Always interested in lecturers with prof hameroff & sir Penrose. Very good.

Stuart Hameroffs findings of Microtubules & the correlation with Consiousness is top notch ! I do believe his hypothesis is the turning point for understanding how & why Consiousness can reside outside the brain!

This guy Hameroff is just awesome, a lil ole anesthesiologist who just may have cracked the enigma of consciousness. Watched this and other vids of his and I am awed. He brings it all home, encompassing the paramecium, neuron, flatworm, human brain. Very convincing in his thinking. A pile of neurons has no more consciousness than a haystack, you have to dig deeper into the neuron to understand what is going on there. The research shouldn't be directed towards modeling a flatworm, it should be directed towards modeling a neuron down to the quantum effects surrounding microtubules..

@MW-cx3sb

4 жыл бұрын

I'm hoping Penrose stays alive for a bit longer because he's only gotten as far as he has thanks to Penrose, otherwise he would have been dismissed long ago sadly. I'm waiting for points to be refuted but after confirming about quantum states in a warm wet environment, it really could be a possibility.

@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885

3 жыл бұрын

He also likes to go to Boundary Waters wilderness area

@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885

3 жыл бұрын

@@MW-cx3sb Have you read "Life on the Edge" the 2016 quantum biology book by Professor JohnJoe McFadden?

Absolutely brilliant lecture! Excellent questions asked, too!

Never heard of most of these explanations, completely fascinating.

@SpiritualPsychotherapyServices

3 жыл бұрын

🐟 06. CONSCIOUSNESS/AWARENESS: Consciousness means “that which knows” or “the state of being aware”, from the Latin prefix “con” (with), the stem “scire” (to know) and the suffix “osus” (characterized by). There is BOTH a localized knowing and a Universal Awareness, as explicated in the following paragraphs. Higher species of animal life have sufficient cognitive ability to know themselves and their environment, at least to a measurable degree. The brain is merely a conduit or TRANSDUCER of Universal Consciousness (i.e. Brahman), explaining why the more intelligent the animal, the more it can understand its own existence (or at least be aware of more of its environment - just see how amazingly-complex dolphin behaviour can be, compared with other aquatic species), and the reason why it is asserted that a truly enlightened human must possess a far higher level of intelligence than the average person. See Chapter 17 to understand the distinction between enlightenment and mere awakening. Three states of awareness are experienced by humans and possibly all other species of mammals: the waking state (“jāgrata”, in Sanskrit), dreaming (“svapna”, in Sanskrit), and deep-sleep (“suṣupti”, in Sanskrit). Beyond these three temporal states is the fourth “state” (“turīya” or “caturīya”, in Sanskrit). That is the unconditioned, eternal “state”, which underlies the other three. So, in actual fact, the fourth state is not a state, but the Unconditioned Ground of Being (or to put it simply, YOU, the real self/Self, or Formless Awareness). Perhaps the main purpose of dreams is so that we can understand that the waking-state is practically indistinguishable to the dream-state, and thereby come to see the ILLUSION of this ephemeral world. Both our waking-state experiences and our dream-state experiences occur solely within the mental faculties (refer to Chapter 04 for an elucidation of this phenomenon). If somebody in one of your dreams were to ask your dream-state character if the dream was real, you (playing the part of that character) would most likely say, “yes, of course this is real!” Similarly, if someone were to ask your waking-state character if this world is real, you would almost undoubtedly respond in kind. An apt analogy for Universal Consciousness is the manner in which electricity powers a variety of appliances and gadgets, according to the use and COMPLEXITY of the said device. Electricity powers a washing machine in a very simple manner, to drive a large spindle for laundering clothes. However, the very same electrical power may be used to operate a computer to manifest an astonishing range of outputs, such as playing audiovisual tracks, communication tasks and performing extremely advanced mathematical computations, depending on the computer's software and hardware. The more advanced/complex the device, the more complex its manifestation of the same electricity. Using the aforementioned computer analogy: the brain is COMPARATIVELY equivalent to the computer hardware, deoxyribonucleic acid akin to the operating system working in conjunction with the memory, the intellect is equivalent to the processing unit, individuated consciousness is analogous to the software programme, whilst Universal Awareness is likened to the electricity which enlivens the entire computer system. A person who is comatosed has lost any semblance of local consciousness, yet is being kept alive by the presence of Universal Consciousness. So, then, one could complain: “That's not fair - why can only a genius be enlightened?” (as defined in Chapter 17). The answer is: first of all, as stated above, every species of animal has its own level of intelligence on a wide-ranging scale. Therefore, a pig or a dog could (if possible) ask: “That's unfair - why can only a human being be enlightened?” Secondly, it is INDEED a fact that life is unfair, because there is no “tit for tat” law of action and reaction, even if many supposedly-great religious preceptors have stated so. They said so because they were preaching to wicked miscreants who refused to quit their evil ways, and needed to be chastized in a forceful manner. It is not possible to speak gentle words to a rabid dog to prevent it from biting you. There is evidence of Consciousness being a universal field, in SAVANT SYNDROME, a condition in which someone with significant mental disabilities demonstrate certain abilities far in excess of the norm, such as superhuman rapid mathematical calculation, mind-reading, blind-seeing, or astounding musical aptitude. Such behaviour suggests that there is a universal field (possibly in holographic form) from which one can access information. Even simple artistic inspiration could be attributed to this phenomenon. The great British singer-songwriter, Sir James Paul McCartney, one day woke with the complete tune of the song, “Yesterday”, in his mind, after hearing it in a dream. American composer, Paul Simon, had a similar experience when the chorus of his sublime masterpiece, “Bridge Over Troubled Water”, simply popped into his head. In recent years, the term “CONSCIOUSNESS” has been used in esoteric spiritual circles (usually capitalised) to refer to a far more Homogeneous Consciousness (“puruṣa”, in Sanskrit), due to the fact that the English language doesn’t include a single word denoting the Universal Ground of Being (for instance “Brahman”, “Tao”, in other tongues). The word “Awareness” (capitalized) is arguably a more apposite term for this concept. The typical person believes that the apparatus which knows the external world is his mind (via the five senses), but more perceptive individuals understand that the mind itself is cognizable by the intellect. Wise souls recognize that the sense of self (the pseudo-ego) is the perceiver of their intellects, whereas awakened persons have realized that the true self/Self is the witness of ALL these temporal phenomena. The true self is synonymous with Consciousness, or with Infinite Awareness, or the Undifferentiated Unified Field (“Brahman”, in Sanskrit). The Tao (The Reality [lit. The Way, The Path, or The Road]) which can be expressed in language is not the REAL Tao. All concepts are, by nature, relative, and at most, can merely point to the Absolute. That explains why some branches of theology use the apophatic method of discerning The Infinite (“neti neti”, [not this, not that], in Sanskrit). Also known in Latin as “via negativa” or “via negationis” theology, this philosophical approach to discovering the essential nature of Reality, gradually negates each description about Ultimate Reality, but not Reality Itself. Ultimate Reality (“Brahman”, in Sanskrit) alone is real - “real” in the sense that it is the never-mutable substratum of ALL existence. The wisest of the philosophers of ancient India distinguished the “real” from the “unreal” (“sat/asat”, in Sanskrit) by whether or not the “thing“ was eternal or ephemeral (cf. Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 1:3:28, Bhagavad-gītā 2:16, et altri). Gross material objects (such as one's own body) and subtle material objects (such as thoughts) are always changing, and therefore not “real”. REALITY is clearly seen by those self-realized persons who have experienced spiritual awakenings (which occur either spontaneously, or after a gradual process over many months or years), yet only intellectually understood by those who have merely studied spiritual topics (that is, those who have practiced one of the four systems of religion described in Chapter 16 but have yet to awaken to their essential nature). “If you remain as you are now, you are in the wakeful state. This is abolished in the dream state. The dream state disappears, when you are in deep sleep. The three states come and go, but you are always there. Your real state, that of Consciousness itself, continues to exist always and forever and it is the only Reality.” ************* “The ego is the identified consciousness. When the impersonal Consciousness identifies itself with the personal organism, the ego arises.” ************* “Just as the difference between the space in a pot and the space outside it disappears when the pot is demolished, so also does duality disappear when it is realized that the difference between the individual consciousness and the Universal Consciousness does not in fact exist.” ************* “All there is, is, is consciousness. That is the Source from which the manifestation has come. ...And the mind is merely a reflection of that Consciousness.” ************* “All there is is Consciousness, not aware of Itself in Its noumenal Subjectivity, but perceived by Itself as phenomenal manifestation in Its objective expression. If this is understood in depth, there is nothing more to be understood.” Ramesh S. Balsekar, Indian Spiritual Teacher. “As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clearheaded science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about the atoms this much: There is no matter as such! All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particles of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Spirit. This Spirit is the matrix of all matter.” ************* “I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.” Max Karl Ernst Ludwig Planck, German Theoretical Physicist.

