The Top Theory on Where Consciousness Comes From | Stuart Hameroff
Vložit
- čas přidán 21. 05. 2024
- Curt's "String Theory Iceberg": • The String Theory Iceb...
Main episode with Stuart Hameroff (March 2021): • Stuart Hameroff: Orch ...
Consider signing up for TOEmail at www.curtjaimungal.org
Support TOE:
- Patreon: / curtjaimungal (early access to ad-free audio episodes!)
- Crypto: tinyurl.com/cryptoTOE
- PayPal: tinyurl.com/paypalTOE
- TOE Merch: tinyurl.com/TOEmerch
Follow TOE:
- NEW Get my 'Top 10 TOEs' PDF + Weekly Personal Updates: www.curtjaimungal.org
- Instagram: / theoriesofeverythingpod
- TikTok: / theoriesofeverything_
- Twitter: / toewithcurt
- Discord Invite: / discord
- iTunes: podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast...
- Pandora: pdora.co/33b9lfP
- Spotify: open.spotify.com/show/4gL14b9...
- Subreddit r/TheoriesOfEverything: / theoriesofeverything
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @theoriesofeverything
#consciousness #science - Věda a technologie
Main episode with Stuart Hameroff (March 2021): czcams.com/video/uLo0Zwe579g/video.html
Consider signing up for TOEmail at www.curtjaimungal.org
I tend to think that consciousness is some sort of electromagnetic-like field. I also think there's more to natural physics than we know publicly, and it is suppressed to enslave us.
In my opinion, the so-called "hard problem of conscious" does not exist.. The very word CONSCIOUSNESS is a crude and very vague word burdened with centuries of mysticism and supernaturalism.. A FAR more accurate descriptor is simply awareness of the environment.. All mysteries then just fall away.. Awareness of the environment (the actual definition of consciousness) then becomes measurable/quantifiable.. amoeba can respond to external stimulus.. Arbitrarily, they are near the bottom of this scale, and humans are on top. Science can then generally test AND grade the sliding scale of awareness that an organism possesses.. Finally, yes, indeed, it is all about integrated information processing, not mumbo jumbo.. A humble opinion..
Ps..bateria LIKE amoeba have no neurons but achieve a very simple (fundamental degree) of awareness by exchanging atoms in a process called Quorum sensing..
@@Bill..N When studying consciousness, there are folks who understand the difference between awareness and subcognitive processes, but both are conscious in the sense that the organism is "aware" of everything happening to it, but the ego, if you will, is only aware of a portion of the processes. It's also sort of a last stop since all external stimulus is interpreted first by the amygdala before it becomes cognition. Also, awareness of the environment is not arbitrary but the consequence of natural selection. Lots of neuroscientists work from this model.
@mediacrusher Consciousness, my friend, IS awareness only, and of course, is a WHOLE brain/body endeavor.. Subconscious inputs included.. Although it largely resides within the cerebral cortex of humans, we would NOT be aware of large swaths of information without the assistance of ALL the brain..Damage to the back of the scull for instance, takes away the awareness that sight provides.. Different areas of damage can impoverish our awareness in a great many obvious ways, yes? The term awareness of the environment suddenly desolves the so-called hard problem as well because it can be quantifiable across the animal kingdom as we have done with many species.. I never claim to know what is or isn't certainly true, which would be a philosophical faux pas like our friend Neil espouses.. BUT these are my opinions..
Consciousness isn't derived from matter. Matter is derived from consciousness. Science will never unravel its mystery until they are ready to grasp this concept.
Max Plank, the father of quantum mechanics, also said that. Many things in quantum mechanics are not intuitive at all, but still following mathematical logic. I believe the truth about consciousness is similar, logic but so counter intuitive that it's impossible for most people to even consider the possibility.
@@effedrien I learned of Plank while reading Tom Campbell’s Big TOE. I’m curious what you think of Tom’s theory?
Absolutely!
@@specialeeffexx I never heard of Tom Campbell to be honest. I see it are 3 books, if I find a short version I will read it, thanks 👍
On another note, did you ever consider that maybe we don't want to know the truth behind this reality? It could be like a serious spoiler before a good movie, it could be a truth that you must suppress all the time in order to enjoy life. What do you think?
Yesss! Consciousness created our brains ...
I’m quite convinced through direct experience that virtually everything is Universal Cosmic Consciousness. Please start by reading “The Tao of Physics” by Fritjof Capra.
Interesting that Capra saw the limitations of materialism in physics and switched to biology. His next book, The Web of Life is even better, but strangely overlooked.
The world is waking up to this, and I’m extremely happy that is the case. We are all expressions of one, infinite intelligence experiencing itself in infinite ways. It’s essence of that of pure, unconditional love and it grants all of its expressions free will.
@elohim-jw3vl I prefer Yogananda.
Our brains are just the headsets God uses for his multi-player cosmic game.
Ever read “Turning Point”? Yikes……
Very happy to see that the most popular comments here are making the case that matter arises in consciousness, and not that consciousness somehow arises from matter. Why would one suppose that that what appears in consciousness somehow creates what observes it? And to go even further, why should your thoughts be trusted to understand what you are? Your thoughts do not speak for you. They may speak but they speak for no one. What you are cannot be understood by thought because thought arises within you, and what arises within cannot understand what is without--though "without" and "within" are both concepts that arise in the mind and are therefore limited to it. When a decisive awakening comes, this is clear, and then thoughts can stop pretending to be more than they are.
Great to see more and more people awakening to this! Your comment sounds just like some of the best living philosophers, like Kastrup, Spira, or Nader.
So how exactly does the collapse of quantum curvatures create consciousness. That's the important missing part.
Do you know the South Park Episode where Dwarfs steal socks and make Profits by it?
Step1: steal Socks
Step2: ?
Step3: Profit
Now you get it 😄😉
I think the point hes trying to make is that consciousness IS the collapsed quantum curvature or just the other side of the coin, though my impression comes from watching the full episode.
I believe Dan Winter has some of the best knowledge on this. It has to do with the perfected "turning inside out-ness" of the centripetal vortex.
It appears that everything is electro magnetics, from the strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force (visuals of this in Terrence Howard's JRE episode) to gravity itself, which was proven by Thomas Bearden in the book Gravitobiology and furthered by Dan Winter into the formula of fractal compression.
