If you wish to see GOD particle, Higgs Boson see YOU TUBE VK SONAKIA.FIT-lFuture Imaging tool or Certainty tool technology developed which is GOD Particle in Human body.Based on data in biometric or biosensor of both hands where FITtechnology has blue prints of future diasters like earthquake,nuclear radiation,tsunami,Dam burst ,Hurricane, KATRINA , 9/11 2001 WTC Tragedy, 26/11 2008 mumbai serial blast.scientist welcome to see and test FIT
since we don't have a strong definition of consciousness the question can't be answered. if we had one or say we could agree on one definition, which we would be a quite wide idea because it must fit for children, animals maybe even plants (at least we can measure pain and pleasure in this context)... it might not be to hard, look at artificial cells.
@flopsbox actually it might be enough to build a machine which is able to convince some human it has consciousness; as soon as there is the slightest doubt e.g. not mathematically proven to be wrong it's a question of moral philosophy as we have seen many times made by hollywood ;)
...Our bodies are biological machines...couldn't consciousness be housed within any object that can carry a frequency?...think beyond our current perspective. I do not believe we have any limitations with creation and playing with the material world.
Another failure by science trying to explain consciousness. MACHINES CAN'T AND WILL NEVER BE CONSCIOUS. THEY CAN'T FEEL PAIN AND PLEASURE, THEY ARE NOT ALIVE.
@cmpresents It's not that simple. If consciousness is reducible to physical states then it is possible for machines to have mental states. When you say machines can't feel pain and pleasure you're referring to, what we call, qualia (qualitative experiences) but we aren't really sure what qualia really means or if it even exists. If we really do have qualia and if mental states are something above physics, then you're right and machines will probably never have consciousness.
@Frutoses I really can't comprehend how any person can reason that consciousness can exist in a physical state. I believe in God, not qualia, qualia is just another excuse to call God by another name.
@cmpresents Dualism as you're trying to defend is pretty much dead. Just because someone says consciousness is reducible to physical events, it isn't an argument against the existence of God nor in favor. You can still believe in God and believe that machines could have consciousness, it's not incoherent.
@Frutoses The point is that machines can't be conscious, and that's the whole point. There's nothing else to aurgue. It has nothing to do with dualism. A machine is simply not alive, it CAN'T feel, therefore it can't be conscious.
@cmpresents - "MACHINES CAN'T AND WILL NEVER BE CONSCIOUS. THEY CAN'T FEEL PAIN AND PLEASURE"
How do you know that all machines, including every single one that hasn't been invented yet, will never be able to be conscious or be able to feel? Of course, it might turn out that no machines can ever be conscious, I just don't think that you can know that for certain with the limited understanding we have now.
Your ignorance of theories of consciousness doesn't preclude the existence of theories of consciousness. You can investigate Gerald Edelman, Daniel Dennett, Christof Koch, and Antonio Demasio, just to name a few.
Notwithstanding, my original statement is still true. The absence of human colonies on Mars doesn't indicate a failure of science.
Experimental evidence has shown that even single-celled paramecium are capable of learning. Obviously what we perceive as "consciousness" or "understanding" occurs on a level far more fundamental than even a single celled organic scale. Quantum mechanics seems like a perfect answer.
@ShiroRX Learning capability (ie ability to solve problems through memory) in no way entails self awareness. I have no idea what quantum mechanics has to do with it.
In the same sense it's an unproven assumption that the actual spiritual causes of cars moving is to be found in the physical world. Learn to methodological naturalism IMO. These people are scientists and are attacking the problem in the only way it's possible for humanity to do so. It could fail, but it would be downright moronic not to try before giving up and declaring humans to be magic. A failure would likely also result in a new physics btw.
The consciousness itself does not consist of information - the consciousness interprets information. We can't even begin to understand what the conscious actually is, in itself. These people have missed the plot and are engaging in intellectual masturbation. To the extreme.
This is stupid. An image on a screen cannot be equated with consiousness. The computer does not experience an image on a screen. Only a person looking at the screen experiences it as consiousness.
Igor Alexander throws the words "perception" and "consciousness" around like they are defined in finite state machine theory, which of course they are not. So, in effect he is passing off his faith position, that consciousness is a computational effect, as though it were a scientific fact. it would be good if the interviewer asked Rita Carter what she means by consciousness and why she thinks artificial consciousness is possible. Nothing in finite state machine theory involves awareness.
@dfpolis Exactly. The Strong AI view that awareness somehow spontaneously arises when a physical system carries out an algorithmic computation is hardly scientific, nor is it particularly useful. It does little to explain how humans and flies perceive time differently, or how a bat forms a mental picture from sound. A useful theory on consciousness should let one predict how a mind will perceive data gathered from the physical world. Strong AI is a form of dogmatism.
@nilbud I have programed logic controllers for chemical processes, and not once did I think that if the algorithms became complex enough, the controller would somehow spontaneously develop consciousness. Spontaneous consciousness, is in essence, what the Turing test promotes, and does so without any valid physical evidence. The test is completely ad hoc, and it has no predictive power. A useful theory on consciousness would make testable predictions about mental phenomena.
@MetalMilitia5488 "Spontaneous consciousness, is in essence, what the Turing test promotes, and does so without any valid physical evidence."
Ok.. two things: First, the Turing test has absolutely nothing to do with "consciousness". The Turing test tries to answer the question "Can machines think?" To quote the first line from Turing's paper:
"I propose to consider the question, "Can machines think?" This should begin with definitions of the meaning of the terms "machine" and "think.""
@MetalMilitia5488 Second, nobody have ever suggested that you can simply chain "logic controllers for chemical processes" together and eventually end up with consciousness. What is claimed is that consciousness is a specific kind of recursive information model that contains a self representation. Nothing more is needed than that the model believes itself to be conscious. We don't need any magic to happen. Just the right kind of information processing.
@MetalMilitia5488 The reason essentially everyone who works in this field believes this to be true is because of
a) The Turing simulation theorem that essentially states that all universal Turing machines have the same computing abilities, they just differ in speed.
b) The brain is such a machine. Because neurons logically function as simple logic circuits and brains are a set of neurons.
Which suggests an algorithm for consciousness must exist.
@MetalMilitia5488 Of course, in modern times you can start piling up the entire body of evidence in neuroscience, every aspect of the brain that has could ever be demonstrated etc which all reduce to information processing. In fact, the dualistic nonsense that is sometimes presented as an alternative here can not exist unless physics does not apply to human brains. As far as absurd claims go - that takes first prize.
@MetalMilitia5488 "A useful theory on consciousness would make testable predictions about mental phenomena."
