South Africa Flag logo

South African Skeptics

December 14, 2019, 01:27:37 AM
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
Go to mobile page.
News: Follow saskeptics on twitter.
   
   Skeptic Forum Board Index   Help Forum Rules Search GoogleTagged Login Register Chat Blogroll  
Pages: 1 2 3 [All]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic:

Quantum Mechanics and Consciousness (split)

 (Read 12124 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
rwenzori
Sniper
Sr. Member
****

Skeptical ability: +7/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 403


Merda accidit.


« on: July 12, 2009, 15:06:54 PM »


Quantum physics and Consciousness. Are they connected? The microtubule connection.

Research into the brain-body-mind problem is ongoing and one way of attempting to understand it is to ...


Looks like the same post at:

https://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=60172&start=50&st=0&sk=t&sd=a#p1430772
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2144690&postcount=14
http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=127350&mode=linearplus
http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showpost.php?p=1782572&postcount=1
Logged
Teleological
Moderate Realist
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +2/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 980

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit


« Reply #1 on: July 13, 2009, 09:05:52 AM »

Even if so, these arguments pose no fatal problem for the model…
It seems you don’t understand the severity of the objections.

Perhaps not? But to assert they ARE in fact fatal problems would be... premature. They might be, they might not be.
Yes, each one on its own very much could be fatal.  Have you any idea how many papers in number theory begin with the phrase, “Assuming the Riemann Hypothesis to be true, …” or some variant thereof?  If tomorrow someone finds just one counterexample to the Riemann Hypothesis, most of these papers will become instantly pretty much worthless, and the possibility of a counterexample cannot be ruled out.  Many of those papers are deeply intriguing – but no less speculative for it.
Well, the Riemann hypothesis does seem to hold up so far not?

… and at present are nothing more than arguments from ignorance.
The whole quantum-consciousness model is one big argument from ignorance!  That’s the point.  It cannot even be called an “hypothesis” yet because it lacks any rigorous formulation.  We don’t have a quantum gravity model, let alone any coherent account of consciousness, and therefore we can’t even begin to speak of testable consequences.  At present, it is no more than an interesting bauble, and to base any kind of scientific explanation on it is severely to overstep what the scientific method permits.

'Luthon64

One big argument from ignorance? Well, at least it is testable.
Penrose and co. proposed a few tests.
Towards Quantum Superpositions of a Mirror
Another article you might find interesting
Comments on Proposed Gravitational Modifications of Schr¨odinger Dynamics and their Experimental Implications

And string theory? Well, don't throuh it out yet  Wink.
Physical reality of string theory demonstrated

So here are a few points that make the quantum physics, microtubules and consciousness connection at least plausible.
1) Microtubules are integral parts of the nervous system.
2) Quantum states are not too sensitive at rambient room temperature and quantum information processing at room temperature is plausible (see above).
3) Objective reduction is testable (see above).

Argument from ignorance you might argue? Well, at least it is testable.

Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +62/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 3757


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #2 on: July 13, 2009, 13:09:03 PM »

Are you being serious!?  Having read those linked-to papers (and not just their abstracts, either), it’s clear that none of them actually establishes anything vaguely near what you are claiming.  In fact, one is a non-trivial critique of an earlier one.  They have no direct relevance to any QM model of consciousness – at very best, merely a peripheral one.  Where is this “QM model of consciousness” (my emphasis), please?  For that matter, where is any model of consciousness?  Because so far, all we’ve been provided with is lots of loose conjecture and irrelevant obfuscation.

Assuming that you are not in fact trying to pull a fast one, it is then obvious that:—
  • you haven’t understood a word of what I wrote (or perhaps you simply chose to ignore it);
  • you are remarkably innocent on how science proceeds, and
  • you know very little of any substance about QM.

You’ll have to do quite a lot better than that.  Or are you trying to provide some kind of obscure amusement with these impostures?

'Luthon64
Logged
Teleological
Moderate Realist
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +2/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 980

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit


« Reply #3 on: July 13, 2009, 18:14:03 PM »

Are you being serious!?  Having read those linked-to papers (and not just their abstracts, either), it’s clear that none of them actually establishes anything vaguely near what you are claiming.  In fact, one is a non-trivial critique of an earlier one.  They have no direct relevance to any QM model of consciousness – at very best, merely a peripheral one.  Where is this “QM model of consciousness” (my emphasis), please?  For that matter, where is any model of consciousness?  Because so far, all we’ve been provided with is lots of loose conjecture and irrelevant obfuscation.

Assuming that you are not in fact trying to pull a fast one, it is then obvious that:—
  • you haven’t understood a word of what I wrote (or perhaps you simply chose to ignore it);
  • you are remarkably innocent on how science proceeds, and
  • you know very little of any substance about QM.

You’ll have to do quite a lot better than that.  Or are you trying to provide some kind of obscure amusement with these impostures?

