Quantum Consciousness

Discussion in 'Chemistry' started by Write4U, Mar 21, 2018.

  1. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,638
    I just happened across this fascinating talk by Dr. Stuart Hameroff.

    This does not appear to be woo, but a deep insight into non-intelligent sentience at nano scale.
    Watch it, it is truly eye-opening.
     
    Last edited: Mar 21, 2018
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,345
    I do not have 45 minutes to waste on this.

    Please either summarise the key points or direct us to a link where we can read them in 5 minutes instead.
     
    Last edited: Mar 21, 2018
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,638
    I thought that the OP title and my short comment was sufficient. Trying to keep it short without distracting from the interesting illustrated presentation.

    IMO, the point is that sentience is based on a fundametal universal principle of "movement in the direction of greatest satisfaction" and is already a potential at nano or even smaller scale. It's about microtubulers which display sentient respunses, albeit not intelligent.

    It is a universal function on which Darwinian Evolution (including living organisms) is based.

    Of particular interest is that the wave collapse function creates a form of sentient response from the microtubules at nano scale and ultra-sound may be a key to repair Alzheimer's brain damage.
     
    Last edited: Mar 21, 2018
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,345
    What rubbish. There is no such "universal principle", unless he is simply rebranding an existing concept from thermodynamics or something.
     
  8. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,638
    Those are my words and may be incorrect.

    That's why I originally posted the presentation without little comment so as not to confuse the issue with my lack of scientific semantics.

    But you asked for it and I gave it to the best of my ability. And as I feared, typical........instead of addressing the content of the presentation, you are focusing on a single phrase by me. That is tantamount to creating a straw man by attacking the messenger.

    So, I take it you still haven't watched the presentation by a scientist with a Doctorate in association with several other scientists including Roger Penrose, and accompanied with excellent illustrations.
    That means you are unable to comment on the content of the scientific narrative contained in the clip, right?

    Instead, you are trying to kill the messenger without reading the message from the knowledgeable source.
    How Trumpian.

    Trust me, the clip contains plenty of organic chemistry for you to get your teeth into. You claim not to have enough time to waste on a scientific presentation, but you are more than eager to waste your time on my lexical "rubbish". How is that informative to others?

    If I wanted to talk about universal imperatives and constants, I would have started the thread with a different OP title, perhaps something like "Universal Principles" and then you might be justified commenting on that.

    But if you are not curious what Dr. Hameroff has to say after years of study on the subject, no one is forcing you to "waste your time" on that, but I guarantee that you will find some new and interesting information which will make it "worth your while", especially the structure and components of nano-tubules.

    It might even be tangently related to your last posit in the topic "DNA change".

    You originally dismissed my posting of the Hazen presentation at the Carnegie Institute, "Chance, Necessity, and the Origins of Life", but in the end admitted that you did learn something new from his presentation.

    This presentation by Dr Hameroff is of the same quality and in a sense meshes nicely with the Hazen clip.

    Is there anyone who took the time to watch the presentation by Dr. Hameroff? I would love to hear your comment, it's really interesting!
     
    Last edited: Mar 21, 2018
  9. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,345
    I am not attacking the messenger, I am attacking the message. I have not called you an idiot (or not yet, anyway

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    ).

    But indeed, let's see if anyone else is prepared to wade through this stuff and can make an intelligent summary of it. You seem to think it is chemistry, but it looks an awful lot like quantum woo to me.
     
  10. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,638
    Apparently Penrose didn't think so. Why would he have wasted his time on this? Moreover, it has been shown that both eletrical and sonar stimuli affect brain functions.

    question: is Chemistry removed from QM? Are humans exempt from QM?
    and
    http://nautil.us/issue/47/consciousness/roger-penrose-on-why-consciousness-does-not-compute

    To me this sounds very much like "movement in the direction of greatest (optimal) satisfaction".
    (note: Movement in context of Trend)
    (note: Satisfaction in context of Parsimony)
    http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/1279748/?reload=true
     
    Last edited: Mar 22, 2018
  11. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,638
    How can you attack the "message" if you don't know it's content? That sounds a little dogmatic to me.
     
  12. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,503
    Versus
    You are saying that:
    1) You don't need to view the video (i.e. know its content) to discuss this topic;
    2) You need to view the video (i.e. know its content) to criticize this topic.

    Which is it?
     
  13. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,345
    The message being what you told me it was, you fool. In other words that nonsense about nature seeking satisfaction or whatever it was.
     
  14. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,345
    Look, you halfwit, I asked to you summarise the content, which you attempted to do and I then attacked the summary you provided, thinking in good faith that it was an accurate summary.

    You can't blame me for failing to divine that you are actually incapable of doing it and that, because you are so useless, I should ignore your summary and watch the video anyway.
     
