Consciousness pre-dates life | Professor Stuart Hameroff, Roger Penrose's long-time collaborator

Stuart Hameroff puts forward a radical theory of consciousness.
Could consciousness have emerged from quantum states in neural microtubules?
Watch the full talk at iai.tv/video/c...
Many scientists, operating with a materialist worldview, argue that consciousness emerges out of inanimate molecules. In contrast, Roger Penrose's longtime collaborator, Stuart Hameroff, puts forward the controversial case that consciousness precedes life and that we have evidence for this from a recent NASA experiment.
#consciousness #quantumphysics #quantum #quantummechanics #quantumconsciousness #penrose
Stuart Hameroff is an American anesthesiologist and professor at the University of Arizona known for his studies of consciousness and his controversial claim, alongside Sir Roger Penrose, that consciousness originates from quantum states in neural microtubules.
The Institute of Art and Ideas features videos and articles from cutting edge thinkers discussing the ideas that are shaping the world, from metaphysics to string theory, technology to democracy, aesthetics to genetics. Subscribe today! iai.tv/subscri...
For debates and talks: iai.tv
For articles: iai.tv/articles
For courses: iai.tv/iai-aca...

[@greatestone4eva]

This is absolutely excellent. Straight shooter no BS no ego. We need more of this guy.

[@YogiMcCaw]

So two good impressions right off the bat: 1. he's wearing a t-shirt with NW Native Art on it, and 2. the lecture is happening in a yurt. As a nearly 40-year resident in the PNW who lived for years in a yurt, those things indicated to me that there is indeed some consciousness here LOL. Joking aside (is joking a sign of higher consciousness?), this is indeed fascinating. As a long practitioner of many meditative techniques and an armchair science enthusiast (my BA is in anthropology, though I am not in that profession), I like the scientific approach to the question of consciousness. Of course, many ancient sages have asserted that consciousness is indeed a primary and pervasive aspect of the Existence. Now, in modern times, with advanced sciences we can actually start to explore the question: "OK, the assertion may be right (or maybe not). If you think it's a true statement, then how does it work?" I like that a genius poly math and physicist - Penrose - has teamed up with a medical scientist (Hameroff) to hack away at this problem. Your average new age stoner maybe can experience it when he's out there on some carefully curated psilocybin (Yeah, been there, done that), but for me nowadays, a sober scientific explanation is much more satisfying.

[@Ranjanapati07]

Yeah, joking is the higher form of consciousness.

[@mack8488]

​​@@Ranjanapati07also the dumb stupid ignorant base vile discriminatory kind of joking?

[@gavo007]

I largely agree with the above however the Scientific method searches to describe objective truths. Exploration of subjective interactions with parallel consciousness is currently outside of the scientific remit. Orch-OR is the first bonafide step in this direction but there’s a long long way to go. Happy to learn if you can point me to additional resources. Every days a school day.

[@rohitrathi4552]

This is an amazing lecture where he is laying out everything unselfishly. No secrets and zero fuss.

[@dermotrooney9584]

@@rohitrathi4552 I'm sure it is, but it took 13mins of my life to a paywall so I didn't catch the end. 🤨

[@assoztube]

Blaaaa

[@blackdwarfrecords]

dude you don't get to say "no secrets and zero fuss" if the conclusion of the lecture is fucking paywalled, what's wrong with you thieves and liars, every one

[@nielsenrobert]

The logic is exhilaratingly freeing. The effects of anesthesia prove the physical connection to consciousness through the mechanisms Stuart so exquisitely presented here.

[@williamwixon]

@@nielsenrobert but that’s not saying how the mechanisms came to be

[@pranavjayaprakasanut]

​@@williamwixonit's a beautiful design 😍

[@VikingGainss]

What do you mean

[@televishenimoniker5546]

There are also chemicals that block memory, like amnesiatics. In theory, you still experience something, such as a surgury, but don't recall the pain. It is interesting to hunt for the impact of that pain when it is forgotten. It is almost as if it never happened. Memory is fundamental to consciousness as well, right?

[@terrycallow2979]

I love listening to Professor Hameroff haven't a clue what he's on about but maybe one day I will.

[@JPMMA507]

@@terrycallow2979 😅 same.... it's a good start though..... we'll get there one day!

[@YogiMcCaw]

Watch a lot more stuff on KZbin and elsewhere relating to physics. PBS Spacetime even has episodes dedicated to to Hameroff and Penrose's work. Also read and watch a bunch of stuff about quantum entanglement and the quantum wave function. Having some level of understanding about the quantum wave function and entanglement will really help to grasp what Stuart is talking about here. Also, keep in mind that Penrose and Hameroff are still working out the finer points of their hypothesis. These are still new ideas and there still hasn't been a lot of testing and peer-review of this stuff yet. It's new science and it's on the fringe, but it's gaining momentum and more of the scientific community is willing to at least entertain the ideas he's presenting.

[@hifiunicorn]

😂 same … he is talking so fast on such complex topics…I thought I had my speed set to 2x…there is a lot of foundational science I need to get caught up on.

[@theRealSuperRealDarwin]

You'll learn more from Donald Hoffman and Bernardo Kastrup.

[@Adoubless]

@@theRealSuperRealDarwinthanks for the advice!

[@tadmarshall2739]

I really enjoyed this! I need to schedule some time to watch the full version. I've heard Roger Penrose speak (in person, not video) and he is a hell of a lot smarter than I am. Folks complaining that the firehouse of new ideas is hard to understand and therefore wrong are maybe not the target audience.

[@oligographer]

There are many genetic disorders that directly impact microtubule structure/formation/regulation. If microtubules are the fundamental units through these mechanisms, one would expect a relationship between the genes' effects on these quantum behaviors, and the severity of symptoms correlating to "consciousness." Identifying mutations that disrupt quantum effects but don't disrupt large-scale microtubule structure, and cause more profound symptoms, might be evidence for the importance of these mechanisms. This has the added benefit of providing further research into rare neurogenetic disorders.

[@ramspace]

The poor prof was given 13 minutes to summarise a 2,000 pages academic book.

[@asynchronicity]

Plenty of time if you are a good communicator. IF.

[@Mindsi]

Should’ve used infranodus🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉

[@peterweston1356]

@@asynchronicityI mean this in good faith. Do you think there is a limit to what you can communicate in 13 minutes, what provisos would you suggest.

[@SKSAYPC]

100% agreed😅

[@graememciver1981]

Any 2,000 page academic book is bound to contain a lot of garbage. Name me one that doesn't (other than his of course)

[@CONNELL19511216]

Lots of super-interesting topics touched on, but I'm still convinced that we've barely moved beyond being able to distinguish Wow from Woo-Woo

[@PaulJonesy]

All very interesting but it’s still a mechanistic description for physical correlates of consciousness, it’s like describing a work of art in terms of the attributes of all the atoms in it - it’s not wrong but it tells you nothing about art.

[@Panosky]

nicely put

[@shacharias]

Vitalists get so into talking about "oneness" that they tend to neglect considering *wholeness*

[@marcosfraguela]

True. A mechanistic description is the closest science can ever be thou.

