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

    Messages:
    12,358
    Who is the "we" that are linking me studies? What are the studies that are being linked? I want to see quotes specifically citing ORCH OR or studies that prove microtubules as being worthless in relation to "consciousness".

    We keep looking for substantial contributions, but you keep ignoring my posts while making the same ridiculously wrong arguments starting with "No" and without proofs of any formal claims against ORCH OR and the possible role of microtubules in the greater picture of conscious awareness.

    I want to see quotes that specifically point to debunking of a specific fatal flaws in Penrose's ORCH OR or proof that Hameroff's microtubule hypothesis is fatally flawed. If you are unable to provide clear and pertinent information, you cannot claim scientific standing..

    I provide supporting evidence which no one reads and still the answer is always the same. "No, this has been debunked" and "Go to Wiki to read a bunch of generalities about tangently related research." What is the immediate scientific value of that in a real time debate?

    I can see it now. Visualize a real time debate and have people cite links to Wiki, in lieu of providing RT evidence. Not acceptable.

    You condemn me for providing an abundance of specific arguments by scientists in favor, but you demand that I provide specific argument against. Hell no!
    If you want to debate the point, you provide RT videos or formal papers against. that is not my burden.

    In fact I go out of my way trying to offer a balanced approach. You want it all one way., but without offering anything of substance.

    You want to debunk the theory, you provide the proof, not some vague handwaving. Show me the facts or do not presume to call me names. I have the courtesy of refraining from calling you stupid or ignorant. Don't play power politics with me.

    Those are just cheap shots from lazy debating. If you want to debunk someone's science do your own research and post quotes of formal papers. I am arguing FOR and provide clear and comprehensive facts in favor. If you are arguing AGAINST, do everyone a favor and post comprehensive facts in opposition.
     
    Last edited: Nov 8, 2019 at 8:00 AM
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,621
    I'm terrified.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,621
    More lies? I don't believe I have said either of these things. It is you that introduced the criterion "fatally flawed", not me. Similarly, I never use the term "debunk" in relation to science.

    In future, please check what I actually said before you fly off the handle - amusing though it is for us to watch when you screw up.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,358
    Yes, that is my right.
    Where is your proof?
    I can just a easy accuse you of the same.
    You cannot judge if you do not read what I post and your accusation is wholly unfounded.
    Why no link to Serpico?
    Deemed by whom?


    That quote looks impressive, but it is completely useless as any kind of proof. There is no link to any scientific paper, nor can Mr Binmoller et al. be found in google.
    There is a ; Franz-Josef Binmöller, https://www.sciencedirect.com/search/advanced?qs=Binmoller

    Which has nothing to do with this thread. Provide link to actual scientific paper, please.
    Nono, that's Penrose's area of expertise. Hameroff does not automatically reject the concept of an universal connectivity and form of consciousness, nor does he specifically endorse it.

    He merely believes that if there is a form of quantum mechanics involved, microtubules might be the biological structure suitable for such use.

    Why not throw David Bohm and Schrodinger and Dennett and a host of other scientists who contemplated the possibility of universal self-referential information sharing under the bus also. They all ventured with speculation of an abstract form of universal information sharing, such as "entanglement". Do you even know what these people are talking about?

    btw. what is this "quantum entanglement" hypothesis in migrating bird's eyes.?
    A bird’s eye view of quantum entanglement
    https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/birds-quantum-entanglement/

    Hey, quantum is biologically impossible, no? Or are birds the exception to the rule?
    Yes, and no one can accuse me of such tactics. I don't slander anyone. I don't need to resort such banality. It's beneath me.....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    But he does not demonstrate that.
    Show me which links are pertinent. An actual link to a scientific paper would be helpful. I'm done being sent on a "fools errant".
    Well, there you have it. Yet you managed to squeeze in a few well chosen ad hominems, cute......

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Do you have proof of the scientific studies which show the "biological impossibility" of what the "dude and his theory" are hypothesizing?

