Roger Penrose - Quantum Physics of Consciousness

Поділитися
Вставка
  • Опубліковано 21 лис 2024

КОМЕНТАРІ • 1,2 тис.

  • @yoananda9
    @yoananda9 Рік тому +112

    Roger Penrose is a Nobel price. He writes a book, which is a "failure", he admits himself. That lead him to another path, but he is still an outcast trying to prove his intuition.
    What a great man !!! We need more of this kind of man : extreme intelligence and courage. He is seeking truth and not career.

    • @scottdunlop8141
      @scottdunlop8141 Рік тому +3

      I agree that this is a great man and a great thinker

    • @squamish4244
      @squamish4244 Рік тому +5

      One of the smartest people alive, and widely regarded as one of the greatest mathematicians and physicists. And about 35 years ago, he decided that we needed to explain consciousness. Thank god.

  • @mildanimal5967
    @mildanimal5967 4 роки тому +467

    Wait, what is this? Two sage (old) men calmly discussing matters of importance to humanity, and they don’t even need a moderator to stop them interrupting? To think this is happening in my lifetime!

    • @brydonjesse
      @brydonjesse 3 роки тому +13

      He is the moderator lol he is just that smart. He used to moderate alot of discussions

    • @bipedalbob
      @bipedalbob 3 роки тому +9

      It's a sure sign of intelligence.

    • @lozD83
      @lozD83 2 роки тому +10

      I mean, it's not a debate. Just a straightforward interview... which is refreshing nonetheless

    • @markobrien4332
      @markobrien4332 2 роки тому +4

      check out Thinking Allowed with Jeffrey Mishlove and New Thinking Allowed, loads of dialogues between old sages going back to the 80s.
      Not really a science channel, more Humanities. But it is great to see men and women, debate in such a civilised manner and not barking at each other.

    • @AK-jt7kh
      @AK-jt7kh 2 роки тому

      @MrGriff305 what? This hasn’t been normal in my lifetime. 😂

  • @bossbear7187
    @bossbear7187 4 роки тому +276

    I'm grateful for the smart folks out there that can verbalize the stuff that keeps me up at night, but don't know the words to describe. Thank You.

    • @ronaldsliski9585
      @ronaldsliski9585 4 роки тому +1

      Its called word smithing,smiting, words that ordinary people can give a crap about ,as well as to hide certain projects than create a new name,all intellectual human is taught by influences, intuition, resulting in information, or a skill? So everyone from a scientist, to a ball player,or Rockstar actors etc.are of a intellectual influences from outside the flesh we are covered in due in part we're spiritual being, so in the many dimensions of our existence there's spiritual beings that invade our space and give influences, intuition, information, through our thought process, the little voice in your ear ,expression comes to mind,so at 1st these thoughts are not of our own for they couldn't be especially when a thought comes in of something never heard of such as investors, that's how investors of an original invention get the ability to make anything, especially something thats as complex as a computer n now many other such things of manipulation of plants ,the sex change of humans,organ transplants all arive from the spiritual realm the evil wicked realm.

    • @MelvinKoopmans
      @MelvinKoopmans 4 роки тому +10

      @@ronaldsliski9585 That doesn’t explain anything, it just moves the problem away to “spiritual beings” that control our thoughts. Then you might ask who is controlling the spiritual beings. Why can’t we explain the mind by studying the workings of the brain?

    • @ronaldsliski9585
      @ronaldsliski9585 4 роки тому +1

      @@MelvinKoopmans well if you're not willing to go beyond the indoctrination from the educational program system ,and hearsay ,and try to have a more enlightened experience, you will always be just a deep ahead the ape!

    • @ronaldsliski9585
      @ronaldsliski9585 4 роки тому +2

      @@MelvinKoopmans the mind is the dimensional intuitions, inspirations, influence = information, in which by our freewill = choices of the human experience! To have understanding that this dimension is a illusion of the life in the spiritual realm where we're to be reunited with our creator! This realm is a deception, distactraction from the actual reality of becoming a spiritual entity, awareness of a better existence. That's due in part of satan the one that seeks our destruction from becoming spiritual entity in relation to our creator!

    • @MelvinKoopmans
      @MelvinKoopmans 4 роки тому +5

      @@ronaldsliski9585 And all this is based on what, exactly?

  • @hiddenknowledge6333
    @hiddenknowledge6333 3 роки тому +79

    I can listen to him talk all day. I might only understand 2% of what he says, but I greatly enjoy it.

    • @beauxr.benoit1374
      @beauxr.benoit1374 Рік тому +1

      And I will explain to you that he isn't saying anything that is coherent in full sentences or thoughts and is bullshitting his way through the whole conversation. He states half of a thought and doesn't explain anything but brings up u; half anothe thought and just jeeps rambling and saying nothing. And the other person is doing about the same thing.

    • @hiddenknowledge6333
      @hiddenknowledge6333 Рік тому +1

      @@beauxr.benoit1374 how many nobel prizes have you won?

    • @kxkxkxkx
      @kxkxkxkx Рік тому

      Just watch it 50 times and you will be at %100 👍

    • @jimskeuh
      @jimskeuh Рік тому

      you're very optimistic about that 2%

    • @ejkalegal3145
      @ejkalegal3145 Рік тому

      He talks s**t. He knows no more about consciousness than you do.

  • @pranabchangdar106
    @pranabchangdar106 4 роки тому +70

    Congratulations sir.
    Ultimately you have been awarded the #Nobel Prize in Physics this year for your ground breaking research on Black-hole which was long due since 1965. I'm so delighted.
    Wishing your sound health.

  • @elliotpines6225
    @elliotpines6225 4 роки тому +136

    Can't think of anyone whose lifetime achievements make them more worthy of that prize. Indeed, congratulation Prof. Penrose! -and well overdue at that.

    • @WayneLynch69
      @WayneLynch69 4 роки тому +1

      My vote won't be counted, but think he'll fall into the Perlmutter/Schmidt/Riess Nobel category.
      Anton Zielinger deserved it much more.

  • @djjfive
    @djjfive 4 роки тому +230

    Consciousness has the potential to redefine literally everything. It’s the only thing we can personally be sure of. Everything else we see such as matter, physics, mathematics, space and time are only relative to the consciousness observing them.
    What we perceive as consciousness defines everything else we perceive, therefore until we understand what consciousness is, we really can’t say with 100% certainty what anything else is.

    • @eltonron1558
      @eltonron1558 4 роки тому +21

      Why couldn't Penrose say it that way? Because of you, I have a better understanding of the whole issue.

    • @aeixo2533
      @aeixo2533 3 роки тому +10

      Our subjective reality is just shadows on the cave wall dude

    • @VasilikiN
      @VasilikiN 3 роки тому +9

      What are you saying? How can matter, physics, mathematics and space be a matter of perception? If anything, they’re the only things people of much different perceptions can agree on. Therefore, they’re universal, eternal and unchanging. It’s left upon humanity to discover their workings, but the workings themselves are there, waiting to be discovered.

    • @djjfive
      @djjfive 3 роки тому +13

      @@VasilikiN Agreed, however all humans are using consciousness to perceive this. I’m certainly not saying this is incorrect from our perspective however what I’m saying is we only have one perspective that derives from our consciousness...

    • @paddydiddles4415
      @paddydiddles4415 3 роки тому +1

      Our conscious constructs is what we care about and how we interface with reality but this is not tantamount to saying that consciousness = objective reality, which is point of view invariant.

  • @jeffpowanda8821
    @jeffpowanda8821 9 місяців тому +2

    Penrose is a delightful conversationalist, quick-witted, humble, and a few steps ahead of the nimble interviewer.

  • @k_dankov
    @k_dankov 4 роки тому +49

    I am a quantum biologist and I researched this topic a lot. I have Roger book "The New Mind of the Emperor" for many years. The field of quantum biology evolved tremendously last 10 years, we know the quantum effects control photosynthesis, control retinal perception, control bird magnito-orientation, but I still don't see any good evidence of quantum effects to have a strong role in the brain activity. Initially I thought that all the neuro-sinaptic networks opperate purely on classical level, but when we look deeper we see that for example long term memory is kept on genomic level and translating the electric information into gene-expression epigenetic modification we can easily imagine some quantum effects can take place. I bet that our mind opperate 90% classically, but not 100%.

