Is consciousness to be found in quantum processes in microtubules?

Discussion in 'Alternative Theories' started by Write4U, Sep 8, 2018.

  1. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    That is a false accusation and this, a thread which I started, is proof of that. The only people who have done the berating is you and the others who know themselves.

    I presented a hypothesis developed by two eminent scientists and so far I have successfully refused to lie down and capitulate under a barrage of unsupported criticism.

    I let the linked accompanying science and illustrations defend all attacks, even as that sometimes seems to be a problem when people do not bother to actually follow some of my suggested links. I guess it is a matter of trust.

    But, you can't judge the veracity of a statement if you don't bother to read the actual argument in the accompanying links.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Everything in between you can find in the accompanying links. Instead of plagiarizing, I refer to the original author.....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    p.s. if I can understand it, I'm sure you can understand it. You might want to give it try.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. globali Registered Senior Member


    You should go out and enjoy nature more!!
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    OK, what exactly does that lack of control mean? You are amused, why? Prone to hysterical outbursts are we? Is it a neural condition?

    Do tell me what mechanism causes a daisy to grow its petals in an exponential sequence.
    Pure chance or a little organic computer that forms the most efficient growth pattern of its petals which happens to be a mathematical sequence which was identified by Fibonacci and the pattern named after him? What is the code and processor that orders this pattern?

    Do tell how photo synthesis works. What is the code and mechanism that produces energy from sunlight?

    Do tell how quorum sensing in bacteria works so they can act in synchronicity. What is the code and mechanism that tells bacteria to become active (virulent) all at the same time?

    p.s. I lived like Thoreau in No. Idaho. for 20 years in my own log cabin. Perhaps you might want to go out in nature more. You might learn to recognize the natural mathematical artistry of self-forming patterns in order to achieve maximum symmetry and stability.

    p.p.s. This is the country music I like. On a quiet night,

    and on a happy day,

    Of course, all artistic expression is but a copy and utilization of natural phenomenal patterns.
    Natura Artis Magistra.
    Last edited: Oct 20, 2019
    globali likes this.
  8. Bells Staff Member

    Not really no. Because bees, termites and ants are eusocial, whereby there are different casts within each group, each has their own function to perform with clear division of labour.

    Science fiction.

    In eusocial groupings, it would depend on their cast or grouping.

    Bees do not have a hive mind.

    And the waggle is not always for the benefit of the bee, or the hive.

    I linked a very interesting paper in a previous post. Here is the link again:

    You really should read it.

    I provided you with 3 links that explain why you may be incorrect.

    From Hammeroff's calculations for Orch OR being wrong, to their use of cells from rat embryos that were born via c-section, but these cells do not actually exist in adults.

    From mostly 2 scientists, one of whom based his theory on an incorrect calculation and proposed things that were already proven to be false.

    You selected quotes that support your argument. And you do not seem too keen to actually discuss what many have pointed out if wrong.

    The issue for you is that I read what you presented..

    I have not watched the videos for reasons that should be clear.

    Hey look, more exaggerations.

    Is that why you have deliberately ignored the 3 links I posted that refute what you have posted?

    Which is ironic given you have ignored the links provided to you.

    You have new links? Are they so small that they are being held in the microtubules?
  9. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    Maybe. So far, the argument seems to merely be that microtubules are composed of molecules, atoms in molecules influence each other (at the quantum level), so they might behave like the array of little semiconductor switches on a microprocessor chip.

    Maybe, maybe not. I'm not prepared to say that any complex whole composed of parts that influence each other is a computer, let alone a mind. Nor am I sure why microtubules should receive special consideration in this regard. Wouldn't any large macromolecular structure do, or an assemblage of atoms like a crystal?

    All kinds of information processing has already been demonstrated on DNA strands, where much of the DNA seems to be productive of proteins and RNAs that behave as initiators and suppressors involved in controlling when and in what order other parts of the DNA (the genes) are allowed to express themselves. But nobody that I'm aware of is proposing control of gene expression as the secret of mind. Despite the fact that molecular biology looks more and more like computer science every year.

    Clever molecular biologists have already created simple little computers on artificial DNA strands.

    Sure we can argue that. I'm inclined to think that it has some truth.