i have listened to this presentation a few times, loving the subject and thank you for opening my mind to new and wonderful universal secrets x

@SpiritualPsychotherapyServices

3 жыл бұрын

🐟 06. CONSCIOUSNESS/AWARENESS: Consciousness means “that which knows” or “the state of being aware”, from the Latin prefix “con” (with), the stem “scire” (to know) and the suffix “osus” (characterized by). There is BOTH a localized knowing and a Universal Awareness, as explicated in the following paragraphs. Higher species of animal life have sufficient cognitive ability to know themselves and their environment, at least to a measurable degree. The brain is merely a conduit or TRANSDUCER of Universal Consciousness (i.e. Brahman), explaining why the more intelligent the animal, the more it can understand its own existence (or at least be aware of more of its environment - just see how amazingly-complex dolphin behaviour can be, compared with other aquatic species), and the reason why it is asserted that a truly enlightened human must possess a far higher level of intelligence than the average person. See Chapter 17 to understand the distinction between enlightenment and mere awakening. Three states of awareness are experienced by humans and possibly all other species of mammals: the waking state (“jāgrata”, in Sanskrit), dreaming (“svapna”, in Sanskrit), and deep-sleep (“suṣupti”, in Sanskrit). Beyond these three temporal states is the fourth “state” (“turīya” or “caturīya”, in Sanskrit). That is the unconditioned, eternal “state”, which underlies the other three. So, in actual fact, the fourth state is not a state, but the Unconditioned Ground of Being (or to put it simply, YOU, the real self/Self, or Formless Awareness). Perhaps the main purpose of dreams is so that we can understand that the waking-state is practically indistinguishable to the dream-state, and thereby come to see the ILLUSION of this ephemeral world. Both our waking-state experiences and our dream-state experiences occur solely within the mental faculties (refer to Chapter 04 for an elucidation of this phenomenon). If somebody in one of your dreams were to ask your dream-state character if the dream was real, you (playing the part of that character) would most likely say, “yes, of course this is real!” Similarly, if someone were to ask your waking-state character if this world is real, you would almost undoubtedly respond in kind. An apt analogy for Universal Consciousness is the manner in which electricity powers a variety of appliances and gadgets, according to the use and COMPLEXITY of the said device. Electricity powers a washing machine in a very simple manner, to drive a large spindle for laundering clothes. However, the very same electrical power may be used to operate a computer to manifest an astonishing range of outputs, such as playing audiovisual tracks, communication tasks and performing extremely advanced mathematical computations, depending on the computer's software and hardware. The more advanced/complex the device, the more complex its manifestation of the same electricity. Using the aforementioned computer analogy: the brain is COMPARATIVELY equivalent to the computer hardware, deoxyribonucleic acid akin to the operating system working in conjunction with the memory, the intellect is equivalent to the processing unit, individuated consciousness is analogous to the software programme, whilst Universal Awareness is likened to the electricity which enlivens the entire computer system. A person who is comatosed has lost any semblance of local consciousness, yet is being kept alive by the presence of Universal Consciousness. So, then, one could complain: “That's not fair - why can only a genius be enlightened?” (as defined in Chapter 17). The answer is: first of all, as stated above, every species of animal has its own level of intelligence on a wide-ranging scale. Therefore, a pig or a dog could (if possible) ask: “That's unfair - why can only a human being be enlightened?” Secondly, it is INDEED a fact that life is unfair, because there is no “tit for tat” law of action and reaction, even if many supposedly-great religious preceptors have stated so. They said so because they were preaching to wicked miscreants who refused to quit their evil ways, and needed to be chastized in a forceful manner. It is not possible to speak gentle words to a rabid dog to prevent it from biting you. There is evidence of Consciousness being a universal field, in SAVANT SYNDROME, a condition in which someone with significant mental disabilities demonstrate certain abilities far in excess of the norm, such as superhuman rapid mathematical calculation, mind-reading, blind-seeing, or astounding musical aptitude. Such behaviour suggests that there is a universal field (possibly in holographic form) from which one can access information. Even simple artistic inspiration could be attributed to this phenomenon. The great British singer-songwriter, Sir James Paul McCartney, one day woke with the complete tune of the song, “Yesterday”, in his mind, after hearing it in a dream. American composer, Paul Simon, had a similar experience when the chorus of his sublime masterpiece, “Bridge Over Troubled Water”, simply popped into his head. In recent years, the term “CONSCIOUSNESS” has been used in esoteric spiritual circles (usually capitalised) to refer to a far more Homogeneous Consciousness (“puruṣa”, in Sanskrit), due to the fact that the English language doesn’t include a single word denoting the Universal Ground of Being (for instance “Brahman”, “Tao”, in other tongues). The word “Awareness” (capitalized) is arguably a more apposite term for this concept. The typical person believes that the apparatus which knows the external world is his mind (via the five senses), but more perceptive individuals understand that the mind itself is cognizable by the intellect. Wise souls recognize that the sense of self (the pseudo-ego) is the perceiver of their intellects, whereas awakened persons have realized that the true self/Self is the witness of ALL these temporal phenomena. The true self is synonymous with Consciousness, or with Infinite Awareness, or the Undifferentiated Unified Field (“Brahman”, in Sanskrit). The Tao (The Reality [lit. The Way, The Path, or The Road]) which can be expressed in language is not the REAL Tao. All concepts are, by nature, relative, and at most, can merely point to the Absolute. That explains why some branches of theology use the apophatic method of discerning The Infinite (“neti neti”, [not this, not that], in Sanskrit). Also known in Latin as “via negativa” or “via negationis” theology, this philosophical approach to discovering the essential nature of Reality, gradually negates each description about Ultimate Reality, but not Reality Itself. Ultimate Reality (“Brahman”, in Sanskrit) alone is real - “real” in the sense that it is the never-mutable substratum of ALL existence. The wisest of the philosophers of ancient India distinguished the “real” from the “unreal” (“sat/asat”, in Sanskrit) by whether or not the “thing“ was eternal or ephemeral (cf. Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 1:3:28, Bhagavad-gītā 2:16, et altri). Gross material objects (such as one's own body) and subtle material objects (such as thoughts) are always changing, and therefore not “real”. REALITY is clearly seen by those self-realized persons who have experienced spiritual awakenings (which occur either spontaneously, or after a gradual process over many months or years), yet only intellectually understood by those who have merely studied spiritual topics (that is, those who have practiced one of the four systems of religion described in Chapter 16 but have yet to awaken to their essential nature). “If you remain as you are now, you are in the wakeful state. This is abolished in the dream state. The dream state disappears, when you are in deep sleep. The three states come and go, but you are always there. Your real state, that of Consciousness itself, continues to exist always and forever and it is the only Reality.” ************* “The ego is the identified consciousness. When the impersonal Consciousness identifies itself with the personal organism, the ego arises.” ************* “Just as the difference between the space in a pot and the space outside it disappears when the pot is demolished, so also does duality disappear when it is realized that the difference between the individual consciousness and the Universal Consciousness does not in fact exist.” ************* “All there is, is, is consciousness. That is the Source from which the manifestation has come. ...And the mind is merely a reflection of that Consciousness.” ************* “All there is is Consciousness, not aware of Itself in Its noumenal Subjectivity, but perceived by Itself as phenomenal manifestation in Its objective expression. If this is understood in depth, there is nothing more to be understood.” Ramesh S. Balsekar, Indian Spiritual Teacher. “As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clearheaded science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about the atoms this much: There is no matter as such! All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particles of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Spirit. This Spirit is the matrix of all matter.” ************* “I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.” Max Karl Ernst Ludwig Planck, German Theoretical Physicist.

