Saving...
Stuart Hameroff
May the Force be in You?
January 2006
You What the Bleep? Fans will love this one. In the movie we heard bits and pieces from each of the scientists and doctors; here, you can hear the entire story from Dr. Stuart Hameroff, who tells us about the “on-board computers” in our cells called microtubules. If you’ve seen our interview with Vernon Woolf you’ll know that these little fields of pure potential within our body define us and drive us. Here, Stuart addresses how it all works in the field of Quantum Physics and what we can take away from this knowledge.
Regina Meredith: First of all, you are still a practicing anesthesiologist. If you can just give us a little bit of an idea how the fields of Anesthesiology and Quantum Theory started coming together in your life, I’d like to know about that.
Stuart Hameroff: Well, I actually chose the field of Anesthesiology partly to understand consciousness and how the brain produced consciousness. I was always a bit interested in that question from college and medical school; and I thought about neurology, physiology, and surgery dealing with the brain. But I was convinced by my former Chairman Burnell Brown, who was the Chief of Anesthesiology at the University of Arizona, that to understand consciousness the best approach was to understand how anesthetics erase consciousness. That is because the gas anesthetics are fairly selective, in that you breathe them in and they go directly into the lungs, the blood, and the brain and many brain activities continue: at the right concentration pretty much only consciousness is affected. You can still have fairly normal EEG, Evoked Potentials and breathing, but consciousness is erased. It turns out that the gases work only by very weak quantum mechanical forces; they don’t form any chemical bonds. So when you turn the vaporizer off the gases come out and the patient wakes up.
Regina Meredith: Where does quantum mechanics fit into this, first at a level for the populace so you can explain it to me and everyone else watching? How do these two levels interface in our brain in that strange world where we’re seeing things we don’t normally see, [where] we’re wondering whether we’re here or there or even alive anymore – all that happens when we’re under the influence of an anesthetic? Let’s go over this.
Stuart Hameroff: First of all to explain Quantum Mechanical Theory in a general sense. Our world is described by two sets of laws. You might almost say there are two worlds. There’s the Classical everyday world where things are solid and definite; and there’s the Quantum world at very small scales – how small is unclear – where things are quite in-definite. [In the Quantum world] things can be: in two or more places at the same time, separated from themselves; connected over great distances and seemingly together even though they are separated; and things can condense into one object. And time doesn’t flow. The Classical world, as I said is definite. I think in a very general sense the subconscious – our dream world, the kind of situation you described – relates to the Quantum world, and consciousness is actually a transition between that Quantum world and the Classical world. Consciousness exists at the boundary between the two worlds.
Regina Meredith: Thinking of what you were saying a moment ago: in the Quantum world thinking is sometimes not linear. The space that an atom is occupying can be one or more [locations] at the same time. A particle can become a wave. This is a very indefinite world that would beg the question, then: can we – in what we’re doing right here – exist in another location simultaneously?
Stuart Hameroff: Some people think there are multiple universes, parallel universes; and that is one interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. But, the apparent randomness and indefiniteness in Quantum Mechanics may only be in the measurement and in decoherence. The underlying structure of the Quantum world actually contains information; in fact, Platonic information, according to Roger Penrose and Freeman Dyson, for example.
Regina Meredith: Could you explain this interpretation for me so we can understand this structure?
Stuart Hameroff: Well, Plato the Greek philosopher stated that there is a realm of Absolute Truths and pure Forms. Examples are mathematical equations, and also perhaps ethical values and aesthetic values. [These Forms] existed in what he described as an abstract, non-physical realm. Roger Penrose suggested that the sub-structure of the universe – at the most tiny level, called the “Planck scale” – actually contains Platonic information like mathematical truths (things that are not invented but discovered by many people) that are imbedded at this fundamental level.
Regina Meredith: Geometry as well?
Stuart Hameroff: Correct. Geometry, mathematics, and perhaps other truths, too.
Regina Meredith: In this way the re-discovery of what’s called “Sacred Geometry,” for example, or other spiritually-based disciplines—is this emanating from the understanding at the basic level of cosmic functioning?
Stuart Hameroff: It could be; potentially. I think that anything that’s uncovered is discovered rather than invented de novo by anybody. We could argue about that but that’s the basic idea—that Truth exists in a sense, but way, way down there at the bottom level of the universe. Connection to it is very difficult and very subtle; only highly-evolved biological systems are so far able to be influenced by it.
