“The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence.” -Nikola Tesla
***** Well that is true. But taking into account that Tesla created phenomena that current scientists cannot even begin to understand might lend some weight to these words.
I'm paraphrasing here but, Penrose stated, I don't like saying that I am a materialist. Or rather, I may say I am a materialist yet, we don't know what that material is.
Not to me. The idea of living former ver of being immortal doesn't let me sleep. Honestly, I'll never understand people who like the idea of an eternal soul or an everlasting life. I just wanna die peacefully, in a dreamless sleep and nothingness. What's so scary about it??? But well, I guess science is not on my side. I hate you. And I hope you are happy to know that you'll never die 😣
@@logans.butler285 There is one thing I fail to understand. So many people desiring eternal life after this and others who wish to be in nothingness. It's weird.
Like it or not, we are not in our brains. This man's theory is supported by an ample amassment of evidence and it has stood up to scrutiny. It is scientifically valid and research-based. This is scientific progress. Our consciousness is eternal. This could bring comfort and reassurance to the many atheists out there to know that we don't just disappear into nothingness.
Bentley Mulsanne No, they want to believe they fade into nothing, or are too cynical to latch onto ideas that debunk it. They have become the new close-minded, cynical groups, like literal Theologians of the fire and brimstone variety. Oh the irony. I guess that silly superhero movie was true, you either die a hero, or live long enough to become the villain. Naturalistic atheism has become the progress-blocking villain.
*The fact that anesthesia works debunks the supernatural soul. If we are our souls (the common belief of what the soul is) and the soul survives death, then it'd be impossible to ever go unconscious at all*, because the soul (as understood by the common meaning) is always conscious. But we can go unconscious, so obviously there is not a constantly-conscious supernatural soul ("true Self"). However, we never experience "nothing" after death, or at any point, because "nothing" is only a word and nothing else. Unconsciousness is always simply skipped over; it is a proverbial time machine. So after death there will not be Nothing, but instead a new organism will be born; just like what occurred at the beginning of your consciousness. This will continue as long as there are new sentient organisms born into the universe.
***** Gallileo had a Roman catholic audience, but he wrote a paper that included observations and evidence, and when people actually looked at what he was saying, they saw he was making a real case and people began to agree with him. If Hameroff has actual evidence and can make accurate predicitions, his argument will get heard and his claims accepted. I think he is trying to rewrite quantum science though without the evidence he needs.
***** Seriously, the only reason that he has the word "Soul" on there is because it captures people's interest because it is a topic so many people are interested in as opposed to saying "Quantum Mind" which is not something that too many people would care about.
as a PhD in engineering woman, I am SO SICK of these MENSA wanna be engineering MEN who cannot even TOLERATE anything new age. All rude, anti science, condescending and ANTI ALL SCHOLARS throughout humanity. Including many great names
The fact that Sir Roger Penrose (one of the greatest minds of this era) rates this man, should tell you what you need to know. When clever people pay attention, you should too.
I have studied and taught biology my whole life. And I still can't tell my students where life comes from or what it is. This could become the greatest finding in all of biology, maybe even science.
I know this is hard to understand. The questions raised by Quantum Mechanics are hard to fathom. All we thought we understood was wrong. Life maybe ever lasting. No real death.
TEDx needs to start including the graphic materials in the videos, perhaps we would be better served by not just showing a closeup of the speaker's face for the whole presentation.
Materialist : we know nothing about the nature of consciousness Nondualists : everyone shares the same consciousness Materialists : you have no evidence of that Nondualists : and you have no evidence that it is local to each living being
But the burden of proof lies on those who make the claim. That's why spaghetti monster god...u cant prove he doesnt exist.....just piggybacking on something you dont understand doesnt mean you have any idea what you're talking about
Im so happy tht finally ppl worked out the link between neurobiology and spirituality. These things have been written bout in bhudhist thinking, the shri guru granth sahib, the vedic system many decades ago. :)
Materialism is much like the abrahamic faiths of the past for the materialistic-based scientist: It's comforting. Materialism is being discarded everyday as quantum revelations annihilate it. It's time to think outside the box and consider what was once impossible as possible.
Yeah I don't understand Matthew's comment. Christianity makes more sense under Idealism, and in fact can only be explained through immaterialism, hence why we see the religion dying in the dualistic West
as long as it can be properly recorded and studied without subjective interpretation then it's all good. quantum mechanics isn't magic it's just more complex math and can be observed and studied. if these quantum effects in microtubules give rise to macro-scale behavioral changes not much is different from that to neurons with classical chemistry and physics giving rise to it, other than we now know to include these phenomena in future studies and theories. seeing quantum phenomena give rise to neurological events and extrapolating that there must be an afterlife is tantamount to seeing an unidentified flying object and assuming its not a weirdly shaped plane but instead a non-terrestrial intelligent alien's flying craft. its a false dichotomy proof that it's not a plane is, therefore, proof that it is an alien spacecraft as if those are the only two possible scenarios. when in reality there are more than two possible scenarios. similarly, in this situation, proof that all neurological phenomena aren't solely brought about by classical physics and chemistry is, therefore, proof that there is an afterlife. when those aren't the only two possible scenarios.
Wrong. Materialism isn't comforting. People are materialists because non materialists have only ever produced nonsense and caused science to enter dark ages.
@@tomasalvim1022 Plenty of statistical and veridical evidence of parapsychological phenomena and other conscious states that cannot be explained by materialism. The evidence is there, people just don't look enough for it; and those who do find it think of ways to explain it away under their materialist spectrum. Reminds me of how Galileo was shunned because his evidence did not align with the views at the time.
i like to watch all of dr hameroffs interviews and lectures, I just happen to live in tucson and ive been trying to figure out a good excuse to go to the U of A consciousness research department to check it out. I totally think hes onto something. when I first heard of the observer effect and human effects on quantum states i immediately thought there had to be some kind of quantum mechanism in our brains that would allow for the copenhagen interpretation. theres no doubt human consciousness is effecting quantum experiments and such states. even the makers of D wave quantum computer say in their official videos that they try not to look at the machine because it will cause things to happen to the information coming out. Materialist arent ready for microtubials, they are still stuck on neurons. Theyre not quite ready to accept the outcome of such experiments as the double slit, wheelers delayed choice, and delayed choice quantum eraser experiments. Dr. hameroff is definitley ahead of the game.
There has to be something that allows consciousness after death. Hameroff and Penrose might be right or they might be wrong but there has to be some way or I wouldn't have had the memory between lives from from my death in 1960 to birth in 1962. How would I know about supermasive blackholes, Tibetan phowa practice and the circumstances of my death which match historical events as well as current issues in science.
I truly hope there's a soul, or at least SOMETHING. The idea that there is absolutely nothing after death, that there is such an utter LACK of consciousness that we won't even be here to care about that lack of consciousness, is the most terrifying thought in existence.
@Raccy The idea of something being "made" is something that living things invented. There's no actual tangible "start" to anything. It's a made up concept. It's like the number zero. The number zero doesn't exist. It's a word we give to the concept of nothing. You can't have "nothing" without something. It's like the concept of "infinity". It's a concept, not something that you can observe.
Look into NDEs listen to experiences from people who've been to the other side.. very fascinating and insightful. Might answer your question on consciousness
I wish I could put he and Candace Pert together in a room and hear them speak to one another about their work and how it correlates. I also wish he spent a bit more time and in depth about the soul and ear death experiences in his works findings. etc. I also wish that Ted showed his slide show along with his talk . They often leave out this valuable piece of their talks here online.
How does he know that there aren't intelligent beings from light years away already downloading in creatures like you and me? And what if downloading in the end of life is limiting what naturally happens when you die?
