my favourite religious debate is penrose and lane craig, craig is full of himself most of the time, but you could see he was humbled by penrose brain, and RP didn't even seem to be trying to disprove anything, he just kept pointing out how absurd the existence of a deity is. my favourite moment "there may well be a superior being, but i don't see that gets us anywhere" followed by "and it might be this being is malicious". well worth a watch.
and what i mean is although he's not out to disprove the existence of god, he seems to have the same approach as me, which is we don't really need god for anything.
I'm so sorry that Penrose is having trouble with his eyesight. He is a true visionary and shining star. I hope he finds health and a continued way to present to us his knowledge and understanding for many, many years. This talk also is very relevant to free will vs. predestination.
lol, he pokes his nose in everywhere, i wish, oh how i wish i could understand as many subjects outside my "field" as he seems to. i like the infinite pattern story, "i thought i might be able to do it with five shapes" does it with two.
Cut the guy some slack he's really getting old! He's a genius! He was Hawking thesis advisor. He worked together with Hawkins on black holes. He had the courage to use all the various Sciences put them together some of it was taboo to create his theory on consciousness. Sadly somebody's not helping him with modern technology to get his thoughts out because he's not cool like other physicists.
I believe he is more comfortable using these older technologies. He probably also enjoys the process of physically writing the slides out, it might even help memory consolidation by using his physical being. Whereas with completely digital techs, he might find it annoying, or not gather the memory consolidation benefits. Checks out.
20 yrs ago they were all saying he's not a physicist, he's all wet. Quantum coherence can't be maintained in biology. Today quantum biology is a new area of science and his critics had to eat their words. He's nominated for the nobel, knighted and accomplished more than his critics will. What he has that is lacking in his detractors is plain old common sense.
Still does not qualify him to venture into CompSci. Michio Kaku made the same mistake in a documentary I watched this morning. Both of these men are giants in their fields but in no way can you logically conclude because of that they are qualified to give a lecture with subject matter that requires at least understanding of the basics of CompSci.
It is common sense to believe the world is flat. Science takes us beyond common sense by enabling us to suppress our foolishness and look at the data. I would say that what Penrose has is a very uncommon (but very fruitful) sense.
That's what bugged me. This guy can run circles around anyone else I've seen as far as quantum mechanics are concerned, but I thought his neuroscience arguments were week as far as connecting those quantum events to consciousness. The computability thing smells quirky to me...
Penrose & Hameroff's ORCH OR and Penrose's CCC - Conformal Cyclic Cosmology theory, are two of the most interesting theories in modern science imho. They go straight to the hard questions that most other scientists skirt around the edges of.
Dude did a 40 minute round up introduction of essentially all of physics and wrapped up his point in the last couple minutes. It's like describing how a jet engine works by starting out with the big bang LOL. But much respect to Mr. Penrose, he's a deep thinker and what I was able to pick up from his explanations were pretty interesting. I've actually wondered along similar lines -- if consciousness is rooted somewhere in the quantum space. Moreover to get metaphysical about it, if that consciousness persists on some level after biological death.
Penrose and his hilarious OHP. Makes me laugh everytime. Brings back many memories transparencies that just slide out of your hand and shuffle themselves on the floor.
His books are really verbose and I never can pass more than a few chapters. However, this talk is really illuminating and got to the gist of his arguments!
What I absolutely love about this... ans it's quite a long list. But right at the top is that it is NOT a nice, sleek presentation by today's standards. This ladies and gentleman is what true genius is, if you allow it to be confident enough and not try to trod it down. He makes marvelous points. (or actually the same point a number of marvelous ways). And if you understand it, he is showing how far we are from understanding AND reproducing consciousness in computers. But he does show us, where we should be looking.. Not in neural nets, that's for sure. Furthermore, love how he busted the multiverse theory, quite easily and graphically.. I think he'll turn out to be mostly (if not exactyl) right about the direction to look for consciousness. I also believe it will take the scientific community a couple of decades to get there. I hope this stops Elon Musk from worrying about the singularity :)
So the Richard Hearne type bungling with his projector sheets was just a deliberate smokescreen to remind us how clever we are as conscious beings in still being able to figure out what he is on about despite a contrived poor manner of presentation? (Richard Hearne is the guy from Mr Pastry's Pet Shop who would have destroyed Doctor Who before it got off the ground had he succeeded in being chosen as the first doctor.)
I agree with all but the philosophies of consciousness. There are some beliefs that will turn inwards and spiritually what exist becomes a bigger question.
As a laymen I find myself deeply interested in these sorts of things and I have a question I was wondering if anyone here could clarify. He starts off talking about algorithmic processes vs. the kinds that can only be arrived at by iteration or bombardment (which I'm guessing a lot of first principles deductions like odd + odd = even would be a special case of) but then he forks down the road of whether collapse is real and seems to imply that it offers the sort of evolutionary spray approach to (my non-technical parlance here) iterative or battery processing. Does anyone know of a lecture or video where he closes that gap and specifies why he considers this out of bounds for classical iterative processing? Is it speed? Quantity of dimensions being processed at the same time? He did a good job of both presenting and zipping up the math but I think that particular area is where he left things a bit blurry at the end.
Very well said, I agree genius comes in weird. Sir Roger is very abstract and point out very valid realty in AI, that AI is computation not conscience. Also we must be asking, is conscious not connected to a living soul? In my opinion, we must rather talk of AI as Data intelligence at this stage, Pure math computation without any thoughts or feelings.
if energy makes an ocean splash one drop of water into mid-air, is that drop a separate entity? or is it the ocean in a drop? or is it the vibrational manifestation of that energy that makes the ocean splash? ... just saying.
I just love how this comment section consists almost entirely of scholars. As for the talk,the man is quite briliant one can tell,but he could really work on his presentation and overall talking skills,I dont think I understood even half the points he made,but regardless it was interesting.
Considering the enormous fact that it's impossible to know if another human being is conscious or not, how can we say what is needed to give rise to consciousness? What is stopping consciousness from experiencing all lives at once? Our brain is a collection of cells so if we are conscious, why wouldn't our brain cells also be conscious? Is life even needed for consciousness?? Any argument around consciousness is built on assumption, or some logical fallacy that a known set of parameters needs to be fulfilled before consciousness can exist. For all we know, any system of information exchange can be conscious.
The problem with the Penrose explanation of consciousness is that consciousness can operate, quite well in fact, even when the brain is damaged and diseased. Doctor Ebon Alexander described this brain as being to badly damaged by the infection for it to generate consciousness. Yet Dr. Alexander claims to have had extremely vivid conscious experiences. I don't think that can be explained without referring to a virtual entity of consciousness.
Interesting. If microtubules are really shown to harbour quantum actions in bio systems, then it would support our ability to experience consciousness even after severe damage to the brain because of the presence of microtubules in all cells, not just neurons. Thus all cells might enjoy the luxury of their being conscious :-) How exciting.
Roger's argument is extremely subtle and most people won't get it. He's simultaneously arguing against strong AI proponents who believe the mind is nothing more than a computer, and arguing against dualists who think that consciousness cannot be described by science ever. Both are untrue, actually quite intuitively. check out Penrose's book Shadows of the Mind for a complete detailed presentation of the argument- he's quite convincing. Time- and experiment!- will prove if he is right or not. To the spiritualists- you really have to get past your own biases to realize what he is saying.
I have the book and understand the arguments. Even Penrose admits the jury is still out on dualism vs. his own theory. It could go either way at this point.
Great to here an opening statement with "most people won't get it." I had to really force myself to read the rest of your dirge. I'm glad I didn't and just watched and listened carefully to the video and guess what? I understood what was being said.
@steve0793, I've no problem with the last part of your suggestion, that he's arguing against dualism, but I'm not sure he's arguing against the idea that the mind (or the brain, rather) is nothing more than a computer. He just thinks it's a quantum computer, surely?
17:59......there is a line between what's conscious and what isn't". - Isn't that an over-simplification? Or is it instead just assuming the grounds of what is trying to be proven - consciousness? (Kind of like how I understand a simplified Godel's theorem as explained by Roger, i.e. an understanding of the entities is required for the proof of their existence)
Good points raised in this talk. But the general audience appear so confused about machine intelligence (AI) -- including the host of the talk as well as the posters here on YT. Regardless of AI a machine does not really know what it's doing. It has no grasp of the axioms of its operations.
Thought he was descending into babbling nonsense or really just not doing a very good job of explaining himself during the second half and then BLAM blew my damn brain out with the conclusive point. Very good.
Mathmatics; physics etc. Does not explain consciousness arising from nothing, more specifically a biological entity. Evoloution cancels out any Nessisary change that is not beneficial to the orginisim. This also includes mutation which does not end this said organisim. Coniousness is a unqunitifiabe subject which will never be explained by a closed loop system of analysis.
Only thing I did not get is why he assumes that conciousness begins and ends somewhere, that there is a line in living organisms from which point conciousness arises. It could be just gradual, amongst everything, question is only in the amount. If this is true, then conciousness could be measured.
He describes the evolution of proto-consciousness exactly the way you desire, as a linear, gradual development of several (in his example, 2) superimposed states in the slightly curved space-time (gravitational effect as each state has a tiny mass) within the limits of Planck constant. Watch the last minutes again for details. When those space and time limits are crossed, only one possibility survives. Unlike other theories, this does not need the divine intervention of a subjective observer for the collapse of the wave function. Rather, he refers to it as an objective reduction. A beautiful defence of objective reality, independent of the observer! Also, an ongoing experimental measurement is described much earlier in the video.
If we should lean on wave theory (not theme), where 'particles' can be waves touching speed limit, then a deviation (which is theme) could also be a violation of some basic laws of thermodynamic... Perhaps such violation (if) is even necessary (and that such a violaition is then consciousness, all present, perpetual motion, light speed)...
Loved the talk and how clear headed Roger is on all the physics and math(s) he talks about (including Gödel's theorem) and how he steered away from boring us with all the irrelevant details like the Hamiltonian, the Tensor, and so on.. Yet, he is arguing for a physical source of Consciousness without even defining it! There is the clue to the impossibility of solving the HPC, the hard problem of consciousness: nobody *defines* it. Nobody *can* define it. It is *the source* of all definitions. Nobody understands what knowledge is, or what understanding is in concrete terms, yet, we all do it, even a 7 year old does it all the time (knowing and understanding, I mean). Most philosophers (save Socrates and Hume, and a few others) took it to be "justified belief." Can you believe it? To know is to believe with some justification??!! Well, lately that was proven wrong [en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gettier_problem]. But, it was kind of obvious.. We know that knowledge has nothing to do with believing. Or at least, as a science/trial&error oriented kind of a person, one would keep belief and knowledge separate.. But, that's unfortunately what's going on even with Sir Roger Penrose, here.. Without defining consciousness (why not?) he suggests a source for it in an obscure structure in the brain (the microtubules) [en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orchestrated_objective_reduction#Penrose%E2%80%93Lucas_argument_2] almost exactly like Descartes' futile hope for the pineal gland as the source of the "soul", the traditional label for "consciousness." Did we not learn much since Descartes, let alone Socrates? The latter at least knew that he didn't know. Be still. Peace.
_"Nobody can define it ... Nobody understands what .... took it to be "justified belief." .... To know is to believe ... it was kind of obvious.. We know that ... that's unfortunately what's going on .... The latter at least knew that he didn't know"_ For somebody which doesn't know, you sound quite sure that nobody knows, almost like you knew it.
It is my belief that he did not define consciousness for 2 reasons - limited time and limited topic. At the very beginning, he clearly limits the topic to 'the one manifestation of consciousness that I shall concentrate on is UNDERSTANDING particularly mathematical understanding, because then a case can be made about the physical underpinnings of that quality.' And before that, he modestly admits, 'I have little to say about most of these things' - meaning other manifestations of consciousness. As for your other objection, the obscurity of microtubules - a screen, sheltering quantum actions from the surrounding interference for femtoseconds, is necessary in biological systems. Microtubules are eligible candidates due to their structure and presence not only in the brain but in every cell, as part of cytoskeleton.
That was hard to follow. I tried to get through The Emperor's new mind in the 2000s. That was hard going too. I'd been exposed to Roger Penrose playing with fractint in the 80s so I knew he was a big deal. I think I might have picked up his main points this time? (probably not:-) Maybe. I studied Physics and Computing at Uni and work as a developer now. My understanding is he's arguing that the measurement portion of Quantum mechanics is built into the Universe and happens when the two eigenstates are diverging at the more than the speed of light? Because that can't happen, Information cannot pass the speed of light. So because that measurement is built in to the way the universe works consciousness evolved leveraging that measurement process and making decisions based on the outcomes. Almost like Consciousness and consciousness alone observes Time and therefore also Gravity. That's wild. I've read lots of books that hint at a similar theory where the act of measurement/consciousness is writ large in quantum physics I always come back to Robert Anton Wilson's quote: The map is not the territory. Any theory is a matrixed scan of the real thing. With increasing resolution we can predict the future and describe our perceived reality but the actual reality whatever that means will remain illusive. Luv and Peace.
