Has if we have a field, frequency,radar type wave of quantum entangling electromagnetic energy that latches and collapses particles of absolute potentiality to be observed and register ed in our eyes,brain a moment later and then sausages!?

iwbtssothy YES. There is so much wheel spinning on the topic because there are so many viewpoints because people are able to project their own limited worldview onto what is happening. Then they don’t realize that they have a limited view by definition and begin the same old pattern of conflict we see in the history of life lost in a wilderness of divisiveness. So to me this is just a show complete with referee exactly like professional wrestling. Maybe this is why enlightened people of the past just dropped out of society. I tried to tell people this and used all the diversity of life as one to answer this question but they wouldn’t listen because there is a cacophony of division going on and if they would stop and listen they would see that I am supporting their own ideas and not wrestling although that stuff is very entertaining.

@@GriuGriu64 no they don't. They are cells. For god's sake, think about the things you are going to say, for even just a minute.

Dont forget the holy spirit

As matter itself. It's nothing that exist but is just a concept created by mind/consciousness to explain apparent phenomena. The real problem is, and that's why the idea of matter or objects seems to survive all contradictory findings is, that it is so contraintuitive. It would mean that we would need to disbelieve everting that we see our otherwise experience, including the sense of being a self that is having agency over it's actions. I don't think that the human race is anywhere close to accepting the implications of modern physics. And with not close I mean a couple of thousands years of ongoing evolution, if we haven't destroyed ourself before or have been taken over by the machines. 😘

Its wrong based on our current science. We know conscious states are the result of interconnectivity between different brain modules. We also know that our current scientific paradigm points to the need of complex structures for the emergence of advanced properties in nature. Simple particles ONLY display kinetic properties. Assuming mental properties to a particles is a supernatural this a pseudo scientific claim

@btw Buddhism is True You are making a huge Category Mistake (Logical Fallacy). We are the emergent result of Particles enabling atoms, enabling molecules, enabling chemistry, enabling biology. "We are particles" is a nonsensical and factually false claim. To be honest everything you wrote makes no sense. There is Objective reality and our mental properties trying to grasp it. You used a device hooked on the internet to write these nonsensical things because Objective Reality imposes on you External Limitations with Empirical Regularities. You need to obey to your Physical Impressions if you want to accomplish anything in reality but you can ignore the "stimuli" experienced in your Mental impressions as not real(falling from a cliff). This is because Mental Impressions don't display external Limitations or Empirical Regularities like physical Impressions do. You need to use Logic if you want to understand reality and how it relates to your mental abilities mate.

@btw Buddhism is True -"We are particles is a false claim? Wow. You're lost." -LOL How can you ever say that, when we are entities product of processes.???? Maybe your definition of ''particle" has nothing in common with all know common usages of the word! -"If we're Mind emergent from lower order mind, that's still Panpsychism. " -if? IF? .....try objectively verifying that if mate...only then you would have a case. -"You just don't call it that". NO I don't call it that because I respect the common usages of words. -"Water is still water, you just want to call the higher order water "ocean" and not allot it to the lower order molecules. Ad hoc." -What are you talking about? Why are you trying to make arguments from Ambiguity (fallacy)? You are confusing the term "water",which we use to label the substance, with the term "ocean" which is used to describe the physical body with Specific Characteristics! How old are you mate? -"Everything is a mental impression imposed on another mental impression. " -How can you objectively verify such a ontological claim? -"There's no "physical" impression. " -Imagine running through a brick wall....and then actually do it. The differences in those two experiences will help you distinguish those two types of impressions. IF you still are unable to do that, then we have special institutions that help people distinguish reality from fantasy!. -"Define what physical means, then we can talk about "physical" impressions." -I just did in my previous post. Physical Impressions are those which display Empirical Regularities and External Limitations. i.e. Being Hit by a car in the real world has an impact on your Impressions about your biology, your feelings your well being. Being hit by a car in your Mental Impressions has no implications since these impressions DON'T display Empirical Regularities or External Limitations. -"Don't talk to me about logic, I have a degree in logic." -buts still you are unable to distinguish your Physical from your Mental Impressions...I guess people can brag about anything...lol

@btw Buddhism is True lets be honest here. We can not go beyond our Cataleptic Impressions and make any credible claims about the underlying nature of reality. What we can say for sure is that our Cataleptic Impressions inform us for two basic types. 1. Our Physical Impressions and 2. Our Mental Impressions. The first display limitations which are external to our volition and they are empirically regular. The second type don't share the same qualities. We need to obey the first one or else our existence and well being is in danger. This is where our limits of proper metaphysics stop. If you are interest in Pseudo Metaphysics then you are way off Philosophy mate.

Not to me. It doesn't even make sense from the physics perspective - which is disturbing since his co-author is a Nobel laureate. I guess it shows that being an expert in black holes doesn't make one an expert in neuroscience.

Michelangelo Absolutely. . .

The problem is cultural, your culture gives you your imagination,beliefs etc. Caucasian cultural edict says mind comes from matter, meaning we are our body's not that our body's house us.. But for thousands of years Africans have taught the ancient world about the anti-wave that underlays all visible wave systems. But ofcourse thats blasphemy, how dare I suggeste that anynation was ever more advanced the the nuckle draggers right

This isnt what theyre discussing, theyre discussing how something made of matter can have subjective experiences, how it can "be something" to be a human

The important part of a discussion isn’t the conclusion.

Scientist will never understand this

I believe consciousness will always remain a mystery, a mystery means it will never be known, you can only live the mystery period.

**You're There; fixed it. YOU'RE welcome! 😊

Tom cambell has a good one also

cool (:

Is 2+2=4 ?

Because it cannot be understandable. No question can be answered from the level of consciousness that created it.

Yes there is no answer that I can type or say.

I know . . .this is really dreary gibberish . . .do they all have books to sell?

@@garypuckettmuse I agree except with Hammeroff and Pennrose. They're theory and his work with microtubules is groundbreaking

Rick Negus consciousness is an electromagnetic field that radiates nonlocally throughout the universe. It IS what observed the universe at the Big Bang. So the entire universe is a quantum mechanical system measured by the brain. In its interaction, matter arises as merely an alignment to particles (string theory). The space around you is a hologram created by your mind and to the framework, the mind of those around you. More than 1 hologram exists, and it’ll appear simultaneously with yours if you changed your energy drastically. It’s that simple. Al the world is a stage.

nickolasgaspar That experiment is very interesting, but I'm not sure what your point is in linking it here. Care to elaborate?

I think maybe you haven't understood the propositions of the OrchOR theory, or the history. I think to accuse Hameroff and Penrose of being in any way "unscientific" is going way too far. The quantum weirdness you talk about is the foundation of whatever reality is. If consciousness is not seated there, and is some kind of emergent property of the connections between neurons, then the "neuron theory" should account for the observations, which is does only in part. The "hard problem" and some problematic observations remain unexplained by the various pan-psychic and emergent theories, unless we remove free will. Penrose was onto this before Hameroff identified a possible location in the microtubules. Don't you think there is a difference between "mind" and "consciousness"? OrchOR doesn't really seek to explain the mind, which is what happens after consciousness occurs, so your statement that biology is causal does not in any way contradict the OrchOR ideas. To me it is perfectly reasonable to speak of a kind of potential quantum consciousness waiting to be taken advantage of without invoking any magical properties beyond those observed by science. I like the OrchOR theory because it gives us a location we can examine directly (the microtubules), and energies at many potentials that we can actually measure. We have done this endlessly with neurons and brain activity without gaining any understanding of where consciousness lies. I agree with Penrose's assertion that consciousness cannot be computational. We will know more when more fastidious experiments are done, but the theory has been around a long time without any solid refutation, although some have tried. Indeed the various criticisms have actually helped the theory become more solid. It really is the only complete theory of consciousness out there, as far as I know.

MethNat In what way does the ORCH-OR theory conflict with MN? There is nothing supernatural about ORCH-OR. It has testable hypotheses which have so far been substantiated. Measurements have been made, observations and experiments conducted. If you can pick apart the theory rather than make a series of unsubstantiated counter claims everyone would be very interested, especially Penrose and Hameroff, who have been countering such arguments with great success since the early nineties, and through which process the theory has been made stronger. Also, if you are not keen on the theory then you need to provide another that explains the "hard problem" of consciousness, and so far ORCH-OR is the only one that does that without relying on panpsychism. I'm always happy to learn, but you have made a whole bunch of assumptions about my state of understanding that are based on very little, and as a result you are quite wrong about what I need to learn and understand. I hope you don't treat all your social interactions and learning with such abandonment of reason.

MethoNatu I understand the accepted wisdom and I have the basic knowledge you seem to think I lack. It is my considered view, reading for the last 35 years as an interested lay person with a scientific background that the standard theories explain very little about consciousness. They provide only the fuzziest location for consciousness, fail to derive a process for it's emergence, and cannot explain the observations. ORCH-OR explains much that is seen and experienced, with testable hypotheses that can be verified through experiment. That surely qualifies as a working theory, rather than a simple interpretation. The functioning of the microtubules has been measured, and clearly some non-locational organisation is going on there. Or do you disagree even with that? If you are saying that the observations are incorrect, that the experiments are botched or otherwise inconclusive then please say so. If there are other explanations for the observations then please describe them, without reference to dogmatic texts. If Hameroff's descriptions of the molecular structures and functions of the microtubules (available in presentations here on KZfaq) are incorrect then can you say what he has wrong? If you only look at the mesoscopic level for the functioning of consciousness then of course you will place the whole thing there! But unless the observed experience of consciousness can be explained at that level you have achieved nothing. Surely THAT is reductionism? The complexity you say is lacking is entirely within the purview of the theory. The computational power of the microtubules holds vastly more potential for complexity than the standard neuronal models. Or do you argue with that? Is Hameroff wrong about the measurements of the various vibrational frequencies of the microtubules? There are so many details you could attack here, the fact that you attack none of them and rely almost exclusively on philosophy and sophistry seems to weaken your argument. There are plenty of details you can win on! I'd love to hear your thinking. The hard problem is only hard when you don't have a testable explanation for it. Clearly, it does "poison the well" since it is the size of an elephant! Any hypothesis or theory that cannot derive experience from the functions of the theory isn't a viable theory, and is indeed only an interpretation (the very thing you accuse ORCH-OR of being). If consciousness resides in the microtubules, and is a result of interactions with the quantum world, then you should be able to switch consciousness off if you switch off the functioning of the microtubules. That is how anaesthetics work, so the theory looks very good in that regard. How do the various neuronal theories explain where consciousness goes? How does it come back? How can neurons retain consciousness in a state of abeyance for perhaps several hours and then reconstitute it as it was before? On that, the neuronal functioning of the brain is not grossly affected by anaesthetics. Hameroff explains that when performing spinal surgery they monitor neuronal function to make sure signals are still travelling around the body, and it can be seen that under anaesthetic many brain functions persist. It would be too facile to say ONLY consciousness is affected, since there are other effects, but it would not be unreasonable to suggest that the action of anaesthetics on the microtubules (as suggested by the solubility test) is what causes consciousness to depart. ORCH-OR offers a testable explanation for the functioning of a paramecium and for the prescience of action before thought. None of this is magical if it is connected to the quantum world, where time and matter works very differently. The God hypothesis provides no mechanism, no location, nothing testable. To compare it with the work of Roger Penrose shows that you have very little understanding of what the theory proposes. So far you have been mistaken about every representation of the work you have made, almost as if your mind is closed, or perhaps you are basing your criticism on this video alone. The theory is unrecognisable from your description of it and the assumptions you seem to make about what it proposes. Perhaps your microtubules are clogged! [No offence - I find this discussion interesting, and I don't blame you for being resistant. It's a lot to accept if you come to it cold, or have a different background. I accept your view as being well formed from what you know, and maybe the whole thing is smoke and mirrors perpetrated by plausible con men. But I really don't think so. I'm usually quite good at spotting them.]

