I had difficulty watching the video. Instead of presenting a thesis, and then providing justifications or background information for that thesis, it had the form of a stream of consciousness, where the narrator skimmed across a variety of poorly-understood and weakly-connected topics. After watching, I couldn't tell you clearly what the Pribram-Bohm hypothesis was, let alone whether it was plausible.
As a specific example, I have a fair understanding of the Fourier transform, and use one of its
relatives very heavily in my day job. The video introduced it, presented a mostly-wrong example of what it does, and then included it as a integral part of the following slides, without clarifying what utility it served. The Fourier transform is just a mathematical tool, for making certain types of problems easier to work with. The Fourier transform requires infinite extent in time and frequency, so it
does not, and cannot, have any correspondence to physical reality. He could have substituted
any other tool in the slides (like a computer, a hammer, or a squedge-wodger), and it wouldn't have made what he was saying any more or less clear.
In one of the slides, the speed of light was written wrong (it's ~3.00*(10^8) m/s). This may seem like nitpicking, but it's the physical equivalent of a person giving a mathematical lecture and saying "pi = 2".
In the youtube comments (ick, I know) somebody said:
I have a PhD in experimental psychology from the University of California, San Diego.
5 minutes in, the video states that there's a 3d electrical field in the dendrites of cerebral cortex neurons "shown on the right". the cell depicted is not from the cerebral cortex but from the cerebellum. This would be something covered in any 101 level undergrad course. I doubt that the video maker has any actual knowledge of neuroscience.
So...don't take that video too seriously, I guess.
One topic in the video is Bohn's concept of "implicate order". This line of thinking is that all the "strangeness" we observe in quantum particles is likely explainable by a form of order even smaller than that. That even the smallest matter we can conceive of is playing by rules determined by even smaller unobserved subquantum forces. Bohn called this hidden level of reality the "implicate order". It's maybe like the source code of reality.
It's conceivable that there is another layer below quantum mechanics, but I agree with LMNO's opinion that it is probably even weirder. This implicate order idea seems like adding
another turtle to the stack. But that's not how the study of physics works. Nobody
wanted this quantum physics crap, it was invented so that we had a mathematical model for the weirdness we were observing.
And the model works. It predicts the behaviour of nanoscale semiconductors, for example. The "implicate order" idea doesn't appear to explain anything that needs explaining, or give us any tools to better understand reality.
Think about how psychology is derived from biology. Biology is derived from chemistry. Chemistry derived from physics. Particle physics is derived from quantum physics. So psychology is "really" a derivation of quantum physics.
Each layer is not so much
derived from the lower layer, as it is
explained by it. You can do biology without going too deep into chemistry, you can do lots of chemistry without messing around with quantum physics. Science works its way down, not up. Yes, structures at a high-level are comprised of lower-level components, but the high-level behaviour of a system isn't necessarily dictated by it's lower level components.
When you're driving a car around, it doesn't matter very much to you if the engine is fuel-injection, carbureted, rotary, electric, or steam-powered (unless you need to visit the mechanic). You almost certainly aren't concerned with quantum-mechanical effects; they simply aren't significant at car-scale.
Similarly, there's no need to invoke quantum physics when considering human psychology...unless
you need to visit the mechanic encounter some phenomena that can't be explained otherwise. I don't think we've reached that point. I don't see any reason why a sufficiently sophisticated electronic computer couldn't emulate human consciousness, and it
doesn't invoke quantum "randomness" to function (in fact, teh quantums mostly just get in the way).
