Stuart Hameroff's ideas.

This is a remarkably thoughtful and wide-ranging discussion by Stuart Hameroff

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKAVgq99o_w

David

This is a remarkably thoughtful and wide-ranging discussion by Stuart Hameroff

David

FYI   the link did not come up - at least in my browser

FYI   the link did not come up - at least in my browser

Thanks, I sent it too late at night! I have changed my original post.

David

I don't think Hameroff is being clear about what is speculation and what is scientific fact.

I think many people don't care because of confirmation bias and because he is a "scientist".

I don't think Hameroff is being clear about what is speculation and what is scientific fact.

I think many people don't care because of confirmation bias and because he is a "scientist".

Curious what you're referring to specifically?

Note that I don't disagree in the sense that he takes his ORCH-OR hypothesis as established fact, but this doesn't seem different to me than most other scientists. 

I do think it would be good for scientists (not sure why that was in quotes since he has an MD) to separate speculation and known facts, but I don't know if Hammeroff is especially worse than others?

I really like that talk (I have listened to it all now). I mean he starts with something that is very theoretical and abstract - ORCH-OR, and ends up with a possible way to treat the brain with ultrasound and/or 2 MHz electromagnetic radiation. He also introduces the idea of evolution by following the pleasure principle.

At first glance that sounds nonsensical, because surely you need a brain before it can explain life/evolution, but I think he is saying that these frequencies may couple with a larger consciousness (remember this is a talk given at a Science and Nonduality conference).

I also like the fact that he is willing to contemplate ditching Darwin - I'll bet he has read some of the evidence against Darwinian evolution.

I'm waiting for sbu to listen to Hameroff's talk and respond!

David

Curious what you're referring to specifically?

Note that I don't disagree in the sense that he takes his ORCH-OR hypothesis as established fact, but this doesn't seem different to me than most other scientists. 

I do think it would be good for scientists (not sure why that was in quotes since he has an MD) to separate speculation and known facts, but I don't know if Hammeroff is especially worse than others?

When you say he takes his hypothesis as an established fact that is pretty much what I am referring to although I phrase it differently and I mean it the way I phrased it.

Other scientists might or might not do it too. Hammeroff might be better or worse then others. I am not commenting about others. I am commenting about Hammeroff.

My point is that at a superficial level he has a good story, but if you dig deeper it is a lot of speculation. I think many people might be bamboozled into thinking there is more substance to it than there really is. My impression is that he is a fast talking charlatan - probably he does not have any malicious intent - he is just in love with his theory and wants everyone to believe it and think he is a genius.

It's like Darwinism in a way, it's such a good idea that it must be right and so everything gets interpreted under the assumption that the theory is true - and that is the opposite of how science should work - the data should be analyzed to test a hypothesis or theory. (So yeah this is just like other scientists, Darwinists for example, and it is not good when anyone does it.)

For example, Hammeroff should listen to James Tour before he talks about primordial soup - primordial soup is tar and biological molecules in it are transitory stages from simpler molecules to tar, they don't last long enough to do anything biological. But when you know your theory is right you don't have to look closely at the evidence you use to support it because you already know it is right.

I put scientist in quotes not to question his qualifications but to emphasize that many people take scientists to be infallible authorities that are always reliable and always speak the truth based on proven scientific facts. The quotes mean I am saying "scientist" in a sarcastic tone of voice to imply that people think scientists are perfect unbiased sources of infallible information.

Saying wave function collapse is consciousness is not really saying anything. First it's specuation, second it is just applying a label. How does a wave function collapse make blue look like blue, or happy feel like happy?

Personally I think he is missing the point that consciousness is fundamental, it is not produced by wave function collapse, just the opposite, consciousness produces wave functions and collapses them producing matter.

I think the problem for him is that he is a physicalist trying to understand something non-physical that is beyond space and time. He is trying to use physicalist science to explain something outside its scope. He is limited by his own preconceptions and doesn't recognize that.

I think the problem for him is that he is a physicalist trying to understand something non-physical that is beyond space and time. He is trying to using physicalist science to explain something outside its scope. He is limited by his own preconceptions and doesn't recognize that.

Hammeroff is definitely not a physicalist, he seems to be a combination of Panpsychist + Platonist. He's written about the idea of a "quantum soul" and the idea that the fundamental level of reality is where moral values can be found. [I should have said fundamental reality according to physics, I do think the reality described by physics is only a small part of reality and doesn't even completely capture this universe.]

That said, I agree with you that Orch-OR seems to put too much stock in Objective Collapse being the source of conscious events. I think it will ultimately be proven wrong, but open the doorway to the discovery that the correlates of consciousness go all the way down to the quantum level.

A variety of materialists seem to very much fear Orch-OR or any quantum mind theory being true, I suspect because the Hard Problem would remain unsolved but proponent scientists would get much greater regard for their Non-Physicalist theories.

But for now there is still very little hard evidence of quantum biology, so just have to wait & see...

For example, Hammeroff should listen to James Tour before he talks about primordial soup - primordial soup is tar and biological molecules in it are transitory stages from simpler molecules to tar, they don't last long enough to do anything biological. But when you know your theory is right you don't have to look closely at the evidence you use to support it because you already know it is right.

I think the complete jump is too big for people to make in one go. For all I know, the Earth may have been covered by "primordial soup" (better referred to as primordial sludge) but that clearly wasn't part of the history of life! I would love to get to see what did happen at life's inception. I imagine the whole process might have happened rather quickly - the translation of an abstract mental blueprint into something concrete.

Perhaps after death it will be possible to will oneself to that point in spacetime, which should be fun!

Hameroff is primarily interested in consciousness and its origin, and there he does seem to have come round to a non-materialist viewpoint.

David

I think the complete jump is too big for people to make in one go. For all I know, the Earth may have been covered by "primordial soup" (better referred to as primordial sludge) but that clearly wasn't part of the history of life! I would love to get to see what did happen at life's inception. I imagine the whole process might have happened rather quickly - the translation of an abstract mental blueprint into something concrete.

Perhaps after death it will be possible to will oneself to that point in spacetime, which should be fun!

Hameroff is primarily interested in consciousness and its origin, and there he does seem to have come round to a non-materialist viewpoint.

David

https://www.britannica.com/topic/materialism-philosophy

Materialism, in philosophy, the view that all facts (including facts about the human mind and will and the course of human history) are causally dependent upon physical processes, or even reducible to them.

Doesn't this definition of materialism apply to Hameroff's beliefs?