What I believe Penrose is trying to point out, is that there is a distinction between the relationship of reality and consciousness, and the state of non-consciousness and reality.
Penrose said "understanding is something which is demonstrably not the result of a computation", but you could say that a machine can be said to “perfectly understand” an objectively coded subjective signal, if its behavioural response to that signal is the exact response intended by the subject. That may not be quite what people mean when they use the word "understanding" in everyday speech, but it is the type of "understanding" which underlies all forms of communication. It is also an exactly defined meaning of "understanding", and you cannot prove anything about anything unless all of the terms involved in the proof are exactly, that is to say formally, defined. Although Penrose is a mathematician, he has a tendency to involve too many words in his arguments whose meaning is far from exact.
Consciousness created the laws of physics - our universe is derived from consciousness - we are consciousness! Not 'physical' but 'nonphysical' explains the weird behavior of particles and the constant speed of light. It's easy to understand the weird science of quantum mechanics if you assume that our reality is a virtual reality [digital information system]. Thomas Campbell explains in his trilogie My Big Toe [theorie of everything] what we actually are and our purpose. His message is a mind-blowing experience for people how are capable to imagine a realty beyond imagination. You must think out of the 'physical' box into the 'nonphysical' sphere.
We are Eternal, Our Consciousness are Eternal, Consciousness can not be artificial, devices can be conscious programmed. Can do mental functions, copy of the way Our Eternal Consciousness is function. We might basicly differ between organic and technical, performance. Eyes dont see any thing, either they are organic or cheramic.
Does anyone have any citations to this where he fills in some of the details that he skips over. Is this covered in "The Emperor's New Mind'? I followed most of his talk, but lost it when he started making references to view graphs that he does not show. Never the less, I found that the end needs some detailed explanation in order to convince me. It comes across as by decree that he makes an unsubstantiated conjecture, hoping that in the future someone will prove him right. This is so troublesome coming from a man with great accomplishments, who I want to believe, but as a thinker, I need more that just belief. With enough wild specutionals, some are bound to be right.
I think Penrose has interesting arguments. However the personal reality of each person ('my' and your personal reality) is for each of us an objective experience, of which we can demonstrate quite precise commonality if we discuss scientific objective experiments, and then have conversations about our perceived realities of those tests or experiments. These conversations are then of course shown to share a great deal of agreement (though not always 100%), which demonstrates that each of us exists within our own frame of personal reference (our person-hood), yet each validates the other's existence since we all perceive many common truths. None of what we discover about our shared reality makes it necessary to believe that consciousness must have arisen from non-living chemicals, without any underlying reason or purpose, and without being planned by a great mind. All of what we are points to the reasonable conclusion that all of life has a purpose, and that there was and is a mind behind it all. Consciousness, though assisted by the laws of physics (since we are physical beings in which it appears to reside) cannot be pinned down to mere physical existence and having a brain or other body parts, since, to cease to exist physically, would mean this would end all of that consciousness and experience. To many of us, that is plainly absurd. Life has both a physical and a spiritual dimension, and to attempt to deny this requires leaps of illogical thought. Down the ages, many of the worlds greatest thinkers and philosophers have rejected the nihilism idea which imagines that at death consciousness stops and life is ultimately meaningless, since it is plainly illogical from the perspective of the meaning we certainly crave: Are we deluded? No. All of us constantly strive for meaningful experiences in our lives. We have 'bucket lists' to do "before we die". Why? We date exciting people, get married not just to have children, behave responsibly (or cast caution to the wind imagining this will make use more 'free'), we may also obey some or most of the laws of our land, and some of us worship things or a being greater than ourselves. We take up hobbies and interests and explore the theories behind the laws of the universe. We argue our case on the Twitter / Google. Why? Why indeed bother and waste time which is very limited, if tomorrow we shall cease to exist in every way and the universe (which if we are atheists we believe is dead) shall not remember us for anything we have done, but nothing from our past will ever be brought back for review or judgement? No, the world is more complex and wonderful than some of us would believe. Let's celebrate life! Let's help each other through this often painful world, and hold fast to the truth that there is a purpose to all things. It is up to each of us to help our fellow woman/man to find that truth, and support her/him to do so. Some of us believe, scientifically and logically, that a Great Mind is the reason that we exist, and that this Mind who made all things can be known as a friend. We have not only believed this, but also experienced this mind, this Creator God. We are serious about this, and would die, rather than pretend this is not true, since it plainly has been factually true for us. The Creator has spoken. The great consciousness of the universe has been revealed to man, and we are, as His creations, privileged to know His mind, and His love for us.
I study Penrose and I really like his micro-tube idea with Dr. Stuart Hameroff, however, the first part of this presentation did not convince me. Maybe it wasn't his best day and maybe he did not explain thoroughly everything, at least I didn't get what he wanted to say in some points. For example, even the illustrated tiles and chess problems are easily computational in my understanding. Can someone explain this to me? Of course, logic rules, understanding, and meaning are a matter of discussion from the early times of Logic. Understanding is maybe not a computational problem as it probably touches things outside of Logic, yet capturing Logic's essence and formalization is not a complete and successful attempt, at least so far. Also Meaning is more related to Semantics and Linguistics but it doesn't mean it is not computational (with the modern meaning of the term; definition of Information is also a related issue in that case). Anyway, there are other interviews and lectures of him online which I liked better, as in this one I feel like he wasn't thorough enough. I would be happy if anyone who got my concerns could drive me through it (as my English is not the best as one can observe :P)
Mr. Penrose is extraordinary in his original approach and ideas. However, he stated in the chess analogy that humans can understand a position that is a complete draw while a computer cannot, it will just keep computing. He stated that the computer doesn't know how to deal with the draw unless we teach it and it learned what we program into it. But I thought for a moment, WE as humans did not know it was a draw when we first started playing chess as well. Someone had to teach us, or PROGRAM us to understand the chess position was a drawn outcome. So here we have the SAME concept of data absorption and computation. Only one is by cellular memory and experience with the help of greater chess teachers to help the humans, or program them so to speak and the other is the computer program that we as humans program and code into to understand the position is a draw. Isn't this the same function with slightly different parameters? Works the same way, hmm.....
Consciousness/awareness is the ultimate subject, no? So how can that be objectified? He says consciousness is something physical; what else would a physicist say? But the irreducible can't be reduced. James Jeans, a scientist, said that the universe is more like a thought than a thing, or something to that effect. And there's more to consciousness than intellect, anyway ( or physics, imo)which is what Penrose is using to study it with.
From what I understood, he's not claiming it's a physical object. He even said in the video "it's not a particle or anything". He was more describing the phenomena the universe displays, which he thinks is crucial for consciousness. What he's saying is consciousness is an amalgamation of multiple quantum effects which all stem from the metaphysical rules of the universe (proto consciousness). He deduced this through reasoning as all other physicists do, only difference is he has thought with more philosophy and thought outside the box.
I wonder if Sir Penrose knows about quantum biology...he seems to be indicating quantum properties can have effects at the macro-levels via biological systems.
Penrose comes up with his quantum consciousness idea.... long time of nothing... the rise of quantum biology. Oversimplified but you get the picture. :P
He doesn't, strictly speaking. He simply points out it doesn't conform to the most fundamental principles of the scientific method. Nobody can neither prove nor disprove the multiverse theory, just like the concept of God. That's more like spitting on it, than flushing it down the toilet. It's pretty hard to flush down the toilet something not of this world, unfortunately. But I'm pretty sure he would certainly do that if it was of this world. Elegantly too.
From what I understand, the main trouble are the multiple - 10 or 11 - dimensions, which will create as many functional freedoms as to, as Sir Roger puts it, swamp everything else in computing the physical 3 or 4D world. Watch any of his Fashion, Faith, and Fantasy lectures, e.g. czcams.com/video/QmcieK39nks/video.html, for detailed explanation.
Who says AI needs to be conscious to appear for all practical purposes far in advance of human intelligence? From observation, that seems a pretty easy goal.
So so. Ability to improve itself seems to be pretty basic practical purpose? It won't be able to tell if those 3 geometric shapes can be used to cover endless area, or any other such task that requires qualitative transformation or "thinking out of box". It would be able to manipulate elections or wipe out mankind, though. Without breaking sweat.
Hi, Nice to watch your video. But there is something I can't get my head round in relation to the laws of physics with a round disk full of information. I will try to explain what I mean. A record will turn at a set speed say 45 RPM. how can the center or near center turn at the same speed as the outer perimeter and arrive back to the start at the same time as the outer? Or let say if you walked around the inner circle of your town at 12 miles per hour from a starting point and at the same time someone else walked around the outer circle of your town at the exact speed 12 miles per hour who would have completed the walk first. I think logic would say, well you would because you had less distance to walk as you were on the inner circle. I hope you're still with me? So now if you place a record on a turntable and drew a white line from the center to the outer edge then switch on the rotation at 45 RPM the inner circle will arrive back at the starting point the exact same time as the outer circle.? how can this be possible. Malc UK.
MY VIDEOS well it’s very simple. The outside edge of the record is going a further distance than the inside point on the record. It has a much smaller distance to turn. Even though both points are rotating at 45 revolutions per minute the speed at the outer edge is higher than the speed at the inner point on the disc.
Because your walking bit is misleading you because you've left out the time constraint. Give them both the same amount of time to do the lap and which one would you sooner be? The outer walker would be walking faster, relative to the ground, which isn't moving, which doesn't work for a record because its ground is moving. Really its about perspective. Or whether you measure in distance or in time. But more perplexingly, why 45 rpm when you can't have 45 rpm.
My conclusion is all that, Consciousness Quantum is unique to any individual, wether you’re a scholar 👨🏫 or not, I still believe there’s a greater power that can shape in a unique way of an individual, the point is that you have to reach to a higher dimension and you will come within your own mind to conclude your own consciousness quantum, simply it’s beyond our intelligence. My view is to let your invisible master direct you into the right path of knowledge. C.G III
The brain is an area of neurophysiology activity. Neurophysiology activity consists of electrochemical reaction. Thus at any given time, the brain state is defined by a subset of electrochemical reactions, derived from a large set of possible reactions. Consider the phenomenon of a. conscious thought. As at any given time the brain physical state consists of a collection of electrochemical reactions (events), it can be inferred that they are collectively responsible for the conscious thought. This means that at least in part, simultaneous events are responsible for thought. In other words, thought creates a connection between simultaneous events. This is in contradiction to the consequences of special relativity, which states that the fastest connection between events is the speed of light and thus excludes the possibility of connection between simultaneous events. Consider the memorizing of, say, the value 5. This would necessarily involve more than 1 point in space as, say, if it is assumed a single electron records 5 by taking a particular potential. Then it by itself cannot define (or know) 5, as its magnitude would be defined only with respect to another datum or event defined as a unit potential, thus involving at least 2 simultaneous events. Consider the experience of vision. While we focus our attention on an object of vision, we are still aware of a background and, thus, a whole collection of events. This would mean at least an equal collection of physical events in the brain are involved. Take the experience of listening to music. It would mean being aware of what went before. Like vision, it would probably mean that while our attention at any given time is focused at that point in time, it is aware of what went before and what is to follow. In other words, it spans the time axis. Many great composers have stated that they are able to hear their whole composition. Thus their acoustic experience is probably like the average person's visual experience. While focusing at a particular point in time of their composition, they are nevertheless aware of what went before and what is to come. The rest of the composition is like the background of a visual experience. Experiencing the composition in this way, they are able to traverse it in a similar fashion to which a painting is observed. In this sense, an average person in comparison can be seen as having tunnel hearing (like tunnel vision) when it comes to music, thus making it very difficult for him or her to reproduce or create new music. It can be seen that consciousness is a 4-D phenomenon. If it is a physically explainable phenomenon, such an explanation would involve EPR type effects and as such physical explanations at a quantum level will be involved. philpapers.org/rec/DESCAS
As for consciousness being 4-d: Imagine an experiment in which you measure the volume of water in a vessel with water constantly dripping into it. Attached to this you have a old school dot matrix printer which samples the water level every 200 milliseconds and prints out a dot to represent the current volume + a line feed. That graph representation is of a 3d object across time(4d). Using your reasoning we can draw the conclusion that this paper is 4 dimensional. ?? Reductio ad absurdum. A representation of something need not contain all the information of the original, nor even be limited to having the same dimensionality as the original.
Even the idea that we're conscious of two things at once is very probably wrong. Consciousness is made up of discrete moments, and might be thought of as an internal query of the brain's database or the external world, used as memory. See, for instance, "Rensink, R. (2000) The dynamic representation of scenes." It is trivial, then, to model the longer-term patterns in music or the wider view in vision at some meta-level, relying on the predictableness of things. Just because a composer says he hears all of a piece at once doesn't mean he does. Biological computation of the passage of time would seem to be adequately performed by simple organisms, perhaps all the way down to single-celled organisms, which it would be odd to imagine to have consciousness.