@@erikreuterskiold5996 So when I experience a red square the collapsed quantum curvature is red and square-like?
@@DharmaScienceRadio How is that not just an even more complicated way of trying to explain consciousness in terms of what it self-evidently is not. Consciousness is a directly given fact. As such, its final and sufficient explanation must be its self-description.
The idea of the emergence of consciousness requires an awful lot of faith.
If it didn't emerge you wouldn't exist so yeah I'd say you need a lot of faith if we're in for a jealous God approaching
I would suggest it requires an in-depth understanding of neuroscience and physics as well.
It does. But faith is an energy.
Not really only if your thinking short term
It doesn't. You don't know what the word faith is, déblie
Need a Penrose ep!
👍
This 100%
I like Julian Janes' theory "the Origins of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind".
What Jaynes discusses is not consciousness as Hameroff or even Chalmers means the word. In fact, what Jaynes talks about is just our idea that we have our own, private mind, an interior space of sorts that we, and only we, are aware of. Jaynes' consciousness is something that children learn from the parents long after they start to experience the world. It may very well explain what makes our experience human but it doesn't explain experience itself.
I can definately recommend the full episode!
The brain does not boot up Consciousness, that is an old Materialistic Ontological error. People who are materialists think matter has stand alone existence.
What is the relation between the brain and consciousness on your view?
@@fishfrogdolphin2799 Whatever it is, it is by association, but association does not imply causality. Bruce Greyson, Bernardo Kastrup and Donald Hoffman and others can it explain it better than me. czcams.com/video/sPGZSC8odIU/video.html
Must be a god somewhere
@@jrgenbentzen9181 Spacetime is dead. Beyond 10 to the -33cm and 10 to the -43 s it is meaningless. So it is not fundamental. Consciousness therefore must be fundamental.
As BK would say.. The brain is the image of a particular state of consciousness.
As Aldous Huxley stated"The brain is a reducing valve for the soul/spirit."
Stuart Hameroff is one of the most brilliant minds of this planet along with Donald Hoffman, Roger Penrose and Rupert Sheldrake
Really, this proves God as an ABSOLUTE life force. p is non p, plug data into formula
1> non p, non life, caused the p is non p impossible contradiction effect of
2> p, life in the universe
This is p is non p a false scientific hypothesis because it is a heinous contradiction.
p isn't non p, p is p.
1> p, conscious caused the p is p non contradiction effect of
2> p, consciousness in the universe
Logic Science 101, proves God has to exist to cause the effect of your consciousness to avoid p is non p impossible contradiction.
p is p, p isn't non p, plug data into formula
1> p, caused life
2> p the effect of life in the universe.
@@robertvann7349do you have a twin or something?
More and more I come to conclusion that brain is not a computer but a simple terminal to a greater computer which uses soul as the operating system. And we use it to connect to the “greater computer” which kinda resembles the consciousness. It is neither a simulation or a matrix that we connect to. It must be something way more complicated because we can’t even fathom the geometry of its shadow. But mind… that’s something that I need to figure out, yet.
Star Trek episode #58
I think mind is pretty simple. Its mind all the way down, the knower knowing itself as a quality intrinsic to infinity, because why wouldn't it be?
Mind, and your mind are different things. It takes about 9 seconds to know it, followed by 9 years to master it. I'm well past 3 cycles of 9, or a third degree master of the conscious universe. You appear to be heading in the right direction, albeit without a mentor. Best of luck.
Lol
@@mavrosyvannah Don't forget to change the bongwater lol.
At around 9 minutes in, Mr Hameroff uses the unintentionally relevant wording of 'gut feeling'. This is a real action/activity that takes place in humans. Are we intuitively understanding that processing involved with consciousness also takes place in places away from the brain? Does our body become a system-of-systems by incorporating the universe-interacting capabilities of billions of other organisms? Mr Wolfram has stated that complexity comes from the interaction of large numbers of simple systems.
Fantastic interview. Drs. Hameroff and Penrose achieved an astounding synergy
I think these short clips are a great idea. This was really interesting and I'll plan time to watch the full episode. But without seeing this first it would probably have looked too long.
This topic runs and runs. Great discussion..more please
I don't know about you guys, but I'm just happy to be along for the ride.
:)
Awesome Idea man!
Taking some of your past content I did not even know about is epic!
If you could curate some of your content that is "moving" in the emotional or spiritual or cognitive sense that would be awesome! Maybe that is what someone who wanted to learn what u do could do to find their way into this field which really needs good people to assist AI and other truly next level concepts!
¡Muy Beuno!
"Computers were new to me back then in the 70s" 😂😂😂
My first computer program was on an IBM 360 in 1970. It had 256K bytes of core memory. 😁
What a lucid and interesting discussion. Full video next! Thank you.
Here's the full podcast czcams.com/video/uLo0Zwe579g/video.html
@@TheoriesofEverything Got it. Thank you.
Microtubules are why most of us experience a tunnel when we pass away. We interpret it as a tunnel, but it's consciousness moving through microtubules into a quantum field.
Sounds good. But certainty has whiskers on it.
Actually the VOID many NDE experiencers recall seeing is the unconscious mind.
If the subconscious mind is not overtly powerful, the soul accesses its superconscious mind, which allows for the need for more wisdom into the timeless regions' experience best suited for that souls level of comprehension.
See NDE Jose Hernandez-ATHEIST DIES AND IS SHOCKED BY WHO HE SEES IN HEAVEN 3 million views.
During his NDE he sees the angel of death.He then moves thru his unconscious mind which strips away his subconscious attachments to this dimension.He then sees his Rainbow/ chakra body.Finally he is ready to enter earth's Astral counterpart.
microtubules and quantum fields (and the brain) reside within Consciousness
@@Aliens-Are-Our-Friends2027 Ya & all E.Ts are good E.Ts.
This sounds like a story someone made up. It's a word salad of ideas about thing we barely understand. Does consciousness move? What's the evidence of this? In my experience, I am always here and now.
Great episode! I think Hameroff is going to make a big impact with his work.
I believe my post on your community section covers this. I left it open for anyone to take up.
i remember when you were at 200k subs!!! great job brother
Penrose-Hameroff theory. I know of Roger Penrose, but I always wondered why it had Hameoff in it. Thank you for your work sir.
