The measurement problem he alludes to is linked to the Copenhagen interpretation of QM, which is no longer in fashion. There is nothing `conscious` needed for the collapse of a photons wave function, it can collapse when it has an effect on matter, causing it to be "measuered"
Hahaha ! Penrose's Graduate Assistant writes Roger's projection notes out using crayolas. I bet uncooked macaroni noodles are used for 3-D representations...
Quantum effects are not necessary for thought to occur other than for the role quantum mechanics play in the properties of individual atoms, and possibly the interactions of atoms with atoms. At the level of larger structures, such as neurons, subcellular components, even microtubules, quantum effects decohere, The quantum effects are averaged out as the objects in question become larger and larger, and as non-quantum physics becoms a more useful description of what is happening.
@kebilfree17 Finally something that makes sense! Enough of all the "The Secret"/"Law of Attraction" bullshit. They just use the term quantum mechanics because the general public knows nothing about it.
The Secret / Law of Attraction is the most absurd metaphysical bullshit out in the market, only to fatten the author's pockets at the costs of those desperate people yearning for something which are at the mercy of forces that they have no control of.
Microtubules are structural elements of neurons. Neurons are more than enough to carry out all the intellectual activities of any nervous system. Microtubules help neurons function, but they are not the elements of a neuron that process signals. The transfer of electrical and chemical signals in, and in between neurons is what results in the processing of information, the conduction of signals, the production of output, the basis of thought, however you want to describe it.
Sir Roger is an intellectual snob, assuming his expertise in cosmology grants him insights into QM (which he does not understand obviously) and neuroscience (which he, for some reason, assumes needs QM in order to work). The measurement problem he alludes to is linked to the Copenhagen interpretation of QM, which is no longer in fashion. There is nothing `conscious` needed for collapse of a photons wave function, it can collapse when it has an effect on matter, causing it to be "measuered"
Sir Roger is an intellectual snob, assuming his expertise in cosmology grants him insights into QM (which he does not understand obviously) and neuroscience (which he, for some reason, assumes needs QM in order to work). The measurement problem he alludes to is linked to the Copenhagen interpretation of QM, which is no longer in fashion. There is nothing `conscious` needed for the collapse of a photons wave function, it can collapse when it has an effect on matter, causing it to be "measuered"
Sir Roger is an intellectual snob, assuming his expertise in cosmology grants him insights into QM (which he does not understand obviously) and neuroscience (which he, for some reason, assumes needs QM in order to work). The measurement problem he alludes to is linked to the Copenhagen interpretation of QM, which is no longer in fashion. There is nothing `conscious` needed for the collapse of a photons wave function, it can collapse when it has an effect on matter, causing it to be "measuered"
We as conscious beings have the opportunity to become aware of the truth of Life by way of reason, attention, and honest intention. Let us consciously evolve past deception, division, and temptation. Let us seek Truth, so that we may live united, in harmony with Life's infinite presence. Search for "Truth Contest" in google and click the first result, then click on The Present and read what it says.
Does electron have consciousness ? Molecular biology & molecular evolution Cosmology & cosmic evolution If Universe evolve can electron evolve too ? Does evolution of life begin on electron level ? Origin of life is a result of physical laws that govern Universe Electron takes important part in this work Question Why does the simplest particle - electron have six formulas: E=h*f e = +ah*c e = -ah*c +E=Mc^2 -E=Mc^2 E= ∞ ? Nobody knows Electron is not as simple as we think
@socratus1 Basically according to copenhagen interpretation/consciousness causes collapse viewpoints, the "wavicle" settles down to a "particle" (electron), so it is a pure product of consciousness, and perhaps the essence of it.
Entanglement in photosynthesis is part of the way plants use quantum processing to maximize effective capture and transmission of photonic energy - using pigments (electromagnetically structured shapes). So all of Penrose's haters - you folk ain't gotta clue - oh... actually you do - but you're living a subconscious life - non-duality is actuality - and observation of brain structure at the nano scale is the best way to understand the 'mechanism'. Penrose = Hero.
@lordennis01 well like dean radin has said, radical scientific concepts are considered wacky until some wins a nobel prize. then its conventional and boring.
@lordennis01 I don't think you are alone, however a lot of us DON'T find it incorrect at all, due to new findings in Biology and the new branch of science known as "Quantum Biology"
@Frutoses Except that the fact that language is 'terribly flawed' (or I would say limited - it does what it sets out to do after all) is *self-evident*, and so you shouldn't *need* to read about it in a paper that someone wrote. Sure they may be right, but what is it that's stopping people from recognising what is right in front of their eyes beforehand.
@Walley666 Does it really do what it sets out to do? If so, why do you agree that it's a fruitless exercise to try and explain what-it-is-like to see red? If language can't grasp it, then it's terribly flawed or limiting. You seem to admit that there's something beyond what physics can explain. If that is so, is there any space for consciousness or qualia in a fundamentally physical world? A bigger problem would be: Are you accepting cartesian dualism?
@Frutoses Perhaps it doesn't completely fulfil it's goal, but it's obviously still a very useful tool. Flawed, to me at least, carries much harsher connotations which just seem a bit over the top, hence why I prefer limited.
Fundamentally physical world? Physical is only that which we are able to interact with in a 'physical' way, or if you want to take it further (though it's stretching the usage of the word imo), the things we can hear and see as well.
@Frutoses The world, to me, isn't fundamentally physical at all. Physicality is just a range of interaction - parts of reality able to interact with other parts of reality on the same 'wavelength' or whatever you want to call it.
But in the end... all of reality comes back to the same basics as something like red.
In other words... we don't exist only in a 'physical' reality... we exist in a qualitative reality. A reality of *is*ness, a reality which, at the core, 'is as it is'.
@Frutoses There's no point 'proving' it. I know it to be true, and so I don't need to prove it to myself - you could say it's already 'proven' to me. Given that, there's no impetus for me to prove it to you, because I simply don't care that much whether or not you know it.
More than that... it's not my responsibility. The onus is actually on you to realise these things for yourself. Nobody else can do that hard work for you, though they can prompt it or catalyse it...
@Walley666 How's it hard work if you simply denied other explanations and base yours on your "I-know-it-to-be-true" faith. There's simply no debating with people who have that kind of attitude.
@Frutoses Except it's not faith. I imagine your belief or concept system probably doesn't have any room for people actually knowing things (except for what they get out of a book or from research), but I'd venture that that's not an accurate representation of reality if it's the case.
The point is I understand these things the same as how I understand how to write computer code, or anything else which is direct understanding. But it's impossible for me to prove to you that I know it.
@Frutoses And I can explain it, but in the end it'll still come down to points where to understand what I'm saying you'd have to make leaps of realisation - because things like the qualitativeness of existence just are as they are.
Like for instance - I know I exist, 100% - it's self-evident given the fact I'm experiencing things in this moment, and undeniably so if I'm logical. But I can't prove to *you* that I exist, especially if you were to have a belief system that we don't know it.
@Walley666 You say it's not faith but then what you're trying to explain involves leaps of faith and not leaps of realisation as you call it. People in the dark ages just "knew" things like you say you do. What happened to those truths? I'll leave it to you to answer.
It's not that my conceptual system is terribly flawed because it relies on verifiable proof and yours isn't flawed because it relies on you "knowing" things because they appear to you so they must be what they are.
@Frutoses But you're revealing your belief system right there - your belief that people don't know things, they 'know' things (i.e. belief). You're assuming (believing) that that's the kind of person I am, and that that's where this is coming from, but you don't know that.
@Walley666 With that you can't be more prepared to prove my existence than I am to prove yours. We simply agree that other people exist through inductive reasoning and that's how science reaches their truths, yours are just based on "believing" like the men in the cavern.
@Frutoses Where the fuck do you get this idea that I'm believing shit? I never said I know that *you* exist, I only said I know that *I* do.
Gotta cut down on those assumptions man, caus you're busy accusing me of making them (in the form of beliefs) when you're doing it left right centre. Hypocritical and irritating, and makes me just want to fuck off and not pursue the conversation, because no offence buddy... but I'm not getting anything out of this. I've heard everything you say before.
@Frutoses And so the most I could say to you is 'look at it more closely, think about it more deeply, analyse it, understand it, comprehend it...', because it just is as it is, if you're honest about it, and perceptive enough about it.
And that's it.
You're looking for me to mount some argument or some theory, or provide some pool of evidence, but it simply doesn't work that way because real knowledge (or knowing) is direct, whereas what you're after is *indirect* (i.e. second hand).