    • @luizbotelho1908
      @luizbotelho1908 4 роки тому +4

      The world quantum effects appears to vague since any chemical reaction is a quantum effect (recombination of orbitals on atoms making molecules , on Linus Pauling approach to explain Chemistry from Physics ). It is hard to see usual quantum effects of particles or systems of particles on our Brain . The point is that we try to understand culture through single brains . I think (and a big if... ) that most of our mental process are of cultural heritage and appears only as a collective effect when one individual interacts with others .Perhaps fractal -random media electrically charged STATISTICAL physics or quantum mechanical fractal physics (Those subject still do not exists !) would be more appropriated to understand the Brain (Its "circuitry ") than standard quantum mechanics .Perhaps new Physics like the one attempted in this paper will be the Physics of "Advanced" Biology .....cbpfindex.cbpf.br/publication_pdfs/044.2011_08_04_10_23_28.pdf?fbclid=IwAR0yltMQ-Sujz0p9Ru3A685OuFCbpLJjFej7WSYVyfOCT3rlWf-J00iBnpM Or cbpfindex.cbpf.br/publication_pdfs/nf04501.2011_05_09_11_05_36.pdf?fbclid=IwAR3jL1cttg82a_Pun0MgoLMb66u50SjysZYCwqoKKqJhTTjDden_r4ku7h4

    • @mattm4340
      @mattm4340 4 роки тому +1

      @@luizbotelho1908 pretty interesting ideas here

    • @luizbotelho1908
      @luizbotelho1908 4 роки тому +4

      @@mattm4340 I Think that the Mathematization of all fields of Biology will be much more sophisticated that ours wildest dreams for theories of elementary particles were in the begining of XX century ! .Specially our brain functioning theories !. In that field , Super computers (Monte Carlo Methods) will be our Arithmetic tables . After this Pandemic , I am sure that Biology will be the main science to be researched in this XXI century!.

    • @goertzpsychiatry9340
      @goertzpsychiatry9340 4 роки тому

      ua-cam.com/video/SOWt2fBI1VI/v-deo.html

    • @luizbotelho1908
      @luizbotelho1908 4 роки тому

      @@goertzpsychiatry9340 It appears somewhat interesting ...however I do not think that quantum mechanics of twenty century is going to shed some light on the human mind and its psychiatry disturbs .I have the personal opinion that very advanced and still unknown yet biochemistry is one of the keys for understanding and healing of mental illness as much as biochemistry is the key for usual diseases through medicines . One important point is that our mental process is purely biological and built through evolutionary transformations(Charles Darwin ) ,specially through Pattern Recognition.In this point and if (A BIG IF!) Feynman quantum computation could play some role . But I prefer that very Advanced Statistical Physics (Ising 3D model , Random Surfaces , Random Matrix Models , Condensed matter quantum theory -like Spin Glass , etc... ) is more probable to be the mathematical bases of AI and Human Brain functioning .And psychology is an extremely valuable tool since it allows to shed light on the Cultural Side of the mental illness bad adjustment to Social interaction (Carl Gustav Young -The man and its symbols ) .So advanced brain functioning biochemistry and advanced psychology appears to be the path on this subject.Not Pseudo Philosophy of Non relativistic Quantum Mechanics .Thanks by the attention

  • @monizakkour6466
    @monizakkour6466 3 роки тому +42

    So humble, smart and funny Dr Penrose. Congratulations for the nobel prize👏

    • @jellyicecream3324
      @jellyicecream3324 3 роки тому

      Agreed, however, it's got nothing to do with this discussion.
      Humble, hardly, if we consider his books.
      Funny, maybe on the quantum scale, in the big world Judah Friedlander is funny.
      Smart, for sure, however, it's field specific.
      Over the decades we've parted ways, worked out he's calling their plays
      And that's how the truth gets mislaid.

    • @jararacavoadora5868
      @jararacavoadora5868 2 роки тому +4

      @@jellyicecream3324 wtf man you must think you are very very smart

    • @noamfinnegan8663
      @noamfinnegan8663 2 роки тому

      @@jararacavoadora5868 Just a hard determinist 😉I just don't know what I'm writing till it's written.
      If I had any free will at all, you wouldn't be getting this reply.
      Happy Solstice ☘️💚☘️

  • @robertflynn6686
    @robertflynn6686 4 роки тому +73

    congrats to roger penrose on 2020 nobel prize. much deserved. far reaching math too!!

    • @Eric123456355
      @Eric123456355 4 роки тому

      Thanks mate

    • @robertflynn6686
      @robertflynn6686 4 роки тому

      @daniel sebold why do you want to give up?

    • @robertflynn6686
      @robertflynn6686 4 роки тому

      @daniel sebold thats a curious reply, Daniel. I went to Catholic school 2 yrs, 7th and 8th grades and learned piano at the convent.
      Too hard meaning the concepts are are different or opposed?

    • @robertflynn6686
      @robertflynn6686 4 роки тому

      @daniel sebold I completely understand and sympathize to what you said originally, Daniel.
      St. Paul Minnesota. St. Paul Central H.S. 1960; U of M and U of A. Tucson 1964. Mathematics.( number theory just like Penrose etc. ,)
      Roger Penrose has a new recent book out on "faith, ..plus other" I ordered it.
      Hes smart and knew from Cambridge, a divinity type of college and others but hes atheist too , some of those who brought Ramanajuan to Cambridge
      , in maybe pre 1920s. I met and sort of knew one of those three when I attended u of a in Tucson. So Penrose is on a new quest, consciousness, from about 1990 on and his collaborator, one Stuart
      Hameroff, is from U of A, too. One small world. Roger's nobel prize I presume is on Black Holes with Steven Hawking. 1/2 nobel.
      Its all far removed from our normal lives and thats what you might have meant. Congrats on your guitar 🎸 👏 accomplishments however I play piano from my Catholic beginnings in St. Paul. But worked in software engineering and I do have like Penrose science, but, unconventioal views; some patents in nanotechnology that fits his new theory so thats why I was commenting and did want him to enjoy his life remaining.

    • @Orlanzepol123
      @Orlanzepol123 4 роки тому

      @@Eric123456355 ?

  • @robinvandervliet5879
    @robinvandervliet5879 4 роки тому +73

    Even though it remains close to impossible to explain this to most, he sincerely does trie to communicate the essential and scientifically proven the best he can.
    Standing out is the roughest path, only a few dare to take it.

    • @xspotbox4400
      @xspotbox4400 4 роки тому

      That's tight, only few nobel warriors and every science fiction writer in existence dare to dream.

    • @ivok9846
      @ivok9846 2 роки тому

      no worries there, he didn't explain how brain works...no need to put him on pedestal

    • @brendawilliams8062
      @brendawilliams8062 2 роки тому +1

      A remarkable man.

  • @BigParadox
    @BigParadox 2 роки тому +6

    I find Penrose to be very sympathetic. He is humble, honest or open, and intelligent.

  • @htannberg
    @htannberg 4 роки тому +128

    The way you have described the interaction of the micro tubes and the neurons would make me think this could be a biological transistor of sorts, where the gate is the micro tube. So now we have the quantum world effecting the classical world. Consciousness may be seated in the brain but it may ultimately exist outside in the quantum realm.

    • @Dion_Mustard
      @Dion_Mustard 3 роки тому +4

      excellently put

    • @wally4304
      @wally4304 3 роки тому +17

      What if the quantum realm is the afterlife?

    • @johns6704
      @johns6704 3 роки тому +21

      @@wally4304 ​ It is interesting how in quantum mechanics there is room for lots of the old philosophies. For example, perhaps what we think of as reality is actually from the thoughts of God.... Meaning our world is God's Existentialism. God thinks therefore I am....

    • @NJgateway
      @NJgateway 3 роки тому +2

      @@wally4304 Exactly what I was thinking.

    • @someguyinsantaclara
      @someguyinsantaclara 3 роки тому +7

      @name: password password: password that's a pretty absolute statement. Science is not absolute.come back to reality. Whatever that is.

  • @marcopony1897
    @marcopony1897 3 роки тому +12

    Eckhart Tolle said something like: "Consciousness doesn't exist
    It doesn't stand out
    It isn't a thing in the field of our perceptions
    It has no form
    Consciousness is being itself"

  • @bipedalbob
    @bipedalbob 3 роки тому +9

    The more our science's advance the farther we can see into the universe in which we live, as well as the universe that lives in us.

  • @zsanterre
    @zsanterre 4 роки тому +117

    He's more put together than world leaders in his 90s.

    • @JB_inks
      @JB_inks 4 роки тому +4

      He's 89

    • @zsanterre
      @zsanterre 4 роки тому +1

      @@JB_inks Close enough

    • @epsilonzeromusic
      @epsilonzeromusic 4 роки тому +5

      hardly a compliment

    • @stezi5820
      @stezi5820 4 роки тому +3

      That's fucked up, that man is in his mid 40's

    • @nielsssg
      @nielsssg 4 роки тому +10

      Don't get me wrong as I love Penrose but most of kindergarten children are more put together than the world leaders

  • @elevenvolt1
    @elevenvolt1 4 роки тому +135

    How is he 89? He looks like he's 70

  • @asifilyas5321
    @asifilyas5321 4 роки тому +31

    Dear Robert I have one request from you. Please make the videos with subtitle. I regularly watch your every video and I really appreciate you. But some times It is difficult for me to catch every sentence because I am not English national. I am from Pakistan. I am sure that so many other non english native would also face the same problem like me. It would be easy for us to understand if there are subtitle. You are doing great job because things for which we need to read a big book but you clear it in just 15 to 20 minutes video. I love watching your the stuff you share and enjoy it by discussing with my friends.. Waiting for kind and positive response.

    • @frialsharefabdo6472
      @frialsharefabdo6472 4 роки тому +3

      💚 From Syria

    • @rehabsaad1109
      @rehabsaad1109 3 роки тому +3

      From Libya

    • @hanifmusani2599
      @hanifmusani2599 2 місяці тому

      Mr. Penros's videos are so packed with great info / knowledge which makes it totally necessary to have Sub titles.. Its a must.