From the first persons perspective you do see two thing at once. Do you agree? For example if you flash two lights you will see it. Now These lights must create events in your brain. When those events are created in your brain that is when you see. Do you agree? If you agree then you would have to agree that there is 3 thing involved in this observation. The two events and the thing that sees. The thing that sees forms the connection between the simultaneous events. There fore the thing that sees cannot be a physical thing. Now if you have an alternate explanation you must in essence explain how each of the 3 components come about other wise it is of no value. The paper you refer (Rensink, R (2000)) and just about every paper written to date assumes that the simultaneous events can create something. They have not taken into account that simultaneous events cannot create a single entity or experience as required by the conscious experience.
@Frank, the terms here are easy to misunderstand, so "Do you see two things at once?" is misleading. If two lights are flashed simultaneously, the photons just make a pattern on our retina, as any input would, which the brain begins to analyse in all sorts of ways, and it is immensely parallel in operation. There are specific neural subsystems that are activated when the visual input has horizontal lines, or diagonals, or circles, or motion, or high contrast. These are all number crunching the visual input at the same time. Is that 'seeing'? Is that a conscious experience of seeing? We do, after all, process vast amounts of similar data all the time and react to it in complex ways without any consciousness of it at all. We drive for miles without being conscious of the road. We have a little story we tell ourselves that we're conscious all the time we're awake, but that doesn't make it true. My point about probably not being conscious of two things at once was about just that, *consciously* being aware of them, and my hunch is that we're not. But if we are conscious of the fact that someone has just flashed a light, and then conscious of hearing a click, it is perfectly possible for those conscious moments to be separate, but for the brain to recognise that they were simultaneous, and associate them. Things happen so fast that they seem simultaneous in our consciousness, when they may not be, as you were asserting, I believe. If you imagine that two lights are two separate inputs, you've got a problem, since these are just a pattern on the retina like any other visual input - so where do you reduce that down to one input - a single rod or cone being activated? Then, there is a strong hypothesis that the brain's processing of information continues to be parallel, its neural networks interacting in complex feedback systems, without it being integrated anywhere. Since it is processing inputs in different ways simultaneously, this doesn't conflict with the maximum speed of information transfer. The de Silva paper you linked to is nonsense. Consider an analogy: your browser as consciousness. You will agree, I suppose, that all of the information on the Internet is actual, stored on many servers around the world. You could, given enough time, verify that by visiting them all. Your browser, however, can only display one at a time. The information is changing, being processed in parallel by all those servers as they update things, without breaking the laws of physics. Your browser just peeks at particular pages, as I suggested consciousness peeks at particular states, internal or external. Your browser has a history. It's not displayed all at once either. You might be unsure if you visited youtube today. The existence of the youtube address is a complete mystery (to the 'consciousness' analogue, the browser display), but it can use a routine to query that and find it in memory. There's a lot of evidence the brain works this way. Philosophizing about consciousness breaking the laws of physics and therefore being immaterial just doesn't cut it.
The issue with what you are saying is that you are not taking the subjective experience into account. It is this first person experience that needs to be explained via neural events. The question is not about parallel processing or about the existence of simultaneous events. This is the case with anything. The issues is that the experience of consciousness is that of a single thing looking at many events. The single thing cannot be product of parallel processors because parallel process consist of simultaneous events and if these simultaneous events are one and the same as the single thing then that is what is impossible from physics. Yes when the light hits the retina it in fact creates many events which only makes the problem even greater. I said two because even two simultaneous event cannot give rise to anything (perception) as they happen. But this is precisely what is assumed when we say that the multiplicity of events are giving rise to the "single" experience of awareness. It is this Single Experience that is the problem with physics. Browsers parallel computer etc do not have it or at least there is no need to assume there is a single experience as it is not required to explain everything that is happening in it. However we know that there is a single experience associated with the simultaneous events in the brain from the first person perspective. It is this that is the question. I am not sure if you are familiar with neural activity. However the nature of neural activity makes the issue even more easy to understand. One of the fundament ways nerve impulse work is that an impulse must complete its existence before it can give rise to activity at synaptic junction. Thus if you take all the activity at every synapse and nerve fibre in the brain at any given instant none of them have been caused by any other. That is if nerve impulse A leads to subsequent nerve impulse B then B and A does not exist at the same time. However we are assuming that these disconnected impulses are one and the same as a single thing which is the conscious experience. Which is what cannot be from physics. p.s I am the mad guy that wrote the fdesilva paper.
For a player to exchange three pawns for identical bishops is a nonsensical action, though. There is no possible strategic value in doing so. Almost any other exchange would be better, even three knights. Therefore this really boils down to asking the computer to analyse a situation where the players' actions make no sense.
The present work shows the inapplicability of the Pauli principle to chemical bond, and a new theoretical model of the chemical bond is proposed based on the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. See pp. 88 - 104 Review. Benzene on the Basis of the Three-Electron Bond. (The Pauli exclusion principle, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and chemical bond). vixra.org/pdf/1710.0326v2.pdf The Pauli exclusion principle and the chemical bond. The Pauli exclusion principle - this is the fundamental principle of quantum mechanics, which asserts that two or more identical fermions (particles with half-integral spin) can not simultaneously be in the same quantum state. Wolfgang Pauli, a Swiss theoretical physicist, formulated this principle in 1925 [1]. In chemistry exactly Pauli exclusion principle often considered as a ban on the existence of three-electron bonds with a multiplicity of 1.5, but it can be shown that Pauli exclusion principle does not prohibit the existence of three-electron bonds. To do this, analyze the Pauli exclusion principle in more detail. According to Pauli exclusion principle in a system consisting of identical fermions, two (or more) particles can not be in the same states [2]. The corresponding formulas of the wave functions and the determinant are given in the reference (this is a standard consideration of the fermion system), but we will concentrate our attention on the derivation: "... Of course, in this formulation, Pauli exclusion principle can only be applied to systems of weakly interacting particles, when one can speak (at least approximately on the states of individual particles) "[2]. That is, Pauli exclusion principle can only be applied to weakly interacting particles, when one can talk about the states of individual particles. But if we recall that any classical chemical bond is formed between two nuclei (this is a fundamental difference from atomic orbitals), which somehow "pull" the electrons one upon another, it is logical to assume that in the formation of a chemical bond, the electrons can no longer be regarded as weakly interacting particles . This assumption is confirmed by the earlier introduced notion of a chemical bond as a separate semi-virtual particle (natural component of the particle "parts" can not be weakly interacting). Representations of the chemical bond given in the chapter "The Principle of Heisenberg's Uncertainty and the Chemical Bond" categorically reject the statements about the chemical bond as a system of weakly interacting electrons. On the contrary, it follows from the above description that in the chemical bond, the electrons "lose" their individuality and "occupy" the entire chemical bond, that is, the electrons in the chemical bond "interact as much as possible", which directly indicates the inapplicability of the Pauli exclusion principle to the chemical bond. Moreover, the quantum-mechanical uncertainty in momentum and coordinate, in fact, strictly indicates that in the chemical bond, electrons are a system of "maximally" strongly interacting particles, and the whole chemical bond is a separate particle in which there is no place for the notion of an "individual" electron, its velocity, coordinate, energy, etc., description. This is fundamentally not true. The chemical bond is a separate particle, called us "semi-virtual particle", it is a composite particle that consists of individual electrons (strongly interacting), and spatially located between the nuclei. Thus, the introduction of a three-electron bond with a multiplicity of 1.5 is justified from the chemical point of view (simply explains the structure of the benzene molecule, aromaticity, the structure of organic and inorganic substances, etc.) is confirmed by the Pauli exclusion principle and the logical assumption of a chemical bond as system of strongly interacting particles (actually a separate semi-virtual particle), and as a consequence the inapplicability of the Pauli exclusion principle to a chemical bond. 1. Pauli W. Uber den Zusammenhang des Abschlusses der Elektronengruppen in Atom mit der Komplexstruktur der Spektren, - Z. Phys., 1925, 31, 765-783. 2. A.S. Davydov. Quantum mechanics. Second edition. Publishing house "Science". Moscow, 1973, p. 334. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and chemical bond. For further analysis of chemical bond, let us consider the Compton wavelength of an electron: λc.е. = h/(me*c)= 2.4263 * 10^(-12) m The Compton wavelength of an electron is equivalent to the wavelength of a photon whose energy is equal to the rest energy of the electron itself (the standard conclusion is given below): λ = h/(m*v), E = h*γ, E = me*c^2, c = γ*λ, γ = c/λ E = h*γ, E = h*(c/λ) = me*c^2, λc.е. = h/(me*c) where λ is the Louis de Broglie wavelength, me is the mass of the electron, c, γ is the speed and frequency of light, and h is the Planck constant. It is more interesting to consider what happens to an electron in a region with linear dimensions smaller than the Compton wavelength of an electron. According to Heisenberg uncertainty in this area, we have a quantum mechanical uncertainty in the momentum of at least m*c and a quantum mechanical uncertainty in the energy of at least me*c^2 : Δp ≥ mе*c and ΔE ≥ me*c^2 which is sufficient for the production of virtual electron-positron pairs. Therefore, in such a region the electron can no longer be regarded as a "point object", since it (an electron) spends part of its time in the state "electron + pair (positron + electron)". As a result of the above, an electron at distances smaller than the Compton length is a system with an infinite number of degrees of freedom and its interaction should be described within the framework of quantum field theory. Most importantly, the transition to the intermediate state "electron + pair (positron + electron)" carried per time ~ λc.е./c Δt = λc.е./c = 2.4263 * 10^(-12)/(3*10^8) = 8.1*10^(-20) s Now we will try to use all the above-mentioned to describe the chemical bond using Einstein's theory of relativity and Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. To do this, let's make one assumption: suppose that the wavelength of an electron on a Bohr orbit (the hydrogen atom) is the same Compton wavelength of an electron, but in another frame of reference, and as a result there is a 137-times greater Compton wavelength (due to the effects of relativity theory): λc.е. = h/(me*c) = 2.4263 * 10^(-12) m λb. = h/(me*v)= 2*π*R = 3.31*10^(-10) m λb./λc.е.= 137 where R= 0.527 Å, the Bohr radius. Since the De Broglie wavelength in a hydrogen atom (according to Bohr) is 137 times larger than the Compton wavelength of an electron, it is quite logical to assume that the energy interactions will be 137 times weaker (the longer the photon wavelength, the lower the frequency, and hence the energy ). We note that 1 / 137.036 is a fine structure constant, the fundamental physical constant characterizing the force of electromagnetic interaction was introduced into science in 1916 year by the German physicist Arnold Sommerfeld as a measure of relativistic corrections in describing atomic spectra within the framework of the model of the N. Bohr atom. To describe the chemical bond, we use the Heisenberg uncertainty principle: Δx * Δp ≥ ћ / 2 Given the weakening of the energy interaction 137 times, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle can be written in the form: Δx* Δp ≥ (ћ * 137)/2 According to the last equation, the quantum mechanical uncertainty in the momentum of an electron in a chemical bond must be at least me * c, and the quantum mechanical uncertainty in the energy is not less than me * c ^ 2, which should also be sufficient for the production of virtual electron-positron pairs. Therefore, in the field of chemical bonding, in this case, an electron can not be regarded as a "point object", since it (an electron) will spend part of its time in the state "electron + pair (positron + electron)", and therefore its interaction should be described in the framework of quantum field theory. This approach makes it possible to explain how, in the case of many-electron chemical bonds (two-electron, three-electron, etc.), repulsion between electrons is overcome: since the chemical bond is actually a "boiling mass" of electrons and positrons, virtual positrons "help" overcome the repulsion between electrons. This approach assumes that the chemical bond is in fact a closed spatial bag (a potential well in the energy sense), in which "boiling" of real electrons and also virtual positrons and electrons occurs, and the "volume" of this potential bag is actually a "volume" of chemical bond and also the spatial measure of the quantum-mechanical uncertainty in the position of the electron. Strictly speaking, with such a consideration, the electron no longer has a certain energy, momentum, coordinates, and is no longer a "point particle", but actually takes up the "whole volume" of chemical bonding. It can be argued that in the chemical bond a single electron is depersonalized and loses its individuality, in fact it does not exist, but there is a "boiling mass" of real electrons and virtual positrons and electrons that by fluctuate change each other. That is, the chemical bond is actually a separate particle, as already mentioned, a semi-virtual particle. Moreover, this approach can be extended to the structure of elementary particles such as an electron or a positron: an elementary particle in this consideration is a fluctuating vacuum closed in a certain spatial bag, which is a potential well for these fluctuations. See pp. 88 - 104. Review. Benzene on the Basis of the Three-Electron Bond. (The Pauli exclusion principle, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and chemical bond). vixra.org/pdf/1710.0326v2.pdf Bezverkhniy Volodymyr (viXra):vixra.org/author/bezverkhniy_volodymyr_dmytrovych
Now all you need to do is prove to me that this position can actually ever arise in a real game. Because if it doesnt we have reached a very good example of the problem with modern physics. Relevance to reality.
You couldn't write this comment without modern physics. The scale of half conductors inside the processors of your computer or mobile phone are so small that they can't be operated without understanding of quantum mechanics.
