Sir Roger Penrose & Stuart Hameroff: What is Consciousness? Part 1 (247)

A conversation with Nobel Prize Winner and renowned mathematical physicist Sir Roger Penrose and anesthesiologist Dr. Stuart Hameroff about consciousness and quantum mechanics.
00:00 Intro
01:00 Happy Birthday to Sir Roger!
05:00 Updates to The Emperor's New Mind
07:00 What about Schrödinger’s Cat?
09:00 criticism
29:00 Part 1 ends --Watch Part 2: • Sir Roger Penrose & St...
The critical new experiment phys.org/news/2022-06-collaps...
Sir Roger Penrose and Dr. Stuart Hameroff have tackled one of the most vexing problems in science -- how does consciousness work? Their theories of consciousness were selected by the Templeton Foundation for study. We will discuss Is the brain a sophisticated computer or an intuitive thinking device? Following on from their conference in Tucson which pitted Integrated Information Theory (IIT) against Orchestrated Objective Reduction (Orch-OR), Sir Roger Penrose OM and Stuart Hameroff discuss the current state of theories that might explain human consciousness and objections to them from FQXI and others.
Sir Roger Penrose describe examples of ‘non-computability’ in human consciousness, thoughts and actions such as the way we evaluate particular chess positions which cast doubt on ‘Turing’ computation as a complete explanation of brain function. As a source of non-computability, Roger discuss his ‘objective reduction’ (‘OR’) self-collapse of the quantum wavefunction which is a potential resolution for the ‘measurement problem’ in quantum mechanics, and a mechanism for non-computable physics.
Dr. Stuart Hameroff reviews neuronal and biophysical aspects of Orch OR, in which ‘orchestrated’ quantum vibrations occur among entangled brain microtubules and evolve toward Orch OR threshold and consciousness. The nature, feasibility, decoherence times and evidence for quantum vibrations in microtubules, their role and correlation with consciousness, effects upon them of anesthetic gases and psychedelic drug molecules will be discussed, along with Orch OR criticisms and predictions of microtubule quantum vibrations as therapeutic targets for mental and cognitive disorders.
Biography: Sir Roger Penrose OM FRS, Emeritus Professor at the Mathematical Institute of the University of Oxford, Emeritus Fellow at Wadham College, and winner of the Wolf Prize in Physics, has made profound contributions across a broad range of scientific disciplines. His work encompasses geometry, black hole singularities, the unification of quantum mechanics and gravity, the structure of space-time, and the origin of our Universe. His geometric creations inspired the works of Escher, and the Penrose steps have been featured in several movies. His tilings adorn many public buildings, including the Oxford Mathematics Institute, and will soon decorate the San Francisco Transbay Terminal. The five-fold symmetry, initially thought impossible or a mathematical curiosity, has now been found in nature. In 1989 Penrose wrote The Emperor’s New Mind which challenged the premise that consciousness is computation and proposes we need new physics to understand it.
Biography: Stuart Hameroff MD is an anesthesiologist at the University of Arizona in Tucson. In the mid 1990s Hameroff teamed with famed British physicist Sir Roger Penrose to develop a quantum theory of consciousness (‘orchestrated objective reduction’, ‘Orch OR’) based on microtubule quantum computing. Highly controversial and harshly criticized, Orch OR is now supported by evidence, e.g. that anesthetics act in quantum channels in microtubules, and that microtubules have multi-scalar resonances, e.g. in megahertz. He and anesthesiology colleagues performed and published the first clinical trial of transcranial ultrasound (‘TUS’) on mental states in human volunteers, showing mood enhancement from brief, low intensity TUS. He’s appeared in the film ‘WhattheBleep?’ and numerous TV shows on BBC, PBS, Discovery, OWN and History Channel.
Sir Roger Penrose: • Nobel Prize in Physics...
Sabine Hossenfelder: • Sabine Hossenfelder: T...
Be my friend:
🏄‍♂️ Twitter: / drbriankeating
🔔 Subscribe kzbin.info...
📝 Join my mailing list briankeating.com/mailing_list.php
🎙️ Listen on audio-only platforms: briankeating.com/podcast.php
Support the podcast: / drbriankeating
~-~~-~~~-~~-~
Please watch: ""I understand Quantum Mechanics after this discovery!" Stephen Wolfram"
• Stephen Wolfram | My D...
~-~~-~~~-~~-~

[@DrBrianKeating]

Watch Part 1: Sir Roger Penrose & Stuart Hameroff: What is Consciousness? kzbin.info/www/bejne/epK7nKyuib91a5o and *Please join my mailing list; click here 👉 **briankeating.com/list*

[@smlanka4u]

Consciousness is a process in a moment that continues from moment to moment. A moment of observation in the mind/Citta has a minimum of 7 qualities/activities called 'fair for all the minds' (Sabba Citta Sadharana), the mental activities/factors (Cetasika). It is a big process that happens during a single observation of the mind. Those 7 simultaneous activities are as follows: 1.) Touch, Collision (Passa) 2.) Feeling, Intensity (Vedana) 3.) Signal, Reminder (Sangna) 4.) Intention, Action (Chethana) 5.) One-pointedness, Concentration (Ekaggatha) 6.) Vitality, Life Faculty/Density (Jivitindriya) 7.) Mental Advertence, Remembering (Manasikara) There are 52 mental factors/activities that join with the mind/Citta in many different combinations while making a mind/Citta moment. Likely, the mind/Citta doesn't require an external soul to remind the previous activity of the consciousness/Citta. As mentioned in Buddhist texts, a moment of consciousness/Citta is filled with a lot of simultaneous functions that can behave like a stream of souls (living moments). The mind/Citta is NOT the only absolute reality mentioned in those earliest texts. The smallest material/Rupa unit lives for 51 smallest moments repeatedly. Also, the mind/Citta usually continues a series of mind/Citta activities (Citta Vithi) like a thought process within 51 smallest moments. So likely, the mind moment depends on the life time of the material units. It is the theory of the mind explained in Theravada Buddhist teachings. Thank you.