Science owes all of it's accomplishments to mathematics for without it science would be nothing but soothsaying(Think hard about this sentence). One of the most important task is to define what mathematics is ontologically. When one talks about a soul I think it would be better to call it "mind". Mind, just like mathematics and the religious concept of a soul is not physical, It has no sensory components, you can't see math. Mathematics/mind/soul should be considered the same substance. When we get into these kinds of topics outside the realm of science evidence based philosophy or metaphysics only mathematics will suffice. The frequency domain of Fourier mathematics is the key to probing the mental/spiritual/non-physical/non-local side of the universe as of now it's wholly ignored as having any thing to do with reality. Mr. Hameroff is acquainted with Roger Penrose who is very close to sharing this view and he knows better than these dogmatic materialist posting here. What sufficient reason should this universe be physical rather than non-physical? Mathematical Idealism will hold up far better regarding the big philosophical questions than scientific materialism.
+Jon Tate I would argue that the soul and the mind are two different entities, and that the soul exists within the mind. After all, there are parts of your mind that you acknowledge as something other than you. For example, you have your beliefs that make you who you are, but you are not exactly just your beliefs. There is a part of your mind that encompasses everything that you considered "You", and that construct is the soul. As a disclaimer, I don't believe that the soul would continue to exist after death.
I agree that the line between consciousness and unconsciousness provides a better sense of definition then the boundaries of the soul, but it doesn't acknowledge that the unconscious aspect serves as the consciousness's environment (or that one exists inside of the other), rather than just implying that they are both just properties, or aspects, of the mind.
+Jon Brown these are just ways for people to avoid the mono substance to avoid truth. People would rather have the incoherent notion that the universe has many totally different substances miraculously interacting coherentntly rather than different phases of one substance.
I don't see any reason as to why two entirely different substances would be unable to affect each other, react to one another, or simply influence each other in any way. It sounds like you don't believe in the possibility in a physical system occurring naturally in our universe.
I believe science gives a functional description of reality and not just our experience. Since ontology is a part of reality, from my definition, it does follow that science should be able to describe ontological context of reality.
@tatsumakisempyukaku : it has to have an "objective" component insofar as it's easy to reproduce (procreation)... so there is a state in the shared material reality that can lead to consciousness. It can be a relativist or indeterminate world, but it exists as something that recreates consciousness. Thus the recreation of consciousness is a study of consciousness.
I just heard about Orch-OR on one of the "through the wormhole w/Morgan Freeman" episodes about the afterlife. This guy was on "what the bleep do we know?" too. Reading what wiki says on "Orchestrated Objective Reduction" of consciousness confused me a little, but this is a REALLY fascinating theory! What if we really are LITERALLY the means by which the universe experiences itself?! Like on a quantum level!!! It would explain god(s) AND esp, ghosts, love, spiritual feelings...etc, etc, ETC!!!!
@[2:43]: I am extremely open minded. Less than a handful of days ago, I heard of this, electron quantum tunneling across microtubules ... +what I was reading online was from late in the prior century ... +I thought it was quite a stretch. Possible, though ... +today I hear of this. A connection across spacetime, small on my end, large on the other.
@MrRobotoToo Is it? I know I was lost just a bit when trying to follow him, but I'm not completely knwledgeable on the subject of quantum mechanics. Can you explain.
Amazing how far things came with his theory less than 10 years after this presentation. Though a soul without ego pretty much sounds like eternal death anyway as we won't know ourselves as ourself.
I’m not totally bought into this, I just need to see more hard evidence and applications first. However, a soul without ego, would likely just have to attach itself somehow to a new body, or perhaps even somehow be captured by a growing brain. So… reincarnation. That’s my best guess of what would happen to a soul in the event that all of this is true.
That's the exact same thing u'd do well to keep in mind.....nothinf about Hamerhoff's theory is "disproven". And when the best defence offered against one side turns out to be some argument in that side's favor, u have to revaluate ur tance. Stuart is extending what Penrose, a distingushed physicist, is saying , to what he knows about the brain's neurochemistry, a feild he knows a lot a bout. What he's saying is backed by evidence that's growing, and its fortifying an already pretty solid idea.
From quickly skimming the articles it seems they used electrodes to pick up the signals of the brain, and then transferred them with electrical signals via the internet to another lab. Using the term "non-local" in that circumstance is a bit misleading, especially in the context of this video where Hameroff is talking about quantum non-locality.
@MrRobotoToo Thanks for the lesson, MrRobotoToo. That helped. =) I'll look up the Nature of Reality debate in a bit. I've been putting off educating myself on quantum mechanics for quite a bit, and I guess this is a wake up call.
I feel the same way about Deepak Chopra, how ever we have Roger Penrose weighing on this stuff. Ignore the spiritual fluff, the implications are still astounding.
@MrRobotoToo Considering the majority of Hameroffs knowledge comes from Sir Roger Penrose i would say the QP in his hypothesis is sound. You can also look at Hameroff destroying Krauss and his cronies on here at the Beyond Belief conference. The simple fact is, none of us know he real answer. Alternative explanations for things are how we learn, if we accepted materialism as absolute fact we'd never have discovered QP because it would never have fit within the scientific framework
Rewiring reality with quantum technologies gives me hope for the future but they potentially step on some pretty big toes namely big pharma, oil and gas, and gmo industries.
I love what this guy is saying, and I already am familiar with much of what he is saying, but he speaks too fast for me to process, and that's saying a lot. I am not actually saying this guy is a charleton, but really fast talking sets my triggers off that someone is trying to get over on me. Speak in a way that allows your audience to process what you're saying.
I was watching a documentary on Amazon Prime about the soul where Hameroff said something like, "...quantum information in the fundamental layer of the universe. I am commenting even before I truly know if he believes in the idea of, "the soul." My comment is based on the deep kinship I found in my own way of thinking and explaining consciousness and/or/or not, 'a soul.' It just so happens I am for no real reason, visiting that documentary and this youtube. Honestly? Sometimes I feel a little freakish de-constructing, the soul. Coming from a wonderful, colorful fundamentalist region, it simply felt great to sit among like minds that I honestly really did not even know existed. Also as a musician, as well as sure, a romantic even, I found my own answer (and even peace I think), in looking at the question, from the universe up through life. For instance, I really do not care if ghosts and ufos exist, life exists on the blue-green whereas we to date have yet to find a parallel for questions that can only come from conscious experiences like that.. And when we look at earth from space, her atmosphere is almost like the film surrounding a baby in the womb--any mammal really? Sure. All that life is sharing the living planet at any given moment. The planet itself is a metaphor for everything that happens far far beyond in the universe. Elements colliding, combining, transforming, disappearing in seemingly nothingness, suns born, dying, along with their planets..... The earth itself in this broad metaphor is living as well, not even considering what we experience as life. Oceans, climate, earthquakes, volcanoes, storms, ice ages, land becoming deserts, aging, renewing, changing--always changing. So how might we rationalize this 'soul thing' for ordinary folks, beyond our efforts through world religions and myths? If a thought or experience happened, our brains respond. Energy only changes form. Those forms collectively, become the person during this stage of earths process of continuous living change. Though we cannot see it, those forms of our own energy, like everything else in the universe persist for if no other reasons, than their function in having lived. Certainly, our religions, myths, storytelling, music, art and culture in general say that somehow inside we know, that life persists. And as a microcosm of a living planet, in a living universe really, perhaps it could be important for a person's soul to hang around for awhile and nurture species of their kind. Do our experiences, thoughts and all that is about our energy dissipate over time? I personally think so, but that is just my opinion in this. Could it be like the wake of a wave, becoming more and more, a part of the larger body of water? Again, I think so. Maybe we can even ask, if energy that has become life is indeed impersonal like an ocean as it dissipates and simply feed back as the life of the planet in it's collective memory--we might even call the soul of the planet. Again, I 'feel' yes. The quantum biology of the soul, is the unseen beauty, of biology itself. Beauty, like in our religions, myths, storytelling, music, art and culture in general? Yes.
won't let me post any web links on here but the most recent study that comes to mind can be found under the scientific papers section of nature, published Feb 2013, article number 1319, carried out by Miguel Paid-Vieira and co. an experiment involving two rats seperated by many miles demonstrating direct communication between brains.
