Stuart Hammerof - Does Brain Make Mind?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 8 фев 2025
- Make a donation to Closer To Truth to help us continue exploring the world's deepest questions without the need for paywalls: shorturl.at/OnyRq
The mind consists of sensations, thoughts, cogitations, intentions, feelings. How could these inner mental capacities, these felt experiences, be produced by the three pounds of rubbery moist meat encased in our skulls? What must the brain do to generate the mind? Is it even possible for mental experiences to be produced by physical brains alone?
Free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
Watch more interviews on Philosophy of Mind: bit.ly/3dxjTen
Stuart Hameroff, MD, is a physician and researcher at the University Medical Center at the University of Arizona.
Register for free at CTT.com for subscriber-only exclusives: bit.ly/2GXmFsP
Closer to Truth presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.
My daughter catches me watching this and says “Why do you watch that? They never answer anything.” 🤷♂️
LOL, kinda true. But they make you critically think, which sadly, this generation lacks.
Just tell her that she's not as close to truth as you, so she wouldn't understand.
This show isn't called "The Truth" it's "Closer To Truth" which is what science is actually about, we can't prove things in science but get closer to proving it with a Cogent body of evidence
“But I tried, didn't I? Goddamnit, at least I did that.” Jack Nicholson in One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest. :-)
i think is lovely and you should let her free to seek answers only when she will want (because she will at some point !!) .
Be skeptical, but be open minded. Sometimes it's hard to find the right balance.
You are dead
I don't see those as opposites. Not being skeptical towards your own worldview can make you very close minded and vice versa. Skepticism isn't the same as cynicism.
I'm on the 24th time of watching this video and I am happy to announce that I finally understood the entire first sentence.
Hammerof speaks too fast.
You really have to be into this stuff to get what they are saying. I had to stop and listen to what Hammerof said a couple of times at different segments of this video because he lowered his voice and strung a few words together making it difficult to comprehend him.
@@nessieness5433 Penrose speaks a little more slowly, but he is SO smart that it doesn't matter. One minute he's talking about black holes, the next about the heat death of the universe in a trillion gazillion years, the next about the cyclical rebirth of the universe. Like, literally in the space of three minutes. He has an amazing ability to make this stuff accessible to ordinary people, but even so, I have to do the same thing with him - wtf did he just say?
You're a great interviewer, I like you challenging a man not about him but about him explaining the stuff he claims. Good video!
It helps that Kuhn himself is an expert in neuroscience!
Kind of weird that Kuhn says "The crazy stuff you're saying" when...he's talking about the craziest thing in existence, CONSCIOUSNESS. What the hell counts as "crazy" there? We don't even know where to begin to evaluate such claims!
Bernardo Kastrup deserves to have an opportunity to be on this show. The guy is a genius and his opinions on consciousness are brilliant
Agreed and 2nd'd 👍🏼 - See r/neuronaut
Probably soon.
I was intrigued at first but as soon as he started talking about the universe looks like a brain and therefore it is, I completely hooked off. Idealism isn't the solution; Panpsychism is
Why don't you ask Bernardo Kastrup about the subject? He really have the most coherent image that I encountered so far...
I'd really like to see a video of Robert interviewing himself. He doesn't often share his own opinions but he clearly has a towering intellect in his own right and has probably talked to more of the eminent scientists, mathematicians and philosophers than anyone alive.
Lord S. : Deum esse nemo nisi stultus negat.
Stuart is a real Scientist and evidence is on his side.
The other Theories are Boltzmann Brain like.
Only Stuart explains how we can remember what happened years ago (Materialistic pseudoskeptics don't explain even how can we remember what happened week or month ago)
And IIT doesn't work read Scott Aronson criticism and also φ of Christoph doesn't go down under anesthesia... And every theory that doesn't explain why and how Counsciosness vanishes under anesthesia and coma I'm calling (IIT among others) Theories of Solipsism. Which of course is a scientific hypothesis as everything else but needless given that we have better scientific alternatives that work such as Orch Or (look up Hameroffs August 2022 paper)
@@jimmyjasi-anti-descartes7088 Boltzmann brains is a thought experiment not a theory of consciousness. Similarly, solipsism is an epistemological position.
@@TheGr8scott Well I understand but disagree. Science can explain or falsyfy Metaphysical Hypotheses or at least implausify them.
This refers in equal manner to Realism as to things like Solipsism or Boltzmann Brain Hypothesis.
I know that it's just a thought experiment but what Koch is proposing is methodologically highly questionable , inconsistent seldom different from proposing Boltzmann Brain as a Theory for Counsciosness.
And Data is just on Stuart side!
Of course you may argue that my stance is empiricism... so I'm "epistemologically limited".
But how else? Can we answer questions like Realism VS Solipsism
Than by explaining how Counsciosness works or doesn't work
For me the best Interview on this channel so far. Thank you for sharing!
The best of the best conversation about what is possible in the world of the impossible.
Alot of people that have clinically died and been revived have claimed to still be fully conscious while being dead. There's been several studied conducted on this and it's a pretty interesting topic. Too still be aware during death defies so much and begs alot of questions.
