Sir Roger Penrose - Why Explore Cosmos and Consciousness?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 14 лип 2019
- Cosmos and consciousness seem utterly different, cosmos encompassing the vast universe, consciousness emerging from tiny brains. Yet consciousness is the basis of religion, and some cosmologists speak quietly, profoundly, about consciousness. A few scientists and philosophers claim that, even without God, consciousness can be something of a cosmic imperative.
Click here to watch more interviews with Roger Penrose bit.ly/2QD3iI1
Click here to watch more interviews on exploring cosmos and consciousness bit.ly/2jW42h5
Click here to buy episodes or complete seasons of Closer To Truth bit.ly/1LUPlQS
For all of our video interviews please visit us at www.closertotruth.com
Filmed in the UK in 2007.
Sir Roger sounds like such an affable human being, full of warmth and wisdom. 💡
Amen to that!
What a pleasant chap Sir Roger is.
Yes. So clever on an almost ethereal plain and yet so 'approachably' humble.
Indeed.
He surely is 😊👍👋
a scholar...and a gentleman.
Yes yes quite right.
Penrose at his best here; extremely clear thinking, but also he demystifies complex issues with extremely clear explanations.
My brain is exploding from listening to Penrose and reading a YT comments section at the same time
What a fascinating discussion! Wonderful contributions from both these giants. Thank you
Both?
@@russellalesi5715 both are curious...not everyone will have equal achievements...but curiosity in a person is always admired...and it makes for an interesting life for the individual himself if he finds curiosity in something
I agree with both of you. You're both giants !
Anyone you suppose to have more wits and learning than you you call a "giant " do you?
What a fascinating conversation! In Advaita (non-dual) Vedanta, they call this a category mistake; you can never explain consciousness with objective evidence since it's not an object (physical or subtle) produced by some activities of brain or mind. Thanks and expect more such videos 😊
Consciousness isn't strictly objective in Penrose's theory, it's built into the fundamental nature of the fine scale structure of the universe, antecedent to objective space-time- there's no universe without consciousness according to him. I'd say it a bit stronger, that mind is all there is. He describes how proto-consciousness, essentially the result of sufficient mass displacement, gives the appearance of this being distinguished from that, and hence the ability for memory formation. If enough cells get together, they 'orchestrate' this proto-consciousness into (what I might call) everyday 'medical' conscious- that which goes away under anesthesia. Neither he nor Hammeroff advertise this almost panpsychist part of their theory but it's actually quite radical and not science-as-usual... I think a lot of students of Vedanta or Buddhism would be pleasantly surprised if they took a gander at it :). I agree though, ultimately words or equations will always be mere shadows.
Conciseness, maybe be encoded at a quantum level. Could traverse aeons.
What a extraordinary discussion
So good to hear such conversation. Fascinating stuff.
Great discussion with Sir Roger as usual.
Congratulations Sir Roger Penrose! ❤👏👏👏
We don’t have much time. Learn as much as we can from him.
What an illuminating conversation. could listen to this for hours..
Filmed in the UK in 2007.
Lol person Quantum Electro Dynamics . B4 scrolling down I wondered "how old is this interview, since sir Penrose now day's looks much older".
@@UtraVioletDreams And now . . . he looks much nobeler.
Gosh I love listening to Penrose. Great chat.
So what your saying is you would bang him 🤔 nice
Love listening to Prof Penrose and Lawrence all day as I often do.
After all of that approaching it from different perspective including Stuart Hameroff .. still struggling to grasp the origin and essence of Consciousness without having to bring in the Supernatural OR some type of Vastly Superior Omnipotent but NOT singular intelligence.
It’s quite a journey to know and understand the origins of our selves, physicality within the Universe and our mortality within the grand scheme.