AWesome. This is the path we need to follow.

@naimulhaq9626

6 жыл бұрын

Vibrating tubules were known for quite sometimes, but now the connections with Alzheimer's disease and destroyed tubules with quantum computing properties coupled with the new explanation of memory is quite breathtaking. This path will make ground breaking discoveries, should not be ignored.

Alot of information and can get lost if not paying attention but beautifully done.

Best lecture of his I've watched. Sometimes he did confuse audience with to much ideas at the same time with no logical flow. This time slowly and logically. And finally some fresh info on real physical tests being performed on this.

@squamish4244

6 жыл бұрын

It's unfortunate but not surprising that this model of consciousness has good empirical evidence and offers more testable hypotheses than many models, including the most popular - Integrated Information Theory - but receives far more criticism. The criticism is often subtle as well, for instance if it is criticized Hameroff will often be singled out, even if Penrose makes exactly the same point, because it's easier to attack him than one of the most renowned living physicists.

@Phrenotopia

6 жыл бұрын

+Michal Pietrasik I agree! On the other hand the audience is rather stiff; not responding to any of his jokes.

@Phrenotopia

6 жыл бұрын

+valar Yes, I find the level of vitriole directed at Hameroff astounding. He's being called a pseudoscientist and even a fraud, while he is far from all that!

@squamish4244

6 жыл бұрын

If you want to see vitriol, you should watch the 2007 Beyond Belief conference where he presents Orch-OR. Lawrence Krauss was almost jumping out of his chair. On the surface, you might wonder why Orch-OR causes such controversy. It is not challenging the dominant paradigm of consciousness, because there is no dominant paradigm or even ANY paradigm. The real problem is that the possible implications of Orch-OR mean that it challenges the reigning paradigm of physics in general, which is materialism, and it also directly challenges our personal identities and self-constructions. Both of those challenges cause a lot of anxiety (especially the second) in a way that almost nothing else in science can do, to the extent that a theory that even so much as hints that materialism could be wrong, which is all that Orch-OR does, provokes a very intense reaction. Penrose and Hameroff are also difficult targets, as they are both atheists in the religious sense and thus cannot be mocked or dismissed on simplistic theological grounds. Hameroff has unfortunately made himself somewhat more of a target than Penrose both due to his...not being a giant in the field...and by associating with Deepak Chopra and the New Age movement, and making statements that are more provocative than he needs to make at this stage. Just his theory alone is causing enough of a stir! Even so, the reaction is out of all proportion compared to, for instance, other controversial statements physicists make all the time within the confines of the materialist paradigm.

@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885

6 жыл бұрын

I've corresponded with Stuart Hameroff - and Basil J. Hiley who collaborated with Penrose also. There is still huge denial in quantum physics of quantum nonlocality as proto-consciousness of the Universe - Bernard d'Espagnat realized it - Louis de Broglie realized it, etc. But just a handful - Bohm, Gerard t'Hooft. Lawrence Krauss and the whole Copenhagen Interpretation are wrong.

A very good speech.

Thank you.

I want to understand and remember all concepts from that lecture, because even if it is not true it has great complex beauty inside and potential to see things in different way

@nickolasgaspar9660

6 жыл бұрын

You can have them all under the same title.....Bullshit.

@madmanzila

6 жыл бұрын

What is your problem with the lecture exactly... because I hope you are someone who can come close to some kind of explanation, where do you place the physics and biology "contact point" ... Bullshit does not do it buddy, get a grip.

@nickolasgaspar9660

6 жыл бұрын

the term bullshit serves as a title for his interpretations just fine mate!

@cnacma

6 жыл бұрын

his and penrose theory was just confirmed by several different scientific disciplines. but please keep calling it "bullshit". there is a certain psycopathy to your anger. www.elsevier.com/about/press-releases/research-and-journals/discovery-of-quantum-vibrations-in-microtubules-inside-brain-neurons-corroborates-controversial-20-year-old-theory-of-consciousness

@nickolasgaspar9660

6 жыл бұрын

"his and penrose theory was just confirmed by several different scientific disciplines." lol really...and which scientific disciplines are those mate??? Btw....you should first make a research on the credibility of the digital journal , before promoting it as a trustworthy source! And you should not post articles that are reviewed by new aga buffoons like Chopra...lol You are a troll right?

57:28 wow that explication and drawing blew my mind. The "one particle being in multiple places at the same time" with how how brain registers quantum processes is mindblowing.

This is compelling viewing. I have no way of knowing if it is correct but if so I conclude that plants are conscious to. A question does this suggest a mechanism for memory play back evoking emotions?

I have had transcranial magnetic stimulation to treat my OCD. It didn't work for me, but it does work quite well for 50% of all patients. (Not to be confused with transcranial ultrasonic stimulation, which Hameroff refers to at the end of his presentation.)

Great lecture thank you for posting. It really is a shame he gets attacked by people with nothing to offer as an alternative.

「生命が意識をもたらすのではなく、意識が宇宙に内在し、生命に先行している」ステュワート・ハメロフ氏の考え方に深く同感します。意識（心）をもたらす原理は「対称性の破れ」として普遍的原理であり、この宇宙を構成している３つの基本的素粒子の一つから由来するものと私は考えます。

Good!

i like the way this guy thinks!

If memory resides in microtubule, I would need to know the lifespan of each tubules and how memory is transferred from one to another tublule for long term memory to persist! Anyone could please explain. Thanks.

Bills going to be paid on the ? Thanks

Brilliant ! With Metta ☸☯🕉

It's obviously that if we don't see the answer on what is consciousness at macro level that meens we should see into deeper level, maybe at quantum level.

Dr. Jeff Stock allegedly put 20 years of research into a nutropic product called EHT. Regarding microtubules and tao proteins the EHT supplement is said to aid in the reconstruction of microtubules. Think Ill be re-upping on my supply soon but would love if the product became peer reviewed.

