Sir Roger Penrose & Dr. Stuart Hameroff: CONSCIOUSNESS AND THE PHYSICS OF THE BRAIN

Hello, yes, I should explain the title here. I claim that we need new

physics

to understand

consciousness

. Well, I mean new

physics

. I mean something outside of the physics we know, but it was not invented simply for the purpose of explaining

consciousness

. It's something that I think we need anyway for other reasons and I'll get to that as part of the talk. First of all, there are various views on what consciousness is, what it comes from, what is the basis of consciousness and the current view is basically this: the

brain

works according to a computer and many people believe this and computers , when they become powerful enough we will do the same things that

brain

s do and if brains make us conscious then these computers will be conscious and therefore computing itself is what provides consciousness, that is quite something common point of view today if you don't have that point of view you probably hold well the next point of view this is the fourth the next point of view which is that it is established science the science with which we work so well that we now have that of somehow this science comes together and some configurations produce consciousness oh there is a third view that we are going to have a new broader view of the physics of the physical world of the world and that is what we need to explain consciousness or maybe it doesn't say anything to do with science and something comes from outside my point of view is number three now I need to try to move on to the next one if we can there are many aspects of consciousness that I don't want to talk about and most people do talk about things like you I know pain or love or the perception of the color green or all kinds of things like that.

I am just concentrating on one topic which is the concept of understanding and the reason I do this is not because I think it is more important than others. maybe it is, but it's the only thing I can say anything definitive about and I affirm that it is definitive, although other people may not agree with this. I understand, I'm ready. Point out three words here, understanding, and here we have consciousness and there we have intelligence. In the normal use of the word intelligence, you have an object that could only be considered intelligent if it has the quality of understanding different objects, it is not aware of anything that you wouldn't normally say is understanding, that's normally using two products and I'm going to say Therefore, understanding is crucial somewhere, like instructions, it is just the position that, to some extent, indicates the difference between understanding and simply calculation.

Now, this position is intended for when you see that, first of all, I have to explain that it's ooh, it's a legal position. although there are three black bishops of the same color and that is legal because in fact two pawns were bishops instead of queens, I must explain that it is important that this is a position that would never occur in a normal game, which means that the computers never find something like this, but what I want to point out is that the black pieces are stuck behind these pawns here, they cannot be taken by color on color and therefore cannot lead and all the bishops or what black can do is wondering there or can I wonder a little about these pieces or the free bishop comes and seems like a pretty useless game the piece just wonders I can't do anything, it's obviously a tie, however, if you give This for Fritz is to press the level of Grand Master and you ask him to tell what the scale of the body is.

My main win for black or white or a draw, he says it's a win for black. I guess I have no idea how these things are done. program, but imagine what it does is that it also tries to randomly move all the possible combinations one after another until a certain point that it has to be exhausted and then judge whether the position has improved or worsened or something and how it does it. Well, I guess he puts a value on each piece and concludes that it has a tremendous advantage. Well, it comes back and continues like this for a while, but after a while the 30 move rule comes up again.

Now the 30 move rule. It says that if no piece is taken or no pawn has moved then it is a draw, so the preview of this program considers it good as it is supposed to be a win for black, a draw is a disaster, so he does not despair to avoid it. draw and this is useful to keep the king in the race around the corner and then the only thing black can do to change this is to sacrifice the bishop which is what he does, he sacrifices the bishop completely stupidly and doesn't do it . calculate enough moves forward to see that this is a complete disaster, just think, don't think of course, just calculate that it is a win for black and therefore draw a disaster, you must avoid it at all costs, but then , when the bishop is sacrificed, you go and clear a couple of possible moves, the king, you clear the pawns, you make two queens, you really knew you needed two queens that passivate this thing, you walk with your staff over here somewhere and sacrifice one of your Queens and then the other checkmates, eventually you can see that White wins, so it is quite curious that it is just a little bit of understanding of the game of chess and such a horrendous amount of calculations that the calculation loses in this case, Now you could say, well, chess is a finite game, if you had that much computing power, you could win, you couldn't lose this game, you would calculate far enough in advance to be able to see that it was no loss, no disaster, no sacrifice, no bishop.

Well, chess is a finite game and so, in principle, there are possibilities. Now, if you want something that is not finite, you have to resort to mathematics. That's actually what I want to do on the next slide. You talk about the Internet. Now people often tend to think if they don't know about mathematics. that you can't really think about infinity, that's completely wrong. I will give you simple examples, if you take two odd numbers and add them together you always get an even number, or two even numbers that you put together always get an even number that is the statement about infinite things numbers natural numbers when I said natural number I mean non-negative integers 0 1 2 3 4 5 etc. those are the natural numbers this is a statement about all the natural numbers that you can understand the fact that it is infinite is not a limitation against that, let's look at the following image, can we?

This is just to basically illustrate what a computer is like according to Turing or a vertical cartoon, which is a bit absurd, it's actually just a show that the device that computes is relatively small and finite? Where is the storage? The potential storage has to be potentially infinite. I mean, it's never really infinite, but this is just to illustrate that you can do long, arbitrary calculations back and forth with these trucks. That's absurd. The image it should be noted that the image provided by the actual machine itself is finite, although it may have to resort to unlimited storage.

You can see the image below now, one of the ways we learn a school to talk about infinity is this thing called induction now as I say the natural numbers of these things not 1 2 3 4 etc. and it is low do you have a proposition that depends on the number of metal I say P of n is a different proposition for each natural number and that is an infinite number of things, the only way to pass this infinite number of things in school is often just saying that you prove it for zero which is the smallest natural number and then you prove that if it is true for n then it is true for n plus 1 to find out the things that you do and that establishes the number of things and this is the basis of what is called first order, let's not worry about the next slide please, this is the key to what I mean, it is a famous theorem due to curve, move on and when I first heard about this I was shocked absolutely speechless, it seemed to be the stomach, you see what it shows, this is the kinetic version, slide please, the investment you deter, basically, it has to do simply with algorithm calculations if you don't like any other and it happens Same thing now, this has to do with testing propositions and suppose you have a machine that tests propositions using a certain algorithm and the algorithm is ours.

The other thing is that you have one of these statements about natural numbers and you feed it. that thing in your them and then walks away applying the rules of our and maybe you come up with the answer yes, it's true, no, it's false or you may not come up with any other answer, so it goes on forever, but the point is that you want to have your algorithm such that if when it says yes it is true you really believe it, this is a key point, is that you must look at the construction of our and convince yourself that all the rules are things that you would accept them to be. true first oh yes you look at the first rule and you say you think it's okay you say yes, it's okay the second I guess it's okay you can think a little about the third and say yes, oh yes, I see it's things like that that Trust at every step of the rules, if you get to the end and say yes, it's true, you think it's true, it's a test, it really establishes that it's true.

Now the girl builds this wonderful statement from the R rules, which is another statement. mathematical statement of the type it is supposed to deal with, you call it G of R and from the way you construct it you can see that it is not provable by the rules and it is true. I found it surprising. I can tell you that you see if you understand what other things mean this is something key the meaning is very different following the rules and what G says how do you know that G says what I just said how is it how do you know something that is true and you can't prove using rules, well the smart thing is that you have this is a smart part, you make a statement that is a state, a mathematical segment is the type that applies and when you interpret what it says, it says I CANNOT prove it by these rules .

Now you see, okay, it's false, if it's false, it's demonstrable, that has to be true because you believe that all the things it states are true and therefore that's contradiction, therefore they're not, so Therefore, it has to be true and it says that it is not provable. therefore it is not provable by the rules, however you have established it as true knowing what the rules mean and that is the key, you are just not following the rules, you know what they mean and you know that the meaning of the rules . The rules are such that they give you only true statements and that gives you the power to go beyond the rules themselves.

I found it surprising when I first heard that because he tells you that we don't just follow the rules, the meaning has to be there too. It has to be part of this and the meaning of knowing that the rules are things that do not give you falseness allows you to transcend the rules themselves and that seems surprising to me now as someone who believed that our brains are things that obey the same laws of physics. It's everything else in the room or outside and galaxies and so on, it's the same laws of physics. I started to wonder now what there is in the laws of physics that might be things that can't be programmed into a computer, well then, of course, since I went to see one of Bondy's on general relativity and I think that general relativity is something which can be put into a computer, there is a problem with approximations and so on because the theory depends on continuous parameters instead of discrete ones and there is a problem there, but I didn't think that was the real point, the real point is relativity In general, that wonderful theory that at that time was not very well established but is now beautifully established, we see these black holes, we could say that we see, what I mean is this as a detector of gravitational waves tell us, through calculations that people have realized about generativity, what black holes spiral around each other, what kind of signal they would send and what a gravitational detector would see, so if we see these signals, we infer that we are seeing black holes.

Spiraling them around each other is kind of surprising, but that's calculus that tells us that general relativity is a theory that you can reflect through calculus. What about the other great theory that I went to think about in Dirac the great's lectures? physicists and this told us that the Schrodinger equation, which is the equation that is the basis of the evolution equation, this is the evolution equation of quantum mechanics, which again is something that the computer follows, is quite difficult because the amount of parameters that you have to involve is very large, however, it is still computational, even if it is indirect, in the first lecture he described something in which he talked about the principle of superposition in quantum mechanics, if one thing happens, it can happen and if something else can happen, then you have numbers of states in which this and that happen.