Materialists haven't hijacked science. The ideas and discoveries of quantum theory are way more non-materialist than any of the common religious or philosophic ideas at the time. If certain ideas ACTUALLY CAN give us "a functional description of our experience" then science will pay close attention to them.
I mean because that's kinda what it is. Putting total faith that "Science" will just figure everything out seems unlikely to me especially considering they thought that in the 18th/19th centuries.
It cannot be applied to a single event which this argument requires. What the argument shows is that classical physics is nonlocal. Consider a spherical shell which explodes into two objects spinning in (of course) opposite directions (which cannot be known until measured). When the spin direction of one is measured that of the other is forced into the opposite direction, even though it is now in a different galaxy. Hence classical physics is nonlocal [5]...
The Einstein‐Podolsky‐Rosen Paradox in the Brain: The Transferred Potential by Gowsami and Co, Persinger later studies which, granted utilize specialised a equipment to help facilitate states in which the brain appears to communicate in a non local fashion. there are many more articles suggesting quantum non locality within the brain between neuronal networks and even hemispheres.
@Philosophier121 the reason why I don't take you guys seriously is because I've already been where you are, and I was saying exactly the same things. Searle (viz. chinese room) was my favorite philosopher and I was all about Chalmers' "fundamental property of the universe". It's only through studying and reflecting on these matters further did I realize that my head was up my ass, thanks to the gentlemen aforementioned. Again, this is a comments section, not forum, but just suggestion: READ UP
It's in the realm of "Hypothesis" not "Pseudoscience". There are many versions of the Quantum mind model, like david bohm's version, but orch or is by far the most famous because of it's co-creator SIR Roger Penrose, who is one of the most important physicist in academia. Well, it's not empirically proven, but it made predictions and it passed.
Here is something I read recently:"There is much other fascinating work in modern "physics". There is a general belief about the Bohm version of the EPR experiment that quantum mechanics gives that spatially separated objects exhibit correlations, so that quantum mechanics is nonlocal. But that would violate an uncertainty principle (number-phase). This argument has nothing to do quantum mechanics which is a statistical theory...
What do you mean by materialism? I hate when people use these word. I mean aren't things like forces, electrons, quarks, energy etc.. all material? I don't get why some people try hard to decide the universe in two because of a so called soul. Even if consciousness was on the quantum level, it'll still physics because physics deal with nature. There's no such thing as supernatural thing..
On your Electrical and Philosophical point - I agree lol ... what I'm saying is that there is no deference between the microscopic and macroscopic reality and that scientists are noticing this ... on the topic of classical computer (Turing machine) - it's not analog so your wrong.
what he says is contrary to Eastern Philosophy. Buddhism and Advaita say that the working consciosness that a person has IS acutally an epiphenomenon of "lower sonsciousnesses" like senses. Deconstruction of ego is at the very heart of Buddhist teachings. The view presented by dr Hemeroff is really idealistic and romantic. I understand he doesn't want to part with "soul" or anything that will propell the existence of human after death. I don't think its this simple.
@HadeanAgent Well even if he worked 'with' him knowing what I do about Sir Roger Penrose & his attitudes towards unsubstantiated hypothesizes I really doubt he would say anything remotely like what is being said here. There are plenty of Penroses clips on this website. Can you find even ONE which espouses anything about 'souls' (whatever they are)? I'll save you the time: No. He only speaks about consciousness & that IS observable in the universe -it can be imaged inside brains. Where is a soul?
"David Deutsch of the University of Oxford, UK, is not convinced that the experiment has told us anything new about how the universe works. He says that although "it's quite cool to see strange predictions verified", the results could have been obtained simply by "calculating them using a computer and the equations of quantum mechanics"." Weak measurement. Imprecise. Inexact.
Ακριβώς αυτό 👄 και ✍️ οί 🏛️ Έλληνες . . . Ιπποκράτης , ή ακριβής γνώση είναι τό 🗝️ για την ☝️ Αθανασία . Σάς ευχαριστώ και σας Εύχωμε Υγεία και Ευτυχία στον Έργων σας μέ κορυφή τήν Αιώνα Ζωή 👏👍
what happened at 6:37?! we are ripples in the structure of space time geometry... resonate consciousness... Planc's scale... bottom level in the UNIVERSE?! like this is not enough, he says 'eastern philosophy' Call the hot ginger from the other TEDx video... she asked, 'is life really complex?'
" quantum physics is 100% solid." As far as it goes, up to now Penrose says its incomplete ( as everything is in science) , it doesn't account for the effect gravity has as quantum systems become larger, atoms making up molecules etc , at some point gravity collapses the wave function if left unobserved.
"none of us know the real answer" exactly, how egotistical humans have become to assume we're anywhere near the end of the mystery.. they are so certain with their beliefs and theories but the ideas are constantly challenged and changed every year as new material is presented
Before you start talking about how quantum souls could save the universe, maybe you should demonstrate they actually exist in a rigorous empirical fashion? Granting that protein structures may have the ability to maintain quantum superposition, that is a long way off from an entire brain process occurring in neural circuits at a much more macroscopic scale being effected. The idea that the soul or free will emanates from this ether like platonic realm with consciousness having to do with an unseen interconnectedness of the space-time fabric may be a fun mental excursion, but there is really no objective empirical evidence for this. Its not really science at this point.
The fact that anesthesia works debunks the supernatural soul. If we are our souls (the common belief of what the soul is) and the soul survives death, then it'd be impossible to ever go unconscious at all, because the soul (as understood by the common meaning) is always conscious. However, we never experience "nothing" after death, or at any point, because "nothing" is only a word and nothing else. You cannot experience "nothing" because that'd make it something. Unconsciousness is always simply skipped over; it is a proverbial time machine. So after death there will not be Nothing, but instead a new organism will be born; just like what occurred at the beginning of your consciousness. This will continue as long as there are new sentient organisms born into the universe.
"l. If we are our souls (the common belief of what the soul is) and the soul survives death, then it'd be impossible to ever go unconscious at all, because the soul (as understood by the common meaning) is always conscious." Me thinks you misunderstand. The soul could be described better as 'the seat' of consciousness, rather than consciousness itself. 'Consciousness' as a state is heavily reliant on both biological and psychological factors to be what it is. 'Soul' could be looked at in much the same way as to say that before all music or sound, there is silence. You can't have sound without silence. In fact, sound itself could be said to be a mere result of the 'disturbance' of silence. Silence, is the 'seat' of all sound, rather than sound itself. True silence is not there as a vibratory expression, yet it exists. If it didn't exist, sound could not exist. All sound could be said to exist 'within' silence... Similarly, the conscious awareness (of which its expression is vibratory) could not exist without the 'lack' of conscious awareness; which, like the lack of sound, could be likened to silence in that it both exists and does not exist. I'm not saying any of this to try to convince you of the existence of the soul, we both know that isn't likely to happen anytime soon. Only to give you some perspective as to what is often being implied when we speak about the soul being 'conscious'.
You bringing up the "anesthesia" argument all the time because you heard it from someone else. Anesthesia does not prove anything and you obviously have very little understanding of this issue.
i like Hameroff's work generally and haven't listened to all this...paused at 'over-population'- being the problem...gee, i always saw it as our lifestyle's and densely colonised cities to be the issue...!
I know all about (potential) quantum microtubual communication. I would love to hear someone talk about this in a way that would allow someone to have time to think about it. I personally have done much work about the mind/brain being a space-time transmitter.