    What's the difference between a 'computer' and a 'mind'? (I'm inclined to say 'not much'.) There's big philosophy of mind issues there. (Just wait till you get CC going on it. It's her thing.)

    I'm not entirely clear on what you mean by 'hive mind'. But I agree that collections of rather simple interacting parts can display complex and unexpected behaviors. (That's the usual line of thinking with neurons, isn't it?)

    Of course it's controversial.

    It's playing fast and loose with the question of whether microtubules process information and function as computers, replacing the question whether they do with a flat assertion that they in fact do. Except nobody really knows that. It's just Penrose and Hameroff's speculation.

    Then similar slight-of-hand is used to move from computers to "emergent sense of 'self and purpose'". That ignores all kinds of big-time issues in the philosophy of mind.

    Plus there's all the "quantum" stuff. Some people seem to think that the connection between interaction between atoms in molecules and mind becomes more plausible when the word "quantum" is tossed into the steaming pot. But we don't really have any explanation of how or why.

    Which creates a huge red-herring, where everyone ends up arguing about quantum properties in microtubules. Which is of doubtful relevance to the whole argument, in my opinion.
    Last edited: Oct 20, 2019
    Write4U likes this.
  10. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    First, division of labor switches. Young bees tend to eggs, as they mature they switch to other responsibilities. And how do they learn the retraining of skills? All females are identical clones. They learn via chemical language!
    No, that is cherry picking from literature. The common definition is:
      But how do individuals learn the skills required?
      Even humans have trouble in retraining. How do you get an ant to do what is required? All female ants are clones
      Andthe workers are all clones but performing different tasks. How do they learn that?
    Last edited: Oct 20, 2019
  11. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    And that's wherein the mystery lies. How does a hive-mind emerge when many insects congregate? This form of "group communication" already appears in bacterial colonies. There it is called "quorum sensing".
    If the dance is not a language, why use the term language at all? A form of language, a pseudo -language, a quasi-language?
    Thank you for the link. Something to get one's teeth in....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    This struck me as a very interesting final summary.
    WOW, more research in the field of Q-mind? Seems Hameroff and Penrose are not the only ones pursuing the proposition. That their hypotheses don't agree is irrelevant. The concept is being seriously considered. Unfortunately I have yet to see a serious proposal other than ORCH OR
    Oh I see. My research is true, other people's research is merely woo? The Dunning-Kruger effect does not discriminate.

    I see no rejection of the Q-mind idea, merely a critique of ORCH OR. And the article readily admits the science is in still in its infancy, as do Hameroff and Penrose. I'm sure no one expects research at this level is a "piece of pie".
    Yes, c-section is very common in nature....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    That is just not true Bells. I have begged for information other than from Hameroff, et al. Finally you have obliged and I am grateful for the time you took. I have provided an initial response, but I am still reading and processing the information.

    This subject fascinates me......

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    I do find it remarkable that in spite of the admission of emergent consciousness being so readily discussed, that only H and P have presented a positive paper and all responses are negative, but without offering an alternative perspective.
    Absolutely, how else would you or I know what we are talking about. It's a matter of courtesy.
    More than clear, it is reflected in your responses.
    Typical response. Citing the author of a theory is an exagerration?
    Well, I do read the links which are provided by other posters. This takes time and time to form responses.
    Which is ironic, given that you just admitted to not reading my links.
    I do now!

    Give me time, I'll respond., trust me.........

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Last edited: Oct 20, 2019
  12. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    I don't think so. Even the definition of a microtubules contains reference to information processing. Seems that the basic chemistry is well explained.
    I don't think anyone disputes that, in a broad sense, microtubules are biological computers. They process information and produce results, the very definition of computing.
    Yesss...very exciting stuff. This is the slow unraveling of nature's secrets.

    It is my firm belief that if we can make artificial copies of natural functions, these functions already exist in nature in some form. To think otherwise is hubris, IMO.
  13. Bells Staff Member

    Only if you are trying to reinvent the bee..

    Male bees (drones) could be classified as "clones" as they come from unfertilised eggs, so they only receive the queen's dna, but this does not allow for mutations, so I do not think that 'clones' is the correct term.. Female bees are not clones, as the queen will mate with several males to produce the female worker bees, who tend to the eggs, etc.. Female bees are sisters.