    So, you are carrying the water for real science? Without proof it is you who is the one carrying an empty vessel. Is that not the scientific method?

    Who is Binmoller? Do a google and see what turns up.......

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    No link to a paper. A useless quote.

    It took me several minutes to even find this "important paper" which apparently has nothing to do with debunking ORCH OR or the ability of microtubules to act as the consciousness generating microtubular network.
    Research article
    1. Experimental Cell Research,
    Research article

    1. Experimental Cell Research
    https://www.sciencedirect.com/search/advanced?qs=Binmoller
     
    Last edited: Nov 8, 2019 at 9:57 AM
  8. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,358
    Well, what have you been saying then? That ORCH OR is still a possible viable approach to "consciousness"? Don't weasel out on me now.
     
  9. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,358
    Nor am I terrified by you. Your attempts to intimidate are wasted on me.

    I have a very simple philosophy; "Those my equal or above me don't insult me. Those below me can't insult me."
     
    Last edited: Nov 8, 2019 at 10:10 AM
  10. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,621
    I pointed out that several of its predictions have been falsified, and commented that it is not doing well and that it is most likely on its way to being discarded. I also, separately, observed that Hameroff seems to be starting to keep strange company (Chopra), implying he seems to be going the woo route. That does not augur well.

    "Debunk" is not a word I like to use in science, so long as we are talking about theories that are put forward in good faith, because it means to expose a sham or falsehood. A wrong theory is not a sham or falsehood. It is just wrong: one of the numerous dead ends that litter the history of science, like the phlogiston theory.
     
    Write4U likes this.
  11. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,358
    Well, that is to be expected. You are a most disagreeable person and I am getting very inpatient with your refusal to actually address any of the issues in real time, as I have done.

    Apparently you are reluctant to stick out your own neck. I can appreciate that, but then don't presume to judge my objective interest in the subject under discussion. My intent is to gain knowledge and share that which interests me.

    p.s. Your last post was encouraging. I don't like to see serious and sincere scientists being labeled as charlatans and cranks. That is patently unfair.

    And after watching several interviews and lectures by Hameroff , I am convinced that he is sincere and is committed to exhaust every avenue in approach toward "consciousness".
    Sir Roger Penrose has sufficient credentials which speak of his contributions to science.
     
    Last edited: Nov 8, 2019 at 10:39 AM
  12. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,621
    I don't need to stick my neck out, as I am not the one making claims with little support.

    The work on Orch-OR has been done and I have pointed you to it. That's it, as far as I'm concerned.
     
  13. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,358
    OK, bye.

    I'm sure Penrose and Hameroff will not interrupt their important research based on your "opinion" .

    Nor will I stop following and reporting on their journey.
     
    Last edited: Nov 8, 2019 at 10:35 AM
  14. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,358
    Yes well, Bells does.
    I am of a different opinion. In view of a brandnew well attended conference in Interlaken a few months ago, I see that as a continued and dedicated effort to explore these (and related) avenues of research.
     
  15. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,358
    And to once again repeat what I already posted before.
    Orchestrated objective reduction (Orch OR) is a biological philosophy of mind that postulates that consciousness originates at the quantum level inside neurons, rather than the conventional view that it is a product of connections between neurons
    And I found our friend Binmöller et. al. , whoever that is.
    Oh and look here; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orchestrated_objective_reduction#Criticism[/quote]
     
    Last edited: Nov 8, 2019 at 1:35 PM
  16. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    23,087
    You were provided with numerous links Write4U and this repeated and constant demand for proof, when proof has been provided repeatedly, and you have either ignored it or refused to read it, would fall under any definition of trolling.

    I'm not the one pushing woo as science. You are.

