Is consciousness to be found in quantum processes in microtubules?

By making exact copies of the cell with "exquisite fidelity" as demonstrated by Drew Berry.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This shows your ignorance of the debate. I have posted several quotes and links about Tegmark's objection to ORCH OR. Here is the debate, but I know you won't bother to watch it. So you will remain ignorant of that "fact".


You're not getting it at all, do you?
Everything I have posted is related in some way. You just keep complaining that I don't know what I am talking about, while you actually demonstrates your ignorance in this particular area of science.

I speak only about "common denominators" but appears you don't know what that means or "implies".

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

And an article specifically addressing electrical activity in microtubules.

Microtubule Electrical Oscillations and Hippocampal Function
Maria del Rocio Cantero, Horacio F. Cantiello
Laboratorio de Canales Iónicos, Instituto Multidisciplinario de Salud, Tecnología y Desarrollo (IMSaTeD, CONICET-UNSE) Santiago del Estero, Argentina

Abstract

more...... https://www.jneurology.com/articles...al-oscillations-and-hippocampal-function.html

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That is what I have been wondering all this time. I am the one who posed the question which you placed in the subforum "pseudoscience". Ask yourself why you made this kneejerk decision and since then have constantly barraged me with ad hominem.
The question is valid and I have been researching and reporting on the concept that microtubules are information processors and therefore must be related to the emergent phenomenon of conscious information processing.
You keep accusing me of something that I am not trying to do. I have taken a position and am trying to find confirmation of my initial intuitive assumption.

And before you get on your horse about "intuition", I don't give a damn about what you think. My native mathematical intuition has never failed me and during several years of reporting on this subject, many recent discoveries are beginning to confirm my original "insight", given the limited information available at that time.

You have clearly demonstrated a general ignorance of the subject and you refuse to do any research on this yourself. Yet you presume to tell me I am ignorant and unable to understand even the simplest concepts as if I was besotted with religious fervor, a subject that is totally irrelevant and off-topic to the subject at hand. If I were a moderator I would have banned you a long time ago for breaking just about every rule of this forum. For shame.

You have been so wrong from the very beginning, in spite of overwhelming evidence that I have presented, it's becoming pathetic.

You are still stuck in 1st grade in the class on microtubules. Try and catch up.

"microtubules give structure to cells"

Applied biological physics such as anesthesia is not theory. It renders people into totally oblivious objects and then back into people again. Theory ? Give me a break will you!

I think I'll take another vacation from this tedious engagement.

Bye, bye. See you next month, unless I am otherwise occupied.

 

Actually, I posed a link to a Hameroff's presentation on Sept 7, 2018 in post #1 of this thread, which you refused to watch.
We could have saved 2000+ posts if you had taken the time to watch Hameroff then. You might have found it "interesting" then and placed the thread in "Alternative Theories" where it objectively belongs regardless of my personal perspectives which I have kept to a minimum in favor of quoted passages by the scientific authors, instead of wasting 5 years calling me a deluded religious moron.

As moderator you approached this from an adversary position instead of asking for explanations where my presentation lacked clarity. I made it a point of keeping my "comments" to a minimum and let the quoted passages speak for themselves, which brought the response that I had no clue as to what I was posting and the entire thread was not worthy of even a cursory perusal.

This caused me to post 2000+ quotes from scientific papers, written and peer reviewed by hundreds of scientists, clarifying the incredible range of "information distribution" functions that microtubules perform. I am glad it finally caught your "interest".

Yet, the one thing that gained your attention was

because microtubules are structural part of the "cytoskeleton" and the definition of cytoskeleton is:

And that became the extent of your knowledge of microtubules. "Microtubules are structural and do not fill any other function". Well, they do and all of them related to neural information processing which is directly associated with the phenomenon of consciousness ofd information processing.

It took me 2000+ posts to prove that microtubules fill a thousand additional information processing functions apart from structural "control" of cell conformation.

But we are making progress. We are now at the stage of "just becoming interesting".