[@kiran0511]

@@smlanka4u weak compared to Advaita.

[@smlanka4u]

@@kiran0511, Can you please elaborate?

[@smlanka4u]

@@kiran0511, It is a simplified explanation. According to the Buddha's teachings, the mind continues as 3 universal moments that arise, exist, and dissolve. And a stream of the mind (Pali: Chitta Vithi) has a maximum of 17 mind moments because likely it is going through a matter unit (in Planck scale) that live only for 17 mind moments. And during that process, the mind continues as many rebirths every 3 moments. And also, the stream of thought stops within 17 mind moments conditionally, like another death. The normal death is a conditional death, and it can continue to the next 17 mind moments of the conditioned life until the mind moment stop continuing as a result of that 17 conditioned mind moments. It is a very fundamental/deep process in the universe. Also, the many world interpretation that is being used to explain the collapse of the wave function is compatible with the 31 or 30 planes of existence (30 worlds if we don't separate the animal and human world) mentioned in the texts because the moment of observation in the mind is limited to only one universal moment within the series of mind moments that usually continue for 51 universal moments. Likely, there are 50 universal moments that we don't use to observe the outside world. If the world we observe is separated from the other worlds because of the wave function, then the other worlds/matter and beings would appear within those moments without allowing us and our detectors to observe them.

[@sethbase6960]

Congratulations Dr. Keating for managing to get these two brilliant men together on a podcast!

[@DrBrianKeating]

Thanks Seth. Watch and share for Bostrom and Hossenfelder

[@sethbase6960]

@@DrBrianKeating - Will do!

[@Screamo_RC]

if we can just figure out immortality we can figure out everything else after. mr. penrose is 91 and there's so much he can still contribute.

[@DrBrianKeating]

Thanks

[@Maryland_Kulak]

I am always more impressed by people who live to a ripe old age. For example, I scoff at the “wisdom” of Bruce Lee, a guy who barely made it to 30.

[@GlassDeviant]

If we figure out immortality, the human race is doomed.

[@Amethyst_Friend]

@@Maryland_Kulak So you hold it against people who die young that they do so? That's an enormous, parochial generalisation I would suggest. I guess Mozart would have produced something of value if only he'd lived linger...

[@GlassDeviant]

@@Maryland_Kulak A lot of people who live to a ripe old age did nothing of note with their lives and gained little if any wisdom in that time. Bruce Lee packed a lot of living into his life.

[@JimNicholls]

Fascinating, and seeing how brilliant Sir Roger still is at (almost) 91 makes me feel that I (quickly approaching 82) may have a few years left before I go totally gaga.

[@DrBrianKeating]

Hopefully till 120

[@JimNicholls]

@@DrBrianKeating Thank you, but I think that would be rather too much for me and those around me!

[@fabslyrics]

Max Planck once said "I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness."

[@SpacePonder]

If matter is derivative from consiousness then that would mean that we when look at mircotubles, we'd be looking at consiousness, and not the objective reality, a kind of veil. An indirect realist way. I'm not saying that the microtubles are consious, but instead like how we percieve the colour red, which doesn't exist outside of minds.

[@efhusoe]

This makes way more sense than the many worlds interpretation for me. I could never buy the many worlds interpretation.

[@Andrew-pk9vz]

Decades following their theory, so happy to see this, thank you Mr. Keating.

[@DrBrianKeating]

My pleasure please share this conversation with your friends

[@Andrew-pk9vz]

@@DrBrianKeating For certain!

[@marlou169]

Always a pleasure to hear and see Sir Penrose... I love his tilings it’s art, it’s math and the perfect example of infinity♾

[@DrBrianKeating]

Thanks

[@gregoryhead382]

A number of atomic units times (Pa s^3) = speed of light. Happy Birthday Sir.

[@robertwynkoop7112]

How ironic, entertaining and interesting that the connections and communication collapsed during the discussion of collapse of the quantum wave function….. This is such a great cast and topic! Thanks Dr Keating! I will keep watching, thinking, learning and evolving…

[@DrBrianKeating]

Thanks

[@LS-qu7yc]

Bravo 👏 so happy to see them on your podcast!!! Can’t wait to hear more about orch-or progress

[@nativealien1859]

Keep up the good work Dr. Keating! 💪🏽

[@DrBrianKeating]

Thanks native 👽

[@sallya2202]

Thank you for all that you do

[@DrBrianKeating]

My pleasure please share this channel with all your friends kzbin.info

[@numoru]

So dope been looking for an update on orch

[@digitalgifted9563]

Thanks Dr B!

[@mihailopra2313]

Mulțumim!

[@onionknight2239]

Wow. Cool Doctor Keating.👍

[@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885]

Brian - microtubules are in plants also and there was a study of anesthesia on plants with the results demonstrating it's active through the microtubules also. Ranesh is the name of the plant scientist - he has a youtube channel - with Brigid - they interviewed Stuart Hameroff recently also.

[@robbie_]

Oh fantastic! I read The Emperor's New Mind and Shadows of the Mind in the 90's when I studied AI at Oxford.

[@DrBrianKeating]

Wonderful

[@squamish4244]

Roger was WAY ahead of the rest of the field with those books. I mean, those books started this whole field 30 years ago. And Roger made them accessible but he didn't dumb them down.

