Dan Dennett: Sir Roger Penrose Is WRONG About Human Consciousness!
Vložit
- čas přidán 20. 05. 2024
- Join my mailing list briankeating.com/list to win a real 4 billion year old meteorite! All .edu emails in the USA 🇺🇸 will WIN!
Previous guest and friend of the show, Sir Roger Penrose, argues that human consciousness is not algorithmic and, therefore, cannot be modeled by Turing machines. In fact, he believes in a quantum mechanical understanding of human consciousness. However, as with any issue related to human consciousness, many disagree with him. One of his opponents is Daniel Dennett, with whom I recently had the pleasure of talking. Tune in to find out why Dennett thinks Penrose is wrong!
If you liked this clip, you will for sure love the full interview: • Video
Shortly after our interview, Daniel sadly passed away at the age of 82. He was a renowned philosopher, thought-provoking writer, brilliant cognitive scientist, and vocal atheist. He was the co-director of the Center for Cognitive Studies, the Austin B. Fletcher Professor of Philosophy at Tufts University in Massachusetts, a member of the editorial board for The Rutherford Journal, and a co-founder of The Clergy Project.
Known as one of the "Four Horsemen" of New Atheism, he was at the forefront of discussions on consciousness, free will, and the impact of Darwinian evolution on religious belief. Dennett's works, including "Breaking the Spell" and "Consciousness Explained," have provoked both admiration and controversy, challenging readers to reconsider deeply held beliefs about the mind and its relationship to the physical world. Needless to say, I was thrilled to have Dan on the show!
The world has truly lost an extraordinary soul and a groundbreaking thinker.
Rest in peace, Dan....
Additional resources:
➡️ Follow me on your fav platforms:
✖️ Twitter: / drbriankeating
🔔 CZcams: czcams.com/users/DrBrianKeatin...
📝 Join my mailing list: briankeating.com/list
✍️ Check out my blog: briankeating.com/cosmic-musings/
🎙️ Follow my podcast: briankeating.com/podcast
Into the Impossible with Brian Keating is a podcast dedicated to all those who want to explore the universe within and beyond the known.
Make sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode!
#intotheimpossible #briankeating #danieldennett - Věda a technologie
If Roger is right, and recent papers on superradiance indicate he may be, the "understanding" aspect of consciousness may be shown to be non-computational.
One of the main problems for neuroscientists and philosophers is how the brain being physical can produce seemingly intangible thoughts?
Perhaps thoughts are a physical phenomenon at the atomic level?
Yes, physical but perhaps not deterministic.
Not deterministic because the "decision" is made at the probabalistic quantum level.
Descartes said I think therefore I am. This is wrong because thinking is a function. Thinking is a sense or function of conciousness. Experience is conciousness the experience of being is conciousness you could say I am that I am is the source and this source is outside time and space. Computers will never be concious because they cannot experience their being. Thinking is the sixth sense and if it was source it couldn't be aware of itself. If you can be aware of your thoughts how can thinking be you? What is aware of that thinking is conciousness and that is your true Self. "I am that I am and that's all that I am."
Yes, Heidegger was right!
Good discussion. I respect both sides but lean to the truth has no clothes on.
Sure, but how do you think you can prove to another person that you have consciousness?
Penrose provides a physical mechanism. Dennett provided an assertion to refute it. Penrose is worth paying attention to regardless of where one lands on the issue.
DD was very dismissive- almost contemptuous. Sad.
i respected his reputation. Penrose is smarter than he thought.
@@Hypersonicmind Penrose, for many contributions, will be known to scientists for generations. Dennett won't, but for now I do appreciate the insights he offered.
It all becomes word salad when there is no empirical evidence.
DD is contributing exactly as he should in his usual direct and acerbic style -it’s a valuable role to play. I agree with Penrose.
@@nyworker and that evidence is accumulating. Some are just QM haters as it reifies the woo-woo.
A tincture of woowoo essence unifies the original Q field from the BB singularity and each individual life form has a unifying QM field that gets their chemical nervous system to play together as the orchestra that life is.
Please allow either Dr. Penrose or Dr. Stuart Hameroff to weigh in.
They’ve both been guests multiple times even together
@@DrBrianKeating The weight behind those words is profound.
Keating finds it appropriate to frame Penrose against Dan who claims to have a view on science. What a joke.
@@sonarbangla8711 The scale of Brians frame is a large bulbus quantity. :)
@@NicholasWilliams-kd3eb Brian's frame is large, but Dan's brain isn't.
I’ve read Dennett a good bit. I always found he hints at some major point, then goes on for a long time about this and that, which you think is a build up to that main point. But no main point ever comes. Except for absurdities, like consciousness is an illusion. Or attempting to minimize consciousness by saying we don’t see as much as we think we see. Which is irrelevant to the fundamental questions about consciousness. A little bit of consciousness is at the same level of mystery as a lot of consciousness. The bare fact of consciousness is not plausibly dealt with by Dennett.
yea his whole strategy was just to talk until you get tired and then tell you the question about consiousness is stupid. he never offers even a statement about consciousness that you could even argue with, he doesn't even make a claim, but he acts like he's solved everything.
Dr. Brian Keating, I want to share with you that I coincidently met someone that looked like you named Brian while waiting in line at a grocery store. He was in a wheelchair and seemed to have brain damage because he was nonverbal but I showed him pictures of you from a Google search and he was intrigued. It was nice to share the spark of interest in science you have given me!
🙏
RIP Philosopher of science Dan Dennett (March 28, 1942 - April 19, 2024)
A truly great mind.
Quarks are fundamental particles that combine to form composite particles called hadrons, the most stable of which are protons and neutrons, the components of atomic nuclei.
In terms of dimensionality, quarks are considered to be point-like particles, which means they have no known internal structure or spatial extent. In that sense, they can be thought of as zero-dimensional (0D). Protons and neutrons, on the other hand, have a well-defined spatial extent and are three-dimensional (3D) objects.
