. Not being a molecular biologist myself, a lot of the microbiological detail is over my head, so I skipped quite a bit of that.
That video is actually one of the more useful things you have posted to this thread that I have seen, because it contains a sort of summary of some of the ideas from the horses mouths, so to speak. Things are a lot clearer when they aren't filtered through the Write4U lens of irrelevancy, misunderstanding and fabrication, it turns out.
Only in the vague way that pseudoscientists typically try to draw links between essentially unrelated things.
Nowhere have I claimed expertise on this area of science. How do you rate your own level of ignorance?
Now, let me briefly record my impressions after watching that video.
Tegmark said a a lot of things that make some sense. But some audience questions caught him out nicely. Similarly to his claims about the universe being mathematics, in the case of consciousness he seems to be trying to define terms in such a way that his vague arguments can pass muster. But his definitions require that we use terms from physics in non-rigorous ways, so that the physics itself can't be easily pinned down; it's all sort of nebulous so that he can slot in consciousness as a "state of matter". Even the moderator of the session on the video took Tegmark to task with the example that something like Microsoft office could be considered a "state of matter" using Tegmark's nebulous and wide-ranging re-definition of the term.
My impression of Hammeroff (this is the first time I've seen him or heard him speak) is that he was doing a bit of a Gish Gallop in his presentation - i.e. trying to hit the audience with a lot of complicated technical stuff to "blind them with science". Maybe he's just a bad speaker. Or maybe this was a very specialised audience who could be assumed to know all that stuff already; I don't know. My main issue with his presentation, however, is that I come away with the impression that Hammeroff could adjust the parameters of his theory (Orch OR) to account for just about any objection to it. If he's really onto something, then it seems to me there's a LOT more basic experimental work that needs to be done to nail down all the "free parameters" in the model.
I largely skipped over the last presentation in the video, because it seemed to be more even more technical - and probably more tightly focused - than Hammeroff's. I don't think I'd be in a position to critique the biological aspects, and the physical aspects seem to me to be focussed on trying to support a very small part of the Orch OR theory. Also, I confess, I got a bit bored, having already watched quite a lot of Tegmark and Hammeroff.
It wasn't a kneejerk decision.
It is an interesting question you raise, though: where would this thread best be placed in sciforums?
I have just reconsidered moving it to "Alternative Theories". Orch OR would qualify as a valid "alternative theory". It is far from being proven, but some legitimate scientists are working on aspects of it. So, I thought to myself, maybe Alt Theories would be better than "pseudoscience".
But then I thought about the actual content of this thread. We're not hearing from Tegmark or Hammeroff or Penrose here, after all. We're hearing mostly Write4U's promotional propaganda version of Orch OR, along with a lot of unrelated noise. Microtubules, as they described in this thread, are the be-all and end-all that will save the world. Write4U tells us that microtubules are solely responsible for conscious, for evolution, for cheap tickets to the Taylor Swift concert! (Well, I might be exaggerating slightly.) Microtubules are processors. Microtubules are the only viable explanation of consciousness. etc. etc.
The reason this thread is in pseudoscience is not because of Penrose or Tegmark or Hammeroff. It is because of Write4U's religious take on the topic. Short version: this thread is here because Write4U's posts make this the most appropriate place for it.
This could change, under the right circumstances, but I won't be holding my breath.
That's bad science.
Let me ask you a serious question: can you think of any hypothetical experimental result or other finding that would make you stop believing that microtubules are fundamental to consciousness? Or, short version: what would it take you to stop believing that microtubules are The Answer to consciousness?
If you can't come up with anything in response to these questions, then your belief system about microtubules is not a scientific one. Can you see why?
That's part of the problem. You appear to have found a religion.
You've heard of confirmation bias, right?
Why are you talking to me, if you really believe I have a general ignorance about this? Why is it important to you to try to convert me to your religion?
Also: I am under no obligation to be interested in the same things you're interested in. Why don't you do some research?
Okay. So, you've read all these scientific papers on Orch OR. Why can't you effectively summarise the main results, or answer simple questions about them, as posed by admitted non-experts such as myself?
Why do you use technical terms in bizarre ways, then make stuff up when you're asked what you mean by them?
The first five minutes of Hameroff's presentation in the video you linked told me more about the basics of his Orch OR ideas than your 2000+ posts to this thread. Why is that?
What have I been wrong about? Be specific.
What grade do you put yourself in?
Is that a controversial claim?
I have never disputed that anesthetics can produce a lack of consciousness. You (and Hammeroff) claim that this experimental fact somehow points to microtubules as the cause of consciousness.
Perhaps a little test of your understanding is in order, since I watched what Hammeroff had to say in the video about microtubules and anesthetics. So, Write4U, can you tell me why microtubules are important in anesthesia, according to Hammeroff? Just a paragraph in your own words will be fine.
Just when things are getting interesting?
Actually, I posed a link to a Hameroff's presentation on Sept 7, 2018 in post #1 of this thread, which you refused to watch.
We could have saved 2000+ posts if you had taken the time to watch Hameroff then. You might have found it "interesting" then and placed the thread in "Alternative Theories" where it objectively belongs regardless of my personal perspectives which I have kept to a minimum in favor of quoted passages by the scientific authors, instead of wasting 5 years calling me a deluded religious moron.
As moderator you approached this from an adversary position instead of asking for explanations where my presentation lacked clarity. I made it a point of keeping my "comments" to a minimum and let the quoted passages speak for themselves, which brought the response that I had no clue as to what I was posting and the entire thread was not worthy of even a cursory perusal.
This caused me to post 2000+ quotes from scientific papers, written and peer reviewed by hundreds of scientists, clarifying the incredible range of "information distribution" functions that microtubules perform. I am glad it finally caught your "interest".