I agree with this, but as nobody has presented a full candidate for a computational theory of consciousness yet the point is moot right now. Several aspects of how it must work are known though.
A far more interesting question, for the free will people, would be how they plan to make testable predictions about mental phenomena from a non-determinisic model.
@dfpolis You are showing your stupidity by falsely attributing your own imbecilic perceptions to others. I understand you're uneducated and slow but try to actually pay attention when you watch it again. Dipshit.
so. in order to understand the workings of consciousness not only should we study the brain, we should study the environmental effects on the brain. just as in order to understand flight we should also understand air and how airflow effects the wing.
@DaNorthernLight "So basically, they believe that a computer demonstrates what consciousness is because it copies/recopies information to multiple buffers..."
All this research suffers from the same scientific drawback. As one commentator put it below, you cannot test for the presence or lack of consciousness. An organism or machine could display all the external signs of being aware without actually being conscious - there might be no internal experience (the "Cartesion Theatre") that only I know for sure that I experience. There would be no away of testing if an artificial intelligence was actually conscious.
@parlezuml If you cannot test for it, how do you know that you have it? You just feel it, right? Connect alot of your neurons to that AI computer so you can compare which one feels what.
Empirically there is no such thing as consciousness. If I assert to you that a third person whom you always thought was conscious is in fact merely an automaton, you could not empirically contradict me.
I advice to you all Penrose's books, this book is really awesome - "The Large, the Small and the Human Mind"
This book changed my point of view...
He assert that entire computing simulation of consciousness is impossible, in physical activity in brain is something beyond computation..and the base is quantum mechanics...
wai...wai...wait... I'm already lost after 0.58 - it is at two positions the same time because it's a wave... but... isn't a wave longer than just two peaks? is it used up, when it's seen twice and can't show up in a third, fourth etc place? is it always in only two places? why is it so limited on two positions, is it moving around a center where it is mirrored? and place a and place b are the two extremes? or could it be ANYWHERE? ...getting more and more confused...
@MagnaMater2: Reading a book about the basics of quantum mechanics helps. Something like the very well written books by Richard Feynman, for example. These books are even understandable for a total newbie.
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...
Roger needs to look into MDM [multiple drafts model] theory of mind. I don't see how he's still so far behind at this day and age. He's almost reminiscent of a Cartesian dualist.
Well, Roger proved empirically and mathematically that computers can't process meaning. He has reason to be certain that neurophysiologists are not going to reproduce consciousness (thus verify their theory) with a computer (artificial intelligence). He is on to something with the quantum aspect. But people still don't want to accept that materiality is a mode of consciousness and not the other way around.
@circusOFprecision A computer is a straw man. Evolution producing cumulative changes to the brain over time would keep old and new connections and either subvert or hijack old connections for new ones.
I don't think it's hard to prove a linear program can't understand "meaning". Humans don't even know what meaning is, how would they program it to do so? The whole quantum mechanics appeal is purely dualistic saying that the mind CAN'T do it on it's own.
No one is saying the mind can't do it on it's own, some people are saying that neurophysiology can't satisfactorily show that the brain can do it (at least as we understand the brain currently) on its own. We do know what meaning is. As humans we are able to understanding the meaning behind words without more words to describe that meaning. But computers can only correlate sets of symbols, they never get to a root implied meaning. That is what Penrose proved.
@circusOFprecision You're talking about PHILOSOPHY and body language. Abstracts of convenience that're not empirical. We've found the correlary language genes reg by FOXP2. I do believe the idea that consciousness cannot be adequately explained within natural evolutionary processes is magic speak; dualism. Neurophysiologists have been answering to Hameroff and Penrose. That vid I suggested, Hameroff's confronted by three, a physicist and someone he quote-mined all at once. It's a bit shocking.
Penrose and Hameroff don't deny genetic and neurological correlation to mental phenomenon, so I don't think that is information that discredits their ideas. If they can experimentally predict or demonstrate a conscious quantum collapse in a living conscious creature, they can account for the origin and root source of consciousness in a biological system. The neurocomputationalists will still have their day in the sun, because their work is needed to understand the brain.
@circusOFprecision Roger's a brilliant man. I love the guy but he's dead wrong on this. Dead wrong. If you watch that, you'll see Hameroff straw man neurocomputationalists saying "oh neurocomputationalist say 'you get enough computation, consciousness is emergent'--a GROSS oversimplification. But he's not a philosopher and neither is Penrose. They're cross-field analysis isn't expertise, it's experimental and not testable. Computational complexity is testable and workable to eventual explain it.
Computational complexity is testable, and that is because of brain/mind correlation. I want to bring Goswami in the picture. Beyond computational complexity is the problem of self reference. Where is awareness taking place? It would have to be in the brain if you follow the neurocomputationalists. But if you realize that a tangled hierarchy of quantum processing is non local, Hameroff and Penrose make more sense. It's heavy, but worth your time to explore the concept.
@circusOFprecision brain/mind correlation? You are a dualist. Its like talking to a wall. I highly doubt you've ever actually explored the topic of evolutionary psychology. You think consciousness is some magical mathematical formula that Penrose has given you. That's what I suspect. His whole argument is ad-ignorantiam/straw man and I think you buy it because you're afraid to accept the possibility your "consciousness" may be purely evolutionary. QM is not needed to explain neurophysiology.
Now hold on a minute, did I ever say that I was a dualist? Brain and mind are certainly different, but maybe they are two sides of the same coin. I never said mind was completely separate. In fact, without content, there is little to be said about consciousness. But the idea that evolution explains consciousness can easily be flipped around to say that consciousness explains evolution. When we throw this word consciousness around, are we on the same page?
@circusOFprecision "Now hold on a minute, did I ever say that I was a dualist? Brain and mind are certainly different"
LOL Did you seriously just say this to me? How are they different? Are they, perhaps, only philosophically different? If physiology could account for everything, I have a feeling, based just on this statement, you wouldn't accept it anyway.
What you subjectively define as consciousness doesn't seem very empirical, either. It just sounds like you've glorifying it beyond reason.
Everything I said still stands. Dualism is an illusion. On a fundamental level, the quantum level, it seems to disappear. If you only focus on the physiological, you will never see the nonconventional informational patterns that give rise to these physical effects. Carefully consider this simple thought experiment. You have a frequency of light, a perceptual process, then the color red. They all coorelate within consciousness, but red is not a physical entity.
@circusOFprecision I can tell you're dogmatic. So how much part don't you think linguistics plays in the role of consciousness? How many unique, human social features would we really require for you to think it has more to do with our biology and hardly anything to do with these faulty appeals to Platonic math philosophy ad QM and more to do with simple biology? If you think that consciousness can be reduced to a structuralized math formula, you've traded a straw man for a copy of itself.
