Added: 4 years ago
From: zencat01
Views: 87,907
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:
see all

All Comments (413)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • The physicist Lawrence Krauss took him to task on this stuff and basically said: "Everything you just said is nonsense"

  • This guy is spewing nonsense as far as I can tell. What on earth does recursive computability have to do with free will?

  • I went mental about hearing his explanation on the subatomical level. I really need to dig into that subject.

  • So....does this explain why downs syndrome, the comatose, Alzheimer's people are not conscious??? They are merely removed from the grand consciousness that is "out there"

  • Hmmmm, he doesn't seem to provide very good objections to the computational hypothesis. But otherwise, very interesting. I'd love to know enough quantum physics to be able to tackle the subject.

  • Summary - A brilliant guy discussing mind blowing topics, yet interviewed by Jim from "The Office"

  • He never answered the question. It was not the interviewer's fault. Hameroff had opportunites to say weather consciousness is drawn from outside or just inside.

  • Who is the interviewer, and what program is this from?

  • Does electron have consciousness ? Molecular biology and molecular evolution Cosmology and cosmic evolution If Universe evolves can electron evolve too? Does evolution of life begin on electron’s level? Origin of life is a result of physical laws that govern Universe. Electron takes important part in this work Question Why does the simplest particle - electron have six formulas: E=h*f, e = +ah*c , e = -ah*c, +E=Mc^2, -E=Mc^2, E= ∞ ? Electron is not as simple as we think
  • this scary if I understood it

  • Seems like the problem comes from our differing definitions of consciousness.

    1. I consider anything that reacts to external stimuli to have "some" form of consciousness, however limited.

    2. You missed the point on this one. It's not simply the fact that we're having a dialogue, it's the subject matter that we're discussing.

    All we have are opinions and beliefs at this point. I disagree with you, I think consciousness is the most amazing thing in the Universe, but I respect your opinion.

  • Seems like the problem comes from our differing definitions of consciousness.

    1. I consider anything that reacts to external stimuli to have "some" form of consciousness, however limited.

    2. You missed the point on this one. It's not simply the fact that we're having a dialogue, it's the subject matter that we're discussing.

    All we have are opinions and beliefs at this point. I disagree with you, I think consciousness is the most amazing thing in the Universe, but I respect your opinion.

  • "I didn't understand all of his arguments"

    .... and yet Hameroff just believes him based on intuition?

  • @Ermal8711 Research on intuition has favored those who believe they should follow their gut. We may not understand intuition, but that doesn't make it any less relevant. Pardon the philosophical slant here, but whether something is true or not has nothing to do with whether the human mind can comprehend it. I think this is where a lot of people get stuck. Nothing wrong with wanting to understand...we just have to admit our limitations. Reality often doesn't make sense. We just have to accept it.

  • Beeing into the subject a little from the side of psychology, I have the impression, that Dr. Hameroff leaves out the findings of neurobiology. Personnally I don't think consciounsce is that special. Animals have it. As experience show, even pigs and birds have self-consciounsce (awareness in mirror). So, it might be just a little more complex. So? Why make such a big thing of it. Just because Dr. Hameroff f.e. can't understand it.

  • @greenwoodonearth You don't think consciousness is that special? Your feelings about this clip aside, how can you feel that way? Personally, I think it's amazing. Think about it, we're just a mix of different elements that has become aware of itself.

    Yes, of course animals have a certain level of consciousness, as do, plants, even single celled organisms. The fact that we can even have this dialogue about consciousness doesn't amaze you? Maybe I'm just too easily impressed by the Universe.

  • @Jdiggy77 Hi Jdiggy77. I don't know who you are, nor on what level we are communicating here. 1. I don't think plants have a consciousness in the narrower sense of the word. In a very extended usage of the word you could say that. 2. The fact that we have this dialogue (or you are amazed by it) in my eyes is primary based on the human ability to use symbols (semiotics) and not so much related to consciousness ... cheers :D

  • If you watch the entire interview on google, then you will see that this kid interviewing Stuart is a moron, and does not even understand the basic ideas being discussed. I'm impressed that Stuart did not become frustrated with the boy.