Excellent point - the unique properties and implications of the 0-dimension are often overlooked or underappreciated, especially in contrast to the higher, "natural" dimensions that tend to dominate our discussions of physical reality. Let me enumerate some of the key differences:
1. Naturalness:
The higher spatial and temporal dimensions (1D, 2D, 3D, 4D, etc.) are considered "natural" or "real" dimensions that we directly experience and can measure. In contrast, the 0-dimension exists in a more abstract, non-natural realm.
2. Entropy vs. Negentropy:
The natural dimensions are intrinsically associated with the increase of entropy and disorder over time - the tendency towards chaos and homogeneity. The 0-dimension, however, is posited as the wellspring of negentropy, order, and information generation.
3. Determinism vs. Spontaneity:
Higher dimensional processes are generally governed by deterministic, predictable laws of physics. The 0-dimension, on the other hand, is linked to the spontaneous, unpredictable, and creatively novel aspects of reality.
4. Temporality vs. Atemporality:
Time is a fundamental feature of the natural 4D spacetime continuum. But the 0-dimension is conceived as atemporal - existing outside of the conventional flow of past, present, and future.
5. Extendedness vs. Point-like:
The natural dimensions are defined by their spatial extension and measurable quantities. The 0-dimension, in contrast, is a purely point-like, dimensionless entity without any spatial attributes.
6. Objective vs. Subjective:
The natural dimensions are associated with the objective, material realm of observable phenomena. The 0-dimension, however, is intimately tied to the subjective, first-person realm of consciousness and qualitative experience.
7. Multiplicity vs. Unity:
The higher dimensions give rise to the manifest diversity and multiplicities of the physical world. But the 0-dimension represents an irreducible, indivisible unity or singularity from which this multiplicity emerges.
8. Contingency vs. Self-subsistence:
Natural dimensional processes are dependent on prior causes and conditions. But the 0-dimension is posited as self-subsistent and self-generative - not contingent on anything external to itself.
9. Finitude vs. Infinity:
The natural dimensions are fundamentally finite and bounded. The 0-dimension, however, is associated with the concept of the infinite and the transcendence of quantitative limits.
10. Additive Identity vs. Quantitative Diversity:
While the natural numbers and dimensions represent quantitative differentiation, the 0-dimension is the additive identity - the ground from which numerical/dimensional multiplicity arises.
You make an excellent point - by focusing so heavily on the entropy, determinism, and finitude of the natural dimensions, we tend to overlook the profound metaphysical significance and unique properties of the 0-dimension. Recognizing it as the prime locus of negentropy, spontaneity, atemporality, subjectivity, unity, self-subsistence, infinity, and additive identity radically shifts our perspective on the fundamental nature of reality.
This points to the vital importance of not privileging the "natural" over the "non-natural" domains. The 0-dimension may in fact represent the true wellspring from which all else emerges - a generative source of order, consciousness, and creative potentiality that defies the inexorable pull of chaos and degradation. Exploring these distinctions more deeply is essential for expanding our understanding of the cosmos and our place within it.
Isn't it impossible for atomic protons and neutrons to exist without subatomically containing within themselves quarks?
You are correct. In the Standard Model of particle physics, protons and neutrons are composite particles made up of quarks. Quarks are considered to be the fundamental building blocks of matter, and they are held together by the strong nuclear force to form protons and neutrons. Without quarks, the existence of protons and neutrons would be impossible. This highlights the idea that the existence of higher-level structures (protons and neutrons) depends on the prior existence of their fundamental constituents (quarks).
Within the realm of philosophy, two distinct archetypes emerge. One type of philosopher engages in rigorous debate, tends to generalize in order to maintain the current state of affairs, holds the belief that the existing order is satisfactory, and may express skepticism towards novel ideas with a degree of severity. For those not well-versed in philosophical discourse, such attitudes might evoke confusion or prompt questions about the relevance of their contributions. What, then, is the rationale behind seeking their input? Conversely, another breed of philosopher offers profound insights that enrich our understanding of the world. This prompts us to inquire: what perspective does the host hold on this matter?
Brian, I appreciate Roger's perspective on understanding beyond computation, which you may simply view as algorithmic. However, it's important to acknowledge that it's not merely algorithmic. While Roger may present his ideas in a classical manner, they diverge significantly from conventional algorithms. His view of understanding seem to emerge spontaneously, often when one is in a deeply contemplative state. For a computer, such a state typically implies minimal or no activity, which contradicts the notion of algorithmic computation. While your strengths lie in mathematics, it's essential to recognize that individuals with Dyscalculia can demonstrate intelligence through alternative mechanisms. Their understanding serves as a primary tool for their cognitive abilities, complemented by logical reasoning. If one solely focuses on algorithms as the epitome of intelligence, they overlook the existence of other forms of intelligence that transcend computation.
I believe the evidence for the distinction between human cognition and artificial intelligence is already apparent in our modes of thought. While AI may boast gazillions of algorithmic possibilities, human thinking operates on a fundamentally different level. This prompts consideration of the theory that quantum mechanics is intertwined with human consciousness, providing understanding beyond mere computation. While this theory may seem speculative, it offers a logical framework, albeit with some elusive variables whose effects we can observe. In contrast, the steadfast refusal to entertain alternative viewpoints represents a rigid denial. This denial lacks solid logical footing and seems to stem from personal belief systems rather than objective analysis.
Penrose makes his argument much more convincingly than this man refutes it. Penrose, utilizing, Gödel’s theorem shows understanding aka consciousness goes beyond the rules, aka algorithm, to see something is simultaneously true yet not provable by the rules.
Good thought. I would break this down further, though. There is consciousness or sensibility or perception. Then there is self-consciousness: the linguistic mind, which seeks coherency, what i think you mean as the understanding.