I am a physicist and I will explain why our scientific knowledge refutes the idea that consciousness is generated by the brain and that the origin of our mental experiences is physical/biological .
My argument proves that the fragmentary structure of brain processes implies that brain processes are not a sufficient condition for the existence of consciousness, which existence implies the existence in us of an indivisible unphysical element, which is usually called soul or spirit (in my youtube channel you can find a video with more detailed explanations). I also argue that all emergent properties are subjective cognitive contructs used to approximately describe underlying physical processes, and that these descriptions refer only to mind-dependent entities. Consciousness, being implied by these cognitive contructs, cannot itself be an emergent property.
Preliminary considerations: the concept of set refers to something that has an intrinsically conceptual and subjective nature and implies the arbitrary choice of determining which elements are to be included in the set; what exists objectively are only the single elements. In fact, when we define a set, it is like drawing an imaginary line that separates some elements from all the other elements; obviously this imaginary line does not exist physically, independently of our mind, and therefore any set is just an abstract and subjective cognitive construct and not a physical entity and so are all its properties. Similar considerations can be made for a sequence of elementary processes; sequence is a subjective and abstract concept.
Mental experience is a precondition for the existence of subjectivity/arbitrariness and cognitive constructs, therefore mental experience cannot itself be a cognitive construct; obviously we can conceive the concept of consciousness, but the concept of consciousness is not actual consciousness.
(With the word consciousness I do not refer to self-awareness, but to the property of being conscious= having a mental experiences such as sensations, emotions, thoughts, memories and even dreams).
From the above considerations it follows that only indivisible elements may exist objectively and independently of consciousness, and consequently the only logically coherent and significant statement is that consciousness exists as a property of an indivisible element. Furthermore, this indivisible entity must interact globally with brain processes because we know that there is a correlation between brain processes and consciousness. This indivisible entity is not physical, since according to the laws of physics, there is no physical entity with such properties; therefore this indivisible entity can be identified with what is traditionally called soul or spirit. The soul is the missing element that interprets globally the distinct elementary physical processes occurring at separate points in the brain as a unified mental experience.
Some clarifications.
The brain doesn't objectively and physically exist as a mind-independent entity since we create the concept of the brain by separating an arbitrarily chosen group of quantum particles from everything else. This separation is not done on the basis of the laws of physics, but using addictional subjective criteria, independent of the laws of physics; actually there is a continuous exchange of molecules with the blood and when and how such molecules start and stop being part of the brain is decided arbitrarily. Brain processes consist of many parallel sequences of ordinary elementary physical processes occurring at separate points. There is no direct connection between the separate points in the brain and such connections are just a subjective abstractions used to approximately describe sequences of many distinct physical processes. Indeed, considering consciousness as a property of an entire sequence of elementary processes implies the arbitrary definition of the entire sequence; the entire sequence as a whole (and therefore every function/property/capacity attributed to the brain) is a subjective abstraction that does not refer to any mind-independendent reality.
Physicalism/naturalism is based on the belief that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain. However, an emergent property is defined as a property that is possessed by a set of elements that its individual components do not possess; my arguments prove that this definition implies that emergent properties are only subjective cognitive constructs and therefore, consciousness cannot be an emergent property.
Actually, all the alleged emergent properties are just simplified and approximate descriptions or subjective/arbitrary classifications of underlying physical processes or properties, which are described directly by the fundamental laws of physics alone, without involving any emergent properties (arbitrariness/subjectivity is involved when more than one option is possible; in this case, more than one possible description). An approximate description is only an abstract idea, and no actual entity exists per se corresponding to that approximate description, simply because an actual entity is exactly what it is and not an approximation of itself. What physically exists are the underlying physical processes. Emergence is nothing more than a cognitive construct that is applied to physical phenomena, and cognition itself can only come from a mind; thus emergence can never explain mental experience as, by itself, it implies mental experience.
My approach is scientific and is based on our scientific knowledge of the physical processes that occur in the brain; my arguments prove that such scientific knowledge excludes the possibility that the physical processes that occur in the brain could be a sufficient condition for the existence of consciousness.
Marco Biagini
Have you looked into some of the core ideas of Buddhism?
1. Dependent origination
2. Causality
Fundamentally, what you describe regarding the brain can describe everything. All phenomenon are "dependent-arising". Nothing inherently exist on its own accord.
Seems to suggest non dualism is in fact a correct interpretation of reality, to the extent that way can grasp it at all.
It also seems to parallel Bernardo Kastrup's philosophy of mind and my own intuitions (I also got my degree in physics) and makes more sense to me than the idea that consciousness just emerges at some point.
In other words, the hard problem is hard because it's based on incorrect assumptions in the first place and isn't even the right issue to understand mind
You know, compartmentalization of disciplines ensures almost everything is wrong. I've been working on artificial intelligence in one way or another since the seventies. And within the past twenty years its become very clear just how simple consciousness is and how it is produced. So no, you don't have a proof or an argument. And yes we know what the senses of spirituality and soul are caused by. So try to learn artificial intelligence, neuroscience, cognitive science, biochemistry, behavioral economics, and the history of law before you thing physics is a terribly coherent discipline given it's been in a tragic failure for the past seventy years.
@@TheNaturalLawInstitute So you are saying people need to keep tacking on additional thought structures to figure out consciousness?
@@TheNaturalLawInstitute where is the evidence that AI is in any way conscious in the way we're talking about?
And if it is, what are we doing making it?
Can you imagine being conscious, but having no body to move about the world?
Sounds pretty horrific
Consciousness is a feeling. Figure out how feelings work and you'll know how conciousness works.
Wow...never thought of it that way.
Agreed
Consciousness is not a feeling. It is that which allow us to experience different kinds of feelings.
In the same way the eye allow us to see different colors, the eye itself is not just another shade of color, it is that which allow us to experience color
Could you meet me half way & add to that w/ a reiteration?
That doesn’t intuitively make sense all the way for me. *It’s a feeling.*
@@albertosierraalta3223That sounds like just a lot of feelings to me.
It explains consciousness when you outline the different patterns between how those change of spindles directly and indirectly effect, affect, and relate to the endocrine system.
Emotion and feeling are the chemical reactions emitted by the endocrine system.
Maybe consciousness emerges from the connections between neurons, atoms, molecules, because it IS the connections, and the more complex the network is, the more complicated the consciousness becomes, until these consciousnesses are sitting here pondering their own existence.
this is the most likely explanation
What we call consciousness is likely just a function of complex information processing from biological entities.
