- #1
- 3,499
- 1,613
- TL;DR Summary
- A new study published in eNeuro reports the results of administering Epothilone B to rats that are being anesthetized with isoflurane gas. Those results are described in light of the microtubule involvement on consciousness as theorized by Stuart Hameroff's - and famously advocated by Roger Penrose as supporting his Orch OR model.
A new study published in eNeuro reports the results of administering Epothilone B to rats that are being anesthetized with isoflurane gas. Those results are described in light of the microtubule involvement on consciousness as theorized by Stuart Hameroff's - and famously advocated by Roger Penrose as supporting his Orch OR model.
This asserted connection with the Hard Problem of Consciousness is now also featured in a Neuro Science News article.
I have been an advocate of QM-based hard consciousness for about 4 decades, and since I have posted in these Forums early and often on the subject, you might think that I would herald any advance with enthusiasm.
But my reaction to these articles is quite mixed - because the argument they present connecting the experimental results to the hard problem of consciousness is very flawed. Perhaps the biggest difficulty is that the subject matter, born in Philosophy and in this case from a Biology experiment, crosses deep into Physics and Information Systems Engineering.
Background for what is Argued in the article:
Microtubules: Think "cell bones". The cytoskeleton is what gives shape to a cell. Microtubules are load-bearing members of the cytoskeleton.
Roger Penrose argues (I would say correctly) that human consciousness must be QM based. While holding these views, he met up with anesthesiologist Stuart Hameroff and starting in the early 1990's proposed "Orch Or" as a mechanism for QM data processing in the "warm and wet environment" of a living cell. The basic precept behind this theory was that information was processed as the superposition of resonances among microtubules within a cell. In this theory, MAPs (Microtubule-associated proteins) provide the informational interface between the QM-encoded information and the classical information processing. Stuart Hameroff's obvious contribution was that he knew his way around cell biology and the associated molecular paths.
Here is the "Significance Statement" quoted verbatim from the article. I have no problem with this statement:
What is Argued in the article:
Here is another excerpt from the article, this time from the Introduction where the purpose for conducting the experiments is described:
So what's Wrong with their Argument?
As soon as they mentioned "Orch OR", they crossed the line from consciousness to hard consciousness. The anesthesiologist's main purpose is to make certain that what happens in the Operating Room, stays in the Operating Room. He (or she) wants you to have no pain-filled recollections about your surgical ordeal. It is also great if you are sedated and physically calm, but what really counts is memory.
Still, the actions of taxane and the other anethetics does include "all of the above" (amnesia, sedation, and physical calm). And all of those bear on the "easy" problems of consciousness.
In effect, their experimental results argue that microtubules support consciousness through their actions in the classical (non-QM) information domain - leaving their additional participation in hard consciousness open.
What Exactly is "Hard Consciousness" and what Experimental Result would show it Silenced?
To spell is out, it's the "Hard Problem of Consciousness".
It's Freshman stuff for Philosopher's, but I introduce it this way for the experimentally-minded:
Ask yourself (and as many others as you prefer):
1) When you are conscious, are you always conscious of some sort of information - such as the appearance of a tree, a memory, or thoughts about a problem? Is it possible to be conscious of nothing - not even the thought of nothing?
The key point here is that there is a close association between consciousness and information. If you are rendered thoughtless, it isn't clear that you can be conscious of anything - or conscious at all.
2) When you are conscious, how much information (measured in bits) are you conscious of in any one moment?
This is where the connection to Physics comes in. If the answer is ever more than 1, then you need to explain how that information is collected into a single conscious thought. If you think that the information can be scattered throughout your skull, what makes you skull special? Why not your brain matter and someone else's? If you think that it is because information in your skull is "connected", then what about being "connected" allows it to be selected for what your current moment of consciousness?
The answer is that Physics only has one mechanism for associating many bits of information into a single state - quantum entanglement.
3) Does this "internal" consciousness affect your behavior? There are two ways of answering this, the simple way and the one that leads to more discovery. The simple answer is that people report being aware and conscious (and such reports are "behavior"). Of course, they could be lying - but are you lying when you claim to be conscious?
But there is also the Darwinian argument. Why be conscious if it isn't going to help you spread your likeness to the next generations? It would be a waste of brain matter and energy. But there are potential benefits to QM data processing. There are some problems quickly solved in the QM domain that are really time-consuming in the classical domain. Since most of us cannot factor large composite numbers in our heads, we can eliminate Shor's Algorithm. But Shor's Algorithm has at it's roots the QFT, Quantum Fourier transform. There are some mental functions, like eyesight and hearing, that might benefit from the QFT. But it hard to imagine such circuitry evolving generation to generation through Darwinian pressures. Could any of the intermediate result have survival value? And then, my choice, Grover's Search Algorithm. If you can score all your options in the quantum domain, Grover will find you one with a really high score - perhaps the highest score. What a great little tool for decision-making!
And so what would the Experimental Result be to show Hard Consciousness Silenced?
It could be as simple as the person no longer able to honestly report a conscious awareness.
While the QM is impaired, there could be impairments in visual perception or hearing.
