Stuart, thank you creating and maintaining a space to discuss consciousness, and thank you for your ongoing contributions. Also, Penrose is a legend!

*Bing* = collapse of the quantum wave function generating the moment of consciousness. *Badda* = is the state of superposition where all possibilities are simultaneously true. *Boom* = the cosmic crossover demarcation between aeons. *Badda Bing Badda Boom* = pervasive consciousness driving the evolving universe.

@mycount64

5 жыл бұрын

consciousness is a product of evolution and ... when in one circumstance be a beneficial adaptation ... in another lead to extinction.

@wulphstein

5 жыл бұрын

Consciousness is magic, simply beyond what physics can explain.

@davidwilkie9551

5 жыл бұрын

On reflection... consciousness is not applicable to the process of Evolution it's a second order recognition of awareness from experience of Evolution. "The easiest person to fool is yourself", or un-fool, it's how we pick a way through the confusion of complicated and messy states of temporary cohesiveness, of living beings.

@joecaner

5 жыл бұрын

@@davidwilkie9551 I suppose that is the the $64**12 question, isn't it? Is consciousness an emergent phenomenon or is it the fundamental foundation of all existence? It is a tricky thing to be a materialist in the age of quantum mechanics as the generally accepted consensus where every time one peels back a layer of matter, it is discovered to be energy, empty space and tiny bits of fluff which in turn have the same hierarchical scaling when smashed to bits. Whose to say which belief system is delusional or on what foundation reality actually rests?

@bigfletch8

5 жыл бұрын

@@joecaner Believers dont, even with an infinite number of progressive theories. A " saturated mass" of such entanglement (you with your theories/beliefs) mutates, just in the same way you immune system becomes " bullet proof" when it has mutation completion after encounters with viruses. Knowing does NOT require matter, energy time and space (mind substance in fact), other than for the recognition of your consciousness befor it transcended. You have to know what its not befor you can know what it is.

I someone who had a near-death experience and had the out-of-body experience as well. I immediately turned to science to try to make sense of it instead of diving into religion. I wanted to make sense of why it seemed like I was everywhere at once but there, outside of my body, at the same time. It's almost as if I existed in a field of collective consciousness but still unique enough to know I was me. I can't recall how it felt or what everything else looked like I just remember seeing myself and my family. I can recall the feeling of being brought to life which felt like the world's fastest rollercoaster drop. Thank you Dr. Hameroff, Sir Penrose, and Dr. Lanza. Because of you, three reality makes a bit more sense.

WE LOVE YOU, HAMEROFF AND PENROSE. Thank you for spending hours and hours of your consciousness digging deep into the most important questions of our existence. Very important for the entire humanity.

One of the best comprehensive looks at the present state of things -- it will speak to many disciplines and points of view.

The old saying 'God is omnipresence' could mean 'consciousness is omnipresence' Therefore we could also reason : 'Everything we call the classical world is solid because it's being observed constantly everywhere . By this omnipresence observation the universe on **'classical scale ' stays solid, instead of staying is a constant state of superposition

@cougarfrank5170

5 жыл бұрын

:)(:

@impancaking

5 жыл бұрын

Beautiful metaphor however observation didnt create collapse, superpositions are unstable, so their constant collapse creates bits of conciousness. Its a 180! Otherwise your theory that as conciousness observes itself, it creates itself is a beautiful musing.

@alanmalcheski8882

4 жыл бұрын

i say that everywhere is a place in God's mind. The only way to observe everything would be to know it, inside and out, and have a clear picture of it in your mind, from every angle. If a single consciousness can see everything, then it must be using more than eyes to see, it knows what is happening everywhere... but can a person change one of their memories? Maybe but not on purpose, I think. It would be logical that everything is inside the mind of an entity. But also that there are things even It cannot change.

@nicksantoro7279

3 жыл бұрын

This would be in line with the Neumann-Wigner interpretation, stating that one grand, universal force of consciousness (I.e. a god perhaps) exists to collapse all waves to form the observable universe.

Stuart looks so much older than when I first heard his name. You're still on the right path

YES NEW HAMEROFF PRESENTATION!

That was the greatest explanation for layman, thank you.

@ilonamurry8412

5 жыл бұрын

Can't imagine any laymen understanding this

Stuart that's a lot of conscious hard thought. well done. Thank you.

Collapse of the wave function creating the observer. Love it.

I believe Dr. Hamerof receives a Nobel Prize for this theory. Sir Roger already has 1 but I think this collaboration gives him another.

Like a record that emerges sound, "recorded music eg.",when playing on a record player,our consciousness emerges in much the same way as what our senses have recorded throughout our lives. Whatever environmental stimulating factors there are, a moment of memory comes. These are memories that make up the ongoing experience of your life they provide you with a sense of self as does the record emerge the content of what was recorded without the attachment of a self,but more so as a expression of who recorded the record. In the plain vernacular" there is no mystery", only memory and imagination and an attachment to one or the other, or both.

@kamelian5

5 жыл бұрын

Pls accept my salute.

@AmericanBrain

5 жыл бұрын

Your theorem is incorrect. You seek to be simple which is good but your theorem is simplistic. You can not have a "cartoon" of a brain in a vat. The brain needs the rest of the body to work (e.g. blood flow, the heart must work). Firstly let's just validate consciousness. The fact that you are "aware" of existence and grasp there is "something" as opposed to "nothing" means you have a mind. For it is your mind that "identifies" existence. Therefore it suggests the mind is potent , finite and delimited. And that the mind exists. Second, let's now turn from philosophy to science to determine how is it possible to have an immaterial "mind" with free will? All species have low level consciousness meaning they perceive the environment using their sensory apparatus (within limits) and therefore turn datum into percepts (the unit of perception that self organizes). This enables awareness of the environment and consequent reactions to survive. Man has the additional qualitative aspect called "concepts". Man is able to think using concepts (like the word infinity). Man's percepts self organize (like other species) but man also concurrently self organizes concepts (the fundamental unit of conceptual thinking). Man thereafter or at the same time needs to use the methods of reason and logic to arrive at the truth (and that is never automatic but takes effort of mind). In conclusion: yes indeed - all animal species have consciousness but only man has full blown consciousness: which includes free will - and the ability to think conceptually to reach proper conclusion! Man's mind uses both quantum computing (microtubules using quantum mechanical cellular automata - aka universal computing). The "it" comes from "qubit" - the moment of proto-consciousness that gets magnified by classical neural theorem up fractal hierarchy from the microtubule level to the whole brain. All this is perceived to be instant as man experiences the illusion of continuous streaming consciousness - even though it is in fact discrete consciousness; like watching a movie in a theater where there are in fact "frames" per second What is the science? Consciousness is either "caused" by Object reduction of the quantum wave (Orch O.R): by being triggered by proto-consciousness moment (i.e. Orch O.R). Metaphorically: its like a spark of a spark plug starting a car.This is the 'discrete moment'. The car engine must run to move the car (equivalent metaphorically to full blown consciousness) but to get that car going, one needs a spark. One important addition and distinction to the metaphor: when it comes to the mind of man, that spark (metaphor) is needed 4 times every second. However man experiences the illusion of continuous, streaming consciousness - equivalent to the way man experiences a movie in a theater despite the movie itself being "x" number of "frames per second".

Great non-technical introduction to a variety of ideas.

@ 2:28 how would the state of superposition be known to exist if it no longer exists when it is observed ? do they take photos or something?

the only answer is that there is motion where we think there is stillness. The fourth physical dimension (as opposed to time being the 4th dimension) is not static. If time slows down when we accelerate, then it could reverse if we exceeded c, but more importantly, there is a constant velocity, like c, at which everything or... everywhere, is moving. The only explanation for special relativity. Perhaps that constant is a product of two opposing forces that give the illusion of being stationary. If all atoms are spinning, somehow (I'm not sure how that is actually happening), around their axes, axis, whatever, without the spin affecting their position, then a logical hypothesis might be that there is a very evenly distributed force that spins them. Do atoms spin themselves? Do they? How do you know?

wow very interesting theories, awesome stuff !

Bohm's Pilot Wave does make a lot of sense...

@ChechoColombia1

3 жыл бұрын

I think QM interpretation is just a bunch of egos. There is still something hidden

We are pure consciousness having a material experience at the moment.

@mycount64

5 жыл бұрын

consciousness is a product of evolution... nothing more.

@BC-gu8vs

5 жыл бұрын

AW Crowe that’s true but evolution is not random ... think about that

@aarthoor

5 жыл бұрын

If only that made sense.....

@BC-gu8vs

5 жыл бұрын

aarthoor consciousness alone cannot experience the material world because it does not have limitations. For example, our limitations lie within our biological host which ages and dies etc. so say the ultimate representation of consciousness is “god” who does not have form. He cannot experience reality as we do because “he” has no limitation. We are conscious beings who can experience reality solely because of our limitations. That’s why you have philosophers who point out the inherent value in life is our limitations because without limitations you cannot have possibilities. You need imperfections to have value, to have opportunity within life. Otherwise you are just a conscious being with no form. You can’t do much without form. So with life comes limitations but that does not mean we are not conscious beings that have divinity within us because our consciousness is divine. Idk if that helps but I hope so :)

@aarthoor

5 жыл бұрын

@@BC-gu8vs You probably think that made sense but it doesn't. You have simply created an apparently unarguable explanation that, unfortunately, has no supporting evidence or possible way of demonstrating it's validity. It isn't philosophy it's sophistry, like all new age thought.

All the times we are trying to perceive consciousness and its properties from an outside point of view, we have to invoke an extra dimension. A new curvature, connecting awareness with a static pre-existing state. All math in quantum theories are turning numbers into vectors adding dimensions. In string theories the same. What if consciousness itself, is nothing but the definition of an extra dimension, a necessary one, that gives a meaning, an answer and a feedback to a universe growing up according to the anthropic principle. What if, the way that all particles and forces are nothing than vibrations of their respective quantum fields, consciousness might also be the same, drops emerging out from an underlying ocean of cosmic consciousness field that binds up the universe in an extra dimension, so that the universe can be having a meaning of existence? And for existence itself to get a meaning out of nothingness...

hmm... i think i understand. So then, consciousness only happens when matter experiences wave form collapse? For a while I did not understand what wave form collapse was, or what it meant. That is still true. One thing I understand is that a signal becomes clear when the wave form "collapses." Rather than that meaning the wave becomes scrambled, collapse means that the energy in the signal stops looking scrambled (on an oscilloscope) and many lines condense, to move together, in a wave, or a motionless, standing wave. So there must be a direct ratio, of consciousness to wave collapse. And that's what the guy discovered. Implying that all matter has consciousness. Or more likely, more precisely, all space has a whole bandwidth of consciousness, and the matter in space tunes itself to one signal of consciousness or another. Like, there is a radio station that all trees listen to, and in that way they are conscious.