    And it does not actually exist outside of science fiction.

    For bees, it depends on the day of their life cycle.

    But they aren't "retraining".

    For bees, their role is dependent on their life cycle. What female worker bees do in the hive and outside of it, is dependent on how old they are. If we were to take your argument at face value, we would be saying that a baby going from crawling to walking was somehow "retraining".

    I don't know about you, but I threaten my ants with the bottom of my foot or bug spray to get them to perform for dinner guests...

    In all seriousness, ants are known to actually teach interactively.

    So, to answer your question... To get an ant to do what is required, the ant will be taught and will learn to do what is required.

    What is it with you and female clones?

    Unless you are talking about the all female ant species in the Amazon that reproduces by cloning, no, in the greater majority of ant species, the female ants are not clones. They are sisters. Not clones.

    Workers tend to be female for the most part. Ergo, they are not clones but sisters. Since female workers are from fertilised eggs..

    It's not a hive mind. The female queen gives off pheromones as she leaves the colony and others follow her to try to mate with her and set up a new colony.

    Not the same thing at all.

    Where did I say it is not a language?

    You seem to be attributing things to me that I did not actually say, to form an argument I did not actually make, in order to respond to me. My comment was that the waggle was not always effective. You are responding to something else entirely.

    No one has said that it is not seriously considered in this thread, so I do not exactly understand what you are going on about here.

    People are simply questioning your motives and why you are ignoring everything else to come up with some bizarre and at times incorrect claims. To wit, the links provided question orch or for valid reasons. They point out the fact that incorrect calculations were used to come up with the theory, and the lack of explanations from Hameroff and Penrose, just as they question how and why they refer to studies to support their theories when those studies do not actually pertain to what they are proposing.




    More misrepresentations. How strange and unusual.

    Umm they (other scientists) are not admitting of emergent consciousness in microtubules. At all.

    Again, you are going from (a) to (z) and ignoring everything in between.

    But that is not what you are doing.

    I read your links, which I clearly stated. I just did not watch the videos.

    Which you acknowledged above but now seem to be arguing that I admitted to not 'reading' your links...?

    Once again, making up arguments with which to prattle over.

    That's not what I was asking.

    Something something about honesty goes here. Either that, or you completely forget or deliberately misrepresent what others are saying and responding to you..
  14. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    So ants can learn? Thank you! And how do they do that?
    Interesting that the teacher should understand the emotional state of her student.
    But leading a novice to a food source is not teaching it very much. AFAIK, scent is usually the method to mark paths. But do you think this is sufficient explanation how living organisms actually learn things?
    What is it that allows for a change in chemistry in the organisms to allow for immediate evolution of information processing on the fly? How does a slime-mold learn? How does any animal learn?

    The question is not if organism can learn (evolve epigenetically), we KNOW they can, and at many levels of sophistication, question is how they and humans actually can learn. What is it that changes and determines the expression of new behaviors. How does thinking emerge?

    What organic mechanism allows for storage and retrieval of new information? Is this a conscious process or are there other paths to "learning and applying"?
    That is the OP question!

    p.s. Thank you Bells for the links. I love honey bees!
    Last edited: Oct 21, 2019
  15. Bells Staff Member

    It would seem so..
    By teaching..

    I don't think emotional state has anything to do with it..

    Each has their own way.

    Pretty sure it's not "immediate evolution"..

    In other words, the leader ant noticing or observing other ants lagging behind and slowing down to match their pace as it's teaching them how to get to a new food source, did not immediately evolve to do so when it noticed other ants lagging behind.

    Nor are they evolving "on the fly"..

    Are you talking about how they can sometimes anticipate periodic events?

    They don't know how or why they do it. Just that some can.

    Depends on the animal.

    Your terminology is part of the problem.


    Then perhaps you should take some time and get to know about them instead of posting things that are so incorrect.

    And hence the issue.. You are basing your theories and using bees as examples, and you are basing it on things that are incorrect about bees to prop up your argument.