    Given how you keep demanding links, even when links have been provided and you keep asking for proof, when proof has been provided, do you really think you are in a position to accuse anyone of not reading what you post?
    With the plethora of shootings in the US, for example, and police departments investigating their own, you need a link to a movie?
    Link to the paper that shows that Hameroff and Penrose based their theory on something that is literally biologically impossible:


    Then you fail at google or you are being dishonest. Had you clicked on the link I provided in my previous post, you'd see a link of that study embedded in that quote.

    And one google search for his name yielded several publications by him.

    Despite the fact that I provided you with direct quote of Hameroff literally endorsing it, you are still claiming he does not endorse it?

    Uh huh..

    Neuroscience and mainstream philosophy attacked our theory even before it was published, and continue to do so. Nonetheless Orch OR remains viable, completely consistent with known neuroscience and can also account for aspects of the soul.

    1) Interconnectedness among living beings can be accounted for by nonlocal quantum entanglement. 2) Interaction with cosmic intelligence may be influence by Penrose noncomputable Platonic wisdom embedded in Planck scale geometry. 3) Existence outside the body: According to Orch OR, consciousness occurs at the fundamental level of Planck scale geometry, normally in and around microtubules between our ears. But when brain coherence is lost, quantum information related to consciousness and the unconscious mind remain in the universe, distributed but still entangled
    .​

    I'll repeat again. Orch Or is based on something that does not exist in adult brains.

    And had you clicked on the link, you'd have seen why and where they went wrong when they proposed Orch Or as a "theory". And had you clicked on the link, you would have found that it actually went further. There is a reason as to why I did not quote the full paragraph. I wanted to see if you'd actually click on a link for once.... The irony is that you accuse others of not reading your links, but you have consistently failed to do so, particularly in instances where it shows just how wrong you are:

    Orch OR also required gap junctions between neurons and glial cells,[42] yet Binmöller et. al. proved in 1992 that these don't exist in the adult brain.[66] In vitro research with primary neuronal cultures shows evidence for electrotonic (gap junction) coupling between immature neurons and astrocytes obtained from rat embryos extracted prematurely through Cesarean section,[67] however, the Orch-OR claim is that mature neurons are electrotonically coupled to astrocytes in the adult brain. Therefore, Orch OR contradicts the well-documented electrotonic decoupling of neurons from astrocytes in the process of neuronal maturation, which is stated by Fróes et al. as follows: "junctional communication may provide metabolic and electrotonic interconnections between neuronal and astrocytic networks at early stages of neural development and such interactions are weakened as differentiation progresses."[67]

    In 2001, Hameroff further proposed that microtubule coherence spreads between different neurons via dendritic lamellar bodies (DLBs) that are connected directly with gap junctions.[68] De Zeeuw et al. had already proved this to be impossible in 1995,[69] by showing that DLBs are located micrometers away from gap junctions.[16]

    And before you ask for links to these studies, they were linked already in this thread, numerous times and if you require it yet again they are embedded above and in the link provided.

    Oh?

    Stop lying.

    But he did.
     
  17. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    23,087
    I provided you with more than half a dozen links to papers and studies... You claimed you could not read them, despite the fact that the majority of them are free to view in pdf format.

    I then provided you with an explanation of how to access those papers and then gave you 3 such examples where it's in pdf format.

    And you still demand links that are "pertinent"?
    Troll, stop posting crap in bold font. I have told you this before.

    Secondly, links were provided. Just because you failed to click on it and if you had, you'd have seen a link embedded in the quote.

    So stop demanding links. When links are provided repeatedly and you refuse to read them and keep demanding more, it just makes you a dishonest troll.

    And how do I know you are a dishonest troll? Because only dishonest trolls alter quotes and insert words into it to try to pass it off as being something else entirely. And that is the low type of rubbish that you have tried to pull in this thread.

    Which is interesting.

    Because you have avoided how a major part of that journey now applies to mysticism and religious quackery.

    Which I already addressed and you, funnily enough, avoided it like the plague.. Despite the fact that this has been the direction Hameroff has been going in in a while now, so much so, that real scientists involved in studies on consciousness have avoided his conferences (which he organises, selects speakers and subject matter) because he is a quack.
     
