Is consciousness to be found in quantum processes in microtubules?

According to Hameroff and Penrose it needs not be a Planck scale event, but the processing of some kind experiential quanta. There is a threshold aspect to the microtubular function as they guide transportation and assign destinations of various types of information to various parts of the network.

This is still in the hypothetical stage. The knowledge comes with asking the right questions.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

But this is where you are wrong.

Stuart Hameroff is an expert in the field of conscious perception. He renders people unconscious and restores them back to consciousness. As Anil Seth observed during his operation; "the anesthesiologist turns you into an object and then turns you back into a person". That is a profound statement and directly addresses the two states of consciousness and unconsciousness which is a result of certain functions and activities in the brain.

We also know that the brain contains millions of microtubules, dynamic machines which perform a number of utilitarian functions, from building the cytoskeleton, electrochemical transport scaffolding, mitosis, meiosis, each function requiring the ability for processing information and responding with mathematical dynamic action, typical of a biological computing system and fibrous neural network.

a) We know thinking occurs in the brain as a holographic internal experience (brain in a vat).
b) We know the largest number of dynamic information processors reside in the brain and neural network throughout the body.
c) We know these information processors are microtubules.

It is utterly logical to suspect a connection between "information processing" and "conscious information processing", no?

All other models have the very same general concept of "a neural network which acquires ability for conscious thought". But all these models lack a functional processing mechanism, other than a synaptic "experience". We might consider if consciousness is the product of all simultaneous synaptic experiences. But that still would not yield a testable model of consciousness.

I believe that the identification of microtubules as the processors which produce results in synaptic functions completes the picture. All we need is to find out how, then we can use the knowledge to cure mental disorders such as Alzheimers. I don't think anyone will dispute the connection between the onset of Alzheimers with disintegration of microtubules in the brain.

Logical conclusion? Keep looking at this potentially very promising direction of research. It won't be easy at that scale but IMO, ultimate reduction might lead to lead to experiencing the physical activity in the combined microtubular networked values of various quanta as emotional experiences.

We might try to figure out if restoration of microtubules results in restoration of memory and experience of continuity in Alzheimer sufferers. Wouldn't that be neat?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The question is:
What are you gonna do if all these are falsified?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If we can test and prove effective repair of microtubules we can cure Alzheimer patients, repair brain damage, or help people learn at an accelerated pace?

 

what do you mean by effective repair of microtubules? I don't get it.

Some cancer chemotherapeutics work by inhibiting microtubules. These patients excibit toxicity in their gastrointestinal system and a suppression in bone marrow production of blood cells.
No effect in cognition though. Cognition has more to do with ion channels.

 

First, not all microtubules reside in the brain and are not involved in consciousness per se.
Alzheimers and POCD are caused by the breakdown of microtubules in the brain. The illustration can be found in post #1. When one or more microtubules lose their Tau: a protein that binds to and regulates the assembly and stability of neuronal microtubules and that is found in an abnormal form as the major component of neurofibrillary tangles.

According to Hameroff when normal function of these microtubules is restored the symptoms disappear and the patient may return to normalcy. This is the original research done by Hameroff and is what led him to the discovery that breakdown of the microtubules is responsible for the brain damage.

Thanks, I was not aware that inhibiting the growth of microtubules could have beneficial effects. All the more reason to conduct further study of these critical links in cell growth and stability.

Read full chapter. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128029978000141[/quote]

Perhaps the growth inhibitor is used in diseased microtubules, to prevent them from further deterioration?

 

I think you are cherry picking your references. The guy in the video obviously has an agenta, that is to promote a certain theory. I am not saying what he says is necessarily wrong, but it would help to consult other more objective resources as well. For example:https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02211-5

The formation of extracellular amyloid plaques is also a cause of Alzheimer's disease. It disrupts the signals between nerve cells.
Also we cannot say that the destruction of microtubules is the cause of dementia per se. Microtubules are an important structural part of a cell that help in the maintenance of the shape of brain cells. Disruption of microtubules will lead to a disruption of the nerve cell in total. But the same thing happens when we have disruptions in the mitochondria or the ribosomes or the lysosomes of a nerve cell (Btw Check out the inherited lysosomal storage diseases in children that lead to severe mental retardation).