As a PhD in engineering woman I couldn't agree more with this research and MUCH more from my own...., I am SO SICK of these MENSA wanna be engineering MEN who cannot even TOLERATE anything new age or ' spiritual' or the possibility that science, seems to be an extension of the occult and an incomplete extension at best. All behaving rude, anti science, condescending and ANTI ALL SCHOLARS throughout humanity. Including many great names
I was in agreement with you 100% until you went off on your tirade against MEN. If you were half as informed as you think you are on this subject, you would acknowledge all those intolerant MEN who are showing the connection between science and spirituality (or at least hinting in that direction): Roger Penrose, Stuart Hameroff, Dave Chalmers, Donald Hoffman, Bernardo Kastrup, Bernard Carr, Fred Alan Wolfe, Tom Campbell, etc. -- along with NDE researchers like Peter Fenwick MD and Bruce Greyson MD. Also, one of the smarmiest and most condescending skeptics of spirituality I have ever come across is a women -- Susan Blackmore. Please seek professional help for your hatred of MEN, but please don't bring it in to a forum like this. The vast majority of us that come here are seeking peace and tranquility, not superiority.
Vaya pedazo de gazpacho entre conciencia, biología, física cuántica, grafeno, sexo....tiene el Dr. Hameroff. Si no fuese por que Prof. Penrose apoya esto, yo ni intentaría entender esta palabrería vacía sobre lo que él llama quantum biology...and so on and so forth. Firmado: un Prof. en Física
Really couldn't understand 70% that he said. You should consider that most pepole that might want to watch this video will not understand the quamtum physics and most of the terms.
I totally agree. What was TED thinking??? I am going to have to write them a strongly worded letter on the difference between science and pseudoscience.
Having a hypothesis that it outside of your traditional thinking is not pseudoscience. Please learn what pseudoscience means before using it incorrectly. You closed-minded, left-wing bigots need to get off your high horse.
Like most other people I'd like to believe there is some sort of quantum soul, and maybe I'm just not academic enough to understand, but this really sounds like taking a little known area of science which hints slightly towards something similar or related to consciousness and then just making massive leaps based on very little/no evidence and using lots of big words that are probably completely irrelevant. But I don't know, I'm just a teenage dirt bag.
So you are making an assumption that Hameroffs "Big Words" are meaningless and irrelevant, based on the notion that you do not understand them? ??? O.o ???
HappyHimitsu Its not that, Its just that a lot of people in the whole "quantum mysticism" field have a tendency to use terms related to quantum physics and other areas of science to make it sound more scientific and credible, when in actual fact, its still just speculation. I don't think this guy is doing it as much as some though. It's like when people use the term "quantum leap" to describe some sort of mystical spiritual ability when in actual fact it describes the movement of an electron into different set orbits around an atom (I think).
Reece Howard Except Hameroff and Penrose are fully qualified and far from being only "quantum mystics". Besides, why can't the movement of an electron into different set orbits around an atom NOT be considered a mystical spiritual ability? Have you ever considered they might be the same thing? I love science, and I love mysticism. Why do so may scientists insist that knowing how or why something operates, makes it less profound or removes it from the spiritual realm? It's a mistake to believe that they can't exist as two sides to the same coin. "The most beautiful experience we can have is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion that stands at the cradle of true art and true science. Whoever does not know it and can no longer wonder, no longer marvel, is as good as dead, and his eyes are dimmed. It was the experience of mystery -- even if mixed with fear -- that engendered religion. A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, our perceptions of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty, which only in their most primitive forms are accessible to our minds: it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute true religiosity. In this sense, and only this sense, I am a deeply religious man... I am satisfied with the mystery of life's eternity and with a knowledge, a sense, of the marvelous structure of existence -- as well as the humble attempt to understand even a tiny portion of the Reason that manifests itself in nature." - Albert Einstein
HappyHimitsu I'm not trying to say that they are not credible or believable scientists, or even that they are "quantum mystics". I'm just saying that from the perspective of someone that doesn't really understand a lot of quantum science at all, and with so many con artists and the like using phrases like "quantum leap" to describe something completely different (Burt Goldman, for example, uses the term "quantum jumping", which granted is not the same but very similar to quantum leaping, to describe his ability to jump into different universes and talk with other versions of himself, which he then sells on the internet as a course) from the scientific meaning, it is sometimes difficult to tell the difference between realistic, credible science and someone trying to support/sell their ideas on religion/spirituality/consciousness etc. by vaguely referencing terms used by quantum physicists that don't actually support or relate to their ideas what so ever. I have the utmost respect for both scientists, but when they are talking about something that seems so far fetched, its easy to mistake for someone wishfully thinking their way into an afterlife. That's a beautiful quote from old Albert there, and quite frankly I'm in no position to disagree with either you or him on what does or doesn't qualify as science, nor whether mysticism and quantum physics can exist side by side. I simply believe that understanding how something works removes the need for descriptive terms such as "spiritual" or Mystic", in the same way that understanding the way that the weather system works removes the need for a God to control it. I don't think that makes it less profound at all, I think it actually adds to the beauty of it. I think its quite poetic how whenever we answer one question, five more pop up in its place.
The very admission: 'I am ignorant' is the dawn of knowledge. An ignorant man is ignorant of his ignorance. You can say that ignorance does not exist, for the moment it is seen it is no more. Therefore, you may call it unconsciousness or blindness. All you see around and within you is what you do not know and do not understand, without even knowing that you do not know and do not understand. To know that you do not know and do not understand is true knowledge, the knowledge of an humble heart.
“The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence.”
-Nikola Tesla
***** Well that is true. But taking into account that Tesla created phenomena that current scientists cannot even begin to understand might lend some weight to these words.
***** For Some closed minded People there will never be enough evidence for it , This includes some closed minded Scientists who are also Atheists .
And how does one precisely study non-physical phenomenon?
TheErik150x i guess with non physical instruments like the consciousness itself . Good question.
TheErik150x And another good idea would be * Consciousness connected Technologys * with this we could study non - physical phenomena.
"Its NOT science!"
Translation:
"Its NOT materialism!"
Rather it's physics
I'm paraphrasing here but, Penrose stated, I don't like saying that I am a materialist. Or rather, I may say I am a materialist yet, we don't know what that material is.
What is material?
Thank you. This lifted me from a bad time. This gave me so much trust and comfort. It just feels good in my heart/soul. I can’t explain this feeling
why you feel better?
Not to me. The idea of living former ver of being immortal doesn't let me sleep. Honestly, I'll never understand people who like the idea of an eternal soul or an everlasting life. I just wanna die peacefully, in a dreamless sleep and nothingness. What's so scary about it??? But well, I guess science is not on my side. I hate you. And I hope you are happy to know that you'll never die 😣
Bruh so u don't want to see ur family
@@logans.butler285 There is one thing I fail to understand. So many people desiring eternal life after this and others who wish to be in nothingness. It's weird.
This guy is onto something big. Possibly the biggest leap ever in our understanding of the universe.
Like it or not, we are not in our brains. This man's theory is supported by an ample amassment of evidence and it has stood up to scrutiny. It is scientifically valid and research-based. This is scientific progress. Our consciousness is eternal. This could bring comfort and reassurance to the many atheists out there to know that we don't just disappear into nothingness.
Bentley Mulsanne No, they want to believe they fade into nothing, or are too cynical to latch onto ideas that debunk it. They have become the new close-minded, cynical groups, like literal Theologians of the fire and brimstone variety. Oh the irony. I guess that silly superhero movie was true, you either die a hero, or live long enough to become the villain. Naturalistic atheism has become the progress-blocking villain.
@@1111Tactical so true
*The fact that anesthesia works debunks the supernatural soul. If we are our souls (the common belief of what the soul is) and the soul survives death, then it'd be impossible to ever go unconscious at all*, because the soul (as understood by the common meaning) is always conscious.
But we can go unconscious, so obviously there is not a constantly-conscious supernatural soul ("true Self").
However, we never experience "nothing" after death, or at any point, because "nothing" is only a word and nothing else. Unconsciousness is always simply skipped over; it is a proverbial time machine. So after death there will not be Nothing, but instead a new organism will be born; just like what occurred at the beginning of your consciousness. This will continue as long as there are new sentient organisms born into the universe.
But we are our brain. There is no reason to think otherwise.
@@scotturley4003 Yes. As Christopher Hitchens put it, "I do not have a body, I am a body".