[@vitr1916]

“The bigger superposition as its life time is shorter”. This quote seems right to everything, even your right consciousness in right conditions. You may say 1 apple + 1 apple = 2 apple instantly. You can’t say this apple is bigger than other apple if they are almost the same in this case.

[@jancarsonweatherby1579]

25:14 “wave collapse theory” perhaps a metaphor will do: think of microtubules as DIGITAL SAMPLERS… the “measurement” is little more than taking a snapshot of a thing at a specific moment. Or taking a slice of some bit of audio … So, what you have in these microtubule rich hydrophobic cells of the brain is 10 to the 16th wave collapse processors (digital samplers) processing information and sending up to the neuron level. NOW we can start talking about SAMPLE RATES, or the fidelity of various conscious states… waking up vs peak performance, etc… or the processing speed of a human vs a fly… I feel this dovetails very well with information theory… and does not rule out pan psychism. I say this: via microtubules, we are HARD WIRED into an information-rich universe. This Orch-OR mechanism easily explains extra-sensory experience… it explains remote viewing and precognition (Radin), and every other para-psychological phenomenon.

[@tonik1222]

Regarding consciousness and brain parts, sure cerebellum gives us complex thoughs and skills, but the consciousness itself is established to come from the reticular formation. One of the main challenges in isolating its location in the brain is actually isolating or clearing of the definition of consciousness itself. So roughly speaking if you strip it from all the fancy perks that cerebellum provides (and observe people with missing or damaged cerebellum/there are even cases of people with no cerebellum at all!/), you can still find some of the main chracteristics of consciousness coming from the reticular formation. While it's difficult to establish were exactly a brain perk comes from, it's not so difficult to test when it's lost. And many such tests (and some incidents) have shown that the consciousness is easily lost or disturbed when damaging or affecting the reticular formation. On the other hand cerebellum can perform even relativelly complex task without involving consciousness, usually when an activity has been well automated, and it's performed as we say by habbit, our conscious thoughts can be busy with entirely different subject, even to the point we don't remember we did that automated thing (but often it's clear we've done it, not someone else).

[@PhilPhysics]

Hydrophobic and hydrophilic interactions clearly play a big role in organic processes, re: 18:15, for about 3 minutes.

[@thetruthoutside8423]

He shall not die, Sir Roger. I feel that he is in many ways has a similarities with the great great great Charlie Spencer chaplain, chaplain had the insight into our reality from a social prospective and Roger also has an insight to what we call our reality although both has different way of approaching it but still an insight.

[@chrisconnor8086]

Unbelievably under-viewed… dr Keating, please keep highlighting this inquiry, your instincts, and time, are on your side

[@DrBrianKeating]

Chris Thanks so much! *What was your favorite takeaway from this conversation?* _Please join my mailing list to get _*_FREE_*_ notes & resources from this show! Click_ 👉 briankeating.com/mailing_list.php if you haven’t already

[@nigelcunningham7673]

Does the quantum effect of a particle being in two or more places enable randomness and variability. In other words, without the quantum effect, would everything be preordained?

[@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885]

Brian on "theories without the collapse of the wave function" you need to watch the Fetzer Institute lectures. Quantum physics Professor Basil J. Hiley follows up Roger Penrose's lecture. Hiley is emphasizing the same noncommutativity foundation of reality that Penrose is also emphasizing. Hiley then tells Penrose that there is no need for a collapse of the wavefunction or even using the wavefunction since the noncommutativity resonates to the macroscale. This was also the argument of Eddie Oshins, the quantum physicist who coined "quantum psychology" when he worked with math professor Louis Kauffman at Stanford Linear Accelerator Center or SLAC

[@jamesbarlow6423]

That's not the notorious Jim Fetzer of Minnesota is it?

[@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885]

@@jamesbarlow6423 What is "That's" referring to? Are you saying you think I am James Fetzer? Oh you the "Fetzer Institute" - no not at all. Don't get me going on James Fetzer. I went to Twin Cities campus and Fetzer organized a JFK assassination conference - he coorganized it with my graduate advisor of Liberal Studies - Art Hartkin - who had bragged his personal mentor was Werner von Braun (who has been implicated in the assassination conspiracy). I told this to Peter Dale Scott who told me he and other scholars had to disown Fetzer when they attended that conference only to realize it was fake. haha. I told Peter Dale Scott how Art Harkin had threatened me - he emailed me stating only this, "I will personally make sure you are never published in the MN Daily again." After I had exposed on Werner von Braun had personally supervised mass slave labor and maybe Art Harkin shouldn't be bragging he was Hartkin's mentor.... Oh finally I was looking for this book by that New Age guru - what was his name again? Anyway it was published by the SAME publisher that Fetzer had all his academic books published by. Turns out their office was now right next to University of Minnesota - on University Avenue. Paragon Press. I went in there to discover the Moonie "network of Professors" also shared the same office and that Paragon Press is a Moonie Front. Then Fetzer told me in email he didn't realize - or he responded elsewhere - he had not realized his academic publisher had been a Moonie Front. Pretty hilarious considering Fetzer considers himself a conspiracy researcher.... Let me get you that Fetzer Institute video link title: Yeah it's UNLISTED on youtube - so you gotta go to their website for the youtube link. search this: Mind and Matter: the Kankas symposium 17-18 September 2021 And it's John E. Fetzer to answer your question. haha. fetzer-franklin-fund is a sponsor of that conference. Presented by Emmy Network Foundation, University of Helsinki and University of Turku

[@jamesbarlow6423]

@@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885 . Wow. I never would have suspected my simple inquiry would have garnished such an amazing tale! I didn't even know Paragon Press was a Moonie front! Thanks.