At the same time, it's a very difficult thing if your particle can be here and here at the same time and you say you have to believe that that's the kind of thing you can have and then you take out a piece of chalk and talk about where it is. A piece of chalk could be here and here at the same time and at that moment for some reason my mind wandered and I was looking out the window thinking about something that is the country of a time andwhen my mind returned to my attention he came back with words if he had finished the explanation of why pieces of chalk were not visible in two places at once he said something vaguely about energy I didn't understand what this has to do with anything I think it was something well I didn't follow your argument because presumably it was an argument meant to calm us down so we wouldn't worry about this problem and since I didn't hear the argument it worried me ever since so this is kind of critical.

I'm still worrying, but I want to explain. Can I skip to the next slide? Please, about the halfway concern, let's do this quickly. This is just to show you. Another thing that girl or Turing shows is that there are problems that cannot be solved with an algorithm and one of them is that if you are given a set of polyominoes, you love the squares in the plane or the equal squares stuck along their edges and they give you sets of polyominoes of pollen or limbs, can that finite set of polyominoes that we use to mosaic the entire plane without gaps, without overlaps, the top two with a unique one, which can do it, the one in the middle you see two different shapes, both together? will tile the entire plane, but one or the other world is the one at the bottom with one that will do it and the question is whether they give you a says that the polyominoes will fit into the plane or not and it is a result due to Robert Burger who says no. there is no such algorithm and one of the things about this algorithm, yes, the next thing I want is that it shows that you can show that if there is some set of tiles that will tell the plane, if they will tile it in a way that it doesn't be the earth. which is repetitive, that is, it repeats in both directions, so sorry, if Tyler will play, then he will eliminate the Tyler plane repeatedly and Robert Robert Berger first showed that there are no algorithms to decide whether a set of polyominoes . will be the tail plane and secondly, as a consequence of that, there should be tiles that only indicate the plane in a non-repetitive way and this is a set of three that I produced based on an idea due to Robert, a man, and you see you can tile the plane, but you can't see that because you really have to go on forever and it never repeats, yeah in fact it's an interesting example if you give a computer the problem of trying to tile the plane. with these three ways. and he just did it by trying it this way, that way there are different possibilities.

I highly doubt it could be joined just on the Tower floor here with tiles that size with any computer that exists today. I'm not sure if that's true. If it's not true, then you can take a floor twice as big as this one and then it's probably true, so I think it's very unlikely that you'll just try an arrow and get this tile to cover the planes. It's not that easy, it's never repeated there. it's an algorithm to find how to do this and that is to search my collected works and find where the house is, how to do it because it's an algorithm anyway, let me continue with the next one, this is just another example.

I like it enough, I can do it. that then you only have these three shapes, the regular square hexagon and a regular 12-sided figure and you have to join them so that the lines coincide and you have a dodeca door like not to build again that is the only rule you have. have one of those and the only way to fill the plane with these shapes is somehow the following, please, like this, those are the lines, never a piece, this was drawn up by a computer, but under the instructions of how to suppose. to the tower, they give the computer not to try one after another, it never repeats, you can see bits that repeat, but they are always different as you go into larger regions.

I grew this up a bit and did it. I don't know what it would look like and a colleague of mine's program is the program you can make once you know what the rules are, just if you try it's just trial and error, that's not the way to do it. I do not think it is like that. the computer could get that far probably just trial and error I don't know an interesting question I would like to try something to see anyway that's what's next I think I'll give you this is a good example quickly there isn't much time, this is the proven theorem in 1945 by a good doctor Stein and it's a good example, yes, thank you, without no, without much knowledge of mathematics and what is, well, start with something like that, but on the next slide, could you please write and let's try it. with an example of one thousand seventy-seven but the same applies to any natural number one thousand seventy-seven just an example, let's represent that first in binary, which means that writing is the sum of powers of Nonis we go to the first powers of two which are different and the usual thing are knots and ones that represent the powers of two that are there the one in the north were the last two that are not there so that's what the binary representation is fine now I want to represent the exponents in this way too you see you have a number at the top that needs to be represented in binary, which I did and you're still not done because there's a three up there, let's make the next line, here we go and this represents the number.

You may have to climb a huge tower before you reach the end, but it still always ends. I finished writing the bonus in terms of and the exponent said the exponents if necessary in terms of positive two. Now it is enough for the operations, the first operation. a is to replace all twos with three, you see that two is the base, yes, and now you could think of a base three if this is exactly the same expression, but now all twos are replaced by three, this operation is a B operation , now subtract one, operation A replaces all the threes with fours and operation B is fine, so the complicated thing is here because it's like taking one out of a thousand that they got in 1999, but you see the threes and other coefficients for the nines and Kate boy smiles for being the base and you continue, you subtract one, the next and then you continue, you continue, on the next slide, you go, some numbers get bigger and bigger until they reach zero, that's the good signs theorem, it's a hare and the tortoise the rhythm. or tortoise a little bit of everything here as I guess it's the tortoise that subtracts it's a small step it just takes some office time and the hare increases the base and the numbers get bigger and here they get bigger in the next slide please was Paris and Cobby proved that this is a waist theorem, i.e. the good posture theorem cannot be proven by ordinary induction and an , it's pretty remarkable that you can show that this works. to zero, but you can't do it by ordinary mathematical induction.

You can do it. I think we will transfer that induction if you know about that in these spa days or we will represent the transplant in the Omega number and that is the proof that I think homework, but this is an example of a waist theorem that shows that you have to go further there at a different step from mathematics. It's quite interesting that even if you started with number four, you try three, it goes up and down quickly, you try number four. I don't recommend programming on any computer, not even the most powerful computer in the world.

No chance with four, if you just follow the steps, you would never get there if you did it with a piece of paper and pencil and think a bit, you can probably see why it comes back down, it doesn't come back down for a long time, okay, next slide, please, now you see this, there is my cartoon trying to show, look, the question is okay, people tell me everything. right, there's an algorithm in our heads, it's so complicated you never know what it was and there's no way to make a good steiner for girdle or whatever, so that's the way out.

My argument here is why I produce a lot of complicated algorithms. arguments but this seems to me to be the clearest argument, you can say well what was the quality that Peter's people had in a navel to be able to understand things like infinity and, but Stan's theorem, all those things would also be missing well natural. selection is presumably natural selection. I have tried to argue in this image, in fact, if we could have the next slide just to show you that natural selection was not there to produce mathematicians, that is the argument: you see mathematicians about to be eaten by saber teeth .

Tiger, the images prove the program, there is not much selective advantage, maybe it is negative. I suspect I'm a mathematician, however the cousins ​​of this type, like the domestic ones, domesticate animals, build shelters, grow crops and all that kind of stuff and build traps for mammoths. here all these things were done by developing the notion of understanding at a deep level that has nothing to do with mathematics, that is nothing like that, it is not what the quality of understanding was selected for a natural selection, but It turns out that it has the advantage of allowing us to do sophisticated mathematics, let's move on to the next image please, now here's the question, you see the matrices, where does this type of non-computer computability come in?

And I say mathematical understanding, if the previous slide was just to show that it's not just human understanding. Overall, that seems to be a great thing, but I don't think understanding is the only quality, as it is certainly not the only quality that consciousness uses, certainly one of the ones as I argued, yes, however, I'm not going to draw a line. between understanding and other qualities of consciousness, so I drew the line maybe here, well, here I guess that's what happens with animals. I don't think the difference between humans and animals is so big that animals don't have it.

You can see many examples where animals seem to tear apart seem to show understanding I think the quality is there, certainly people who have dogs are quite convinced that their dogs are conscious and I think they are prepared to believe that that is true, so they don't I think that's the place to draw the conclusion. line, so where is the line? Well, I don't think it has to do with life and non-life, the question is, well, the argument I'm trying to make is that it's a physics thing now, as I said before, when I would like to, can I go?

On to the next slide please, with the argument about Dirac and his piece of chalk, is that it has something to do with why you don't get macroscopic superpositions in quantum mechanics, you can have particles or atoms or quite complicated structures, these things for the buckyballs in two places at the same time. At the same time and the experiments we demonstrated, that's what happens with big things. How big do they have to get before these super positions can't be made? Most people who think about quantum mechanics and don't want to change anything think, well, come on.

I'm just saying what this mermaid is doing judo mermaid I made this drawing before a lecture I gave about birds and I said in Denmark they had asked me to give a talk on our hands Christian Anderson and I wondered a little why they asked me to talk about fairy tales or something a little broad the scientists were asked to talk about fairy tales but then of course I remembered that I had written the book called The Emperor's New Mind and the title was based on or was a play . the story or the title of the Hans Christian Andersen story The Emperor's New Clothes and then I had to think of another of the hats from Christian Andersen's stories and I thought of the little mermaid well I'll tell you why in a moment but I have a little joke in the story look at the moment at the end of the story she's lying and she when the sun rises the first photon comes out the first ray of light that comes and hits the moment and she dies so I thought well I'll do it I elaborated on that a little bit and I put a half silver mirror when the first photon from the Sun arrives and it splits into two and one of them hits the moment and kills it and the other goes out into space and this was my Schrodinger's siren, but anyway, if you know about the Schrodinger cats, you know that's playing on that idea, but anyway, that's not what I was using this for.

Can I have the next slide? Please see that the top is supposed to represent the classical world. In fact, we go back a little bit, you know, the top part of the collateral work, the bottom part is meant to represent the quantum world and the quantum world you will find that there is a thing called entanglement and nothing is ever, they are very separate from each other. the things that you have these tangles and you see look like all the algae down there tangling everything, so I had this next slide, please, the quantum world is represented by the bottom and the classical world by the top, and what does a mermaid on the next slide please? well, she represents the collapse of the wave function of what happens with the measurements.