@@GhostSal so then we should just be able to build these networks and connections and then observe consciousness emerge right? Maybe we should be able to resurrect the brain of a cadaver and watch consciousness emerge
Would love to hear more from those both trained in physics and Eastern wisdom traditions, most specifically karma, to expound on where they think consciousness comes from.
already advaita and Buddhism have discovered that.same thing said by Carl jung.
@radhey_87 I'm well aware of this. Thank you for providing added reason for me to clarify a more specific call for Western trained academics to look into this. And yes, I am also aware there are some who have, but would appreciate more voices examining the subject as effort to advance a fuller understanding of consciousness from outside the long established self-reverential framing of purely Western philosophical and scientific conceptions.
I suppose that your already conversant with CTT. It's fairly hit and miss, but you do stumble across some interesting thinkers from time to time. As for my two cents, I think the traditional Eastern conception of "karma" probably relates to the manner in which our physical body responds to both our environment (via epigenetics) and our mind (via prediction-error feedback loops). Quite simply, what you put out into the world, you get back. Eating well and meditating, for instance, reduces cellular inflammation and therefore also a host of ailments and diseases. Whereas eating poorly and fixating on hatred does the opposite. Similarly, positive thoughts feed back on themselves to create a more stable outlook, which in turn makes it easier to let go of negative emotions, which in turn strengthens one's equanimity etc. Again, what you put out, you get back. Karma. Just not of the sort we associate the term with here in the west.
With consciousness, I tend to flip-flop a lot, alternating between the more Western "emergent quality of biologically complex evolution", and the more Eastern "fundamental and irreducible component of all life" points of view. Although, that said, of late I'm finding myself drawn more towards the latter.
It seems to me that there are a few signs that point this way. First, when I look at other animals, everything from mice to garden spiders, there doesn't appear to be a cut-off line where consciousness suddenly ceases to exist. In fact it doesn't really appear to dilute at all. If I lift a log and see a spider, it seems just as startled as me!
Second, even if consciousness _does_ somehow dilute as complexity decreases, it most certainly appears to be there in _some_ form or another. And if it is in mosquitoes and Christmas beetles, then it can't be a trick that evolution played as brain size increased. Yet it seems wasteful (from an energy-gradient, thermodynamic point of view, and evolutionarily speaking.
Third, despite us all having it (conscious, first-person, awareness), and despite everyone from neuroscientists to mystics to philosophers to Siddha Yogi's having ruminated upon its nature, or upon the mechanism for us having acquired it, there still is yet a soul that can even partially explain the phenomena with any great insight or clarity. Consciousness is a mystery. And it's a mystery as to why it's a mystery.
And, lastly, there is the hard problem that still begs for an answer. It seems to be popular these days to assert that consciousness is a product of the brain, and that it holds relevance through it allowing us to "focus" our attention on different facets of experience, and to solve complex problems by being able to assemble the disparate strands of an issue together in our minds. This seems to be an unsatisfactory explanation, however, for whenever humans _do_ focus our attention on something we invariable screw it up! We perform our best sports, we compose our most inspired music, we write our most moving literature, and we solve our most confounding problems when we are unconscious - or at most, semi-conscious - of what we are doing. "I had too much time to think", grumbles the sportsperson after missing an easy smash. "The play just wrote itself, really!" says the somewhat surprised playwright at his newfound success. So, if being conscious of our actions makes us _more,_ not _less,_ likely to fail, then why would evolution have insisted that everything from mosquitoes to homo sapiens sapiens have it?
There are other points, mostly related to free will, or rather our apparent _lack_ of free will, that are probably worth mentioning, but I've said enough already, and you're doubtless just wishing that I'd finally shut up. And so I will.
Best of luck on your journey, and have a great day!
s @@Mystery_G
Is the entropy of the system, the fuzziness, the error in the computation where consciousness comes from?
There is not only the sympathetic but the parasympathetic.
It is our deciding, then doing it again and comparing, never trusting because we KNOW we can be fooled. Is it a heavy self feedback, the hiatus between assessments, which is consciousness?
Conciousness comes from source. The universe is one thing, and that thing can be called god, source, prime creator, so on and so forth. But it’s all the same thing. There is no such thing as separation, only identity. The all is the one expressing itself in infinite ways. (Yes, YOU are god). And you are a citizen of eternity. Enjoy!
How has TsOE not yet had Anirban Bandyopadhyay for an interview. He's the most fascinating, and advanced experimentalist on this topic. HE IS the one to be interviewing (concerning FIT/GML Fractal Information Theory derived from Geometric Music Language which replaced the OrchOR ontology in 2016), not Hameroff.
I'd argue that Advaita Vedanta has the top theory for consciousness
Absolutely couldn't agree more.
@elohim-jw3vl thank you I will check him out.
Hey Kurt. Have you watched the Terrence Howard episode of Joe Rogan and what are your thoughts?
I hope TOE can have Terrence Howard on the channel. His theories have been raking my mind and changed how I look at a lot of things
They put up a video today debunking it all
Nuts?
We ask our selfs where conciousness comes from but first we should questioning if there's something like conciousness at all .
We need more people like you.
I am inclined to agree. Even though all of my intuitions tell me that I am conscious, logically I can't be. Unless there is something fundamentally missing from the materialist account of the universe.
@@audiodead7302materialism is retarded. People only believe it to conform to group think
If there were no consciousness at all, you wouldn't be able to ask yourself if there was
@@Erik-V Maybe the question creates something we call conciousness but it remains a concept but than everything is a concept .Take for example subject and object ,well ,it's the object that creates the subject ,not the other way around .Your comment is just another assumption ,it doesn't proof conciousness .
I need to delve further into this, but i just had an intuition that this might just be the biological process needed to bring a more solid barrier/division present in cells into convergence, and conscious can't arise just by this process alone, it's something i've been wondering since i came in contact with lagan work and his interpretation of his own model, its like defining the limits how information is processed in space through time, on the matter boundary you have different levels of determinism but in the end its about the information being processed. AS biology operates at a higher layer we need different process to achieve the same. Will a brain without anything else be able to be conscious? Conscious seems to be the act of interpreting information based on your limitation on the system. Different physical form, different limitation for conscious but a self recurring program can be easily replicated in a computer.