[@bokchoiman]

your wishful thinking is telling you that consciousness is non-physical.

[@djbobek1]

I wonder what you think about how Federico Faggin puts it together. Lots of him on KZbin. One has the title "Groundbreaking Consciousness Theory By Microprocessor Inventor | Federico Faggin & Bernardo Kastrup"

[@emalynicole1006]

I wrote an essay about this in my nature of material reality course while I was doing an honours biology degree. It was in very simplistic language but basically I said consciousness was an emergent property of a network of chemicals in our body and not just a result of the action of neurons. Almost like a molecular network upon which consciousness emerged or attached.. this was in early 2000s.. I got a bad mark but I felt my professor didn’t understand what I was saying but I based it on Hume’s philosophy he had us read.. something about emergent property or causal property or something like that I can’t remember.

[@AThagoras]

What a mind-blowing video! When I saw the title, I thought this guy must have taken too much LSD in the '60s, but after watching it, maybe I could be convinced.

[@REMUSE777]

Convinced to take more of that ninteen-sixties batch? nice, you won't be disappointed

[@sauravistheascended7161]

I mean, your initial assumption is probably still correct tbh lots of smart people won't admit they experimented

[@Idonthaveagoodname421]

I think consciousness is life, just expressed through a hyper focused lens and trying to understand itself through relation of "other" things it can perceive. Life seems to really reflect what's going on inside. It's just another way of understanding itself through multifaceted ways at once, because pure consciousness is capable of everything at once. And everything is duality. Something is nothing and nothing is something. It's a concept, but it's the dark to the light of creation, and just a different form of expression. But then again, I could be crazy. 😅😅

[@erfoognaz135]

read bergson

[@estebanvprado]

What I think a lot materialists are not aware of, is that they are just assuming that consciousness can be derived from matter. "Since the standard model can explain so much, then it surely must explain everything!". But the reality is that it is equally valid to assume that matter is derived from consciousness. And it is important to give a stage to these theories, because physics has been stuck since 1972, since the completion of the standard model, and what will un-stuck us, will probably be a HUGE paradigm shift. I also have to mention that if we don't want to accept the Bell Tests, that prove entanglement, and we want to save physicalism, we need to accept either the many-worlds interpretation or super-determinism, which both throw any sense of plausibility outside the window. These two theories sound way more wacky and "radical" than letting go of the idea that matter is fundamental.

[@bretnetherton9273]

Awareness is known by awareness alone.

[@miken-xm1fh]

copy & paste in your favorite llm for an illustration: Conceptual Visualization of OrchOR Vitruvian Man Symbolism: Use a figure resembling the Vitruvian Man to symbolize the integration of human consciousness with the fundamental fabric of the universe. The figure could be shown with multiple arms and legs to represent different states of consciousness or quantum superposition. Microtubules and Brain Neurons: Overlay intricate, branching patterns resembling neural networks and microtubules (small tubular structures within neurons) around the figure, symbolizing the brain's cellular architecture where quantum processes might take place. Quantum Effects: Illustrate the figure surrounded by a shimmering or glowing quantum field, with wave-like patterns emanating from it. This could represent the quantum effects and superposition states postulated by OrchOR theory. Include entangled particles or connected light dots to symbolize quantum entanglement and non-local connections, which are key elements in the theory. Geometric and Mathematical Patterns: Add fractal or geometric designs around the figure to indicate the complexity and self-organizing nature of quantum processes. These could include spirals, grids, or Mandelbrot-like patterns, highlighting the theoretical underpinnings of quantum physics. Cosmic Background: Place the figure against a cosmic or deep space background to evoke the idea of consciousness being interconnected with the universe at a fundamental level, reinforcing the concept that OrchOR posits consciousness is linked to the basic fabric of reality. Color Scheme: Use a color palette of blues, purples, and bright white lights to represent the ethereal and profound nature of quantum consciousness, with contrasting dark and light elements to illustrate the duality of quantum states (superposition and reduction).

[@gdok6088]

Bingo! Love your updated Vitruvian man.

[@DAA314]

Generous comment 😂

[@turojarvenranta]

Consciousness IS life IS energy.

[@laaaliiiluuu]

The problem with saying that consciousness precedes life is thatwe are conscious beings, meaning, we might just be anthropomorphicing the universe again since all we have is our human perspective and thus have no other reference point to compare it to.

[@OnceAndFutureKing13711]

"...anthropomorphicing the universe again..." Agreed. I wonder what the face on Mars would think. :)

[@Eman_Puedama]

Or we might be prejudiced _against_ the idea because we expect consciousness to look like us.

[@laaaliiiluuu]

@@Eman_Puedama Ultimately, we just don't know for it's impossible to see anything but from your own perspective, and even that is limited since our sense cannot perceive everything and our brain filters out all the information it doesn't believe to be necessary in the moment.

[@JñānaKhaṇḍa]

Better watch Hameroff anywhere else on youtube, where you are not forced to subscribe in order to finish watching.

[@terranowe]

agree. Thumbs down and mute for this channel despite this snippet of good content.

[@TheCatull]

Wow.. hat to reduce the speed to 75%.

[@marshalmcdonald7476]

Funny i had to bounce it up to 1.25x

[@______IV]

How would this hypothesis explain consciousness predating life, bc microtubules only exist in living things…right?

[@darkmatter6714]

@@______IV Consciousness is fundamental and exists beyond the dimension of spacetime. Spacetime and all the matter within it are the manifestation of consciousness. micro tubules are the receivers of consciousness.

[@______IV]

@@darkmatter6714 : The crux of the video was that microtubules are where consciousness comes from in living things. That doesn’t explain how consciousness predates life though since, as far as I know, microtubules only exist in organic life. Thank you for taking the time to explain to me what you believe about consciousness. I’d like my beliefs to align with the true nature of reality, whatever that may be. So if you have compelling evidence for your belief about consciousness, I’d love to hear it.

[@LowValueMan]

@@______IV The crux of the video was about the Penrose-Hameroff model which suggests that quantum superposition and a form of quantum computation occur in microtubules. How this relates to consciousness predating life is that the "wave function of the universe" phenomenon occurs in microtubules “consciousness,” because of this occurrence what they are suggesting is that consciousness is fundamental of the basic rules of reality “quantum mechanics” which if were true would mean consciousness predates life. In quantum cosmology, the "wave function of the universe" represents a mathematical description of the quantum state of the entire universe, essentially acting as a probability amplitude that describes the possible geometries and states the universe could be in.

[@alienteknology5390]

I've always defined life as organic structures that metabolize energy. But Hameroff is right... these definitions only tell us what life does. Not what it actually is. That's a puzzle still waiting to be solved.

[@dickwagenaar3684]

"Is" depends on its level of description, not what it is. The thing in and for itself, as Kant told us, and Sartre too, we will never know.