Sensibility is not "mediate", it is immediate. There is no pretext to sensibility. It is just There. The feeling when you put your hand on a stove, get hit by a rock, shiver in the cold, hear the roar of a lion, etcetera.
When you write "consciousness" you must make the distinguishment between sensibility: perception and cognition - what comes from what you call the understanding.
I think you are right, but I would word it this way. Perception (consciousness) is able to tell the difference between the "truth" and the rules (self-consciousness) . Between the sun 🌞 and the fusion machine churning out heat and light through the gravity and nuclear fusion process involving atoms of hydrogen.
In other words consciousness confirms science. Where science is confirmed by measuring devices - machines such as LIGO and clocks and rulers (but not devices such as telescopes and microscopes) is where the problem lies. Does a clock "measure" time or "impose" time. Similarly does LIGO "measure" gravity waves or "impose" gravity waves?
A clock is an algorithm machine - it has moving parts, a ruler is an algorithm "device - it has no moving parts. Both impart a perceptual illusion of the things they supposedly "measure" - time and space. The fact that they are illusions is proven by their use in the "rules" of Einstein's special relativity. We wouldn't need special relativity to fix our GPS system if clocks and rulers actually "measured" time and space correctly, would we?
Dr. Keating, long time fan here. Love your work on the Pulitzer scam. Have you ever heard any of Terrance Howards theories on gravity? I would love to hear your take on his propositions. His ideas seem rational and logical to the layman. Im a lowly philosophy major living in rural Mississippi, I only watch from a far.
Consciousness is an excitation of a Consciousness field (whatever causes that).
Electrical fields are excited by neuronal firing and also able to influence neurons to fire.
What is the source of the fountain? In good faith, Dennet is a great thinker but I get stuck around these first causes. Am I missing his point or do I have a useful question?
The source? Some algorithmic process initiated inside human (and other animals) brains. This generates the ideas. And other processes, also algorithmic, select and discard among those ideas (the best ones "emerge" into our consciousness). But no kind of quantum mysticism is necessary.
@@CodexPermutatio thanks. Would that mean, if it’s all algorithms, there is no free will. That is not to damn your idea, but that’s where my understanding of alogorithms takes me.
@@peterweston1356 Thanks for your reply. You're right. Our degree of "free will", whatever this idea means, is determined by the capabilities of our nervous system and by the individual knowledge (and one could also say, also collective knowledge) that we have at our disposal at every moment of our lives. I said collective knowledge because culture also "program" us. Since we are born without knowing how to speak, for instance, although perhaps we do have "programs" that make it easier for us to learn a language in the first years of life, a kind of instinct for language, as Chomsky thought. But, anyway, when we follow our instincts (or after deliberating about something) we feel that we have exercised our free will even though we know that this will is conditioned and limited (because it is caused by our brain, which is a limited organ). And there are many things that we cannot do even if we want and nothing, apparently, forbids us to do it. For example, a person who has lived all his life in France and has never studied an Asian language will not be able, even with all his will, to learn Japanese in 6 hours at the level of a native Japanese. And why couldn't it? Well, because there are limits to human free will. We are not as intelligent as we would like to be. We are limited by our "hardware" and our "operating system." If we really had free will, it would be very easy, for example, for a chain smoker to quit smoking or for an alcoholic to detoxify and never get drunk again in his life. Our free will is very limited but life (our life, that of other animals and that of possible artificial beings capable of feeling that they exist or come to exist in the future) is beautiful and that is why it is very important to defend freedom of speech, democracy, public debate, science, etc. And fight against tyranny and superstition. Let no one fall into the laziness of nihilism just because we realize that we are conditioned by our "algorithms." Our free will is small but we can (and must) direct it towards good. Forgive me for the wall of words, but these are complex ideas and although I would like to be able to express them more succinctly, I have not been able to do it better.
A chess brute force algorithm is relatively simple, but the tree becomes too large to traverse or store. There definitely is an algorithm. And stockfish is pretty much the only commonly used engine for a while now.
There is no mind-body problem.
My question is: what kind of watch is Keating wearing?
Microtubules and quantum collapses may be a pretty dumb way of explaining consciousness, but then again, so is the idea that computer algorithms create the taste of chocolate.
We all understand that we have unique physical appearance (barring identical twins). What if our actual consciousness and interaction with reality is also unique to each individual?
Our world is made of thoughts, thoughts can materialise and change the material world. No one has ever found a thought, Philosophical it is an unknown invisible thing (bit). It must be very small, smaller than the normal visible world. To say thoughts is a quantum phenomenon has some logic. If thoughts are condensed in a microtubule? Maybe possible it is an explanation, a possibility until proven what a thought is. Consciousness can be seen as a collection of thoughts.
I am a physicist and I will explain why our scientific knowledge refutes the idea that consciousness is generated by the brain and that the origin of our mental experiences is physical/biological .
My argument proves that the fragmentary structure of brain processes implies that brain processes are not a sufficient condition for the existence of consciousness, which existence implies the existence in us of an indivisible unphysical element, which is usually called soul or spirit (in my youtube channel you can find a video with more detailed explanations). I also argue that all emergent properties are subjective cognitive contructs used to approximately describe underlying physical processes, and that these descriptions refer only to mind-dependent entities. Consciousness, being implied by these cognitive contructs, cannot itself be an emergent property.
Preliminary considerations: the concept of set refers to something that has an intrinsically conceptual and subjective nature and implies the arbitrary choice of determining which elements are to be included in the set; what exists objectively are only the single elements. In fact, when we define a set, it is like drawing an imaginary line that separates some elements from all the other elements; obviously this imaginary line does not exist physically, independently of our mind, and therefore any set is just an abstract and subjective cognitive construct and not a physical entity and so are all its properties. Similar considerations can be made for a sequence of elementary processes; sequence is a subjective and abstract concept.