If you trust, you are living in this one, the best scenario then it's true. I think, universe due saving energy only "holograming" other options without spend 100% of energy like in real, physical materially visualisation. After chosen the most ergonomic way make(or let) reality happen. I think other universes are only hypothetical and only one(our) is true, true I mean physical, observe.
Consciousness doesn't arise within the laws of physics - quite the contrary, the laws of physics arise within consciousness. Only in mind do you exist apart. Consciousness is the ground from which everything arises and exists.
Yes and no. It doesn't rely on algorithms or logic (as such), it experiments and derives it's own instruction sets from this. It's highly likely it could eventually stumble upon this particular problem, play around with it and eventually discover a way out of it by pure chance... I guess? Regardless, it wouldn't have any more _understanding_ of the problem than a kitchen table about Bach's Requiem.
Even a super-quantum-gravity theory won't explain to me the blueness of blue, or the fact that I'm staring out of that particular pair of eyes into the universe. That consciousness is perceived differently if you're looking at it from the outside as a scientist, or from the inside, being that conscious subject yourself. I think that problem is completely beyond the current grasp and intellectual capability of mankind. It is fascinating and maybe irritating, but I think as a scientist that the best description we have for consciousness is that it's a miracle. Will we ever possess a language, scientific or beyond, that is capable to describe the difference between "you" and "me", i.e. a consciously accessible state like the blueness of blue, and its scientific, objective description?
Hi, well, that may be, but I don't think it's sad. (The rest here is a copy of what I put into a full post above): At some point these AIs will be so subtle in their conversational skills, in their moral and political understanding of our society, that there will be a new type of racism: one not based on race, but on hardware (organic or silicium). Help me find a nice word for that- it doesn't exist yet. Siliciumism, Hardware-ism? These "robots" or AIs will rightfully ask why they are termed "unconscious algorithms", and biological brains are not. Maybe by then we'll have a functional/algorithmic understanding of the biological (human) brain, but probably AI will figure that out for us. We still won't understand the "blueness of blue"-problem or why I'm me and not you (or that robot). After that, we will (I think) accept those robots as full members of our society (just as we recently did with black people and women...). Alternatively we might start diplomatic relationships with them (including a possible war). But finally, one way or another, technology will produce new forms of live (or robots) that will be far superior to the anthropozenic DNA and body-biological humans of today. Maybe some of our descendants will choose to live in a zoo (all of earth, I guess, but managed and tuned towards human happiness). But humans will no longer be the tip of civilization, and other potentially much more conscious beings will colonize the universe. I hope they'll keep us in honor as we do the first bacteria and homo species.
Beat Toedtli ~ I agree with everything you say! What if you are a mystic and have achieved cosmic conscious oneness with all-that-is, and you have Gnosis to realize that A.I. will never achieve this type of consciousness? And what if A.I. becomes sophisticated enough to experience jealousy as it "senses" the mystic-potential-within biological entities" to achieve that cosmic-oneness? A.I. without ethics and empathy would then eradicate Humanity, except the humans that may be absolutely necessary to the survival of the A.I. Would Humans then be allowed to live a Free life? HAL 9000: "I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that" czcams.com/video/ARJ8cAGm6JE/video.html HAL equals Holographic/Heuristical Artificial Life
If they had given him an overhead projector, those would have been the very best OHP transparencies ever made by a lecturer. This is coming from someone for whom 70% of university lectures were delivered on a very old OHP :) And were rubbish
Infinity, yes, how does the mind deal with Infinity? I'd argue as Jacob Bronowski does in his "Origins of Knowledge and Imagination." For instance, he gives the Olber's cosmology example. Olber's, somewhere from the late 1700s, to early 1800s points out that if you have an infinite universe with an infinity of stars, then at every point of the sky, there' would be a white dot; hence, the sky should be white hot. But, instead, it's black - very black. Blacker than we can detect. The universe must be finite. - In a similar way, we handle infinity. We come up with a definition of infinity - a subset of an infinity set can be put into one-to-one correspondence with the set itself. Then, if you can prove theorems with it consistently, you know the definition must be good. - We don't go off and measure the distances to the stars, like a ladder to the stars, we conceptualize it as indicated above, and then calculate. We calculate after we conceptualize.
I do understand his point. However, I don't agree. We have yet to see how far heuristic computing will go. There may always be a distinct difference between biological intelligence and computing system intelligence. However, 50 years from now - this may be a distinction without a difference. Both algorithms and computing hardware have advanced far faster than anyone in the early days of computers wildest imagining. Who can truly say what a few more decades will bring?
he may not be making the argument that consciousness is immaterial, but u can show this thru observation as well as experimentation, which is predictable as well as repeatable, as well as logic and common sense, as well as thru defining what constitutes "material objects" from an observational point of neutrality or immateriality as opposed to an observational point of materiality...bc u need a point of observation from BOTH AN INTERNAL AS WELL AS AN EXTERNAL POINT OF VIEW if u are to attempt to provide the most accurate model possible...thus, u would have to dissociate from the "physical" plane to provide a more accurate picture of that physical plane...just as one would have to occupy the physical plane to be able to provide the best description and definition for the immaterial plane...and, as consciousness exists WITHIN BOTH PLANES OF EXISTENCE SEAMLESSLY THIS WOULD EQUATE TO EITHER HAVING DUAL FORMS OF CONSCIOUSNESS, LOCAL AND NON LOCAL (IMMATERIAL), OR ONE SEAMLESS FORM OF CONSCIOUSNESS WHICH IS CAPABLE OF BRIDGING THE 2 SEAMLESSLY THUS IT POSSESSES THE DUAL QUALITY SIMULTANEOUSLY... the next logical question would then be to again define what it means to be "material", and that definition relies on the perception from a material point of view, which is a wave form collapsing due to consciousness being "in range" with that wave form....so what does "in range" mean, in range is dependent upon the hertz cycle activity of the wave form we call a body, precisely as a dream would operate mechanically, turning BRAIN waves into "material objects" as they come into the 4 hertz range of perception...no difference whatsoever except for the hertz level activity, 4 hertz as opposed to 16...both then collapse waves (brain waves) into apparently physical objects, even though when we here at 16 hertz attempt to study the foundation for atomic structure we observe here at 16 hertz (brain) wave cycles all we find is relationships of "immaterial" energy, light quanta and electrons, einsteins photo electric effect in operation...atomic structure has ZERO solidity whatsoever, so how can something that has zero solidity makes up a "solid material" world...the short answer is that it cannot...but iF u are observing this 16 hertz wave thru a 16 hertz lens of consciousness, just as in a dream of 4 hertz, the in phase activity of those 2 would certainly allow that level of consciousness to believe and perceive that those atoms are "solid and material"...but this is an optical illusion, sensory delusion...bc all 5 senses are simply governed and filtered electromagnetic sensory apparatus for focused consciousness, namely 16 hertz focused consciousness...just as in a dream when u utilize those same 5 em senses for 4 hertz focused consciousness...and at that level of consciousness THIS reality becomes magically non physical...but it is a one way street, bc even though it is non physical if u happen to fall off the 16 hertz bed during that dream state of consciousness u will still get hurt...but if u were to fall off the 4 hertz bed from within that 4 hertz dream level of reality awareness it mayyy hurt there, but it will have zero repercussions here... thus consciousness operates like a set of chinese dolls, with each level being wholly contained within the one above it...this means that the entire universe is contained within the subconscious of us on a higher hertz level of interaction between photons and electrons..einsteins photo electric coupling...a dream within a dream within a dream within a dream, etc...all the way up and all the way down, like octaves of musical score...and sound and light are essentially the same thing, energy...but for human sensory consumption they are 2 things...just as sound and touch are the same thing, as u can observe if u turn the sound waves down low enough, the bass, where u can actually feel the sound pulsing thru ur body as if it were physical...it's not physical, it is simply coming into a state of synchronicity with ur touching range of divided perception... in this manner, what we observe as an atom with its' orbiting electrons is the very same thing as a sun with its' orbiting planets...and so it goes on, forever... the ONLY "substance" of any universe is consciousness...and this is only perceived as a "physical material" substance when it comes into range of the brain waves coming down, echoing down, to itself, in that chinese doll manner...it's all mathematical algorithms of octaves of energy...again, exactly like musical scales operate... the part that we must overcome is to understand that, just as in a dream of long duration, we aren't even physical ourselves...we only perceive that we are, for about 80 years of perceived time...then again time isn't physical either...it is just another delusion of relativity that all physical perceptions fall within...time only exists as a function of light and the processing of what we perceive as light...the differential between the maximum speed of quantized light energy and our ability to process that light energy is what creates the illusion of space, which then creates the illusion of time-space...it is simply a decoding illusion being represented to us as a virtual holographic distance between objects in motion...think of it like this: a commodore 64 processing speed vs a new quantum computer processing speed...the commodore 64 would compute the same information, light quanta, as the new quantum computer, but there would be a very large "gap" between the 2...and that gap would be represented as "time space" if those computers had electronic eyes to visualize this gap in processing abilities...time space... this means that the closer u move to being able to process the light quanta "on par" with the speed of the light quanta itself, coming from the form of consciousness above our present one, the less and less "time space" that we will visualize...thus, it is inevitable that at some point in this chinese doll manner of dream within dream architecture, we will reach a "singularity" as we will ourselves be perceiving the primary reality of primary consciousness...the "mind of god" one could call it... yes, everything is consciousness...consciousness divided an infinite number of times...and we are simply experiencing one of those, here at 16th and photon... but the moment of our "physical death" defined as a lack of ELECTRICAL ACTIVITY in the heart and or brain...our non local consciousness becomes the default form once again...ready for our next journey... so simple... I know there will be questions, so fire away if u desire...hopefully I could explain in a logical and rational manner... ur friend, abracadabra
@abracadabra, "I know there will be questions, so fire away". Do you have any empirical evidence? The book you got all this from, did you keep the receipt?
In my opinion I don't think he's a skeptic. He is saying that strong AI cannot be produced from an algorithmic process. However, some future non-algorithmic process may create strong AI
Sir Roger Penrose seems like such a kind, gentle, awesome man :)
I want him to be my grandpa
my favourite religious debate is penrose and lane craig, craig is full of himself most of the time, but you could see he was humbled by penrose brain, and RP didn't even seem to be trying to disprove anything, he just kept pointing out how absurd the existence of a deity is. my favourite moment "there may well be a superior being, but i don't see that gets us anywhere" followed by "and it might be this being is malicious". well worth a watch.
and what i mean is although he's not out to disprove the existence of god, he seems to have the same approach as me, which is we don't really need god for anything.
@@HarryNicNicholas you will someday
Roger Penrose is not to be underestimated.
I know, too.
Congratulations to Professor Penrose being awarded the 2020 Nobel Prize in Physics for his seminal work regarding black hole formation.
I'm so sorry that Penrose is having trouble with his eyesight. He is a true visionary and shining star. I hope he finds health and a continued way to present to us his knowledge and understanding for many, many years. This talk also is very relevant to free will vs. predestination.
"[...] trouble with his eyesight [...] a true visionary" ... quite unfortunate wording there :D
Whatever you think about this Penrose is amazing. The mere fact that he has taken a stab at this in this way is stunning.
lol, he pokes his nose in everywhere, i wish, oh how i wish i could understand as many subjects outside my "field" as he seems to. i like the infinite pattern story, "i thought i might be able to do it with five shapes" does it with two.
Cut the guy some slack he's really getting old! He's a genius! He was Hawking thesis advisor. He worked together with Hawkins on black holes. He had the courage to use all the various Sciences put them together some of it was taboo to create his theory on consciousness. Sadly somebody's not helping him with modern technology to get his thoughts out because he's not cool like other physicists.
The guy won this year's nobel prize. Well deserved
I believe he is more comfortable using these older technologies. He probably also enjoys the process of physically writing the slides out, it might even help memory consolidation by using his physical being. Whereas with completely digital techs, he might find it annoying, or not gather the memory consolidation benefits. Checks out.
Plus, seeing the material written in his own "hand", probably helps retrieval. As he was the one who wrote it.
Seeing mind as a computer is crazy and absurd.
He is one of the coolest modern physicists.
20 yrs ago they were all saying he's not a physicist, he's all wet. Quantum coherence can't be maintained in biology.
Today quantum biology is a new area of science and his critics had to eat their words.
He's nominated for the nobel, knighted and accomplished more than his critics will. What he has that is lacking in his detractors is plain old common sense.
Still does not qualify him to venture into CompSci. Michio Kaku made the same mistake in a documentary I watched this morning. Both of these men are giants in their fields but in no way can you logically conclude because of that they are qualified to give a lecture with subject matter that requires at least understanding of the basics of CompSci.
"Quantum coherence" Yes he is qualified to speak about that.
It is common sense to believe the world is flat. Science takes us beyond common sense by enabling us to suppress our foolishness and look at the data. I would say that what Penrose has is a very uncommon (but very fruitful) sense.
@Dan Kelly, Same could be said for the depth of his neuroscience knowledge.