Fascinating individuals and dialogues like this makes my life so much more interesting and fulfilling
But Roger actually admitted that there is the possibility of there being problems that are beyond the capacity of science to be able to answer, i.e. position D. That understanding or explaining consciousness goes beyond the capacity of science so that science can never answer it. Yes, it's true that Roger does not believe that the problem of understanding or explaining consciousness is beyond the capacity of science to be able to answer, he believes that we can answer the problem of understanding or explaining consciousness, and it seems that he holds that view because he has an inkling into where the answer lies and he's kind of on track to do so, though admittedly he does not believe that he and most certainly not anyone else has managed to do that. There may be those that believe position D, that it is beyond science, but that doesn't mean it is beyond human endeavour, just that it is beyond the endeavour of science, therefore he, Roger, as a scientist (and mathematicician, he quite clearly stated that consciousness is likely beyond mathematics, as Gödel had shown that such problems also exist) would be unable to answer, were position D to be true, but that there may well be problems that are beyond the capacity of science to answer. By this I do not believe he is considering problems such as having science tell us what occurs outside a speed of light "cone" because that data can never be acquired, or what exists beyond the observable universe (same thing really, in essence), i.e. what occurs at a distance of a trillion trillion trillion light years away. For starters that may be beyond the realms of spacetime and even if it were not, given how long, with present understanding of space travel, data collection and the speed of light and how we are, at present and in the foreseeable future, based on our understanding of the physical universe, it is literally impossible to know. I believe that when he was referring to problems that are beyond the capacity of science to answer are even more intractable than those kinds of questions.
It is refreshing to hear from a scientist, as great as he is, that hasn't allowed his achievements (as great as they are) to have gone to his head and allowed arrogance to cloud his thinking, which it seems that the vast percentage of scientists tend to fall foul of.
Many scientists seem to believe (as Roger asserted) position A with regard to explaining consciousness, that, to paraphrase, consciousness is the result of a vast array of computations. Dennett expounds this view quite succinctly. Position B follows on from A, in that yes we can have a computer that can *simulate* consciousness, in that all the reactions, responses and abilities *seem* to be there but the machine would not have any awareness, no knowledge, and therefore or certainly not be conscious, even though it would appear to be. If such a machine were capable of lying, which it probably wouldn't be able to, because that would mean it had awareness, but if there were some way of it being able to lie without having awareness, it would be impossible to distinguish whether or not it were conscious, at least it doesn't seem possible, any means to determine such a difference.
Roger's position, C, that consciousness is something beyond computation, does seem the most cogent and realistic, other than D, which, as a scientist with integrity, tenacity and brilliance, it's understandable he hasn't accepted D because that would mean admitting defeat to something he cares about deeply. The other positions are either too shallow (A) or a cop-out, i.e. avoiding the question (B).
However, now that all the ground has been covered, it is possible to query the point made concerning "not referring to" among other things, "the supernatural". As a scientist, but also, a wise one, Roger understands the political climate in which science operates at present and there are trends of hysteria that abound in any age, so it seems likely that he has quite cleverly pointed out that there are areas of human endeavour that are beyond science, but not foolish enough to refer to them as supernatural. Obviously, at present, based on the discussions in this video, it seems that consciousness *may* be supernatural, i.e. position D, though not necessarily. Regardless as to whether it is or it isn't, and obviously there are people who are unwilling to accept the *possibility* (regardless of how seemingly improbable) of certain phenomena having a supernatural explanation. It appears from your comment that you yourself are unwilling to accept that it is possible for *any* phenomena to have or be supernatural (in) origin.
Given the intractable nature of the problem of consciousness, life and the mere existence of matter and energy, (though it is thrilling to follow Roger's progress) there does seem to be no other explanation other than position D. Which, although Roger, being a scientist, and a wise one at that, isn't so daft to refer to position D as referring to the supernatural, what else does one term phenomena beyond scientific inquiry or explanation ?
hat do you mean or seek to convey by the ward "consciousness"?
I can listen to Sir Roger all day. This guy forgets more in a day than I could ever know.
i love this channel so much
Brilliant interview! Thank you
Bloody fascinating. Great video, great channel.
Great to see at least 100k views on these types of brilliant discussions, SIr Penrose's works have huge implications if we can understand the set of laws that govern quantum mechanics in a better way.
Inspiring.. Thank you🌷
T
Merci monsieur for your wonderful videos!
Excellent interview.
The best and most intelligent discussion on the mystery of consciousness that I have ever seen.
hat do you mean or seek to convey by the ward "consciousness"?
