6 ms·

"Since we don't know of another (i.e,. classical) way that anesthetic binding to microtubules would generally reduce brain activity and cause unconsciousness,"

"Since we don't know of another (i.e,. classical) way that anesthetic binding to microtubules would generally reduce brain activity and cause unconsciousness," Wiest says, "this finding supports the quantum model of consciousness." This is an incredible leap of reasoning. Flumazenil binds to GABA receptors and blocks diazepam. So since we don't know of another (i.e. mechatronic) way that binding to GABA would cause sedation, it must be the frobbles.

jackyinger 2y ago
Yeah, that quote stuck me as well. What an irresponsible way to jump to conclusions.
dist-epoch 2y ago
Like that Venus phosphine gas story, "the only synthesis route we know is biological, thus it's presence must mean life if there"
- digging 2y ago
  > thus it's presence must mean life if there Nobody said that. It's on you for making the leap, whether out of hope or misguided combativeness, to the assertion that it must mean life, which I don't recall ever being stated by any of the researchers involved or any reputable articles.
nickpsecurity 2y ago
A quantum leap of reasoning.
- itishappy 2y ago
  Discrete conclusions with no continuous path connecting them? Apt!
authorfly 2y ago
Yeah it's abduction/induction over deduction. Part of the reason why we misunderstand other processes in the brain and have since the Lobotomy times enshrined that approach.
InSteady 2y ago
Reading a brief quote given to a journalist and assuming you fully understand the scientific reasoning that went into that snippet intended for lay audiences is also a remarkable assumption. There is an incredible amount of context missing from the article, the quote, and of course discussion in this thread. But my main issue is that you jump from phrasing in the quote, 'supports the model,' to 'must be' which is an underhanded way to make the researcher seem ridiculous. "We can't come up with anything better, and have ruled out everything we reasonably can at this point in our inquiry, so therefore the findings support the only remaining plausible mechanism" is literally how science works a lot of the time. It's why the researcher specifically said 'supports the model' not 'must be quantum consciousness,' because this researcher knows and is implicitly acknolwedging there is a whole lot more work to be done.
- Sakos 2y ago
  Agree. It's incredibly frustrating seeing takes on science by engineers on HN. It's as bad as, if not worse than, the takes I see about politics around here. For context, this is what the paper itself says: > In order to experimentally assess the contribution of MTs as functionally relevant targets of volatile anesthetics, we measured latencies to loss of righting reflex (LORR) under 4% isoflurane in male rats injected subcutaneously with vehicle or 0.75 mg/kg of the brain- penetrant MT–stabilizing drug epothilone B (epoB). EpoB-treated rats took an average of 69 s longer to become unconscious as measured by latency to LORR. This was a statistically significant difference corresponding to a standardized mean difference (Cohen’s d) of 1.9, indicating a “large” normalized effect size. The effect could not be accounted for by tolerance from repeated exposure to isoflurane. Our results suggest that binding of the anesthetic gas isoflurane to MTs causes unconsciousness and loss of purpose-ful behavior in rats (and presumably humans and other animals). This finding is predicted by models that posit consciousness as a property of a quantum physical state of neural MTs. > Our study establishes that action on intracellular microtubules (MTs) is the mechanism, or one of the mechanisms, by which the inhalational anesthetic gas isoflurane induces unconsciousness in rats. This finding has potential clinical implications for understanding how taxane chemotherapy interferes with anesthesia in humans and more broadly for avoiding anesthesia failures during surgery. Our results are also theoretically important because they provide support for MT-based theories of anesthetic action and consciousness. Let me emphasize: > This finding is predicted by models that posit consciousness as a property of a quantum physical state of neural MTs. If people here want to criticize the paper, I want to see some citations of passages from the fucking paper, and not some hur-dur quote from a popular science article meant to convey the paper to a lay audience. But you know, 99% of the paper would be indecipherable to most people here, so all we get is these surface level takes that wastes everybody's time. The intellectual laziness in these comments is galling.
BurningFrog 2y ago
Kind of like the "God of the Gaps" concept, where anything science can't currently explain is taken as proof of the existence of God.
alfiopuglisi 2y ago
It's not so uncommon in science to come to a strange conclusion by excluding all "reasonable" alternatives. For example, black holes have a similar status: no one has conclusively seen one, but we know of no mechanism for matter to support itself beyond a certain density, so black hole it is.
- fallingsquirrel 2y ago
  Have we not pointed telescopes into space and seen the way light bends around a black hole? I guess in a way it's true that nobody has conclusively "seen" one (since they don't emit light), but by that logic nobody has conclusively seen the hole in the middle of a donut either.
  - ruthmarx 2y ago
    > but by that logic nobody has conclusively seen the hole in the middle of a donut either. Not quite..we can see the donut hole very clearly, put things through it, measure it, interact with it. We can measure and observe and test it however we like. Not so with a black hole. Yet.
    - jawilson2 2y ago
      I guess I don't understand...what is going on here? https://eventhorizontelescope.org/ https://eventhorizontelescope.org/
      - prewett 2y ago
        My understanding is that the EHT images are a result of a lot (like, months) of data processing, not an image from the telescope. So arguably still not a direct observation.
        ruthmarx 2y ago
        Exactly this.
BiteCode_dev 2y ago
"Therefor Zeus must be producing the thunder"

jackyinger 2y ago

Yeah, that quote stuck me as well. What an irresponsible way to jump to conclusions.