  • @yawhatithoughtya. @wolfgange63. It did not come from ancient books nor belief in intelligent design nor creation myths. Those things quell understanding. God's admonition to Job, was written by men who didn't want their myths questioned.

  • @yawhatithoughtya. @wolfgange63. Actually what quantum physics tells us is that the universe is a big crapshoot down on the plank scale, pure possibility. And the universe is made of that stuff. Moreover, the act of looking keeps making more to see. Consider how much we understand now that we didn't in the past. That understanding came from observation, scientific method and peer review. It did not come from ancient books nor belief in intelligent design nor creation myths. Those things l

  • @arzoyan. Consider that there is no way that capitalism is. There's only the way we're being about it. In other words, its not inherently exploitative, that's just what some people have done with it.

  • This isn't an interview, it's an attack. The youngster sits perched on his rock waiting for any and every concept to fly past his view, When "any" appears he indiscriminately zaps it with his long sticky tongue like a Chameleon zapping bugs.

    Not a pleasant experience for the viewer although Hameroff is enjoying himself as he deflects the weak and badly placed jabs.

  • I have often thought that the brain is also an interface between us and higher or collective consciousness.

  • @Vierotchka yup

  • Every time Hameroff comes to the exciting point James jumps in with the series of unrelated questions. He even did everything to prevent Hameroff to explain the most important process – how conciseness arises from quantum world.

    What a waste…

  • @alxrdv Yes it's very irritating. He seems to think he's being very clever but his interjections make little sense.

  • @alxrdv Hm, I thought the interview was pretty well done, and regardless the interviewer, Hameroff covered almost everything for the laymen (though it did take quite a long time). Of course Hameroff didn't describe how consciousness arises from the "quantum world" because Hameroff is the neurologist- and even the mathematical physicist of the duo (Penrose) cannot fully fathom the answer to that question (which relates to fundamental aspects of space-time only describable with mathematics).

  • why does Mr. Hameroff postulate that the brain is the ab ovo of consciousness??

  • understanding the source of consciousness is quite simple.........however, not known, humans tend to overcomplicate that which they do not know but strive to

  • In 1990 I wrote a book which pretty much explains the whole of consciousness and beyond...........I'd like to share it with Mr. Hameroff. I say this with all humility.The writing of the book was due to circumstances very much beyond my human control.......

  • @mjtf1113 Have you seen a doctor about it? There's a "quack" in this video who might help.

  • amazing depth by Mr.hammeroff

  • I encourage you all to check out a documentary titled Quantum Activist. It forever altered my perception of the world, people, and the universe. If you have a Netflix account it's available on "watch it now". I'm bookmarking this video because I'm interested in hearing your thoughts on the documentary, and I'm curious to see if it did the same for you as it did for me. Feel free to drop me a private message about it.

  • 10 to the 27th computations per seconds!!! Thats f.ucking astounding!! I would have to agree that the mind is not ontologically reducible to the brain though it might be causally reducible

  • Saw the whole interview on Google video. Mind blown.

  • See Hindu studies for reference to conciousness as pertaining to "non-locality." "Part-and-parcel" theories lead quickly into ecstacies, clairvoyance, and the like. With conciousness accessing pools of data that are non-local, what is to be said of clairvoyance? As well, what is to be said about other concious entities influencing your decision making process through influencing perceived access to the pool? Overall, this has the appearance of a counter-culture movement.

  • I'm doing a speech on Quantum Consciousness and this was very helpful, indeed. Thank you for posting it!

  • Hameroff is cool

  • what’s wrong with us being just epiphenomena ?

  • Comment removed

  • @Basigek consciousness as an epiphenomena is too problematic, and it doesn't account for nor explain the vast amount of data that counts against it (PSI, NDEs). The reason we may not solve the hard problem is because we could literally be looking in the wrong places. ie "non-locality" may be the best explanation for consciousness.