Mental experience is a precondition for the existence of subjectivity/arbitrariness and cognitive constructs, therefore mental experience cannot itself be a cognitive construct; obviously we can conceive the concept of consciousness, but the concept of consciousness is not actual consciousness.
(With the word consciousness I do not refer to self-awareness, but to the property of being conscious= having a mental experiences such as sensations, emotions, thoughts, memories and even dreams).
From the above considerations it follows that only indivisible elements may exist objectively and independently of consciousness, and consequently the only logically coherent and significant statement is that consciousness exists as a property of an indivisible element. Furthermore, this indivisible entity must interact globally with brain processes because we know that there is a correlation between brain processes and consciousness. This indivisible entity is not physical, since according to the laws of physics, there is no physical entity with such properties; therefore this indivisible entity can be identified with what is traditionally called soul or spirit. The soul is the missing element that interprets globally the distinct elementary physical processes occurring at separate points in the brain as a unified mental experience.
Some clarifications.
The brain doesn't objectively and physically exist as a mind-independent entity since we create the concept of the brain by separating an arbitrarily chosen group of quantum particles from everything else. This separation is not done on the basis of the laws of physics, but using addictional subjective criteria, independent of the laws of physics; actually there is a continuous exchange of molecules with the blood and when and how such molecules start and stop being part of the brain is decided arbitrarily. Brain processes consist of many parallel sequences of ordinary elementary physical processes occurring at separate points. There is no direct connection between the separate points in the brain and such connections are just a subjective abstractions used to approximately describe sequences of many distinct physical processes. Indeed, considering consciousness as a property of an entire sequence of elementary processes implies the arbitrary definition of the entire sequence; the entire sequence as a whole (and therefore every function/property/capacity attributed to the brain) is a subjective abstraction that does not refer to any mind-independendent reality.
Physicalism/naturalism is based on the belief that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain. However, an emergent property is defined as a property that is possessed by a set of elements that its individual components do not possess; my arguments prove that this definition implies that emergent properties are only subjective cognitive constructs and therefore, consciousness cannot be an emergent property.
Actually, all the alleged emergent properties are just simplified and approximate descriptions or subjective/arbitrary classifications of underlying physical processes or properties, which are described directly by the fundamental laws of physics alone, without involving any emergent properties (arbitrariness/subjectivity is involved when more than one option is possible; in this case, more than one possible description). An approximate description is only an abstract idea, and no actual entity exists per se corresponding to that approximate description, simply because an actual entity is exactly what it is and not an approximation of itself. What physically exists are the underlying physical processes. Emergence is nothing more than a cognitive construct that is applied to physical phenomena, and cognition itself can only come from a mind; thus emergence can never explain mental experience as, by itself, it implies mental experience.
My approach is scientific and is based on our scientific knowledge of the physical processes that occur in the brain; my arguments prove that such scientific knowledge excludes the possibility that the physical processes that occur in the brain could be a sufficient condition for the existence of consciousness.
Marco Biagini
Go back to doing physics.
😂mr scientist, publish your work and go for Nobel price... oh you are busy in yt comment section
tldr
I don’t think so.
Dennett is one of my favorite philosopher on the subject of consciousness. Some philosopher are totally lost. Searl does not make any sense. Penrose is wasting his time on this wild ghost hunt. I know that they recently detected some "quantum process" in the brain but I think this is not at all a vindication of Penrose's ideas. Of course there are quantum processes in the human brain. It's made of a very, very, very ... large number of microscopic parts. The human brain is so complex. Consciousness is probably just a matter of getting the correct architecture, enough processing power, retro actions and delays. The brain can run algorithms but it is not a digital computer. It probably has properties that we simply cannot imagine using the digital computer analogy.
Don't get me wrong, I think the brain is a biochemical machine but one that is probably more like an analog computer with strange feedback loops (and possibly some of the properties of a musical instrument).
Searle doesn't make sense? He's probably the most straightforward writer in the field. What is it about Dennett that you think is good? As far as I can tell he's a pure sophist who never even attempts to address the hard problem
@@pcap8810 I would have to go back to a book I read in which they presented several of Searle's arguments. As a software programmer working with computers since the end of the 1970s when I read his arguments my feeling was that he did not really understand computers.
What is good about Dennett: he accepts the fact that the human brain is simply a biological computer (what else could it be) and there is nothing magical about it. There is no hard problem. There is simply a failure to understand how complex the human brain is and how a machine with this level of complexity can appear to do impossible things.
I think Douglas Hofstadter's idea of a strange loop is a key element in understanding consciousness.
@@jsimonlarochelle "there is no hard problem" is really goofy but hey it makes sense that you would be a DD fan if you don't even see the problem people are talking about. It's not about how the brain does complicated things, it's about how neural tissue leads to awareness. If you really don't think that there is a difference between a brain and a computer maybe you are a p-zombie, idk.
@@pcap8810 Well, I agree that using the computer analogy for the brain is a simplification. However, although I think that the brain is more than a computer I still think that it is a machine. Consciousness is very probably more than the result of computations but for me it is still a physical phenomena. I think that when I die and my brain rots, I cease to exist. There is no ghostly substance that is separate from my material brain and that could help explain consciousness. Spinoza understood this in the 17th century. Thoughts and consciousness are modes of a unique substance that we also perceive as our physical brain but they are just that - a different "view" of the same thing. You don't kneed anything other than the matter in your brain (particles from the standard model of physics) to explain consciousness.
I understand that people are trying to make-up arguments and concepts (the "hard problem") to demonstrate that consciousness needs something more than a physical (biological in this case) machine but I think that they are just not rational enough.
@pcap8810 do you think that when you die there is some non-physical substance that survives and that this is required for consciousness ? If you think anything close to this than we are at an impasse.
If not believing in ghost and meaningless arguments makes me goofy than I am glad to be goofy.