'Luthon64

"loose conjecture" and "irrelevant obfuscation"?
You want a model? You serious? Only recently has it been discovered that quantum states and quantum information processing are possible at room temperature. Now you want a model? Not to sound rude here, but are you aware of the computational load needed to do even a 1 second model accurately of a simple protein, without even taking into account the quantum effects.
Are you aware that microtubules are multi-subunit protein complexes stretching through-out the intracellular environment of a single cell, never mind whole cellular networks?
I would like you to venture a guess IF such a MODEL is feasible in the future if the mathematics and physics can be accurately modelled (in silico or otherwise). I would like to think it is at least plausible. Surely you are not going to argue...ooh look... too complicated to model... you lose. Those type of arguments do not impress many. Or are you miffed by the use of "The Penrose-Hameroff orchestrated objective reduction (orch. OR) model provides a basis to connect consciousness with quantum mechanics." in the OP? Well you might argue it is a bit misleading in the stricktest sense of the term MODEL. I'll grant you that. So perhaps the Penrose-Hameroff orchestrated objective reduction (orch. OR) hypothesis. It is testable afterall.

You moan the articles above are not directly related? Uhm, I did not imply they were DIRECTLY related, you are right though that they are a step in the right direction in testing objective reduction... which the ORCH-OR relies on.
« Last Edit: July 13, 2009, 18:56:27 PM by Mechanist. » Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +62/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 3757


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #4 on: July 13, 2009, 22:18:33 PM »

But you are the one putting these speculations forward as if they are above reproach, a done deal – just read what you keep posting.  Sorry, but your reasoning is wholly inadequate.  It is not enough to say “plausible,” especially when there are huge and critical chunks simply left unaccounted for.  By that criterion, we shouldn’t reject astrology, cold fusion, chiromancy and any number of other titillating “models.”  Because, after all, with the right assumptions, they do work on paper.

Oh, and I’d appreciate it if you refrained from attempting to put words in my mouth.

Thanks.

'Luthon64
« Last Edit: July 13, 2009, 22:33:00 PM by Anacoluthon64, Reason: Wording. » Logged
Teleological
Moderate Realist
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +2/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 980

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit


« Reply #5 on: July 14, 2009, 08:26:04 AM »

But you are the one putting these speculations forward as if they are above reproach, a done deal – just read what you keep posting.

So... when I say it is a hypothesis, when I say that is has only recently been discovered that discovered that quantum states and quantum information processing are possible at room temperature, when I say current mathematics and physics (and even software) are not adequate to accurately model the hypothesis, and when I say objective reduction is being tested (it is testable)... that means I am saying the hypothesis is above reproach?
Oh, and I’d appreciate it if you refrained from attempting to put words in my mouth.

 
It is not enough to say “plausible,” especially when there are huge and critical chunks simply left unaccounted for.  By that criterion, we shouldn’t reject astrology, cold fusion, chiromancy and any number of other titillating “models.”  Because, after all, with the right assumptions, they do work on paper.

So now you equate the hypothesis to astrology? Nice  Huh?.
1) Objective reduction.... being tested.
2) Consciousness corresponds to 40 Hz gamma frequency band of the EEG aka “coherent 40 Hz”
E.g.
Quote
The best measurable correlate of consciousness is long-range (e.g., cortical–cortical) gamma synchrony. In animals and surgical patients undergoing general anesthesia, gamma synchrony between frontal and posterior cortex is the specific marker which disappears with loss of consciousness and returns upon awakening.

Imas, O.A., Ropella, K.M., Ward, B.D., Wood, J.D., Hudetz, A.G.: Volatile anesthetics disrupt frontal–posterior recurrent information transfer at gamma frequencies in rat. Neurosci. Lett. 387(3), 145–150 (2005). doi:10.1016/j.neulet.2005.06.018
3) Quantum states and quantum information processing are possible at room temperature.
4) Microtubules are possible structures to allow quantum states and quantum information processing at room temperature... this can be tested, (computational modeling is one way)






Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +62/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 3757


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #6 on: July 14, 2009, 09:01:39 AM »

And I say:
It seems that you are underestimating or perhaps misunderstanding the severity of the three problems I have pointed out.  Each one on its own is already an obstacle separately from the others to begin with merely because each one introduces some important unknowns on which the entire model’s validity is critically dependent.
… and:
It cannot even be called an “hypothesis” yet because it lacks any rigorous formulation.  We don’t have a quantum gravity model, let alone any coherent account of consciousness, and therefore we can’t even begin to speak of testable consequences.  At present, it is no more than an interesting bauble, and to base any kind of scientific explanation on it is severely to overstep what the scientific method permits.
… and:
It is not enough to say “plausible,” especially when there are huge and critical chunks simply left unaccounted for.  By that criterion, we shouldn’t reject astrology, cold fusion, chiromancy and any number of other titillating “models.”  Because, after all, with the right assumptions, they do work on paper.
… all of which you choose to gloss over as if they simply weren’t there.
 
I guess that leaves us at something of a stalemate, which raises the question why you seem to have so much vested in the supposed value of a fundamentally incomplete conjecture at the leading edge of science.

