Was Penrose Right? NEW EVIDENCE For Quantum Effects In The Brain
Вставка
- Опубліковано 6 вер 2024
- Check out the Space Time Merch Store
www.pbsspaceti...
Sign Up on Patreon to get access to the Space Time Discord!
/ pbsspacetime
Nobel laureate Roger Penrose is widely held to be one of the most brilliant living physicists for his wide-ranging work from black holes to cosmology. And then there’s his idea about how consciousness is caused by quantum processes. Most scientists have dismissed this as a cute eccentricity-a guy like Roger gets to have at least one crazy theory without being demoted from the supersmartypants club. The most common argument for this dismissal is that quantum effects can’t survive long enough in an environment as warm and chaotic as the brain. Well, a new study has revealed that Penrose’s prime candidate molecule for this quantum activity does indeed exhibit large scale quantum activity. So was Penrose right after all? Are you a quantum entity?
PBS Member Stations rely on viewers like you. To support your local station, go to:to.pbs.org/Dona...
Sign up for the mailing list to get episode notifications and hear special announcements!
mailchi.mp/1a6...
Search the Entire Space Time Library Here: search.pbsspac...
Hosted by Matt O'Dowd
Written by Christopher Pollack & Matt O'Dowd
Post Production by Leonardo Scholzer, Yago Ballarini & Stephanie Faria
Directed by Andrew Kornhaber
Associate Producer: Bahar Gholipour
Executive Producers: Eric Brown & Andrew Kornhaber
Executive in Charge for PBS: Maribel Lopez
Director of Programming for PBS: Gabrielle Ewing
Assistant Director of Programming for PBS: John Campbell
Spacetime is a production of Kornhaber Brown for PBS Digital Studios.
This program is produced by Kornhaber Brown, which is solely responsible for its content.
© 2024 PBS. All rights reserved.
End Credits Music by J.R.S. Schattenberg: / multidroideka
Space Time Was Made Possible In Part By:
Big Bang Sponsors
Wojciech Szymski
First Principles Foundation
John Sronce
Bryce Fort
Peter Barrett
David Neumann
Alexander Tamas
Morgan Hough
Juan Benet
Vinnie Falco
Mark Rosenthal
Quasar Sponsors
Grace Biaelcki
Glenn Sugden
Ethan Cohen
Stephen Wilcox
The Tyacke boys
Amy Hickman
Mark Heising
Hypernova Sponsors
Julien Dubois
Richard Pavlicek
Dean Galvin
Michael Tidwell
Robert DeChellis
Chris Webb
David Giltinan
Ivari Tölp
Kenneth See
Gregory Forfa
Alex Kern
drollere
Bradley Voorhees
Scott Gorlick
Paul Stehr-Green
Ben Delo
Scott Gray
Антон Кочков
Robert Ilardi
John R. Slavik
Mathew
Donal Botkin
Edmund Fokschaner
chuck zegar
Daniel Muzquiz
Gamma Ray Burst Sponsors
Sandhya Devi
Michael Oulvey
Neil Moore
Robin Sur
Arko Provo Mukherjee
Mike Purvis
Christopher Wade
Anthony Crossland
treborg777
Grace Seraph
Stephen Saslow
Tomaz Lovsin
Anthony Leon
Leonardo Schulthais Senna
Lori Ferris
Dennis Van Hoof
Koen Wilde
Nicolas Katsantonis
Richard Steenbergen
Joe Pavlovic
Justin Lloyd
Chuck Lukaszewski
Cole B Combs
Andrea Galvagni
Jerry Thomas
Nikhil Sharma
John Anderson
Bradley Ulis
Craig Falls
Kane Holbrook
Ross Story
Harsh Khandhadia
Matt Quinn
Michael Lev
Rad Antonov
Terje Vold
James Trimmier
Jeremy Soller
Paul Wood
Kent Durham
jim bartosh
John H. Austin, Jr.
Diana S Polijar
Faraz Khan
Almog Cohen
Daniel Jennings
Russ Creech
Jeremy Reed
David Johnston
Michael Barton
Isaac Suttell
Oliver Flanagan
Bleys Goodson
Mark Delagasse
Mark Daniel Cohen
Shane Calimlim
Tybie Fitzhugh
Eric Kiebler
Craig Stonaha
Frederic Simon
Tonyface
John Robinson
Jim Hudson
Alex Gan
John Funai
Adrien Molyneux
Bradley Jenkins
Vlad Shipulin
Thomas Dougherty
Dan Warren
Joseph Salomone
I'm a neuroscientist working for patients with rare genetic disorders affecting kinesins, some of the motors that move cargo along microtubules. As a result I'm also familiar with genetic disorders in microtubule, or microtubule-related, genes.
Microtubules are quite dynamic - adaptors and motors are constantly applying modifications to the microtubules, and I'm quite curious about how these would play into this paradigm; the microtubule ecosystem would be adapted to supporting this kind of quantum encoding - if it's meaningful.
One reason I'm skeptical of this iteration of quantum consciousness is that you would expect microtubule-related mutations to cause disorders with a more profound effect on "consciousness," however you decide to define that. Cognitive symptoms certainly are common and sometimes profound in these disorders, but not in a way that seems fundamentally separated from other neurological disorders.
A good follow-up might be:
1) Decide on an operational definition of consciousness, with pre-defined clinical measurements.
2) Look at microtubule-affecting genetic conditions with variable predicted impact on these tryptophan-mediated quantum effects
3) Perform a meta-analysis across studies, and check whether there's any kind of relationship between clinical features of "consciousness" and types of mutations.
I'm also skeptical of the Sherlock approach; I'm quite interested in possible quantum effects in neurobiology and there's a ton we don't know about microtubules, but so much of this reminds me of claims that the pineal gland held the soul.
Microtubules seem to function in the cells like neurons function in the brain - they are information computation devices.
The most probable research is number 2
Number 1 Will delve to much on philosophy
@@joakimgran5794 So you know more about neuroscience than a neuroscientist, right?
@joakimgran5794 I think this is an overstatement; earlier this month I spent last week at a Cytoskeletal Research Conference with world experts in microtubules, including biophysicists.
Even the most passionate microtubule nerds on the planet wouldn't push the idea that they're the neurons of the cells. They're hugely important for structure, transport, and cell remodeling, but we simply don't have enough evidence to say that they're performing the primary computational processes in cells in a way that's unique.
@@niko-ni6psExactly, this conversation will always have to fall back on semantics because consciousness is so ill-defined between individuals.
This is by far the most lucid explanation of this argument I've ever heard. Fantastic work, Matt. Seriously.
Honest to goodness, amazing presentation !🎉
💯
"I got amazing powers of observation,
And that is how I know, when I try to get through
On the telephone to you, there'll be nobody home."
- The good Dr. O'Dowd might just as well quote Pink Floyd to me. But, yes, good presentation.
Good presentation of the argument, but just an entirely unconvincing argument that only gets any attention from physicists because they've been duped by Chalmers who does not even justify his premises.
Does Matt write the episodes by himself? I assumed he's got other writers than help do this, which deserve credit as well. Although, Matt is an excellent speaker. So bravo either way.
Regarding quantum effects in biological systems, chloroplasts exhibit electron tunneling that increases the efficiency of energy transfer (I spent a few hundred hours measuring this in grad school). While it's not entanglement or on a brain-sized scale, it does show that evolution is capable of tapping into quantum effects even in wet, warm, messy systems. Great video as always!