[@shacharias]

The *is* and *does* are possibly one and the same. Denis Noble, for example, argues that life is not a thing but a process. Beyond that too, social ecologists like Murray Bookchin refer to life as evolution itself, and consciousness does not preexist life per se but is nascent, inherent in the material universe, and so too is it not simply a thing. If we're looking for a *point* of origin, an "is," an absolute, we're only continuing to seek a "God particle." It may be more approximate to suggest what it "is" is also what it can *become.*

[@amiwho3464]

Do we even know what anything "is" (not only life). We describe everything by what "it does", i.e. how it behaves/its characteristics. Can someone please give an example of what something "is"?

[@ronjones1414]

To be honest, "I am that I am" is closer than anyone else has gotten, and that was thousands of years ago.

[@ramspace]

​@@ronjones1414 Nisargadatta has a book called I Am That. Lots of gyaan.

[@ronjones1414]

@ramspace It is now on my list, thanks.

[@marcomaiocchi5808]

"is" is just a word used in human language. Nothing truly is. Or better, everything is and is not at the same time.

[@ashenronin7410]

Just go study philosophy and you will master this.

[@kokolanza7543]

When I clicked on the link to view the whole talk, after the computer dithering for a significant while, I was taken to a discussion among four people on stage about psychedelics. 🙁

[@sauravistheascended7161]

Because Entheogens are relevant to this discussion, you just probably inherited a stigma surrounding the topic

[@erobusblack4856]

Life is defined as anything with autonomous self regulating behavior

[@galaxymetta5974]

Modern research on Near Death Experience by Raymond moody, reincarnation memories by Ian Stevenson/Jim trucker and past lives regression by Brian Weiss all independently but coincidentally show that our consciousness survive death, we live many lives and our thoughts and actions matter in the hereafter. So be kind and helpful to others, be virtuous, meditate and cultivate ourselves to higher spiritual levels. Cheers.

[@theparijat1000]

@@galaxymetta5974 I am also aware, however what they are getting at here is likely how the spirit can react and work with the physical at all. There has to be an interface where the spiritual and the physical overlap and this is probably it.

[@drSamovar]

YES......too many "professionals" confusing it with awareness and/or perception, etc...... the "whole thing" is conscious.....awake it is the abyss, asleep it dreams us......

[@aladdin8623]

You seem to be not well versed in the topic. "Phenomenal Consciousness" is one of the established definitions.

[@lodileipoldt4412]

Consciousness was first, not came first❤ imho❤

[@quantummotion]

A marker of an idea I want to place here....if it turns out that microtubules are responsible for consciousness via a form of quantum computation, then evolution itself could be computed. Why do I say that? Because microtubules also form the cytoskeleton of cells and form the spindle that allows cells to divide. If microtubules are computational structures, and we see single celled organisms with the ability to hunt, learn, seek out mates, then during cell division, mutation may be done on purpose, based on the experience of the cell, and the microtubules induce mutation as a best guess of a change that should occur to meet changing conditions. This best guess approach may explain the "radiations" of different species that occur relatively rapidly after mass extinctions - the spindles are iterating rapidly changes and mutations during cell division in an rapid effort to improve survival.

[@175griffin]

I don't think this necessarily explains the increase in variety after mass extinctions. Harsh environments tend to be more biodiverse. When a mass extinction occurs, a lot of the competition is dead, so there are many niches to fill. The cells don't need to have an intention to mutate, it just happens at random and more variations survive than usual. It's just a natural consequence of the environment.

[@jondo7680]

Listen to Penrose. They don't look for computers. They look for the opposite. Something non computable. They don't believe that consciousness is computable.

[@du9163]

@@175griffin I agree with that more, yes

[@ericcricket4877]

@@quantummotion Denis Noble and the third way of evolution. Read it.

[@ericcricket4877]

​@@175griffinBut you're saying this not because it's science, but because any willful facet of evolution would defy your mechanistic worldview. It's not a good place to start from.

[@kitstamat9356]

He says: "Where you find the quantum is where you find the organic chemistry." (1:53) But you also find the quantum at all previous levels, all the way down to elementary particles. What makes him think that consciousness arises only at the level of organic chemistry?

[@peterweston1356]

I’m not sure, but I think he first of all is talking about aromatic organic chemicals, benzene based, simply put. It’s to do with electron orbital orientation, the pi thing. This pi orbital interaction demonstrate quantum effects at room temperature, I think. I think when making the comment he means you can observe quantum effects in the chemistry lab with very basic tech. You are right quantum effects go all the way down, but then you struggle with noise which may cause the quantum system to decohere and the system only shows classic behavoiur. I studied QM at UNI, i was pretty rubbish so please don’t quote me😂

[@kitstamat9356]

@@peterweston1356 Thanks, I saved your comment to use it in one of my next papers:)

[@peterweston1356]

@@kitstamat9356 😂

[@zingjesus6567]

@@kitstamat9356 mate, human children aren t conscious and are organic chemistry. Consciousness is social, consciousness comes trough language. If you could grow children in the wild without language and human interaction ,they certainly Will not become conscious

[@kitstamat9356]

@@zingjesus6567 Consciousness comes in variuos degrees - all living beings are conscious to some degree, even single-celled creatures like paramecia are aware, othervise they wouldn't be able to know what food is, what danger is, etc. When you were a child you cried when you felt something unpleasent, and you couldn't do it if you were not aware of anything. When you learned language then you could develop much more sophisticated form of consciousness and who knows where it ends...

[@Anatrolly]

this is trippy as heck dawg

[@Paul-v8v4j]

There is nothing but consciousness. All matter, all space, and all dimensions are conscious. Consciousness is what everything is made of. We stop changing when we become one with everything, meaning we are everything that is, when we cannot change anymore and we are at the end of our journey.

[@0rionPollux]

This was quite difficult to grasp, though im getting there. Im most curious as to what happens when we "die". Does our consciousness live on, do we begin a new "life"? Or is it oblivion - nothingness; no sentience, awareness, consciousness? Im still young (26) but im struggling to come to terms that one day everyone i know and myself will be dead, buried in cold damp soil - an eternity of oblvion with no chance ever of living again.

[@GeorgiStojanov]

It's not you, it's him

[@jonnekjonneksson]

This is totally not the right environment for such a presentation, he deserves, at least, an evening at World Science Festival where time and space are more abundant.

[@MrDominex]

Your personality cannot float around in disembodied form like a ghost and retain it's thoughts, memories and self identity. It is the action of your brain cells that gives you the sense of being "you." But this in itself is an idea that exists through consciousness. So your mind creates your brain and your brain creates your mind kust as Yin and Yang arise mutually.

[@OfTheVoid]

Personality is the physical projection of Ego, it isn't the same as consciousness.

[@jerrymuns]

No matter what an individual professes an immediate tidal wave of agreeable and disagreeable comments ensue proving only one thing, that nobody really knows, and in most cases the majority is usually wrong.

