What is life?

[Dilip Panjwani]

The answer to the question depends heavily on how you define "sound." In physics, sound is typically defined as a wave of pressure variation that travels through a medium (like air or water). By this definition, the falling tree certainly does make a sound, regardless of whether any conscious being is around to perceive it.

However, if you define "sound" as a perceptual phenomenon -- something that occurs in the mind of a listener when these waves stimulate their auditory system -- then you could argue that no sound occurs if there's no listener.

So, the statement that "sound is a property of consciousness" aligns with this latter definition. Yet, it's worth noting that this is not the only possible definition, and it's not the one that's commonly used in physics. This illustrates how different disciplines can use the same word ("sound") to mean slightly different things.

Moreover, it's important to distinguish between philosophical discussions about perception and consciousness, and empirical questions about the physics of sound. The tree-falling question is a useful tool for exploring philosophical ideas, but it doesn't invalidate or challenge the physics of sound.

Agree absolutely!

[Sid Belzberg]

Have you heard the following question:
If a tree fell in a remote forest and there was no bird/animal nearby, was there sound created?

The correct answer is 'No', because sound is a property of consciousness...it does not exist in the material world...

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

The answer to the question depends heavily on how you define "sound." In physics, sound is typically defined as a wave of pressure variation that travels through a medium (like air or water). By this definition, the falling tree certainly does make a sound, regardless of whether any conscious being is around to perceive it.

However, if you define "sound" as a perceptual phenomenon -- something that occurs in the mind of a listener when these waves stimulate their auditory system -- then you could argue that no sound occurs if there's no listener.

So, the statement that "sound is a property of consciousness" aligns with this latter definition. Yet, it's worth noting that this is not the only possible definition, and it's not the one that's commonly used in physics. This illustrates how different disciplines can use the same word ("sound") to mean slightly different things.

Moreover, it's important to distinguish between philosophical discussions about perception and consciousness, and empirical questions about the physics of sound. The tree-falling question is a useful tool for exploring philosophical ideas, but it doesn't invalidate or challenge the physics of sound.

[Dilip Panjwani]

'Material' world is not derived from consciousness. While consciousness occurs because of events in the 'material' world, our consciousness distorts what the 'material' world really is; while there is only energy in the universe, that energy appears as 'particles' in our consciousness.

Have you heard the following question:
If a tree fell in a remote forest and there was no bird/animal nearby, was there sound created?

The correct answer is 'No', because sound is a property of consciousness...it does not exist in the material world...

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

[Sid Belzberg]

As per my understanding, the following diagram from the link in post no. 12 represents twisting of what physics really says:

1. 'Particles' do not occur because of observations. It is only their position which is uncertain till observation is made.

2. 'Material' world is not derived from consciousness. While consciousness occurs because of events in the 'material' world, our consciousness distorts what the 'material' world really is; while there is only energy in the universe, that energy appears as 'particles' in our consciousness.

3. Even though in theory, an individual's consciousness may get duplicated independent of the brain, as in the entangled state, it is initially created as a result of interaction between the 'material' world and the brain.

4. Consciousness getting attached to a 'new' brain would represent a gross mismatch, which could not work, as per current knowledge of neuroscience.

Your Statements 1 and 2 involve the Copehhegan interpretation of Quantum physics. At the same time, Debroglie's argument posits that particles' position and momentum can be described definitively via the pilot wave theory. However, both theories agree that the Schroedinger Wave function equation correctly describes the probability of the position and momentum of a particle.

Regarding statement 3 Quantum entanglement indeed led Dr. Bell to conclude that both models of Quantum are incomplete as they both imply that the theories violate Einsteins' special theory of relativity. Dr. Bell was hoping that Quantum entanglement could be explained by similar pre-programmed behaviors within a photon split in two giving rise to two entangled photon with "hidden variables" within the photons explaining similar behaviors at a distance. To Dr. Bells chagrin when he carried out experiments of entangled particles at a distance the randomess of events made it statistically impossible to explain this phenomenon by local hidden variables.

So yes, I agree that if assuming Quantum consciousness is correct, then indeed entanglement via the same way a photon divides into two entangled particles makes sense.
Dr. Tucker's theories are fascinating, and probably the most compelling evidence he ever came across was the case of James Leninger

James Leininger, from a young age, had detailed and consistent memories of being a World War II pilot who was shot down over Iwo Jima. He could name the aircraft carrier he took off from (the "Natoma") and his "previous" first and last name. When his parents researched these claims, they found out that there indeed was an aircraft carrier named the "USS Natoma Bay" involved in the Iwo Jima operation, and that a pilot named James Huston was killed there.

James also had nightmares of being shot down by the Japanese, knew details about WWII aircraft that were surprising for a child of his age, and was able to identify a fellow pilot from a group photo of people who served on the Natoma Bay, among other things.