  • @Oppositum What are PSI'S AND NDE'S?

  • @henryporter101 Psi is a term referring to transpersonal psychology; specifically 'parapsychology' and extra sensory perception. The common stigma associated with psi is unwarranted in the cases where it has actually been reproduced in double blind experiments. NDEs are 'near-death-experiences'. Essentially, when people are clinically dead they should have no consciousness, and yet we find that they have it lucidly. These two fields constitute strong evidence that consciousness is non-local.

  • @Oppositum Thanks for the answer.

  • where the hell is the rest of the interview. god damn

  • Hey guys, do a google search for "2911199841702354668" for the full interview!

  • @iwantutubetoo just curious as to how you knew that?

  • @iwantutubetoo wish I could vote this higher :-) thanks muchly - peace o7

  • @iwantutubetoo thanks for sharing that!

  • I don't believe in "free will." I agree with Einstein that "the universe does not play dice."

  • @YaWhatIThoughtYa I totally agree. Here is a quote from Job 38... 4 “ Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding. 5 Who determined its measurements? Surely you know! Or who stretched the line upon it? 6 To what were its foundations fastened? Or who laid its cornerstone, 7 When the morning stars sang together, And all the sons of God shouted for joy?

  • @wolfgange63 Of course all is a plan. How can any logical thinker ever thing this all just happened??? That would be like looking at that car in your garage and say..."Oh that thing just happened by accident. Somehow or another all those metallic and plastic parts just emerged together and formed a way of moving around."

  • @wolfgange63 Ehhh... no. There is evidence, so far unargued, for the big bang- and nothing else. No one is saying that anything "just happened". Clearly you should develop your understanding of the time line of the universe.

  • @radahad000 Oh ....clearly I should cause you must be alot smarter than I. Can you please educate me Master. Please explain your superior knowledge of how it all began.

  • @wolfgange63 well, the best I will do, is point you towards other videos on youtube that explain things at a very basic level. To actually understand, you will have to study and put a lot of effort and time into a subject. It isn't something that any one person can really just teach over the internet on youtube. It's much more complex than any one person really understands by themselves.

  • @wolfgange63 I would point yourself towards videos that break down the ideas on quantum mechanics. Then, expand where your mind takes you from there.

  • @wolfgange63 There is probably no way to explain "how it all began" from a scientific standpoint. Because, I think, we don't know, and can't know, that 'it all began'. It may have always existed. Or, it may exist in infinity. Meaning there may be infinite universes (or areas of existence). I don't think we were designed to understand it fully; however, I do believe we are capable of increasing our intelligence by willfully studying the topic. Size means nothing, nor mass, reality is singular.

  • @1971superlead

    would have to disagree. theres no way to measure consciousness, and definitely you can have lower and higher levels of consciousness and self-awareness. there are enough drugs out there for either

  • a quantum computer can make a soul

  • quantum physics is not the key to conciousness it's the key to understand why brain is able to process information wich leads to the state of awareness.The process of thinking has no access to understand conciousness.Awareness is everything what you know derived from thought so you cannot "look out" to conciousness and investigate it.This is the hard question in science wich will never be solved

  • Intelligence seems to come in a spectrum, with humans ranking as the most intelligent (so far) and the other animals falling somewhere lower on the scale. Consciousness however seems to be very much a “you have it or you don’t” kind of thing. Unlike intelligence it doesn’t make any sense to talk about someone being “less conscious”.

  • I Need more of this interview please!!!!!!!

  • The simple solution is there are two types of consciousness - subjective or the collective characteristic of existence to be 'aware of existing' and objective consciousness which is developed in an objective setting. One is a capability and the other is a developed ability. Search 'Two Types Of Consciousness' AWAKE for more. Cheers!

  • I would dwell on quantum holographic principles here as it is well-known the brain operates with holographic aspects, at least in that the brain can be remarkably resilient in the face of the excision of a significant amount of gray matter. Any quantum holographic aspects of nature should be considered when considering the subjective (ultrabroadband, if I may say it so) experience and an uncanny efficacy of consciousness in pre-programming subconscious reflexes.

    intrinsic = definitional

  • @CACBCCCU i found something where they found that Self-Consciousness is found in the brain. dose that go agenst what this guy is saying?

