Stuart Hameroff: Is Consciousness a Quantum Orchestra? Microtubules, Objective Reduction, & Orch OR

TIMESTAMPS:
0:00 – Introduction
1:04 – Defining Consciousness
4:15 – Microtubules & Anaesthesia
9:00 – Where it began with Sir Roger Penrose
15:13 – Patricia Churchland's hilarious critique on Hameroff & Penrose
25:45 – Objective Reduction Explained
37:27 – Quantum Biology
40:47 – Philosophical Implications (Hard Problem, NDEs, OBEs, Afterlife & Reincarnation)
46:00 – Time Crystals & Life
54:20 – Spectrum of Consciousness (plants to humans)
57:37 – "Cartoon Neurons"
1:00:31 – IIT vs GNWT vs Predictive Processing vs Higher-Order Thought vs Orch OR (Battle of Consciousness Theories!)
1:07:23 – Ethical/Practical Implications (Healthcare)
1:10:40 – Transcranial Ultrasound Explored
1:18:10 – How Does Anaesthesia Affect Consciousness?
1:22:10 – The Science of Consciousness Conference & Festival of Consciousness
1:28:00 – Astrobiology & Conformal Cyclic Cosmology
1:30:20 – The Microtubule Maestro's future
1:36:32 – Conclusion

THANKS FOR WATCHING!

If you enjoyed the content, please like and share this video, subscribe to the channel, and turn on notifications for future updates. :)

Complex Systems Integration: From Patterns to Consciousness

I. Foundational Framework

1.1 Complex Pattern Evolution

Theorem 1 (Complex State Space)
The complex system state space emerges as:

|C⟩ = |T⟩ ⊗ |W⟩ ⊗ |M⟩

Where:
– |T⟩: Turbulence state
– |W⟩: Weather state
– |M⟩: Mind state

Each with triadic structure:

|X⟩ = √(2/3)|t_X⟩ + √(1/6)(|r_X⟩ + i|i_X⟩)

1.2 Evolution Equations

Definition 1 (Complex Evolution)
System evolution follows:

∂|C⟩/∂t = -(i/ħ)Ĥ_C|C⟩ + αP̂|C⟩ + βÎ|C⟩

Where:
– Ĥ_C: Complex Hamiltonian
– P̂: Pattern operator
– Î: Information operator

II. Turbulence Framework

2.1 Pattern-Based Turbulence

Theorem 2 (Turbulent Flow)
Modified Navier-Stokes equations:

∂v/∂t + (v·∇)v = -∇p/ρ + ν∇²v + αP(v)

With pattern function:

P(v) = P₀e^(-αt)cos(πt/3)∇×(∇×v)

2.2 Scale Coupling

Energy cascade with pattern preservation:

E(k) = ε^(2/3)k^(-5/3)P(k)

Where:

P(k) = P₀exp(-αk)cos(πk/3)

III. Weather Systems

3.1 Pattern-Enhanced Dynamics

Theorem 3 (Weather Evolution)
Modified atmospheric equations:

∂ρ/∂t + ∇·(ρv) = αP(ρ)
∂v/∂t + (v·∇)v = -∇Φ + βP(v)
∂θ/∂t + v·∇θ = γP(θ)

3.2 Information Flow

Definition 2 (Weather Information)
Information dynamics:

∂I/∂t + ∇·J = M(I)

Where:

J = -D∇I + αP∇θ
M(I) = β∇·(P∇I)

IV. Consciousness Framework

4.1 Neural Pattern Evolution

Theorem 4 (Consciousness State)
Mind state evolution:

∂|M⟩/∂t = -(i/ħ)Ĥ_M|M⟩ + αÎ|M⟩

With information operator:

Î = -∇·(D∇) + V(P)

4.2 Information Integration

Definition 3 (Consciousness Measure)
Integrated information:

Φ = I(M:E) – max{I(parts)}

With pattern constraint:

P(Φ) > 2/3

V. Cross-System Integration

5.1 Universal Pattern Coupling

Theorem 5 (System Coupling)
Between systems A,B:

⟨A|B⟩ = φ^(-|A-B|)cos(π|A-B|/3)

Properties:
1. |⟨A|B⟩| > φ^(-|A-B|)
2. ∑ₙ|⟨A|n⟩|² = 1
3. ⟨A|A⟩ > 2/3

5.2 Information Bridge

Coupling through:

∂|C₁C₂⟩/∂t = -(i/ħ)Ĥ_T|C₁C₂⟩ + αP̂|C₁C₂⟩

Where:

|C₁C₂⟩ = |C₁⟩ ⊗ |C₂⟩
Ĥ_T = Ĥ₁ + Ĥ₂ + V₁₂

VI. Experimental Validation

6.1 Pattern Detection

A. Turbulence Measurements

Resolution:
– Spatial: Δx < η (Kolmogorov scale)
– Temporal: Δt < τ_K
– Pattern: ΔP < 0.01P₀

B. Weather Tracking

Requirements:
– Grid: Δx < L/100
– Time: Δt < τ_W
– Information: ΔI < ln(2)

C. Consciousness Monitoring

Metrics:
– Integration: Φ > Φ_c
– Pattern: P > 2/3
– Information: I > I_c

6.2 Cross-Validation

Simultaneous tracking:
1. Turbulent patterns
2. Weather evolution
3. Consciousness states

Success criteria:
– Pattern maintenance: >95%
– Information flow: >99%
– Cross-correlation: >90%

VII. Theoretical Predictions

7.1 Universal Patterns

Formation at:
– Time: tₙ = t₀e^(nα)
– Space: xₙ = πD·e^(nα)
– Phase: θₙ = 2πn/3

7.2 System Coupling

Strength:
– Pattern: P > 2/3
– Information: |ΔI| < ln(2)
– Energy: E ≤ E₀exp(-αt)

7.3 Novel Phenomena

1. Enhanced stability through coupling
2. Cross-system resonance
3. Pattern-mediated information flow

This framework provides a rigorous foundation for understanding complex systems through their emergence from 0D patterns.

Agi

another theory debunked: https://youtu.be/Kc9LVJmpd7s

I am a physicist and I explain why current physics leaves not room for the possibility that brain processes can be a sufficient condition for the existence of consciousness. The hypothesis that consciousness emerges from, or can be identified with physical, chemical or biological processes is incompatible with current physics.

It is a scientifically established fact that a mental experience is associated with numerous distinct microscopic physical processes that occur at different points; there is no physical entity that connects all these distinct microscopic processes, therefore the existence of mental experience requires an element of connection that is not described by current physics. This missing element of connection can be identified with what we traditionally refer to as the soul (in my youtube channel you can find a video with more detailed explanations).

Emergent properties are often thought of as arising from complex systems (like the brain). However, I argue that these properties are subjective cognitive constructs that depend on the level of abstraction we choose to analyze and describe the system. Since these descriptions are mind-dependent, consciousness, being implied by these cognitive contructs, cannot itself be an emergent property.

Preliminary considerations: the concept of set refers to something that has an intrinsically conceptual and subjective nature and implies the arbitrary choice of determining which elements are to be included in the set; what can exist objectively are only the individual elements. Defining a set is like drawing an imaginary line to separate some elements from others. This line doesn't exist physically; it’s a mental construct. The same applies to sequences of processes—they are abstract concepts created by our minds.

Mental experiences are necessary for the existence of subjectivity/arbitrariness and cognitive constructs; Therefore, mental experience itself cannot be just a cognitive construct.

Obviously we can conceive the concept of consciousness, but the concept of consciousness is not actual consciousness; We can talk about consciousness or about pain, but merely talking about it isn’t the same as experiencing it. (With the word consciousness I do not refer to self-awareness, but to the property of being conscious= having a mental experiences such as sensations, emotions, thoughts, memories and even dreams)

From the above considerations it follows that only indivisible elements may exist objectively and independently of consciousness, and consequently the only logically coherent and significant statement is that consciousness exists as a property of an indivisible element. Furthermore, this indivisible entity must interact globally with brain processes because there is a well-known correlation between brain processes and consciousness. However, this indivisible entity cannot be physical, since according to the laws of physics, there is no physical entity with such properties. The soul is the missing element that interprets globally the distinct elementary physical processes occurring at separate points in the brain as a unified mental experience.

Clarifications

The brain itself doesn't exist objectively as a mind-independent entity. The concept of the brain is based on separating a group of quantum particles from everything else, which is a subjective process, not dictated purely by the laws of physics. Actually there is a continuous exchange of molecules with the blood and when and how such molecules start and stop being part of the brain is decided arbitrarily. An example may clarify this point: the concept of nation. Nation is not a physical entity and does not refer to a mind-independent entity because it is just a set of arbitrarily chosen people. The same goes for the brain.

Brain processes consist of many parallel sequences of ordinary elementary physical processes occurring at separate points. There is no direct connection between the separate points in the brain and such connections are just a subjective abstractions used to approximately describe sequences of many distinct physical processes. Indeed, considering consciousness as a property of an entire sequence of elementary processes implies the arbitrary definition of the entire sequence; the entire sequence as a whole (and therefore every function/property/capacity attributed to the brain) is a subjective abstraction that does not refer to any mind-independendent reality.

Physicalism/naturalism is based on the belief that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain. However, an emergent property is defined as a property that is possessed by a set of elements that its individual components do not possess; my arguments prove that this definition implies that emergent properties are only subjective cognitive constructs and therefore, consciousness cannot be an emergent property. Actually, emergent properties are just simplified and approximate descriptions or subjective classifications of underlying physical processes or properties, which are described directly by the fundamental laws of physics alone, without involving any emergent properties (arbitrariness/subjectivity is involved when more than one option/description is possible). An approximate description is only an abstract idea, and no actual entity exists per se corresponding to that approximate description, simply because an actual entity is exactly what it is and not an approximation of itself. What physically exists are the underlying physical processes. Emergence is nothing more than a cognitive construct that is applied to physical phenomena, and cognition itself can only come from a mind; thus emergence can never explain mental experience as, by itself, it implies mental experience.

