Stuart Hammerof - Does Brain Make Mind?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 29 ก.ย. 2024
- 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.
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?
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...
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 !!) .
We can’t rule out consciousness out of the brain until we understand it in the brain.Yo I like this guy .
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
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".
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.
"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?*
So how is life after death, meaning our consciousness living on without the body something new ?
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.
Hameroff certainly talks a mile-a-minute, but what is he saying? Robert has is right -- "it's the same thing." Consciousness is the "same thing" as [certain] neural activity, and has its own unique emergent properties.
He’s just saying it’s plausible. He’s not saying it’s a fact. I suppose if you subscribe to Reductive Materialism, your underlying assumptions prevent you to challenge your belief that consciousness derives from physics, and that the other way around would have to be ruled out without research … even in the face of experiments such as the Delayed Choice Quantum Experiment or the many accounts of out-of-body experiences that have been documented. It’s certainly easier to simply laugh those off and keep your theories neatly packaged.
Everything he mentioned to explain consciousness was only on a material level, and possibly on an invisible (microscopic) level. But there's nothing there on an immaterial level.
That famous and so sought after "immaterial" may well be just a damn leftover from those ancient delusional plato-philosophies of IDEALISM, a persistent die-hard idealism that panicked for a very, very long time to go and venture outside that infamous Cave and straight into the midst of Chaos...
@@mangalvnam2010 The immaterial aspect is crucial, if not necessary, that enables one to react and imagine outside of what is material (limitations.) So it's easy to confuse what cannot be proven by science, but only by ascertaining and experiencing it with awareness. You're very testimony on this matter is proven that you were able to think outside (abutted) of what is corporeal, then only to deny its asomatous counterpart.
@@SabiazothPsyche But pray do tell me, sir, what assurances do you or anyone else have that such immaterial aspect is not just only merely another imaginary figment of the human mind, created to serve as a kind of stopper to fill certains holes in our kowledge which plague us wirh uncertainty and anxiety before the menacing unknown? We are so very tired to see many and many new ways of denying reality, or of trying to solve it and make full sense of it through myth, legend, pseudoscience, plain bullshit, conspiracy theories etc. People love to speak of supposed things that "cannot be proven by science" or that science, they claim, do not explain. Most of the time, science does explain, science does prove those things, they are the ones that voluntarily choose not to listem to science's explanations, either out of ignorance of sheer bad faith (a lot of those people are mercenary charlatans totally interested in sowing chaos and confusion to profit selling bullshit to the gullible confused cattle...). Most of the time a lot of people confuse their own ignorance with alleged non-existent gaps in the scientific knowledge, and some deep psychic desires move the anxious ignoramuses to fill the imagined gaps with a biggreat humongous plethora of mental garbage. That precious "immaterial" or "spirititual" of yours most of the time, if not always, falls down that hole or abyss of voluntary blindness. [Gaps in knowledge do persist, a lot of them, we don't know what a dark matter or a dark energy is, we don't even know 100% for sure if a Big Bang really did occurr, we don't know how consciousness arises, etc., but we do know a lot as well, we do know how Earth is shaped, we do know how the living beings evolve, we even know fairly much about the size and structure of an awful lot of universe, etc.]
@@SabiazothPsyche By the way, one of the most certain ways of detecting mercenary charlatans is precisely by their talk of immaterial, spiritual, astral mood or frequencies, esoteric energies and the whole such toxic garbage of lies and zombie half-truths! Where a charlatan goes, sooner or later some kind of beastheory or beastheology of "immaterial" do arise, it's inexorable, it's practically axiomatic. And if we are not and want not to be made of fools and have our pockets and accounts emptied, we have to be always mentally on guard against all that spiritualistic garbage they invent to sell bullshit.
@@mangalvnam2010 Don't know any of all that that you've mentioned. The only thing that my Being experiences and ascertains, other then what is material, is immaterial. Ideas/realizations of spirituality, astral planes and astral-projection that you've mentioned, etc., my Being has no way of even assimilating all those confused connotations that many "mis-connect" with the immaterial. We're definitely talking about two different kinds of immaterial. The one that my Being is referring to is the "non-integration". It was nice chatting with you, though. Peace be with you.
I have half a brain but that’s ok,... I have another half too.
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.
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!
Man, I love Stu, such a legend.
