Could someone with some actual understanding of the matter explain me what the part about "topological qbit in microtubules" would imply? Here is a link to a related video: /watch?v=VQngptkPYE8
@ThisOneIsTaken I think it implies that form can be encoded upon the postulated "locus of consciousness" (micro-tubules), not be mistaken for any sort of Turing-type encoding. These are not bits, bytes or words in some code base, algorithm, or representation such as a digitized image. Rather it "tunes" micro-tubules in a more complex way. One has to resort to analogy, and I apologize that doing so must be flawed and incomplete, but Penrose states that this can "tune for" something ambient.
this is really far-fetches imo, and I wouldn't hesitate to call this non-scientific, because there's so much speculation relative to actual empirical findings that supports this view.
But I guess it would be interesting to have these quantum computations in the brain, but really - they should investigate it further before claiming to have a somewhat finite theory of consciousness.
@FredeGF No. They present an open-ended mechanism quite capable of doing the job. His arguments have nothing to do with presenting a completed theory. Rather, and oppositely, they have to do with presenting a viable, fully capable alternative to a clearly doomed (neuronal) theory. This video is not aimed at proving the extent to which the present Hard AI (purely neuronal) theory is doomed, but rather is rebuts a poor, doomed-paradigm-bound attempt to discredit this alternative via bootstrapping.
DMT must be a hell of a "quantum electron energy donor" , high dose of DMT, that "breakthrough" dose seeked by psychonauts, causes out of body dimension-hopping and things that words and even memory fail at describing. I'm a skeptic, but seen enough not to look down on those who believe in real entities or dimensions via DMT. More plausible than any religion.
The FDA and scientists are becoming more open and less afraid to explore the many possibilities of psychedelics, and it's about time.
I bet our universe is a cell, and that from outside looking at it last a short time, but here billions of years, meaning time is insanly streched. So that means our universe is just a small buildingblock for other creature, which in turn might be living in a universe which also is a cell. That could go for eternity :)
A second unaddressed strong argument against Orch-OR mind hypothesis is: Split-Brain patients show that axons in corpus collosum are necessary for "united mind" cutting axons of the corpus callosum the connections produces Jekyll-Hyde syndrome. (Nobel Prize 1981)
The Hameroff article: doi: 10.1007/s10867-009-9148-x compare that to 10.4161/self.1.3.12736 or 2010 June 3. doi: 10.1186/1753-4631-4-S1-S9 and you'll notice a lack of scientific ethics in his article that are in this presentation.
Most importantly, hard empirical evidence is still required to validate any of these models: 2009 June 4. doi: 10.1007/s10867-009-9158-8
After the second time I reviewed it (2010/2011) I must say that the transcranial electro mechanic stimulation makes it plausible. However free will is a different stretch. I still need an counterargument for the second brain (enteric nervous system) not being conscious (e.g. doesn't create a I concept).
Free will can be: money, looks, athleticism, awareness, recall, processing capacity and ingenuity. Any linkage between the first and all the rest, pehaps especially the last, is ideally one of notable fluidity. It's a permanent concept, it's not absent, nor is it on the way to an exit from the universe.
Dear god I'm made a wrong turn at the you-tube search page or something.
how'd I get to this?! I swear the man is speaking English however I have not a clue as to what he is disseminating. hmmm.... Where did that 'skank-ardashian' video get to?
p.s. ...have a nice life here with your whatchamacallits or thingamadoodles!
Okay, I take it you study this? I wasn't expecting you to agree that I'm thick! You maybe highly intellectual, but that doesn't mean your manners have to drop. :P Don't worry I wasn't offended. Like us all we're no more than what we already are. We are all wired differently, that's for sure.
On the decoherence issue, after looking at some of the latest news it seems the problem is apparently one of having an uncontrolled environment. Also seems an onionlike approach is called for, where each layer has similar functionality, probably neuronlike nonlinear filtering, phasing and stabilizing capacity, with the core level functionality being analogous to a brain's integrated consciousness.
I want to see another video like this by Hameroff, less breathless and more in-depth. This is cutting-edge, a pleasantly dangerous theory. It won't be respected for a long time, until more scientists try to stomp it down and discredit it. In doing so it may prove resilient as a viable explication of consciousness. Or not. Lets see what happens....
I have not seen this entire video yet. However, I 100% agree with Hameroff's statement around 2min that we should figure out how to simulate a paramecium before doing a brain. Regardless of his theories or how much or little they can be experimentally tested, this point is worth repeating. This is why I went for an associate's degree in biotechnology AFTER my PhD. We must begin the study of consciousnesses with microorganisms.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Quoting from wikipedia: "Hameroff appeared as himself in the documentary film What tнe ♯$*! Do ωΣ (k)πow!? (2004). He also participated in the first Beyond Belief conference, where his theories were sharply criticized by Lawrence Krauss, among others"
Regardless of how plausible his theories may be, his methods are inherently pseudoscientific and there is little reason why anyone should try understanding his bullshit whatsoever.
