Roger Penrose: The Emperor's New Mind, Quantum Mind, Quantum Consciousness, The Laws of Physics

About | Information | History | Online | Facts | Discovery

1. Maybe consciousness cannot be reproduced by conventional computers, but I don't think Penrose predicted the rise of quantum computing.
2. To be aware that you are aware implies more than one universe intersecting . The immediate stimuli and response belongs to one world, but to escape the world and be at liberty to have a free observation, means to step outside the world, as if standing on the platform of another world , looking through a glass, or doorway to the first world, where the event was happening. So, to be conscious and to be aware you are conscious , is a super conscious behavior , meaning, there must be more than one world available to create the platform upon which a viewer is seeing the other world. The only way to make a parable is to employ the dream world, as a place within a place having separation of whatever is the event or cause, to have an other worldly view, and that begins to be the threshold of truly being sentient. The ancients resolved this phenomenon to assert the man has a soul , another presentation of the same self, but in another world or condition , having a place of other sorts of rules, where the liberty of being there, lets the observer look upon the first world, with an escapist point of view. Such self awareness will always lead to the natural inclination to theory about God. Thus one sort of world existing is not enough variation of condition to permit a sentient experience, there must be at least two parallel worlds, that a human mind can touch, and achieve that special effect of being aware , that one is aware , while one is responsive to whatever his happening in the first world condition.
3. Anyone read Raymond Kurzweil's "The Singularity is Near"? It discusses this exact same stuff in more detail. Personally, I think it's a little more optimistic about strong AI than reality warrants. Penrose has interesting ideas about quantum consciousness, but I don't see humanity making any major gains on "the hard problem of consciousness" any time soon. It's like the holy grail of SEVERAL disciplines. In reading about an electromagnetic theory of consciousness, a good point was brought up - IF the brain develops its own field, then contemporary traditional computer engineering will never achieve the goal of true AI, simply because now actively creating shielding against short-circuits won't allow any field to develop. The closest I've seen to understanding consciousness seems to be the promising ideas about quantum theories of consciousness. We have yet to develop computers that can grow their own neural connections, much less create consciousness. It's been proven that memory doesn't reside in any one neuron - you can't create a lesion which excises a given memory, for instance. There's got to be some kind of unknown field. Until we understand the toughest riddle of all - consciousness - we will never develop true AI. Nor, I might add, will we be able to do what Kurzweil suggests - "uploading the mind". Bullshit. The day we can achieve either of those things we will also be able to create the ability to travel at the speed of light, but transmitting our consciousness, with perhaps genetic metadata to reconstruct the body nanoscopically at the other end. It's the stuff of scifi, to be sure.
4. i still cant explain green..
5. I started reading this book, I hope the arguments in it are more compelling than this. To be honest, I expected a bit more. This, to me, was borderline like listening to a high college student. I don't know if a machine could ever replicate human 'consciousness', whatever that may be, but these arguments were loose - at best.
   
   For instance, 'experiencing' color. What the hell does that even mean? If you can't define what 'experiencing' is, than how can you say that it can't be replicated? It's paradoxical a bit.
   
   Or, 'Humans 'understand' math'. Do we? This is yet another strange assumption. We make a physical connection to math, sure. We see six branches and visualize the number 6. But I don't think this gives us any more or less 'understanding' of the number, or the computations that we use to get its sum.
   
   Lastly, I don't quite understand what Penrose's overall point is. Even if you grant him all of his points, that doesn't mean that the hypothetical machine is not 'conscious' it just means that its not conscious in the same way as you. Since he didn't connect any of these examples as to being 'definitive' to 'consciousness'. Mostly because, again, no one knows that it is so it's hard to extrapolate what is required to achieve it.
6. The simplicity of the existence of a soul is too easy for an intellectual to grasp. Forever overthinking everything they miss the obvious.
7. We need to do more on surviving as a species before all else.
8. The importance is the parameters of the quantum simulation. The parameters must be such that patterns and homogenises are apparent.
   
   You may not create consciousness directly with machine AI... But our created quantum machines can create the infinite sandbox where consciousness can emerge.
9. We are DNA code emergent rendering machines that exists to replicate. By our brain / consciousness collapsing wave function and resolving mathematical probability our nervous system allows us to interact with reality.
   