"Life(life being) life does not bring about consciousness, but consciousness is intrinsic to the universe and precedes life," I deeply agree with Mr. Stewart Hammerov's idea. The principle that brings consciousness (mind) is a universal principle as "break of symmetry", and I think that it originates from one of three basic elementary particles constituting this universe. There is a reason why we did not declare "break of spontaneous symmetry" only as "break of symmetry" here. It is not exactly "spontaneous", but "unspontaneous (dependent on others)". That is to say that quantum mechanical symmetry is broken due to other causes. The cause of this symmetry breaking is elementary particles called Signalion (Signifi_cati_on) acting on Higgs particles, and its interaction is called IM (Interaction of Meaning).

To speed up the evolution of science and for humanities sake all scientists will replace competing against one another for fame, fortune, and feelings of personal glory with the basis of science which is truth, collaboration, and cooperation.

How many seconds do it take for a fastball thrown at 100 mph to reach the middle of home plate? This is about how long we live in the past. It is a surprising number.

I recall reading that the brain feels ~ detects the operation the patient is undergoing but anesthesia allows/makes the brain to consciously `forget` the entire drama/trauma of the actual surgery: For example ~ the skin ~ ectodermal tissue bleeds as it should when a scalpel is used; whether conscious or not; albeit much slower while not `aware`: Humans skin is the largest organ of the integumentary system: At the time I think even anesthetists didnt fully understand how it worked; just that it does: Whether this was correct or not [at the time]; it made me think perhaps anesthesia may hold the key to discovering the seat of consciousness: But what happens when we dare go there is currently unknowable and immeasurable:

The Universal Translator Google is working on will cause these sorts of lectures to go more smoothly.

look up the meaning of Crystal definition then imagine an eighth dimensional Crystal made from Planck length tetrahedrons. this also fits into the same sort of thought he mentioned it early on in the lecture.

Why make the assumption (42:39) that proto-consciousness would start with “proto pleasure”? Why not assume that proto-consciousness begins with a proto attempt to resolve dissonance? Perhaps the term “proto-conscious dissonance resolution” might be used. Further, why attempt to discredit a gene-centered view of evolution (the selfish gene hypothesys)? I see no conflict. Genes come about much after Orch OR, and then go to play their part in evolution. These concepts seem entirely compatible to me.

@agustagustsson4436

4 жыл бұрын

My thought exactly. It's probably more like pain or pleasure. Then resolution/ response.

@telephassarose3501

4 жыл бұрын

Totally agree with your first paragraph

@ddubs123

4 жыл бұрын

Yea, I rewatched that part a few times and couldn't understand how he made that conclusion.

@klarakasova5960

4 жыл бұрын

H. proposes - the key part is around 51:19, though he explains it for about 10 minutes starting with the dopamine-like structure of the amphiphatic molecules (ca. 41:40) that might resemble those in the primordial soup - that a certain structure is the naturally preferred form (the wild type, to use a term from genetics - my remark). And that structure is common to molecules causing pleasure. As for genes, the word discredit seems to me to go too far. Rather, he quite logically proposes to deny them the priority over (proto-)consiousness simply because they were not yet present in the primordial soup while quantum-mechanical actions were. All reasons for his proposal come around 52. H. also repeatedly uses the humble words I think, possibility, likely. Also, is there a true difference between the selfish gene model and the pleasurable model? Does not selfish behaviour cause pleasure (manifested by increased dopamin levels) to the selfish brute :-)? If so, H.'s claim that pleasure drives evolution seems to me to be (pleasantly) plausible. Anyway, this is still just a model of mere proto-consciousness. The transformation of proto-consciousness into consciousness ('orchestration') depends on many factors as explained later in the video. And regularly structured DNA may be one of them. This allows both models to co-exist, as you - but also H. (ca. 53:20-53:50) - suggest. Listen carefully to what he is saying.

@netahar

3 жыл бұрын

Did I get it correctly, that the assumption is that the resolution, i.e. pleasure or discomfort, is the result of random wave function collapse? And even if more pleasure somehow increases chances of survival, shouldn't evolution be built on something consistent, like I know this action brings pleasure that's why I evolve to do it more often?

I am a physicist and I will provide solid arguments that prove that consciousness cannot be generated by the brain (in my youtube channel you can find a video with more detailed explanations). Many argue that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, but it is possible to show that such hypothesis is inconsistent with our scientific knowledges. In fact, it is possible to show that all the examples of emergent properties consists of concepts used to describe how an external object appear to our conscious mind, and not how it is in itself, which means how the object is independently from our observation. In other words, emergent properties are ideas conceived to describe or classify, according to arbitrary criteria and from an arbitrary point of view, certain processes or systems. In summary, emergent properties are intrinsically subjective, since they are based on the arbitrary choice to focus on certain aspects of a system and neglet other aspects, such as microscopic structures and processes; emergent properties consist of ideas through which we describe how the external reality appears to our conscious mind: without a conscious mind, these ideas (= emergent properties) would not exist at all. Here comes my first argument: arbitrariness, subjectivity, classifications and approximate descriptions, imply the existence of a conscious mind, which can arbitrarily choose a specific point of view and focus on certain aspects while neglecting others. It is obvious that consciousness cannot be considered an emergent property of the physical reality, because consciousenss is a preliminary necessary condition for the existence of any emergent property. We have then a logical contradiction. Nothing which presupposes the existence of consciousness can be used to try to explain the existence of consciousness. Here comes my second argument: our scientific knowledge shows that brain processes consist of sequences of ordinary elementary physical processes; since consciousness is not a property of ordinary elementary physical processes, then a succession of such processes cannot have cosciousness as a property. In fact we can break down the process and analyze it step by step, and in every step consciousness would be absent, so there would never be any consciousness during the entire sequence of elementary processes. It must be also understood that considering a group of elementary processes together as a whole is an arbitrary choice. In fact, according to the laws of physics, any number of elementary processes is totally equivalent. We could consider a group of one hundred elementary processes or ten thousand elementary processes, or any other number; this choice is arbitrary and not reducible to the laws of physics. However, consciousness is a necessary preliminary condition for the existence of arbitrary choices; therefore consciousness cannot be a property of a sequence of elementary processes as a whole, because such sequence as a whole is only an arbitrary and abstract concept that cannot exist independently of a conscious mind. Here comes my third argument: It should also be considered that brain processes consist of billions of sequences of elementary processes that take place in different points of the brain; if we attributed to these processes the property of consciousness, we would have to associate with the brain billions of different consciousnesses, that is billions of minds and personalities, each with its own self-awareness and will; this contradicts our direct experience, that is, our awareness of being a single person who is able to control the voluntary movements of his own body with his own will. If cerebral processes are analyzed taking into account the laws of physics, these processes do not identify any unity; this missing unit is the necessarily non-physical element (precisely because it is missing in the brain), the element that interprets the brain processes and generates a unitary conscious state, that is the human mind. Here comes my forth argument: Consciousness is characterized by the fact that self-awareness is an immediate intuition that cannot be broken down or fragmented into simpler elements. This characteristic of consciousness of presenting itself as a unitary and non-decomposable state, not fragmented into billions of personalities, does not correspond to the quantum description of brain processes, which instead consist of billions of sequences of elementary incoherent quantum processes. When someone claims that consciousness is a property of the brain, they are implicitly considering the brain as a whole, an entity with its own specific properties, other than the properties of the components. From the physical point of view, the brain is not a whole, because its quantum state is not a coherent state, as in the case of entangled systems; the very fact of speaking of "brain" rather than many cells that have different quantum states, is an arbitrary choice. This is an important aspect, because, as I have said, consciousness is a necessary preliminary condition for the existence of arbitrariness. So, if a system can be considered decomposable and considering it as a whole is an arbitrary choice, then it is inconsistent to assume that such a system can have or generate consciousness, since consciousness is a necessary precondition for the existence of any arbitrary choice. In other words, to regard consciousness as a property ofthe brain, we must first define what the brain is, and to do so we must rely only on the laws of physics, without introducing arbitrary notions extraneous to them; if this cannot be done, then it means that every property we attribute to the brain is not reducible to the laws of physics, and therefore such property would be nonphysical. Since the interactions between the quantum particles that make up the brain are ordinary interactions, it is not actually possible to define the brain based solely on the laws of physics. The only way to define the brain is to arbitrarily establish that a certain number of particles belong to it and others do not belong to it, but such arbitrariness is not admissible. In fact, the brain is not physically separated from the other organs of the body, with which it interacts, nor is it physically isolated from the external environment, just as it is not isolated from other brains, since we can communicate with other people, and to do so we use physical means, for example acoustic waves or electromagnetic waves (light). This necessary arbitrariness in defining what the brain is, is sufficient to demonstrate that consciousness is not reducible to the laws of physics. Besides, since the brain is an arbitrary concept, and consciousness is the necessary preliminary condition for the existence of arbitrariness, consciousness cannot be a property of the brain. Based on these considerations, we can exclude that consciousness is generated by brain processes or is an emergent property of the brain. Marco Biagini