An insight league of his own…
Cool dude
@@MFJoneser absolutely
Ooh ... I like a good scrap. Phil
Ohhh I like people who copied each other's comments over and over and over and over and over and over again
This little bit might be the closest to the series name you've ever gotten, to my feeling.
For me the best Interview on this channel so far. Thank you for sharing!
Did Deepak Chopra shave his head?
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.
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
Stuart is way ahead of his time
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.
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.
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.
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.
Very interesting !!! By the way, it's not about 'answers' - the 'questions' are the intriguing "X"factor. Thank You both.
Robert is right to be skeptical of these ideas that come from Penrose and Hammerof. There is no reason to think that consciousness comes from unseen new quantum effects in the brain. Ordinary neuroscience does the job just fine.
I have the feeling that you should talk to some Budhist monks...that might give different perspective... because if you want evidence for every thing , which can be proved in a lab, then I guess it might not be possible....how do you understand thought? And one step further, how do you understand or explain," no thought", not as a concept, but as an experience. .I can tell you what happens when there is no thought, in a very deep state of meditation, but can I give you evedence of that 😀?....
robert sounds threatened
He certainly has problems. Ego and arrogance on display
Maybe Science calls it consciousness and Religion calls it a soul?
Who cares about the traditional way of thinking... its what has kept us shallow minded and stupid... Most people don't agree with it you say... Well there was a very smart wise person that once said... When the majority of people go one way, I go the opposite way and its worked wanders for me every time
What the hell is he talking about? lol
he is talking of a middle way between materialism and spirituality. To find a common ground that explain both . Romans said that the truth is always in the middle... Why not this time ?
He is just bullshitting. He is doing the Depack Choprah meaningless string of scientific sounding word salad bullshit. Nothing more.
Have you read Penrose book? He recently won a Nobel prize?
@@TWak4ord but not for this BS.
@ MYClosedMind What was your Nobel prize for?
I really wonder if the real truth of reality would terrify us or elate us?
Oh man I love how he takes him to task!
More please, love this conversation
I find Roger Penrose and his theories absolutely fascinating. More please. 😊
Simple-minded me says "Brain does not MAKE mind - but it DOES support it." Brain dies, mind dies. Brain damaged, mind damaged.
All the rest of that is so speculative as to be useless for understanding. In practical terms, I see "mind" as analogous to superconductivity or magnetism. The mind is a second-order effect of a neural network just as superconductivity or magnetism are second-order phase transitions of conductive metals.
The big argument here seems to depend on whether a paramecium is conscious. I don't know whether it is or isn't, but if it IS, then it is not conscious on the same scale that humans are. If consciousness is a product of the number of neurons available for interaction, then a paramecium's "consciousness" is at the lowest possible level - a single neuron.
As to the question of quantum coherence, the problem is this: does that plant KNOW that it is using quantum coherence? Is that quantum effect there whether or not we are conscious? Draw a correlation before you try to actually use the effect.
No the mind isn’t damaged when the brain is. My father had a severe head trauma, ended up massively stroking and even having entire sections of his brain removed. He has half a brain rest is full of cerebrospinal fluid. Yet he’s fine after a few years. He recalls everything he use to and can do everything. Supposedly neuroplasticity is to thank. No, I’m sure it’s closer to what’s being discussed here. As he didn’t relearn anything.
He’s just himself. I call bull crap as your model is what I was taught and what literature had me expecting was a vegetable at worse and severely handicapped at best. Yet he’s 100% no seizures no lapses and zero mobility issues.
The brain 🧠 is what consciousness looks like from another conscious perspective. The brain 🧠 is just an image or a representation of consciousness so obviously there would be correlation but NEVER causation because 🧠 is just a representation of the phenomena.
There could be a proto-consciousness that is less self referential. The seperate self is an illusion when it fails to identify with the whole field. Human consciousness may be a reduction of field consciousness; in other words, delusional in it's misplaced identity.
Are microtubules chiral like a barberpole?
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.
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 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
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
@@hollywoodundead72 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!
Crazy things … no seems more legit than nonsense of memory being synaptic. Yet synaptic structure is destroyed and memories remain. Derp
You, sir, are forgetting the forgetting thing: memories not always remain, they are often deleted, they are often wiped ouch... And even if the deepest level of consciousness WAS the electronical synapsis, even so the fact remains that electrons are somehow quantum as well in nature, and how in the holy hells could the synaptic entities, electrons, be quantical and consciousness be not?? That seems just like idealistic wishful thinking, nothing more than that.
