Don Page - Quantum Physics of Consciousness
Вставка
- Опубліковано 3 лип 2024
- Follow us on Instagram for announcements, giveaways, and more: shorturl.at/rwC16
Are quantum events required for consciousness in a very special sense, far beyond the general sense that quantum events are part of all physical systems? What would it take for quantum events, on such a micro-scale, to be relevant for brain function, which operates at the much higher level of neurons and brain circuits? What would it mean?
Get subscriber-only benefits with a free Closer To Truth account today: shorturl.at/ajRZ8
Watch more interviews on consciousness as all physical: shorturl.at/hrbB5
Don N. Page is a Canadian theoretical physicist at the University of Alberta, Canada.
Help keep Closer To Truth's content free from paywalls with a tax-deductible donation: shorturl.at/OnyRq
Closer To Truth, hosted by Robert Lawrence Kuhn and directed by Peter Getzels, presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.
If an AI was a person, this is how they'd talk. 5 minutes without saying anything of substance.
Where's the youtube button to put this on repeat until I think I understand it button?
This episode should be titled “Closer to Confusion.”
lol
dans9 • 😂
Correct.
From the look on Robert's face, it seems he agrees.
@@LouisHochmanTheJourno Those are just reaction shots edited in; a common editing technique.
The polite nodding and smiling is intended to convey that he understands not that he necessarily agrees.
Kuhn has made it known he is skeptical of the notion that consciousness is somehow related to quantum mechanics.
@@b.g.5869 I mean he agrees that what this physicist says only brings us closer to confusion.
This guy talked for 5 minutes and somehow managed to say nothing at all. Wittgenstein's language games
What Descartes said has nothing to do with Consciousness because "I think..." is about the Ego mind and that is not Consciousness.
Consciousness is the second of the two most difficult problems for science to address. The first of the two is, "How could the cosmos have arisen from nothing?"
Alan watts, existence implies non existence, non duality
@@gregbrown5020 If you lack proof that you exist, then nothing makes sense.
Virus swarms are alive, intelligent, aware, and conscious. How virus swarm intelligence works is fundamental to how human level intelligence works and this is on a quantum scale. But, we place a lot of extra ideas into what quantum effects really are, how they work, and how they apply to intelligence which are NOT scientific theories, even people talk like they are, but instead are either completely unsupported scientific hypotheses or poorly supported scientific hypotheses that should absolutely not be considered scientific theories.
What a beautiful mathematical picture.
The comments are gold! You are killing it! Where do i sign up for the tony robbins masterclass on comedy?
i love this channel
I'm agnostic on the god question. I make allowance for a possible scenario where a collective consciousness becomes a unity, call it God if you will. But I object to "God creates". It doesn't explain anything. The quantum void is creation, or first cause, enough. Virtual particles and the Feynman diagrams suggest ways that symmetries (associations, CS Peirce?) might cascade out from the void, to get the ball rolling.
Virtual particals and Feynman Diagrams suggest that they are more powerful than God?
Wow!
No wonder our school system's are failing.
By conciousness having a statutary requirement to affect the quatnum realm... you mean choice (free will), actors/environment and collapsed wave functions, caused by the interaction of those actors/environment.
The demonstration of that requirement/necessity, does not require a demonstration of the mechanism with which it is achieved.
There is (must be) a solution to "What is consciousness ?". Two epistemological 'puzzle pieces' are 1) thought is physically made of forces flowing through the brain's neural structures and sub-systems that include loops, comparitors, differencing and summing, and 2) existence is always and exactly now (the duration of every Now is exactly zero). This is why when being in states of flow, the sense of time disappears. Feeling conscious is 'simply' experiencing those changing, merging, and opposing forces in every moment.
After experiencing this conclusion, and with practice, one can step into this knowable state by simply choosing to BE. The causal continuum of forces (that is the entire universe) is just running; it cannot do otherwise. Enjoy the ride.
In theory, everything is very beautiful, but there is a serious problem: How to make the connection with Superior Consciousness (*)? Someone will say: meditation, prayer, etc... But the problem remains: what do we put in there, for the technique to work?