This is a key connection... The key to understanding the universe
Excellent... thanks 🙏
excellent interview. thanks
Amazing man
Good to see this video. So tired of technology obsessed delusions of so many regarding consciousness being explained away as something that can eventually be “simulated” to then arrive at “actual” consciousness.
Consciousness being engineered through simulation is a paradox if I’ve ever heard one.
What do you mean or seek to convey by the ward "consciousness"?
That you have to idea you will illustrate by signally failing to set out what you mean or seek to convey by the ward "consciousness"
If people knew how to grasp for themselves what
passes in their thoughts when they hear or use the word
”conscious or consciousness” then most of them would have to admit-if of course they intended to be sincere-that the word carries
no exact notion whatever for them. Catching by ear simply the accustomed consonance, the meaning of which
they assume that they know, it is as if they say to themselves “Ah, consciousness, I know what this is,” and serenely go on thinking.
Should one deliberately arrest their attention on this?
word and know how to probe them to find just what they
understand by it, they will at first be plainly as is said
“embarrassed,” but quickly pulling themselves together,
that is to say, quickly deceiving themselves, and recalling
the first definition of the word that comes to mind, they
will then offer it as their own, although, in fact, they had not thought of it before.
@@vhawk1951kl so your saying that you believe most people don't have a suitable definition for the word consciousness?
@@redwolf7929 did I use those exact words?
Take my advice never preface a question with so, for few with any wits entertain such questions, for obvious reasons.
Go, the board game, is a demonstration that Penrose is catching up. In recent time components of computing have become incredibly more dense and qbits of single computers are passing a hundred. Examples of articles published in leading newspapers composed by computers, have seemingly passed the Turing test. The understanding of conciousness in some circles, is advancing in bearly understood but stupendous ways. Socially we might well prepare for this and explore it's implications.
Wish both of you could live forever.
My favorite scientist and mathematician.
"There is something in understanding that goes beyond purely following rules." 9:27
Yes, and I think that this is, in part, what Wittgenstine was driving at before he was beaten down by the academic-educational establishment.
Mr.Penrose is the Man
The universe can, and does respond to and react to every form of energy and "universal" element and particle, and "universal" electrical activity, and spiritual Consciousness! That relationship is where the study begins the greatest relationship - ever!
Brilliant mind
Which came first, consciousness or life?
If human consciousness can be spread like jam throughtout the Universe, does "being" become more important than knowing?
(assume consciousness is not limited by the speed of light.)
Quantum physics allows humans being to be connected to the cosmos. This connection translates meaning of consciousness. I am glad that we both came to the same theory.
On the right track when pursue difference between Schrodinger equation / quantum mechanics and classical measurement / observation for consciousnessness. Classical measurement / observation does not go far enough into quantum reality.
‘Eliminate the impossible, what’s left must be the truth, however improbable’. The trouble is, are we yet certain about what is impossible or improbable?
What Sir Penrose says about mathematical problems which aren’t computationally soluble led me to an interesting thought, particularly in regards to the problem he uses as an example: if one combined a quantum computer and optimisation algorithm with this problem, a computationally reasonable sub space of the (presumably infinite) potentialities could be created, which might create a computationally reducible way of answering the question.
Also, Penrose unfortunately is just plain wrong in some of these views. I guarantee it.
Similar to mathematical computation for physical reality, consciousness might be described by a logical programming. Just as math equations can be used for physical reality, a logical program can likely be developed for consciousness.
It isn't space-time. It's space-time-conciousness.
Space is meaningless without time. Time is useless without matter. Both are allowed to exist thanks to the consciousnesses that observe them. You can't have any of these without the other two.
Cool story, now show some math or reproducible experiment that demonstrates any of that.
@@pearz420 I shouldn't have to do your research and hold your hand for you. Go google quantum mechanics. Learn about the double slit experiment (observers can change outcomes) or quantum entanglement (space and time don't 'exist' but are a single point stretched out).
My thoughts as well. Are you familiar with the CTMU?
I love Sir Roger, may God bless him and draw him to faith in his son Jesus Christ.
Knowing that we Don’t know is concsciousness
We've explored precious little of the universe.
