Sir Roger Penrose - The quantum nature of consciousness
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 6 сен 2024
- Sir Roger Penrose. Quantum Consciousness Theorist - Co-creator of the Orch OR model of the quantum nature of consciousness and memory. GF2045.com/spea...
Knighted in 1994 for his contributions to science, Sir Roger Penrose OM FRS, is an English mathematical physicist, mathematician and philosopher.
The extraordinary scope of his work ranges from quantum physics and theories of human consciousness to relativity theory and observations on the structure of the universe. Penrose is internationally renowned for his scientific work in mathematical physics, in particular for his contributions to general relativity and cosmology. His primary interest is in a field of geometry called tesselation, the covering of surfaces with tiles of different shapes.
Among numerous prizes and awards, he received the 1988 Wolf Prize for physics, which he shared with Stephen Hawking for their contribution to our understanding of the universe.
He is the Emeritus Rouse Ball Professor of Mathematics at the Mathematical Institute of the University of Oxford, as well as an Emeritus Fellow of Wadham College.
"There is a current view that consciousness is something which arises from some complicated computation. So we have our computers, and people think that because they can do things amazingly fast, and they can calculate very quickly, and they can play chess extremely well, that they are superior to us even, and it is only some complicated aspect of this computational activity that somehow consciousness arises from that. Now my view is quite different from this. I think there is a lot of computational activity going on in the brain, but this is basically unconscious. So consciousness seems to me to be something quite different."
For more information about the GF2045 congress, please visit www.GF2045.com
Just for the record: he was Stephen Hawking's PhD tutor
ghiribizzi Yes and he an Stephen have not always agreed on every subject. Good science.
Harry McNicholas The problem is none of us know why?
Dennis William Sciama was Stephen Hawking's PhD tutor.
Wrong. Dennis Scima was Hawking's thesis advisor. Double-check before saying bullshit on the Internet.
Orchestrated objective reduction
Having read his books, I find it difficult to follow his reasoning but eventually the light bulb goes off... most of the time. He is a brilliant man. But what I like about Roger Penrose most is that he is an original thinker. He is never afraid to break from convention. Right or wrong, his ideas are inspiring.
Is eh a materialist?
@@michaelflores9220 materialist??
@@michaelflores9220 He thinks quantum computations in the microtubuli could explain consciousness so that's "material" enough but still I think he can't be called a materialist.
@@jean-pierredevent970 he is a materialist, due to his foundation for consciousness STARTING at the microtubuli level...which is in the realm of PHYSICS, which denotes a materialist point of view...I like the way he thinks, but he will be proven incorrect due to the fact that he has it 100% backwards...
u see it can only be one of two possibilities, either:
1. material creates consciousness
OR
2. consciousness creates the PERCEPTION OF A MATERIAL UNIVERSE
and one of these theories is being proven more and more accurate and right on the money as each day passes...and sorry to tell Penrose that it is NOT his theory...it is the other one...
~ the foundation of our reality is 100% consciousness, which then secondarily creates the virtual fractal holographic illusion that we perceive as "solidity"; "materialism"...and this materialism comes in the form of atoms which are waves of consciousness which when observed morph into apparent perceived physical objects...and this is bc all atomic form is simply information being decoded by a consciousness which operates at a similar frequency range as the wave that then created that virtual particle...and when a bunch of these virtual particles get together they form what we OBSERVE as "microtubuli"...virtual holographic microtubuli, u see...being decoded by a virtual holographic form of consciousness; us...
therefore, there is NO MATERIAL to create anything, ever...there is only the virtual holographic illusion of material we call atomic form...so, ANY theory based upon a materialist foundation is doomed from the holographic start...
I hope that helped...
ur friend, abracadabra
@@jean-pierredevent970 or to state if briefly:
NO-thing cannot create SOME-thing...it just doesn't happen, ever...the only thing that can provide us with that illusion is consciousness...and it accomplishes this task by one simple trick: by creating an information based virtual holographic image of SOME-thing...that we then decode as SOME-thing, like "microtubuli"...bc WE are composed of the very same substance; consciousness...
ur friend, abracadabra
ps...but I do love Penrose, bc by going down this road he helps by negation prove the consciousness basis of reality...and this is a very important position to take to help strengthen the more accurate model...as science only flourishes by overcoming all forms of scrutiny...
One of the most compelling pieces of evidence for this, to me at least, is Hammeroff and Penrose's theory of how anesthesia works.
Id like to hear this theory of how anesthesia works. Does anyone know where they talk about it?
@@Eudjier it's called the microtubule quantum vibration theory of anesthetic action. You could start with the Wikipedia page on theories of anaesthetic action, it has a good summary of the problem and a nifty little table showing how the Microtubule theory has the best potential to explain all of the features of anesthetics. In the reference section on Wikipedia there are links to some more in depth materials on the subject.
GloopGloopGlorp thank you for this (;
The main point of consciousness is:
"I think there is a lot of computational activity going on in the brain, but this is basically unconscious. So consciousness seems to me to be something quite different. What we do when we understand something is not computing. There's something else going on."
I.e., the hard problem of consciousness.
What if conciousness is just what it feels like to do all this mostly unconscious stuff?
@@chaotickreg7024 What does that even mean ?
@@ROForeverMan Like, everyone demands an answer for sentience and the feeling of being in control, but maybe that sensation is simply an emergent property of the mostly-unnoticeable brain? Like, maybe my brain doesn't do 2+2=4 but instead activates an assortment of synapses that has the combined effect of me perceiving such elements as 2, 4, and addition? Maybe there is no part of the brain that "does" consciousness, maybe my brain just "does" a bunch of random stuff that's only perceivable in the whole as "conscious thoughts"? If you look at a computer there is no 2, 4, or addition. There is only 10, 100, and a bunch of logic gates that perform binary operations. Computer text is all handled in a similar binary way. Perhaps consciousness is a similar abstraction. Perhaps it is just much more difficult to analyze the abstract bridge between lucidity and the chaotic neurological synapse math that we got from random mutation and natural selection.
@@chaotickreg7024 Brain doesn't exist. "Brain" is just an idea in consciousness.
"because thou has seen me, thou hast believed; blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed"
thank you. i m studying the physics on my own, ie. cosmology...it is just amazing, the math, the fine tunning..i see super sophisticated designer, all over the place...ie god.
@@stevejames5863 i feel you
@@stevejames5863 Why do you feel a desperate need to invoke an invisible silent deity, in order to explain reality?
@ Brett B-- always someone in the thread who is compelled to dumb it down, by invoking religious mythology and superstition aka Judaism, Islam and 3,500 disagreeing cults of Judaist-christianity...pleeez
1:37 'what we do when we understand something is NOT computing, there's something else going on.' Simple, logical, true. It's a great insight.