The angry, close minded materialist thinker's response to this, pointing and saying it is new age nonsense, it reminds me of how Galileo was received.
***** Gallileo had a Roman catholic audience, but he wrote a paper that included observations and evidence, and when people actually looked at what he was saying, they saw he was making a real case and people began to agree with him. If Hameroff has actual evidence and can make accurate predicitions, his argument will get heard and his claims accepted. I think he is trying to rewrite quantum science though without the evidence he needs.
***** Seriously, the only reason that he has the word "Soul" on there is because it captures people's interest because it is a topic so many people are interested in as opposed to saying "Quantum Mind" which is not something that too many people would care about.
+Athanasios K Catholics need little help with that.
Sceptical scientists are making great contributions as well
as a PhD in engineering woman, I am SO SICK of these MENSA wanna be engineering MEN who cannot even TOLERATE anything new age. All rude, anti science, condescending and ANTI ALL SCHOLARS throughout humanity. Including many great names
The fact that Sir Roger Penrose (one of the greatest minds of this era) rates this man, should tell you what you need to know. When clever people pay attention, you should too.
Wrong approach
Nice catch 😊🎉 @Old299dfk
I have studied and taught biology my whole life. And I still can't tell my students where life comes from or what it is. This could become the greatest finding in all of biology, maybe even science.
I know this is hard to understand. The questions raised by Quantum Mechanics are hard to fathom. All we thought we understood was wrong. Life maybe ever lasting. No real death.
This is why Einstein disliked Quatum Mechanics.
Yes! He liked physics to fit into a nice definable box. We have been building electronics for decades based on quantum probability. Astounding stuff.
It is. We are spiritual beings having a human experience to quote Chopra. I died and was resuscitated and remember what happens next very well.
@@advocate1563 what happens?
@@amernassar3466 AP
TEDx needs to start including the graphic materials in the videos, perhaps we would be better served by not just showing a closeup of the speaker's face for the whole presentation.
Trueee. xD
Materialist : we know nothing about the nature of consciousness
Nondualists : everyone shares the same consciousness
Materialists : you have no evidence of that
Nondualists : and you have no evidence that it is local to each living being
Yes, correct exactly. So no one knows
we r all die, so same experience
But the burden of proof lies on those who make the claim. That's why spaghetti monster god...u cant prove he doesnt exist.....just piggybacking on something you dont understand doesnt mean you have any idea what you're talking about
You made the hypothesis, it is on you to provide evidence for it.
Also, I don't know your thoughts, you don't know mine.
Im so happy tht finally ppl worked out the link between neurobiology and spirituality. These things have been written bout in bhudhist thinking, the shri guru granth sahib, the vedic system many decades ago. :)
Materialism is much like the abrahamic faiths of the past for the materialistic-based scientist: It's comforting. Materialism is being discarded everyday as quantum revelations annihilate it. It's time to think outside the box and consider what was once impossible as possible.
Yeah I don't understand Matthew's comment. Christianity makes more sense under Idealism, and in fact can only be explained through immaterialism, hence why we see the religion dying in the dualistic West
If we have a soul that survives death, then that same soul would make it impossible to ever go unconscious - anesthesia wouldn't work.
as long as it can be properly recorded and studied without subjective interpretation then it's all good. quantum mechanics isn't magic it's just more complex math and can be observed and studied. if these quantum effects in microtubules give rise to macro-scale behavioral changes not much is different from that to neurons with classical chemistry and physics giving rise to it, other than we now know to include these phenomena in future studies and theories.
seeing quantum phenomena give rise to neurological events and extrapolating that there must be an afterlife is tantamount to seeing an unidentified flying object and assuming its not a weirdly shaped plane but instead a non-terrestrial intelligent alien's flying craft. its a false dichotomy proof that it's not a plane is, therefore, proof that it is an alien spacecraft as if those are the only two possible scenarios. when in reality there are more than two possible scenarios. similarly, in this situation, proof that all neurological phenomena aren't solely brought about by classical physics and chemistry is, therefore, proof that there is an afterlife. when those aren't the only two possible scenarios.
Wrong. Materialism isn't comforting. People are materialists because non materialists have only ever produced nonsense and caused science to enter dark ages.
this man definitely is the first jedi.
Yeah and he looks like one too!
There are some sad people in the comments. They refuse to accept anything outside their materialist belief system.
They accept when they are shown enough evidence, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
A door closed by all occidental history might be hard to open sometimes...
Door, mind, sight...
Tomás Alvim yeah, so now I want evidence for a multiverse. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence
@@tomasalvim1022 Plenty of statistical and veridical evidence of parapsychological phenomena and other conscious states that cannot be explained by materialism. The evidence is there, people just don't look enough for it; and those who do find it think of ways to explain it away under their materialist spectrum. Reminds me of how Galileo was shunned because his evidence did not align with the views at the time.
@@tomasalvim1022 "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" -- Plagiarizing a quote from Carl Sagan does not make you Carl Sagan.
i like to watch all of dr hameroffs interviews and lectures, I just happen to live in tucson and ive been trying to figure out a good excuse to go to the U of A consciousness research department to check it out. I totally think hes onto something. when I first heard of the observer effect and human effects on quantum states i immediately thought there had to be some kind of quantum mechanism in our brains that would allow for the copenhagen interpretation. theres no doubt human consciousness is effecting quantum experiments and such states. even the makers of D wave quantum computer say in their official videos that they try not to look at the machine because it will cause things to happen to the information coming out. Materialist arent ready for microtubials, they are still stuck on neurons. Theyre not quite ready to accept the outcome of such experiments as the double slit, wheelers delayed choice, and delayed choice quantum eraser experiments. Dr. hameroff is definitley ahead of the game.
There has to be something that allows consciousness after death. Hameroff and Penrose might be right or they might be wrong but there has to be some way or I wouldn't have had the memory between lives from from my death in 1960 to birth in 1962. How would I know about supermasive blackholes, Tibetan phowa practice and the circumstances of my death which match historical events as well as current issues in science.
STEWART HAMEROFF, LIKE A BOSS
Thank you. It's very interesting.
I have heard roger penrose on this subject and that was fascinating
I truly hope there's a soul, or at least SOMETHING. The idea that there is absolutely nothing after death, that there is such an utter LACK of consciousness that we won't even be here to care about that lack of consciousness, is the most terrifying thought in existence.
@Eduardo Candeias you think so?
We have known forever that energy changes but cannot be destroyed. That’s a scientific fact. Beyond that, we don’t know, but this resonates with me.
What ever, materialism or non-materialism, I just want to know what is consciousness and how is it created.
“Creation” was not invented before consciousness. Nothing is real without consciousness.
Everybody wants
@Raccy The idea of something being "made" is something that living things invented. There's no actual tangible "start" to anything. It's a made up concept. It's like the number zero. The number zero doesn't exist. It's a word we give to the concept of nothing. You can't have "nothing" without something. It's like the concept of "infinity". It's a concept, not something that you can observe.
@@stxrryd We are in a simulation.
Look into NDEs listen to experiences from people who've been to the other side.. very fascinating and insightful. Might answer your question on consciousness
I wish I could put he and Candace Pert together in a room and hear them speak to one another about their work and how it correlates. I also wish he spent a bit more time and in depth about the soul and ear death experiences in his works findings. etc. I also wish that Ted showed his slide show along with his talk . They often leave out this valuable piece of their talks here online.
How does he know that there aren't intelligent beings from light years away already downloading in creatures like you and me?
And what if downloading in the end of life is limiting what naturally happens when you die?
+jackchorn OMG please don't load me up or down.
Excellent..... thanks 🙏.