Peter Gabriel looks pretty happy in his old age.
Hammeroff is right.
Let me take the example of God.
God has all the power, all the goodness, all the knowledge 'by default'. He hasn't worked hard for it. It's like a 'free fund'.
Similarly, we have consciousness/free will as a 'free fund'. Thoughts come and go in our mind on their own. I myself don't know what thought will come into my mind, say after 5 minutes, 10 minutes etc. It's a 'free fund'.
When thoughts come to our minds 'on their own', it 'seems' to us that we have thought them 'consciously'...
OMFG this guy is spewing absolute nonsense.
I start with conclusions. I am more science than them! Jargon jargon quantum.
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.
I love the idea behind this show and it's content, but i'm slowly begin to see Robert differently, he is more and more biased toward certain things, which in my opinion is making us farther from the truth. Also, it's hard for me to really trust him, as he is some big time China spokesman.
China spokesman? Source/site please?
…agreed. He seemed to be threatened by the doctors reasonings.
@@vg3222 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Lawrence_Kuhn#China
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?
The most interesting topic in science, very good interview. 👍👑👑👑💎💎
Materialists: "How do synapses between neurones (the brain) generate consciousness?? Magic! That's how! I have no experiments that support my claims."
Stuart Hammerof: "Hello. I have experiments to show anesthetics effect microtubules which effect consciousness. Therefore consciousness must be subtler than neurones themselves. Here are the results."
Materialists: "HAHA! What a DUMBASS! He believes in MAGIC xDDD"
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
He's talking quantum, but that's trillions of particles, each with specific charge, measured in trillions of charge units. I can't even imagine how many possible combinations this system would give, it's one of those near infinite numbers. Because this is what it would take for so large quantum system to produce coherent results, regardless of high tolerance.
Quantum is like quantum computer, science is struggling with something like 100 particles, add only one more and combinations rise to unimaginable number of variations.
I doubt the brain is that complicated, electromagnetic patterns produces by charges in fairly large molecules seems like a better idea.
Useless argumentation, i know, but this way we stay contained inside a body, at least. If anything could jump out of the material perimeter, it would mean infinities of infinities, better not even think about going beyond because this would turn into an impossible task.
An Infinity of infinities, makes sense to me:)
What makes you think it’s a localized process? Is the internet only contained in a single computational device? What makes you think consciousness is?
@@wrackable I know everything about consciousness, since i can experience intelligent self awareness myself. Not sure how it works thou, hope nobody ever finds out, or we're all doomed, because people on power will enslave our minds.
I do understand how internet works, it's all standardized electronics, all protocols are written in same programming languages. Not sure what to think about internet, when something is too good to be true it usually isn't.
Personally, i believe the internet is the most powerful weapon ever invented.
What makes me think mind is localized, it's not, but it doesn't work like open system either. Brain is only a central region, but neurons spread all over the body, to track external and internal influences and functioning.
The problem is the very nature of stuff, atoms are not like Lego bricks, everything is made from energetic dots, existing in clouds of probabilities. This means they can't be manipulated directly, but mind obviously can be, so those two dimensions have nothing objective in common.
Or let me explain in another way, if our thoughts could influence external environment, why not the entire universe? Suppose it could, now imagine everybody would enforce their own will over reality, at the same time, the entire universe would turn into a quantum goo very soon, trying to be everything at once.
@@xspotbox4400 You’re starting to formulate and good framework my friend. Keep going.
I myself know thoughts can affect reality and in fact do alter physical reality. Once they convinced people that electronics were real and then created the foundations of belief behind them…it became real. We’ve got super computers in less than 20 years in our hands. That make the entire first wave server,desktop revolution look prehistoric and that shouldn’t of happened especially that quickly. Yet they convinced the world through marketing it was possible. The quantum computer is another fine example. From theory to working in years yet if people could look under the hood it would fall apart quickly because it’s not a physical creation that’s allowing them to function. It’s pure belief, I was working in one of the labs that build one. As a computer engineer and hardware engineer specifically….there’s nothing revolutionary about them. Yet they’re working and tremendously so.
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.
Pseudotwaddle.
