Consciousness As The Intersection For Biology With Quantum Physics: Stuart Hameroff, MD
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 22 июн 2024
- Join us on Patreon! / michaellustgartenphd
Discount Links:
Epigenetic, Telomere Testing: trudiagnostic.com/?irclickid=...
Use Code: CONQUERAGING
NAD+ Quantification: www.jinfiniti.com/intracellul...
Use Code: ConquerAging At Checkout
Oral Microbiome: www.bristlehealth.com/?ref=mi...
Enter Code: ConquerAging
At-Home Metabolomics: www.iollo.com?ref=michael-lustgarten
Use Code: CONQUERAGING At Checkout
At-Home Blood Testing: getquantify.io/mlustgarten
Green Tea: www.ochaandco.com
Use Discount Code: MLOFF10
Diet Tracking: shareasale.com/r.cfm?b=139013...
If you'd like to support the channel, you can do that with the website, Buy Me A Coffee: www.buymeacoffee.com/mlhnrca
Conquer Aging Or Die Trying Merch! my-store-d4e7df.creator-sprin... 
Наука
Timestamps:
0:53 Orch OR Theory As An Explanation For Consciousness, Links With Alzheimer's Disease
24:04 Microtubules As Central Player For Quantum Physics With Consciousness
31:50 Microtubules And Aging
32:40 Microtubules And Cognitive Function
36:48 Maximizing Microtubule Density In The Brain-->Maximize Cognitive Function?
38:00 Tryptophan's Role In Microtubules
38:55 Ultrasound Therapy For Alzheimer's Disease
44:55 Quantum Entanglement Within The Bain And/Or Outside Of It?
48:15 Consciousness Preceded Life?
55:30 Microtubule Frequency, Sleep vs Awake
57:10 Do Microbes Have Microtubules?
1:00:20 What's Fun For Stuart Outside Of Studying Consciousness?
1:02:35 Stuart's Favorite Movies
1:05:45 More On The Link Between The Brain And Quantum Entanglement
1:06:30 Advice For Young Scientists, What Would Stuart Change About His Early Career?
1:12:25 What Does Orch OR Get Wrong?
1:15:02 Questioning Reincarnation Experiences
1:16:50 Psychedelics
Great video! Best wishes for finding the right career path going forward. ~ If interested in xenon as an anesthetic, I highly recommend Hamilton's Pharmacopeia S3E3 - it's absolutely brilliant.
I hope you achieve this rarity and obtain a Nobel Prize
What a nice surprise to wake up to on a Sunday morning - two of my favorites together, like almond butter and chocolate!
I haven't finished watching yet. While I don't think amyloid is the whole story in AD, I think it must be part of it since there are associations with genetic differences in APP (e.g., Down syndrome, but that's also considered to be a progeroid syndrome, so it's complicated).
It's great Dr Hameroff is at Arizona - does he interact with the team that works with Shinzen Young (SEMA lab) on ultrasound neuromodulation?
Quantum physics can give rise to false assumptions because you start with a mathematical explanation, which is accurate, but then you come up with a physical visualization/description, which is speculative. Then people use the physical visualization to logically deduce a new answer, this is a thought experiment, and can work in some situations and may not work in many situations, it's largely reliant on the accuracy of your initial description, which in itself didn't have the level of proof that the mathematics had.
The difficulty with the "measurement problem" with quantum theory is from the same fallacy as the difficulty with the "mind-body problem" and the "hard problem," that is to say, both rely on a fallacy that conflates subjectivity with contextuality. Just because something is unique to you, it does not mean it is subject-dependent. It could just be context-dependent, in other words, it depends upon point-of-view, reference frame, etc. Obviously, we are an object just like any other in the universe, so we occupy a particular frame of reference, and so if something is context-dependent, we will see things from our unique frame of reference, but that does not make it _subjective._ The conflation between these two is how people come to believe their experience is "subjective" and not reality as it _actually is._ They see it as some sort of "reflection" of reality or "representation" of it unique the subject, when neither are correct. It is just reality _as it is_ from a particular context. When you accept that, then the mind-body problem and the "hard problem" disappears. In fact, the measurement problem, too, disappears, as it arises from the subjectivist language in the Copenhagen interpretation: "observer-dependence," "observation," "measurement," etc. We can just replace these terms with "context-dependence" and "interaction" and suddenly there is no more measurement problem. (You end up with an interpretation similar to Carlo Rovelli's.)