Man, I love Stu, such a legend.
An insight league of his own…
Cool dude
@@MFJoneser absolutely
Stuart is way ahead of his time
Consciousness is most definitely influenced by time and space. Consciousness is also bound by form. I.e. There is no free floating consciousness, nor is it outside of existence. Amazingly, consciousness, as amazing as it is, most definitely arose from matter/energy/information and its properties within the universe. We must also realize that the ability to describe personal consciousness is an evolutionary adaptation. I also think it would be best to first adequately explain abiogenesis. I believe the translation from inorganic matter to organic matter is an important key to the mechanism of the illusion of conscious.
A whole lot of speculation.
@@garychartrand7378 more of an observation and a suggestion.
"..no free floating consciousness" my doll laugh at this statement..
but i tell u this, in order to observe times-space you must be outside of it... A one dimensional being cannot observe 3 dimensions think about it...
@@MrAlipatik what is your point? Why is it so important to you to contemplate space-time? Personally, I spend my 'time' contemplating how we can come together in Peace and Joy (the big stuff) and I don't sweat the small stuff (like 'what's in it for ME)
Obviously impossible to settle on a theory this early in human history, but it’s an interesting discussion! To me, consciousness seems to be an insane outlier in science. Experience itself is so alone and unique, and we have no explanation for it. In a world where science can explain so much, it’s fun to still have something that’s borderline supernatural where we have no answer. Gives us room to wonder.
So you think the self-conscious experiences of dolphins and chimps are so alone and unique and borderline supernatural?
@@publiusovidius7386 how would you know about the conscious experiences of things besides your own?
@@publiusovidius7386 I meant consciousness as a general concept, not consciousness in relationship to humans.
@@___Truth___ lol. The same way you thought you knew something about my conscious experiences when you replied to me.
Nicely said
More please, love this conversation
We can’t rule out consciousness out of the brain until we understand it in the brain.Yo I like this guy .
We can imagine a lot, but how about sticking to what we can witness - 'Consciousness is a result of life interacting with its environment.' It's that straightforward. At the tiny scale, life already exhibits an impulse to keep on keeping-on, seeking nutrients and shunning danger. As creatures grow in complexity that innate drive (pre-consciousness) evolves an awareness, then with time a self-awareness. I like how Dr. Mark Solms points out, that "consciousness" is basically the inside reflection of your body dealing with itself and its surrounding circumstances (environments).
Then Philosophers get into the game, it's the questions that matter, and the joy of letting one's mind soar into endless chatter, if of little pragmatic resolution.
Back to the big questions, consider: Brain/Body...Mind ~ Magnet/Metal...Electricity It's not that mysterious.
Look up the Connectome Project and Allen Institute, our body brain produces our mind.
You'll learn more about consciousness by studying the Evolutionary progression of life into complex creature upon this Earth,
Be healthy Robert. This channel wouldn't be great without you.
I agree with most of what Stewart says. The only point I would add is that Consciousness is non physical and non local. The brain acts as a filter for our higher awareness. Bruce Grayson says that events that reduce brain function such as drugs and trauma, actually increase consciousness, which is counter intuitive. This has been demonstrated by alszheimers patients who when approaching death actually begin speaking to visiting relatives again. There have also been observed restoration of some physical function in patients approaching death. For instance bedbound individuals walking again.
Another cool thing is you can get similar effect from what some people would claim as a "religious" experience to if they were taking drugs. I think that is along the same lines as what you were talking about, please correct me if I am wrong.
@@CedanyTheAlaskan I have heard that on the Internet and you may well be right, but I cannot confirm.
@@julianmann6172 I theorize that consciousness CAN be non local, but not the type of consciousness we experience on a day to day basis. At "higher levels" of consciousness, such as Stewart addressed, I theorize that the wave increases in frequency and may be able to link up with an outside consciousness. My experiences with psychedelics led me to this theory, and when I stumbled upon Penrose and Hammerof's work it really started to resonate with my own experience.
@@CedanyTheAlaskan We cannot generalise on the basis of people taking drugs, of which there are a wide variety. Drug free environment is required to draw meaningful conclusions.
@@andrewcraigbrown2933 non local consciousness is implicit in the NDE experience. Look at some accounts on the internet.
Please please please bring eben Alexander
I’d like for you to get into the real neuroscience behind his claims and how he can think consciousness is not dependent on the brain, if damage to certain parts of the brain effect consciousness, memory, personality etc
I think he is a brilliant neurosurgeon.
Please, let's not. Charlatans seeking book sales should not be given more attention. As for his surgical prowess... Well, he seems to have a recurring problem with counting vertebrae.
Eben's neo cortex virtually destroyed during his time in coma yet he had lucid awareness , an awareness more real than waking consciousness . Think about it.
@@Dion_Mustard First of all, the description of a consciousness “more real” than ordinary consciousness is meaningless. Second, there is no way for Alexander to know at what point in his unconscious and semi-conscious recovery he had the experience he described. The assertion that it was while his neocortex was non-functional is a mere assumption on his part, and not a very plausible one.