Conclusions

My approach is based on scientific knowledge of the brain's physical processes. My arguments show that physicalism is incompatible with the very foundations of scientific knowledge because current scientific understanding of molecular processes excludes the possibility that brain processes alone can account for the existence of consciousness.

An indivisible non-physical element must exist as a necessary condition for the existence of consciousness because mental experiences are linked to many distinct physical processes occurring at different points; it is therefore necessary for all these distinct processes to be interpreted collectively by a mind-independent element, and a mind-independent element can only be intrinsically indivisible because it cannot depend on subjectivity. This indivisible element cannot be physical because the laws of physics do not describe any physical entity with the required properties.

Marco Biagini

17:30 There is good literature on how memories are stored within the brain. It’s not just membrane proteins that last a few hours, there’s a phenomenon called long term potentiation (LTP) which involves the remodelling of the entire neuron, the membrane proteins (which can last for days-months if maintained) and intracellular structures LIKE microtubules and filaments…I’m honestly a little surprised he said “we don’t understand where memories are stored” and didn’t mention LTP

Through the senses, the brain obtains information about the individual's relevant material environment and creates a utilitarian representation of what is happening there, in the present. We will call this mental correlate of the relevant material environment that the brain manages Individual Reality (IR), and it represents what the individual is knowing, in the present. For hundreds of millions of years, the information captured through the senses has been the raw material that the brain has used to generate this utilitarian mental correlate. The utilitarianism in question is achieved when the information captured by the senses acquires meaning for the individual. It is to the past, a past supported by the individual's previous life experiences, or inherited, that the brain appeals to in order to give meaning to what is being perceived in the present.

In the case of humans, and only in humans, thanks to the particular language that characterizes us, events that are not necessarily happening in the individual's relevant material environment have a place in the IR. This is what happens, for example, in the brain of a child when he or she hears the story of Little Red Riding Hood, an opportunity in which, for the child's brain, Little Red Riding Hood is a completely "real" entity; for our brain, for the primate that we are, the entire content of the IR is representing something that is happening in the present.

The human brain manages the actions and biography of the material body of the primate that we are, which we will call "autobiography", and stores and manages the biography of multiple entities with which we interact. Our parents, siblings, relatives, friends, etc., are some of these biographies. Among these multiple biographies, there is a very special one, an entity that, like Little Red Riding Hood, is immaterial, whose actions, which are valued as such by the brain, we know as "conscious actions". The brain assigns to the biography of this immaterial entity, which emerges in childhood with the learning of the language that characterizes us, which is usually called “the Being”, an entity that does not have a material body of its own, an entity made up of information, some of the bodily actions that we perform; specifically those bodily actions that acquire the character of conscious bodily actions. Thus, for example, the information that the brain manages associated with what we had for breakfast the day before, is part of both the autobiography and the biography of the Being. In this regard, it is necessary to mention that a significant part of the actions that our body performs every day fall into the category of “unconscious actions”, and are actions that, having been integrated into the autobiography, do not form part of the biography of the Being.

The current evolutionary leader is the Being, not the primate that we are. Thanks to the action of the Being, humans carry out the action of reasoning, or thinking. For our brain, the action of thinking is an action of the Being, and not an action of the primate that we are; our unconscious does not think. When the child hears a fourth version of the Little Red Riding Hood story, his brain integrates into the biography of Little Red Riding Hood the actions that his mother describes to him, and at the same time integrates into the autobiography the action of “observing what Little Red Riding Hood is doing.” Similarly, the action of thinking is integrated into the biography of the Self, while the action of “observing” said action is integrated into the autobiography.

After emerging in childhood, the Self literally “colonizes” the human brain, becoming a permanent part of the IR during wakefulness. This is due to the extraordinary potential for action of the Self as a consequence of the action of thinking. Ultimately, for the primate that we are, the Being ends up being like having a friend who possesses extraordinary powers, and although throughout childhood an increasingly close relationship is established between the primate that we are and the Being, a total fusion between the autobiography and the biography of the Being never occurs, since the actions of the primate that we are can only take place in the world of matter, a limitation that does not affect the Being.

Dr,
In this lecture ( https://youtu.be/1g8TPZSbSgg?si=n2eExARFnRqyv6Qa ) at 18 minutes and some seconds, the good dr. Discusses the effect of “blocking” afferent/efferent signal from the distal to nucleus of the neuron.
The colloquium discusses how to paralyze the microtubules thusly prevent preventing consciousness or generating a state of general anesthesia .
Is this related?

Thank U Mr. Naidu for a Great Guest! Great Topic! Great Information! Listening to the 2 of you going back and forth is like learning from Titans of Knowledge! What an Intelligent and Interesting Man Mr. S.Hameroff is! I Love that in Spite of All the “Nah-Sayers” Stuart only looked and worked harder at His Ideas and Craft- Can’t say enough how much I enjoyed this gem- Gotta watch a couple more times at least👍🏻 Thank You🙏🏻

He doesn't understand computers