Some intellectual honesty would help.
Machine learning is a wonderful thing, I think we have more in common with software than we realize, emotions cloud understanding
I have a lot of RESPECT for roger penrose BUT he is COMPLETELY INCORRECT about (future) Consciousness in computers, i believe facebook or google pit two LEARNINGS A.I. against each after x amount of learning the ai started to LIE to one another after that even more x amount of leaning the AI BOTH AI's CREATED THEIR OWN LANGUAGE so the DEVELOPERS of the AI's could/would NOT KNOW what the AI's were upto (so both AI's learned/understood they were being watched/monitored by the developers, I believe the developer just shut down both the AI's down after that, roger is probably thinking of us BUILDING AI we can't/won't be able to do that but we WILL BE ABLE to create AI's that will be eventually achieve consciousness through EARNING IT (it is EXTREMELY NAIVE TO THINK AI WILL NOT BE ABLE TO ACHIEVE CONSCIOUSNESS
Emotions is what makes us human and conscious
The age of the video does not diminish its relevancy. Penrose started out sounding a little woo-woo in his beliefs . . I RELAXED after hearing his last few statements expressing his opinion that consciousness would be eventually understood by science as a process of physical mechanisms.
He sounded fairly emotional and that always happens when the world is presented with a mystery. I admit to know nothing about consciousness, but that no reason to go overly emotional about it. Until we know, we must admit we don't know
Phew! Thank god he didn't betray our materialistic convictions!
@@dgodiex An ODD mixed metaphor.. I'm assuming It was a humorous expression of sarcasm.. I'll ask, if not NATURALISM then what?
The problem is that we have to use consciousness to understand consciousness. To understand a system it must be observed from the outside. Can we observe consciousness from its outside? Also, is consciousness a result of the Big Bang which has been explained through computational processes? It seems to me that the idea of a supernatural being living outside the system of consciousness might have created consciousness itself and we are bound by it. Why is this idea completely discarded and seemingly not debatable? Which physics laws would it conflict with?
We are in this universe and without being outside of it we are still able to know so many things about it.......
I can't get the meat of his argument around 9:00 - 9:30, related to godel's incompleteness.
If anyone understand better and can rephrase it, I'd be interested, thanks.
The question of the existence of intuition perhaps?
so what i think is the ability to modify your belief of rules in such a way as they are upgraded over time is what Consciousness is and the ability to adjust an algorithm or RULEset as our understanding or its understanding evolves
this kinda is how evolution kinda works by taking the ones that can survive forward
2:30 - 4 interpretations of consciousness
"Understanding, whatever that is, is not something which can be reduced to computational procedures". 9:50
Imagine a person walking on a well-worn path in a dense forest. They are comfortable with the familiar route and the predictable surroundings. Suddenly, a new path emerges, leading to uncharted territory with unfamiliar sights and sounds. This new path represents a new scientific discovery that challenges their existing beliefs and understanding.
Just like in the forest, humans can find it difficult to leave their comfortable path of established knowledge and venture into the unknown of new discoveries. It can be unsettling to confront ideas that go against what we have always believed to be true. This discomfort can lead to resistance and skepticism towards accepting these new findings.
Furthermore, factors such as limited exposure to new information, fear of what is not understood, and adherence to traditional ways of thinking can all contribute to the hesitance in embracing new scientific discoveries.
However, it is crucial to remember that science is a journey of exploration and discovery. Just as the forest continues to grow and change, so does our understanding of the world through scientific advancements. It is important for individuals to stay curious, open-minded, and willing to challenge their own beliefs in order to continue growing intellectually.
Could someone please provide me with more information about what Sir Roger is saying at 13 mins in when talking about Shroedinger's deterministic equation vs the measurement problem.
Watch Tom Campbell's videos. He talks about the measurement problem and the probabilistic nature of phenomena.
ua-cam.com/video/2Nlbro2MNBs/v-deo.html
@@naturezaesferica thank you x
Delightful English Gentleman.