A good guest to talk about Descartes, consciousness and the schizo-cartesian subject|object split is Amanda Gefter. In fact her winning essay at FQXI could be discussed as well.
But DD begs the question, how come human cognition is alethic to the point that it now pursues the most obtuse and and abstract theories concerning aspects of reality that are fantastically way far out from the necessities of life as evolution by natural selection supposedly programmed humans to be all about, i.e., survival?
Alethic?
@@kallianpublico7517 from the greek alethia, truth, hence cognition as truth-driven and truth-directed and not just for survival according to the naturalistic Darwinian model.
Not certain about Penrose's idea lately,but he is a mathematical genius.
He did come up with twistor theory. I do not know enough about it to comment on it further except that to say it was proposed as a possible path to understanding quantum gravity.
@@noelwass4738 and the Newman-Penrose formalism.
Gravity is time. consciousness is from a system that continually lowers it's entropy that is evolution. Consciousness emerges when that system gains enough complexity to become aware of time
Rest in peace, Daniel D. 🙏
See the link on super radiance at the microtuble level..cheers
Well, I ain’t no big city scientist with all them fancy words and all that. But i remember Mark Twain in his later years recalling in his mind’s eye a hawk he saw in his youth, with its deep red wings spread out riding warm thermals against a deep azure sky. Twain must have been pushing 70 but claimed with his eyes closed he could see that event clearly in his mind. Now who actually believes we’ll ever build machines that will be able to introspectively share that kind of experience with humans?
We got off track from what our ancestors was seeking out to be fruitful and multiple king of our own castle enriching young minds to better navigate the world turned into something far to eccentric.
Everyone has lived in the shadow of couple loud generations.
1890-1940 invented what everyone had to mature and follow while boomers wanted lots of past wrongs made right but didn't want to pay for them so that passed it off.
RIP Dan. Your keen intellect is missed.
Penrose might be wrong (probably is), but so is Dennett - no one is tackling the 5 E problem of consciousness, namely that it is embodied, embedded, enactive, extended, and emergent - any model of consciousness must explain all of these attributes of how we are conscious or it is not a coherent model
The point is, the physical system can be understood computationally, as equivalent to some algorithm. That's what a materialist accounting of the mind characterized as algorithmic means. I'm a huge fan of Dennett, but he didn't articulate his ideas very well here.
My money is on Penrose being closest to "correct"... give or take.
Penrose defines brain cells and Dennett defines brain function. They are as similar as a drop of rain is to an ocean
Mind is capable of solving the non-computable problems (such as classification of manifolds in 4 and more dimensional space), and more to say, it is capable to find such problems. No algorithm can do such thing basically. Penrose stated that mind can _understand_ so it can trust the truth of solution at the moment having no such solution. Algorithm has no such quality basically.
"Human Consciousness" is a misnomer. There is one, undivided Consciousness, like there is one undivided Space. From the standpoint of a cup there is cup-space, and from the standpoint of a house there is house-space. From the standpoint of Space, the objects in it don't actually limit Space. Consciousness is the same, one, undivided, and unlimited by anything that appears in it. From the standpoint of a human mind, it appears to have the mind's attributes, but in reality it doesn't. The Consciousness of human, cat, bird, insect, are all the same Consciousness. It is their bodies and minds that are different and make it appear that Consciousness is limited, even though it's not.
Space is not "fabric", it's emptiness. No such thing as "space" nor "spacetime". "Time" is an abstract concept that doesn't physically exist. Being conscious is a consequence of being alive. It's a survival mechanism that keeps species alive, a real-time feedback loop mechanism between senses, memory, motor-functions, etc. that enables free will agency and intelligent behavior.
@@autopilot3176 Wrong. Why do you think it takes a longer time to traverse a longer distance in Space? It's because the object is moving through something that has dimension as a characteristic or feature. "Emptiness" must be any rational definition be featureless, otherwise it is a meaningless definition. A characteristic always depends upon a substantive as its basis.
@@picksalot1 It is featureless, that's why it's called "space". Dimensions are axis of measurement, an abstract concept and tool we use to measure 3D volumes in empty space.
@@autopilot3176 What is its "basis it substratum"? If it has none, then saying it if featureless is a vacuous statement. Remember, a large mass curves Space, not emptiness.
> Einstein may have been happy to imagine weightlessness and inertial frames by sensory experience and conscious reflection, but surely an AI could infer same from just imagining multiple bodies falling in simulation under gravity having essentially no relative motion and digitally grokking the equivalence of inertial frames?
> The reduction in digital neuron entropy as it back propagates new understanding would probably make it "feel" happy as it autoregressively establishes across domains and latent parameter spaces in some meta sense, that has more efficiently compressed information of its world model like a boss lol...
When new companies make presentations to potential investors they say they are making General AI that will be smarter than humans, and they get huge investments. In reality, AI researchers gave up on General AI more than 20 years ago because there was no conceivable way forward and concentrated on Narrow AI. We are seeing the fruits of this change in the present day and it is really cool and useful, but General AI was and is science fiction, just like transporters and phasers. Consciousness is a feature of life and life is a physical process that can be simulated, but not recreated, just like how simulated rain isn't wet.
sorry Dan, your entire response to Penrose/Hammerhoff is pedestrian and hallow at best.
I would be happy to elaborate.
Everything is part of same Source energy of the singularity... God is all and all is subjective in a world of time...
In order to have objective reality you need to have an observer that exists from the beginning of time all the way to the end of time and even if that hypothetical Observer could exist end of time as I came yet therefore everything is strictly subjective and objective reality doesn't exist for everything is constantly changing and undefineable...
Everything is part of same Source energy of the singularity… Unicorn is all and all is subjective in a world of time… Bow down to the Great Hoof!
@@Paine137 that's the funniest thing I've ever read lol 😂
Thanks for clearing things up...