@cjsveningsson what's with the character attack? Your reasoning makes no sense at all. You don't know jack shit about his methods, you're just using poorly reasoned heuristics.
@MrColoradovideos Not at all so. In fact, modelling paramecia is vastly beyond not only the means of the present hard AI paradigm (in which neurons are more than incidental) but beyond it's maximally extrapolated capabilities too. Heuristic arguments are fundamentally more general than special ones.
@cjsveningsson Man people love to bring up that movie don't they. For the interviews they used what they needed and threw away what they didn't. In terms you'll understand...out of context...they only used what would back their claims of the subject of the movie, not that there isn't some truth to the movie.
@cjsveningsson Can you share links to your published papers? Physics? Biology maybe? Chemistry? Any prizes? Nobel rings a bell? (Penrose). Or maybe any books of yours I can buy? Any lectures of yours on youtube? Any scientific contributions? Your alma mater?
@cjsveningsson Give me a break. How else do you explain free will without quantum uncertainty?
And don't give me this nonsense that free-will isn't there. We know a priori to the contrary, and any philosophy that dismisses the a priori is just positivist or eliminativist bullshit. People who espouse eliminativism are just p-zombies (self-admittedly) and zombies can't be reasoned with.
In the same way we view life without vitalism. The zombie is a rethorical ad-hominem that doesn't add anything to the discussion. Neither side in these debates provides a compelling case, and little clarity about consciousness is achieved in Conversations on Consciousness. The leads to frequent inconsistency in the terminology used to describe the relation between consciousness and the brain: ncbi nlm nih gov/pmc/articles/PMC1456911/?tool=pmcentrez
Except the difference is that we can't sense any "vital essence." The same is not true of the mind. We can directly tell that our minds exist, and are irreducible. To prove this, we need "I's" before we can do any empirical observations in the first place. Thus the "I" is of a different kind of category altogether.
This also raises the issue of the explanatory gap. A live body is emergent from cells. But how do we get emergence from empirical to phenomenal?
Except that I concept relies on the law of identity. Law of identity breaks down in quantum physics/logic. While constructing Quantum Logic (to keep up with quantum physics) they figured out that the law of identity is actually an intuition. We indeed can't rely on our intuitions, classical logic or our senses to uncover the quantum world. David Deutch explains how we are supposed to tackle the quantum world and save empiricism. I'll send you the link since this is off-topic.
@KTK401 Free Will and Determinism are abstract words. There is no evidence that reality correlates in any way to this sort of artifice. In short, the question is likely absurd. Wittgenstein elaborates this at great length, but Kant (and prior, Plato, even) state the same. The point is that reason as presently misunderstood rests in it's entirety upon formalisms that Godel proved are *intrinsically* incomplete. Quantum Mechanics is THE way out or this mess, at present. This is open-ended.
Could someone with some actual understanding of the matter explain me what the part about "topological qbit in microtubules" would imply? Here is a link to a related video: /watch?v=VQngptkPYE8
ThisOneIsTaken 2 weeks ago
@ThisOneIsTaken I think it implies that form can be encoded upon the postulated "locus of consciousness" (micro-tubules), not be mistaken for any sort of Turing-type encoding. These are not bits, bytes or words in some code base, algorithm, or representation such as a digitized image. Rather it "tunes" micro-tubules in a more complex way. One has to resort to analogy, and I apologize that doing so must be flawed and incomplete, but Penrose states that this can "tune for" something ambient.
FinisReflectatOpus 2 days ago
Does this explain mental retardation?
youngdones 3 weeks ago
this is really far-fetches imo, and I wouldn't hesitate to call this non-scientific, because there's so much speculation relative to actual empirical findings that supports this view.
But I guess it would be interesting to have these quantum computations in the brain, but really - they should investigate it further before claiming to have a somewhat finite theory of consciousness.
FredeGF 1 month ago
@FredeGF They have, look up peer-reviewed papers on quantum processes in biology, they're more numerous than anyone care to notice, or admit.
silentrageze 3 weeks ago
@FredeGF No. They present an open-ended mechanism quite capable of doing the job. His arguments have nothing to do with presenting a completed theory. Rather, and oppositely, they have to do with presenting a viable, fully capable alternative to a clearly doomed (neuronal) theory. This video is not aimed at proving the extent to which the present Hard AI (purely neuronal) theory is doomed, but rather is rebuts a poor, doomed-paradigm-bound attempt to discredit this alternative via bootstrapping.