You see the way we understand quantum mechanics when we take the Schrodinger equation and this is an equation like, for example, generativity or Newtonian mechanics or something where your state evolves in a continuous deterministic way. differential you have solved the differential equation that is what it is and that tells you how the world evolves smoothly now that is true for the top view thatit's you if you like the Newtonian world or the world of general relativity classical world the bottom is true too because this is the world of quantum mechanics, that's the Schrodinger equation, but the mermaid is this mysterious thing that really explains why the straight piece of chalk wasn't in two places at once and is somehow too big to be in two places at once, why well, The argument is that people normally use that when you make a measurement in mechanics quantum and somehow you do a and the quantum state does something classical and the exalted example that people have like a Geiger counter, the quantum particle enters the Geiger counter and it clicks. and that means it clicks or it doesn't click and whether it clicks or not comes from the evolution of a state and this tells you the probabilities of whether it will click or not and that's a really fun thing because it's not a deterministic evolution. following the equation is something quite different, it does one thing and it does the other and everything you have has probabilities, which happens and that doesn't come from the evolution equation, it doesn't come from the Schrodinger equation, it doesn't really come from the theory not at all if you say you consider your Geiger counter to be a quantum thing like everything else is made of matter just like everything else, then why is it supposed to behave classically and click or not click?

No, it should behave as if it's okay, the interested particle and it doesn't enter at the same time. it clicks and doesn't click at the same time and you're still in the quantum world and the siren hasn't done any work but that's not what happens, what happens is the opposite, it says "click so no". I don't think so, if something happens that doesn't follow the equation and a lot of people have all kinds of different ways of thinking about this, you think it's when you're conscious look at the state and then it goes one over the other.

I do not do it. I think it's the other way around, so can I go to the next slide please now to try to explain it. Let me tell you, well, I think the difference is between following the Schrodinger equation and not following it when necessary. do the other thing, which is the collapse of the wave function, the reduction of the state, it's called when the state jumps from one thing to another, it doesn't just follow the continuous Schrodinger equation when you make a measurement, it jumps from one thing to another another and that's really strange now there are a lot of theories from people that go beyond quantum mechanics or the whole industry of different types of ideas about how quantum mechanics extends in one way or another.

Now I have a slightly different view on this, which is not to try. and invent a completely new theory that extends quantum mechanics on the one hand and on the other, but taking the two most important physical theories developed in the 20th century, both important revolutions, one of them, in fact, quantum mechanics, the other It was Einstein's general theory of relativity, the basic underlying principle. Jane-Anne Stein's theory is the principle of equivalence and here I have an imagined Galileo throwing a large rock and a small rock from the Leaning Tower of Pisa. They told me he probably never did it; certainly talked about it and I knew that Falwell felt that if they were big rocks and small rocks, the air resistance would slow down a little bit more the small rock into the big rock, faster, so I knew that he knew some idealized situations without an atmosphere, they would fall together and this is the principle of equivalence that Galileo put forward very strongly and on the right side of this image you can see a small insect sitting on one of the rocks looking at the other and during the fall this small insect does not think that there is any gravity because, like Stephen Hawking on the plane when we start plummeting, we have a futuristic space station and the astronaut here and the astronaut is falling in love with it, you could say that the Earth is not falling to the ground, but that It's not what What happens was the astronauts were in orbit and being in orbit means it's like free fall, like the big rock and the small rock right and here we have the big rock and there's a rock if you want and they look like fall together and it's like there's no gravity, so if this is the equivalence principle, the basis of Einstein's general relativity led him to all these confusing ideas of our curved space-time and all that, but the basic principle is this one and I'm just going to focus on this basic one. beginning, can I go to the next slide please?

Now I am considering here an experiment that is being performed on the table, so I put my right hand, we imagine a table and an experiment is being performed there and there are some quantum physicists working on quantum physics. The Schrodinger hide equation evolves according to the experiment on the table and what the physicist wants to do is incorporate gravity, the force of gravity, if you will, into the Schrodinger equation to incorporate it by doing what the experts will tell him , is to put a term in the Hamiltonian corresponding to the gravitational potential, you know what that means, it doesn't matter, that's the procedure, the normal procedure that someone would do if you consider gravitation as a force, but I tell you that that is not the way correct to do so.

What are you doing? Can you imagine that you are in free fall in your coordinates or do they correspond to three before the gravitational field does not exist? You do it all over again imagining that your coordinate system falls freely and you are doing it all over again, what do you do? How do you get the same answer? Almost the green answer is the Newtonian, if you like, that's where you put the term in the Hamiltonian. You just deal with gravity, it's like another course. The violet is Einstein Ian's, which is what you say. three before anyone else and there is no gravity, they are almost the same, the only difference is this thing called phase factor, if you don't know about quantum mechanics, you won't know why it is such a critical thing, but these things are completely the same except for this vector of phase, now the phase factor, well, it is a complex number modulo one, if you don't know what that means, it doesn't matter, the key point is that every time you make measurements you take what is called the square of the modulus and this thing. disappears, then you say who cares, they are different, but who cares, because every time you renew your measurements, the factor that is not here makes no difference, but then you look more closely at the factor and you see that it is going to t .

Now, cubed, you have to know a little bit more about quantum theory or quantum field theory to see what's causing a problem, because what it tells you is that if you do your quantum theory right, the green wave function is in what is called a different face. Hilbert space other than purple, well again, you'd have to know what Hilbert space means, but what it really means is that it's cheating if you try to add one of these things; Yes, but you're not going to do that. I got these two things separately, so who cares, well, you could say who cares, if it's just this experiment, but now I'm going to change the experiment that I'm going to have in the middle of this.

I'm going to save an object. this object here that I've gone to is some kind of sphere and that object is being put in a T-rex chalk overlay in this place and this place at the same time, now this means that now I'm going to imagine your little bug. sitting here I'm trying to do quantum mechanics, it's probably a little difficult for an insect, but it doesn't matter, the insect is trying to do quantum mechanics and the insect considers itself to be getting rid of this gravitational field by freely falling into it, but it's in a superposition of that and you can't fall if you fall freely in both, but the more serious point is that there are in these two different Hilbert spaces, they are two different voids and other ways say and you can't. add the states together if they are in two different documents so you are stuck if you want to use Einstein's perspective, I really stopped, what are you doing right?

If you're stuck, you cheat, so that's what I do, I cheat. Let's say okay, it's cheating to put the images in the same Hilbert space, but let's try to do it anyway and keep track of the cheek size, so that's what I do. I keep track of the size of the trick and I integrate the trickster into every space and I get a response and say that the trick is a measure of the uncertainty that arises as a kind of energy, it's something like, for example, it's an energy, it's a measure of uncertainty in the actual energy of the system as a whole, so there is some not very certain element of the total energy of the system, so I get to that and then I use something called the Heisenberg energy-time principle, now this uncertainty principle which tells you the usual way to avoid it, if you have a part of an atom, which is unstable, it decays and through this or decays into this or that atom due to the lifetime, it is the case after a certain average lifetime and that average lifetime is reciprocally related to an energy uncertainty in the core, so I'm using it the other way around.

I am saying that if you have an energetic uncertainty, then that is reciprocal related to life, so I am saying that this superposition of these two of this lamp in a tilted position is the same weapon in two different places at once and is associated with a energy uncertainty. and according to Heisenberg, it is reciprocal to erase an entire life and what is the life with a life if it becomes one or the other, so this gives you an idea of ​​how long this superposition of this lump in two places will last and the argument is you. take Planck's constant divided by this energy uncertainty called for example, and that gives you the lifetime, so that's the idea, you can actually say what it means, the easiest way to try hard, describe it for situations The simple thing is to imagine that the problem was that there were two of them. lumps in that place of this and then you move one of them away from the other and take into consideration only the gravitational force, of course there can be all kinds of other forces, but ignore all of those, just the gravitational attraction between the two and how much it will cost you energy to separate them and that is, for example, so you can say what it is, for example, in those kinds of terms.

Okay, I'll have the next image. This is just a spatio-temporal way of looking at the same thing. Now you see that scientific theory says that mass deforms. space-time then we put time going this way in space going that way space-time is four dimensions, put together time with space three dimensions of space going this way the dimension of time going that way and the fact that you brought a piece of deformed material into space that's what Einstein tells us, if space is deformed and then we, as mass, put it in two places at once, you have to have two space times in two places at the same time and the argument is that when the separation reaches a unit in what are called Planck units, they are very strange units, as seen in ordinary physics, the Planck length is 10 to the power of minus 33 center Freddie's one about our number with 33 0 30 three digits and what is the time, thank you, time also measures your time, it is 10 to the power of minus 43 seconds, so you take 1/one digit with 43 numbers with 43 digits and that small fraction of a second It's Planck time, so you use these fun units and when the separations between space-time reach that union, that's the kind of time where the thing becomes one or the other it's going to have the following image oh no, yes, the next image was the one you were on right before the next image now here you see what this has to do with consciousness in the theory, well the argument is that this moment when the choice is made for it to happen, the universe moves forward Happily, it gets a little awkward because it branches and then the universe decides to do one or the other on this kind of time scale that I've said, but here it's so difficult.

