Biocentrism (Robert Lanza), Orch-OR (Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff)

[Al Cannistraro]

Question for Bernardo Kastrup:  

In order to help me learn subject matter such as yours, I am preparing a talk for my Freethinkers group on Biocentrism and Idealism.  I feature your work along with the work of Robert Lanza and Bob Berman (Biocentrism) and the work of Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff (Orch-OR theory of quantum consciousness).  Would you care to comment on these thinkers and on how your work might relate to theirs?  

I have seen others on this forum speculate about what you might think about the above, but i have not seen your own thoughts.  Apologies if I have overlooked anything.

Thank you very much for what you do.  

A description of my talk can be found here: https://wordpress.com/post/raisedcatholicblog.wordpress.com/523

[Alex Merab]

Hi Al, I'm familiar with all above mentioned authors works and can tell you that Robert Lanzas work is perfectly inline with Bernardos ideas and ends up with same conclusion that most probably reality of reality is 'consciousness only'. Regarding Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff theory, excuse my language, but I think it is a masturbative work.

[Al Cannistraro]

Alex,

Thanks so much for your reply.  I still would like to know if Bernardo has anything to say.  

If his conclusions are inline with Lanza's, I'd still like to know his take on Biocentrism.  

Regarding Orch-OR, I'd like to know, for example, how that theory wold be classified philosophically. 

As I sort of understand it, Penrose thinks that consciousness might be intrinsic to biological matter via the structure of microtubules, where "objective reduction" of quantum superposition results in brief and tiny instances of consciousness.  He thinks the brain might be orchestrating these brief instances of consciousness in a way that results in what we experience as humans.

Hameroff refers to structures and processes in microtubules that act as quantum computers as the Quantum Underground.  (At least, I heard him use that term once in a video.)

Penrose thinks that the quantum processes in microtubules are a connection with the most fundamental forces or processes or structures. (I'm not yet clear on that.)

If Penrose and Hameroff's hypothesis is plausible, should't intellectual honesty dictate that Bernardo at least consider it?   Perhaps he has and I don't know it. 

I saw in a video that Bernardo once sat on a panel on consciousness organized by Chopra.  In that instance, Bernardo and Hameroff were on the "same team"  that was opposing Michael Shermer and two materialist colleagues.  From what I could tell, Bernardo and Hameroff felt comfortable with each other.

Anyway, I'm already locked-in to giving a talk on Biocentrism, Idealism, and Orch-OR, but I am eager to learn as much as I can as I prepare.  If Bernardo thinks as you do about Orch-OR, I'll have to frame my talk that way.  But I don't think I should just on your unexplained say-so.  

Thanks again for responding to my request, and thanks to whoever allowed me to pass through the "initial posting moderation" gate. (This is my first post here.)

[David Gabriel]

Hi Al,

Bernardo approves of the work of Robert Lanza. I've seen him do so twice in writing, once on here and once on his blog.

Biocentrism and Bernardo's formulation of idealism are very similar but not identical. I believe this is why Bernardo doesn't reference Biocentrism. Bernardo's idealism is a bit closer to Immanuel Kant's than to Robert Lanza's.

But ultimately, Lanza's, Bernardo's, and Kant's are mutually intelligible. If one of them is the correct one or the more correct one, it doesn't make much of a difference.

I've studied this subject a great deal and idealism, whichever kind, is the most satisfying. But I look into other stuff as well. There's other stuff. Some of it plausible. I'm not the world's biggest fan of Orch-OR but if 

it's correct then at least it means there's potentially a point to life. My issue with it is not with its implications but with its plausibility.

Hameroff calls idealism 'Deepak Island.' 

[Al Cannistraro]

If Orch-OR is correct in establishing that consciousness is a process that can be understood in terms of quantum physics, does that destroy the idea that consciousness is an "ontological primitive," or does that merely necessitate some re-framing or adjustment?

And regarding Biocentrism/Idealism, if Orch-OR is correct, should that impact the belief that our perceptions are subjective mental experiences (rooted in our biology)?  In other words, aside from the above, are there other possible conflicts between Orch-OR and Idealism?

Please cut me some slack for my lack of philosophical knowledge, sophistication, articulateness, etc.  I'm just trying to grasp the basics.  Thanks for any help you might be able and willing to provide..