dist-epoch 2y ago

Like that Venus phosphine gas story, "the only synthesis route we know is biological, thus it's presence must mean life if there"

digging 2y ago
> thus it's presence must mean life if there Nobody said that. It's on you for making the leap, whether out of hope or misguided combativeness, to the assertion that it must mean life, which I don't recall ever being stated by any of the researchers involved or any reputable articles.

nickpsecurity 2y ago

A quantum leap of reasoning.

itishappy 2y ago
Discrete conclusions with no continuous path connecting them? Apt!

authorfly 2y ago

Yeah it's abduction/induction over deduction. Part of the reason why we misunderstand other processes in the brain and have since the Lobotomy times enshrined that approach.

InSteady 2y ago

Reading a brief quote given to a journalist and assuming you fully understand the scientific reasoning that went into that snippet intended for lay audiences is also a remarkable assumption. There is an incredible amount of context missing from the article, the quote, and of course discussion in this thread. But my main issue is that you jump from phrasing in the quote, 'supports the model,' to 'must be' which is an underhanded way to make the researcher seem ridiculous. "We can't come up with anything better, and have ruled out everything we reasonably can at this point in our inquiry, so therefore the findings support the only remaining plausible mechanism" is literally how science works a lot of the time. It's why the researcher specifically said 'supports the model' not 'must be quantum consciousness,' because this researcher knows and is implicitly acknolwedging there is a whole lot more work to be done.

Sakos 2y ago
Agree. It's incredibly frustrating seeing takes on science by engineers on HN. It's as bad as, if not worse than, the takes I see about politics around here. For context, this is what the paper itself says: > In order to experimentally assess the contribution of MTs as functionally relevant targets of volatile anesthetics, we measured latencies to loss of righting reflex (LORR) under 4% isoflurane in male rats injected subcutaneously with vehicle or 0.75 mg/kg of the brain- penetrant MT–stabilizing drug epothilone B (epoB). EpoB-treated rats took an average of 69 s longer to become unconscious as measured by latency to LORR. This was a statistically significant difference corresponding to a standardized mean difference (Cohen’s d) of 1.9, indicating a “large” normalized effect size. The effect could not be accounted for by tolerance from repeated exposure to isoflurane. Our results suggest that binding of the anesthetic gas isoflurane to MTs causes unconsciousness and loss of purpose-ful behavior in rats (and presumably humans and other animals). This finding is predicted by models that posit consciousness as a property of a quantum physical state of neural MTs. > Our study establishes that action on intracellular microtubules (MTs) is the mechanism, or one of the mechanisms, by which the inhalational anesthetic gas isoflurane induces unconsciousness in rats. This finding has potential clinical implications for understanding how taxane chemotherapy interferes with anesthesia in humans and more broadly for avoiding anesthesia failures during surgery. Our results are also theoretically important because they provide support for MT-based theories of anesthetic action and consciousness. Let me emphasize: > This finding is predicted by models that posit consciousness as a property of a quantum physical state of neural MTs. If people here want to criticize the paper, I want to see some citations of passages from the fucking paper, and not some hur-dur quote from a popular science article meant to convey the paper to a lay audience. But you know, 99% of the paper would be indecipherable to most people here, so all we get is these surface level takes that wastes everybody's time. The intellectual laziness in these comments is galling.

BurningFrog 2y ago

Kind of like the "God of the Gaps" concept, where anything science can't currently explain is taken as proof of the existence of God.

alfiopuglisi 2y ago

It's not so uncommon in science to come to a strange conclusion by excluding all "reasonable" alternatives. For example, black holes have a similar status: no one has conclusively seen one, but we know of no mechanism for matter to support itself beyond a certain density, so black hole it is.

fallingsquirrel 2y ago
Have we not pointed telescopes into space and seen the way light bends around a black hole? I guess in a way it's true that nobody has conclusively "seen" one (since they don't emit light), but by that logic nobody has conclusively seen the hole in the middle of a donut either.
- ruthmarx 2y ago
  > but by that logic nobody has conclusively seen the hole in the middle of a donut either. Not quite..we can see the donut hole very clearly, put things through it, measure it, interact with it. We can measure and observe and test it however we like. Not so with a black hole. Yet.
  - jawilson2 2y ago
    I guess I don't understand...what is going on here? https://eventhorizontelescope.org/ https://eventhorizontelescope.org/
    - prewett 2y ago
      My understanding is that the EHT images are a result of a lot (like, months) of data processing, not an image from the telescope. So arguably still not a direct observation.
      - ruthmarx 2y ago
        Exactly this.

BiteCode_dev 2y ago

"Therefor Zeus must be producing the thunder"