Is consciousness to be found in quantum processes in microtubules?

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

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Page 14 of 151
  1. Michael 345

    Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,077
    Michael 345, Oct 22, 2019
    #261

  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Write4U

    Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,074
    Thanks for the FYI. I am a little confused what they are trying to prove here. Perhaps the mechanism that produces the Fibonacci sequence in sunflowers?
    I was surprised to find no reference to this eminently efficient ordering system.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    It is astounding how often the sequence appears in complicated spirals in nature.
    Nature is as good a mathematician as humans.
     
    Last edited: Oct 22, 2019
    Write4U, Oct 22, 2019
    #262

  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. iceaura

    iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    All that stuff "processes information", including the sand piles. Some at higher logical levels than other.
    That is all substrate, in relation to mental events.
    Substrates do not cause patterns.
    Memories are not stored. They are recreated on demand. Mental events are behaviors, actions performed by the brain itself or lower level patterns of action therein.

    You are trying to argue with observation - that most mental events are macroscopic, for starters, orders of magnitude larger than microtubules - especially events such as consciousness, which involve large fractions of the brain and distant connections within it.
     
    Last edited: Oct 22, 2019
    iceaura, Oct 22, 2019
    #263

  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Michael 345

    Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,077
    Well it was first on the scene

    No paper - no pencil - no calculator

    It did pretty well

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    ps - I give credit to physics being economical
     
    Michael 345, Oct 23, 2019
    #264
  8. exchemist

    exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,514
    Oh good........
     
    exchemist, Oct 23, 2019
    #265
    Write4U likes this.
  9. Write4U

    Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,074
    EVERYTHING is information. We're talking about consciousness.
    EVERYTHING is a pattern. We're talking about consciousness.
    And how does one recreate a scene on demand? Pixel by pixel or a whole barn at a time?
    No I am not, observations is a processing of incoming micro information. And if we look at a picture of Aladdin's Lamp, we can see that the picture does consist of millions of "pixels" at precisely the nano scale of microtubules. What do you think light consists of?

    Mental events are macroscopic? Can you explain how that works? What macroscopic processors are employed in mental events? Neurons are macroscopic? Or are you talking about a 3lb brain locked in a vat?

    Try and stuff a soccerball into your skull, lets see how macroscopic objects fit into your brain, which nevertheless can present you with a picture of Mt. Everest, all inside your skull.

    You believe thoughts are macro objects?
     
    Last edited: Oct 24, 2019
    Write4U, Oct 23, 2019
    #266
  10. Write4U

    Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,074
    We have the luxury of studying existing natural patterns and selecting the most efficient ones from the smorgasbord of all deterministic patterns.

    Question: are there human invented functional mathematical patterns that do not already exist in the universe, somewhere?

    IMO, all mathematical patterns are discovered, not invented. They always exist already in nature and is what allows us to begin to understand how the universe functions.
     
    Write4U, Oct 24, 2019
    #267
  11. Write4U

    Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,074
    In the interest of building a small reference library on Roger Penrose and other scientists' interest in the possible utility of microtubules and how they may be be instrumental in the phenomenon of consciousness, I'll link to a few musings by some great minds.

    The quantum nature of consciousness


    And from an unrelated scientist; The Pribram Bohm Hypothesis
     
    Last edited: Oct 24, 2019
    Write4U, Oct 24, 2019
    #268
  12. James R

    James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,421
    A few thoughts on arguments from authority and fanboyism.

    Firstly, Penrose is primarily a mathematician rather than a physicist. That is not to say that he knows nothing about physics.

    As for his "crankiness", he is on record as holding views about physics and artificial intelligence and quantum biology that most experts in those fields do not agree with. For instance, from what I've read, his pet theory for attempting to unify gravity and quantum mechanics is "twistor theory". Although I am not an expert in this particular area, it strikes me that twistor theory is not widely considered to be the best candidate for a Theory of Everything. There's a lot more work on String Theory, for instance, and Loop Quantum Gravity. The impression that I get is that twistors are "fringe".