The idea here is the linkage with consciousness and the hypothesis of the theory. is that whenever this happens, whenever the state reduces, whenever the wave function collapses, that's what it's doing, it's associated with a moment of what we call proto-consciousness. I'm not saying it's conscious, this probably has you in the atmosphere all the time and I'm not saying the atmosphere is conscious, but what I am saying is that this element of proto-consciousness is the building block from which consciousness is built. , that's why we call it oh, that's the objective reduction of the state and these orchestrated is oh ah, that's it or we could call it or go ah to the theory that Stuart Hameroff and I have developed is based on this idea that consciousness has as building blocks this focusing procedure here and when it's put together and it's kind of an orchestrated waste, it's a little vague what that means, but nonetheless, that's the idea, if it's kind of meaningfully, it's a genuine consciousness , so that is the theory and let's have the following image just to say one of the The purest characteristics of this theory have well, I said that there are many theories in which people have other types of theories, they do not vote, but motivators of gravity necessarily, but where you can have something, I have time to get up here again, so you're a lump. in one position it splits in two, you get hit by a photon that splits a little and then it goes in one direction, the other versiongoes in that direction and the point is that after this time it suddenly does one or the other and the point of view with our addition here is quite curious.

I'm saying I call it a Stalinist point of view. You see? When Stalin got angry with wonderful people in the Politburo era, it's not like they eliminated the dogs, but you see. He's also not the person removed from all the pictures he appeared in before so it's like that guy never existed so the idea here is that a property never existed and some were not followed this month if you don't have that point of view . You have really funny things, like other people's theory, where two of them jump back and forth from there: one seems to create a lot of energy and temperature and you have to get rid of that and it's a real problem in most cases.

These theories have other problems here and they might think this is retroactive, but I don't think it's a contradiction to anything we see. It's a curious sight and seems to be the kind of place where you can have the next slide now. What about the experiments? This is kind of a cartoon of an experiment because of the dog Baumeister from the conversations we had and he and the common former student police officer we have are getting together and the idea is Here you have a little mirror that is a little cube about a tenth the thickness of a human hair, but it's a little too small to see, but here we have a photon moving forward, the photon hits this beam splitter, half of the silver mirror. it goes here half of there you keep it between two mirrors and you keep it there you know what's called a cavity you have it down here and you keep it here these are its photons it's like a trampoline and it jumps up and down in this little cube and it gives it a million reflections, it gives enough to shift it enough that they can detect this thing going past each other in seconds, two minutes, that's an experiment that's been going on for almost two decades, I think it's pretty consistent because I was invited to him about ten years ago where he works in one of the places where he works and he said, without asking, in ten years I will have an answer.

I thought ten years is probably just a constant. of nature and you also know that it will always be ten years, but when I saw him again two years later at another conference, he said that in seven or eight years we will have an hour to the south, whereas I thought that was consistent. I just went to another conference. last year in Marseille and he said that in two or three years he hopes to have an answer and I thought that's pretty good, it may have decreased by a year, but it's not bad, so maybe in about three years you'll see if what I'm saying Whether true or not, there are another set of experiments that could arrive faster if they get funding.

This is an experiment because of IDS veteran Taze who works with these Bose-Einstein condensate things, which are kind of macroscopic quantum things. They're quite small but they're macroscopic and they're quantitative in individual quantum states and you can split them in two and it looked very promising for a number of reasons. In a way, you see one of the problems with this experiment. You have to maintain it. very, very cold and with Bose-Einstein condensates you just have to keep it cold and that's much easier, but those experiments may get there even before this. I don't know, it would be intriguing to know in the next one anyway. two or three years we may not see this question, so I have the next slide my way, let's see the next one that I went into and that this is just the connection with Stuart because he told me about microtubules and showed my ignorance and my lack of knowledge about microtubules.

These structures are intended to be an image of one and they inhabit synapses and all sorts of other places and may well be there now. I was very attracted to this idea because they were the tubes of it and they are symmetrical in all. kinds of features that seem promising for possibly having a large scale of quantum states that could maintain quantum coherence for long enough for state reduction to be something that can be used and that's really the idea that we have next quickly and That's it, it's just a picture of a little more of the brain than cargoes, cargoes, and microtubules.

More performance is needed in some types of concerts to have a large enough effect that this orchestrated reduction can take place. Thank you. Hello everyone, yes, thanks for being here, it's always hard to follow Roger, he's a hard act to follow. I'm going to talk about the neurobiology of Kawar's theory that he mentioned and what you see behind the image is a neuron with immunofluorescence staining to show the cytoskeleton and the surfaces with a black border which is the membrane, you can see the nucleus in blue and then yellow is immunofluorescence representing tubulin, the component of microtubules, and red is actin, so the neuron is not a bag of water. in fact, it is highly structured internally with the cytoskeleton, including microtubules, now modern science, neuroscience, AI and therefore the brain is generally thought of as a neuronal synaptic computer, so on the left You see a group of neurons interconnected by synapses, on the right you see a computer. matrix with nodes and that's generally how you think in the brain and everything is based on the HUD.

Can Huxley integrate and fire neurons discovered or described in the 1950s by Hodgkin-Huxley and here you see the cell body and dendrites that receive information from synapses and transmit information signals across the membrane surface using channels ions entering and leaving the membrane transmit a signal up to a threshold when the threshold is reached here in the axon hillock or in the axon initiation segments, then an all or nothing action potential is transported to the next cell, so the idea of ​​integrate and fire integrates in the dendrites and soma up to a threshold to fire to the next neuron and most neuroscientists and AI people equate firing with bits and like a digital computer and that's right as you look at the brain, I don't think it's correct, so integrate and fire now hodgkin-huxley predicted are predicted by hodgkin-huxley would be shown on the left where you have integration here with a very narrow threshold when it is met there is a peak and the peak it's angled and I'll explain it in a second so you see that it has a narrow temporal and voltage threshold and the idea is that the ion channels open sequentially, that's why it has the slope.

This is the predicted Hodgkin-Huxley integration and fire behavior, however, if you place electrodes on the pyramidal neurons of an awake animal as Dorf and Wolf did in 2006, what you see is a very wide threshold variability from the peak : peak one, one peak will surely reach a threshold, the next may be higher or lower and this is shown by wide temporal variability and wide voltage variability and this is precisely where consciousness could come in to regulate behavior , otherwise everything is deterministic and there is no place for free, well, not to mention consciousness, so I have shown this. like Bing Bing, not after Roger Bingham, but it is intended for my consciousness and you can see that it correlates with wide variability and this could come from a deeper level and a deeper level, something like deep learning networks in AI and deeper depth. level in the neuron where it could be well, it could come from the microtubules in the dendrites which, as you see here, are single, broken and interrupted and not continuous and they are of mixed polarity, one points in one direction and the other next to it points the other way, so there are networks of mixed polarity and we think that is important, while in the axon, for example, and in all other non-neuronal cells, the microtubules are continuous and uninterrupted and go from the cellular center to the periphery, so it's curious why. the microtubules and dendrites are disrupted and of mixed polarity, obviously as part of the cytoskeleton you wouldn't break your bones for skeletal support so there has to be some other reason, so the question is does this consciousness occur in the synapse or at the synapse. the membrane, as most people think, or it comes from the microtubules, as we think, as I think, this could also be, as I said, a deep learning convolutional network.

Now microtubules are very interesting and important, they do many things. James mentioned mitosis. but in a neuron here is a cell body here is the axon going down here and for synaptic plasticity to adjust a synapse that can be here or here the materials are synthesized in the cell body and transported along the dendrite by these proteins kinesin and dynein motors that might transport materials and then have to jump from microtubule to microtubule and then turn left or right at the branching points and have to know where to get off to deliver their cargo. They need some kind of FedEx code and it looks like Tao, an associated microtubule.

The Tao protein, which is well known for other reasons, has limited specific locations on the microtubules that are the traffic signals, say, get out of here and bring your dopamine decarboxylase or whatever to this synapse because that's where it's needed and then Tao. may be a sign that placing a towel on microtubules may be a coding mechanism for memory and synaptic plasticity. Now too, when the microtubules break down or the towel falls off, we get Alzheimer's disease. Everyone knows about amyloid plaques, but it seems that cognitive dysfunction is correlated. better with the loss of microtubules and tau and these neurofibrillary neurofibrillary tangles, which is when the tau accumulates in the corners of the selma microtubules, it disassembles, the synapses are lost, the whole neuron wrinkles, it wrinkles throughout the brain , atrophies and shrinks, so the microtubules are treated.

I think it's a more promising approach for Alzheimer's, but the microtubules themselves suggest that they may encode memory and this is something that caught my attention when I first learned about them in medical school in the early 1970s. , in a cancer lab studying mitosis and the structure of microtubules is a cylindrical polymer of tubulin, this peanut-shaped protein is shown here in two states and the idea occurred to me that they might be processing information like a computer . I was learning about computers in the early '70s and it occurred to me that treatments could change their conformation. shape to represent information because of the dipoles within them and working with physicists and engineers I did some studies comparing them to, for example, the game of life, a cellular automaton game shown here, a very simple game with a grid and I applied an orthogonal grid of value and I applied I linked them to the hexagonal cylindrical network of microtubules and I showed that they could actually process information and that they were quite good with interesting properties because of the cylindrical envelope, so I published several papers in the 80s and early 90s and later on classical music. information processing and microtubules, you can see here a sequence of one of our information models moving through them and then in the next two, partnering with Roger a bunch of papers from the mid-90s on quantum computing in microtubules, so that one thing is that what we do is greatly increase the information processing capacity in the brain, for example, the standard AI singularity is approaching one hundred billion neurons, one thousand synapses per neuron, about one hundred hertz, ten to sixteen operations per second per brain, Kurtzweil said that many times they give us a computer with ten to sixteenth operations per second and we will have brain equivalents and therefore consciousness.

