Stuart Hameroff on Singularity 1 on 1: Consciousness is More than Computation!

Dr. Stuart Hameroff is a Professor of Anesthesiology and Psychology, and Director of the Center for Consciousness Studies at the University of Arizona. Together with British quantum physicist Sir Roger Penrose, Hameroff is the co-author of the controversial Orch OR model of consciousness.

I first met Dr. Hameroff at the recent GF2045 conference where the usually mild-mannered Ray Kurzweil went out of his way to make it abundantly clear that the Orch OR model is totally wrong. Others called it “speculative,” “non-testable” and “unscientific”. By now both Stuart and Roger must have become accustomed to such attacks, and I have developed a lot of respect for the calm but firm way they are daring to stand their ground. Furthermore, if the Orch OR model were to be correct, then, there will be profound implications on variety of fields and disciplines such as medicine, neuroscience, artificial intelligence, quantum physics and philosophy. And so I decided to bring Dr. Hameroff on Singularity 1 on 1 where we can confront the controversy head-on.

Stuart Hameroff

Photo by Carl Geers

During our 1 hour conversation with Stuart we cover a variety of interesting topics such as: how he got interested in studying consciousness and the definition thereof; why understanding anesthesia is the route to understanding consciousness; the hard problem of consciousness; why the brain is more than a classical computer; how Hameroff reached out to Roger Penrose after reading The Emperor’s New Mind; the Orch OR model and why the vast majority of scientists are disdainful of it; the best ways of proving or disproving the Hameroff/Penrose model and the most important implications if it is indeed correct; out-of-body experiences, quantum souls, afterlife, and reincarnation; Hinduism and Buddhism; cryonics and chemical brain preservation; Stuart’s upcoming paper [together with Roger Penrose] where they will review and present new evidence in support of the Orch OR theory.

Some of the most memorable quotes that I will take away from this interview are:

“Consciousness is the most important thing there is!”

“Assuming that a neuron is a bit-like [computer] firing ON or OFF is a tremendous insult to neurons.”

“Most scientists can’t explain consciousness in the brain, so they can’t say that consciousness out of the brain is impossible.”

“Consciousness is the music of the Universe.”

This is by far the highest quality, best produced and most expensive interview that I have done so far. It would have never happened without the generous support of Richard and Tatiana Sundvall. I am also very obliged to videographer Carl Geers not only for doing a great job behind the camera but also for putting up with my mercilessly caustic sense of humor for three long days. Finally, I want to thank Dr. Stuart Hameroff for welcoming a “Singularity/AI type” like me in his operating room, as well as his genuine willingness to address any and all of my tough questions on the spot, without preparation and prior approval.

(You can listen to/download the audio file above or watch the video interview in full. If you want to help me produce more high-quality episodes like this one please make a donation!)

YouTube Preview Image


Who is Stuart Hameroff?

Stuart R. Hameroff, M.D. is Professor of Anesthesiology and Psychology, and Director of the Center for Consciousness Studies at the University of Arizona in Tucson, Arizona. A full-time clinical anesthesiologist, he also organizes the well-known interdisciplinary conferences Toward a Science of Consciousness, and serves on the Editorial Board of the Journal of Consciousness Studies. Stuart earned his B.S. in Chemistry at the University of Pittsburgh in 1969, and his M.D. at Hahnemann Medical College in Philadelphia in 1973.

In medical school in the early 1970s, Stuart became interested in microtubules, protein structures which organize intra-cellular activities. Struck by their lattice structure and seeming intelligence, Stuart and his colleagues in the 1980s developed a theory of microtubules as information processing devices — as self-organizing molecular computers inside cells, for example supporting consciousness in brain neurons. In 1987 he authored Ultimate Computing: Biomolecular Consciousness and Nanotechnology, which closed with a Singularity-like vision of large microtubule arrays into which human consciousness could be downloaded and preserved.

But while microtubule-level processing immensely increased the brain’s potential computational capacity, Stuart came to believe computation per se failed to solve the problem of conscious experience. Having also studied quantum-level mechanisms of anesthesia, he became enamored of quantum approaches to consciousness. In the early 1990s he teamed with Sir Roger Penrose to develop the controversial Penrose-Hameroff Orch OR model of consciousness based on quantum computation in microtubules within neurons. More recently, Stuart developed the conscious pilot, a theory supportive of Orch OR involving spatiotemporal envelopes of dendritic synchrony moving through the brain as a conscious agent, a concept similar to certain AI approaches of executive ‘bubbles of awareness’ moving through computational manifolds.