What did you study in grad school? Sounds like a degree I want!
@@jorymil My degree was in Environmental Science, and I was studying (among other things) how human-made nanoparticles like those used in sunscreens and pigments impacted photosynthesis in plants. So lots of measuring photosynthetic parameters! But anything that touches plant physiology and photosynthesis should do the trick :)
Yeah we've known that quantum effects are commonly exploited by evolution for almost as long as we've known how to describe quantum effects. Heck there's a disseration (Quantum Coherence in Biological Systems by Elisabeth Rieper) which describes much more interesting quantum behavior than this in brains, from back in 2011.
But there's a huge gap between "this can't be described by classical systems" and "this enables quantum computing in a chaotic environment", about as large as the difference between "we can toss something to make it airborne" and "we can put something into orbit".
I wonder how long it takes people to understand that language is circular, arbitrary, and so very personal to the context with which it was absorbed or learned. Language is philosophy...
Observations are personal to the self alone. Learning enough language to build agreement based, observation centered, scientific methodology is definitely philosophy. Schools of thought are branches of academic pedagogy, which is obviously philosophy. They may have originated in different ways, but as language became unified across these schools of thought and best practices for learning became apparent, academic language became more coherent. Thus, universities can replace single subject colleges. Cultural knowledge and built infrastructural institutions are needed to maintain a level of understanding in these areas of thought. It's not given knowledge. People must continuously learn how to teach the next generation forever, for these ideas to evolve and last...
Yeah I don't see that you really need large entangled systems to produce quantum effects in the brain. You just need individual interactions involving probability gradients, which are then conveyed classically. Which seems very plausible as a mechanism evolution could stumble into and take advantage of.
Thank you for featuring our scientific research! I appreciate how you pointed out that our paper is not at all related to Penrose and Hameroff's conjecture on consciousness. I am grateful for your explanation of how the exciting field of quantum biology has many applications that are not related to highly-speculative quantum consciousness research. Bravo!
Ideas and speculation can be a route to good science. If they inspire and lead to research or discovery.
Thank you for the very interesting paper! May I just confirm that you found superradiance within singular microtubules, not evidence for entanglement between multiple ones?
Thank you for doing the research!!!! This is groundbreaking stuff and us normies appreciate that there are folks in the world this dedicated to unlocking the secrets of our existence.
Although I work in tech, I have always been a interested in pure science. This is a very interesting research indeed. Thank you for the research and all the hard work!
This is the most passive aggressive comment I’ve read in a while lol
All of Penrose's arguments and descriptions of his Cosmological ideas about black wholes and the CCC are so easy to understand and so hard to find fault with that it's always shocked me that his arguments about consciousness are basically 250 pages of "It can't work the way we think it works." followed by 50 pages of "So anyway... Microtubules."
I get a feeling he was hoping to kickstart investigation into these objects and pass the torch, so he didn't feel the need to get super formal about it. Hopefully, he lives to see this foundation get some more experimental attention.
Black Wholes?
@@jimgregg7250 Black Wholes, distant relatives of Blue Whales.
I think that is his intention honestly. He is so good at thinking about and communicating often crazy ideas with some foundational value so they cannot be disregarded outright and also so interesting that they must be pursued further. The mark of the genus they say and I agree.
My brain is both empty and full at the same time.
@PatronaIzy-n8w Your account was created 9 minutes ago but I'm supposed to believe you are a real person who has been watching these for years?
@@thorr18BEM I'm uncertain about that.
Not your brain, but it is your mind that encompasses duality.
The brain is only the seat of the mind, not its origin.
"Nothing real can be threatened. Nothing unreal exists.
Herein is the peace of God."
You exist before and after the coming and going of the body.
You can experience the truth of this statement for yourself.
(Collapse the wave function.)
You should do so before you die. Life gives us that opportunity.
Good luck
Your brain is in a superposition lol
@@JelMain I'm certain of nothing.
Something I didn't learn until reading foundational papers on the subject, is that Penrose invented some of the fundamental concepts around topological quantum computing. That makes him, super cool 👍
Applications of Negative Dimensional Tensors (1971)
Where did you find the papers? I’ve resorted to buying all the books
@@animaniacs538 YT interviews include those things most of the time, I also found two of his lectures about tensors on YT... papers are not really my thing but I like good sourcespresented in an approachable way
@@animaniacs538try Google books or the web archive
I'm elated to see someone mention topology in the context of this broader discourse. There's a broader theme that emerges when examining the history and evolution of innovation involving luminaries from antiquity like Pythagoras to Penrose uncovering the nature of the universe via geometry.
PBS SpaceTime does an amazing job of making me smarter and feeling dumber with every video. Please never stop.
That's how even the smartest scientists feel every time they discover something
Don't worry, we just won't observe if you're smart or stupid and just keep the wave function going.
This is attributable to a collapse of the Dunning Kruger wavefunction. 😂
@@Fishsticks360 Ahahaha amazing
The more you learn, the more you realize you don't know
So happy you tackled this topic. I think the context laid out in this video was really well done. Sabine's video ended with "But why are quantum processes needed for cognition? Don't know." but you covered this in a respectful, yet scientifically careful (for lack of a better term) way. Well done to all involved.
Sabine likes to deconstruct ideas rather than constructing them.
if you´re vague enough, you´re always right. i think we can all agree that quantum field theory play a role in conciousness, because it plays a role in practically everything
Perhaps, but saying when and where it happens in the cell structure and giving an equation for the wavefunction is a little more than just a vague guess.
Quantum mechanics is certainly part of molecular formation, making up proteins, etc. in your brain.
Not in the special way Penrose means, though, which is the implied point. As Syndrome said, “When everyone's super, no one will be.”
This is completely misunderstanding the OrchOR theory. The theory is hinged on the notion that superposition can be maintained within the cell.
Love that PBS Space Time is picking this up so quickly - I am very keen to learn more about these developments with tryptophan. I honestly was one of those doubters, wondering why Penrose thought this was even required for undecidability. The game of life runs on basic computers and it's undecidable - why should consciousness need quantum effects just for that? But here we are and it's super interesting.
To be fair, you should probably still be one of those doubters. Healthy skepticism is a good thing. 😄
If only the tryptophan part is true, this might be an interesting development already. Maybe it helps drastically reducing the requirements for quantum competing - or it helps making mini lasers ;)
You should definitely be a doubter until more is learned, but this is still super interesting! I never gave Penrose's quantum consciousness idea much weight before. He's very hit-or-miss with his conjectures imo.
so they've proven turkey coma?
To all the Penrose doubters out there, let me know when computers become conscious.
It is rather astonishing how hunks of flesh are able to process, think, speak, etc. so incredibly fast, and without generating tons of heat in the process.
Most of the mental power is used just for approximations, not exact calculations. That is why it is so energy efficient. And still produces quite some "waste heat". Analog chips can calculate results with a tiny fraction of digital chips, but the results are less precise and not always the same. And analog chips can do only one task, they are not universal.
we generate enough heat for the sentinels to harvest it for their energy after the sun was blocked out though
We so do not @@clown134
@@clown134 But it could have been done way more efficiently with yeast and sugar.
idk my brain gets pretty hot lol
This is so perfectly communicated. Thorough acknowledgement that there's a great deal of warranted skepticism, without dismissing it outright, and exploring the interesting elements without necessarily accepting the whole.