  • @paulmiller184
    @paulmiller184 3 роки тому +2

    I read and finally called John Archibald Wheeler on the phone at his home in Austin in the 80s. I asked him about this issue and he said, "We need to understand Kant". True anecdote.

  • @digitalsketchguy
    @digitalsketchguy 4 роки тому +37

    I wish i was smart enough to major in such an amazing subject like physics or neuropsychology. Sadly my microtubules weren't behaving too well at school. At least i can play the blues anyways! Where's my beer?

    • @Ms123kill
      @Ms123kill 3 роки тому +2

      Neuroscience * not psychology

    • @leovicious6992
      @leovicious6992 3 роки тому +6

      Drop the beer, grab the DMT.

    • @aceflamez00
      @aceflamez00 3 роки тому +1

      Never too late to "wake up"

    • @pauldirc..
      @pauldirc.. Рік тому

      ​@@leovicious6992 what dmt will do ?

  • @martinsavage6838
    @martinsavage6838 4 роки тому +20

    Two clusters of microtubules interacting with each other by means of modulated vibrations in the air.

  • @xNazgrel
    @xNazgrel 4 роки тому +24

    What i am thinking is that the the brain activity is not a mechanical, accumulation of each neurons activity individualy but the cloud *of electrons* that working on quantum level as a single event as a field of each individual electron affects others with its field and even affected backwardly by the posible result. Like a thunder that "knows" where its destination is but looking for the way.

    • @donniseltzer7718
      @donniseltzer7718 4 роки тому +3

      basically the brain is a quantum computer

    • @BiasFreeTV
      @BiasFreeTV 4 роки тому

      How does thunder have a destination? Its a noise...

    • @xNazgrel
      @xNazgrel 4 роки тому

      @@BiasFreeTVi mean the electrical discharge

    • @paulfrank4551
      @paulfrank4551 3 роки тому

      Thank you, I agree 100. Finally somebody got it in a nut shell. Bottom line.

  • @dougg1075
    @dougg1075 4 роки тому +26

    Heard him on Joe Rogan say “ I’m old now and people don’t really pay attention to me”
    They are now Professor Penrose

  • @DrShripalSharma
    @DrShripalSharma 4 роки тому +8

    Sir, firstly I would like to congratulate for winning Noble prize for Physics this year and secondly to know from you whether, consciousness is a form of energy or something else.
    I personally realise that, the range of applicability of physics is only upto the mass and energy including light (e.m. waves)
    Thank you very much.

    • @nolan412
      @nolan412 4 роки тому +1

      Energy pulsing through a physical structure.

    • @nolan412
      @nolan412 4 роки тому +1

      Energy pulsing through a physical structure.

    • @DrShripalSharma
      @DrShripalSharma 4 роки тому +2

      Thank you very much for answering.

    • @frialsharefabdo6472
      @frialsharefabdo6472 4 роки тому +4

      💚 From Syria... Consciousness Is pure Awareness, Intelligence and Love. It has Infinite power, potential and Energy... All the Universe Is it's manifestations and at the quantum level everything Is one so we are all One pure Consciousness and Love

    • @nolan412
      @nolan412 4 роки тому +2

      @@DrShripalSharma I'm in the consciousness is the product of neurons based in Newtonian/Mawellian physics camp.

  • @labibbidabibbadum
    @labibbidabibbadum 4 роки тому +53

    Random person says this.
    The world: “crazy loony.”
    Roger Penrose says it.
    The world: “hmm. As I’ve long suspected.”

    • @unpopular_opinion8615
      @unpopular_opinion8615 3 роки тому +7

      I think that's because of having the credibility, random dudes don't form theories on Black holes

    • @labibbidabibbadum
      @labibbidabibbadum 3 роки тому +3

      @@unpopular_opinion8615 Don't disagree. Still funny though :)

  • @rodneycarvalho6052
    @rodneycarvalho6052 2 роки тому +1

    I’m so glad science is catching up and with spirituality. Quantum physics will explain spirituality and spirituality will explain quantum physics. Consciousness lives in between and back-and-forth. Consciousness is the one that brings information through the quantum physics to the brain and to the rest of the body.

  • @revpgesqredux
    @revpgesqredux 4 роки тому +3

    What they are describing is the ability to produce a true other from which to choose. This is an aspect of what is called free will

  • @pinaulaurence3818
    @pinaulaurence3818 3 роки тому +1

    philosophy of sciences is the most important endeavor for the future years :how scientist in all times could have had these experiences of thoughts enough relevant to elaborate theories of mathematics , physics and quantum physics , etc

  • @ahmedmohammed-lutfial-imam2147
    @ahmedmohammed-lutfial-imam2147 2 роки тому +63

    “If you can’t explain it to a 6-year-old, you don’t understand it yourself,”...
    One of Albert Einstein’s most famous phrases.

    • @mark.J6708
      @mark.J6708 2 роки тому +2

      Awesome you said this. I have used this as a principle for both teaching and asking 'experts' questions.

    • @helmetongrass1893
      @helmetongrass1893 2 роки тому +1

      but what if that 6 year old can explain it to you instead?🤔

    • @ahmedmohammed-lutfial-imam2147
      @ahmedmohammed-lutfial-imam2147 Рік тому +1

      @@helmetongrass1893 if he can, then possibly he got a supreme IQ, and if so, then that “child” represents an extreme value (statistical outlier). The former is beyond 3 units of the standard error of the mean, and therefor, Einstein’s quote won’t be applicable ;)

    • @kakhaval
      @kakhaval Рік тому +6

      I agree that most of Robert's questions are difficult and there is no answer apart from some collection of empty words. But I can't teach a 6 year old or 16 year old about say mobile phone technology yet I have been working in it for two decades. Hence I don't understand it. It is stupid exaggeration from Einstein

    • @qqqAvi
      @qqqAvi Рік тому +4

      @@kakhaval you can explain the concept behind it. A 6 old kid doesn't know how a car works (actually few people do) , but he/she could understand the utility of it and basic concepts.

  • @sisicawl
    @sisicawl 8 місяців тому

    Thank you Roger Penrose. I can, after listening x3, feel that you are discovering and feeling your way forward to what is unknown today. I hope you inspire equally intelligent people to take up your lead.

  • @DrFuzzyFace
    @DrFuzzyFace 4 роки тому +17

    Just as there's a quantum field for each and every fundamental particle (such as a quantum electron field for the electron, and an electron is "nothing more" that a zero-dimensional focalized excitation in the field), I cannot help but wonder if there's a quantum field for consciousness, and it's something like the cytoskeleton of neuronal microtubules - achieving a global state of coherence - and interacting with (ie, exciting or disturbing) the quantum field of consciousness, hence giving rise to what we know as consciousness and the inner experience of being. Fascinating discussion ...

    • @andrewmays3988
      @andrewmays3988 4 роки тому +1

      The phenomenon of consciousness we are all aware of is evidence of the supernatural realm.....the next frontier for our brightest minds to explore , probably with mathematics. 😇

    • @gibsonflyingv2820
      @gibsonflyingv2820 2 роки тому

      No, but the combination of said quantum fields form matter, matter becomes complex and emerges a consciousness. Quantum fields could never fundamentally form a complex entity.

    • @DrFuzzyFace
      @DrFuzzyFace 2 роки тому +2

      @@gibsonflyingv2820 But what's the mechanism? - that's the mystery. Just as the Higgs field and the Higgs mechanism endows electrons and quarks the property of mass, I still cannot help believe that the interaction among QFs (in particular the QF of Consciousness) gives rise to the inner, subjective experience. Trouble is, this is all metaphysics, until there's observational evidence, I get it. Cheers.

  • @MichaelRainabbaRichardson
    @MichaelRainabbaRichardson 4 роки тому +5

    There doesn't have to be a missing piece if some fundamental perspective of quantum physics is not entirely accurate. For example, the idea that state does not exist until it's observed is true in that observations can have some effect on that being observed, but things happen whether they're being observed or not and the fact that something is so sensitive to observation that we have not yet found a way to observe it without affecting it, does not mean it cannot be observed without being affected (in regards to that being observed anyhow).
    Further, we were taught to think of particles as things and quantum physics likes to describe them as probabilities when there is every reason to think it's a field and as such, requires observations and math far more precise than we have at this time to accurately simulate it. Describing it as a wave may be close enough that it makes sense in context but will never allow us to fully understand until we can measure the actual energy, its location, and its behavior.
    The idea that consciousness will be attributed to any one thing seems simply absurd considering consciousness cannot even be determined without utilizing a substantial number of the senses and systems in a number of individuals. I'd make an argument that consciousness doesn't even exist exclusively within one individual because such isolation would result in a lack of language which would prevent one from forming more complex thoughts. This is the very reason we teach our children language; so they can act like more than a human animal.
    If complex interactions between two living beings are required to even determine consciousness then doesn't it stand to reason that consciousness does not exist on its own within an individual? If this is true, consciousness is as much breathing somebody else's CO2, or having to share the road, as is it is to have a single thought.
    I think consciousness is the collective experience we share. we say someone is unconscious when they no longer respond to the world around them. If all this is true, our nerve signals are as much a part of our consciousness as our "thoughts" (our engaging of our speech centers with our frontal lobe, as well as our listening centers, all without engaging our speech muscles.)