@Walley666 You're confused. What you claim is direct knowing is actually indirect knowing, you know things as they're perceived not how they really are in their essence and that's something no one can attain. Now, what I'm saying is if everyone took your approach there would be no real advance in humanity.
@Frutoses Anyway, I have a lot of recognitions and realisations I could talk about, or theories I have as well, but they're not things that happened overnight - they're the culmination of a lot of experiences, a lot of reflection, a lot of contemplation, and a lot of thinking, amongst other things. So whilst I could take the time to try to fully explain them, it'd be a huge task - I'd easily have to write a book. And even then, like I'm saying, there's no guarantee people would get it.
@Frutoses In fact they'd only get it if they were already capable of or almost ready to figure it out, in which case they never really needed me for it anyway, except as catalyst.
But more than that, if I was able to figure these things out, I don't see any reason why anyone else can't, if they were to properly apply themselves to doing so - caus I'm intelligent, but I'm not somehow 'special' or 'out of the ordinary'.
@Frutoses And when it's all said and done... I have better things to do than explain it to other people. It's not my responsibility and it's not something I can do anyway. I only have control over my own realisations (or at least making the room for them) - yours are up to you.
So ya know... think about these things for yourself. I imagine you already are, obviously, but go further and continue to follow through with it, but perhaps depend on your own insight a little more...
@Frutoses Caus let's be frank - how much of the shit you're spouting would you have figured out if you hadn't read about it?
Most of what I say comes from me, rather than books. And if that's somehow not valuable to you, then I guess the insights of all those who presented new thought throughout history was useless as well.
@Frutoses Anyway... it's not just language that is limited, it's CONCEPTS. Every single concept we have in our mind is essentially language: symbols metaphorically representing actualities. That's what the red example is about. Red is an actuality, a 'thing', or a 'quality' - it is what it is, complete in and of itself. Language and concepts are essentially nothing more than naming things. But this also applies to all quantification, because quantification is a form of conceptualisation.
@Frutoses And guess what science does, or seeks to do... quantify everything. i.e. Conceptualise everything.
But it will never, ever, on those grounds, transcend those conceptual limits. It will be able to count things and compare things and note the interactions between things, but when it comes to things which are complete in and of themselves... that's where it hits a dead end.
And that's a big part of why consciousness is a problem - because they're trying to quantify it.
@Frutoses But anyway... you should ask yourself why you have to 'reference' everything you say by what some 'academic' said. That's nothing more than group talk. If you fully understand something for yourself, you don't *need* anyone else - you don't need some silly academic to 'back it up' because it doesn't even need backing up - it just is what it is, and you perceive it so, and that's that. Done, finished.
@Walley666 You're calling academics silly on the basis that you're folk psychology is enough to make sense of the world around you. Congratulations in conforming with what common sense gives you.
@Frutoses Oh, that's why I called them silly is it? Are you a mind reader?
That isn't why I called them silly. At all. Sigh.
For one, yes, my primary understanding of self and the mind comes from guess where... myself. Bit of a fucking no brainer that it should, lol.
But I've read plenty of academia. Hell, as a student I *have* to read plenty of academia. And you know what I find nine times out of ten? They clearly don't understand things. Their very arguments imply what they DON'T KNOW.
@Frutoses And so I call them silly because they call themselves 'intellectuals' but they often know fuck all beyond a limited and conformist conceptual mapping of life, and all of their studies and theories are rarely anything more than baby steps beyond that.
Anyway, I can't be assed debating with you about this, just wanted you to know you were being a bit presumptious there. A *bit*. Lol.
@Frutoses In fact videos like this one are an utter waste of time for anyone who really wants to *understand* anything - it's just a process of filling your head up with more concepts, but it's often those which are keeping you from SEEING anything, because instead you're trapped in what you THINK about everything.
I'm w still waiting for an atheist to impress me with something new and different. But all these lectures are just the same crap in a different color.
@ventura433 And... you know he's illiterate how? I can tell you he's probably not, because I know where he's coming from. In fact it's often the 'scientifically' minded who are illiterate - not in language, but in understanding. But it's what passes for wisdom in our society, so meh.
This is just more shit about consciousness. This man hasn't got a clue as to what consciousness is. Consciousness can't be explained with mathematics. What a waste of time.
@Frutoses What theory, there are none, isn't that what I'm criticizing. Scientist should stick to science, this is not science. Science has no theories as to what consciousness is, so this guy is just wasting his time.
@cmpresents I'm sorry to contradict you on this one but there's plenty of theories to how consciousness is produced they just haven't been confirmed. For example, in philosophy there's an extensive debate over this. Penrose isn't just a scientist he's also a philosopher so he's probably speaking like a philosopher here.
@cmpresents Well, Kim's Supervenience; cartesian dualism; Dennett's multiple drafts model; Putnam's functionalism, etc. Kim's Supervenience explains that for every mental state there's a physical state related to it and that there's no mental events without it being bound on a physical event. I'm oversimplifying the thesis.
@Frutoses From just reading a few lines of text, your Superv. is just an older term for emergence, well, emergence is not a theory for consciousness, so following that is another waste of time. Jaegwon Kim something from his book. "Indeed, at the close of his book, he says that his efforts have apparently led to a "dead end." I'm quoting someone else, but I know he has, and that is without ever reading anything about him, that's how smart I am.
@Frutoses I'm not wasting my time with this, there are no theories, what you are pointing out are not theories, they are arguments. Dennet says that consciousness is made up of indiviual robots, that is not a theory and it fails misserably to explain consciousness. Anybody can say that the mind is just the neurons communicating with each other, sorry but that is not a theory. You are wasting my time.
Penrose is a skilled draftsman who illustrates his own books and overhead projections. He chooses to use a projector. It's not Google's fault. I actually appreciate the self created projections and find them much more interested than the bland fonts and monotonous graphics used in more modern presentation programs.
You people complaining about the presentation are morons. Every Penrose lecture I've seen he uses a projector like that lol. It might just be what he's most comfortable with, especially seems to personally write out and draw these slides.
(As I have said previously;) This also means stopping any possible hinderence that would stop us like pride or malice because I have heard from scientists that human emotion is a plausible cause for why we are not getting smarter faster. Hmm, something to think about...
I think a monumental step to our growth of collective intelligence as human beings should be based on our ability to share information and to allow ourselves to under mind our prior knowledge (whatever knowledge we think we have) to "beyond existing science" just as Dr. Roger Penrose geniusly said.
This should have been done at TED, google obviously has disgraced the value of this talk and in my opinion insulted one of the greatest people living today.
@Plasmon19 they wouldn't have let him ramble on informally for 2 odd hours, nor would they have asked for more technical information. he could have left us in awe, with his dignity perfectly intact, and with unanswered questions. it's a shame people have always preferred performances over seminars.
ironic that google's management of technology is so poor, for one of the worlds leading physicists and mathematicians. terrible planning on googles end. Other than that, LOTS of great information here.
@strcmt The sound quality is so bad you can barely understand what he's saying at times. Just what you'd expect from a computer company - lots of potential wasted by poor impementation
Free energy technology exists!But the big oil corporations don't want that technology revealed,Go to LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM and get the blueprints for a genuine magnet motor ,Start the revolution!
My finite browser cache cannot store videos of infinite length. So I only managed to almost see and almost hear, almost an hour of this almost interesting lecture.
people need to listen to what the lecture is about and if it's informative rather than to worry about an overhead projector. would you rather have a very well formed computerized presentation that is worthless???
I've seen a few other lectures by Roger Penrose where he also used an overhead projector, so it may be that he simply prefers more old-fashion presentation methods. Some mahtematicians actually prefer to do all of their calculations on paper even in this day and age, Penrose might be one of them. Either way, the content of what he's saying is more important than the form in which he presents it...
@unapologeticmind : More speakers should use overhead projectors. Most of the academic lectures on YT involve the speaker spending significant time fiddling with his laptop trying to figure out why his presentation isn't working, or why it keeps kicking out of full screen mode to warn him of unused icons on hist desktop, why the fonts are messed up. The OHP "just works". Penrose doesn't use laptops for presentations because they demonstrably *DON'T WORK AS WELL* as OHP's.
I have to say, it is inexcusable for a visitor of Penrose's stature to have a hand held microphone and a hand written set of presentation notes on an overhead projector. Google have infinite money and I am stunned.
@benlansdell - "... perhaps this was his request?" I'm pretty sure it was. I used to work with an older doctor on developing medical infomatics systems. He was quite technology savvy, but always preferred to give his presentations with hand-written notes on an over-head projection system.