    Similarly, Penrose has written several books in which he asserts that artificial intelligence is impossible. The vast majority of experts in artificial intelligence disagree with him, which makes his views on artificial intelligence "fringe" as well.

    Now, one of the reasons he thinks artificial intelligence is impossible is because of his theory that consciousness and intelligence require quantum processing in the brain. That is a view that is also "fringe", in neuroscience, in physics and in computing. His whole suggestion that the necessary quantum processing might occur in microtubules is unproven speculation. Worse than that, my impression is that most experts in the microtubular biology or biophysics appear to think that his hypothesis is implausible, for various reasons. Which, once again, puts him on the fringe.

    Penrose is a smart guy. It doesn't appear to concern him that he's considered something of a maverick; he might even like that label, for all I know. He's been happy to pursue his own idiosyncratic research interests while the various mainstream research communities keep making progress largely without his input.

    So, is Penrose a crank? I wouldn't put that particular label on him. When he does physics or maths, he isn't pretending to do it, like a lot of cranks are. I would go so far as to call him somewhat eccentric in some of his pursuits, however. And that's not to disrespect him.

    How about you, Write4U? Are you confident that you're equipped to evaluate whether Penrose's ideas on quantum processes in microtubules have any scientific merit, beyond speculation? Can you lecture the rest of us on quantum mechanics or twistor theory, perhaps? How's your neurobiology?

    I merely raise the question because you are extraordinarily enthusiastic about Penrose's idea. I hope it's because you've carefully evaluated the alternatives and applied the necessary expertise to sort the wheat from the chaff, but I fear it may be more a case of your wanting to root for the maverick.

    I think it's probably fair to assume that none of us here is a neuroscientist. I'm not. How about you?

    Sure, there are lots of references to microtubules, but most of them have nothing to do with quantum mechanics or consciousness. They are, if I understand it correctly, commonplace structures found in every cell, after all. No doubt there's also a lot of woo about them on the internet, too - just like there's a lot of woo about other fringe notions. (Hive minds, anyone?)

    Okay. Let's do Dennett, too.

    Dennett is primarily a philosopher. He is not a biologist, a mathematician, a physicist or a neuroscientist by profession. I don't know what his views on microtubules are. If I had to guess, I'd venture that he's rather more cautious about any possible role they might play in consciousness than you are. For starters, I'm confident that he has a good idea what he doesn't know. That would make him less likely to come out as an enthusiastic spruiker for quantum consciousness in microtubules. (I could be wrong, of course.)

    ----
    The other name that keeps popping up in this context is Hameroff. I don't know much about him, so I'll leave him to others.

    Here's what I think. I think that some people find the idea of "quantum consciousness" attractive precisely because it is a "fringe" topic. It has all the usual attractions of woo. It can be all things to all people. Maybe it allows ESP! Maybe it means we're all part of a "hive mind"! Maybe it means we can tap into information at a distance, like clairvoyance! Maybe it gives us superpowers! Maybe it explains "the soul"!

    Also, it nicely fits the narrative of the Evil Establishment suppressing the mavericks who are only trying to get to The Truth. Why is Penrose on the fringe? It must be because the evil neuroscience (or physics, or computing) establishment types feel so threatened by his ideas (or their jobs or income are threatened, or whatever) that they have to go to desperate lengths to ignore him, or to shut him down, or to ridicule him. And the Brave Souls who rally around heroes like Penrose - rooting for the little guy against Big Science - will be proven right one day! So, go Penrose! Rah rah rah. Microtubules are King!
     
    James R, Oct 24, 2019
    #269
  13. Write4U

    Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,074
    OK
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Penrose

    Then why do you say it? IMO, being a mathematician in addition to being a physicist is a PLUS!!~!!!!
     
    Last edited: Oct 24, 2019
    Write4U, Oct 24, 2019
    #270
  14. Write4U

    Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,074
    The OP is about microtubules. Should I be talking about the price of eggs? This is getting really bizarre!!!

    C'mon James, are we not allowed to explore the full range of physical sciences?