Microtubules and collapse of the wave function. I didn't think I would ever write this down.

So if a tree falls, but no "one" is there to observe the event, does it still experience Objective Reduction?

Wow, that really hammered home

Interesting vid, but I notice in most science discussions that, of course, variuos theories, hypotheses and interpretation of experimetal results are being evaluated. Science is generally not reduced to first-hand description of results of cherry-picked experiments. So we have this theory and that, like this is not like that. Maybe, on the most fundamental questions and grounds, a closer synthesis of science and philosophy would be desirable and also it could be very useful to adopt a communicative approach to a compatible understanding and acceptions (or acceptations if you think "acception" is obsolete) of words such as "otherness" . The "this-not-that" dynamics of discussions is itself a point of reflection when the discussion itself is at a very fundamental level of the way things are, happen and are thought of. After all, words like, say, criterion" and "paradigm" are commoly used in science and philosophy of science. For instance, a concept (or word meaning if you prefer) like "conscience" is best treated with words than, say, mathematical formulae, and so we should deal with language according to language in order to provide adequate content.

Excellent.

Awesome! would be cool to see an integration of relativity/quantum/classical models with consciousness/subconscious/unconsciousness(collective). Like einstein and jung rehearsing some jazz! and how about the trinity of tubulin/actin/intermediate filaments---asking you!

WOW! This is the real deal!

What about the physics of the far. He covers close and closer. It's all in POV.

When I watched this, I could hear Dennett chuckling in discrete quanta.

What if conscience is a product of both computation and quantum processes?

If our brains are only receivers and consciousness comes from out in the universe how come babies aren't born with an infinite amount of knowledge or fully formed personality?

Penroses graphic very interesting... look at the primitive streak forming the neural tube in Dev-Bio

Hail to Stuart Hameroff & his case finding's & data showing the connection between Consiousness, Parameciums & Microtubules!

@eenkjet

5 жыл бұрын

I'd say he kicked off the research with some great correlates. But OrchOR is no longer viable as of maybe 2015. There is a tie to cilia for consciousness but it points to the development of grid cells for gestalt isomorphism.

@marcocontreras9572

5 жыл бұрын

I think science is walking behind spirituality ? !people like this "guru scientist" explained that anyone can understand and applied all the time

@AmericanBrain

5 жыл бұрын

@@eenkjet Your thesis is incorrect or incomplete about gestalt. You can not have a "cartoon" of a brain in a vat. The brain needs the rest of the body to work (e.g. blood flow, the heart must work). Firstly let's just validate consciousness. The fact that you are "aware" of existence and grasp there is "something" as opposed to "nothing" means you have a mind. For it is your mind that "identifies" existence. Therefore it suggests the mind is potent , finite and delimited. And that the mind exists. Second, let's now turn from philosophy to science to determine how is it possible to have an immaterial "mind" with free will? All species have low level consciousness meaning they perceive the environment using their sensory apparatus (within limits) and therefore turn datum into percepts (the unit of perception that self organizes). This enables awareness of the environment and consequent reactions to survive. Man has the additional qualitative aspect called "concepts". Man is able to think using concepts (like the word infinity). Man's percepts self organize (like other species) but man also concurrently self organizes concepts (the fundamental unit of conceptual thinking). Man thereafter or at the same time needs to use the methods of reason and logic to arrive at the truth (and that is never automatic but takes effort of mind). In conclusion: yes indeed - all animal species have consciousness but only man has full blown consciousness: which includes free will - and the ability to think conceptually to reach proper conclusion! Man's mind uses both quantum computing (microtubules using quantum mechanical cellular automata - aka universal computing). The "it" comes from "qubit" - the moment of proto-consciousness that gets magnified by classical neural theorem up fractal hierarchy from the microtubule level to the whole brain. All this is perceived to be instant as man experiences the illusion of continuous streaming consciousness - even though it is in fact discrete consciousness; like watching a movie in a theater where there are in fact "frames" per second What is the science? Consciousness is either "caused" by Object reduction of the quantum wave (Orch O.R): by being triggered by proto-consciousness moment (i.e. Orch O.R). Metaphorically: its like a spark of a spark plug starting a car.This is the 'discrete moment'. The car engine must run to move the car (equivalent metaphorically to full blown consciousness) but to get that car going, one needs a spark. One important addition and distinction to the metaphor: when it comes to the mind of man, that spark (metaphor) is needed 4 times every second. However man experiences the illusion of continuous, streaming consciousness - equivalent to the way man experiences a movie in a theater despite the movie itself being "x" number of "frames per second".

@eenkjet

5 жыл бұрын

@@AmericanBrain I appreciate the additional explanation of your position. Perhaps this conversation should continue below in my comment from 2 weeks ago.

Maybe they are two far apart and they have become opposites and when opposites come together they create a contradiction but still are codependent on each other like trying to remove left from right. Like trying to drag left over to right

if you could only walk backward... ...if you could only move backward, you could never see where you were going... how important would it be... to have a mirror? Objects in mirror may be closer than appear? What else is closer than it appears? It would just be the objects, I guess... hard to see anything else.

Does the cat choose if it alive or dead?

A reasonable and rational statement of the available evidence that would show the natural occurring processes of bio-logical evolution in Superpostion=>integration of probability in potential possibility devices from slow to fast and all combinations of the inputs and outputs that may be related to the sensory awareness from experience, when consciously sorted, becomes a memnonic narrative of "Consciousness". It's all one evolving connection of wave-package interference positioning Imagery, in Moderation by sustained pulses of coherence objectives, ie "Evolution" is the human bio identification of the Observable Universe.

@kamelian5

5 жыл бұрын

I salute you.

@AmericanBrain

5 жыл бұрын

Let's unify the physics of the far (cosmos) with QM (quantum mechanics). He does that in the above video citing Penrose. I go further below. This post is in two parts. Part 1 will delineate reality and the truth. Part 2 will then retrofit Penrose/Hammeroff. Another person elsewhere has put forward a materialist theorem of mind. This is what most scientists incorrectly belief. That your mind state is merely "matter" - and consciousness reduced to mere "epiphenomenon" - something that is "aware" (and hallucinates free will and potency). This is incorrect. Interestingly "science" itself shows that if you continue with this belief then you will live a corrupt life ! Richard Dawkins "gets around this" by "pretending he is conscious" because - to this credit - science also demonstrates that "pretending to be conscious" alleviates "corruption" (immorality) that results from a belief that you are a mere epiphenomenon. But alas, Dawkins is stuck with living a life of wanton "pretend". I will show you and validate a better way forward. ______________ 1. Science is not the start of knowledge. If it were then you are a materialist and concepts like mind, "love" and so forth have no meaning. Science is a "model" building system to predict aspects of reality/actuality. But what is reality/actuality? Let's find out. 2. We need philosophy for that. Philosophy means belief: but there's a difference between subjective belief and Objectively proving the truth. We have a method to prove things: it's called reason and logic. 3. You can validate that there is "existence". You can "identify" there is something as opposed to nothing. This is the basemost ground floor level possible. Because of that we can validate it using ostensive definition (pointing at things) but as there are no pre-existing concepts prior to this, we can not prove it. We merely need to validate it. "Proof" has no superiority. 4. YOUR Mind "identifies" existence. So we can therefore state you have a mind; the mind exists; and the mind is potent, finite and delimited. In other for existence (the identity) to be valid, it needs "identification" by the mind. This auto-validates Aristotle's law of identity. Therefore the big three concepts form "metaphysics": actuality. Existence, consciousness and identity. In conclusion: for the first time in your entire life and for the rest of your life (all readers) - you now know we can validate reality as it "is". We can prove you have a "mind" And the mind is real. Please note : there are other philosophies both Eastern and Western (Plato, Kant) that are incorrect. Both of these suggest the "mind/consciousness" creates everything. That is like farting. One can say anything, any mad man can do that. Its free speech. That does not "therefore" make it correct. In fact its outright "incorrect". A mind/consciousness needs to be conscious (aware) of something, other than itself else it sa logical fallacy. ____________ Part 2: Penrose/Hammeroff. From part 1 , we know that you have a mind. The mind is however distinguished from existence. The mind is "immaterial" yet potent. How can this be? Penrose/Hammeroff offers an explanation that has the most testitable verification to date out of all "scientific" theorems. There is an objective reduction of the quantum wave - as per the formula e(G) = h bar/ t. The larger the mass, the faster (more instantaneous ) the collapse of the wave into matter. Microtubules self collapse 4 times per second. During each time, it undergoes quantum "Cellular automata" computation that terminates 4 times per second resulting in a a "sync/orchestration" or moment of proto-consciousness with "existence". (Is existence the same thing as the universe ? Perhaps or perhaps not. To prevent confusion, I'll stick to the word "existence: the broadest concept possible"). The brain amplifies proto-consciousness into full blown consciousness using fractal hierarchy - all in one smooth instance - from microtubules to neurons to the whole brain. As far as the human agent is concerned, he experiences a stream of consciousness - even though in actuality there are discrete moments. We now turn to some questions! What is the evidence to suggest microtubules undergo quantum computation? a] Paramecium, amoeba , slime mold and single celled organisms - hunt, seek food, seek mate, copulate, and learn. They have no neurons but have consciousness - if by consciousness we mean sensory apparatus that picks up sense datum and self organizes percepts - the fundamental unit of perception into a decision and acts on that decision - often in one sweep! Man does the above but also has "concepts" as well as free will. Man uses the methods of reason and logic to direct free will in order to reach valid conclusions. In science the conclusions are based upon prediction and/or coherent evidence (e.g. the latter, like Darwin's theory at the time it was brought out). Concepts are the fundamental unit in the mind of man that enables him to perceive and navigate amongst infinite units of perception of particular types. For example if man knows what is a "Chair" then man/YOU can manage infinite "chairs" even a chair you see in a foreign nation that you have just landed in. We take this for granted but its an excellent feat of man's mind. When programming robots to do this - we realize how (impossibly) difficult it is to get a computer to do that: to recognize chairs in all their vast "forms" including a chair without legs! In conclusion: how do paramecium and other single celled organisms manage conciousness? They have microtubules (that same organelle that is within your cells). b] All organisms can be "put to sleep" using anesthetics including the above. This further suggests that anesthetics are applying their ware upon microtubules. The science is that anesthetics form their own Van Der Wall forces , thereby blocking the existing Van Der Wall forces within microtubules - thereby preventing computation. c] For paramecium and single celled organisms to be able to process information and navigate around their environment so well needs "computation" (processing). How is that even possible? In math theorem, the most "universal" computation is "cellular automata". Therefore it is suggested that life evolved to leverage universal computation. But there are two types of "cellular automata": classical (that the famous Stephen Wolfram works with) and quantum . So why should we advocate quantum computation? There are now testable hypotheses that biology has figured out ways to leverage quantum mechanics (QM): and this includes photosynthesis, human smell and (certain) avian navigation. The scientific "model" whereby plants use QM for the purposes of photosynthesis is almost exactly equivalent to the way it has been suggested that microtubules use QM to reach an output (a decision) ; with minor distinctions. Plants pre-date animal species in evolution; and all species in some ways build upon what worked in previous species (and differentiate themselves too). For our purposes, it would seem a logical progression that if plants can use QM, then so can other species, like man. Interestingly microtubules are of such (nano) size , that it is more likely than not that QM would be playing a role there. The "objection" of QM playing a role in biology used to be based upon the alleged facts that it was too "warm, wet and noisy" for QM to apply to biology. We now know the objections are not valid. But what is the reasoning? With microtubules, there are hydrophobic (without water clear space) regions where tubulin (proteins that make up microtubules consisting of other amino acids like phenylalanine, tyrosine and tryptophan - can interact). The tubulins wrap around microtubules using a fibonnacci formation: which is ideal to prevent decoherence (quantum effects being knocked out) by pulling tubulin back in line. And Anirban Bandopadhya's experiments (published in Nature) suggest that microtubules can go into superconductance like state even at room temperature if there is sufficient oscillation of tubulin. This happens at the Hz (Hertz), kHz, Mhz, GHz levels. In summary and in conclusion: QM effects take place within biology; and at nana-scales. Indeed the base of all existence is quantum. Further there has to be information processing - and indeed that is a fact with paramecium or potatoes too - and the ideal site of such computation is microtubules - organelles within neurons, that interestingly also modulate neural firing. Also we can theorize upon "what kind of computation" could be going on here? It would be "cellular automata". But then we can further theorize - based upon the above information that it is likely tobe quantum computation (Q-CA: quantum cellular automata). The above triggers full blown consciousness up a fractal hierarchy from microtubule to the brain.

