Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Have you actually listened to Penrose? I believe he is one of your peers, no?
Twister Theory?
Write4U's wobbly world of word salad woo
- Thread starter Write4U
- Start date
Twister Theory?
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
Fuck-all to do with Orch OR.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Then all this reference to ORCH must be totally in error?
Orchestrated objective reduction
Orchestrated objective reduction - Wikipedia
On the Gravitization of Quantum Mechanics 1: Quantum State Reduction, Roger Penrose
Published: 11 January 2014,Roger Penrose
Abstract
On the Gravitization of Quantum Mechanics 1: Quantum State Reduction - Foundations of Physics
This paper argues that the case for “gravitizing” quantum theory is at least as strong as that for quantizing gravity. Accordingly, the principles of general relativity must influence, and actually change, the very formalism of quantum mechanics. Most particularly, an “Einsteinian”, rather than...
link.springer.com
and
Twistor theory
Twistor theory - Wikipedia
???
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
Yes, your chatbot has fucked up. As usual.Then all this reference to ORCH must be totally in error?
Orchestrated objective reduction
Orchestrated objective reduction - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
On the Gravitization of Quantum Mechanics 1: Quantum State Reduction, Roger Penrose
Published: 11 January 2014,
Roger Penrose
Abstract
On the Gravitization of Quantum Mechanics 1: Quantum State Reduction - Foundations of Physics
This paper argues that the case for “gravitizing” quantum theory is at least as strong as that for quantizing gravity. Accordingly, the principles of general relativity must influence, and actually change, the very formalism of quantum mechanics. Most particularly, an “Einsteinian”, rather than...
and
Twistor theory
Twistor theory - Wikipedia
???
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
What is this document?
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
Looks a summary of Penrose position on consciousness including notes Emperors New mind and Shadows of the mind
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
But by whom and when?
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
Title 2. The Penrose-Hameroff Approach.
Refs
Hagen, S., Hameroff, S, & Tuszynski, J. (2002). Physical Review
E65, 061901-1 – 061901-11.
Hameroff, S. & Penrose, R. (1996). Orchestrated reduction of
quantum coherence in brain microtubules: a model for
consciousness. J. Consciousness Studies 3, 36-53.
Penrose, R. (1986). The emperor’s new mind. New York: Oxford.
Penrose, R. (1994). Shadows of the mind. New York: Oxford.
Putnam, H. (1994). Review of Roger Penrose, Shadows of the Mind,
New York Times Book Review, November 20, p.7. Reprinted in AMS
bulletin:
www.ams.org/journals/bull/pre-1996data/199507/199507015.tex.html
Tegmark, M. (2000). Importance of quantum decoherence in brain
process. Physical Review E61, 4194-4206.
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
I did a search on ORCH and MT on physics forums, there is a thread from September 2024.
There is as search function top right.
I am interested in the Evolution of the cell so I have contributed to that.
Microtubules are important part of cell structure and protein transport so that is an interesting evolutionary story.
In terms of consciousness the idea does not grab me because the whole concept is wooly.
It is fringe at best cranky at worst.
For me consciousness is to do with a brain and CNS, that's it.
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
This one. Have a read and if you want to participate read the rules and join so you can post.
Thread 'Epothilone B study connected to 'Hard Problem of Consciousness' Model' https://www.physicsforums.com/threa...-hard-problem-of-consciousness-model.1065532/
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
If you do visit, read the rules carefully and take them onboard.
TheVat
Registered Senior Member
I give Penrose credit for at least demonstrating that some neural activity is not algorithmic - he did that with clarity in his Emperor's book. My take is that he has lots of company in the brains aren't all digital camp, but very little in the cytoskeletons are quantum computers camp. For one thing, the latter camp requires lowering standards of evidence and also embracing an extremely convoluted spaghetti bowl of hypothetical processes which dump Ockham's razor in a grinder.
Models are for testing, not for looking cute.
An object lesson was a study of how we catch a tossed ball. For years there was this cute theory about how brains were doing amazing high speed calculus to compute precise trajectories. Then someone figured out it was a much simpler process of visual tracking and learned reflexes, all very T&E stuff. Evolution seems to favor simple, rough and ready solutions, relying more on fuzzy feedback and reflex than computation.
Models are for testing, not for looking cute.
An object lesson was a study of how we catch a tossed ball. For years there was this cute theory about how brains were doing amazing high speed calculus to compute precise trajectories. Then someone figured out it was a much simpler process of visual tracking and learned reflexes, all very T&E stuff. Evolution seems to favor simple, rough and ready solutions, relying more on fuzzy feedback and reflex than computation.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
At last!