Regina Meredith: So if you start at the base with mathematics, geometry, et cetera – you used the word “coherence” a moment ago – is this an in-coherent field from which coherence is created? Can you talk a little bit about what makes our lives not-so-random?
Stuart Hameroff: Well, the real question is: are we purely algorithmic, or are we random; or are we something else? Actually, this was Roger [Penrose]’s first approach toward the problem of Artificial Intelligence. [Proponents of Artificial Intelligence] would say that the brain works algorithmically—that the brain works by processes that a computer could do. “If a, then b; if b, then d…” and so forth; that it follows along this path by pre-set rules. The other [possible] type of decision-making would be random: you just flip a coin and whatever that suggested, that’s what you do. But, Penrose suggested that consciousness uses something else that he called “non-computable” [processes]. He argued using something called Gödel’s Theorem that understanding – knowing – must come from outside the system, so that algorithmic processes can never really know or understand. Therefore, computers can never really be conscious. The only other type of process, other than algorithmic determinism and [process via] randomness, was the choices made in a particular type of collapse in the wave-function that he had proposed as a solution to the “measurement problem” in Quantum Mechanics. He was kind of killing three or four birds with one stone with this proposal, suggesting that it could solve the problem of superposition…
Regina Meredith: Could you explain superposition? You just did all this in a lecture, so you are probably not sure to whom you’ve said what, at this point!
Stuart Hameroff: Right! Superposition is something being in two or more places or states at the same time. The best example is Schrödinger’s Cat. Now, the early days of Quantum Theory entailed that a particle would stay in superposition until it was observed by a conscious observer. It seemed to that, even if a machine made a measurement of superposition, even the results of the machine stayed in superposition until somebody looked at the results. And this is what the experiments seemed to show. Schrödinger, a quantum physicist of some renown, thought this was silly. He proposed a thought-experiment in which a quantum event – for example, a photon passing through a half-silvered mirror so that it has a fifty percent chance of going through and fifty percent chance of being reflected – [will produce one of two possible outcomes.] If the photon is reflected it goes into a box and releases a vile of poison. The box contains a cat and the box is sealed. So, if it is reflected the cat is dead. If the photon goes through, the poison is not released: the cat is alive. Because it is a quantum particle [hence, existing in multiple positions until observed,] the photon both goes through and does not go through. Therefore, the poison is both released and not released—the cat is both dead and alive until someone opens the box and looks at it.
Regina Meredith: Basically it is saying that both possibilities exist.
Stuart Hameroff: Until someone looks at it—a conscious observer. Schrödinger pointed this out to show how silly was the idea; because, how could a system as large as a cat be amplified by something tiny like a photon? The problem is that nobody can really say why the cat wouldn’t be both dead and alive. Nor, how large a quantum system could become; there’s no apparent limit boundary. So, Schrödinger’s Cat problem is still with us. There are some other explanations of quantum superposition. One is that each possibility branches off to form its own universe: the Multiple Worlds Hypothesis. Another is decoherence: that any interaction with the environment, with the Classical world, causes the system to erode. But, that doesn’t account for isolated superpositions; nor does it really destroy the superposition—it just kind of mixes it with noise. The other type of possibility is what Penrose suggested. Others have suggested other kinds of thresholds (the idea that a quantum superposition – if it gets large enough or persists long enough – will reach some threshold intrinsic to nature and self-collapse. And, by the way, this is used in Quantum Computing. Quantum computers instead of using bits of “one or zero” can use quantum-bits—the superposition of “one and zero.” The quantum bits communicate with each other by this spooky “non-local entanglement” and do incredibly efficient computing. They then collapse, and each bit chooses either a one or a zero. This kind of Quantum Computing can do incredibly efficient and complex computation. “Collapsing” means going from the Quantum world to the Classical world. The question is: will a quantum system by itself ever reduce or collapse? Or, according to the Copenhägen interpretation if we’re not looking at a building, it could be in two or more places at the same time. It seems ridiculous, but there’s no obvious reason…
Regina Meredith: So our observation creates a coherence or structure to that possibility?