I think you'll find that if you keep asking "why?" you won't stop... which suggest's infinity and it also suggest God... but the danger there is... you can also ask those two bad boys the same question... "why?" which suggests anything... but ohh fuck "why?"... but then again this question can be questioned with "why?" ... and... well... "why" not? :) :( :P :)
I wonder what the fuss is: there can be no mindless causation of mind anyway, for purely analytical reasons. IF the brain is the location of the (kind of) mind (observable through the reactions and statements of a human) THEN it is so exclusively because proto-mental qualities are fundamental to "matter". We already know matter is not made of matter - the "material" is only appearing into existence by the wave function being forced out of its platonic reality through interactions.
@LooksAeterna "THEN it is so exclusively because proto-mental qualities are fundamental to "matter". We already know matter is not made of matter - the "material""
Well see that argument makes perfect sense it's just that there is a ridiculous denial thing going on among materialist-hangers-on. We even have Dennett essentially arguing that he is a p-zombie to try to get around this.
BTW what do you think of this? watch?v=Kj8UdHuP5l8
@JohananRaatz If you look further down among the comments you will see mine about Dennett. I think Dennett and those who agree with him are inviting us to consider them as dead objects, so we can simply cut out and use their organs for sale, for instance, and any rebellion against that could be considered a mere mechanical reaction in no need for compassion. And including such people in a discussion about the nature of mind would be tantamount to revealing I am as mad as one talking to a wall.
i love the information but i'd expect a man as smart as him to use powerpoint and not an overhead but i'd also expect to be wrong about men as smart as him
@Wrath0fKhan "Thats pretty much nonsense. Just as postulating souls running the show (is nonsense)."
By "soul" you had better not be reffering to the Cartesian ego. Dualism is crap, but we know for a fact that there is a Cartesian ego. If there is an argument to make me doubt it then I will still know that there is a doubter -myself- which means I can not doubt it because there would still be a doubter.
If "we" can predict "your" doubts before "you" admit to experience those, "you" still havent really solved the problem "you" claim "you" did. And that is a problem, indeed.
@Wrath0fKhan "If "we" can predict "your" doubts before "you" admit to experience those, ""
Predicting them doesn't mean I still haven't proven something. It just means that that is the impression my proving something generates in the brain. Besides you can't fully predict it anyway. Remember there's quantum uncertainty in the microtubules -the same reason you can't predict the natural numbers or other Godel statements with brain chemistry alone.
Indeed, you do understand what I meant by that. I dont operate here using 2 or more channels, neither do I own 2 or more channels on YT.
"souls .. show"
I guess I had an issue with that guy. He can postulate whatever he wants (even substance dualism if he desires). Yet "claiming" (e.g. by actions/conduct like applying elevated style of language) to be an intellectual on one hand and blatantly denying what is "operative" on the other... You get the picture.
Penrose isn't denying what is operative. It looks here like he is doing a very good dissection of the anatomy of the operations of the mind. If one wants to figure out the mind one has to find an appropriate physical mechanism that is compatible with what we know of the mind from Godel' theorem, analytic philosophy, etc.
All one has to do then is find where this mechanism which must be occuring is happening in the brain. -Hameroff and Eccles fill in with that.
@JohananRaatz Don't exert yourself. He (*) just wants to be recognized by people with some education - unsuccessfully.
(*) why am I leaning towards the assumption such behavior usually doesn't come from a woman ? Because a she can be expected to find occasion to exercise her testosterone in more appealing ways =:)))
Anyone who has even just read Walton's "Informal Logic" and without further training in logic can clearly discern what this Wrath0fKhan's rhetoric behavior amounts to: mere eristics and totally irresponsible, anti-philosophical depravity empty of any relevant arguments, hoping for an uneducated audience.
Those who want to talk to such pre-scientific barbarians, feel free ! No wonder he is fond of Dennett and the like.
...and BTW, it is a good example of the kind of actions you can expect of people who actually believe (!) that they have no qualia (and hence no beliefs, bwaha) based on some pre-rational, self-contradicting rhetoric tricks.
Bad news for people like this: structures like the brain serve as a conditioning filter and specifier for the unconditioned potential of Mind, not as generator of mind. Hence the disconcerting insight that the cozy belief "Death ends Mind" is FAR from assuming the worst !
Fact. I see through the objects:walls,stons,beam,hands,other. I have created images:portraits,animal's faces on Clouds & Varnish from long distance and to give intentional shape, the area in the clouds must be established before the test.
very confusing. One has to be a genius to follow the threads he leaves unwoven into the fabric of a coherent talk, it is like he weaves together all these topics but leaves a quite unfinished and unsatisfactory pattern. I am with Penrose on many things, he cannot give a talk though.
The Google tech who was responsible for this cock-up should be...punished...severely...at least a hundred lines and no supper.
I mean you get a guy of this level of mad-scientist brillance in to talk and have him hold a mic and have other mics coming on and off at the same time.
Could you please try to improve the sound quality in these videos ?!!!
Have you heard of microphone filters ? Not sure it's called that in english, anyway what it does is filter out / block microphones that should not be in use, that way you dont have to worry about those damn microphone switch molesters that turn on and off the microphones
With that microphone filter you select the microphone that should be on, simple and easy.
1) he's not saying AI is impossible at all, he's only saying that we need different "circuits" in order to achieve self-consciousness.
2) In my personal experience to read and fully analyze his theories takes not less than a good academical knowledge and at least 10 years, so - IMHO - people below 30s and without a sound Physics and Computer Science and/or Theoretical Math backgrounds, would be much better off avoiding trenchant criticism.
@8nwidth I agree. It has become fashionable to pose as philosopher with some sort of vulgar misunderstanding of all these things. (Example, see channel "philosophertoby").
The discussion by non-experts posing as philosophers has become as uninteresting as between 7 day evangelists and Dawkins' outdated atheism when the truth is certainly on neither end. Those with a materialist bent usually use straw man arguments against that which they don't understand. Idealists tend to overstate the point.
Who liked his book "The emperor's new mind"? Even when I was still in highschool (when I first grabbed the book) the more he spoke about artificial intelligence being impossible, because of the arguments he was giving, I was more convinced in the opposite. And I would naturally argue his stance, so that should tell you something. So I never really got to the physics part of it, don't know what he says about the quantum - twice I gave just after the broken philosophical part.
It reminds me of Donald Knuth's 2009 visit to Google. Everyone was so respectful and polite. Nobody pointed out what a load of nonsense the speaker was talking. 1:43:12 was about the only question that explored the holes in Penrose's views.
Oh Penrose you are so crazy. But then again if I had been doing quantum mechanics for so long this would look childish compared to the insanity that is loop quantum gravity.
A critique of his works was done by Daniel Dennet. Its a good idea to check it out.
@osofrontinoquantico Daniel Dennet is neither a mathematical logician, nor a physicist and currently the chief propagandist of atheism. To assess his work correctly one need look no further than that his POV is based on the denial of qualia merely based on the inherently impossibility of defining qualia as if they weren't qualia.
Anyone who claims - as Dennet does - that he is devoid of experiential qualities is certainly saying that talking to him is like talking to a wall: insane.
Dennet builds his case on latest trends in the relevant research fields. One doesnt have to be a mathematician, physicist, evo biologist to do that. One just needs to use "their" latest input and to apply certain "philosophical principles" correctly.
Your analogy appears to be false, too. According to your assessment a communication between computers would be impossible. That is of course nonsense. Dennett has reduced qualia to something which we can call "competences".
@Wrath0fKhan My argument against his "argument" against qualia was unrelated to the fact that Dennet is - also - not a mathematical logician (which simply makes him irrelevant for osofrontinoquantico's recommendation regarding the topic of this video).
Honestly, I cannot quite see how anyone can be so dull to overlook this.
My comment re qualia was furnished simply in order to further demonstrate the lack of logical acuity in his arguments, regardless of whether he builds on others or not.
It does not really matter whether it was or was not. It was irrelevant either way. An applied argument of utter irrelevance in action, so to say.
"Honestly .. overlook this"
Im not so sure. Deceptions by definition are put forth intentionally. Reaction of your "YT buddies" would suggest they one way or another took the bait.
"My .. not."
This is indeed false. As Ive already said, his philosophies are based on the latest research and try to expand on it.
@Wrath0fKhan "...irrelevance in action, so to say", wrong: it was relevant for pointing out the irrelevance of osofrontinoquantico's recommendation. The irrelevance regarding the video was borrowed from that recommendation's irrelevance.
"Im not so sure": well the target of my comment there was people who are capable o expressing themselves as you are =;) Deception is not necessarily intentional. It is a description of potential for deceptive function of something in the receiver's mind.