[@robslaughter2657]

I bet he and Penrose did shrooms together

[@BC-lf4om]

😅😂😅😅😂🎉

[@sauravistheascended7161]

@@robslaughter2657 100%

[@Adaerus]

If anesthesia interrupts consciousness then consciousness is not pre-life. What is pre-life is this pattern processing environment (URTPPE- universal real-time pattern processing environment) that allows consciousness to happen. Consciousness is a sort of a concentration, or fractally folded-in, URTPPE. Anesthesia unfolds that fractally folded-in URTPPE and interrupts the "flow" of consciousness. These are not to be thought of as material/spatial-time entities. They are what matter and space-time emerge from.

[@BC-lf4om]

If Consciousness has been "interrupted", does that mean Consciousness has 'Ended'? Completely? A Dr. I know told me that people sometmes speak while under Anesthesia.

[@Adaerus]

​@@BC-lf4om What is consciousness? The definition is "the state of being awake and aware of one's surroundings." What professor Stuart Hameroff talks about should be called something else. It only adds confusion to the problem when using the same word for two different (although very related) things. Here is how to point at that difference: If anesthesia interrupts consciousness but if consciousness is pre life, then what is anesthesia interrupting? Does anesthesia interrupt consciousness or not? You can't call a patient under anesthesia as conscious, even if some talk. That means we're using the same word to mean two different things and that drives a lot of confusion.

[@FlavioLanfranconi]

I think that was actually way more consice, coherent, intelligible and less speculative than earlier talks I heard from him. 🙂👍🏼 Very positive signs for the theory (I think it's not a Hypothesis anymore.)🙂

[@OnceAndFutureKing13711]

Many assumptions were made, many non-trivial concepts were dismissed out of hand, and no empirical data was provided... just another spiritualist trying to use science to lend credence to their opinions. He doesn't even identify the type of anesthesia he keeps referencing.

[@GeorgiStojanov]

that'd be a low bar

[@MyScooter57]

Consciousness IS life.

[@aeternaflux]

It never ceases to amuse me to see modernity so consistently produce mediocrity after mediocrity. The responses from the mass in this comment section only make it doubly amusing. You are all so far behind me that I have no doubt that you will comprehend little of what I say here: While taking into account that the multitude of definitions for life are applicable to various forms of non-life, did it ever occur to this man that perhaps the distinction that we make between the two-that is, between life and non-life-is completely illusory, and simply an abstraction of our own making? That perhaps what we call “life” is only just one of the rarest forms of non-life, if not the rarest? Moreover, has this man ever even once considered that his dualistic line of thinking is, itself, an echo of the mythopoeic in the modern era? That he is effectively espousing a ludicrous new age mysticism under the pretense of his doing so being scientific? Consciousness is not some causally primal quality in things, nor is it some spiritual substance pervading things, nor energy, nor “soul,” etc.-What men call “consciousness” is an epiphenomena, an expression of the instincts and their impulses. Men think of themselves as “rational beings”-but they are fundamentally irrational becomings. And all purported “rationality” is merely the fixation and figmention of fluxion.

[@matttirado7661]

Consciousness is simply any kind of information so of course it predates life. The question is are we born with consciousness or do we plug into it?

[@gordonpepper1400]

Can someone help explain for me the difference between life and consciousness? Was this a talk on life forms or a talk on consciousness? Because they are drastically distinct.

[@Makis01980]

@@gordonpepper1400 when you are aware of your body, the environment and time that’s life … When you are aware that you’re are aware … that’s consciousness

[@artstrology]

When you mix what this guy says with Robert Hazen and Denis Noble, and then add our periodic knowledge base which has existed for thousands of years, we can see it, and the next step is more sensitive equipment to detect the unified field. We can see it working , but we can't touch it. That's where we are.

[@Mindsi]

A visionairy abstraction🎉🎉🎉🎉

[@ericcricket4877]

Donald Hoffman.

[@galaxymetta5974]

Modern research on Near Death Experience by Raymond moody, reincarnation memories by Ian Stevenson/Jim trucker and past lives regression by Brian Weiss all independently but coincidentally show that our consciousness survive death, we live many lives and our thoughts and actions matter in the hereafter. So be kind and helpful to others, be virtuous, meditate and cultivate ourselves to higher spiritual levels. Cheers.

[@wout123100]

@@galaxymetta5974 thats plain bs, there is no hereafter really. and this was seen more than 2000 years ago by buddha

[@galaxymetta5974]

@@wout123100 Get educated. Buddhist suttas reveal 31 realms of existence. Scientists also recognise psychic phenomena.

[@Samartitxiki]

Counter argument, consciousness is tiered and based on problem solving ability. This would include everything we consider alive but obviously put us at the top with our ability to solve multiple problems at once, come up with multiple solutions to one problem, and create problems to solve for fun. Super simple definition, does what we want, and explains what we expect. Videos like this just seem like very smart people over thinking.

[@gigabane7357]

Don't rule out the micro biome, it is even in the brain and lungs, more than we knew. It may play a vital role even in the quantum.

[@chiptowers1]

Quote; " consciousness pre-dates life", now that is impossible. For a start, reality couldn't care less what consciousness is nor the state of one's consciousness let alone knowing what consciousness is. Consciousness cannot FORM anything, Consciousness requires a faculty to be a part of, more so that faculty would have to implement consciousness as a tool for that faculty to be aware of it's surrounds, for it's purpose, for survival and evolving ie if required to survive and evolve. Consciousness is simply a send and receive message tool to store and recall. The universe is and always been Random events, and Random means " done without conscious decision". The resonance contributors electrons movement occurs only in our minds, as we try to visualise DELOCALIZED Pi Bonds. Just because something/elements fused for a purpose, does not mean it's a conscious decision. It's only Random. Basically what this Professor is expecting you to believe is that if you mix water, coffee, milk and sugar, that cup of coffee has consciousness.

[@OnceAndFutureKing13711]

I don't feel like I'm conscious until I had a cup of coffee in the morning... sounds like empirical data to me!

[@chiptowers1]

@@OnceAndFutureKing13711 I like it. Well thats a great start and proof that consciousness does not pre date life, otherwise you would have made a conscious decision to have a cup of coffee, but instead it was a random event and random means " done without conscious decision". All great inventions came quite by accident ,therefore EMPIRICAL data is by observation and experience, and experience is wisdom and wisdom is knowledge and knowledge is the awareness or familiarity gained by experience of a fact and a fact is a thing that is known or proved to be true. My imprinted knowledge ( as yours) that derived when the inception of my lineage initially FORMED would not lie to me, how do you think my lineage has come thus far, not by lying to me. You your lineage was initially FORMED ( the source) not BORN ( the biology). That which FORMED within you was not done by a conscious decision because there was no faculty for consciousness to be a faculty of because consciousness is not required in random events.

[@chiptowers1]

@@OnceAndFutureKing13711 yep and that was a random event when you made a cup of coffee and you observed and experienced consciousness that it was you who made that cup of coffee because the little data available for facts and statistics collected, you still deduced a logical conclusion. Whether you know what that data is or not.

[@jamesbra4410]

Nobody understands it yet but they’re really onto something that’s for sure

[@ricardocastillo5485]

Beginning my second watch-thru, hopefully I can progress from 20% comprehension to 40% comprehension, and I have a BS in biology.