[@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885]

@@jamesbarlow6423 here's Prof Hiley to me: Dear Drew, It is difficult to comment authoritatively on Ruth’s paper as I have not had time to read it carefully. My own venture into weak values was that they provided a means of measuring transition probability amplitudes. That means they are providing a way of further exploring the quantum formalism but adding nothing fundamentally new. In this regards I agree with Ruth and the two referees. I do not know what Alain Connes was specifically talking about. However non-commutativity is deeply ingrained in quantum phenomena and is not, in my opinion, “only mathematics”. The early pioneers of QM, such as Heisenberg, Born, Jordan, Dirac and others showed this feature of non-commutativity in great detail. It was Schrödinger’s work that led to the development of a tremendously successful algorithm based on the notion of a wave function which was formalised into the bras and kets that we have got very very used to manipulating. However by identifying the wave function with the 'state of a system’ we have been left with the unsolved ‘problem', the collapse of the wave function. After one hundred years of effort we have been unable to 'solve this problem’. In the last few years I have come to the conclusion that this is unsolvable simply because it is the wrong question as it is based on treating an algorithm rather than a description of an unfolding process. That the quantum formalism was an algorithm was Bohr’s position all those years ago, but he argued that we could not go deeper by attempting to analysing the process because of the 'Principle of Complementary’. This philosophical principle seemed to have universal appeal outside of physics but now, he argued, with the advent of quantum phenomena, this principle also had a role to play in physics, so to Bohr, the principle became a universal principle that applied to all knowledge. The availability of the ‘algorithm’ which was easy to manipulate and lead to experimental verification should be contrasted with the difficulty in understanding non-commutativity, both mathematically and conceptuality. Furthermore it was very difficult to apply it physical problems. Thus the algorithm becomes the ‘only game in Town’ as we learn how to deal with its uncomfortable features. Then there follows an attempt to make the formalism in to an ontology and the result is a plague of interpretations. I have recently published two papers which address directly the challenge of providing a description of this ‘quantum unfolding’ as Dirac puts it. It is a very different approach which is based on an exploration of non-commutative geometry, in the same spirit of Alain Connes but using more physical intuition. It is a long story but I have a lecture on line at "emmy network" which may help. My lecture is Lecture 2 immediately after Roger Penrose’s lecture in the series ‘Mind and Matter’. My lecture was about 'Matter’ not ‘Mind'! Enjoy, Basil.

[@jamesbarlow6423]

@@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885 Thanks for this! How would you explain/describe "noncommutativity"?

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

Do microtubules bring about quantum waves / fields, or are able to access quantum waves / fields already there?

[@davidwilkie9551]

Intensely interesting.

[@DrBrianKeating]

Thanks

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

Maybe quantum wave function chug along in one direction, while measurement into classic space-time in other direction?

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

Could microtubules measure quantum wave function gravity into space-time gravity? Maybe quantum gravity as wave function reversed into classic gravity when measured by microtubule?

[@skyhavender]

Just one question before i watch this. Is this a "what is consiousnes" question that leads to penrose saying "its all in the brain" or is it more?

[@tixch2000]

I have read quite a few articles from Roger and Stuart about this topic and I have great respect for them and their courage to tackle this phenomenon of consciousness. I still cannot answer the question how these theories explains conscious states! How a microtubule can make us feel, and so on.. Even less awareness. And yes, the collapse is weird and does not fit in a coherent theory. Quantum Mechanics is definitely not a finished work and may be we should change the word Mechanic by something else.. I am however very interested by the role of spacetime or space-time. Can you make a special video about his with Roger? Thank you

[@tixch2000]

@@itheuserfirst3186 I respect your view. However, I have never seen a proof that a molecule (or a net of these objects) can think, have intuition, love or else.. No doubts that biological processes and mind are intimately related but at different levels. Mind or consciousness is not a mystery, this is in fact our first and foremost everyday experience from day time to sleep. What I however see as common to mind and biological processes and tissues is time and space (as clearly explained by Roger Penrose). Spacetime is the foundational of all that exists. So may be mind can have also its place there? Just an hypothesis..

[@tixch2000]

@@itheuserfirst3186 Ok now explain me what is the threshold of the number of molecules (or connections) that, once achieved/passed) gives rise to consciousness? so say for example 3 molecules does not give consciousness, and suddenly when you add one more you get conscious? like an ON/OFF? Would it be more sensible to say there is a continuity process, so that going forward in complexity (as they say) you get more and more complex processes ending with thoughts, and so on. But, before the 3 molecules should also be a degree of consciousness isn't it? in that way, going backward, we end up is the so-called quantum fields and further down space and time (which supposedly manifest) from some funny set of equations.. well this is another topic. Do you get my point? Additionally, all objects/fields are quantum (whatever that means) at the core, so adding or removing a molecule to an already existing entangled net does not change anything right (the so called single wave function of Sean Carroll for example). So we might agree or disagree on these viewpoints, but I hardly believe that at the core consciousness emerge from some biological net.. and then why not including inert materials then? what makes these biological molecules so special at the end? as I said all is quantum fields at the core.. so the next question is what is life ;) ?

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

What is happening in microtubules that selects between superpositions? Do microtubules make possible gravity effect on quantum wave function?