Dr. Tucker's work is considered meticulous and serious.

Unlike the Orch OR theory, the EM wave shape theory gives rise to the possibility of life after death and more! Most of us wish to experience all-encompassing bliss at least after death, don't we? Some say that true bliss can also be experienced during meditation by suppression of most negativity creating brain activity, as is supposed to be also happening during orgasm (female orgasm is especially associated with calming down of 'other' brain activity...)

Orch-Or theory and EM Theory are not mutually exclusive, and indeed, the conclusion arising out of Orch-Or theory is that Quantum actions occur independently of the microtubules and therefore support the idea of Universal consciousness as per Dr. Penrose.

The apparent universality of certain patterns in nature can indeed be seen as a sign of underlying rules or principles. The laws of physics, for example, apply consistently across the universe as far as we can tell, and they dictate the behavior of everything from galaxies to atoms. This would be indicative of Universal consciousness as the explanation of things occurring at random is statistically a zero probability.

[Dilip Panjwani]

Penrose and Hameroff have responded to this criticism in a few ways:

1. Microtubules and quantum protection: Hameroff suggests that the structure of microtubules might protect quantum states. He points to the non-polar, aromatic amino acids in the tubulin protein that makes up microtubules, suggesting these could form "quantum channels" that could resist environmental decoherence.
2. Quantum coherence in biological systems: They point to evidence of quantum coherence in other biological systems. For example, certain photosynthetic bacteria are known to use quantum coherence to increase the efficiency of energy transfer. While these are not identical to the conditions within brain cells, these findings suggest that biology might have found ways to exploit quantum effects despite the issues with decoherence.
3. Orch OR and moments of consciousness: In Orch-OR theory, moments of conscious awareness are proposed to correspond to instances of quantum state reduction (or "objective reduction", OR, as Penrose refers to it). Hameroff suggests that these OR events might be relatively frequent, possibly occurring hundreds of times per second. If this is the case, then the quantum states in microtubules wouldn't need to be maintained for very long periods to have an effect on consciousness.

Unlike the Orch OR theory, the EM wave shape theory gives rise to the possibility of life after death and more! Most of us wish to experience all-encompassing bliss at least after death, don't we? Some say that true bliss can also be experienced during meditation by suppression of most negativity creating brain activity, as is supposed to be happening also during orgasm (female orgasm is especially associated with calming down of 'other' brain activity...)

[Sid Belzberg]

Thank you, Sid. Whether particular consciousness is an inherent property of particular shapes of brain's electronic waves or particular combinations of Orch OR, is a minor point. I just find the former simpler to understand (and hence more elegant) than the latter, and the vast majority of quantum physicists say that Orch OR just cannot occur at brain temperatures...

Penrose and Hameroff have responded to this criticism in a few ways:

1. Microtubules and quantum protection: Hameroff suggests that the structure of microtubules might protect quantum states. He points to the non-polar, aromatic amino acids in the tubulin protein that makes up microtubules, suggesting these could form "quantum channels" that could resist environmental decoherence.
2. Quantum coherence in biological systems: They point to evidence of quantum coherence in other biological systems. For example, certain photosynthetic bacteria are known to use quantum coherence to increase the efficiency of energy transfer. While these are not identical to the conditions within brain cells, these findings suggest that biology might have found ways to exploit quantum effects despite the issues with decoherence.
3. Orch OR and moments of consciousness: In Orch-OR theory, moments of conscious awareness are proposed to correspond to instances of quantum state reduction (or "objective reduction", OR, as Penrose refers to it). Hameroff suggests that these OR events might be relatively frequent, possibly occurring hundreds of times per second. If this is the case, then the quantum states in microtubules wouldn't need to be maintained for very long periods to have an effect on consciousness.

[Dilip Panjwani]

Dr. Roger Penrose, an acclaimed physicist, and Dr. Stuart Hameroff, an anesthesiologist and psychologist, have proposed a theory known as Orchestrated Objective Reduction (Orch-OR). In this theory, they propose that consciousness arises from quantum computations occurring within the brain's neurons, specifically in structures called microtubules.

Microtubules are protein structures that are part of the cell's cytoskeleton. Penrose and Hameroff suggest that these microtubules are capable of quantum computations. When these computations reach a certain level, they collapse, or reduce, and this reduction is what we experience as consciousness.

Importantly, the theory suggests that these quantum computations are not just random events, but are "orchestrated" by the biological processes of the brain (hence the name "Orchestrated Objective Reduction").