You aren't visualizing the problem in the same manner as myself. But it's too complex to explain what I mean in a text box. Let me just say that if you are making the assumption that biology is a grand chemical reaction, than you haven't been paying attention to the last few decades of cellular research. Invoking evolutionary thought experiments for every aspect of reality can be unproductive, we are currently doing phenomenal observation and experimentation.
I don't have time to do your research, but look at Robert Lanza and Bruce Liptons work for starters. Look at James A. Shapiro (bacterial geneticist) and his incredible work as well.
Yeah, so you just explosed the whole problem with a materialistic account of consciousness. All I can say is if you haven't already, read Carl Jung, particularly on the topic of the unconscious.
@circusOFprecision Carl Jung I have read. You're still talking philosophy, not empiricism. Modern psychology's had a major problem converting into neuroscience precisely because of it's purposefully abstract and nebulous explanations of real brain phenomena.
Well, to be fair to the psychologists, they have done some very good empirical research. But yes, many of their theories are still largely philosophical in nature.
@circusOFprecision Ad-ignorantiam. They would have found it where? That's not how neuroscience works. The brain isn't designed like a computer which is exactly why Penrose's computational argument is a straw man. Adaptations happen with surprising effects, cascading into trees of information processing within larger trees within larger trees. Nothing is completely centralized by the brain. The prefrontal cortex is dealing with information from other parts of the brain, the limbic emotional etc.
You made some book recommendations, so I will take a look at those. I'm playing devil's advocate, even though it seems from your comments that you are about ready to completely trash my point of view and label me a moron. Perhaps your camp will win the day, but I have my doubts, and it has to do with evolutionary theory as an assumed underlying framework. That view tends to be overly dismissive and simplistic in my opinion.
@circusOFprecision I believe in knowing what things are, which is what makes them good for us. Making things purposefully ambiguous and mystified is retrograde to reason.
I understand that, but ignoring the trans-logical doesn't make the logical any more sound. As many people have discussed at Beyond Belief, conceptual leaps in understanding often occur as instances of creativity, discontinued from the normal flow of research. It may seem mystical and retrograde now, but it doesn't necessarily mean it's flat out wrong (speaking of Penrose's ideas).
@circusOFprecision "But people still don't want to accept that materiality is a mode of consciousness and not the other way around." if something exists, it exists physically. If you put the definition of "consciousness" so far out of "materiality", you're doomed to never find an answer in the material world.
Of course you won't find an answer in the material world, the material world arises from consciousness. You have to expand the scientific process to a deeper level of meaning. Go back and look at the circular demise of your picture of things, you implicate it perfectly in your comment.
You can be as dismissive as you like, but there is much empirical evidence for what I am suggesting. We can argue about the interpretation, but the immediate implications continue to cause problems for the current materialistic paradigm, problems that compound themselves. For philosophical kicks, I suggest you read Goswami. You may remain skeptical, but at least it might get you to treat the problems of your own view with the same scrutiny as the other camp.
@circusOFprecision And you can be a sophist all you like, you're still just appealing to the philosophy and not actually explaining anything. You're just trying to turn consciousness in to some mystified process that can't be explained. You're AVOIDING consciousness.
If I tell you that I think consciousness is a process that lies outside of us (that includes the internal and external split we experience as aware beings, dualism as an illusion), how am I avoiding consciousness? Maybe I am wrong, but it sure does explain a lot. But this doesn't overturn the neurocomputationalists or the evolutionary biologists. Look, if you can't stand the mystical implications, fine. Don't take it that far then. But you can't deny quantum reality.
@circusOFprecision I'm sorry I called you dogmatic but I think you're being lead by the sales pitch and not the evidence. If you think that consciousness is actually some math problem in centrality, then you're ignoring the very complicated work that your brain does and can't do and it's patent mystification because appeals to QM on the physiological level are hypothetical at best and at worst philosophical appeals, not empirical causation. The brain does the work. Neuroscience is fairly new.
Actually, I think math can create many interesting things on its own, things that aren't necessarily representative of real natural phenomenon. But this in itself could be evidence against the idea that biological processes give rise to epiphenomenon. Its one more aspect for the neurocomputationalists to reduce. I try not to be dogmatic, but I guess I am kind of partial to QM sneaking into consciousness and biology research these days.
@circusOFprecision Uhm... WHAT? Mathematics is arbitrary measurement of things, it doesn't create anything, let alone consciousness. It's a description of the world, not the world itself. Just because there's gaps doesn't mean you start throwing faeries into it. That's why Penrose is a dualist, that's why you sound like one to me, and that's why I think you're missing the point of evolutionary psychology and biology entirely. When nature creates new algorithms, it's not guided like a computer.
@circusOFprecision I think the problem I'm having with you is my background in studying psychology, biology and evolution, philosophy and specifically consciousness. Hameroff's failed parroting has been debunked on all fronts and you are just simply partial to QM 'sneaking into biology'. Microtubials aren't even shown to have much job in the brain at all. If entanglement happened, it's so small, it'd have no effect. In neuroscience much of what your consciousness does is already known.
@circusOFprecision Two books I highly suggest you read: The Stuff of Thought by Steven Pinker, Consciousness Explained by Daniel Dennett, and read the Emperor's New Mind by Penrose and see the difference. If you're wise to philosophy of the mind and evolution, this shouldn't be hard to see. Penrose has his mathematic philosophy in his head so bad, he doesn't accept the answers to the problems he presents, which there already are, and his cross-field analysis isn't right. Hes a good mathematician
@circusOFprecision The problems are only as big as they "Seem", not necessarily impossible or improbable within the realm of evolutionary psychology and that computational point Penrose makes IS a straw man. Just study what neuroscientists are saying from BOTH camps. There's no information for Penrose to jump to such wild conclusions. It's completely made up in his head. Just like String Theory is fashionable, doesn't mean it's reality, to paraphrase Penrose to you.
Do you know what a Birkeland current is? It's something that has been proven to exist, yet is all but ignored by cosmologists because it implies that electricity (electromagnetism) is the primary force operating in the universe, not gravity. The point is that there are fundamental flaws hanging around all over the place in science that are really starting to impede progress. A similar thing may or may not be happening here, but this field needs to be more robust regardless.
@circusOFprecision Birkeland uh huh. Can you say "non-sequitur"? Not only that, why do you fall deeper into appeals to ignorance to somehow lay credibility to your point? Sounds like you're not really even on the fence. You already know you don't believe this crap. You're just, lemme guess, a THEIST playing "Devil's Advocate" as you said because you're clinging to the last god-of-the-gaps you can?