Like the single celled creatures, every cell in our body have consciousness and does conscious operations. Yet there are no neurons in the cells, something does the work of the tubules and neurons. Can anyone explain what might these be?

@123Iamawesome321

5 жыл бұрын

quantum entanglement of the DNA in aromatic parts that lead to gene activation to start transcription to the translation of a specific protein?

@zevaz2002

4 жыл бұрын

I would say that each cell at a microtubular level behaves in a quantum way -vibrational state energized by electrons at the speed caused by the specific chemical reaction there. But there is a ‘synchronicity’ pushing all cells to align at the frequency its conscious self landed on. Like a bunch of surfers on a giant wave will all go up because of the crest of the wave. That wave is caused by our conciseness. Our brain chose, agreed, decided to stand on a specific location of the wave choosing a specific outcome. The cells in our legs can’t choose a different location on the wave than our torso. There is a conscious agreement to place our observation on a specific frequency or location of the wave which caused our quantum state to materialize.

Any chance those micro-tubules could be acting like antennas? Interacting with a consciousness field?

A choice (the activity of the human mind in philosophy) such as whether or not to consciously look at information is identical to the subjective experience of making a choice (the activity of the human mind in physics) during an experiment. The demonstration of entangled Quantum states violating Localism is where a choice is instantly observed elsewhere. So, when making a choice in either philosophy or Quantum physics, the subjective experience (human mind) does not occur locally (proving an idea called Atman in Hindu).

English Subtitle pls (for Russian Questions)

To say there is no God that designed us is asinine. Excellent lecture!

Yes.

Tough crowd.

Bad ass lecture

Calling the initial seed of conscienous plaisir is materialistic. We should call it love because why should plaisir exist before the nervous system exist. Love is maybe hormoneous universal constant.

Lecture on understanding consciousness, 50,000 views. A guy stuffing a plastic spoon up his nose, 5,000,000 views. We are so f*cked as a species.

Omg! Whom have filmed/editing this video? How come many important slides didn't got more attention?. Okey, Stuart hamroff isn't bad to looking at, maybe not have to be filmed as a model subject object? Why have the slides not got more time attention than video captures of mister Hamroff?

👏👏👏🌏❤

Finally, consciousness explained! 😎

Put this on with some study music cause I thought it was cool... That was in 2028.... Now I've gotta do this Calculus HW again...

So .. Is there consciousness at the chemical compoud level that made it evolve towards a pleasure seeking direction . Is our consciousness creating that pleasure ? Makes the Buddhist seem right - that you need to break the cycle of desire.

@MW-cx3sb

5 жыл бұрын

I think when he argues about pleasure being the kick starter for evolution, its because its a primal instinct, chemicals in the primodial soup were similar to dopamine and that reproduction through pleasure was the driver for the very beginning of life.

Possible explanation to the wave/particle duality: It is only an idea on my part but it goes something like this: 1. Charged particles have their associated magnetic fields with them. 2. Protons and electrons are charged particles and have their associated magnetic fields with them. 3. Photons also have both an electrical and magnetic components to them. 4. Whenever a proton, electron, or photon is shot out of a gun, it's respective magnetic field interacts with the magnetic fields of the electrons in the atoms and molecules of the gun itself, the medium the projectile is traveling through (ie: air), and/or from around the slits themselves. 5. Via QED (quantum electrodynamics), newly generated photons might occur. 6. The projectile goes on it's own way and the newly generated photons go on their own way. It gives the illusion of a wave particle duality, but it is not that way in actual reality. 7. Specifically in the case of protons or electrons, the newly generated EM wave travels faster than the particles. The new EM waves go through both slits and sets up "hills and valleys" of field energy. When the proton or electron goes through one of the slits, it then follows whatever "valley" it enters thereby over time, even shooting only one proton or one electron at a time, the interference pattern will still emerge. 8. As far as detectors are concerned, they probably have an energy field that is one way when on and a different way when off. The interaction of this energy field (or the lack thereof) with whatever is passing through it, gives the indication that is observed. Now, for those who hold fast to reality being probability waves that are condensed down by an observer into one single physical reality, then: a. What exactly are these probability waves made up of? b. Where exactly are these probability waves stored at until they are observed? c. How exactly does an observer in physical reality actually observe these probability waves and condense them down into one single physical reality? d. Who and/or what observed the first observer? e. What exactly happens when two or more observers observe different probability waves? Which one takes precedent in physical reality? For me, while this observer condensing probability waves down into one single physical reality might work well on paper, it does not appear to reflect actual reality. Now, utilizing the scientific principal of Occam's razor, which way is more probably correct? My way by utilizing known scientific principals, or that is as discerned on paper as stated above is how reality actually is?

@zagyex

6 жыл бұрын

what about the bucky-ball double slit experiment? and what about the delayed choice quantum eraser?

@charlesbrightman4237

6 жыл бұрын

zagyex What about them?

Isn't consciousness an emergent phenomenon of a self-organizing system which slowly increases its self-referencing capabilities and death the inability to self reference because the underlying structure has broken down?

@timothyhall7606

5 жыл бұрын

can you expand on this?

@martinnibataan7046

5 жыл бұрын

The predominant theory used to be the "emergent" theory I.E. the wetness of water "emerges" when you get enough H to mix with O. It has wrongly been assumed consciousness "emerged" after enough complexity in an organized system or something to that effect but we have supercomputers and other structurally complexitys that meet or exceed the human brain and yet we have seen no consciousness "emerge" so that theory isnt mainstream anymore or at least it has been falling away as other theorys move up front

@martinnibataan7046

5 жыл бұрын

And besides then you would have to explain how single cell creatures are able to learn, seek out mates , get out of mazes faster as they learn them, so if a single cell is "aware" then so much for complexity being a necessary facter in its awareness or at least thats one of the arguments against the emergent theory

The brain's tubulin dimer network acts as a dynamic set of boundary conditions upon a particular dedicated subspectrum of the overall quantum vacuum electromagnetic fluctuation field and context-giving medium, and stitches together a series of virtual Boltzmann brains, each in its turn resonating with these changing electromagnetic boundary conditions. The specious present integrating function of this tubulin dimer network occurs with respect to a dimension of time largely orthogonal to that dimension of time along which this dynamically changing bubble of the specious present moves. Merely a single dimension of time does not therefore provide a rich enough stage upon which consciousness can recursively evolve.