  18. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,358
    Trolling my own thread? It would have helped if you HAD MADE NOTE OF THE FACT YOU ARE EMBEDDING LINKS IN YOUR BLUE COLORED SENTENCES!
    And you are qualified to judge?
    I was looking for links, you know, something that starts with http://, not some blue colored sentences which are used for mod notes AND ONLY SHOW UP AS LINKS WHEN YOU ACTUALLY PLACE CURSOR OVER THEM?
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1328051

    Hello! An actual link instead of a hidden link embedded in an innocuous sentence. See how easy that is! No chance for confusion. It's a true link, praise the lord....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Embedded links that must be discovered instead of being presented as open links.
    Not by that name. google shows the name And I have to wade through a dozen papers written by others. NOT MY RESPONSIBILITY.
    Yes.
    Where is the endorsement by either author?
    Another hidden link!
    If you are inclined to believe that. Do you really expect Hameroff to oppose endorsement from Deepak Chopra?
    Yes Plato was such a fool. He should not have been allowed to teach 3rd grade​
    Yes it is. They are called microtubules.

    Your protestations do nothing to alter the fact that ORCH OR addresses something that exists in the microtubules of all flora and fauna. That you see it differently does nothing to alter the theory. It is not intended nor presented as a religion, by either men.

    p.s. You have not answered the role of quantum in photosynthesis
    Oops, another link embedded in a sentence which has nothing to do with "how wrong I was"
    Well, that settles that. Baby rats confirm ORCH OR is woo. How simple. It's a wonder that Hameroff and Penrose even finished HS.
    Yes I already posted that and this is just repeating what I already addressed..

    And that has been "debunked" also? Seems like you are addressing ORCH OR as a project by HS kids at a science fair.​
    Yes and I was the first one to post that link, but no one read it and therefore I am now accused of ignoring it. I don't have the time to decypher your blue coded links which only show as links when the cursor is actually placed on the sentence. I am not yet to the point where I need to place my my cursor over sentences to read what it says.
    No lies, just your unusual way of posting links. Now that I know your little confusing trick, Ill place my cursor on every sentence you utter, so that I won't miss the hidden links.
    He did what? Acknowledge the interest by spiritually minded persons?

    And come to think of it, is "entanglement over distances" a spiritual concept? Is quantum a spiritual concept?
    Can someone explain the difference?
     
    Last edited: Nov 8, 2019 at 6:19 PM
  19. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,621
    Write4U, a serious question: are you on the autistic spectrum, by any chance?
     
  20. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,358
    No, I just never had the opportunity to get an advanced education. It is not easy growing up in a war torn country for the first six years of my life.
    But now that I am retired I want to cram in everything I have missed, but I still do not have the time for a formal education.
    I may have perhaps another 5-10 years in me. I am just working on my bucket list.....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    But I have no complaints. I have lived a very diverse and interesting life and had the good fortune to have travelled half way around the world and meet the most interesting people from Dutch royalty to convicted criminals. No one has ever treated me with the disrespect I have received here. Check out my profile info for a short synopsis of my life.

    I started my life in a physical war zone, I don't want to end it in a mental war zone. I don't have the time for that.

    Being that you asked me to volunteer any mental problems, perhaps the fact that I have a (certified) IQ of 158 and scored 70 % on a Mensa test might account for my interest in advanced science rather than playing computer games. But I'll take on anyone for a game of chess....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Nov 8, 2019 at 7:39 PM
  21. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,082
    The fact that linked text is very hard to spot is a constant source of frustration for me and, I'll hazard, other people as well.
    Here, it is problematic enough to exacerbate an already lively conversation.
    It is a pity the overlords that built and maintain the site have passed into history - its such a simple fix.
     
    Write4U likes this.
  22. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,621
    Hmm. Thanks for clarifying.
     
  23. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 69 years old Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,207
    It moves to Woo Woo here

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     

Share This Page