@tripleG1199

4 жыл бұрын

That's what I've always believed!

7:28 the superposition in physics is just an Optical Illusion the particle is still at a particular position what you need to know is how light created the illusion via fields

good god that's some trippy shit. well done

Why we want reality to be objective instead of subjective is that we get rid of our responsibility, I think. 😉

@TomGrubbe

5 жыл бұрын

Right, that's why a lot of academics want to disprove God - so we can dispense with morality.

@williamgray1500

4 жыл бұрын

@@TomGrubbe Disproving God has nothing to do with morality. It's about a false belief. A Universal Consciousness, which we and our reality are part of, is truly what Created everything. Which is why it is called Creation. But, essentially everything is just cause and effect. Our Universe is nothing but energy in motion. We are basically experiencing the Big Bang. Having said that, whether or not you believe in a God, morality isn't based on that. It's a choice we ourselves have, whether we either treat each other with respect and love or not. While religion may enforce those types of behaviors, they absolutely are an unrequired belief. Through our behavior here on Earth, we have succumbed to total lack of control. While most people are good people on the outside, their internal consciousness behavior is totally out of control from learned beliefs, propaganda, etc. This creates a natural hatred towards others who don't fall in line with our individual opinions. Governments and the Elite typically use this against everyone else to fill their pockets and gain more power over us. So we enslaved by our society, whether we believe it or not, and really have no true freedom. You may consider yourself free, but truly you can't just do anything you want without consequences. Even if you separate yourself from Society and go into a type of Isolation, you still face consequences because you give up all the comforts and laziness. Which this is the way we should live. Because you are responsible for yourself and your decisions, and everything that you dislike about your life is your fault. Whether it be from poor choices from yourself or believing what others tell you. You truly are essentially a piece of Creation, and therefore have the same power that Creation has.

how about this: consciousness does not occur in physical reality as a consequence of a set of constants: consciousness supports/creates physical reality, not the other way around. consciousness is fundamental, and reality is a simulation. that is why it is possible for consciousness to influence 'reality' (placebo-effect, probability collapse, ..) one needs to let go the paradigm where the physical, deterministic universe exists in itself, and where it is the origin of consciousness. it is logically impossible. consciousness is all that exists, the physical world is a means it created in which to evolve itself. there would be no physical world without consciousness perceiving it, and therefore, wherever consciousness 'looks', physicality will manifest itself. with this switch of paradigm, all falls into place.

@Kojakesh99

2 жыл бұрын

First of all, this is untestable. Nevertheless, are you suggesting there is only one possible observer? How can many observers agree on the physical reality they observe otherwise? How is the physical world able to create conciousness (through childbirth), if the physical world is created by conciousness in the first place?

@axelpissou1263

2 жыл бұрын

@@Kojakesh99 Thanks. Is it untestable, or can you find reality within a state of meditation? With practice, one can let his consciousness soar, and let go the beliefs of the ego that bind it to this particular reality. it is up to you to clarify for yourself if these experiences have meaning and are 'real'. This does not equal solipsism, for this reality is shared (just as a compter game can be), and creates 'seats' for consciousness to 'log onto'. I haven't gone there, this theory has been developed in great depth by Thomas Campbell in his Big TOE.

Between 13:50 and 17:28, the best part. This has to go through the scientific method :) I believe that consciousness is something beyond the chemical functions of the brain, but, the problem of mixing quantum physics with metaphysical aspects is the charlatanism of such "spirituality" coaches.

Briefly brushes over txt: "except on psychedelics" ... Woah go back youre telling me that when on psychedelics we see wave length and its not the term they dubbed "hallucination"

So I'm at 12:25 and I'm interested enough to watch the rest.... But the problem I find with the idea that "collapse causes/is consciousness" is that if this were the case then consciousness would be the same (for example) all biological species would all exhibit the same consciousness, yet this isn't the case and there is in fact something (that I think) proves this is wrong, which is a phenomena in psychology known as feral children/humans. A person can be nurtured into believing and existing as an animal whilst still being human to the point where it is irreparable. So if collapse causes consciousness then how can it vary from all these biological species, even beyond the boundaries of a naturally-made biological brain, hence why there is the "nature vs nurture" argument within the field of psychology. That's basic GCSE stuff. Surely if it was the case that collapse causes consciousness then wouldn't everything just exhibit the same 'mode' (so to say) of consciousness? and this accounting only that consciousness is just limited to a biological form of existence, considering it's not known what is creating this [energy/field/wave/whatever it actually is] then it could even go further down than the atomic level (imo). Our Earth and it's sun are both givers of all this energy and form that sustains all life we factually know of... So we don't really know whether consciousness could stem from those observed forces of nature. We know as much about Consciousness as to that of Pure Energy and infinity. Which in reality, we know extremely little about all three topics. I honestly wonder if fractal mathematics is a link into understanding consciousness. Maybe even zero point energy. But again, only mere speculation. Though none the less, even though I disagree with the main concept put forth on the vid, it's something we all need to discuss, rationalise and infer, Slowly weighing out what is logical and illogical until a more unified concept is finally found by humanity. Edit: Finished the video. It just seems a little far-fetched, mainly due to the over-use of this "bing" concept. It feels like the first half of the video is spent by building up to this concept by using good information, then he (Stuart) gets to describing this "bing!" moment in almost everything, from wave collapse, to the planck scale, to the big bang, consciousness, biological evolution... Then attempts to reinforce some of these findings by using information obtained via Sir Rodger Penrose. To me, Really the "bing!" is just another word to describe the use/release energy behind an event of some sort, whether it's the big bang or the moment of observation. it seems that Stuart has gotten carried away with the notion that at every defining moment within the universe/all existence, there must be some sort of energy/force/middle-man which he has defined and called it a "bing!" and explains that this happens between A) something collapsing and B) The reality of the perceived and measurable universe. Maybe I misunderstood all of this, because it just seems a pretty stupid way of explaining consciousness, now reading this back.

@Sam_Utah

5 жыл бұрын

The "bing" is misleading to me as well. Since this is happening way down to the Planck scale, the "bing" would be insignificant in itself, it only becomes significant as part of a resonant conglomerate wave function (the orchestration).... e.g. where these "bings" form a resonance that then would result in a conscious experience. If I understand his example of anesthesia, whereby the micro-tubules are "disrupted", it could not be effective if it did not interrupt enough micro-tubules.... it has to be a critical mass. In the reverse we are also looking for a critical mass (orchestrated) for a conscious experience. But there has to be more, perhaps the orchestration opens up a resonant field property giving access to a continuity field that contains individual "mind" in a more spiritual aspect, a resonant field, containing a personal signature, unique to the individual like a fingerprint but having its own integrated harmonic quality. It would be even more interesting if the orchestrated wave of "bings" had field properties or dimensional connectivity such as a connection to the vaunted zero point field. Then consciousness would actually resides in another non-local dimension and ORCH-OR would be opening a connection so we are then multi-dimensional with a non-local aspect. Of course animals must have an comparable experience all the way down, perhaps not as recursive and dense, but certainly the same in its rudiments.

@fuerLutzi

5 жыл бұрын

I haven't watched the video but what I learned was that consciousness causes the collapse, not the other way round. Maybe I should watch the video.