  • @kratomseeker5258
    @kratomseeker5258 4 роки тому +7

    I think I subscribe to the thought that all things are conscious in some way some what. I dont remember before I was born but I feel as if I was here anyway and it also plays in to my theory that all things exist infinitely. This is also a sort of Buddhist view too.

    • @Vlogs_Dharma
      @Vlogs_Dharma 3 роки тому +2

      Bhagvad Gita .2.12 .TRANSLATION
      Never was there a time when I did not exist, nor you, nor all these kings; nor in the future shall any of us cease to be.

  • @scienceexplains302
    @scienceexplains302 3 роки тому +2

    Need for consciousness in quantum mechanics? The binary is resolved when it reacts with anything. That thing is usually not conscious. For example, you could have a camera inside the box with Schroedinger’s cat which would record whether it died or not.
    The molecules around the cat’s mouth move in part according to the cat’s breath. Those things happen or don’t and that doesn’t depend on whether an observer observes them

  • @viswavijeta5362
    @viswavijeta5362 4 роки тому +5

    Something non-computational goes in between from quantum to classical, if we have a quantum structures(micro tubules) in the brain that displaces tiny mass coherently, we can get this non-computational thing and call it consciousness.
    Acc. to anirban the microtubles affect the activity of the synapses at large. There is this clock inside a clock inside a clock in our brain that extends even outside the brain.
    It was necessary for Orch-or theory, because hemeroff and penrose needed global coherence between neurons in the brain to make this new non-computational physics to take place in the brain, and this non-computational transition from quantum(vibrations of microtu) to classical(consciousness).
    So here consciousnesses doesn’t cause collapse but this new non-compu. physics causes consciousness.
    Not something you might subscribe to. Because it doesn’t extend, cannot connect things, it just exist passively, just giving you the feeling of consciousness.
    Note: anirban idea if you follow is also a bit stretch of his original idea, he went on to say that it’s the vibrations/frequency which exists at the base of reality. Physicality is nothing but frequency in itself. “”Me: yes it’s true that mass is frequency and frequency necessary for time..“” Gotta dig in.

  • @marce953
    @marce953 3 роки тому +3

    Quantum will be the way science explains Consciousness.

  • @nancymatro8029
    @nancymatro8029 3 роки тому +9

    The Hameroff/Penrose theory of microtubules was shown to be implausible by biochemist Johnjoe McFadden & physicist Jim Khalili in their book Life On The Edge.

    • @DavidG2P
      @DavidG2P 7 місяців тому

      Glad to hear that this nonsense has been debunked already.

  • @anonymous203020
    @anonymous203020 2 роки тому

    I have a feeling this video will be viewed 50-100 years from now as an example of how humans first began to explain consciousness in a concrete manner

    • @liviu445
      @liviu445 2 роки тому

      Nah, new fields of study need to be created to scratch the surface, I think humanity's best chance is a massive group of polymaths getting together for about 200 years, and we might get a chance.

  • @mavericktheace
    @mavericktheace 3 роки тому +5

    I've ascribed to Penrose and Hammeroff's theory for some time now. I'm happy to see it being discussed here. I don't think it is given the credit it is due.

  • @Versosurma
    @Versosurma Рік тому +1

    now at 92 y old. And still giving sharp interviews

  • @PrzemyslawDolata
    @PrzemyslawDolata 3 роки тому +3

    It's sort of funny to listen to a quantum physicist (albeit a legendary one), with no expert knowledge in neurobiology, talk about consciousness. Obviously he'll look for it on the quantum level, just like chemist with no other knowledge would look for it on chemical level. It all sounds smart and educated, but all that we're doing here is trying to conceal the facts that (1) we simply don't understand the brain well enough yet - therefore it's easier to assume a priori that consciousness isn't in the brain and instead come up with more and more convoluted stories to "explain" where does "consciousness" come from; and (2) we don't even have a solid, universal definition of what "consciousness" really is - with the fundamental concept left as vague as we leave it, it's easy to tell quantum tales.
    I highly recommend you watch Scott Aaronson's talk on problems with defining and quantifying consciousness (on Lex Fridman's podcast).

    • @brendawilliams8062
      @brendawilliams8062 2 роки тому +1

      A scientist looking to understand consciousness is not out of order. How it is used for the good would be the question.

  • @philipose66
    @philipose66 3 роки тому +1

    it is a good thing that scientists are looking for a deeper layer to just plain old chemical firings between synapses.

  • @larissabsa
    @larissabsa 4 роки тому +3

    Thank you sooo much for sharing this work with us! Dr. Robert Lawrence, you rock!

  • @eugenenegri
    @eugenenegri 5 місяців тому +1

    Conjecture: The gravitational background should contain the information about the relationships between all masses within the universe (at least to scales above limits imposed by Planck's constant and outside of any event horizons). Though these forces are very weak, their presence permeates all of space. These are indeed signals which could constitute acts of observation whether we are consciously aware that any detection has taken place or not. This could explain how quantum decoherence can occur in places where there are no present observers, as well as, offer a solution to the information paradox.

  • @christianlingurar7085
    @christianlingurar7085 4 роки тому +8

    In 50 years this will be like the voice of god, a recording of the most important man jump-starting the new world. Maybe we'll have Penrose shrines. :-) Anyhow I'm already setting up one.

  • @anhumblemessengerofthelawo3858
    @anhumblemessengerofthelawo3858 2 роки тому

    _Penfield was a student of Jacob Klein, the one most profound scholar of Plato -- who opened This up to the modern world in a form closer than ever. Klein's influence on Penfield's thinking at times is quite evident. Read Klein. Everyone at heart is a Platonist; for is the Law One. Klein studied under Martin Heidegger who studied under Husserl, and was also a student of Schrodinger and Plank. After studying all modern philosophy and mathematics, it became clear to him that the ancient Greeks were the adults in the room. Our whole basis for understanding life derives from them. Although in a form all but unrecognized, a shadow of its previous light_

  • @helicalactual
    @helicalactual 4 роки тому +3

    If understanding is the integration of information and its applicability, then conciousness would be quantized in that, you could develop discreet units of kinetics. the information changing the state and the change of the system suggests that it in fact integrates and applies information, however it is negligible in that those objects do not have the ability to apply intent to the environment and so, is negligibly conscious.

  • @Martondiheritage
    @Martondiheritage 4 місяці тому

    I'm an Indonesian. And don't talk english. But I really understand what Roger says. Since 20 years ago always asking about who I am, who is God, and I never admit that my soul will die. "I do not accept any arguments based on the theory of biological evolution and biological systems that cause my 'consciousness' to exist. And I can easily refute them. Therefore, I fully understand Roger's hypothesis, even though it is still considered speculative and debated. Truth always starts that way. But truth is also valid with just an inductive hypothesis."

  • @carlosgaspar8447
    @carlosgaspar8447 4 роки тому +5

    here is a suggestion to many comments regarding consciousness; i'm not a mind reader and i suspect many others are also having trouble making sense of what is being said. maybe ask a friend to proof read your comment, or let a day or two go by and proof read it again. thx.

  • @DaveDavis0
    @DaveDavis0 2 роки тому +2

    Roger Penrose is a smart guy. I appreciate his idea, and I'm glad I watched to the end where he distanced himself from any mystical basis for his idea. However I think he is throwing pearls before swine. As a cognitive neuroscientist, he is an amazing physicist, but he is suffering from the Golden Hammer fallacy. Just because he personally (kind of) understands quantum physics, doesn't mean it's applicable to solve the hard problem of consciousness. I personally do not think there is anything mysterious about consciousness, I think it's just something that we don't understand *yet* but it doesn't need anything "ineffable" inserted in the equation, as a "clutching at straws" attempt to explain why we don't understand it yet.

    • @frankchiang6904
      @frankchiang6904 2 роки тому

      well said.

    • @alexanderabrashev1366
      @alexanderabrashev1366 2 роки тому +1

      Couldn't have said it better. I'm a biomedical scientist and I'm studying physics as a hobby, so I can't say I'm expert enough to talk about the validity of this theory, but it seems like a too long of a stretch to me. Just because quantum mechanics and consciousness are both mysterious, doesn't mean they should be connected.

    • @syzygyman7367
      @syzygyman7367 2 роки тому

      Have you read the Shadows of the Mind? There are mathematical prove that computation can't lead to understanding. And a question for you as a neuroscientist - do you really think that all the computational power of one-cell organism is turning off when they become a multicell organisms? One sperm can navigate, amebas can move and hunt, - but neurons become simple switches like singular transistors?

  • @henrikamundsen6619
    @henrikamundsen6619 4 роки тому +3

    Thank you for your efforts to make these statements available. Vel formulated and easy to understand.

  • @noorahmedshaikh249
    @noorahmedshaikh249 10 місяців тому

    Penrose is ph d supervisor of Asgher qadir who is my teacher, i am proud of this
    Noor Ahmed Shaikh

  • @martindorrance8133
    @martindorrance8133 4 роки тому +4

    Perhaps the mid-ground between the new and old physics regarding consciousness is chemistry.