'Luthon64
Logged
rwenzori
Sniper
Sr. Member
****

Skeptical ability: +7/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 403


Merda accidit.


« Reply #7 on: July 14, 2009, 18:27:11 PM »

...which raises the question why you seem to have so much vested in the supposed value of a fundamentally incomplete conjecture at the leading edge of science.


Sadly this whole speculative quantum-consciousness "theory" has been taken up by the religious amongst us as a potential explanation for the interface between "spiritual" and material, or for the pathway used by god to monitor or control our lives. Some quotes from Hameroff:

1. http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/roundabout.htm
Quote
We can understand ourselves – what/who we really are, and how we fit in the universe which I think is proto-conscious at its most basic level. Maybe we can come to a partial scientific understanding of God.


2. http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/grail.htm

Quote
I think more like a quantum Buddhist, in that there is a universal proto-conscious mind which we access, and can influence us. But it actually exists at the funda-mental level of the universe, at the Planck scale.


3. http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/surf.htm

Quote
Penrose suggested that Plato's world of pure forms, mathematical truth, ethical and aesthetic values actually exist in the quantum world, in the most basic level of the universe. That level is described through string theory, quantum gravity and so forth but is far, far too tiny to be measured. It is what makes up empty space, the fabric of nothingness. It's tiny, but vast; wherever we go, there it is! We can't see it, but according to Roger, we can feel it. He suggested that conscious thought connects to, and is influenced by, these Platonic values.

To me, that sounds like 'following the way of the Tao', 'Divine Guidance' or 'surrendering to your Higher Power'. Roger avoids such comparisons but I think it's fair to speculate along those lines.


Substitute "Jesus" for "Plato" in some way, and you have Mechanist's motivation I might suggest! Jesus iz in ur space-time, warping ur thoughts.

« Last Edit: July 15, 2009, 18:45:06 PM by rwenzori » Logged
Teleological
Moderate Realist
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +2/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 980

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit


« Reply #8 on: July 15, 2009, 09:08:31 AM »

And I say:
It seems that you are underestimating or perhaps misunderstanding the severity of the three problems I have pointed out.  Each one on its own is already an obstacle separately from the others to begin with merely because each one introduces some important unknowns on which the entire model’s validity is critically dependent.
… and:
It cannot even be called an “hypothesis” yet because it lacks any rigorous formulation.  We don’t have a quantum gravity model, let alone any coherent account of consciousness, and therefore we can’t even begin to speak of testable consequences.  At present, it is no more than an interesting bauble, and to base any kind of scientific explanation on it is severely to overstep what the scientific method permits.
… and:
It is not enough to say “plausible,” especially when there are huge and critical chunks simply left unaccounted for.  By that criterion, we shouldn’t reject astrology, cold fusion, chiromancy and any number of other titillating “models.”  Because, after all, with the right assumptions, they do work on paper.
… all of which you choose to gloss over as if they simply weren’t there.
 
I guess that leaves us at something of a stalemate, which raises the question why you seem to have so much vested in the supposed value of a fundamentally incomplete conjecture at the leading edge of science.

'Luthon64

I have pointed out the following:
1) Objective reduction is testable.... It is being tested.
2) Consciousness corresponds to 40 Hz gamma frequency band of the EEG aka “coherent 40 Hz”
E.g.
Quote
The best measurable correlate of consciousness is long-range (e.g., cortical–cortical) gamma synchrony. In animals and surgical patients undergoing general anesthesia, gamma synchrony between frontal and posterior cortex is the specific marker which disappears with loss of consciousness and returns upon awakening.

Imas, O.A., Ropella, K.M., Ward, B.D., Wood, J.D., Hudetz, A.G.: Volatile anesthetics disrupt frontal–posterior recurrent information transfer at gamma frequencies in rat. Neurosci. Lett. 387(3), 145–150 (2005). doi:10.1016/j.neulet.2005.06.018
3) Quantum states and quantum information processing are possible at room temperature.
4) Microtubules are possible structures to allow quantum states and quantum information processing at room temperature... this can be tested, (computational modeling is one way)

I would argue that I such a MODEL is feasible in the future if the mathematics and physics can be accurately modelled (in silico or otherwise).
I am not saying it is above reproach contrary to your assertion that I did.

You ask why I am interested in the ORCH-OR hypothesis? I see it as an interesting approach to the mind-body/"hard problem of consciousness". One can reject psychological instrumentalism in favour of psychlogical realism and I don't for second believe anyone think we are mere zombies with no "self" and without any intentionality.

Now the question to you is why you are putting so much energy into equating it to astrology when you may as well in fact do it with any other hypothesis of consciousness out there.
Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +62/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 3757


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #9 on: July 15, 2009, 10:24:59 AM »

I am not saying it is above reproach contrary to your assertion that I did.
That is the impression you have consistently given, and continue to give.  Where have you ever acknowledged that the model is fraught with serious foundational difficulties or that it is highly speculative?