Besides, the disruption of microtubules causes massive apoptosis of brain cells, which leads to the typical brain mass loss we see in patients with Alzheimers disease.

 

Oh, I just didn't know about this. Thanks for bringing attention to these additional conditions. While my main focus of interest lies in the possible connection between microtubules and consciousness, I am very much interested in anything to do with microtubules.

If it has anything to do with brain function I suspect it has to do with microtubules growth and function. They are the transport mechanism of electrochemical quanta.

That is what we are trying to figure out, no? Hameroff (and Penrose) seem to be focusing only on the ability of microtubules in processing informational quanta. I am sure he is aware of the other possible impairments.

Among many additional functions.

I realize that destruction of any cell organelle will have deleterious effects on the cell, or its function as a whole, but I am specifically interested in the computing abilities of microtubules as it pertains to consciousness. AFAIK, microtubules are the only dynamic structures in nerve cells. The nerve-cells' computers.

OK. Thanks for this very interesting contribution.

 

AFAIK microtubules in the brain cells are not in a very dynamic condition (they don't divide). Thats why brain cells are not very affected by chemotherapeutics that target microtubules.
Of course it is highly likely that microtubules in the brain contribute to what we call consciousness. But if you want my opinion, it is highly unlikely that they do this by themselves. Don't waste your time..

You're welcome

 

That seems contrary to all descriptions of microtubules. They are highly dynamic by all accounts. They do not divide, but they control division (mitosis), as well as a host of other functions far beyond the abilities of other cell organelles which usually only fill a single specific purpose.

It is this very computational versatility that make microtubules a candidate for association with brain function.

That is an understatement.

I'm not quite ready to drop this inquiry......IMO, it is the most promising single object in our bodies that can be associated with real computation and by extension with conscious awareness, memory, and thought.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/neuroscience/microtubules

Discovery of quantum vibrations in 'microtubules' inside brain neurons supports controversial theory of consciousness

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

Moreover, microtubules outnumber all other cellular constituents by the trillions and the new discoveries in the area of chemical "quorum sensing" would suggest that the neural network in general and the microtubules in particular are causal to consciousness. There is just no other physical object that can compete with microtubules in the area of "electro-chemical sensory computations.

The exquisite simplicity and functionality of microtubules makes them the only candidate for an emergent hive-like consciousness, information refined and sorted by the brain's microtubules.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Hameroff identifies the pyramidal neurons as the seat of memory. Note the bi-directional pathways to and from the microtubules, necessary in a self-referencing system.

If ever a schematic of a (quantum) computer......this gets really close....now multiply by a trillion electro-chemically active processors.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Is your brain really a computer, or is it a quantum orchestra tuned to the universe?
https://www.interaliamag.org/articles/stuart-hameroff-is-your-brain-really-a-computer-or-is-it-a-quantum-orchestra-tuned-to-the-universe/

 

Now this thread is descending into quantum woo.

 

Consciousness is a high level pattern of mental activity. Its substrate is lower level mental activity.

Microtubules are part of the substrate that supports the lowest level mental activity - that low level mental activity is a pattern in the substrate formed by the various cells and tubules and synapses of the physical brain.

Those are both observations, made in labs and hospitals and the like, using sophisticated machinery.

Substrates do not determine patterns.

 

Not by me. I merely post links by recognized scientists who address the issue. Talk to Penrose if you feel qualified.

Can you lecture Penrose on Quantum Mechanics? Can you tell him he is a charlatan and a woo peddler? Have at it.

p.s. I am a hard atheist and I do not indulge in "spiritual speculation". Nor do I feel qualified to critique a recognized expert in the field of QM. I would rather try to understand what it is he is advancing.

 

I agree with all the questions and objections offered from various perspectives.

But mainstream hypothesis which assumes that the synaptic exchanges in neural networks might offer a pattern of an emergent consciousness is just as vague and speculative.

I hear no critique of synaptic consciousness. Is it beacause it is so vague as to p[reclude any comment at all?

p.s. one can also make a case that synaptic events are of a quantum nature. But it does not offer an opportunity to test, because of all the unknowns.

OTOH, I offer a functional dynamic "machine" which is so simple that the latest critiques (including Tegmark) about cranial environments preventing any form of quantum exchanges have been successfully laid to rest.