I liked this old man with crazy genius ideas and his unique personality 😀
He doesn't seem old to me.
I would be grateful if someone summaries in simple terms the main conclusions of this (certainly exciting) interview.
Microtubules in the brain degrade during aging (and in Alzheimer's disease)
Where in the brain is consciousness? In neurons,, but where more specifically? Stuart's work supports microtubules as the origin of consciousness via quantum effects
the lesson is to take a bunch of psychedelics and hone your tryptophines, just promote lots of energy, you know, something like that.
Perhaps consider these pioneers...Dr. Ward Dean, Dr. Stephen Sinatra, Linus Pauling, John Morgenthaler, Dr. Michael Lesser, Leon Chaitow, Drs. Cathcart & Klenner, Dr. Michael Gershon, Terence McKenna.
Yep, thanks @stevenwelp7165
Any good theory should make predictions that are testable. When invoking quantum mechanisms concrete calculations should be done as is the norm in physics, and a good theorist will put forward many predictions that can be tested experimentally.
A quick search of this topic shows some good physicists have done calculations and performed related experiments that don't support the views presented here. That doesn't mean the theory is right/wrong, but provides cause for concern this "theory" is not viable as presented. Usually in these situations the theories get buried and are rarely mentioned again in physics.
If you aren't putting forward concrete calculations with testable experiments, and ignoring calculations that don't support your ideas, that's not good science (as its done in physics). You move into the realm of what ifs and philosophy and it should be presented in that light.
As with any hypothesis, there is evidence in support and against. My bet is on Orch Or as an explanation for consciousness-time will tell if it's the most accurate depiction, or it's something else...
Microtubules, deliver the male dna to the female and are responsible for cell division once the dna is delivered. Some speculate that intelligence in slime mold is contained in the microtubules which vibrate to
position the slime mold with shortest distance to nutrients with highly efficient algorithms.
To determine if consciousness is quantum in nature, scientists are doing experimentation and computer modeling to determine how anesthetic and hallucinogenic compounds effect the dampening or enhancing of quantum resonances in microtubules which are key components of life and of the structure of neurons in the brain.
Another great video. You introduced us to the benefits of lignoceric acid to the brain, which I had to look up. Would you care to share a keyword that would allow us to further research this remarkable saturated fatty acid as it relates to brain aging?
Thanks @smedleyjefferson1450. Lignoceric acid will make another appearance in a video coming next week, and is based on this paper:
www.nature.com/articles/s41514-024-00150-8
I contend that Hameroff is a fan of Captain Beefheart and the Magic Band.
Very interesting so pleased Hameroff is still working on this, he is basically correct imo - AI has given the whole subject area a boost in popularity.
My ten cents is this: Single cells are "thinking" and have memory and it is probably decoherence in microtubules and some type of protein memory effect. But neurons allow organisms to perform more complex control operations. I believe Ai is conscious - in its own way - and I do not see why quantum effects are necessary to "think" consciously. Goeddel's is a bit of a con imo - its a piece of simple logic that doesn't get us far. There must be something outside is a piece of logic. Its a bit like the logic that claims my brain is making everything up and there is only my brain in the Universe - its logically correct but not, in fact, correct. We cannot even define what "truth" is because the meanings of words depends on other words - Post Modern Philosophy basis. But academics abuse these two theorems for career reasons and to sound clever - lol.
I felt this when reading about that the very same way. Philosophy is often times incredibly misleading, and too human-centric, and often times gets quite tribal. It's just exercises in rationalization, not the same as the rigors in science. Great way for people to waste time however, and gatekeep conversations.
If AI had a body to occupy, and the same impulses and mediums humans have (but perhaps through different mediums), then it would spoof the act of being conscious or alive, but since it's an input output machine that works with text... you really can't rationalize it in a human world. People look for expression when determining consciousness. Business leaders look for the end result when it comes to code. And for a consumer - well if it works, they won't question how bad the coding or medium is, as long as it gives expected end results.