On Monday, October 23, 2017 at 7:29:30 AM UTC-4, Al Cannistraro wrote:

[Dana Lomas]

It may actually require a one to one conversation between BK and SH to see if there is some way to reconcile their respective models. It would surely be an interesting exercise. I know that they have been on the same side of a panel discussion/debate opposing a materialist position, in this Sages and Scientists gathering, but don't know if they've actually had any opportunity to compare notes in any detailed way, as an attempt to correlate Orch-OR and BK's idealism. However, in this chat between Deepak Chopra and Stuart Hameroff, there is clearly some common ground to be found between the Vedantic model and Orch-OR, positing an equating of what DC calls 'pure consciousness' with what SH calls 'proto consciousness' -- presumably being different names for the ontological primitive -- and seemingly, in theory, not far removed from BK's take on the primacy of consciousness as Mind-at-large. SH also speaks of Platonic values (what Plato called fundamental Ideas) as being intrinsic to such a proto-consciousness, which would seem to be leaning toward some kind of idealism -- and again not far removed from BK's thinking. While there may be certain nuanced differences that need to be worked out in some ongoing discussion, it seems that it is at least feasible that such a consensus could be found.

[Al Cannistraro]

Re a conversation between Kastrup and Hameroff to discuss their differences, I am reminded of how I was introduced to the work of Bernardo and of Hameroff.  A young philosopher named Curtis ("Nohmad") Page interviewed Bernardo on a website/app I was following called Blab, and then he interviewed Hameroff.  This is the link to the Hameroff interview https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7J9RM1SCfuQ and this is the link to the Bernardo interview.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0aYqsl_hSNc  Blab is no longer around.  If it were, I'd suggest that Page facilitate a conversation if the three were amenable.  Page's website is here: https://www.facebook.com/the.nohmad/  

On Monday, October 23, 2017 at 7:29:30 AM UTC-4, Al Cannistraro wrote:

[David Gabriel]

I'm going to have to be blunt and say Orch-OR is incompatible with idealism. Yes, if Orch-OR is true, it destroys the idea that consciousness is the ontological primitive. I've seen a few times on here that some people want Bernardo to be able to reconcile his view with that of anyone's, just so long as they are not a materialist.

A line has to be drawn somewhere, and I'm going to draw it at Orch-OR. I also draw it in regards to Rupert Sheldrake's view because Bernardo himself has said he considers Sheldrake's view a kind of materialism. Of course in both these cases, there is a positive and uplifting message, and this is why I think people want Bernardo to be able to reconcile his model with Hameroff's and Sheldrake's.

In Biocentrism it's sometimes said and suggested that life and physics are correlative. What this sort of means is one cannot exist without the other. In which case, the realities of consciousness and the realities of physics are equally valid. Nonetheless, Lanza does ultimately side with life when it really comes down to it, because he says life is primary due to the fact that without it, nothing would be experienced, including physics even if there were some. This is more of a philosophical point however.

Bernardo has also said that if there were a universe and no one or thing was experiencing it, it might as well not exist and in a sense it does not exist, in the sense of being experienced that is.

Hameroff doesn't like the idea of mind as the ontological primitive because it means it can't be explained scientifically, only philosophically. The argument for the ontological primitive is that there has to be something fundamental and it is either nothingness, or physics, or mind. Because we can all see there is something rather than nothing, most of us can rule out the idea of nothingness being the ontological primitive. Lawrence Krauss can't do this, and you can read his book A Universe from Nothing, where he makes the case that nothingness is the ontological primitive.

Putting Lawrence Krauss and those like him aside, we are left with physics and mind to choose from when it comes to what the ontological primitive is. Mind is experienced directly by each of us whereas physics is an abstraction we are experiencing in our minds. This fact places our minds above physics in our direct experience. How could something contained by our minds be generating our minds? It's plausible that it could be but if you investigate this subject enough you will find mind being the ontological primitive more satisfying than physics being so.

I never cease to learn something new about this subject and so I have not made a final judgement on the matter. But idealism out of all of them is the most plausible and most satisfying.