No falsification yet.

 

OK, and what exactly constitutes this high level mental activity? A lot of thinking?
If you have additional info, please post a link which explains the nature of this high level of mental activity.

 

I can't play the violin, but I recognise a bad violinist when I hear one. Being a competent singer, i.e. another sort of musician, helps.

Seems I had better repeat the text of my post 5 in this increasingly mad and obsessive thread:

"There is no evidence that microtubules are tiny quantum computers.

The notion is mere speculation. The Orch-R concept of Penrose and Hameroff has made a number of false predictions and is fairly thoroughly discredited. I quote from the Wiki article on "Quantum Mind":

" Hameroff provided a hypothesis that microtubules would be suitable hosts for quantum behavior.[20] Microtubules are composed of tubulin protein dimersubunits. The dimers each have hydrophobic pockets that are 8 nm apart and that may contain delocalized pi electrons. Tubulins have other smaller non-polar regions that contain pi electron-rich indole rings separated by only about 2 nm. Hameroff proposed that these electrons are close enough to become entangled.[21] Hameroff originally suggested the tubulin-subunit electrons would form a Bose–Einstein condensate, but this was discredited.[22] He then proposed a Frohlich condensate, a hypothetical coherent oscillation of dipolar molecules. However, this too was experimentally discredited.[23]

However, Orch-OR made numerous false biological predictions, and is not an accepted model of brain physiology.[24] In other words, there is a missing link between physics and neuroscience,[25] for instance, the proposed predominance of 'A' lattice microtubules, more suitable for information processing, wasfalsified by Kikkawa et al.,[26][27] who showed all in vivo microtubules have a 'B' lattice and a seam. The proposed existence of gap junctions between neurons and glial cells was also falsified.[28] Orch-OR predicted that microtubule coherence reaches the synapses via dendritic lamellar bodies (DLBs), however De Zeeuw et al. proved this impossible,[29] by showing that DLBs are located micrometers away from gap junctions.[30]

In January 2014, Hameroff and Penrose claimed that the discovery of quantum vibrations in microtubules by Anirban Bandyopadhyay of the National Institute for Materials Science in Japan in March 2013[31] corroborates the Orch-OR theory.[15][32]

Although these theories are stated in a scientific framework, it is difficult to separate them from the personal opinions of the scientist. The opinions are often based on intuition or subjective ideas about the nature of consciousness."

It's not doing very well, is it?"

So relying on Penrose and Hameroff in order to play the argument-from-authority card, which is what you are trying to do, does not get you very far. It's not just me that doesn't buy their far-fetched ideas. It is just about everyone else.

 

Penrose's mind is a bad violin? I find that analogy amusing in view that Penrose is the author of "ORCH OR"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orchestrated_objective_reduction

There is no evidence that consciousness is a product of connections between neurons. (unless you want posit that quantum may play a role here)....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Yes, that's how science advances, intuition based on available information.

Has to be woo, no? I could probably come up with a falsification of this current speculation.
Why do we not hear from you on this? Any and all contributions of substance are welcome.

 

The patterns of the patterns of the brain's physical activity at the neuron/tubule/glia/ synapse - (where material stuff, like sodium and calcium, gets pushed around.)

Their substrate is partly what is meant by a "brain wave", the large scale patterns observed by an EEG machine (https://mentalhealthdaily.com/2014/...ves-frequencies-gamma-beta-alpha-theta-delta/).

 

Exactly!! This is nothing new!
There was a huge wave of enthusiasm among biologists and other scientists 30 years ago. However, it became clear quickly that it didn't work.
You don't hear much about it today not because they haven't looked at it, but because scientists don't publish null results.
No legit scienstist wants to publish (even negative results) on a controversial topic already falsified or doesn't work in the lab. They will lose their scientific credibility as they will fall in the same category as astrologists, people that believe metals and other elements have magic properties, etc

 

And how do you translate a brainwave into a picture of a barn? From memory, no?
Memory is stored in microtubules in the brain. Have you watched Anil Seth yet?


Synapses do not retain memory. Synapses do not produce cytoskeletons, no mitosis, no meiosis, no regulation of any kind. Synapses are no more than electrical sockets for plugging in light bulbs or powering a computer.