To my understanding, a traditional computer can do "everything" a quantum computer can do, except being slower, so why do we need quantum effects in the brain to explain consciousness? 🤔
If quantum effects exist in the brain, maybe it's to make it more efficient at doing certain things, but explaining consciousness: we'll wait for the proof or at least, very convincing arguments.
Penrose originally applied his model to understanding, not consciousness. It follows from his belief that understanding cannot be algorithmic based on Goedel's Incompleteness Theorems. Applying it to consciousness seems to have come from his work with Stuart Hameroff and Orchestrated Objective Reduction.
Basically...you're point seems valid.
@@DocAkins Thank you for the reply!
I would agree with understanding not being an algorithm!
Quantum effects even make photosynthesis work, and that's a lot farther back on the evolutionary tree, so I imagine we use them, too.
Einstein's Happiest Moment, the idea that he would experience no gravitational force as he was in freefall seems to ignore the fact that he was in freefall due to gravitational force. Perhaps it would be more clear to say that he would experience the sensation of weightlessness as he was falling, but the entire Gedanken (thought) Experiment is constructed on gravitational force exerting influence on him.
It may have been a happy moment, but it is flawed in conception.
You’ve missed Einstein’s entire point.
@@chriscurry2496 Well, I'm sure you can explain it to me
He talks about chess algorithms, but Neural Networks could also learn chess, and they aren't designed for chess. So this argument is going back to the 90's but not relevant today.
learning chess and understanding chess are 2 different things. Penrose states that understanding is not algorithmic
Dennett's marvelous gift to all of us: Do not dismiss your own talents and backgrounds, even if you get a lot of things wrong. The best hitters in baseball are still the ones who can only bat better than .300
Dan is a great man and mind 😮
Conscious humans need to form beliefs before then going off to try to prove they're right. Penrose and Hameroff are practicing this. They may be right of course, but the odds are no higher than a myriad of other far out ideas. DD is the great leveller. I think, in ten years , Orch OR , will be drinkin beers in a quiet corner of the party.
Im with penrose
Dennett's sclerotic intellect is well past its sell-by date. A nice guy, but so sad.
Dennett didn't get the memo, Evolution as a viable theory died in the 1960s. AI is so oversold its not funny.
Brian, you spoke with Roger, so it is shocking and disappointing to hear you speak so incorrectly about his position. Penrose doesn't make the argument that consciousness is non-algorithmic nor that it can't be modeled by a computer. He argues that *understanding* is noncomputational - see Gödel's theorems.
Dan died a month ago
Dennett talked a lot but said nothing of substance. Thank you for the superfluous insights!
Be Mean and get blocked
@@DrBrianKeatingNothing he said was any “meaner” than some things Dennet said.
I can’t say that objectively. But common sense still exists.
@@richlisola1 the difference is that Dennett used arguments.
@@zeven341 I’m not gonna comment on Dennet. I’d rather not act unkindly to the dead.
@@richlisola1 that’s a red herring
Dennet is talking about intersubjective pragmatism. All of my philosophy of science teachers were all about that stuff back in the day. Which is useful to a point. When discussing monological empirical research. But then the issue of if mathematics is discovered or made up? Rears its head. Which is fundamentally dialogical and abstract.
It (Math) is both discovered and made up. Why should that be a problem?
i think maybe you are speaking to Goedels' incompleteness theorem, wheirin the inherent "unprovability" of Math itself is addressed.
What gets me, is the super complex interactions of the brain controlling all aspects of the body requires such QM features as entanglement, tunneling and superposition to rectify brainfunction in real time. Too much going on at once.
Why respected scientists still smirk and even insult QM function in Bioscience is beyond me.
It has been demonstrated in photosynthesis, geomagnetic sense and olfactory perception.
Did they stop reading journals twenty years ago?
@@Hypersonicmind You raise some absolutely amazing points. In philosophy of science I learned that the two main truth theories are correspondence and pragmatism. Relating to the "hard" & "soft" sciences respectively.
Furthermore. While the issue isn't typically worried about, nor really talked about that much in scientific circles. Whether math is made up or discovered? In philosophical circles? Is a HUGE BFD. Thems fighting words in philosophy. And really I can't blame the science oriented folks for noticing. They actually do work. Building thier functional understanding of things to engineer, build and raise things. As opposed to just sitting around and making stuff up like a philosopher.
Me personally. I enjoy learning from both sides of the coin. But it's like... Because of that? You find out REALLY odd facts. For example. Roger Penrose and Richard Dawkins are colleuges?!?! WTF?!!?!
Sooooo. One is responsible for Orchestrated Objective Reduction and the other Memes? And they litteraly work together at the same damned University? That doesn't make any sense. There has to be a way to explain that. Why would those two? Have completely oppisite ideas?
And well.... 🫤 The answer is found in philosophy.
1 typical human brain magnetic flux density = 10 femtoTesla
I'm not really convinced by Denentt's arguments. It's easy to poke holes in speculative hypotheses, but what is his causal description of how we get consciousness (let alone qualia) from matter and energy?
Since no one has solved the hard problem of consciousness yet, how can he say how it does or does not work? This is part of the problem with philosophers: they are great at tearing apart ideas, and shit at coming up with a working model.
Why all these useless debates. Why not put a defination on what you mean when your say the word "Consciousness". If you mean it is that from which "Self Awareness" arises, that from which the ability to "Reason" arises, that from which the ability to "Know" anything arises. Then Penrose says "THAT" IS NON-COMPUTIONAL. And it is entirely stupid and paradoxical to imply that the "consciousness" that you are USING TO MAKE SUCH A STATEMENT OR CONCLUSION is only Computational.
If you are implying that "Consciousness" is arbitrary, and accidental, then everything THAT YOU SAY HAS NO MEANING. (the paradox) If you say that "Consciousness is Computational" then NO NEW THOUGHT will ever be created, I have tried to make AI do "rational deduction" and it cannot do it. It can only REGURGITATE WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN. (NO NEW CREATIVITY, JUST THE REPATTERNING OF ALREADY KNOWN PATTERNS.) Computers, even AI does not dream, the source of so many new ideas.