Yet all you deliver here is more irrelevance, upon irrelevance, since there was no irrelevant recommendation. Thats tricky, yet indeed, irrelevant.
Expressing oneself is about certain specific (e.g. mental) competences. Deception is defined as intentional. Hence if there is no intention, we dont speak about deception, but something else.
@Wrath0fKhan "This is indeed false." No it isn't. it is immaterial whether he false inference is his own or based on so called "latest research". There is no "latest research" which would allow anyone to define the undefinable (that is objectify the by definition unobjectifiable) and on such idiotic grounds claim their non-existence.
Anyone mildly capable of logical reasoning knows: the statement of the absence of something ill-defined makes no sense.
Totally ignorant (of relevant research) and irrelevant as a response. Youve shot all your bullets. Your magazine is empty. Im willing to bet from now on your are shooting with air only. :))
@Wrath0fKhan As for my analogy, that computers would not be able to "communicate" does no follow, so "appears" is correct, but - again - only in the eyes of those with lack of logical training ;-)
For avoiding the mistakes you make, it is not necessary to have serious logical training. It would be completely sufficient to read Walton's "Informal Logic" and have a decent intention of honest debate instead of high school level sophistry.
Well, I disagree. If we define communication as exchange of data between two sources we have a home run right there. Its fascinating to see that you refer me to informal training in logic, yet constantly keep pushing little fallacies around like a pro-fallacist. :))
"For avoiding .. sophistry."
Again, you dont demonstrate any mistakes I made. You only make a "shout out". One wonders; what purpose does it serve? A purpose of distraction?
@Wrath0fKhan "If we define communication as exchange of data bla bla": what has that definition got to do with the original claim which you claim as false on the grounds of YOUR arbitrary definition. Besides I know of no computer which claims NOT to have qualia - hence what you say was doubly irrelevant. Please look for someone stupid enough to fall for your rhetoric tricks to talk to.
And in fact I did (herewith and before) demonstrate logical errors, and you don't pay me for educating you.
A computer doesnt have to have qualia. Neither does communication have to be about qualia. Qualia can be explained "away", lets as certain synaptic competences, which can be physically manipulated, changed, erased, induced, etc., which follows from latest research. Nothing I said was irrelevant at all. On the contrary.
All you demonstrate here is "an empty magazine"...
@Wrath0fKhan "Qualia can be explained "away", as certain synaptic competences,
So we know that by observing the brain? We can reduce say the color red to a set of reactions in Brodmann's area. Now tell me, what color qualia do we observe Brodmann's area to be? What's that no qualia? Well I guess that means the brain is invisible right? I guess that means the brain can be eliminated as well along with qualia as the empirical knowledge of the brain is just an illusion generated by the brain.
No... We dont really know the (ultimate) technical details yet. However, we know enough details to make such a prediction (e.g. that qualia is an activity created by specific brain tissue). Applied deep brain stimulation is a "monument" to this.
The measurement problem he alludes to is linked to the Copenhagen interpretation of QM, which is no longer in fashion. There is nothing `conscious` needed for the collapse of a photons wave function, it can collapse when it has an effect on matter, causing it to be "measuered"
ghostinthemean 2 weeks ago
Hahaha ! Penrose's Graduate Assistant writes Roger's projection notes out using crayolas. I bet uncooked macaroni noodles are used for 3-D representations...
DancingSpiderman 1 month ago
Quantum effects are not necessary for thought to occur other than for the role quantum mechanics play in the properties of individual atoms, and possibly the interactions of atoms with atoms. At the level of larger structures, such as neurons, subcellular components, even microtubules, quantum effects decohere, The quantum effects are averaged out as the objects in question become larger and larger, and as non-quantum physics becoms a more useful description of what is happening.
kebilfree17 2 months ago
@kebilfree17 Finally something that makes sense! Enough of all the "The Secret"/"Law of Attraction" bullshit. They just use the term quantum mechanics because the general public knows nothing about it.
solidsnake1447 2 months ago
@solidsnake1447
The Secret / Law of Attraction is the most absurd metaphysical bullshit out in the market, only to fatten the author's pockets at the costs of those desperate people yearning for something which are at the mercy of forces that they have no control of.
stephentsang2000 2 months ago
Microtubules are structural elements of neurons. Neurons are more than enough to carry out all the intellectual activities of any nervous system. Microtubules help neurons function, but they are not the elements of a neuron that process signals. The transfer of electrical and chemical signals in, and in between neurons is what results in the processing of information, the conduction of signals, the production of output, the basis of thought, however you want to describe it.
kebilfree17 2 months ago
Sir Roger is an intellectual snob, assuming his expertise in cosmology grants him insights into QM (which he does not understand obviously) and neuroscience (which he, for some reason, assumes needs QM in order to work). The measurement problem he alludes to is linked to the Copenhagen interpretation of QM, which is no longer in fashion. There is nothing `conscious` needed for collapse of a photons wave function, it can collapse when it has an effect on matter, causing it to be "measuered"
kebilfree17 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Sir Roger is an intellectual snob, assuming his expertise in cosmology grants him insights into QM (which he does not understand obviously) and neuroscience (which he, for some reason, assumes needs QM in order to work). The measurement problem he alludes to is linked to the Copenhagen interpretation of QM, which is no longer in fashion. There is nothing `conscious` needed for the collapse of a photons wave function, it can collapse when it has an effect on matter, causing it to be "measuered"
kebilfree17 2 months ago
Sir Roger is an intellectual snob, assuming his expertise in cosmology grants him insights into QM (which he does not understand obviously) and neuroscience (which he, for some reason, assumes needs QM in order to work). The measurement problem he alludes to is linked to the Copenhagen interpretation of QM, which is no longer in fashion. There is nothing `conscious` needed for the collapse of a photons wave function, it can collapse when it has an effect on matter, causing it to be "measuered"
kebilfree17 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
We as conscious beings have the opportunity to become aware of the truth of Life by way of reason, attention, and honest intention. Let us consciously evolve past deception, division, and temptation. Let us seek Truth, so that we may live united, in harmony with Life's infinite presence. Search for "Truth Contest" in google and click the first result, then click on The Present and read what it says.
Moonlight7557 2 months ago
socratus1 3 months ago 2
@socratus1 Basically according to copenhagen interpretation/consciousness causes collapse viewpoints, the "wavicle" settles down to a "particle" (electron), so it is a pure product of consciousness, and perhaps the essence of it.
I think you are right.
KTK401 2 months ago
okokokok
chicotecaivancruz 3 months ago
Im a cunt
RazzaBeeDaSilva 4 months ago 11
Entanglement in photosynthesis is part of the way plants use quantum processing to maximize effective capture and transmission of photonic energy - using pigments (electromagnetically structured shapes). So all of Penrose's haters - you folk ain't gotta clue - oh... actually you do - but you're living a subconscious life - non-duality is actuality - and observation of brain structure at the nano scale is the best way to understand the 'mechanism'. Penrose = Hero.
TaylerKnox 5 months ago
TL-DW version: We don't know a huge amount about conciousness. We don't know a huge amount about Quantum Mechanics. Therefore these must be related.
piprod01 6 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
wow what a crock of shhhhhhhht.
PALTOOL1111 6 months ago
Get inspired!!! Join the revolution!!! Google search "Access Plus Opportunity Equals Achievements" or go to apoea.org
lawalker11 7 months ago
anyone in biology find his arguments on microtubules completely preposterous? or am i alone here.
lordennis01 8 months ago
@lordennis01 well like dean radin has said, radical scientific concepts are considered wacky until some wins a nobel prize. then its conventional and boring.
ShiroRX 6 months ago 2
@ShiroRX Absolutely correct.
KTK401 2 months ago
@lordennis01 I don't think you are alone, however a lot of us DON'T find it incorrect at all, due to new findings in Biology and the new branch of science known as "Quantum Biology"
watch?v=pSe8mBWeeYM&feature=relmfu
watch?v=LXFFbxoHp3s
regards!
KTK401 2 months ago
Explain what it is to see red to a person who has been blind from birth.
Attempting to quantify everything is a fruitless exercise.
Now fuck off ;).
Walley666 8 months ago
@Walley666 You're just showing us that language is terribly flawed something that Wittgenstein already explored.
Frutoses 8 months ago
@Frutoses Except that the fact that language is 'terribly flawed' (or I would say limited - it does what it sets out to do after all) is *self-evident*, and so you shouldn't *need* to read about it in a paper that someone wrote. Sure they may be right, but what is it that's stopping people from recognising what is right in front of their eyes beforehand.