Science owes all of it's accomplishments to mathematics for without it science would be nothing but soothsaying(Think hard about this sentence). One of the most important task is to define what mathematics is ontologically. When one talks about a soul I think it would be better to call it "mind". Mind, just like mathematics and the religious concept of a soul is not physical, It has no sensory components, you can't see math. Mathematics/mind/soul should be considered the same substance. When we get into these kinds of topics outside the realm of science evidence based philosophy or metaphysics only mathematics will suffice. The frequency domain of Fourier mathematics is the key to probing the mental/spiritual/non-physical/non-local side of the universe as of now it's wholly ignored as having any thing to do with reality. Mr. Hameroff is acquainted with Roger Penrose who is very close to sharing this view and he knows better than these dogmatic materialist posting here.
What sufficient reason should this universe be physical rather than non-physical? Mathematical Idealism will hold up far better regarding the big philosophical questions than scientific materialism.
+Jon Tate I would argue that the soul and the mind are two different entities, and that the soul exists within the mind. After all, there are parts of your mind that you acknowledge as something other than you. For example, you have your beliefs that make you who you are, but you are not exactly just your beliefs. There is a part of your mind that encompasses everything that you considered "You", and that construct is the soul. As a disclaimer, I don't believe that the soul would continue to exist after death.
+Jon Brown what you should be referring to is the conscious and unconscious aspects of mind.
I agree that the line between consciousness and unconsciousness provides a better sense of definition then the boundaries of the soul, but it doesn't acknowledge that the unconscious aspect serves as the consciousness's environment (or that one exists inside of the other), rather than just implying that they are both just properties, or aspects, of the mind.
+Jon Brown these are just ways for people to avoid the mono substance to avoid truth. People would rather have the incoherent notion that the universe has many totally different substances miraculously interacting coherentntly rather than different phases of one substance.
I don't see any reason as to why two entirely different substances would be unable to affect each other, react to one another, or simply influence each other in any way.
It sounds like you don't believe in the possibility in a physical system occurring naturally in our universe.
how come this guy always gets cut off in all the youtube videos uploaded ????????
I believe science gives a functional description of reality and not just our experience. Since ontology is a part of reality, from my definition, it does follow that science should be able to describe ontological context of reality.
@tatsumakisempyukaku : it has to have an "objective" component insofar as it's easy to reproduce (procreation)... so there is a state in the shared material reality that can lead to consciousness. It can be a relativist or indeterminate world, but it exists as something that recreates consciousness.
Thus the recreation of consciousness is a study of consciousness.
I just heard about Orch-OR on one of the "through the wormhole w/Morgan Freeman" episodes about the afterlife. This guy was on "what the bleep do we know?" too. Reading what wiki says on "Orchestrated Objective Reduction" of consciousness confused me a little, but this is a REALLY fascinating theory! What if we really are LITERALLY the means by which the universe experiences itself?! Like on a quantum level!!! It would explain god(s) AND esp, ghosts, love, spiritual feelings...etc, etc, ETC!!!!
@[2:43]: I am extremely open minded. Less than a handful of days ago, I heard of this, electron quantum tunneling across microtubules ... +what I was reading online was from late in the prior century ... +I thought it was quite a stretch. Possible, though ...
+today I hear of this.
A connection across spacetime, small on my end, large on the other.
@MrRobotoToo Is it? I know I was lost just a bit when trying to follow him, but I'm not completely knwledgeable on the subject of quantum mechanics. Can you explain.
Wait, what was the name of his theory at 2:48? I am too interested.
Amazing how far things came with his theory less than 10 years after this presentation.
Though a soul without ego pretty much sounds like eternal death anyway as we won't know ourselves as ourself.
I’m not totally bought into this, I just need to see more hard evidence and applications first.
However, a soul without ego, would likely just have to attach itself somehow to a new body, or perhaps even somehow be captured by a growing brain. So… reincarnation.
That’s my best guess of what would happen to a soul in the event that all of this is true.
@@537monster In near death out of body experiences people usually do have their ego, they don't lose their ego.
Well, now there are even more evidence behind what Hameroff is saying.
That's the exact same thing u'd do well to keep in mind.....nothinf about Hamerhoff's theory is "disproven". And when the best defence offered against one side turns out to be some argument in that side's favor, u have to revaluate ur tance. Stuart is extending what Penrose, a distingushed physicist, is saying , to what he knows about the brain's neurochemistry, a feild he knows a lot a bout. What he's saying is backed by evidence that's growing, and its fortifying an already pretty solid idea.
From quickly skimming the articles it seems they used electrodes to pick up the signals of the brain, and then transferred them with electrical signals via the internet to another lab. Using the term "non-local" in that circumstance is a bit misleading, especially in the context of this video where Hameroff is talking about quantum non-locality.
@[3:43]: "Quantum Coherence occurs in warm biological systems routinely."
It does. Photosynthesis would be impossible without quantum effects and quantum effects are proven to exist in his microtubules too.
Is it just me, or does the video seem a bit choppy?
I agree, I think its good to believe a certain thing. But I think we should be a little more loose with our beliefs
he is one of the world's most elite physicists -he's in the same level of hawking-
@MrRobotoToo Thanks for the lesson, MrRobotoToo. That helped. =) I'll look up the Nature of Reality debate in a bit. I've been putting off educating myself on quantum mechanics for quite a bit, and I guess this is a wake up call.
I feel the same way about Deepak Chopra, how ever we have Roger Penrose weighing on this stuff. Ignore the spiritual fluff, the implications are still astounding.
@MrRobotoToo Considering the majority of Hameroffs knowledge comes from Sir Roger Penrose i would say the QP in his hypothesis is sound. You can also look at Hameroff destroying Krauss and his cronies on here at the Beyond Belief conference. The simple fact is, none of us know he real answer. Alternative explanations for things are how we learn, if we accepted materialism as absolute fact we'd never have discovered QP because it would never have fit within the scientific framework
There's a problem here, Hameroff is a doctor, a anesthesiologist, Why is he talking about quantum physics? Where is the Sir Roger Penrose?
Hi dude,Actually he is studying about quantum effects and mixed with biological process
I love Stuart Hameroff
Thank you!!!!
Rewiring reality with quantum technologies gives me hope for the future but they potentially step on some pretty big toes namely big pharma, oil and gas, and gmo industries.
How about the virus and cell maintenance...
Not exactly sure what he's talking about but basically it can do everything and cure cancer?
I love what this guy is saying, and I already am familiar with much of what he is saying, but he speaks too fast for me to process, and that's saying a lot.
I am not actually saying this guy is a charleton, but really fast talking sets my triggers off that someone is trying to get over on me.
Speak in a way that allows your audience to process what you're saying.
I was watching a documentary on Amazon Prime about the soul where Hameroff said something like, "...quantum information in the fundamental layer of the universe. I am commenting even before I truly know if he believes in the idea of, "the soul." My comment is based on the deep kinship I found in my own way of thinking and explaining consciousness and/or/or not, 'a soul.' It just so happens I am for no real reason, visiting that documentary and this youtube.
Honestly? Sometimes I feel a little freakish de-constructing, the soul. Coming from a wonderful, colorful fundamentalist region, it simply felt great to sit among like minds that I honestly really did not even know existed. Also as a musician, as well as sure, a romantic even, I found my own answer (and even peace I think), in looking at the question, from the universe up through life.
For instance, I really do not care if ghosts and ufos exist, life exists on the blue-green whereas we to date have yet to find a parallel for questions that can only come from conscious experiences like that..
And when we look at earth from space, her atmosphere is almost like the film surrounding a baby in the womb--any mammal really? Sure. All that life is sharing the living planet at any given moment. The planet itself is a metaphor for everything that happens far far beyond in the universe. Elements colliding, combining, transforming, disappearing in seemingly nothingness, suns born, dying, along with their planets.....
The earth itself in this broad metaphor is living as well, not even considering what we experience as life. Oceans, climate, earthquakes, volcanoes, storms, ice ages, land becoming deserts, aging, renewing, changing--always changing.
So how might we rationalize this 'soul thing' for ordinary folks, beyond our efforts through world religions and myths? If a thought or experience happened, our brains respond. Energy only changes form. Those forms collectively, become the person during this stage of earths process of continuous living change.
