Guys, this guy knows his shit. Once you watch this, you can never unwatch it.
There are far reaching implications and ties in consciousness scientifically with some classical woo...
Tell me what you think. I don't think he's an alternative looney. More like cutting edge thinking.

Hameroff, rings a bell. Wasn't that the guy who worked with Hawking and then wrote a book with Deepity?

I made it to 4:00 and then became bored by his presuppositions. Although, he looks like a fun guy to have around when you need to be sedated!

C'mon guys, how can I discuss anything if you're not going to watch it?
I am disappoint.....

(August 13, 2017 at 5:34 pm)ignoramus Wrote: C'mon guys, how can I discuss anything if you're not going to watch it?
I am disappoint.....

Give me a break, I've been chased and tortured by my spawn all day, I'll watch it asap

(August 13, 2017 at 5:34 pm)ignoramus Wrote: C'mon guys, how can I discuss anything if you're not going to watch it?
I am disappoint.....

A wave cannot act as a fully intact human brain. A particle cannot act as a in tact brain. A single atom cannot act as an in tact brain. A single molecule cannot act a an in tact brain. Consciousness is an outcome of a process not a starting point. There are lots of steps between a single particle/atom to a fully functioning human brain.

No need to try to replace old sky heros of antiquity with si fi woo.

I found it very interesting. He says a lot of the things I say about mind and the philosophy of mind.

The idea of dreams being a sort of quantum state on the macro scale are interesting to me. But in the end, I'm not sure that he's really doing science of mind with his theory-- where's the falsifiability? Where's the predictive power?

I'm not saying those things aren't there, I just don't know enough to see that they are.

---

(August 13, 2017 at 5:55 pm)Brian37 Wrote:

(August 13, 2017 at 5:34 pm)ignoramus Wrote: C'mon guys, how can I discuss anything if you're not going to watch it?
I am disappoint.....

A wave cannot act as a fully intact human brain. A particle cannot act as a in tact brain. A single atom cannot act as an in tact brain. A single molecule cannot act a an in tact brain. Consciousness is an outcome of a process not a starting point. There are lots of steps between a single particle/atom to a fully functioning human brain.

No need to try to replace old sky heros of antiquity with si fi woo.

It's pretty clear that you haven't watched the video.  You should be directing arguments about specific points from the video, not lecturing ignoramus on middle school biology as though he's a child.

He was doing science, he made predictions, the theory was falsifiable.  The predictions bombed, and neural biology falsified it. Which is why, and I;m not even kidding, when you google his model, wiki returns

"see also; ad hoc hypothesis"

Because they've been modifying their model to overcome those falsifications without actually changing the data, making excuses for why the predictions were right even though they don't seem to be - and just generally shitting on valid argument structures and sound propositions in general.



He's a true believer - and, to his credit, the idea may have had some merit waaaay back before it just didn't pan out..but it went down the what the bleep rabbit hole along with it's chief advocate.

If he's a believer, then I'm not all that interested in what he is saying. I'm interest in truth, like most of us, wherever that may lead, not his confirmation bias.
But I do find the connections to the quantum world rather interesting. I mean the quantum world is spooky to start with, no woo needed there.
So I'm imagining that any possible explanations to the link between the quantum world and consciousness to be equally spooky.

I also sort of agree with him about the singularity in that no amount of intelligent AI can ever emulate conscious AI.
What do you guys think?

(August 13, 2017 at 8:29 pm)bennyboy Wrote: I found it very interesting.  He says a lot of the things I say about mind and the philosophy of mind.

The idea of dreams being a sort of quantum state on the macro scale are interesting to me.  But in the end, I'm not sure that he's really doing science of mind with his theory-- where's the falsifiability?  Where's the predictive power?

I'm not saying those things aren't there, I just don't know enough to see that they are.

---

(August 13, 2017 at 5:55 pm)Brian37 Wrote: A wave cannot act as a fully intact human brain. A particle cannot act as a in tact brain. A single atom cannot act as an in tact brain. A single molecule cannot act a an in tact brain. Consciousness is an outcome of a process not a starting point. There are lots of steps between a single particle/atom to a fully functioning human brain.

No need to try to replace old sky heros of antiquity with si fi woo.

It's pretty clear that you haven't watched the video.  You should be directing arguments about specific points from the video, not lecturing ignoramus on middle school biology as though he's a child.

I don't have to watch Star Trek either.

Look, again, there is no such thing as "forever". I have addressed this countless times and not just in this thread.

Whatever we advance as far as medicine or computer AI will also not make a forever possible. Bodies wear out, and even though we will be able to find more cures and better operation technology, bodies still wear out. You can only extend, not cure death. And if you manage to simulate human personality it will still only remain a COPY and not the original, once your brain dies you die, a simulation is still not the original.

And regardless, in 5 billion years our sun will run out of energy and our entire solar system will die. If you really think humans will survive that you are fooling yourself. 

You, "Science says this is plausible."

Me, "I'll believe it when I see it."

Faith, is blindly assuming everything will happen just because the idea is appealing to you. The patent office is full of ideas that end up doing nothing.

Science isn't about claiming, it is about proving, so I could care less what you claim is possible, it has to be proven first, not claimed.