Is consciousness to be found in quantum processes in microtubules?

I am in Anil Seth's corner that the mystery of "consciousness" will begin to fade as we gain deeper understanding of the processes from which consciousness emerges, and which processes make it possible for the brain to become experientially aware of the products of these processes.
https://www.facebook.com/252440991891611/videos/234956024224051/?__so__=permalink

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I really suspected as much. Biology was always my worst subject, so I don’t know for sure if that was exactly the right word for it. I didn’t mean to suggest they are the same thing, either.

The broadcast I saw about it suggested that it was first noticed in a Petri dish under a microscope. Then someone was the only scientist that was willing to come forward about it, then he was fired for being a total fruitcake. Then other scientists started to try to pick up the work.

It started a bunch of woo theories among people that talking to plants is actually good for your health, amongst other things. These claims started to become supported by their scientific research. It started a homeopathic craze across the nation.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The best explanation I ever got of this is from reusing one of Carl Sagans famous quotes; Life always finds a way.

It seems as though even on a more fundamental level, life is able to detect and move to react within microbiology to form structures and processes different elements with no detection or brain activity.

I really don’t believe science is even ready to make any progress on exactly why and how this occurs. That explanation sounds like some closed time like loops have formed, and the molecular structures of living bodies can form patterns in likely scenarios where that form of life survives over time.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes, it does seem so.
In the above videos, the botanists have given it a more direct name "problem-solving" over time, so that natural selection of the organism's Hamiltonian has an opportunity to become expressed by evolutionary adaptations.

According to Roger Penrose, if we can establish that MT in cells function at quantum levels then the question of emergent consciousness becomes easier to solve.

I just ran across a very interesting paper about quantum function in the organism's microtubule network.

Quantum mechanical aspects of cell microtubules: science fiction or realistic possibility?
Nick E Mavromatos CERN - Theory Division, CH-1211 Geneva 23, Switzerland.
On leave from: King’s College London, Physics Department, Strand, London WC2R 2LS, UK E-mail: nikolaos.mavromatos@kcl.ac.uk

..... more

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Figure 2. c. The approximate electronic absorption energies of the bilin molecules indicated in fig. 1 for the PC645 protein in aqueous buffer at ambient temperatures (294 K). d. The same but for the protein PE545, with the same external conditions (pictures taken from [19]). The externally applied laser pulse that excites the system is indicated by a dashed line. Coloured bars denote the absorption band positions.

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/306/1/012008/pdf[/quote]

 

The problem with this idea is that there is nothing to actually solve for. There is no brain tissue or equivalent. It has already been shown that this can be present without any possible form, hence why this research started in plants.

A true form of consciousness cannot be emergent when fundamentally it is not what is required to be that thing. That is why I say science is no where close to solving this problem.

Any solution would have to be beyond the standard model. It would indicate that the many worlds interpretation is wrong, otherwise we would be living in a very unlikely scenario where we don’t suddenly drop dead from our microbes not interacting with each other.

The reason for this is once consciousness is ruled out and the only aspect that could account for this not in the standard model is time manipulation, then that type of time manipulation doesn’t fit the picture. That is really the only place left for this type of interaction could take place for it to resemble science.

 

Here you are talking about the "easy problem", the physical part of information processing, which must follow the laws of physics and can be measured, when the proper observational tools are available.

However, as Tegmark observes, if there is an "unknown force" in play that does not obey the laws of physics, that aberration should be measurable and become part of the equation. But there is nothing aberrant going on and Tegmark concludes that we already have all the tools necessary for reactive problem solving (thinking), as apparently many organisms do.

You are correct. Inanimate objects do not need to solve for problems
But even as plants do not move, their seeds are certainly animate, sometimes being carried miles from their place of origin by wind or water. And each new environment, presents unique problems that must be solved.

Self-aware consciousness is an emergent quality over and above the sum of the parts that form the substrate. This is what Chalmers calls the "hard problem", that must be solved.

And there are two methods of approaching the problem, top-down or bottom-up. One is trying to tackle the hard problem theoretically, but we lack sufficient knowledge for that. The other is gaining knowledge of hard facts and build a model from the bottom up. Hard facts are physics and we can observe those.

This is what I am trying to do in my effort to understand how and when consciousness emerges from the "processing network".

I choose to start with microtubules and what it is they do and potentially can do. I have no doubt that they have a major role to play in any model of consciousness.
I try to gather as much of microtubule science as is being produced and I am still astounded by the remarkable variety of variable information processing these self-organizing nano-scale dipolar tubular coils are capable of.

I suggest that instead of wading through all the pages, start with the videos I have posted. I tried to gather some very fundamental knowledge of information processing patterns that may be extended to the human neural network and microtubules in particular.

 

Read the title of that paper. Do you notice the word "guide"? What do you think that means?
Do you think the author doesn't know what the word "guide" means? What do you think "guides" heliotropism in plants?