Roger Penrose has one of the greatest minds of the last century, possibly of all time. I can not recommend highly enough his two books, The Emperor's New Mind and Shadows of the Mind. They're not easy reads, this isn't an easy subject, but they're well worth the effort.
carl gustav jung
@@John49910110 Jung is low IQ
@@veganworldorder9394 yeah prob
But he is the best psycanylisyt of 20th century. Although we know nothing of psyche he surely is the one who got somwthing really interisting not reducing all to sexual bullshit like freud
@@veganworldorder9394 IQ doesnt have to do wit it
@@veganworldorder9394 lol, have you ever read Jung's works?
For a neuropsychologist like me it's delicious to hear you Sir. Greetings from Portugal.
Delicious is usually used to refer to food and it’s tastes.
@@reecem9367 sorry my english
Gabinete Psicologia No need to apologize, I commented just to help you in the future. I’m learning a language myself, I know how it can be.
@@reecem9367 "its"
Delicious is also another form of delighted, yes it's also used to describe tastes but it can be a feeling of delighted as well.
Your English is excellent.
Penrose + Hameroff = Quantum Mechanics + Microtubials = Orchestrated Objective Reduction = The best explanation for consciousness.
Alex Azazel LOL. Trying to impress me with your narrow minded vulgarities? Such a weak mind could never hope to understand the complexities of our existence. Stick with your trailer park buds, I'm sure they are impressed. Leave the real science to the experts like Penrose.
Alex Azazel I doubt that Dr. Penrose raises much interest among any religious people. Also, I do not think he has come up with a theory yet.
Alex Azazel Since Roger Penrose is an Atheist and President of he Humanist Society of the UK, very doubtful he is talking about religion.
Alex Azazel Ah, simply stating with profanities and an LOL what is obvious to you.Tell me Alex, what is the popular belief among scientists to explain consciousness? I don't see Deepak Chopras mentioned anywhere except by you. And to finish off you tell me I'm angry. Wow, you are a special one I will give you that.
I have great respect for this man and his work.
This is the first time I've watched him a video. He seems like a delightful man. I'm very fascinated by this topic, but I have no idea why haha. I don't understand a lot of what is being said, but I'm drawn to it.
Continue watching similar subjects. The vocabulary will come naturally. And if a word you do not understand is used more often, you might want to know bad enough to do a very simple/quick search.
It seems to me quite natural to be interested in the nature of one's being. And that so many claim to be uninterested is too bad and caused I think by some very old and some fairly new memes that are more interested in their own propagation than people's education.
@@REDPUMPERNICKEL We've literally been rigourously programmed for a hundred years by radio and TV programmes. Not to say that there wasn't any manipulation of human development or consciousness before, but we are constantly being programmed how to perceive and behave on a much greater scale. The development of the internet has allowed for us to be manipulated to a degree most couldn't fathom at the time of its conception, probably. It is cool, neccessary or acceptable to have psychopathic tendencies, especially amongst younger people in today's world. Who cares about anything when you can take a selfie, get some insta-validation, spread (self)destructive memes, distract yourself further from reality and the true nature of humans via food, sex, substance use and abuse etc?
@@kingdomcome1617 PERFECT advice!
Sir Roger Penrose is such a great thinker and hero to me, I would like to be like him in the future...
Well, my dear child, as Sir Michael Jagger once sang:
“You can’t always get what you WANT”, right, Slave? 😛
ruclips.net/video/oqMl5CRoFdk/видео.html
Consciousness?!! ...That annoying time between naps. ^^
Your conscious even in your dreams.
@@Fummy007 How do you explain my sleepwalking excursion at 3:00 AM to my refrigerator for that six-pack of Budweiser? 😅😋
Cringe
@@mael-strom9707 Unconscious acticity. The unconscious mind has strong autonomy, often much more powerful than consciousness, that's why people get overtaken by strong emotions or "possessed" by intrusive ideas.
@@BladeEffect Indeed, most people's lives are driven by the subconscious, that's why Jungian psychoanalysis focuses so much on the shadow.
I'm not a studied philosopher, nor a mathematician, but I am a retired electrical engineer. Over my adult life I have thought persistently about "Where did everything come from? Where is it going?" And "what am I? and where do I fit into the scheme of things?" I investigate evolving cosmological concepts, and examine the basics of various religious tenets but many years ago I came to a workable idea (in my mind at least) that I found nobody else talking about, and attempts to explain it to others were met with ridicule and incredulity. So much so that I began to doubt my own ideas. However, discovering Roger Penrose has been a vindication of my beliefs and emboldened me continue down the path I had almost abandoned. His well expressed ideas about the cyclic nature of the Universe, and consciousness, prop up my own similar attempts to understand, and give me confidence to persist in passing on the concepts.
I find it crazy how people seem to reject this theory which has some scientific backing, yet provide no materialist evidence of their own as to a theory of the emergence of consciousness. I mean I don't want to get Sam Parnia involved but him and Peter Fenwick have also done studies on NDE's that subtly prove some form of mind body dualism. I am a skepic and agnostic, but I find property dualism and mind body dualism to be plausible.
it's a scary thing for many people to admit. the maxim "shut up and calculate" was coined because of this fear of what the science all means in an existential sense, so that people would stop thinking about the ramifications of quantum physics and consciousness as an active physical force in the universe. only those who already accept philosophical idealism could easily accept these paradigms.
I do understand that but this fear does undermine credible research into the field. I am not nencessarily a complete idealist. I like some of Bertrand Russells indirect realism even though I don' 100% subscribe to materialism or physicalism.
+Daniel Almeida it does indeed. I think fear in general restrains us from knowing more than we do about all kinds of things. fear of judgement and peer pressure I think limit the speed of discovery.
if you read what max Planck wrote about matter. that he didn't believe there was such a thing after studying atoms for a lifetime he believed they were a product of the mind. not imaginary but byproducts of consciousness reducing fields of potential to discrete particles.
Dan Urquhart that was eloquently written. Had a similar discussion about this with my uncle. He has a Phd in economics and a masters in philosophy. Would agree with us.
The problem with dualism is it isn't scientific.
If you take the dualism approach then you are stuck trying to specify how one type of thing interacts with the other type of thing. But once you specify that you no longer have dualism. For example there is energy and there is matter but E = mc^2 so they are really the same thing. Once you exactly specify how one thing interacts with the other then you've really only got one thing. Since the days of Descartes dualism hasn't worked. Why should we accept it now?
I've here listened to the thoughts of one of the most advanced, stimulating minds currently on Earth.
What credence shall I give to to comments from random web surfers?
Only what credence the comment itself deserves because the originator of a comment is completely irrelevant to its content.
Rabo I know you are but what am I?
I listened lengthily to Daniel Dennett and to Roger Penrose. Although the first has a robust mind with great intellect but I'm more inclined to agree with the second.
Dennett goes in his hypotheses about mind so far beyond experimental reasons that sometimes he comes off as ideologist, while Penrose offers a wider scope of looking at the subject.