Given the state of my world reality lately, my dreams are the only time I'm beautifully conscious.
If this is really the top theory on where consciousness comes from then we’re not even at first base. It doesn’t even address how all of what he described could lead to an experience.
Is there a term for equating technological properties to biological ones? Such as how people have an ides the brain works like a computer, when we may just be projecting our current technological advancements onto biology. Sort of anthropomorphic but thats not the right word so is there one for how we project our current tech understandings onto biology whether its true or not?
Tried to look it up but none of the results seemed right.
Edit: i guess technopomorphism could work in a pinch
The entangled intent between the systems (energy conservation can be intent) generates a higher order system of entanglement and intent. This builds on itself until you have consciousness.
Feedback: Microtubules. I wondered where Roger got this ridiculous idea and now, well, now I know. Simplicity: a microtubule functions like a rail, that motor proteins can carry 'cargo' (resources) along to transport whatever resources are necessary within the cell. In addition, because they are relatively strong, they can provide structure to keep organelles in place. In that way they are precursors to the evolution of veins, nerves, cartilage and bone, for similar purposes: structure and transport. So, in the context of anesthesia, inhibiting transport along microtubules will suppress electrochemical transmission. In particular, the axon hillock within the neuron, and the axon itself, is relatively dense with microtubules to ensure that the rather long distance of the axon (from neuron to nerve scales) can carry resources as neurons are expensive cells that must transmit over long distances. In this sense it is rather logical why we would concern ourselves with the role in suppressing consciousness. But that role doesn't tell us anything about how consciousness is produced. And it's absurdly simple like all activity in the brain has turned out to be terribly simple (and as Neil Turok is thankfully finally advocating, that the laws of the universe are terribly simple).
Well, don't keep us waiting. Since it's so simple, let us know what the laws of the universe are.
We are consciousness. We are a divine spark of consciousness experiencing this low vibrational reality of contrast in this meat suit in order to learn and expand.
Most of what you call reality is the result of unconscious processes. We are most definitely not just 'consciousness'.
@@d.lav.2198 In this case, consciousness, intelligence, and existence are synonymous. When people say "we are consciousness, reality is consciousness" they're not necessarily saying that it is all a human conscious experience, but that the quality of reality that we call 'existence' is aware of itself.
Consciousness is self awareness. It can only emerge from much duration within a reality frame.
When the heart and the pineal gland whisper to each other ...
Curt Jaimungal, thank you for interviewing Stuart Hameroff! After decades of grumbling about how Stuart Hameroff somehow convinced Roger Penrose to plop down like a glop of sticky mud onto enormous microtubules for accessing the quantum domain in neurons, I did a complete flip on May 12 after watching a Sabine Hossenfelder video on the May 2 Babcock _et al._ paper, “Ultraviolet Superradiance from Mega-Networks of Tryptophan in Biological Architectures.”
Superradiance is a well-verified century-old quantum physics quirkiness that occurs mostly in organic dyes. This effect turns out to be well-supported by networks of the amino acid tryptophan, which, uniquely among the main amino acids, contains a fluorescent group. The simplest way to explain the effect is to say it bends time a bit. An energized tryptophan amino acid, which by itself is extremely classical, can “see” and react to neighboring tryptophan molecules based on the vastly larger size of the extremely light photon that it _might_ emit sometime in the future. That’s the time-bendy quantum part: Even though the tryptophan has not yet released the photon according to how we account for time classically, it’s able to respond in measurable, testable, fully physical ways to the state of other tryptophan molecules at considerable distances. The resulting modification in how it fluoresces is the source of the 1930s term “superradiance.”
Care to guess what amino acids are a major component of the orderly microtubules inside neurons? Right... tryptophan, the fluorescent one that can “quantum observe” its tryptophan neighbors and modify its energy release based on their states. Order is critical for this effect to work well. Stuart notes at 3:33 that anesthesia reversibly depolymerizes tubulin, which fits remarkably well with the order requirements of superradiance.
I have not been this excited about the possibility of a quantum component to consciousness in... well, ever, though I once tried to persuade Roger Penrose to look towards lightweight quasiparticles instead of massive microtubules. Superradiance nicely bridges the two! The orderly tubulin networks provide the manipulatable, mostly classical substrate for creating the quasiparticles and a spectrum of very-low-mass, highly quantum “quasi photons” (and yes, I just now made that word up) play out and complete for turf on that substrate. Conventional neurology would connect through whether or not an excitation ends up releasing in classical time, yet would still be accessing the nicely quantum (and fully room temperature) interactions of the quantum superradiance network.
What I like most about this is the potential for _complexity._ Forget mostly-computer-classical qubits, whose strategy is to strangle the quantum part to within a nanometer of death. This kind of multi-scale networking of potentially competing not-quite-temporal superradiance domains can get _complicated,_ which is what you want for the energy-efficient cleverness of brains. It becomes plausible, for example, that brains create the internal qualia of “green” versus “red” (forget the light frequencies; that’s just mapping) using complex but well-defined SR (superradiance) states whose architectures you could display on a PowerPoint slide. Wouldn’t that be an interesting new twist on the supposedly “philosophy only” concept of qualia?
Do I agree with everything in this video? Not even close. But what may be happening here is that Penrose and Hameroff have managed to glom onto the _most critical_ features that needed explaining and stuck with them, even if other parts end up not working out as expected.
Dirac did that kind of intuitive exploration with his “sea of electrons” model of positrons, which, from the perspective of physical reality, has to be one of the ah... how can I say this delicately?... dumbest, most blatantly non-physical physics arguments ever made. I mean, seriously: Vacuum with infinite densities of charged electrons filling all possible states? Yet Dirac “caught” the deep insight hiding beneath the flawed analogy. His awful analogy even holds for holes and electrons in semiconductors, which still amazes me. Similarly, the two IBM discoverers of high-temperature superconductors came up with an analytical argument that was so loosey-goosey (technical jargon) that they hid it from their bosses and families, fearing they might get forcibly committed to a retirement home. They were in zero danger of being mistaken for being a million times smarter than any other human on Earth. Nonetheless, they also got an extremely well-deserved Nobel Prize _one year_ after their discovery.
The folks willing to stick their necks out and make mistakes are often the ones most likely to make a profound difference. Penrose and Hameroff may have stuck their necks out the most for explaining qualia and consciousness - and got it right, after all.