I saw Penrose live give his presentation on this. It was after he wrote the first book but before he finished the second. This was long before UA-cam, so the first time I saw him give one of his presentations. His hand-drawn projection slides are still marvelous.
i would have those slides no other way, from him.
@@EconAtheist Yea, he's having problems with more recent lectures, since the venues don't have classic overhead projectors.
@@JohnDlugosz i say we chip in and present him with a nice portable, in the interests of science.
@@JohnDlugosz A camera connected to a projector and a backlight should be almost as good.
@@kellymoses8566 Yes; it's not the difference in technology that's the problem, but rather it's now has a wide variety of products instead of a standardized project where they're all the same.
The desk is larger than the camera's view, and the imaged area is NOT MARKED on it! I kept thinking "someone get this guy some strike tape!" as the audience continuously complained that he was out of bounds and he compiled in return that he can't tell.
Second, the image area is often *smaller* than the old-fashion projector top, which you may recall is considerably more than a page size. So, his drawings may not entirely fit on the camera projector.
An intriguing idea that consciousness could emerge from quantum level phenomena. Great to see new studies providing weight to these theories. Would be interesting to follow up on how this progresses.
From watching the video it seems like the studies only reinforce the idea that there are quantum mechanics at play in the brain, not that consciousness is formed from the phenomena. That is only true if Penrose and Hameroff's speculations are proven to be correct.
My brain is collapsing, but I think I managed to make that sentence digestible.
@@etz8360 Indeed, that is solely what the research concerns.
Roger Penrose is definitely in my top 3 favourite thinkers of all time ❤ thanks Matt
Mine are Asoka, Lao-tsu, and W.C. Fields.
What would a gorilla do?
I feel sorry for you.
@@darricshhh Why?
@@13cbt13because he’s a joke
@@Cosmalano You make Mario 64 videos, get over yourself.
93, Bless his heart, great man.
Is he still active? Damn I need his secret. Alzheimer's is scary.
Mother of neuropsychology Brenda Milner is 106 :p
@@tadawakatsu It's all down to staying mentally active. In neurology terminology, the saying is 'use it, or lose it'
Exercise, reading, puzzle solving, socialising and playing a musical instrument are all fantastic ways to stave off brain aging.
@@tadawakatsu HE must be utilizing quantum aging.......nah JK.
@@tadawakatsu Incredibly smart people seem to stay pretty smart in old age.
"Sherlocking consciousness" lol
More appropriate than you might think, if you see Holmes as an autistic polymath which is what I now call myself. I am constantly frustrated by scientists' (and people's, in general) seeming inability to look outside their "boxes" as I tend to see all the boxes and how they connect. Seems like an outstanding ability. Right? But you can't get far with it when the rest of the world is so narrowly focused that they're dismissive of what you see. People just see you as weird and nonsensical, and therefore stupid in their opinion even if you have a Mensa level IQ.
Sherlock is already used as a verb when an OS includes a new feature that used to be provided by another company's app. "Sherlocking consciousness" sounds like AI making it unprofitable to make money anymore selling the output of human consciousness.
@@beastmastreakaninjadar6941 I completely understand your frustration with people's narrow-mindedness and I know it myself, but wouldn't it be better to be more humble and not assume the boxes you can see are all there are? Because that sounds like you're not that different from the normies in your attitude, you just see more boxes.
@@beastmastreakaninjadar6941 You must think you're the smartest fellow in the room. Nope - You're just a BIG DUMMY!
: D
@@beastmastreakaninjadar6941 I love that description! I self diagnosed my autistic nature at the age of 63. It explained so many things.
I'm not sure I could claim to be a true polymath, but I know exactly what you mean about seeing all the boxes. Do you find yourself in conflict with all the sides in any particular issue? I do.
I don't understand this concept nearly well enough to have an opinion about it. I look forward to hearing about further developments.
17:50 sometimes...
So glad this was covered by you guys. As you said, as safe as it is to be skeptical about anything related to consciousness, one thing we can say about OOR theory and what makes it incredibly interesting is that it at the very least is giving us something that can be objectively tested and proven/disproven. That alone put's it miles ahead of other _Theories of consciousness._
Thanks Matt and PBS:ST crew, you guys are always the best.
Not only is OOR testable, but it has been tested and proven wrong.
@@JohnDoe-sp6wr Citation, Link, Source?
The entire point is that quantum 'type' interactions are starting to be shown within the brain. So where is your information coming from that it's already completely disproven?
@@JohnDoe-sp6wr Troll-like statements from burner-like account names don't work as well amongst those used to thinking critically, eh?
It opens up determinism to allow free will. To me this invites us to explore our spirituality. We're deeply integrated with our environment and are capable of making novel observations and decisions. This is integral to learning in such a complex reality!
@@TreesPlease42 Free will in what way? Remember, the collapse of the wavefunction is _random_. Explain to me how unpredictability constitutes choice.
This really cleared a lot up for me about this theory. I'm glad that it gained enough attention to get an episode here!
"Luminous beings are we, not this crude matter" - Yoda
Corollary “Only the Sith deal in Absolutes.” -Every Jedi
Roll that one around in your head for a minute.
@@mzaite "Every Jedi"
Guys, we found the Sith
Darth Plagueis was a dark lord of the Sith so powerful and so wise, he could use the Force to influence the microtubules to create life.
@@MerennulliA sith lord??
@@christopherbrice5473 I mean, I don't want to assume. It could be a Sith lady.
I read Penrose's books 'The Emperor's New Mind' and 'Shadows of the Mind' when they were first published, and they were the first steps on my path to getting my undergraduate degree in cognitive science in 2000. Since reading Penrose I've been thinking that, due to the predictability of Newtonian mechanics, if we have free will at all, it must have its foundations in quantum uncertainty. But I'm still undecided on the reality of free will... which might just be a consequence of my brain's quantum uncertainty. After completing my undergraduate degree and being thoroughly immersed in the work of Gödel and the skepticism of David Hume, I had planned to continue on to graduate school... but life had other ideas, and after exploring my options for graduate studies in cognitive science during a post-graduate gap year, I went back to community college and got my IT certifications... and working in IT burned me out by the end of 2007, and I've been working in retail almost ever since, while pursuing ideas like this in my spare time.
The ability to sit with just not knowing is really important. I don't know if it's just my perception or maybe it is a real trend but there seems to be an uptick lately in people who are certain about things. I think that's a real lack of humility. There's so much more we don't know than we do know. All we really have is our best understanding so far.
It may be that free will, in my opinion, is the illusion dictated to the ego through what you specify as quantum uncertianty....meaning if one can grasp the image of what timeline they are on or what time line they can be on, destroys this illusion of free will, and opens your mind to the FACT that the EGO dictates an ILLUSION of FREE WILL as a MEANS of CONTROL over the FUNDAMENTIAL FACT that the UNIVERSE is INHERANTLY UNDEFINED!!!
Please enlighten me, if i am wrong
one problem with "free will" is that there are many conflicting definitions: several totally different concepts are conflated into one word which makes most discussion meaningless unless you clearly define which of them you mean.
To me it is a superflous word anyway: what is really "free" in "free will"? I say we can make choices, but we doesnt choose what our wants.
@@matswessling6600 To a lot of people "free" will for "true" free will, is probably that the actions are just theoretically nondeterministic/non predictable. And there is some argument to be made that a big enough computer could simulate you perfectly if it had perfect knowledge. The thought there is, even with perfect knowledge the true randomness/uncertainty in action means that the person may not behave the same way.
Or I guess a shorter way; I think to a lot of people free will means that whenever ancestor simulations become a thing, it will never be able to perfectly predict/replicate them due to true free ("random") will.
Beyond that it's a religious argument. Does god know everything you will do? Do you have true free will? If you have true free will, how can god be all powerful? But if you don't have free will, predeterminations/predestinations means that your actions in life are ultimately pointless and you are doomed to damnation/salvation from the moment of conception basically. And that's a philosophical argument I don't have much personal input and opinion on (though do note, there are a lot more points and nuances and arguments to that whole religious debate, it's just for illustration). And that's also not a question that can be answered by science regardless of quantum mechanics as far as I am aware lol
@@nexaentertainment2764 That a system is deterministic does not mean that it can be predicted.
that you ate deterministically determined on some meta level does not mean that your choices have no meaning.
the common thougts on these matters are often very wrong since we are not evolved to think of stuff like this.
I've been fascinated by Penrose's proposition since he started about 20 years ago. I'm now very excited to see my favourite UA-camrs bring it back to the table, Sabine, Anton, and now Matt, despite his initial skepticism. I think this could lead to a brand new form of research and medical paths, not to mention tackle hard questions such as the existence of free will. Super exciting times!
The big three, must watch every time....
I want to make a suggestion for the merch shop. Super smarty pants. Then we can all be in the club.
I want some.
❤
Could they be like the sweats from the nineties that said "Juicy" on the back? Say "Smarty" instead?
You just have to be wary of physicists working with friction. Where "F" is the force of static friction, "m" is the coefficient of static friction and "s" is the normal force between surfaces, a clever physicist can formulate the equation sm=F and then substitute variables in your merch.
I want to point out that Penrose did not say that quantum mechanics is super-Godel because it is nondeterministic; rather he said that there must be a deterministic aspect of physics underlying quantum mechanics which must be super-Godel.
And that’s the wildest idea of all - that Goedel’s theory actually has profound implications for how the real world works
That seems to defeat his entire argument that there is something important about quantum computation, then. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
@@objective_psychology It doesn't undermine his argument. He postulated that any quantum computation must be both capable of self-completeness and deterministic according to whatever the theory of everything turns out to be. All he was doing is narrowing the possible range of theories that satisfy the quantum-consciousness theory.
I should say the man is undoubtedly insane but you would be incredibly hard pressed to find someone who doesn't love him for that. The ideas dont really make sense but look at how much discussion they generate.
@@marrrtin It doesn't. Penrose's argument is nonsense. The relevant Gödel sentence for a human brain, assuming the concept makes sense at all for the fuzzy paradigm of computation it employs, would be at least as long as the number of neurons you have. Good luck "intuiting" that. And, even if you did -- how exactly does that give you consciousness, exactly? It's a bizarre argument from beginning to end.
A correction is in order: Gödel's Incompleteness doesn't say that there are _true_ statements that are unprovable -- it says that there are statements that can't be proved or disproved. This common misinterpretation comes from the analysis of the Gödel sentence used in the construction -- the contradictory sentence is "true", but only in a meta-language. There's a fundamental difference that is very important in theoretical computer science between "can't be proved true" and "can't be proved or disproved". The latter admits divergent calculations (ie processes that don't return), while the former immediately runs in to the halting problem.
Also, while we believe mathematics is consistent, we don't actually know for sure - it's always possible that someone will uncover something way out there that leads directly to a contradiction and brings down the entire house of cards (or at least requires unravelling a lot to figure out where the contradictions come from, and which "obviously true" axioms don't play nice together).
@@rmsgrey Mathematics isn't a single language in the Gödel sense. For example, Cantors diagonalization proof is a direct example of incompleteness. The area of a unit circle has no exact value without real numbers. But we can always use another language-- e.g. the real numbers-- to get at those properties. There isn't any Grand Mathematics, Hilbert-style-- that's precisely what Gödel proved. In practice it means very little, for example ZF set theory is consistent "in all the interesting parts" of mathematics.
Unfortunately, philosophers-- and a few physicists-- have run with the speculative applications and made it metaphysical to the degree of mysticism. It doesn't place any kind of limit on knowledge or what is knowable etc.
@@rmsgrey Correct me on this, but as far as I understand (from watching science channels on UA-cam), we believe that mathematics is self consistent, but it can't be proved or disproved.
So the idea of someone finding something in howsoever long makes it either proveable which goes against the assumption i.e. becoming a matter of conquering the improbable rendering the whole argument in fallacy.
I hope i am getting this correct without any formal mathematical or subject matter knowledge on this.
And based on that OPs statement (2nd part of it) makes more sense.
@@ontoverse it does limit what is knowable. godel's incompleteness draws the boundary of self-consistent systems, identifying the loops associated with self-reference. these are like pitfalls to avoid, yet tell us a lot about the underlying structure of the formal language.
@@rmsgreyAt this point, I think that is unlikely. But you're probably right that there's a nonzero chance
I love this. I've been interested in Penrose and Hanerofff's work for a long time and have been waiting for someone to pick up on it and seriously discuss it. There's a bunch of new things I learned through this video. I figured since Roger Penrose is the Penrose of the Penrose diagram, one of these spacetime channels would eventually cover it. Glad it's PBS Spactime, since the production quality of this channel is so high and Matt really knows what he is talking about. Great job, Matt!
Krypton and Xenon can act as Anesthetics due to their interaction within microtubule crystals.
One measure of Anesthetic Efficacy is the ability of the anesthetic to dissolve in Olive Oil.
It is thought that the anesthetic passes through the protective sheathing around nerve fibers and Olive Oil mimics this barrier.
I remain a bit skeptical of the underlying argument - I think there's a conflation of "the brain is a deterministic system that could theoretically be simulated on a computer" with "the brain *is* a computer" here. We see complex, emergent properties come out of simple, deterministic systems all the time, there's no reason to think our brains aren't just a very scaled-up version of such systems, tuned by natural selection.
That having been said, natural selection makes use of whatever's available, and we already know plants take advantage of certain quantum effects in photosynthesis. So, I wouldn't call myself a believer, yet, but given results like these, this sounds like a line of inquiry worth looking further into.
And its had 4 billion years , it could be a possible explanation for why intelligent life has taken so long. It, obviously if correct, would also mean that intelligent life is probably a lot more rare than we think.
Well basically the computer has been a brain model so it makes sense when they hit a wall to theorize what they do now
My bet is wireless connected to something way bigger, like everything all at once big
So we are getting updates at sleep
Just a receiver tho
On another note, what is implied makes sense: limitless possibles measured by observation...
I think determinism as a whole is largely inconsistent and often over-relied upon because it's just assumed to be how things work, but it has a lot of issues.
By determinism we could (if we knew sufficient information) have a perfect prediction of the future. So imagine a future-predicting machine that could calculate the happenings of the next 2 minutes and output them. Under determinism the future has already been set, it can't be changed. Under determinism, there is also a defined and absolute result. Ask a yes/no question and it will be either yes or no. This answer must exist for everything.
Now we have a deterministic contrarian machine (it's given an input P and always returns not P). So we now ask the future-predicting machine what the contrarian machine will reply when we feed its answer to the contrarian machine. The future-predicting machine can never be correct (because the contrarian will always return the opposite). There's no hidden variables here because the only relevant knowledge is how the contrarian machine works which we already know.
The only way to correctly answer this question about the future is with a superposition. There is no defined deterministic Yes/no answer that will work.
@@taragnor Nope. It takes more than one calculation step to simulate one calculation step, let alone everything else happening outside the future-predicting machine, so it'd take (much) more than 2 minutes to figure out all that's going to happen in the next 2 minutes. Then it'd correctly retrodict that it hadn't finished its computation in 2 minutes, and therefore the contrarian machine had still been waiting for input to contradict.
@@tanelihuuskonen2078 Ah yes, the determinists old trick to hide behind complexity. Well you actually can't do that here. You can't claim the calculation is too complicated here, because the variables we set out are extremely simple. We know how the contrarian works, it could be as simple as a logical NOT gate. The future telling machine is rigged such that it's answer goes directly into the contrarian, no outside forces allowed. We know all the variables in this system. It's not a case of not enough information or we need more time to calculate.
It's a very simple calculation, one that doesn't require some massive supercomputer. In fact any introductory logic student can do a truth table for it. If the truth teller says True then the contrarian says false, and vice versa. There's two options the truth-teller can take and neither of them allows for a truthful prediction of the future. Because for the truth teller to be correct it would have to give an answer such that P = not P, which is a logical impossibility.
So the conclusion is that the future can't be predicted even if we know all the relevant variables (like we do in this hypothetical). It's not a matter of complexity. It's literally a logical impossibility.
My tinnitus feels quantum.
Good god, doesn't it though?!
Ménière’s disease causes a collapse of my wave-function…😅
We can't find a solution to tinnitus because we keep going to physicians when we need to go to physicists!
Truly!
One other aspect I've never heard addressed about the theory of quantum consciousness, is that there's not really anything that necessitates that the uncertainty for the system be produced by a quantum process. Only that the uncertainty be produced by a process which can't be predicted from within the system dependent upon it.
So while AGI might still be in the far off future, it doesn't seem like it would be necessary for it to be built off of a quantum computer, only that there be a dedicate external processor providing some kind of behavior to mimic the behavior of a quantum wave collapse for it to become conscious. Even slow it should still be possible with today's technology, but you would expect it to behave on a time scale significantly slower than the inherent quantum behavior of the human (well animal) physiology.
Similar to how we can simulate gravity sorting, but a computer can't perform a true gravity sort as an efficient sorting algorithm since it ultimately must perform operations in series rather than in parallel.
Some analog noise is sufficient. And any simple A/D converter provides that.
Quantum computers are incapable of everything but a few very limited forms of computation.
@@erikziak1249 Well yeah for a faux quantum collapse. Though the limiting factor remains an inability to resolve a significant number of "entangled" operations in parallel.
I maybe understood like 30% of what you just said but this seems hella interesting
Anton Petrov covers this topic and the part you missed about how certain anesthetics switch off consciousness by disrupting quantum effects in the microtubules.
I love Anton Petrov’s channel ngl
Straight to the point and tries to not be biased.
They did mention that
and also how indole serotonergic psychedelics like DMT, LSD, psilocybin increases activity in your microtubules and promote higher consciousness.
Yes - this is a key part that is missed in this video. This is evidence for a possible link between quantum processes and consciousness which Matt says there is no evidence of at the end.
Hello wonderful people :)
Ah yes - "The Emperor's New Mind" - I bought this book at a village fete as a highschool student over 20 years ago.
That book is what got me hooked on computer science and maths - subjects I'd go on to take a Ph.D in, and now I find myself working on state of the art machine learning models and AGI.
I no longer buy the quantum arguments. However, I dohave fond memories of trying to convince a university admissions interviewer that the brain could not be a classical computer - and how they stared me down with utter incredulity :)
I feel I owe this book a great deal of thanks!
Hah, almost my own path (minus the PhD + more physics). Got the book as part of an intro deal for a "book of the month" club in about 1990 and was hugely impressed by it.
(i'm similarly now much less convinced by its central thesis but it's still a great, ambitiously broad intro to maths, physics and computing IMO)
Same here. I loved that book. Never got an advanced degree in anything, but I still love reading physics and maths in my spare time.
My bird Roger is named after Sir Roger Penrose
That's sir Roger bird to you
Of British Rogers, he’s a good one. 💯
So's my cat🤙🏻
My hamster Penrose is named after sir roger penrose
Be sure to keep him a way from Schroedinger's cat.
0:30 "Super Smarty Pants Club!" That got me lmao
I think I'm more impressed with Matt got to "spacetime" than with how much I understood this video.
Penrose is a case study in how we give credence to people based on status, not merit. We have a word for when we "know" things without proof: assumption. We judge our assumptions based on their usefulness and track record of reliability, and assumptions are proven wrong all the time. It's the scientific method with Bayesian reasoning. If Penrose's justification for his theory is to forget this entire process, his argument shouldn't be taken seriously. The only reason it is is because he did great work, which he rightly deserves recognition for, in other science.
Penrose and Hamerrof said quantum effects happen in microtubules 30 years ago and everyone laughed at them. Now, it is a fact that large scale quantum effects happen in microtubules. There is also evidence that messing with said quantum effects leads to general anesthesia. How is that for Bayesian thinking?
I am so much grateful for this video that it's hard to express. The Gödel theorem and the possible quantum nature of consciousness is exactly what I was thinking about a lot the last couple of years. Thank you immensely, PBS
When I was in high school in the late 1990s, I was in the "Academic Decathlon" (basically like a quiz bowl). In addition to normal subjects (math, science, etc) each year had one general theme topic. One year's theme was the brain and consciousness, and I remember reading for the first time about the possible quantum aspect of consciousness and how microtubules might enable it. At the time I was like "Whoa!", but later when I learned more armchair quantum mechanics I became much more skeptical.
All I can say is, there's defintely a lot of tangling going on in my brain, especially after watching PBS Space Time.
What I appreciate about this presentation is that you are careful to point out it is speculation. Yes there is some early evidence which makes it intriguing, but we certainly cannot call it solid yet. Good job.
As a scientist, i see a lot of clickbait “major discovery now end of world start of time travel you name it” type bs. So refreshing to get a balanced, lucid analysis of published works in a format that is easily understood/digested without making claims the data doesn’t yet support. Hats off to you sir i have subscribed immediately 👏
At the end of the day even if our brain were to use quantum processes it doesn't imply that consciousness is quantum in nature.
In general consciousness is clearly evolutionary advantageous since it gives a thinking entity the ability to think about its own thoughts, it's what allows us to realize the quality of thought patterns themselves.
Anaesthetics may provide evidence showing a correlation between quantum activity in the brain and (loss of) consciousness.
@@leonais1 Yes but it's irrelevant, there is a correlation between QM and everything including completely deterministic processes, old man losing his cognitive abilities making cash is all we have here.
Correct. The quantum effect may simply provide a mechanism to roll dice when variance is needed.
ua-cam.com/video/2tSQAN5OmRM/v-deo.htmlsi=8ERrAnNcGUrtOQtm
Consciousness didn’t first appear in humans. I think some kind of awareness arose very early. Human consciousness is just a more advanced version of that.
It gave organisms a distinct survival advantage, because it provides a way to combine all sensory information into a coherent view of the world.
To be able to do this, cells need to be able to combine multiple concurrent signals from the cell membrane, maybe by entanglement among cell structures like microtubules, to create this “view of the world”.
Brains use optimised cells, perhaps whats called “pyramidal neurons”, as building blocks to scale single cell awareness up to the super awareness we call consciousness. Humans can use this for self reflection and advanced reasoning. But the basic property of awareness already exists in single cells.
Listening to Penrose describe the sort of cycle of universes is the most fascinating thing. The universe sort of forgets itself disappears starts a new. I have no idea if it's valid but it's thought provoking and it's fun to listen to and even if it was completely invented it, it makes you think. Because we really have no idea how small our universe is compared to all the universes out there if there are more than one. If there even is an end to our universe.
Glad to see this topic is getting the interest it deserves. This will all tie in to the coming disclosure about NHI and consciousness in the coming years. Exciting and ontologically shocking times ahead for humanity.
May I remind everyone that Time does not get quantized. It is linear. what gets quantized is anything that exists within Time. It gets quantized because of the priciple that matter or energy cannot ezist in the same place at the same time. It is therefore "shifted" which makes Planks constant realistic.
I've been a huge proponent of this theory for years, so I'm very happy to hear about any developments with it! Thank you!
I think it is incumbent on anyone discussing Gödel's incompleteness to at least mention Lewis Carroll.
i love how your videos are like "here's a really cool concept! aaaaand here's why its probably wrong"
Seriously this has the potential to be one of the most ground breaking discoveries in the history of humanity. If this leads to some scientific understand of conciseness it would be a pivotal point in our understand of the world. If it turns out to have nothing to do with conciseness its still a groundbreaking understanding in how the brain works, and its complexity. Assuming the paper holds up. This is one of the most exciting stories I have heard in my life time. I can't wait for the research that will follow this study.
The biggest obstacle of all this unverifiable speculation of OR collapse in microtubules producing consciousness is that microtubules are everywhere in biology but only certain pathways in brains, not my liver or my blood or my genitals, are in all likelihood responsible for consciousness.
And that monkey (and rat, mouse, fly, and worm) brains are full of neurons and microtubules. Is the argument that only in humans did evolution start taking advantage of entangled microtubules?
Wouldn't this be a convincing area to explore how the placebo effect has such widespread effects in any biological system and not just the nervous system?
@@samothECAnd I think one could argue that those beings are conscious as well though so there's not really a contradiction
Thought about this years ago when I first heard about quantum effect. Basically tiny particles are EVERYWHERE that means quantum dimension jumps all the time, everywhere, even within our brains, thoughts, personality and will.
Penrose is a pioneer. Even if his conjucture regarding microtubuals is incorrect, he has still moved us further towards a viable hypothesis of consciousness than anyone else.
The only thing Roger Penrose did was kick the tin down the road. He tried to avoid dealing with the hard problem of consciousness by claiming it emerges from "quantum effects".
Yet he offered no working mechanism.
Exactly!
Seems to me that he has been arguing that the "working mechanism" for conciousness is fundamentally unknowable.
Yes, how dare he not offer a complete solution to how consciousness emerges...
@@dashneptune Yes, how dare he. If he can't offer some evidence to back up a claim like that he should not be making it
@@JS-wp4gs lol
Saying quantum mechanics can only occur in pristine conditions is like saying mushrooms can only grow in a lab because they are so sensitive.
Awesome analogy. Perfect. The arrogance of scientists
He means that the quantum effects are coordinated towards some computation. Sure you can have a soup of random effects. But directing them to singular tasks requires control.
Totally. To study, analyze and exploit quatum effects we need pristine conditions. But a effect such as consciousness does not need those particular conditions.
@@manawa3832 We can't direct quantum effects in a lab but the study referred to seems to indicate longer, relatively macroscopic chains of quantum effects... why wouldn't nature be able to develop this? Bottom-up emergence can and is far more complex than the top down control we have managed so far (brain vs AI is an example of this).
@@ShenLong33 Yes, doing studies or collecting data from a system is a totally different question than if the effects are occurring in more complex systems naturally. He seemed to say there were legitimate scientists dismissing Penrose's hypothesis because we can't study quantum effects in warm and wet environments... first problem with that is it's biased to the limit of our current capabilities. Second, quantum effects are smaller in scale in their basis than things like temperature and "wetness"... why would anyone automatically assume they don't occur there is beyond me.
More info on Superradiance needed. Over to you, Matt.
watched the two ads to start this video, and am watching the one in the middle right now. that is how much I appreciate the years of this adventure so well described by You! sincere thanks for be a glorious textbook ads over.
Important to note that I’ve listened to Penrose talk about this and he has a healthy sense of self-skepticism. He seems very open to any possibility. But his intuition and expert judgment is telling him simply to investigate this road.
I am a pool noodle enthusiast. It is theorized that the hollowification of the longitudinal axis of the pool noodle has both increased options for play as well as cheapified the institution of the pool noodle. Thus the hollow pool noodle exists in a superposition of states of improved and reduced quality until its waveform is collapsed by the actual use it is put to in the pool, thereby demonstraging evidence for the presence of warm, wet and chaotic quantum effects.
I cannot fathom a way to understand what you wrote.
10:30 That almost sounds like it would mean that the universe measures (observes) consciousness and that is what makes consciousness exists. It is complete reverse of what some people mistakenly argued, that consciousness causes the wave collapse.
I've always had a problem with these proposals of Penrose. Among several unsupported leaps, the core seems to be the argument "if the brain can't be perfect and complete, then it can't work" ... I wonder if he ever met any real people.
Im kinda in the same camp but id definitely phrase it a bit differently.
The argument given in the video is that we can believe something to be true without concrete rigorous proof, and that argument is just exactly the reason why I can’t follow the penrose hype train just yet. As self fulfilling as it would be, until we can say with confidence that our brains have a component that do not follow gödle’s law for typical computational systems, it just is not an easy to believe proposition. I feel like the idea of emergence has a greater chance of having a role in consciousness than penroses idea given that it is so reliant on a glorified process of elimination, but then again he has so much more experience with this kinda stuff than I could hope to have for quite a few number of decades so take this as you will.
@@elquesohombre9931 I know someone who's personality completely changed after a traumatic car crash. Like a completely different person... and by all definitions he had consciousness and was aware just as much as before the crash.. but something fundamental in his brain relating to personality got damaged or something.
After seeing something like that, I find it very hard to believe consciousness is anything other than classically mechanical. Just very very very complex.. which makes sense seeing as how it's the result of evolution for millions of years
For all we know, we simply have to appear conscious to ourselves when we think about it. If we are truly conscious, is impossible to know. It is completely valid when an A.I. at the contemporary state of development, claims it is conscious. We are not able to determine if we, with our consciousness are any more self aware than this level.
Happy birthday Sir Roger Penrose.
I already read Shadows of Mind and presented it in my philosophy class, but would still love to see an episode about objective reduction and how well that idea holds up currently.
Quantum computers can be simulated perfectly accurately with classical computers. It's not *fast* but being slow is different than exceeding an incompleteness limit.
The Gödel discussion related to OOR may not be necessary other than from a historical POV. W/o it we’re just left with a far higher complexity of the brain, which would “simply” need more computation to match it.
People ascribe all sorts of magical woo to quantum computers. They're still computers, folks; they can't solve the halting problem.
@@fwiffobut they can break encryption in realistic time scales for us to see if someone has solved the halting problem and hidden it away in an encrypted file
As I understand, Penrose's view is that while the evolution of quantum state is computational, the process of collapse isn't. Hence anything that leverages collapse in a significant manner is not computational.
So it's not that the brain is running a quantum algorithm. The brain is quantum, and thus it's not (only) running an algorithm.
True but given that brains operate in our physical universe (as far as we know :) there's still (potentially) a _physical_ limit being exceeded. Even if on paper a classical computation can "approximate its way around" GIT, it's an entirely valid constraint if in the universe in which that happens it'd be physically impossible because there literally aren't enough atoms and/or time to perform the necessary computation even once (nevermind a computation that we routinely perform, if indeed that is how brains work).
Some estimates put it at only around 500 (logical) qubits before we'd need more classical bits than there are atoms in the universe to match it computationally within a realistic time-frame so a brain sized quantum computer plausibly _could_ do things even a universe sized classical computer couldn't do in a hundred trillion years.
(I don't particularly buy Penrose's argument BTW, i'm just trying to disagree with the strongest version of it :)
Sir Penrose is the G.O.A.T. In Penrose we trust, in Hawking we sus. 👽🖖
Why is Hawkins distrustful?
Im way too high for this
So many years ago I was with a group of people and we got to talk to a fairly famous (in those circles) remote viewer. People were asking him about his experiences, the kinds of things he saw, etc. I had the thought of asking if they had ever turned the remote viewing in on itself to see how it worked. Others were asking questions and I hesitated asking. Then he, without me having said anything, just turned, looked right at me and said (as best I can remember) "best we could tell it works by altering the quantum fields in the pituitary."
The one thing I know is that nature can build some incredible things. The fact that we cannot do it, means very little.
A very simple example is that a prosthetic, like a replacement hip, lasts about 10-15 years. The natural one you're born with, usually lasts at least 50 years without problems. Apparently nature can still build it better. We should accept we still have a lot to learn.
In the multiverse, the "collapse" of a wave function only tells us WHICH universe we are in. Schrodinger's cat is not both alive and dead; opening the box does NOT affect the cat, it only tells us if we are in a universe with a living cat or not
Yeah but as people who only ever get to live in one universe our whole lives, this is just an interesting and completely useless story we can tell ourselves. It has nothing to do w physics and is much more philosophical conjecture than practical science
@@Jm-wt1fs speak for yourself
Naw, Many Worlds doesn’t really make sense.
@@MikeWiest .. Fine Structure Constant small changes eliminate life
I think that the theory of multiverse is just a scientific misunderstanding of probabilities. Imagining probabilities does not make them real.
I think philosophers forget that mathematics is descriptive and not prescriptive. The universe doesn't "run on math", math describes what we see in the universe. It works because it's a dynamic language.
A Mostly Entangled Brain Mass seems almost impossible from the Top Down. Entangling a Whole Brain would indeed seem Impossible.
However, what if you start a Brain with 2 Entangled Neurons. They go on to double out and each time the new Neurons are Entangled.
In this way you start small and keep the Entanglement process going through Brain Growth. Everything Entangled back to the Source.
This might explain why our Consciousness never 'Shuts Down' or 'Reboots' throughout our lifetimes. Like a forest grove it's all connected.
This might also explain how brains can repair through Plasticity. If the entire Brain is Entangled and part of that Mass becomes damaged
then Low Energy Workaround Solutions would naturally present themselves in the same way a Quantum Computer solves equations.
I'll have what He's Smoking... XD
All neurons may have some rudimentary sense of awareness, but only a special class called “pyramidal neurons” creates the consciousness that we experience.
Actually there are cases of consciousness shutting down and rebooting in extreme meditative practices. Look up nirodha samapatti.
Look at the frequency that is being generated by the subject and collapse the accurate wave to measure distance from the index aka "zero or singularity" WITHOUT creating or invoking any infinities singular or grouped. 🦅 8:00
Applying godel to the hypothesis also has an interesting paradox. Algorithmic thinking leads to negation of the hypothesis and quantum thinking verifies. So we cannot verify unless we state the hypothesis as an axiom or intuitively obvious. This brings us right into godels hypothesis where we cannot prove it algorithmically even if true. This is penroses insight we would have to abandon our concept of proof and causation . It also nicely fits with the Holmsian dictum because if not algorithmic , ie all models of accepted thinking, then it is non algorithmic and only one candidate remains in our philosophy intuitively obvious or axiomatic .
I've always believed it to be true. If there are quantum effects at play in the sense of smell then surely there are in the brain too.
so smell creates consciousness
@@SoftSemtex idk about that, but it sure makes people feel conscious
@@SoftSemtex People suffering from anosmia are not conscious?
@@SoftSemtex I mean technically smelling salts are used to wake unconscious people so.....
@@Monitice Yeah, I too have heard that smell is only/strongest sense still active while sleeping.
Makes sense as we need to breathe in constantly anyway. It would've been advantageous in case of fire, or some other foul smell.
Can conscious reason even be compared to math? What if our reasoning is not subject to Godel's incompleteness theorems, nor powered by some special random force, simply because it is an abstraction we created for fundamentally deterministic processes that just happened to give rise to it emergently? That disappears when you look closer? To me it sounds like it would be like trying to draw conclusions about the fact your equations happened to look like a smiley face, and pondering how a smiley face could exist in the math and the inconsistencies that seems to introduce.
the problem with all of the reductionist explanations from complexity (which are quite compelling at first, don't get me wrong. there's literal billions of neurons there with much more links - surely the behavior has to be complex!) are kind of crushed when you bring the hard problem of consciousness in the discussion - the fact that we feel something and have irreducible qualia (the redness of red, for example) at all. If you don't believe in strong emergence (which by your phrasing about things disappearing when looking closer I believe you don't do), the arising of qualia literally cannot be explained from complexity, as they are as different as the light wavelength and the color green. The one is (rather) easily explained to a blind man, the other is literally impossible. Tying it back to the initial statement about reason - this gap between wavelength and color green, at least to me, qualitatively seems very similar with pixels on my monitor arranged wordwise and the meaning of the word. So this (admittedly rather vague) reasoning suggests to me that our consciousness can't be explained away by complexity, and that there is something truly special going on. Besides, your explanation would still need a conscious observer that does the aforementioned abstraction of the underlying process, assuming which kinda strengthens whatever i said
@@7enima682 I disagree, because I don't think "red" is a thing at all, just a useful concept our brains evolved for surviving on a planet like ours, exposed to a star like ours. I think it too disappears upon closer examination.
Personally, I like to use analogies from machine learning for this, since their deep network of neurons is the closest thing I can think of to the brain: I see "red", or a word, as something of a "latent vector", the way my brain's "hidden neurons" light up when my red light cones are activated. "Red" exists inside a much more internal, reduced pattern of neuron activation that we use later down the line for even more abstract things.
i.e. instead of my brain only knowing "these optic nerves received 900 red signals", it first abstracts that into "that object is red", where "object" is another abstraction that, again, has been ultimately produced by evolution finding good mental abstractions.