Dennett ridicules human mind so much that he doesn't see it more than a usually-dysfunctioning computer. He also implicitly ridicules the minds of whoever rejects this ideas and advises them to use his "thinking tools" to think "better". While Penrose simply capitalizes on common intuition to get people agreeing on the transition from the deadly-narrow machine thinking to ultra-substance dimension.
Dennett attitude is like 'Don't go this far. It is all here, in my unproven hypothesis that our minds are biological computers'. While Penrose is like 'Don't be afraid to reject the material paradigm. This is a hypothesis that -even if unproven yet- opens your mind to endless possibilities'.
It could be a personal preference, but life is nicer with Penrose view, not that his hypothesis lacks any credence that Dennett has in his. In fact Penrose's thinking reasons more with my epistemological view; if not for anything else, it would be for his open approach that is free of dictation and unnecessary borders Dennett imposes.
Well written! Dennet's world view is referred to as materialist darwinian reductionism, and is currently the the world view of mainstream science. However, cutting edge science in the fore front is actually revealing things about the nature of consciousness and reality itself, which suggest something far more complex and "mysterious" is going on.
I wish that scientists and philosophers would use the phrase _theory of knowledge_ rather than the unwieldy word epistemological, but I get you. But borders are how we see things. Science is open to all possibilities, but we have to tread carefully when talking about consciousness. Penrose is going beyond provable stuff and Dennett is staying within. Conservationism is good in science, it guides us, we build upon previous knowledge. Penrose is dismantling the whole structure and misusing the known facts of microtubules. I can't think of a time that tearing everything down ever worked.
CrazyFoxAstral Please, tell me more about the great mystery of the mind.
Alex Azazel WTH?
Lee Moe This goes to the Batman. I will guarantee you that conscientiousness will end long before you hit absolute 0.
"Curvature of something on something" 😂 Reletivity perfectly summed up! Andone that can grasp the abstract nature of mathematics can relate to this
Every time i listen to him speak, i have no idea what he’s saying, but i get really excited for the possibilities in our universe...
Lets see, Shadows of the mind by Penrose was first published in 1994, 22 years ago and i am just now reading it.Funny thing is that from the age 5 or 6 i have experienced these Quantum effects in my life. Studying this has helped to make sense of it all. Note to Stuart, i have experienced entanglement upon death at distances. One time 3+ miles another 22+ miles and lots of other things in the last 58 years. Thank you for the work your doing for all of us!
Hi, would you mind expanding at all? I think I'm experiencing similar things and am a bit in the dark
@@BillysKingdom several of these times when somebody had died suddenly I was miles away and I felt like a wave go through my body from one side to the other this being I believe that their spirit soul passing through space time and reach the point where I was at and pass through my body also believe that since one of them I had met two weeks prior we had exchanged something by shaking hands breathing the same air molecules particles atoms were exchanged and possibly an entanglement took place then there's so much that we don't know and I just now finding out but to study this subject you might check and check up on metaphysics other times I would weep when I would think about someone who would pass or hadn't passed yet but was about to pass 1 even nine months before they pass there was a prophet in the Old Testament that had the same anointing. The one thing I do not do is try to inquire of the Dead the service of being a medium and I can't do that because it's against my belief.
An extraordinary mind, Pure Genius.
@@billdiffenbaugh4578 I don't see the connection between the Atheism and the absence of genius, Physicists are trying to understand the mechanisms of Nature not the deep origin of it, Religion is surely the easiest way around and you are free to believe and be respected for that. As Penrose said there is something a lot more deeper about space , I think is more delusional to talk about things which are impossible to prove like religion, than science facts which anyways are not in contrast with each other. Good Luck
@@lginc3290 I think you'd enjoy inspiring philosophy series on consciousness he always sits his sources and he's very reliable
Any Quantum entanglement demonstration involving a choice illustrates that the subjective experience of scientist A making a choice, only he knows, violates locality as observed by scientist B, and so the subjective experience of scientist A does not occur in a finite box. Therefore, the human mind cannot be said to be inside a finite box such as the brain, the brain and body, or the body and the local environment regardless of how entanglement works.
A choice (the activity of the human mind in philosophy) such as whether or not to consciously look at information is identical to the subjective experience of making a choice (the activity of the human mind in physics) during an experiment. The demonstration of entangled Quantum states violating Localism is where a choice is instantly observed elsewhere. So, when making a choice in either philosophy or Quantum physics, the subjective experience (human mind) does not occur locally (proving an idea called Atman in Hindu).
Your awareness/conciseness is the driver of your body and is in constant communication with your brain. The conscious uses the body to explore this reality of 4d space and time. It resides outside the body in another dimension possibly curled up at the Plank length. That is just a thought of mine, I am not stating that as fact!
Oh, gosh, so you're not stating that as fact!? How humble of you...
No I am not stating fact, I simply enjoy thinking about theory and trying to understand this stuff on my own personal level.
MrJamesLongstreet Don't be mean! I am forever walking the Plank length, and return for fear of height - and that's a fact.
Bob Loosemore So say what's on your mind instead of a mindless comment.
@@MrJamesLongstreet
Our of curiosity, what's the benefit of being condescending?
Don't you guys bother what the so called TECHNOP (Techno People) or HUMACHINE comment on this clip. 'Cause they don't know, perhaps, that their very strengths of putting any adverse comment, or logic against this man, indeed came from the works of a number of greatest minds of 21st century like him. It's no wonder that the BIOMACHINES of today with confused personalities, severely traumatized with identity crisis will never absorb the astounding beauty of this insight. I just bend my head with respect and awe! So simple, yet so profound, a life time finding of a noble theoretical physicist, cosmologist, author and observer! A message of wake-up call! Your eyes reveals the truth, Doctor! The pacified glory of your face says it, Sir, that you found 1 instead of 0. The final settlement brought you the merge of 1 and 0 simultaneously.
Consciousness is not a product of the brain. The brain ( and every other object) appears IN consciousness.
Too bad Penrose doesn't understand this. He got it right that consciousness is non-computational, but somehow he still clings on the materialist story.
My guess is that nobody in this thread is anywhere near being sufficiently qualified to comment on the great man's speculations.
[Yes thanks, I perceive my paradox, but it's irrelevant.]
Lol true
penrose is full of shit
His speculations are garbage, you don't even have to understand quantum physics to see that.
Alexandre Gurchumelia And you know this for a fact or is this the beer talking?
Alex Azazel What are your own thoughts about consciousness then ?
The universe is consciousness. When your body dies, you "wake up" as a process of that universal consciousness yet again. Nothing to fear.
drrory Yeah but will they have Starbucks in the future?
Probably, but I am not hasty to know that all for sure.
OMG! he didn't knew abt microtubules. But it was humble of him to admit it.
You have to be humble to learn. Arrogance has no place in science
You see he has the gift of a teacher using simple wors and structure in sentence i can understand it
Hey Penrose, you are referrencied in my master degree dissertation. I love you so much. Brazil loves you. My leader, Jorge Cardoso, your master degree student, send a hug to you.