I see it as an interesting approach to the mind-body/"hard problem of consciousness".
In view of rwenzori’s previous post, I feel you’re not being entirely truthful here.  But not that it really matters.  If the model is to yield something useful for those problems, it needs to be fairly well-formed.  It isn’t.



Now the question to you is why you are putting so much energy into equating it to astrology when you may as well in fact do it with any other hypothesis of consciousness out there.
Because the default position of a rational stance on any unproven idea is to reject it, pending the arrival of compelling reason and evidence in its favour.   Because there is none such of the latter at present.  Because astrology is just as theoretically well-founded.  Because with the right assumptions it all works nicely on paper, as pointed out before.  Because the severity of the criticisms against the proposed model, as well as its grave deficiencies, remain unaddressed for all the tangoesque sidestepping.  Because there is much waffle about testability that has a small chance of being tangentially relevant.  Because a loose potpourri of disparate facts is woven together into what appears superficially to be a coherent narrative but which is, at bottom, a mere bedazzlement of an uncritical audience.  Because there is significant pretence to expertise on matters where clearly there is none.  Because, when challenged, attempts to turn the tables, to evade, to fudge (e.g., as above) are the order of the day.

And because each of these “becauses” is neatly exemplified in astrology.

That’s why.

'Luthon64
Logged
Teleological
Moderate Realist
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +2/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 980

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit


« Reply #10 on: July 15, 2009, 11:45:07 AM »

I am not saying it is above reproach contrary to your assertion that I did.
That is the impression you have consistently given, and continue to give.  Where have you ever acknowledged that the model is fraught with serious foundational difficulties or that it is highly speculative?

So you get the impression that I say it is above reproach after I say:
1) The Penrose-Hamerhoff model does have some serious problems (you can replace model with hypothesis).
2) A viable quantum gravity/GR formulation is a fundamental problem in contemporary physics today. Whether the solution is compatible with the model remains to be seen.
3) The reason why no-one properly understand what wave function collapse is, is because it is still a fundamental problem in quantum physics.
4) An understanding of the collapse of the wave-function is needed. Objectice reduction is compatible. OR is testable!
5) Only recently has it been discovered that quantum states and quantum information processing are possible at room temperature.
6) A MODEL of ORCH-OR is feasible in the future if the mathematics and physics can be accurately modelled (in silico or otherwise).

Ok then.... whatever makes you happy.

Now the question to you is why you are putting so much energy into equating it to astrology when you may as well in fact do it with any other hypothesis of consciousness out there.
Because the default position of a rational stance on any unproven idea is to reject it, pending the arrival of compelling reason and evidence in its favour.   Because there is none such of the latter at present.  Because astrology is just as theoretically well-founded.  Because with the right assumptions it all works nicely on paper, as pointed out before.  Because the severity of the criticisms against the proposed model, as well as its grave deficiencies, remain unaddressed for all the tangoesque sidestepping.  Because there is much waffle about testability that has a small chance of being tangentially relevant.  Because a loose potpourri of disparate facts is woven together into what appears superficially to be a coherent narrative but which is, at bottom, a mere bedazzlement of an uncritical audience.  Because there is significant pretence to expertise on matters where clearly there is none.  Because, when challenged, attempts to turn the tables, to evade, to fudge (e.g., as above) are the order of the day.

And because each of these “becauses” is neatly exemplified in astrology.

That’s why.

'Luthon64

Well, if you really want to hold to the assertion that a rational stance on any unproven idea is to reject it and compare the ORCH-OR hypothesis to astrology, you might as well vehemently reject all explanations of conscioussness and compare it to astrology. Same goes for quantum gravity formulations.

Difficulty with this position is that quantum gravity is a problem that someone will hopefully solve AND it can be tested (if solved). Consciousness is an open question, and no clear, coherent explanation for it exists at present.

BUT, like I said before:
1) Objective reduction is testable.... It is being tested.
2) Consciousness corresponds to 40 Hz gamma frequency band of the EEG aka “coherent 40 Hz”
E.g.
Quote
The best measurable correlate of consciousness is long-range (e.g., cortical–cortical) gamma synchrony. In animals and surgical patients undergoing general anesthesia, gamma synchrony between frontal and posterior cortex is the specific marker which disappears with loss of consciousness and returns upon awakening.

Imas, O.A., Ropella, K.M., Ward, B.D., Wood, J.D., Hudetz, A.G.: Volatile anesthetics disrupt frontal–posterior recurrent information transfer at gamma frequencies in rat. Neurosci. Lett. 387(3), 145–150 (2005). doi:10.1016/j.neulet.2005.06.018
3) Quantum states and quantum information processing are possible at room temperature.
4) Microtubules are possible structures to allow quantum states and quantum information processing at room temperature... this can be tested, (computational modeling is one way)

You may reject it, like all other explanations of consciousness, no worries. I find it interesting, and perhaps science can move forward to solve these problems.
« Last Edit: July 15, 2009, 13:24:55 PM by Mechanist. » Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +62/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 3757


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #11 on: July 15, 2009, 14:31:10 PM »

In other words, apart from selective quoting of what I wrote, you’re still arguing towards the presently unwarranted notion that the whole idea, as nebulously formulated as it is, has significant explanatory merit.