Well, that hasn't happened and it would be much more difficult, of course, if we consider the calculation of microtubules where one tubulin state is equal to one bit where you have 100 billion neurons, a billion tubulin-stimulating neurons and about ten to the seventh hertz, ten megahertz because that is our frequency, one of the oscillation frequencies of the tubulin microtubules, this gives 10 to 16 operations per second neuron, the equivalent of the entire brain. at the level of neurons and 10 to 27 operations per second per brain, but it didn't explain consciousness, it's just more computing when someone confronted me when I was being unpleasant in an AI meeting and said, "You know you missed the point. objective and they said: okay, if let's say it's happening, how would that explain consciousness?

How would that explain love, joy, feelings, emotions, the so-called difficult problem that came up later and I didn't know it was there? a little dazed and I realized that something else was necessary and, fortunately, this person suggested that I read Rogers' book, The Emperor's New Mind, which I did around 1991. I stayed aunimpressed and he said he needed a quantum computer in the brain and he didn't know anything about it. one and I wrote to him and said, well, microtubules may be what you need and we got together and this is us and some other people, including Dave Chalmers on the far left in the Grand Canyon after the first Tucson conference on the science of consciousness in 1994. and we started to develop our theory, now the first problem was that everyone said no way, because if you want to build a quantum computer in the laboratory you need a temperature of absolute zero to avoid thermal decoherence and brain is too hot at 37.6 degrees so we were treated with skepticism to say the least, however around 2006 it was discovered that plants use quantum coherence and photosynthesis to produce energy and food via superposition outputs that are propagate between these aromatic groups in this light harvesting complex, the FMO protein, which is called and has been. is clearly shown and it turns out that the arrangement of these aromatic groups is very similar to the aromatic groups in tubulin and I will return to that point, so basically what we wanted to do is take the spatio-temporal qubit that Roger had described where the position of a particle, the position of a particle is equated to its curvature in space-time and a superposition would be the separation of those curvatures and you can imagine that if these curvatures continued without collapsing, each one would form its own University and you would get multiple multiple worlds and us, but we wanted to equate that, of course, that doesn't happen because of objective reduction or at least we don't think so and we wanted to equate that with a qubit, a quantum bit in tubulin, now a quantum bit in quantum. computer means that the information could be not just one or zero but one and zero overlap and then collapse into one of the others as a solution, so we needed a qubit in the brain and specifically based on the tubulin pathway, it's not just Individually we initially said each tubulin was a qubit, but this allows it to avoid decoherence because the cube tip pathway corrects errors, so the task before us in developing a theory was to define the quantum bits or qubits in microtubules. and I just showed you that with the route. and apply a bar sub G equal to H over T that Roger mentioned to microtubules to quantify o Co our conscious moments and we also wanted to test the sensitivity of quantum microtubules. processes up to anesthesia that would presumably attenuate the quantum and psychedelic processes that might be expected that would improve the quantum process in some way and show how o kawar can explain the EEG and other correlates of consciousness, so the basic idea was that we would have one microtubule, many microtubules, but here is one shown with the gray overlay evolving to reaching the threshold at a time T and having a conscious moment, a conscious now and Bing, which was due to a process that was occurring in the underlying space-time geometry, is not necessarily the space-time geometry out there. is the spacetime geometry here where the microtubules are, so we want to know if sufficient orchestrated overlap occurs at time T between any of the many entangled microtubules and the orchestration, the idea is that, as Roger said, the protoconscious moments that occur in the atmosphere randomly and ubiquitously all the time, which seems strange until you compare it to the pants psyche, which is even stranger because it is a preparation, it is a permanent state, whereas this would be a process , a sequence of events, but we wanted to orchestrate it and a metaphor I use is proto-consciousness: the moments of proto-consciousness that Roger described are like if you go to the symphony and the musicians are warming up and everyone is tuning their instrument and you hear these random sounds . notes and it's noise it's a cacophony what we wanted with some system that organized all this and orchestrated it into something more like music in terms of consciousness having a rich and complete experience so how many tubulins did we need?

That depends on time and that is the moment at which the collapse will occur, but first we had to decide how we were going to get a sub G out of the microtubules, was the whole protein separated from itself, was it at the level of the nuclei? atomic or it was the level of nucleons, protons and neutrons, so we did the equation, we did the calculations, actually Roger gave me the formula and I was very interested. I'm trying to get back to algebra and mathematics and we calculated them and found that the dominant effect would be if overlap occurred. at the level of the atomic nuclei and for that and forty Hertz and we chose a time T of 25 milliseconds for 40 Hertz calculating that that is the best neural correlate of consciousness, we want to have a conscious moment 25 times per second, so it turned out to be approximately 2 times 10 to the tenth tubulin, which is not much if there are a billion turbulences per neuron, only about 20 of all of them are used plus 25 milliseconds is a long time to avoid decoherence, so later when the structure of tubulin became known in 2009 2010 we renewed the theory and considered shorter time intervals, the T with Y sub G much larger, therefore faster frequencies that could give rise to interference rates of interest for slower processes because cognition and consciousness occur in hundreds of milliseconds in the moment or specious epochs or whatever.

The paradigm you want to use or the EEG tends towards a thousand milliseconds so we have to take into account slower events and we can achieve this by interference rates, like in music if you have two instruments slightly out of tune they will have interference rhythms at a rate much older. slower frequency now, fortunately, our cause was strengthened by the discovery of anirban Banja patty. I'll show you the data in a second, but in the background of quantum coherence and microtubules at terahertz, gigahertz, megahertz and kilohertz frequencies, Honor Bond examined microtubules with quantum nanotechnology and looked for quantum resonances at the level of neurons with these nanoprobes at level of an individual microtubule at the level of turbulence and he found us and swept the frequency stimulated with AC alternating current and swept the frequency and then measured the conductance and he discovered that at certain specific frequencies the microtubules became highly conductive between those frequencies, it was a good insulator, so he plotted those resonant frequencies here and found these self-similar patterns that he calls triplet triplets or octaves in the range of terahertz gigahertz megahertz of turbulence and then gigahertz, megahertz and kilohertz of the microtubules and then megahertz, kilohertz and hertz of entire neurons, so this is like a multiscale hierarchy, almost like music, and it led to this general idea of ​​a multiscale hierarchy where we start from the neuron.

Now most neuroscientists would follow this path to larger networks of Miron microtubes and brain regions, etc., and that's still valid, but we also want to go down to microtubules, tubulin rows, and individual dipoles, and eventually , descend. to the geometry of space-time as Roger showed it had much smaller scales and here are the similar patterns of cells seen in a terahertz gigahertz megahertz kilohertz and hertz and anesthesia seems to work here in the terahertz range. I'll come back to that point, so we wanted to test the sensitivity of the microtubule quantum process to anesthesia and also to psychedelics and also show how orko works and account for the EEG, so, in my opinion, the easiest way to test from the model of consciousness is how it responds to anesthesia and during the 19th century a group A series of gases were discovered that when inhaled in low concentrations caused euphoria, so these are games with ether, guys who smelled ether and they would get high and dizzy and dance and also laughing gas, nitrous oxide was very popular, but when you go to a higher concentration, these are low concentrations. higher concentration makes humans and animals unresponsive and unconscious, the blank slide was actually supposed to be another slide there, but it doesn't matter, later studies showed that anesthetic gases prevented unconscious brain activity, so which kana anesthesia is quite selective just to inhibit.

Consciousness Nonconscious Activity Evoked Potentials We use evoked potentials under anesthesia to monitor the integrity of the spinal cord, etc., so the brain is still active under anesthesia. The only thing that really disappeared is consciousness. Also, the gases they had, the anesthetic gases had different potencies and required making the subjects unresponsive, but for each gas the potency of any animal studied was the same at equilibrium, it would take the same amount of any anesthetic to put us to sleep. to you or me, an Anna, a giraffe, an elephant, a fruit fly, a salamander, all have more or less the same Mack requires minimal alveolar concentration, that is still quite surprising that consciousness and anesthesia coincide so well to apply equally to all organisms now anesthetic gases are structurally very different, they include ethers, halogenated hydrocarbon carbons, the inert gas xenon shown here.

They are chemically very different, but have a common feature in the polar region shown in gray: they are filled electron orbitals that have no charge but are nonpolar, like oil, and this suggests a solubility region where anesthetics could bind. At the beginning of the 20th century, scientists searched for a common factor that correlated with the potency known as one over Mac one over the minimum alveolar concentration and searched for the appropriate solubility phase in which anesthetics dissolve and bind in the body. I must say that the anesthetic gases of anesthesia. They are bound together by very weak quantum forces called van der waals London forces, which are found and bound in all the fat deposits, lipid membranes throughout the body, they often tell my residents that there is more anesthetic in the butt of the patient than in his. brain, but the anesthetic still works in the brain, so why doesn't it affect anything except consciousness?

And I think that's because quantum forces only perturb systems that have highly organized and orchestrated quantum activities, and that's what I think microtubules do. Meyer and Overton in In the early 20th century, a number of gases were examined for their anesthetic potency in a wide variety of animals and olive oil was found to be the perfect solvent to correlate with potency, so the concentration minimum alveolar or Mac, the lower you go, the more powerful the anesthetic, the most powerful anesthetic is methoxyfluorine at 0.25% and nitrogen is an anesthetic at 50 or 60 atmospheres, so down here is where the clinically relevant anesthetics and now there are also a couple of outliers and Meyer's Overton.