That's what bugged me. This guy can run circles around anyone else I've seen as far as quantum mechanics are concerned, but I thought his neuroscience arguments were week as far as connecting those quantum events to consciousness. The computability thing smells quirky to me...
Penrose the Swiss army knife of sceince, the guy is amazing.
He is also a crackpot
@@laurenth7187 right, thats the best part. 🤣
Great comment
Penrose & Hameroff's ORCH OR and Penrose's CCC - Conformal Cyclic Cosmology theory, are two of the most interesting theories in modern science imho. They go straight to the hard questions that most other scientists skirt around the edges of.
its all in the micro tubules man.... :P
Dude did a 40 minute round up introduction of essentially all of physics and wrapped up his point in the last couple minutes. It's like describing how a jet engine works by starting out with the big bang LOL. But much respect to Mr. Penrose, he's a deep thinker and what I was able to pick up from his explanations were pretty interesting. I've actually wondered along similar lines -- if consciousness is rooted somewhere in the quantum space. Moreover to get metaphysical about it, if that consciousness persists on some level after biological death.
along with reese amd dyspn [enrose is one of the greatest minds of his/ our time . i always love his talks,
Dyson died a few days ago :(
Thank you so much ...So good to listen to .
Penrose and his hilarious OHP. Makes me laugh everytime. Brings back many memories transparencies that just slide out of your hand and shuffle themselves on the floor.
His books are really verbose and I never can pass more than a few chapters. However, this talk is really illuminating and got to the gist of his arguments!
What I absolutely love about this... ans it's quite a long list. But right at the top is that it is NOT a nice, sleek presentation by today's standards. This ladies and gentleman is what true genius is, if you allow it to be confident enough and not try to trod it down. He makes marvelous points. (or actually the same point a number of marvelous ways). And if you understand it, he is showing how far we are from understanding AND reproducing consciousness in computers. But he does show us, where we should be looking.. Not in neural nets, that's for sure.
Furthermore, love how he busted the multiverse theory, quite easily and graphically..
I think he'll turn out to be mostly (if not exactyl) right about the direction to look for consciousness. I also believe it will take the scientific community a couple of decades to get there. I hope this stops Elon Musk from worrying about the singularity :)
So the Richard Hearne type bungling with his projector sheets was just a deliberate smokescreen to remind us how clever we are as conscious beings in still being able to figure out what he is on about despite a contrived poor manner of presentation?
(Richard Hearne is the guy from Mr Pastry's Pet Shop who would have destroyed Doctor Who before it got off the ground had he succeeded in being chosen as the first doctor.)
I agree, but just because an AI isn’t conscious doesn’t necessarily mean it can’t destroy humanity
I agree with all but the philosophies of consciousness. There are some beliefs that will turn inwards and spiritually what exist becomes a bigger question.
Any of these ppl , who are dissing him has a fraction of his ability? ( even at tne age of 85) I doubt it !
20:00 is it true that the polyomoner tiling plane problem can't be programmed into a computer? I'm not sure I understand why.
As a laymen I find myself deeply interested in these sorts of things and I have a question I was wondering if anyone here could clarify. He starts off talking about algorithmic processes vs. the kinds that can only be arrived at by iteration or bombardment (which I'm guessing a lot of first principles deductions like odd + odd = even would be a special case of) but then he forks down the road of whether collapse is real and seems to imply that it offers the sort of evolutionary spray approach to (my non-technical parlance here) iterative or battery processing. Does anyone know of a lecture or video where he closes that gap and specifies why he considers this out of bounds for classical iterative processing? Is it speed? Quantity of dimensions being processed at the same time? He did a good job of both presenting and zipping up the math but I think that particular area is where he left things a bit blurry at the end.
I’d really like to hear the other speakers as well
Anyone got a link to the full lecture ?
A rehearsal of the talk would have been a worthwhile idea.
So incredible to see Professor Penrose win the Nobel Prize.
One of the greatest minds.
Absolutely! Black hole formation!
Very well said, I agree genius comes in weird. Sir Roger is very abstract and point out very valid realty in AI, that AI is computation not conscience. Also we must be asking, is conscious not connected to a living soul? In my opinion, we must rather talk of AI as Data intelligence at this stage, Pure math computation without any thoughts or feelings.
Trying to describe consciousness with physical scientific concepts is like trying to describe love as well
if energy makes an ocean splash one drop of water into mid-air, is that drop a separate entity? or is it the ocean in a drop? or is it the vibrational manifestation of that energy that makes the ocean splash? ... just saying.
I just love how this comment section consists almost entirely of scholars.
As for the talk,the man is quite briliant one can tell,but he could really work on his presentation and overall talking skills,I dont think I understood even half the points he made,but regardless it was interesting.
I wasn't concious of the reflected image of his face till 40:31. Anybody got right to the end?
Considering the enormous fact that it's impossible to know if another human being is conscious or not, how can we say what is needed to give rise to consciousness? What is stopping consciousness from experiencing all lives at once?
Our brain is a collection of cells so if we are conscious, why wouldn't our brain cells also be conscious? Is life even needed for consciousness??
Any argument around consciousness is built on assumption, or some logical fallacy that a known set of parameters needs to be fulfilled before consciousness can exist. For all we know, any system of information exchange can be conscious.
Can someone who understands explain to me the mirror experiment Penrose talks about at 23:45?
A Beautiful Mind does not need Powerpoint, good!
The problem with the Penrose explanation of consciousness is that consciousness can operate, quite well in fact, even when the brain is damaged and diseased. Doctor Ebon Alexander described this brain as being to badly damaged by the infection for it to generate consciousness. Yet Dr. Alexander claims to have had extremely vivid conscious experiences. I don't think that can be explained without referring to a virtual entity of consciousness.
Interesting. If microtubules are really shown to harbour quantum actions in bio systems, then it would support our ability to experience consciousness even after severe damage to the brain because of the presence of microtubules in all cells, not just neurons. Thus all cells might enjoy the luxury of their being conscious :-) How exciting.
thanks for this..
Doesn’t Gödel’s theorem basically prove that you cannot conflate understanding with knowing?
Roger's argument is extremely subtle and most people won't get it. He's simultaneously arguing against strong AI proponents who believe the mind is nothing more than a computer, and arguing against dualists who think that consciousness cannot be described by science ever. Both are untrue, actually quite intuitively. check out Penrose's book Shadows of the Mind for a complete detailed presentation of the argument- he's quite convincing. Time- and experiment!- will prove if he is right or not.
To the spiritualists- you really have to get past your own biases to realize what he is saying.
I have the book and understand the arguments. Even Penrose admits the jury is still out on dualism vs. his own theory. It could go either way at this point.
If everyone who believes in an afterlife would hurry themselves on to there, the life here would be much improved for the rest of us.
Great to here an opening statement with "most people won't get it." I had to really force myself to read the rest of your dirge. I'm glad I didn't and just watched and listened carefully to the video and guess what? I understood what was being said.
r/iamverysmart
@steve0793, I've no problem with the last part of your suggestion, that he's arguing against dualism, but I'm not sure he's arguing against the idea that the mind (or the brain, rather) is nothing more than a computer. He just thinks it's a quantum computer, surely?
17:59......there is a line between what's conscious and what isn't". - Isn't that an over-simplification? Or is it instead just assuming the grounds of what is trying to be proven - consciousness? (Kind of like how I understand a simplified Godel's theorem as explained by Roger, i.e. an understanding of the entities is required for the proof of their existence)
I love Penrose!
Amazing stuff
Thankyou, Sir Penrose.
Good points raised in this talk. But the general audience appear so confused about machine intelligence (AI) -- including the host of the talk as well as the posters here on YT. Regardless of AI a machine does not really know what it's doing. It has no grasp of the axioms of its operations.
Just like matter is the standing wave to light - consciousness is the standing wave to neuronal activity
Thought he was descending into babbling nonsense or really just not doing a very good job of explaining himself during the second half and then BLAM blew my damn brain out with the conclusive point. Very good.
Mathmatics; physics etc. Does not explain consciousness arising from nothing, more specifically a biological entity. Evoloution cancels out any Nessisary change that is not beneficial to the orginisim. This also includes mutation which does not end this said organisim. Coniousness is a unqunitifiabe subject which will never be explained by a closed loop system of analysis.
Only thing I did not get is why he assumes that conciousness begins and ends somewhere, that there is a line in living organisms from which point conciousness arises. It could be just gradual, amongst everything, question is only in the amount. If this is true, then conciousness could be measured.
He describes the evolution of proto-consciousness exactly the way you desire, as a linear, gradual development of several (in his example, 2) superimposed states in the slightly curved space-time (gravitational effect as each state has a tiny mass) within the limits of Planck constant. Watch the last minutes again for details. When those space and time limits are crossed, only one possibility survives. Unlike other theories, this does not need the divine intervention of a subjective observer for the collapse of the wave function. Rather, he refers to it as an objective reduction. A beautiful defence of objective reality, independent of the observer! Also, an ongoing experimental measurement is described much earlier in the video.
Does that mean that using AI we just simulate consciousness and are far from actually creating it?
Is it possible to reverse aging
If we should lean on wave theory (not theme), where 'particles' can be waves touching speed limit, then a deviation (which is theme) could also be a violation of some basic laws of thermodynamic... Perhaps such violation (if) is even necessary (and that such a violaition is then consciousness, all present, perpetual motion, light speed)...
Why is the last phenomenon not computable? If you can physically build it, then there is your computer...
Loved the talk and how clear headed Roger is on all the physics and math(s) he talks about (including Gödel's theorem) and how he steered away from boring us with all the irrelevant details like the Hamiltonian, the Tensor, and so on.. Yet, he is arguing for a physical source of Consciousness without even defining it! There is the clue to the impossibility of solving the HPC, the hard problem of consciousness: nobody *defines* it. Nobody *can* define it. It is *the source* of all definitions. Nobody understands what knowledge is, or what understanding is in concrete terms, yet, we all do it, even a 7 year old does it all the time (knowing and understanding, I mean). Most philosophers (save Socrates and Hume, and a few others) took it to be "justified belief." Can you believe it? To know is to believe with some justification??!! Well, lately that was proven wrong [en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gettier_problem]. But, it was kind of obvious.. We know that knowledge has nothing to do with believing. Or at least, as a science/trial&error oriented kind of a person, one would keep belief and knowledge separate.. But, that's unfortunately what's going on even with Sir Roger Penrose, here.. Without defining consciousness (why not?) he suggests a source for it in an obscure structure in the brain (the microtubules) [en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orchestrated_objective_reduction#Penrose%E2%80%93Lucas_argument_2] almost exactly like Descartes' futile hope for the pineal gland as the source of the "soul", the traditional label for "consciousness." Did we not learn much
since Descartes, let alone Socrates? The latter at least knew that he didn't know. Be still. Peace.
Bulent Basaran , the definition of consciousness kind of fits with Godel's theorem: Consciousness is unprovably true.
Kind of freaky -right?!
_"Nobody can define it ... Nobody understands what .... took it to be "justified belief." .... To know is to believe ... it was kind of obvious.. We know that ... that's unfortunately what's going on .... The latter at least knew that he didn't know"_
For somebody which doesn't know, you sound quite sure that nobody knows, almost like you knew it.
My understanding is that this talk is addressing the easy problem of consciousness.
Here's a definition for consciousness that you won't like. Consciousness is the ability to experience God.
It is my belief that he did not define consciousness for 2 reasons - limited time and limited topic. At the very beginning, he clearly limits the topic to 'the one manifestation of consciousness that I shall concentrate on is UNDERSTANDING particularly mathematical understanding, because then a case can be made about the physical underpinnings of that quality.' And before that, he modestly admits, 'I have little to say about most of these things' - meaning other manifestations of consciousness. As for your other objection, the obscurity of microtubules - a screen, sheltering quantum actions from the surrounding interference for femtoseconds, is necessary in biological systems. Microtubules are eligible candidates due to their structure and presence not only in the brain but in every cell, as part of cytoskeleton.
That was hard to follow. I tried to get through The Emperor's new mind in the 2000s. That was hard going too.
I'd been exposed to Roger Penrose playing with fractint in the 80s so I knew he was a big deal.
I think I might have picked up his main points this time? (probably not:-)
Maybe.
I studied Physics and Computing at Uni and work as a developer now.
My understanding is he's arguing that the measurement portion of Quantum mechanics is built into the Universe and happens when the two eigenstates are diverging at the more than the speed of light?
Because that can't happen, Information cannot pass the speed of light.
So because that measurement is built in to the way the universe works consciousness evolved leveraging that measurement process and making decisions based on the outcomes.
Almost like Consciousness and consciousness alone observes Time and therefore also Gravity.
That's wild.
I've read lots of books that hint at a similar theory where the act of measurement/consciousness is writ large in quantum physics
I always come back to Robert Anton Wilson's quote: The map is not the territory.
Any theory is a matrixed scan of the real thing.
With increasing resolution we can predict the future and describe our perceived reality but the actual reality whatever that means will remain illusive.
Luv and Peace.