I hope not. Anyway, I can see you're not taking this conversation seriously. Have a good one. >=/
That wasn't the reaction I expected, you seemed pretty level headed. I was just using a readily available example to support a general point. And I was taking this conversation quite seriously until this moment. I'm not here to walk on egg shells around your preconceived notions of reality. I'm just trying to KNOW in the same manner you are. But I am not very fond of the current academic system anymore, after reading many books that shed doubt on it. So sue me.
@circusOFprecision PS epistemically, no, you don't know what meaning is anymore than you know what existence is. 'I think therefore I am' only proves existence and from there it's indeterminate what things *are*. Brain fail 101
That's not a problem because existence IS meaning. If you think, it only proves consciousness, it doesn't prove that you actually exist. It's all in the subtleties of meaning. Don't be so quick to say I am a failure, as if you are pointing out to me things that I haven't already thought my way through.
@circusOFprecision "That's not a problem because existence IS meaning"<--WHAT? I'd say equivocation but it's too incoherent to have been done on purpose. >=/
THIS is why I get mad at people like YOU. You wanna play in the murky realm of magic and make-believe, be my guest, but DON'T go acting like it's SCIENCE.
So existence is meaningless? Or some things have meaning, but others don't? Explain your position, perhaps I will see the error of my ways. There is no reason to get upset. We aren't writing a scientific article here. Two brains are conversing through the internet, that's all. It's not like I'm up to win the Nobel Prize or something, and all of science is threatened by my philosophical views and "misguided" interpretations of empirical observations.
@circusOFprecision Meaning is subjective. It's the metaphysical realm. Purely philosophical, not empirical. <--Empirical observation given the fact that your meaning isn't my meaning. Equivocation /existence/meaning<---they are two entirely separate concepts.
You cannot dissect your own feelings if you cloud them up and confuse them with such nebulous definitions of things. You have to identify, test, verify, predict and measure. All of which can be done within science; finally? No but soon.
Honestly, are you using your whole brain on this? Not to be mean, but your secret dualism is getting on my nerves. Here's the problem. How does consciousness arise from things that seem not to have consciousness? You may not realize it, but basically you believe that electromagnetic patterns are equal to experience. Ok, great. Than why isn't the entire universe conscious? Some purely materialistic answers would be nice, but I'm still waiting...
@circusOFprecision Check out how close we are to actually identifying thoughts. watch?v=wjWHx2qOyOY This is from CBS, within the last few months. If you dig on the doctors in this, you'll find some shocking things about your brain.
Complex Computational Functionalism, my friend, rather anyone likes it or not, is the future. They also invented a 'quantum switch'. Psychology has to reframe itself for neurology. It's inevitable. Evolution has hands-down more evidence than Penrose in his scribbling
The information in that video is not new. How we are able to have awareness is do to something called quantum entangled hierarchy. But you aren't listening to me. Penrose is just trying to demonstrate that the effects we see on a macro scale are inherently programmed into the foundation of reality. But go ahead and laugh at me now, it's fine.
@NoSuchThingAsMagic "Psychology has to reframe itself for neurology. It's inevitable."
Well no, because psychology has to do with subjective experience, and subjective experience is the same regardless of the mechanism that produce it. It doesn't make sense to say that one truth will change because another is discovered.
"Evolution has hands-down more evidence than Penrose in his scribbling"
? Evolution is what caused Penrose's Orch-OR in the first place. Why does it have to be an either/or?
@NoSuchThingAsMagic "Check out how close we are to actually identifying thoughts."
Right but how does this solve the hard problem of consciousness? Just because the mechanism is found that links neural activity to individual thoughts doesn't explain why that neural activity is linked to specific thoughts.
Thus far neuroscientists like Hammeroff and Eccles and physicists like Penrose are the only ones I've seen who have taken the hard problem of consciousness seriously.
@circusOFprecision I might be going out on a limb here but you strike me as someone who's afraid if there's no cosmic force making you what you are, it's impossible to exist and experience a universe where behind your consciousness is an unconscious, which is made up of unconscious things down a trail of nothing... I don't see the world that way. The mere fact that it is possible is enough to ponder that what's illusory about life is that there's something separating your from a universe at all.
No my friend. I am merely following the evidence. And you just agreed with me in principle, although not in spirit, but I don't think you realize it. Man, the irony of this comment and the amount of meaning contained therein. I bet you that the difference between our points of view is so subtle, that if we could expose it...well, I don't know if it can be done. So far the answer is a big whopping NO.
You do realize that consciousness is not simply awareness or thoughts? The unconscious is a continuing conscious process that doesn't contain self reference. It's more accurate to say that consciousness is at the core of reality. This idea of unconscious things emerging out of nothingness (define that for me and you will defeat your own position) is just...well, I couldn't disagree more with the irrationality of such an idea.
@circusOFprecision You're arguing just to argue. You don't have a position. You don't know the facts. You're just making shit up. "It's more accurate to say that consciousness is at the core of reality"<---philosophic mumbo jumbo. I can't take you seriously. You're clueless.
This quantum entangled hierarchy is total BS. There's NO demonstration of what he's saying. It's COMPLETELY in his head ie. HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CONSCIOUSNESS. You might as well have your fingers in your ears going LALALA
If you don't listen to another word I say, I suggest that you go read Stapp, and if you can, try not to get so frustrated. What's wrong with me disagreeing with you? The materialists have not found consciousness. I'm still waiting. I have every right to be skeptical and look at other options at tackling the problem.
Daniel Dennett insisting that everyone is a p-zombie, because the mind is matter and therefore not the mind, is making shit up. Can you actually believe he thinks he's a p-zombie? LOL
No he isn't a reminiscent of a Cartesian dualist. He understands the concept of tangled hierarchy at the quantum level, which solves such a dualistic paradox. MDM seems to propose that how we perceive is analogous to consciousness. But symbols, perceptions being computationally processed, are not equal to meaning. Shall I go on...?
@circusOFprecision Look up Stuart Hameroff on "Beyond Belief" google video. Hameroff gets his ass handed to him by quantum physicists and neuroscientists. Hameroff is Penrose's lapdog on this.
I watched this, Hameroff was pretty much ganged up on by the neurocomputationalists and physicists. They were right to challenge his points, but they were about as disrespectful and arrogant as you can get. I'm convinced that Penrose and Hameroff are on to something, but they may be reaching a bit at this point.