So, in the interest of more advanced microtubule related papers:

Radical pairs may play a role in microtubule reorganization

• Hadi Zadeh-Haghighi &
• Christoph Simon

Scientific Reports volume 12, Article number: 6109 (2022) Cite this article

Abstract

much more...... https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-10068-4

 

AFAIK, the microtubule (and related filaments) network is the only cytoneural system that qualifies for generating an emergent conscious eperience.
Even Tononi's IIT (phi) model would have to rely on the microtubule network to "integrate" information into a conscious experience. Note that IIT does not identify the generating substrate, whereas Penrose -Hameroff have identified the microtubule as the most likely candidate and their ORCH OR rests on that tested model.

Another tidbit.

The Presynaptic Microtubule Cytoskeleton in Physiological and Pathological Conditions: Lessons from Drosophila Fragile X Syndrome and Hereditary Spastic Paraplegias
Felipe J. Bodaleo1,2 and Christian Gonzalez-Billault

Abstract

Yes, they are dynamic organic potentiometers.

Keywords: microtubules, presynaptic terminals, neurotransmitter release, active zone, Drosophila’s neuro muscular junction

more..... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4958632/

 

This is from a private medically oriented blog, so I cannot vouch for its veracity (see web addy), but the explanatory words made perfect sense to me and tell the story better than I could. So I have taken the liberty of placing this analysis on my list of evidentiary discovery.

Microtubules and Quantum Entanglement A Possible Basis for Memory and Consciousness
Last Updated on Sun, 11 Dec 2022 | Quantum Brain

More.... https://www.flandershealth.us/quant...sible-basis-for-memory-and-consciousness.html

Suppose that Tegmark's "perceptronium" eminates from this "entanglement field", then IMO, that counts as a supporting argument for the necessity of an entangled "field" from which conscious experiences emerge. A quantum function.

I believe that all five new hypotheses of Consciousness require the existence of a spatial condition in the brain that can only be described as an "entangled field".

I believe this is what ORCH OR describes, the necessary elementary condition (substrate) from which a cognitive process and response mechanisms originate, via cubits , the fundamental elementary information contaning particle that transports a "dynamic value", that can be processed and cognized by the system as "beneficial or detrimental", a simple evolutionary sensitivity to that what is life-enabling and what is life-destroying.

A prominent biologist named it "ability to solve problems" and thereby having a survival advantage over non-problem solving abilities such as in mineral chemistry, yet having some evolved abilities such as crystal growth and its resulting symmetry of durable patterns.

 

This is at microtubule scale.


and


Note Drew Berry 's use of the term "sensing", that suggests a sensing mechanism that eventually evolve into our ability to "experience and react our environments", i.e "problem solving"

 

In post # 2687

The post you referred to was just an updated version of that link in post #1 which you obviously did not watch or you would not have made that remark, because you would have noticed the similarity.

Me apologizing to you? Are you crazy?

 

Well, I am sure and if you had seen the video in post #1 you would have remembered the similarities with the video in post # 2687.

You mentioned the 2000+ posts before I submitted something substantial to which I replied that I submitted something substantial in the very first post 4 years ago and you responded by placing the post in "alternative theories" subforum and then after several other posters came screaming out of the woodwork you placed it in "pseudoscience" because of my nonscientific conversational delivery.

You may have forgotten, but I never shall forget your prejudicial attitude. And you are still engaged in insulting me. It is you who owes me an apology.

There will come a time where you will have to admit that I was right all along and then I will graciously accept your apology. Not! You have lost my respect a long time ago.

 

James R has been warned for persistent ad hominem over the course of 4 years.
Bye bye. I don't need you. You need me!

You and sciforums have been suspended from my list of "seekers of truth" fora.

If I see some improvement of the moderation I may come back. But, "the thrill is gone" and I will not be subjected to your insults. You are free to play your games, but not in my backyard. Clean up your own before you accuse me of having trash in my back yard.
Click!!!!!!

 

I think the moderation has been relatively consistent over the years, so I assume it will not be changing anytime soon. This of course means you will not be coming back, so I bid you adieu and hope you have a good life.

 

o noes! What will sciforums do without 100 microtubule glorifications a day?