'Luthon64
Logged
Teleological
Moderate Realist
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +2/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 980

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit


« Reply #12 on: July 15, 2009, 14:41:30 PM »

Selective quoting....
You calling me black?


Unwarranted notion? nebulously formulated? Ok... with warm, fuzzy words like these, let's hope a more civil exchange can be had mmmkay. Hope you are not arguing that this model/hypothesis will never have any significant explanatory merit. That would just be an ugly argument from ignorance won't you agree?
« Last Edit: July 15, 2009, 16:19:36 PM by Mechanist. » Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +62/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 3757


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #13 on: July 15, 2009, 16:51:07 PM »

“Civility,” eh?  (Cue next horse laugh.)  Or, rather, your peculiar version of civility, I expect.  Deeply, frightfully sorry old chap, but you can play all on your own, see?  Because I have more enjoyable pastimes than playing against a stacked deck and an uncivil opponent who has the unadorned chutzpah to shout “foul!” when it is pointed out.

Henceforth, and until you put something other than monotonous repetition, tawdry irrelevancies and illusory tu quoque deflections on the table, you’re on my ignore list.

'Luthon64
Logged
Teleological
Moderate Realist
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +2/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 980

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit


« Reply #14 on: July 15, 2009, 16:57:03 PM »

That's a pity... I was hoping for some thoughtful insight.
Logged
rwenzori
Sniper
Sr. Member
****

Skeptical ability: +7/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 403


Merda accidit.


« Reply #15 on: July 15, 2009, 17:52:39 PM »

That's a pity... I was hoping for some thoughtful insight.

Not that you would be able to recognise it....
Logged
Teleological
Moderate Realist
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +2/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 980

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit


« Reply #16 on: July 15, 2009, 17:55:53 PM »

I am perfectly capable of recognizing people who have nothing to say besides belittling others and their opinions Wink. It is also easy to recognize those who can't do anything but bait people into a mudslinging fest and trash-talking. Better to ignore such critters Wink.
Logged
rwenzori
Sniper
Sr. Member
****

Skeptical ability: +7/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 403


Merda accidit.


« Reply #17 on: July 15, 2009, 18:33:29 PM »

I am perfectly capable of recognizing people who have nothing to say besides belittling others and their opinions Wink. It is also easy to recognize those who can't do anything but bait people into a mudslinging fest and trash-talking. Better to ignore such critters Wink.

Refer picture in Reply #21.  Tongue
Logged
Teleological
Moderate Realist
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +2/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 980

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit


« Reply #18 on: July 15, 2009, 18:38:53 PM »

Did you say anyhting here besides trying to bait and trash-talk? mmmm. Btw, your #1 link in post #16 does not have the lines you quoted for it.
Logged
rwenzori
Sniper
Sr. Member
****

Skeptical ability: +7/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 403


Merda accidit.


« Reply #19 on: July 15, 2009, 18:46:33 PM »

Did you say anyhting here besides trying to bait and trash-talk? mmmm. Btw, your #1 link in post #16 does not have the lines you quoted for it.

1. Yes.

2. Ooops - fixed it - it must have been a glitch in Bebeh Jebus' space-time. Or maybe, so much twaddle...  so little time... .

Logged
Teleological
Moderate Realist
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +2/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 980

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit


« Reply #20 on: July 15, 2009, 18:52:29 PM »

Did you say anyhting here besides trying to bait and trash-talk? mmmm. Btw, your #1 link in post #16 does not have the lines you quoted for it.

1. Yes.

2. Ooops - fixed it - it must have been a glitch in Bebeh Jebus' space-time. Or maybe, so much twaddle...  so little time... .


1. Ok, if you say so...
2. More trash-talk and baiting
Logged
cyghost
Skeptically yours
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +12/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 1410


Carpe diem


« Reply #21 on: July 15, 2009, 20:41:50 PM »

That's a pity... I was hoping for some thoughtful insight.
Phrony, phrony, phrony. An objective observer would note that you actually got what you asked for. Not being an objective observer, I'll accept you ignoring my opinion.

The problem isn't so much with feedback you get, but with your "model" as presented. That you refuse to accept that (from multiple sources now) is no skin off my back and reflects once more squarely on you.