Consciousness in the universe: a review of the 'Orch OR' theory

Stuart Hameroff¹, Roger Penrose²

Abstract

The nature of consciousness, the mechanism by which it occurs in the brain, and its ultimate place in the universe are unknown. We proposed in the mid 1990's that consciousness depends on biologically 'orchestrated' coherent quantum processes in collections of microtubules within brain neurons, that these quantum processes correlate with, and regulate, neuronal synaptic and membrane activity, and that the continuous Schrödinger evolution of each such process terminates in accordance with the specific Diósi-Penrose (DP) scheme of 'objective reduction' ('OR') of the quantum state. This orchestrated OR activity ('Orch OR') is taken to result in moments of conscious awareness and/or choice. The DP form of OR is related to the fundamentals of quantum mechanics and space-time geometry, so Orch OR suggests that there is a connection between the brain's biomolecular processes and the basic structure of the universe. Here we review Orch OR in light of criticisms and developments in quantum biology, neuroscience, physics and cosmology. We also introduce a novel suggestion of 'beat frequencies' of faster microtubule vibrations as a possible source of the observed electro-encephalographic ('EEG') correlates of consciousness. We conclude that consciousness plays an intrinsic role in the universe.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24070914/

Thank you, Sid. Whether particular consciousness is an inherent property of particular shapes of brain's electronic waves or particular combinations of Orch OR, is a minor point. I just find the former simpler to understand (and hence more elegant) than the latter, and the vast majority of quantum physicists say that Orch OR just cannot occur at brain temperatures...

[Dilip Panjwani]

As per my understanding, the following diagram from the link in post no. 12 represents twisting of what physics really says:

1. 'Particles' do not occur because of observations. It is only their position which is uncertain till observation is made.

2. 'Material' world is not derived from consciousness. While consciousness occurs because of events in the 'material' world, our consciousness distorts what the 'material' world really is; while there is only energy in the universe, that energy appears as 'particles' in our consciousness.

3. Even though in theory, an individual's consciousness may get duplicated independent of the brain, as in the entangled state, it is initially created as a result of interaction between the 'material' world and the brain.

4. Consciousness getting attached to a 'new' brain would represent a gross mismatch, which could not work, as per current knowledge of neuroscience.

[Bob Armstrong]

With AI, man is creating a new co-species.

Bob A

[Neil Frarey]

What is life?

For now ... mostly Carbon.

Silicon ... is on the rise.

[Sid Belzberg]

Ignore Dr. Deepak Chopra, an accomplished physician who also has a deep understanding of ancient Indian philosophy, if you wish. My conclusions are based purely on my decades of learning neuro-science in Medical School and then continuing on out of sheer curiosity, and are totally in keeping with what the leading experts tell us about the neuroscience of perception, thoughts, memories and emotions. The prevailing view of those neuroscientists who dare to venture into the realm of consciousness is that consciousness is something that rides along with whatever is happening in the human brain physically and physiologically, without controlling anything that we do, and the electromagnetic activity arising out of brain function (not its synaptic activity) does not control what the brain does either... Current 'best-opinion' of philosophers-cum-scientists who are working in Universities around the globe on the 'hard' problem of consciousness is that it is an 'emergent' phenomenon, and that is exactly what summation & linkage of individual electronic brain waves is...
If you wish to know about the physics of entanglement (Einstein was so baffled by it that he called it 'spooky' action at a distance) in detail, you will need to learn it from a quantum physicist...

Dr. Roger Penrose, an acclaimed physicist, and Dr. Stuart Hameroff, an anesthesiologist and psychologist, have proposed a theory known as Orchestrated Objective Reduction (Orch-OR). In this theory, they propose that consciousness arises from quantum computations occurring within the brain's neurons, specifically in structures called microtubules.

Microtubules are protein structures that are part of the cell's cytoskeleton. Penrose and Hameroff suggest that these microtubules are capable of quantum computations. When these computations reach a certain level, they collapse, or reduce, and this reduction is what we experience as consciousness.

Importantly, the theory suggests that these quantum computations are not just random events, but are "orchestrated" by the biological processes of the brain (hence the name "Orchestrated Objective Reduction").


Consciousness in the universe: a review of the 'Orch OR' theory

Stuart Hameroff¹, Roger Penrose²

Abstract

The nature of consciousness, the mechanism by which it occurs in the brain, and its ultimate place in the universe are unknown. We proposed in the mid 1990's that consciousness depends on biologically 'orchestrated' coherent quantum processes in collections of microtubules within brain neurons, that these quantum processes correlate with, and regulate, neuronal synaptic and membrane activity, and that the continuous Schrödinger evolution of each such process terminates in accordance with the specific Diósi-Penrose (DP) scheme of 'objective reduction' ('OR') of the quantum state. This orchestrated OR activity ('Orch OR') is taken to result in moments of conscious awareness and/or choice. The DP form of OR is related to the fundamentals of quantum mechanics and space-time geometry, so Orch OR suggests that there is a connection between the brain's biomolecular processes and the basic structure of the universe. Here we review Orch OR in light of criticisms and developments in quantum biology, neuroscience, physics and cosmology. We also introduce a novel suggestion of 'beat frequencies' of faster microtubule vibrations as a possible source of the observed electro-encephalographic ('EEG') correlates of consciousness. We conclude that consciousness plays an intrinsic role in the universe.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24070914/

[Pargat Perrer]

Prove it.