@circusOFprecision Arrogant and disrespectful? How's this for arrogant and disrespectful: Fuck you. =]
No, you just don't want to accept that he has no real answers to their questions because he's on the fringe, completely full of shit and trying to start a fucking religion out of the gaps. The stupid shit he's parroting was debunked in the early 90's. You're a joke. I'm done.
@NoSuchThingAsMagic Penrose is? Penrose isn't on the "fringe" in this field because he's hardly all there is in this field -him and a few others. His field (the study of consciousness) is too small and too speculative to have a fringe as of yet.
I mean they haven't even been able to do experiments yet to study how subjective states are caused by objective neural matter. (studying neural matter isn't the same as studying its link with consciousness) So how do we even know what is fringe yet?
@NoSuchThingAsMagic I see that you are apparently a reductive materialist. I am curious which particular computational neural algorithms are responsible for knowledge of Godel statements such as 1+1=2? I'm curious because it would be cool to disprove Godel's theorem.
Big bang never happened cause it cant. (if you dont understand it that's because you r not supposed to be there.( in the world? ) you are real.. and the world is not
does time exist witouth us and sun and planet.. all matter only an blakc empty hole
-To all Watching this Video and Not getting enough answers to the questions with the intermitent end of it, please refer to Desteni Productions where you Will really get to know yourself, stop the fuzzyness that humans get stuck in when trying to grasp the knowledge of something - better to understand how it works as yourself and realizing that it is Not as complicated as it seems.
I wonder what will happen when they discover that consciousness needs to be defined definitely before it can process.
Otherwise there is no certainty in the program and thus no computation. It is easy to assume that we are living consciousness. However, if you really look at our design, it is completely computational in nature and as much as we perceive we have 'free choice' free choice doesn't exist. There is only one choice, the one that we choose.
@MatthewSforcina Well you obviously dont understand the very first point Penrose makes that human understanding transcends computation. It is also clear there is no supervening computational program running in the brain - this is well established - so the brain is not a computational computer.
In your deception, you believe you are unique and you stream.
But if you divide yourself, self honestly with numbers. There is only God, as a system. Which divides itself constantly using different algorithms and causative effects using the stimulus from the outside world as a response mechanism, generating the 'energy' (usually with a form of guilt), to manifest the systematic use of living as an 'ego' 'an individual'.
I have no idea what you mean; but what you write sounds similar to what Tom Campbell is saying...maybe? Search him here on YT. He has a computational theory.
I dont think life or truth is a computer. Life and truth as humans can make a computer; but we are not forms of our own technology. Humans have the tendency to create and believe metaphors.
I am the source. I use the mirror of thought and language to express. I as source 'see' clearly that a computer is an object in the mirror. The notion of reality as a computation is simply a metaphor of a image in the mirror applied to That which is the source and witness of the mirror. Understanding is a quality of the source; that is why it utterly transcends its inventions such as computation.
@MatthewSforcina Not really, there is a infinite amount of choice, there is however your own will that makes a single choice. There is a difference and the definition of consciousness is simple, being aware of being aware.
@albedoshader Science can't explain consciousness because the essence of consciousness doesn't exist, it's nothing. This is may hard to grasp tho' , however I came up with this theory and I don't really doubt it.
so 'perception' creates reality - like with measuring the electron - but it only creates the reality of the observer - it does not say much about the reality of the electron
this 'perceptual reality' may be the main 'problem' our world in general is faced with today
practically, 'quantum perception' would imply the ability & willingness to see & take into consideration all that is here equally - that would imply to see consequence and therefore realize responsibility
study the Desteni research on one-dimensional and multi-dimensional realities - the Physical and the Mind - and do a search on the structural resonance alignment course and the discussions presented by Desteni in terms of 'quantum-time' or 'real-time' participation
Obviously this video really only touches on Penrose's views and doesn't go into why our thinking can't be computational. As it happens, most philosophers of consciousness disagree with Penrose on this point.
If you want you can watch my video discussing Penrose's arguments.
idk but i think we, as a human race, have centuries before we see a simple artificial intelligent machine, idk maybe dr, kaku and other physicist like him, among other great computer technologist and programmers will perform such as great feat
Playing with nerve network models in the 70s, seeing if it was possible to get a pattern of pulses- representing a memory - to sustain in a network - it seemed that the only way to do it, was if you provided external impulses - otherwise impulses just died away
This, reports on sensory deprivation, and that it seemed that a large part of consciousness seems to be reproducing internally sensory perceptions of the outside world - I felt that for AI to be conscious it would need sensory inputs.
Somebody said something about the Quantum Zeno Effect, but their comment is gone... I think the extrapolations are completely unjustified. When QM can be used to make actual predictions about biological behavior, and my god, consciousness! Then all of these crank physicists can have their heyday. QM is an incredibly obscure theory, and mystics and con men are overzealous about exploiting its ambiguities to justify ridiculous metaphysical nonsense. READ REAL PHYSICS
fuck sub consi... you do something way over your own control and it is sticky as glue, look at my face... i may know but hate all of it, it is like a devil lurking hehe, lurking you into a beautyful world but then you are cast through the tube and come out changed forever, but you don´t c that yourself, but ya friends can feel it... fuck it and your electrons cuz you cannot control them when ythey shift as they are told to.
we already know that quantum physics is an extremely good representation of the quantum world. the classic macroscopic world we experience is essentially a constant process of trillions of superpositioned wave-states collapsing every second, giving rise to our "natural" looking world.
the theory goes that some aspects of the brain, i.e. microtubules within neurons, act as a bridge between the quantum and classical states. there are many peer-reviewed studies on this.
Now that is a different subject, but I'd question what effect the microtubules have on consciousness... microtubules act as structural support and allow neurotransmitters and other things to be transported up and down the neuron, but they don't effect the electric impulses in the brain, but here is something that we could model and subject to legitamate experiments.
Penrose is a crank! How can you justify trying to apply quantum mechanics to consciousness??? And to the comment below mine "and some especially powerful quantum effect in the brain" WTF are you talking about? Have you people seriously ever studied quantum mechanics? Do you have any idea what it is actually for?
I dont know what other commenters are talking about. But this very accomplished mathematical physicist is no crank. I dont necessarily agree with all of his reasoning, but quantum effects cannot be escaped ANYWHERE on a small enough scale, so in that respect he is correct. What the CONNECTION is between the quantum level and classical level in the brain, is anybody's guess. Yet research has shown, such as enzymatic activity and some brain microstructures DO exhibit quantum effects.
Fair enough, and well stated... I just get frustrated sometimes because I think people get over-zealous about parading physical principles into philosophical conceptions where they are more or less unwarranted. I respect Penroses accomplishments.
