I do not have 45 minutes to waste on this.I just happened across this fascinating talk by Dr. Stuart Hameroff.
This does not appear to be woo, but a deep insight into non-intelligent sentience at nano scale.
Watch it, it is truly eye-opening.
I thought that the OP title and my short comment was sufficient. Trying to keep it short without distracting from the interesting illustrated presentation.I do not have 45 minutes to waste on this.
Please either summarise the key points or direct us to a link where we can read them in 5 minutes instead.
What rubbish. There is no such "universal principle", unless he is simply rebranding an existing concept from thermodynamics or something.I thought that the OP title and my short comment was sufficient. Trying to keep it short without distracting from the interesting illustrated presentation.
IMO, the point is that sentience is based on a fundametal universal principle of "movement in the direction of greatest satisfaction" and is already a potential at nano or even smaller scale. It's about microtubulers which display sentient respunses, albeit not intelligent.
It is a universal function on which Darwinian Evolution (including living organisms) is based.
Of particular interest is that the wave collapse function creates a form of sentient response from the microtubules at nano scale and ultra-sound may be a key to repair Alzheimer's brain damage.
Those are my words and may be incorrect.What rubbish. There is no such "universal principle", unless he is simply rebranding an existing concept from thermodynamics or something.
I am not attacking the messenger, I am attacking the message. I have not called you an idiot (or not yet, anyway ).Those are my words and may be incorrect.
That's why I originally posted the presentation without little comment so as not to confuse the issue with my lack of scientific semantics.
But you asked for it and I gave it to the best of my ability. And as I feared, typical........instead of addressing the content of the presentation, you are focusing on a single phrase by me. That is tantamount to creating a straw man by attacking the messenger.
So, I take it you still haven't watched the presentation by a scientist with a Doctorate in association with several other scientists including Roger Penrose, and accompanied with excellent illustrations.
That means you are unable to comment on the content of the scientific narrative contained in the clip, right?
Instead, you are trying to kill the messenger without reading the message from the knowledgeable source.
How Trumpian.
Trust me, the clip contains plenty of organic chemistry for you to get your teeth into. You claim not to have enough time to waste on a scientific presentation, but you are more than eager to waste your time on my lexical "rubbish". How is that informative to others?
If I wanted to talk about universal imperatives and constants, I would have started the thread with a different OP title, perhaps something like "Universal Principles" and then you might be justified commenting on that.
But if you are not curious what Dr. Hameroff has to say after years of study on the subject, no one is forcing you to "waste your time" on that, but I guarantee that you will find some new and interesting information which will make it "worth your while", especially the structure and components of nano-tubules.
It might even be tangently related to your last posit in the topic "DNA change".
You originally dismissed my posting of the Hazen presentation at the Carnegie Institute, "Chance, Necessity, and the Origins of Life", but in the end admitted that you did learn something new from his presentation.
This presentation by Dr Hameroff is of the same quality and in a sense meshes nicely with the Hazen clip.
Is there anyone who took the time to watch the presentation by Dr. Hameroff? I would love to hear your comment, it's really interesting!
Apparently Penrose didn't think so. Why would he have wasted his time on this? Moreover, it has been shown that both eletrical and sonar stimuli affect brain functions.I am not attacking the messenger, I am attacking the message. I have not called you an idiot (or not yet, anyway ).
But indeed, let's see if anyone else is prepared to wade through this stuff and can make an intelligent summary of it. You seem to think it is chemistry, but it looks an awful lot like quantum woo to me.
andHe (Penrose) believes we must go beyond neuroscience and into the mysterious world of quantum mechanics to explain our rich mental life. No one quite knows what to make of this theory, developed with the American anesthesiologist Stuart Hameroff, but conventional wisdom goes something like this: Their theory is almost certainly wrong, but since Penrose is so brilliant (“One of the very few people I’ve met in my life who, without reservation, I call a genius,” physicist Lee Smolin has said), we’d be foolish to dismiss their theory out of hand.
http://nautil.us/issue/47/consciousness/roger-penrose-on-why-consciousness-does-not-computeIt was Hameroff’s idea that quantum coherence happens in microtubules, protein structures inside the brain’s neurons. And what are microtubules, you ask? They are tubular structures inside eukaryotic cells (part of the cytoskeleton) that play a role in determining the cell’s shape, as well as its movements, which includes cell division—separation of chromosomes during mitosis. Hameroff suggests that microtubules are the quantum device that Penrose had been looking for in his theory. In neurons, microtubules help control the strength of synaptic connections, and their tube-like shape might protect them from the surrounding noise of the larger neuron. The microtubules’ symmetry and lattice structure are of particular interest to Penrose. He believes “this reeks of something quantum mechanical.”