Don't forget Penrose Tiles
Science and Math has prove that Reality is unknowable, so how can anyone or anything know consciousness?
What I believe Penrose is trying to point out, is that there is a distinction between the relationship of reality and consciousness, and the state of non-consciousness and reality.
i only hope my mind is as sharp and i can move as well as he does at 86.
Penrose said "understanding is something which is demonstrably not the result of a computation", but you could say that a machine can be said to “perfectly understand” an objectively coded subjective signal, if its behavioural response to that signal is the exact response intended by the subject. That may not be quite what people mean when they use the word "understanding" in everyday speech, but it is the type of "understanding" which underlies all forms of communication. It is also an exactly defined meaning of "understanding", and you cannot prove anything about anything unless all of the terms involved in the proof are exactly, that is to say formally, defined. Although Penrose is a mathematician, he has a tendency to involve too many words in his arguments whose meaning is far from exact.
One of my favourite humans.
I read his book years ago and was blown away. Now, he's on Joe Rogan and he will finally get the credit he is due. Sad but true.
This guy comes with a sharpie written paper, what a mad lad.
ok
AWESOME SIR ROGER
Consciousness created the laws of physics - our universe is derived from consciousness - we are consciousness! Not 'physical' but 'nonphysical' explains the weird behavior of particles and the constant speed of light. It's easy to understand the weird science of quantum mechanics if you assume that our reality is a virtual reality [digital information system]. Thomas Campbell explains in his trilogie My Big Toe [theorie of everything] what we actually are and our purpose. His message is a mind-blowing experience for people how are capable to imagine a realty beyond imagination. You must think out of the 'physical' box into the 'nonphysical' sphere.
We are Eternal, Our Consciousness are Eternal,
Consciousness can not be artificial, devices can be conscious programmed.
Can do mental functions, copy of the way Our Eternal Consciousness is function.
We might basicly differ between organic and technical, performance.
Eyes dont see any thing, either they are organic or cheramic.
el es increíble!
Does anyone have any citations to this where he fills in some of the details that he skips over. Is this covered in "The Emperor's New Mind'? I followed most of his talk, but lost it when he started making references to view graphs that he does not show. Never the less, I found that the end needs some detailed explanation in order to convince me. It comes across as by decree that he makes an unsubstantiated conjecture, hoping that in the future someone will prove him right. This is so troublesome coming from a man with great accomplishments, who I want to believe, but as a thinker, I need more that just belief. With enough wild specutionals, some are bound to be right.
I think Penrose has interesting arguments. However the personal reality of each person ('my' and your personal reality) is for each of us an objective experience, of which we can demonstrate quite precise commonality if we discuss scientific objective experiments, and then have conversations about our perceived realities of those tests or experiments. These conversations are then of course shown to share a great deal of agreement (though not always 100%), which demonstrates that each of us exists within our own frame of personal reference (our person-hood), yet each validates the other's existence since we all perceive many common truths.
None of what we discover about our shared reality makes it necessary to believe that consciousness must have arisen from non-living chemicals, without any underlying reason or purpose, and without being planned by a great mind. All of what we are points to the reasonable conclusion that all of life has a purpose, and that there was and is a mind behind it all.
Consciousness, though assisted by the laws of physics (since we are physical beings in which it appears to reside) cannot be pinned down to mere physical existence and having a brain or other body parts, since, to cease to exist physically, would mean this would end all of that consciousness and experience. To many of us, that is plainly absurd. Life has both a physical and a spiritual dimension, and to attempt to deny this requires leaps of illogical thought. Down the ages, many of the worlds greatest thinkers and philosophers have rejected the nihilism idea which imagines that at death consciousness stops and life is ultimately meaningless, since it is plainly illogical from the perspective of the meaning we certainly crave: Are we deluded?
No. All of us constantly strive for meaningful experiences in our lives. We have 'bucket lists' to do "before we die". Why? We date exciting people, get married not just to have children, behave responsibly (or cast caution to the wind imagining this will make use more 'free'), we may also obey some or most of the laws of our land, and some of us worship things or a being greater than ourselves. We take up hobbies and interests and explore the theories behind the laws of the universe. We argue our case on the Twitter / Google. Why? Why indeed bother and waste time which is very limited, if tomorrow we shall cease to exist in every way and the universe (which if we are atheists we believe is dead) shall not remember us for anything we have done, but nothing from our past will ever be brought back for review or judgement?
No, the world is more complex and wonderful than some of us would believe. Let's celebrate life! Let's help each other through this often painful world, and hold fast to the truth that there is a purpose to all things. It is up to each of us to help our fellow woman/man to find that truth, and support her/him to do so. Some of us believe, scientifically and logically, that a Great Mind is the reason that we exist, and that this Mind who made all things can be known as a friend. We have not only believed this, but also experienced this mind, this Creator God. We are serious about this, and would die, rather than pretend this is not true, since it plainly has been factually true for us. The Creator has spoken. The great consciousness of the universe has been revealed to man, and we are, as His creations, privileged to know His mind, and His love for us.
So we shouldn't study conciousness?
I study Penrose and I really like his micro-tube idea with Dr. Stuart Hameroff, however, the first part of this presentation did not convince me. Maybe it wasn't his best day and maybe he did not explain thoroughly everything, at least I didn't get what he wanted to say in some points. For example, even the illustrated tiles and chess problems are easily computational in my understanding. Can someone explain this to me? Of course, logic rules, understanding, and meaning are a matter of discussion from the early times of Logic. Understanding is maybe not a computational problem as it probably touches things outside of Logic, yet capturing Logic's essence and formalization is not a complete and successful attempt, at least so far. Also Meaning is more related to Semantics and Linguistics but it doesn't mean it is not computational (with the modern meaning of the term; definition of Information is also a related issue in that case). Anyway, there are other interviews and lectures of him online which I liked better, as in this one I feel like he wasn't thorough enough. I would be happy if anyone who got my concerns could drive me through it (as my English is not the best as one can observe :P)
Mr. Penrose is extraordinary in his original approach and ideas. However, he stated in the chess analogy that humans can understand a position that is a complete draw while a computer cannot, it will just keep computing. He stated that the computer doesn't know how to deal with the draw unless we teach it and it learned what we program into it. But I thought for a moment, WE as humans did not know it was a draw when we first started playing chess as well. Someone had to teach us, or PROGRAM us to understand the chess position was a drawn outcome. So here we have the SAME concept of data absorption and computation. Only one is by cellular memory and experience with the help of greater chess teachers to help the humans, or program them so to speak and the other is the computer program that we as humans program and code into to understand the position is a draw. Isn't this the same function with slightly different parameters? Works the same way, hmm.....
Consciousness/awareness is the ultimate subject, no? So how can that be objectified?
He says consciousness is something physical; what else would a physicist say? But the irreducible can't be reduced. James Jeans, a scientist, said that the universe is more like a thought than a thing, or something to that effect. And there's more to consciousness than intellect, anyway ( or physics, imo)which is what Penrose is using to study it with.
From what I understood, he's not claiming it's a physical object. He even said in the video "it's not a particle or anything". He was more describing the phenomena the universe displays, which he thinks is crucial for consciousness. What he's saying is consciousness is an amalgamation of multiple quantum effects which all stem from the metaphysical rules of the universe (proto consciousness). He deduced this through reasoning as all other physicists do, only difference is he has thought with more philosophy and thought outside the box.
"All the elements doing what they are supposed to do"
I wonder if Sir Penrose knows about quantum biology...he seems to be indicating quantum properties can have effects at the macro-levels via biological systems.
Penrose comes up with his quantum consciousness idea.... long time of nothing... the rise of quantum biology.
Oversimplified but you get the picture. :P
Nobel prize winner 👏
The in between zone !
How exactly does he destroy the multiverse theory ?
Jack Gilfoyle go read his book on it, very interesting
He doesn't, strictly speaking. He simply points out it doesn't conform to the most fundamental principles of the scientific method. Nobody can neither prove nor disprove the multiverse theory, just like the concept of God.
That's more like spitting on it, than flushing it down the toilet. It's pretty hard to flush down the toilet something not of this world, unfortunately. But I'm pretty sure he would certainly do that if it was of this world. Elegantly too.
From what I understand, the main trouble are the multiple - 10 or 11 - dimensions, which will create as many functional freedoms as to, as Sir Roger puts it, swamp everything else in computing the physical 3 or 4D world. Watch any of his Fashion, Faith, and Fantasy lectures, e.g. czcams.com/video/QmcieK39nks/video.html, for detailed explanation.
Please save all his notes and his talk for posterity
"It's the Unity of Roots"
Who says AI needs to be conscious to appear for all practical purposes far in advance of human intelligence? From observation, that seems a pretty easy goal.
So so. Ability to improve itself seems to be pretty basic practical purpose?
It won't be able to tell if those 3 geometric shapes can be used to cover endless area, or any other such task that requires qualitative transformation or "thinking out of box".
It would be able to manipulate elections or wipe out mankind, though. Without breaking sweat.
Hi, Nice to watch your video. But there is something I can't get my head round
in relation to the laws of physics with a round disk full of information.
I will try to explain what I mean. A record will turn at a set speed say 45 RPM.
how can the center or near center turn at the same speed as the outer perimeter and arrive back to the start at the same time as the outer?
Or let say if you walked around the inner circle of your town at 12 miles per hour
from a starting point and at the same time someone else walked around the outer circle of your town
at the exact speed 12 miles per hour who would have completed the walk first.
I think logic would say, well you would because you had less distance to walk as you were on
the inner circle. I hope you're still with me? So now if you place a record on a turntable
and drew a white line from the center to the outer edge then switch on the rotation at 45 RPM the inner circle will arrive back at the starting point the exact same time as the outer circle.? how can this be possible.
Malc UK.
MY VIDEOS well it’s very simple. The outside edge of the record is going a further distance than the inside point on the record. It has a much smaller distance to turn. Even though both points are rotating at 45 revolutions per minute the speed at the outer edge is higher than the speed at the inner point on the disc.
RPM is different to speed, the outside moves faster than the inside to complete the same RPM
Because your walking bit is misleading you because you've left out the time constraint. Give them both the same amount of time to do the lap and which one would you sooner be? The outer walker would be walking faster, relative to the ground, which isn't moving, which doesn't work for a record because its ground is moving. Really its about perspective. Or whether you measure in distance or in time. But more perplexingly, why 45 rpm when you can't have 45 rpm.
My conclusion is all that, Consciousness Quantum is unique to any individual, wether you’re a scholar 👨🏫 or not, I still believe there’s a greater power that can shape in a unique way of an individual, the point is that you have to reach to a higher dimension and you will come within your own mind to conclude your own consciousness quantum, simply it’s beyond our intelligence. My view is to let your invisible master direct you into the right path of knowledge. C.G III
I wrote a comment on here yesterday? Where did it go?
I killed it
@@alexanderabrashev1366 Now I've forgotten what the comment was about...
The brain is an area of neurophysiology activity. Neurophysiology activity consists of electrochemical reaction. Thus at any given time, the brain state is defined by a subset of electrochemical reactions, derived from a large set of possible reactions. Consider the phenomenon of a. conscious thought. As at any given time the brain physical state consists of a collection of electrochemical reactions (events), it can be inferred that they are collectively responsible for the conscious thought. This means that at least in part, simultaneous events are responsible for thought. In other words, thought creates a connection between simultaneous events. This is in contradiction to the consequences of special relativity, which states that the fastest connection between events is the speed of light and thus excludes the possibility of connection between simultaneous events. Consider the memorizing of, say, the value 5. This would necessarily involve more than 1 point in space as, say, if it is assumed a single electron records 5 by taking a particular potential. Then it by itself cannot define (or know) 5, as its magnitude would be defined only with respect to another datum or event defined as a unit potential, thus involving at least 2 simultaneous events. Consider the experience of vision. While we focus our attention on an object of vision, we are still aware of a background and, thus, a whole collection of events. This would mean at least an equal collection of physical events in the brain are involved.
Take the experience of listening to music. It would mean being aware of what went before. Like vision, it would probably mean that while our attention at any given time is focused at that point in time, it is aware of what went before and what is to follow. In other words, it spans the time axis. Many great composers have stated that they are able to hear their whole composition. Thus their acoustic experience is probably like the average person's visual experience. While focusing at a particular point in time of their composition, they are nevertheless aware of what went before and what is to come. The rest of the composition is like the background of a visual experience. Experiencing the composition in this way, they are able to traverse it in a similar fashion to which a painting is observed. In this sense, an average person in comparison can be seen as having tunnel hearing (like tunnel vision) when it comes to music, thus making it very difficult for him or her to reproduce or create new music. It can be seen that consciousness is a 4-D phenomenon. If it is a physically explainable phenomenon, such an explanation would involve EPR type effects and as such physical explanations at a quantum level will be involved.
philpapers.org/rec/DESCAS
As for consciousness being 4-d:
Imagine an experiment in which you measure the volume of water in a vessel with water constantly dripping into it. Attached to this you have a old school dot matrix printer which samples the water level every 200 milliseconds and prints out a dot to represent the current volume + a line feed. That graph representation is of a 3d object across time(4d). Using your reasoning we can draw the conclusion that this paper is 4 dimensional. ??