@AmericanBrain

5 жыл бұрын

Sobani - your postulation is in error and need of correction . All species have low level consciousness meaning they perceive the environment using their sensory apparatus (within limits) and therefore turn datum into percepts (the unit of perception that self organizes). This enables awareness of the environment and consequent reactions to survive. Man has the additional qualitative aspect called "concepts". Man is able to think using concepts (like the word infinity). Man's percepts self organize (like other species) but man also concurrently self organizes concepts (the fundamental unit of conceptual thinking). Man thereafter or at the same time needs to use the methods of reason and logic to arrive at the truth (and that is never automatic but takes effort of mind). In conclusion: yes indeed - all animal species have consciousness but only man has full blown consciousness: which includes free will - and the ability to think conceptually to reach proper conclusion! Man's mind uses both quantum computing (microtubules using quantum mechanical cellular automata - aka universal computing). The "it" comes from "qubit" - the moment of proto-consciousness that gets magnified by classical neural theorem up fractal hierarchy from the microtubule level to the whole brain. All this is perceived to be instant as man experiences the illusion of continuous streaming consciousness - even though it is in fact discrete consciousness; like watching a movie in a theater where there are in fact "frames" per second

@Sam_Utah

5 жыл бұрын

@@AmericanBrain I like Chardin's concept of Hominization whereby humans became self conscious, aware they are aware and at this point in evolution, says paleontologist /priest Teilhard de Chardin, that consciousness became "consciousness-squared" and human began to have intimations of immortality.

@AmericanBrain

5 жыл бұрын

@@Sam_Utah Thank you for your response. I do not like the above. I will give you my reason and add a bonus. My reasoning is "consciousness" must be aware of something other than itself else it's "circular logic" - a logical contradiction. Further consciousness must have the two characteristics: content of consciousness and the "action' of consciousness. for example if you see a beautiful woman across the street: the content of consciousness is the woman. The various actions of consciousness can be "reflection", "recognition", " imagination", "evaluation" and so forth.

Penrose/Hameroff wished to describe how a classical system can behave non-classically. Penrose did the same computationally via Gödel. Both concerned about how non-linear systems can behave in such a translucent way. What could account for our multi-layered memory and inner subjective experience? The assumption was quantum computing in biology. This is not a “quantum exploitation” in biology, which does exist (quantum water channels, quantum well, post-synaptic tunneling) are all present in the brain. OrchOR wishes to describe a system by which a superposed dimer (early) and then a superposed patch (later) and then a superposed patch that rotates down the microtubule (recent) maintains a fuzzy both true&false from which a collapse to classical “bing” would be a moment of consciousness. Is this an evolving model due to new conditions in OrchOR? No. This is a moving of the goal posts as new evidence came in that qubits are not part of cognition. OrchOr’s migration to rotating patches was found to be the monomer/dimer/MT spinning up via pumping, a super-super helices of magnetic flux (think of a fractally braided sum of phasors). The fuzzy logic that OrchOR wished to solve was the brain exploiting a homotopical-type computation. The brain does not compute using a discrete point, those points present a phase space for computing. Think of a cellist. Penrose/Hameroff would look at the two ends of the musician’s bow and describe those points as computational “bing” (information). Instead, the two ends of the bow are actually a start/stop and the vibration between as the bow is drawn across the strings are a flowing phase space of non-discrete computation. The “bings” are simply geometric singularities between counting spaces. The information is produced by resonance, synchrony, etc. And that resonance represented as a geometry of singularities between the braiding of the flux. There’s been much discussion about the CaMKII correlation. Spinning surface energies seems to be a large part of the computation model. These energies rotate down the MTs in various patterns. A similar energy rotates down the axon during lipid crystallization, and surface energies also rotate down sugar phosphate backbones when pumping DNA. Is CaMKII encoding patches of dimers treating the MT like a tiny “flash drive” or simply maintaining phosphorylation? Considering other correlations to Ca, phosphorylation, phosphorous and time crystals, the “encoded patch” seems out of place. What also points away from the encoded patch is that there’s a horizontal handedness breaking in MTs that would destroy the data. The lattice’s pattern does not continue in its checkerboard pattern the full length of the MT which would be required for any superposed set of dimers to maintain such a patch. Such a feature in a braided sum of phasors model would like behave like a speed bump, perhaps it’s key, forcing a ground-hog effect? Who knows? But for a superposed dimer, this handedness break would be catastrophic. Much was also discussed about the Meyer Overton correlation. Again, not pointing to superposition. Anesthetics are now thought be correlated to lowering the melting point of lipids along the axon. This changes their phase shift point causing them to not achieve crystallization when exposed to voltage. Up the voltage OR increase the pressure and anesthetics lose their effectiveness. Lipid crystallization as the true electromechanical signal, not electrochemical, was recently confirmed with a long awaited laser imaging experiment. Our quantum biological brain isn’t using qubits. Computation/memory is likely a fuzzy churning “toroid” of magnetic flux that is fractally “filed” by what is called “associative geometry”. IF anything, considering lipid crystallization, Fourier to grid cell, piezo effects, frequency look up, reverse memory, noise AS information, ephatic coupling, multiscale oscillations, non-synaptic self-propagating activity…. The brain is a bunch of tiny “walkie-talkies”. And damn that’s weird.

@LoremLorem

5 жыл бұрын

Hardly understood half of this, but sounds like a good critic and knowledge. I didn't know that our brain does crystals while thinking? Marvellous world.

@aphysique

5 жыл бұрын

Why don't you put out a lecture on or why your hypothesis work's & or make's sense?? Wondering what you think about Non locality of Consiousness ? How or why it may be so? Any input, would be appreciated?

@AmericanBrain

5 жыл бұрын

Alan Alldredge:[1] love the cello metaphor. [2] respectfully you have over-complicated the theorem. I fear by so doing, you may have distorted it to be incorrect. [3] Let me summarize for all readers: Consciousness is either "caused" by Object reduction of the quantum wave (Orch O.R): by being triggered by proto-consciousness moment (i.e. Orch O.R). Metaphorically: its like a spark of a spark plug starting a car.This is the 'discrete moment'. The car engine must run to move the car (equivalent metaphorically to full blown consciousness) but to get that car going, one needs a spark. One important addition and distinction to the metaphor: when it comes to the mind of man, that spark (metaphor) is needed 4 times every second. However man experiences the illusion of continuous, streaming consciousness - equivalent to the way man experiences a movie in a theater despite the movie itself being "x" number of "frames per second". _________ You can not "simply remove senses". Just like you can not have a "cartoon" of a brain in a vat. The brain needs the rest of the body to work (e.g. blood flow, the heart must work). Firstly let's just validate consciousness. The fact that you are "aware" of existence and grasp there is "something" as opposed to "nothing" means you have a mind. For it is your mind that "identifies" existence. Therefore it suggests the mind is potent , finite and delimited. And that the mind exists. Second, let's now turn from philosophy to science to determine how is it possible to have an immaterial "mind" with free will? All species have low level consciousness meaning they perceive the environment using their sensory apparatus (within limits) and therefore turn datum into percepts (the unit of perception that self organizes). This enables awareness of the environment and consequent reactions to survive. Man has the additional qualitative aspect called "concepts". Man is able to think using concepts (like the word infinity). Man's percepts self organize (like other species) but man also concurrently self organizes concepts (the fundamental unit of conceptual thinking). Man thereafter or at the same time needs to use the methods of reason and logic to arrive at the truth (and that is never automatic but takes effort of mind). In conclusion: yes indeed - all animal species have consciousness but only man has full blown consciousness: which includes free will - and the ability to think conceptually to reach proper conclusion! Man's mind uses both quantum computing (microtubules using quantum mechanical cellular automata - aka universal computing). The "it" comes from "qubit" - the moment of proto-consciousness that gets magnified by classical neural theorem up fractal hierarchy from the microtubule level to the whole brain. All this is perceived to be instant as man experiences the illusion of continuous streaming consciousness - even though it is in fact discrete consciousness; like watching a movie in a theater where there are in fact "frames" per second