[Dana Lomas]

I agree David that Orch OR is not idealism in the strict sense. Neither is Biocentrism or panpsychism (in the sense of there being conscious particles of matter) -- however, in some sense they are leaning toward idealism, and away from materialism. This is why I say they could conceivably be reconciled with idealism, within the context of an ongoing open-minded discussion between the various proponents. If not, then there seems little hope of supplanting materialism as the prevailing model with a consensus model in some way based on the primacy of consciousness.  I see Hameroff's model as an attempt to reconcile QM with consciousness. Also Don Hoffman's model of Conscious Realism attempts such a reconciliation, which he explains in this chat with Robert Wright. I feel BK would agree that idealism must be reconciled with neural-correlates and QM. As such, there would appear to be some common ground to work upon there. Of course, they may nonetheless end up disagreeing and finding no consensus. But only an actual dialogue between them, beyond just conjecture, can resolve that. 

[David Gabriel]

I believe Hameroff knows Bernardo's position very well. The main thing he doesn't like about it is that it's a philosophical position and not a scientific one. Hameroff wants things like quantum physics, which is a type of physics, and he wants microtubules to be involved, which are biology and physics. He's also into the plank scale and so on so forth. Basically physics.

I don't think Hameroff needs to speak to Bernardo about this because he has already had that conversation with Deepak who puts forward the same data points as Bernardo does. I've even seen Deepak has taken very deeply on board some of Bernardo's language. I don't know who came up with 'ontological primitive' but it's probably the most formidable term to be coined in this area of debate. If you don't know what it means it won't bother you but if you do know precisely what it means, it will. If you're a materialist and you know what it means and you also know the philosophical position of idealism, you are in trouble.

A lot of stuff is being figured out. I think the atheist materialist scientists are coming at this thing from an angle of always trying to make sure anything they say implies there is no God, no purpose, no point, no meaning, no afterlife, no paranormal, no supernatural, no psi, no psychic, no mystical. More neutral scientists like the people at Quantum Gravity Research are easier for me to listen to.

I'm reading a book by an atheist materialist and he claims at the beginning of it that people who think there might be an afterlife only think so because they are incapable of grasping non-being. They are perfectly capable of grasping it, they just aren't 100% sure it is the case. As far as that is concerned, he is a complete idiot. What is more, those who grasp non-being the most vividly are the most aware that it isn't frightening. The thing that becomes frightening to the person who can vividly grasp it is that it means what they're doing right now is ultimately pointless. It is the present moment that becomes frightening rather than a future non-moment of non-anything-at-all.

There is something known in psychology called 'inversion.' It is when someone can derive pleasure form something usually experienced as painful. Allow me to illustrate this with an example:

I became aware of a sports champion, specifically in the world of competitive martial arts, and I made the acquaintance of an accomplished man in the same sport but not anywhere near as accomplished as the champion. I kept commenting on how spectacular the champion was to the moderately accomplished man, until one evening, he said to me bluntly, 'He's just a ****.' I can't write the word on here so it's in asterisks but the point he was making was that the guy cared so much about being better than everyone, he was willing to train much harder than everyone else and basically suffer an untold amount.

What he had achieved in order to be able to do this inhuman training is inversion. The act of deriving pleasure from something usually experienced as painful. He was thinking of his superiority over others gained from his excessive training and therefore deriving pleasure from it. I.e. he is a ****.

I've noticed many atheist materialists are incapable of achieving inversion. They do not want to do anything that involves pain and suffering. Instead they want as much pleasure as possible. I believe this is because they are convinced everything they're doing is ultimately pointless and therefore their only objective is to experience pleasure, with that being the only point to anything in their eyes in the present moment, which is the only one that exists for them and temporarily, they assume.

I rarely experience pleasure because I spend most of my time doing challenging activities. Some atheist materialists that know me find my life experience to be a horror and it is because they can't understand why I don't just get drunk every other night and be cognitively like a vegetable, as they are.

I believe most of my ability to endure challenging activities comes from my agnosticism. A spiritual author has written a book about how to care for the distant future, way beyond your current life. A lot of these idiots are making things difficult for the rest of us because they're concerned with the present moment and how much pleasure they can obtain from it.

[Dana Lomas]

Well, BK's background is also scientific, and therefore also offers a formulation in which idealism and empirical science are not incompatible. As another option, this commentary on Whiteheadian Process Philosophy, along with a comparative exploration of various alternative ontological/cosmological models may be apropos here. 