    Write4U likes this.
  15. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,638
    Letting the presentation speak for itself.
    With all respect, I believe it is (2), and I did qualify my own ability to offer insight of how , or what causes consciousness, except in most basic generally accepted terms.

    But I believe that a qualified and respected anesthesiologist may well be the person to discuss the brain and its functions. But even then he/she may not necessarily know much about QM.
    Roger Penrose does know about QM, but not necessarily know much about the brain and its properties and functions.

    Hameroff shows that no computer could achieve the depth of consciousness of a human brain by what he called "brute force", even in quantum computers. He (humorously) termed the moment of cognition a "BING". But in the brain there are levels of awareness, which is his expertise as anesthesiologist. Rendering the patient unconcious without killing him or his subconscious autonomous motor functions, is targeted at level 3 of consciousness processes..

    Apparently he heard about Penrose and bought his latest book and it occurred to him that nano-tubules in braincells behaved very much like tiny quantum computers which did display a fundamental form of consciousness (awareness), but at a much smaller and deeper level which might bring the process into the domain of QM and collapsing wave functions, i.e. a sequence of "BING"s.

    He contacted Penrose and true to their pioneering spirit, Penrose and Hameroff started collaborating, based on the hypothesis that at nano scale level supersonic waves may affect the nano-tubulins at quantum levels and play a part in processing information.

    This how I understand the proposition, but I am sure interested in the secondary philosophical consideration of a fundamental QM aspect to Darwinian evolution, based on the quoted link from post #7 :
    http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/1279748/?reload=true

    Hameroff himself took the first ultrasound test and confirms that he experienced a feeling of being high for almost an hour, after a 15 second exposure the result was an optimally parsimonious experience.

    The illustrations are copious and very clear and his presentation is well structured and narrated. I really believe that you may find it interesting even as it seems at first to contradict the generally accepted evolutionary process, it also might provide (add) a natural QM Imperative to the concept of Evolution in all it's forms and expressions, including the brain.
     
    Last edited: Mar 22, 2018
  16. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,638
    Oops, you are quoting the wrong person in your post # 11.

    But I do look forward to your considered critique of the presentation.
     
  17. Michael 345 Bali in Nov closer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,229
    I would contend microtubules are only reactive and in no way sentinent

    Any video which contains

    a deep insight into non-intelligent sentience at nano scale

    immediately classes itself as Woo Woo no matter the qualifications of the speaker

    Dr. Stuart Hameroff.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuart_Hameroff

    Perhaps a link to a published research paper on the subject would be helpful

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  18. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,638
    Well, those were my words and I readily admit my shortcomings. So blame the woo on my ignorance, not Hameroff.

    But thanks for the Wiki link, which also leads to several published papers, pro and con.
     
  19. Michael 345 Bali in Nov closer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,229
    No I put the Woo Woo where it belongs

    Inside the brain of the person who proposed

    a deep insight into non-intelligent sentience at nano scale

    is Woo Woo no matter the qualifications of the speaker

    Dr. Stuart Hameroff

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  20. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,638
    Replace my words with Hameroff's proposition of "Quantum Consciousness"

    p.s. now that I think of it, the concept does not conflict with Darwinian Evolution and Natural Selection, which results in survival and ability to procreate. Hameroff's "Quantum Consciousness" just adds motive for procreation itself.
    This is not addressed in Darwinian Evolution.
     
  21. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,503
    I agree that (2) makes much more sense, which means the opening to your post #3 doesn't. Glad we cleared that up.
     
    Write4U likes this.
  22. Michael 345 Bali in Nov closer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,229
    = Woo Woo

    It does indeed conflict because it does not exist

    It's a piss poor attempt to assign purpose to a non purpose PROCESS

    motive for procreation <-- does not exist within evolution

    Again with the piss poor attempt to assign purpose to a non purpose PROCESS

    Seems like anthropomorphism strikes again

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  23. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,638
    Procreation is not a process, it is a universal Imperative toward "Optimum parsemony".
    You're right, it just adds to the process of evolution, i.e. the compulsion and motivation to procreate and generate offspring.
    Do you think animals do not enjoy sex? Ask the Bonobo.
    Then what compels us and every other biological organism to have sex even if it has no purpose other than "optimum parsemony, i.e. pleasure? A Mayfly only lives a day or two and spends ALL his/her time finding a mating partner. The female emits pheromones which compels the male to seek her out. Why ? Do they know it will result in offspring? I should think not.
    I would say that it is an innate tendency in all living organisms which must mate to procreate.

    But that does not answer the motivation to have sex. The answer to those non-human basic drives, emotions or intentions need not be mystical at all, if they are caused by QM and experienced as "optimum parsemony" in both affected systems. Just the right comfortable most efficient and satisfying fit. Occams razor.
     
    Last edited: Mar 22, 2018

Share This Page