Stuart Hameroff: The Copenhägen would say that observation causes a reduction or collapse to one. But, Penrose and others said: “No; there’s some intrinsic feature of the universe that, if a superposition gets large enough or persists long enough, it reaches collapse,” into what he called “objective reduction.” He proposed an objective reduction that involved the universe itself—this idea of, “How can one thing be in two or more places at the same time?” That’s the real issue. Like the Multiple-Worlds Hypothesis, [Penrose] said that a superposition is a branching or bifurcation of the universe at a very tiny, fundamental level—what’s called the Planck scale. In the Multiple-Worlds view each of these superpositions would evolve to form a whole new universe. But in Penrose’s approach these superpositions are like bubbles of reality, or blisters: at a particular time they will collapse – choose – one or the other. And because they exist in this Platonic world, the choices are influenced by Platonic information imbedded at the fundamental levels. This, he argued, was characteristic of conscious thought. As I said, he was killing several birds with one stone, because the separation brings “relativity” to Quantum Mechanics, potentially solves the problem of Schrödinger’s Cat for how large the superposition could be, and it also explained consciousness; in that, we could function in a way that was not strictly algorithmic. We could be free-thinkers to some extent; not random, but something else. We could allow ourselves to be influenced by this giant look-up table, if you will, that exists throughout the universe.
Regina Meredith: “Look-up table”?
Stuart Hameroff: Well, that’s describing the Platonic realm of information imbedded everywhere at the most fundamental level.
Regina Meredith: That information – we won’t try to source it, per se – would you say that might it be attributed some role in generating the observer? Might it be part of an intelligence that creates a coherence or structure of sorts?
Stuart Hameroff: Well, Freeman Dyson said that mind and intelligence are woven into the fabric of the universe. What this is saying is that it’s happening at the most fundamental level, at the Planck scale; and that the Penrose proposal was the way that our biological brains could connect to that level. Now, I wouldn’t say the level [is the observer], but you could say that the level is the observer. Consciousness is actually the process of accessing that; it is kind of a ripple through this funda-mental level, if you will.
Regina Meredith: If you are saying that even at a quantum level or cellular level our bodies are functioning like quantum computers of sorts, what is the intelligence or guiding force that created such a structure?
Stuart Hameroff: Our brains use a lot of normal processing; it’s not all quantum computation, but we take advantage of this. If you are asking where the Platonic information came from…
Regina Meredith: Yes—you put it much better than I had as a layperson.
Stuart Hameroff: I thought you were asking that. That’s a tougher question. So where did the Platonic information come from? I asked Roger [Penrose] that once and he said: “The Big Bang—where else could it come from?” because that’s what created the structure of the universe. Interestingly enough there is another theory – I know Roger knows about it but I don’t know what he thinks about it – by an Italian astrophysicist named Paola Zizzi [who explains it this way]: at the beginning of the universe the Big Bang exploded and expanded very rapidly. This is called inflation. After a very short time – a fraction of a fraction of a second – the rapid expansion stopped; and it has been growing very slowly ever since. So, people are trying to explain the rapid inflation and why it slowed down. Roger has an equation to explain this objective reduction, such that the superpositions, depending basically upon their size will collapse at a certain time. The larger the superposition the faster it will collapse. Anyway, Paola Zizzi calculated that the mass of the early universe matched the time of inflation: so what she is saying is that during inflation there were multiple possible universes and they expanded. They reached Roger’s threshold and reduced into one universe—chose one universe; and things have been expanding slowly ever since. By the Penrose criteria that’s a conscious event, which means that during the Big Bang the entire universe had a cosmic conscious moment. Actually, someone has dubbed this theory the Big Wow Theory because it is a version of the Big Bang Theory in which the universe actually had a conscious moment. Paola also points out that the number of qubits in the human brain is the same as the number of qubits that registers at that moment, so that our consciousness is literally a microcosm of the whole universe. This is a pretty bold statement to make, but the numbers seem to match up. It also seems to suggest – if I understand it correctly – that we’ve probably plateau-ed in the amount of intelligence, and possibly consciousness that we can have. I hope that’s not the case, but it could be.
Regina Meredith: In terms of the amount of consciousness?
Stuart Hameroff: Well, if our consciousness is a microcosm of the whole universe, the good news is that we’re connected to the whole universe; the bad news is that eons and eons ahead they may not keep getting more and more conscious. But maybe that’s not a bad thing.
Regina Meredith: Figuratively, is there space in this concept to look at the notion of superposition in terms of having actual dimensional value—existing in two dimensions at one time, or maybe three or four, or ten dimensions? Where does multidimensionality play in to all of this?