I had a dream in a dream in a dream once. It was really one of the most frightening experiences I have ever had, because I couldn't wake up.
Are you saying you're asleep now?
@@REDPUMPERNICKEL no, he’s dead now. Car accident. More than two years ago now. Real tragic
@@Brian-sh5ne Saddened to hear but in truth I must tell you, I've absolutely no recollection of making that comment. I think it's a sign that I've begun the descent into the substratey pool that I originally came from.
I've seen Inception 4 times
Someone claiming that Penrose is wrong more times than right, please direct me to the papers he submitted that were proven wrong.
You can't disprove an ideology. There is nothing concrete to disprove. Just like we can't disprove the existence off God or Odin
Rotten Brainz David Deutsch has developed a quantum computer on similar principles.
@@Gryffon3 do you have anything more than the old standard "tooth -fairy argument" typically put forth by Atheists. If you lose a tooth and there is no money under your pillow the next day, you can safely assume that the tooth-fairy does not exist. What you can't do is to go back in time to the Big-Bang and from a vantage point outside the Universe observe the Big-Bang - and then state that: 'Hey, I was there at the Big-Bang and I can tell you that there was no Supreme Being responsible. it was all spontaneous creation.' Since you can't do that, comparing the question of God with the question of the tooth-fairy, Odin, the spaghetti monster, etc, is not only disengenous, its the mark of a feeble intellect. At least Theists have some compelling philosophical arguments for the existence of God (Spinoza, Leibiniz, Descarte). All Atheists have is the 'tooth-fairy argument. As an Agnostic I have contempt for both organized Religion and for Atheism. But I find Atheists to be more laughable.
@Rotten Brainz Riiight, and I bet you think Ray Kurzweil has good ideas
Hameroff - Penrose theory was attacked by many due to its implications but more recent research brings more support to the theory than not. For example the main attack on the theory was that you cannot have quantum effects in the brain because it has a warm environment and you need very low temperature for the effects to occur, however, now we discovered that there is quantum coherence in photosynthesis which further strengthens Orch OR theory.
i appear to have a golf ball sized consciousness, therefore a golf ball sized understanding. However this stuff fascinates me, have watched and listened to a lot. Each time I end up going back to the late great Bill Hicks: All matter is simply energy reduced to a low vibration, we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subconsciously, there is no such thing as death, life is a dream, and we are the imagination of ourselves. (Here's Tom with the weather.................)
I watched that video too
Remember, it's just a ride. :)
With a golf ball sized understanding you're doing better than most. Most mistakingly think there understand is bigger than it is-their downfall.
maryswilde Bill Hicks quote goes: "experiencing itself SUBJECTIVELY" , not subconsciously.
So where all just conciousness just shaped into different forms? Is that where we get the idea that God is everywhere. Could God not be a creator but a mere influencer? Is it right to call ourselves gods?
This guy makes sense to my senses...Best explanation I heard so far.
consciousness, the hard problem of:
is the problem of explaining why and how we have qualia or phenomenal experiences. This is in contrast to the “easy problems” of explaining the physical systems that give us and other animals the ability to discriminate, integrate information, and so forth. These problems are seen as relatively easy because all that is required for their solution is to specify the mechanisms that perform such functions. Some philosophers assert that even once we have solved all such problems about the brain and experience, the hard problem will still persist.
In other words, the hard problem is the problem of explaining why certain mechanisms are accompanied by conscious experience. For example, why should neural processing in the brain lead to the felt sensations of, say, feelings of hunger?
The so-called “body-mind problem” is closely related to this “hard problem” of consciousness. Millions of philosophers throughout history, both professional academics and amateur philosophers, have noticed that human/animal consciousness differs so radically to inert matter, that they find it difficult to reconcile the dichotomy in a parsimonious manner. It seems that a thought has absolutely nothing in common to a rock or to a molecule of water. However, a similar dilemma could be made regarding water and fire. What similarities do flames have with a glass of water? What does air have in common to a bar of titanium? They seem radically different!
When one beholds a brain, which is a gross (concrete, physical, tangible) object, one fails to see how a subtle (abstract, mental, intangible) object can emerge from it, since the two spheres (of mind and matter) seem so thoroughly distinct and unrelated. However, the same quandary may possibly apply to a piece of dried wood and fire. How can a dead tree become a mass of hot flames? When sufficient frictional force or conductive heat is applied to the wood, the kinetic energy generated will cause the piece of wood to turn into a completely different element (from solid to fire). Similarly, when the electrical impulses generated in a brain are of sufficient intensity, complexity, and quality, that energy is transmuted into the form of thought objects, such as visual images.
(continued)
However any system which is ordered by < and which satisfies:
for all n, exists m (n < m)
has no last element (suppose n is last: then m exists and n < m, so n is not last). Therefore, if such a system exists, it is not finite, i.e. it is infinite.
Thus even if, as you insist, no infinite system actually exists, the definition nonetheless remains coherent and meaningful.
genius personified........
Microtubules or not, I am more and more persuaded that consciousness lies beyond the brain altogether.
People have had parts of their brains removed (because of accident or disease). They lose practical function, but continue to retain consciousness.
Even the collapse of the wave function taking place within the tubules does not seem to offer very much in the way of progress. The collapse of the wave function is just Bohr's fancy terminology for the way in which we select ONE solution to Schroedinger's equation to become reality, discarding all the others. Put differently we select a virtual reality to become what we think of as reality.
+thrunsalmighty It can't be down to microtubules the problem with Penrose is he doesn't necessarily understand neuroscience or even the problems with his own theory if the microtubules are the answer to the collapse mechanism then why are the microtubules in the collapsed state?
+I am the one who flocks
It is Stuart Hameroff who is the enthusiast for microtubules.
Roger Penrose acquiesces,
Even so, I do not understand what mechanism is being proposed.
It sill remains mysterious to me that consciousness can arise from any biological process whatsoever. Just as I cannot see that a computer would ever acquire consciousness. In that, I so agree with Penrose,
@@the1andonlytitch A bigger consciousness collapsed it?
recently discovered: a photosynthetic molecule that uses quantum superposition enhance efficiency beyond the classical limit.
so brain molecules using quantum effects? sure, probably true
N Marbletoe Actually the existence of tiny vibrations within micro tubules and its correlation to consciousness was proven last year by other team of researches!
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140116085105.htm
Quote:
"Orch OR was harshly criticized from its inception, as the brain was considered too "warm, wet, and noisy" for seemingly delicate quantum processes.. However, evidence has now shown warm quantum coherence in plant photosynthesis, bird brain navigation, our sense of smell, and brain microtubules. *The recent discovery of warm temperature quantum vibrations in microtubules inside brain neurons by the research group led by Anirban Bandyopadhyay, PhD, at the National Institute of Material Sciences in Tsukuba, Japan (and now at MIT), corroborates the pair's theory and suggests that EEG rhythms also derive from deeper level microtubule vibrations. In addition, work from the laboratory of Roderick G. Eckenhoff, MD, at the University of Pennsylvania, suggests that anesthesia, which selectively erases consciousness while sparing non-conscious brain activities, acts via microtubules in brain neurons.*"
"the existence of tiny vibrations within micro tubules and its correlation to consciousness was proven last year by other team of researches!"