@@andrewforbes1433 I disagree , there have been many cases of NDEs specifically out of body states where the person has witnessed things which were later verified as accurate , such as she case of pam Reynolds . The more you study the NDE the more you realise it is not mere illusion , more to the point, I assume you have not had an nde yourself and therefore cannot comment on how real they are . I'd start by reading consciousness beyond life by Dr pim van Lommel who focuses on quantum physics and consciousness and non local consciousness. Regardless of when Eben's experience occurred , the point is his brain was severely disrupted , and he was in coma , yet had lucid awareness. There should be no experience at all.
@@Dion_Mustard The subjective “reality” of an experience is irrelevant. We know the brain can produce vivid hallucinations that seem completely real. The whole reason we do science is because of the many ways our subjective experience tricks us. And it absolutely matters when Alexander’s experience happened because he was in a prolonged period of recovery and his brain was healing. There is no reason to assume that his experience was not a hallucination during a period of semiconsciousness or unconsciousness. It not as though his brain simply stopped instantly, then he was suddenly fully conscious again when it restarted. That’s not how brain injuries and dream states work. As for the Pam Reynolds case, it is far from conclusive. Anaesthesia awareness, which is a well-documented phenomenon, is a perfectly sound explanation for her experience.
Materialism as Chomsky points out is an honorific term, it just means that which we have some understanding of in the world. We do not have a definition of physical so we cannot claim something is non-physical. What Roger and Hammerof’s theory is doing is claiming that consciousness is a fundamental aspect of the world as a result of quantum processes. However that does not answer questions like ‘what is the color green?’. All the theory does is give an interesting explanation as to why consciousness is there in the first place, and the mechanisms in the brain by which it is there. And Hammerof is right these terms we use we don’t even fully understand, like what is spin? Like these mysteries, aspects of consciousness like the experience of the color green is a mystery.
Robert Kuhn is really a master at getting information out of his guest speakers
Fantastic and mind blowing conversation
Most persons, including myself didn't understand the bible till I did a short course in air-condition and refrigeration to understand the underlying principles enough to apply certain biblical truths that are found in many household applications today.
We are living in consciousness but it takes more to be special enough to find something unique to stand firm on.
Oh man I love how he takes him to task!
Thank you, Dr. Kuhn, for holding the line here. The OrchOR hypothesis is interesting and worthy of investigation, but in my opinion it has been too- heavily promoted and has rapidly become oversold - to the point where many laypersons have swallowed it as "the" explanation and proven fact. This is understandable. OrchOR is a "beautiful" hypothesis; upon first hearing many ppl WANT it to be true. Also, Dr. Hameroff is a very persuasive, tireless proponent. These factors can actually add up to a problem for the field, however, since premature, heavily-promoted "solutions" to big questions can skew overall growth and trajectory of investigation. Most front line researchers in consciousness do not accept OrchOR as being anything more than a one hypothesis among many.
This would explain all kinds of things including hallucinations, telepathy, clairvoyance...
It’s very difficult to approach this logically, epistemologically, but once you’ve had an experience that can only be explained by consciousness being non-local… You must conclude that there has to be a reason why we are here, conscious. Of course you will have to experience this for yourself.
Hopefully the scientific community will start approaching that which cannot be weighed and measured with more openness
so, have you had that experience? and how did you have that experience?
@@donghoshin3460 I have had experiences that can not rationally be explained by any other means that consciousness being non-local, yes. But writing about it will not be useful for anyone. People could always easily doubt me. Fundamentally, you need to have those experiences yourself. Since I know see consciousness as non-local, it is just a matter of time before we will all realize the nature of reality directly
@@snorremortenkjeldsen6737 yh but how did u get to the stage where u had non local experience? Were u doing meditation or were u lucid dreaming or whatever
@@donghoshin3460 Good question. I have been meditating every day for a minimum of 30 minutes for the last 20 years, and there seems to be a correlation between brainwaves and phenomena that are inexplicable based on the way most people perceive reality. One experience was with a Buddhist monk here in Japan who had access to personal information about me, which he could not have gained access to any other way (again, easy to discredit this when you didn’t experience it yourself). A friend and I also had basically the same dream after my family’s dog died, where neither of us knew it had passed (afterwards there were some aspects to this that clearly showed that my friend was truthful; it involves a wrong date I gave her and her following doubt, but it’s to much to get into here)
@@snorremortenkjeldsen6737 right, i see. Thank you for answering!
Cool. But is anyone going to address all the screaming in the background?
With this theory you would have to extend consciousness to all matter, which is plausible. Consciousness could be the precursor of material things with a natural evolution toward higher levels. The part about complex systems is spot on, just because something can eat and reproduce does not mean it's conscious
Non-locality: Every single thought we have, will also appear in millions of other people's minds. Some millions will fight them, some millions will ignore them and some millions will enact them. Everything that takes place in the lower conscience physical world has firstly been a seed, a thought in somebody's mind. Ahimsa is utterly important if we want to see non-evil results. Ahimsa means think no evil - see no evil - hear no evil - speak no evil.
