Is consciousness to be found in quantum processes in microtubules?

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by Write4U, Sep 8, 2018.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    No, they told me they're not reading my links......difference....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    A few things to note here...

    I have been using blue text for embedded links for years. I kept to it, even after the website stopped colouring the text of embedded quotes automatically. In the past, it also used to be blue. When we transitioned to this current software, I kept the same rule.

    Secondly, I had even advised you on the 1st of November that the links were written in blue text. Back on page 22:

    Not only that, when I realised that you were deliberately ignoring links to scientific studies that showed you were wrong, I also started posting just the links... You then claimed you could not read them because they were behind a paywall, when the majority were not and all you would have had to do would be to click on the pdf button to read the studies. I then provided you with links to those as well.. You did not read them. The reason I know you did not read them is because you have continued to make the same claims, despite scientific research and studies that showed clearly, what you are pushing here is wrong and not even possible.

    So, stop lying.

    When studies show something is not biologically possible, do you think I should ignore them because some guy who hosts mystics who claim that consciousness could allow telepathic communication with aliens says the opposite?

    And I provided those to you as well.

    Again, stop lying.

    I told you, 8 days ago by my calendar, could be 7 for your timezone, that the blue text were embedded links. I also provided the "http" links. You ignored all of them and literally avoided answering posts that contained them.

    This is repeated behaviour from you.

    Exchemist posted links and texts on the front page of this thread and then again multiple pages later, that showed you were wrong. You ignored it all and failed to read any of it.

    And given there were numerous occasions where you were embedding links in your posts without any identifier, such as different coloured text or underlined to suggest that it is a link, you aren't really one to talk.

    Lying again.

    What you are calling proper links were provided numerous times. You were also told that the blue text were embedded links.

    Really, you are simply digging a hole for yourself now.

    But that's not what you said originally.. Here, let me remind you:

    So now you are claiming that google shows the name and you have to wade through dozens of papers written by others?

    When before you claimed that you did a google search and you had no links to papers?

    Which is it?

    Why are you lying?

    A true zealot. You are like a Trump voter. Trump says he did something and his supporters will argue he never did it.

    Endorsement?

    The quote about the soul was a direct quote from Hameroff.

    That was his direct response.

    Are you calling him a liar now?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    Yes. I tried to hide it by making it stand out by changing the colour of the text and I really tried to hide it by informing you that the blue text in my post were embedded links days ago... Thank god I'm not a spy.

    Do you know what is funnier, Write4U?

    You have tried to dodge those studies by again whining about embedded links, even when they weren't embedded.

    It's fairly standard behaviour. Seen it all before. You aren't the first, nor will you be the last.

    And now, to address your trolling:

    Seriously, this is what you are going with?

    Read the text again:

    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]

    And because you are apparently functionally apparently dishonest that being told that something is a link is apparently not enough, here is the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orchestrated_objective_reduction#Criticism

    Did you read that?

    At some point, it will have to sink in that Orch Or also involves other parts of cells. The gap junction that Orch Or requires, does not exist in the adult brain.

    What part of that did you not understand, exactly?

    Do you mean quantum yield?

    Why are you still dodging the frigging obvious by bringing up something completely unrelated?

    Are you seriously that much of a zealot that you are willing to make yourself look like a complete idiot? You are not an idiot Write4U. Stop lowering yourself to the point that you come off looking like you are for a theory that you seem to be so desperate to believe in, that you are willing to be a zealot for..

    Here is the text again:

    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]

    Orch Or is based on something that is biologically impossible in an adult brain.

    Do you understand now?

    And your trolling goes up another notch..

    You have avoided every single study that distinctly proves Hameroff and Penrose are wrong. Why do you think we are this far into this thread, Write4U? Because we enjoy your ramblings?

    You are peddling woo. Literally.

    You are lying again. And I have shown just how much. Then again, you are someone who alters quotes to change the context and meaning of those quotes to try to support your theory. I cannot say I am surprised.

    I mean sure, if you want to try to argue that I have been trying to confuse you about how I post links, by following a method I have used for years and years on this site and have never changed how I do it, and I even directly told you that the blue text were embedded links over a week ago... That this is somehow apparently trying to trick you.. Good luck with that.

    Good grief..
     
    Last edited: Nov 9, 2019
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    It is hard to argue that it is hard to spot when I change the colour of the text and even told him over a week ago, that the blue text were embedded links.

    In the past, this website change the colour of embedded links to blue. I kept the same format when we changed software to avoid any confusion. I have used that blue text to signify it is an embedded link for years and years.
     
  8. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    To call this woo is cherry-picking because it assumes the statement is an endorsement. It is not an endorsement. Yes, for those who are inclined to look at more spirtual side of QM and entanglement. Further in the article, Hameroff clearly divorces himself from any religious aspects.