Though we cannot see it, those forms of our own energy, like everything else in the universe persist for if no other reasons, than their function in having lived. Certainly, our religions, myths, storytelling, music, art and culture in general say that somehow inside we know, that life persists. And as a microcosm of a living planet, in a living universe really, perhaps it could be important for a person's soul to hang around for awhile and nurture species of their kind.
Do our experiences, thoughts and all that is about our energy dissipate over time? I personally think so, but that is just my opinion in this. Could it be like the wake of a wave, becoming more and more, a part of the larger body of water? Again, I think so. Maybe we can even ask, if energy that has become life is indeed impersonal like an ocean as it dissipates and simply feed back as the life of the planet in it's collective memory--we might even call the soul of the planet. Again, I 'feel' yes.
The quantum biology of the soul, is the unseen beauty, of biology itself. Beauty, like in our religions, myths, storytelling, music, art and culture in general? Yes.
won't let me post any web links on here but the most recent study that comes to mind can be found under the scientific papers section of nature, published Feb 2013, article number 1319, carried out by Miguel Paid-Vieira and co. an experiment involving two rats seperated by many miles demonstrating direct communication between brains.
Still waiting for him to sing Sledgehammer...
Biology being conducted by quantum computation makes complete sense.
Materialists haven't hijacked science.
The ideas and discoveries of quantum theory are way more non-materialist than any of the common religious or philosophic ideas at the time.
If certain ideas ACTUALLY CAN give us "a functional description of our experience" then science will pay close attention to them.
In what way?
Well, that's basically saying "we don't know who this works so it's probably quantum magic"
I mean because that's kinda what it is. Putting total faith that "Science" will just figure everything out seems unlikely to me especially considering they thought that in the 18th/19th centuries.
@@DontDrinkthatstuff If you need faith, then it ain't science.
@@arthurdossantos6826 Science will never figure out everything is my point. You'd have to have extreme faith that it will.
It cannot be applied to a single event which this argument requires. What the argument shows is that classical physics is nonlocal. Consider a spherical shell which explodes into two objects spinning in (of course) opposite directions (which cannot be known until measured). When the spin direction of one is measured that of the other is forced into the opposite direction, even though it is now in a different galaxy. Hence classical physics is nonlocal [5]...
PIERRE TEILHARD CHARDIN
I think you're both right.
The Einstein‐Podolsky‐Rosen Paradox in the Brain: The Transferred Potential by Gowsami and Co, Persinger later studies which, granted utilize specialised a equipment to help facilitate states in which the brain appears to communicate in a non local fashion. there are many more articles suggesting quantum non locality within the brain between neuronal networks and even hemispheres.
@Philosophier121 the reason why I don't take you guys seriously is because I've already been where you are, and I was saying exactly the same things. Searle (viz. chinese room) was my favorite philosopher and I was all about Chalmers' "fundamental property of the universe". It's only through studying and reflecting on these matters further did I realize that my head was up my ass, thanks to the gentlemen aforementioned. Again, this is a comments section, not forum, but just suggestion: READ UP
It's in the realm of "Hypothesis" not "Pseudoscience".
There are many versions of the Quantum mind model, like david bohm's version, but orch or is by far the most famous because of it's co-creator SIR Roger Penrose, who is one of the most important physicist in academia.
Well, it's not empirically proven, but it made predictions and it passed.
Here is something I read recently:"There is much other fascinating work in modern "physics". There is a general belief about the Bohm version of the EPR experiment that quantum mechanics gives that spatially separated objects exhibit correlations, so that quantum mechanics is nonlocal. But that would violate an uncertainty principle (number-phase). This argument has nothing to do quantum mechanics which is a statistical theory...
He never turns his hammer off!
I've heard that in the OR they call him The Hammer. To the patient: "We're just about ready to start, we're just waiting for The Hammer".
He sure knows some words.
34 people don't understand big words.
What do you mean by materialism? I hate when people use these word. I mean aren't things like forces, electrons, quarks, energy etc.. all material? I don't get why some people try hard to decide the universe in two because of a so called soul. Even if consciousness was on the quantum level, it'll still physics because physics deal with nature. There's no such thing as supernatural thing..
On your Electrical and Philosophical point - I agree lol ... what I'm saying is that there is no deference between the microscopic and macroscopic reality and that scientists are noticing this ... on the topic of classical computer (Turing machine) - it's not analog so your wrong.
Is that an RSA animator @t=386
but how does the hypno toad fit in to all this?
I'm waiting for the materialist's answer to The Hard Problem.
Lol materialist will not agree with him thats all
Waw amazing 🤩
what he says is contrary to Eastern Philosophy. Buddhism and Advaita say that the working consciosness that a person has IS acutally an epiphenomenon of "lower sonsciousnesses" like senses. Deconstruction of ego is at the very heart of Buddhist teachings. The view presented by dr Hemeroff is really idealistic and romantic. I understand he doesn't want to part with "soul" or anything that will propell the existence of human after death. I don't think its this simple.
I wish Hameroff could put it as clearly as you do.
@HadeanAgent Well even if he worked 'with' him knowing what I do about Sir Roger Penrose & his attitudes towards unsubstantiated hypothesizes I really doubt he would say anything remotely like what is being said here. There are plenty of Penroses clips on this website. Can you find even ONE which espouses anything about 'souls' (whatever they are)? I'll save you the time: No. He only speaks about consciousness & that IS observable in the universe -it can be imaged inside brains. Where is a soul?
No hard evidense, but it really makes a lot of sense.
"David Deutsch of the University of Oxford, UK, is not convinced that the experiment has told us anything new about how the universe works. He says that although "it's quite cool to see strange predictions verified", the results could have been obtained simply by "calculating them using a computer and the equations of quantum mechanics"."
Weak measurement. Imprecise. Inexact.
Ακριβώς αυτό 👄 και ✍️ οί 🏛️ Έλληνες . . . Ιπποκράτης , ή ακριβής γνώση είναι τό 🗝️ για την ☝️ Αθανασία . Σάς ευχαριστώ και σας Εύχωμε Υγεία και Ευτυχία στον Έργων σας μέ κορυφή τήν Αιώνα Ζωή 👏👍
Sorry, I can't - it's part of a disertation I'm writing...
Even Schrödinger wrote a book bout it and he's a genius. Educate yourself and don't judge over others until you have the knowledge to do so. Peace.
what happened at 6:37?! we are ripples in the structure of space time geometry... resonate consciousness... Planc's scale... bottom level in the UNIVERSE?! like this is not enough, he says 'eastern philosophy'
Call the hot ginger from the other TEDx video... she asked, 'is life really complex?'
Not only the brain, everything is an emergent of quantum information processing.
" quantum physics is 100% solid."
As far as it goes, up to now Penrose says its incomplete ( as everything is in science) , it doesn't account for the effect gravity has as quantum systems become larger, atoms making up molecules etc , at some point gravity collapses the wave function if left unobserved.
How is this a TED Talk for a general audience? It’s totally unintelligible if you’re not in the field.
I've only got 2 brain cells left, one wandered off last nite, the last one went looking for it this morning.
"none of us know the real answer" exactly, how egotistical humans have become to assume we're anywhere near the end of the mystery.. they are so certain with their beliefs and theories but the ideas are constantly challenged and changed every year as new material is presented
Before you start talking about how quantum souls could save the universe, maybe you should demonstrate they actually exist in a rigorous empirical fashion? Granting that protein structures may have the ability to maintain quantum superposition, that is a long way off from an entire brain process occurring in neural circuits at a much more macroscopic scale being effected. The idea that the soul or free will emanates from this ether like platonic realm with consciousness having to do with an unseen interconnectedness of the space-time fabric may be a fun mental excursion, but there is really no objective empirical evidence for this. Its not really science at this point.
True that. true that.
The fact that anesthesia works debunks the supernatural soul. If we are our souls (the common belief of what the soul is) and the soul survives death, then it'd be impossible to ever go unconscious at all, because the soul (as understood by the common meaning) is always conscious.