I find Roger Penrose and his theories absolutely fascinating. More please. 😊
Very interesting !!! By the way, it's not about 'answers' - the 'questions' are the intriguing "X"factor. Thank You both.
Really took him to task, didn't you? That's reassuring. I'm glad this isn't a program where any idea can be put forward without any criticism. The guest had an interesting perspective. It'll be interesting to see how the issue progresses.
Watch a full Hameroff lecture, complete with illustrations.He is an anesthesiologist, in the business of turning consciousnesd off and back on again, and demonstrates how anesthestics, as well as psychedelics, operate molecularly/quantumly with the microtubule structure, where shared electrons generate quantum indeterminancy, and how the presence of an anesthetic cancels that indeterminancy, while a dmt tryptamine enhances it. The double slit experiment "observer effect" implies the fundamental role that consciousness plays in shaping reality at the quantum level. BTW always thank your anesthesiologist !
This is an old interview, more of Stuarts theory has been vindicated since then:
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140116085105.htm
@@davidgough3512 Youre misrepresenting what the double slit experiment is saying. It is not consciously observed, it is measured, the "observation" is simply the act of measurement, the only thing they observe is the measurement, so when you send particles through slits before being measured using tools, it acts as a wave, when it is measured, it collapses into a particle. There can be no consciousness in a room where it is being measured and the end result will be the same, This is a common tactic for the woo woo crowd to convince others what theyre saying, not saying its necessarily on purpose, but they at the very least are misunderstanding and then misinforming others with their misinterpretation. Think of the Big Bang, a lot of people think that because of the name it was a literal explosion but its not, its a rapid expansion, so when someone says observe, they mean measure, but its easy to say observe, and the people who dont understand that think oh, to observe you must be conscious etc etc etc
@@plusixty8992 thank you for the clarification. Nevertheless it is fascinating. Especially some of the time contradicting measurements i've read about and of course the particle entanglement or nonlocality phenomena. I've speculated that entangled sets of particles could be used to enable undelayed information and command- control capabilities for deep space probes.. and turns out they are working on that already. Just.. wow..
@@davidgough3512 yeha i mean we really dont even know the limits to what quantum shenanigans can mean for us, definitely crazy times the last 100 or so years have been. No other time in history like it.
So more microtubule interaction is like oversampling? It could be that the information is fractal in nature as well as (or rather than) consciousness being able to access different levels. The info travels from external to internal and back, and the consciousness rides this somewhat, with more microtubule interaction giving more richness of experience, better tracking of the info.
Sam Parnia in his AWARE study has all but proven that consciousness lives on after death. Alas, we don't know how long that consciousness exists. It could be just a few minutes. But there is evidence elsewhere that it exists longer. Non-local consciousness would help to explain not only NDEs/OBEs but reincarnation and ESP. I'm particularly fascinated by how psychic investigators can connect with either or both the victim when they were alive as well and dead AND/or the perpetrator's POV.
if the smallest thing we can measure and theorise is a quantum effect then by definition this means that everything is instantiated or sourced from those same quantum effects, I don't see why some people get their panties in a twist after zooming out all the way up to the synapses?? I think it is a language is more than anything where we stop using quantum theory language at a certain point because larger objects "don't fit".
A lack of an explanation isnt a golden ticket to put forward your explanation as the defacto
Seems like being hung up at the micro quantum scale of micro tubules. There is great complexity in the fluid dynamics of the cerebrospinal fluid in the ventricles in the brain. These slow fluid movements that carry the neurochemical compounds necessary for the emotions that underlie conscious dynamics could help explain non computability and apparently random behavior. The bioelectric work of Michael Leven needs to be applied here. I want to hear a talk between Leven, Hammerof & Penrose. Maybe Robert could pull that off.
One of the best episodes yet
This little bit might be the closest to the series name you've ever gotten, to my feeling.
The ability to reason is computational. Awareness, is like an information gate, and the flow of information through the gate could be considered attention. 1 bit of information flowing through the gate we will call "that which pays attention" would add up to a rudimentary low level state of concious awareness, moving up to the human brain, which is the highest we as humans, have currently encountered. Now, if the gate is 'non local' because it is at the quantum level, the gate is equivalent to the total information transfer across all microtubules, or at least, all neurons, because it is a field phenomena. Then the ability to make decisions is based on a selection or this information that is selected for or by 'that which pays attention', or the 'I', or self, or agent. Doesnt matter what you call it, but alls you need to accept, to male this problem go away, is that its root, and fundamental.
The most interesting topic in science, very good interview. 👍👑👑👑💎💎
Fabulous, thank you for this
The guest mentioned Planck Scale geometry a lot of times but never explained what that is and why it is supposed to support a lot of his arguments.
this guy is amazing
E=mc^2 ----> c2= 9x10^16 meters squared per second squared.
His theory is correct. Apply E=mc^2 to it.
c^2 = Consciousness.
Matter and Energy are two forms of the same thing. They are interchangeable.