    No, the observation itself is a true statement, whether the concept itself is true is irrelevant. Some spiritualists seem to identify with the concept. That does not make the concept itself woo, it just means that it is all encompassing and what better theory than an "all encompassing" theory?

    Debating The Big Wow,
    . This concept is proposed by Renate Loll, in the hypothesis of CDT (causal dynamical triangulation)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causal_dynamical_triangulation

    This theory assigns a fractal nature to the universe and we return to Plato.
    Here Penrose clearly refers to David Bohm's Holographic Universe.
    https://futurism.com/david-bohm-and-the-holographic-universe

    Not the "Holy movement"......

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    As explained in this posit later in the exchange..
    https://www.theatlantic.com/daily-dish/archive/2007/03/debating-the-big-wow/229894/

    And in Tegmark's mathematical (quasi-intelligent) universe all this becomes possible.......

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Nov 9, 2019
  9. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    And you accept that without question? This was later addressed and rebutted by Hameroff, which apparently you conveniently missed.
     
  10. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    And why should I have to spot anything at all. The standard way of quoting from a website is to quote bracket a pertinent passage and present the reader with the actual website address for confirmation and for further reading .

    Embedding a website in a:
    , is not good reference practice, IMO. Why should anyone be required to place cursor on a random utterance to see what website this refers to??? It is neither clever nor informative, it's just plain stupid, IMO.

    Please Bells, let it go before Exchemist asks you; "Bells, a serious question: are you on the autistic spectrum, by any chance?"
     
    Last edited: Nov 9, 2019
  11. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    Missed?

    No.

    But he was still wrong. Here is a link (read point 2 of the many many claims by Hameroff that were falsified): http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/3049/1/OOR.pdf

    Spot?

    No.

    The blue text is very obvious. Especially after I directly told you that the blue text were embedded links, as addressed in previous posts.

    Secondly, you did not seem to have an issue with embedding links in quotes at the start of this thread.. For example, from the first page.. A post by exchemist:

    You had no issues with it.

    Again on the front page, you posted various quotes, and embedded links inside those quotes without anything to define that they were in fact links, and you did not even bother to link or say where you got those quotes from:

    http://www.sciforums.com/threads/is...rocesses-in-microtubules.161187/#post-3542431

    Nor did you have an issue when C C embedded links and indented the quoted material in a similar manner that I have used in this thread and basically everywhere on this site for years:

    http://www.sciforums.com/threads/is...es-in-microtubules.161187/page-2#post-3542581

    You also did not have an issue when Dave embedded a link, using blue text (bold mind you):

    http://www.sciforums.com/threads/is...es-in-microtubules.161187/page-2#post-3542608

    Just as you did not seem to have an issue with copying and pasting chunks of text and images and providing a link that did not contain those images or parts of the text you quoted:

    http://www.sciforums.com/threads/is...es-in-microtubules.161187/page-3#post-3549029

    So you will excuse me if I do not take your whining about embedded links, that are a different colour as the normal text and after I had directly told you that that colour signified an embedded link in my posts, seriously.

    As noted above, you do not seem to have an issue when others do it, nor when you do it yourself.

    I have followed this exact same practice for over a decade on this website. And I even told you over a week ago, that the blue text were embedded links. Is it harder to place your cursor over text you were told are embedded links as opposed to a line of text that has "http" in it? Because right now, you are reaching ridiculous levels of avoidance and dishonesty.

    You, on the other hand, posted chunks of texts from other websites without providing any links, you copied and pasted images from other websites without reference, you altered quotes to get it to suit and match your narrative and claims in this thread, have repeatedly quoted people out of context.

    Do you really think you have a leg to stand on at the moment?

    Because all I am seeing from you at the moment is whining and still dodging and avoiding the fact that Orch Or has been falsified repeatedly.

    No.

    Can you stop dodging now and address the fact that Hameroff and Penrose's claims and theories have been falsified or debunked or rebutted or any other term you wish to take issue with?

    Or are you going to whine about something else? Perhaps the size of my font? Not bold enough for you?

    24 points of Hameroff and Penrose's theory falsified - posted once again: THIS IS A LINK >>>>>>>>>>> http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/3049/1/OOR.pdf <<<<<<<<< THIS IS A LINK

    And just in case you are going to argue that Hameroff addressed this:

    Hameroff insisted in a 2013 interview that those falsifications were invalid, but did not provide any explanation where the falsifications fail.[76]

    THIS IS A LINK >>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orchestrated_objective_reduction#Criticism <<<<<<<<<< THIS IS A LINK​
     
  12. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,447
    post it sticky note to self come back with popcorn
     
  13. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,451
    The reason I asked you is that there are a couple of guys on another forum, even more tolerant of fruitcakes than this one, who argue like you:
    - obsession with one topic,
    - inability to concede a point in argument and
    - wild swings in attitude towards the people they debate with.