[@Matt-og5kd]

"selecting between superpositions" is called wavefunction collapse, and Penrose posits that there is a random "noncomputational" element that is responsible for choosing the superposition. Since his interpretation of Godels incompleteness theorem is that human minds are capable of knowing the answer to a GOdel unprovable statement, thus humans are running some kind of non-computational algo, it means that consciousness (which he defines as understanding) is a result of something beyond computation. Now since he believes an aspect of wavefuction collapse is noncomputational he looks to wavefunction collapes (objective collapse theory) as a mechanism for consciousness, ergo quantum computation leaves room for noncomputation which leads to consciousness

[@FRandAI]

I highly recommend you bring Penrose and Joscha Bach on together to discuss undecidability. That’s at the root of this whole extra-computational brain idea to begin with. Joscha takes the exact opposite view of Penrose, and I think it would be an interesting discussion.

[@DrBrianKeating]

Good suggestion

[@davidgladstone6588]

How about post quantum mechanics?

[@cultureshock5000]

is therer away to write dr penrose i would like write him and thank him for keeping me interested in physics the last 20 years... i was sold on string theory till i read one of his books and listend to his lectures

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

Might smaller scale quantum waves / fields stay colder even in warmer larger scale biological brain?

[@PhilPhysics]

Are you familiar with either John Torday or William B. Miller? František Baluška? Paavo Pylkannen?

[@BreauxSegreto]

Cheers ✌️

[@DrBrianKeating]

You too

[@helpmechangetheworld]

Aww i feel bad for how the stream ended! Sorry Brian!

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

Why do quantum effects happen in microtubules?

[@SpacePonder]

If matter derives from consciousness, it suggests that when we observe microtubules, we're actually perceiving consciousness rather than objective reality-a sort of veil, like an indirect realist perspective. I'm not implying that microtubules possess consciousness; rather, it's analogous to how we perceive the colour red, which exists solely within the mind. Well, depending if you view reality as indirectly or directly.

[@komolkovathana8568]

Let's say, Quantum (here and there), is the same as plain (and bonded) Electrons.. electromagnetic realm. Let 's say all performing self-awareness and intellect.. involved only process of PURE electron and how they were EXCHANGED.!! in both Material view and the Energetic view.

[@Sharperthanu1]

Then why does "One thing or the other " only happens when a consciousness LOOKS at it or is at least aware of it ( it is detected)?

[@Sharperthanu1]

The conscious observer in the Schroedinger's cat box situation is the CAT.The cat looks out and collapses its' own wave function.Cats are conscious observers.If you've ever dealt with cats you know what I mean.

[@tortysoft]

Has anyone seen Part two yet? If so, Where is it ?

[@randomAsh108]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/haCnmmtra9x_hq8

[@amitchowdhary5485]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/haCnmmtra9x_hq8

[@DrBrianKeating]

It’s up

[@nathanielwilding3779]

I truly do not get how the brain stores, uses and retrieves data in the brain. How bizarre is consciousness

[@nigelcunningham7673]

Without the quantum effect everything which occurred on earth between say new year 2000 and now will occur exactly as it has done whether we observe all events from the perspective of now or looking forward from new year 2000. It is all preordained. The quantum effect introduces randomness and variability both forward in time and backwards in time. A multi universe is the logical extension of that quantum effect. Only those universes which are observed do materialise. Would that be a valid option interpretation or understanding?

[@andyoates8392]

Just 💚♾️

[@DrBrianKeating]

Thanks

[@andyoates8392]

@@DrBrianKeating wish I’d caught the live premiere to this. Can’t always be in two places at the same time. Unfortunately.

[@DrBrianKeating]

Thought you were Schr-oates-indinger

[@andyoates8392]

@@DrBrianKeating I had to go out for a while… it took some time 🤓

[@sipplix]

Maybe that’s how the photosynthesis process somehow keeps photon coherence through the chlorophyll maze to gain 100% efficiency in energy capture?

[@DrBrianKeating]

thanks!

[@davidlakhter]

this is going to be alegendary conversation!

[@DrBrianKeating]

Thanks

[@velvetjones8634]

“Unless the measuring rod is independent of the things measured, we can do no measuring.” C.S Lewis.

[@wulphstein]

Isn't is perfectly apparent that consciousness is something that is experienced by a consciousness field. That field can subdivide into individual animals in the same way that a wave function can occupy an infinite potential well. The only difference between infinite potential wells and animals is that infinite potential wells don't use molecules to direct experiences to the consciousness field.

[@hildejutta1625]

Think about the morphogenetic fields by Rupert Sheldrake!

[@mcasanovaiii]

smile peoples

[@Cyanide999]

The echo in the sounds is really bad my friend :(

[@KaliFissure]

To imagine that only humans are conscious is such ludicrous hubris. All living things are conscious in their way. Everything with a dual membrane which mediates interactions across that membrane might be conscious. The larger the network the more room for noise to be introduced. The more internal feedback loops the more room for echoes of fragments of previous inputs. The more "imagination". What people seem to ignore is noise. We aim for perfect resolution in our computers. Cut off a base pin here and there on a transistor and suddenly we require error correction on a major scale. Our brain is analogue in that there are not only the charted itemized interactions but all kinds of variables like the quality of the myelin at any given point modifies the signal transmission. The temperature at any point modifies the chemical interaction. Also this brain/body separation which is not the case. Our entire body is a system. Local anesthetic works on local conditions and hardly modifies the brain yet can stop pain. So can acupuncture. You get a headache when you eat poison even if that poison isn't directly affecting your brain chemistry. Nausea is a whole body experience. Our entire body is a single wave function, to isolate the brain is like isolating the proton when every proton is or was part of a holistic thing, a hydrogen atom. Which itself was previously a neutron. Neutrons decay into hydrogen. Gravity eventually shoves the electron back in at neutron star/event horizon. I'm glad that Sir Roger reminded everyone that Schrodinger himself thought that this superposition/statistical view was nonsense. The cat is in a state. Or knowledge about that state does not determine the state it only determines our knowledge about that state.