Do carry on and best of luck. You remain, as always, entertaining.

ps One question if you will. Why so many nicks over so many sites?? If you choose not to answer I'll understand.

pps Thank you rwenzori for directing me to this site, I am liking it.
Logged
Teleological
Moderate Realist
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +2/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 980

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit


« Reply #22 on: July 16, 2009, 08:51:52 AM »

Go stalk someone else please. Nemesis? What the... Get a life and figure out what a microtubule and a pi-bond is while you are at it so that it does not look like you are just trolling..
Logged
cyghost
Skeptically yours
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +12/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 1410


Carpe diem


« Reply #23 on: July 16, 2009, 11:06:20 AM »

Go stalk someone else please.
don't flatter yourself like that  Grin
Quote
Nemesis? What the...
Said tongue in cheek of course but humor has never been a strong point with you... the fact that this has to be explained to you is telling.
Quote
Get a life and figure out what a microtubule and a pi-bond is while you are at it so that it does not look like you are just trolling..
An Internet troll is someone who says things for the simple sake of getting a response, I say things because I mean them. You should know this by now.
Logged
bluegray
Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +9/-3
Offline Offline

Posts: 1107



saskeptics
WWW
« Reply #24 on: July 16, 2009, 12:19:14 PM »

Please stick to the topic and read the rules here: http://forum.skeptic.za.org/forum-related/forum-rules/
The last few posts are really pointless and will probably be moved to somewhere more appropriate...
Logged
Teleological
Moderate Realist
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +2/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 980

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit


« Reply #25 on: August 03, 2009, 20:41:16 PM »

Interesting article:
Information processing mechanisms in microtubules at physiological temperature: Model predictions for experimental tests.
Quote
Both direct and indirect experimental evidence has shown signaling, communication and conductivity in microtubules (MTs). Theoretical models have predicted that MTs can be potentially used for both classical and quantum information processing although controversies arose in regard to physiological temperature effects on these capabilities. In this paper, MTs have been studied using well-established principles of classical statistical physics as applied to information processing, information storage and signal propagation. To investigate the existence of information processing in MTs we used cellular automata (CA) models with neighbor rules based on the electrostatic properties of the molecular structure of tubulin, and both synchronous and asynchronous updating methods. We obtained a phase diagram of possible dynamic behaviors in MTs that depend on the values of characteristic physical parameters that can be experimentally verified.

From the introduction:
Quote
In order to model a biological system realistically the method of updating should match the real-world system as much as possible. When a “global clock” is present, all CA cells should be updated synchronously. In the absence of a clock, cells should be updated in an asynchronous manner. Currently there is no direct experimental evidence suggesting the presence of a “global clock” affecting the MT system making it appropriate to use an asynchronous method of updating.

With this said, there are plausible “global clock” mechanisms that warrant consideration. The notion of coherent excitations supporting computation and information processing inMThas previously been suggested to occur via biological coherence (Hameroff, 1998). Biological coherence, as proposed by Fröhlich, is a high state of order that occurs in a biological system when the thermal energy supplied to the system reaches a certain threshold causing the coupled molecules to vibrate in unison (Fröhlich, 1968a,b). Fröhlich showed that when the energy supply to a system is sufficiently large in comparison with the energy loss, the dipoles tend to oscillate in a coherent manner. With increased energy supply from an external source, such as thermal fluctuations, deformations of the system caused by non-linear effects reduce the energy loss, moving the system into a metastable stationary state, such that the energy of the electric oscillations is larger than that in thermal equilibrium. Provided that the energy supply exceeds a critical value the excess energy of the system is channeled into a single longitudinal oscillation. Thus, the random energy supply is not converted wholly into thermal energy, but is used tomaintain a coherent electric wave in the material. Fröhlich indicated that the channeling of randomly supplied energy into a single oscillation in biological systems is a special case of long-range quantum mechanical phase correlation, or coherence, such as in a Bose–Einstein condensate. The quantum properties exhibited by such systems have been used to explain the synchronization of biological rhythms such as sleep cycles, and heart rhythms. Non-thermal radiation at 8.085MHz has been observed to be emitted from microtubules (Pokorny´ et al., 2001), and while this does not necessarily indicate the formation of a Fröhlich condensate it has been suggested (Pokorny´ et al., 2001; Pokorny´ , 2003, 2004, 1999). Thus, Fröhlich coherence may serve as a viable clocking mechanism for information processing in MT.


From the results:
Quote
The stable and oscillating patterns of MT automata observed via the synchronous simulations could possibly function as specific sites of ion or protein binding and transport thus performing some role in the orchestration of biomolecular activities. It is expected that the addition of microtubule associated proteins (MAPs) and other proteins known to normally interact with MTs will affect the overall patterns of behavior by altering the dynamics of electrons at specific protein attachment sites. Aswell, these simulations have shown that information processing at temperatures relevant to the MT environment is feasible so long as a clocking mechanism is present. The notion of information processing and signaling suggested to occur in MTs, at relevant temperatures, thus remains a possibility and is open to further investigation. Additionally, nanotech uses of biomolecules are of interest and the MT is a candidate for use in nanoscale devices.