Thanks. I like what you say about parading physical principles. It happens especially in New Age religions that promote bad science for selfish gain. Some of the worst offenders are Tolle, Braden, Oprah, Dire, Chopra. I'm sure you can name a few too. I try to channel the frustration into stupid videos I'm working on.
you respect his accomplishments yet call him a crank. perhaps you should do some research before running your mouth, assuming that you know more than someone else from reading a short paragraph.
there are many studies that conclude consciousness alone can have physical field effects. obviously consciousness has SOME physical basis. and many physicists and mathematicians conclude that consciousness is incomputable, which is where quantum physical theories come in.
I'm pretty sure that if you knew about quantum mechanics (the actual physical theory, not the bull shit/ jargon/ half-assed philosophy that people throw around) you wouldn't comment that some particularly powerful quantum effect causes people to take on dramatic new character traits after organ transplants! And QM is not "incomputable," it's non-deterministic... quantum theory produces some of the most accurate physical predictions of any scientific theory. I don't respect his philosophy.
that is why i said the organ transplant concept was anecdotal. i specifically said there were no peer-reviewed studies documenting the effect. i said that consciousness is incomputable, not QM.
some great inforamtion here thanks
smuggecko 2 days ago
Oh I see, she's acting, but still doesn't understand it at all?
ChicaWolverina 5 days ago
Man, Roger Penrose, what happened? Could it be senility? He was once a brilliant mind.
MinotawrTV 1 month ago
I stopped bothering with this at 0:31. Materiality isn't the antecedent of consciousness.
Next.
TheAccidentalMonk 2 months ago
1:20 its call the uncertainty principle. And the act of measuring changes its position. Why am i comenting on this shit... its just rabble
Typho0n86 2 months ago
3:08 wtf are you saying!
Drose4president 3 months ago
He is a legend in Mathematical Physicists .. !!
theone364 3 months ago
@theone364 , And that makes him a great expert in brain and mind , right ? Penrose is speculating and what he has it is not a theory .
SciTechExplained 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If you wish to see GOD particle, Higgs Boson see YOU TUBE VK SONAKIA.FIT-lFuture Imaging tool or Certainty tool technology developed which is GOD Particle in Human body.Based on data in biometric or biosensor of both hands where FITtechnology has blue prints of future diasters like earthquake,nuclear radiation,tsunami,Dam burst ,Hurricane, KATRINA , 9/11 2001 WTC Tragedy, 26/11 2008 mumbai serial blast.scientist welcome to see and test FIT
vksonakia@yahoo.co.in
unified field scientist
India
vksonakia 5 months ago
ummmmm does that machine also feel pain? No shoving around data is not consciousness.
stikowsky 5 months ago
since we don't have a strong definition of consciousness the question can't be answered. if we had one or say we could agree on one definition, which we would be a quite wide idea because it must fit for children, animals maybe even plants (at least we can measure pain and pleasure in this context)... it might not be to hard, look at artificial cells.
flopsbox 6 months ago
@flopsbox actually it might be enough to build a machine which is able to convince some human it has consciousness; as soon as there is the slightest doubt e.g. not mathematically proven to be wrong it's a question of moral philosophy as we have seen many times made by hollywood ;)
flopsbox 6 months ago
...Our bodies are biological machines...couldn't consciousness be housed within any object that can carry a frequency?...think beyond our current perspective. I do not believe we have any limitations with creation and playing with the material world.
findingj0y 7 months ago
Another failure by science trying to explain consciousness. MACHINES CAN'T AND WILL NEVER BE CONSCIOUS. THEY CAN'T FEEL PAIN AND PLEASURE, THEY ARE NOT ALIVE.
cmpresents 8 months ago
@cmpresents It's not that simple. If consciousness is reducible to physical states then it is possible for machines to have mental states. When you say machines can't feel pain and pleasure you're referring to, what we call, qualia (qualitative experiences) but we aren't really sure what qualia really means or if it even exists. If we really do have qualia and if mental states are something above physics, then you're right and machines will probably never have consciousness.
Frutoses 8 months ago
@Frutoses I really can't comprehend how any person can reason that consciousness can exist in a physical state. I believe in God, not qualia, qualia is just another excuse to call God by another name.
cmpresents 8 months ago
@cmpresents Dualism as you're trying to defend is pretty much dead. Just because someone says consciousness is reducible to physical events, it isn't an argument against the existence of God nor in favor. You can still believe in God and believe that machines could have consciousness, it's not incoherent.
Frutoses 8 months ago
@Frutoses The point is that machines can't be conscious, and that's the whole point. There's nothing else to aurgue. It has nothing to do with dualism. A machine is simply not alive, it CAN'T feel, therefore it can't be conscious.
cmpresents 8 months ago
@cmpresents - "MACHINES CAN'T AND WILL NEVER BE CONSCIOUS. THEY CAN'T FEEL PAIN AND PLEASURE"
How do you know that all machines, including every single one that hasn't been invented yet, will never be able to be conscious or be able to feel? Of course, it might turn out that no machines can ever be conscious, I just don't think that you can know that for certain with the limited understanding we have now.
wseerldnoeoedfry 7 months ago
@cmpresents
Our understanding of consciousness is not complete. It's not a "failure".
Right now is science "failing" to explain how cancer is to be cured?
nemirn 5 months ago
@nemirn Is not complete, really, there are absolutley no theories of conscious. It hasn't even began.
cmpresents 5 months ago
@cmpresents
Your ignorance of theories of consciousness doesn't preclude the existence of theories of consciousness. You can investigate Gerald Edelman, Daniel Dennett, Christof Koch, and Antonio Demasio, just to name a few.
Notwithstanding, my original statement is still true. The absence of human colonies on Mars doesn't indicate a failure of science.
nemirn 5 months ago
@cmpresents
Your robot videos are cool.
nemirn 5 months ago
@nemirn Thank you.
cmpresents 5 months ago
Experimental evidence has shown that even single-celled paramecium are capable of learning. Obviously what we perceive as "consciousness" or "understanding" occurs on a level far more fundamental than even a single celled organic scale. Quantum mechanics seems like a perfect answer.
ShiroRX 9 months ago
@ShiroRX Learning capability (ie ability to solve problems through memory) in no way entails self awareness. I have no idea what quantum mechanics has to do with it.
BlankVellum 8 months ago
0:26 - unproved assumption.
Ontologistics 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Ontologistics "0:26 - unproved assumption."
In the same sense it's an unproven assumption that the actual spiritual causes of cars moving is to be found in the physical world. Learn to methodological naturalism IMO. These people are scientists and are attacking the problem in the only way it's possible for humanity to do so. It could fail, but it would be downright moronic not to try before giving up and declaring humans to be magic. A failure would likely also result in a new physics btw.