[@Valium_x]

I wish he spoke more like Chalmers, cautious rather than definitive as all of this is extremely speculative.

[@OnceAndFutureKing13711]

Agreed.

[@Dude8718]

@@Valium_x most of what he's saying as far as the experimental findings ARE definitive tho. What's not definitive is his conclusions about the findings. But he DOES seem cautious about those.

[@amir3515]

I feel like he's just making these presentations to get by and pay the bills at this point. Mainly i feel this way because i feel like i've seen this presentation many times over the years and it's never changed. I can't recall how many years but i believe the subject matter is decades old at this point with not much updates

[@competentsoldier]

Hindu school of thoughts like advaita vedanta talks in great details about the true nature of consiousness .

[@arkamukhopadhyay9111]

Yeah all that is ancient poetry written by people tripping on some pretty powerful stuff.

[@competentsoldier]

@@arkamukhopadhyay9111 Sure , thats why a shiva statue is present in CERN , Also might be the reason why hinduism existed before abrahamic religions and still is a religion which doesnt need to convert and beg people to join it like its latter parts :) .

[@arkamukhopadhyay9111]

@@competentsoldier cough... Ghar wapsi... cough The oldest form of Hinduism predated the oldest abrahamic religion by two/three centuries. That Hinduism relished beef (among a huge variety of meats) and was predicated upon animal sacrifice. Very different from the bigoted, puritanical ideology you call Hinduism.

[@competentsoldier]

@@arkamukhopadhyay9111 I presented to you facts yet here you are talking about something that doesnt exist . Who said meat is banned in hinduism ? And I did not understand the context of ghar wapasi , are you mocking the people who wwre persecuted by other religions ? I dont think you have the intellectual capability to actually point out anything worthwhile , i simply stated that the influence of hinduism predates islam and christianity both , secondly , hinduism is a religion which also actually dvelded deep in the nature of reality and consiousness , these statements are factually and objectively correct , now , if you cannot counter these two , then whatever else you say would be considered as typical stalling and as gen z would say "toddler behaviour" . do type something that actually makes sense , take your time .

[@arkamukhopadhyay9111]

@@competentsoldier buddy, the moment you default to "Abrahamic religions", which my comment had nothing to do with, you show your sanghi colours. By the way, the oldest Abrahamic religion is Judaism, not Christianity or Islam. It is pretty much as old as the Rgveda. Now, take any 3,000/3,500 year old religion, and it will have some sublime poetry. The Upanishads indeed have some great poetry. But that has squat all to do with the kind of rigorous scientific enquiry this video is about.

[@tajzikria5307]

Consciousness is fundamental. Definitely not an emergent property of the brain.

[@otto.nommiik]

🤛

[@PaulJonesy]

@@tajzikria5307 it’s a neat idea and does away with the “hard problem” in my view.

[@ericcricket4877]

​@@PaulJonesyIt repositions it as a problem of the emergence of the mind out of its own processes. Possibly even harder, but hey, progress.

[@idegteke]

“Emergence” is the PC equivalent of “don’t know - don’t care” about the same way as “holy ghost” or “rainbow energy” in other cults. One would expect more from science than abruptly cutting the neck of curiosity by making up an idea (or, rather, the lack of idea) that basically means STFU.

[@ericcricket4877]

@@idegteke Emergence can be described by a small set of rules in a limited system giving rise to a larger set of rules in an unlimited system. Much like a single ants behavior will not be able to describe the hives behavior, but nevertheless gives rise to the hives behavior when theres a large amount of ants exhibiting that comparatively simple behavior. It's not whatever you just said, and it's a useful concept in pretty much every field of science at least.

[@ReverendDr.Thomas]

FIRST! 🎉 consciousness/Consciousness: “that which knows”, or “the state of being aware”, from the Latin prefix “con” (with), the stem “scire” (to know) and the suffix “osus” (characterized by). To put it succinctly, consciousness is the SUBJECTIVE component in any subject-object relational dynamic. The concept of consciousness is best understood in comparison with the notion of sentience. Cf. “sentience”. As far as biologists can ascertain, the simplest organisms (single-celled microbes) possess an exceedingly-primitive form of sentience, since their life-cycle revolves around adjusting to their environment, metabolizing, and reproducing via binary fission, all of which indicates a sensory perception of their environment (e.g. temperature, acidity, energy sources and the presence of oxygen, nitrogen, minerals, and water). More complex organisms, such as plants, have acquired a far greater degree of sentience, since they can react to the light of the sun, to insects crawling on their leaves (in the case of carnivorous plants), excrete certain chemicals and/or emit ultrasonic waves when being cut. At this point it is imperative to consult the entry “sentience” in the Glossary of this Holy Scripture. According to this premise, the simplest forms of animal life possess sentience, but no noticeable semblance of true consciousness. As a general rule, those animals that have at least three or four senses, combined with a simple brain, possess a mind but lack an intellect. Higher animals (notably mammals) have varying levels of intelligence but only humans have a false-ego (sense of self). Thus, human consciousness is constituted of the three components: the mind, the intellect, and the pseudo-ego (refer to Ch. 05). There is a rather strong correlation between brain complexity and level of consciousness, explaining why humans alone are capable of self-awareness. In this case, “self-awareness” is not to be confused with “self-recognition”, which is a related but quite distinct phenomenon, found also in several species of non-human animals, in which an animal is able to recognize itself in a mirror or some other reflective surface. “Self-awareness” refers to the experience where a human over the age of approximately three years, is conscious of the fact that he or she knows (that is, aware) that he or she is aware. Obviously, in the case of a child, he or she may need to be prompted in order to first be acquainted with this understanding. For example an adult could ask the child: “Do you know that you have a toy car?” “Yes!” “And do you KNOW that you know you have a toy car?” “Umm...I think so...yes!”. In contemporary spiritual circles (as well as in several places within this book), the capitalized form of the word usually, if not always, refers to Universal Consciousness, that is, an Awareness of awareness (otherwise known as The Ground of All Being, et altri).

[@lokayatavishwam9594]

What book is this? And where does valence/values come in all of this? Does the Universal Consciousness have this meta-awareness but lack (or stand above) value-judgements and "feelings" that humans are burdened with?

[@Jan96106]

@@lokayatavishwam9594 The dictionary. At least the first paragraph is.

[@user_user1337]

"The French" have nothing to contribute to this question. Please be quiet!

[@Coordinite]

I think he just said there are molecules in our brains that spin billions of times per second

[@ImmortalismReligionForAI]

Life is an intelligence which can learn new knowledge and then use that knowledge in intelligent willful decision making to achieve a goal that intelligence wants to achieve, and then repeat this process, which as memory is developed it allows the growing of a lasting body of knowledge upon which intelligence decisions are made. Now, this may predate life as we know it, but it is not separate from the matter/energy which makes us up. It is instead an intrinsic property of matter/energy from which neither can be separate from the other, thus even going down to elementary particles there is some tiny spark of conscious intelligent life. Note that consciousness is not equal to the human self-aware conscious mind and consciousness is not equal to the human qualia of self-aware consciousness. He is not talking about consciousness in this video, he is talking about the qualia of human self-aware consciousness.