LOL


edit:

1. Obviously everybody gets one life.
2. There is absolutely no scientific evidence of a second life, nor any subsequent lives.

That's as close as I can get to making my case.

Here's a very interesting and well written article on the definition of life.

Life (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

You are in error. There is scientific evidence for reincarnation.

https://uvamagazine.org/articles/the..._reincarnation

Also Fred, there is another thing to consider.

Suppose it is true that the universe was born in a Big Bang, and will eons in the future start shrinking and implode and then recreate itself again in a constantly repeating cycle. It that were the case, WHICH WE CANNOT DISPROVE, then humanity would likely arise again, and who is to say that you and i would not be recreated again and get to live a whole new life ... maybe not as the individual we are now, but as the same conscious soul. Where does our consciousness come from? Perhaps it is eternal and can reincarnate in subsequent universes, if not again and again in this particular cycle of the universe.

[Dilip Panjwani]

Ignore Dr. Deepak Chopra, an accomplished physician who also has a deep understanding of ancient Indian philosophy, if you wish. My conclusions are based purely on my decades of learning neuro-science in Medical School and then continuing on out of sheer curiosity, and are totally in keeping with what the leading experts tell us about the neuroscience of perception, thoughts, memories and emotions. The prevailing view of those neuroscientists who dare to venture into the realm of consciousness is that consciousness is something that rides along with whatever is happening in the human brain physically and physiologically, without controlling anything that we do, and the electromagnetic activity arising out of brain function (not its synaptic activity) does not control what the brain does either... Current 'best-opinion' of philosophers-cum-scientists who are working in Universities around the globe on the 'hard' problem of consciousness is that it is an 'emergent' phenomenon, and that is exactly what summation & linkage of individual electronic brain waves is...
If you wish to know about the physics of entanglement (Einstein was so baffled by it that he called it 'spooky' action at a distance) in detail, you will need to learn it from a quantum physicist...

[Fred Henderson]

Looking into the physiology of perception, memory, thought & emotions, there appears to be just one conclusion one can reasonably draw about the nature of consciousness: it is an inherent property of the electromagnetic waves of the brain. The notion of 'I'ness (of one being a living individual) comes from the constant and persistent consciousness of the perceptions of one's body & memories. When we use one of our five senses to perceive other things, the electromagnetic waves arising from that sensation add up with the basic electromagnetic waves denoting the 'I' (most likely coming from our reticular activating neurons), and then the consciousness becomes 'I see', 'I touch', 'I hear', etc..
So what about life after death? Well the widely accepted quantum phenomenon of 'entanglement' leads to the possibility that another identical self always exists, and one of the properties of entanglement is that as one of the entangled systems disintegrates, the other becomes stronger. As ancient Indian philosophy, well articulated by Deepak Chopra, says that after death, our consciousness mingles with universal consciousness, it could be happening because the entangled electromagnetic waves of our consciousness after death are no longer bounded by the skull, but mingle with all the non-bounded electromagnetic waves in the universe....O what a powerful and blissful sensation that must be....!!

Thanks for a well considered and thoughtful post, But please, Deepak Chopra? You put him up against all that medical science has to say? And what is this "widely accepted quantum phenomenon of "entanglement" that you speak of? The one that allows our individual conciousness to mingle with the "universal conciusness". Widely accepted by whom? You got a link to help me understand?

[Dilip Panjwani]

Looking into the physiology of perception, memory, thought & emotions, there appears to be just one conclusion one can reasonably draw about the nature of consciousness: it is an inherent property of the electromagnetic waves of the brain. The notion of 'I'ness (of one being a living individual) comes from the constant and persistent consciousness of the perceptions of one's body & memories. When we use one of our five senses to perceive other things, the electromagnetic waves arising from that sensation add up with the basic electromagnetic waves denoting the 'I' (most likely coming from our reticular activating neurons), and then the consciousness becomes 'I see', 'I touch', 'I hear', etc..
So what about life after death? Well the widely accepted quantum phenomenon of 'entanglement' leads to the possibility that another identical self always exists, and one of the properties of entanglement is that as one of the entangled systems disintegrates, the other becomes stronger. As ancient Indian philosophy, well articulated by Deepak Chopra, says that after death, our consciousness mingles with universal consciousness, it could be happening because the entangled electromagnetic waves of our consciousness after death are no longer bounded by the skull, but mingle with all the non-bounded electromagnetic waves in the universe....O what a powerful and blissful sensation that must be....!!