(*): Also called Christ Consciousness and other names.
the quantum wave function describes the neural causes of consciousness, but not consciousness itself
bc the wf only describes properties that can be measured
and consciousness is not a measurable property
it is a property of embodiment or being
The word Quantum as it relates to consciousness is like the Hollywood speak - Flux capacitor of Back to the future fame. Or champagne for wines.
Or in other words: No idea whatever... Just tapping in the dark...
In your search for the understanding of consciousness, it would be very eye opening to me if you including a search for consciousness without the body such as after death.
Consciousness is an experience, where the experiencer becomes the experience
2:16 ... so each conscious perception has a measure that's given what's by what's technically called theexpectation value of a quantum operator in the quantum state of the universe (so you're dealing with the quantum state of the universe you're not dealing with the quantum state within molecules within our neurons of the brain because some people who make the claim that you need to understand quantum physics to understand consciousness work with neurons and parts within neurons to explain how quantum processes are working you're looking at a totally different approach to) well it's I'm only doing that because I think that there is some simple elegant quantum state for the entire universe but of course that part of that description should include human brains so it's going to be I mean you know if the conscious perceptions that are produced by human brains are going to be produced say in human brains are so it's that's going it's going to be that relevant part of the universe so in a sense I suppose if I just it would be sufficient just to know the quantum state of the brain but I'm saying that's part of the hwole univere so at least in the fundamental level I don't want to I don't want to say that well we have to be able ot find out where the brain is and what it what state it's in I'll just start from the quantume state of the universe and then these operators in some sense could look and see where in the universe is there a brain and what in what state is this brain and so the idea basically is taht if it finds a brain in the universe that's in a good configuration then that can lead to a conscious perception ( 3:46 and you don't need anything outside of the physical world to create consciousness therefore)
Huh
I just want to know the quantum physics of that hairpiece
Today i should have taken a break.
Every discusion I've heard on consciousness essentially says the same thing "The brain does things and we experience things, beyond that we haven't got a clue"
lol one thing I know for sure is I know nofin!
Consciousness is not relationship. Conscious perception appears in consciousness, it is not consciousness. Conscious perception is just that, perception of something conscious from brain. Ithas nothing to do with consciousness
What is under his beard?
A lot of people in these comments don’t realize what the implications of this is.
We have confirmed that to at least some extent our neurophysiology has shown to have superradiance (from the tryptophan microtubules we have found) and potential for those quantum fields to contribute to consciousness.
How exactly this takes place is unclear and if it even has a bearing on consciousness at all.
But it does pose an interesting opportunity for quantum computing. If we use the microtubules structures that we discovered, we potentially have a way to produce more sable methods of quantum computing.
Although I feel the qubits may not be as efficient.
Regardless this could mean we start to see quantum computing become more available and potentially cheaper.
Imagine a computer that could use these quantum states in the fractions of nanoseconds they exist… and underlying circuitry to hold patterns from the collapsed fields.
That could see us using the benefits of quantum computing to make calculations in qubits in regular computers.
Again that would require technology and almost certainly a level of chemical engineering we just don’t have available currently.
But the potential is exciting!
- 'I don't know how it works, but I employ the known artificial mathematical apparatus in order to know how much I don't know...' 😂🤣😂
- So?
- The mathematics says that I totally don't know about it, 100%.
- So, what are you doing here?
- I don't know.
😂🤣😂
Do you know that what so ever you knowis due to your conciousness and its agent known as your mind, your conciousness knows everything about you and and what so ever you know is because your. Conciousness want you to know, the reality and its knowledge is all around embedded in the space and time snd all matter but unless and untill you are not eligible to it you wony get it, and the eligibility criteria is your truth and desperation to know it, how far you can go to understand yourself truly in love, you are also god
"Quantum physics" is used to explain something that nobody understands.
... because the "Quantum Physics" used in that explanation is also not understood, thus using two not understood things to say one explains the other cannot be refuted because neither is understood.
Euclid, Descartes, Newton and Einstein all said that divisibility is fundamental and indivisibility is not fundamental.
Which proves their truly shaky grasp on physics and geometry.
The formalism is in terms of physical states and the rules those physical states follow to produce future states… a physicalist interpretation😮
See ua-cam.com/play/PLdixBJrI1NNrP5YMx9S3EUxa8tkFd-Pib.html&si=R2f6mi_vc_iqISZn
Seems hard to give a physicalist account given the above data😅
Very dubious given that we don’t have a standard quantum model but 12 or so interpretations 😅
I had a look at the video.
