My response to Dr. Stephen E. Robbins critique of Hameroff and Penrose

 Dr. Robbins this was the most intriguing video for me as I first corresponded with Professor Hameroff back around 2004 or so. I find it interesting that you didn't really mention music as Stuart know emphasizes that reality is more like music than a computer. Penrose has a long time collaboration with Professor Basil J. Hiley (Bohm's partner) who even helped Penrose coin the term "spinor." So when Stuart defers to Penrose then there's no need to single out Penrose as being reified. Both Penrose and Hiley now rely on a Noncommutative math model - not a "superposition" wave model. Penrose admits though that he doesn't do noncommutative math.

 But did you see Sabine's recent critique of the Holographic Universe model? She is also unaware of Eddie Oshin's noncommutative critique of Karl Pribram. So your claim seems a bit of a "strawman argument" because you point out that the brain is not a quantum computer and then you state that quantum computers don't work so how could the brain BE a quantum computer. So again I would just drop the whole quantum computing framework of debate.

 

It's better to consider the field of "quantum biology" - Stuart has coauthored papers with Professor Jack Tuszynski - most physicists ignore or dismiss "quantum biology" as do most biologists. 

 

Of course my own approach is to rely on my own training in nonwestern meditation and from my own experiences I then compare what the scientists are stating. For example Brian Josephson (who also practices qigong and I've corresponded with him) - he emphasizes that the foundation of his "effect" is an inherent "symmetry breaking" of spacetime. And now Josephson has been studying math professor Louis Kauffman on noncommutative math and how it relates (possibly) to cymatics as acoustics. 

 

So this does tie back to tubulin as a non-local phonon energy that is noncommutative. Also in terms of the EPR or Bell's Inequality - how come you don't mention Professor Jean Bricmont? He has a book and lectures focused just on Bell's Inequality and - Bricmont is a promoting of the de Broglie-Bohm "model." So as Bricmont points out even Stephen Hawking did not properly understand Bell's Inequality. Pretty funny.

 

part 2 

 

 A person can feel someone else's pain - holographically - through the "ether" (or whatever you want to call it). So I'm not sure if these assumptions are valid.

 

So there is a science of this in Traditional Chinese Medicine based on the emotions of the organs. So the pineal gland is like an "ether" transducer and each emotion is tied to the main organs. So the organs "store" the emotional memories. 

 

This is obviously very different than Western view of emotions. For example smoking causes depression in TCM - because damage to the lungs causes sadness. This is completely corroborated via the "ether" itself as a quantum nonlocal "direct perception" or knowledge. 

 

In other words the "ether" will cause a person to feel someone else's depression - inside their OWN body - as a holographic interaction of the other person's lung damage due to smoking. So the feeling will happen holographically at the speed of light - or it could be from the future or long distance (again via the ether as pure time). So Westerners wrongly project their left brain dominant materialism as the foundation of reality and then go off on the wrong tangents.