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/1279748/?reload=true1. Introduction
Many theories in the physical sciences are expressed in terms of optimality principles, which often provide the most parsimonious description of the laws governing a system's behavior.
Optimality has also played a key role in the field of motor control. This is partly motivated by the parsimony and empirical success of optimal control models of biological movement. Perhaps more importantly, such models are appealing because all the processes that give rise to a specific motor system under investigation (evolution, development, learning, adaptation, recovery) are in a sense optimization processes, that over time cause the system to perform better and better. It is therefore natural to use the limit of optimal performance as the starting point for theoretical investigations of motor control.
How can you attack the "message" if you don't know it's content? That sounds a little dogmatic to me.I am not attacking the messenger, I am attacking the message.
VersusI thought that the OP title and my short comment was sufficient.
How can you attack the "message" if you don't know it's content? That sounds a little dogmatic to me.
Look, you halfwit, I asked to you summarise the content, which you attempted to do and I then attacked the summary you provided, thinking in good faith that it was an accurate summary.Versus
You are saying that:
1) You don't need to view the video (i.e. know its content) to discuss this topic;
2) You need to view the video (i.e. know its content) to criticize this topic.
Which is it?
Letting the presentation speak for itself.Versus
With all respect, I believe it is (2), and I did qualify my own ability to offer insight of how , or what causes consciousness, except in most basic generally accepted terms.You are saying that:
1) You don't need to view the video (i.e. know its content) to discuss this topic;
2) You need to view the video (i.e. know its content) to criticize this topic.
Which is it?
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/1279748/?reload=true1. Introduction
Many theories in the physical sciences are expressed in terms of optimality principles, which often provide the most parsimonious description of the laws governing a system's behavior.
Optimality has also played a key role in the field of motor control. This is partly motivated by the parsimony and empirical success of optimal control models of biological movement. Perhaps more importantly, such models are appealing because all the processes that give rise to a specific motor system under investigation (evolution, development, learning, adaptation, recovery) are in a sense optimization processes, that over time cause the system to perform better and better. It is therefore natural to use the limit of optimal performance as the starting point for theoretical investigations of motor control.
Oops, you are quoting the wrong person in your post # 11.Look, you halfwit
IMO, the point is that sentience is based on a fundametal universal principle of "movement in the direction of greatest satisfaction" and is already a potential at nano or even smaller scale. It's about microtubulers which display sentient respunses, albeit not intelligent.
But indeed, let's see if anyone else is prepared to wade through this stuff and can make an intelligent summary of it. You seem to think it is chemistry, but it looks an awful lot like quantum woo to me.
This does not appear to be woo, but a deep insight into non-intelligent sentience at nano scale.
Well, those were my words and I readily admit my shortcomings. So blame the woo on my ignorance, not Hameroff.Any video which contains
a deep insight into non-intelligent sentience at nano scale
immediately classes itself as Woo Woo no matter the qualifications of the speaker
Well, those were my words and I readily admit my shortcomings. So blame the woo on my ignorance, not Hameroff.
But thanks for the Wiki link, which also leads to several published papers, pro and con.
Replace my words with Hameroff's proposition of "Quantum Consciousness"No I put the Woo Woo where it belongs
Inside the brain of the person who proposed
a deep insight into non-intelligent sentience at nano scale
is Woo Woo no matter the qualifications of the speaker
Dr. Stuart Hameroff
I agree that (2) makes much more sense, which means the opening to your post #3 doesn't. Glad we cleared that up.Letting the presentation speak for itself.
With all respect, I believe it is (2), and I did qualify my own ability to offer insight of how , or what causes consciousness, except in most basic generally accepted terms.
"Quantum Consciousness"
the concept does not conflict with Darwinian Evolution and Natural Selection
motive for procreation itself.
This is not addressed in Darwinian Evolution.
Procreation is not a process, it is a universal Imperative toward "Optimum parsemony".= Woo Woo
It does indeed conflict because it does not exist
It's a piss poor attempt to assign purpose to a non purpose PROCESS
You're right, it just adds to the process of evolution, i.e. the compulsion and motivation to procreate and generate offspring.motive for procreation <-- does not exist within evolution
Then what compels us and every other biological organism to have sex even if it has no purpose other than "optimum parsemony, i.e. pleasure? A Mayfly only lives a day or two and spends ALL his/her time finding a mating partner. The female emits pheromones which compels the male to seek her out. Why ? Do they know it will result in offspring? I should think not.Again with the piss poor attempt to assign purpose to a non purpose PROCESS
Seems like anthropomorphism strikes again
I would say that it is an innate tendency in all living organisms which must mate to procreate.Anthropomorphism is the attribution of human traits, emotions, or intentions to non-human entities.[1] It is considered to be an innate tendency of human psychology.