As to the question of the type and duration of the evolutionary development of specifically the human brain, I believe it is noteworthy that of all the great apes, only humans have this exclusive genetic property:
p.s. neural distance has no effect on MT ability to transport data. The axons of all neurns are filled with bundles of MT and provide transport for data fromtoe to brain, in addition to direct cell to cell communication via cellular gates.
This is how the slime mold which has no neurons at all can solve all kinds of problems that require the processing ofdata over large areas. It has a MT network that has shown all kinds of remarkably properties that remind of self-referential decision making.
The slime mold Physarum polycephalum can learn and remember despite having no brain or neural tissues. Audrey Dussutour (CNRS)
Question: Does quantum mechanics itself not dump Ockham's razor in a grinder?
Granted, but it seems to me that the models are becoming progressively more sophisticated along with the development of observational methods at extemely small scales.
But are they mutually exclusive? Each method still requires the processing of and reaction to external information.
As to the question of the type and duration of the evolutionary development of specifically the human brain, I believe it is noteworthy that of all the great apes, only humans have this exclusive genetic property:
This suggests that humans "evolved" in a single generation, due to a rare beneficial genetic mutation that created a new species in a single event, not by a gradual selection for small advantages a scan be witnessed in all the other great apes that followed a more leisurely evolutionary path.
p.s. neural distance has no effect on MT ability to transport data. The axons of all neurns are filled with bundles of MT and provide transport for data fromtoe to brain, in addition to direct cell to cell communication via cellular gates.
This is how the slime mold which has no neurons at all can solve all kinds of problems that require the processing ofdata over large areas. It has a MT network that has shown all kinds of remarkably properties that remind of self-referential decision making.
Brainless Slime Mold Can Learn Quickly
Published Apr 28, 2016 at 3:47 PM EDTUpdated Jun 09, 2016 at 5:15 AM EDTThe slime mold Physarum polycephalum can learn and remember despite having no brain or neural tissues. Audrey Dussutour (CNRS)
A proto brain? It has no neurons, but it does have a MT network.Can organisms without brains or neurons learn? You bet.
A paper published April 27 in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B shows that one species of slime mold—a primitive organism made up of single cells which can bunch together and move around—can learn and remember. This life-form evolved before neurons and brains came on the scene, suggesting that learning predates the development of these structures. Exactly how slime molds learn is as yet unclear.
Brainless Slime Mold Can Learn Quickly
The finding raises question about the nature of learning and memory.www.newsweek.com
Last edited:
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Does the MT network produce a field? What does it take to generate a field? At nano-scale, how big does the network need to be to generate a field when actively processing EM data.
a) The human body contains + 100 billion neurons (10^12 microtubules), a network connected by + 1000-10000 synapses .
b) The human brain alone contains + 86 billion neurons, the network connected by + 1000 trillion (1 quadrillion) synapses.
Are these numbers sufficient to generate internal fields of various densities, that can be experienced as a type of internal holographic image?
How does this work at macro scale?
I hope this is applicable as an example.
(a) Because of its shape, the field inside a solenoid of length � is remarkably uniform in magnitude and direction, as indicated by the straight and uniformly spaced field lines. The field outside the coils is nearly zero. (b) This cutaway shows the magnetic field generated by the current in the solenoid.
Where have I seen soething like this before?
Wait! That solenoid looks remarkably like a microtubule, including polarization. Do they work the same?
a) The human body contains + 100 billion neurons (10^12 microtubules), a network connected by + 1000-10000 synapses .
b) The human brain alone contains + 86 billion neurons, the network connected by + 1000 trillion (1 quadrillion) synapses.
Are these numbers sufficient to generate internal fields of various densities, that can be experienced as a type of internal holographic image?
How does this work at macro scale?
I hope this is applicable as an example.
Magnetic Field Produced by a Current-Carrying Solenoid
A solenoid is a long coil of wire (with many turns or loops, as opposed to a flat loop). Because of its shape, the field inside a solenoid can be very uniform, and also very strong. The field just outside the coils is nearly zero. (Figure) shows how the field looks and how its direction is given by RHR-2.(a) Because of its shape, the field inside a solenoid of length � is remarkably uniform in magnitude and direction, as indicated by the straight and uniformly spaced field lines. The field outside the coils is nearly zero. (b) This cutaway shows the magnetic field generated by the current in the solenoid.
Where have I seen soething like this before?