   This is the nature of infinite mathematical quantum simulation. It's simulations all the way down.
10. 41:00 If the camera keeps zooming in, it's going to go up people's noses.
11. 21:30 - This is how I learned multiplication. I don't know if it is a joke or not, but I keep hearing that these days they teach that 2x3 is (2, 3 times = 2+2+2) and not (2 groups of 3, 3+3). And there is no room for negotiation.
    
    It distresses me to think that anyone could consider one interpretation correct, and the other wrong if they don't specify which one is the set, and which one is the number of recurrences. 2 x 3 apples is clearly 2 sets of 3 apples. It could be 3 pairs of apples, or 2 sets of 3. It depends on if you are trying to share them with 2 people or 3. Aligning them in a box will still look the same. An egg carton can be either 2 rows of 6 eggs, or 6 columns of 2 eggs just the same.
    
    I might have been lucky that I had a teacher who drew dots on the board and then circled each group so it was loud-and-clear how they related to each other, and that in the grand scheme of things, equal no matter how you apply the first and second number. Got 6 candies and need to share it amongst 2 people? (circles 3 and 3). Younger sibling shows up? (erases the circles, then circles 2 and 2 and 2). Simple. That way of thinking made it a bit easier to learn understand fractions for that matter.
    
    Mind you, that teacher also taught us to count binary on our fingers (up to 31) as an exercise to understand how in base 10 you carry a digit after 9 to the next finger, giving us a rather indirect way of introducing Boolean math and a full understanding that 10 isn't always the rule. So he might have had a bit more insight than these other teachers who apparently believe that multiplication is always set-first, then the number of recurrences.
    
    So bizarre. I hope it is just a misunderstanding on some bureaucrat's part, and not lost the students. It wasn't so hard to compute back in the 70's and 80's. Especially when that "rotation" is how so many difficult problems eventually get solved.
    
    /rant
12. Brilliant thks for uploading
13. YEAAA! So we can back up the next Hitler and then never run-out.
14. Truth as a static structure vs a dynamic system. To simplify, think of a
    stack of copy paper with one word on each page. In time, we see each
    page one at a time, outside of time all of the words, on all of the
    pages combine to make a single word. This single word is truth, it is
    the entire story, told in an instant of time. The fractal version of
    this story has another feature. As each page is presented to us, our
    intent creates a slightly new meaning that branches out, changing the
    story, an effect that turns the stack into a tree like structure.
15. Shud we turn to religious & mystical explanations for things that science cannot yet explain? Shudnt we embrace the uncertain answers of science than accept the false or unverifiable but certain explanations offered by religion.?
16. What's the year of this video?
17. A few of the books I've read, The Self Aware Universe by Amit Goswami, Ph.D., En tanglement by Amir D. Aczel, Quantum by Jim Al-Khalili, and currently Shadows Of The Mind by Rodger Penrose. After watching many hours and reading tons of books it seems much easier to grasp it all, including the knew stuff on the horizon. One truth I remember reading I found fascinating was that you have to rewire your brain to understand quantum physics.What I am experiencing is just that and looking back things I skipped over now make sense! So if you don't quite get it, DON"T give up. Like Grandpa said " Keep Plowing, rain will come..."
18. PLEASE GOOGLE:PROFESSOR ANDREW TRUSCOTT.    THANK YOU
19. A CERAMIC CAT IS NOTHING LIKE A REAL CAT! A CAT HAS A CONSCIOUSNESS! THE CAT'S CONSCIOUSNESS OBSERVES THE ATOMS THAT MAKE UP THE CATS BODY AND COLLAPSES THE WAVE FUNCTION OF ALL THOSE ATOMS AND CREATES HIMSELF/HERSELF (THE CAT).
20. Math and Physics people make assumptions and then create theories. Eventually they forget about the assumptions. This is like house of cards. Soul is not part of the brain. Soul is a separate entity, it reincarnates. Take a look at the free book https://theoryofsouls.wordpress.com/ Do not confuse between science and engineering, they have heaven and hell differences.
    
    Consider Newton’s first law – an object will continue in motion in a straight line with a constant velocity. We have never seen such an object on earth or in space. Clearly Newton is wrong. Newton assumed isolated environment, which is impossible in nature. Then Einstein came along and assumed Inertial frame. Did you not know that inertial frame is a frame that obeys Newton’s first law, which is false? This way we continue building house of cards.