Are microtubules chiral like a barberpole?
Love this conversation. I totally dig that RLK would like to believe this but can’t quite yet
Consciousness is the home of the mind. The mind is affected by our reflection of our thoughts and perceptions.
Hammeroff is right.
when someone talks from experience or what he feels usually he is not looking in the eyes of someone else. when someone is talking from the mental area (or he is in his head") he will focus the eyes. now look at their dynamic, how they talk and from what area they talk, mental or truths\facts based on experience.
Even if he is right his theory doesn't explain much. Quantum physics giving rise to phenomenal experiences is yet another form of "magic".
You realize ALL SCIENCE is magic rebranded right?
By this logic everything is magic
The word magic was originally used to describe… advanced technology.
@@adriancioroianu1704 Indeed , it is. Much like the sciences it broke down to different schools for different goals. Chemistry was potions and elixirs. Mysticism is psychology and sociology and theology. Illusionist are neuroscientist and cognitive researchers. Etc etc.
@@wrackable i guess i'm an illusionist then. So whats your point?
If this guy is correct, it would be a beatiful view of the universe. Conciousness at the quantum level..lets see what the future brings
Love Mr. Hammerof's logic here. .
"It has to be something, Robert"
I like this guy, and I do need to know about micro-tubules more. But he seems to have passed the kitchen-sink level a good while ago.
Kitchen sink level? More info here... r/neuronaut
That caught me too. *What* has to be *something* and *why?*
It seems so obvious that the activity in neurons or microtubules (or whatever) don't equal the color green, but it's as if Hammerof has a complete blind spot here. I love that Robert continued to challenge him on this point.
Robert beats up on Stuart like no one else lol "all the crazy things you say" etc in most of they're interactions . Robert is the best interviewer in this realm..hands down. btw I like Stuart's ideas, I mean c'mon he rolls with Penrose.
What mines Stuart's reputation is the near death experience bullshit.
I really wonder if the real truth of reality would terrify us or elate us?
At some point must you abandon meaning, linguistic meaning? Because normal, scientific measurement and experience, is inadequate to the abyss? The question of how inadequate it is requires an alien perspective or two.
It would amuse me no end, if the aliens came, and after the political kissy face, they asked US to tell them the meaning of life. Their distant ancestors saw technosignals in this system and toiled for a hundred earth years to build ships and come here to find the meaning to life.
We're hatchlings, twittering in the dark, dreaming surealistic landscapes somewhere in the Stegian night beyond our nest.
I think this is the best mechanism I've ever heard, and a correlation can be modelled and tested based on the properties of anesthetics, which appears to be being explored . Perhaps consciousness is a fundamental property of the universe, but a device like a neuron with microtubule structures that can be modeled to to be in certain states in the presence or not of anesthetics is certainly the only compelling evidence for a mechanism I've ever seen. If that's correct then something about consciousness becomes a universal constant, and certain mechanisms can be shown to promote and amplify it. Very interesting.
Can you have a brain without a mind? Yes. Can you have a mind without a brain? NO. Nobody has ever demonstrated the existence of a brainless mind.
Did Deepak Chopra shave his head?
Wasn't Mr Hammeroff siding with Deepak in that debate against Michael Shermer and contemporary people
Brain = Human makes or creates 'mind' as someone please let me know what 'mind' actually is? it is illusory and created within dogmatic principles and old scientific 'rules'. Whenever I hear people talking 'mind', 'ego', 'personality' I have to refer them back to consciousness as everything discussed within those contexts are illusory 'facets' as they are encompassed by the simple aspects of consciousness.
Perception has a role to play in peoples head space or 'mindset' that often looses the more 'truer' aspects within 'reality' as to what is 'real' and what is 'illusory'
All 'stuck' dogma (belief) is illusory.
The difference of opinion here of where consciousness starts and stop. One comment to counter the quantum consciousness idea that came up was "if it's quantum, then it should also be in this table...." So? Plants are alive, and just because we can't access it, doesn't mean it isn't there.
The state of consciousness in matter is only observable at higher levels of agitation. Just as their is air in water, boiling, or changing the state of of agitation, produces a process that can't be observed in the less agitated state.
A rock, through the quantum, has awareness up to it's level of full or complete rearrangement possibilities. Those possible states will never approach the level of a human, and so can't be recognized by a human. However, a dog has more variables so it can have awareness between the level of a rock and a human. And we instinctively know this fact, so we regularly talk to dogs, but hardly ever to rocks.
Elephants, who can routinely recognize themselves in a mirror, could fit in between man and dog on a consciousness and awareness level. And logic would then insist that the odds dictate there is also a higher set of levels above our own.
Now before you roll your eyes and and feel pity for an old man that's gone "off his rocker" spend a day with a dog. Get the loving and playing settled, and go for a walk with the dog. Why did he look so closely at that stick, and barely sniffed others? Why did he need to smell the water before going in? Why did he watch some cars go by, and not others? Why does he go around trees smelling them, always in a clockwise manner? Or counterclockwise, as the case may be?