When I see something that is red, that abstraction that exists for "red" lights up, regardless of the source, since neuron abstractions are useful precisely because of their generality. I've learnt to associate that abstraction with the word "red", and with memories involving it in numerous contexts that I can summon in my mind's eye, etc.
Another example would be a camera with some software that detects colors and then displays them on screen. Maybe it has some code that defines a suitable range for "red", at which point it sets "color = red", internally, and then when you ask "what color do you see?" the camera's software just returns "red" (the value from its variable), a much lower dimensional and simple variable. The camera has a unique internal state for when it sees red, in accordance to how its software was developed. I believe this is how it works in humans too, we just dress it up a lot more because our neural networks link that internal variable to a great deal more things.
Conscious reasoning is not the same thing as consciously “knowing”. For example. A conscious person “knows” they are conscious without having to construct a single linear thought. The “reasoning” that we do can be very mathematical but the fundamental quality of “knowing” is not.
We have found midichlorians
I've been thinking about Gödel's incompleteness theorem for years but never had the proof for it, which honestly fits perfectly with everything else
It's easy to see how microscopic world can be connected to macroscopic world:
Purely random noise of electronic component like resistor or diode can be amplified many times and then trigger some macroscopic events.
This is basically simplified version of butterfly effect.
Not gonna bet against Penrose.
Been espousing that for years, one of the true greats, when he speaks you best listen.
he's a level 99 wizard jedi master ... unbeatable 🤨
then you are a sheep not a real scientist
not to mention the number of holes in his "argument"
Appeal to authority fallacy. If I ever met Mr. Penrose, I would politely tell him that I do not agree and explain why. I do not care at all how "important", "smart" or "honored" he is. I only care about a statement and hypothesis, that I find to be wrong.
For Stéphane Lupasco, a French-Romanian philosopher, consciousness is analog to quantum mechanics but it wouldn't be a quantum process. He says it's analog because both are the expressions of an equal presence of potential and actualization, which gives a formal contradiction from which emerges different modes of matter (quantic, classic and psychic), which also coexist on different levels of reality, added his friend and physicist Nicolescu. For the latter, Gödel's incompleteness theorem indicates that reality isn't a closed system and has multiple levels of reality, consciousness being itself a form of matter and a level of reality.
I've been following Stuart Hameroff and Roger Penrose with their Orch OR theory of consciousness for about 15 years.. glad to see it getting some hype from the mainstream.
I remember learning about microtubules and they blow my mind (pun or not, you decide). They form and come together to move cellular components from A to B, provide support, direct or orient components, etc. I first learned about them back when learning about what lines up the replicated DNA during mitosis. While I am certainly not implying consciousness at this level ... the tubules "knowing" what needs to be moved, supported, stopped, held etc. and when and where to do it appears to require almost conscious control. It is not just the chemical reactions of the formation of molecules, but the tubules' "decisions" of when and where that still causes me wonder. I am a biologist so I understand the general cellular workings, but for microtubules I can't get out of my head that it is like each cell is a cartoon with a bunch of tiny factory workers running around assembling and disassembling them according to a construction plan they have been given. Other than the 50:50 possibility that that is actually true (and then it is turtles all the way down), I still cannot fully grasp how they are being directed.
I'm not a researcher, but I have previously theorized that birds, and possibly also mammals, possess a random number generator in their nervous system, one that makes it do random things instead of predetermined things, in order to find food and get out of dangerous situations.
I've been down this rabbit hole for a week and so glad to see it featured! Hammeroff 's lectures are fantastic. Hadn't heard them make the claim Matt mentioned about most of the brain being entangled.
When I first read Penrose and Hameroff's theory roughly 15 years ago or so, I knew then that the theory had merit. I didn't know if it was 100% accurate - but I had a gut feeling it was pointing in the correct direction.
I've always thought something along the lines of the Sherlock Holmes argument. No one can come up with any remotely plausible physical basis for consciousness (making any wild assumptions they want based on the Physics we know), which suggests consciousness is based on Physics we don't yet (or may never be able to) know.
If one wanted to speculate more, I'd suggest that if you assume time and space are not fundamental aspects of physical reality (a speculative "vibe" many physicists arrive at), but instead artifacts of something more fundamental, then it just might be that consciousness is based on some underlying physics outside of time and space that we may never be able to get access to, given that our thinking occurs through what we experience as time (i.e., we couldn't possibly imagine what it means to be in a state of the Physical world where there is no time.
It's funny, to a musician, Penrose his theory is so intuitive and right, it is an absolute no-brainer.
The script ending feels like it took a bit of work to get to a clean ending.😂👏👏👏❤
This is gorgeous. I usually shy away from brain stuff and was unaware of this idea.
Definitely the coolest thing I have heard of in a long time.
12:41 Matt casually dropping a Martian verb in his sentence - I expect no less from this channel 🤣
Ive been following Hameroff and Penrose for years. I find their theory of consciousness more convincing than any other thus far.
As a physicist I have to say that Roger Penrose is a genius and one day I will read that book.
I've always viewed entanglement as a wavefunction that hasn't enjoined with our own universal wave function; the more complicated the entanglement, the more fragile - or easy it would be to suddenly merge with our universal wave function, which is why more simple entanglements are far more abundant. With this view in mind, I'm not one to put much stock at all in Penrose's ideas of consciousness.
It's the only theory I've heard in 40 years that gives some sense of authentic understanding of consciousness. after understand the theory, its hard to believe we didn't already understand the massive web of entanglement.
Not being snarky but what exactly is it you think we'd authentically understand about consciousness IF (big 'if' :) this turns out to be true ?
My point being, we don't know how consciousness arises from brains so understanding that brains employ quantum mechanics still doesn't tell us how consciousness works. All it says is "Hey, you know that somewhat mysterious aspect of physics we only kind of understand ? Well, it relates to this _other_ somewhat mysterious thing we understand even less".
consciousness or not, it's definitely exciting to learn more about how quantum effects might be used in a more "normal" non-laboratory setting. It is something that has always been there, so it would be presumptuous to think we've seen even a quarter of what it really does and the rules of how it works
My problem with the Sherlock Holmes quote is that "to eliminate all other possibilities" is to imply that is even possible. That's just hubris and leads you to insane conclusions.
How many times have you thought you considered every variability only to find out there is yet more that never occurred to you?
How many times have you stared at a computer program only to have a collegue find the error in a few seconds?
To think you have thought of everything and therefore your conclusion is the only rational one will get you into trouble.
One of the best channels on UA-cam. Thanks for it!
One thing I never god about the idea of microtubules being essential for consciousness (as possible quantum computers, not just structural and transport molecules) is, how does this relate to the action potentials? Neurons are exquisitely adapted to pump ions around as a means of transmitting electrical signals. This is their most conspicuous activity, and uses tremendous amounts of energy. We wouldn't have evolved to do so much of it if it weren't necessary. Furthermore, all our sensors and effectors use action potentials -- e.g. our eyes are made of cells that produce action potentials in response to the intensity of certain wavelengths of light; our muscles contract when they receive action potentials. So even if quantum effects in the microtubules are involved in consciousness somehow, we'd need them to interact with the action potentials in some way to have any effect on our perceptions and behavior.