    Both admit to being on the spectrum.
     
  14. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    Interesting. Lets examine what Hameroff actually said.

    I would have linked the Youtube video that this link [76] leads to. I'll play it here so all can see how Hameroff personally answers the attacks on his theory that microtubules are essentially biological quantum processors (computers).

    Dr. Stuart Hameroff is a Professor of Anesthesiology and Psychology, and Director of the Center for Consciousness Studies at the University of Arizona. Together with British quantum physicist Sir Roger Penrose, Hameroff is the co-author of the controversial Orch OR model of consciousness.



    This does bring up the question how plants use quantum mechanics to generate photosynthesis.
    Plants Use Quantum Physics to Survive
    https://www.livescience.com/37746-plants-use-quantum-physics.html

    Do plants have emotions? They do have phototropism as part of the photosynthesis system, so at what point does a plant become aware of the direction the sunlight comes from? Cognition of wave frequencies? If this is a quantum function, then what forbids the same ability in other biological organisms that require dynamic action, such as vision, calculation, and mobility.

    Human eyesight is also a light gathering system which can convert light frequencies into recognizable patterns in the brain. Is that not also a quantum function? Where is the fundamental difference? It cannot be some superficial detail which basically reveals our own ignorance of quantum mechanics at different levels.

    We know QM works, really well, and it seems to me that consciousness requires something that works really, really well. QM works really, really well on all the plants that use photosynthesis. QM is a clear candidate for processing consciousness in animals, including humans, IMO.
    The rest becomes purely mathematical.
     
    Last edited: Nov 9, 2019
  15. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,451
    Addendum: One of them is Reiku. (Gareth Meredith).
     
  16. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,451
    This, surely, must be the most persuasive argument yet.

    The Victoria Line, on the London Underground, works really, really well. Perhaps it too is involved in processing consciousness. I mean, it stands to reason......
     
    James R likes this.
  17. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    You do realise that he fails to explain how or why the falsifications fail, right? In the video you linked.. You basically proved my point for me.

    And I see we are back to dodging!

    No, they are not. <<<<< Link embedded there!! >>>>>>
    You realise that Hameroff's theory about the retina was also falsified, yes?

    So does my washing machine.

    That's nice. But you have not provided any actual scientific proof to back your claims.

    So, finished dodging yet?
     
  18. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    Lets ask, is it true that plants use QM in photosynthesis? If so, why should that not be part of human ability, or as entangled particles in a bird's eyes so it can navigate the earth's magnetic fields. Are these animals more conscious or aware than humans? As Hameroff states, QM has been proven to work in nature and in biological organisms. Why then should it not work for humans? Are humans exempt from universal forces? If the reverse were true and nothing in biology utilizes quantum function, it would be reasonable to accept the fact that humans are also not subject to quantum mechanics. But that is not the case.
    Is it an electronically automated system?
     
  19. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    I did not say plants are conscious. No need to comment at all. But being that you cited this link, here is an excerpt
    https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/botanists-say-plants-are-not-conscious-66101
    Wrong, it is not Hameroff's theory. But it does provide an independent source confirming quantum functions in biology as well as in inanimate matter.

    Migration via quantum mechanics
    http://physicscentral.com/explore/action/pia-entanglement.cfm

    Hameroff uses this new information to bolster his argument that biological systems can and are using quantum mechanics. There is nothing wrong with that.
     
  20. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,902
    Everybody is throwing around the word "proof". I don't think that anyone has produced any literal proofs. (Penrose can no doubt produce mathematical proofs for various mathematical conclusions, but I doubt very much whether any of them would be relevant regarding this subject.)

    What people are presenting are arguments (often inchaoate) for or against what looks to my eye like a philosophical speculation: this exceedingly vague and impressionistic theory-of-mind, which has never to my knowledge been laid out in clear enough detail to be "disproved" (assuming that such a thing is even possible in science).

    I don't see Orch-OR as it stands as being a coherent theory, as something that can be proven or disproven. It's lots of different ideas and assertions all mixed up together. There are so many moving parts, many of which seemingly have only tangential relevance to the fundamental assertions, that any "disproof" can be easily met by changing some auxiliary assumptions somewhere else in the thesis.