Walley666 8 months ago
@Walley666 Does it really do what it sets out to do? If so, why do you agree that it's a fruitless exercise to try and explain what-it-is-like to see red? If language can't grasp it, then it's terribly flawed or limiting. You seem to admit that there's something beyond what physics can explain. If that is so, is there any space for consciousness or qualia in a fundamentally physical world? A bigger problem would be: Are you accepting cartesian dualism?
Frutoses 8 months ago
Comment removed
Walley666 8 months ago
@Frutoses Perhaps it doesn't completely fulfil it's goal, but it's obviously still a very useful tool. Flawed, to me at least, carries much harsher connotations which just seem a bit over the top, hence why I prefer limited.
Fundamentally physical world? Physical is only that which we are able to interact with in a 'physical' way, or if you want to take it further (though it's stretching the usage of the word imo), the things we can hear and see as well.
Walley666 8 months ago
@Frutoses The world, to me, isn't fundamentally physical at all. Physicality is just a range of interaction - parts of reality able to interact with other parts of reality on the same 'wavelength' or whatever you want to call it.
But in the end... all of reality comes back to the same basics as something like red.
In other words... we don't exist only in a 'physical' reality... we exist in a qualitative reality. A reality of *is*ness, a reality which, at the core, 'is as it is'.
Walley666 8 months ago
@Walley666 Then the onus of proof is on you to back it up. Publish it and then send me an e-mail so I can read it.
Btw, on my other comment there should be "your" instead of "you're".
Frutoses 8 months ago
@Frutoses There's no point 'proving' it. I know it to be true, and so I don't need to prove it to myself - you could say it's already 'proven' to me. Given that, there's no impetus for me to prove it to you, because I simply don't care that much whether or not you know it.
More than that... it's not my responsibility. The onus is actually on you to realise these things for yourself. Nobody else can do that hard work for you, though they can prompt it or catalyse it...
Walley666 8 months ago
@Frutoses But at the end of the day the realisation is yours to attain - nobody else can attain it for you.
Walley666 8 months ago
@Walley666 How's it hard work if you simply denied other explanations and base yours on your "I-know-it-to-be-true" faith. There's simply no debating with people who have that kind of attitude.
Frutoses 8 months ago
@Frutoses Except it's not faith. I imagine your belief or concept system probably doesn't have any room for people actually knowing things (except for what they get out of a book or from research), but I'd venture that that's not an accurate representation of reality if it's the case.
The point is I understand these things the same as how I understand how to write computer code, or anything else which is direct understanding. But it's impossible for me to prove to you that I know it.
Walley666 8 months ago
@Frutoses And I can explain it, but in the end it'll still come down to points where to understand what I'm saying you'd have to make leaps of realisation - because things like the qualitativeness of existence just are as they are.
Like for instance - I know I exist, 100% - it's self-evident given the fact I'm experiencing things in this moment, and undeniably so if I'm logical. But I can't prove to *you* that I exist, especially if you were to have a belief system that we don't know it.
Walley666 8 months ago
@Walley666 You say it's not faith but then what you're trying to explain involves leaps of faith and not leaps of realisation as you call it. People in the dark ages just "knew" things like you say you do. What happened to those truths? I'll leave it to you to answer.
It's not that my conceptual system is terribly flawed because it relies on verifiable proof and yours isn't flawed because it relies on you "knowing" things because they appear to you so they must be what they are.
Frutoses 8 months ago
@Frutoses But you're revealing your belief system right there - your belief that people don't know things, they 'know' things (i.e. belief). You're assuming (believing) that that's the kind of person I am, and that that's where this is coming from, but you don't know that.
You're the pot calling the kettle black mate.
Walley666 8 months ago
@Walley666 Ok, man. Like you said, I'm also not getting anything with this conversation. Let's not continue this.
Frutoses 8 months ago
@Walley666 With that you can't be more prepared to prove my existence than I am to prove yours. We simply agree that other people exist through inductive reasoning and that's how science reaches their truths, yours are just based on "believing" like the men in the cavern.
Frutoses 8 months ago
@Frutoses Where the fuck do you get this idea that I'm believing shit? I never said I know that *you* exist, I only said I know that *I* do.
Gotta cut down on those assumptions man, caus you're busy accusing me of making them (in the form of beliefs) when you're doing it left right centre. Hypocritical and irritating, and makes me just want to fuck off and not pursue the conversation, because no offence buddy... but I'm not getting anything out of this. I've heard everything you say before.
Walley666 8 months ago
@Walley666 Lol, you're too high on your imaginary chair to actually learn something. Good day, we'll leave it at that.
Frutoses 8 months ago
@Frutoses And so the most I could say to you is 'look at it more closely, think about it more deeply, analyse it, understand it, comprehend it...', because it just is as it is, if you're honest about it, and perceptive enough about it.
And that's it.
You're looking for me to mount some argument or some theory, or provide some pool of evidence, but it simply doesn't work that way because real knowledge (or knowing) is direct, whereas what you're after is *indirect* (i.e. second hand).
Walley666 8 months ago
@Walley666 You're confused. What you claim is direct knowing is actually indirect knowing, you know things as they're perceived not how they really are in their essence and that's something no one can attain. Now, what I'm saying is if everyone took your approach there would be no real advance in humanity.
Frutoses 8 months ago
@Frutoses Anyway, I have a lot of recognitions and realisations I could talk about, or theories I have as well, but they're not things that happened overnight - they're the culmination of a lot of experiences, a lot of reflection, a lot of contemplation, and a lot of thinking, amongst other things. So whilst I could take the time to try to fully explain them, it'd be a huge task - I'd easily have to write a book. And even then, like I'm saying, there's no guarantee people would get it.
Walley666 8 months ago
@Frutoses In fact they'd only get it if they were already capable of or almost ready to figure it out, in which case they never really needed me for it anyway, except as catalyst.
But more than that, if I was able to figure these things out, I don't see any reason why anyone else can't, if they were to properly apply themselves to doing so - caus I'm intelligent, but I'm not somehow 'special' or 'out of the ordinary'.
Walley666 8 months ago
@Frutoses And when it's all said and done... I have better things to do than explain it to other people. It's not my responsibility and it's not something I can do anyway. I only have control over my own realisations (or at least making the room for them) - yours are up to you.
So ya know... think about these things for yourself. I imagine you already are, obviously, but go further and continue to follow through with it, but perhaps depend on your own insight a little more...
Walley666 8 months ago
@Frutoses Caus let's be frank - how much of the shit you're spouting would you have figured out if you hadn't read about it?
Most of what I say comes from me, rather than books. And if that's somehow not valuable to you, then I guess the insights of all those who presented new thought throughout history was useless as well.
Walley666 8 months ago
@Frutoses Anyway... it's not just language that is limited, it's CONCEPTS. Every single concept we have in our mind is essentially language: symbols metaphorically representing actualities. That's what the red example is about. Red is an actuality, a 'thing', or a 'quality' - it is what it is, complete in and of itself. Language and concepts are essentially nothing more than naming things. But this also applies to all quantification, because quantification is a form of conceptualisation.
Walley666 8 months ago
@Frutoses And guess what science does, or seeks to do... quantify everything. i.e. Conceptualise everything.
But it will never, ever, on those grounds, transcend those conceptual limits. It will be able to count things and compare things and note the interactions between things, but when it comes to things which are complete in and of themselves... that's where it hits a dead end.
And that's a big part of why consciousness is a problem - because they're trying to quantify it.
Walley666 8 months ago
@Frutoses But anyway... you should ask yourself why you have to 'reference' everything you say by what some 'academic' said. That's nothing more than group talk. If you fully understand something for yourself, you don't *need* anyone else - you don't need some silly academic to 'back it up' because it doesn't even need backing up - it just is what it is, and you perceive it so, and that's that. Done, finished.
Walley666 8 months ago
@Walley666 You're calling academics silly on the basis that you're folk psychology is enough to make sense of the world around you. Congratulations in conforming with what common sense gives you.
Frutoses 8 months ago
@Frutoses Oh, that's why I called them silly is it? Are you a mind reader?
That isn't why I called them silly. At all. Sigh.
For one, yes, my primary understanding of self and the mind comes from guess where... myself. Bit of a fucking no brainer that it should, lol.
But I've read plenty of academia. Hell, as a student I *have* to read plenty of academia. And you know what I find nine times out of ten? They clearly don't understand things. Their very arguments imply what they DON'T KNOW.
Walley666 8 months ago
@Frutoses And so I call them silly because they call themselves 'intellectuals' but they often know fuck all beyond a limited and conformist conceptual mapping of life, and all of their studies and theories are rarely anything more than baby steps beyond that.