But as you get to noticing his habits and interests, you'll realize that while he's no Einstein, he's also not a flatworm, either. He's above some and below others, just as we all are. We are all part and parcel of a whole, be it God, the Universe, or just life (small L for the ungodly among us 😎 ).
Me, I talk to rocks. None have so far commented back, but I figure they're just slow thinkers. Humor, truth, or both and neither?
Indeed - You think like a r/neuronaut
Brain is just a seat for mind
Mind is the link between body and soul
Mind has a tendency to move towards objects. When it is trained to look within, it merges with soul for eternal peace / Nirvana
"I believe consciousness is at the quantum level"
He can BELIEVE what he likes but as Feynman said:
“It doesn't make a difference how beautiful your guess is. It doesn't make a difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is. If it disagrees with experiment, it's wrong.”
I agree in principle, BUT our brain is very capable in calculating properties at a subconscious, non-verbal level, at an aesthetic level, even. Maxwell was led to the displacement current because of such "aesthetic" reasons in the equations of electromagnetism. Of course, real, tangible proof should eventually follow, and we have no sign of such a thing in the case of the Penrose/Hammeroff hypothesis.
But the fact is consciousness somehow happens inside the brain, and the brain really is made of atoms and particles too, particles and atoms that are as well involved in and subjected to quantum processes. How in the heavens could the brain NOT somehow and in some deep level be influenced and/or conditioned, if not "determined", by quantum? It seems to me that consciousness never signed no contract whatosever or restriction order to stay away from quantum! If there is quantum and if there is consciousness, then they perfectly can be somehow entangled, pardon the pun... The orchestrated quantum objective reductions inside the structure of neuron microtubules at least provide some temptative model and hypothesis for the consciousness, which is far more than other alternatives are NOT currently providing!
@queerdo And, pray do tell, why would I rather assume aphysicalism?! Accusations of assumed "physicalism" often is a pretext to defend idealism and spiritualism, which are not and never were scientific notions. I accept and defend what I can verify as making sense, and aphysicalism, idealism, spiritualism and all kinds of likewise BS do not!
@queerdo you're just assuming spiritualism [About that? Did you enjoy taking a little of your own medicine, for a change?]
Synopsis of video:
Hammerof "I'm more scientific than they are"
Robert *What a radical statement to make*
I wonder why there is no subtitle on this video !
Enable the subtitles please.
And they say the universe is complicated and yet our brain and consciousness seems to be the harder nut to crack because we have a sense of oneness. Consciousness can be a bit of a headache hahaha.. interesting debate
It seems more like mind produces a sense of seperation rather than a sense of oneness - even though oneness is the truth. we think we are so intelligent but the universe 'seems' complicated to us. Yet I believe that, for God, It's child's play.
So how is life after death, meaning our consciousness living on without the body something new ?
I am of the camp that consciousness is completely separate from the material body, whether man or animal. Materialist scientists have a hard time understanding consciousness because to them it is a derivative of complexity...put enough of the right parts together in the right order and consciousness automatically appears. The problem is that then you have to define at what level, part complexity is needed to attain consciousness. It would seem the higher the chromosome count the higher the probability of complexity but it doesnt seem to be the case. Homo sapiens have 46 chromosomes and we seem to be one of the most complex organisms on the planet and the most conscious and self aware, with self reflection, introspection, planning for the future beyond one season cycle and irreversibly changing and enhancing our environment. And then you have the red king crab that has 208 chromosomes, the field horsetail (plant) with 216, the atlas blue butterfly with at least 448 and the ciliated protozoa with 16,000 chromosomes and none of them do that.
The machinery of the genome builds the vehicle to house consciousness. How can 46 chromosomes build a human being and 16,000 build a one celled protozoa? And still be the basis of conscious development...microtubules or not? To me there is a huge disconnect with this train of thought. It would be like looking at an automobile without a driver and trying to figure out how it is able to maneuver so fluidly and precisely on its own. From my way of thinking it is a two part process. I think we can all agree that everything is energy from the collapsed wave function that creates what we call matter to the quantum field that is free flow energy in different frequencies. It takes a collapsed wave form and the addition of a precise resonant frequency to activate consciousness. And the qualities of both are specific to each species and sometimes with the more complex species the resonant frequency is either a little different or is acted upon a little different by the collapsed wave form showing different response levels within that species.
I would even go as far as to say that consciousness creates the collapsed wave function into which it becomes housed. As Max Planck is quoted, *"I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness."*
*"I regard matter as derivative from consciousness."* Planck is saying that conscious is that from which matter is produced. Consciousness first and matter second.
I like Stuart’s explanations
As a living being, the paramecium is a "for-itself" being, a for-itSELF. So, the first great question toward the understanding of consciousness seems to be this: how can a "self" arise even in a unicelled living organism like a paramecium or an amoeba, which have no brains or synapses whatosoever? And btw how can even an electron "know" somehow that it has to be attracted to a proton and repulsed by another negative particle? How can an "entangled" quantum state "decide" to colapse its wave function, rather than remaining utterly indifferent in its superposed entanglement, in face of external measuring interference? We know that electrons do repulse other electrons and wave functions do collapse, but we do not know "why" or exactly how such a "decision" is made by entities that have no minds... Or somehow they HAVE "minds"?!