    Here's my current (as of right now) opinion of the Penrose-Hameroff argument. My view is a work in progress and may be different tomorrow if I read a better explanation somewhere:

    1. Neurons aren't just analogous to wires in an electronic device, they are processors. I'm not totally opposed to this one and think that there may be considerable truth to it, though I'm not comfortable pushing it nearly as far as Penrose and Hameroff appear to want to. My own view of neurons is that they are best thought of as switches, as something analogous to transistors in electronics let's say, though probably more capable than transistors (activation functions and so on). I still damnably persist in thinking of them as components in a much larger neural process, not as being in themselves fanciful loci of consciousness.

    2. Penrose's Godel's theorem argument. I'm not in any way convinced by that. How is Godel's theorem applicable outside mathematics? I'm guessing that part of the problem here is Penrose-the-mathematician/mathematical-physicist imaging thought as a physical process that must conform to a mathematical description that effectively turns the process into the formal equivalent of a system of mathematical proofs. So the physical process of thought must conform to what Penrose imagines the mathematical constraints to be. (Which neatly ignores analogy, flights of imaginative fancy and lots of psychological processes that don't look like mathematical calculations at all.)

    2a. Overly technical stuff about computation and algorithms (see above). I'm even less persuaded. I don't think that neural networks work in algorithmic fashion anyway. Minds (beyond the level of simple invertebrates anyway) aren't just executing preexisting programs. They seem to operate more along the lines of pattern-recognition systems.) Our thinking process often isn't logical at all, but rather a series of things that remind us of other things. So proof theory wouldn't seem to apply.

    3. The associated assertion that classical mechanics is inadequate for explaining consciousness but quantum mechanics supposedly can. That needs a lot more argument than it's received. How would quantum mechanics achieve this wonder? Left standing on its own without further justification, this step looks to my eye like where the 'secret sauce' is introduced, the magic ingredient.

    4. The implicit assumption that 'consciousness' is well enough defined and well enough understood to fit into a scientific theory and to receive a scientific explanation in the first place. I'm not even convinced that we can recognize it when we encounter it. (That's relevant to our relations with other animal species and will crop up again with AIs.) We need to have a much better understanding of what consciousness is, when it is and isn't present, and how we can possibly tell, before we can start imagining scientific explanations for it. (In my opinion the whole topic of consciousness is kind of disaster-area in the contemporary philosophy of mind and is probably being grievously misconceived. So I don't expect much progress in this area for some time. Too many people following David Chalmers' pied-piper song.)

    5. The assertion that microtubules in cells are the site where consciousness originates because it's supposedly where all this hypothetical quantum processing takes place. W4U seems to me to be fixated on Microtubules!!! So he posts anything that he can find on the internet that makes microtubules seem cool and important, as if it's somehow relevant to and furthers the Penrose-Hameroff theory-of-mind. As far as I'm personally concerned, excessive focus on microtubules doesn't seem to be where my understanding of basic cell biology is pointing. So W4U seemingly wants me to change my whole view of cell biology which I'm not willing to do at this point.

    5a. Penrose jumps in by introducing incomprehensibly (to me anyway) complex and technical vocabulary derived from physics. (Entanglement! Bose-Einstein condensates! Eigenstates! And (God help us) London forces!!! Hold Exchemist back!)

    5b. This is one area where Orch-OR does make testable predictions. So that's a positive. It's where Bandyopadhyay's criticisms gain traction. Yet this only addresses particular parts of step 5a above, parts upon which the whole hypothesis doesn't seem to depend, making it relatively easy to readjust the assumptions of the hypothesis so that the criticisms no longer apply. (That's typically true with any scientific hypothesis, making the idea of definitive disconfirmation something of a myth in my opinion.) So far from being the slam-dunk that Bells is trying to portray them as being, these "disproofs" seem weak, tangential and easily evaded to me.

    5c. The problem is that this is where the thing veers off the main track onto a tangential spur-line. All this quantum mechanical physical-chemistry stuff is fine and dandy, even kind of interesting in its own way, but it doesn't really address the fundamental weakness of the speculation in steps 1 through 4 above. This is all supposed to be a theory of consciousness, right? So why are people discussing Frolich condensates (whatever they are)?

    What do Frolich condensates even have to do with consciousness???

    That's where the connection hasn't been made to my satisfaction.
     
    Last edited: Nov 9, 2019
    exchemist and Write4U like this.
  21. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    So you were trolling with off topic comments while still dodging?

    Okay then..

    Are you now saying that the Orch Or is not Hameroff's theory?

    Still dodging..
     
  22. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,451
    Relax. London forces are just what you may have learned about as "van der Waals" forces: the weak forces of attraction between all molecules, even non-polar ones, which are responsible for such substances eventually condensing to liquid and solid states, at low enough temperatures.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  23. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,634
    Agreed. It's only logical. Further, since it works really well, it must be conscious - just like plants.
     
    exchemist likes this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page