I don’t really know how popular it is, but I don’t think Ive ever come across an eliminativist, none of the materialists interviewed on this channel are. Anyway, on to the objections.
1. non-localisable activities. We know that consciousness is associated with activity across very broad regions of the brain, but it is associated with brain activity, and all the activities he described as being non-localisable are activities we perform consciously. So, I think the answer to that is pretty obvious right?
2. Split brain patients. Eran Zaidel talked about this in an interview on this channel a month ago. This guy is flat our wrong, split brain in patients can easily be distinguished by anyone who understands the condition, and their experience and behaviour is different from their former selves. Look up the Zaidel interview, he explains clearly all the ways how this guy is just flat out wrong.
3. This is just 1 again. The guy he’s talking about lived long before we even knew was neural networks are or anything about their behaviour, which includes resilience to damage and plasticity, which is at least partly the ability for undamaged regions to assume the function of damaged regions.
I have better things to do that this, so I’m not wasting my time any further. I looked this guy up, he’s an intelligent design advocate and works for the Discovery Institute. Figures.
@@simonhibbs887of course, you'll reply to me but cannot actually back up anything you claim...now the ancients who were far superior to you physically and intellectual, their science was both metaphysical and of nature. You can not have nature without the metaphysics. Humans divide for sake of convenience. You claimed that metaphysics and nature are two different things and has no practicality for engineering and yet the ancients absolutely were practical with their metaphysics in all their constructions.
@@simonhibbs887 why are you such a liar sophist though?
You claimed that metaphysics and nature are two different things and you won't give explication cause you have nothing.
You keep replying to me every other day, and cannot back up anything you state, never giving quotes from field theory experts or metaphysicians....you know nothing about theology which is everything science reveals....the Divine burns you...why?
Every time I listen to scientists talking about consciousness, soul, time travel or the creation of the universe, I see how little we know and how absurd many scientists are..
You should hear how absurd the theists stuff is. They think logically impossible fictional characters just magic things in to existence.
Let me tell everyone....nobody has even the faintest idea..untill you die,come back and say it!! But..i do believe in a creator,and i would love to call him GOD.❤
QUANTUM PHYSICS Has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WHATEVER TO DO WITH "CONSCIOUSNESS".
Consciousness is an emergent effect, not an a priori, ethereal cause.
Ahh, but consciousness maybe a non-divisible emergent effect, meaning that the moment you have a swarm of elementary particles following the Laws of Nature they have some degree, however small, of living intelligent aware consciousness.
@@MusingsFromTheJohn00Consciousness is an experience, where the experiencer becomes the experience
@@Green-Dragon206 consciousness is the act of an intelligence (any intelligence) being actively aware of something (anything), thus that intelligence is actively conscious of whatever it is aware of.
If we look at the simplest life as we know it, virus swarms, we scientifically know beyond a reasonable doubt that virus swarms are intelligent, aware, and conscious.
All life as we know it is intelligent, aware, and conscious.
All life as we know it has a swarm intelligence.
Human level intelligence is a swarm intelligence with a hive mind structure and at the lowest levels uses virus swarm intelligence without which we would not be intelligent or alive.
@@Green-Dragon206 then comes the hypothesis, looking at our entire Observable Universe with everything we know, it appears to be a swarm of elementary particles which are evolving vaguely like an egg or a seed into a cosmic scale super intelligent super swarm mind, which then implies that from the simplest levels it has the most primitive simplest levels of life and swarm intelligence.
@@MusingsFromTheJohn00 The properties to support a structure must be there for the structure to exist.
Best comparison is the brain is like a TV, built to allow consciousness to express itself in the physical world; once the brain dies consciousness returns to the ether
That doesnt explain it, "who" is watching the TV?
Yes this is a simplified explanation that most people can grasp . And some people call this ether god… any many more names depending which culture
@@rafverheyen5458, kindly repeat that in ENGLISH, Miss.☝️
Incidentally, Slave, are you VEGAN? 🌱
consciousness/Consciousness:
“that which knows”, or “the state of being aware”, from the Latin prefix “con” (with), the stem “scire” (to know) and the suffix “osus” (characterized by). To put it succinctly, consciousness is the SUBJECTIVE component in any subject-object relational dynamic. The concept of consciousness is best understood in comparison with the notion of sentience. Cf. “sentience”.