@Arcian

5 жыл бұрын

Okay, now explain it in english.

@martinnibataan7046

5 жыл бұрын

He thought he was being funny by intellectually masterbaiting because he thinks thats what orch or is forgetting that if there was SOMETHING these skeptics could latch onto They would if they could...

If consciousness simply emerged from complexity, wouldn't it have manifested in at least some detectable way in supercomputers by now? It would seem to me that computing is advanced enough to provide for even a minor degree of consciousness based on the computational theory of mind.

@Phrenotopia

6 жыл бұрын

I agree.

@squamish4244

6 жыл бұрын

It seems rather obvious, I don't know why it hasn't come up as an issue yet in these discussions. I also think the AI people do not need to feel so threatened. Even if it turns out this theory pushes conscious artificial general intelligence out by far more than we think, it does not say artificial general intelligence is not possible. It will be superhuman in many important ways that it will be able to accomplish amazing, world-changing things over the next decades. Millions of computers with even remotely subhuman intelligence could still accomplish unbelievable feats in many fields.

@krisc6216

6 жыл бұрын

I see what you mean. I also wondered, if consciousness is emerged from brain functions. Why didn’t other species develop this before or at least simultaneously with humans. And maybe a more important question: Why do we need to be conscious? Because I don’t see why this would be a feature that developed for survival issues. Millions of other species seem to do very well without it. Sharks have already been roaming on this planet for 400 million years, but they have still the same brain. I don’t believe consciousness can be derived from brain functions and can never be replicated artificially. I strongly believe that our brain is capable of anchoring a spec of the unified consciousness field and that it’s merged with all the computational functions. The brain can do lots of things, consciousness can only observe. But a conscious mind can explain brain functions, while our brains are incapable of defining and comprehending consciousness.

@Phrenotopia

6 жыл бұрын

Why do you think other species aren't conscious to varying degrees?

@krisc6216

6 жыл бұрын

Well, I do believe that consciousness is fundamental to this physical reality and therefore is in everything and everyone to varying degrees, from galaxies, to planets, to rocks, plants, animals and humans. What I am saying is that we are the only species where this consciousness is merged and anchored in the brain to have a self-conscious experience. Like Carl Sagan said: we are a way for the universe to know itself. I believe that we are one consciousness that splits bits of consciousness to merge in human bodies to have an illusion of separation and an individuated experience where it can learn in this world full of contrasts. You can’t learn about light if there is no dark, you can’t learn about healing if there is no disease and so on. So from that viewpoint I am sure we are the only species that have this observatory awareness. Like we can deliberately choose not to breath, our body will struggle and beg to breath, but we can consciously test and control this function. No other animal will do this on purpose. No other animal will try and paint what it sees. No animal will create music. No other animal will want to kill another animal because its skin is darker. So yes, we are the only one (on Earth at least)

This is an invitation to see a theory on the nature of time! In this theory we have an emergent uncertain future continuously coming into existence relative to the spontaneous absorption and emission of photon energy. Within such a process the wave particle duality of light and matter in the form of electrons is forming a blank canvas that we can interact with forming the possible into the actual! The future is unfolding with each photon electron coupling or dipole moment relative to the atoms of the periodic table and the wavelength of the electromagnetic spectrum. As part of a universal process of energy exchange that forms the ever changing world of our everyday life the ‘past’ has gone forever. At the smallest scale of this process the ‘past’ is represented by anti-matter annihilation with the symmetry between matter and anti-matter representing the symmetry between the future and the past as the future unfolds photon by photon. In such a theory the mathematics of quantum mechanics represents the physics of ‘time’ with the classical physics of Newton representing processes over a period of time, as in Newton’s differential equations. In my videos I explain how this process is relative to temperature and the phase changes of matter.

Strange, not knowing the truth, but living it daily.

The quantum phenomenon of a state collapsing into another, like a wave into a particle, or a cat both alive and dead, can have a simple yet classical analog. Imagine if you married Amy having dated Jane, but didn't marry her. Imagine the children you would have had if you married Jane. A possibility that is real but lives in another state, just like the dead or alive cat.

@j3ffn4v4rr0

4 жыл бұрын

That's an interesting idea...but not tenable as an analog, only as a rough metaphor. Imagined possibilities (or, as in your example, imagined imagined possibilities) are not an actual comparison with superposed quantum states. And, it's not accurate to call it "classical" because dating and marriage, and imagining "what if" scenarios, are not physics concepts, regardless of them involving macro-physical objects (i.e., men and women).

'The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of it... ` - Nikola Tesla [apparently]

@MaxLohMusic

5 жыл бұрын

There's no such thing as "non-physical phenomena" because anything that's verified to be true is automatically incorporated into scientists' idea of "how the world works" which is also known as PHYSICS. That's why quantum mechanics is also a branch of physics. "Non-physical" is just a fancy word for "not verified" (or if you prefer, not yet verified).

@squamish4244

5 жыл бұрын

Well...I think it is more than that. It is a new paradigm saying that consciousness is not a product of brain function but fundamental to the universe, and the idea that subjective experience can impact physical reality is outside of the current framework of most of physics. But maybe once we come up with a new paradigm, we will call consciousness a physical phenomenon, and *also* call matter a conscious phenomenon. I think it was Freud who admitted that if everything is matter, everything must also be spirit. That's pure nondualism i.e. a Buddhist view of reality.

@aarguitar64

5 жыл бұрын

Usually anything that doesn't fit neatly in the little box of our known reality is labeled "supernatural" and immediately dismissed. I'm pretty sure people like Newton, Einstein and Tesla didn't limit themselves to the known reality of their time.

@squamish4244

5 жыл бұрын

Newton was absolutely an out-of-the-box thinker. He was obsessed with alchemy and Christian eschatology and wrote way, way more on these topics than he did on gravity and inventing calculus, which were almost side topics to him. Sometimes I think many of these early scientists were able to make their amazing breakthroughs because they didn't have to think inside an established framework or scientific dogma, i.e. they broke out of the Christian dogma and no scientific one had been built yet, so they could think of whatever they wanted and it wasn't considered 'wrong'.

@aarguitar64

5 жыл бұрын

@valar Exactly!

Consiglio il libro di Victor J. Stenger “The Unconscious Quantum” edito da Prometheus Books. Permette di evitare di farsi confondere le idee da “Silicio” e da “Irriducibile” .

I know epiphany ! 🐰🐰🐰🐰🐰🐇

quantum physics still doesn't explain the qualia of experience because who is the self that experiences qualia ?

@epajarjestys9981

5 жыл бұрын

It is the universal schizophrenic primordial quail, of which "we" are all just parts of its split personality. Isn't that obvious?

расквакались - кубиты, а не квабиты - в гугле, б глянули переводчики-водороводчики - "Qubit" Куби́т (q-бит, кубит; от quantum bit) - квантовый разряд или наименьший элемент для хранения информации в квантовом компьютере.

@MarsBorg

6 жыл бұрын

ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Кубит

It might not be 'feelings' that have consciousness evolve, but 'survival' (regardless whatever it might be feeling). Basic choice, 'to have life' or 'to not have life'. Hence the basic survival instinct that most creatures have. Edit: Those creatures that did not have the basic survival instinct most probably would have gone extinct.

