RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (117) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: Telic Thoughts Thread< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Posts: 517
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 23 2007,14:23   

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Sep. 23 2007,13:55)

Dr. Hameroff provides an explanation for how the ACTIN in needed to support quantum isolation in microtubules.

Explanations aren't enough. Let's do real science, shall we?
I would be very interested in seeing a hypothesis on how actin can be a SOURCE of consciousness.

You won't get one from me, because it would still be silly, just less silly than hypothesizing that MTs are the source.

Perhaps I'm not being clear. I'm trying to explain to you that attributing the emergent property of consciousness to something as distinct as MTs is laughable.

Since the motile response of a single fibroblast to extracellular cues is an emergent property in which the roles of the actin and MT cytoskeletons are hopelessly intertwined, what reasonable person would assume that consciousness woud be so much simpler?

The time order of cause and effects gets very interesting when dealing with quantum mechanics.  Retrocausality is practically a given.

But dephosphorylation is not quantum mechanics, so you have no point. My point is that Penrose is pointing to things happening in the realm of MTs, while ignoring the much larger number of events that don't involve them. That's why the paper is a crock. You're trying to pretend that they are thinking on a less reductionist plane than I am, when the reality is that they are far more reductionist!
Libet's observation of the readiness potential for conscious actions brings provides support in considering consciousness is a retrocausual superposition of quantum states.

But none of that is relevant to an observation of dephosphorylation of a MAP.
Putting them together with the study of consciousness provides a lot of explanatory power for scientific observations like Libet's.

Reducing all these things to MTs is just laughable.
As to direct experimental results...  I recently found this...      
“In recent times the interest for quantum models of brain activity has rapidly grown. The Penrose-Hameroff model assumes that microtubules inside neurons are responsible for quantum computation inside brain. Several experiments seem to indicate that EPR-like correlations are possible at the biological level. In the past year , a very intensive experimental work about this subject has been done at DiBit Labs in Milan, Italy by our research group. Our experimental set-up is made by two separated and completely shielded basins where two parts of a common human DNA neuronal culture are monitored by EEG. Our main experimental result is that, under stimulation of one culture by means of a 630 nm laser beam at 300 ms, the cross-correlation between the two cultures grows up at maximum levels. Despite at this level of understanding it is impossible to tell if the origin of this non-locality is a genuine quantum effect, our experimental data seem to strongly suggest that biological systems present non-local properties not explainable by classical models."

The experiment has nothing at all to do with microtubules, TP. Therefore it doesn't even come close to testing a microtubule hypothesis.

  3497 replies since Sep. 22 2007,13:50 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (117) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   

Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]