No, it wasn't.
Brillant exposé ! Admiration ! Thank you Sir Roger Penrose !!!
inwardly observing.. I notice there is the moment in listening, It has a unattached,
feeling, openness .. a sense of separation from experience n memory files, only to have them handy, to compare the information I currently have with the information I am receiving. At that moment, of listening/observing the "I" is out of my files. When my own thinking stops and I listen to the ideas of someone else I metaphorically feel as if I am in neutral and detached from my minds " gears" of function that trigger my memory banks and drive my thinking.
Your waking reality is just a dream, that you will one day wake up from. As above So below.
Spiritual beings having fun at human experiences
why do you think this
the ORCH-OR wiki is pretty biased, and its edited by singularity folks... there are experiments underway that will prove ORCH-OR, not to mention it is now understood that warm wet entanglement is possible... this stuff is cutting edge and well if you are not studying it you simply do not have access to the most recent data.
actually both Penrose and Hamerhoff have addressed most of the arguments against ORCH OR, most of the more recent data is just being published, the Wiki really does not cover this which is why its biased, there is work being done on microtubuals now actually, look at their most recent papers and there is a good interview with Hamerhoff on youtube as well...entanglement is possible in wet warm spaces, in nature just not in the lab,recent work on photosynthesis has shown that their work is going in the right direction. i would wait and see before you discount their work...
the 20th Anniversary of the theory is coming up and they plan to re-present with more current research, like any scientific theory these things take time, shit plate tectonics was not accepted by Geology for like 50 yrs... the theories main detractors and critics are A.I. researchers who of course have a vested interest in the theory not being correct, it would mean development of true AI is much farther off or even impossible and there is a 100 Billion dollar pot in AI research...
phoboskitty m When you say the Wiki is bias do you man Wikipedia or Rational Wiki? Because rational wiki is REALLY bias :/
yes i see what you mean i do not like Rationalwiki either, just like the conservative wiki i do not think one should construct such sites with any ideological bent. but ya i mean wiki wiki... its not really taking into account the latest research it is written by singularity types, people who do not think there is anything much to ORCH -OR it would be nice if Penrose and Hamerhoff would write the wiki
phoboskitty m How do you account for the fact that there have been recent objections/falsifications of Orch-OR that Penrose and Hameroff haven't addressed in the peer reviewed literature?
Namaskaram 🙏🙏 🙏
Sir Penrose just got the Nobel Prize
I mean, it's pretty much a rule in physics that if the answer is "infinity" then it's wrong. And, the reason is very simple. So simple that most people seem to overlook it. It's that all we can do is DESCRIBE reality, and "infinite" things can't be described.
Is he basically saying we are mentally unfit to interpret quantum reality?
No no, his just saying we dont have the right interpretation just yet
lol. He is saying that the conscious ability of understanding has to be related with the collapse of the wavefunction in quantum mechanics, since they are both non-computational phenomena.
Try Tom Campbell's explanation (of the double slit experiment) and thus of consciousness..
The double split experiment is exactly why I clicked on this video.
wow! people arguing with Sir Roger Penrose in an internet comment section. The internet truly is a strange place.
There is alot of those who think they have the anwser and say that he is wrong without basis. I totaly agree with you.
It’s a brilliant insight to connect the unsolved measurement problem with the outcome of consciousness in the brain.
QM is incomplete until it has a formula for wave collapse. The many-worlds theory doesn’t solve the problem because there is still no function for collapse, it just creates a bigger mystery.
Conversely there is no doubt the wave function does accurately describe reality.
We live in amazing times.
Oh yes, and I must add that the theory which just says
1. < is a linear ordering, and
2. for all n, exists m (n < m),
is consistent, producing no contradictions - and its consistency can be proven using entirely finitistic methods, without assuming for every term, formula, and number the existence of a longer/larger term, formula, and number.
Since for every consistent theory there exists a system satisfying it, an infinite system must exist.
To me there seems to be two fundamental types of thinkers.
Those who think the world is deterministic and those who believe in free will.
free will somehow looses most of its fascination if it bascally just means that your decisions are random to a certain degree xD
Free will? Free from what? Free from being determined? So just arbitrary? Completely random? And chaos is lose upon the world? But as science progresses, as we understand more and more about the world the part attributed to chaos lessens. Why would we think that trend will not continue?
if the universe was deterministic, you could run it in a simulation, start with the big bang, formation of stars, galaxies, planets, the start of life, the rise of human,s everything to the end of time.
Scott McCall Yea but to simulate every molecule and wave of the universe would require a computer bigger than the universe to run it. So that can't be done. All we can ever do is approximate. Math is the perfect tool do do that approximation but that fact doesn't make the tool of math the same as what it is approximating.
And then there is the third type: those who understand that the Truth of the Universe is that its both, simultaneously.
Do we see Reality as it is, or do we see Reality as perceived by the brain.. ? Is there an unknown structure of reality that is mind independent ?
Kevin Fairweather Interesting question that has been pursued by both scientists and philosophers. The current answer is that reality is only mathematics. All the rest is an illusion. Of course you have the people at the U. of Washington who think the universe is a computer simulation.
"Please go back and read my explanation again."
Well I can't seem to find it anywhere in this big mess of comments, but your summary was good. Very interesting concept; it just leaves me wondering: has evolution ALWAYS had intentionality, or did evolution evolve (unintentionally) from something without intentionality?
As for the universe: I understand that it consists almost enitrely of dark matter and dark energy. Can these primary constituents be explained by basic laws in a few lines?
There is no universe. "Universe" is just an idea in consciousness.
I find David Bohm's comments in The Undivided Universe relevant here, " The basic relationship of quantum theory and consciousness is that they have the Implicate Order in common. " This suggests to me that consciousness existed before the Big Bang and before micro tubules.
Penrose has always been on the right line.... twister theory.
No surprise the establishment chose Hawkins view.
Rupert Sheldrake has done amazing work in this line
Amazing.
If you look at the evolutionary aspects of consciousness....it becomes apparent that any chemical system that can comprehend its whole within a boundary as a unit and evades dangers to survival as a whole is better equipped to survive and propagate, that is any organism that can biologically comprehend the meaning of unity...so, essentially the chemical origins of consciousness through natural selection is evident....The difficulty is to trace that evolution of consciousness as more complex species evolved
venukannur. That is false logic and no proof sound like the definition of faith Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. A lot of hope in something not tested lol
Walter Vines All matter is just pure energy set in a lower vibration. I'm pretty sure a chair wouldn't be concious. But a complex system might draw in conciousness. My hypothesis is that the universe is concious, and everytime there is a body, the universe inhibits the body until death. My theory is that we are here to experience life. For it is a never ending gift.