  • @Star7Nerd

    I suppose you're using the phrase "self-consciousness" in a way that is interchangeable with "self awareness." I don't know that Hameroff says one's consciousness (or, equivalently, awareness) of anything resides outside of one's brain. Try listening to "Stuart Hameroff, M. D. Consciousness & Anesthesia Conversation-Part#8".

  • @CACBCCCU ok thanks :)

  • @CACBCCCU Well-known? How, and based on what? Gray matter?

  • @Ko252 If you're asking me what "well-known" and "gray matter" mean to me, I'd sincerely appreciate first knowing what "idle question" means to you.

  • @CACBCCCU No, I am asking you how can make the assertion that it is well-known that the brain operates with holograhic aspects, and what kind of gray matter you mean (some kind of pseudoscientific term, or the gray matter in the brain). Idle question? it means nothing.

  • @Ko252 Pribram noted in the 50's that no patient ever came out of surgery, in which part of the brain was removed, with a selective memory loss. "Gray matter" refers to the cortex. Idle questions are exclusions to the weak principle that no question is stupid.

  • @CACBCCCU 1) Your explanation of why the brain work with a quanum holographic principle is insufficient, since resilient to excision can be explained by plasticity of the brain alone. 2) You are grounding on a 60 year old note, with regard the advancement since then. It it more sensible to look at, for instance stroke, which is often smaller brain damage. It is a well known fact, that selective memory loss is possible. For instance in the regard of prosopagnosia.

  • Comment removed

  • @Ko252 I was supposedly explaining how the brain works? That's news to me.

    "Plasticity" and "resilience" are terms often used to refer to related mechanical properties, and here again it's news to me that I was supposedly referring to mechanical properties.

    I was referring to excisions as being exemplary of all brain insults including strokes etc.? Again, it's news to me.

    At this point I can only recommend that you join with me in considering this the end of our discussion.

  • @CACBCCCU You werent, but I am. It ended a long time ago.

  • @Ko252

    Alright, some good news for a change. Have a nice day.

  • I suppose the existence of superpositions of quantum states represents a holographic aspect of nature. Superposition may be intrinsic to the quantum energy (no hidden local variables) but it is also entirely an aspect of the rest of the universe and of attempting to identify the state separately from it. A well-known holographic principle involving quantum information and black holes is also, I guess, related to this superpositional holographic aspect but full details are still always lacking.

  • I usually suppose consciousness is fundamentally an electromagnetic activity, that the medium of raw experience and thought is an electromagnetic medium. The subconscious could serve as one or more systems of programmable nonlinear attenuators, deskewers, loopers and mixers in this context, acting as simplified versions of the final stage process of consciousness. A holographic aspect of quantum theory might assist these multiple similar process levels to maintain coherence.

    acrue = accrue

  • All sensory inputs (and memories) are refined through the subconscious and the subconscious is trainable (educated reflexes) from which free and unencumbered will may acrue. Refined inputs to consciousness are there to be synchronized and looped with each other and with will, all of this competitively requiring recognition hierarchies of relations and actors including the self, binding the loops, and this is, I guess, the utilitary origin of consciousness and the experience of it as we know it.

  • Given that we can learn to react differently to things and we can alter our subconscious to change our ultimate thoughts, surely that means the consciousness activates the brain rather than the other way round? There surely must be a central pace where our consciousness exists? If we are just robots reating to the brain, why can we alter a thought i.e. have free will.

  • @impressionsbysimon Our conscious interacts with and often is the result of the subconsious. That in no way means we have to have some other consiousness out there. Surely you have no evidence that says our brain is incapable of doing the work.