FinisReflectatOpus 2 days ago
DMT must be a hell of a "quantum electron energy donor" , high dose of DMT, that "breakthrough" dose seeked by psychonauts, causes out of body dimension-hopping and things that words and even memory fail at describing. I'm a skeptic, but seen enough not to look down on those who believe in real entities or dimensions via DMT. More plausible than any religion.
The FDA and scientists are becoming more open and less afraid to explore the many possibilities of psychedelics, and it's about time.
emwaver 1 month ago
why DMT picture in thumbnail?
ogfunk187 3 months ago
Comment removed
ThisOneIsTaken 4 months ago
I bet our universe is a cell, and that from outside looking at it last a short time, but here billions of years, meaning time is insanly streched. So that means our universe is just a small buildingblock for other creature, which in turn might be living in a universe which also is a cell. That could go for eternity :)
ThermalHD 4 months ago
A second unaddressed strong argument against Orch-OR mind hypothesis is: Split-Brain patients show that axons in corpus collosum are necessary for "united mind" cutting axons of the corpus callosum the connections produces Jekyll-Hyde syndrome. (Nobel Prize 1981)
philsci-archive pitt edu/3049/1/OOR.pdf
AlainG80 6 months ago
Comment removed
AlainG80 6 months ago
The Hameroff article: doi: 10.1007/s10867-009-9148-x compare that to 10.4161/self.1.3.12736 or 2010 June 3. doi: 10.1186/1753-4631-4-S1-S9 and you'll notice a lack of scientific ethics in his article that are in this presentation.
Most importantly, hard empirical evidence is still required to validate any of these models: 2009 June 4. doi: 10.1007/s10867-009-9158-8
AlainG80 6 months ago
After the second time I reviewed it (2010/2011) I must say that the transcranial electro mechanic stimulation makes it plausible. However free will is a different stretch. I still need an counterargument for the second brain (enteric nervous system) not being conscious (e.g. doesn't create a I concept).
AlainG80 6 months ago
Free will can be: money, looks, athleticism, awareness, recall, processing capacity and ingenuity. Any linkage between the first and all the rest, pehaps especially the last, is ideally one of notable fluidity. It's a permanent concept, it's not absent, nor is it on the way to an exit from the universe.
CACBCCCU 7 months ago
Cool, he talks about Pokorny. I know him from his papers on color metrics an human vision mechanisms.
albedoshader 7 months ago
This is fantastic hard modelling research.
But, NOBODY knows whether free will exists or not (or how much of it vs determinism), so anyone who pretends to "know" with certainty is an idiot.
Yes - you may have a good guess about it.
mphello 8 months ago 2
@mphello It is possible to demonstrate that Free Will exists.
KTK401 3 months ago
@KTK401 Uh... HOW?
mphello 3 months ago
Dear god I'm made a wrong turn at the you-tube search page or something.
how'd I get to this?! I swear the man is speaking English however I have not a clue as to what he is disseminating. hmmm.... Where did that 'skank-ardashian' video get to?
p.s. ...have a nice life here with your whatchamacallits or thingamadoodles!
rezek71 8 months ago
I , like many others, kinda knew he was right yrs ago, it just has the ring of truth about it.
jonesgerard 8 months ago
Who's the first guy who commented?
deusaquilusyou 9 months ago
Am I being thick here, but there are types of cells having sex in my body??? wow, what a thought!
kslovesgabba24 9 months ago
@kslovesgabba24 Yes, you are a bit thick, but that's OK. Paramecium is a single-celled organism, not a cell in the human body.
Petrander 9 months ago
Okay, I take it you study this? I wasn't expecting you to agree that I'm thick! You maybe highly intellectual, but that doesn't mean your manners have to drop. :P Don't worry I wasn't offended. Like us all we're no more than what we already are. We are all wired differently, that's for sure.
kslovesgabba24 9 months ago
how can 6 bits = 1 byte in microtubules, when in computing, its an octet (8 byte) ??
sverko 10 months ago
@sverko 6 bit numbering system as opposed to 8 (0,1,2,3,4,5)
DavidAKZ 10 months ago
@sverko It is only an octet by convention. One could also have a 6-bit byte if one wishes so. If Hameroff is right, then nature chose the latter.
Petrander 9 months ago
On the decoherence issue, after looking at some of the latest news it seems the problem is apparently one of having an uncontrolled environment. Also seems an onionlike approach is called for, where each layer has similar functionality, probably neuronlike nonlinear filtering, phasing and stabilizing capacity, with the core level functionality being analogous to a brain's integrated consciousness.