[David Gabriel]

I agree Bernardo's formulation is compatible with science. In Biocentrism it is said that a species that accepts idealism and develops technologically will possibly gain control over space and time. If scientists figure this thing out then in the future that might be what happens.

[Mark Robert]

Perhaps BK and SH could complement one another like wave and particle. One metaphor for Reality that seems useful is a surface, in that it has an inside aspect (mind) that is not visible, and an outside aspect (matter/energy) that is visible and measurable, with neither reducible to the other. Here first-person epistemology (metaphysics) cannot be reduced to third person ontology (physics). And vice versa.  

In keeping with that, I'm frankly becoming less excited about seeking a reduction to an ontological primitive (the fifth element or quintessence), even my favorite OP, emptiness. That may be the cure for suffering but not everyone is interested in that and anyway, the problem of explanation still remains. Even if emptiness is understood it remains, since there is always the making sense of experience. On that level, I object to microtubules and Orch-OR on aesthetic grounds. Who can write an uplifting poem about microtubules? It does not rhyme with anything. Orch-OR at least puts me in mind of George Orr (Jor Jor), the protagonist of Ursula LeGuin's brilliant Lathe of Heaven, movie version here, in which George discovered that his dreams controlled reality. Blew my mind when I was 14, come to think of it I'm realizing right at this moment that that book may have been what started me on my trip here in some forgotten way. Best line: "To let understanding stop at what cannot be understood is a high attainment. Those who cannot do it will be destroyed on the lathe of heaven." Which, it turns out, was a poor translation of Chuang Tzu. 

These correspondences may seem random, but if it's a fact that reality is mind, then isn't there a cocreative interplay between story, dream, and the projected physical world? What else explains the bizarre synchronicities and serendipities of life? If so, aesthetics matter, and on that ontological ground I'm wanting some better words than microtubles and Orch-OR. :)

[Dana Lomas]

Yes, I'm no longer sure that even naming the OP isn't a kind of trap, in that it will forever remain free of any such limitation, such that, paraphrasing the song lyric (sing along y'all): Freedom is another word for no identity left to lose :)

[Rigpa]

Just saw this today. I really don't want Orch-OR to be true.

https://m.theepochtimes.com/uplift/a-
controversial-theory-of-consciousness-gains-support-with-new-evidence_2342641.html?utm_content=buffer29bec&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

[Mark Robert]

One of my primary objections to Orch-OR is Hammeroff's goatee. But, like the sun, that does not appear to be going anywhere, so I will get used to it. Other than that, I don't doubt that there have to be "physical" correlates to the patterns experienced in consciousness, doesn't there? So maybe Orch-OR is it. 

Microtubules and Orch-OR may explain how the TV works, but it does not explain the show. It does not even explain the qualia of red in just one of the pixels on the screen. That said, at some point it seems we need to know, and will, how the brain, as TV set, works. This article also gives me some sense for the uncanny effects of music, as vibration, which is nice. I will try to get cracking on the poetry, since it may be that the goatee will be on busts throughout the eons. All I got so far is a Mickey Mouse cheer: M-I-C  R-O-T  U-B-L-E-S ... And then fistules, pustules, ug....Dana, help me out here.

[Dana Lomas]

Sorry Mark, but 'I' don't dream up this stuff ... I can only defer to the mysterious pillow-talking 'mistress' :)

[Dana Lomas]

While the high priests of science may be getting closer to an explanation of a correlation between consciousness and its emanations, they are still missing the point that these have no objective source.

[Rigpa]

That goatee! haha

You're right, Mark. I mean the brain is in Consciousness and we know that it doesn't generate consciousness. So, no biggie that microtubules are also in consciousness. And Dana - absolutely correct. 

[Ben Iscatus]

O mysterious microtubules...

You are so miniscule!

Can you capture in your hidden nodules

A consciousness of godlike rule?

Or did the dark Lord of Misrule

Create you from a quantum pustule

To make us think mere molecules

Could generate a homuncule?

[Rigpa]

Love it Ben!

[Dana Lomas]

Not easy to poeticize a microtubule, using the rhyming couplets rule ... Methinks the mistress hath been cheating! :)

[Mark Robert]

Oh I am envious Ben! Awesome!