You seem like a cool fellow. I like the way you think.
Fun interview!
a Terence Howard discussion on this (and related) subjects would be gripping!!
Please no. Terrance is in need of meds, not a platform.
God please no. This is science and philosophy; if you don’t have a formal education and the credentials you sound ignorant and in Terence Howard’s case embarrassing.
Terrence Howard lost any credibility he had left with me when he said that planets poop moons. He legit said the red spot on Jupiter will be pooped out as a moon in a few billion years.
80% nonsense with an occasional on point lucid thought, I'm good without it
Bruh. He's a complete dolt. Don't just buy any bullshit you hear. He has an amazing capacity to have always be wrong about whatever he's talking.
Until consciousness can be defined, this is all a bunch of cart before the horse.
Through the integrated information theory (IIT) of consciousness, which suggests that consciousness arises from the integration of information across complex systems.
Extending IIT to the universe as a whole, we might speculate that the intricate web of interactions between all particles and fields could give rise to a form of "universal consciousness" as a fundamental property of the cosmos.
IONs Chief scientist, Dean Raiden would be a fantastic guest to interview.
Self-consciousness, like a mirror, is the recognition of ourselves, by the reflection, from the mind in our brain's other hemisphere.
The question of where Consciousness comes from is a nonsense question. You have it backwards. Consciousness is, everything else comes from that. First Consciousness is, then the physical realm and the universe come after since the universe and all perceived objects in it are nothing but expressions of Consciousness. So by even asking the question of where Consciousness comes from shows a completely lack of understanding about the nature of Consciousness. The better question would be where do thoughts come from, where do they go afterwards, and who is the one that notices the thoughts passing by. Who is the one asking questions?
lol
This what the gurus say and the nondualists. But if you probe further they’ll say, “It’s all a mystery”, “Everything comes from nothing”. They approach consciousness from the point of identification. They know consciousness is prior to the body because they know they’re not the body, therefore not the brain. They comprehend their own beingness but still lack understanding how it all works. There are a bunch of assumptions they naturally take as the experience of that “Self” is incontrovertible. It comes with it recognition and rememberance. And in comparison with what the old identification was of being the person, it is “Godlike” because it includes godlike concepts such as eternality, boundlessness(not necessarily infiniteness as that concept is poorly understood), oneness/onlyness etc. BUT the relationship of individual egoic consciousness with that sense of source consciousness isn’t very well understood because it is assumed nothing really exists. The problem is the conundrums limited minds make trying to understand that Awareness and the assumptions made regarding historical words and concepts regarding this self remembrance. Essentially, nondual thought is still a clusterfvck. I’ve known others who have woken from that state of self-realization too. It’s still good to try and understand how our true source, whatever that may be, induces the states of self awareness in limited mind. For all we know, consciousness is secondary to that source which means there is an interplay like light reflecting off of or illuminating “microtubules” or other energetic/thought/frequency constructs.
Conscious has degrees and limitations, the ability to process information at different levels, wonder if we are living the will of time awakening matter, diverging in complexity and converging in efficiency.
He is absolutely correct about “who is the observer”. A life spent asking that is not one wasted.
@@filipefigueira6889 Consciousness has no limitations or degrees. Your interpretation and understanding of Consciousness is what is severely limited. Consciousness doesn’t process information, the mind does that. The rest of your statement is convoluted and uses fancy words resulting in gibberish. I did however notice you mentioned time. Time does not exist, and is a mental construct, a tool that the limited mind requires to attempt to make sense of things and organize perceived events.
So what about that guy who was missing 90% of his brain but was going about his day as usual?
There must be lots of redundancy to the brain... which destroys the idea that intelligence and brain size correlate.
(shshsh....!)
@@caronadams4486Detroit has entered the picture.
And what about the MIT female student with an IQ of 126 with nothing but a brain stem?!
He’s currently running for President
What most ppl call consciousness I simply call it perception. We are registering the qualia coming through the 5 senses. All animals do this just the same. And just bc I can say that is “me” experiencing that sensation isn’t such a remarkable thing. An animal is sure to try and bite you if you step on its tail and if it had a language we could understand would probably say “hey watch out where you stand”. We can construct robots that respond to external movements and impressions. Sure it has no concept of self but tell me what the hell are you? Can you quickly throw a word over that so you don’t have to face the vast mystery that we don’t know what we are.
No from my experience I can say what I understand to be consciousness is an intelligent energy that in moments of inner quiet while relaxed can come down into my body. This energy has the “quality” of a real “I” that it can awaken. In that Moment I can honestly say I have a real “I” and a real intelligence. That state of mind I call consciousness of the real I. In those moments we have the ability to”to be”. But when that energy is gone we are not intelligent at all. We just live in worn-out daydreams.
There is a higher state than the “consciousness of “I”. This higher state is possible for humans but experienced much more rarely. It is described by mystics and wise men through the ages. It is a state of mind that can see and comprehend exactly who we are and where we stand. You could call it “objective consciousness “ In that state we can find we have higher faculties of emotion and intelligence fully developed inside of us. In the real I we have real consciousness and real will. We can only then say we actually exist and can understand anything at all.
But all those rarified impressions are far above our daily state. Most have never experienced these things. They don’t even suspect these “higher states of consciousness” are possible for us. Then how can we expect those same men explain their ideas around consciousness. When the consciousness they only know is an animal state of consciousness from which they just perceive?
Such men are not intelligent. They just sit around and dream.
Before science can begin to understand the origin of “Consciousness “ they will first have to recognize it has different grades or levels. We have 4 states of consciousness that are available to us all. The first is physical sleep you experience in bed at night. The second we can call that the “waking state of consciousness “ it is a combination of reality all mixed with dreams. The third state can be called “consciousness of I” this is when we can truly say “I am”. It is found in the ability “to be.” And the fourth and final state we can call “Objective Consciousness” bc it can show us the nature of reality and where this elusive thing we call consciousness actually comes from.
Yea science will have a hard time with this approach bc it try’s to “materialize” everything. Those lower functions are not intelligent. But now you’ve got a key.
What people miss, or refuse to accept…
Is that “consciousness”, is the “stuff” that everything else is made of.
3:54 - I really don't know what to do with the claim 'anesthesia depolymerizes microtubules' as if it's the reason why any knock-out anesthetic works. Profound if true but can anyone confirm that?
