Donald Hoffman - Quantum Physics of Consciousness

Are quantum events required for consciousness in a very special sense, far beyond the general sense that quantum events are part of all physical systems? What would it take for quantum events, on such a micro-scale, to be relevant for brain function, which operates at the much higher level of neurons and brain circuits? What would it mean?

Donald D. Hoffman is Professor of Cognitive Science, University of California, Irvine and author of Visual Intelligence: How We Create What We See and coauthor of Observer Mechanics: A Formal Theory Of Perception.

Closer To Truth, hosted by Robert Lawrence Kuhn and directed by Peter Getzels, presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.

[Jsmoovek]

i hate the fact so many people who don’t understand it just reject it all together… the point is we are still LEARNING to figure it out, you can’t fear exploring how yourself and universe is connected.

[quantumkath]

I have come full circle. Both quantum theory and consciousness are my favorite subjects. I have learned so much! And there is so much more... Thanks, Closer To Truth! And, Donald Hoffman!

[shanezanath]

I read Donald Hoffman's book recently, The Case Against Reality. I have no idea if he will turn out to be correct. But his ideas are so mind bending 🤯! It's like finally coming to understand Einstein... how the hell did he think of that!?

[DrRandomnes]

🎯 Key Takeaways

00:15 Scientists turn to quantum physics to explain consciousness due to challenges linking consciousness to neural activity.
01:25 Researchers like Penrose and Hammeroff explore quantum coherence in microtubules, but no definitive connection between quantum properties and consciousness.
03:44 Bridging the gap from quantum to consciousness remains anopen challenge, lacking precise theories.
05:39 The scale of exploration ranges from Planck scale to neuron level, making it unclear where to find a consistent theory of consciousness.
06:07 Different approaches attempt to derive consciousness from quantum physics or vice versa.
08:10 The speaker proposes a mathematically precise theory of conscious agents, aiming to derive known physics as a special case of conscious dynamics.

[tonyg]

Trying to explain consciousness with the physical attributes of the brain is like trying to explain Valentino Rossi by explaining how his Yamaha is built and works. You will never understand who or what the driver is by dissecting his vehicle.

[wagfinpis]

I love this stuff. I can almost understand what he is saying. It is a great sign that people are not scared to try and think from a potentially more productive angle.

I keep trying to wrap my head around the difference between what Hameroff is saying and what possibilities that opens up in hypothetical discussions and ideas too.

[jayk]

Not sure if I’m onside with his theory But I do really appreciate that he is clear it’s merely a scientific “attempt”. Others don’t seem to couch the pitch of their theories in the same way

[gregrice]

Thank you Robert for keeping your valuable series going. I have watched since 1990s on "TV Sets". :-)

Question, does the field od study of "consciousness" include definitions, shared and accepted by segments of scholars, for the terms tossed around Conscious? "Living", "aware", "semi - conscious" ? "Intelligence"?

It seems the model of common architecture and operations of common desktop computers made valuable contribution for some explanatory models, which I have yet to be applied or used to communicate any validity to the claims of discovery or value of hypotheses in this over-talked, and not understood field.

I understand the fear and bias some scholars, like Dennet, have had on using models of human construct and artifice, like information processing and our various forms of automation, buy it dure serms like great, clear, transparent models that open the way for measures of success along the path of study, and maybe even the first step of defining core terms to discuss.

How about a summary review on the clarity and progress of core terms in the related branches of study, here Robert?

[thesilvervigilante]

"Consciousness does not require quantum mechanics but quantum mechanics requires consciousness."

[davidotoole]

I always find Donald Hoffman very engaging.

[gordonquimby]

Quantum Physics won't find consciousness, nor will any purely materialistic explanation. Hoffman practically admits that several times.
He touched on the answer with spiking neurons (electrical spiking). That creates an electromagnetic field around the neuron which your spirit can read. But not just one neuron at a time, but all the relevant neurons (including memory) so it is like a piano playing hundreds of notes making chorus of sound. Then the spirit can control motor neurons by creating an electromagnetic field around the neuron. The synapses just have to do with the connections of the wiring, not consciousness itself. So, the answer is in simple physics known for 200 years which will get us Closer to Truth.

[TheUltimateSeeds]

Sometime in the distant future, science may indeed be able to show some precise correlation between the quantum state of a particular neuron (or whatever) and that of the qualia of the smell of a rose or the taste of chocolate, however, it is highly unlikely that the same approach can provide a precise explanation of what it is that is actually conscious (self-aware) and is experiencing said qualia.

[wearefountains]

Anyone know how old this conversation is? This channel isn't exactly posting in real time, though I love it.

[TerryBollinger]

7:32 DH: _“I do have a mathematically precise theory of consciousness, what I call Conscious Agents, involving things called Markovian kernels… But the real proof [is if I] can make new physical predictions that current physical theory cannot make.”_

I have tried all day to develop a helpful, constructive comment. I don’t think I can. Professor Hoffman, I agree that profound changes in physics are unavoidable for explaining not just consciousness but for the much-needed overall merger of quantum, relativistic theory, and (even more critically) the Standard Model of particle physics.