  • @phantomcreamer There is no evidence. But cognitive process and free will may indicate that we are more than just slaves to brain reactions. We don't know what consciousness or subconsciousness is so we can neither say our brain matter is our consciousness. The question really is: how do atoms exist? Do they exist because of some sort of greater consciousness they are tapping into? These questions open up new possibilities about consciousness.

  • @impressionsbysimon I don't think we are slaves to brain reactions (or more accurately, random chemical properties inherent in nature). Instead, I know that we have free will, because I have decided to write this reply. I have no real idea who I am, at the most basic level, but I do know that I am. And as such, I think this means we are somehow directly connected, probably at the quantum level, to what they call the 'unified field'. It's easy to imagine this, but very difficult to explain it.

  • @Smashinz2002 Yes. I agree with that point

  • I believe we have consciousness but no free will. I don't really get why he talks about rejecting this at 8:30.

  • The problem with determinism (no free will) is that the idea is everything is a cause and/or effect of something else. So their theory is if you can somehow find the formula or theory to explain all that goes on in the universe you can know everything that happened, is happening and will happen for all time. To me that's saying if a life form whether us or alien can find this theory by definition they would be Gods. Because they would literally have all information at any given time on ANYTHING.

  • @BurningHeretics If some1 finds such a 'theory', it is only because he was destined to do so. If u understand this joke, you'll see the problem with what ur saying. Also, not that it is any of my concern, but if u are a religious monotheist, then u should refer to all 'gods' with a lower case 'g'; only in denoting the supreme God in whom u believe should u use a capital.

  • What does your comment have to do with anything I just said?

  • @BurningHeretics That God could not have been determined or predestined to do anything, since He precedes all causes. So if anyone were to discover the secret of the pattern for everything that can occur, 1. he would not be God, b/c he was bound to do so and 2. he would only be all-knowing in that regard. He still wouldn't have any control over anything that happens, he'd just b a witness to it. And so what if you can theoretically have this power? It doesn't make determinism false.

  • If atheists in general believe in that then they must be confused about what they really "believe in".

  • The same reason you believe we have consciousness but no free will.

  • @BurningHeretics What does that mean?

  • Wouldnt it make sense that everything is just reaction to reaction. We only think we obtain consciousness or free will. Everything is like a constant stream of energy, and our brains our just able to form ideas.

  • "My gut level - even though I didn't understand him - was that he was right." So much for the so called 'scientific method! As a non scientific person I am constantly amused by these over rational types who rely so strongly on maths and logic and lab experiments and then leap blindly to some unsubstantiated conclusion like a superstitious old crone with her crystal ball.

  • @zthetha

    Penrose, who worked with him, understands though doesn't he. Hameroff's contribution is his knowledge of biology.

  • @zthetha Not having any experience working as a scientist, you are then forgiven for your lack of understanding of how scientists works. Scientists usually start out from a hunch that inspires them to develope a hypothesis that they then can test out against real observations. The important thing is not how a scientists gets his ideas, but how he tests his ideas and reaches his conclusions. That IS the scientific method and that is what Hameroff describes.

  • The force ratios I use are on wikipedia's page on "fundamental interactions." Most commonly cited solar neutrino densities are close to 10^6/cm^3.

    FWIW, cosmological neutrinos densities are around 100/cm^3, and there are locally-generated neutrinos to add into the mix. Neutrinos could be considered the catalyst for a neutron (n) turning into a proton (p) which, if the resulting electron stays intra-nuclear, is like 1/3 of a flip for a carbon-12 atom's nucleus, 2p exchanging places with 2n.

  • @CACBCCCU , yeah I'm sorry but I didn't understand a word you just said. BUT I know you were talking about the video.

  • @inukami23 Sorry about that, don't know what to say there. FWIW, I should make a slight correction - it's said the solar neutrino density is in trillions per cubic meter, which still works out to 1 neutrino passing through a 10^-4 meter cube at any one moment. I'm trying to rationalize taking the quantum microtubule effect further down in size scale to individual particles such as protons, using the weak force, noting some odd weak-force properties for the cellular scale ~10^11 times larger.

  • @inukami23 I left something out.