In addition to writing Ultimate Computing (Elsevier), Stuart has appeared in the surprise hit film What the Bleep!? and has published 140-or-so peer reviewed articles such as: The brain is both neurocomputer and quantum computerOrchestrated reduction of quantum coherence in brain microtubules (with Penrose), Conscious events as orchestrated space-time selections (with Penrose), Quantum computation in brain microtubules: Decoherence and biological feasibility (with physicists Scott Hagan and Jack Tuszynski).

Dr. Hameroff’s website is


  • Rich Sundvall

    Outstanding work Socrates. Another step up in your career.

  • Socrates

    I am only as good as my friends Rich! Those are the people without whom I will have neither the means nor the motivation to keep going ;-)

  • Michelle Cameron

    Thank you, that was an absolutely thrilling interview, and has left me with more questions than answers, and I love when that happens.

    To be honest, I find Kurzweil’s opinions quite compelling, yet I also think if Hameroff is correct, we could be looking at a unified theory of consciousness and the quantum world that would not at all conflict with superintelligence that Kurzweil is predicting, although the time to the Singularity might have to be extended.

    But is that necessarily true? the Law of Accelerating Returns seems to hold true regardless of setbacks, including new theories or revisions, and perhaps what Hameroff needs is more computation to model the quantum state of microtubules? Perhaps 2045 isn’t impossible, and Kurzweil’s theory would hold true, and at the same time his views on consciousness could be proven wrong without affecting the Singularity. There is a lot to think about to reconcile Hameroff’s theory.

  • Marius Catalin

    So if the brain isn’t equivalent to 10^16 flops than why so many orders of magnitude higher. What is it doing with all that computing power? Conciseness? Is a huge difference between a classical brain and a quantum one in terms of computing power. You have a C Elegan worm that with his microtubules from the 300 or so neurons is orders of magnitude more powerful than the first from top500 list. And what is it doing? I don’t get it.

  • Guustaaf Damave

    Great show!

  • Socrates

    I don’t know what to say Marius, other than point out that Stuart Hameroff actually explains that. So perhaps you can give the interview a second listen and make sure you are not interrupted by other stuff ;-)

  • Socrates

    Very glad to hear that William, this is why I do it so if you tell me that I have “moved your thinking up a couple of gears” that means I haven’t spent my time, or the money from my donor, in vain. Fantastic!

  • Socrates

    Thank you Joe, I was very fortunate to have a good team behind me on that one. Carl Geers did a great job behind the camera and Rich Sundvall not only paid for it all but also edited the final cut of the interview. So, I was able to focus on what I do best – get my homework done before the interview and have a good conversation during. I also have to add that Dr. Hameroff was very gracious in his own right, despite my constant prodding and pushing ;-)

  • Jacob Top Møller

    I completely agree. I find it really fascinating that this interview tries to grasp some of the aspects we have completely ignored in our westernised way of perceiving the mind and consciousness. Dreams, the subconsciousness, awareness altering drugs, meditation, medians in acupuncture, qi and so on.

    I also find it interesting that Geordie Rose doesn’t share the same ideas about the mind operating at a quantum level…

    This is a really good interview! Thank you Nikola .

  • Tomaj Javidtash

    Great interview. I have one question regarding the claim that quantum consciousness may be something that can exist outside the brain. I cannot see how consciousness can be not embodied and yet give conscious experience? If you pay attention to the structure of experience you see that objects are objects precisely as things that have a size, shape, a distance from you (which determines its apparent size and shape), are either on your left, right, or in front of you, and are always viewed in a particular perspective and not from all or no perspectives. All of this points to body that has a position in the world, eyes precisely as located in the front, etc. Out of body consciousness then cannot give us conscious experience the way we know experience. Even an out of body experience occurs from some point in space, from a distance, with things on either side of body. It is impossible to have experience without these features. How is this explained?

  • Pingback: Futurism, Spirituality, and Faith | London Futurists

  • AuthorX1

    I found Hameroff’s concepts interesting, and I think it’s a
    shame that people attack and/or summarily dismiss out of the box thinking like his.
    Maybe there’s something in his theories and maybe there isn’t, but when any
    theory is still unproven and there are still quite a few complexities and unknowns
    to work through, it’s too early for a summary judgment. The theory may well prove
    that some of our old ideas, (upon which we base the initial dismissal of the
    theory), are unfounded.