Logged
Teleological
Moderate Realist
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +2/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 980

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit


« Reply #26 on: August 03, 2009, 20:42:10 PM »

From the conclusion:
Quote
5. Summary and Conclusion
The possibility of quantum processes in relation to information processing in MTs at physiologically relevant temperature has been investigated via a cellular automata computer model of a MT. The model uses a typical MT configuration of 13 protofilaments with its constituent tubulin proteins packed into a seven-member neighborhood in a tilted hexagon configuration known as an A-lattice. Based on previous results it is assumed that results for the A-lattice may also be extended to the B-lattice configuration. Solutions of the Poisson–Boltzmann equation for the crystallographic structure of tubulin revealed that the interior of the protein contains a region of two areas of positive charge separated by a barrier of negative charge. This interior arrangementwas taken to constitute a doublewell potential structure, within which amobile electron maymove, thus determining the electronic state of the tubulin dimer. The alpha-407 tryptophan residue is suggested as a likely donor for this mobile electron. Dynamics of the system are determined by the minimization of the overall energy associated with the electrostatic interactions between electrons in nearest neighbor tubulin dimers, as well as thermal effects based on Boltzmann factors. The model allows transitions for electrons with sufficient energy to overcome the potential barrier in which the new configuration lowers the system’s energy, or if the configuration raises the system’s energy with a finite probability, and allows the electron to tunnel through the potential barrier allowing transitions, at a finite probability, for which the system’s energy is lowered even if the electron does not possess the necessary energy to overcome the potential barrier. To cover plausible ranges the system was investigated at 310K with a potential barrier height between 100 and 150 meV, and a tubulin dielectric constant between 2 and 10. The system was updated in both a synchronous and asynchronous manner to consider both the presence and absence of a “global clock”. Visual observation of the system revealed no capacity for information processing in the absence of a “global clock”, while information processing in the presence of a clocking mechanism is possible for a narrow range of barrier heights and specific values for the tubulin dielectric constant. Thus, it is concluded that, based on a mobile electron in a double-well structure in tubulin, a clocking mechanism is required for physiologically relevant information processing in MT, and is only possible if the tubulin dielectric constant is above 7.8 with the potential barrier height exceeding 116meV.


Testable model?

Here is how it is related to consciousness:
The “conscious pilot”—dendritic synchrony moves through the brain to mediate consciousness
Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +62/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 3757


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #27 on: August 03, 2009, 21:05:52 PM »

Feel free at any time to explain in simple language what you have cited.  That would be for the benefit of the less technically-minded reader.  Otherwise one might start to suspect that you’re having people on.

'Luthon64
Logged
cyghost
Skeptically yours
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +12/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 1410


Carpe diem


« Reply #28 on: August 03, 2009, 21:11:35 PM »

oh wow, 'Luthon64, if you get him to do that, I will worship you for the rest of the day at least.

Better than I have tried and failed. Will you succeed? That would be totally sweet!
Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +62/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 3757


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #29 on: August 03, 2009, 21:51:22 PM »

Yes, that would be nice.  Evasion’s a much safer bet, though.  God’s gravity-induced wave function collapse told me so.

'Luthon64
Logged
Teleological
Moderate Realist
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +2/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 980

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit


« Reply #30 on: August 04, 2009, 08:08:21 AM »

Feel free at any time to explain in simple language what you have cited.  That would be for the benefit of the less technically-minded reader.  Otherwise one might start to suspect that you’re having people on.

'Luthon64
Well at least you know there is a testable model. I'll try and slap together the lay man's version for the benefit of the less technically-minded reader. Goodness knows don't want them to try and figure it out for themselves Wink.
Logged
cyghost
Skeptically yours
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +12/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 1410


Carpe diem


« Reply #31 on: August 04, 2009, 08:22:56 AM »

Should we hold out breaths or will we expire if we do?
Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +62/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 3757


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #32 on: August 04, 2009, 08:52:20 AM »

Well at least you know there is a testable model.
Only in your imagination do I or anyone else know such a thing.  The paper deals with a simulation of an electron quantum tunnelling effect in microtubules at around ambient temperature.  It doesn’t even mention consciousness.

I'll try and slap together the lay man's [sic] version for the benefit of the less technically-minded reader. Goodness knows don't want them to try and figure it out for themselves Wink.
Yes, please do, seeing as you’re the expert on this.  We are after all here to learn.  Personally, I don’t mind if you also show the mathematics of this marvellous transition from quantum effects to consciousness.  In fact, it would be great if you did just that.  Then, and only then, can we start using phrases like “testable model.”



Should we hold out breaths or will we expire if we do?
I’d say not.  Oxygen starvation to the brain is likely to turn one into an IDiot or a cretinist.

'Luthon64
Logged
Teleological
Moderate Realist
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +2/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 980

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit


« Reply #33 on: August 04, 2009, 08:58:08 AM »

Well at least you know there is a testable model.
Only in your imagination do I or anyone else know such a thing.  The paper deals with a simulation of an electron quantum tunnelling effect in microtubules at around ambient temperature.  It doesn’t even mention consciousness.
Microtubules - information processing - consciousness... Is it possible that consciousness relies on information processing structures  Shocked?

I'll try and slap together the lay man's [sic] version for the benefit of the less technically-minded reader. Goodness knows don't want them to try and figure it out for themselves Wink.
Yes, please do, seeing as you’re the expert on this.
Nope, sorry, I have never claimed to be an expert, I am not. I am trying to understand it like any other person here  Smiley. Emphasis on trying...