Stuart Hameroff: It depends on your interpretation of the problem of the collapse of the wave function. If you believe in Multiple Worlds then every superposition branches off into a new universe, and that would presumably include your consciousness. So your consciousness that was going to ask me a different question is already in a different universe where I’m now trying to answer it. But in this universe you asked me the question that you did and we’re discussing that; and some people believe that. I don’t follow that [interpretation] because in the Penrose view the superpositions are unstable and will self-collapse. Because of that, you chose to ask the question you did. The other possibility just kind of died away; you know—“the road not taken.” I hear a lot of people talking about other dimensions and higher dimensions. I don’t think you need that. If you want to look for deepness, profound inner connection and spirituality, it is in our universe—just in a different scale, at this fundamental scale. It’s all the way down. Now, you might say: “Spirituality…well it must be…big…right?” Well, the small scale is everywhere. Anywhere you go, there it is. Not only that; as far as we can tell it is holographic—a fractal, even. Big concepts exist in very sub-sub-microscopic concepts. I would put spirituality not in another dimension but at the fundamental level in our single, one-and-only dimension, or four-dimensions.
Regina Meredith: Also, from what you said before it sounds like we don’t have to go to other dimensions in order to find the sort of incredible possibilities in life as we understand it now. Some of what you say is happening [at the quantum scale] is going to lead us into a greater understanding of, for example teleportation. What’s that all about? I mean, everyone has seen those shows!
Stuart Hameroff: Beam me up, Scotty. Well they’ve actually done that now with single particles. It destroys the one [particle] over here and re-creates it over there.
Regina Meredith: How does that functionally work? Is there a potential future in which human beings or other matter will be consciously teleported, or can consciously teleport itself? Or does this come from some outside intention? Can you talk to that teleportation potential a bit?
Stuart Hameroff: Well, as I said, now they can do individual particles like atoms and electron states and so forth. It is unclear what would happen if you teleported consciousness. I could see [teleporting] the physical body; but, when you teleport consciousness it is unclear if the person created over there would be the same person as you were over here. Nobody knows.
Regina Meredith: Physically, it could be?
Stuart Hameroff: Physically, it could be: but would it be the same consciousness? I don’t know. On the other hand you could say we’re not totally the same consciousness from day to day, although we pretty much are. I don’t think that is answerable yet. There is a problem called the No Cloning Theorem that says you can’t make exact copies.
Regina Meredith: Is that because the consciousness permeating the copy is not the same? Does it have to do with the greater mind permeating that copy—is it the same or not the same?
Stuart Hameroff: I can’t even hazard a guess. I did see an article about consciousness and teleportation on website called the Daily Grail the other day. They interviewed me and I saw that on their website they had an article, “Can consciousness be teleported?”; but I don’t know what it says: I haven’t read it yet but I will.
Regina Meredith: So you don’t have the answer just yet?
Stuart Hameroff: I don’t.
Regina Meredith: Another thing we might be looking at in the future is quantum computers. You made a quick reference to that earlier. What does the world of computing look like: how would that affect our world? Where are we on that exploration?
Stuart Hameroff: We currently have Quantum Cryptography in commercial use. That is used to send information with absolute secrecy. It’s like teleportation: you destroy the copy and send over here; and if anyone eavesdrops there is a way to tell. Obviously the military, government, and banking code people are very interested in that, and it’s actually in commercial use.
Regina Meredith: It’s actually based on the notion of superposition?
Stuart Hameroff: And entanglement; right. It’s basically the E-P-R experiment, which goes way back. Einstein, Podolski and Rosen posed a though-experiment in the 1930s that was intended to disprove the possibility that was eventually proved. The thought-experiment was basically: say if you have two electrons. If one is spin-Up, the other has to be spin-Down, and vice versa; they’re like little magnets. One electron can be in superposition of both Up and Down, and the other one can be both Up and Down. But also, they are still entangled. But also, they are still entangled. You send one superposition fifty miles this way, and the other electron superposition fifty miles this way. Over here you make a measurement and it collapses to Up. One-hundred miles away, this other one has to be Down—it is Down. That was the prediction. And not only that: it would be instantaneous. Einstein said that was impossible because nothing travels faster than the speed of light according to Special Relativity. Well, in the 1980s the experiment was done, and sure enough: instant entanglement. It has been done many times since and it is the basis of quantum teleportation, quantum cryptography, and quantum computing. They are now doing it with photons off fiber-optic cables, off satellites and through the atmosphere; and it works.
