Quantum Consciousness, Quantum Mind STUART HAMEROFF (P.3)

23 thoughts on “Quantum Consciousness, Quantum Mind STUART HAMEROFF (P.3)”

1. sounds similar to the bullshit in "the secret"

2. I have to agree with that. When i'm sleeping (mostly taking a nap after lunch at work), i often find myself in a half conscious state… i'm aware of the surroundings, i can hear sounds and i know whether other people are talking near me, but the strange thing is that i can't process or comprehend anything they're saying. My thoughts becomes random and language fades away.. I don't even i save memories of what happened, so everything just seems instantaneous.

3. I'm afraid not. Everything that he's talking about is backed up by science that has yet to be refuted. In fact, Quantum Mechanics to so real that it is used to program working computers (although they have yet to be released commercially). Science is beginning to discover that reality is quite a bit stranger than Newtonian Physics supposed; something that mystics already knew for a very long time.

4. Yes, Penrose is dismissed by people who have nowhere near his expertise – genius might not be too strong a word either – in physics. Absolutely their resistance is due to the philosophical implications, which are enormous.

5. No.

6. @tim3746 we don't know enough about quauntum physics nor a way to test his theory to even begin to say it's false or not. it makes sense, and there are very few problems(temperature, collapse time vs neural processing time, which he says he has an answer for, i am somewhat satisfied with) to automatically throw it out the window. saying conscious is superficial phenomenal of physical matter is just as untestable, it just fits with the mainstream science religion

7. THE 'MIRRORS' WE SEE IN NATURE ARE ILLUSIONS …THERE ARE NO MIRRORS IN NATURE!

8. @beatlesnumber9 i agree. you're just more polite than i am at times =) we may lead a sheep to water, but we may not be able to encourage them to drink … tee hee.

9. stuart hameroff is a great mind with the ability to use common words and metaphors to exlpain information that no one trully understands as they would then be able to solve these questions … "you are either lying or crazy if you understand quantum physics" as he would say but dont stop trying to figure it out on the flip side

10. @Elififa Tons of things. The fact that non-quantum science has absolutely no explanation for what consciousness is, or where it comes from.

    The fact that the supercomputer people are flat out wrong when they theorize that consciousness can be created within computers once computers become fast enough.

11. @dougdof925 I think they are saying that a proto-consciousness exists everywhere, on the quantum level, and it makes sense.

12. @Elififa Not so because almost everything Hammeroff says can be verified scientifically as being accurate. 🙂

13. @Elififa That guy is a prof. of Psychology and associate director for the Center for Consciousness Studies. He works on ORCH-OR closely with Penrose, who has far greater credentials than Dawkins or Dennett who meddles into metaphysics, quantum mechanics; logic, and they are both tools on these topics. Not to mention that similar stances on consciousness holds someone like Paul Davies also, so i don't see why are you, as a layman, so upset over this. Maybe 'coz of it's philoso. implications…

14. @Elififa Micheal Shermer is a nobody. He hasn't any scientific credentials. Orch-Or is something that Hameroff proposed together with Roger Penrose, for God's sake. Shermer is a magazine editor, and philosophy, metaphysics, epistemology, theoretical physics – wise, he's a clown.

15. /hyperseauton You are clearly a fan of this guy's work. I, however, smell bullshit. His ego seems to cloud his ability to be objective. But I'll admit, I don't understand nearly enough about the quantum world to argue about this topic. And I doubt you do either. I'm critical of his ability to teach. Not so good.

16. It is said in the community(i dont have a phd "yet" but i read some books on the subject) that no one truly understands quantum mechanics because of its very abstract nature; only a handful or quite possibly none had some insights into what it is. Also a book i recommend: "The Elegant Universe" by Brian Green its pretty good and simple, almost anyone could follow along.

17. What a bunch of baloney!
    Give me a break, there is no science to back up any of this nonsense. And using buzzwords doesn't make it so.
    My Bull Shit filter is fully engaged.
    But Tucson is a very nice town.

18. Consciousness is not intelligence. What he's talking about is an Ego, flying around outside of the body, calling it consciousness. Consciousness is the observing aspect of life, which is lost durring extreme intoxication with alcohol, and which has not developed until the age of about three–before that time the child is showing intelligence, but cannot identify itself with its own mirror image. And when someone is blacked out drunk, they are still alive, but not conscious. Thats the difference.

19. possibly.

20. Hi Satori1800, no problem its my pleasure to share ideas with everyone. If you have not subscribed do consider, more to come in time (but isnt that always the case?)
    -TGM

21. GREYWOLF4744: Hi. I think the physical world is manifestations of consciousness.

    Love & blessings 🙂

    thanks for great video:)

22. I'm skeptical about whether or not we are ever actually unconscious. It seems like we merely have various states of conscious experience, and when we're in a state that we would call "unconscious" we're really just in a state of lessened awareness and more often than not, we don't recall what happens in this state. I suspect that some people sometimes remember events occurring in states where they do not have "consciousness" – this could be explained through sort of a quantum observation.

23. The problem of simultaneous info transmission seems only a problem if we forget about timelessness and spacelessness of quantum world. If we can accept these demonstrable (anti)characteristics of reality, we see that what is fundamentally real is the non local, nondual beingness that must preceede all presencings in reality, including the presencing of "awareness of" and "awareness as" which constitute consciousness.

Comments are closed.