Motile paramecia definitely exercise preference toward what is good for them and aversion from what is bad for them !
@@davidgough3512 Yep, and that "for them" shows us that some kind of self is already present, even if in a rustic, rough, proto form. It seems that there is no consciousness and not even mind without self. A living organism is a form of partitioning of reality by means of which an interior is made distinct of an exterior, an inside, an outside, a self and a world for that self, and I strongly suspect that the fuel that eventually brings mind and consciousness to being and puts them in motion is the INTENTIONALITY of the living beings...
@@davidgough3512 I wonder when exactly Mr. Adam Paramecium and Mrs. Eve Paramecium ate the forbidden fruit of the knowledge of good and evil... lol
@@viasinaptiva haha there's fertile ground for speculation
@@viasinaptiva ah, the entanglements of language and description. . in any case, self and not-self are mutually arising, within a greater field. It's this sensation of a sure center that rules, not as much the unsure boundary. An ant will throw itself into doom for the colony self. Altruism, whether conscious or "automatic", hints at this fluidity. Me v my brother, my brother and i v our parents, my family v the neighborhood, my town v the next town, my state v the feds, my country v a rival country, man v nature, earth against the alien invaders etc.. a comitragic drama of shifting sense of identity. The convolutions of yin and yang. Dualism is to be identified with self, not the self/field mutually arising. Don't ask me how the one center becomes many centers, each in its solitudinous role. Perhaps it is a irreducible, essential paradox, that the self cannot stand outside itself. But that doesn't mean it can't expand and contract it's circumference of identity. My contention is that the only reliable self identity is the entire universe.. anything less is an arbitrary imposition of concept. The ant lives because of the colony, the colony exists because of the ecosystem, the ecosystem exists because of the long history of hydrogen, cooked by stars into elements, arranged into heavenly bodies in orbital orchestras. No field, no individual. Self interest only proves to be an expression of the whole.
Artificial neural networks demonstrated how memory can be stored in the network configuration basically each cell processes the inputs. The inputs are fed through dendrites and depending on the strength of the dendrite each input is modified before entering the cell. The strength of the dendrite is the memory. That’s how an artificial neural network can work. With biological cells there is also a short term memory that is given by a chemical polarization of the synapse, with the same effect except it changes in time. I don’t think the microtubles have a key role other than transmitting the signal like wires
How can neurons give rise to qualia or self-awareness? The paramecium has no synapses, how can it reproduce and gather food?
I've never even seen a proper definition or description of consciousness. Don't we need that before we try to investigate or explain it?
we never saw a blackhole, or HIggs boson before we investigated it either.
@@TWak4ord I'm not claIming that consciousness doesn't exist or is illusory. For black holes and the Higgs boson we knew exactly what we were looking for. Consciousness is a very wooly word that we use everyday, but are we all talking about exactly the same thing? If we asked all those thinkers exactly what they meant by consciousness they might all give different answers. I'm surprised that I've never seen a formal definition.
@@uapuat but it sounds like you are saying it needs further investigation
@@TWak4ord I absolutely think it needs further investigation. I believe that it is one of the most compelling and important things to investigate.
But to start that investigation, I think we need to have a proper definition of what consciousness is. Otherwise how can we know that we are all talking about exactly the same thing?
Great video. I have no idea what they said
He is probably right that the brain is quantum based but the immediate response is then that the brain is too warm. However there is now the field of "quantum chaos". It's way over my head but it looks like both chaos or quantum theory can sometimes accurately describe the same (horribly complex) system. This "correspondence' goes so deep that it even means quantum phenomena can happen there outside their normal range.
Highlighted comment
TN Vol
2 months ago
Throughout the history of theoretical physics there have been great minds on both sides of the materialists vs non materialists debate. Brain Green, Einstein, and Hawking on the materialists side vs Max Plank, David Bohm, and Heisenberg on the non materialists side.
Hmmm. I'm still not understanding how the microtubules work in his scenario. In my limited knowledge of biology, the microtubules are essentially scaffolding withing the cell, aiding in cell division? They're controlled by kinesins, so even if the microtubules are quantum-resonant, how do they affect anything? I'm not sure if I understand, at this point.
Its a form of identity theory, i mean how does the conventional idea that neurons are the cause of experience be any different, all it does is pass ions through a channel, how does that create experience ?
Close your eyes (after you read the text :) ) . move your attention to a point on your body. Everywhere you can put it, better where you can hold it consistent. Now let yourself be absorbed there. almost like you reincarnate in that area on the body. Now feel yourself or where your consciousness is. (eyes closed and in silence ;)
I think Hameroff is pretty close to what can be true ...
Sure, except nobody understands quantum mechanics, at least not in a normal way.
