Write4U's wobbly world of word salad woo

LARGE-SCALE QUANTUM EFFECTS IN BIOLOGICAL SYSTEMS
One particular problem of great relevance in bio- physics is the question of the functioning of the human brain. For example, Penrose [9] argues that computational procedures alone cannot adequately explain all the operational manifestations of the human conscious understanding. It would be nec- essary to look for something different as the appro- priate type of controlling mechanism—at least in the case of synaptic changes that might have some relevance to actual conscious activity.
Click to expand...
Also, such noncomputational action must be the result of some reasonable large-scale quantum-coherent phenomenon coupled in some subtle way to macroscopic behavior, and, as a first step, one must look for a genuine role for quantum coherence in cytoskeletal activity. Spe- cifically, it would be required that there is a large- scale quantum-coherent behavior occurring within the microtubules in the cystoskeleton of neurons. The suggestion is that this quantum activity should be noncomputationally linked to a computational- like action (as, for example, argued by Hameroff and colleagues [10, 11]).
Click to expand...
www.academia.edu

Large-scale quantum effects in biological systems

Particular aspects of large-scale quantum effects in biological systems, such as biopolymers and also microtubules in the cytoskeleton of neurons which can have relevance in brain functioning, are discussed. The microscopic (quantum mechanical) and
www.academia.edu

This is not permissible to post? Why not?
 
Write4U said:
Do you deny that such moderation is prejudicial to a valid area of scientific inquiry?

Would moderation prohibit Penrose and Hameroff from posting about microtubules?
Fact is that I am mostly quoting from their work and related papers of dozens of scientists engaged in the current science on the emergence of consciousness in complex systems.

What is the objection to inquiry into this subject?

Large-Scale Quantum Effects in Biological Systems,
MARCUS V. MESQUITA, 1 A ´ UREA R. VASCONCELLOS, 1 ROBERTO LUZZI, 1 SERGIO MASCARENHAS 2 1 Instituto de Fı ´sica “Gleb Wataghin”, Universidade Estadual de Campinas—Unicamp, 13083-970 Campinas, Sa ˜o Paulo, Brazil 2 Institutos de Estudos Avanc ¸ados, Universidade de Sa ˜o Paulo, 13560-250 Sa ˜o Carlos, Sa ˜o Paulo, Brazil Received 27 May 2004; accepted 28 September 2004.
Published online 18 January 2005 in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI 10.1002/qua.20424

ABSTRACT:



Microtubules as Quantum Systems​


www.academia.edu

Microtubules as Quantum Systems

Raw and unedited notes and considerations on R. Penrose and S. Hameroff's Orchestrated Objective Reduction Theory, Dr. Anirban Bandyopadhyay studies, Jürg Fröhlich Bose-Einstein condensation implications, Karthikeyan Marimuthu and Raj Chakrabarti
www.academia.edu
Click to expand...
Reported
 
Write4U said:
Would moderation prohibit Penrose and Hameroff from posting about microtubules?
Click to expand...
We have already done Penrose, Hameroff and MT to death, a huge thread. I gave you link to an active thread on MT on the physics forums which you can have a look at if you really want to see what the physics community think about it.

I have an article on MT which will be posting, BUT (a big but!) it is in relation to cell integrity and cell transport. The functions all cell Biologists agree on.
So nothing to do with Penrose, Hameroff, QM, Bohm or consciousness.
I have been holding back posting it.
 
Write4U:

I note that, in my last post to you in this thread, I invited you to identify any error I have ever made in a conversation with you. This was in response to your general accusation that I have made errors.

You have failed to identify any past errors I have made. In fact, it appears you have tried to ignore my invitation to do your best to try to identify some errors of mine.

Does this mean that you are now ready to retract your claim that I have made errors?

If not, please post an error or two of mine and we will discuss.

If you ignore this again, I'll take it that you are trying to avoid the issue by failing to be honest in admitting that you can't identify any errors I've made. That would be poor behaviour on your part - to make an accusation you can't support, then refuse to retract it after it has been pointed out to you that you can't support it. Wouldn't it?

What's it to be, Write4U? Are you going to do the right thing and apologise to me for your false accusation, or see if you can dig up an error or two of mine?

