Discussion in 'Alternative Theories' started by Write4U, Sep 8, 2018.
Penrose and Hameroff's ideas have gone nowhere.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
I won't waste my time any further. If you don't believe this thread is worthy of consideration, shut it down.
Anybody still interested? Let me know and we'll continue our quest.
Stacking is more efficient than spreading. Nature had that figured out long before Walt Disney was born,
From the IBM research lab. Start at 15:40
Natura Artis Magistra.
Bahhhh.....another cheap shot.
Are you seriously suggesting that "synapses" can evolve to being an emergent consciousness with a hive mind? That is the "current" hypothesis, no? If not, what IS the prevailing hypothesis?
It is my belief that synapses are the end caps of the microtubule strings inside the neural axon. This networking concept is a conservative perspective in view of the various other concepts of consciousness which only address the question superficially.
Sorry Bells, this is not a productive exchange. You're not teaching me, and you are refusing to learn from me. Or is it your view that I am unable to teach you anything? Good to know.
Haven't you done it already? We've heard you. Have some mercy. It becomes repetitive and obnoxious.
If you can logically and rigorously address questions or objections, then we don't mind the controversial content, at least ONCE. It seems you don't. I would suggest you post at the against the mainstream subforum. The only difference between you and the other (Dunning-Kruger effect) folks that post there, is that you don't post your own new ideas. But there are similarities in the way you defend them.
It is more than clear that you lack a proper scientific education, even at the very basic level. I don't know your background, but you probably started self-educating yourself in science recently or you have gone to college but you are not a biologist or a physicist.
You keep ignoring all research in neuroscience, except the (cherry picked) work of 1 or 2 scientists. Btw Penrose was not even a biologist.
Here is a good explanation of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
The mob gathers.......Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
"Please tell me, IN YOUR OWN WORDS ..........". You don't want me to cite George Carlin.
Your first insightful comment in about ten pages.
That being so, why don't you [rhetorical] shut the f*** up about your blasted microtubules?
Smartest post you've made in this thread.
It's my thread.
Sorry, I can't say the same of all the posters in this thread.
Because it is a thread on microtubules. Has that fact escaped you?
I wish you would heed your own advise and talk about microtubules. That would be on topic,
I thought you weren't going to waste your time further on this? It is not nice to tease!
That's true. The occasion for its recent revival was the observation that all this microtubule stuff was hijacking the 'different kinds of neurons in different species' thread, and the suggestion that microtubules be discussed in a thread devoted to the subject. So W4U obligingly moved over here, to a thread that he started some time ago.
Now the demand from the thread-bullies seems to be to silence it entirely. I disagree pretty vehemently with that.
I agree that all this microtubule stuff looks crankish to my eye, but there's probably some philosophy-of-science value in exploring precisely why that is. What's wrong with the hypothesis (if anything)? 'I disagree with it' isn't a sufficient answer. (Is it a hypothesis or just a speculation? What's the difference?)
So, perhaps this thread needs to be moved to 'alternative theories'. That's my suggestion. Isn't that why that forum was created, to host and debate the sort of ideas that others might want to dismiss as crankery but thread starters believe are brilliant? This seems to be a perfect example of that.
That way if some people find W4U's microtubule speculations (and his slightly over-the-top way of presenting them) to be unforgivably annoying, then don't read the thread. Out of sight, out of mind. Simple, problem solved.
I have already asnswered that once. If I am it is unwitting. I would love to get links to sites which bring different perspectives to the question. AFAIK, this is very new science and there is really not much knowledge available in the science of "consciousness" other than at the generalized "synapse" level. I have seen very little literature on microtubules except for some govt. studies and independent voices. Note that I asked several times for related papers. I save them all, for future reference.
Ask yourself, when was the first time you heard about "quorum sensing" and at what physical level? It was not long ago that "bacterial communication" was thought to be woo, like the "demon possession" of old.
Now we know they do communicate, albeit unconsciously.
If there are other papers out there which deal specifically with the question of what microtubules can do, cannot do, and if neurons are indeed computing cells powered by microtubules, please give me some links or even the names of some scientists in this particular field. Seem a reasonable question.
I like the independent conclusion by Stuart Hameroff about the apparent computational abilities of microtubules and that only a chance reference to Penrose's then new book "The Emperors New Mind" actually presented the idea that his little biological computing machines might be the very computers Penrose was looking for. Penrose was pleasantly surprises and intrigued.
True, Stuart Hameroff is the biologist, or bio-chemist to be more precise.
Penrose is the physicist.
I use reviews like this for reference. I leave it to other scientists to argue at his level. But I need links.
thug lifePlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Thank you for your encouraging words, Yazata. I would have no objections to move the thread, if it warrants at least the name of "alternative theory".
(edit) ....W4U's speculations, based on and reinforced by copious "quotes" and "links" to scientific sites........Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
As I understand the presentation, the Dunning-Kruger effect also applies to you...Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
You are arguing or posited that microtubules has the potential to have a mind of its own. You haven't presented anything that supports that theory.
Firstly, you are not a teacher.
Secondly, you are coming across like a bit of a zealot, because you post these videos and various links and then demand people simply prove you wrong.
You are not open to discussion, because you simply wish to berate people into submission if they question or disagree with your views on microtubules.
It's as if you are starting at (a) and leaping directly to (z) and ignoring everything in between.
No Bells, that is not true. I am arguing that microtubules have the potential to be organic computers. That's a whole different thing.
But let me ask you; Can we argue that insects are organic computers? Does a bee have a mind of it's own? NO.
Can a whole bunch of bees, or termites, or ants, acquire a functional "hive-mind". YES
WHAT IS A HIVE-MIND? How is a division of labor in cloned sisters achieved?
How does a bee's "dance" convey value, location, distance? Individual computers have morphed into a communal hive-mind. In organic chemistry, this is allowed.
And so it is with organic microtubules, alone they are tiny computers, in concert they are a computing network with an emergent sense of "self and purpose". This is not controversial!
AFIK the same evolutionary process is proposed in any hypothesis of a "synaptic" neural network with an emergent "awareness", in the form of a hologram or some other sense of "self'". (Anil Seth)
But, IMO, that does not describe the actual quantized (electro-chemical) processing function which, according to Hameroff and Penrose, may be demonstrated in microtubules, but not with the limiting synaptic exchanges.
Nor have you presented anything that falsifies the hypothesis, except derogatory comments. Can you explain what gives you the impression that I am unable to understand the principles on which this universe is built?
I have presented a wealth of evidence as described by experts in the fields of both scientific disciplines. These quotes are carefully selected to help me narrate the proposition and argument.
If you refuse to read what I present, you do not have the right to criticize. I do not claim to be a scientist and that's why I do not argue against "mainstream science". But if I read and understand the narrative that accompanies a scientific hypothesis and proofs, then I can express this understanding, even though I cannot personally provide the mathematical proofs. I am a reasonably good researcher and know where to find stuff in the mainstream science library. Is that kind of research approach disallowed?
Is it forbidden to cite Einstein when talking about GR? Is it forbidden to cite the scientists that are proposing the ORCH OR theory?
Separate names with a comma.