These two non-causing TFM gases B and f6 bind in the same place but do not cause anesthesia, so a good theory should explain why they do not, but first the solubility phases of the body can be shown here and as they keep it up. In this direction you can become more polar and this is non-polar so this is oil and this is water and as you know oil and water don't mix so what they discovered was that the anesthetic action occurred and therefore consciousness occurred in the highly nonpolar regions. olive oil-like regions that correlate with dimethylbenzene, methylbenzene, and benzene, which are basically organic chemistry.

In the 17th century it was known that heck hydrogen and carbon hydrocarbons could be in two different forms, cnh2n plus 2 or CN 2 n, depending on whether there was a double bond or not, but then they had c6h6 and they didn't know what it was, no They knew what the structure was and then the Dutch chemists at Keckley had a dream in which these hydrocarbons were like snakes and one of them swallowed its tail and formed a ring and this is also known as hora boris and then they had the idea that he walked but he said ah benzene is a ring structure and indeed he is right the six carbons form this hexagon there are three additional electrons and it is often shown as this if this figure here of a hexagon with three additional bonds now what happens is that the electrons in the PI orbitals merge in these rings or pi cloud electron cloud that covers the entire molecule this is a cloud of delocalized electrons, therefore conducive to quantum effects including electric magnetic dipole oscillations output in charge transfer phonons fluorescence and so on, this is where quantum things can happen regardless of temperature now these benzene rings or phenyl rings will attract each other by van der Waals forces because this electron cloud dipole here repelsthis and then oscillate from ten to twelve hertz, then they can form a quantum superposition, which gives terahertz oscillations and the PI residence groups are also significant in terms of effects on consciousness because the neurotransmitters dopamine and serotonin, the pleasure molecule and the mood molecule, as well as all psychedelics, LSD, DMT and chairs.

I had these very large PI residence groups, so something is happening here with consciousness and pi resonance, so the basic idea about anesthesia is that the oscillations of some pi resonance groups in the brain go. When you are conscious, anesthesia enters and through dipolar dispersion dampens the oscillations and causes loss of consciousness. The question is in which part of the brain. Where in the brain it just happened. Anesthetics were initially thought to bind lipids due to their fat solubility, but. It turns out that they act directly on proteins and these guys, Nick Franks and Beliebe, discovered in the 1980s that they can act directly on the inside of proteins and on the non-polar regions that have these aromatic rings.

They call them hydrophobic pockets composed of pi resonance rings composed of amino acids phenylalanine tyrosine and tryptophan, so it was assumed that acai acts exactly on membrane receptors and ion channels, but after about 20 years of study it could not be found no sense about anesthetic effects on membrane proteins, gaba receptors, serotonin receptors, glycine, acetylcholine, they all come together. anesthetics, but one opens them, another anesthetic closes the channel, some do not bind to all channels, so there is no unitary effect, so the membrane proteins, despite their obvious candidacy, since they are responsible for the excitability of the membranes, they are not the site of action of anesthetics.

It seems that Eken Hoff's group did a series of studies to look systemically and found, for example, 70 proteins in the neuron that bind and bind anesthesia and aesthetics, about half in the membrane, half in the cytoplasm and making proteomics and genomics. They pointed to tubulin on microtubules as the most likely site for these other proteins as well, but they are not in any signaling pathway. They also did a study on tadpoles where they used this fluorescent anesthetic anthracene that is only anesthetic when illuminated with ultraviolet light. we let these marked tadpoles swim and then, since tadpoles have conveniently transparent heads, we shined ultraviolet light on them and they stayed on their back and were the size of a nest and when they crushed their brains after the tadpoles donated them to science , they found that anthracene was about to convert tubulin into microtubules, so in this study that I will briefly mention, Travis Craddock, his colleagues and I modeled the 80, so the tubulin shown here has 86 aromatic amino acids, tryptophan , phenylalanine and tyrosine, and here are also the anesthetic molecules. where they join and we simulate quantum dipole couplings between the 86 and we find a spectrum in KT at room temperature, a spectrum of collective dipole oscillations with a common mode peak at about 600 13 terahertz in the blue-green region of the spectrum.

Alvie and then we added anesthetics and all the anesthetics abolished the 613 terahertz peak and damped all frequencies proportional to the anesthetic power. The non-anesthetic gases I mentioned, which bind in the same place but do not cause unconsciousness, did not alter the terahertz spectrum, so microtubule terahertz oscillations are an intraneural correlate of consciousness, so the nine anesthetics had no such effects. Why didn't we look at the polarization of all Annis of all anesthetics and non-anesthetics and find that all nine anesthetics had higher levels? polarizability so we think the bound anesthetics disperse the dipoles, while the non-anaesthetics are so highly polarizable that they accompany the journey and oscillate together with the system, so that is our explanation of why the non-anaesthetics have no anesthetic efficacy despite being at the same time.

Same time. place, so here's the blue-green region of the spectrum where it occurs in turbulence and just a couple of comments here that these resonance rings pi stacks PI remember there are 86 of them in tubulin and at a certain number of angles there are only two stable angles a T shape and a displaced parallel and it could be that these positions correlate with the qualia with feelings. This is obviously a joke, but the qualia and the feelings have to come from somewhere and it could be that there is an overlap and then these positions and then it collapses into a T shape, that's a bad feeling and if parallel displacement is a good feeling, obviously it's speculation but the quality has to come from somewhere so we have 86 of these in tubulin so maybe this is where the quality is. and it could be something like 86 possible factorial feelings coming from a tubulin and then you have a lot of them in the brain, so this is a possibility, but which would involve a collapse or an orchestrated objective reduction and an objective reduction to these configurations particulars, so here it is The general scheme again is that we have a multi-scale hierarchy and consciousness or Orca works and occurs and terahertz is slower and moves perhaps even like music and possibly extends up to the geometry of the scale of Planck, finally I want to mention that we have just concluded. a meeting in Tucson Roger came from Oxford to say that the Templeton Foundation The Templeton World charitable foundation has a project that accelerates research into consciousness by promoting what they call adversarial collaboration between theories, so we were named one of the top six theories and we were able to choose one. from the others, so I chose the integrated information theory of Giulio Tononi and Christof Koch, which is probably the most well-known theory.

They're very well-known neuroscientists and they have this information theory embedded with this parameter called Phi, which is a measurement. of integration and cause effect, so I designed a bunch of experiments that were supposed to distinguish between our theory and theirs, and one of them was to show quantum vibrations and microtubules, then use anesthesia and see if it's moistened, see if the corner of the vibrations are damped and then different anesthetics are applied and their potency is compared, so if one anesthetic is twice as powerful for sleeping, you should need it compared to another, you should need half as much to dampen the quantum oscillations and vibrations and Christophe. he said he didn't believe in it and I said that would falsify the IIT.

He said no, they wouldn't because IIT can apply to quantum vibrations in microtubules or v can apply 200 vibrations in microtubules, which means it's pretty vague and not very nonspecific. and comply with almost anything in Scott Aaronson pointed out that you could apply a thermostat to be conscious, so we'll see how it goes, we're going to propose these experiments and the loser is supposedly eliminated and the winner goes on to face another. The theory is kind of like the NFL playoffs, so some new things that came up were Urbana Bandopadhyay magnetic vortices where microtubules generate these magnetic vortices that can interact with others to form something like a hologram.

We now have evidence that Horatio can see that in yellow. Microtubules oscillate at 40 Hertz, which could be the origin of the EEG. AG has been around for a hundred years, but we don't really know its origin or meaning and why we have these frequency bands and we think they come as Mike's B frequencies from microtubules. Inside we are designing experiments for quantum vibrations and microtubules and mixed polarity networks and dendrites are proving to be very important so we will look at them more closely, so in conclusion, quantum vibrations in microtubules support the theory of the Orca that Roger and Developed by EC sub J is equal to H over T, are testable and could be therapeutic targets for mental and cognitive disorders.

Several things came up at the meeting that suggest that aspects of microtubules in brain neurons correlate with various disease states and other people are trying to use ultrasound in the brain to resonate microtubules to treat Alzheimer's and brain trauma, etc., the Anesthetics prevent consciousness by dampening terahertz quantum vibrations and microtubules within neurons, and psychedelics can enhance such vibrations. We hope to test that in the template project as well and eventually cortical. Layer 5 pyramidal neurons are probably the best bet site for consciousness, not to say it can't be in other neurons. These are large pairs, they take large pyramid-shaped arrays of mixed polarity networks into account and they can represent EEG and I mentioned that.

There are no pyramidal cells in the cerebellum because one of the big claims of the IIT is that Phi is very low in the cerebellum and the cerebellum has more neurons and cortex, but it is not conscious and I think it is more explained simply by the fact that it does not it does. I don't have pyramidal cells and finally let me mention that we have a conference in Tucson every two years on the science of consciousness that has been going on since 1994. The next one is coming up in April and you can look for it or let us know.