@@xspotbox4400 that is true
People do understand Quantum Mechanics it's just the deeper aspects of Quantum Mechanics that's hard to understand, beyond the Mechanics its the Physics and the Nature of Reality thats the hard part, besides that we can devise Quantum Mechanical Experiments, we have tge schrodinger equations, we can measure Quantum Collapse, we can use our understanding of Quantum Mechanics to develop transistors theres alot we understand about Quantum Mechanics its just the very deep aspects of it that's hard to understand
The brain alone is not sufficient in itself to make mind, but it is necessary to make mind in the physical world. The hardware is not sufficient to make a movie, but it's necessary. It needs a plot, script, etc.
Use of terms like "quantum effects in microtubules of synapses", "mesoscopic", "helical" pathways all sound like same trick used by science fiction writers - like the words - "Flux capacitor" in Back to the future. They give a theory patina of scientific nature to lay people.
Actually those terms do actually make sense in the context hes using them in only as a science communicator or at least promotor of his theory. He should do a better job at either explaining the words hes using or use simpler words.
@@franzjullius3287 Well if the words are being used to give patina of scientificness then it is problematic. That is all. To be fair it may not be used that way here. But I have seen such words used to that effect. Please refer to Deepak Chopra's work.
@@franzjullius3287 They do make sense if you bite his rhetoric and even then its like a speculation of a speculation. But, yeah, i don't doubt he's totally ignorant to what he's saying like Deepak.
His claims are highly speculative, but I think it's fair to say that the orthodox scientific approach which treats brain function much the same as kidney or liver function - i.e. as a physiological question of biochemistry - is oddly unscientific in that whereas kidney function, say, relates material inputs and outputs brain function relates material inputs to wholly subjective outputs.
@@ahahaha3505 The self awareness is the last bastion which is an interesting problem. However other things like seeing red color can be explained by brain retrieving the previously learned and labeled as red color brain activity, comparing with current brain activity and reporting seeing red.
BTW even the reporting of subjective self awareness also happen through brain and bodies output mechanism. Lastly we know that we can disrupt the subjective experience of self awareness in real time - drugs, anesthesia or happens naturally due to brain injury/damage. Therefore I will not automatically assume primacy of qualitative difference of subjective experience compared to other forms of consciousness. It may be a matter of degree.
Why do a large amount of scientists believe in extra dimension but then when you speak of something being outside of space time they call it magic
Magic is a great way to explain things that are simply beyond human comprehension and enter the realm of being so impossible and devine they must be god made
@@Mars2Point0 God*
Because most of the time those extra dimensions are "hidden", or they are somehow elusive, or they curl up in some absurdly small scales (string theory) or whatever that keeps them inaccessible, occult, beyond reasonable reach of science, approaching thus a quasi-magical state. Present me a extra dimension that is as easy to grasp and experience as the three spatial ones and I will gladly welcome and divulge it, or them! I even call the extra dimensions of string theory magical, too!
Why talk about Consciousness when the title is on the Mind?
If you assert a particular functionality is the seat, the resolution of the hard problem; it's not the same as reduction.
Im interested. It’s just the second someone says “non local” or “quantum level” the skeptic in me kinda cringes. I need to get over that and look at the arguments and evidence. Edit: could we get him and like Sean Carroll or Lawrence Krauss to debate or talk it out?
Coolest conversation I couldn’t come close to following. If all these cells die, how do memories last so long?
What we’re looking for or looking at, we’re looking with..
Peter Gabriel looks pretty happy in his old age.
Excellent!
You need to interview Robert Lanza
Psalms 104:29-30 (HCSB)
When You hide Your face,
they are terrified;
when You take away their breath,
they die and return to the dust.
When You send Your breath,
they are created,
and You renew the face of the earth.
What in the name of all that is Holy is your point?
@@garychartrand7378
Consciousness is the result of God breathing the breath of life into the being in view.
@@theidolbabblerthedailydose33 thanks. When you put it that way I (and everybody else) get your point. I totally agree but you may get a passionate argument from some non-believer scientists.
@@garychartrand7378
That’s fine. I’m just offering how the Bible deals with this question. People can do what they want with it.
I'm skeptical of consciousness outside the brain. No evidence our individual consciousness existed before we were at some point in the womb.
There is a lot of evidence for consciousness outside the brain. Pam reynolds had her eyes tapped closed during brain surgery. She accurately described the operating room and seeing equipment that she had no way of knowing. Its also been documented that people can see things in a different room to where their body. Maria for example had a near death experience and saw a tennis shoe on the hospital roof. The nurse went to check and it was there as described. It wasn't visible from the ground floor up or outside the window. Also some people see people during their near death experience who they hadn't even known had died at the time. People born blind can see during a near death experience. So this strongly points to consciousness outside the brain.
So, his idea is, that there are mechanisms in the brain, able to scale up quantum mechanics, so that they are accessible for the brain?
As long as he doesn't believe that free will is an illusion.
Hameroff is a trained anaesthesiologist who is also an incredible autodidact. I very much doubt he learned most of he is talking about here in a classroom.
On a more important note - I'd just like to say I like that green shirt.