22 dislike = 22 Fans of Daniel Dennete who deny the existence of consciousness
Wait, man, Dennet don't denie the idea of consciousness. You probably think that because of his views toward free will, but even that way, he don't says that free will don't exist: he has a deterministic view of the universe, but he is a compatibilist (he believes that the fact the universe is deterministic don't denie the existence of free will).
he says that consciousness is an illusion
Kurt Godel Or people who expect a model to be peer reviewed to have any merit. But alas, keep believing in speudo-science; after all, it does help your self serving bias.
Turtoi Radu what? models don't get peer-reviewed. many of the related articles have been. but what's that got to do with anything? peer review isn't intended to determine the truth of a hypothesis, or whether a theory is 'correct'
Pat Flew Badly formulated. To rephrase it: there's nothing peer reviewed in direct support of this woo.
the chalkboard behind him has the word "poo" slightly smudged out
and if you continue right, there is the last "p". poop...tada !
I don't think anyone on here bothers to read sources which anyone else supplies. It's rare to meet someone with that much interest in learning the "small print."
RE: defining infinity.
The mathematical reality is that we must establish UNdefined terms before any actual definitions are possible. Otherwise we are helplessly doomed to circular definitions. With this understanding, it is quite straightforward to demonstrate infinity mathematically.
Consider a few of Peano's Axioms, which use only "0", "+1", and "Natural" as undefined terms. (see next post in reply to this one)
Love Roger. But, he still is prisoner to the materialist science training of "objects". Consciousness is not an object, a thing, a measurement. Those phenomena occur IN consciousness but are not themselves consciousness. It's okay. His comparison of quantum mechanics and general relativity is a perfect example of this kind of thinking. He realizes they are in conflict and paradoxical but cant see the solution from his materialist perspective. I know the feeling.
At some point he will realize that they are simply two sides of the same one coin.....consciousness.
He thinks they are different.....one set of laws for big things (people, places, things) and another set of laws for tiny things (electrons, photons, atoms).
This is a misperception of reality.
Both are in consciousness. Just different ways of seeing the same thing. No worries. We'll get there. 😊
All matter is just lower viberations of pure energy. Read a brief summary of the split two-hole experiment. If one is observing an atom the atom acts as a particle, if one looks away it acts as a wave. If we are more than matter, then who are we truly in a concious sense? To call everyone as God who forgets we are God, seems insane. But maybe that's what we are missing.
So maybe the Micro & Macrocosm are one of the same! Basically As Above, So Below!!!🤔🙄
John Browne loved your comment the best. Why because I agree with it! And it is scientifically demonstrable. All of the people can do thought experiments to prove Quantum Physics. It helps to believe in Genesis Chapter One, which is the biggest statement of QP, I've ever seen but in purely spiritual terms. I happen to believe that QP meshes perfectly with Genesis Chapter One, and if you will notice Gen I is PURELY a spiritual account of creation. Whereas Genesis Chapters Two and Three get into materialism very heavy even saying we are dirt to return to dirt. Well who wants to believe that, when Genesis Chapter One says "we are created in God's own image and likeness", "with Dominion over the things of the Earth" [could be translated as Matter] and that we are to "behold" "God saw everything God made and it was very good". Such a far cry from what we've borrowed from Gnostic Paganism, and kept for thousands of years, that mankind is "depraved" with a "sin nature" and with not a lot of free will to resist our "badness". Here Quantum Physics is giving us a comparitive look at which might really be true, the talking snake theory, or the writings of Moses most probably. According to what you said, we are non material, and our consciousness is in charge of our lives... "Dominion"? As far as proving our scientific "Dominion" over matter.... we can KNOW, KNOW, KNOW that mankind is "very good" as Gen I says... and then watch what happens. Suddenly everything reflects back that goodness, people are kinder, the news reports are better, love blossoms among friends. Obviously the reverse is true also. And if we listen to too much bad or ugly news on the news reports, we are likely to forget that we are all made in God's own image and likeness. So we need to constantly be in touch with the Truth that will give mankind the freedom he's been wanting..Sending you very GOOD thoughts John Browne!
EVERYTHING is Consciousness: without thought, there is still consciousness, but in the deep sleep state the world, universe and everything does not exist. Then there is the dream state in which everything can or does appear real; so what makes you think you're awake now? Decartes quote 'I think therefore I am is misleading, as there is consciousness without thinking: meditation.
@@gwenelbro3719 take a look at near death experiences ,obe and also what pro. the best psychyatrist of 20th century cg jung thought about consciousness
LSD and time travel is going to be available by 2030!
?
Everything is formed by a locational 4pi spherical inward absorption +1=0 now -1 outward emission of electromagnetic waves.. . .All motion is 2pi spiral.. . .And all direction is 4pi spherically curved.. . .
Vibrating sinusoidal spherical wave-fronts of only motion forms Einstein's curvature of spacetime.. . .
Stimulated emission is a process by the way of which a higher energy quantum mechanical state of an atomic particle absorbing energy input +1=0 now is being converted to a lower level -1 resulting in the production of light photon oscillations, or new electromagnetic vibrations.. . .
A sort of fusion of wave +1=0 now -1 emission of new quantized spherical wavefronts of electromagnetic radiation independent of the motion of its source.. . .
The fact that this tiny spherical region of the infinite universe has a limited observable range as the waves come from a distance radius, now is observable in the shape of an inverse sphere. . ..4pi R2.. . .
And the fact that the electron is a perfectly round vibrating sphere.. . .Are two sides of the same + and - coin!!
There exists only two combinations of these two Spherical + and - electromagnetic sine waves, or wavefronts multiplying inward +1=0 now -1 dividing outward at right angels from their sources.. . .
They have opposite vectors and quantum spin forming the positron and electron wave centre.. . .4pi R2=/N pi Re2.. . .
Or, "the two dipole energy states of Qubit's" in quantum computing which can be such things as photon's, trapped ions, atoms, electrons, and nuclear spins.. . .Only difference is time dilating Volume!!
Atomic particles are really high wave amplitude wave centres of pure vibration, from regions of intense wave pressure, made of vibrating wavefronts called shells in particle physics, or spherical standing wave structures over a period of time.. . .Their output was the negation of their input: 0 goes to 1,1 to 0.. . .the start of a Fibonacci spiral.. . .
Therefore generation of "any information" exceeds radiation during the first half of the cycle +1=0 now -1 radiation exceeds generation during the second half of the cycle.. . . As the constant outward momentum of EMR repels like charged particles absorbing energy input +1=0 now -1 emitting the density from the two previous vectors spiralling out the Fibonacci sequence.. . . from spirals of elements, to DNA, and billions of microfilaments spiralling out from the zero point field now within each neuron of the brain into microtubule lattice structures.. . .
And the human brain consists of approximately one hundred billion neurons.. . .