I will send you information about it. It's going to be very interesting. Thank you so much. Well, this has gone on longer than we expected, so I think what I'll do is reduce my comments to zero and function as a microphone. Bearer and if you have any questions, I'll tell you what: there's a new book by Joe LeDoux, who's a very good scientist at New York University, and he has a table in there that lists the contemporary physicalist theories of consciousness books. that are available right now and that there are books by Michael Graziano and we will tour by Mike Posner Danny Schechter Giulio Tononi Jerry of course the old man on the block Christ Christophe coax Ned by Jerry Edelman has something out there, any bar puts something out so that Consciousness is an enormously important feeling right now, but even in this case, the only thing I want to ask you is that even when I go back and look at those New York Review of Books articles that you used to write a long time ago, even then you were saying that my personal belief is that the resolution of these puzzles can never be achieved within the theory as quantum theory stands; we must search for a new fear with mathematical elegance even greater than that of current quantum mechanics to which quantum theory can only be an excellent approximation.

We were looking at John Bell. At this point, you're looking at all those other types of things, etc., and most recently, you told Steve Paulson, who asked you some questions about the state of quantum mechanics. Quantum physics at this point what I'm saying and this is my imagination of Leap that people are amazed. I'm saying that what's happening in the brain should take value not just from quantum mechanics, but where it goes wrong is where quantum mechanics needs to be replaced Paulson said we need a new science that doesn't exist yet and you said that's exactly like that, so where are we going?

Two of them are currently being experimented with to test whether quantum state reduction can occur. at the level that we anticipated and those experiments, first of all I mentioned the Baumeister experiment, also experiments using bosons and Bose-einstein concert condensates, which is an idea because of the event for In Tase Shoes in Nottingham, she is in Nottingham, yes, and I think they are My opinion is very promising: the effect of gravitation in quantum mechanics, put that way, is something that is just around the corner in the next few years. I hope to see experiments that could well demonstrate this.

Many people talk about quantum gravity, but that is the other way around, they are looking for quantum mechanics, the effects of gravity and that is very out of place. I don't expect to see any such experiments, but that's not the way I think is useful for progress, for the moment I'm just abandoning any Numerous scientists in the audience, but yeah, okay, so this for Dr. Hameroff really is related to the marker tubules, could the effects you're talking about on the outside of the pyramidal cells, like in the peripheral nervous system, the peripheral nervous system, maybe in other parts of the brain, it can probably occur anywhere, as Roger said, proto-consciousness can occur anywhere.

Pyramidal cells are ideal because you have mixed polarity microtubules and you have them in these very large pyramidal arrays. Can consciousness be somewhere else? Yes I could, but if I had to bet on a particular type of cell, it would be that one, there is one that is very ignored. class of aromatic compounds in our biology that the fact that their aromatic is often ignored and those are the guanine nucleotides in the scenes that look like I mean and also you and people are so used tolooking at what these little locks and keys are like that they forget that they have very complex aromatic structures and resonances that are probably too complex for anyone to calculate, which I think is why they are ignored.

Have you done any work looking at these stacked aromatics a bit? You're talking about the PI. stack inside, yeah, so if you go down, you just go through all these aromatic pi rings. In fact, in a chapter around 2007 I had an appendix on quantum computing and DNA based on these based on the PI stack and the temple meeting we just attended, I need to do well, the MIT nanobiologists and Harvard who have been doing a lot of work on nanotechnology to make these little motors that run along DNA are very interested in the quantum aspects of DNA, so it's a big area and you know I'll stick to microtubules, but I think it's an area where I basically believe that life is a quantum process, even though you know you can't, you can't do it, it can be temperatures of attention. for a quantum computer, if you go into the non-polar regions in the PI stack that you just mentioned, into the regions inside the proteins, particularly the microtubules, because if the wine pi regions connect together, you spiral and you get a macroscopic quantum state. extending the length of the microtubule, and in fact, Jack Jasinski, Travis Craddock, and I wrote a paper about the fact that what we call the quantum subsurface are these nonpolar regions within nucleic acids, lipids, and proteins, which are pretty much all the types of biomolecules that we know.

Within all of these there are regions that could support the quantum and could become entangled with everything so that life could become a quantum system. Sorry, oh, I don't think I have anything else to say. No, hello, I have a question. regarding the non-computability of consciousness, it seems to touch on the fact that there are non-computable mathematical statements, which is fair and proven. I don't quite see the logical leap for you to go from that point to understanding mathematics as something non-computable. computable entity, can you elaborate further on that logical step you take? Well, it really goes back to the waist theorem which tells us that I understand, I mean the way I read it and I don't see anything wrong with this, it's the way we understand mathematics. is not a computational process and that was the argument I was trying to make if I didn't make it clear enough then I didn't certainly the point is that we see from the waist theorem and similar things that our position of mathematics is not following rules and because the following rules are always subject to theorems of that nature and therefore, since we can understand truths that are not part of following those rules, how do we do it well?

We do it with an understanding that is the argument, an understanding, therefore the argument is not following the rules, so it is not an algorithmic process. I know a lot of people argue about this and the point I was trying to make with my caricature of our ancestors was that okay, some. People say it's a very complicated algorithm, but how do we know which girl's fingers and so on? Sure, but the argument I tried to make there is that no algorithm could arise in my natural selection where the selection has nothing to do with sophisticated mathematics, how does that algorithm deal with the sophisticated mathematics that it seems to be able to do and that's a mystery if it is just algorithmic?

I mean, that's the argument if it's not clear. I apologize. I also say that knowing how to understand is a feeling. This is how I see myself. Roger agrees with that, but if you once know something, you understand it, it's a feeling and that's consciousness and that's quality and that's something that's not in conventional neuroscience. My question is what explains the unity of consciousness in the quantum view of microtubules. how the not separated in space across the brain managed to unify to create a holistic conscious experience and also what explains the parts of the brain, even if you look at layer five of the cortex, even if we were just focusing on that question, what explains the parts of that that are not conscious and that are not part of our qualia, like low-level visual processing, for example, well, your first question, what does the unit represent?

I think it's a quantum effect, it's quantum coherence and entanglement, and initially we were worried about quantum coherence. entanglement between neurons that jump the synapse in the membrane, but in Urbana they have actually demonstrated quantum coherence between neurons and we had postulated gap junctions that quantum parents could tunnel through, but you probably don't need it based on their findings, but it is absolutely necessary and it's a much bigger problem for classical approaches because, as you probably know, if you see a visual object, the shape, color, motion, and meaning processed in different parts of the visual cortex go back and forth at different times. and yet, if you look up in the sky and see something triangular and red spinning around, it's a kite, you know it immediately, you don't see the shape, you don't see the shape. you see the color, you know the meaning, you know what it is instantly, so there must be not only spatial intertwining happening, but temporal intertwining due to the different times, and there is a whole long history about the Temple Mount locality going back to experiments with lipids and many others. experiments, then I would say it is entanglement and entanglement coherence that can include space and time.

I think crashes. I mean, my view would be that consciousness is not specifically located in one place or another, it depends on what you are thinking, so it can be localized. in one place by another and you shouldn't think about that, since you know that individual microtubules are something that exceeds the individual and that's okay, there are other aspects too, so certain parts of the brain don't seem to be conscious at all, like like the cerebellum, which has a lot more neurons than the brain, so it's not just a question of neurons and what they're doing and how many calculations they do for hours and all that kind of stuff, it really depends on the structures and Stewart has the idea that these pyramidal cells that have the special characters of nonpolar microtubules may be really important parts, but they are not located in a particular place, so if one's awareness for something in particular may be that the activity is more there or whenever it is the other place, but it is not something that is localized in one region, that is the opinion I have and that relates to your second question about whether it is just the non-pyramidal cells, so I think that at any given time not all of the pyramidal cells are involved and that consciousness, as Roger said, can literally move around the brain and one of the key points of integrated information theory is that they claim that consciousness can only be in the back of the brain and there in another competition. with a global neural workspace where it's supposed to be in the front of the brain and they're spending five million dollars on a bunch of MRIs to decide whether consciousness is in the front or the back and I think it depends on the context in the one that can be the front sometimes the back sometimes it can be a mixture it can be a turbulence here some turbulence there some microtubules here that I'll get tangled because for something particular in its state and that's how you get a conscious moment in any moment say thank you say I'm here thank you for the talk I had a kind of two part question that's related so first of all you were able to demonstrate well or conjecture that the quantum chemistry of quantum effects would change brain chemistry and it would be related to all kinds of molecules, but I couldn't understand how they would come together to realize consciousness and also, related to the previous question, consciousness would have to be an emergent phenomenon based on all of the interactions that take place in the brain, so why Should we focus on the underlying elements, but rather look at how the emotions might occur and how do you think they might occur?

You're putting words in our mouths. I don't think any of us have mentioned the word emergence and therefore non-linear dynamics. You know a lot of people have said that consciousness emerges at some magical point and they say magical at some threshold at some critical threshold because of the spontaneous activity of axons firing or dendritic or whatever you want. getting a critical level of something into emergent consciousness we are saying the opposite, we are saying that consciousness is actually a fundamental property that reaches down to the structure of the universe accessed through quantum activities in microtubules, so we are not emergentists in absolute and it is not that consciousness affects the chemistry that consciousness then performs consciousness is consciousness affects neuronal activity to then fire an axon to move your hand or say a word so that consciousness you know that Christophe has the idea that that The consciousness is there and the peaks are in the firing and I think it is in the dendrites at the end of the integration, they have the integrated information theory and I think it is the integration, but it is in the dendrites and when you reach the threshold or you collapse kawar also select tubulin states microtubule states that will activate axon firing and that enact behavior, so consciousness is fundamental and that leads to it being non-emergent, it's a question here, but consciousness exists in all brains, I mean, it is in the notion of hyperbrain if more than you know, there is a brain when intertwined, that would be something called totally different and what the theory explains it.