Loss of QM functions would not directly impair memory. So, what I think is more likely is that it could be an impairment in creative decision-making - which upon QM restoration, the person recognizes because now they can apply those creative thoughts to what they remember. In any case, the impairment would reflect the loss of some beneficial analytic process not readily provided with classic information processing.
This asserted connection with the Hard Problem of Consciousness is now also featured in a Neuro Science News article.
I have been an advocate of QM-based hard consciousness for about 4 decades, and since I have posted in these Forums early and often on the subject, you might think that I would herald any advance with enthusiasm.
But my reaction to these articles is quite mixed - because the argument they present connecting the experimental results to the hard problem of consciousness is very flawed. Perhaps the biggest difficulty is that the subject matter, born in Philosophy and in this case from a Biology experiment, crosses deep into Physics and Information Systems Engineering.
Background for what is Argued in the article:
Microtubules: Think "cell bones". The cytoskeleton is what gives shape to a cell. Microtubules are load-bearing members of the cytoskeleton.
Roger Penrose argues (I would say correctly) that human consciousness must be QM based. While holding these views, he met up with anesthesiologist Stuart Hameroff and starting in the early 1990's proposed "Orch Or" as a mechanism for QM data processing in the "warm and wet environment" of a living cell. The basic precept behind this theory was that information was processed as the superposition of resonances among microtubules within a cell. In this theory, MAPs (Microtubule-associated proteins) provide the informational interface between the QM-encoded information and the classical information processing. Stuart Hameroff's obvious contribution was that he knew his way around cell biology and the associated molecular paths.
Here is the "Significance Statement" quoted verbatim from the article. I have no problem with this statement:
Notice that the last sentence of that statement refers to "consciousness", not "hard consciousness".
What is Argued in the article:
Here is another excerpt from the article, this time from the Introduction where the purpose for conducting the experiments is described:
So what's Wrong with their Argument?
As soon as they mentioned "Orch OR", they crossed the line from consciousness to hard consciousness. The anesthesiologist's main purpose is to make certain that what happens in the Operating Room, stays in the Operating Room. He (or she) wants you to have no pain-filled recollections about your surgical ordeal. It is also great if you are sedated and physically calm, but what really counts is memory.
Still, the actions of taxane and the other anethetics does include "all of the above" (amnesia, sedation, and physical calm). And all of those bear on the "easy" problems of consciousness.
In effect, their experimental results argue that microtubules support consciousness through their actions in the classical (non-QM) information domain - leaving their additional participation in hard consciousness open.
What Exactly is "Hard Consciousness" and what Experimental Result would show it Silenced?
To spell is out, it's the "Hard Problem of Consciousness".
It's Freshman stuff for Philosopher's, but I introduce it this way for the experimentally-minded:
Ask yourself (and as many others as you prefer):
1) When you are conscious, are you always conscious of some sort of information - such as the appearance of a tree, a memory, or thoughts about a problem? Is it possible to be conscious of nothing - not even the thought of nothing?
The key point here is that there is a close association between consciousness and information. If you are rendered thoughtless, it isn't clear that you can be conscious of anything - or conscious at all.
2) When you are conscious, how much information (measured in bits) are you conscious of in any one moment?
This is where the connection to Physics comes in. If the answer is ever more than 1, then you need to explain how that information is collected into a single conscious thought. If you think that the information can be scattered throughout your skull, what makes you skull special? Why not your brain matter and someone else's? If you think that it is because information in your skull is "connected", then what about being "connected" allows it to be selected for what your current moment of consciousness?
The answer is that Physics only has one mechanism for associating many bits of information into a single state - quantum entanglement.
3) Does this "internal" consciousness affect your behavior? There are two ways of answering this, the simple way and the one that leads to more discovery. The simple answer is that people report being aware and conscious (and such reports are "behavior"). Of course, they could be lying - but are you lying when you claim to be conscious?
But there is also the Darwinian argument. Why be conscious if it isn't going to help you spread your likeness to the next generations? It would be a waste of brain matter and energy. But there are potential benefits to QM data processing. There are some problems quickly solved in the QM domain that are really time-consuming in the classical domain. Since most of us cannot factor large composite numbers in our heads, we can eliminate Shor's Algorithm. But Shor's Algorithm has at it's roots the QFT, Quantum Fourier transform. There are some mental functions, like eyesight and hearing, that might benefit from the QFT. But it hard to imagine such circuitry evolving generation to generation through Darwinian pressures. Could any of the intermediate result have survival value? And then, my choice, Grover's Search Algorithm. If you can score all your options in the quantum domain, Grover will find you one with a really high score - perhaps the highest score. What a great little tool for decision-making!
And so what would the Experimental Result be to show Hard Consciousness Silenced?
It could be as simple as the person no longer able to honestly report a conscious awareness.
While the QM is impaired, there could be impairments in visual perception or hearing.
Loss of QM functions would not directly impair memory. So, what I think is more likely is that it could be an impairment in creative decision-making - which upon QM restoration, the person recognizes because now they can apply those creative thoughts to what they remember. In any case, the impairment would reflect the loss of some beneficial analytic process not readily provided with classic information processing.
Last edited: