Hameroff and Penrose have updated their Orch-OR model

What you think about how you think.
Post Reply
User avatar
Cygnus_X1
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1482
Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2014 4:08 am
Location: Middle Of Nowhere

Re: Hameroff and Penrose have updated their Orch-OR model

Post by Cygnus_X1 » Fri Feb 21, 2014 1:33 pm

The issue is what is real


I think you'll find that's what ontology means.
100,000 lemmings can't be wrong.

User avatar
kennyc
Has No Life
Posts: 12221
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 11:21 am
Custom Title: The Dank Side of the Moon
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Hameroff and Penrose have updated their Orch-OR model

Post by kennyc » Fri Feb 21, 2014 1:37 pm

Cygnus_X1 wrote:
The issue is what is real


I think you'll find that's what ontology means.



So why do you keep bringing up this idiotic {!#%@}.

Let the cognitive scientists work, go back to your computers and forget the philosophical BS.
You're like a teenage that has just discovered sex. :roll: wait, maybe you are....
Kenny A. Chaffin
Art Gallery - Photo Gallery - Writing&Poetry - The Bleeding Edge
"Strive on with Awareness" - Siddhartha Gautama

User avatar
Hybr1d
Poster
Posts: 109
Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2014 9:19 pm
Custom Title: Agnostic Pantheist
Location: East Coast, USA

Re: Hameroff and Penrose have updated their Orch-OR model

Post by Hybr1d » Fri Feb 21, 2014 2:30 pm

kennyc wrote:
Cygnus_X1 wrote:
The issue is what is real


I think you'll find that's what ontology means.



So why do you keep bringing up this idiotic {!#%@}.

Let the cognitive scientists work, go back to your computers and forget the philosophical BS.
You're like a teenage that has just discovered sex. :roll: wait, maybe you are....


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
"Is this real, or is this just a ride?" Other people have remembered, and they come back to us, and they say, "Hey - don't worry, don't be afraid EVER because, this is just a ride." We always kill those good guys who try and tell us that. Jesus - murdered; Martin Luther King - murdered; Malcolm X - murdered; Gandhi - murdered; John Lennon - murdered; Reagan... wounded HAHA! But it doesn't matter because: It's just a ride." - Bill Hicks

A Quantum Vacuum is not nothing.

User avatar
Hybr1d
Poster
Posts: 109
Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2014 9:19 pm
Custom Title: Agnostic Pantheist
Location: East Coast, USA

Re: Hameroff and Penrose have updated their Orch-OR model

Post by Hybr1d » Fri Feb 21, 2014 2:43 pm

kennyc wrote:Wrong.

The issue is what is real, not idiotic claims that can't be scientifically, rationally investigated.

As I've already told you. Consciousness is simple. You just don't get it cause you are too much a
believer in the philosophical woo (which has no scientific basis or support).


I agree here like I said earlier in this thread however after reading through everything Shen had to say I think this is undoubtedly woo. A very well thought out long and pseudoscience type of woo, but woo none the less. I think that another form of belief, dualism is possible, but it is just that..a possibility, and a vague possibility at that. It is also possible that consciousness is some sort of non-scientific(as of current practice) immaterial soul like awareness that reincarnates(with no memory or anything from any past lives), but this is also unlikely. Possible, but unlikely, or maybe their right but have their calculations wrong and we do have some sort of rudimentary quantum soul, but this isn't very likely at all either.

It is also likely that your consciousness is given rise by the neocortex and the vast amount of neurons contained within the human brain, which contrary to what Stuart Hameroff has to say about AI types, very well might function as simple switches, and once we reach that level of complexity you have a heightened sense of awareness giving rise to consciousness. This is possible, but we don't know for sure yet, however we should within the next twenty years and most of this is just ideal speculation where one person throws in their opinion and the next person throws in theirs. Just my two cents on the matter.
"Is this real, or is this just a ride?" Other people have remembered, and they come back to us, and they say, "Hey - don't worry, don't be afraid EVER because, this is just a ride." We always kill those good guys who try and tell us that. Jesus - murdered; Martin Luther King - murdered; Malcolm X - murdered; Gandhi - murdered; John Lennon - murdered; Reagan... wounded HAHA! But it doesn't matter because: It's just a ride." - Bill Hicks

A Quantum Vacuum is not nothing.

User avatar
Cygnus_X1
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1482
Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2014 4:08 am
Location: Middle Of Nowhere

Re: Hameroff and Penrose have updated their Orch-OR model

Post by Cygnus_X1 » Fri Feb 21, 2014 3:42 pm

kennyc wrote:
Cygnus_X1 wrote:
The issue is what is real


I think you'll find that's what ontology means.



So why do you keep bringing up this idiotic {!#%@}.

Let the cognitive scientists work, go back to your computers and forget the philosophical BS.
You're like a teenage that has just discovered sex. :roll: wait, maybe you are....


The better question is surely why are you so determined that it is idiotic {!#%@}. The point about Chalmers and Searle is that they ask ( inconvenient, it would seem ) questions about definitions. Who cares whether p-zombies 'really' exist...it is irrelevant. The point of the exercise was simply to ask how does one KNOW that this or that entity is conscious. Same goes for the Chinese room. Whether it is in itself a 'valid' thought experiment misses the point that once again there is no definitive definition of 'understanding' and that is the true purpose of the Chinese room.

You say leave it to the cognitive scientists. Well, when I see a bunch of them stating they have evidence that elephants are conscious, my first question is how do they know. And the point of raising Chalmers and Searle ( as opposed to functionalists ) is to point out that they don't.

I'm not clear what is 'idiotic {!#%@}' about that.
100,000 lemmings can't be wrong.

donnie
Poster
Posts: 178
Joined: Wed Jan 15, 2014 3:04 pm

Re: Hameroff and Penrose have updated their Orch-OR model

Post by donnie » Sat Feb 22, 2014 7:03 pm

I wonder if you would even care about Orch- OR model if Hameroff was not banging on about a Quantum soul.? You say Hameroff and Penrose wrote together the paper so, they agree on a Quantum soul. When has Penrose said we have a soul.? His not. I think you misunderstand. Frist Roger Penrose is a scientist, mathematical physicist. He has never said that.

Most scientist see the brain work's like a classical computer. He think's Quantum actions are important in the way the brain works. Rather than your computer/Brain doing one computation it does a lot of them all at once. And you be pleased to know even if the brain is some kind of Quantum computer it dose not prove anything about a soul.

User avatar
Shen1986
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2896
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2012 6:47 am

Re: Hameroff and Penrose have updated their Orch-OR model

Post by Shen1986 » Sat Feb 22, 2014 7:30 pm

donnie wrote:I wonder if you would even care about Orch- OR model if Hameroff was not banging on about a Quantum soul.? You say Hameroff and Penrose wrote together the paper so, they agree on a Quantum soul. When has Penrose said we have a soul.? His not. I think you misunderstand. Frist Roger Penrose is a scientist, mathematical physicist. He has never said that.

Most scientist see the brain work's like a classical computer. He think's Quantum actions are important in the way the brain works. Rather than your computer/Brain doing one computation it does a lot of them all at once. And you be pleased to know even if the brain is some kind of Quantum computer it dose not prove anything about a soul.


If he would not agree on a soul then he would not write a paper with a New Age proponent Hameroff.
"Death Dies Hard." - Deathstars.

donnie
Poster
Posts: 178
Joined: Wed Jan 15, 2014 3:04 pm

Re: Hameroff and Penrose have updated their Orch-OR model

Post by donnie » Sat Feb 22, 2014 9:12 pm

Shen I think you are misunderstanding what Penrose is saying. I seen on youtube hamerroff going on about a QS. Don't see Penrose.? Penrose said to IBM back in the 80's a classical computer would never as good as Quantum and A.I wouldn't happen using a classical computer.Told google that too in 2005. Youtube it. He think's are brain is a QC. That's why he wrote a paper. Well only the first part. Penrose is not biologist but Penrose needed a biological mechanism how the human brain could use quantum. Hameroff and his microtubules. Ok what are biologist certain about. All biological organisms do what.? DIE maybe Hameroff like most people fear's death.? That's how science work's. You only hate Orch because of Hameroff saying we got a QS.

User avatar
Shen1986
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2896
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2012 6:47 am

Re: Hameroff and Penrose have updated their Orch-OR model

Post by Shen1986 » Sun Feb 23, 2014 6:54 am

donnie wrote:Shen I think you are misunderstanding what Penrose is saying. I seen on youtube hamerroff going on about a QS. Don't see Penrose.? Penrose said to IBM back in the 80's a classical computer would never as good as Quantum and A.I wouldn't happen using a classical computer.Told google that too in 2005. Youtube it. He think's are brain is a QC. That's why he wrote a paper. Well only the first part. Penrose is not biologist but Penrose needed a biological mechanism how the human brain could use quantum. Hameroff and his microtubules. Ok what are biologist certain about. All biological organisms do what.? DIE maybe Hameroff like most people fear's death.? That's how science work's. You only hate Orch because of Hameroff saying we got a QS.


So why did they wrote the papers together if Penrose is not for a Quantum soul and why all of them will be at the conference like it is written here, where they want to prove a Quantum Soul to the skeptics?:

Penrose, Hameroff and Bandyopadhyay will explore their theories during a session on "Microtubules and the Big Consciousness Debate" at the Brainstorm Sessions, a public three-day event at the Brakke Grond in Amsterdam, the Netherlands, January 16-18, 2014. They will engage skeptics in a debate on the nature of consciousness, and Bandyopadhyay and his team will couple microtubule vibrations from active neurons to play Indian musical instruments. "Consciousness depends on anharmonic vibrations of microtubules inside neurons, similar to certain kinds of Indian music, but unlike Western music which is harmonic," Hameroff explains.


Taken from: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 085105.htm
"Death Dies Hard." - Deathstars.

User avatar
Cygnus_X1
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1482
Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2014 4:08 am
Location: Middle Of Nowhere

Re: Hameroff and Penrose have updated their Orch-OR model

Post by Cygnus_X1 » Sun Feb 23, 2014 12:45 pm

Most scientist see the brain work's like a classical computer.


It's really nothing like a classical computer, in the sense of the sort of computer most of us and most businesses are running. Much more like a neural network...and the irony is that neural networks are based on observations of brains. So brains are not like computers...computers are like brains. It's a big distinction as it gets things round the right way and makes nonsense of the oft asserted claim that 'the brain is like a computer' that is on par with saying 'the Neuschwanstein Castle is like the Disney castle'.
100,000 lemmings can't be wrong.

User avatar
zeuzzz
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3859
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2013 5:33 pm
Custom Title: Unicorn Herder

Re: Hameroff and Penrose have updated their Orch-OR model

Post by zeuzzz » Tue Mar 11, 2014 11:08 pm

Are you a wave or a particle?

Image
Always be you, unless you can be a unicorn; then be a unicorn.

User avatar
Shen1986
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2896
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2012 6:47 am

Re: Hameroff and Penrose have updated their Orch-OR model

Post by Shen1986 » Mon Aug 25, 2014 9:12 am

Another layman person on physicist forum points out that Bandyopadhyay is like Chopra. I was thinking in the same lines:

Yup, but now you've changed your own post , so let me answer the original question first.

Do you know who Deepak Chopra is? If not, real professors of biology define his views as "a lot of scientifically-sounding psychobabble". I find it quite unlikely that Sir Roger Penrose would ever visit Chopra's show ONE WORLD to talk about real science (even if one could never be sure).

Anirban Bandyopadhyay, on the other hand, goes there apparently without any doubts.

In a Google Workshop on Quantum Biology, Anirban Bandyopadhyay gets a question about the "topological qubits" he has 'discovered' (and shown flashy graphics on for 40 min). However in the answer he provide, it's clear that Bandyopadhyay doesn't even understand what a qubit is, as he defines it as "a sudden change in resistance"...

As I said, I'm only a layman, but I think I could take my soldering iron and knock together something that would give a "sudden change in resistance", but I would never dream on calling it a "topological qubit", since it would be a little bit too embarrassing, even for me.

Anyone can hold a talk, showing flashy graphics, using fancy cutting edge terminology, but it's a completely different enchilada to put real coherent science behind the words, i.e. in a field like this.

To me he looks like a fraudster, but of course I could be wrong...


Taken from: http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=748536
"Death Dies Hard." - Deathstars.

User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 31927
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: Hameroff and Penrose have updated their Orch-OR model

Post by Gord » Mon Aug 25, 2014 8:00 pm

Shen1986 wrote:
Do you know who Deepak Chopra is?

Yes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepak_Chopra_(Canada_Post)

Deepak Chopra is the President and Chief Executive Officer of Canada Post Corporation, known more simply as Canada Post (French: Société canadienne des postes, or simply Postes Canada), the Canadian crown corporation which functions as the country's primary postal operator. Chopra was appointed on January 18, 2011, for a five-year term effective February 1, 2011.

He intends to make Canada Post more efficient by ending home mail delivery. :?
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"Imagine an ennobling of what could be" -- the New Age BS Generator site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE
Is Trump in jail yet?

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Real Skeptic
Posts: 23901
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: somewhere

Re: Hameroff and Penrose have updated their Orch-OR model

Post by scrmbldggs » Tue Aug 26, 2014 1:30 am

Nomen est omen.
.
Lard, save me from your followers.

User avatar
Shen1986
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2896
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2012 6:47 am

Re: Hameroff and Penrose have updated their Orch-OR model

Post by Shen1986 » Sat Aug 30, 2014 5:18 am

Yup Anirban Bandyopadhyay appeared as one of the speakers for Chopra Foundation. It is official he is with Chopra. I had always thought this. His research is now in doubt along with his claims because it is biased:

Speakers

Anirban Bandyopadhyay is a Senior Scientist in the National Institute for Materials Science (NIMS), Tsukuba, Japan, currently a visiting professor in MIT, USA. He did his PhD from Indian Association for the Cultivation of Science (IACS), Kolkata 2004-2005, where he worked on supramolecular electronics and multi-level switching. During 2005-2008 worked as Independent Researcher, called ICYS Research Fellow in the International Center for Young Scientists (ICYS), NIMS, Japan, worked on brain-like bio-processor building.


Taken from: http://www.choprafoundation.org/speaker ... yopadhyay/

This is one of the reasons why I am skeptical of research in India in general and also in Japan:

In the wake of the controversy, observers, journalists, and former members of RIKEN have stated that the organization is riddled with unprofessional and inadequate scientific rigor and consistency, and that this is reflective of serious issues with scientific research in Japan in general.[21][22]


Taken from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stimulus-t ... uripotency

Dr. Steven Novella wrote also similar things about China:

China, for example, apparently can only publish positive studies about acupuncture, betraying a national bias that calls into question any acupuncture study originating from that country.


Taken from: http://theness.com/neurologicablog/inde ... uestioned/

It seems we should be skeptical about research coming from those countries. If they are replicated then it is okay but if not then we should watch out because those countries are full of believers and this is a strong bias.
"Death Dies Hard." - Deathstars.

Tomhgriff1
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2014 10:36 am

Re: Hameroff and Penrose have updated their Orch-OR model

Post by Tomhgriff1 » Mon Sep 08, 2014 11:02 am

Ive arrived and this discussion late. I have only recently come across the theory of Orch-Or. As somebody that like to think scientifically I suppose I have to say "it is a possibility but unlikely" but the more emotional part of me thinks this is very disappointing that someone as esteemed as Penrose could put his name to something that sounds like pseudo-science.

I guess the main issues I have with it are:
They dont define consciousness, is it our sense of self? Our individual morals, emotions and values? If so this is pretty much 100% proven to result from brain structure. Psychopaths having a different brain structure to a "normal" person. Does this mean you have a psychopathic "soul" floating around the ether? If not, it isnt really you is it. And want if this "soul" was to enter another body (which I presume they suggest can happen) with a non psychopathic brain structure would you no longer be a psychopath?

Does anyone know if they even have a theory for this?

To be honest I dont think consciousness is this huge question everyone makes out to be. From what I can see in the animal kingdom animals have various degrees of consciousness or sense of "self" depending on how well developed their brains are. Pet goldfish I had as a kid were pretty much indecipherable from each other, however pet dogs I have very much have a sense of self and all act entirely differently, some show what seems to be altruism, others scheme ways to steal food etc, some show guilt after doing something bad and a whole other range of emotions. A new born baby is little more than a feeding/crapping machine but as the brain develops you see more evidence of self and awareness. It all seems very biological/materialism to me. Where is the mystery?

User avatar
Shen1986
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2896
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2012 6:47 am

Re: Hameroff and Penrose have updated their Orch-OR model

Post by Shen1986 » Mon Sep 08, 2014 5:14 pm

You make good points Tomhgriff1 that bugs me also if I think that the soul exists.
"Death Dies Hard." - Deathstars.

User avatar
Shen1986
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2896
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2012 6:47 am

Re: Hameroff and Penrose have updated their Orch-OR model

Post by Shen1986 » Sun Sep 21, 2014 4:34 pm

More woo on Anirban Bandyopadhyay. He wants a woo pedia:

Making it easy to find resources is important in the world of science. The scientific/academic world pays close attention to what studies are cited in other studies. Research is deemed important if it has been cited a lot. But you can’t cite it if you don’t even know it exists or can’t find it even if you do. A lot of frontier science doesn’t show up on every mainstream database. Sometimes it’s “conveniently” left out. That’s why a small army of researchers and leading thinkers support this project including:

Deepak Chopra, MD
Paul Mills, Ph D : Professor in Residence, UCSD
Shiva Ayyadurai, PhD MIT, Systems Engineer
William Bushell, Ph.D. Director of Research at Tibet HouseUS/The Menla Center, Medical Anthropology, MIT
Robert Thurman, PhD: President and Founder, Tibet House
Dean Ornish, MD: President and Founder, Preventive Medicine Research Institute
Menas Kafatos, Phd Schmid College of Science and Technology. Physics, Computational Science and Engineering, School of Computational Sciences
Lisa Miller, Ph.D. Professor and Director of Clinical Psychology Director, Spirituality and Mind-Body Institute. Columbia University, Teachers College
Marilyn Schlitz, Fellow and President Emeritus, Institute of Noetic Sciences, Senior Scientist at California Pacific Medical Center Research Institute.
Dr. Robert Schwarz, PhD Association for Comprehensive Energy Psychology
Daniel Vicario, M.D., Medical Director, San Diego Cancer Center. Director, Integrative Oncology Program.
Julia Mossbridge, PhD Research Associate, Department of Psychology, Northwestern University and Inventor of Choice Compass.
Kate Noble, PhD Clinical and Counseling. Professor of Consciousness, University of Washington.
Dr. Anirban Bandyopadhyay, PhD Senior Researcher, NIMS, Adjunct Asst. Professor Michigan Technological University, Advanced Scanning Probe Microscopy group, Advanced Nano Characterisation Center (ANCC), Massachusetts Institute of Technology Institute of Medical and Engineering Science.
Subhash Kak. Regents Professor, Department of Computer Science Oklahoma State University
Dr Jack Sarfatti, PhD: Theoretical physicist
Neil D. Theise, MD Professor of Pathology and of Medicine at the Beth Israel Medical Center of Albert Einstein College of Medicine.
Allan Leslie Combs, Ph.D. Doshi Professor of Consciousness Studies. Director of The Center for Consciousness Studies at the California Institute of Integral Studies. He is also the President of the Society for Consciousness Studies and Director of Consciousness Studies master’s degree program at the Graduate Institute of Connecticut. Professor Emeritus at the University of North Carolina-Asheville .
Dr. Jeffrey Martin, Center for the Study of Non Symbolic Consciousness
Shamini Jain, Phd. Assistant Professor, Psychiatry, UC San Diego; Chair, Research Development Committee, UC San Diego Center for Integrative Medicine
Meg Jordan, PhD, RN Clinical Medical Anthropologist, Chair and Professor, Integrative Health Studies, California Institute of Integral Studies
Francois Demange, MA Anthropology, Indigenous Medicine
James Fallon, PhD Professor of Psychiatry and Neurobiology, UC Irvine
Ester Konigsberg, MD, CCFP Consortium of Academic Health Centers for Integrative Medicine


Taken from: http://realitysandwich.com/223281/ishar ... -research/
"Death Dies Hard." - Deathstars.

Mara
Poster
Posts: 174
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2018 7:38 am

Re: Hameroff and Penrose have updated their Orch-OR model

Post by Mara » Sat Feb 10, 2018 4:49 am

Hi guys,

I am new… but curious :-)

I can see there are some highly knowledgeable individuals here.

I have two questions and I am interested in your opinions in reagards to Hameroff's interpretation and theoretical plausibility (just for the sake of it! :-) of:

- Carhart-Harris et al (2012) article that can be found here with an access to the original article through pnas or ncbi (not for free though, sorry!)
http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/con ... -hierarchy
I am particularly wondering about his assumption that 'decreased activity' is the very moment when the subjective phenomena occur...I have experimented myself and my 'subjective experiences' (i.e. tripping) were while being very conscious, in fact, when walking around (I was seeing a blast of rainbows!). I am not sure how is he reducing/deducting it... is it because they were just motionless in the fMRI? Seems like a bold statement to make.

- Also, this is a paragraph from one of his articles in regards to time as a conscious 'frames' continuum...Is there any other research supporting it? ...and if that was to be the case, how much reality would we be missing on? Could this account for the phenomena of a missing time for instance?

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 4513001188

"2.2. Conscious moments and computation

Consciousness has often been argued to be a sequence of discrete moments. William James [27] described the "specious present, the short duration of which we are immediately and incessantly sensible" (though James was vague about duration, and also described a continual 'stream of consciousness'). The "perceptual moment" theory of Stroud [28] described consciousness as a series of discrete events, like sequential frames of a movie (modern film and video present 24 to 72 frames per second, 24 to 72 Hertz, 'Hz'). Consciousness is also seen as sequences of discrete events in Buddhism, trained meditators describing distinct "flickerings" in their experience of pure undifferentiated awareness [29]. Buddhist texts portray consciousness as "momentary collections of mental phenomena", and as "distinct, unconnected and impermanent moments that perish as soon as they arise". Buddhist writings even quantify the frequency of conscious moments. For example the Sarvaastivaadins [30] described 6,480,000 "moments" in 24 hours (an average of one "moment" per 13.3 ms, 75 Hz), and some Chinese Buddhists as one "thought" per 20 ms (50 Hz)."


I thought this was interesting and went on and checked the references in regards to those Buddhist meditators and they are not exactly quality - one of them (number 29) is just 'Tart CT. Personal communication and information gathered from "Buddha-1 newsnet"; 1995.'

Mara
Poster
Posts: 174
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2018 7:38 am

Re: Hameroff and Penrose have updated their Orch-OR model

Post by Mara » Sat Feb 10, 2018 5:25 am

Tomhgriff1 wrote:Ive arrived and this discussion late. I have only recently come across the theory of Orch-Or. As somebody that like to think scientifically I suppose I have to say "it is a possibility but unlikely" but the more emotional part of me thinks this is very disappointing that someone as esteemed as Penrose could put his name to something that sounds like pseudo-science.

I guess the main issues I have with it are:
They dont define consciousness, is it our sense of self? Our individual morals, emotions and values? If so this is pretty much 100% proven to result from brain structure. Psychopaths having a different brain structure to a "normal" person. Does this mean you have a psychopathic "soul" floating around the ether? If not, it isnt really you is it. And want if this "soul" was to enter another body (which I presume they suggest can happen) with a non psychopathic brain structure would you no longer be a psychopath?

Does anyone know if they even have a theory for this?

To be honest I dont think consciousness is this huge question everyone makes out to be. From what I can see in the animal kingdom animals have various degrees of consciousness or sense of "self" depending on how well developed their brains are. Pet goldfish I had as a kid were pretty much indecipherable from each other, however pet dogs I have very much have a sense of self and all act entirely differently, some show what seems to be altruism, others scheme ways to steal food etc, some show guilt after doing something bad and a whole other range of emotions. A new born baby is little more than a feeding/crapping machine but as the brain develops you see more evidence of self and awareness. It all seems very biological/materialism to me. Where is the mystery?
Hi Tomhgriff1,

My background is in psych, prior to studying that I did general hard sciences at uni. After psych I did social sciences as many people I work with experience social disadvantage so I am a bit of everything.

Anyhoo, my understanding of what Hameroff has been saying is that consciousness is the 'BING' i.e. the moment of experience. In his view, consciousness is the sense of awareness without the need of a memory if that makes sense. He refers specifically to a conscious moment not values, morals, self-identity etc. - those are acquired through life. A bit like a person with a heavy case of dementia who has lost memory and self- labels but is 100% aware of being present in the moment. There is a thought experiment called 'Mary the super scientist' that suppose to illustrate the conscious moment when the experience of consciousness occurs.

I have discovered Hameroff about 8 years ago and I do not necessarily agree with everything he says but I see value in separating the awareness/consciousness and the 'mind stuff' the way he does. I think him being an anaesthetist reflects in his raw approach where a person is either conscious or not, the rest is just information sort of speaking. People sometimes wake up form anaesthesia and are confused for a while but they are aware. The self-describing information recovers later on. He bases his understanding of consciousness on measurement of brain activity in Hz value. Of course one of the philosophical arguments could be that there is no such thing as the consciousness threshold but then again, we do have anaesthesia and most would agree there is an observable (empirical) difference in between a person who is conscious and unconscious (not to confuse with sleeping).

There was this consciousness conference where Hameroff had a guest speaker who was a neuroscientist and a musician, he was speaking about dementia and it was quite interesting - I wish I could find it, sorry. Anyone watched anything like that?

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Real Skeptic
Posts: 23901
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: somewhere

Re: Hameroff and Penrose have updated their Orch-OR model

Post by scrmbldggs » Sat Feb 10, 2018 5:45 am

You mentioned Carhart-Harris and might might be interested in another one. Meet Sam. :-P


ETA Some of this might be of interest to Nikki:
...there is a quickly growing literature on its psychological benefits. Mindfulness is simply a state of open, nonjudgmental, and nondiscursive attention to the contents of consciousness, whether pleasant or unpleasant. Cultivating this quality of mind has been shown to modulate pain, mitigate anxiety and depression, improve cognitive function, and even produce changes in gray matter density in regions of the brain related to learning and memory, emotional regulation, and self awareness.

Programs in “mindfulness-based stress reduction” (MBSR), pioneered by Jon Kabat-Zinn, have brought this practice into hospitals and other clinical settings...
.
Lard, save me from your followers.

Post Reply