[@curtisbullock1263]

I’ve been saying this for the last two weeks and this man just shows up on front page Not as complex or indepth The mind of “god” Einstein was looking for started in the beginning of the planet

[@davidwilliampaxton4904]

Life I believe is consciousness expressing itself.

[@ramchandradey4059]

Thanks Good research work

[@ratbullkan]

He really needs to cut back on his Eastern teachings fantasies. He's really onto something here especially with time crystals and harmonic coupling, but I'd wish someone more down-to-earth would attend to the issue who doesn't project his esoteric and medieval woo-woo onto consciousness

[@johnnastrom9400]

You can call it "woo woo" all you like, but it does not disprove his argument. That's a cheap way of dismissing someone's hypothesis.

[@ImHavingaCoronary]

nobody thinks of a neuron as a fundemental unit. Even its structure is broken down in common understanding into dendrites, axon, and soma. That's not even to mention how its function is understood as complex in nature. Neurons in consciousness are treated as a fundemental in the same way as an automobile is treated as fundmental to transportation. The automobile is still understood as a compound and interactive entity. Sorry, this lecturer sounds like someone who's learned to immitate words used by other people.

[@Vanessa-eo3sf]

wow wow wow this is unbelievably fascinating

[@oliverjamito9902]

Keep watch!

[@JTC33]

Nonsensical title. Not going to bother watching.

[@marlaadamson1633]

I would love to share my data with Dr. Hameroff. I attempted contact through the university, and here. The rest is up to our microtubules ❤

[@GeorgiStojanov]

A sincere question: high frequency phenomena exist in ANY substance (organic or not). This hypothesis says that those high frequencies ARE (or enable, support, cause...) consciousness. From this, we get the claims along the line: "we are all one", "everything's connected" etc. Now, how is this explaining anything? What would it mean if we say "these stones are conscious" or "this glass of water is conscious too"? Finally, do you understand consciousness better when you accept this hypothesis?

[@maximiliancampbell2542]

This professor is a quack. He seriously expects us to believe that the great spot of Jupiter is alive, and a paramecium has consciousness. I think this guy's understanding of what consciousness is, is completely devoid of meaning, and he's relying on quantum magic to explain away the holes in his hypothesis.

[@attilaszekeres7435]

Their hypothesis predicts that certain patterns of quantum coherence and oscillations in the ultrastructure of cells are correlated with conscious states, and provides a means for its falsification. The immediate applications will be advancing anesthesia, curing Parkinson's and other neurodegenerative diseases, and developing interfaces for augmenting and connecting individual consciousness. This could then lead to ways to use consciousness itself as a medium for travel and exploration. We could finally reframe the mind-body problem, explain the non-computational aspects of consciousness, and qualia. The philosophical implications and their effect on society will be nothing short of profound and utterly transformative. There is hardly any other field that could have the same level of impact, with the exception of establishing a stable means of communication with the afterlife, a development that is currently unfolding (see SoulPhone project).

[@maximiliancampbell2542]

@@attilaszekeres7435 Sure, we're right on the brink of these advances, in 20 years we'll have all of this, just like we'll have cold fusion, teleportation, and everyone will have their own pony!

[@user-jg3ev4nu3y]

@@maximiliancampbell2542 he didn't say that

[@the-absolute-light]

One can’t help but hear something like “everything’s connected” and then continue to impose dualism… No one ‘has’ consciousness, that’s a misleading way of speaking about it which happens to be commonly used. So, stones or a glass of water don’t ‘have’ consciousness either. Everything is an appearance ‘of’ consciousness. Your body doesn’t ‘have’ consciousness, it is an appearance of it. The brain doesn’t produce the state of being aware, it filters out information so that consciousness can disassociate itself into a localized perspective.

[@chrispmar]