Why do you think a paramecium is conscious in any meaningful sense? You are using the word "consciousness" extremely loosely. Movement, feeding, learning, require consciousness? Why do you believe that? What's the actual evidence that a single celled organism has any awareness whatsoever? He seems to think speaking fast, and throwing out lots of unrelated factoids is somehow convincing. It's not.
People say “quantum” and “non-local” waaaaaay too much. Source: particle physicist.
Why would you ask a physicist about Consciousness? They have no evidence, only irrelevant dogma. And qualia is fundamental! OMG you only say that because you NEED an answer! Qualia is part of your own reality construct, it's as simple as that.
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
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.
This would explain all kinds of things including hallucinations, telepathy, clairvoyance...
Lol woooo word salad
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.
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.
We evolved in a bubble ruled by the known forces. gravity. The totally misunderstood of all. Is not a force.
Rather a emergent phenomenon.
It's almost impossible to conceive, that this force driving the motions of the stars. And the expanding whole.
Is the same thing driving our thoughts,
And gravitating theses thoughts into ideas. Than compressing ideas into actions.
Stuart got caught up in microtubules and quantum effects long ago, and now he's in a quantum cult and can't get out. Thanks, Robert, for continually calling Stuart out on his absurd claims not supported by evidence.
Wasn't Mr Hammeroff siding with Deepak in that debate against Michael Shermer and contemporary people
i don't know why I watch this stuff, it's so far over my head it might as well be a UAP. Sure is interesting though.
If consciousness is in the quantum realm there is an argument to be made that upon the death of the organism the particles that make up the organism continue to exist -- possibly a case could be made here for quantum entanglement playing a role ... just a hypotheses... personally not bothered either way 🤷
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.
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.
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 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 sounds like a theist.
Francis Collins is a theist. Going to make fun of his Science and his mind? I didn't think so.
Hameroff speculates that there is a fundamental "good" or positive bias, such as that which resulted in a slight ratio of matter particles outnumbering antimatter "post big bang".. which cascaded into a structural universe. Otherwise it would have canceled out.. in that old question of why there is something instead of nothing (although that "something" may consist "only" in qualia of evolving experience).. you may have noticed his mention of the platonic.
@@jamesemerson4102 Yeah. I'll make fun of Francis Collins' mind. Compartmentalization. Just like the fundie astrophysicist who can believe the earth is 6000 years old in his religious life but billions of years old in his professional life. Same with Collins and other mythologically gullible scientists. Human minds are good at compartmentalization.
Cool. But is anyone going to address all the screaming in the background?
this interview is arguing that Hammerof's assertion about consciousness is crazy rather than trying to understand it - slightly rude
The vast majority understands nothing. This guy may be right.
Robert should listen.
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.
No interruption to theoretical physicists.
Otherwise any time possible.
That is the pattern of his interview.
As long as he doesn't believe that free will is an illusion.
This guy is a nut, He's on the same level of Deepak Chopra, total word salad.
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.
No, brain is a physical, mechanical construct designed to hold consciousness/mind.
The Deepak Burn.... ouch. I think Bob could've been more playful in this interview.
Yup, you hit the nail on the head, just another Depak string of sciency sounding bullshit. A total waste of time.
@@blaster-zy7xx I got to 1,57. And it all fell apart, what a moron. Probably well read and smart, still a total muppet
I’m not a Deepak guy at all. But I just watched a vid of Roger Penrose, who gives this guy a lot of credit for introducing micro tubules into this discussion. What seems to be happening is world views are being threatened and people are responding irrationally and emotionally to his ideas.
@@Jim-mn7yq I think Bob reacted far too strongly to this with not enough discourse. I have no feelings on microtubules, but Bob dismissed him so hard he had to say 'now you're starting to sound like Deepak', to Bob.
similar to banana peeling string and does rule consciousness is believe why one thing or 2 can be so just is answer to be it
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?
This guy got his education from Deepak 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣
For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God’s sight. As it is written: “He catches the wise in their craftiness"
It honestly feels like they are off in the weeds on this topic. And I say that with the utmost respect for both their intellects.
Let the man speak and stop trying to make him look like a fool! What a horrible interview!
Robert Kuhn is really a master at getting information out of his guest speakers
A lack of an explanation isnt a golden ticket to put forward your explanation as the defacto
Does Brain Make Mind?
Depends on what you mean by exist.
Stuart totally looks like Damon Baird from the game Gears of War 5
My, My. Someone got up in quite the mood.