Regina Meredith: Can you give us a tangible example of how this is being utilized in the real world—in the four-dimensional, everyday world?
Stuart Hameroff: To transmit information with absolute secrecy and privacy. Quantum Cryptography is what it’s called. If someone eavesdropped it would alter the information and could be detected.
Regina Meredith: Primarily military uses at this time?
Stuart Hameroff: Probably, yeah.
Regina Meredith: How do you see this taking the next step toward more popular uses?
Stuart Hameroff: That’s hard to say. First, they have to overcome the problem of decoherence; because the quantum superpositions seem to be very sensitive to environmental interactions. That is the other potential solution to the problem of the collapse of the wave function: that a superposition gets eroded by interaction with the environment and decoheres. It loses its coherence. You’ve been asking about coherence. The Quantum state is in coherence: the superposition is coherent. It loses that coherence when it interacts with the Classical environment. To avoid that, the quantum computers have to be built at extremely cold temperatures, and isolated. This is another argument against the theory that quantum computation occurs in the brain; but, that’s another story which, if you want, I can try to explain. Quantum computers, if they can solve the problem of decoherence have been shown to factor large numbers into primes exponentially faster [than other computers]; which doesn’t sound so exciting, except that that’s the basis for all codes. So, again: military-financial security is an immediate application. They can also do exponentially faster searches. Now, Google is pretty good—but Quantum Google would be a lot better, apparently! One question is: would [these quantum computers] be conscious—because we are arguing that quantum computing occurs in the brain. No; I don’t think so. Because, in technological quantum computers the reduction occurs by somebody basically observing—opening the box and looking. That causes measurement or decoherence, which brings in some randomness. You get around the randomness by doing the same computation many times and then averaging it out. So it doesn’t spoil the benefit [of absolute precision.] In consciousness, according to the Penrose approach that I’ve followed him with the collapse has to be a self-collapse. It has to reach this threshold so that it is a process occurring at the fundamental level of space-time geometry; which is where not only Platonic values but the precursors of conscious experience – what are called qualia – [are believed to exist.] [Qualia are] the other thing I didn’t mention that we think are imbedded at the fundamental level. You could ask, “How is consciousness produced?” And there are basically two answers: one is that the brain does computation and at a high-level of complex computation consciousness emerges; kind of like a weather pattern [or candle flame] emerges from complex interactions among gas and dust particles. Self-organized computers, programs, emerge: some novel property emerges at a critical level of complexity in a hierarchical system. That’s the prevalent view.
Regina Meredith: What’s the other view?
Stuart Hameroff: The other view would be our view. It’s a quantum computation [view]: that to go from non-conscious or sub-conscious to conscious involves a collapse: a particular type of collapse that involves a self-collapse. The qualia, rather than being higher-order emergent phenomena are actually irreducible, fundamental components of the universe. At its basic level the universe has the precursors of what philosophers call qualia—the components of conscious experience. So, blueness, redness, the smell of a rose: things like that are examples of qualia that may be imbedded at the fundamental level.
Regina Meredith: This goes back to the Platonic explanation?
Stuart Hameroff: Yeah—but, in addition to add the actual ingredients that go into conscious experience: why we have feelings and emotions is actually built in to the universe. The reason why we have experience that is complex is like unto a painter with a primitive palette of fundamental colors: a dab of that and a dab of this and you have the Mona Lisa, or something. So, the brain comes along and takes a dab of redness, a dab of melancholy – a dab of this, a dab of that – and puts together conscious experience at any one moment.
Regina Meredith: Again, what is driving that experience? What is driving one person to paint a daisy and another to paint a Mona Lisa, given this same palette?
Stuart Hameroff: Nature and nurture—your upbringing, there may be genetic proclivities, you know, how you were raised. There are all kinds of not-necessarily-quantum-or-fundamental things that go into how our brains work: training, this and that. I’m not musical, but I’d like to be. Other people are because…well, genes, how they were raised, their ears and what have you. It’s a combination of things.
Regina Meredith: Going back to quantum coherence and the mind: I think there is a lot of mystery still in the medicine as to how the mind can function.
Stuart Hameroff: “Where does quantum coherence occur in the brain?” is I think what you are asking.
Regina Meredith: Yes.
Stuart Hameroff: Well, I would say microtubules.