Something seems to be happening at the micro level here that defies our understanding, and I find it intriguing how the tiniest structures bind together to create life, and ultimately consciousness. Even the basic nature of deterministic will and procreation in the tiny organisms are fascinating, even as we have yet to define those types of creatures as having consciousness. I have always wondered whether there is some inherent drive in the tiniest structures that is not just a reaction to the environment, but a base desire to experience that environment. And no, I am not talking about God here, but some type of force that we have yet to quantify - some type of basic unit of consciousness that is trying to fight against entropy - but always fails.
Penrose is imagination to the fullest and that is reality...... a true master.
master of what? Ask yourself that when you have stopped grovelling and fawning
True creativity, the desire for knowledge, and the innate lust for procreation are the ultimate watersheds in the course of the Artificial Intelligence’s development. In many ways, AI is already by orders of magnitude faster and more efficient that us, but the day it becomes more creative, ambitious, adventurous, knowledge seeking, and endowed with replicative lust as well, then the whole of humanity is obsolete.
If the period before the big bang went from high entropy / low temperature tiny state to low entropy / high temperature small dense state, could this dynamic have happened from a black hole?
Max Tegmark said something to the effect that consciousness is what we are feeling when we are processing information ... he has a good Ted Talk
Could it be that understanding is linked to intent? That understanding implies some sense of purpose, and purpose only emerges with intent. And computers, so far, have no autonomous intent. Only the intent we programme into them
AI is a closed system - it could be creative only in the boudaries of the knowledge the humans insert in it, through recombination. Humans are an open system, they are endlessly creative
I'm a time and space traveller - bet, U2. ALL. Just I realize what does it mean, most of you don't. Cuz I'm the most curious and the worst badass eight galaxies around.
@@aporist Humans are not infinitely creative. We substitute the parts of the system we don't understand with ego.
@@illustriouschin Yes, they are - sometimes we discover, sometimes we create. Until there's something to be discovered and there are trillions of things, maybe more, to be discovered humans will/should be inventive. The alternative is back on the trees.
@@illustriouschin Humans are the biological expression of the Universal Quantum Intellect. When the last stops to exist humans will stop to be creative. Unfortunately physics, genetics and biology are still on a very low level. Amen.
"D" is the correct answer. We can't think beyond mind hence will never know true consciousness but it is possible if we drop body-mind (not easy and is beyond logic) the leftover is consciousness.
Awareness is known by awareness alone.
I'm sure that sounded better in ur head bro. Here's another, Light is illuminated by light alone or altitude is raised by hight alone lol
Thanks for the deepity...
In your brain it will remain.
"Awareness is known by awareness alone," is the sole irreducible axiom of reality.
Conciousness, which begins from awareness,... requires reasoning of all of the information collected from the body parts that sense the environment around and within! My Conciousness is not part of my body, in fact, it is anxious, at times,.. about being freed from the body, and into the universe. Conciousness is critical feedback to the universe (which allowed just the perfect place for our bodies to live, thrive, and feed consciousness back into the universe) itself. The higher our Consciousness grows, the more it becomes,,... aware, respectful,...able to help what the universe is doing, that it might even continue mankind's existence in the Universe.
You breathed and then became a living soul , just as all persons. Start there. Step one. Step two: then wonder why you wonder.
Now I am becoming more conscious of what Penrose thinks about consciousness. But not much.
This theory explains a deeper concept of time, taking ‘the moment of now’ out of the subjective world and explaining it as part of a physical process, by using physics. We know a great deal about the mechanisms of physical reality but nothing about the nature of our immediate experience. So what is the missing connection between our understanding of the physical and our stream of consciousness awareness. This theory has come to the conclusion shared by many spiritual traditions, that consciousness is universal in all of physical existence. That an interactive process between the light of the electromagnetic spectrum and the atoms of the periodic table have evolved to form the depth and richness of conscious awareness. We have a continuous process of energy exchange forming our ever-changing world with an emergent future unfolding photon by photon. The wave particle duality of light and matter in the form of electrons forms a blank canvas that we can interact with forming the possible into the actual. This is like saying that EM fields are emergent and we have an emergent future relative to the atoms of the periodic table and the wavelength of the light. By using the dynamic structure of this process, we can explain conscious awareness in its most simple form has electrical activity in the brain that is aware of its own electrical potential. Consciousness is always in the forefront of the creative process therefore each individual is able to look back in time in all directions from ‘the moment of now’ in the center of their reference frame at the beauty of the stars. This personalization of space and time gives us the concept of ‘mind’ with each one of us having our own unique personal view of the Universe with an uncertain ∆×∆pᵪ≥h/4π probabilistic future. The flow of Time ∆E ∆t ≥ h/2π as a process of continuous energy exchange and our consciousness as a continuous stream of unbroken ever-changing flow of ideas, feelings dreams hopes perceptions and emotions are interlinked.