Yet, the one thing that gained your attention was
because microtubules are structural part of the "cytoskeleton" and the definition of cytoskeleton is:
And that became the extent of your knowledge of microtubules. "Microtubules are structural and do not fill any other function". Well, they do and all of them related to neural information processing which is directly associated with the phenomenon of consciousness ofd information processing.
It took me 2000+ posts to prove that microtubules fill a thousand additional information processing functions apart from structural "control" of cell conformation.
But we are making progress. We are now at the stage of "just becoming interesting".
So, in the interest of more advanced microtubule related papers:
Radical pairs may play a role in microtubule reorganization
Hadi Zadeh-Haghighi &
Scientific Reports volume 12, Article number: 6109 (2022) Cite this article
much more...... https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-10068-4
AFAIK, the microtubule (and related filaments) network is the only cytoneural system that qualifies for generating an emergent conscious eperience.
Even Tononi's IIT (phi) model would have to rely on the microtubule network to "integrate" information into a conscious experience. Note that IIT does not identify the generating substrate, whereas Penrose -Hameroff have identified the microtubule as the most likely candidate and their ORCH OR rests on that tested model.
The Presynaptic Microtubule Cytoskeleton in Physiological and Pathological Conditions: Lessons from Drosophila Fragile X Syndrome and Hereditary Spastic Paraplegias
Felipe J. Bodaleo1,2 and Christian Gonzalez-Billault
Yes, they are dynamic organic potentiometers.
Keywords: microtubules, presynaptic terminals, neurotransmitter release, active zone, Drosophila’s neuro muscular junction
This is from a private medically oriented blog, so I cannot vouch for its veracity (see web addy), but the explanatory words made perfect sense to me and tell the story better than I could. So I have taken the liberty of placing this analysis on my list of evidentiary discovery.
Microtubules and Quantum Entanglement A Possible Basis for Memory and Consciousness
Last Updated on Sun, 11 Dec 2022 | Quantum Brain
Suppose that Tegmark's "perceptronium" eminates from this "entanglement field", then IMO, that counts as a supporting argument for the necessity of an entangled "field" from which conscious experiences emerge. A quantum function.
I believe that all five new hypotheses of Consciousness require the existence of a spatial condition in the brain that can only be described as an "entangled field".
I believe this is what ORCH OR describes, the necessary elementary condition (substrate) from which a cognitive process and response mechanisms originate, via cubits , the fundamental elementary information contaning particle that transports a "dynamic value", that can be processed and cognized by the system as "beneficial or detrimental", a simple evolutionary sensitivity to that what is life-enabling and what is life-destroying.
A prominent biologist named it "ability to solve problems" and thereby having a survival advantage over non-problem solving abilities such as in mineral chemistry, yet having some evolved abilities such as crystal growth and its resulting symmetry of durable patterns.
This is at microtubule scale.
Note Drew Berry 's use of the term "sensing", that suggests a sensing mechanism that eventually evolve into our ability to "experience and react our environments", i.e "problem solving"
Did I? Please cite the post number where I told you that I refused to watch it.
If you cannot find any such post, please apologise for your error/lie.
Wrong. I have asked you many questions in the course of this thread. I have requested on numerous occasions that you explain things. I have challenged you (even in my previous post to you, just a little above this) on many occasions to explain things in your own words.
In general, you either ignore my questions or cut-and-paste other people's work instead of trying to answer for yourself, or post off-topic irrelevancies.
Merely repeating your unsupported claims over and over does nothing to advance your case.
I won't be engaging directly with in again in this thread until you respond to my previous post in full - especially to the questions I asked you.
In post # 2687
The post you referred to was just an updated version of that link in post #1 which you obviously did not watch or you would not have made that remark, because you would have noticed the similarity.
Me apologizing to you? Are you crazy?
Post #1 is dated September 8, 2018. That was more than 4 years ago.
The fact is: you have no idea whether I watched the video in post #1 four years ago or not. (Even I'm not sure whether I watched it.)
More importantly, your claim that I told you I refused to watch it is false.
Please apologise to me for your error/lie.
Also, I note that this thread was, at least at one time in the past, in the Alternative Theories subforum. It may even have started off in Biology. No doubt there is a moderator note somewhere in the thread that explains why it was moved to Pseudoscience.
Well, I am sure and if you had seen the video in post #1 you would have remembered the similarities with the video in post # 2687.
You mentioned the 2000+ posts before I submitted something substantial to which I replied that I submitted something substantial in the very first post 4 years ago and you responded by placing the post in "alternative theories" subforum and then after several other posters came screaming out of the woodwork you placed it in "pseudoscience" because of my nonscientific conversational delivery.
You may have forgotten, but I never shall forget your prejudicial attitude. And you are still engaged in insulting me. It is you who owes me an apology.
There will come a time where you will have to admit that I was right all along and then I will graciously accept your apology. Not! You have lost my respect a long time ago.
Moderator note: Write4U has been warned for knowingly telling lies.
While his original post might be written off as an innocent error, refusing to own that error and letting the lie stand unretracted is an infractable offence, not to mention a poor reflection on his personal integrity.
James R has been warned for persistent ad hominem over the course of 4 years.
Bye bye. I don't need you. You need me!
You and sciforums have been suspended from my list of "seekers of truth" fora.
If I see some improvement of the moderation I may come back. But, "the thrill is gone" and I will not be subjected to your insults. You are free to play your games, but not in my backyard. Clean up your own before you accuse me of having trash in my back yard.
(I don't understand why it's so hard for some people to do the decent thing.)
I think the moderation has been relatively consistent over the years, so I assume it will not be changing anytime soon. This of course means you will not be coming back, so I bid you adieu and hope you have a good life.
o noes! What will sciforums do without 100 microtubule glorifications a day?
Separate names with a comma.