Till a year ago I had believed for decades that "consciousness" is the fundamental substrate of reality. That ended when I came across what opponents call "radical non-duality." Those who share the message, as they say because they have nothing to teach, just call it nonduality, though it is radically different from what most commonly understood to be nonduality. Why this preference and focus on "consciousness," and when did "consciousness" become an actually thing or substance? I thought it just referred to whether some living being was in a partiular mode of being. "Is he showing signs of consciousness?" In the same way of asking, "Is he showing signs of happiness?" No one has ever come up with the theory that "happiness" is an actual substance, much less a substance that everything in the entire universe is made out of. Though I know you don't simply use the word "consciousness" in that manner. We talk about degrees of consciousness. A baby, or maybe it's the serial killer, or average Joe who hasn't attained the level of consciousness of the person who is named an "enlightened" person. Maybe one might argue that when one can say "I am" that when has attained, or opened to a deeper level of consciousness. But I'd say that is where all the trouble begins. When a baby goes from merely having an undifferentiated "experience" to clearly recognizing their self people will generally, if not exclusively say that the baby has become more conscious. It is now self-aware! But I say that is where the whole dream begins, the dream of self. The dream begins where the differentiated, subject/object, dualistic world appears. I don't think that Stuart Hoffman is really arguing for the primacy of consciousness here. What he is really arguing for is the "primacy of concepts." That's all anyone is arguing for when they imply that a word points to something real, when someone thinks that a concept actually exists. What can we say, from the baby's perspective, about what it is experiencing? Nothing. There's nothing conceptual going on in the baby's "experience." You can't even say it is having an experience. "Experience," obviously, is just another concept. For the baby, there is no baby. There's, nothing. No, you can't even say that. Maybe it is a colossal mistake to assume that when the baby comes to identify with the concept of "I am" that it is "more conscious." Maybe the "I am" is the veil that creates a whole hallucinatory, labrynthine world of self and other, time and space, and every other duality to get lost in, and go on this whole imaginary search for Truth, and Love, and Beauty, and one's true meaning and purpose in life. Maybe the experience of consciousness is the splitting of the undivided whole. Subject and object arise together. You never get the one without the other. Even if you say, "Consciousness is aware of itself," you still have a subject and an object, even if they are claimed to be identical, which, in the sense that they are experienced as real, as actually being things that exist, then I think they are. If you believe the "I am" experience is real then you believe that consciousness, and unconsciousness, for that matter are real things. Blah, blah, blah. I lost my train of thought and don't feel like writing anymore. One of my main points: The fundamental nature of reality is non-conceptual. Really, the ONLY nature of reality is non-conceptual. All we have are concepts, strung together to tell stories about something that is not and never will be a concept or a story. They can help us navigate IT, but the concepts and stories are not IT. But what hoodwinks us into thinking that there really is this differentiated, dualistic world that isn't merely undifferentiation APPEARING as differentiation, and not ACTUALLY being it (differentiation) is when the concept of "I am" is felt in the body. And not felt to be "real," but just felt. Then the whole dualistic world appears, and with it comes the sense of self and other, and of a "real" and "solid" world. But it is actually the overlay of concepts upon that which is not conceptually Till a year ago I had believed for decades that "consciousness" is the fundamental substrate of reality. That ended when I came across what opponents call "radical non-duality." Those who share the message, as they say because they have nothing to teach, just call it nonduality, though it is radically different from what most commonly understood to be nonduality. Why this preference and focus on "consciousness," and when did "consciousness" become an actually thing or substance? I thought it just referred to whether some living being was in a partiular mode of being. "Is he showing signs of consciousness?" In the same way of asking, "Is he showing signs of happiness?" No one has ever come up with the theory that "happiness" is an actual substance, much less a substance that everything in the entire universe is made out of. Though I know you don't simply use the word "consciousness" in that manner. We talk about degrees of consciousness. A baby, or maybe it's the serial killer, or average Joe who hasn't attained the level of consciousness of the person who is named an "enlightened" person. Maybe one might argue that when one can say "I am" that when has attained, or opened to a deeper level of consciousness. But I'd say that is where all the trouble begins. When a baby goes from merely having an undifferentiated "experience" to clearly recognizing their self people will generally, if not exclusively say that the baby has become more conscious. It is now self-aware! But I say that is where the whole dream begins, the dream of self. The dream begins where the differentiated, subject/object, dualistic world appears. I don't think that Stuart Hoffman is really arguing for the primacy of consciousness here. What he is really arguing for is the "primacy of concepts." That's all anyone is arguing for when they imply that a word points to something real, when someone thinks that a concept actually exists. What can we say, from the baby's perspective, about what it is experiencing? Nothing. There's nothing conceptual going on in the baby's "experience." You can't even say it is having an experience. "Experience," obviously, is just another concept. For the baby, there is no baby. There's, nothing. No, you can't even say that. Maybe it is a colossal mistake to assume that when the baby comes to identify with the concept of "I am" that it is "more conscious." Maybe the "I am" is the veil that creates a whole hallucinatory, labrynthine world of self and other, time and space, and every other duality to get lost in, and go on this whole imaginary search for Truth, and Love, and Beauty, and one's true meaning and purpose in life. Maybe the experience of consciousness is the splitting of the undivided whole. Subject and object arise together. You never get the one without the other. Even if you say, "Consciousness is aware of itself," you still have a subject and an object, even if they are claimed to be identical, which, in the sense that they are experienced as real, as actually being things that exist, then I think they are. If you believe the "I am" experience is real then you believe that consciousness, and unconsciousness, for that matter are real things. Blah, blah, blah. I lost my train of thought and don't feel like writing anymore. One of my main points: The fundamental nature of reality is non-conceptual. Really, the ONLY nature of reality is non-conceptual. All we have are concepts, strung together to tell stories about something that is not and never will be a concept or a story. They can help us navigate IT, but the concepts and stories are not IT. But what hoodwinks us into thinking that there really is this differentiated, dualistic world that isn't merely undifferentiation APPEARING as differentiation, and not ACTUALLY being it (differentiation) is when the concept of "I am" is felt in the body. And not felt to be "real," but just felt. Then the whole dualistic world appears, and with it comes the sense of self and other, and of a "real" and "solid" world. But it is actually the overlay of concepts upon that which is not conceptually which creates this whole hallucinatory world that we take as being fundamentally real. Then we think that this is all some great mystery that we can figure out. And I do agree that it is all some unfathomable mystery, I don't think that there is a "me" that could ever say anything about this other than, "It's a fucking mystery."

[@maunlio]

That is how i call life, the big mistery, where if from one hand it is normal to have questions and doubts in this duality, on the othere hand i terms of consciousness it is perfectly useless.

[@chrispmar]

@@maunlio I don't understand what you are trying to say.

[@Haveuseenmyjetpack]

Don’t know if I buy it, but I do like pre-digital tech philosophies of life/mind. Like Bergson

[@anxious_robot]

of course it does pansychism is real and everything can observe/collapse the wave function. the double slit proves this.

[@giulianocricenti1145]

legendary video mate

[@georgipetrov8783]

In communications when we transmit and receive signals we do not transmit clock signals, they consume more power. They are recovered in receiver systems using PLL, actually I think memory must be some kind of temporally trained receiver decoder. It seems that consciousness must be packet based, and probably they use some kind of CDMA system to transmit and distinguish signals. Actually when someone is killed the brain reacts before the actual event.

[@v8pilot]

Consciousness is not complicated. Any entity capable of having thoughts about its own thoughts has consciousness.

[@mediocrates3416]

The solution to the Hard Problem is itself *not* the solution to human consciousness generally, nor lucid awareness in particular.

[@frozen1762]

If consciousness pre-dates life than you could speculate it created life as a vessel for itself. And if it's not singular but collective, you come to religion and God. The more scientists go into this rabbit hole you realize that science and religion differ only in semantics and cultural language of its time. And I'm not religious person but "scientific" definition end explanation of "self" makes sense if it's just collective consciousness expressing itself through organisms that we perceive as different life forms. Religions described this as man on a cloud, scientists (for now) have this microtubules thing.

[@ericstarmer7779]

I have a really hard time visualizing Hameroff and Penrose working together......

[@elklaassen]

Very interesting, pity KZbin breaks off after 13 min...

[@amir3515]

He's been making the same presentation for years. You can find it in many different places including you to review just search his name. It might be called different things but it's always the exact same slides and same presentation with no updates for years probably decades

[@zando5108]

Watched in 1.5x speed. Now picking up pieces of brain off the floor...

[@apolloniustyana7372]

And by invoking Roger Penrose, he is also making the logical fallacy of appeal to authority.Roger Penrose is of course, an absolute genius, but he himself is not convinced of the microtubules Hypothesis.

[@SharePrayandSee]

Life came first. If I'm correct, then I will be on the living side of eternity.

[@NikkiTrudelle]

Published 42 mins ago when I started watching. 42, life the universe and everything. Consciousness

[@zenwisdom4259]

If one reads any Buddhist text, it is pretty clear what this panel is finding out, which was written thousands of years ago.

[@ericsnyder4586]

This is pretty incomprehensible He doesn’t answer the questions he posed in the beginning. Maybe it’s just the editing

[@holgerjrgensen2166]

Life and Consciousness is Eternal has Never been separated. Our Over-Consciousness is pictured in the Rainbow, Colors is our Under-Consciousness = Day-Consciousness and Night-Consciousness. Instinct, Gravity, Feeling, Intelligence, Intuition, Memory. Red, Orange, Yellow, Green, Blue, Indigo. In the current Developing-Circuit, We are Gravity-Beings, at night, We move our Day-Consciousness to the Night- Bodies, Deep-Sleep, one by one, via our Coupling-Body, REM. So, this is just the most basic of our Eternal Consciousness, it is a extensive study, to achive the full picture and many Cosmic analysis and details. Intuition* also need much more text to explain, but We can recognize the same Eternal Abilities, in This Device, in a technical composition. Automatic, Power, Sensors, Logic/Order, (*), Harddisc. The Life-Desire is Motor/Force of Life, in direct extension We have Will, Life-side, and Gravity, Stuff-side. The Hunger- and Satisfaction-Principles is the Compass. There is a whole range of Creator-Principles, Contrast-Princip and Perspective-Princip, make Feeling into Sensing, all experiences is Feeling-Experience, first hand. And so on,,,

[@horustwohawks]

assumptions(?) -loosely speaking... animate objects are (mostly) life with consciousness while inanimate objects are separate from and do not possess consciousness (not life). What if all "animate" objects, living things, and the framework within which they exist ...is living, just different dimensions or frequencies of life? We do know that, peering deeply into all matter ...is energy, and that communication occurs within all matter at the energectic levels ...so to speak. So who's to say, for instance, that the earth, other planets, our star, and others, have no life, no consciousness? What if we simply have not yet matured enough in our consciousness and capabilities to detect/sense, and perceive it as such?