CACBCCCU 1 year ago
can you translate to spanish, or at least at english. good video
pirocephalus 1 year ago
I want to see another video like this by Hameroff, less breathless and more in-depth. This is cutting-edge, a pleasantly dangerous theory. It won't be respected for a long time, until more scientists try to stomp it down and discredit it. In doing so it may prove resilient as a viable explication of consciousness. Or not. Lets see what happens....
midplanewanderer 1 year ago
I have not seen this entire video yet. However, I 100% agree with Hameroff's statement around 2min that we should figure out how to simulate a paramecium before doing a brain. Regardless of his theories or how much or little they can be experimentally tested, this point is worth repeating. This is why I went for an associate's degree in biotechnology AFTER my PhD. We must begin the study of consciousnesses with microorganisms.
nahaymath 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Quoting from wikipedia: "Hameroff appeared as himself in the documentary film What tнe ♯$*! Do ωΣ (k)πow!? (2004). He also participated in the first Beyond Belief conference, where his theories were sharply criticized by Lawrence Krauss, among others"
Regardless of how plausible his theories may be, his methods are inherently pseudoscientific and there is little reason why anyone should try understanding his bullshit whatsoever.
cjsveningsson 1 year ago
@cjsveningsson what's with the character attack? Your reasoning makes no sense at all. You don't know jack shit about his methods, you're just using poorly reasoned heuristics.
MrColoradovideos 1 year ago 8
@MrColoradovideos Not at all so. In fact, modelling paramecia is vastly beyond not only the means of the present hard AI paradigm (in which neurons are more than incidental) but beyond it's maximally extrapolated capabilities too. Heuristic arguments are fundamentally more general than special ones.
FinisReflectatOpus 2 days ago
@cjsveningsson Man people love to bring up that movie don't they. For the interviews they used what they needed and threw away what they didn't. In terms you'll understand...out of context...they only used what would back their claims of the subject of the movie, not that there isn't some truth to the movie.
Traczxm 1 year ago
@cjsveningsson Can you share links to your published papers? Physics? Biology maybe? Chemistry? Any prizes? Nobel rings a bell? (Penrose). Or maybe any books of yours I can buy? Any lectures of yours on youtube? Any scientific contributions? Your alma mater?
johnandersonUK 1 year ago
@johnandersonUK
Penrose is not a nobel prize :D
this said, if his theory is correct (and it certainly sounds worth of investigation) he will most likely win one.
Or he will be burned at the stake, considering the hurry to debunk orch-or many seem to show.
ThisOneIsTaken 4 months ago 3
@cjsveningsson Give me a break. How else do you explain free will without quantum uncertainty?
And don't give me this nonsense that free-will isn't there. We know a priori to the contrary, and any philosophy that dismisses the a priori is just positivist or eliminativist bullshit. People who espouse eliminativism are just p-zombies (self-admittedly) and zombies can't be reasoned with.
JohananRaatz 8 months ago 2
@JohananRaatz
In the same way we view life without vitalism. The zombie is a rethorical ad-hominem that doesn't add anything to the discussion. Neither side in these debates provides a compelling case, and little clarity about consciousness is achieved in Conversations on Consciousness. The leads to frequent inconsistency in the terminology used to describe the relation between consciousness and the brain: ncbi nlm nih gov/pmc/articles/PMC1456911/?tool=pmcentrez
AlainG80 6 months ago
@AlainG80 "life without vitalism"
Except the difference is that we can't sense any "vital essence." The same is not true of the mind. We can directly tell that our minds exist, and are irreducible. To prove this, we need "I's" before we can do any empirical observations in the first place. Thus the "I" is of a different kind of category altogether.
This also raises the issue of the explanatory gap. A live body is emergent from cells. But how do we get emergence from empirical to phenomenal?
JohananRaatz 6 months ago
@JohananRaatz
Except that I concept relies on the law of identity. Law of identity breaks down in quantum physics/logic. While constructing Quantum Logic (to keep up with quantum physics) they figured out that the law of identity is actually an intuition. We indeed can't rely on our intuitions, classical logic or our senses to uncover the quantum world. David Deutch explains how we are supposed to tackle the quantum world and save empiricism. I'll send you the link since this is off-topic.
AlainG80 6 months ago
@JohananRaatz Exactly. I think the central issue is, it's either Free Will or Determinism (with basically the illusion of "Free Will")
KTK401 3 months ago
@KTK401 Free Will and Determinism are abstract words. There is no evidence that reality correlates in any way to this sort of artifice. In short, the question is likely absurd. Wittgenstein elaborates this at great length, but Kant (and prior, Plato, even) state the same. The point is that reason as presently misunderstood rests in it's entirety upon formalisms that Godel proved are *intrinsically* incomplete. Quantum Mechanics is THE way out or this mess, at present. This is open-ended.
FinisReflectatOpus 2 days ago
Wow great talk, heavy bio,chemistry,math,computational and geometry. This will be seen as a hallmark talk by future researchers.
ddnguyen278 1 year ago 9
so many words im not familiar with, :(
2k0ol1 1 year ago