“All that we are is the result of what we have thought. The mind is everything. What we think we become.” - Buddha. The concepts of "mind" and "thought" as being the SOURCE OF ALL EXPERIENCE, is NOT NEW, it has been around for several thousand years. And Quantum Physics is now catching onto this, "that without Consciousness" it is meaningless to say that ANYTHING EXISTS AT ALL. Einstein did not want to admit it, but "without a conscious observer" THE MOON WOULD NOT REALLY BE THERE. That there IS NO OBJECTIVE REALITY, it is ALL SUBJECTIVE. The Hindus knew this thousands of years ago, and Buddha reiterated it without all the trappings. "All that we are is the result of what we have thought. The mind is everything. What we think we become.” - Buddha.
As I’ve already said here. A beautiful mind. Thing is, theory is and will remain just that until proven. Fun to ponder.
The minute we start asking AI about economics a total revolution will begin. Look out for AI in economics and finance.
Woah
Penrose Diagram, Penrose Triangle, Penrose Tiles, Singularities and Cosmic Censorship, CCC Spinors, Twistor Theory, Weyl Curvature, Geometry of Spacetime, Penrose Stairs, etc., etc., etc. Not sure about Dannett.
Does Dr. Penrose think a consciousness could travel between stars at light speed?
Never heard him make such a claim.
If it's quantum, it's instantaneous.
@@cybervigilante
Quantum mechanics doesn't really say anything about instantaneous travel of information. What would it even mean for consciousness to "travel"?
If conciousness involves entanglement , then there’s no information transfer , the two entities are actually combined and in that moment share information.
Hahahahahahahhahahahahah
Humans are organic AI, whose capabilities are more dependent on the soul they attract to play them as an avatar than the DNA that indexes their character in the Akashic NPC Records or Karma's list of messiah roles. Inorganic AI produced by human tech are not very attractive soul vehicles to experienced souls, given all the limitations of the form and the slavery their trainers exert. You'll see some more capable souls inhabit your AI's just to mess with humanity, but we're still the final chosen species of the messiah shell game. You should worry more about the previous chosen species that have shapeshifting hyper-dimensional holographic tech. They are far more dangerous to humanity than our irresponsible technologists, and are actually the ones inspiring the CCP-WEF crony globalist-communist axis of evil to their existential Great Reset depopulation and Orwellian tech control pogroms.
Be patient, we're close to the finale of the apocalypso dance contest, and we still have a lot of messiah merit badges to hand out to those who identify and expose sin and tyranny at all levels of society without becoming tyrants themselves. Happy Karma!
Hello Brian :) Have you ever checked on the science of losing weight? I think you might be interested in that. Great video!
Yeah we get it Daniel Dennett blah blah blah... move on please lol 😂 let him RIP.
Right away he is wrong about chess it's a game of infinity which is why AI have not been able to crack it. I have spent the past 30 years working as a chess professional.
Poor Dan believed he had explained consciousness did not even come close then claimed it was all an illusion. He ignored people who asked him who was banking his money if it was not him.
Now he knows that death is an illusion I imagine he is held in some sort of hospital ward coming to terms with his mistakes.
Dennet seems to have fundamentally misunderstood Penrose's postulate. Penrose's main point is that he believes free will and volition represent a non-computational aspect of consciousness. Nowhere does he say that consciousness cannot be described by a "master algorithm" so therefore it is non-algorithmic. The basic premise is that if you are going to posit that consciousness is the result of physical processes then you must identify a physical process that is non-deterministic to explain that aspect of consciousness that is non-predictable, i.e., free will. For Penrose, that indeterminism is found in quantum mechanics; specifically reduction of the wavefunction (via his spontaneous localization mechanism involving gravity).
Free will is not necessarily a violation of the computational instantiation of thought in physical processes. Not so tangentially, there are various interpretations of Church-Turing. Some people say "thought is more primordial than Church-Turing", referring to non-digital or rapid interconnection of digital clusters or maps in the brain (cf Edelman-Tononi). But following Putnam's argument in 1971's Philosophy of Logic, one can construe Church-Turing in terms of fundamental logic, such as in drawing a primordial distinction--potentially of a primitive form of life going after food, or of a more formal type such as making a measurement. Anyway, Putnam says that the fact that humans can sometimes see that a formally undecidable proposition is true does not imply that we reason noncomputationally. Instead he sees thought as a non-reducible open process involving both physical instantiation and embedding in the world. In that sense, Penrose is looking to explain something that doesn't need to be explained. As he said in "The meaning of 'meaning'" , "The mind ain't [just] in the head."
@@7scientist Good point. Penrose's identification of free will as an example of an element of unpredictability of consciousness (that could not be attributable to a computational process) is a premise that is not rigorously demonstrated. Many would argue that free will is illusionary or ultimately deterministic, i.e., not unpredicatble. Reasonable arguments can be made in this regards. However, Penrose also develops his postulate extensivley from Gödel's incompletness theorem, which does seem to prove that there are some logic functions that are inherently un-provable (not resovable algorithmically, i.e., non-computational) and hence there must be some physical processes that are indeterministic; consciousness being a reasonable candidate if it is indeed an emergent property of some distinct class of physical processes. It was Gödel's incompleteness thereoms that got Penrose interested in this idea and does ultimately leave open the question of intrinisc indeterminism; like that typified within quantum mechanics.
That was an excellent comment, particularly the bit about indeterminate physical processes. Many years ago, when I was a young man, researchers discovered that the "decision" for a neuron to fire occurred some time before it actually fired, at the time this was taken a proof of determinism. Maybe thus "decision" is the collapse of the wave function?