Oh James, if only you watched some of the "informative" videos I post, you would not have to ask these questions, because if I answer you verbatim what the scientist explains in a few minutes, you will tell me that I don't know what I am talking about.
What do you think makes a microtubule decide to assume specific variable states of growth or shrinkage?
Remember Dennett's "intentional systems"?

MICROTUBULE-BASED FORCE GENERATION
Ian A. Kent and Tanmay P. Lele

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Caption: Microtubules produce force in various ways: by polymerization, depolymerisation, or interactions with motor proteins.

more..... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5326615/#

Scraping the bottom now are we?
No, I am not claiming that individual microtubules are conscious. Next?

 

Exactly what do you consider data processing that is lacking in my examples?

The Cytoskeleton as a Regulator and Target of Biotic Interactions in Plants
Daigo Takemoto and Adrienne R. Hardham*

PLANT CYTOSKELETAL RESPONSE TO PATHOGENIC FUNGI AND OOMYCETES
The Role of the Cytoskeleton in Cytoplasmic Aggregation

more..... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC535820/

continued.....

 

.... continued

Role of the cytoskeleton and membrane trafficking in axon–dendrite morphogenesis
Kevin C. Flynn, Frank Bradke, in Cellular Migration and Formation of Axons and Dendrites (Second Edition), 2020

and

ON THE RELATION BETWEEN MICROTUBULE DENSITY AND AXOPLASMIC TRANSPORT IN NERVES TREATED WITH MAYTANSINE IN VITRO
BERNARDINO GHETTI, SIDNEY OCHS, in Peripheral Neuropathies, 1978

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

 

No, you’re dumb Sean.

 

You've been reported for trolling.
I am no longer putting up with uncivilized behavior. Stay on topic or suffer the consequences.

 

I think you are really kidding yourself if you think you are ever winning this argument. It could be broadcasted as national news as the next biggest scientific discovery, and no one here would still believe it. They will simply think it has just been made up.

The reason for this is because you said something almost supernatural could occur to be explained by science. There is really no way you could explain something like that to someone who questionably doesn’t even have a formal education to receive a high school diploma. If they have a mind set that says they absolutely have to determine what is actually science and they don’t understand it, then they will just be stubborn to the very end to deny it in any way, shape, or form.

Honestly, I wouldn’t be surprised if JR is in a cult of Freemasons or the Illuminati which are hell bent on sabotaging the advancement of science itself. He still insists that everything should be Lorentz Invariant. This is not a deep dark secret I am willing to keep. You would actually be putting me out of my misery. It is non negotiable, and you should expect that to no longer be civil. I don’t see how you guys put up with this for so long.

 

Where did I say anything like it? Post number please. On second thought, don't waste your time. There isn't any.
I suggest that you watch this;

I completely agree with this Tegmark lecture.

Oh, you are now attacking the competency of all the posters on this forum, good luck with that.

In any case there is no need to throw out ad hominem. It is bad form. You could have just used the statement that I am addressing now.

 

It is the title of the thread. Consciousness can only be found to exist in an interaction between neurons. I thought it was already becoming accepted that Sir Roger Penrose already discovered how this interaction between neurons allows consciousness to emerge. It is not part of the standard model. It was described as being a result of changes in the phase space of particles in a quantum superposition.

That would mean that computers or other objects wouldn’t ever be able to obtain real consciousness in the same way that we do. I believe this change in making this scientific discovery has allowed the future to scramble our brains with complete nonsense sent through time. What would be the goal here? Do they need to be able to scramble plants brains too?

I don’t think you fully realize that it is impossible to win an ad hominem based argument. That was the point I was trying to make.

 

Correct. The conscious quantum network is far from being established science. It is not just the concept, but the substrate and the pattern from which consciousness emerges that is very much in question. Hence this thread. I am engaged in presenting the "hard facts" Tegmark believes are necessary for building a "working" model.

Orchestrated objective reduction

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

There is a similar hypothesis by Giulio Tononi named Integrated Information Theory (IIT) that I haven't had real chance to examine, but seems to rest on a similar concept of information being reduced to an experiential causality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_information_theory

In any case, Hameroff suggests that microtubules (fundamental to ALL Eukaryotic cells) have the desired configuration for processing and reducing large volumes of information into an emergent experiential thought pattern. An argument that seems to be supported by the way microtubules react to anesthetics that render the part of the brain unconscious, without affecting homeostasis.


I believe it has been proven that the microtubule network also acts as an "amplifier" among other data processes.

First, many non-human animals and plants are capable of self-aware consciousness at various levels of emotion. (emotional experience being a sign of self-aware consciousness).

Second, the ability to "speak" and "respond" to communicative language or environmental pressures, i.e. "problem solving". Evolutionary processes are very much involved in selecting for best adaption to the environment.

Research has established that there is an active communication network at all levels of biological life.