(Mans mind mirrors a Universe that mirrors mans Mind) E=+m.c2.. . .
Each neuron has a voltage which changes when ions flow inward and outward from a cell.. . .
Once a neurons voltage reaches a certain level of subconscious energy compression t=0 now it will consciously fire (C) a new electrical signal to other cells, which will then repeat the process.. . .
Therefore we all have free will to consciously fire new electrical signals to other cells.. . .
And depending which neurons gets stimulated through repetition, certain neural connections may become stronger and more efficient, whilst others may become weaker as time unfolds statistical entropy.. . .This is called Neuroplasticity."
Seamless Robe *Atomic particles are really high wave amplitude wave centres of pure vibration*
No they're not. Atomic particles are high wave amplitude wave centres of pure word salad.
consciousness, the hard problem of:
is the problem of explaining why and how we have qualia or phenomenal experiences. This is in contrast to the “easy problems” of explaining the physical systems that give us and other animals the ability to discriminate, integrate information, and so forth. These problems are seen as relatively easy because all that is required for their solution is to specify the mechanisms that perform such functions. Some philosophers assert that even once we have solved all such problems about the brain and experience, the hard problem will still persist.
In other words, the hard problem is the problem of explaining why certain mechanisms are accompanied by conscious experience. For example, why should neural processing in the brain lead to the felt sensations of, say, feelings of hunger?
The so-called “body-mind problem” is closely related to this “hard problem” of consciousness. Millions of philosophers throughout history, both professional academics and amateur philosophers, have noticed that human/animal consciousness differs so radically to inert matter, that they find it difficult to reconcile the dichotomy in a parsimonious manner. It seems that a thought has absolutely nothing in common to a rock or to a molecule of water. However, a similar dilemma could be made regarding water and fire. What similarities do flames have with a glass of water? What does air have in common to a bar of titanium? They seem radically different!
When one beholds a brain, which is a gross (concrete, physical, tangible) object, one fails to see how a subtle (abstract, mental, intangible) object can emerge from it, since the two spheres (of mind and matter) seem so thoroughly distinct and unrelated. However, the same quandary may possibly apply to a piece of dried wood and fire. How can a dead tree become a mass of hot flames? When sufficient frictional force or conductive heat is applied to the wood, the kinetic energy generated will cause the piece of wood to turn into a completely different element (from solid to fire). Similarly, when the electrical impulses generated in a brain are of sufficient intensity, complexity, and quality, that energy is transmuted into the form of thought objects, such as visual images.
Nice to have a lucid man approach the subject.
I'm detecting a low level of scientific literacy with regard to neurobiology & neurochemistry coming from this guy. Just because consciousness, or the hard problem of consciousness is complex and mysterious, and quantum mechanics is also complex and mysterious, does not mean they are related. QC a hugely unsubstantiated claim.
*QC is a hugely unsubstantiated claim*
Not anymore.
Recent evidence in the last few years has come down pretty strong Hameroff's and Penrose's side. For example, it’s been discovered that photosynthesis - the operation in all plants that give rise to our food, to everything we eat - utilizes quantum coherence. The photons from the sun are collected in one part of the cell and conveyed to another part of the cell to be made into chemical energy. This conductance of energy from point A to point B utilizes quantum coherence *in ambient temperatures*. If this happens in something as fundamental as photosynthesis, then it’s likely to be found throughout biology. In addition, and more importantly, *Anirban Bandyopadhyay*, working out of the National Institute of Material Sciences in Tsukuba, recently found that when vibrated at the right frequency, microtubules become quantum devices, i.e., they become superconductive. And it's findings like these that are predicted to blow this whole field wide open.
none of what you just said is evidence of QC...
Quinton Mendoza It's evidence that quantum mechanics and consciousness are related. 1) the observer effect, which refers to changes that the act of observation has on a phenomenon being observed, i.e., light photons, and 2), quamtum phenomena are observed to be happening inside of biological systems, like plants and humans. Both are strong evidence that qm and consciousness are related.
Quinton Mendoza QM and C (consciousness) are definitely entangled somehow. That's why you can get effects like the observer effect and 'spooky action at a distance' type phenomena which cannot be accounted for by classical physics models. And it's because of findings and observations like these, in addition to the success of quantum mechanics as a model of "how things work" and its ability to offer a more fitting theoretical framework to account for consciousness, that there are already labs now working on technologies that are able to respond directly to consciousness. And not by some brain-computer-interface (bci) mechanism involving biofeedback, but by being quantumly entangled with the consciousness of the operator. I know that seems far beyond your level of evolution at this point in time, but it's happening whether you like it or not. That's evolution. That's your future. Reality doesnt work the way they told you it does in their puny, outdated, myopic, materialist dogma.
no, none of this is evidence. youre just making vague connections between things that are mysterious in a semi articulate fashion...
This man will go where many physicists fear to tread. He may be viewed as an eccentric, and controversial, but he is very important and we need people who can go toe to toe with Lawrence Krauss et al.
Well, it definitely has the potential to be the best computing system we've ever developed. It's rather crude at this point. I just hope that in his work Penrose is able to keep a truly open mind, and not be swayed by peer pressure or personal philosophy. It's really important that someone get this right.
Best combover I’ve ever seen
No matter HOW amazing you think your "ideas" are, I GUARANTEE you the universe has MORE amazing things out there waiting for you to discover them. That is why a MATERIALIST EVIDENCE BASED approach is ALWAYS superior to idealism. The universe will ALWAYS surprise.
Good point. One thing that pops in my mind at first is that infinity never ends and continues for ever. Notice the words I used. Mechanically speaking, infinity can be presented in a finite engine that actually loops into a never ending cycle. For instance take a car engine. It is designed that way in order to make infinite cycles or loops that never end, "as long as we have fuel". I wonder if infinity never ends, does that mean that it does not require a starting point?
'I've always liked to think of consciousness as a picture puzzle.'
The trouble with that analogy is that you need consciousness to assemble the puzzle.
That's the point. Brain does not equal mind.
I literally dissolved the hard problem of consciousness and everything it entails when I instanced Uniform Quantum Information Body (generically called the "soul" or "spirit" by Humans who actively maintain a point of presence (conscience) in physical life, the information that you gain when you exit physical life) "into" unborn fetus in April of 1980. I was "born" with numerous malslignments that when in application manifest equivalent to "mild" asperger's syndrome, ADHD, and a fundamental differenece in the way I was (as a child) able to interact with the stimuli of physical life. The net result manifested as near zero social function or interest in interacting with others because it was both too "hard" and they (other kids) were too "uninteresting" or "needy" of information-education-intelligence that I did not have the patience (attention span/bandwidth to entertain
Consciousness is primary; the physical universe is secondary. In our incarnate state, consciousness is an epiphenomenon of the activity of the brain.