I don't think so. If you want to know non-locality, something like parapsychology or anything in that area, you definitely need a quantum mechanism, no. We're not claiming that we have enough things to worry about based on our claims, but I will say that if you believe in parapsychology or precognition or anything else, quantum effects are a must because you don't have locality, but whether they exist or not is another question, no. Hi, sorry, I guess it's a question for you two and a bit of a personal question. I suppose many people alive today and throughout history would say that consciousness is something that science cannot explain.

Like we're trying to put this mechanistic point of view on it and I'm wondering what it would take for any of you to accept or believe that consciousness will not be explained by science, do you think it's inevitable that it will be explained by science? science, whether we work hard enough or it's an open question, it certainly has a lot to do with Stuart's work as an anesthesiologist who clearly deactivates consciousness with particular gases and, after all, these are substances, I mean, it's very difficult to see that . it's certainly not heavily influenced by science and physical processes etc., and that is obviously the case, so taking the view that it is something independent of science is a very difficult view for me to see.

I mean, maybe I'm trying to argue that current science is not enough to accommodate consciousness within it, but I'm not trying to say that science as a whole will ever be able to do so. Of course, you can say it's a face just as much as you'd be afraid to say it's a car. explained by science, but I'd like to think science I don't see any reason why it's beyond science, you can certainly turn it off like Stewart does when he does his anesthesia, you can turn it back on, it's part of the job. also that's why we build these are clearly connected to physical processes, we may not understand them all very deeply, we think we do much better than before and I just don't see why there should be a limit, it's a very different thing.

I certainly agree that there is something very different between consciousness and unconscious processes. What if I say simply because it is very different to say that it cannot be explained by science? It seems like a bold and meandering step to me. Well, that's certainly an opinion that people I think held much longer in ancient times than they did. Actually, you have two questions, if I may, and please accept my apologies in advance if my questions seem to be the direct consequence of my misunderstanding of your ideas, so my first question is how can I explain experiments in which you know humans who have damage to their brain in particular areas where some alteration in a critical part of the brain actually causes an alteration and areas of consciousness like fruit unius and so on, so that's the first question and the second question is how Is it that you really seem to be suggesting that, because of the physical quality of consciousness, you should basically expect to see this?

You should expect a similar quality of consciousness in different species, for example, because they are all built from the same building blocks and if you are conscious at this level, that means you know that a human baby is conscious at the same level, no matter what. your brain has not developed because you still have the samemicrotubules, etc., and mice should have the same level of consciousness. and so on and any other part of this universe that possesses such vibrations that you spoke of. I don't think we ever said it was the same level of consciousness and in my opinion there can be very different levels of consciousness even in a single individual if I'm asleep and dreaming then I have a degree of consciousness but I don't think it's true.

It seems nothing like the degree I possess when I am awake, and, likewise, I do not believe that a mouse is likely to have so great a degree. of consciousness like a normal human being, so why do we have a different level or quality of consciousness when we sleep than when we are awake? I think there is a lot to explain there and we don't do it. I know, but I don't see why you expect them to be on the same level. I mean, the expectation would be that they are very different levels. Sorry, yes, but you could have more blocks than cake.

I mean, you know, a brick is the same as a brick. I mean, there are different types of bricks, but now we're going to say, let me answer your first question now: why specific injuries can cause unconsciousness, for example, If you have a thalamic stroke, you suffer from locked-in syndrome. so you have to be careful about saying they are not conscious, they could be conscious but they can't communicate and it also depends on when the injury occurs, for example there are many cases of people who, in adulthood, have discovered that they have massive hydrocephalus and yet, It's perfectly normal, there was a famous case of someone in Oxford or somewhere, they were a very good student and they had a CT scan or an MRI and the brain was almost all fluid with a very thin cortical mantle and the difference is that if that happens it is the baby and it does not cause other problems due to the increase in pressure that the neurons adapt thanks to the microtubules that grow and extend and make new synapses, so if it happens congenitally or early you can adapt and make new connections, whereas if it happens We are in an adult and then it is difficult because neurons do not divide, so microtubules can only make a limited amount, so first you have to be careful that injuries specifics are truly unconscious and not simply locked away, and it also depends on when the injury occurs.

I think we might have to answer one more question than that or I'll answer that one and then he'll be knocked out. Thank you, thank you for the excellent conference. My question is about congenital brain disorders. It is a different frequency. Have you come across experimentation and at that level, I guess it's the microtubules that have a certain frequency, yes, this actually goes back to the question about the levels of consciousness that a simple organism could have, whereas we have, let's say , 10 million conscious events or kawar per second in a simple organism because The sub G is much smaller, I only have a few per minute or a few per second, so they still have conscious moments, but at a much slower rate and no intensity, so it would be a lower intensity, a lower frequency, so there would be no It would be that they would be aware but not as aware as we are, thank you for this thought-provoking presentation and for the response rate of Theon.

I was wondering about condensed matter physics in the world, what experiments, if any, might promote this. These theories and there are many. If you know, I speculate about the resident phenomenon that happened. Oh, is there a correlation that helps explain any of this or is there experimental verification that would apply to this? Are we thinking about physics or are we about to deal with consciousness? condensed matter physics is ultra-low temperatures, how does that apply to this quantum level? I mean, in the brain it's not absolute temperature, right, yeah, sure, no, well, I mean, when superconductivity was first discovered, you had to have extremely low temperatures and it was thought to be a process that only It existed at very low temperatures and then superconductivity was discovered at high temperatures.

Well, not exactly at the level of the brain, but if you consider the entire scale of possible temperatures, it is much further, so I think that the more the more we discover, we find that the phenomena that we think can only exist in very simple systems or very cold, when the structure is, we don't always understand it very well, but we see events and circumstances under which these phenomena that seemed to exist only theoretically. At first, only very low temperatures play a role in much higher temperatures. I think I'm talking about experiments that required very low temperatures, but that's really the beginning of seeing that these phenomena are high and the current view of quantum mechanics if you look.

In this kind of thing, yes, what people think among physicists in general tend to think that there can be nothing wrong with quantum mechanics, it is such a wonderful theory that you don't expect to see violations of the kind I'm talking about. but the theory itself is inconsistent as I have tried to describe. I mean the evolution of the quantum state if the Schrodinger equation is somewhat inconsistent with what happens when the measurement is done and it is written this is crazy trying to understand that and people also try to apply quantum theory to circumstances that are extremely different of the very small things that we observe, for example, black holes, and people talk about the black hole information paradox, which is something that happens when you somehow destroy information in the black hole and yet it doesn't It is possible because a quantum system cannot destroy information, so this is considered a great paradox, but on the one hand we are facing something enormous. and to believe that the quantum mechanics we maintain today will extend to that level unchanged seems to be a huge assumption and particularly because there is this evidence in the very way we use quantum mechanics, the two processes that, as I proved, point to evolution quantum mechanics according to Schrodinger on the one hand and the process that appears to take place when measured when the wave function collapses on the other hand, and people have worried about this for decades and generally do not believe that quantum mechanics could be wrong because it works very well in circumstances where he works and explains many things that were not previously understood, but it is not the whole story and we need to look beyond the theory as we have it at the moment and no.

I don't think it will last in its current state. My prediction is that experiments will show that your quantum mechanics is not entirely correct. This will be a big step. I think that's probably a minority prediction, but it's certainly what I expect if I can comment on that. Question: There is a phenomenon called Froelich coherence. Herbert Froelich was a biophysicist in the '60s and '70s and he proposed that if you have biological molecules in a geometric matrix, and he specifically referred to membrane proteins in a membrane, they were constrained in a geometry. and they oscillated coherently due to the voltages on them oscillating coherently due to the ambient temperature of the heat bath, the surrounding heat pumped them and they oscillated coherently and this has been demonstrated in systems recently and I met Froelich in the 80's and I asked him if microtubules would also be good candidates and he didn't know about them, but when I explained them to him he also said yes and what are we talking about the lack of coherence between tubulins in a microtubule and a microtubule in a microtubule is a kind of coherence role .

I don't think your brother worked on something like that with Onsager. Well, it worked, he worked without a second. I'm not sure he works with liquid helium and stuff like that. that where you have very cold temperatures and you have behavior that certainly people thought we would only exist at very low temperatures and it sure is a challenge. I think this is one of the reasons people have problems with the point of view that Stewart and I have. I present it because it requires you to have quantum coherence at a very high level compared to what people would do in the laboratory, but the more I learn about biology and I am still very ignorant about it, the more I am struck by the extraordinary kind of effects that take place appear to depend on quantum effects, and of course we have a long way to go because, as discussed above, what we need are not just quantum effects in the brain, but beyond quantum effects.

To say that the consciousness we claim is tapping into something that quantum mechanics isn't quite right about, so it's a bold thing to say. I think we have good reasons to suggest such a thing, but I can also understand where there is a lot of opposition to that. From our point of view, we need quantum coherence to get to Rogers' new physics, so that's the first thing and when we started, people were skeptical and it was worse than that, but then in 2006 it was discovered that plants They had photosynthesis and it's much shorter, but it's a much shorter line of road. quantum effects of quantum effects quantum effects in plants, so if a potato can do it, our brains can probably do it well, so it was very kind of you to give us this discussion and thank you all for your patience, I was told.

To let you know that there is some food and drink outside on the terrace and thank you very much.