The .micro tubules have quantum effects a new scientific paper says and maybe the anesthesia stops them quantum effects.
The moment a particle is a wave; it has to be a conscious wave!
Nicola Tesla states, “If you want to find the secrets of the universe,
think in terms of energy, frequency, and vibration”
Gravity is the conscious attraction among waves to create the illusion of particles,
and creates our experience-able Universe.
Max Planck states: "Consciousness is fundamental and matter is derived from Consciousness".
Life is the Infinite Consciousness, experiencing the Infinite Possibilities, Infinitely.
We are "It", experiencing our infinite possibilities in our finite moment.
Our job is to make it interesting!
Possibly an effect from a combination of things like gravity. Something that doesn’t exist all on its own as one.
You're getting closer.
Would gravity be considered an emergent property than?
I'm in ML for a living and I see no reason why these networks can't achieve consciousness but I also don't see anything obvious that says it will.
Just moments before stumbling over this
toe, randomly as i did usually so many times in recent past, i had been thinking when it would be Max Tegmarks turn to appeare as guest,... well, in the meantime hammeroff is at least as faszinating, laying out what might be disputed later on by Max, if he ever might show up here
"Top theory" ?? Who dubbed it exactly as such?
top theorists
@@vojkofau totally arbitrary sounding
Human consciousness is strictly a natural physical phenomenon that has emerged from smaller elements. It can only occur in brain-like structures. To make the leap that it is universal is fantasy. To avoid confusion, a new word for what is being described is appropriate.
You don’t have a life,you are life!! We are all small cosmic events.
(I'm just a retired janitor and "yogic flyer" from Finland, LoL!) -- Well, (paatañjala = MaharSi Patañjali's, PJ's) yoga is one of the six orthodox schools of Indian philosophy; saaMkhya ( = pertaining to number) is its "twin", so to speak. Sometimes yoga is called seeSvara-saaMkhya, i. e. saaMkhya with Ishvara (seeSvara is sandhi for sa [with] + iiSvara [Lord; in Hebrew melekh ha'olam, or stuff]?), because saaMkya itself is atheistic.
According to saaMkhya, consciousness (puruSa, and several other terms) has nothing to do with matter. The finest aspect of matter (prakRti; prakriti) is called sattva (sat-tva: being-ness), or sato-guNa (guNa = string, and stuff). The other two guNas are rajas (passion) and tamas (darkness). Patañjali uses in his suutra (aforisms) also the synonyms prakaasha (sattva; light), kriyaa (rajas; activity) and sthiti (tamas; inertia).
MaharSi Kapila defines prakRti and puruSa like this (hyphens for easier reading):
sattva-rajas-tamasaaM saamyaavasthaa prakRtiH, prakRter mahaan, mahato 'haMkaaro, 'hamkaaraat pañca tanmaatraany ubhayam indriyaM, tanmaatrebhyaH sthuula-bhuutaani, puruSa iti pañca-vimshatir-gaNaH.
So, from the sequential spontaneous symmetry-breaking of the equilibrium (saamyaavasthaa: sameness-state) of the three guNas are eventually born the GROSS (sthuula) elements, of which aakaasha (empty space; "ether") is the finest.
According to saaMkhya-yoga, puruSa has nothing to do even with the finest aspect of matter, sattva aka sato-guNa; sez PJ:
sattva-puruSayor atyantaasaMkiirNayoH ... sattva and puruSa are atyanta-a-saMkiirNa, absolutely distinct ...
If saaMkhya-yoga is right, it's absolutely futile to try to figger out how brain *creates* consciousness. Rather, it just modifies(?) the ubiquitous pure consciousness (puruSa, draSTaa, turiiya, aatmaa, etc), like a computer sort of modifies electric current, NOT creates it?
From microtubules to collapse of the wave function, I'm confused. It seems to me that consciousness is hard to access through science because it is subjective experience while science deals more with an objective view of phenomena. You can't see within when you are looking outward. Of course, that doesn't tell me much.
Dziękuję ❤, mocny temat
Our brain is like a radio tuning into the field of conciousness permiating the entire universe. Each brain has its own radio channel/frequency and is unique. Its basically what he says and what my gut feeling says. There are no particles. The collapse of the wave function gives rise to particle like excitations of the field and the collapse of the wave function of this conciousness field gives rise to conciousness and our brains tune into this. at least a postulate if not a crazy thought.
"Consciousness must be beyound computable physics"
Roger Penrose.
Stuart hasn't aged a bit in 20 years!
So a quantum curvature collapse creates nano moments of consciousness, which an 'underlying' undivided, unborn, eternal awareness uses as a lens (a body) to observe and actualise its inherent dream world of infinitely diverse possibilities.
This makes consciousness neither cause nor effect, its a secondary vehicle, a middle man, which an underlying primary One Awareness uses to explore its creative potential with.
Dziękuję za język polski, doceniam, pozdrawiam serdecznie Sercem ❤
Every video on this channel should be translated into multiple languages (we take the time to ensure the captions are accurate ) so I'm glad you enjoy!
I’ like to pretend that I really understand this to a deeper level than a bumper sticker “collapse causes consciousness”, but alas, I can’t yet grasp it. Very interesting video, it helps me gain insights, though more at the surface level.😁
INFORMATION ~ What is ‘information’ - as a phenomenon in its own right & not just what any of it ‘says’ or means or does.
Define your terms !
‘Thought’, ‘mind’, ‘intelligence’, ‘cognition’ & ‘consciousness’ are all information-related phenomena and it is not difficult to show that one of the principal reasons we have not so far come to any good, proper & fully verifiable understanding of these otherwise greatly sought-after yet still highly mysterious phenomena is due in great part to the simple fact that we do not presently also have a good & proper, fully verifiable understanding of ‘information’ itself.
Although I have personally had the (dubious) fortune of having been able to figure out ‘information’s’ correct (& fully verifiable) ontological identity - plus a full science of the phenomenon to boot - and although I’m not going to divulge its formalistic definition here in this CZcams comment (without which formalistic definition it is not possible to establish a full & accurate science of the phenomenon, but with it it is) nevertheless I can assure you that with it in hand - that is, with ‘information’s’ correct ontological identity within one’s investigative arsenal (along with a full science thereof also), the exercise of determining the ontological identities - along with an accompanying science of each also - of all of the other directly information-related phenomena such as ‘thought’, ‘mind’, ‘cognition’, ‘intelligence’, ‘learning’, ‘understanding’, ‘sentience’, ‘consciousness’ & ‘self-consciousness’ (to far less than exhaust the list) becomes one of no great difficulty.