I believe in some form of 'extended mind' theory together with downward causation.
Unfortunately I can't find a counterargument to reductionism at the moment.
Reductionism would hold that thoughts are uniquely characterized by brain states, due to chaos one person's brain state could never be expected to coincide exactly with another person's, and hence we could never expect two people to entertain - even if just for a moment - the same thought. I think we do believe in the objective reality of certain thoughts however, there may be topological differences or what ever, but we can both think about the number 12, maybe to you it's big and to me it is small, but there are objective features as well, we both encountered the same 12. We will both be unsure about some common detail of the number 12 and if we investigated that detail independently we would come to the same conclusion. Something rather impossible from the reductionist point of view.
When he discusses Non-computational problems, isn't he essentially discussing P vs NP problem?
I think its the halting problem. There is more detail in his book "Shadows of the Mind"
Life is life
I have a theory if all space is expanding why is the quantom relm of atoms not expanding also. and to expand enough bang a new reality from the quantom expansion in to matter
I wonder who would be the brilliant mind who will solve this problem
Dear Sir Roger Penrose - How do you account for Leela, Lc0 and other neural net based chess computers absolutely beating out the most sophisticated brute force machines? It is clear that we can program a computer to mimic the way human minds work and even in this venue we are getting close to true computational understanding of chess.
2 = 3 is the validity of understanding
cognition and coherence from empiricism
Please atleast add the period when the interview was given by him...it's hard to relate things without time reference
Filmed in the UK in 2007.
@@QED_ Roger was 75, then, and Robert 63. Both are still going strong, especially, Penrose at 87. I see Penrose videos, new ones, constantly. Thanks to Robert Kuhn too for all his efforts over the years.
Circa 6969
I agree with Penrose that there has to be something quantum-yet-to-be-discovered that is non-computational about conciousness, otherwise we would only be a sum of ones and zeros from all our pre-historic biological experiences. Plato gave a great analogy on this in his Allegory of the Cave. If everything was computational there would be no Isaac Newton or other sudden geniuses before their time, no blind master painters, no Mozarts, and humans would not have "appreciation" for triviality or things, not feel love nor loss.
Probably not until we can completely interface the brain with computers and visualise it down to a Planck length will we ever get a picture of what's truly going on.
Human evolution must be considered in relation to the the development of the brain/consciousness. Frederick Engeles noted that the developments of the hands, with it becoming bipedal, and . . . going through all that and survive or adapted better. It is that evolutionary process or as he call it Labor, that made consciousness possible.
I am so glad that Sir Roger included animals in his suggestion that this special understanding is common to all. I have always disliked the assertion that we humans are somehow superior with all the 'blessed by a God' rubbish.
Living with an animal for just a short time you can see the commonalities, all the attributes we have, they also possess.
Except we are exceptionally superior !!! Thanks to the *kind* of cerebral cortex we have and what we have learned to do with it what we have done with it, because of what we have and what we have done.
Unless of course you think extra-dimensional alien lizards built the pyramids?