    If the electron is reabsorbed into a proton then it's like a neutron exchanging places with a proton. A neutrino might be able to catalyse that process twice in passing through a carbon-12 nucleus, which would flip 1/3 of its nucleons. I'm not sure that it's a significant idea, but there it is.

  • Maybe another interesting coincidence about the 10^-4m range (100 micrometers), which, as noted before comes up after multiplying the proton radius by the ratio of Coulomb force to Weak force, and which sits on the egg-cell-sized boundary of microscopic and macroscopic ...and that is that the density of solar neutrinos on Earth is about 1 neutrino per 10^-4 meter cube.

  • The formula for cell radius I meant to put as the product of multiplying the proton radius (10^-15 meters) by the ratio of the Coulomb force to the weak force (10^11), which I derive from the ratio of the Coulomb force to gravity between two protons at any distance (10^36) and the typically-cited ratio of the weak force to gravity (10^25) as 36-25 = 11.

  • I guess it would make more sense for me to look at a neuron-like action in the interplay between the weak force and the other forces, rather than focusing on gravitons. If you multiply the size of a proton by the ratio of gravity to the weak force (10^-25) one arrives at the boundary between macroscopic and microscopic (10^-4 meters), about the size of a large cell, such as a human egg cell. Maybe Hadrons could be seen as resembling neurons and weak bosons could be analogized to synapses.

  • I had the thought that particles of matter could interact with gravitons in a neuron-like manner, for example expressed with a nonlinear graviton scattering effect and a gravitonic memory with a refractory response effect. An example might be that graviton emission can become inhibited in directions where it is unlikely to be returned quickly. I can imagine results of the effect being amplified with lower energies, i.e. in supercold environments with extreme isolation.

  • How selfish are we to think like that.

    Apes, dogs , cats , mice , birds and even insects experience "consciousness" in one form or another. Consciousness exists purely on the act of thinking about it.

    Its like saying "up,down,left and right" have always existed, but that is not the case. To put it another way, things exists when I say they do.

  • look up dual slit experiment for clarification

  • Comment removed

  • Vis Emergence..

    It's ridiculous to assume that complexity is the sole defining characteristic which should give rise to consciousness.

    A 100 kilo pile of disassembled computer chips and program disks is more complex than a 3 kilo assembled computer running a program. However only the latter is capable of actual information processing.

    One is complex, the other is purposeful.

    Similarly brain complexity does not a mind make. It requires the co-ordinated, purposeful actions of many processes.

  • Agreed. I liked the example (in this video) given involving the single celled organism. Not at all complex, but purposeful. On some level deciding that existence in the micro-pipette was "bad", the organism displays a behavior (analysis of it's summation of experience) that seems dependent on ego which is dependent on the mind/body complex. The implication of course that an amoeba is conscious. If one reads a book with a golf ball sized consciousness, they get a golf ball sized understanding

  • Consciousness is all form, which is dynamic at the vibrational value which constitutes the form expressed. A computer is not going to function like a person just as a rock will not. What is missing in both is the witnessing or self recognition that people have to affirm the seeming presence of other forms. A rock or a computer do not struggle or question the nature of their existence. They exist, only as confirmed by the witness.

  • thats stupid "We know things other than through algorithms that a computer can do"- even if it has the appearance of chaos our thoughts have patterns, and wouldn't that indicate that the chaos is really just algorithms that are more complex than we can figure out right now?

  • I agree with you. You discounted that consciousness was not based on intelligence (a computer would have consciousness), also people who are developmentally delayed or severely handicapped would not have a consciousness at all.

  • The link you sent me was not part two. It didn't continue what Hameroff was discussing, it was a dissection from a viewer discussing so called fallacies & why he believes functionalism is a better explanation.

  • "If you are still athiest, you are one of the most stuppid and ignorant person" ...

    Alghoraba... you are afraid of what you do not know. This fear, combined with low intelligence, causes you to feel anger when things like this video are presented to you. If this were not true, you would feel no need to make such a random, pitiful comment that serves no purpose other than letting everyone know you are insecure in your beliefs and need to attack others to boost your feeling of self-worth.