However, we never experience "nothing" after death, or at any point, because "nothing" is only a word and nothing else. You cannot experience "nothing" because that'd make it something. Unconsciousness is always simply skipped over; it is a proverbial time machine. So after death there will not be Nothing, but instead a new organism will be born; just like what occurred at the beginning of your consciousness. This will continue as long as there are new sentient organisms born into the universe.
"l. If we are our souls (the common belief of what the soul is) and the soul survives death, then it'd be impossible to ever go unconscious at all, because the soul (as understood by the common meaning) is always conscious."
Me thinks you misunderstand. The soul could be described better as 'the seat' of consciousness, rather than consciousness itself.
'Consciousness' as a state is heavily reliant on both biological and psychological factors to be what it is. 'Soul' could be looked at in much the same way as to say that before all music or sound, there is silence.
You can't have sound without silence. In fact, sound itself could be said to be a mere result of the 'disturbance' of silence.
Silence, is the 'seat' of all sound, rather than sound itself. True silence is not there as a vibratory expression, yet it exists. If it didn't exist, sound could not exist. All sound could be said to exist 'within' silence... Similarly, the conscious awareness (of which its expression is vibratory) could not exist without the 'lack' of conscious awareness; which, like the lack of sound, could be likened to silence in that it both exists and does not exist.
I'm not saying any of this to try to convince you of the existence of the soul, we both know that isn't likely to happen anytime soon. Only to give you some perspective as to what is often being implied when we speak about the soul being 'conscious'.
You bringing up the "anesthesia" argument all the time because you heard it from someone else. Anesthesia does not prove anything and you obviously have very little understanding of this issue.
i like Hameroff's work generally and haven't listened to all this...paused at 'over-population'- being the problem...gee, i always saw it as our lifestyle's and densely colonised cities to be the issue...!
Over population is a problem
For anyone wondering, there’s some physical proof of this. I recommend Anton Petrov’s recent video on it (link to it in the reply comment below)
Yes. There is proof related to coherence in brain
I saw his video too
8:00 technology in the wrong hands ain't great.
I know all about (potential) quantum microtubual communication. I would love to hear someone talk about this in a way that would allow someone to have time to think about it.
I personally have done much work about the mind/brain being a space-time transmitter.
"I personally have done much work about the mind/brain being a space-time transmitter." - Expand on this please.
Matt dillahunty?
How do we normal people ever find out whether you sciency skeptics and believers are right or wrong?
As a PhD in engineering woman I couldn't agree more with this research and MUCH more from my own...., I am SO SICK of these MENSA wanna be engineering MEN who cannot even TOLERATE anything new age or ' spiritual' or the possibility that science, seems to be an extension of the occult and an incomplete extension at best. All behaving rude, anti science, condescending and ANTI ALL SCHOLARS throughout humanity. Including many great names
I was in agreement with you 100% until you went off on your tirade against MEN. If you were half as informed as you think you are on this subject, you would acknowledge all those intolerant MEN who are showing the connection between science and spirituality (or at least hinting in that direction): Roger Penrose, Stuart Hameroff, Dave Chalmers, Donald Hoffman, Bernardo Kastrup, Bernard Carr, Fred Alan Wolfe, Tom Campbell, etc. -- along with NDE researchers like Peter Fenwick MD and Bruce Greyson MD. Also, one of the smarmiest and most condescending skeptics of spirituality I have ever come across is a women -- Susan Blackmore. Please seek professional help for your hatred of MEN, but please don't bring it in to a forum like this. The vast majority of us that come here are seeking peace and tranquility, not superiority.
Vaya pedazo de gazpacho entre conciencia, biología, física cuántica, grafeno, sexo....tiene el Dr. Hameroff. Si no fuese por que Prof. Penrose apoya esto, yo ni intentaría entender esta palabrería vacía sobre lo que él llama quantum biology...and so on and so forth. Firmado: un Prof. en Física
Really couldn't understand 70% that he said. You should consider that most pepole that might want to watch this video will not understand the quamtum physics and most of the terms.
I totally agree. What was TED thinking??? I am going to have to write them a strongly worded letter on the difference between science and pseudoscience.
Are you joking?
Having a hypothesis that it outside of your traditional thinking is not pseudoscience. Please learn what pseudoscience means before using it incorrectly. You closed-minded, left-wing bigots need to get off your high horse.
Like most other people I'd like to believe there is some sort of quantum soul, and maybe I'm just not academic enough to understand, but this really sounds like taking a little known area of science which hints slightly towards something similar or related to consciousness and then just making massive leaps based on very little/no evidence and using lots of big words that are probably completely irrelevant. But I don't know, I'm just a teenage dirt bag.
So you are making an assumption that Hameroffs "Big Words" are meaningless and irrelevant, based on the notion that you do not understand them?
??? O.o ???
HappyHimitsu
Its not that, Its just that a lot of people in the whole "quantum mysticism" field have a tendency to use terms related to quantum physics and other areas of science to make it sound more scientific and credible, when in actual fact, its still just speculation. I don't think this guy is doing it as much as some though. It's like when people use the term "quantum leap" to describe some sort of mystical spiritual ability when in actual fact it describes the movement of an electron into different set orbits around an atom (I think).
Reece Howard Except Hameroff and Penrose are fully qualified and far from being only "quantum mystics".
Besides, why can't the movement of an electron into different set orbits around an atom NOT be considered a mystical spiritual ability? Have you ever considered they might be the same thing?
I love science, and I love mysticism. Why do so may scientists insist that knowing how or why something operates, makes it less profound or removes it from the spiritual realm?
It's a mistake to believe that they can't exist as two sides to the same coin.
"The most beautiful experience we can have is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion that stands at the cradle of true art and true science. Whoever does not know it and can no longer wonder, no longer marvel, is as good as dead, and his eyes are dimmed. It was the experience of mystery -- even if mixed with fear -- that engendered religion. A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, our perceptions of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty, which only in their most primitive forms are accessible to our minds: it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute true religiosity. In this sense, and only this sense, I am a deeply religious man... I am satisfied with the mystery of life's eternity and with a knowledge, a sense, of the marvelous structure of existence -- as well as the humble attempt to understand even a tiny portion of the Reason that manifests itself in nature." - Albert Einstein
HappyHimitsu I'm not trying to say that they are not credible or believable scientists, or even that they are "quantum mystics". I'm just saying that from the perspective of someone that doesn't really understand a lot of quantum science at all, and with so many con artists and the like using phrases like "quantum leap" to describe something completely different (Burt Goldman, for example, uses the term "quantum jumping", which granted is not the same but very similar to quantum leaping, to describe his ability to jump into different universes and talk with other versions of himself, which he then sells on the internet as a course) from the scientific meaning, it is sometimes difficult to tell the difference between realistic, credible science and someone trying to support/sell their ideas on religion/spirituality/consciousness etc. by vaguely referencing terms used by quantum physicists that don't actually support or relate to their ideas what so ever. I have the utmost respect for both scientists, but when they are talking about something that seems so far fetched, its easy to mistake for someone wishfully thinking their way into an afterlife.
That's a beautiful quote from old Albert there, and quite frankly I'm in no position to disagree with either you or him on what does or doesn't qualify as science, nor whether mysticism and quantum physics can exist side by side. I simply believe that understanding how something works removes the need for descriptive terms such as "spiritual" or Mystic", in the same way that understanding the way that the weather system works removes the need for a God to control it. I don't think that makes it less profound at all, I think it actually adds to the beauty of it. I think its quite poetic how whenever we answer one question, five more pop up in its place.
The very admission: 'I am ignorant' is the dawn of knowledge. An ignorant man is
ignorant of his ignorance. You can say that ignorance does not exist, for the moment it is seen it is
no more. Therefore, you may call it unconsciousness or blindness. All you see around and within
you is what you do not know and do not understand, without even knowing that you do not know
and do not understand. To know that you do not know and do not understand is true knowledge, the
knowledge of an humble heart.