Anyway, I can't be assed debating with you about this, just wanted you to know you were being a bit presumptious there. A *bit*. Lol.
Walley666 8 months ago
@Frutoses In fact videos like this one are an utter waste of time for anyone who really wants to *understand* anything - it's just a process of filling your head up with more concepts, but it's often those which are keeping you from SEEING anything, because instead you're trapped in what you THINK about everything.
Walley666 8 months ago
I'm w still waiting for an atheist to impress me with something new and different. But all these lectures are just the same crap in a different color.
cmpresents 8 months ago
@cmpresents you are too iliterate to understand, so it makes sense that it doesnt make sense to you ;-).
ventura433 8 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@ventura433 So why don't you explain it to me then, since you understand what consciousness is. Put your money where your mouth is.
cmpresents 8 months ago
@ventura433 And... you know he's illiterate how? I can tell you he's probably not, because I know where he's coming from. In fact it's often the 'scientifically' minded who are illiterate - not in language, but in understanding. But it's what passes for wisdom in our society, so meh.
Walley666 8 months ago
This is just more shit about consciousness. This man hasn't got a clue as to what consciousness is. Consciousness can't be explained with mathematics. What a waste of time.
cmpresents 8 months ago
@cmpresents Would you care to elaborate or even come forward with a theory instead of just saying it's a waste of time?
Frutoses 8 months ago
@Frutoses What theory, there are none, isn't that what I'm criticizing. Scientist should stick to science, this is not science. Science has no theories as to what consciousness is, so this guy is just wasting his time.
cmpresents 8 months ago
@cmpresents I'm sorry to contradict you on this one but there's plenty of theories to how consciousness is produced they just haven't been confirmed. For example, in philosophy there's an extensive debate over this. Penrose isn't just a scientist he's also a philosopher so he's probably speaking like a philosopher here.
Frutoses 8 months ago
@Frutoses Show me one, only one.
cmpresents 8 months ago
@cmpresents Well, Kim's Supervenience; cartesian dualism; Dennett's multiple drafts model; Putnam's functionalism, etc. Kim's Supervenience explains that for every mental state there's a physical state related to it and that there's no mental events without it being bound on a physical event. I'm oversimplifying the thesis.
Frutoses 8 months ago
@Frutoses From just reading a few lines of text, your Superv. is just an older term for emergence, well, emergence is not a theory for consciousness, so following that is another waste of time. Jaegwon Kim something from his book. "Indeed, at the close of his book, he says that his efforts have apparently led to a "dead end." I'm quoting someone else, but I know he has, and that is without ever reading anything about him, that's how smart I am.
cmpresents 8 months ago
@Frutoses I'm not wasting my time with this, there are no theories, what you are pointing out are not theories, they are arguments. Dennet says that consciousness is made up of indiviual robots, that is not a theory and it fails misserably to explain consciousness. Anybody can say that the mind is just the neurons communicating with each other, sorry but that is not a theory. You are wasting my time.
cmpresents 8 months ago
Terrible sound. Can't they get a microphone that only picks up Penrose's voice and not every cough and chair-shift in the room?
noobenstein 8 months ago
Stupid.
noobenstein 8 months ago
Penrose is a skilled draftsman who illustrates his own books and overhead projections. He chooses to use a projector. It's not Google's fault. I actually appreciate the self created projections and find them much more interested than the bland fonts and monotonous graphics used in more modern presentation programs.
ritter89 9 months ago
You people complaining about the presentation are morons. Every Penrose lecture I've seen he uses a projector like that lol. It might just be what he's most comfortable with, especially seems to personally write out and draw these slides.
ShiroRX 9 months ago 9
(As I have said previously;) This also means stopping any possible hinderence that would stop us like pride or malice because I have heard from scientists that human emotion is a plausible cause for why we are not getting smarter faster. Hmm, something to think about...
Omniman8th 10 months ago
I think a monumental step to our growth of collective intelligence as human beings should be based on our ability to share information and to allow ourselves to under mind our prior knowledge (whatever knowledge we think we have) to "beyond existing science" just as Dr. Roger Penrose geniusly said.
Omniman8th 10 months ago
As if you would sit here and watch this shit for 2 hours!
more sad bastards!
Im a bastard-hunter! and my job is done! ..Bastards all round!
RazzaBeeDaSilva 10 months ago
Comment removed
RazzaBeeDaSilva 10 months ago
Did anyone watched this video till the end?
Keikunas 11 months ago
Thank you, Roger Penrose. Our gift is how you share your gift.
greenmab 11 months ago
GOOGLE HOOK US UP PLEASE LETS GET HOLOGRHAM TECH THAT IS JUST PENNIES4GOOGLE THANKS NAMATSE!!!
jimbowstroud 11 months ago
@jimbowstroud WRITING IN CAPS AND USING TONS OF EXCLAMATION MARKS ONLY MAKES YOU LOOK STUPID!!!!
0pteryx 9 months ago
@0pteryx OK
jimbowstroud 8 months ago
@0pteryx OK THANKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
jimbowstroud 8 months ago
Thank you Google for making the effort to put this out.
Stickstacks12 11 months ago
This should have been done at TED, google obviously has disgraced the value of this talk and in my opinion insulted one of the greatest people living today.
Plasmon19 1 year ago
@Plasmon19 they wouldn't have let him ramble on informally for 2 odd hours, nor would they have asked for more technical information. he could have left us in awe, with his dignity perfectly intact, and with unanswered questions. it's a shame people have always preferred performances over seminars.
nactan 6 months ago
I'd have loved to see this TechTalk, but the Tech-part was so horrible it's a waste of time to even try.
Yeah, I know, this was recorded in the ancient times of 2010, I shouldn't compare it with 2011.
Antignor 1 year ago
TURN OFF THE OTHER SODDING MIKES YOU DOUCHEBAGS!
badnewswade 1 year ago 5
I once heard a lecturer say "never re-use old notes, make a new set." I think that was Leonard Susskind somewhere in his courses on youtube.
mathforphysics 1 year ago
Many Thanks.
martini4948 1 year ago
I wish you could zoom in to the time bar and skip the introductions to these talks and lectures.
seekhtruth 1 year ago
ironic that google's management of technology is so poor, for one of the worlds leading physicists and mathematicians. terrible planning on googles end. Other than that, LOTS of great information here.
joemama4651 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Meet Russian women ** leefoxnow.info **
BvcgftMkjiuhy 1 year ago
pure awesome video!!
strcmt 1 year ago
@strcmt The sound quality is so bad you can barely understand what he's saying at times. Just what you'd expect from a computer company - lots of potential wasted by poor impementation
badnewswade 1 year ago
worst presentation I've ever seen. Mostly google's fault though
lookatmepleasesir 1 year ago
extended metaphysical world view.
mikevern69 1 year ago
Hold that thought
qigong10:01comewithme
GelandnaleG 1 year ago
5:25pm Wednesday (CST) - Time in M
GelandnaleG 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Free energy technology exists!But the big oil corporations don't want that technology revealed,Go to LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM and get the blueprints for a genuine magnet motor ,Start the revolution!
cadentavaricegrtrj 1 year ago
My finite browser cache cannot store videos of infinite length. So I only managed to almost see and almost hear, almost an hour of this almost interesting lecture.
ebutemetube 1 year ago
The only thing that in fact did bother me was the mike, I don't think a handheld mike was part of the plan...
unapologeticmind 1 year ago
people need to listen to what the lecture is about and if it's informative rather than to worry about an overhead projector. would you rather have a very well formed computerized presentation that is worthless???
bridgingap79 1 year ago 2
@bridgingap79 Yes, I want glitter and bouncing boobies in my science lectures. I want my cake and blaa blaa blaa.
qigong1001 1 year ago
I've seen a few other lectures by Roger Penrose where he also used an overhead projector, so it may be that he simply prefers more old-fashion presentation methods. Some mahtematicians actually prefer to do all of their calculations on paper even in this day and age, Penrose might be one of them. Either way, the content of what he's saying is more important than the form in which he presents it...
unapologeticmind 1 year ago
@unapologeticmind : More speakers should use overhead projectors. Most of the academic lectures on YT involve the speaker spending significant time fiddling with his laptop trying to figure out why his presentation isn't working, or why it keeps kicking out of full screen mode to warn him of unused icons on hist desktop, why the fonts are messed up. The OHP "just works". Penrose doesn't use laptops for presentations because they demonstrably *DON'T WORK AS WELL* as OHP's.
sbergman27 1 year ago
Comment removed
MrLeagueOJustice 1 year ago
I have to say, it is inexcusable for a visitor of Penrose's stature to have a hand held microphone and a hand written set of presentation notes on an overhead projector. Google have infinite money and I am stunned.