[@OnceAndFutureKing13711]

If everything has consciousness then why haven't they tried to communicate with us? More matter means more energy and that means more consciousness..? Maybe they (planets, the great red spot, the brick in my driveway) aren't aware of us or maybe the have "locked in" syndrome (no eyes, no ears, etc...) or maybe they just choose not to exert their will in a physical manifestation...?

[@horustwohawks]

@@OnceAndFutureKing13711 ...how do we "know" that "they" aren't already communicating? Are you aware of the communication between your gut bacteria and your brain? Do we discount potential communication Simply based on "well, wihtin my own modus I do not perceive it? ...Upon what (limited) basis might we be judging? And if only by our own "human modus", ...how do we know that is the only valid modus? I understand the propensity to measure by what we "think we know" based in 'simplistic measure', i.e., what we have defined as a ruler based in what we may have observed and named up to this point, but does that mean that is all there is? Obviously not, since "science" keeps questioning deeper and deeper, and finding unfolding mysteries thus.

[@timothyramponi6921]

Concousness for humans is the brain realising life

[@soothingunboxing7129]

Those tubules are in all cells of the body. Is he implying consciousness is not in the brain?

[@betel1345]

Brilliant

[@apolloniustyana7372]

All the things that he mentions like time.Crystals end Roger penroses microtubule are really non sequitur fallacies.He's doing no more than just using scientific jargon to sound legitimate and only relating to the audience who is unfamiliar with the jargon via comedy and the cognitive bias for agency to people who don't understand the chemistry that explains the appearance of agency then wants you to pay to hear more confirmation bias of agency.

[@alidohorizonte]

Why does Roger Penrose like microtubules so much? Has he read the whole book "The Cell" for instance, or just read the pictures?

[@johnc4957]

Mr Hameroff is finally unleashing, more papers bro, read your others i need more data.

[@N.Shenavar]

What's the book title for this? Is there one? I've read 'The Large, the Small and the Human Mind' by Roger Penrose. Prof Hameroff was very engaging here...although, will be watching the full version through the link. Just like to add one point/thought... It's likely completely unrelated but, to say consciousness precedes life ain't totally new! I can think, just for one example, of Ibn Sina's (latinised as Avicenna) argument for god by contingencies during the medieval era of the Islamic Golden Age, where this (Persian) scientist conjectured God was synonymous to consciousness, or thought. Though Sina's conjectured deity-like consciousness is unlinked to any physical brain. The reasoning is completely different but, Avicenna does elaborately say consciousness precedes everything and, thus, is (as his argument goes) a necessary uncaused, unique and whole, thinking existence that has no contingencies among its attributes. I think though, as a hunch from listening to this brief talk, the tetra hertz oscillations in the tublin proteins is interesting and the triple-triple peaks of the oscillating signature is a good lead to fruitful results, will watch the longer talk now, and see what more there is. Just to say, also, that I was surprised the standard/textbook definition of consciousness emerging from the threshold of billions of synapses as being wrong is hopefully elaborated by the Prof, and how the putative 'radical' approach is better/predictive and thus testable/falsifiable definately got me interested...Just goes to show how little we do know and we have to learn from mistakes and the ultimate underlying truth may forever be out of our reach, that we can only glimpse at a part of the whole story.

[@BjarteRundereim]

I notice that this man does not separate between inanimate particles and molecules outside biology, and living cells having those same particles and molecules as building blocks within a living cell. Dead matter and living cells cannot be judged by the same rule book. Life is essencial, but within living matter. Life and death do not coexist. A living cell does only return to a particle (quantum) state after it is dead.

[@bartoszpeszko7099]

One might consider that the Orch-OR theory has been criticized for its speculative nature and lack of empirical support. Critics argue that biological systems are unlikely to sustain quantum coherence due to thermal noise and decoherence. One might be interested in checking (for balance) the opinions of the following: Max Tegmark, Ph.D. - Professor of Physics, MIT David Chalmers, Ph.D. - Professor of Philosophy, NYU Christof Koch, Ph.D. - Professor of Neuroscience, Allen Institute for Brain Science Bernard Baars, Ph.D. - Professor of Cognitive Neuroscience, The Neuroimaging Center, University of California John Mattick, Ph.D. - Professor of Molecular Biology, University of New South Wales

[@Arunava_Gupta]

So the cardiac muscle cells explain the contraction of the heart and the nephrons explain filtration in the kidneys but the neurons, the cells of the brain *by themselves* can't explain consciousness! We have to dive into the quantum level! And what's the exact mechanism for the generation of a conscious self? There's none!

[@Kronzik]

Props for getting this much of the theory across in such an unfairly short amount of time - would have loved to dive deeper in to the Super Radiance and quantum optics meat of it.

[@briancorbett8553]

And exactly how does anesthesia work by blocking these “oscillations”? What experiments have been done to inhibit the oscillations and show that anesthesia is not effective?

[@handyhacker11]

Megaherz, Gigaherz, Terraherz... so THAT'S where the high pitch ringing in my ears/head comes from! 😂

[@shuddupeyaface]

Ever had the feeling that pavlov was far less conscious than His dogs?

[@thesunman]

I don't understand anything he said but I think he's advocating some form of panpsychism

[@drkdrk7]

"consciousness" is a word that we ourselves came up with. First we need to define ourselves, what this word means, what parameters it contains, and then look for the reason for its emergence.

[@Haveuseenmyjetpack]

Consciousness is the immediate awareness of one's own mental states and experiences, characterized by a first-person perspective. It involves the ability to reflect on these states, leading to self-consciousness, which is a deeper level of awareness where one recognizes oneself as the subject of these experiences. Consciousness also includes the capacity to differentiate between oneself and the external world, allowing for an understanding of one's existence as distinct from the environment.

[@fractalflight5752]

there is no special consciousness molecule that is a complete bridge between subjective and empirical reality. 'Being' is the most fundamental concept there is. it came first and is solid to itself. what is conciousness? to think? thinking is just this stupid thing WE do. and we think our way into sillyness like how can capture awareness in a bottle

[@apolloniustyana7372]

I'm sure if you needed more time and had a decent point to make, it would be a much longer video.I don't think he was given only thirteen minutes is quite given as much time It requires and deserves.