Gnomefro 9 months ago
The consciousness itself does not consist of information - the consciousness interprets information. We can't even begin to understand what the conscious actually is, in itself. These people have missed the plot and are engaging in intellectual masturbation. To the extreme.
andrewada 9 months ago
This is stupid. An image on a screen cannot be equated with consiousness. The computer does not experience an image on a screen. Only a person looking at the screen experiences it as consiousness.
vsaluki 9 months ago
@vsaluki You failed to understand what he said.
nilbud 9 months ago
@nilbud You failed to understand what he said.
vsaluki 9 months ago
Igor Alexander throws the words "perception" and "consciousness" around like they are defined in finite state machine theory, which of course they are not. So, in effect he is passing off his faith position, that consciousness is a computational effect, as though it were a scientific fact. it would be good if the interviewer asked Rita Carter what she means by consciousness and why she thinks artificial consciousness is possible. Nothing in finite state machine theory involves awareness.
dfpolis 10 months ago 2
@dfpolis Exactly. The Strong AI view that awareness somehow spontaneously arises when a physical system carries out an algorithmic computation is hardly scientific, nor is it particularly useful. It does little to explain how humans and flies perceive time differently, or how a bat forms a mental picture from sound. A useful theory on consciousness should let one predict how a mind will perceive data gathered from the physical world. Strong AI is a form of dogmatism.
MetalMilitia5488 10 months ago
@MetalMilitia5488 Not as dogmatic as your pathetic ignorance.
nilbud 9 months ago
@nilbud Your inability to engage in rational discourse is noted.
dfpolis 9 months ago
@nilbud I have programed logic controllers for chemical processes, and not once did I think that if the algorithms became complex enough, the controller would somehow spontaneously develop consciousness. Spontaneous consciousness, is in essence, what the Turing test promotes, and does so without any valid physical evidence. The test is completely ad hoc, and it has no predictive power. A useful theory on consciousness would make testable predictions about mental phenomena.
MetalMilitia5488 9 months ago
@MetalMilitia5488 "Spontaneous consciousness, is in essence, what the Turing test promotes, and does so without any valid physical evidence."
Ok.. two things: First, the Turing test has absolutely nothing to do with "consciousness". The Turing test tries to answer the question "Can machines think?" To quote the first line from Turing's paper:
"I propose to consider the question, "Can machines think?" This should begin with definitions of the meaning of the terms "machine" and "think.""
Gnomefro 9 months ago
@MetalMilitia5488 Second, nobody have ever suggested that you can simply chain "logic controllers for chemical processes" together and eventually end up with consciousness. What is claimed is that consciousness is a specific kind of recursive information model that contains a self representation. Nothing more is needed than that the model believes itself to be conscious. We don't need any magic to happen. Just the right kind of information processing.
Gnomefro 9 months ago
@MetalMilitia5488 The reason essentially everyone who works in this field believes this to be true is because of
a) The Turing simulation theorem that essentially states that all universal Turing machines have the same computing abilities, they just differ in speed.
b) The brain is such a machine. Because neurons logically function as simple logic circuits and brains are a set of neurons.
Which suggests an algorithm for consciousness must exist.
Gnomefro 9 months ago
@MetalMilitia5488 Of course, in modern times you can start piling up the entire body of evidence in neuroscience, every aspect of the brain that has could ever be demonstrated etc which all reduce to information processing. In fact, the dualistic nonsense that is sometimes presented as an alternative here can not exist unless physics does not apply to human brains. As far as absurd claims go - that takes first prize.
Gnomefro 9 months ago
@MetalMilitia5488 "A useful theory on consciousness would make testable predictions about mental phenomena."
I agree with this, but as nobody has presented a full candidate for a computational theory of consciousness yet the point is moot right now. Several aspects of how it must work are known though.
A far more interesting question, for the free will people, would be how they plan to make testable predictions about mental phenomena from a non-determinisic model.
Gnomefro 9 months ago
@dfpolis You are showing your stupidity by falsely attributing your own imbecilic perceptions to others. I understand you're uneducated and slow but try to actually pay attention when you watch it again. Dipshit.
nilbud 9 months ago
@nilbud If you have no insight into the problem, it is best to refrain from commenting.
dfpolis 9 months ago
My penis itches.
dirtydonki 11 months ago
so. in order to understand the workings of consciousness not only should we study the brain, we should study the environmental effects on the brain. just as in order to understand flight we should also understand air and how airflow effects the wing.
failblorg 1 year ago
RP is right, all that machines will ever be able to do is to output - input. (our 'slaves' in other words)
Getting machines to mimic human action/s (movement, speech etc) is just disrespecting their own potential.
31428571J 1 year ago
Why are they standing out in the cold? Calculate that, Batman...
leeroynaggins 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DaNorthernLight "So basically, they believe that a computer demonstrates what consciousness is because it copies/recopies information to multiple buffers..."
So does your brain
Burdell22000 1 year ago
All this research suffers from the same scientific drawback. As one commentator put it below, you cannot test for the presence or lack of consciousness. An organism or machine could display all the external signs of being aware without actually being conscious - there might be no internal experience (the "Cartesion Theatre") that only I know for sure that I experience. There would be no away of testing if an artificial intelligence was actually conscious.
parlezuml 1 year ago
@parlezuml If you cannot test for it, how do you know that you have it? You just feel it, right? Connect alot of your neurons to that AI computer so you can compare which one feels what.
kabuuc 1 year ago
he explains everything so clearly
RamzGT 1 year ago
Empirically there is no such thing as consciousness. If I assert to you that a third person whom you always thought was conscious is in fact merely an automaton, you could not empirically contradict me.
1977ub 1 year ago
@1977ub
I believe Im the only one that is conscious, you and everyone else is just a figment of my reality.
PineAppleEx420 1 year ago
@PineAppleEx420 I guess ou are referring to solipsism?
Snurremegrundt 1 year ago
@PineAppleEx420 me too XD
tigerfedor1 1 year ago
Nobody knows what is consciousness.
I advice to you all Penrose's books, this book is really awesome - "The Large, the Small and the Human Mind"
This book changed my point of view...
He assert that entire computing simulation of consciousness is impossible, in physical activity in brain is something beyond computation..and the base is quantum mechanics...
Kudrlin 1 year ago
More like the problem of unconsciousness.