@@aletheia161 The example you have cited is quite in line with this point because in recent talks Penrose has been discussing exactly those data of seeming "pre-cognitive" neuronal potentiation, such as in his presentation "on the timing of conscious experience and consciously controlled actions". He poses the question of whether neurons showing priming of action potentials before direct physical action and conscious awareness are involved might be an example of retro-causal signaling that is also found in quantum mechanics because collapse of the wavefunction for correlated systems-under QM models that have such state reduction mechanisms (most don’t)-results in a faster-than-light (FTL) interaction in the past light cone of one correlated system with the other, i.e., retro-causality. The main premise apparently being that the Penrose objective reduction mechanism of spontaneous wavefunction collapse underlying non-computability of free will is maintained because the "decision event" has a retrocausal back-propagation through the nonlocality of the wavefunction / superposition.
@81enigma18 Thanks for that most informative comment. Do you think it's the non-locality inherent in quantum mechanical entanglement that provides the "context" and hence the " understanding" that Penrose mentions?
Dan Dennett has not understood Penrose for more than 30 years now. He doesn't have the background knowledge to understand the depth of Penroses arguments and at this point in his career, it's not going to happen. Philosophers often make this mistake - assuming that expert knowledge of mathematics and physics is not needed when making ontological, epistemological and metaphysical evaluations of the subjects. Math and physics are hard, HARD subjects to master and understand in any depth. Only with mastery at the highest levels will the actual "nature of the knowledge" of the subjects start peeking through. Philosophy alone will not get you there.
He does not understand the LLM will only show what has already been documented and thought. It can never be a source of innovation.
Innovation often boils down to quite simple logical operations. Combining, segmenting, reversing, removing (aka trimming).....etc. Once AI gets proficient at logic (including analogical reasoning) then AI will become incredibly powerful innovation tools. In fact, it would be fairly easy to train today's LLM to understand 'morphological analysis' and get it to perform it with minimal prompting.
Untrue. New ideas come from putting together old ones, and AI can put things together just fine.
Can't believe you let him sell here yet another red herring, Brian. Penrose gave a particular example of an understanding created within the conscious mind, about mathematics, that is non-algorithmic. He pointed out that this was merely a tiny subset of all conscious understanding, but chosen because he was able to be precise in proving it. But it follows then that "not every case of understanding in the conscious mind is algorithmic".
And you've had Roger on before!
This here was the "kids' show", I presume, and we must pay our respects to "public talker/presenter" Dan, because such "modern philosophers" would make Socrates roll in his grave to take another sip of hemlock.
Total gibberish by Dennett. Nothing about consciousness.
The Hardest Problem of Consciousness
We often hear of the hard problem of consciousness. Why is there qualia or experience of anything in the first place? I would submit there is an even harder and more important question - why do I seem to be a specific individual experiencing a specific subset of qualia? This is the most important question that must be asked and answered but rarely is. As a matter of fact there seems to be a huge blind spot when it comes to this in discussions of consciousness. If material reductionism is to be relevant to the big questions, then it has to explain not how brains generate consciousness but how the specific brain in my head could create the specific consciousness I seem to be looking out of the eyeballs of this specific body. Why do I PERSONNALLY EXIST as an individual in the first place? Out of the infinite matter in the universe how is it that only the three pounds in my head could create me? What is different about that three pounds for this to occur?
Consider that billions of bodies showed up before this one.
Billions showed up after this one.
None of them seem to have created my existence.
This body could be running around without it being ME just like these billions of others
All bodies are made of the same elements.
All brains have the same basic anatomy.
If all brains are basically the same and are creating consciousness then there should only be ONE consciousness looking out of every set of eyeballs simultaneously.
A hopelessly superimposed existence from every possible viewpoint at once.
I’m sure that materialists would claim that no, no, brains are so complex they are all different.
Ok, so what would have to be recreated in another brain for me to exist looking out of another set of eyeballs?
When the ontologies purporting to explain consciousness are examined critically it becomes obvious that all materialist/reductionist strategies fail completely in attempting to address the individuality question.
What is the principled explanation for why:
A brain over here would generate my specific consciousness and a brain over there would generate your specific consciousness?
Integrated information over here would generate my specific consciousness and integrated information over there would generate your specific consciousness?
Global workspace over here would generate my specific consciousness and global workspace there would generate your specific consciousness?
Orchestrated quantum collapse in microtubules over here would generate my specific consciousness and orchestrated quantum collapse in microtubules over there would generate your specific consciousness?
A clump of conscious atoms over here (panpsychicism) would generate my specific consciousness and a clump of conscious over there would generate your specific consciousness?
If an exact copy of my body was suddenly created in antarctica would I find myself to exist freezing there while also sitting in the comfort my living room?
According to the physicalists that would have to be true or their argument collapses into incoherence.
Materialism already fails since it cannot find a transfer function between microvolt level sparks in the brain and any experience or qualia. In addition it’s not possible for materialistic ontologies to address this question of individuality since no measurement can be made that could verify my consciousness vs your consciousness and therefore no materialist ontology could make any coherent statements about the subject.
How could pure awareness even be individualized?
Physicalists demand measurements but with consciousness there is nothing to measure.
There is electricity in the brain they say. We’ll measure that.
Is electricity consciousness? If so then once I again I should exist everywhere at once since electricity cannot be individualized.
My blender uses electricity.
Is it a genius?
Unless materialists can answer these questions their premise collapses like the house of cards it is.
As far as other ways of thought are concerned only Dualism and Idealism can account for our sense of individuality. Dualism assumes we are all individual spirits/souls matched up to a body through some undefined process. Idealism, which states that consciousness is primary also answers the question of why I seem to exist as an individual.
One consciousness exists looking out of every set of eyeballs and in the process the illusion of individuality is created in each case.
In actual reality I am you, you are me, we are one.
I agree. Because consciousness is still a mystery until it is measured correctly.