Write4U said:
In my presentation of 4 fundamental and common denominators in cellular evolution , I have addressed abiogenesis, the evolution of sensory abilities, cellular communication, and the likelihood of emerging fields within the network that give rise to self-aware consciousness afforded by the various information processing functions performed by MT (and related filaments) which by their sheer numbers, are the ONLY pysical candidates to fill that role in all phases of common cell evolution in all Eukaryote organisms on earth.
Click to expand...
You're done with microtubules, remember? You failed to show that consciousness is to be found in microtubules. You had years to try to do it. You failed. Time to move on from that topic.
Write4U said:
I am not addressing the state of mainstream science and what came before. I am addressing new science and what is to come.
Click to expand...
How do you know what new science is to come? Are you some kind of seer?
Write4U said:
I am not calling anyone here for being wrong ...
Click to expand...
You accused me of being wrong.

Will you apologise and retract your accusation, now?

Write4U said:
... and I have made corrections where proven inaccurate. But that's not what this is all about.
Click to expand...
You made it about that with your earlier post. You need to fix the problem you created. Then we can move on.

What's it to be, Write4U? Apology and retraction, or doubling down on your accusation?

If you choose to double down, you'd better bring some evidence in support with your next post, I think. Don't you?
 
Last edited:
Write4U said:
Do you deny that such moderation is prejudicial to a valid area of scientific inquiry?

Would moderation prohibit Penrose and Hameroff from posting about microtubules?
Click to expand...
Don't kid yourself, Write4U. You're not involved in any "scientific inquiry" into microtubules.

To answer your question about Penrose and Hameroff: yes, moderation could prohibit them from posting about microtubules. For example, imagine if they went on for years cutting and pasting irrelevant stuff that had nothing to do with microtubules, or nothing to do with their supposed role in consciousness, all the while repeating empty claims about how microtubules are key ingredients in consciousness. Such behaviour would surely get them moderated, in a science discussion forum, and rightly so.
 
James R said:
Such behaviour would surely get them moderated, in a science discussion forum, and rightly so.
Click to expand...
That is not an accurate statement.
It hasn't on; https://www.academia.edu/17199736/Microtubules_as_Quantum_Systems?email_work_card=interaction-paper

Q: Is serious scientific interest and research on the role of microtubules as potential quantum systems increasing?

Indeed increasing​

Research on the role of microtubules as potential quantum systems is indeed increasing. Recent studies have shown that microtubules can act as quantum antennas, effectively harvesting light and conducting energy, which challenges traditional views of their function2. Additionally, research indicates that microtubules may play a significant role in quantum coherence and information processing, highlighting their potential in quantum biology3. Furthermore, new findings suggest that microtubules can exhibit quantum relaxation processes, further supporting their classification as quantum systems4. Overall, the field is rapidly evolving, with ongoing studies exploring their quantum properties and applications5.
Click to expand...
 
Pinball1970 said:
But seeing as we have already done MT and this paper is four years old so has already been cited if it's important, we do not need to raise it again.

Did you discuss on PF?
Click to expand...
What this guy Shirmovsky has been working on (and he seems to have published a follow up last November), is the relaxation time of any quantum state in the environment of the cell. This looks like at attempt to quantify the criticism of Tegmark/Shapiro and many others that relaxation would be too rapid to permit any entanglement of electrons to persist long enough to hold and transmit information, as would be required in order for an MT to act like an element of a quantum computer.

It's worth noting by the way that there are still no functioning quantum computers. The whole idea of quantum computers, like so much in the IT arena today, remains jam tomorrow - though hyped up to boost the stock price of companies with varying degrees of flakiness. Why? Because of quantum decoherence, i.e, the rapid relaxation of entangled quantum states.

What Shirmovsky is doing doesn't seem to be in itself crank science, but I've no idea how good a scientist he is and I don't think we should hold our breath.
 
Last edited:
exchemist said:
It's worth noting by the way that there are still no functioning quantum computers. The whole idea of quantum computers, like so much in the IT arena today, remains jam tomorrow - though hyped up to boost the stock price of companies with varying degrees of flakiness. Why? Because of quantum decoherence, i.e, the rapid relaxation of entangled quantum states.
Click to expand...
Yes, if it so difficult to get only a few atoms entangled and free from noise, decoherence then how would a wet messy brain work? Anyway if something comes I will read it.

There is some non ORCH stuff on MT which is interesting which I will put in the LUCA thread.
 
Pinball1970 said:
Yes, if it so difficult to get only a few atoms entangled and free from noise, decoherence then how would a wet messy brain work? Anyway if something comes I will read it.

There is some non ORCH stuff on MT which is interesting which I will put in the LUCA thread.
Click to expand...
The possible evolutionary connection between microtubules and the light-harvesting structures employed in photosynthesis has come up before: https://www.sciforums.com/threads/philosophy-updates.166232/page-7#post-3728523

I would not be surprised if both had a common origin. Both are features of eukaryotes, though, so would have arisen later than LUCA.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top