  • Being a guy, the first question that comes to mind is which brain is he talking about?

  • @nofooIn if you cannot think with your brain (and only with the head between your legs) then that makes you no more then an animal who can only respond to instincts. Are you saying men aren't capable of higher thought? I know you were joking but this is kind of a touchy subject with me.

  • @MsHolmar Well, I'm glad you realized that I was joking. To answer your question, of course we are capable of higher thought than animals, but I personally believe we aren't as different from them as we'd like to think. For example, animals are capable of sacrifice and compassion, which is beyond simple instinctual behavior. Perhaps animals also have a higher consciousness, but the manifestation of it is limited by the capacity of their brains. Perhaps we are greater than we appear as well.

  • @nofooIn No problem. I always see these posts where ppl write back to others and are so touchy or off base or defensive and I think to myself, why do ppl always have to find fault with everything...there is one in every crowd. Well, lol, this time it was me! It's ok. Normally I would have laughed. You just caught me at a bad moment. Glad you posted back so I could explain. Thanks, Holly

  • Ive actually got to hang out with this guy, and threw back a couple of beers, he's total humble, and very intellectual.

  • @marcuelcajon

    And right goddamit!

  • IF YOU ARE STILL ATHIEST, YOU ARE ONE OF THE MOST STUPPID AND IGNORANT PERSON

  • @alghoraba Comments like these are the reason athiests have such a problem with theists. Maybe you should try a kinder approach. "Hey athiests, here's why I disagree with your idea. Whadd'ya think?" Being rude only gives them ammo.

  • @TheRandomDeity i agree. thanks for good advice

  • Is there a part two to this video? It's obviously not complete.

  • @Psiafrat

    this is part 2.

  • thought forms and shapes matter..we are living in peoples visions from the past driving cars , planes, playing on our computer, flying to the moon etc - they only existed in someones mind as a thought at one time

  • This is amazing! I will be doing my final DIZZA on this one....

  • Fuck you and your stupid videos which have completely no relevance to the scientific method. Stop getting hooked on lysergic acid and quit being an asinine cock-smoker. I suggest you move out of your parents' house and finish high school, bitch. I study Physics at UCT unlike you, and economically speaking my Suzuki GSX-R600 costed more than your house.

  • @DirectCore costed ??? and you study at UCT......

  • @DirectCore Lets review your arguments against this video. 1: scientific method, maybe a relevant point although no justification. 2: "hooked on LSD", this is not even physically possible, although some idiotic people i suppose can be psychologically hooked. 3: "cock-smoker," way to display your homophobic pride. 4: Pulling rank, which is totally random as you have no idea who this person actually is. 5: Brag about your irrelevant motorcycle. EACH POINT MORE ARBITRARY AND IGNORANT THAN THE LAST.

  • @Lucretius58 1. you're an idiot. 2. you're an idiotic idiot. 3. did I mention you're an idiot?

  • @Lucretius58 I'm seriously worried about that Lucredtius guy. Every word that uttered out of his mouth has completely no relevance to daily life. And the end product is this shit he's talking, and I'm wondering if he got paid to do this video. I presume he doesn't have a degree in Physics, or formal education for that matter. He probably doesn't even have a job either. This is what happens when unemployed crack-smoking hippies use YouTube for the first time... Typical socially-deprived kids...

  • @Lucretius58 It's sincerely funny how small-minded ignorant buffoon's comment on wisdom...

  • @Lucretius58 you've searched on google to impress people you do not know in the least having very poor hunch on who I am, and your little moped ain't crap compared to my GSX-R600 but who even really gives a crap?

    In fact you are the attention whore with all your talkings up of yourself and time spent solely to impress but not time being correct.

  • @Lucretius58 This Lucretius cock-sucker faggot cracks me up. I assure you, YouTube is the only place he has friends (who hate him). He sits in a dark room surrounded by 4 walls and I'd think he's a self-contained entity: everything he will ever need is in his room. He'll die one day and the world will never even know he existed. He gets jealous, beware, for he hates people who study Physics and he dislikes people who ride Suzuki GSX-R600 hypersport bikes. He fumbles his penis in envy.