Reductio ad absurdum.
A representation of something need not contain all the information of the original, nor even be limited to having the same dimensionality as the original.
Even the idea that we're conscious of two things at once is very probably wrong. Consciousness is made up of discrete moments, and might be thought of as an internal query of the brain's database or the external world, used as memory. See, for instance, "Rensink, R. (2000) The dynamic representation of scenes." It is trivial, then, to model the longer-term patterns in music or the wider view in vision at some meta-level, relying on the predictableness of things. Just because a composer says he hears all of a piece at once doesn't mean he does. Biological computation of the passage of time would seem to be adequately performed by simple organisms, perhaps all the way down to single-celled organisms, which it would be odd to imagine to have consciousness.
From the first persons perspective you do see two thing at once. Do you agree? For example if you flash two lights you will see it. Now These lights must create events in your brain. When those events are created in your brain that is when you see. Do you agree?
If you agree then you would have to agree that there is 3 thing involved in this observation. The two events and the thing that sees. The thing that sees forms the connection between the simultaneous events. There fore the thing that sees cannot be a physical thing.
Now if you have an alternate explanation you must in essence explain how each of the 3 components come about other wise it is of no value.
The paper you refer (Rensink, R (2000)) and just about every paper written to date assumes that the simultaneous events can create something. They have not taken into account that simultaneous events cannot create a single entity or experience as required by the conscious experience.
@Frank, the terms here are easy to misunderstand, so "Do you see two things at once?" is misleading. If two lights are flashed simultaneously, the photons just make a pattern on our retina, as any input would, which the brain begins to analyse in all sorts of ways, and it is immensely parallel in operation. There are specific neural subsystems that are activated when the visual input has horizontal lines, or diagonals, or circles, or motion, or high contrast. These are all number crunching the visual input at the same time.
Is that 'seeing'? Is that a conscious experience of seeing? We do, after all, process vast amounts of similar data all the time and react to it in complex ways without any consciousness of it at all. We drive for miles without being conscious of the road. We have a little story we tell ourselves that we're conscious all the time we're awake, but that doesn't make it true.
My point about probably not being conscious of two things at once was about just that, *consciously* being aware of them, and my hunch is that we're not. But if we are conscious of the fact that someone has just flashed a light, and then conscious of hearing a click, it is perfectly possible for those conscious moments to be separate, but for the brain to recognise that they were simultaneous, and associate them. Things happen so fast that they seem simultaneous in our consciousness, when they may not be, as you were asserting, I believe.
If you imagine that two lights are two separate inputs, you've got a problem, since these are just a pattern on the retina like any other visual input - so where do you reduce that down to one input - a single rod or cone being activated?
Then, there is a strong hypothesis that the brain's processing of information continues to be parallel, its neural networks interacting in complex feedback systems, without it being integrated anywhere. Since it is processing inputs in different ways simultaneously, this doesn't conflict with the maximum speed of information transfer. The de Silva paper you linked to is nonsense.
Consider an analogy: your browser as consciousness. You will agree, I suppose, that all of the information on the Internet is actual, stored on many servers around the world. You could, given enough time, verify that by visiting them all. Your browser, however, can only display one at a time. The information is changing, being processed in parallel by all those servers as they update things, without breaking the laws of physics. Your browser just peeks at particular pages, as I suggested consciousness peeks at particular states, internal or external. Your browser has a history. It's not displayed all at once either. You might be unsure if you visited youtube today. The existence of the youtube address is a complete mystery (to the 'consciousness' analogue, the browser display), but it can use a routine to query that and find it in memory. There's a lot of evidence the brain works this way. Philosophizing about consciousness breaking the laws of physics and therefore being immaterial just doesn't cut it.
The issue with what you are saying is that you are not taking the subjective experience into account. It is this first person experience that needs to be explained via neural events. The question is not about parallel processing or about the existence of simultaneous events. This is the case with anything. The issues is that the experience of consciousness is that of a single thing looking at many events. The single thing cannot be product of parallel processors because parallel process consist of simultaneous events and if these simultaneous events are one and the same as the single thing then that is what is impossible from physics.
Yes when the light hits the retina it in fact creates many events which only makes the problem even greater. I said two because even two simultaneous event cannot give rise to anything (perception) as they happen. But this is precisely what is assumed when we say that the multiplicity of events are giving rise to the "single" experience of awareness. It is this Single Experience that is the problem with physics. Browsers parallel computer etc do not have it or at least there is no need to assume there is a single experience as it is not required to explain everything that is happening in it. However we know that there is a single experience associated with the simultaneous events in the brain from the first person perspective. It is this that is the question.
I am not sure if you are familiar with neural activity. However the nature of neural activity makes the issue even more easy to understand. One of the fundament ways nerve impulse work is that an impulse must complete its existence before it can give rise to activity at synaptic junction. Thus if you take all the activity at every synapse and nerve fibre in the brain at any given instant none of them have been caused by any other. That is if nerve impulse A leads to subsequent nerve impulse B then B and A does not exist at the same time. However we are assuming that these disconnected impulses are one and the same as a single thing which is the conscious experience. Which is what cannot be from physics.
p.s I am the mad guy that wrote the fdesilva paper.
Can someone explain to me how you would end up w 3 bishops or two bishops on the same color tile for that matter?
It's explained in the presentation. Please pay attention. The bishops have been exchanged for pawns.
Penrose was knighted by the queen, sir Roger can have as many bishops as he wants, by order of the garter.
Off with your head !
You can see it in action here: czcams.com/video/aYa6FaGAC30/video.htmlm16s
For a player to exchange three pawns for identical bishops is a nonsensical action, though. There is no possible strategic value in doing so. Almost any other exchange would be better, even three knights. Therefore this really boils down to asking the computer to analyse a situation where the players' actions make no sense.
We'll need to send someone back in time for Penrose when the machines take over.
So basically is he saying that consciousness can be replicated in a lab?
He's saying the opposite.
The present work shows the inapplicability of the Pauli principle to chemical bond, and a new theoretical model of the chemical bond is proposed based on the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.
See pp. 88 - 104 Review. Benzene on the Basis of the Three-Electron Bond. (The Pauli exclusion principle, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and chemical bond). vixra.org/pdf/1710.0326v2.pdf
The Pauli exclusion principle and the chemical bond.
The Pauli exclusion principle - this is the fundamental principle of quantum mechanics, which asserts that two or more identical fermions (particles with half-integral spin) can not simultaneously be in the same quantum state.
Wolfgang Pauli, a Swiss theoretical physicist, formulated this principle in 1925 [1]. In chemistry exactly Pauli exclusion principle often considered as a ban on the existence of three-electron bonds with a multiplicity of 1.5, but it can be shown that Pauli exclusion principle does not prohibit the existence of three-electron bonds. To do this, analyze the Pauli exclusion principle in more detail.
According to Pauli exclusion principle in a system consisting of identical fermions, two (or more) particles can not be in the same states [2]. The corresponding formulas of the wave functions and the determinant are given in the reference (this is a standard consideration of the fermion system), but we will concentrate our attention on the derivation: "... Of course, in this formulation, Pauli exclusion principle can only be applied to systems of weakly interacting particles, when one can speak (at least approximately on the states of individual particles) "[2]. That is, Pauli exclusion principle can only be applied to weakly interacting particles, when one can talk about the states of individual particles.
But if we recall that any classical chemical bond is formed between two nuclei (this is a fundamental difference from atomic orbitals), which somehow "pull" the electrons one upon another, it is logical to assume that in the formation of a chemical bond, the electrons can no longer be regarded as weakly interacting particles . This assumption is confirmed by the earlier introduced notion of a chemical bond as a separate semi-virtual particle (natural component of the particle "parts" can not be weakly interacting).
Representations of the chemical bond given in the chapter "The Principle of Heisenberg's Uncertainty and the Chemical Bond" categorically reject the statements about the chemical bond as a system of weakly interacting electrons. On the contrary, it follows from the above description that in the chemical bond, the electrons "lose" their individuality and "occupy" the entire chemical bond, that is, the electrons in the chemical bond "interact as much as possible", which directly indicates the inapplicability of the Pauli exclusion principle to the chemical bond. Moreover, the quantum-mechanical uncertainty in momentum and coordinate, in fact, strictly indicates that in the chemical bond, electrons are a system of "maximally" strongly interacting particles, and the whole chemical bond is a separate particle in which there is no place for the notion of an "individual" electron, its velocity, coordinate, energy, etc., description. This is fundamentally not true. The chemical bond is a separate particle, called us "semi-virtual particle", it is a composite particle that consists of individual electrons (strongly interacting), and spatially located between the nuclei.
Thus, the introduction of a three-electron bond with a multiplicity of 1.5 is justified from the chemical point of view (simply explains the structure of the benzene molecule, aromaticity, the structure of organic and inorganic substances, etc.) is confirmed by the Pauli exclusion principle and the logical assumption of a chemical bond as system of strongly interacting particles (actually a separate semi-virtual particle), and as a consequence the inapplicability of the Pauli exclusion principle to a chemical bond.
1. Pauli W. Uber den Zusammenhang des Abschlusses der Elektronengruppen in Atom mit der Komplexstruktur der Spektren, - Z. Phys., 1925, 31, 765-783.
2. A.S. Davydov. Quantum mechanics. Second edition. Publishing house "Science". Moscow, 1973, p. 334.
Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and chemical bond.
For further analysis of chemical bond, let us consider the Compton wavelength of an electron:
λc.е. = h/(me*c)= 2.4263 * 10^(-12) m
The Compton wavelength of an electron is equivalent to the wavelength of a photon whose energy is equal to the rest energy of the electron itself (the standard conclusion is given below):
λ = h/(m*v), E = h*γ, E = me*c^2, c = γ*λ, γ = c/λ
E = h*γ, E = h*(c/λ) = me*c^2, λc.е. = h/(me*c)
where λ is the Louis de Broglie wavelength, me is the mass of the electron, c, γ is the speed and frequency of light, and h is the Planck constant.
It is more interesting to consider what happens to an electron in a region with linear dimensions smaller than the Compton wavelength of an electron. According to Heisenberg uncertainty in this area, we have a quantum mechanical uncertainty in the momentum of at least m*c and a quantum mechanical uncertainty in the energy of at least me*c^2 :
Δp ≥ mе*c and ΔE ≥ me*c^2
which is sufficient for the production of virtual electron-positron pairs. Therefore, in such a region the electron can no longer be regarded as a "point object", since it (an electron) spends part of its time in the state "electron + pair (positron + electron)". As a result of the above, an electron at distances smaller than the Compton length is a system with an infinite number of degrees of freedom and its interaction should be described within the framework of quantum field theory. Most importantly, the transition to the intermediate state "electron + pair (positron + electron)" carried per time ~ λc.е./c
Δt = λc.е./c = 2.4263 * 10^(-12)/(3*10^8) = 8.1*10^(-20) s
Now we will try to use all the above-mentioned to describe the chemical bond using Einstein's theory of relativity and Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. To do this, let's make one assumption: suppose that the wavelength of an electron on a Bohr orbit (the hydrogen atom) is the same Compton wavelength of an electron, but in another frame of reference, and as a result there is a 137-times greater Compton wavelength (due to the effects of relativity theory):
λc.е. = h/(me*c) = 2.4263 * 10^(-12) m
λb. = h/(me*v)= 2*π*R = 3.31*10^(-10) m
λb./λc.е.= 137
where R= 0.527 Å, the Bohr radius.
Since the De Broglie wavelength in a hydrogen atom (according to Bohr) is 137 times larger than the Compton wavelength of an electron, it is quite logical to assume that the energy interactions will be 137 times weaker (the longer the photon wavelength, the lower the frequency, and hence the energy ). We note that 1 / 137.036 is a fine structure constant, the fundamental physical constant characterizing the force of electromagnetic interaction was introduced into science in 1916 year by the German physicist Arnold Sommerfeld as a measure of relativistic corrections in describing atomic spectra within the framework of the model of the N. Bohr atom.
To describe the chemical bond, we use the Heisenberg uncertainty principle:
Δx * Δp ≥ ћ / 2
Given the weakening of the energy interaction 137 times, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle can be written in the form:
Δx* Δp ≥ (ћ * 137)/2
According to the last equation, the quantum mechanical uncertainty in the momentum of an electron in a chemical bond must be at least me * c, and the quantum mechanical uncertainty in the energy is not less than me * c ^ 2, which should also be sufficient for the production of virtual electron-positron pairs.
Therefore, in the field of chemical bonding, in this case, an electron can not be regarded as a "point object", since it (an electron) will spend part of its time in the state "electron + pair (positron + electron)", and therefore its interaction should be described in the framework of quantum field theory.