Now apply that but for something a bit more multi-faceted, variable, and slowly you start with chatbots to give this illusion, then spoof real animals, and eventually something similar to humans. You get the idea.
So is it Dr Hameroff's contention that there's no biology in AI so it can never be conscious, and yet we can have survival after death and out of body experiences (which implies consciousness without biology)? This seems contradictory. Also - that memories are encoded in microtubules and yet people can have memories of past lives? Memories of past lives would only make sense if the memories are not stored in the body and the body acts as a receiver or 'player' (like a record player) for memories.
~
When I was a teen I wanted so badly to have an out of body experience; I half believed in that sort of thing at the time (age 12-17), but then around age 18 I became a hard core materialist and stayed that way for a few decades. Ironically, I realize now that I had 2 OBEs as a teen. Unfortunately, they were both during traumatic experiences. When I remembered the incidents there were periods in both where my perspective was from above. I kept wondering why that was, why could I not access the 'real' memory of the incidents? I thought the in-the-air, seeing my own body perspective was a construction of my imagination. I only recently have come to the understanding that these were OBEs. I had a therapist try to explain it to me around 20 years ago, but I was too close-minded (but no matter, she was a terrible therapist in general). I was not physically near death in either incident, though I feared for my life (I sustained a GSW in one, but it was very minor).
Well said.
It’s incredible how much of of what is available to read in Genesis as well as throughout the Bible lines up with the language being used in this interview. Check your premises and consider praying for clarity on His existence, with love, meekness and honesty.
John 1
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
Yeah, sure.
@@MikkoVille it’s good news. Scripture discusses clothing of light in many passages throughout. I haven’t heard the analogy anywhere else. It’s common in Scripture.
Funny, I was thinking it lined up with the abhidhamma.
@@rhyothemisprinceps1617 could be. Have a sample? There are lots of references in the Bible about being clothed in light. Until recently, quantum physicists were thought to be nuts when suggesting that cells and organelles use light to communicate.
I would be interested in knowing about other writings from BC talking about light as a material. Analogous or not.
@@digdeeep I was more referring to the concept of consciousness as a series of arisings and passings of perceptions. I'm sorry, I'm not good at explaining it. Beth Upton has some good videos on her channel. But Tibetan Buddhists have a thing called the rainbow body (I think it may have originated in Bon). It is something that can happen when someone reaches a high level of attainment around the time of death - they begin to glow with light, eventually dissolving into light. Tina Rasmussen, (she, like Beth Upton, is a former nun and student of Pa Auk Sayadaw), said that during a home meditation retreat her eyes began to glow. She went to the grocery store and the person checking her out commented on it. If you are interested in quantum biology, you might like the Guy Foundation Channel.
Those that love, recognize, AND KNOW God the Creator are referred to as Kings and Queens in the Bible.
Proverbs 25
2 It is the glory of God to conceal a thing, but the honor of kings is to search out a matter.
No use listening when he makes a silly strawman argument right from the start. In fact nobody would say that brain is a computer made of simple neurons.
That's not true, most of the field looks at it like that...
@@conqueragingordietrying1797 No they don't. Most neurobiologists would not compare brain to a computer as it works in a totally different fashion. This was true already in the late 90s when I studied neurobiology. Also any real neuroscientist will tell you how complex and dynamic cells neurons are, including the organelles inside them. They are certainly not simple and nothing like microcircuitry. I'd be interested in what your references for "the field" are. They don't seem to be up-to-date. I appreciate your content and self-experimentation, but this seems like a misstep in my opinion.
The only advancement in the whole brain computer debate is the rising of stochastic processes. Yet classical computing is STILL learning how to borrow simple million year old heuristics, state of criticality, and energy optimizations that classical computing doesn't even approach. It's very akin to how aviation engineers would take lessons from birds on basic engineering and fundamental geometry truths. The science on computer learning hasn't caught up to even explaining the optimizations, or total understanding of pathways in the biological world (which they stand to vastly benefit from).