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. 24 2007,23:51   

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Sep. 24 2007,22:05)
Hi Jam,

You ask...
Are you trying to claim that Penrose was distinguishing anything from flagellar, ciliary, or spindle microtubules, or was he just adding extra polysyllabic words to his tome?

IMO, it's just part of an attempt to obfuscate his sloppy equivocation between the cytoskeleton and the microtubule cytoskeleton.

It has been suggested that I am wasting my time here.  That may be true in your case, but on the chance that others are listening in I will continue.

What you quote only confirms the sloppy reductionism of both Hameroff and Penrose.
Disruption of intra-neuronal cytoskeletal structures impairs cognition, such as tangling of the tau MAP linking MTs in Alzheimer’s disease (Matsuyama and Jarvik, 1989, Iqbal and Grundke-Iqbal 2004).

This is an irresponsible case of stating hypothesis as fact. It's not yet known whether the plaques and NFTs of AD cause cognitive impairment or are the effects of a more subtle mechanism that causes cognitive problems. It's one of the major issues in AD research, and claiming that it is already solved is ludicrous.

Wherever cellular organization and intelligence are required, MTs are present and involved.

No quarrel there. You seem to have trouble understanding that presence and involvement don't justify reducing consciousness to MTs, just as knowing that MTs are involved in fibroblast motility doesn't justify a similar reduction.
Since Sherrington’s observation in 1957, the idea that the cytoskeleton—MTs in particular—may act as a cellular nervous system has occurred to many scientists.

I take issue with "in particular."
Here is a diagram and video showing microtubules appearing to actively orchestrate a cell dividing.

No, TP. MTs are involved and essential, but there's no evidence of orchestration. The movement is caused by motors.
Here is a video that makes a mockery of thinking of microtubles as passive cytoskeletal components.

Straw man, TP. I had hoped that you were more thoughtful than that. I'm not claiming that they are passive. I'm pointing out that there's no evidence to support the reductionist notion that it all (or even mostly) boils down to MTs.

TP, If I keep asking you this question:

If that [fibroblast motility] can't be reduced, how sensible is it to believe that consciousness can be reduced so much further?

...and you don't answer it, grossly misrepresenting my position instead, are you thinking about what I'm writing at all?

  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]