The difficulty is that Markov chains are far too shallow of a concept to handle the changes needed, no matter how many polytopes you add to them. They are, and always have been, not much more than an exceedingly helpful way to deal with reasoning under conditions of uncertainty. There was a period a few years ago when it seemed like every artificial intelligence proposal we received for federal funding invoked Markov models as a sort of magic wand that would cure all woes, to the point where I grew very weary of seeing that label since it meant the developers weren’t going to address the deeper problems of fragility. Markov chains, like rule-based systems and neural networks, invariably exhibit fragility when training pushes the model too far. The entire structure becomes fragile and, often, unusable. That’s a critical issue if the Markov chains are part of the logic guiding robots.

That is why I find your labeling networks of Markov models as “conscious” profoundly problematic. Markov models are, to my experience, the opposite: Clumsy, entirely classical attempts to _mimic_ the subtler forms of convergence and insight that biological systems, to this day, can do in ways we neither understand nor know how to imitate.

Please don’t get me wrong: Markov chains are beneficial accounting techniques for _capturing and directing_ those subtler insights. But the very use of precisely structured polytopes and classical maths (I love the matrices and have explored some similar forms myself) _hides_ the missing pieces of subtler physics rather than explaining them.

So, my comment boils down to this: You and your team are doing interesting work and have some excellent frameworks. Your uncertainty-capture networks likely have value if combined with genuinely insightful, truly new ways to restructure space and time. But on the physis side, your references could be more promising. In particular, you are wasting your and your team’s time if you keep pursuing the inherently non-testable (INT) Planck-scale nonsense. That’s just culturally endemic brittle-classical math noise from folks who chose decades ago never to bother with testable physics again.

Finally, if you insist on _believing_ your hyper-classical data capture structures — and sorry, but that’s all they are — are “conscious, ” your deeply laudable efforts to take qualia experimentally testable are likely to fail in a sad, stretched-out fizzle. That path is the computer science version of Clever Hans; you program your deepest desires into an Erised software mirror that does nothing more than reflect them back at you.

[RealDrDolittle]

Amazing video I had to share. Thank you.

[kukuhTWicaksono]

There are interesting analogies between quantum physics and consciousness. It is hypothesized that consciousness is generated through a process of activity that is similar to quantum events, including:

The concept of particle-wave duality, which means that particles such as electrons can behave as both particles and waves. Some theories connect this idea to human consciousness, saying that consciousness may also have a similar dual nature.

The concept of superposition in quantum physics refers to the ability of particles to exist in multiple states simultaneously. Some theories suggest that human consciousness may also exist in a similar state, describing the uncertainty and complexity of our thoughts and perceptions.

The wave function collapse effect: In quantum physics, this refers to the change in the behavior of a particle when it is observed. In the context of consciousness, there is the idea that human observation or attention to something can influence reality itself.

The entanglement phenomenon in quantum physics states that particles that have been linked together will remain connected, even if they are spatially separated. In the context of consciousness, there is speculation about the existence of similar connections between individuals or between human consciousness and the universe.

These analogies are based on the observation that quantum physics is often described as a probabilistic and non-deterministic system. In other words, quantum events are not always predictable and can be influenced by the observer. This has led some scientists and philosophers to believe that consciousness may also be a probabilistic and non-deterministic system.

Of course, there is no consensus on whether or not these analogies are valid. Some scientists believe that they are simply a coincidence, while others believe that they provide a glimpse into the nature of consciousness. More research is needed to determine whether or not there is a real connection between quantum physics and consciousness.

[adzzmad]

Consciousness is not in the brain. The brain is a thing that conects to the Consciousness

[dvdmon]

It's great that you've interviewed Hoffman, but one of the important scientists who's written a TON about consciousness, materialism vs. idealism, etc. is Berndardo Kastrup. You really need to interview him. You have so many key scientists on here expressing their views, Kastrup will add to the clarity of the position that consciousness is fundamental.

[chupachups]

Love how the guy tells him in an elegant way: ‘what the fk are you talking about?’ 😂

[ivanvnucko]

I heard him say that stuff about the taste of garlic and smell of strawberry maybe 20 times in different situations and I still don't understand what he means/wants from an explanation. There seems to be no objective "taste of garlic". There are objects we call garlic and there are reactive mental states individual people have when eating it, which they logically call "taste of garlic" but nowhere do I see the necessity for some objective "qualia" to exist which is somehow independent from the person experiencing it and mathematically describable. Everytime I hear him say these lines it drives me crazy. What does he want/demand? What would be a satisfactory explanation for him?! It seems to be a weird version of dualism posing the question what is qualia made of, where the simplest answer seems to be: "You Made it Up, You tell me"