JAM
Posts: 517
Joined: July 2007
|
| Quote (Thought Provoker @ Oct. 02 2007,13:47) | Hi JAM,
You wrote...
| Quote | | I have no objection whatsoever to hypothesizing that consciousness involves quantum mechanics. What I object to is the simplistic idea that consciousness can be reduced to quantum mechanics of microtubules. |
And if it isn't obvious by now, let me state it clearly. I don't have enough biological knowledge to know whether quantum computation comes from microtubules, actin or pixie dust. |
Nor do your heroes.
| Quote | | Dr. Hameroff provides a good-sounding mechanistic model for microtubules. |
It sounds ridiculous. Contrast this:
Actin is the main component of dendritic spines and also exists throughout the rest of the neuronal interior in various forms depending on actin-binding proteins, calcium etc...Glutamate binding to NMDA and AMPA receptors triggers gel states in actin spines (Fischer et al 2000).
with this:
Wherever cellular organization and intelligence are required, MTs are present and involved.
Now, hypothesize that Hameroff is self-contradictory and full of hooey. What part of the neuron does that predict will fail to contain microtubules?
| Quote | | If you could provide a mechanistic explanation for quantum computation via actin I would have no qualms about considering it too. In fact, I would welcome it. |
It would be only slightly less ridiculous to claim that it could be reduced to actin.
| Quote | | I suspect any quantum computation requires both actin and microtubules. |
And I am extremely confident that no quantum computation can be reduced to either system.
| Quote | | Sure, in the future Dr. Hameroff's attempts may be considered as bumbling and crude as you are making them out to be. |
They are considered to be bumbling and crude today. More importantly, they can't be bothered to generate new data by testing this hypothesis. If you bothered to read their more recent, less crude essays, even they are walking back from it.
|