    • @MattSpoon07
      @MattSpoon07 3 роки тому +2

      Chemistry is quantum mechanics

  • @sven5513
    @sven5513 Рік тому

    Just blew my mind. What I learned out of it is that our perception of reality is solely dependent on our consciousness. When Rodger Penrose provides his given example: “the cat is dead, until consciousness sees it” and that’s how quantum physics and entanglement works. How is this important? Well if we are on our phone being fed quick rushes of overstimulated dopamine and media to stimulate that, our conscious perception creates that reality
    A whole journey later, i am here now in the present and have used my phones for reels, tik tok, yada yada less than I have ever had since I was a teen without one and see the world for what I see it as.
    Therefore, less phone stimulation create a better and loving world

  • @GordieRoss
    @GordieRoss 4 роки тому +6

    I can see an argument for consciousness being quantum as it postulates many future realities and wave collapse causing neurons to fire effectively rendering a frame.

    • @michaelqiu9722
      @michaelqiu9722 4 роки тому

      "Wave collapse"? Wavefunction of what? Collapse at what measurement? And we already know how neurons fire, and it's completely fine being described classically.

    • @REDPUMPERNICKEL
      @REDPUMPERNICKEL 4 роки тому

      I am conscious.
      What does it mean to be conscious?
      For one thing, it makes it quite a bit easier to keep a job in this extraordinarily complex society.

  • @nyworker
    @nyworker 8 місяців тому

    If the measurement process is correct it means that when we perceive something, we are grasping it more deeply than our outward physical perceptions.

  • @valmcclure5035
    @valmcclure5035 3 роки тому +4

    Maybe treat consciousness as a dimension of space time and then feed it back through the model? Also, what if we treated unobserved waves as information that remains within its trackable changing states? The information would be able to maintain object permanence without being observed, and the act of observation would be less about collapsing the wave into particles, and more about projecting the the information into visible data during observation. Though the information may account for hypotheticals, it could have an absolute state during projection due to the optimal choice of data which would exist before any observation. The chosen data would be optimal because it best preserves its existence as it is being perceived by consciousness in the 4 remaining dimensions of space time. If the universe is “evolving” in a sense (as it expands into infinite variation), it could be using this method to prevent an overload of the existing system, and to self regulate object permanence. This self regulation could be a feature of consciousness as it acts upon the existing dimensions of space time. If the brain exists in all dimensions, individuality could very well be an illusion produced by the interactions between these dimensions as the brain attempts to make its calculations, consciousness would precede the brain, turning the brain into a focal lens that acts as a secondary clock, to which there may be more of across numerous layers of scale and complexity throughout reality. At the risk of anthropomorphism, the reason we might intuitively sense that the universe is alive is because we came from it, and we don’t exactly live in a vacuum. Awareness and intelligence may not be contingent on one another, and awareness may be measurable and a unitary dimension on its own.

    • @someguyinsantaclara
      @someguyinsantaclara 3 роки тому +1

      Agreed. Our observation is via the physical dimension, converted to a dimension of energy via consciousness and then focused on the superposition of the output of the wave function originally being observed. A feedback loop that we call the observer effect.

    • @valmcclure5035
      @valmcclure5035 3 роки тому +2

      @@someguyinsantaclara Of course you’re some guy in Santa Clara. I’m some girl in San Jose. Small world, my friend.

    • @spritualelitist665
      @spritualelitist665 2 роки тому +1

      We are going into a realm of kantian philosophy here 😂 I wish more scientists like Penrose read Kant. I know he’s coming back very strongly in neuroscience. But I think that transcendental idealism is something that could be adopted into quantum physics and studied as a reference point.

    • @krakraichbinda
      @krakraichbinda 4 місяці тому

      I'd rather compare consciousness to an instance (like a state of an object in the programming).

  • @paulfrank4551
    @paulfrank4551 3 роки тому +1

    Whatever he is doing , I hope he is able to connect individuals with other individuals based on how the science works. Perhaps to do a measurement as one consciousness ...strength, perhaps, in such a way as to begin to further this knowledge. People are entangled. That is more important I think than superimposed. Humans can someday live forever with good scientists like him we may at least have a point in that direction.

  • @akkirampura1
    @akkirampura1 3 роки тому +3

    Sir Roger Penrose has touched upon imporatant subject like we have observable universe why cannot we have observable conciusness

  • @drmarkadufrene8153
    @drmarkadufrene8153 8 місяців тому

    I am an absolute novice in this field of science, however, I find it fascinating. I enjoy it because it makes me think in ways that are vastly different from anything else. But I do not understand the relevance of this science to practical everyday life. It is obvious that if we want a better understanding of how the universe works we must go down this trail, but can anyone point me in a direction that can help me bridge the gap from our everyday life and how or why this study matters so much.
    Mark

  • @tomkwake2503
    @tomkwake2503 4 роки тому +3

    Congratulations to Sir Roger Penrose for his Nobel Prize in physics, and thank you Robert Kuhn for this timely and thought provoking discussion, discerning Sir Roger Penrose's view that "consciousness is a feature of physics" (froth on the wave) versus , what some propose, that consciousness is fundamental, where physics is a discovery of our consciousness, at the quantum physics level.
    I only wish I had a definition of what consciousness is, both from Robert Kuhn and Sir Roger Penrose. I know we assume we all know what consciousness is, but until these two extremely bright gentlemen define it, it stays in the quantum state... lol

    • @xspotbox4400
      @xspotbox4400 4 роки тому

      @@realitycheck1231 You must be bot, people try to explain what is all about, robots can only copy paste some code.

    • @Corteum
      @Corteum 4 роки тому +2

      _"I only wish I had a definition of what consciousness is, both from Robert Kuhn and Sir Roger Penrose"_
      Whatever the definition, it would have to be a definition that encompasses awareness or subjectivity/first-person perspective. That's essentially the fundamental basis of "consciousness". Otherwise how are you going to be conscious of anything if there's no subjective awareness?

    • @tomkwake2503
      @tomkwake2503 4 роки тому

      @@Corteum I agree with with the reference point of the subjective perspective ( " minds eye" ), though we sense through the physical eyes/ears etc., it is the minds eye that is actually doing the "seeing/sensing". I personally feel that consciousness has a energy-sensory relationship. Although, I don't hear much discussion about the relationships of energy to consciousness amongst the experts. Quantum mechanically isn't it about energy transduction from wave to particle (collapse of the wave function) which causes the Universe to physically exist, and practically, gravity and quantum mechanics appear co-exist in a duality, as well as having a conscious mind with senses to differentiate the energies into qualia, mathematics and science, which are non-materialistic "things". However it doesn't mean they aren't forms of energy in conscious thought, embedded in quantum physics. Thanks for your comment!

    • @Corteum
      @Corteum 4 роки тому +1

      @@tomkwake2503 Thank you for your reply, Tom.
      In some perspectives, even the mind (_the capacity to have, experience, and perceive thoughts and feelings; the capacity to cognize information "internally"_) is considered secondary to conscious awareness. For what use is a mind if there's no subject to perceive its contents? :)

  • @alanPearce-vk3ew
    @alanPearce-vk3ew Місяць тому

    The idea of Qantum consiousness is probably the ultimate question.If the creator of the Universe observed Dr Penrose seeking to answer the question (the mechanism that ties us to the fabric of the universe).Birth & Death are the interactions of the Souls transitions 1/ The connection-Golden Bowl & the Silver Thread 2/ The path-The Eternal Wheel .Dr Penrose has probably joined the dots, but would be reminded that history is full of great Men ie-Martin Luther,Copernicus and others

  • @darioinfini
    @darioinfini 4 роки тому +4

    Quantum mechanics is needed to create the consciousness that is able to observe Schroedinger's cat to collapse the wave equation in quantum mechanics. Basically humans are a conduit for quantum mechanics to get things done because otherwise everything would be busy just postulating about possibilities and never actually getting around to doing anything.

    • @DogStarAstrology
      @DogStarAstrology 4 роки тому

      Ohhhh what’s in the 📦 🐱

    • @DogStarAstrology
      @DogStarAstrology 4 роки тому

      Love that analogy. Thank you 🙏

    • @REDPUMPERNICKEL
      @REDPUMPERNICKEL 4 роки тому

      I'm not particularly into mathematics but it seems to me that either the cat is alive or the cat is dead. Just because I don't know is no reason to assume both or an average state or an infinitely rapid state oscillation. Superposition seems to me synonymous with ignorant devised so as to keep the grants a coming.
      Or is the cat just a metaphor now for something completely different?

    • @darioinfini
      @darioinfini 4 роки тому

      @@REDPUMPERNICKEL I'm not a physicist but I've watched a lot of videos (and took a few courses in college 30+ years ago). There's a lot to say about your comment:
      1) Schroedinger is often quoted for his cat thought experiment as if he was proposing this but in fact he disagreed with the premise and used the concept to illustrate it's absurdity.
      2) I did the same thing with my comment above, highlighting the absurdity of the argument, but it also seems to have a quirky narrative of its own.
      3) The cat experiment is an illustration of the quantum world as our theories and observations purport to understand it.
      4) It appears the concept of the quantum world is that the probability isn't an expression of ignorance on our part (like what cards your poker opponent is holding) but literally a "smearing" of reality across time and space. An electron isn't physically anywhere -- it is probabilistically smeared in an atom's orbit until you measure it at which point it "pops" into a definitive position. Hence Schroedinger's objection that taken to a logical macro scale, the cat's living status is "smeared" until you have a look.