    It is patently astonishing, to be honest.
  16. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    I see, well that solves that. Thanks for the lesson. I feel that my understanding of emergent consciousness has improved considerably....I'm evolving as we speak...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  17. Bells Staff Member

    Why are you chopping and changing my post like that and posting what I said so far out of context?

    That is inherently dishonest.

    You seem to do that when you are confronted with your blatant errors. You dodge it by posting things out of context and essentially being really dishonest.

    Why do you do that?

    And then you wonder why people respond to you in such a negative manner?
  18. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Are you telling me that that post contained information?
    I didn't alter your sentences. Just combined the two I wished to answer into one quote.
    Here is the entire post.
    And what is it that you want from me after all this diatribe?

    I'm learning from you. Im just not learning anything about consciousness.......

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Last edited: Oct 21, 2019
  19. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    You may want to read up on "Evolutionary Epistemology"
  20. Bells Staff Member

    You combined two responses, to two completely different questions, to address a completely different issue..

    It is dishonest.

    You have thus far failed to address the fact that you posited your position by using bees, but in doing so, you were completely incorrect about bees (and ants for that matter)..

    Instead, you post what I say out of context to argue something else..

    You do it all the time.

    Why do you do that?

    Do you understand how that is dishonest?

    I actually want you to address the fact that you posited a position about consciousness on bees as you did and you were completely wrong.

    Why are you dodging that?

    For example, I point out, with supporting links that the cells used in the study are not adult cells, but embryonic cells of mice that were removed from their mother, which is a glaring issue in their proposition and yours for that matter. And you respond by taking it completely out of context (it's a running theme with you) and essentially respond to something else altogether:

    Do you understand how that is dishonest?

    Just as your repeated arguments about "hive minds", using bees as examples, their status and roles within the hives.. All of which was completely and utterly incorrect.. And you were basing your argument on something that was wrong.

    You immediately respond by deliberately posting things out of context to answer to completely different things, thereby avoiding the fact that you were wrong.. Repeatedly.

    Hence why I said earlier that you have absolutely no interest in an actual discussion. You just want to be the zealot and essentially preach, even if you have to act in such a dishonest manner to do so.
    You may want to address what I was actually answering, where you noted that ants were apparently immediately evolving to teach other ants.. Remember your words? "On the fly"?

    Instead of again taking what I said out of context to avoid your own argument, to answer to something else entirely.
  21. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    That's also true of DNA, RNA, certain proteins, neurons, synapses, glial cells, etc.
    It's also true of transistors, vacuum tubes, switches, cells in general, and the sand on a beach.

    The physical brain is substrate. Substrates do not determine patterns.
  22. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    No it is not. In that list there are only four items involved in processing of information, i.e. microtubules, synapses, glial cells, neurons. OTOH, DNA, RNA, and Proteins are information.
    Neurons, synapses, glial cells are processors. In addition, microtubules are also responsible for the building and development of the cells themselves in addition to the neural processors and transport scaffolding,

    IMO, chromosomes are the storage devices for genetic code which is translated by the microtubules during mitosis.

    AFAIK, there seems to be no other permanent memory storage device in the brain except pyramidal microtubules. Hameroff explain why and how these pyramidal structures may function as memory devices.

    A self-referential system?
    Well perhaps it might be more accurate to posit that all those objects were made by a computer, except sand, which is a result of friction.
    Last edited: Oct 22, 2019
  23. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    I am working on a fuller response to your rant, but this is an example where you misunderstood me and I'm not sure if I am responsible for that misunderstanding.

    I noted that the young ants (not the teachers) were evolving "on the fly" as they were being taught how to find food or how to tend to eggs, and eventually how to do other new housekeeping chores as they mature. It seems that learning is a form of evolving on the fly.

    I am still not sure about your osition on hive-minds, but this is the definitiom I use.
    p.s. thanks for bringing something to my attention about bees which is really bizarre, in regard to the haploid nature of drones.
    This I had never heard of when talking to several beekeeper friends of mine. If only someone ever had mentioned "haploid" to me. I coulda looked it up. I consider it a lost opportunity.......

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    The passing of genetic codes in bees is really strange and unlike most other modern biological species.

    But of course that does not have anything to do with consciousness.
    Last edited: Oct 22, 2019

Share This Page