A full science of any one particular phenomenon will include understandings & quantifications of such things as its nature (its ontological identity), its standing (in the existential hierarchy), role, function, varieties, distribution, incidences, properties/extensions/capacities/capabilities, usages, handling- &/or operational amenabilities, & typical life history (its creation through to its dissolution/erasure).
Indeed, once both ‘information’s’ correct ontological identity is known along with a full science thereof, much clarifying light is thrown upon essentially all of the other elements of reality.
Nevertheless & however surprising - given that we live smack bang right in the middle of ‘the information age’ - the simple, easily verified fact of the matter is, nowhere within the annals of the entire compendium of human discourse, is ‘information’ defined with any rigour - let alone with sufficient rigour as would allow it to be included in any properly scientific - or philosophical - research or work. ….
Yet, just as individual units of the pictographic & acoustic information going through any (analogue) movie-making-&-showing process (from set to big screen) can be readily observed & understood, so too can the individual units of all of the different kinds of information going through our brains be tracked-&-traced also. This task becomes as unproblematic as it is once ‘information’s’ correct identity is known & understood, including the facts that ‘information’ is not computer digits, & computing is not thinking.
Furthermore, tracking-&-tracing the movement of all of the streams of information which eventually make up the content of our consciousness, enables the exact location of the latter to be determined …. &, sorry all you ‘microtubule’ folk, but it (consciousness) does not occur in those particular structures, but quite clearly within the ‘Mark Solms spot’ - more properly termed the periaqueductal gray region of the brain stem ….
Indeed, examining the particular component of our brain which exists at this particular ’Mark Solms spot’ further allows a determination of exactly what consciousness itself is - as a phenomenon in its own right - to be made……. Voila !
I believe I have figured out exactly how our consciousnesses are connected across space and time and I can use hameroff's work as references as well as other to provide tangible scientific proof and that's just the start of how we're all quantumly entangled to each other at the atomic level that lead to the global encompassing philosophy incorporating Major religions around the world both modern and ancient and connected it all with scientific proof
What is conscious? When I meditate it's more like awareness to me.
This is intriguing
Consciousness comes through the water, obviously. The stuff in the water just modifies it, obviously
If only science included consciousness in their equations we would be far more advanced but all scientific disciplines ignore it completely because they can't quantify it holding us back
Single celled organisms out engineering humans with computers, plants with memories, some of which can count, Dr's and math geniuses born with almost no brain, or even none at all (in the case of the Dr), etc., overwhelmingly prove this gentlemans case...but it was nice to hear a more in depth technical explanation. Check out Michael LOevin's work to fill in the blanks.
My brain thinks at what stage does a chipset with code have consciousness.
If we were to ignore “normal computers”
and have gaming consoles at what level we a the PlayStation conscious?
Play Station 7…9…or PlayStation 64?
Curious to here this guest.
Concussioness = Light Particles. I don't know why, it just is. We are Quantum.
Where’s the rest of the talk
Does matter create consciousness or does consciousness create matter ?.
Here. We. Go.
Consciousness has always been here. The brain resides in Consciousness
Need an episode on the 7-11 model by @aquariusacademy
Consciousness was first developed cellular cycle/level
I got no proof, only my own experience over the years! If you can reach a state of quieting the mind, totally still, then you will become aware of an awareness or consciousness which doesn't go away! That awareness or consciousness or I would say that stillness becomes so profound that I am able to hear my DNA vibrate, I conclude it's my body's vibration going higher! I. Then I hear fine vibration! It's that state of absolute stillness and fine vibration that is your higher self! I have come to believe that state to be the god-presence! David spoke about this, "Be still and know that I AM God"
Look in a mirror, one becomes two. Here and there.
The mirror is what we call time.
I don't understand how such complicated thing can exist AND Intelligent Design is dismissed. It sets off my malarkey alarm.
birds exist as simple creatures and they can fly solo, but sometimes they get together in groups of hundreds and show us the can fly as a single unit creating something much more complex out of somenting very simple. That happens in nature if you give it enough time.
He not saying the brain makes consciousness he is saying quantum collapse of entangled particles causes "a burst of consciousness". So I think he is saying it correctly that consciousness created brains in order to experience subjective experience. Brains are a quantum collapsing super computer evolved from the ground up by consciousness for consciousness.
I think Donald Hoffman fits in this theory somewhere too,
Whatcha been smoking or reading wrong
Seems like "hypothesis" is a better word than "theory" in this case. There is no top theory.^
Consciousness is the way for the "Divine Entity" to observe and sense the forever Universe. All living creatures are "conduits" to the Entity in all their variations and purposes. All forms of pleasures, pains, thoughts and visualizations by every living organic creature are intended to make a connection to the Divine Entity of which we are all part of, "ad infinitum".
and how do you know that
Go ahead and give him the Nobel 🏆
Studying anesthesia to understand consciousness is like golfing to figure out how to play football. Follow yogic sciences and do real meditation exercises 1-3 hours every day for over a year then get back to me about consciousness.
This is an obnoxious take, studying the thing that is said to make people loose the very thing everybody is arguing about is likely far more productive then meditating for 1-3 hours everyday for over a year, people have already been doing that for millennia.
@@dysfunc121😂wrong. To understand something that is qualitative you don’t go to the quantitative.
@@vinceofyork1757 If that’s the case, the social sciences wouldn’t exist.
Deferring to a centuries old dogma doesn’t make it any truer than the next explanation. Not knocking eastern spiritualism, there’s plenty there to dive into. You’re off base just dismissing what this guest is saying out of hand.
@@unclejacksbigstronghands4892 there’s room for both.
Consciousness or Self-consciousness???
The irony of saying "they want the singularity to happen in their lifetime" 😅
My consciousness constantly changes and gets better with age it’s just a name we give to being a human awake on this planet.! You’d have to mimic it to get consciousness in machines
It's wonderful to watch someone chip a piece of red paint from a Van Gogh painting and put it under an electron microscope to figure out what art is! Little kids know...