    • @REDPUMPERNICKEL
      @REDPUMPERNICKEL 4 роки тому +1

      @@darioinfini It was late, I was tired and your humour flew well over head, but now, thanks to morning coffee, ha ha.
      1) Ahhhh.
      2) Ditto.
      3) It seems to me the deeper we dig the more we discover I'm poorly evolved to grasp the ultimate depths of Nature. But if in the digging we learn to achieve instantaneous orbit of Sirius I say, more power to the explorers.
      4) Always fascinated by magnets I've long been perplexed by the nature of fields and when I encountered the curved space concept I knew I'd be permanently ignorant but entertained by thoughts like the one that suggests 'reality' is incomprehensibly solid and all that we know, all that we are, merely curious vibrations within it.

  • @yoursubconscious
    @yoursubconscious 2 роки тому

    it seems since I turned 36 (3 yrs. ago) years old, I am more impressed on the subject of the brain since I "played" my whole "first half" of my life.
    Now it is time to see what I have "damaged" and learnt through the practice of psychedelics.

  • @wulphstein
    @wulphstein 2 роки тому +3

    Having an opinion is proof that consciousness exists. This is the perfect definition of consciousness.

    • @jackbradley4737
      @jackbradley4737 2 роки тому +2

      No it isn’t. I hate when regular people try to do their own science. I can have an opinion but you can’t be certain that I am conscious. I have an opinion but I could just be an online chatbot. The only thing that’s proves consciousness is existence. Without consciousness nothing would exist

    • @stephengee4182
      @stephengee4182 Рік тому

      @@jackbradley4737 we are all regular people. We are composed of a collective intelligence of cell swarms. The fundamental unit of consciousness and how it arises is an open question. What we do know is that our higher consciousness somehow emerged from these cell swarms, with no known sudden demarcation point.
      ua-cam.com/video/ZmRaIQOlxTY/v-deo.html

    • @stephengee4182
      @stephengee4182 Рік тому

      @@jackbradley4737 As long as you are woke, one thing you know for sure is that consciousness exists. Everything else is up for debate, probably because that is the nature of free will.
      😇😇😇😇😇

    • @stephengee4182
      @stephengee4182 Рік тому

      @@jackbradley4737 Other possible attempts to explain the wave particle duality, the mystery at the heart of quantum mechanics embodied by the original debate over Schrödingers Cat are 1) the objective collapse and 2) the superdeterminism postulates, in addition to the many worlds theory of which Penrose, Sabine and Kaku are the respective proponents.
      ua-cam.com/video/W39kfrxOSHg/v-deo.html

    • @stephengee4182
      @stephengee4182 Рік тому

      @@jackbradley4737 ...so the debate over the copenhagen interpretation of Quantum Mechanics is all over the place, because of this thing called free will.
      😉😊😇

  • @Roscoe0494
    @Roscoe0494 Рік тому

    The reason these vids are so interesting is that Robert always frames his questions to push physics minds to the brink of religion. He covers the metaphysics and spooky action and duality and Darwin - many of the questions he asks can't be answered by physics or biology or evolution. You have to go a level higher.

  • @alex_blockchanger
    @alex_blockchanger 4 роки тому +7

    Fascinating conversation about the Hameroff-Penrose theory of consciousness. It is a shame the interviewer didn't formulate the primary question the theory addresses, which is: Why would reductive, objective, repetitive neurophysiological (biological) processes cause rich, subjective, phenomenological (non-biological) experiences (aka the 'hard problem'). Then the answer that: Qm energy phenomena in the microtubules bridge to classical neurophysiological events would make sense (and the search for neural correlates of consciousness [NCC] do not). It felt like the interviewer could not connect this 'energy' world to his classic neurophysiological one.

    • @MattSpoon07
      @MattSpoon07 3 роки тому

      @@bennyskim Nonsense. You put the chicken before the egg. The microtubules and the quantum mechanics of life came first. Everything you think you just said is completely backwards, we are reverse engineering life, from simplest parts to the most complex. You understand the macro biology first, instead of the quantum biology. Cellular life begins in the quantum level, and all processes are built upon these quantum interactions. The neurons firing is a result of 4 billion years of evolution from the quantum to the macro. We are just beginning to understand that all life begins on a scale so small, it will be a long time before we have the technology to perform experiments.

    • @MattSpoon07
      @MattSpoon07 3 роки тому

      @@bennyskim All of the encoded information you refer to, where is that stored in the neuron? The atoms inside of the neuron are in a state of superposition, they take on the state that the cell needs at any given time, in a neuron, the superposition can switch from binary 1 or 0, and the brain can interpret the signals as it switches. This is happening so quickly and so many times per second all across the brain, and we experience this as our consciousness.

    • @anti506
      @anti506 10 місяців тому

      @@MattSpoon07 go fnc do theory then its just a bullshit.

  • @crawdad
    @crawdad 5 місяців тому

    Amazing that 3 years later, 3 years after this very video and we’ve been able to prove micro tubules can in fact exist and express quantum effects in an environment such as the human brain, classically thought to be inhospitable to quantum effects. Penrose very well may be right.

  • @dandavatsdasa8345
    @dandavatsdasa8345 3 роки тому +3

    Thank you for sharing helpful and informative videos!
    The complexities of existence can be studied in many ways.
    God must like life.
    We can get lost in the details of the formations.

  • @caveat571
    @caveat571 4 роки тому +1

    In the last example if you use deduction correctly you come to the conclusion that its all connected. You can deduct the weather on that planet before you observe it if you have enough data of its surroundings/solar system. Thats why this effect only seems to happen in experimental environments. The show outside has been running interconnectedly for billions of years now.

  • @Soumchful
    @Soumchful 4 роки тому +3

    I have a question about consciousness, is it continuous over time or quantified

    • @aeixo2533
      @aeixo2533 3 роки тому

      If consciousness is not quantum mechanical in nature, then it is quantised along with the rest of the one physical universe that we are constrained within, to 1.616255(18)×10−35 m.
      If quantum mechanical processes are indeed occurring in the brain, then this may not apply, as our consciousness may transcend the physical limitations of one specific universe.

  • @sethbase6960
    @sethbase6960 2 роки тому +1

    I love Penrose

  • @gaemlinsidoharthi
    @gaemlinsidoharthi 4 роки тому +6

    Consciousness causes quantum collapse or quantum effects give rise to consciousness.
    Set C contains set Q and set Q contains set C.
    Perhaps we are just looking at the same set of effects from different angles and calling it different things.

    • @kernlove1986
      @kernlove1986 4 роки тому

      Perhaps

    • @REDPUMPERNICKEL
      @REDPUMPERNICKEL 4 роки тому +1

      Can a thing be conscious without a self concept?

    • @REDPUMPERNICKEL
      @REDPUMPERNICKEL 4 роки тому

      @@apollo4234124
      Simpler, yes!
      But doesn't the meaning at the core of the word 'conscious', essentially manifest in the concept of 'input' (and, necessarily, the effect of that on the self concept which lies at the center of the concept of 'being' (and of this topic))?

  • @Thijs_NL
    @Thijs_NL 3 роки тому

    What an awesome conversation.. to bad of the constantly panning camera though :( (and the car, and the truck backing up haha)

  • @MattSpoon07
    @MattSpoon07 3 роки тому +3

    The brain has evolved to function on the quantum level.

    • @seangrieves4359
      @seangrieves4359 3 роки тому

      The purpose of life is life. The purpose of the universe is the universe. They are one and the same. Focused on the appearance of world, call it matter if you will, one has belief this is primary knowledge. Focused on yourself or that with which all is known then subsequently divided and named. Names and divisions fall away leaving oneself. Infinity can't know limitations and never has. Belief not included. Unreal never will be real. All possibilities simultaneously co- exist or experience would be rigid and changeless. Infinity or yourself has capacity to live every eventuality of any and all given lives, in all possibilities or scenarios.

  • @peterpanino2436
    @peterpanino2436 4 роки тому +2

    Quantum physics in the brain is concerned as it moves along non-causality paths (entanglement etc). That's where the soul touches matter, so to speak. That's also the path-way into multi-dimensionality.

  • @terrycallow2979
    @terrycallow2979 4 роки тому +12

    Consciousness exists without the brain or body. But then again what do I know, just a thought!

    • @goertzpsychiatry9340
      @goertzpsychiatry9340 4 роки тому

      ua-cam.com/video/SOWt2fBI1VI/v-deo.html

    • @Dion_Mustard
      @Dion_Mustard 3 роки тому +2

      certainly classic physics cannot explain causation. i am with you on that. and certainly the NDE or OBE suggests consciousness is non-local.

  • @jhetchan
    @jhetchan 2 роки тому +2

    Interesting to see that Penrose doesn’t actually buy the idea of multiverse while buying the idea of quantum effect on consciousness.