[@joukosalminen1549]

Memory is written at MT dimers hinge by walking dyneins. It looks : ,,,,;,;,,;;,,;;,,;,,;,;;;,;;! Dynein takes 100 step/second so there is 0,3 sec in example. When ewer same wave equation happens it makes Bose Einstein condensation and that is consciousness.

[@komolkovathana8568]

21:40 Ahh.. study Consciousness by create Reversed Consciousness,... Anesthetic.!! Great idea... But i m afraid by studying the turning-off, turning-on process, are we STILL not gonna understand the functioning of the complex CPUs anyway..!!

[@helpmechangetheworld]

Hahaha that twist at the end.

[@HeronMarkBlade]

Where did they go!! Haha

[@Yohansanto81]

114th comment, nice video❤️

[@DrBrianKeating]

Thanks so much! *What was your favorite takeaway from this conversation?* _Please join my mailing list to get _*_FREE_*_ notes & resources from this show! Click_ 👉 briankeating.com/mailing_list.php

[@RWin-fp5jn]

So this is basically the best podcast on the subject thus far ever. There is however the issue where Roger struggles how to merge QP with GR. It is solvable using a new perspective; Let's for a moment treat the QP world as being completely even-handed and symmetric to our macro world of spacetime offering the perspective of mutually compensation. How would we do that? The QP world would be exactly like our world, but wit a switch in measures; The measure of Mass has the function of Clock (Roger already mentioned that himself) and the measure of Energy has the function of 3D grid. In addition; 'they' will look at our ST dominated grid continuum as 'quantized space and time' as a particle property. This setup would count as completely symmetric, AND thus offering us the chance to have each change in any measure being compensated over both setups, via this inverse relation. So how can we test if this is correct? The typical QP process at the smallest possible scale is fusion or splitting (fission) of 2 atomic nuclei. So then; how would the motion formula look like? Well in spacetime we have space(diistance) = time* speed. If we replace space with energy and time with mass and we get: E=M*speed. Speed we have to define as [J/kg=Nm/kg=m2/s2=(gamma)C2]. So we get E=MC2 as the emergent speed formula. We know this formula occurs during nuclear processes. So Einstein put us on the wrong foot claiming E=MC2 was an 'equivalence' relation. its not. It's THE movement formula for the QP world! So in general, whenever we have a speed of (gamma)C in spacetime, it would need to be compensated by C^2 in QP. That cannot be. Unless....we usher in a mathematical trick of inserting i^2=-1 on the QP side. Thats the invention of complex numbers! So we have a dual setup leadsing to QP being the imaginary speed effect of any real speed in spacetime. Notice also that -m2/s2 resembles the virtual effect we call gravity since it represents a virtual contracting grid surface! So then since we are talking speeds, we must go back to Einstein's SR. Here we now realize that speed contracts frontal space and time, and 'wrapps' these frontal fieldlines in to 'quanta' of windings around the speeding object giving it quantized extra energy (inverse space) and quantized extra mass (inverse time) in a virtual speed of - J/kg or - m2/s2 which is gravity. So it is Einsteins SR that gives us gravity and GR is merely the geometric description of the SR application in restmass where the cummulative effect of all speeding subatomic particles appears radial. Again, Einsteins has put us on the wrong foot...SR and not GR is the fundamental theory of gravity. Finally it is worth understanding that 'locality' in spatial terms would have its counterpart in the energy grid. meaning; two particles with the same energy spin in all 3 grid directions and at the same mass 'moment' are considered 'local' and can thus influence each-other regardless any distance in the spatial grid. That's called quantum entanglement. So we have about 5 key century-old paradoxes solved simply by introducing this dual setup. I think that should suffice...

[@janaenae1338]

🤯🤤

[@RWin-fp5jn]

@@janaenae1338 My knowledge of emoticon speak is limited but as Brian agrees with you I trust you I agree with you too. Maybe the above is too much text, I am sorry that I don't know how to convey it. Let me just say that Penrose claiming Mass is the clock in the subatomic world, directly implies all of the above, even if he hasn't thought it through himself. How does this directly matter to you? well, if energy is indeed the 3D grid in the subatomic world AND Hameroff's microtubules geometric setup is equal in all humans, than quantum coherence of one brain is shared (entangled) with all others, ie. produced frequencies would match. Meaning; we humans may all appear separated in spacetime terms, but in brain-energy grid terms we would all be 'local' for anything living in the subatomic world. Meaning we are all the same entity, just with different bodies. We 'collapse' into the various states we see. But it is one and the same entity for our creator, if we have a creator in the subatomic world. he/she/it would need to do probability calculation to 'find any of us'. So there is a lot more where this research may lead to.

[@randomAsh108]

Continued here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/haCnmmtra9x_hq8

[@FullTimeOverland]

It's very distracting that you're constantly fiddling with the editing software. It appears as though you're not even listening to what your guests are saying.