This woman ...
ua-cam.com/video/EvSA1qhBq4M/v-deo.html
... starts off saying there's nothing special about us or our brains, but then points out that in fact, who and what we are and what we do gives us something no other animal has. We have an awareness that is *way* beyond the capabilities of almost any other animal. All Roger admitted to was that it may be possible that *some* animals may have some kind of awareness. It's likely that the vast number of animals' awareness' are so dim, that compared to us they are in abject darkness and ignorance. Virtual zombies, simply because they are *not* self aware !!! Some primates *may* be developing that way, certainly bonobos, not sure about any others, they seem to be somewhere in between unconscious automatons and bonobos. Sensitive to their environment but not them (their) *selves* compared to bonobos certainly and definitively compared to humans. A recent study into dolphin intelligence that took a broader perspective to better understand the limits and capabilities of the methodologies used to understand the research tools employed discovered major flaws in our approach to understanding animal intelligence. These flaws basically proved that the researchers were not properly investigating the dolphins' intelligence per se, but rather they were measuring specific sets of behavioural patterns that matched what humans would do in similar scenarios, thus all the research was able to show was, given certain circumstances, would the dolphins behave like humans. After further investigation, the researchers concluded that the reason why previous research was merely comparing how similar the dolphins acted like humans rather than measuring their "dolphin intelligence" was because the researchers did not know what "dolphin intelligence" was. On investigating why the researchers did not know this was because there is no standard definition of what intelligence is.
As a species we may well be too smart for our own good. Some of the people with the best education within their respective societies are politicians and top corporate executives. They are, also, coincidentally, demographically, more likely to be at worse psychotic or at best capable of displaying, at ease, sociopathic tendencies.
It would be useful would it not, if, before taking office, *all* politicians and corporate executives (and ... anyone with executive level capacity in trusts (charitable or otherwise) finance, commerce and banking, were, by law, required to take courses in developing kindness, compassion and empathy for their fellow human beings and indeed all living entities and the environment that sustains them ?
Yeah, humans are without doubt *exceptional* !!! Exceptionally good and exceptionally bad, but only morally. From an intelligence pov, we're *massively* brilliant, even those of us with only double digit IQ's, whatever that means !!!
The best example that I can think of to support the idea of non-computational understanding is the way a human baby learns to understand the world through language.
Noam Chomsky investigated for years to try and find the mechanism of learning language, and he could not find it. He ended up calling it "The Language Acquisition Device (LAD)" but he never was able to describe what it is, just that it must exist.
Every good parent knows the feeling of seeing linguistic consciousness arise in another human being. Yes, the child is learning the sounds and shapes of the words, and it pieces together meaning from understanding. But HOW is it doing it from a computational null point?
The answer is (I think) that the mind is non-computational, and that the LAD is related in some way to the quantum nature of the mind.
Can anyone explain why the shape-filling a plane problem is not in principle liable to computational explanation, i.e. that there cannot be in principle an algorithm that could solve the question of whether a (finite?) number of polygons could fill a plane without leaving any gaps?
i was wondering the same thing. my only explaination is the problem of infinity . Or if it was logical proposal it would be a tautology. Surely not!
Based in brain physiology Consciousness can be define as the result of neurological web between memory, emotion and cognition...
Upanishads (Hinduism) suggests consciousness/awareness is primordial and it has always existed.
@@dare-er7sw Such respectable view encloses within one paradox. If it is so it will mean that what human consciousness reach compare with others living species there's no difference... For instance the own consciousness of a chimpanzee is equal to a frog? There's plenty of evidence that shows different levels of complexity and differentiation in consciousness terms.
@@CrystalPalace1861 It's reflected consciousness in each specie as per Upanishads. They were written over 3000 years ago and ask the same fundamental question known as the hard problem of consciousness in science today. Then there are near death experience accounts. What's going on? Something... but the universe lacks any proof of one universal consciousness. There's no objective evidence for it but I'm having a hard time dismissing the thousands of NDE accounts. Dr. George Ritchie and Dr. Eben Alexander. Two very famous cases now.
Anything can be explained with enough reductionism, what you won't be able to do is PREDICT it, which is the true measure of understanding. There will be something missing from your explanation. Unless you are suggesting that the Hard Problem of Consciousness isn't.
could believe hes 55 here not 76 or smtin, pretty gud, he must rly be having his kinda fun
People loose conscious after an accident, by inhering alcohol, while sleeping. Sleeping is gradual, and drunkenes.
It's hard to realize the presice moment when we start being concious. During childhood our images are blurd until some time after 3 when we also learn to understand language.
Little children start taking without having an idea of what they say. Eventually, they stop repeating and develop self interes. They start calling everything mine, mine.
It could be some part of the brain that disactivate when we fall asleep or when someone gets drunk, or when someone face an accident.