Regina Meredith: Can you explain what the term means? In the simplest terms; and I know none of this is simple. I’m asking a lot of you here.
Stuart Hameroff: Let me just tell it historically. When I was in medical school I did a research elective in the Cancer Lab, where I was looking at cells dividing—chromosomes being pulled apart to form daughter cells. If they are not pulled apart precisely in an exact mirror image – exactly equally – then you can have malignancy/cancer. This has to be very precisely choreographed ballet, if you will. The structures that did this pulling apart were called mitotic spindles. Actually they were structures called microtubules. It turns out that the same microtubules made up the skeleton of nerve cells. That was only discovered in the 1970s. So, if you look inside our body you see bones. But the microtubules are not only the structural support: they are also the nervous system of the cell. They spatially and temporally organize things.
Regina Meredith: Like computers?
Stuart Hameroff: They are the on-board computers of the cell; exactly. Their structure is kind of like a hollow ear of corn with little kernels. The kernels can actually be like bit-states, if you will. They are in a very interesting geometry. The kernels actually look like peanuts, because they change shape with their neighbors; and they can process information in what is called Cellular Automata Function. So basically, you have another level of processing within each cell. Most views of the brain are that it is [an organ with] a hundred-billion nerve cells, where the nerve cells are the fundamental units talking to other fundamental units. But each cell is far more than a fundamental unit; each nerve cell is incredibly complicated. If you think of a single cell like a paramecium – a little protozoan – it swims around, bumps something, moves away; swims over here, finds food; it avoids predators; it finds a mate; it has sex. It doesn’t use any synapses: it is one cell. It uses microtubules inside its skeleton as information processors to do all these things. So I caught onto the idea in the 1970s and 80s that microtubules inside neurons were processing information necessary for consciousness; and that, if you just went down to the level of neurons and synapses, that wouldn’t do it. You had to go down to the level of the microtubules. And that increased the information capacity of the brain enormously. This displeased the A.I. people who were trying to build computers to imitate the brain based upon neurons as the fundamental units. In any case, someone once said to me: “Let’s say you’re right; let’s say each neuron is like a little brain. How is that going to explain feelings, emotions and so forth?” And I had to admit that they were right. I really didn’t have an answer for that. That’s when I read Roger’s book about Quantum Computing. I thought that he might have the mechanism; but I had the structure: that microtubules were quantum computing devices, and that quantum coherence among microtubules throughout neurons in the brain were necessary for consciousness.
Regina Meredith: Folded into consciousness would be feelings, et cetera?
Stuart Hameroff: Yeah. When the quantum computations access the fundamental level where the proto-conscious qualia are, that’s where feelings come in; otherwise, it’s just computation. I think to account for feelings, qualia, and emotions we have to go down to that fundamental level.
Regina Meredith: I think a lot of people will recognize you from the movie What the Bleep?! It’s doing astoundingly well and really setting the stage for a lot of consciousness-based movies in the future. That took a very simple story of self-image and emotions into account. From your perspective, what is the practical to having some understanding of Quantum Theory and the Quantum world? What does it mean in everyday terms for us?
Stuart Hameroff: It’s funny—everybody gets something different out of that movie.
Regina Meredith: What did you get out of the movie, first of all? What did you think it was saying after you saw all of you put together in collage?
Stuart Hameroff: I thought they started talking about Quantum Physics and then digressed into other stuff, which was interesting; but they didn’t develop the quantum stuff fully. They mentioned it and they talked about it, but….Otherwise, I think it would have been too much for people to handle. So instead, they brought in all these other things. One of things about Quantum Physics, at least the Copenhägen interpretation, is that you create your reality. Joe Dispenza talking about waking up and planning your day: that’s another level. The power of positive thinking is the same thing. Just thinking can create reality. That’s one of the take-home messages in the film This came up in the talk [I gave] today…and what did I say? I said…
Regina Meredith: You said there were three things—
Stuart Hameroff: Oh yeah! Three things: one – because I think that microtubules are the key to consciousness – is: take care of your tubules.
Regina Meredith: And how do we take care of our tubules?!
Stuart Hameroff: Well, Alzheimer’s disease is basically a disease of the microtubules. They are called neuro-fibulary tangles in the neurons There is no specific way [to care for your tubules] outside of the usual things: good diet, nutrition, exercise—that sort of thing. So, that’s kind of a…no-brainer?!?!