[@helpmechangetheworld]

Concerning the absence of certain types of cells in areas controlling "unconscious" behaviour: The behaviour is conscious, in the sense it is present, as feelings, general waves of existence. Only, it is automatic. To preserve the continuousnous and consistency of physical phenomena, we cannot assume a microtubule can just graft "consciousness" on top of everything else. Just like we say we cannot "see" x rays or gamma rays, but can see visible light refers to a skill our eye has or not, and doesn't speak to the ability for gamma rays or x rays to interact with the matter we are made up of, it is the same for conscious/unconscious behaviour. It's all present. And unconscious actions always affect conscious behaviour. As a general non specific underlying intuitive understanding, on which more precise "conscious" thoughts are built. What can we then deduce? That those extra cells must be a necessary component for us to **reactively control** precise thoughts feelings or actions. It seems, unconscious thought is very broad, very stable, and... unmodifiable. This must mean that those cells in the "conscious" part of our brain must be a component (at the least) that allows the overall modification of the "conscious" area. Mr Penrose's idea of consciousness is more linked to precision and control, in my view. But this is still basic classical biology. There is nothing fundamental about degrees of precision. To sum up: we may need to be *more* conscious of certain fluctuating details (outer cortex) i.e. mr Penrose's definition of "conscious", than others (inner brain) that we are still "aware of", and still connect to our more conscious decision making part of our brains, only not aware in the same way. General feelings vs precise thoughts. This seems to be physically consistent. And the ability to reactively control and precisely modify local areas of the brain... ...is an extra degree of complexity. Complexity builds consciousness. Biology explains how.

[@Sharperthanu1]

The Egyptians believed that cats are Deities.I believe them.

[@constructivecritique5191]

The mind is alive! The physical world is dead matter. Scientists can't accept the truth that life is a unique category in reality. How about making a new study focusing on the mind and its mental properties and attributes?

[@williamjmccartan8879]

Brian pull your head back

[@DrBrianKeating]

Thanks

[@FRandAI]

I like when people focus more on the aesthetics of KZbin videos of scientists talking more than the actual content, which is the only reason to even watch/listen.

[@williamjmccartan8879]

@@FRandAI blah blah blah

[@makeaguitarnoise]

The brain does not produce consciousness. From where does our consciousness come? The materialists say it is from the brain, and we cannot say that they are quite wrong. But what they need to learn is that although consciousness is expressed through the brain it does not start there. It has a prior existence.

[@makeaguitarnoise]

@@itheuserfirst3186 I'm not disputing the fact that chemicals can alter our brain functions and perceptions but not the essence of consciousness or as some call it the hidden observer.

[@Dion_Mustard]

@@itheuserfirst3186 there is absolutely no evidence brain produces consciousness. none what so ever.

[@Maryland_Kulak]

I’d wager that Hameroff has taken more physics courses than Keating has taken medical courses. I’m always amazed at the hubris of physicists like Sabine Hasenpfeffer presuming that her PhD in Physics somehow makes her an authority on every other science. Physics is the most simplistic science. Chemists must understand physics and biologists must understand physics and chemistry.

[@Rob-ut3rx]

So, where's a ten year old when you really need one.😁

[@oscarluisvermat7935]

Hi Brian, I like your serious approach to science and to philosophical issues. Thank you. Regarding this video, isn't consciousness just subjective experience, a.k.a. qualia? How can the quantum effect and microtubules and bioelectrical signals within the CNS and all that stuff produce such experiences? Did your distinguished guests answer that fundamental question? That's the bottom line of the topic. The rest is speculation at best. In any case, I like your serious approach to scientific issues. But let's remember what Richard Feynman said about scientists that talk about non-scientific things. Actually, I would generalize it to scientists talking about anything outside their narrow area of expertise. Just see Anil Seth, who claimed that the problem of life in biology has not been solved, but it dissolved. That's a gross misrepresentation of reality at best. Dissolved? Did Dr Lee Cronin get the Evo2.0 OoL $10M Prize announced at the Royal Society a few years ago? Did he split it with Dr Jack Szostak by any chance? Did they share it with Sara Walker? I think they should give the prize to Anil Seth for dissolving the problem. Can we try to be more careful when we say anything? It's so shameful that otherwise distinguished scientists talk so much nonsense. Any statement said by a scientist is not necessarily scientific. This is a good example of that. Nonsense remains nonsense regardless of who says it. Sir Penrose should stick to his CCC theory and that should be enough to stay busy in academics.

[@darwinlaluna3677]

Oh hi

[@davidlakhter]

25:09 this was due to quantum superposition lmao

[@DrBrianKeating]

Lol

[@darwinlaluna3677]

I know u can see me, im at my work

[@matterasmachine]

Consciousness is state of algorithm execution. We are matrix and quantum mechanics describes behaviour of robots. Therefor action is discrete.

[@robbie_]

I don't know what any of that means. But I would recommend reading Chalmers's The Conscious Mind. As a software developer I can tell you for free there's nothing conscious about algorithm execution, except in the mind of the developer that wrote it or the mind of the user using it.

[@matterasmachine]

@@robbie_ yeah. How do we check that human is conscious? By checking if he reacts to external data. Program can react to external data too. What else f do o you need?

[@robbie_]

@@matterasmachine No that's not how we check that a human is conscious. In fact no amount of reporting like that will ever tell you if he is truly conscious. Consciousness is by definition subjective.

[@matterasmachine]

@@robbie_ not agreeing with something? It can be added to program as well. We just don’t need our program to do something that we don’t expect it to do.

[@matterasmachine]

@@robbie_ anyway the action is discrete in quantum physics. Speed is limited. There are MANY evidences that we are matrix and elementary particles execute discrete algorithms. And if this world is matrix, then you are robot that can change his algorithm. No any other options.

[@federicojara2038]

hahahaahhah Sir Roger sound like a divine voice in min 3 🧞

[@ready1fire1aim1]

[Leibniz's contingency argument for God, clarified]: Ten whole, rational numbers 0-9 and their geometric counterparts 0D-9D. 0 and it's geometric counterpart 0D are: 1) whole 2) rational 3) not-natural (not-physical) 4) necessary 1-9 and their geometric counterparts 1D-9D are: 1) whole 2) rational 3) natural (physical) 4) contingent Newton says since 0 and 0D are "not-natural" ✅ then they are also "not-necessary" 🚫. Newton also says since 1-9 and 1D-9D are "natural" ✅ then they are also "necessary" 🚫. This is called "conflating" and is repeated throughout Newton's Calculus/Physics/Geometry/Logic. con·flate verb combine (two or more texts, ideas, etc.) into one. Leibniz does not make these fundamental mistakes. Leibniz's "Monadology" 📚 is zero and it's geometric counterpart zero-dimensional space. 0D Monad (SNF) 1D Line (WNF) 2D Plane (EMF) 3D Volume (GF) We should all be learning Leibniz's Calculus/Physics/Geometry/Logic. Fibonacci sequence starts with 0 for a reason. The Fibonacci triangle is 0, 1, 2 (Not 1, 2, 3). Newton's 1D-4D "natural ✅ = necessary 🚫" universe is a contradiction. Natural does not mean necessary. Similar, yet different. Not-natural just means no spatial extension; zero size; exact location only. Necessary. Newtonian nonsense will never provide a Theory of Everything. Leibniz's Law of Sufficient Reason should be required reading 📚...

[@virgiliustancu9293]

The consciousness of the Universe decided to interrupt the show because secrets too important to be heard were revealed. 😂😂😂

[@DrBrianKeating]

Lol. Then it allowed it to continue in part two

[@snapman218]

the chat popups when they are talking is so annoying

[@DrBrianKeating]

Please add that to the chat next time I’ll feature it

[@darwinlaluna3677]

Sorry but i have to go to work , have a good morning

[@kocmocA]

its not fair if only old can time travel :)

[@alexstevensen4292]

I have some sort of reverse solution to the problem it's not really an explanation but anyway. Say there are Two planets and the other one is the same except it's an actual 'robot' planet, biological robots no consciousness there. Obviously that's not where you are going to be nobody is there, you will always find yourself in a place where there is consciousness.

[@saiyaniam]

echo echo. echo.. echo... echo echo... hello.. echo... hello??? ... Hi you alright mate?.... Ye.... echo.... Echo....

[@dueldab2117]

Dr. it always cracks me up that you’re a brilliant man but can’t figure out KZbin and audio. 😂

[@helpmechangetheworld]

I'm sorry but I don't understand why anyone is looking for something to explain. Consciousness is just a term we use to define being extremely capable in an extremely complex manner to adapt to our environment. The "how" we do that is biology. There is really nothing more to it. Microtubules sound like they seperate DNA, a very interesting biological process. But there should be no difference between the quantum state of a free atom, or states of the atoms in our bodies. The only way to justify the difference between atoms and atoms in our bodies while not splittimg the atom type itself into two types (of which there is no evidence), is to explain the behaviour by the complexity of the systems. Now, why/how did systems grow complex, is a deeper question, that we could answer through biology. But Consciousness is an irrelevant concept. Sometimes there is no mystery. "Consciousness" is to me, a fascination between humans and our seemingly inanimate world around us. But it's a poorly drawn conclusion to think there needs to be a special difference, in my opinion. How to you justify making the human ability special, in any other way than the complexity of the biological system?

[@arandomguyontheinternet756]

As far as I know, rocks don't feel

[@helpmechangetheworld]

@@arandomguyontheinternet756 the crystalline systems in rocks are extremely repetitive and simple. Compare the human body and brain to that...

[@arandomguyontheinternet756]

@@helpmechangetheworld still, why should we think that at some sort of point the thing becomes consciouss from unconsciouss, and alot of people ( even those who aren't with Orch OR) would agree that saying that it is an ilusion is ignoring the problem, it allso has some more theoretical problems which other theories don't have. We do have see colour rather than just saying what it is without having a feeling, we do have internal feelings, I can talk to myself, think about my own thoughts and etc. I'm sorry but you have no basis to think that we can't think ourselves

[@helpmechangetheworld]

@@arandomguyontheinternet756 what I'm saying is that the act of self reflection is an ability your brain or one part of your brain has. It is a natural biological extension of having more complicated structures. It is only the complicated structure of your brain that makes it have this unique hyper-concentrated activity that will add up to self awareness. Basically complexity = consciousness. This type of complexity. You do not need to explain this in any other way than with biology, and perhaps a little logical understanding.

[@arandomguyontheinternet756]

@@helpmechangetheworld ok so where is the basis for your claim or arguments against orch or, what you just said is what most people criticised the theory with, there is no evidence to what you are saying, people just asume that it is like that, no experiments or predictions had proved what you are saying otherwise penrose and hammeroff would not make this theory Your argument boils down to " their theory is wrong and my is correct" which is what people were saying long before that and orch or has made good arguments against that And allso what would happen to the feeling of yourself if your brain was atomised and then put back in the same exact way. You can say stuff like " the complexity of the brain is so high that it can produce awareness" yet you don't explain , how would an electric impulse in meat give the organism a feeling of green etc. you can just jump around the complexity and stuff, scientists had your model for about 70 years and still havent figured out consciousness, something has to change + roger and hameroff had given good against consciousness being an ilusion or a computation

[@constructivecritique5191]

Quantum physics is not ASTRO physics and not mental physics. Our minds emerge from God's mind and develop the brain and body.

[@jari2018]

consioussnes reeks of quantum .. yes women thought pattern follow and 10 dimensional pattern -their answear usually are the answear to your next question so they are on higher level than us men in this universe

[@KaliFissure]

Oh... And unsubscribing because I just can't support you giving Ben Shapiro air time. There are billions of people with things to say and you choose him. You promote him.

[@FaxanaduJohn]

Close the door on the way out.