@eenkjet

5 жыл бұрын

@@AmericanBrain The only need to define the discrete is to match a moment of multilayered awareness IN time that collaborates with Special Relativity. Even Penrose admits that IF things being objectively real we are locked to a substance dualist domain. "Penrose (1994) Special Relativity "...particles do not even move, being represented by “static” curves drawn in space-time’. Thus what we perceive as moving 3D objects are really successive cross-sections of immobile 4D objects past which our field of observation is sweeping."" We could attribute a quantized degree of freedom to the articles of the brain which will be a feature any or none of the current quantum intepretations (most often needing to explain Bell, QBT, and DCQE). I'd go as far as to look at the information architecture of the brain as ask if that may be a working model for a "natural" topological vector formalism for QFT. Considering the remarkable work of TPTFT perhaps OPTFT (Ontological Phase Topological Field Theory ) with its Alexander horned spheres, FIT/GML (Fractal Information Theory derived from Geometric Music Language) with clock-like Bloch spheres, or Sparling's trialic spinoral space with master and two minor mirror spaces, like Stone spaces is a productive way to view these fields? As for the biophysics and neurobiology, superposed dimers are out of the picture as is Fisher's Posner molecule correlate and the attempt to drive anesthetic below the lipid bilayer. Even Hameroff's citing of two state vector formalism is an exotic unneeded stretch due to Maoz 2018's explaining deliberate vs arbitrary choice making APs. Generally every pillar of OrchOR from a cognitive perspective has been revealed to be a different effect. Hameroff goest too early and dives too deep and when he's wrong he doesn't admit it. He just moves the goal posts. OrchOR is dead. Do you study modern memory, biophysics, grid cells, ephatic (non-synaptic) sigalling? Trust me. I know OrchOR. I followed it weekly for years. And it failed. Nothing is lost. All is gained...being more knowledge. Why would anyone wish to cling to a theory that is false? Isn't the only point any of us study consciousness is to find out what and only what/how it works? The main change is losing the superposed dimer patch that is encoded locally by CaMKII and trading that for braided mflux which just the same branches out fractally. (I'll provide some interesting ephatic signaling papers and look up some good WLC ones too. How familiar are you with the advances of Bandyopadhyay's protein nano-pumping work? Right now the most promising mapping memory research is likely Rabinovich's low frequency winnerless competition (WLC) to Bandyopadhyay's associative geometry found in FIT/GML...maybe Nir Lahav's low density chaotic synchrony to some extent. (shows handedness breaking in MTs) On the Surface Lattice of Microtubules : Helix Starts, Protofilament Number, Seam, and Handedness www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2114131/pdf/jc10231067.pdf (explains Libet) Maoz, Yaffe, Kock, & Mudrik Neural Precursors of Decisions that Matter an ERP Study of Deliberate and Arbitrary Choice. www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2018/01/04/097626.full.pdf lecture: kzread.info/dash/bejne/aWh51ZKDZcKdc9I.html Calcium activation of cortical neurons by continuous electrical stimulation: Frequency dependence, temporal fidelity, and activation density onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jnr.24370?fbclid=IwAR19lcczL6MhFB1KwH1PyiRFOqn_xsHd5CeA7Whz2Qslc4dGnyu000WF6o4 Discrete Sequential Information Coding: Heteroclinic Cognitive Dynamics Rabinovich, Varona September 2018 www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fncom.2018.00073/full “WINNERLESS COMPETITION LOW-FREQUENCY DYNAMICS”…” DIFFERENT FREQUENCY SYNCHRONIZATION PHENOMENA… SEQUENTIAL DYNAMICS IN GLOBAL LINGUISTIC NETWORK ARCHITECTURES… HETEROCLINIC SYNCHRONIZATION/CHAOTIZATION PHENOMENA”…” THIS “MASTER-SLAVE” CASE A NEW DYNAMICAL OBJECT EMERGES: A NON-SMOOTH INVARIANT TORUS THAT IS AN IMAGE OF THE HETEROCLINIC ENTRAINMENT. THE OBSERVED BIFURCATIONS THERE DEMONSTRATE DYNAMICS WITH DIFFERENT LEVELS OF COMPLEXITY AND ALSO CHAOS. SYMMETRIC INTERACTIONS BETWEEN MUSICIANS USUALLY LEAD TO SYNCHRONIZATION” Evidence that neural information flow is reversed between object perception and object reconstruction from memory www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-08080-2 The self-organizing fractal theory as a universal discovery method: the phenomenon of life tbiomed.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1742-4682-8-4 Scientists reveal for first time the exact process by which chaotic systems synchronize phys.org/news/2019-01-scientists-reveal-exact-chaotic-synchronize.html?fbclid=IwAR2O4E2KKMBQfWnE0myalPOEd-jDov7GxD5ieVKXrSdp4J1Thw2eDX5X_MM Synchronization of chaotic systems: a microscopic description Nir Lahav November 2018 journals.aps.org/pre/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevE.98.052204?fbclid=IwAR2lb-FFcKVTeKHsb5kgwFivJ6v6AgeaFREcJuKQ4AINkbQfm1tcpYv1_Ho Scaling in topological properties of brain networks www.nature.com/articles/srep24926?fbclid=IwAR0XxwbV2ggj8n5Ds2rKp8PuZGPoQYNYQhaR4j-JcAj_cpeN1soTQrQF_cY Response of Electrical Activity in an Improved Neuron Model under Electromagnetic Radiation and Noise www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fncom.2017.00107/full?fbclid=IwAR23uccnj7fGtt46aEqJbp5G9helwtU6RRdJ2U1wxTKM4eZZ28J8ZftdDXc Influence of memristor and noise on H-R neurons link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11071-018-4561-y Slow periodic activity in the longitudinal hippocampal slice can self‐propagate non‐synaptically by a mechanism consistent with ephaptic coupling physoc.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1113/JP276904 A hexagonal Fourier model of grid cells onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/hipo.23028 Oscillatory neurocomputing with ring attractors: a network architecture for mapping locations in space onto patterns of neural synchrony royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rstb.2012.0526 Key role of coupling, delay, and noise in resting brain fluctuations www.pnas.org/content/pnas/early/2009/06/03/0901831106.full.pdf Roles of Brain Criticality and Multiscale Oscillations in Temporal Predictions for Sensorimotor Processing www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166223618302200?fbclid=IwAR0UqwnAvCFRfmIB72yheX1wCS0OtLJAJqw9ktRATtE6zvUpLsiLX--152U "CRITICAL DYNAMICS APPEAR IN SYSTEMS POISED AT A TRANSITION BETWEEN TWO PHASES, AND SUCH SYSTEMS ARE CHARACTERIZED BY STOCHASTIC FRACTAL-LIKE ARCHITECTURES …” Soliton effect LIPIDS Imaging action potential in single mammalian neurons by tracking the accompanying subnanometer mechanical motion pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acsnano.8b00867?fbclid=IwAR1Y38Sqk_0eyqrIu784IZNhxbXzXWlHGGp2lVOkDCF2xzFIuqS1HYg16YM (Nerve signals via mechanical crystal phase instead of electric pulse) Brain Cells Communicate with Mechanical Pulses, Not Electric Signals www.scientificamerican.com/article/brain-cells-communicate-with-mechanical-pulses-not-electric-signals/ science.nichd.nih.gov/confluence/download/attachments/117212433/Brain_Cells_Communicate_with_Mechanical_Pulses_-_Fox_2018.pdf On Soliton Propagation in Biomembranes and Nerves. www.pnas.org/content/pnas/102/28/9790.full.pdf Traveling waves in a spatially-distributed Wilson-Cowan model of cortex: From fronts to pulses www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167278917302038 “With appropriate initial conditions, we expect to also OBSERVE SPIRAL AND ROTATING WAVES SIMILAR TO THOSE FOUND IN A 2D EXCITATORY NETWORK WITH NON-LINEAR SYNAPTIC DEPRESSION WHICH WERE INITIATED BY BREAKING THE ROTATIONAL SYMMETRY OF PULSE EMITTER SOLUTIONS.” “Appendix D. Analysis of 2D traveling waves: A REDUCTION TO 1D A POSSIBLE METHOD FOR ANALYZING THE TRAVELING WAVES FOUND IN OUR 2D SPATIAL MODEL IS TO EXPLOIT THE RADIAL SYMMETRY OF TRAVELING WAVES INITIATED BY A CIRCULAR-SHAPED STIMULUS LOCATED AT THE CENTER OF THE MEDIA. THE STRATEGY IS TO CONVERT THE SYSTEM TO POLAR COORDINATES, WHEREIN THE CONVOLUTIONS BECOME SPECIAL FUNCTIONS AND THE SPATIAL DIMENSION IS REDUCED TO ONE.”

@AmericanBrain

5 жыл бұрын

​@@eenkjet Thanks for your detailed post. 1. Ref: locked into substance dualism. This is incorrect. I have stated that there is "existence" that you can validate right now. (To deny existence will require any-skeptic to admit existence, mind as real and Aristotle's law of identity - thereby affirming this. You can have a go or several attempts as thought experiments: denying existence ends up in a loop affirming the very thing one is denying!) The above is "property dualism" - not substance dualism (of Descartes). So "I think therefore I am" in incorrect. Consciousness does not create matter. Instead "I am therefore I think" is correct. More specifically "existence" precedes consciousness. Consciousness "identifies" existence [that indeed there is something as opposed to nothing]. 2. Ref: Babble. I am so very sorry to state this but you are spouting babble. It is pseduo-science. Are you aware of that? It is pseudo-intellectual meaning it sounds intellectual to the lay man but does not have validity to an expert. I am very sorry to put this quite directly and clearly to you. If you are really into these topics then formally learn physics at degree level. At worse, learn it using M.I.T. online courses but for Goodness sake "pass" those courses. At the moment - you are vastly distorting things which is a shame as you obviously have a passion for this subject (physics). 3. Ref: Orch O.R. It is very much alive. From just before its first publication to this day, it has faced huge opposition. Each professional publication "against" it was refuted. Further it gave 20 testable prediction; of which 8 has now been proven; and the others have not been refuted. Out of "the many, many interpretations of quantum mechanics; and theories of consciousness out there" - it is the most complete and coherent*. By coherent* : I equate to Darwin's theory. Darwin did not experimentally prove anything. He had an extremely detailed "coherent" body of evidence to proffer his theory at the time. The same with Orch O.R.: however Orch O.R. has got certain testable predictions - including "backward time effect" to rationalize free will [Quantum Eraser experiment] and therefore rationalize and reinterpret Libet's findings. Libet found that the brain makes a decision before man is aware of that decision. This suggested man hallucinates that he has free will. Hammeroff and Penrose argue that the future informs the brain, and therefore backward time effect saves free will. The present informs the past. 4a].Ref: Anesthesia and lipids. To date there is no definitive evidence relating anesthesia to any "single" item. [In analogy there are various theories of the origin of life, but not single definitive scientific theory]. The Hammeoff perspective is that anesthetics form their own Van Der Waal (weak ) forces , and thereby prevent Microtubules forming their Van Der Wall forces that bind tubulin into Froelich coherence using dipole dipole interaction. To state this again: anesthetics block microtubule coherence. This suggests microtubule are significant basement level of consciousness - because anesthetics prevent consciousness. THIS IS NOW PUBLISHED IN NATURE BY HAMMEROFF. 4b] Why microtubules? Even with Alzeimer's microtubules depolymerize. It is not known if tau proteins fall off first leading to the microtubules dismantling; or vice versa. The point is microtubules are important for the purposes of memory and cognition - i.e. consciousness. 4c] Anirban Bandyopadhyay's successful experiments prove Hammeroff's original contention : that microtubules are oscillating at Hz, kHz, MHz, GHz ranges where there is something equivalent to superconductance (bullet theorem) - the lossless energy movement of electrons. 4 a, b and c are coherent evidence suggesting consciousness is mediated by microtubules. Microtubules are performing quantum computation that terminate 4 times per second as per the formula: e (G) = h bar /t. This means that there is the Orchestrated Objective Reduction of microtubule (50 nm; each dimer 8nm x 4nm x 4 nm) . The moment of termination is an 'output' that results in full blown consciousness , fractally up multiple hierarchy from microtubule to the whole brain.

I gaurantee that all of the people going on about how this guy has no clue what he is talking about have never read a book on quantum physics. You have to love all of the KZread "experts" on each of the comment sections of incredible videos like this one. You know none of them have even the slightest clue what the double slit light experiment is. Lol.