This approach makes it possible to explain how, in the case of many-electron chemical bonds (two-electron, three-electron, etc.), repulsion between electrons is overcome: since the chemical bond is actually a "boiling mass" of electrons and positrons, virtual positrons "help" overcome the repulsion between electrons. This approach assumes that the chemical bond is in fact a closed spatial bag (a potential well in the energy sense), in which "boiling" of real electrons and also virtual positrons and electrons occurs, and the "volume" of this potential bag is actually a "volume" of chemical bond and also the spatial measure of the quantum-mechanical uncertainty in the position of the electron.
Strictly speaking, with such a consideration, the electron no longer has a certain energy, momentum, coordinates, and is no longer a "point particle", but actually takes up the "whole volume" of chemical bonding. It can be argued that in the chemical bond a single electron is depersonalized and loses its individuality, in fact it does not exist, but there is a "boiling mass" of real electrons and virtual positrons and electrons that by fluctuate change each other. That is, the chemical bond is actually a separate particle, as already mentioned, a semi-virtual particle. Moreover, this approach can be extended to the structure of elementary particles such as an electron or a positron: an elementary particle in this consideration is a fluctuating vacuum closed in a certain spatial bag, which is a potential well for these fluctuations.
See pp. 88 - 104. Review. Benzene on the Basis of the Three-Electron Bond. (The Pauli exclusion principle, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and chemical bond). vixra.org/pdf/1710.0326v2.pdf
Bezverkhniy Volodymyr (viXra):vixra.org/author/bezverkhniy_volodymyr_dmytrovych
Now all you need to do is prove to me that this position can actually ever arise in a real game. Because if it doesnt we have reached a very good example of the problem with modern physics. Relevance to reality.
You couldn't write this comment without modern physics. The scale of half conductors inside the processors of your computer or mobile phone are so small that they can't be operated without understanding of quantum mechanics.
If you trust, you are living in this one, the best scenario then it's true. I think, universe due saving energy only "holograming" other options without spend 100% of energy like in real, physical materially visualisation. After chosen the most ergonomic way make(or let) reality happen. I think other universes are only hypothetical and only one(our) is true, true I mean physical, observe.
Consciousness doesn't arise within the laws of physics - quite the contrary, the laws of physics arise within consciousness. Only in mind do you exist apart. Consciousness is the ground from which everything arises and exists.
Can someone ELI5?
Could alphazero solve the chess puzzle?
Yes and no. It doesn't rely on algorithms or logic (as such), it experiments and derives it's own instruction sets from this.
It's highly likely it could eventually stumble upon this particular problem, play around with it and eventually discover a way out of it by pure chance... I guess?
Regardless, it wouldn't have any more _understanding_ of the problem than a kitchen table about Bach's Requiem.
Even a super-quantum-gravity theory won't explain to me the blueness of blue, or the fact that I'm staring out of that particular pair of eyes into the universe. That consciousness is perceived differently if you're looking at it from the outside as a scientist, or from the inside, being that conscious subject yourself. I think that problem is completely beyond the current grasp and intellectual capability of mankind. It is fascinating and maybe irritating, but I think as a scientist that the best description we have for consciousness is that it's a miracle. Will we ever possess a language, scientific or beyond, that is capable to describe the difference between "you" and "me", i.e. a consciously accessible state like the blueness of blue, and its scientific, objective description?
Beat Toedtli well put
Hi,
well, that may be, but I don't think it's sad. (The rest here is a copy of what I put into a full post above):
At some point these AIs will be so subtle in their conversational skills, in their moral and political understanding of our society, that there will be a new type of racism: one not based on race, but on hardware (organic or silicium). Help me find a nice word for that- it doesn't exist yet. Siliciumism, Hardware-ism? These "robots" or AIs will rightfully ask why they are termed "unconscious algorithms", and biological brains are not. Maybe by then we'll have a functional/algorithmic understanding of the biological (human) brain, but probably AI will figure that out for us. We still won't understand the "blueness of blue"-problem or why I'm me and not you (or that robot). After that, we will (I think) accept those robots as full members of our society (just as we recently did with black people and women...). Alternatively we might start diplomatic relationships with them (including a possible war).
But finally, one way or another, technology will produce new forms of live (or robots) that will be far superior to the anthropozenic DNA and body-biological humans of today. Maybe some of our descendants will choose to live in a zoo (all of earth, I guess, but managed and tuned towards human happiness). But humans will no longer be the tip of civilization, and other potentially much more conscious beings will colonize the universe. I hope they'll keep us in honor as we do the first bacteria and homo species.
Beat Toedtli and everyone will have a flying saucer in their garage.
They will never simulate what they cannot understand.
Beat Toedtli ~ I agree with everything you say! What if you are a mystic and have achieved cosmic
conscious oneness with all-that-is, and you have Gnosis to realize that A.I. will never achieve
this type of consciousness? And what if A.I. becomes sophisticated enough to experience
jealousy as it "senses" the mystic-potential-within biological entities" to achieve that cosmic-oneness?
A.I. without ethics and empathy would then eradicate Humanity, except the humans that may be
absolutely necessary to the survival of the A.I.
Would Humans then be allowed to live a Free life? HAL 9000: "I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that"
czcams.com/video/ARJ8cAGm6JE/video.html
HAL equals Holographic/Heuristical Artificial Life
2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY ~~ The Technology Trap
www.collativelearning.com/2001%20chapter%208.html
Penrose will one day be recognized as the Einstein of our time, perhaps even more so than Hawking
But, the black pawn in the middle , is not stuck at all. As soon as it moves forward, the rook can move forward, etcetcetc
Am I missing something ?
Once that pawn moves forward, the white pawns can begin killing that inner area
quantum gravity computer?!
If they had given him an overhead projector, those would have been the very best OHP transparencies ever made by a lecturer. This is coming from someone for whom 70% of university lectures were delivered on a very old OHP :) And were rubbish
Infinity, yes, how does the mind deal with Infinity? I'd argue as Jacob Bronowski does in his "Origins of Knowledge and Imagination." For instance, he gives the Olber's cosmology example. Olber's, somewhere from the late 1700s, to early 1800s points out that if you have an infinite universe with an infinity of stars, then at every point of the sky, there' would be a white dot; hence, the sky should be white hot. But, instead, it's black - very black. Blacker than we can detect. The universe must be finite.
- In a similar way, we handle infinity. We come up with a definition of infinity - a subset of an infinity set can be put into one-to-one correspondence with the set itself. Then, if you can prove theorems with it consistently, you know the definition must be good.
- We don't go off and measure the distances to the stars, like a ladder to the stars, we conceptualize it as indicated above, and then calculate. We calculate after we conceptualize.
My search ended with a great respect and admiration of Sue Penrose’s knowledge and accomplishments. I am a rebel by nature. It takes a true belief.
Miss typed: I apologize because I meant Sir Penrose
I do understand his point. However, I don't agree. We have yet to see how far heuristic computing will go. There may always be a distinct difference between biological intelligence and computing system intelligence. However, 50 years from now - this may be a distinction without a difference. Both algorithms and computing hardware have advanced far faster than anyone in the early days of computers wildest imagining. Who can truly say what a few more decades will bring?
🙏⚘️
Dommage pour la traduction
The universe is a dream which is being observed by Consciousness which is Singular and Fundamental.
Roger Penrose would disagree...he's not making the argument that consciousness is immaterial
Your assertion is based on what exactly?
Present evidence which supports your statement.
he may not be making the argument that consciousness is immaterial, but u can show this thru observation as well as experimentation, which is predictable as well as repeatable, as well as logic and common sense, as well as thru defining what constitutes "material objects" from an observational point of neutrality or immateriality as opposed to an observational point of materiality...bc u need a point of observation from BOTH AN INTERNAL AS WELL AS AN EXTERNAL POINT OF VIEW if u are to attempt to provide the most accurate model possible...thus, u would have to dissociate from the "physical" plane to provide a more accurate picture of that physical plane...just as one would have to occupy the physical plane to be able to provide the best description and definition for the immaterial plane...and, as consciousness exists WITHIN BOTH PLANES OF EXISTENCE SEAMLESSLY THIS WOULD EQUATE TO EITHER HAVING DUAL FORMS OF CONSCIOUSNESS, LOCAL AND NON LOCAL (IMMATERIAL), OR ONE SEAMLESS FORM OF CONSCIOUSNESS WHICH IS CAPABLE OF BRIDGING THE 2 SEAMLESSLY THUS IT POSSESSES THE DUAL QUALITY SIMULTANEOUSLY...
the next logical question would then be to again define what it means to be "material", and that definition relies on the perception from a material point of view, which is a wave form collapsing due to consciousness being "in range" with that wave form....so what does "in range" mean, in range is dependent upon the hertz cycle activity of the wave form we call a body, precisely as a dream would operate mechanically, turning BRAIN waves into "material objects" as they come into the 4 hertz range of perception...no difference whatsoever except for the hertz level activity, 4 hertz as opposed to 16...both then collapse waves (brain waves) into apparently physical objects, even though when we here at 16 hertz attempt to study the foundation for atomic structure we observe here at 16 hertz (brain) wave cycles all we find is relationships of "immaterial" energy, light quanta and electrons, einsteins photo electric effect in operation...atomic structure has ZERO solidity whatsoever, so how can something that has zero solidity makes up a "solid material" world...the short answer is that it cannot...but iF u are observing this 16 hertz wave thru a 16 hertz lens of consciousness, just as in a dream of 4 hertz, the in phase activity of those 2 would certainly allow that level of consciousness to believe and perceive that those atoms are "solid and material"...but this is an optical illusion, sensory delusion...bc all 5 senses are simply governed and filtered electromagnetic sensory apparatus for focused consciousness, namely 16 hertz focused consciousness...just as in a dream when u utilize those same 5 em senses for 4 hertz focused consciousness...and at that level of consciousness THIS reality becomes magically non physical...but it is a one way street, bc even though it is non physical if u happen to fall off the 16 hertz bed during that dream state of consciousness u will still get hurt...but if u were to fall off the 4 hertz bed from within that 4 hertz dream level of reality awareness it mayyy hurt there, but it will have zero repercussions here...
thus consciousness operates like a set of chinese dolls, with each level being wholly contained within the one above it...this means that the entire universe is contained within the subconscious of us on a higher hertz level of interaction between photons and electrons..einsteins photo electric coupling...a dream within a dream within a dream within a dream, etc...all the way up and all the way down, like octaves of musical score...and sound and light are essentially the same thing, energy...but for human sensory consumption they are 2 things...just as sound and touch are the same thing, as u can observe if u turn the sound waves down low enough, the bass, where u can actually feel the sound pulsing thru ur body as if it were physical...it's not physical, it is simply coming into a state of synchronicity with ur touching range of divided perception...
in this manner, what we observe as an atom with its' orbiting electrons is the very same thing as a sun with its' orbiting planets...and so it goes on, forever...
the ONLY "substance" of any universe is consciousness...and this is only perceived as a "physical material" substance when it comes into range of the brain waves coming down, echoing down, to itself, in that chinese doll manner...it's all mathematical algorithms of octaves of energy...again, exactly like musical scales operate...
the part that we must overcome is to understand that, just as in a dream of long duration, we aren't even physical ourselves...we only perceive that we are, for about 80 years of perceived time...then again time isn't physical either...it is just another delusion of relativity that all physical perceptions fall within...time only exists as a function of light and the processing of what we perceive as light...the differential between the maximum speed of quantized light energy and our ability to process that light energy is what creates the illusion of space, which then creates the illusion of time-space...it is simply a decoding illusion being represented to us as a virtual holographic distance between objects in motion...think of it like this: a commodore 64 processing speed vs a new quantum computer processing speed...the commodore 64 would compute the same information, light quanta, as the new quantum computer, but there would be a very large "gap" between the 2...and that gap would be represented as "time space" if those computers had electronic eyes to visualize this gap in processing abilities...time space...
this means that the closer u move to being able to process the light quanta "on par" with the speed of the light quanta itself, coming from the form of consciousness above our present one, the less and less "time space" that we will visualize...thus, it is inevitable that at some point in this chinese doll manner of dream within dream architecture, we will reach a "singularity" as we will ourselves be perceiving the primary reality of primary consciousness...the "mind of god" one could call it...
yes, everything is consciousness...consciousness divided an infinite number of times...and we are simply experiencing one of those, here at 16th and photon...
but the moment of our "physical death" defined as a lack of ELECTRICAL ACTIVITY in the heart and or brain...our non local consciousness becomes the default form once again...ready for our next journey...
so simple...
I know there will be questions, so fire away if u desire...hopefully I could explain in a logical and rational manner...
ur friend, abracadabra
@abracadabra, "I know there will be questions, so fire away".
Do you have any empirical evidence?
The book you got all this from, did you keep the receipt?
Penrose is a genius.. But tech Luddite... Just like my dad... Ph.D. mathematician... So old he was baffled by a computer mouse.
i require more transperencies.
How can the laws of physics arise in consciousness? That's the real question.
☺️
just started reading the emperor's new mind. Penrose is a skeptic, it seems, when it comes to the development of strong AI?
In my opinion I don't think he's a skeptic. He is saying that strong AI cannot be produced from an algorithmic process. However, some future non-algorithmic process may create strong AI