  • @RaviKumar-mj3gs
    @RaviKumar-mj3gs 4 роки тому +10

    Consciousness is an ancient topic; the Rig Veda (~2000 BCE) defined God as consciousness and established the goal of human life to dissolve one's ego into consciousness by turning inward with prayers and meditation. This dissolving of individual identity is called enlightenment. Ever since there's a long history of Saints and books reiterating this message. This way history is very useful but unfortunately today's history is all about Kings and their battles and conquests which is of little value to us. The body/mind is the tool to experience consciousness and we all have these here and now for free. All religions are about this only; whichever religion you are, turn inwards with Prayers...Prayers become meditation leading to enlightenment.

    • @vahanprasan
      @vahanprasan 4 роки тому

      Ravi Kumar I endorse your views. I should also add that as such Vedas describe everything incl the length of universe, how it expands, how can it dissolve, what happens after Pralaya, what is there above Earth and belowEarth and so on and so forth.. As a scientist I should believe in facts and figures, which I do, but the knowledge stock we have is incredible which our India is proud of. In fact I expressed this with Dr C Rangarajan during a meeting at Cheenai..... I am sure many scientists are proud of it, although they may not base their assumptions on that.

    • @gorkhe8602
      @gorkhe8602 4 роки тому +2

      Ravi, prayers and meditation wouldn't have made it possible for you to write this comment on youtube, pretty much wirelessly. I know the importance of the Vedas, especially the Upanishads, but that has nothing to do with what Roger is doing, or what this talk is about. You can always have blind faith in the scriptures *or* you can go and find what's out there yourself, as far as you can go. That's true spiritualty, and true meditation as well.

  • @jpslaym0936
    @jpslaym0936 2 роки тому

    How this physical / neurological / biological quantum consciousness would evolve in life on Earth is difficult to surmise, but is another scientific challenge that will be interesting to investigate

  • @soultrap8554
    @soultrap8554 4 роки тому +4

    What a trip. Quantum physics, my new lsd:)

  • @markuspfeifer8473
    @markuspfeifer8473 2 роки тому

    You gotta love how Penrose admits that the book was a speculation and a failure but *still* started a productive conversation. That’s how science is made: by trial and error.

  • @sandeepozarde2820
    @sandeepozarde2820 4 роки тому +8

    Why don’t you study Indian science of mind, it’s already discussed for thousands of years, now west is talking about the same?

  • @mayukhsen8195
    @mayukhsen8195 2 роки тому +1

    Sir Penrose didn't say Anirban Banerjee, he said Anirban Bandopadhyay. That's class y'all. Anirban is another scientist whose research Sir Penrose mentioned in this conversation.

  • @wallywooyeah1
    @wallywooyeah1 Рік тому +3

    Consciousness seems ironically beyond comprehension 🙃

    • @frankcomando8440
      @frankcomando8440 7 місяців тому

      Waves, tesla forming dimensions energy, frequency, vibration.

    • @steveshadforth
      @steveshadforth 3 місяці тому

      @@frankcomando8440blah

  • @coudry1
    @coudry1 4 роки тому +1

    My Personal Conclusions about who we are all from many sources "We Are All One Consciousness" for the following reasons:
    1. In this world everything must have a cause, so that something exists because of something else, as well as ourselves.
    2. It will be very saturating / boring if we have only one physical form in this world.
    3. It will be very saturating / boring if all human beings have the exact same physical form behavior.
    4. Try to imagine emptying all the physical things around us only the remnants of humanity, then eliminating all human beings leaving only their memories, then removing all their memories leaving only their consciousness, then connecting that consciousness, feel who we are ??.
    5. Body, mind, feelings, emotions and everything in this world is always changing, so what never changes ??, that is our true self, which is true consciousness. If everything changes2 / moves who observes, there must be something fixed to be able to observe.
    6. All human beings communicate with each other is the beginning of the beginning / the future of human beings unite, only electronic devices today can unite all human beings, one day the device is implanted in the human mind and eventually man will open all access to his mind.
    7. Our body is a group / accumulation of memory accumulated brought from the beginning of the birth of the first human in the world through continuous DNA binding.
    8. Twins are born at the same time, what if all human beings are born at the same time ??. What happens if the birth of all human beings is not influenced by the dimensions of space and time ??
    9. The twins are identical to A and B, if the whole memory of A is copied to B, what is the difference ??
    10. The law of attraction (law of attraction) that our minds will attract whatever we think, because we are all like one part of the body.
    11. Like some of the video recordings of ourselves there is a video as a vocalist, a video as a violinist, as a pianist, as a drummer, etc. The video2 is made into one in one video then it will produce a more interesting orchestra, something new and more productive. our world.
    12. Man's greatest enemy is himself, at this time man is fighting against himself. By believing that we are all one, then the ego will fade because there is no difference between us.
    13. That is why the teachings of religion command us to be grateful and beneficial to many, If you are hurting others you are actually hurting yourself, just as if you are doing good to others you are actually doing good to yourself.
    14. Could it be that we are all dreaming and our dreams meet each other at the same frequency in parallel. Have you ever, when sleeping dreamed of moving roles as someone else, it is because we are all one.
    15. We are not immortal as human beings so that we have time for us to scroll through all of life.
    16. "We are not human beings having a spiritual experience. We are spiritual beings having a human experience" ~ Stephen Covey, Have you ever felt that our age is too short, could our consciousness be immortal ?.
    17. We are one, only the role is different, the memory block between life is what makes people feel different / separate. Just by brainwashing / erasing his memory then someone will be a different person but his consciousness actually remains the same. One consciousness experiences various perspectives of reality.
    18. The lucky thing for us is ... awareness is always towards / seeking / having intentions / desires towards good / positive / happiness despite experiencing various mistakes.
    19. When we die the body and memory are destroyed, how can we remember ever being dead. Even a few years ago your real body was lost by being replaced by new cells you don't remember.
    20. Why do we have to die? ", When we are told to die, later this eternal question will be asked again and we will always be there." The world is a sustainable life".
    21. In the beginning we were one, but split through a big explosion or bigbang to become different and separate as it is now, but we are provided with a sense of love for us to be able to be reunited later.
    22. There is only us and the mirror of ourselves in this world, yet there is another world out there.
    23. We will always smile happily seeing each other as ourselves "How beautiful I am" seeing a different self.
    24. If all consciousness is told now that they are all one if the experience gained is enough, the consciousness designed from the beginning is so different that there is so much intrigue, consciousness is created differently so that when it comes together it has an incredible consciousness experience.
    25. We are indeed alone in this universe, but there are still many other universes with their own laws of nature.
    26. Have you ever felt to come to a place that has never been visited but feel familiar with that place, as if we have lived in that place sometime.
    27. The world is like a script of a story that is being written by the author, sometimes changed at the beginning, sometimes changed in the middle, sometimes changed at the end it all depends on us as writers, and every story has wisdom that can be taken as a lesson.
    28. Hair grows on its own, heart beats on its own, blood flows on its own, ideas emerge on its own, etc., are we involved ??.
    29. Imagine today there was an event that caused only you to live in this world, then who are all the people yesterday ??.
    30. "If Quantum Mechanism cannot surprise you, then you do not yet understand Quantum Physics. Everything we have considered real all this time, turns out to be unreal." ~ Niels Bohr.
    31. In the scale of quantum physics we are all connected to each other, even in double gap experiments proving that particles change when observed or in other words awareness is able to change reality, this has been repeatedly proven by Nobel laureate in Physics.
    32. Everything we experience by our senses will eventually only be an electrical impulse in the brain, is it all real ??. We are beings who realize that we are conscious.
    33. We are closer than the veins of his neck.
    He breathes some of His spirit on you.
    Knowing oneself means knowing one's God.
    Indeed, we will return to HIM. You are far I am far, you are near I am near.
    I am everywhere.
    Before the existence of this world there was no material other than Him.
    The True Spirit is only One, the Creator.
    I agree with your prejudice.
    34. Whether the Creator is only tasked with creating, is it possible that the creator does not want to try the results of his creation through another perspective.
    35. There is no reincarnation, it is possible that our consciousness is synchronized and evenly distributed at the speed of light through energy, and that is why we need sleep, that is why we are often not aware of something, ourselves are like some chess pieces played by a player, that's why if we moving at the speed of light we can penetrate the dimensions of space and time, when we die then wake up and we will regain consciousness as humans.
    36. Have we ever had a problem and suddenly someone came to provide a solution to the problem we are experiencing, as if someone was sent by the universe to help us in solving the problem, which is actually our own awareness that sends that person to us.
    37. A thousand years ago did human beings see, hear and be trapped in their hearts about current technological advances ??. If we all tend to sin (damage) then it will be the world of hell, if we all tend to do good then it will be the world of heaven.
    38. Knowledge learns objects, God who created our consciousness, it is impossible for God to be the object of knowledge.
    39. It is not possible for human creation which is only in the form of words / symbols to represent true truth.
    40. Is there a meaning of being without consciousness ?? then we are adventurers of this existence.
    Sy
    41. The life of the world is just a game and a joke, the one who wins the game of the world is the one who finds his true self.
    42. When the existence of the world ends we will know everything.
    43. My consciousness undergoes a very extraordinary life experience, feeling life experience with different forms and different places even though in fact my consciousness is always the same, wow .. I was surprised !! how wide I am.
    44. Consciousness in fact does not know the concept of time, consciousness can experience / undergo into another physical form because the dimension of time can be penetrated by consciousness, as when we imagine we can act as anyone without time bound, because in this universe time can in fact materialize free, time can move straight, curved, rotate, etc. Our time travel is when our consciousness moves to a new physical experience.
    45. We are an awareness, a concept that is able to answer various things.
    46. ​​Remember when you were going to leave, you were worried about losing me ??, calm down .. I was everywhere and we would always be able to meet again, believe me.
    47. Without searching what is the difference between us in this world and us in a dream while sleeping just passing by without meaning.
    48. In conclusion, whatever role we play, it is all our own design, so just enjoy.
    49. I never said that self is God, I thought that self is one consciousness, God should be higher and perfect than consciousness.
    50. God created us to be Happy, so do not disappoint God. Understand it and be Shining.
    source of inspiration:
    ua-cam.com/video/LtT8pWIYL4Q/v-deo.html
    ua-cam.com/video/h6fcK_fRYaI/v-deo.html

  • @jeffamos9854
    @jeffamos9854 4 роки тому +5

    This is a boring comment section. Come on theists . Know you want to say consciousness is god. Let’s get into the god debate.