@AmericanBrain

5 жыл бұрын

Your guarantee is incorrect. He is a highly published author - having done this for many years. You can not have a "cartoon" of a brain in a vat. The brain needs the rest of the body to work (e.g. blood flow, the heart must work). Firstly let's just validate consciousness. The fact that you are "aware" of existence and grasp there is "something" as opposed to "nothing" means you have a mind. For it is your mind that "identifies" existence. Therefore it suggests the mind is potent , finite and delimited. And that the mind exists. Second, let's now turn from philosophy to science to determine how is it possible to have an immaterial "mind" with free will? All species have low level consciousness meaning they perceive the environment using their sensory apparatus (within limits) and therefore turn datum into percepts (the unit of perception that self organizes). This enables awareness of the environment and consequent reactions to survive. Man has the additional qualitative aspect called "concepts". Man is able to think using concepts (like the word infinity). Man's percepts self organize (like other species) but man also concurrently self organizes concepts (the fundamental unit of conceptual thinking). Man thereafter or at the same time needs to use the methods of reason and logic to arrive at the truth (and that is never automatic but takes effort of mind). In conclusion: yes indeed - all animal species have consciousness but only man has full blown consciousness: which includes free will - and the ability to think conceptually to reach proper conclusion! Man's mind uses both quantum computing (microtubules using quantum mechanical cellular automata - aka universal computing). The "it" comes from "qubit" - the moment of proto-consciousness that gets magnified by classical neural theorem up fractal hierarchy from the microtubule level to the whole brain. All this is perceived to be instant as man experiences the illusion of continuous streaming consciousness - even though it is in fact discrete consciousness; like watching a movie in a theater where there are in fact "frames" per second What is the science? Consciousness is either "caused" by Object reduction of the quantum wave (Orch O.R): by being triggered by proto-consciousness moment (i.e. Orch O.R). Metaphorically: its like a spark of a spark plug starting a car.This is the 'discrete moment'. The car engine must run to move the car (equivalent metaphorically to full blown consciousness) but to get that car going, one needs a spark. One important addition and distinction to the metaphor: when it comes to the mind of man, that spark (metaphor) is needed 4 times every second. However man experiences the illusion of continuous, streaming consciousness - equivalent to the way man experiences a movie in a theater despite the movie itself being "x" number of "frames per second".

Hallucinogens, the collapse of the collapse of the wave function.

Thinking many worlds is silly... like!

When I first heard this, I thought, that's just common sense isn't it?: A moving object doesn't have a fixed location.

@impancaking

5 жыл бұрын

@@AmericanBrain how does neuroception fit in with your theory that humans have full blown consciousness compared to animals? Modern man's mind consistantly misinterprets their neuroception, may be an adaption that has become a maladaption... I would say we are less concious (either numbing or misinterpreting the signals from the environment).

@impancaking

5 жыл бұрын

@@AmericanBrain dude. Do you want some munchies for that high horse? Just because you havent heard of it doesnt mean it isnt a practical term. Jeeez. First hit on google. 'The term "Neuroception" describes how neural circuits distinguish whether situations or people are safe, dangerous, or life threatening. Neuroception explains why a baby coos at a caregiver but cries at a stranger, or why a toddler enjoys a parent's embrace but views a hug from a stranger as an assault.' The polyvagal Theory was developed by Stephen Porges. Neuroception is the term he uses for top down, mental interpretation of the bodys visceral sensory organs. Because most modern adults dissociate from their experiences, they arent aware of/know how to identify emotions within themselves so they retroactively interpret something in the environment to have caused it, usually in the social environment (rather than being able to distinguish between real threat and triggered responses, we usually blame others for our emotions. It isnt the environment that causes our states but a relationship between the environment and our developed unconcious responses. I think part of this is because our ability to conceptualise has gradually been favored over our ability to intuit emotion). So I'd argue, depending on the definition of conciousness, we are less concious than animals who havent developed intricate ways of conceptualising because they are more aware/act in accordance with their neuroception. Their minds and bodies still work together functionally. Maybe there was a golden period where we could enjoy a balance between the two abilities, but its been a pretty steady decline in our attention and our ability to correctly discern between reality and our misperseptions (our personal habits of visceral memory and responses). The calming cycle theory seems to be a more complete model but I havent researched it well yet. So its a question of what you mean by 'full conciouness'. Marshall Mcluan explains why there are hundreds of interpretations to each word. You may know of the concept of neuroception by another term or concept. Our ability to conceptualise doesnt make our conciousness more full, it just means its unbalanced towards one ability over another. We have given up other important abilities and now over rely on conceptualisation as an ultimate, one cognitive process fits all, strategy. We only have the illusion of free will so what do you mean by full conciousness? Or are you like the rest who have this great 'need' for humans to be special and your mind makes the connections that dont need to be there? www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00683/full

@AmericanBrain

5 жыл бұрын

@@impancaking you win. I am at fault - this IS A LEGIT term ! Thanks for telling me to look at it in google. I also LOVE the term and happy its a real word!!!

Everything is as it appears

Is it just me, but it seems like proponents for the theory, as well as critics, text dump the same explanations featured on other various websites and articles featuring this subject? They almost feel like bots.

Isn't the cat inside the box a conscious entity?

This cat is definitely alive.... At 17:31+ Yep! It does

There's a colossal error with the cat in the box experiment, and that is that it is dead or alive until a conscious being observes it, and the cat IS a conscious being. thus it does not depend on an external observer.

@velenjak4ever

5 жыл бұрын

You made a very good point. The cat itself is a conscious being.

@RodCornholio

5 жыл бұрын

Geeky technical point, but the thought experiment is still valid (substitute cat for matchstick...poison for guillotine-cutting contraption...is the stick cut, not cut, or both simultaneously?). The cat just makes it dramatic and ridiculously clever. But, good point.

@Milletrulli

5 жыл бұрын

There is a colossal error with this remark. The quantum effect being observed is outside the box, i.e. the cat has no way of observing it. This is the point of the whole mechanism to collect the photon and route it into the box and make it release the poison. Only the external observer could trigger the collapse, not the cat...

@adrianobulla7875

5 жыл бұрын

Milletrulli That I understand, but then it says, "And the cat may be alive or dead until a conscious mind is aware of it." It forgets that the cat Is a conscious mind. You see, my issue is not with the observer's effect; I am fine with it, but with this particular paradoxical example which forgets or ignores the elephant in the room, or, in this case, the cat. The cat is an observer of its own life, as all consciousness is.

@adrianobulla7875

5 жыл бұрын

RodCornholio The observer effect is undeniable. But we need to be very precise with these things. You see, use THIS example for the observer effect to demonstrate the nature of consciousness with someone who still believes it's a strange side effect of the brain and they will start doing what I call "the woodpecker"; ignore the general argument to hit at an even marginal hole in your argument, in this case the fact that the cat is conscious and this is not a good example of the observer effect because it does not take all factors into consideration. Choose another example.

the universe doesn't exist without consciousness. consciousness is the only thing documenting the universes existence

🔥 11:33

The last explanation of the Eons is what Hindus, Sikhs and Jains believe in.

Come to India to realise this.You can only explain unless you realise.

More and more, it seems to me that Consciousness is the only thing that really exists and it generates everything we know, both energy and matter, space and time. The only problem with that is, that in our world consciousness seems to have fragmented and distributed over countless creatures, including ourselfs. This can only be when our consciousness originates in one big consciousness, most people including myself would call God. I think that pure consciousness has no location, nor can it be measured or detected. It simply 'is'. Consciousness is the quality to experience presence. For some reason it has created this 3D cosmos to experience its presence in a context of chronology, with cause and effect.

@AmericanBrain

5 жыл бұрын

Your theorem is incorrect or incomplete. You can not have a "cartoon" of a brain in a vat. The brain needs the rest of the body to work (e.g. blood flow, the heart must work). Firstly let's just validate consciousness. The fact that you are "aware" of existence and grasp there is "something" as opposed to "nothing" means you have a mind. For it is your mind that "identifies" existence. Therefore it suggests the mind is potent , finite and delimited. And that the mind exists. Second, let's now turn from philosophy to science to determine how is it possible to have an immaterial "mind" with free will? All species have low level consciousness meaning they perceive the environment using their sensory apparatus (within limits) and therefore turn datum into percepts (the unit of perception that self organizes). This enables awareness of the environment and consequent reactions to survive. Man has the additional qualitative aspect called "concepts". Man is able to think using concepts (like the word infinity). Man's percepts self organize (like other species) but man also concurrently self organizes concepts (the fundamental unit of conceptual thinking). Man thereafter or at the same time needs to use the methods of reason and logic to arrive at the truth (and that is never automatic but takes effort of mind). In conclusion: yes indeed - all animal species have consciousness but only man has full blown consciousness: which includes free will - and the ability to think conceptually to reach proper conclusion! Man's mind uses both quantum computing (microtubules using quantum mechanical cellular automata - aka universal computing). The "it" comes from "qubit" - the moment of proto-consciousness that gets magnified by classical neural theorem up fractal hierarchy from the microtubule level to the whole brain. All this is perceived to be instant as man experiences the illusion of continuous streaming consciousness - even though it is in fact discrete consciousness; like watching a movie in a theater where there are in fact "frames" per second What is the science? Consciousness is either "caused" by Object reduction of the quantum wave (Orch O.R): by being triggered by proto-consciousness moment (i.e. Orch O.R). Metaphorically: its like a spark of a spark plug starting a car.This is the 'discrete moment'. The car engine must run to move the car (equivalent metaphorically to full blown consciousness) but to get that car going, one needs a spark. One important addition and distinction to the metaphor: when it comes to the mind of man, that spark (metaphor) is needed 4 times every second. However man experiences the illusion of continuous, streaming consciousness - equivalent to the way man experiences a movie in a theater despite the movie itself being "x" number of "frames per second".

@gitaarmanad3048

5 жыл бұрын

@@AmericanBrain I can't prove anything I've said, nor can I refute anything you say. We simply don't know. Science is working with the phenomena we experience that seem to behave according to laws. But we can't even proof there is really a world out there the way we experience it. That's all we we know. We are experiencing all this. But in case it's not out there, we still know that we are here. What does it mean?