As far as biologists can ascertain, the simplest organisms (single-celled microbes) possess an exceedingly-primitive form of sentience, since their life-cycle revolves around adjusting to their environment, metabolizing, and reproducing via binary fission, all of which indicates a sensory perception of their environment (e.g. temperature, acidity, energy sources and the presence of oxygen, nitrogen, minerals, and water). More complex organisms, such as plants, have acquired a far greater degree of sentience, since they can react to the light of the sun, to insects crawling on their leaves (in the case of carnivorous plants), excrete certain chemicals and/or emit ultrasonic waves when being cut. At this point it is imperative to consult the entry “sentience” in the Glossary of this Holy Scripture.
According to this premise, the simplest forms of animal life possess sentience, but no noticeable semblance of true consciousness. As a general rule, those animals that have at least three or four senses, combined with a simple brain, possess a mind but lack an intellect. Higher animals (notably mammals) have varying levels of intelligence but only humans have a false-ego (sense of self). Thus, human consciousness is constituted of the three components: the mind, the intellect, and the pseudo-ego (refer to Ch. 05).
There is a rather strong correlation between brain complexity and level of consciousness, explaining why humans alone are capable of self-awareness. In this case, “self-awareness” is not to be confused with “self-recognition”, which is a related but quite distinct phenomenon, found also in several species of non-human animals, in which an animal is able to recognize itself in a mirror or some other reflective surface. “Self-awareness” refers to the experience where a human over the age of approximately three years, is conscious of the fact that he or she knows (that is, aware) that he or she is aware. Obviously, in the case of a child, he or she may need to be prompted in order to first be acquainted with this understanding. For example an adult could ask the child:
“Do you know that you have a toy car?” “Yes!” “And do you KNOW that you know you have a toy car?” “Umm...I think so...yes!”.
In contemporary spiritual circles (as well as in several places within this book), the capitalized form of the word usually, if not always, refers to Universal Consciousness, that is, an Awareness of awareness (otherwise known as The Ground of All Being, et altri).
Wrong.
TV signals are generated by TV stations ; the station and its programs are made by people…
TV signals are EM waves that decay into background energy after ~1 light year….it does Not return to Ether…
There are no magical or mystics involve…
Sky santa created the quantum State. Got it
Dude needs to trim that beard.
I am not convinced by this account at all. Too many gaps, overburdened by ambiguities and airy notions of dynamical operators etc. There is still a long way to go.
The Creator is real. 🙏
Great🙏 ! But what means "real"?🤔
How do you know?
@@RupertFear Most of people do not try to find Him. If you meditate a lot and clean your mind, then you will understand what I am saying. It is an empirical experience, just like "astral projection" (a very transcendental experience that you can verify by yourself that you are not only a physical body, that was my conclusion after watching my body sleeping, while my "conscience/soul" was only observing the experience). We need a lot of concentration and we achieve that state meditating, meditating a lot... A lot of atheists affirm that such thing do not exists, just because they are not concentrated enough. Too much thinking will not bring the real answer: we need to meditate, when you have no ideas in your mind, you can observe reality. I know its paradoxical, and I don't think you will believe me.
What created the Creator?
What is that? Who created the creator?
God created universe? No credibility!!
but neither does an uncaused cause
So you think that Einstein has no credibility? Famous evolutionist Haeckel has no credibility ?
Schrödinger ?
Maxwell, Newton, Pascal, Leibniz?
Heisenberg has no credibility?
Fransic Collins who headed human genome project has no credibility?
When one demonizes a group as a short-cut to giving a persuasive argument they commit:
The guilt by association fallacy😮
Any freshman in college has been taught that this method is just a propagandistic technique …
You are at the wrong UA-cam channel to try and trick people into NOT thinking seriously about complex and controversial topics😊
Nothing created everything perfectly. Yeah, its makes sense.
@tao4124 Yeah, it truly is a conundrum, but God doesn't solve it. It only serves to push the question back, Who created God?
@@tao4124 Everything is far from perfect. What are you even talking about?