    • @chrisashlync.1302
      @chrisashlync.1302 4 роки тому +4

      Prize-winning physicist from Brazil says atheism is inconsistent with the scientific method

    • @jeffamos9854
      @jeffamos9854 4 роки тому

      ashlyn climer . Yes Marcelo Gleiser makes a point about being agnostic. One can not be absolutely sure either for god or no god. As he points out absence of evidence is not evidence for absence. Even Dawkins says he is not absolutely sure there is no god. Most atheist I think of do not claim they are absolutely sure. Think with the high profile god debates in the media the structure of the debates is geared to pitting the debaters either for or against.

    • @jeffamos9854
      @jeffamos9854 4 роки тому +6

      Hyperloop . What science fiction nonsense? You did not argue against anything Penrose was saying. What is your explanation of consciousness? Just calling Penrose an old fart is not an argument.

    • @jeffamos9854
      @jeffamos9854 4 роки тому +3

      Hyperloop . Well my thought on what Penrose was saying is that consciousness might be intertwined with quantum physics. I did not get the impression that he could prove it or that there is evidence. He was offering a hypothesis. Whether someone might want to dismiss the hypothesis is not relevant. Obviously there would have to be more work done with his idea about consciousness.

    • @kaielx
      @kaielx 4 роки тому

      @@lilyoyo77 there is some experimental evidence to his theory. General anaesthesia which is still not understood, has been shown to effect the microtubules. This may be how it shuts down our consciousness. Its preliminary yes so more experiments will be needed

  • @Gminor7
    @Gminor7 10 місяців тому +1

    Listening to discussions with many materialists on this issue - they all miss the point of the idealist position by making the mistake Penrose makes here: 11:12 “Take a planet in a distant star system where there is ‘no conscious being anywhere near’ . . . ‘ This statement is impossible under idealism, bc of course the distant star system, the planet & the entire universe are “contained within” or “emanated by” consciousness. Consciousness is the underlying substrate of all existence. Materialists engage in circular reasoning by starting with the assumption that “consciousness” is confined to, or “secreted by”, “beings with brains”. This is not debate or proof. “All birds in existence are green & it is impossible for any bird to exist which is not green. Now, given that fact, I will explain to you that all birds are green.” I’ve heard the same “argument” many times from Sam Harris, Sean Carroll, Steven Pinker, among others.

    • @steveshadforth
      @steveshadforth 3 місяці тому

      Bollocks, the universe existed well before any conscious minds evolved.

  • @robertcrowson5234
    @robertcrowson5234 4 роки тому +4

    Just call it the soul as that's what it is

  • @edwardlee2794
    @edwardlee2794 4 роки тому +2

    My humble thought.. consciousness exits contingent upon the coalescence of particles and onwards to form lifeforms leading to animals and human beings. Subatomic particles operate in its world of quantum mechanics. The combination of interaction between wave and quanta mode amaze and intrigue us including the smartest people here now and future if not forever. Salute to you all and keep up with the good work.
    From Hker worldwide

  • @kevcas1212
    @kevcas1212 4 роки тому +34

    The most chicken/egg discussion ever.

    • @geraint8989
      @geraint8989 3 роки тому +8

      Still, only one right answer.
      Given what we know about evolution, the first chicken came from an egg from an animal not quite chicken. So the egg did come first.

    • @iceybrice
      @iceybrice 3 роки тому +1

      @@geraint8989 this wasn't what he was saying

    • @miggy2002
      @miggy2002 3 роки тому

      @@iceybrice wasn't it?

    • @illitaret8780
      @illitaret8780 3 роки тому

      @@geraint8989 where did the first animal come from, also an egg? Who created this egg? You were obtuse in answering the question, as it was apparent the question is not about specifically the chicken, but rather all living things.

    • @jmac3112
      @jmac3112 Рік тому

      The superposition egg

  • @Parasmunt
    @Parasmunt 2 роки тому +1

    This would have amazing ramifications if true. They have found wave particle duality in molecules as big as 2000 atoms.

  • @buckrogers5331
    @buckrogers5331 4 роки тому +4

    People confuse sight with consciousness. What does a blind physicist see? Does he too cause quantum decoherence? It all has to do with the tools of measurement and if it it extracts something out of that probabilistic wave function. If it does that WF collapses. It all depends on the tools.
    Noise. We all can function because we rise above noise. Noise from all those sensory inputs. Same with the brain. Relevancy is what creates the conscious environment. And that digs into the experience of all that we have seen and heard. The memory part.
    Understanding quantum effects in photosynthesis will help is understand this world between the classical and quantum.

  • @JHsillypantsMcGee
    @JHsillypantsMcGee 2 роки тому +1

    The thing I don't get is, what is "an observer" that seems like a very clumsy word for a physicist to use. Is "observation" merely the interaction of light with the eye? Well light interacts with literally every object. Light hits the atom, excites it, and releases back. So is this in the scientific principle, an observation? I'm pretty sure there doesn't have to be "consciousness" behind the interaction for the wave-function to collapse. Any mundane interaction of particles can cause eachother to collapse don't you think?

  • @tegoblue
    @tegoblue 4 роки тому +9

    Cameraman is making me feel nauseous, like I am seasick. Please stop moving.

  • @DONALDJAMESVISION
    @DONALDJAMESVISION 2 роки тому

    Fascinating thought-provoking conversation thread.

  • @garyjjanb
    @garyjjanb 4 роки тому +3

    Interesting. Penrose is a physicalist. Thinks consciousness derives from physical phenomena, not the other way around.

  • @PunmasterSTP
    @PunmasterSTP Рік тому

    Maybe one day, when other, smarter people make more discoveries, and if I'd be able to upgrade my brain somehow, I'd enjoy finally being able to wrap my head around what consciousness is.

  • @dibasregmi9592
    @dibasregmi9592 4 роки тому +18

    Consciousness is yet poorly understood in science .It may be beyond the quantum level .

    • @florincoter1988
      @florincoter1988 4 роки тому +3

      Do you mean a new approach, nor quantum, neither relativistic?

    • @Eric123456355
      @Eric123456355 4 роки тому

      Because doesnt exist. They are biased ghost hunters

    • @REDPUMPERNICKEL
      @REDPUMPERNICKEL 4 роки тому +3

      Or conscious may have nothing to do with the quantum realm and
      instead arise entirely out of language
      flitting about in encoded form as the frequencies of neurons.
      Certainly every thought, encoded in words in these UA-cam comments,
      lies one hundred percent in the realm of language.
      And what is a word but a code for a meaning conditioned by sentence context, paragraphs, etc.
      What is a sense organ but a means to convert encounters with the energy flux into neural encodings.
      How fortunate that the brain,
      which evolved to process sensory code (and generate survival oriented, neurally mediated, muscular responses),
      made a very good home for language which was, as it turned out,
      the ideal tool making it possible for small social groups of big apes like us
      to eventually build civilizations of extraordinary complexity, populations in the billions
      (in perfect obedience to the well known dictates of the evolution process).
      I won't dismiss entirely the possibility that evolution may have enlisted quantum effects in the struggle for survival because of the following story...
      There once was an AI researcher working with a genetic algorithm which achieved a result so exceedingly efficient that he had to launch a forensic effort to discover how it happened. The forensic report outlined how the purely software process had come to benefit from an unknown defect in the computer hardware on which the algorithm was running. That is to say, the purely software system running in an evolutionary paradigm was able to enlist help directly from the substrate.
      Thus it's conceivable that evolution has harnessed some aspect of the quantum substrate which has bestowed a modicum of survival advantage.

    • @davidjadunath1262
      @davidjadunath1262 4 роки тому +2

      @@Eric123456355 There is more to what the eye can see.

    • @Eric123456355
      @Eric123456355 4 роки тому

      @@davidjadunath1262 of course more but it doesnt mean that the imagination is truth