@AmericanBrain

5 жыл бұрын

​@@gitaarmanad3048 Thanks for comments. I will do the validation and/or proving below. 1. Science is not the start of knowledge. If it were then you are a materialist and concepts like mind, "love" and so forth have no meaning. Science is a "model" building system to predict aspects of reality/actuality. But what is reality/actuality? Let's find out. 2. We need philosophy for that. Philosophy means belief: but there's a difference between subjective belief and Objectively proving the truth. We have a method to prove things: it's called reason and logic. 3. You can validate that there is "existence". You can "identify" there is something as opposed to nothing. This is the basemost ground floor level possible. Because of that we can validate it using ostensive definition (pointing at things) but as there are no pre-existing concepts prior to this, we can not prove it. We merely need to validate it. "Proof" has no superiority. 4. YOUR Mind "identifies" existence. So we can therefore state you have a mind; the mind exists; and the mind is potent, finite and delimited. In other for existence (the identity) to be valid, it needs "identification" by the mind. This auto-validates Aristotle's law of identity. Therefore the big three concepts form "metaphysics": actuality. Existence, consciousness and identity. In conclusion: for the first time in your entire life and for the rest of your life (all readers) - you now know we can validate reality as it "is". We can prove you have a "mind" And the mind is real. Please note : there are other philosophies both Eastern and Western (Plato, Kant) that are incorrect. Both of these suggest the "mind/consciousness" creates everything. That is like farting. One can say anything, any mad man can do that. Its free speech. That does not "therefore" make it correct. In fact its outright "incorrect". A mind/consciousness needs to be conscious (aware) of something, other than itself else it 's a logical fallacy. We can state your mind is aware of existence. It identifies existence. Your mind has not created existence.

@gitaarmanad3048

5 жыл бұрын

@@AmericanBrain Thanks for sharing your insights. Some objections are flashing through my thoughts now. But I want to think about this for a while first. I'll let you know when I did.

@gitaarmanad3048

5 жыл бұрын

@@AmericanBrain There's some good points in you statements. I like your observations and the validations within your 'model'. Still, I feel there's some manipulation too, when you say, the suggestion that the mind creates reality is like farting. It isn't. It is only so in your model that obviously suits your own beliefs. It's very well possible that the conscious mind coexists outside of the world of energy and matter. Such a statement may be like farting within your perception of reality. I understand that. To me it is very well possible even if I can't find a way to define what the mind is by my material standards. I agree that 'no research at all', is inferior to research with whatever we got. But it's a bit like solving the 2000 pieces puzzle with only 10 pieces, don't you agree? You have some valid points here, without a doubt, but I still think it's possible that consciousness is the only 'thing' that exists.

i totally get lost between these theorists as i see one talk about reductionism and the other boom change the subject into holism

Consciousness is magic. That's why science can't explain it - correctly.

@StephenCRose

5 жыл бұрын

More or less. Or rather many things we took for magic are true.

@AmericanBrain

5 жыл бұрын

Your postulation is in error and need of correction . All species have low level consciousness meaning they perceive the environment using their sensory apparatus (within limits) and therefore turn datum into percepts (the unit of perception that self organizes). This enables awareness of the environment and consequent reactions to survive. Man has the additional qualitative aspect called "concepts". Man is able to think using concepts (like the word infinity). Man's percepts self organize (like other species) but man also concurrently self organizes concepts (the fundamental unit of conceptual thinking). Man thereafter or at the same time needs to use the methods of reason and logic to arrive at the truth (and that is never automatic but takes effort of mind). In conclusion: yes indeed - all animal species have consciousness but only man has full blown consciousness: which includes free will - and the ability to think conceptually to reach proper conclusion! Man's mind uses both quantum computing (microtubules using quantum mechanical cellular automata - aka universal computing). The "it" comes from "qubit" - the moment of proto-consciousness that gets magnified by classical neural theorem up fractal hierarchy from the microtubule level to the whole brain. All this is perceived to be instant as man experiences the illusion of continuous streaming consciousness - even though it is in fact discrete consciousness; like watching a movie in a theater where there are in fact "frames" per second

@wulphstein

5 жыл бұрын

@@AmericanBrain that's quite a lot you got there. But count me as someone who values his connection to God. The technical stuff will work itself out.

@AmericanBrain

5 жыл бұрын

@@wulphstein Thanks for your honesty

@wulphstein

5 жыл бұрын

@@AmericanBrain the problem with "brain generates consciousness " hypothesis, is that NDE testimonials contradict it. I mean, it's like it works even better when the brain shuts down. Occams razor. ..

I have no idea what he is talking about

@ilonamurry8412

5 жыл бұрын

@Barry Woods problem is to understand this one must be very well grounded in quantum physics and neuroscience so it's not just like anyone can get up to speed on this

@ilonamurry8412

5 жыл бұрын

@Barry Woods where in the Bible was the speed of light noted?

@justeremiahsjourney

5 жыл бұрын

I recommend Stephen Hawkings "The Universe in a Nutshell". He really puts all of the basics of these topics into layman's terms.

@AmericanBrain

5 жыл бұрын

Ilona: Let me attempt to explain what he is talking about. 1. Man can not find your mind! In fact what man has found is that you are a zombie that is hallucinating you are consciousness (Source: Libet's experiments). 2. Hammeroff /Penrose team says that you are in fact conscious. But where does this "immaterial" (like a ghost) concept known as "mind" even come from ? No other person/group has a sufficient testable hypothesis. You can not have a "cartoon" of a brain in a vat. The brain needs the rest of the body to work (e.g. blood flow, the heart must work). Firstly let's just validate consciousness. The fact that you are "aware" of existence and grasp there is "something" as opposed to "nothing" means you have a mind. For it is your mind that "identifies" existence. Therefore it suggests the mind is potent , finite and delimited. And that the mind exists. Second, let's now turn from philosophy to science to determine how is it possible to have an immaterial "mind" with free will? All species have low level consciousness meaning they perceive the environment using their sensory apparatus (within limits) and therefore turn datum into percepts (the unit of perception that self organizes). This enables awareness of the environment and consequent reactions to survive. Man has the additional qualitative aspect called "concepts". Man is able to think using concepts (like the word infinity). Man's percepts self organize (like other species) but man also concurrently self organizes concepts (the fundamental unit of conceptual thinking). Man thereafter or at the same time needs to use the methods of reason and logic to arrive at the truth (and that is never automatic but takes effort of mind). In conclusion: yes indeed - all animal species have consciousness but only man has full blown consciousness: which includes free will - and the ability to think conceptually to reach proper conclusion! Man's mind uses both quantum computing (microtubules using quantum mechanical cellular automata - aka universal computing). The "it" comes from "qubit" - the moment of proto-consciousness that gets magnified by classical neural theorem up fractal hierarchy from the microtubule level to the whole brain. All this is perceived to be instant as man experiences the illusion of continuous streaming consciousness - even though it is in fact discrete consciousness; like watching a movie in a theater where there are in fact "frames" per second What is the science? Consciousness is either "caused" by Object reduction of the quantum wave (Orch O.R): by being triggered by proto-consciousness moment (i.e. Orch O.R). Metaphorically: its like a spark of a spark plug starting a car.This is the 'discrete moment'. The car engine must run to move the car (equivalent metaphorically to full blown consciousness) but to get that car going, one needs a spark. One important addition and distinction to the metaphor: when it comes to the mind of man, that spark (metaphor) is needed 4 times every second. However man experiences the illusion of continuous, streaming consciousness - equivalent to the way man experiences a movie in a theater despite the movie itself being "x" number of "frames per second".

@justeremiahsjourney

5 жыл бұрын

@@AmericanBrain You just copied and pasted the same response to two opposing statements. I claimed that people criticizing this man are lacking knowledge on the subject. You responded with said copy and paste. This guy stated that the man talking is wrong, you told him that he is wrong then copied and pasted the same reply. Lol. Which of us is wrong and do you actually know what you are talking about if you had replied as such stating that both of our complete opposite views on the validity of this video were incorrect. Um, maybe you do know what you are talking about but lack the common sense to fully read through and absorb what other people are communicating. You are confused and confusing.

¡ Qué manera de dar palos de ciego ¡

Great stuff. Simple explanation for dumbasses like me.

Consciousness is outside dualism. Science is Dualism. Schrodinger's cat is alive or dead completely dependent on who the observer is.

@derycktrahair8108

5 жыл бұрын

Let's ask the cat. If she is alive she will want her dinner. Sorry if that sounds flippant, but this is really deep stuff. I am aware of my ignorance. Curiosity keeps me going (" Curiosity killed the Cat"?) I am conscious of SOMETHING beyond awareness, but have never heard a convincing explaination. Have to read up on Dualism. Thank you for that. Isn't it good that we never stop learning? Wading through bullshit is hard work, but worth the effort.

Bottom level Spirit🙅🏼‍♀️

This man doesn't sound coherent. He isn't explaining anything.

@stephencain896

5 жыл бұрын

This was a valued summary for me, but I've been following Orch-OR for a few years. Here's a more explanatory lecture he gave for Google HQ: kzread.info/dash/bejne/fox6qMSxn6vWY9Y.html

It's not a conscious perceiver that collapses the wavefunction, it's any interaction between a quantum object and a classical object, apart from and independent of any conscious perceiver, to quote an actual textbook on quantum mechanics. The dude in this clip hasn't researched the topic at all.

@RodCornholio

5 жыл бұрын

Uhhh, the "dude" IS a researcher. He's beyond quoting a textbook (and I don't mean that in a snobbish sense) because a.) he has reason and evidence that supports a claim challenging what is stated in that particular textbook b.) he "quotes" OTHER researchers that have reason and evidence the textbook isn't correct in that instance. Hameroff isn't like some woo-woo, New Age, High School dropout, who decided to pull an imaginative fictional explanation out of his ass. This is science. It's slow and this is how textbooks get changed.

@LasseJ789

5 жыл бұрын

@@RodCornholio It is EXACTLY woo-woo new age, and it has NOTHING to do with science. He doesn't understand the basics.

@RodCornholio

5 жыл бұрын

@@LasseJ789 Okay. It will help science and the scientific community if you can, please, convince the faculty here: profiles.arizona.edu/person/hameroff of his lack of understanding. Best Regards.