  • @Lucretius58 people like you drop out of high school and then end up sweeping the floor at McDonald's...

  • @DirectCore you sir, should not be allowed to speak. i left the field of physics BECAUSE it appeals to ignoramuses like yourself. GET A FUCKING LIFE. if you're not going to even ATTEMPT to be intelligent, DO NOT SPEAK.

  • @Lucretius58 Your mother's rapist is not allowed to speak.

  • @Lucretius58 Yet another college dropout taking out his anger on this forum...

  • I'd explain the basics of quantum physics as it is elementary, however science would use it for to harm the innocent and remain to claim there is no God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit :(. So I must decline.

  • Mr.Stuart , I saw another one of your videos and posted about the hebrew concept of time vs. the classical greek concept of time and that they are opposites.

    In this video you mentioned greeks , please don't tell me you're stupid enough to use greek logic. ( if you could call what greeks do , logic )

  • every thing living or dead has a quantum level.what makes me different from this keyboard i am typing now is my brain.I agree with dr.hamerrof ,consciousness very possible could be a electric force on quantum level.our brains are receptors/compilers for that inpulse....object without brain or some kind of compiler (nervous system...) can not percive consciousness,altrought she still exist all around...

  • The Conscious Universe

    The Universe as whole is Infinite/Energy/Vacuum

    ( Diracs sea ) T=0K. According to Quantum theory the Vacuum gives birth to virtual/ energy particles who can change into real particles. And from these real particles were created everything in the World.

    We are logical and conscious humans. Doesnt

    it mean what the virtual/ energy particles and Vacuum also must be some kind of consciousness ?

    Israel Sadovnik. Socratus

  • One thing I dont understand, is why many of these physicist talking about consciousness and QM, seemingly havnt read anything about neurophysiology etc. How can he know if tornadoes dont have consciousness, if you cant communicate? You have nucleuses in your brain, telling you which body parts belongs to you an to others. Todays computer are far from advanced enough to have consciousness - they cant learn (do babies have consciousness)?

  • @TylerDurdenMakesSoap Wrong. Consciousness of a person is predictable. There has been done lots of tests, that your thought about something can be shown on MRI before it is conscious for you. Ever heard about suggestions? Or do you know what scemes the ad-companies use? Look up Derren Brown on youtube.

  • Maybe the brain is similar to a tv receiver: it does receive a program from the outside but doesn't produce it. It can show the program, modify mode (program), brightness, loudness, may be language and perhaps store something.

  • Just because you didnt get anything from it, does not mean nothing important was said. Its important to link this with other information collected on the subject matter, and bridge it to make logical conclusions from the information. I am not going to claim that your an idiot, that would be a illogical conclusion, perhaps your just a bit ignorant.

  • Maybe we were not meant to figure all this out with the brain -- maybe "feeling" (tactile and perception) is the gateway?

    As soon as we start to "rationalize" everything about our perception begins to accept assumptions so we can move quickly to solve one-at-a-time problems -- we cannot perceive everything at once so we miss how those un-perceived noumon are interacting with the thing (problem or phenomenon) we are trying to understand-solve.

    Linear vs Circular perception

  • @OctoBox But that doesnt mean we want understand it fully in the future.

  • @Ko252 Sure -- of course you are right.

  • quantum physics is the key to consciousness? isnt that a stupid thing to say ?

  • This makes total sense... if consciousness is electrical interaction it has to arise somewhere at the quantum level

  • @photonintwoplaces Every existing thing has a quantum level, and existing because of quantom properties as it is. So?

  • the heart problem being actually: what IS consciousness in the first place?

  • If you have a heart problem, you should probably see a cardiologist.

  • @ThePhilosorpheus I'm not sure, but I think it's awareness.

  • @ThePhilosorpheus good question one could say you but what would that make us ?