MethoNatu That's very sad. I have no existential anxiety. Again, you make assumptions about me. I note that you answer none of the concrete points, and say "bad science" without providing a single example of which experiments or observations have been misinterpreted. I set it up for you man! Peace.

the universe is a dream of consciousness

A dream of GOD

J F 👍

*Inner-Luminosity* 👍

Bingo! We are in a 3d density virtual reality simulation to evolve conciosness and lower entropy.

Weve said that about things that turned out to be understandable with new science

Does a single pixel say anything about the image as a whole

@@fredriksvard2603 interesting

Cool you solved a problem thats thousands of years old

@@fredriksvard2603 I didn't solve anything since it was never a problem to begin with. I am simply stating an observation made by myself, and many others down through the centuries, about consciousness. Humans are notorious for wanting to complicate what lies plainly before them.

@@zephyrblue2032 if you can conclusively say what consciousness is there's a nobel prize for you, it's one of the biggest unsolved questions in science and philosophy

@@fredriksvard2603 Well then, hand it over. Seriously, I don't say any of this conclusively, only from my own observation and experiences. The only reason Consciousness is such a big question to the scientific and philosophic minds is because if they answered it, they would cease to have anything further to question. The answer answers more than just 'what is consciousness.' It is the key to our reality as quantum physics is discovering. The observer changes the form of reality simply by the act of observing. The joke that has the gods laughing is that the observer is unaware of this. (however, this is changing) You are looking for God with gods eyes.

@@zephyrblue2032 if that was the case scientists would be all over it, tweaking it, creating it, analyzing it, and religions would probably fall apart left and right

Our brain is a reciever of conciosness.

Alan Alldredge Something like that, yes. Or as close as we can describe it using the frames of reference we currently have a our disposal.

nickolasgaspar I know how you think consciousness comes about, because you just posted on another thread - you say it's an emergent property. But before you start slapping your forehead, face palming or wittering on about 'woo woo', put up the references that prove that. The panel here are trying to shed some light on this most mysterious of phenomena. They are fully aware of what we do and do not know, unlike you.

nickolasgaspar "if what they are proposing as interpretations are falsifiable or not." As I said, Hoffman is very specific that any theory with regards to consciousness should be falsiifiable. You haven't even listened to what he has to say, because you assume you know. Instead of rubbishing the work that these folk are doing you should welcome the fact that someone is making a serious attempt to address this most intractable problem (the so-called 'hard problem') instead of pretending that it doesn't exist.

nickolasgaspar 'But I really have a problem with the title of the video' Which is 'How Close is Science to Understanding Consciousness'. Implicit in the title is the fact that present scientific understanding is not able to describe consciousness, which it isn't. In order to further our understanding then we have to try and find a way forward which involves discussion. If you're saying that Hoffmann Stapp et al are 'pseudo scientists' then of course you're wrong. They know what they're talking about.

nickolasgaspar The truth is, dude, is not that this discussion is 'idealist' or 'pseudo scientific' in nature, it is that it doesn't suit your idea of what you think science should be. This is not 'my metaphysics' and they are not 'pretending to know things they don't'. Pls give exact examples of the points in this discussion where, in your opinion, they descend into pseudo science.

+MajorCulturalDivide, no doubt. I couldn't get through the first round of opening statements. Droll.

the word droll means funny.

Me too. Strange, since I speak no other languages.

Consciousness was not.

NOT

@@efini_fc4276 I think it always was. For me, to say otherwise is meaningless.

@@johnnyb8825 consciousness is nothing without memory. Memory exists within physical form, but the action of memory is not physical as it's the state of energy that is slowed/captured by matter. The energy in our own brains and even memory cards are currents of electricity, "saved" in specific patterns within some sort of physicalities. When you consider that the universe and all of its contents known were once collected at one origin- that's saying nothing apart from this mass of pure energy could have been witnessed.. Conscious or not. Imagine you are floating in space with none of your human senses available, but you are conscious. What can you sense? How would you sense anything when there's nothing but you, and no way to input memory when the only experience in your existence is you? ........how would you know you exist? Prior to whatever the event was that set everything on the historical path leading up to where we are today, nothing existed, simply because memory requires a form to hold for consciousness. What was the first memory that existed? Existence. The acknowledgement of existence. Whether it was just a reaction or a recognition, what existed before would not be known without experience -we're saying the beginning of time itself. Time is relative to day and night, or essentially a beginning and an end. If consciousness "is", then it is EVERY thing. The only "thing" that everything can't be though is nothing. When there is no thing, there's..... Zero. Every communication of what zero is relates to something being reduced to nothing, but how can you have nothing from something? Like an apple.. if you eat the last apple on Earth, it's common to think there is now zero apples. Not the actual case though...the properties of the apple are just in a different form. The idea of zero is just that- only a conscious thought, in any absolute. This means that consciousness created the thought/idea/"existence" of such a word- zero, within something (matter/memory). "Consciousness was not" -available until it reacted with matter. But consciousness as energy, is and always has existed. There's limitations in this physical world we live in, but within the mind, anything is possible. You can imagine you are a bird or a carrot if you'd desire. This ability to create anything within the mind should also recognise that the energy present within the mind, has the ability to translate thoughts into the physical world. The mind -or electricity (essentially) is just bottled up into a quite unique form of matter called humans. But electricity has no form and it cannot be sensed without matter. It's this universality that makes everyone an individual, but also relative in the essence of energy...it's what we've all got, regardless of race or heritage. When the same energy within us all is collected into one mass, all consciousnesses work as one. Consciousness is, only after it was not. I should've just said that, huh?😔

@Justin Quezada anything you know is because you are conscious.

Consciousness

Very interesting

That which can be explained is not that .

We are God

+David Spector Left to Right the speakers are: Donald Hoffman, Stuart Hameroff, Julia Mossbridge, Henry Stapp, Chris Fields, and facilitator AH Almaas.

+David Spector 'Such a theory cannot lift either the individual or the world from limitation, lacking, and suffering to unchangeable peace and happiness.' that's one of my worries about studying this intractable and seemingly probably even futile 'hard problem'.

+Lincoln Yu If you are referring to the "hard problem of consciousness" which is its relationship to the body, the advaita (nondual) teachers such as Rupert Spira make it very clear that this is only a hard problem if we ourselves believe that the mind, body, and world are primary truths, with the experience of consciousness emerging from them, that is, from matter. However, if we consider a different philosophy, in which consciousness is the primary truth and the mind, body, and world emerge from it, only appearing to be separate, then, based on our actual experience that the world or matter are only perceptions through the senses, we realize easily that consciousness has no problems to it, be they hard ones or otherwise. That is why nonduality is such a practical philosophy of life, and why some scientists are intrigued with it, as shown in this video.

It be nice if you wrote all that about the actual discussion or atleast offered your own opinion about what was discussed

@@zulureflections9408 what? So he can't share his opinion about the organization of the talk? How will the organizers know which aspects they need to improve then? I too thought it was a bit disorganized, and that the points of view could be clearer and the discussion more productive if it was more organized.

Thank you for saying this. This whole thing demonstrated how small minded and limited humans are/think/behave... both in their understanding of the topic of consciousness as well as the manner in which they discussed it, especially in relation to the other perspectives. The irony is that it kind of defeated the purpose of a forum/org. that promotes non-duality. Ugh, I guess science isn't that close after all.

Look at Feyman Diagrams

+staraet As I say, it looks like a fractal to me wherein the source is imbued in the whole but from different perspectives appears to be totally different. The body follows the mind. What is in the mind is not of the body except as it can be monitored. Energy fields merely mimic conscious activity. Conscious activity is the being-ness of I AM. One is all, all are One.

+John Carter Nice point.

Lots of people think were in such a simulation

Nobody has been completely conscious yet

Your visual centre is located at the back of the head. When you dream it gets activated. People who are born blind don't see stuff in their dream but instead experience dreams through their other senses.

***** Just recently I read an article about how people who are born blind describe their dreams. I was curious on the topic so I searched it out.

The brain doesn't see anything. "Seeing" is an appearance in consciousness known by what's called the "3rd Eye." We just call it that because we don't know how the Mind sees anything. We are not even sure what "seeing" is. Nor are we sure how we "know" anything, either. Its all an unexplained "mystery" (whatever that is!)