Is consciousness to be found in quantum processes in microtubules?

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Thank you for the links. Unfortunately I have to join to read those papers. I am denied access. Would be nice if you could quote pertinent passages. That is my habit and it avoids obstacles like this.

None of those papers at that address are worth anything to me.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Gosh yes you are right! Hameroff published a book on this in 1987 and seemingly got together with Penrose in the 1990s.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes, Hameroff's first book was "Ultimate Computing" (1987)
Penrose published "The Emperor's New Mind" (1989)
ORCH OR was submitted on 1994

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

 

Why?

Right, that's why I have not mentioned them in connection with the ORCH OR hypothesis. I thought I made that clear.....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Thank you, I shall and get back with you once I understand the narratives......

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

No Hameroff had been researching cancer cures and asked then if microtubules might provide access to this "random mitosis"
Wrong. According to Hameroff's own words, he was introduced to Penrose's then new book "The Emperors Mind" and it occurred to him that as Penrose was looking for a quantum computer, his microtubules might be provide the answer to Penrose's need. Follow the chronology.
Before then Penrose was doing research on the role of microtubules in cancer.

Cancer cells escape from the controls on cell division:

https://www.biology.iupui.edu/biocourses/N100H/ch8mitosis.html

This gave Hameroff a deep insight into the functions of microtubules and when he read Penrose's book it ocurred to him that Penrose in his quest for OR might be looking for microtubules as the Orchestra.

Neither one had ever met before.

 

If it was in the field of expertise, yes. When you are making a good living in a professional capacity, why give that up for a wild goose chase?

It's not that he is looking for grants to fund his research. A powerful motive for cheating or offering false data. Why should these respected scientists want to be subjected to ridicule?

 

Yes and no. I wanted to say that Penrose was looking for a biological machine that could handle qu-bits.. Hameroff thought he had that machine and if true, that would be a wonderful marriage.

I really don't know why this is so incredible to you. Can you give me a reason for this total and utter rejection of a concept that is new. Is it the tangential association with more esoteric eastern philosophy? IMO, that is entirely apart from the concept of biological qu-bits, which might lie hidden in chemistry. I am not convinced that quantum has to occur only at Planck scale.
What would be the objection to chemical information packets? Microtubules handle packets of chemical information of various kinds and are instrumental for mitosis, a unique computing ability.

I am absolutely convinced both scientist are acting in good faith. The term unholy alliance is an unfortunate choice IMO. It reminds me of religious persecution. If they are wrong, they are wrong, That does not make them demons. And that door is not yet closed, AFAIK.

 

Why? Microtubules produce an incredible product, a copy of the original. IMO, that is an extraordinary ability in bio-chemical computation.

 

You mean they are like - seeded crystals? Not that incredible, and not a computational ability.

 

First, it is NOT "new". It has been around since the 1990s - as I have discovered. That is over twenty years now.

Second, Bells will no doubt answer for herself, but as far as I and probably most other readers of this thread are concerned, the thing is that in science one needs a hypothesis to stand up when tested against observation. This is basic Karl Popper, right?

This hypothesis has been tested in several ways by various people and has failed every time. The details are in post 5 (yes really, post FIVE) of this thread, and I repeated them in post 398, twenty pages later, for anyone who had missed them first time round. It has yet to make even one correct prediction, so far as I can tell, whereas it has made numerous false ones.

In science, that is what a dud theory does - and it fades out, just as this one is doing.

 

This is not the first time that's been told to him.

He did the exact thing with his "quasi-intelligent universe" shiny thing.

I definitely don't believe in a supreme being, I just happen to believe that the universe itself is quasi-intelligent - and here's 500 posts, saying it 500 times.

 

Are you trolling us? You don't mention Bohm, Schroediger and Chopra because biology is not their expertise but yet you are referencing Penrose's work and use his name as an authority here?

Why supporting delusional grandiose claims?
Life lesson number one: Never underestimate the other guy's greed

Exactly.
If you continue to support a theory that has been falsified several times, you need to analyze it with yourself. Maybe there are hidden psychological reasons you deny giving up being a useful.....tool by promoting other people's crackpoteries.

 

Also, don't get me wrong, but a practising anesthesiologist does not spend his days conducting basic research in neuroscience. An anesthesiologist is a physician that deals with patients in critical conditions or extreme illness. This includes cardiovascular collapse, severe infections, severe lung conditions, infections, strokes, epilepsy, etc.
They also practise anesthesia during surgeries. This means that they sedate patients and then they are looking at instruments that monitor vital signs, such as heart rate, pressure, oxygen, acidity, etc. They don't overthink how brain cells work. They don't have the instruments to do that. As a matter of fact, if the patient's vitals are stable, it is highly likely that they are rather discussing about football games or christmas shopping.....
So if a working anesthesiologist proposes an idea about basic neuroscience research, he is not exactly considered an expert. Especially if all neuroscientists disagree with his ideas.

Its like if a nephrologist proposes a radical new theory about how the heart works. Suppose you are a cardiologist and you disagree with the theory. Also all of your fellow cardiologists disagree. What are the odds that the theory is correct? One in a million i would say.....
Of course, if the cardiologists are right, this is not news. If the nephrologist is right, then this is big news and people will hear about it. This makes some people think that whenever a nephrologist has a theory about the heart, which all cardiologists disregard, then usually the nephrologist is right.!!!!

 

Yes, not anything spiritual. I am impressed with Tegmarks Mathematical Universe.. Anything wrong with that?

 

I minor oversight on your part. Penrose is the co-author with Hameroff of ORCH OR . Can't very well not mention him. His expertise is not microtubules, its QM

It's really a small claim. Microtubules are incredibly small.....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

You think I need lessons in life?

Well as long as there are religions I can afford myself the luxury of investigating interesting ideas.

 

Read the definition.

Yes and it takes 12 years to become qualified in that minor scholastic accomplishment. Are you mad?

Oh please.........

Utter nonsense. Why are you even posting here? You haven't read or understood a word of anything that is being discussed.