Logged
cyghost
Skeptically yours
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +12/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 1410


Carpe diem


« Reply #34 on: August 04, 2009, 09:05:48 AM »

Nope, sorry, I have never claimed to be an expert, I am not. I am trying to understand it like any other person here  Smiley. Emphasis on trying...
If this was true, you wouldn't be getting the flak you are.
Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +62/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 3757


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #35 on: August 04, 2009, 12:08:09 PM »

Microtubules - information processing - consciousness... Is it possible that consciousness relies on information processing structures  Shocked?
Possible, yes, even likely.  But a conjecture plus some wishful and deeply ignorant inference on your part doesn’t add up to a fact, a point you have repeatedly shown yourself incapable of apprehending.  You keep treating this whole topic as if it was a fait accompli (and in the process torturing several scientific disciplines and certain aspects of its methodology near to death).  It’s clear enough at this point that you have no actual respect for science, merely a shabby pretence to it.



Nope, sorry, I have never claimed to be an expert, I am not.
Agreed.  On both counts.  Nonetheless, the absence of a direct claim notwithstanding, try to read your own posts impartially – that is, if you can.  They’re positively drenched in implied “I’m the expert” sauce.



I am trying to understand it like any other person here  Smiley.
Ha ha, good one!  If that were true, you’d answer questions and actually consider what others here tell you, instead of deploying that fine collection of dodges and ruses you have put on display again and again.

See?  Another thread moved, at least in part, to Flame Wars.  One must wonder why.

Anyhoo, what’s your estimated timeframe on the layman’s explanation that was requested here?

'Luthon64
Logged
mdg
Sr. Member
****

Skeptical ability: +5/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 337



WWW
« Reply #36 on: August 04, 2009, 13:56:30 PM »

Quote from: Mechanist
Well at least you know there is a testable model. I'll try and slap together the lay man's version for the benefit of the less technically-minded reader. Goodness knows don't want them to try and figure it out for themselves .

I assume you are referring to me here. You're right, I'm not technically minded at all and have a bit of a hard time following the discussion, but then I'm not a biologist or expert on Creationism, such as you, so I lack the knowledge to argue with you.

Quote from: Mechanist
Nope, sorry, I have never claimed to be an expert, I am not.

Please read 'Luthon64's answer below again, every post screams "I'm so much more intelligent than you are". You have put yourself across as an expert, and an arrogant one at that as evidenced by your in your answer, quoted right at the top.I'm so sorry that you feel that you have to lower your great intellectual abilities to answer some of the questions in layman's terms for the benefit of stupid people like me. Another reason that it's been hard to follow is because I have to wade though pages of information that in the end turn out to be a waste of time.

Quote from: Mechanist
I am trying to understand it like any other person here  .

No you're not. You're trying to preach and show everyone here how very clever you are. You seem incapable of answering any question in a straightforward way, perhaps it's got to do with your need to show us what a genius you are - I bow before your superior intellect.

Quote from: Anacoluthon64
.......... instead of deploying that fine collection of dodges and ruses you have put on display again and again.

Mechanist would put an Olympic gymnastic team to shame with his mental acrobatics.

Let me add one more thing before I leave to go and wallow in my pool stupidity and lack of technical ability. The difference between Mechanist and David Mabus/Nstra is this, David Mabus is a nutjob, but relatively harmless. Mechanist on the other hand is much more dangerous and insidious, it's people like him who get elected into influential positions and who then proceed to destroy good science with bad reasoning. It's people like him who are elected to school boards and who then proceed to poison children's minds with pseudoscientific trash.

Quote from: Mechanist
Goodness knows don't want them to try and figure it out for themselves

as we intellectually challenged people like to say,.......Up Yours.




Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +62/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 3757


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #37 on: August 04, 2009, 16:18:29 PM »

There, now you’ve gone and alienated one of the very gentlest of forum members, Mechanist.

Good going.  What’s the tally so far?

'Luthon64
Logged
mdg
Sr. Member
****

Skeptical ability: +5/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 337



WWW
« Reply #38 on: August 06, 2009, 10:09:07 AM »

Quote from: Anacoluthon64
There, now you’ve gone and alienated one of the very gentlest of forum members, Mechanist.

LOL!  Grin

I apologise if I broke any forum rules with my reply. I had spent ages reading through Mechanists posts and had had enough with the nonsense I read through. I hadn't participated in the debates and thought I would learn something from them with regard to his posts one DNA,etc - thank gawd for people like Mefiante (aka 'Luthon64) who write in such a concise and clear way that even I - the dumbass - was able to follow what was going on.  Grin

@ Mefiante, I like the new nym - it even has a lovely romantic ring to it too.  Wink
Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +62/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 3757


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #39 on: August 06, 2009, 13:07:11 PM »

Nothing to apologise for, at least by my reckoning.

Thanks for the kind words, and welcome to full membership. Grin

'Luthon64
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [All]   Go Up
  Print  


 
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
Page created in 2.653 seconds with 23 sceptic queries.
Google visited last this page February 26, 2019, 10:58:16 AM
Privacy Policy