@krisc6216

6 жыл бұрын

I don’t see why consciousness would be a feature that developed for survival issues. Millions of other species seem to do very well without it. Sharks have already been roaming on this planet for 400 million years, but they have still the same brain. Take away our consciousness and we would just be another ape species, driving and surviving on ape instincts.

@charlesbrightman4237

6 жыл бұрын

Kris C Life apparently only matters to life while life exists. Without 'consciousness' of some sort, even if the entire universe existed throughout all of future eternity, who would be consciously left to care? If a species didn't have a survival instinct, then why does it struggle when being killed?

@krisc6216

6 жыл бұрын

Charles Brightman I'm not saying spe ies don't have survival instincts, because they do of course. I just don't see why we have to be conscious about our survival behaviors. We don't beat our heart consciously either

@charlesbrightman4237

6 жыл бұрын

Kris C Agreed, but then, our thoughts are supposedly sub-consciously thought before our consciousness even thinks those thoughts. Or so modern science seems to be indicating with their experiments. So, basic survival instincts would probably be occurring at a sub-conscious if not even an unconscious level. (Or at least so it would seem to me.) Those species that had that survival instinct, (however it's actually done), would obviously have an instinct to survive, possibly giving those species an advantage over other species that didn't have that survival instinct. Nature would still do what nature does. Species either survive, or they don't. Those species that could adapt, even possibly unconsciously, would seem to me to have a better chance of surviving, regardless of whatever they might be consciously 'feeling'. Of which, my original comment above puts survival instincts before 'feelings'.

@telephassarose3501

4 жыл бұрын

Charles Brightman .Interesting in fact that people are separating ‘feelings’ & survival. A number of times ‘feelings’ = intuition that requires me to listen to it - has saved my life because I have followed these ‘feelings’ instead of what was ostensibly ‘rational’.

I like the guy and I think the theory is interesting, but it is almost impossible to get any philosophy from him. For example, can someone please explain to me what he actually says about qualia here: 57:36 "The qualia of the redness of the rose, where most people would say it’s the pattern of information processing in the brain, is because the qualia of the rose is actually a pattern in spacetime geometry that is reproduced in the brain. And "bing" is occurring in the brain because the same patterns of spacetime geometry … is occurring in our brains and therefore we have the qualia in our brains.”

@ExistenceUniversity

Жыл бұрын

Well I don't want to defend Orch OR to its fullest extent as it is bad philosophy as you point out, and is far too Platonic to be true. However, let me play devil's advocate for this argument. What Hameroff is saying (I think) at this point is that the microtubules either go to or take in not the perceptual rose as it appears to our perceptual integration, but rather that the percept of the rose is reconstructed in the microtubules from the sensations which are not simply photons but a re-creation of the same space-time quantum effects the rose itself is made of. Personally, I think this is a bit absurd, whether true or not.

This lecture seems highly conveluted but certainly not abstruse.

There are 2 types of 'forms of matter known to human extremely limited knowledge. 1. Such forms of matter as human beings, other much lower-developed animals , vegetation, have immediate and active responses to external influences, which can be observable to human naked eyes 2. Such forms of matter as rock, sand, soil, wood, metal, water, and suchlike don't have active and immediate responses to external influences Those forms of matter with active and immediate responses or reactions to external influences were created to have such physical structures as the senses to recognise changes in the surroundings for their own survival or existence, The notion of consciousness comes from such physical responsive or reactive functions. Each of such forms of matter recognises changes of their surroundings in different ways because they were created to exist in different environmental conditions and different ways. Higher developed forms of matter, like humans, have evolved from merely recognizing or being aware of their surroundings to understanding how changes in the surroundings take place, how natural phenomena happen, althogh human knowledge of their own surroundings is still extremely limited. So, consciousness here is is nothing else other than the abilities to recognise, to detect and to interpret the observable changes in a certain subjective way, no matter whether it is human way, or other ways of other animals other species, or other different forms of matter which were created with physical structures to respond to external influences actively and immediately to be able to exist in their assigned forms of existence Such responses or reactions to external influences are called interactions with other forms of matter, which are co- existing in the same environment or surroundings.vit means that awareness or consciousness can never ever exist without any such interaction among different forms of matter. Ex, you can never know the temperature is increasing or decreasing without any interaction between your physical structure and air particles around you. In other words, you can never have any consciousness at all with merely the function of your central nervous system, your peripheral nervous system, or your 5 or 6 senses, without any interactions with such other forms of matter around you. Hence, consciousness comes from interactions among such different forms of matter, and any interaction with any other form of matter, no matter whether it is extremely small, like invisible viruses, or extremely large, like light fields which cover the location in space of this planet, obviously always requires experience, which is the duration of the interaction. No action nor interaction can take place without any experience or length of action for interaction at all.The length of interaction here is measured by the symbolic values of time units. Human beings could never have any thought without any interaction with any form of matter around them. Human awareness and subjective interpretations of their living environment all come from their interactions with other forms of matter around them Consciousness is not so mysterious as how all you guys are trying to make it become so complicated, The concept or notion of consciousness exists only within human extremely limited knowledge and subjective reality created by human ignorance of the structure and mechanism of the universe, which have created all forms of matter in the universe. The abilities to be aware of the surrounding and actively respond to changes of the environment or external influences exist only in some forms for matter, but it is not that consciousness exist everywhere, as nonsensically claimed Do such objects in your house have any consciousness or awareness when you drag them around your house? The answer is obviously no, not at all. Even if you were preparing to break them into pieces, they would obviously not be able to be aware of anything happening at all. Similarly, air particles around you behave and exist passively without any active action for any purpose at all. It depends on external conditions how they behave. Such forms of matter exist passively due to their forms of physical structures, unlike such forms of matter as humans. The majority of the infinite space of the universe is actually occupied by such forms of matter, including, stars and all other observable and unknowable unknown forms of matter in the infinite space of the universe . There are only natural randomness and transformations of different forms of matter outside subjective reality created by human limited knowledge. All the universe have been formed by natural randomness and transformations without any order nor purpose at all. Only human ignorant scientists are trying to interpret the obsered in such human subjetive ways to serve human purposes

"Consciousness" and "No Consciousness" might be nothing more than coherent energy (aligned energy fields) versus non-coherent energy (not aligned energy fields). Hence, even a clunk on the head could make one unconscious as energy fields go out of alignment.

@telephassarose3501

4 жыл бұрын

Charles Brightman .Are you on Facebook? Hope you don’t mind my asking.

Psychomachy in 12 dimensions. I'm luvin it. Who will win? Before you bet, look what they did to Spiderman.

I clicked because I thought it was - aaayeeeh!- Kip Thorne.

@kevinfairweather3661

5 жыл бұрын

That is out of order, don't take the piss aaayeeeeeeh !

I had to sub, counter was at 6666 subs had to change that

Why is our mind so perfect? Why does carbon based life create our universal mind?( Why,,,. )Not how does the mind feel life.

@epajarjestys9981

5 жыл бұрын

Did carboned based life create "our" mind? Or might it be the other way around?

Keep the Chomsky, lose the Chopra (unless you can straighten him out.) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain

the conscience, floating in a universe that contains only itself, thinking that it's a brain in a vat, that thinks it's a human with a brain in his skull, walking outdoor on planet Earth

So he thinks that consciousness creates the arrow of time.

@mattgreen3696

5 жыл бұрын

All dimensions are parameters put on existence by the brain allowing us to perceive such an existence I believe.