    Obviously his theories have been challenged by Kurzweil and
    others, and it has put him on the defensive — and the offensive as well, apparently
    — but for him to try generalize AI/Singularity as being married to a
    traditional “Newtonian computing” model running at 10exp16 CPS is unfair. I too
    am one of those AI/Singularity types, but I’m not stuck on any specific computing

    I don’t know how other people think about it, but my concept
    of AI/Singularity could easily persist in the face of proof of Hameroff’s Orch
    OR model. My idea of the singularity is simply that we are approaching a point
    at which technology will effectively submerge human cognitive capacity, and it
    will force us to evolve with it, hopefully toward an improved “quality of life.”
    One of the ideas that tend to go with the concept of the singularity is that of
    an exponentially increasing rate of technological evolution. Maybe proof of
    Hameroff’s model will be an artifact of that, and it will be the key to
    unlocking the secrets of the human mind.

    Listening to him speak, I was reminded of the saying, “If
    all you have is a hammer, then every problem begins to look like a nail.” It
    also reminded me a little of that old Chris Rock Robotissin bit. Looking for
    consciousness? Mircotubules. Got a cough
    due to cold? Microtubules. Upside down
    in your mortgage? Microtubules! I suppose that one has to be a bit obsessive and
    aggressive in order to put out the political fires and push through the
    social/technical obstacles when proving a new and/or controversial scientific
    theory, but I felt that he went a bit too far with some of his generalizations
    in defense of his ideas.

    He’s a brilliant guy, obviously, but for him to announce
    that consciousness is not computational is jumping the gun a bit, I think. As
    with “AI” and “singularity”, the term “computational” is not tied to a specific
    architecture. I’m reminded of another one of my favorite quotes. It was George E. Box who once said that, “essentially,
    all models are wrong, but some are useful.” So let’s assume that somewhere down
    the road the Orch OR model leads us to a discovery as to what consciousness is really
    all about, and we find quantum incoherence at the root of it all. Can we not
    also envision beyond that, to a point where some sort of mechanism is devised
    that can capture/manage/control the relevant quantum phenomena so that we can
    use it in the production of a “synthetic”, “sentient”, “computational” “mind”?
    I heard nothing that would convince me otherwise, but it was an interesting
    segment nonetheless, so thanks again Socrates for another great interview.


  • Samuel J.M. King

    Wow! What a wonderful interview. Much of the science Dr. Hameroff discussed was well beyond me, but if I get his central point about the nature of consciousness, it simply rings true. As an old computer programmer and lifelong enthusiast I’ve long been dubious about finding it (consciousness) within the strictures of current AI.

  • Sunrider

    Wow – great stuff Nik. One of the most fascinating and inspiring interviews.

    Seems to me that a lot of confusion around intelligence and consciousness persists (or is perpetuated – whether inadvertently or to defend the ‘emergent property’ hypothesis).

    One thing I feel wasn’t addressed very much is the nature of consciousness, though – if we have brain level AI that is not conscious, can it be creative? Do we expect it to have an inner drive? Does our internal motivation spring from consciousness or is it a biological left-over from evolution?


  • Jelle Haandrikman

    That was a very interesting interview. I like the link to the Eastern philosophies and how they think about consciousness. As I train martial arts (aikido and kobudo) now for 14 years, you see these concepts coming back and how modern science can come to the same conclusions. As science progresses we discover that Taoism and Buddhism we’re onto something.

    I forwarded the link of this episode to my Kobudo/martial arts teacher. His main goal to teach is for his students to have fun, learn and grow physically, mentally and spiritually. Next to teaching the standard techniques, he also searches for more traditional techniques and concepts of martial arts and is also interested in this kind of material.

    Sometimes he correlates Eastern philosophy, budo (way of the martial arts) and modern science with his instructions. He has talked many times about acting consciousness of yourself and that you can train that through martial arts and Zen. This episode support these lessons that he has given us.
    If he gets through the episode, it will help him teach these kinds of concepts to his skeptical Western minded students.

    More info about him:

  • Peter Heard

    So, seems to me like Consciousness and AI aren’t necessarily exclusive. You could still have super intelligent machines, more intelligent than humans that aren’t consciousness. I don’t really understand why there is a big hoo haa between Stuart and the AI types.

    Stuarts opinions seem to make complete sense I don’t believe what we exist in in a straight line it feels more like it’s cyclical it would make sense that our brains are producing a stream of information that is stored either in our brain or is released when we die.

    But i’m still looking forward to breakfast made by a team of bots.

  • Pingback: Transhumanist Philosopher David Pearce on Singularity 1 on 1: Give Up Eating Meat!

  • Jonathan Roseland

    You might want to take some Piracetam before listening to this interview!

  • Pingback: Grady Booch on Singularity 1 on 1: Enjoy the beauty of what you’re doing but also take responsibility