@AmericanBrain

5 жыл бұрын

Lasse: Your theorem is incorrect or incomplete. You can not have a "cartoon" of a brain in a vat. The brain needs the rest of the body to work (e.g. blood flow, the heart must work). Firstly let's just validate consciousness. The fact that you are "aware" of existence and grasp there is "something" as opposed to "nothing" means you have a mind. For it is your mind that "identifies" existence. Therefore it suggests the mind is potent , finite and delimited. And that the mind exists. Second, let's now turn from philosophy to science to determine how is it possible to have an immaterial "mind" with free will? All species have low level consciousness meaning they perceive the environment using their sensory apparatus (within limits) and therefore turn datum into percepts (the unit of perception that self organizes). This enables awareness of the environment and consequent reactions to survive. Man has the additional qualitative aspect called "concepts". Man is able to think using concepts (like the word infinity). Man's percepts self organize (like other species) but man also concurrently self organizes concepts (the fundamental unit of conceptual thinking). Man thereafter or at the same time needs to use the methods of reason and logic to arrive at the truth (and that is never automatic but takes effort of mind). In conclusion: yes indeed - all animal species have consciousness but only man has full blown consciousness: which includes free will - and the ability to think conceptually to reach proper conclusion! Man's mind uses both quantum computing (microtubules using quantum mechanical cellular automata - aka universal computing). The "it" comes from "qubit" - the moment of proto-consciousness that gets magnified by classical neural theorem up fractal hierarchy from the microtubule level to the whole brain. All this is perceived to be instant as man experiences the illusion of continuous streaming consciousness - even though it is in fact discrete consciousness; like watching a movie in a theater where there are in fact "frames" per second What is the science? Consciousness is either "caused" by Object reduction of the quantum wave (Orch O.R): by being triggered by proto-consciousness moment (i.e. Orch O.R). Metaphorically: its like a spark of a spark plug starting a car.This is the 'discrete moment'. The car engine must run to move the car (equivalent metaphorically to full blown consciousness) but to get that car going, one needs a spark. One important addition and distinction to the metaphor: when it comes to the mind of man, that spark (metaphor) is needed 4 times every second. However man experiences the illusion of continuous, streaming consciousness - equivalent to the way man experiences a movie in a theater despite the movie itself being "x" number of "frames per second".

@LasseJ789

5 жыл бұрын

@@AmericanBrain Nope, it is not your mind that perceices or acts, those are all experiences, and those experiences are conscious, but they don't do anything. If we could erase your "mind" your body's "awareness" would be the same, for it is the product of mechanical processes. People are only conscious when many areas in the brain lights up simultaneously, so consciousness is probably just a kind of noise in the brain.

You can never find scientific explanation of this.Indians know...Come to Gurus in India.

a lot of speculation in this presentation. Just because qm and consciousness are both not very well know and still mysterious, does not mean they are related... there is currently no evidence to support this conclusion. Pure speculation, I suggest they gather more data and stop speculating.

@zulya007

5 жыл бұрын

Knowledge begins with speculation. I suggest stop being self-righteous. You've asked for it :)

@jfreeman2927

5 жыл бұрын

hilarious. no amount of so-called evidence will satisfy a closed mind.

@RodCornholio

5 жыл бұрын

Spotted the non-STEM person!

@dr.perspective8298

5 жыл бұрын

And DNA debunks darwanism. You're welcome.🤙🏽

@AmericanBrain

5 жыл бұрын

AW Crowe. Let's get to the truth. You can not have a "cartoon" of a brain in a vat. The brain needs the rest of the body to work (e.g. blood flow, the heart must work). Firstly let's just validate consciousness. The fact that you are "aware" of existence and grasp there is "something" as opposed to "nothing" means you have a mind. For it is your mind that "identifies" existence. Therefore it suggests the mind is potent , finite and delimited. And that the mind exists. Second, let's now turn from philosophy to science to determine how is it possible to have an immaterial "mind" with free will? All species have low level consciousness meaning they perceive the environment using their sensory apparatus (within limits) and therefore turn datum into percepts (the unit of perception that self organizes). This enables awareness of the environment and consequent reactions to survive. Man has the additional qualitative aspect called "concepts". Man is able to think using concepts (like the word infinity). Man's percepts self organize (like other species) but man also concurrently self organizes concepts (the fundamental unit of conceptual thinking). Man thereafter or at the same time needs to use the methods of reason and logic to arrive at the truth (and that is never automatic but takes effort of mind). In conclusion: yes indeed - all animal species have consciousness but only man has full blown consciousness: which includes free will - and the ability to think conceptually to reach proper conclusion! Man's mind uses both quantum computing (microtubules using quantum mechanical cellular automata - aka universal computing). The "it" comes from "qubit" - the moment of proto-consciousness that gets magnified by classical neural theorem up fractal hierarchy from the microtubule level to the whole brain. All this is perceived to be instant as man experiences the illusion of continuous streaming consciousness - even though it is in fact discrete consciousness; like watching a movie in a theater where there are in fact "frames" per second What is the science? Consciousness is either "caused" by Object reduction of the quantum wave (Orch O.R): by being triggered by proto-consciousness moment (i.e. Orch O.R). Metaphorically: its like a spark of a spark plug starting a car.This is the 'discrete moment'. The car engine must run to move the car (equivalent metaphorically to full blown consciousness) but to get that car going, one needs a spark. One important addition and distinction to the metaphor: when it comes to the mind of man, that spark (metaphor) is needed 4 times every second. However man experiences the illusion of continuous, streaming consciousness - equivalent to the way man experiences a movie in a theater despite the movie itself being "x" number of "frames per second".

How to recognize quantum woo? "... Niels Bohr... wave function collapses by conscious observation ..." *Sigh* Moving on

@AmericanBrain

5 жыл бұрын

Johan - when you see a red rose: there is classical neuroscience the type you talk about. But all classical neuroscience, and classical physics is premised upon the quantum realm and microtubule computation in a single neuron. Microtubules perform quantum (cellular automata) computation that results in 4 discrete consciousness moments (termination of computing with a self collapse of the quantum wave) . This "moment" is instantly and fracticaly amplified up a classical hierarchy to the state known as "mind" ( a potent, finite , delimited quality : immaterial , but with free will) ! When you see a red rose, then the "Red" is an intrinsic property of the rose; and that "cohereres" via coherent oscillation with dipole dipole oscillation in a microtubule (Froelich condensate; Bose-Einstein) _________ Johan I wrote this to another person but may apply here? There is evidence to support this presentation. Before Quantum Biology was ever a "Thing" - Hammeroff and Penrose were talking about it pertaining to the brain. Before superconductance was ever even conceivably detected in the brain - Hammeroff wrote about it in the 1980s and now this year NATURE has published his admirer and scientist Anirban Bandoyopadhi on "bullet effect" (like superconductance) within microtubules as hertz (Hz), kHz, MHz, GHz which is fantastic and fascinating. Before mainstream (Koch, the partner of Crick the founder of DNA ) moved to making consciousness pan-psychist (for there is NO OTHER WAY to have free will) , Hammeroff talked about it. Hammeroff also talked about backward time effect before the "quantum eraser experiment" was proved. For there to be free will, the future must inform your present brain (!) and your present brain must inform the past. This is how to align this with Libet's experiments! In summary: there is no way to have consciousness (with free will) in a cause-effect deterministic brain without bringing QM into the picture. Penrose did exactly that - but we need a mechanism for this. Hammeroff brought that with microtubules using (quantum) cellular automata calculations that terminate 4 times per second in an output: consciousness.

@friedrichschopenhauer2900

5 жыл бұрын

Because Niels Bohr was idiot, right? People who are still staying "woo" are always the bombastic morons who only have something to say if they think it might make them look like an intellectual. Obnoxious and silly.

@Jopie65

5 жыл бұрын

@@friedrichschopenhauer2900 Where did I say Niels Bohr was aan idiot? He sure was not. But he also never claimed that only conscious observation collapses the wave function. That's where the woo comes in. It's always uttered by people who know quantum mechanics superficially and misinterpret it to fit their ideas about the mysteries of consciousness. Usually this idea is 'wave function collapse' which is how Niels Bohr and some others tried to interpret the quantum related observations they made. Physicists who studied quantum mechanics deeply almost never link consciousness to quantum observation. Also there are currently more plausible interpretations of the quantum observations such as many worlds. But still they are merely interpretations and that consciousness has anything to do with it is just a misunderstanding of what 'observation' means.

@AmericanBrain

5 жыл бұрын

@@Jopie65 You said " But he also never claimed that only conscious observation collapses the wave ". What did he add to that then [in this context] ? Thanks.

@Jopie65

5 жыл бұрын

@@AmericanBrain What do you mean? With 'he' you refer to Bohr? Bohr believed that quantum processes occur without the need of observers.

No matter how much I want it to be true, I cannot believe it. The core of the concept is incoherent. Consciousness, whatever else it might be, is *of* something. It is contingent no matter how else we try to define it. I'm all for speculation, testing, stretching the limits of hypothesis. But not into contradiction and incoherence guys. Be honest.

@EZ-bx9pc

5 жыл бұрын

You really think you have a more complete grasp of consciousness than Penrose and Hamerhoff ... I seriously doubt it

@thejackanapes5866

5 жыл бұрын

@@EZ-bx9pc The name and background of a person is irrelevant to whether or not their claim is coherent, valid and sound. Nothing I've said disputes their accuracy, character, personhood, ability, etc. Only on the specifics of this one claim are they demonstrably incoherent. Nowhere have I claimed to know *more* than they do about consciousness (or anything at all). It's not about hierarchy. That is non-cognitive ape behavior. It's about non-contradiction in our concepts.

@kamelian5

5 жыл бұрын

You Might be correct.

@kamelian5

5 жыл бұрын

@@EZ-bx9pc and you don't ve consciousness and therefore assume these con-science-tits , Penrose or else can tell you better about it.

@AmericanBrain

5 жыл бұрын

Science is not about what you want to be true or not. Its about objectively what is true. The core of the concept is quite coherent: there is objective reduction of the quantum wave (this unites general relativity with quantum mechanics). This moment happens 4 times per second to microtubules. This moment is "metaphorically" like a spark plug of a car . The ensuing running of the engine is like consciousness. [However the metaphor has to be restarted 4 times per second). The microtubules are in a quantum superposition performing qubit calculation that terminates in a moment of consciousness (output). Also the brain amplifies consciousness using classical physics with neural network like theory.

hameroff is hilarious. he doesn't have a clue, but just keeps saying the words in his script

@stephencain896

5 жыл бұрын

Hahaha! He should be smart like you!

@garypuckettmuse

4 жыл бұрын

yeah, actually he does have a clue. You are the one who doesn't have a clue. Why are people so narcissistic that they think if they don't know it it doesn't exist? Hummmmm? Why?