Scousar 1 year ago 2
@Scousar
One of the worst public presentations I've ever seen.
MrLeagueOJustice 1 year ago
@Scousar
I've seen other talks by Roger presented in a similar fashion -- perhaps this was his request?
benlansdell 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@benlansdell - "... perhaps this was his request?" I'm pretty sure it was. I used to work with an older doctor on developing medical infomatics systems. He was quite technology savvy, but always preferred to give his presentations with hand-written notes on an over-head projection system.
BigMTBrain 11 months ago
@Scousar me too
czypauly07 11 months ago
I think you'll find that if you keep asking "why?" you won't stop... which suggest's infinity and it also suggest God... but the danger there is... you can also ask those two bad boys the same question... "why?" which suggests anything... but ohh fuck "why?"... but then again this question can be questioned with "why?" ... and... well... "why" not? :) :( :P :)
CHRISTMASBASTARD 1 year ago
I wonder what the fuss is: there can be no mindless causation of mind anyway, for purely analytical reasons. IF the brain is the location of the (kind of) mind (observable through the reactions and statements of a human) THEN it is so exclusively because proto-mental qualities are fundamental to "matter". We already know matter is not made of matter - the "material" is only appearing into existence by the wave function being forced out of its platonic reality through interactions.
LooksAeterna 1 year ago
@LooksAeterna "THEN it is so exclusively because proto-mental qualities are fundamental to "matter". We already know matter is not made of matter - the "material""
Well see that argument makes perfect sense it's just that there is a ridiculous denial thing going on among materialist-hangers-on. We even have Dennett essentially arguing that he is a p-zombie to try to get around this.
BTW what do you think of this? watch?v=Kj8UdHuP5l8
JohananRaatz 1 year ago
@JohananRaatz If you look further down among the comments you will see mine about Dennett. I think Dennett and those who agree with him are inviting us to consider them as dead objects, so we can simply cut out and use their organs for sale, for instance, and any rebellion against that could be considered a mere mechanical reaction in no need for compassion. And including such people in a discussion about the nature of mind would be tantamount to revealing I am as mad as one talking to a wall.
LooksAeterna 1 year ago
@LooksAeterna LOL True. I should make a video about eliminative materialism some time. I will entitle it "Arguing With P-Zombies!"
JohananRaatz 1 year ago
@JohananRaatz If you use my argument in that video, please mention the author and refer the viewers to my channel =:)
LooksAeterna 1 year ago
i love the information but i'd expect a man as smart as him to use powerpoint and not an overhead but i'd also expect to be wrong about men as smart as him
e30brian 1 year ago 2
12:30pm Wednesday (CDT) - Time in M
GelandnaleG 1 year ago
Wrath0fKhan seems to have two allies or aliases =;)
LooksAeterna 1 year ago
@LooksAeterna
Thats pretty much nonsense. Just as postulating souls running the show (is nonsense).
Wrath0fKhan 1 year ago
@Wrath0fKhan "Thats pretty much nonsense. Just as postulating souls running the show (is nonsense)."
By "soul" you had better not be reffering to the Cartesian ego. Dualism is crap, but we know for a fact that there is a Cartesian ego. If there is an argument to make me doubt it then I will still know that there is a doubter -myself- which means I can not doubt it because there would still be a doubter.
Bottom line: Cogito ergo sum.
JohananRaatz 1 year ago
@JohananRaatz
"Cartesian fun"
If "we" can predict "your" doubts before "you" admit to experience those, "you" still havent really solved the problem "you" claim "you" did. And that is a problem, indeed.
Wrath0fKhan 1 year ago
@Wrath0fKhan "If "we" can predict "your" doubts before "you" admit to experience those, ""
Predicting them doesn't mean I still haven't proven something. It just means that that is the impression my proving something generates in the brain. Besides you can't fully predict it anyway. Remember there's quantum uncertainty in the microtubules -the same reason you can't predict the natural numbers or other Godel statements with brain chemistry alone.
JohananRaatz 1 year ago
@JohananRaatz
"generates in the brain"
Exactly.
"Fully predict it anyway"
We dont have to. Its enough to point out the principle. Just like in genetics. And indeed, with time we will/may work out the details.
"quantum uncertainty in the microtubules"
Quantum uncertainty is in "everything". How much it is or is not related to specific phenomena is another question.
"brain chemistry alone"
Be "careful" what you wish for.
Wrath0fKhan 1 year ago
@JohananRaatz
"Thats .. nonsense"
Indeed, you do understand what I meant by that. I dont operate here using 2 or more channels, neither do I own 2 or more channels on YT.
"souls .. show"
I guess I had an issue with that guy. He can postulate whatever he wants (even substance dualism if he desires). Yet "claiming" (e.g. by actions/conduct like applying elevated style of language) to be an intellectual on one hand and blatantly denying what is "operative" on the other... You get the picture.
Wrath0fKhan 1 year ago
@Wrath0fKhan "blatantly denying"
Penrose isn't denying what is operative. It looks here like he is doing a very good dissection of the anatomy of the operations of the mind. If one wants to figure out the mind one has to find an appropriate physical mechanism that is compatible with what we know of the mind from Godel' theorem, analytic philosophy, etc.
All one has to do then is find where this mechanism which must be occuring is happening in the brain. -Hameroff and Eccles fill in with that.
JohananRaatz 1 year ago
@JohananRaatz
"good dissection"
I beg to differ.
"what we know .. etc."
Obviously this "over-philosophised" top down approach has found its master.
Wrath0fKhan 1 year ago
@JohananRaatz Don't exert yourself. He (*) just wants to be recognized by people with some education - unsuccessfully.
(*) why am I leaning towards the assumption such behavior usually doesn't come from a woman ? Because a she can be expected to find occasion to exercise her testosterone in more appealing ways =:)))
LooksAeterna 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Wrath0fKhan Here come the projection junkie again:
"Just as postulating souls running the show (is nonsense)."
bwaha. You're the one who's postulating something really really absurd: the thing as such.
LooksAeterna 1 year ago
This is the most uninspiring jargin iv ever heard. Thank you google for watering down knowledge and being a wing for the CIA.
Fallinldols 1 year ago
Disgraceful hosting for this talk. Shame on you googlefucks...
heloizyjhenifer 1 year ago 12
Oh my...
LooksAeterna 1 year ago
bwaha, thanks for this demonstration !
Anyone who has even just read Walton's "Informal Logic" and without further training in logic can clearly discern what this Wrath0fKhan's rhetoric behavior amounts to: mere eristics and totally irresponsible, anti-philosophical depravity empty of any relevant arguments, hoping for an uneducated audience.
Those who want to talk to such pre-scientific barbarians, feel free ! No wonder he is fond of Dennett and the like.
LooksAeterna 1 year ago
@LooksAeterna
Shooting air again...
Wrath0fKhan 1 year ago
...and BTW, it is a good example of the kind of actions you can expect of people who actually believe (!) that they have no qualia (and hence no beliefs, bwaha) based on some pre-rational, self-contradicting rhetoric tricks.
Bad news for people like this: structures like the brain serve as a conditioning filter and specifier for the unconditioned potential of Mind, not as generator of mind. Hence the disconcerting insight that the cozy belief "Death ends Mind" is FAR from assuming the worst !
LooksAeterna 1 year ago
@LooksAeterna
Down with those dirty pants! Show us your true face, mister expert on irrelevant philosophies and fallacies! Self-exposed! LOL
Wrath0fKhan 1 year ago
Bananas!!!!
lordofwrath88 1 year ago
Thank You
I'd like to inform..
Science & Psychokinesis
Fact. I see through the objects:walls,stons,beam,hands,other. I have created images:portraits,animal's faces on Clouds & Varnish from long distance and to give intentional shape, the area in the clouds must be established before the test.
martini4948 1 year ago
worst video ever thumbs down
1o1o1o3 1 year ago
I can't follow this.. and thats saying alot
darkbunglex 1 year ago
worst talk ever?
string123456 1 year ago
very confusing. One has to be a genius to follow the threads he leaves unwoven into the fabric of a coherent talk, it is like he weaves together all these topics but leaves a quite unfinished and unsatisfactory pattern. I am with Penrose on many things, he cannot give a talk though.
hyperseauton 1 year ago
The Google tech who was responsible for this cock-up should be...punished...severely...at least a hundred lines and no supper.
I mean you get a guy of this level of mad-scientist brillance in to talk and have him hold a mic and have other mics coming on and off at the same time.