Regina Meredith: Funda-mental?!?!
Stuart Hameroff: Yeah! Another one was: live in the moment.
Regina Meredith: Why is that?
Stuart Hameroff: Because in this view consciousness is a sequence of events. Each one is a now; very much like the philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead who said that consciousness was a sequence of events of experience occurring in a wider field of proto-experience. We’re saying the same thing: a sequence of quantum-state reductions occurring in a fundamental Planck-scale level. All that exists is the now.
Regina Meredith: So make the now count? Make it conscious?
Stuart Hameroff: Enjoy the moment. Yeah: and don’t obsess about the past and the future. I know I’ve made that mistake. I worry about things that happen or things that could happen, will or won’t happen, and I forget: hey, I should be having a good time right now!
Regina Meredith: So live in the now, take care of your microtubules…what’s number three?
Stuart Hameroff: Oh! Allow yourself to be influenced by the Platonic influences—the Platonic information. Whether you want to call it subtle energies…whatever you want to call it.
Regina Meredith: The Guiding Intelligence?
Stuart Hameroff: The Way of the Tao, may the force be with you…divine intervention…whatever you want to call it. I think that it has a physical basis in the fundamental level of the universe; but if you are so focused on one particular goal, and operate purely algorithmically without pausing and being mindful, and reflective – allowing intuition or instinct to come in to play – you’ll miss out on a lot of the guiding influence, if you will.
Regina Meredith: How beautiful! One last question—I know you have to get back to Tucson, but—back to where we started with the dream-state. How does the dream-state play in to all of this? I’ve read on numerous occasions throughout history people have major breakthroughs come to them in their dream-state.
Stuart Hameroff: Right. I mentioned in the talk today that Kekuli discovered the structure of benzene in a dream. I think that dreams and other manifestations of the subconscious, including what comes out in Art and artistic expression and so forth are more in the Quantum world. Consciousness is the conversion of the Quantum world into the Classical world: it exists on the edge. I think the amount of information in the Quantum world, and the logic of the Quantum world – which is very much like Quantum logic, by the way – is vast; and if we can avail ourselves of that we can be wiser and have greater insight. Certain altered states I think push the boundary one way or the other. There are old studies [showing] that, for example psychedelic substances promote quantum-states in the receptors. It may be that in a psychedelic state the brain, or the mind, is more in a quantum-state or a dreamlike-state (which includes multiple existing possibilities, deep interconnections, timelessness—all of which are characteristics of the Quantum world.)
Regina Meredith: The physical world will appear differently…colors will appear differently, for example….All of that, you are saying…the senses expanded beyond?
Stuart Hameroff: There’s that, and there’s also the fact that you are having more conscious moments per time, per clock time; and they are of greater intensity. You are having more conscious moments of greater intensity but you are in the Quantum Subconscious—which has like a treasure-trove of information. And it’s arranged differently: as I said, deep interconnection, multiple co-existing possibilities. A psychologist, Ignacio Matte Blanco analyzed the logic of dreams, actually in the 70s, and over thirty-years of study the logic that came out of peoples dreams was very much like the logic we see in Quantum Theory. So, I think the subconscious is in the Quantum world; and the transition from the Quantum world to the Classic world is consciousness. This is very much like something in the Kaballah. The Kaballah talks about two worlds: a one-percent world of aggravation; and a ninety-nine percent world of wisdom and light. Now, you’d think it should be the other way around: I’m likening the wisdom and light to the Quantum world and the one-percent world to the Classical world, which is larger; but the amount of information in the Quantum world is so vast…I think the ninety-nine percent world is the world of wisdom and light. The Kaballah says that consciousness dances on the edge between the two worlds; and I think that fits perfectly.
Regina Meredith: Ancient wisdom is coming around to basically be scientifically validated today.
Stuart Hameroff: I hope they will be scientifically validated; because I think it’s a very nice thought.
Regina Meredith: Sounds like you’re doing your part. Thank you so much.
Stuart Hameroff: Thank you.
**** Once you’ve seen this interview you’ll want to see Vernon Woolf. At a recent What the Bleep?! conference physicist Dr. Ted Wolf told the attendees, “If you want to know how to put all this What the Bleep?! information into motion go see Vernon.” Until next time, thanks for watching.
© Conscious Media Network Inc. All Rights Reserved.
The Yuga Cycles of the Ages,Nevada City, May 25-28
PDF 