Wait! That solenoid looks remarkably like a microtubule, including polarization. Do they work the same?
Bundles of Brain Microtubules Generate Electrical Oscillations
more...... https://link.springer.com/article/10.1038/s41598-018-30453-2?fromPaywallRec=false
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
No microtubules do not produce a field. They are nothing remotely like a solenoid, as you would know if you actually understood anything about them.Does the MT network produce a field? What does it take to generate a field? At nano-scale, how big does the network need to be to generate a field when actively processing EM data.
a) The human body contains + 100 billion neurons (10^12 microtubules), a network connected by + 1000-10000 synapses .
b) The human brain alone contains + 86 billion neurons, the network connected by + 1000 trillion (1 quadrillion) synapses.
Are these numbers sufficient to generate internal fields of various densities, that can be experienced as a type of internal holographic image?
How does this work at macro scale?
I hope this is applicable as an example.
Magnetic Field Produced by a Current-Carrying Solenoid
A solenoid is a long coil of wire (with many turns or loops, as opposed to a flat loop). Because of its shape, the field inside a solenoid can be very uniform, and also very strong. The field just outside the coils is nearly zero. (Figure) shows how the field looks and how its direction is given by RHR-2.
(a) Because of its shape, the field inside a solenoid of length � is remarkably uniform in magnitude and direction, as indicated by the straight and uniformly spaced field lines. The field outside the coils is nearly zero. (b) This cutaway shows the magnetic field generated by the current in the solenoid.
View attachment 6617
Where have I seen soething like this before?
Wait! That solenoid looks remarkably like a microtubule, including polarization. Do they work the same?
Bundles of Brain Microtubules Generate Electrical Oscillations
View attachment 6618
more...... https://link.springer.com/article/10.1038/s41598-018-30453-2?fromPaywallRec=false
And if you post more shit about microtubules I'll report you, as you have been told by moderation not to resurrect this topic.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
Obviously not, considering that QM is a theory of science.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Don't you see how unfair you are to me. I am posting published papers NOT written by me, but by presumably reliable sources.
So, if you want to yell ad hominem at somebody, make a public spectacle of calling these scientists ignorant idiots, not me.
You are unfairly condemming the messenger, instead of addressing the issues as presented by your peers!
What on earth is your objection to discussing a current topic of great interest to the scientific community to begin with?
It seems to me you should welcome the introduction of new emergent science, especially at nano-scales.
Even if a lot of this is still speculative, science is beginning to unlock some of these spacetime properties that seem to defy Ockham's razor.
I recall a saying "shut up and calculate" as currently being the prevailing advice on the application of QM, IOW relying on mathematics (the map), to solve the mysteries of the physical territory.
How ironic.
For a change ,
Why are you raking the muck in a "pseudoscience" sub-forum? Do you feel threatened by anything that's posted here?
What has happened to that British gentry?
Last edited:
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
Do you deny that you have been told, by moderation, not to bring up the subject of microtubules again?
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Please do not try to reopen the closed "microtubule" discussion in a new thread. You are trying to override a moderator's decision to close that discussion. Please review the reasons given for the previous closure.
Do you deny that such moderation is prejudicial to a valid area of scientific inquiry?
Would moderation prohibit Penrose and Hameroff from posting about microtubules?
Fact is that I am mostly quoting from their work and related papers of dozens of scientists engaged in the current science on the emergence of consciousness in complex systems.
What is the objection to inquiry into this subject?
Large-Scale Quantum Effects in Biological Systems,
MARCUS V. MESQUITA, 1 A ´ UREA R. VASCONCELLOS, 1 ROBERTO LUZZI, 1 SERGIO MASCARENHAS 2 1 Instituto de Fı ´sica “Gleb Wataghin”, Universidade Estadual de Campinas—Unicamp, 13083-970 Campinas, Sa ˜o Paulo, Brazil 2 Institutos de Estudos Avanc ¸ados, Universidade de Sa ˜o Paulo, 13560-250 Sa ˜o Carlos, Sa ˜o Paulo, Brazil Received 27 May 2004; accepted 28 September 2004.
Published online 18 January 2005 in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI 10.1002/qua.20424
ABSTRACT:
Microtubules as Quantum Systems
Microtubules as Quantum Systems
Raw and unedited notes and considerations on R. Penrose and S. Hameroff's Orchestrated Objective Reduction Theory, Dr. Anirban Bandyopadhyay studies, Jürg Fröhlich Bose-Einstein condensation implications, Karthikeyan Marimuthu and Raj Chakrabarti
www.academia.edu
Last edited: