Criticisms to Functionalism : Quantum Fallacies

[applestar27]

your just making claims...but your doing exactly what Stuart is doing...lol

[JohananRaatz]

"He is still stuck in quasi-Cartesian thinking"

But Cartesian thinking regarding consciousness (though not substance dualism) is correct A PRIORI. The reason for this is that it's the starting point for studying the mind. The mind = the Cartesian ego, so if you haven't explained the Cartesian ego you haven't explained the mind.

Now a lot of people deny the Cartesian ego exists, but then these same people can't claim to have explained the mind -they just denied it.

[dancingwithcalvin]

This guy is just a AI comic book reader, pay him no mind.

[deskset24]

Please focus and zoom the camera in on the poster on the wall in the back featuring the 4 women in white bikinis! I need my consciousness raised.

[DrDeist]

Good work. You're bright. Gave you a thumb up.

[tigerw222]

if you arnt trying to make something very complex and then boom "have conciousness come into excistence" then you must be trying to make a robot taht is so complex in its apearence that eventhough it is not concious it is so complex that we cant tell the difference between it and a concious human beeing... leaving the only logical conclusion taht conciousness is the myth and we dont have it. do i have it right? if so, when you make it. wont you only be able to prove we can fake conciousness?

[tigerw222]

I agree that Hameroff should be alot more humbled by the fact that he is just theorising but he shouldnt be discouraged from trying to prove his hypothesis.

in the 1500 people had come up with very advanced mathematical formulas to describe how the sun moved around the earth... they all failed cause their initial hypothesis was false. perhaps we havnt been able to figure out conciousness yet because the basis for our idea about what conciousness is, is simply wrong... jsut a thought..

[tigerw222]

arent you just proving at this point with our knowledge of the universe that it is ridiculas to claim to know anything about conciousness?

[yourboycal]

How about the beauty of actually being able to sit here pressing buttons on a keyboard communicating to each other across the world almost instantly =p What beauty , what amazing events that took place for all this to be here today . Thinking about these things truly takes you out of this world into space tryingt to understand. But can a creation explain its creation =o

[jaalul]

we do not have free will... its very simple to prove this!

we can argue if there exists free choice... but also it is not fundamental.

we are a consequince of cause and effect.

[hartejoseph]

i think you lost

[KNWProductions]

anything can and does exist in quantum coherence regardless of size according to the EPR experiments.

[djkhaless]

So I have a simple question...what do  you say about the behavior of the subatomic world under observation as opposed to not being observed. That is, why do we have the "collapse of a wave function"?

[RagingCaveman]

If you believe in the big bang, then you have to consider that if all things we know were created in the big bang, a singularity, then they are quantum connected. macro, micro, mega, all quantum connected.

[RagingCaveman]

Assuming we have free will? Are you saying we don't? it sounds like you are doing a lot more assuming then Hammeroff is.

Funny that you use the tornado model but you don't seem to know that a tornado is not subjective, it is objective, it IS a tornado not a wind. it is what wind and humidity turn into....

[RagingCaveman]

Gale winds and tornadoes are not perceptions. There is a huge difference and a gale wind doesn't always turn into a tornado unless all the other factors necessary for that transition, are in place.

[RagingCaveman]

Emergence is a physiological development driven by intense use of the consciousness and intellect. In young people, this happens with the sense of risk and value. The brains of young people are not yet developed physically to comprehend risk and value. As you use the brain there are dormant states that are only triggered to advance or develop when provoked.

[JonathanDLynch]

It seems to me that consciousness is a product of certain complex forms of information processing. All information processing requires a substrate - be it a brain or microchip or some other thing.

As a dualist who believes in reincarnation - it seems to me that functionalism still holds true. If a component of your consciousness involves a soul, and thus the transfer of information between your brain and soul, this would just be a more complex set of functions that produce consciousness.

[ReligionInTheBin]

Some interesting points.

Some I dont agree with, most I do.

When I have time I´ll make videos on topics like religion and philosophy.

[bernif]

so tell me: if you don't have free will, what's the point of you trying to disprove Hameroff's theories in the first place? you would simply act, governed by whatever governs your actions, and none of your arguments or opinions would have any weight or meaning. so you're shooting yourself in the foot the same second that you try to have any opinion at all, and saying that you don't have free will.

[bernif]

so tell me: if you don't have free will, what's the point of you trying to disprove Hameroff's theories? you wouldn't have a choice about doing that in the first place, and simply follow whatever it is that governs your actions. so all the arguing is meaningless and your opinions don't have any weight.

[ciji916]

Good video

[haptist]

dude the fact that you have decided to assume we have no free will and Stuart doesn't shows we have free will

[haptist]

dude the fact that you have decided to assume we have no free will and Stuart doesn't shows we have free will

[parlezuml]

Recent experiments have demonstrated quantum superposition in objects large enough to be visible to the human eye. And to object on "philosophical grounds" is no better than saying "I choose not to believe it". Basically, you object because Penrose and Hameroff's theory contradicts your beliefs and offends you.

[bbronin1]

Well its my opinion that Hameroff is off onto some mind trip!  If and when programmers and computers are huge enough to move the required data for conscious thought it will be done.. because we are just electro-chemical robots. I might add a good luck for the programmers, just think how intensly complicated ! How would you program in Culture, Spirituality, even Diet.

[cooldaddyy]

just read THREE MAGIC WORDS. u.s. andersen

[guitdude09]

I love lamp :o)

[buckj54]

It seems that science and spirituality are fighting for the same piece of real estate. Should be a slobberknocker...

[hyperseauton]

since you have NOT reacted to my serious concerns as expressed in my comments about your philosophy, I challenge you, Lord:

Hameroff was NOT straw-personing you in saying you state somewhere if you add an additional neuron conciousness arises or at least you have to account for the consitency there.

I think Hameroff is actually CORRECT, as crazy it this may sound, have you considered that?

[microhousehold]

@hyperseauton

Good point

[321lawc]

this quantum business reeks of charlatanism

[GUITARDIS]

To elaborate: I like the 'Silent Hunter' series of submarine-simulators. Every time I fail to get my imaginary U-boat out of the way of an imaginary destroyer it goes 'clang' whether I like it or not, when in fact neither has any 'objective' reality. I can only avoid this apparent 'fact' by removing myself from the simulated environment. To remain in the simulator whilst attempting to determine its ultimate 'reality' within its own a-priori terms of reference is, and will always remain, futile.

[GUITARDIS]

Consciousness is the only unarguable empirical phenomenon. Everything else, without exception, is a subjective experience of a perceiving mind. That is to say, every other aspect of apparent existence, no matter how seemingly 'objectively' solid it may otherwise seem, is an artifact within consciousness. To propose otherwise is to abandon scientific method at the very first baby step. Materialists, object that this renders 'science' impossible.  It remains no less a fact because of it.

[fvarnals]

I agree, it seems like ur ideas aren't conflicting with his in a lot of ways.

Also it seems like ur bringing ur own ego into this whole thing, maybe im wrong tho hahahaha :D

[ad627]

You're agreeing with him.

[ThePauldozer]

Lose the Ad Hominem but good stuff. How would you like to join a small team of philosophers at the open door?

[Bankside1997]

When you achieve the experience and respect of a Roger Penrose, then you will have the standing to critique him, first off, until then you are just an undergrad.

Regards.

[TheMorbidAtheist]

him being an undergrad or having long hair has nothing to do with his arguments

[hyperseauton]

ahm.

[Bankside1997]

I can see from your videos that you do not know much about dualism or quantum mechanics or emergence. As Godels theorem shows classical physics and mathematics are explained under dualism. You know separation of mind and reality. If you do not get this, you need to study.

[dvorazhe]

also: you criticise him for not knowing what he's talking about when it comes to non-computational aspects of the brain. penrose has proved that the brain can perform non-computational feats to the satisfaction of all physicists & mathematicians who have looked at it.

-- obviously, quantum juxtaposed states do not conform to normal computation (ie: flip-flops) hence, "non-computational". you don't need to fully understand Godel's theorem to understand that.

[dvorazhe]

his comment that there is as much computational potential in each cell as there is classical computational potential in the brain as a whole is neither a contradiction nor a non-sequitor. he has already stated that there is a type of quantum computation taking place. the fact that there is some kind of intermediary state between the quantum & the macro only butresses his hypothesis. it would only be a contradiction if he were claiming that there is no quantum computation taking place.

[dvorazhe]

hameroff admits he doesn't know how quantum coherence in the brain results in qualia, he has proposed that it has something to do with it because there are no other clear possibilities.

- penrose employs Godel's theorem to help sketch his ideas but they are not central to hameroff's work. critcizing him for not understanding the math is just knocking down a straw-man.

[dvorazhe]

you say that "to suppose that something at such a macro-size could exist in quantum coherent states for any reasonable amout of time is literally just unthinkable" but quantum coherence has been shown in green plants & probably accounts for their photosynthetic efficiency.

-- in other words, when you say "literally unthinkable" you are making a statement about yourself, not the evidence.

[microhousehold]

@dvorazhe

Good point.

[theRazdow]

@dvorazhe that's within a chlorophyll molecule, which is much smaller

[dvorazhe]

@therazdow: components of the microtubule (filaments) are less than 10x the size of a chlorophyll molecule.

[hyperseauton]

ok, it does not need to be at the quantum level the most fundamental effects are going on. Consciousness is there at the quantum level, but it is also there at the level of strings and Ms. You would need to refute the existence of consciousness at all levels of existence in order to rule its effects on physical matter out.

[ICANGO247]

Whose to say current computers don't experience some type of consciousness. We're not computers so we don't know that they are not consciouss or even self aware, I mean they are pretty complicated things with energy flowing through them.

[vulvatronic]

Sorry to say, you say nothing against the HARD parts of his argument... you say there´s no distinct threshold between conscious & non-conscious but the question is, WHY is there consciousness. And how can you say, there´s no threshold anyway? If there were no distinct threshold, some "quanta", actually everything would be conscious to some extent! And if we say that "consciousness is a fundamental part of universe", we´re on the way towards dualism but on our way out!

[includao]

The more I study about Philosophy of the Mind/Consciousness, the more I start to realize that the ego people like Hammeroff are trapped in delusions of self-confirmation and self-security. They are trapped in a state of cognitive dissonance where the unitary processes of the consciousness, the ego, are extrapolated beyond their factual utility (which is to give rise to sudden moments of individuality or subjective experience or sensing of the 'me'). They MUST have sure that they have free will.

[Reido2828]

Is it worth it to study Philosophy? I love it and its ashame that most of science has moved away from it.

[includao]

True philosophy is true, non-biased, science applied.

[Reido2828]

WHat?

[includao]

I love when you crash all those cartesian-dualists and panexperimentalists.

Just kidding. Your videos are awesome, keep it up.

[IceSlice21]

this shiz gets very confusing very quickly....not like evolution pwning creation...which is a very simple arguement, how can anybody stand a chance with this stuff?

[themanyone]

"In order to understand consciousness, a natural prerequisite would be for man to achieve it." Sorry, just felt like repeating what generations of smartass old men have said without adding any useful content on my own. Well, maybe we could at least measure consciousness. If only someone would design the perfect touring test. I would use it on my web site. Human visitors could then log on without effort and spam robots would be escorted out the back door...

[mrfpercival]

you confidently state "... quantum coherence: ... I disagree .. on philosophical grounds but also on the grounds of quantum physics ... to suppose .. macro size .. could exist .. in quantum coherent . state .. for any reasonable amount of time is literally unthinkable.. "

hardly a convincing argument! literally unthinkable? - what does that mean? you seem a bit arrogant to dismiss a scientist of Roger Penrose's standing considering you have NO published work and he's studied for decades

[agalloch666]

You`re arguments are not criticisms at all, my friend. They are simply misconceptions and you`re examples and counter scenarios are just not hitting the spot at all. Good effort though.

[RaymondCorrigan]

I don't understand what you mean by 'observer'. I have assumed that you mean a non-physical 'thinker' (like a soul).

A robot's experiences would be as real as ours. If our thoughts are physical (IF!) it is as valid a thinker as we are if it acts like a human brain.

Drugs, MRI and brain damaged/split brain patients show either.

1. Our thinking is physical.

2. Our brain receives thoughts in specific regions then puts them together to be carried out.

Number 1 seems more likely to me.

[adeworks]

Raymond. Do you think a large and complicated enough steam engine with no electronics could become conscious?

[RaymondCorrigan]

No electronics eh?! That's a good question, I've never considered it.

You could make something like a turing machine (with the old school hole punch cards)... With enough complexity this could be as complex as, but much slower than, a modern/futuristic computer.

So it couldn't pass the turing test (convince a human that it's human) because it would be far too slow. However I do think that if you copied the format of the brain (mapped by 2029) you would get a very slow but smart conscious mind.

[RaymondCorrigan]

LordImmolation studied Artificial Intelligence, psychology and philosophy. I'm just science/engineering/language. so he's probably the perfect guy to ask this question to.

[jbnumba1]

It might act like it is conscious, but it wouldn't have any experience. There would be no observer "seeing" out through the robot's camera eyes.

[onerichie]

I have never understood why people are so against, almost scared of, the idea of us having no free will. If we prove tomorrow that free will does not exist, would it change our lives? would we enjoy our daily lives any less, feel less pride in our achievements, feel less awe when looking at the night sky? Of course not

[jbnumba1]

You didn't decide to write that comment, you were programmed to. You don't actually "love" your mom, you were just programmed to act and feel like you do. And somehow something was created from nothing, yet it was all just an accident.

[RaymondCorrigan]

Love and thoughts seem more special to me when they are based on an elegant process than when we see them as magic with no cause.

Also, Gods etc. still need to come from nothing. And a being which can conceive of and create the entire universe would be more complex than the simple interactions which build up to complexity in the universe.

Any logical 'impossibilities' (no start/always existing/coming from nothing) that you allow for gods would be much more likely to occur with simpler things.

[onerichie]

interesting you use the word accident. how can there be acidents when everything is programmed as you suggest?

[jbnumba1]

I don't suggest that, you do if you believe we have no free will. I was pointing out that if you don't have free will that your comment was just a part of your programming.

[adeworks]

You are wrong about your arguments about non-computability. If are brains are like computers WE CAN HAVE NO FREE WILL! As our mental states will be wholly based on what state they were in beforehand. That is preposterous. It is you that doesn't understand!

[LordImmolation]

Nope, I very well understand Hameroff's points...if you want "true free will", it must be Will with no physical causes, i.e. physically impossible...and non of this bull crap about our "minds changing quantum fluctuations".

True free will is by definition impossible.

To see a more detailed account of my arguments against such a position see my video series. Thanks

[adeworks]

Answer me this. How are you able to control the flow of elecrical impulses in your brain merely by thinking? There are no muscles or other physical moving parts in the brain to control such electrical impulses, it is done purely by thinking. HOW?

[RaymondCorrigan]

The electrical impulses are a result of the movement of chemicals in and out of neurons to create a charge.

One impulse sets off others. Thinking is emergent from these impulses, not the other way around.

Further to the point. Even a thousand years ago when we had no understanding of how the brain worked, saying that it is basically magic is commiting a logical fallacy named "the argument from ignorance". Basically "we don't know how this works, therefore it's magic/other idea."

Wikipedia it

[adeworks]

Well, maybe you are an automoton with no free will. I am not.

[RaymondCorrigan]

Please don't take offence to the idea.

In the words of Carl Sagan

"It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring."

Would you honestly prefer it if thinking were magic? The idea that my thoughts have a cause (and an elegant one at that) is more reassuring to me.

In the end you can hold whatever belief you want. But you can't always claim that science supports you.

[RaymondCorrigan]

I agree free will is by its strict definition impossible. The cause of our thoughts is either determined by something (most likely), or random. Even a soul would need somewhere for it's ideas come from.

I think that there is a twist though. If you think of 'yourself' as being the reactions which determine your decisions, and not something outside of this, the choices you make are ultimately your choices. So 'you' do have freewill, but what 'you' are is determined.

[somethingirreversib]

I think randomness has a major role on free will. Since the system, surrounding us is locally chaotic (but globally stable)it guarantees that no neural computation will be the same supposing we have theoreticly even 2 identic brains with same states at same time. Adding to this, that the brain is not only responding to the surrounding events, but it is recursive and also responding to the inner calculations, thoughts. However randomness could depend on quantum physics.

[canefan17]

@somethingirreversib

We assume it's globally stable?

Randomness isn't calculated. Sorry quantum physics

[somethingirreversib]

If you could rewind time, things would alter since the system is not deterministic. On macro size almost( think of the game pool), but on quantum size not.You can call this "random" if you are watching only the macro system events. Globally stable: butter fly effect. small differences in the initial condition of a dynamical system may produce large variations. It can, but real observations reveal the global system is stable on such small events. Butterfly effect is rather local.

[FxDaCosta1]

@LordImmolation You are absolutely right in my opinion. Living in a world of cause and effect, it seems that even in our will decisions, we are not free. However I still have a very strong feeling of freedom in my actions when it comes to good and evil, as long as I am in my right mind, under no influence of any sort. Have you come across any explanation of that, or do you think that we are not "free" beings?

[Jessewb]

@FxDaCosta1

I'd say things are relative, from a human perspective, I have to assume for the sake of practicality that I actually have freedom of choice, only because I can't predict and do not know what every single particle of my brain is doing.

However from an "absolute" perspective there is no free choice based on the cause and effect universe we live in.

I once heard that the Universe was discovering itself, but I digress, I think life is more about us discovering ourselves as observers.

[JohananRaatz]

@LordImmolation "minds changing quantum fluctuations"."

What about Henry Stapp's work with the Zeno effect? If you combine Orch-OR with the Zeno effect then you get a sort of circular self-directing method of skewing the wave-function, similar to what Beck and Eccles call "quantal selection."

Now Hameroff did assume we have free-will, but I don't see this as particularly problematic. Free-will is a property of the mind we are self-aware of from the start. The whole point is to explain it.

[adeworks]

I think the idea that freewill is an illusion makes less sense that Hameroff's ideas. Your 'logical fallacies' are incorrect. The essential features of consciousness are 'true' freewill ! And YES consciousness may well be a fundamental part of the universe. It could possibly be the ONLY fundamental part of the universe. Read more quantum physics.

[RaymondCorrigan]

What you are reading is not quantum physics. It is a misunderstanding often called quantum mysticism.

Quantum physics does not state that conciousness is neccessary. Any particle interacting with another particle collapses a quantum state. The term 'observer' is probably the source of the confusion.

In a common experiment a particle is split into two possible quantum paths which eventually cancel each other out. If no light/etc. interacts with the paths the particle cancels itself out.

[RaymondCorrigan]

adeworks;

If light is crossing one of the paths however. The light will detect, or not detect, the particle, leading to a collapsed state. The particle will then follow one path and not cancel itself out.

So with light as an observer the quantum state collapses and the particle comes out. With no light as an observer both states exist and cancel each other out.

Here the light is not observed by a human. The end result is observed but it is observed in both cases. So light can be an observer.

[vornander9]

great vid, I agree with everything you said, consciousness isn't a 'product' of brain function, IT IS brain function, imo.

[yamaha893]

good stuff. keep up the good work.

[Ironzealot7531]

now your defending functionalism. could you please explain in detail your stance on this issue, as it seems that you criticize functionalism at one moment, and defend it at another.

[Paramedic851]

He did address how distinct epochs of quantum states might be sheltered within the biological framework of the brain.

[Paramedic851]

The tornado analogy was meant to illustrate that complex interactions of particles alone does not produce consciousness, which is obvious. Then he goes on to explain that we have simplified our perception of the neuron and it's role in consciousness, that the neuron is dissimilar from the tornado. If you actually read his paper on consciousness theory you may realize that he is hinting at a greater complexity and truly not taking a hard position one way or another.

[LordImmolation]

Hmm, firstly Para - I have read many of his papers and seen many of his lectures and interviews. He is taking a hard position, following Penrose. The position is an anti-computationalist theory of mind. This theme tends to permiate quantum theories of mind.

[SocialistDemocracy]

sorry but you misinterpreted the "hierarchy" that hameroff was talking about. No where does he hint towards a god with an infinite understanding. He was stating merely steps and patterns that change in time with the hurricane. The same as transcendental meditation, steps, but its energy has to be explained on a quantum level to fully understand.

[SocialistDemocracy]

Fundementalism can not explain (for lack of better terms)"love" but it is in the air and processed in the mind as is everything felt by a human with a brain. For the consciousness on both sides of the equation is another misinterpretation.

[SocialistDemocracy]

Their are not many words to describe but "consciousness" or a similar form of invisible physics is every where at all times, blends in with the theory of relativity within the fabric of time & space. from the visible to the invisible, from the form of gravity and its condensed matter, to dark matter and its quantum / fundamental mysteries. Have you ever had the same thought as some one else at the exact same time? coincidence or consciousness with the quantum ideal? BOTH!

[LordImmolation]

I'm sorry, but you appear to be caught up in the drama of the quantum quakery for the non-academics. The reason this is not to be taken seriously is because it is a mish-mash of semi-coherent ideas, quantum physics does not solve the mysteries of consciousness just because of particle/wave duality. Trying to solve the mind body problem by suggesting "invisible physics" just ain't gonna cut any ice I'm afraid.

[vyaschady]

You don't know shit, shut the fuck up, Hameroff is exactly right.... You have seen any of this, how deep have you been in the rabbit hole?? I think you never actually even seen the edge of the rabbit hole. Conciousness is being broadcasted like TV.

[SocialistDemocracy]

Stop with negativity, it furthers and strengthens the duality and separation of idealist.

[otonanoC]

Not to sound like GARY or anything but the sentence, spoken by Hameroff (at 9:05)

***We have this Non-computability which is really another word for free will.***

That is just ABSOLUTE BULLSHIT. There's no other way to put it. I am sorry. Anyone on youtube who takes the position of Stuart Hameroff is going to be the target of my intellectual weaponry. Consider this an early warning.

[SocialistDemocracy]

lol you and what proof will disprove quantum physics and consciousness????

[otonanoC]

Okay SocialistDemocracy - I viewed your channel for signs of interest in science, mathematics, etc. Not much there. Makes me think: possible sock troll.

[davidwizard2006]

who say the quantum physics can not be simulated by digital computer, that is too obsolete, they should at least know some method for approximation,we can also even search and learn with optimal solution possible, and also the search method by algorithmic approach is basically brute force unless specifically told not to, the brain is different, the key is not physical substrate, but mechanism which is not only physically irrelevant

[davidwizard2006]

functionalism is superiors to materialism all the time, the brain research in many sense, particularly the quantum consciousness are false and a waste

[Rybot9000]

In reality a fairly basic idea is capable of explaining much, if not all of our behaviour. As far as I know it is attributable to Sigmund Freud but is known primarily as Hebb's Rule and is attributed to Donald Hebb. The general idea is that neurons will do whatever it is they are capable of doing within the limitations of the stimuli presented to them and predictably behave in accordance with the stimuli. Abbreviated "Cells that fire together wire together".

[Rybot9000]

The concept explains why cells perform as they do and why eyeless creatures can't see. Without the input from the retinal ganglion cells the neurons of the occipital lobe cannot differentiate to the stimuli of the photons contacting the eye. The retinal ganglion cell needs to fire in order to wire to the cortex. This process is coherent with Long-Term Potentiation, an observable process of "wiring" neurons through repeated and prolonged simultaneous activation.

[Rybot9000]

They should just admit they are fighting for freedom. The only value these theories have for us is Free-Will. In the absence of choice everything else is irrelevant. Yet Free-Will is an absolutely indefensible position it can never possibly make sense. It occurs to me that any theory such as it could never be proven. It could only be refuted. Whatever mishmash of an explanation one tries to use in favor of free-will is just a house of cards toppled by the organization of human understanding...

[Rybot9000]

Due to the fact that the mind is sought to be explained we assume an organization coherent with our ability to understand it. We call this causation amongst other names and noncausal explanations are called "magic" because they don't make sense. So we assume we are causal by an attempt at explaining ourselves. If causality is true then how can free-will be true and if it isn't how could any explanation suffice to give intelligible noncausality? The argument never gets its feet off the ground IMO

[qualiagirl]

i appreciate the important role functionalism brings to the debate - although Hameroff/Penrose's ORCH OR model does approach a mechanism, and they have addressed coherence - and i abhor new age "you create your own reality" crap (ie. did a Brazilian street kid living on a garbage dump create her own reality? no, WE did), but dude, lose the girlie poster in the background. it undermines the authority of your argument.

[LordImmolation]

I know the ORC model poses that consciousness is quantum coherence between the microtubules within the neurons but there are many reasons why this simply cannot be the case. (See Grush & Churchland, McDermott and Dennett for critiques)...or alternatively check out the debunking quantum mind series that I did when I look at the basis for the Hameroff/Penrose argument (e.g. Godel, Halting, entanglement, etc) - Thanks - Kyle

[SocialistDemocracy]

who ever made this video keep looking into quantum physics u totally mis interpret the message stuart hammeroff is trying to state

[LordImmolation]

I have read many of his papers, believe me comrade - he is well off on this one. When push comes to shove, his argument falls down. A great example of this is in the interview book "conversations on consciousness" (by my old lecturer) and he really can't answer any of the criticisms to his arguments successfully IMO.Also check out his "beyond belief" conference. For further criticism of this, please check out my "debunking quantum mind" series - Thank you.

[seanmPWH]

You did not actually defend the functionalism approach, you just made some assertions about Hameroff's presentation. What are the mechanisms in the brain that provide for consciousness? BTW I'm not sold on either model at present.

[solaris252]

P.S I do not remember coming across the quote you gave, however, I do NOT, believe that "atheistic values are embedded in the Plank scale", given that I understand that statement properly. As been theorized, the universe extends past the plank scale, and in turn influences the events that to us seem to be fundamental. I do not think anyone can really tell, yet, what is to be found there. My point is, SH/RP account for some principles of consciousness, but only as much as a piece of a puzzle.

[solaris252]

After watching some more of your videos, I present this argument to you... There is an article in the January 2002 issue of Nature Neuroscience about the specialization of neurons in terms of memory recall. Basically it describes how certain neurons only fire when presented with a specific input (eg. a picture).This demonstrates that individual neurons are capable of pattern recognition. If not the SH/RP proposition, or something very similar, what would account for this?

[LordImmolation]

Yes, I have read this article myself. I think what it tells us is that (as Hameroff correctly points out)the neuron is more complicated than a perception. But as Edelman points out the high degree of degeneracy is necessary for the functioning of the brain. I do not think this is evidence for the thesis that, "gap junctions are quantumly entangled and atheistic values are embedded in the plank scale".

[solaris252]

The theory, as I will call it, is mostly based on coherence rather than entanglement, which are somewhat different. Coherence shows itself in large particle systems such as superconductors/fluids and lasers. Now given that a cyto-skeletal microtubule system can achieve this state within a single neuron, it will reduce non-computably (coupled to fundamental space-time geometry). In this case, weather or not entaglement occurs through gap junctions is irrelevant, as the previous shows that quantum

[solaris252]

effects can occur within microtubules, and in some way account for consciousness.

[Rybot9000]

Nonlocalizationalism refers to the fact that specific modules or neurons are not determined to perform a function inherently but are determined by location and stimuli. If the optic nerve is severed the neurons in the visual striate cortex will redifferentiate to auditory neurons. In amputees neurons differentiated for the limb will differentiate for whatever nearby neurons are doing. For example finger neurons will become face neurons.

[Rybot9000]

The acuity of a sense is determined by the number of nerve cells devoted to the task and the organizational structure of the maps. Which is why blind people often experience a heightened sense of hearing and can even use echolocation. Or why dogs sense of smell is more acute because they have a more complex arrangement of neurons. Its also the reason taxi drivers have denser and more complex hippocampi for navigation. And possibly the mechanisms of gender-typing and socialization.

[solaris252]

Excuse my rhetoric please.

[LordImmolation]

Firstly, I don't think youtube is the place to flaunt credentials,I am of the opinion it could be a level playing field.But,since you ask,I have a BSc in AI & Psych and I did my disertation in consciousness,currently I am studying an MA in the philosophy of mind.I am very familiar with SH and RPs argument and have read RPs books and SHs papers.I have an entire video series arguing against this position. I look at entanglement,Godel, Halting,microtubules and link some sources:/watch?v=VvL3B4IYSUE

[solaris252]

And if it does come through that I am trying to defend what SH is saying, I am, in a way. Unified Field Theory, though in its infancy, is by far the best explanation for, well anything. Now given that everything arises out of this potential field, would not quantum phenomena, which also arise out of the field, play some role in something so complex as consciousness? What SH says may not be 100% exact, but the idea presented is that there is a greater underlying reality.

[solaris252]

Where do you stand in terms of your knowledge? Ph.D in Phys? Hameroff worked together with Penrose, both of whom have substantial credentials. Where are yours? How familiar are you with the theory that is being put forth? This video is simply defends your philosophy rather than truly debunk ANYTHING that SH has proposed. In short, I would love a video response on the topic of weather what you say is simply dry speculation or reason backed by scientific knowledge.

[jamezmon]

functionalism rocks!

[bandpractice]

I read about Penrose's idea a while ago and I also thought it was ridiculous. Good job dismissing it. So what types of interactions bring about consciousness? You said "it's not how many gas particles there are, it's how they're interacting". Can you elaborate?

Also, I'm wondering if you're a determinist or if you think things are fundamentally random. I'm getting that you're not for free will, but I may be wrong.

[LordImmolation]

Hey man, I will go onto a fully-fledged theory of mind after my quantum critique (and revisit Hameroff and Penrose). Consciousness is not a unitary thing(as much as it might seem so),there are many different functions related to the phenomena of consciousness(though some overlap).

Essentially I am a determinist,though this is more "faith" than anything I can prove.Things could be fundamentally "random",who knows!I don't believe we have free will,but Dennett(who I am greatly influenced by)does!

[robotaholic]

hameroff ruined his credibility at beyond belief and i wish he'd go away

[Mjhavok]

I agree LI but you would think that Roger Penrose would understand decoherence. Do Penrose and Hammeroff think microtubules in neurons are some kind of quantum computer?

[LordImmolation]

Basically yes, they think that microtubules are quantumly entangled. (Most physicists disagree that quantum entanglement would even be significant at such macroscopic levels). But even if it was true, Hameroff's theory does not explain what he suggests that it does. This video wasn't primarily an attack on his theory but a defense of emergence....I may attach his ORC model for the bullshit that it is.

[Mjhavok]

I look forward to it.

[Mjhavok]

Hameroff sounds like a nut.

[OrderofthePelican]

This is a good video, but read Terrence W Deacons article, "the Hierarchical logic of Emergence" in the book "Evolution and learning: The Baldwin effect reconsidered" that had a is a good review of emergence that goes further then the pop science books about it. 5 stars.

[otonanoC]

I hate Stuart Hammeroff.

No.

You don't understand. *I HATE HIM*

Okay I really need to make a response video here. ..

.

[sssswwwsssss]

Ouch, he's awful, this Hameroff.

Could you say a little about the binding problem and global work space theory?

[plenipotentiarius]

Not sure if your thing about Goedel was clear, if any system cannot be grounded within itself, that is fine, lets leave those other systems aside, but it also means that your theory of mind cannot be grounded within itself. Where is it grounded then?

[LordImmolation]

Well, all I'm saying is. The theorem does not show a qualitative difference between machine and brain so cannot be used in the way Penrose uses it. Yeah...no theory (inc theories of mind) can be grounded in any "universal axiom" of truth. But advancements happen in other intellectual pursuits so we can still make progress.

[plenipotentiarius]

Not my question, I asked in *what* is it grounded? Are you saying it is grounded in nothing, you also say it is grounded in materialism but of course materialism is not grounded in Descartes I presume but perhaps it is negatively.

[LordImmolation]

Ah sorry misunderstood. Godel's theorem actually suggests nothing can have any grounding in "Truth" outside of itself. Yeah functionalism is similar to materialism, it is certainly a monist perspective. I discuss it briefly in my new video.

[plenipotentiarius]

Ok thanks, let me put it this way, though we can't ground 1+1=2 in a truth outside of math, we do believe it or, we ground it in common sense, not in logic or Mathematics itself or a truth outside it. This is the sense of "outside ground" that I'm using.

My question is then, in what way is functionalism grounded in this way: belief or common sense, or is it in pragmatism (ie, from the link of function to work position and efficiency, practice etc.)

[EverettsVLOG]

hammeroff isnt a very rational guy... but its good that someone is there to give life to the werid QM approach to consciousness. good arguments man.

[Canteatpancakes]

Hey Everett,

I miss your philosophical videos. :)

Life keeping you busy?

[EverettsVLOG]

yea, bad break up LOL

[Mjhavok]

Didn't Lawrence Krauss tear him an new arsehole at the Beyond Belief 2006 session. Basically told me he didn't know what he was talking about lol.