Truth as a static structure vs a dynamic system. To simplify, think of a
stack of copy paper with one word on each page. In time, we see each
page one at a time, outside of time all of the words, on all of the
pages combine to make a single word. This single word is truth, it is
the entire story, told in an instant of time. The fractal version of
this story has another feature. As each page is presented to us, our
intent creates a slightly new meaning that branches out, changing the
story, an effect that turns the stack into a tree like structure.
The direction of time's arrow is the breaking of the symmetry of the
potential of the boundary condition. In other words, if I toss a coin
and it has perfect symmetry of potential it will land heads half the
time and tails half the time. The symmetry of the potential is broken if
the coin tosses are not 50/50. In a perfectly random system, after a
sufficient number of tosses, the symmetry for all even number tosses
would always be 50/50. Coin tosses are a lot like squaring the circle.
You get closer and closer to the true value but you never reach it, like
an infinite recursive iteration.
According to the double slit experiment, a single particle interacts with itself creating an interference pattern when not observed. The particle, still in its superposition, hits the screen and creates a pattern. Observing will cause it to spontaneously choose one of those positions based on probability. I own Programming The Universe and I believe we kind of do create physicality where we point our awareness, but that doesn't mean the universe doesn't exist when we aren't looking.
the medium consciousness is flow of information, observing, making a measurement, any kind of interaction. sentience or self awareness is a more complex construct our brains produce.
I believe that in this video he did a good job to explain it very clearly to a lay audience. One thing that Penrose never mentioned (I think) is that so much of the mind is unconscious why have a conscious mind at all??? and if it is as he says then there is a stronger causal ground for understanding the conscious mind, because after all, it is quite a different thing from ordinary computation. We are very far away from understanding consciousness but at least he points us in a new direction.
Excuse me, laymen or Lego ( non professional)?
what we perceive as conciousness is just what we perceive it as and we couldnt possibly perceive it any different, would be my guess
When basics quantum problems will be all resolved ,you ll realize that there no relation between consciousness and quantum physics . They are millions miles away from each other .
Those doodles on the board behind him unlock the secrets of the universe !!!
During near death experiences (NDE) and psychedelic induced hallucinations, neural activity in the brain dramatically reduces. Perhaps this reduction in the brain's 'background noise' induces a coherent state, thus facilitating quantum effects, which accounts for the phenomena of NDEs and psychedelic trips.
I was just wondering if Consciousness has a Quantum nature to it and now I have discovered this!
Now, given the background I just explained, let me once again justify the rejection of "infinity". "Infinity" requires its own axiom (the "Axiom of Infinity"). The "Axiom of Infinity" ITSELF requires a definition of "infinity", in order to assume "infinity" as an true axiom. This is a VERY critical point. Even the AXIOM requires an "infinite" induction. At this point most human beings are so thoroughly confused they merely accept the axiom. But, in fact, "infinity" has not even defined.
Time to read Tom Campbell's My Big TOE (Theory of everything) I think Roger. You might have your own Quantum leap in understanding
+boqueroningles just because you buy into something doesn't make it true. So there, have your own QL.
Hameroff's specific model may indeed have flaws. However given quantum bio it is likely that other models will succeed. Besides we already know that an effect in the brain which operates on entanglement, also happens to be the direct neural correlate of consciousness.
Sorry, the initial quote was yours, I neglected to put quotation marks around it to denote that. I quoted your phrase in order to be specific about what you had misunderstood.
The video has no doubt been edited but it makes perfect sense. He's suggesting quantum effects occur in the brain and that fact plays a vital role in the emergence of consciousness. That's the debate.
I admire Dr. Penrose's thinking - he seems quite forthright to me unlike some other scientists. I watched another of his videos where he rebuts current string theory - he uses mathematics to show that it is a basically unworkable theory.
I've always liked to think of consciousness as a picture puzzle.
When the puzzle is put together you see the full picture (the mind), but the puzzle is made up of physical pieces that need to be put together (the matter).
The puzzle pieces are the neurological pathways in the brain that would process information into a quantifiable form.
I defined a predicate called "finite" (the negation of which is "infinite"), not an object called "infinity". So you're right, I haven't defined a system which has no last element - nor did I ever claim to do so. I am only defending 2 claims:
1. the predicate "infinite" is well-defined, non-circular, coherent, and meaningful; and
2. it is possible to conceive of infinite systems consistently (i.e. without contradicting oneself).
(continued)
For example for any n, mod(n) is defined to interpret the symbols/language of arithmetic. Each interpretation maintains its own version of truth: "1+1 = 0" is true in mod(2) but false in mod(3). In fact tautologies are the only kind of statement which are true under ALL interpretations. In other words, any non-tautology is false under some interpretation. Now consider the conjunction W of the transitivity and asymmetry of < with the sentence "for all n exists m (n < m)".
(next)
Hi ThinkTank, nice to hear from you again. I meant that an engine does infinite cycles as long as it has fuel. I am not talking about an engine than never dies because its fuels end but the actual construction. To put it in another way, I can construct an infinite 'while' loop that will never end as long as my computer is powered by electricity. It is designed by me to never end, thus it encapsulates infinity by definition because it should run for ever
Congrats for the Nobel prize sir❤❤❤
Thanks, I will look it up. I should note though btw, that if mentality does not have a QM explanation, then given the only remaining "viable" explanation for the primary evidence of consciousness substance dualism.
Thank you, I trust this is Alvin Plantinga's evolutionary argument against naturalism? What a brilliant man he is.
The best known neural correlate of consciousness, gamma synchrony, is an entanglement effect. Meaning whatever it is that consciousness is, it is within superposition in the brain. Meaning that from it's own perspective, everything else in the universe is in superposition with respect to it, and thus it collapses this superposition upon observation.
I should clarify here that "BST theories" refers to "Branching Space-Time theories", which are, essentially, an extension of MWI. And the great thing is that BST theories can explain gravity unlike almost every other QM interpretation which, essentially, have no input as to the cause of gravity. So, BST theories can solve the QM and GR incompatibility problem.
Read "What Branching Spacetime Might Do for Physics".
Penrose has written a book with Chopra and Hameroff. I've had great interest in Penrose and even Hameroff until I discovered this fact. I've also seen Hameroff in talks with Chopra on youtube where he gives in to some incredible nonsense. It was disheartening to see because even if Orch OR isn't a final theory, it's an interesting concept. Any association with Chopra makes me want to run the other way.
If he takes Deepshit Chopra's ideas seriously, he's probably gone senile.
To explain consciousness by quantum physics, the same consciousness has to function to understand itself at a quantum scale, even if it finds something intriguing at quantum scale what it observes could be the effect of consciousness but not the consciousness itself, unless consciousness itself is an effect. Still we will have the question what is the cause of the effect .
Another way of understanding my argument: imagine two systems (of whatever complexity or fidelity you care to give it) which produce exactly identical outputs to identical inputs. If we assume they are conscious, are they the same being? If not, what is different? Interestingly, the issue of consciousness is related to the philosophical question of identity.
We have consciousness because we rely on eachother to survive. It benefits us