It could be a chemical reaction, who knows?
What do you notice about these three people ? Roger Penrose, Senator Alan Eggelstone and Robin Williams ?
I'm going to establish an AI startup in no time.
The corporate name is 'GNT+P', and 'P' means 'Sir Roger Penrose' here.
Although not entirely, I agree to his mind(consciousness, AI, etc.)-related opinion.
What's up with the video at 7:10 though?..... Like, the guy was given an answer and it got blocked by some weird voice....
Just to ask, do we all agree that reality/Nature is NOT computational (and not digital)?
5:50 his own view
7:30 kurt godel
12:50 loopholes in quantum mechanics
I think consciousness is prior to all things...or a better way to put it is that we are consciousness and matter is just a way of seeing or experiencing,everything is energy..think about it, what’s the alternative billions of years of matter floating around and then consciousness suddenly arises in animals then humans?
There are countless alternatives. That's how imagination works.
What if consciousness is brought on by computation + chemical reactions? Has anyone simulated a brain where they are simulating both the chemical reactions and the electrical signals at the same time? Also, in some regard I think you'd probably need the electrical side of things to have a way of measuring and knowing what the chemical things are doing and it would also need to have ways to control what the chemicals are doing. In fact, I wonder if you would have to not only simulate all the chemical and electrical things going on in the brain, but also you likely need a body and a surrounding "world" to experience in which the chemical and electrical things can interact with. I guess in essence what I'm asking is do you need the sum of everything in order for consciousness to arise?
What do you mean or seek to convey by the ward "consciousness"?
What exactly would you you use to discover what notion or notions that word carries for you?
Beginning to get the idea?
It is directly analogous to the question can a mirror reflect itself?
Owing to the loss of the capacity to ponder and reflect,
whenever the contemporary average man hears or employs in conversation any word with which he is familiar only by its consonance, he does not pause to think, nor does there even arise in him any question as to what exactly is meant by this word, he having already decided,once and for all, both that he knows it and that others know it too.
A question, perhaps, does sometimes arise in him when
he hears an entirely unfamiliar word the first time; but in this case he is content merely to substitute for the unfamiliar word another suitable word of familiar consonance and then to imagine that he has understood it.
To bring home what has just been said, an excellent
example is provided by the word so often used by every
contemporary man “consciousness.”
If people knew how to grasp for themselves what
passes in their thoughts when they hear or use the word
”world,” then most of them would have to admit-if of
course they intended to be sincere-that the word carries no exact notion whatever for them. Catching by ear simply the accustomed consonance, the meaning of which they assume that they know, it is as if they say to themselves “Ah, consciousness, I know what this is,” and serenely go on thinking.
Should one deliberately arrest their attention on this
word and know how to probe them to find just what they
understand by it, they will at first be plainly as is said
“embarrassed,” but quickly pulling themselves together,
that is to say, quickly deceiving themselves, and recalling the first definition of the word that comes to mind, they will then offer it as their own, although, in fact, they hadn’t thought of it before.
If one has the requisite power and could compel a
group of contemporary people, even from among those
who have received so to say “a good education,” to state exactly how they each understand the word ciousness,” they would all so “beat about the bush” that involuntarily one
would recall even castor oil with a certain tenderness.
This is an old video. Why are you not uploading newer interviews?
New interviews will be coming soon! Stay tuned.
+Closer To Truth Please interview Sam Harris, Leonard Mlodinow, and Thomas Metzinger and also more John Searle (if he's not in jail lol).
It's good that it is up here nonetheless.
@@saganworshipper6062 and Lee Smolin
Sadly, we don't spend much time talking about people who are conscious but still lack a conscience
:(
Love Martin Rees
Well the chess analogy just crumbled: computers now are just told the rules and nothing else and within two hours have taught themselves how to be better than any human ever. I think that is as good as human understanding with regards to chess.
The answer is; what humans don't know is weigh more than what they know.
I'm not from the "just shut up and calculate school". I wish I was. It would be so much easier....
E= tangible + intangible = mc2 + …+…
Why is it so difficult for materialism to accept that?
Free will
❤️🙏💪