Drastam 1 year ago 5
Why you don't use microphone filter already is a really good question, can you answer it ?
labobo 1 year ago
Could you please try to improve the sound quality in these videos ?!!!
Have you heard of microphone filters ? Not sure it's called that in english, anyway what it does is filter out / block microphones that should not be in use, that way you dont have to worry about those damn microphone switch molesters that turn on and off the microphones
With that microphone filter you select the microphone that should be on, simple and easy.
labobo 1 year ago
BTW:
1) he's not saying AI is impossible at all, he's only saying that we need different "circuits" in order to achieve self-consciousness.
2) In my personal experience to read and fully analyze his theories takes not less than a good academical knowledge and at least 10 years, so - IMHO - people below 30s and without a sound Physics and Computer Science and/or Theoretical Math backgrounds, would be much better off avoiding trenchant criticism.
8nwidth 1 year ago 2
Comment removed
LooksAeterna 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@8nwidth I agree. It has become fashionable to pose as philosopher with some sort of vulgar misunderstanding of all these things. (Example, see channel "philosophertoby").
The discussion by non-experts posing as philosophers has become as uninteresting as between 7 day evangelists and Dawkins' outdated atheism when the truth is certainly on neither end. Those with a materialist bent usually use straw man arguments against that which they don't understand. Idealists tend to overstate the point.
LooksAeterna 1 year ago
t is so obvious that he wasn't Sir Roger Penrose but Robin Williams with his impersonation of the Mad English Scientist.
KUDOS TO SIR ROGER PENROSE !!!
(he is funny too!)
8nwidth 1 year ago
It is so obvious that he wasn't Sir Roger Penrose but Robin Williams with his impersonation of the Mad English Scientist.
KUDOS TO SIR ROGER PENROSE!!!
(he is funny too!)
8nwidth 1 year ago
Who liked his book "The emperor's new mind"? Even when I was still in highschool (when I first grabbed the book) the more he spoke about artificial intelligence being impossible, because of the arguments he was giving, I was more convinced in the opposite. And I would naturally argue his stance, so that should tell you something. So I never really got to the physics part of it, don't know what he says about the quantum - twice I gave just after the broken philosophical part.
paxcoder 1 year ago
Boring maths is boring
PersianPaladin 1 year ago
YouTube seems incapable of linking to 1:43:12 - so *perhaps* try 103:12 - or else 99:99 - and then fast forwards a bit.
tmtyler 1 year ago
It reminds me of Donald Knuth's 2009 visit to Google. Everyone was so respectful and polite. Nobody pointed out what a load of nonsense the speaker was talking. 1:43:12 was about the only question that explored the holes in Penrose's views.
tmtyler 1 year ago
you're asking the speaker to give a 2hr talk with a hand-held mic? come on!
desigrrl08 1 year ago 26
Oh Penrose you are so crazy. But then again if I had been doing quantum mechanics for so long this would look childish compared to the insanity that is loop quantum gravity.
A critique of his works was done by Daniel Dennet. Its a good idea to check it out.
osofrontinoquantico 1 year ago
@osofrontinoquantico Daniel Dennet is neither a mathematical logician, nor a physicist and currently the chief propagandist of atheism. To assess his work correctly one need look no further than that his POV is based on the denial of qualia merely based on the inherently impossibility of defining qualia as if they weren't qualia.
Anyone who claims - as Dennet does - that he is devoid of experiential qualities is certainly saying that talking to him is like talking to a wall: insane.
LooksAeterna 1 year ago
@LooksAeterna
Beautifully stated!
AdamLore 1 year ago
@LooksAeterna
Dennet builds his case on latest trends in the relevant research fields. One doesnt have to be a mathematician, physicist, evo biologist to do that. One just needs to use "their" latest input and to apply certain "philosophical principles" correctly.
Your analogy appears to be false, too. According to your assessment a communication between computers would be impossible. That is of course nonsense. Dennett has reduced qualia to something which we can call "competences".
Wrath0fKhan 1 year ago
@Wrath0fKhan My argument against his "argument" against qualia was unrelated to the fact that Dennet is - also - not a mathematical logician (which simply makes him irrelevant for osofrontinoquantico's recommendation regarding the topic of this video).
Honestly, I cannot quite see how anyone can be so dull to overlook this.
My comment re qualia was furnished simply in order to further demonstrate the lack of logical acuity in his arguments, regardless of whether he builds on others or not.
LooksAeterna 1 year ago
@LooksAeterna
"My argument .. video"
It does not really matter whether it was or was not. It was irrelevant either way. An applied argument of utter irrelevance in action, so to say.
"Honestly .. overlook this"
Im not so sure. Deceptions by definition are put forth intentionally. Reaction of your "YT buddies" would suggest they one way or another took the bait.
"My .. not."
This is indeed false. As Ive already said, his philosophies are based on the latest research and try to expand on it.
Wrath0fKhan 1 year ago
@Wrath0fKhan "...irrelevance in action, so to say", wrong: it was relevant for pointing out the irrelevance of osofrontinoquantico's recommendation. The irrelevance regarding the video was borrowed from that recommendation's irrelevance.
"Im not so sure": well the target of my comment there was people who are capable o expressing themselves as you are =;) Deception is not necessarily intentional. It is a description of potential for deceptive function of something in the receiver's mind.
LooksAeterna 1 year ago
@LooksAeterna
Yet all you deliver here is more irrelevance, upon irrelevance, since there was no irrelevant recommendation. Thats tricky, yet indeed, irrelevant.
Expressing oneself is about certain specific (e.g. mental) competences. Deception is defined as intentional. Hence if there is no intention, we dont speak about deception, but something else.
Wrath0fKhan 1 year ago
@Wrath0fKhan "This is indeed false." No it isn't. it is immaterial whether he false inference is his own or based on so called "latest research". There is no "latest research" which would allow anyone to define the undefinable (that is objectify the by definition unobjectifiable) and on such idiotic grounds claim their non-existence.
Anyone mildly capable of logical reasoning knows: the statement of the absence of something ill-defined makes no sense.
LooksAeterna 1 year ago
@LooksAeterna
Totally ignorant (of relevant research) and irrelevant as a response. Youve shot all your bullets. Your magazine is empty. Im willing to bet from now on your are shooting with air only. :))
Wrath0fKhan 1 year ago
@Wrath0fKhan As for my analogy, that computers would not be able to "communicate" does no follow, so "appears" is correct, but - again - only in the eyes of those with lack of logical training ;-)
For avoiding the mistakes you make, it is not necessary to have serious logical training. It would be completely sufficient to read Walton's "Informal Logic" and have a decent intention of honest debate instead of high school level sophistry.
Regards.
LooksAeterna 1 year ago
@LooksAeterna
"As for .. training"
Well, I disagree. If we define communication as exchange of data between two sources we have a home run right there. Its fascinating to see that you refer me to informal training in logic, yet constantly keep pushing little fallacies around like a pro-fallacist. :))
"For avoiding .. sophistry."
Again, you dont demonstrate any mistakes I made. You only make a "shout out". One wonders; what purpose does it serve? A purpose of distraction?
Wrath0fKhan 1 year ago
@Wrath0fKhan "If we define communication as exchange of data bla bla": what has that definition got to do with the original claim which you claim as false on the grounds of YOUR arbitrary definition. Besides I know of no computer which claims NOT to have qualia - hence what you say was doubly irrelevant. Please look for someone stupid enough to fall for your rhetoric tricks to talk to.
And in fact I did (herewith and before) demonstrate logical errors, and you don't pay me for educating you.
LooksAeterna 1 year ago
@LooksAeterna
A computer doesnt have to have qualia. Neither does communication have to be about qualia. Qualia can be explained "away", lets as certain synaptic competences, which can be physically manipulated, changed, erased, induced, etc., which follows from latest research. Nothing I said was irrelevant at all. On the contrary.
All you demonstrate here is "an empty magazine"...
Wrath0fKhan 1 year ago
@Wrath0fKhan "Qualia can be explained "away", as certain synaptic competences,
So we know that by observing the brain? We can reduce say the color red to a set of reactions in Brodmann's area. Now tell me, what color qualia do we observe Brodmann's area to be? What's that no qualia? Well I guess that means the brain is invisible right? I guess that means the brain can be eliminated as well along with qualia as the empirical knowledge of the brain is just an illusion generated by the brain.
JohananRaatz 1 year ago
@JohananRaatz
No... We dont really know the (ultimate) technical details yet. However, we know enough details to make such a prediction (e.g. that qualia is an activity created by specific brain tissue). Applied deep brain stimulation is a "monument" to this.
Wrath0fKhan 1 year ago