@francismarcoux8944

5 жыл бұрын

Time doesnt exist in the quantum plane. Time belongs to the time space plane. To the conventional physical univers

@klarakasova5960

4 жыл бұрын

@@francismarcoux8944 Time and space are attributes of mass. Different mass implies difference in - but not absence of - time and space. Of course that time and space exist even on the level of particles/waves ruled by quantum mechanics. Light differs, though, where photons are considered as being mass-less.

I think any biologist knows how life emerges later from information conservation, communication and computation after which intelligent reasoning(emotional, rational, logical and intuitional reasoning) emerge on top. evolution biology will prove you that a sperm from which an anthropic agent develops, its an information conservative system. And later information communication goes ahead between a sperm and an ovum and other complex information communication patterns follow later as a function of nervous system development. Information computation happens later after nervous system development, though the computed information was conserved earlier in our conservative gene and another info is computed in real time and conserved in real time. There is alot of feedback loops going on here and there inform of consciousness in orderto affect the displacements and linkages of all these evolutionary processes and mechanism towards the emergent properties of the unified whole. One can be tempted to as that on life and consciousness in the above explanation which came first? But on the general mathematical physics picture, life emerged billions and billions of years of universal evolution, but information has been evolvingly conserved, communicated and computed even before life emerged. For that matter brains can NEVER produce consciousness.

No. Me watching this video is enough.

Alpha Zero can understand the game, it has consciousness.

@andyjurko75

4 жыл бұрын

No it doesn’t. It follows a computation procedure. Computation doesn’t lead to understanding as sir Roger Penrose pointed out in his lectures on consciousness

@XOPOIIIO

4 жыл бұрын

​@@andyjurko75 It's not an ordinary computation procedure, it's a neural network, similar to ones in our brain. It operates with patterns and complex vision of a board reality, not just brootforcing, that traditional chess algortims use.

@netahar

3 жыл бұрын

it doesn't have self-awareness and emotions, you will have to define that consciousness is

@XOPOIIIO

3 жыл бұрын

@@netahar Consciousness doesn't reqire neither.

@netahar

3 жыл бұрын

@@XOPOIIIO if you define consciousness as ability to solve problems, then yes modern convolutional NNs can have it

Just say it, consciousness is supernatural, not material, not computational, and not something an atheist can understand. This talk should have started with Once Upon A Time.

This is a very interesting theory although I think he may have fallen victim to a lot of the same misconceptions about quantum physics that laymen and woo peddlers often. However, in interest of being constructive, I have a few more focused criticisms. 1) to my knowledge OR is a phenomenon that has never been demonstrated. I dont think he addressed this and even presented it in a way that left the impression it was common knowledge. 2) even if OR was confirmed he never made the connection between it and conciousness. From the point he asserted there was a connection on it was just assumed that the connection was intuitive. 3) even if we give him all these things all he is describing is a mechanism. Just because the wave function collapse seems non-deterministic does not mean that it is and even of it is probabilistic instead of deterministic in nature than this still brings us no closer to showing that conciousness is transcendant of the physical or that free will is real.

@GustavoOliveira-gp6nr

5 жыл бұрын

Well, he has not proven the full nature of consciousness if that's what you want. The point he is trying to make requires 2 hypothesis: 1) the collapse of the wave function is independent from an observer as usually stated by the Copenhagen Interpretation. 2)in fact, the collapse itself is what produces what he calls "proto consciousness". Assuming these 2 hypotheses, he tries to explain how this process would occur inside the brain in an orchestrated manner to produce our complex consciousness

@carnifexprincipium5586

5 жыл бұрын

@@GustavoOliveira-gp6nr so... what your are saying is that we can make these two hypotheses 1) unicorn farts are independent of the observer. 2) unicorn farts produce a proto-conciousness. Then when we just assume these hypotheses are true we can go on to explain how unicorn farts occur inside the brain in an orchestrated manner to produce our complex consciousness. Sorry for my sarcasm but I just dont see the value in all this speculative assertion and assumption. It's basically a well educated and constructed version of "look at this unintuitive and difficult to understand phenomenon... wooOOOooo. I bet we can fit metaphysical consciousness in here." Also superposition is nothing unusual. It happens anytime two or more atoms form a molecule. So what? Why does consciousness seem to be an emergent feature of our brain and not our lungs, hair, feet, or even objects near us? There is just as many electrons in superposition in those things as anywhere else.

@GustavoOliveira-gp6nr

5 жыл бұрын

Yes, except that there is a coherent explanation for the underlying mechanisms of the orchestration of a full-fledged consiousness emerging from a quantum computation, and there are good evidence for it. But I'm interested in your theory of unicorns fart, please develop it a bit more

@GustavoOliveira-gp6nr

5 жыл бұрын

@@carnifexprincipium5586 any theory is plausible if you have good evidence for it

@carnifexprincipium5586

5 жыл бұрын

@@GustavoOliveira-gp6nr :-D I will try and flesh out my unicorn fart theory but in the mean time what is the evidence? Sure quantum computing is a thing and one could argue that entities that used quantum processes to compute data might have emergent consciousness but where is the evidence to make the leap to OR producing proto consciousness? Even assuming OR is a real phenomenon, which I dont see the evidence for and suspect it may be unfalsifiable, how do we get to consciousness being an inherent quality of an OR event and to consciousness not being an emergent feature of the electro-chemical brain.

never mention Deepak Chopra!!

@nickolasgaspar9660

6 жыл бұрын

He mentioned Chopra?

@zagyex

6 жыл бұрын

yes :)

@nickolasgaspar9660

6 жыл бұрын

He shot his foot...!

@squamish4244

6 жыл бұрын

Dammit Hameroff, he gains credibility by association with Penrose, and loses it by association with Chopra. I wish he would stop doing that.

@nickolasgaspar9660

6 жыл бұрын

Arguments and claims should rise and fall on their own merits. The fact is that Hameroff discredits him self through his own claims. Its only a coincidence that his claims match those of Chopra. Even Penrose disagrees with his conclusions.

🈚️

No

Fluid theory (Reproduction/Feed/Reasoning) decanted selfmultidimentionalover... The polydynamics of the movement generates pseudo-autonomy as material property, of the autogenous phenomenon; existing.(...) Simultaneous as my unidimensional variability... unidimensional variability = live-beings

Everything is a Step Up , When we work Together !All is a matter of Time. But We need A Federation of scientists to protect the world.Trump will give them the power.I Think ! But we have a bigger Problem diversion ;!

Philosophy on consciousness is like asking an illiterate man raised in a prison what the world is really like. He has no idea. Only his naive interpretation without the data needed to triangulate the truth.

The cat theory is stupid

Фук диз атеист шитс. Фукинг идиот аргюмэнтс ар битэн то дэт, факинг аннойинг.

@j3ffn4v4rr0

4 жыл бұрын

Which arguments in particular are beaten to death?

Nope! Consciousness is biology!

This vid makes me want to stop pseudo science videos

@tantrarojo44

5 жыл бұрын

But then you see that scientists also don't know what's going on, so they come up with so called theories... At least we trying

Very imbalanced rambling. Almost zero attention on some essential, unheard-of Roger Penrose stuff, and, for example, incessant beating on the hackneyed "cat" stuff. And Chomsky is not really embraced by linguistics, not really empirical, very speculative, somewhat redundant.

@martinnibataan7046

5 жыл бұрын

Yaaawn, ok glad you cleared that up with some down to earth peer reviewed refutation.....oh but wait, You didnt.