    I am NOT a physicist!!! Never claimed I was. But I have a curious mind and this is an OPEN question.
    Nobody has any answers yet.
    NOBODY has the qualifications to make any judgement yet.
    ORCH OP is in the falsification stage. No one has falsified ORCH OR yet.
    Let's just play this thing out, shall we?

    If anybody maintains it has been debunked, they are lying!!!

    That's why I am posing these probative questions, rather than saying: "I'm not saying, but I am saying......blah, blah, blah", which you just did, also without the qualifications to judge, but citing other scientists who may have a stake in trying to debunk Penrose.
    I am merely citing the scientists who are makig or supporting the proposal of ORCH OR. Anything wrong with that?

    I find it prejudicial to only consider the critics. Have you noticed that they all begin with "Penrose is a brillant mind, but.....blah, blah, blah?"
     
    Last edited: Oct 24, 2019
    Write4U, Oct 24, 2019
    #271
  15. Write4U

    Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,074
    I think you may be misinterpreting this.
    Artificial intelligence is already functional.
    I believe that Penrose argues that "consciousness" is not possible by artificial means.,,,,difference!
    https://altexploit.wordpress.com/20...-revenance-from-the-archives-and-the-archaic/
     
    Write4U, Oct 24, 2019
    #272
  16. Bells

    Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    Given you've covered ants and bees incorrectly, how do you think you'd fare with eggs and how much they cost?

    Let us know when you start doing so.

    It's an open question, but you have already declared that anything that could be posted to show that it is wrong would be lies..

    Surely you see the absurdity of what you are saying now, yes?

    You literally made a similar statement by declaring that anyone who maintains it has been debunked is lying.
     
    Bells, Oct 24, 2019
    #273
  17. Bells

    Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    What?!
     
    Bells, Oct 24, 2019
    #274
  18. Write4U

    Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,074
    It depends on the expected level of functional intelligence, no?
    Is a baby intelligent? There are machines that are much smarter than a baby, no?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    All being used in one capacity or another. Of course, none of these AIs are conscious. They do not feel emotion.
     
    Last edited: Oct 24, 2019
    Write4U, Oct 24, 2019
    #275
  19. Write4U

    Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,074
    Last edited: Oct 24, 2019
    Write4U, Oct 24, 2019
    #276
  20. Write4U

    Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,074
    Can Sophia be considered to be an AI?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Forget the hype. Sophia is a "learning robot" , IMO it is a form of artificial intelligence.
    Artificial Intelligence
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_intelligence
     
    Last edited: Oct 24, 2019
    Write4U, Oct 24, 2019
    #277
  21. Write4U

    Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,074
    Is a slime mold intelligent or is it more like an organic computronium? I ask because there must be a level where conscious intelligence begins to manifest in living organism as opposed to pure bio-chemical behavior and interaction. The single celled Paramecium is already motive through it's flagella (powered by microtubules), but its reaction to obstacles is purely physical.

    OTOH, the single celled Slime mold can learn and respond quasi- intelligently to a host of stimuli and act as a coordinated cooperative.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slime_mold

    Slime Mould Facts
    Flagella are powered by microtubules!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
    https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/sci/lifesci/outreach/slimemold/facts/

    Is it at this stage that organisms to acquire consciousness and begin exhibit intelligent behavior? Even earlier? Later?
     
    Last edited: Oct 24, 2019
    Write4U, Oct 24, 2019
    #278
  22. Bells

    Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    Saying it is wrong and dodging having to respond, changing the subject or ignoring studies linked that show how it is wrong is not debunking.

    And I literally told you. Why ask me to show you when I explained it already? This is a common theme with you, isn't it?

    Babies are actually way more intelligent.

    Not according to the people who made her.
     
    Bells, Oct 24, 2019
    #279
  23. Write4U

    Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,074
    @ Bells,

    I am no longer going to respond to you. You're not acting in a civilized manner and your really not that important to me, to waste any further time in trying to explain what I have already explained.

    If you were interested in what I have to say you would approach any misunderstandings in a different way. I do!

    So why should I waste my time?

    click
     
    Write4U, Oct 24, 2019
    #280
Page 14 of 151
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page