It depends on your interpretation of consciousness. Consciousness did not start with the human brain.

If we look at the grand beauty of patterns in the universe and nature it is clear that instead of scrambling "brains", there is a quasi-intelligent process that is always guiding the formation of balance, symmetry, and durability (resistance to environmental pressures).

An argument can be made that the human brain was formed by an evolutionary fluke, a genetic mutation that resulted in a brain much larger than necessary for survival. It is becoming apparent that our ambitions far exceed our abilities to live in harmony with the restrictions imposed by our planet's limitations. It is the human brain that is quite capable of becoming scrambled!

I believe that is a premature conclusion. You are using the wrong baseline.
As Penrose would argue, it started with quantum "decision" making in a much simpler physical pattern than the human brain. There is no reason why AI could not attain an emergent consciousness, albeit different from humans.

It seemed you were engaged in ad hominem. I am glad you clarified your "intent".

 

I thought about this some more and then thought of the billions of people who do believe in a supernatural causal agency. Are they all stupid or are they assigning supernatural properties to this causality because it is mathematical in its expression and generic mathematics is in essence a quasi-intelligent guiding function of spacetime geometry?
I believe that Chaos Theory explains the phenomenon of self-ordering pattern formation.

The Universe isn't really intelligent, it just logically behaves that way. It cannot do otherwise.

 

You got it completely backwards. Someone can only observe this in the presence of overwhelming ignorance. I could construct a similar argument that electronics are actually conscious. I graduated at the top of my class in electron flow theory. It has already come to my attention that electrons don’t actually flow through wires. Nonetheless, I still ended up graduating at the top of my class in the field…

I discovered that most employers are from an older generation where they never had a formal education in electronics. They developed their own theories on how to fix electronics from tinkering around with them being self taught. They developed an ad hominem argument when I started out anywhere that I was too young and inexperienced to be able to diagnose electronics effectively, just like they did when they started out with them always being the more intelligent person on the subject. They would always be the most technically minded, purely scientific thinking individuals.

I began to notice that anytime I ended up in an argument with someone about what was actually wrong with the device that the voltage levels would supernaturally change into different values. This often occurred after the other person diagnosed it as being a common fixable issue. The readings of the voltages would then change to be exactly what someone should expect it to read to have that other common issue.

Like Carl Sagan use to say that life always finds a way. It appeared that I ended up discovering that electronics always finds a way. It has become a common practice for technicians to only diagnose problems that are repairable, because it not worth the technicians time to work on something that cannot be repaired. Electronic devices have a natural tendency to alter themselves into a repairable state.

Would this mean that your television set is somehow conscious and alive? No, I think this type of experience could only be explained by the human race achieving an AI singularity that manipulated everything in time. All the tinkering technicians of the world ended up becoming successful and made money providing for themselves with limited knowledge of what they were actually working on. The universe is able to manifest itself in a way to change the properties of electronic devices to approach a future AI singularity.

The only room for this to occur in physics is via the Higgs Field. It is a low energy weak interaction and it would also be capable of exchanging information over very long distances. I believe the only thing that resembles consciousness in plants would be more like a nervous system. The Higgs Field is only creating the illusion of consciousness in them.

I will give an example. Say a goat walks up and down a mountain always using the same path. This begins to create a trail on the mountain. The plants being stepped on generate a frequency sending a single to the other nearby plants that they are being trampled on, and they cannot survive there. In response to that information they stop growing on the trail. This is simply a nervous system reaction based on an outside stimulus to its environment.

Now, say some religious fanatic sacrifices that goat to appease the gods to prevent something supernatural caused by something being altered in time. What happens to the goat trail? That goat trail may have helped thousands of people cross that distance to one day approach an AI singularity. The Higgs Field would then manifest itself around the plants to prevent them from growing on the trail. The plants are never aware of the trail, they are simply mimicking what they did in a previous version of events that took place.

 

I don't have this backwards. I agree that gods were invented from ignorance but not from stupidity. Gods have been around for so long that they have become part of our social knowledge, but not because or in spite of any scientific knowledge, but because natural phenomena appear to be caused by some form of an intentional higher power. And it's true. Today we call that power "physics" which is guided by the mathematical processing of generic relational values.

Note that almost all gods are associated with natural regularities that seem to be caused by supernatural causalities.
There are some 40 weather gods independently invented by humans around the world.

Weather god

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

The first gods were invented from the dynamic expressions of natural phenomena.
Umvelinqangi, one of the earliest gods was already worshipped by our common ancestors before man even walked the earth.

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

We know this because today, during thunderstorms, we can observe Chimpanzees adopt an aggressive attitude to this powerful "unseen enemy" in the sky that makes loud noises and throws fire (not electricity) and water at him and his family.

It is the mathematical regularity of natural events that gave rise to the concept of conscious and willfully motivated gods.

continued....