MaBu888 1 year ago
Another failed attempt to explain consciousness.
cmpresents 1 year ago
wai...wai...wait... I'm already lost after 0.58 - it is at two positions the same time because it's a wave... but... isn't a wave longer than just two peaks? is it used up, when it's seen twice and can't show up in a third, fourth etc place? is it always in only two places? why is it so limited on two positions, is it moving around a center where it is mirrored? and place a and place b are the two extremes? or could it be ANYWHERE? ...getting more and more confused...
MagnaMater2 1 year ago
@MagnaMater2: Reading a book about the basics of quantum mechanics helps. Something like the very well written books by Richard Feynman, for example. These books are even understandable for a total newbie.
albedoshader 1 year ago
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
Roger needs to look into MDM [multiple drafts model] theory of mind. I don't see how he's still so far behind at this day and age. He's almost reminiscent of a Cartesian dualist.
NoSuchThingAsMagic 1 year ago
@NoSuchThingAsMagic
Well, Roger proved empirically and mathematically that computers can't process meaning. He has reason to be certain that neurophysiologists are not going to reproduce consciousness (thus verify their theory) with a computer (artificial intelligence). He is on to something with the quantum aspect. But people still don't want to accept that materiality is a mode of consciousness and not the other way around.
circusOFprecision 1 year ago
@circusOFprecision A computer is a straw man. Evolution producing cumulative changes to the brain over time would keep old and new connections and either subvert or hijack old connections for new ones.
I don't think it's hard to prove a linear program can't understand "meaning". Humans don't even know what meaning is, how would they program it to do so? The whole quantum mechanics appeal is purely dualistic saying that the mind CAN'T do it on it's own.
NoSuchThingAsMagic 1 year ago
@NoSuchThingAsMagic
No one is saying the mind can't do it on it's own, some people are saying that neurophysiology can't satisfactorily show that the brain can do it (at least as we understand the brain currently) on its own. We do know what meaning is. As humans we are able to understanding the meaning behind words without more words to describe that meaning. But computers can only correlate sets of symbols, they never get to a root implied meaning. That is what Penrose proved.
circusOFprecision 1 year ago
@circusOFprecision You're talking about PHILOSOPHY and body language. Abstracts of convenience that're not empirical. We've found the correlary language genes reg by FOXP2. I do believe the idea that consciousness cannot be adequately explained within natural evolutionary processes is magic speak; dualism. Neurophysiologists have been answering to Hameroff and Penrose. That vid I suggested, Hameroff's confronted by three, a physicist and someone he quote-mined all at once. It's a bit shocking.
NoSuchThingAsMagic 1 year ago
@NoSuchThingAsMagic
Penrose and Hameroff don't deny genetic and neurological correlation to mental phenomenon, so I don't think that is information that discredits their ideas. If they can experimentally predict or demonstrate a conscious quantum collapse in a living conscious creature, they can account for the origin and root source of consciousness in a biological system. The neurocomputationalists will still have their day in the sun, because their work is needed to understand the brain.
circusOFprecision 1 year ago
@circusOFprecision Roger's a brilliant man. I love the guy but he's dead wrong on this. Dead wrong. If you watch that, you'll see Hameroff straw man neurocomputationalists saying "oh neurocomputationalist say 'you get enough computation, consciousness is emergent'--a GROSS oversimplification. But he's not a philosopher and neither is Penrose. They're cross-field analysis isn't expertise, it's experimental and not testable. Computational complexity is testable and workable to eventual explain it.
NoSuchThingAsMagic 1 year ago
@NoSuchThingAsMagic
Computational complexity is testable, and that is because of brain/mind correlation. I want to bring Goswami in the picture. Beyond computational complexity is the problem of self reference. Where is awareness taking place? It would have to be in the brain if you follow the neurocomputationalists. But if you realize that a tangled hierarchy of quantum processing is non local, Hameroff and Penrose make more sense. It's heavy, but worth your time to explore the concept.
circusOFprecision 1 year ago
@circusOFprecision brain/mind correlation? You are a dualist. Its like talking to a wall. I highly doubt you've ever actually explored the topic of evolutionary psychology. You think consciousness is some magical mathematical formula that Penrose has given you. That's what I suspect. His whole argument is ad-ignorantiam/straw man and I think you buy it because you're afraid to accept the possibility your "consciousness" may be purely evolutionary. QM is not needed to explain neurophysiology.
NoSuchThingAsMagic 1 year ago
@NoSuchThingAsMagic
Now hold on a minute, did I ever say that I was a dualist? Brain and mind are certainly different, but maybe they are two sides of the same coin. I never said mind was completely separate. In fact, without content, there is little to be said about consciousness. But the idea that evolution explains consciousness can easily be flipped around to say that consciousness explains evolution. When we throw this word consciousness around, are we on the same page?
circusOFprecision 1 year ago
@circusOFprecision "Now hold on a minute, did I ever say that I was a dualist? Brain and mind are certainly different"
LOL Did you seriously just say this to me? How are they different? Are they, perhaps, only philosophically different? If physiology could account for everything, I have a feeling, based just on this statement, you wouldn't accept it anyway.
What you subjectively define as consciousness doesn't seem very empirical, either. It just sounds like you've glorifying it beyond reason.
NoSuchThingAsMagic 1 year ago
@NoSuchThingAsMagic
Everything I said still stands. Dualism is an illusion. On a fundamental level, the quantum level, it seems to disappear. If you only focus on the physiological, you will never see the nonconventional informational patterns that give rise to these physical effects. Carefully consider this simple thought experiment. You have a frequency of light, a perceptual process, then the color red. They all coorelate within consciousness, but red is not a physical entity.
circusOFprecision 1 year ago
@circusOFprecision I can tell you're dogmatic. So how much part don't you think linguistics plays in the role of consciousness? How many unique, human social features would we really require for you to think it has more to do with our biology and hardly anything to do with these faulty appeals to Platonic math philosophy ad QM and more to do with simple biology? If you think that consciousness can be reduced to a structuralized math formula, you've traded a straw man for a copy of itself.
NoSuchThingAsMagic 1 year ago
@NoSuchThingAsMagic
You aren't visualizing the problem in the same manner as myself. But it's too complex to explain what I mean in a text box. Let me just say that if you are making the assumption that biology is a grand chemical reaction, than you haven't been paying attention to the last few decades of cellular research. Invoking evolutionary thought experiments for every aspect of reality can be unproductive, we are currently doing phenomenal observation and experimentation.
circusOFprecision 1 year ago
@circusOFprecision Cite your sources that back up your claims.
NoSuchThingAsMagic 1 year ago
@NoSuchThingAsMagic
I don't have time to do your research, but look at Robert Lanza and Bruce Liptons work for starters. Look at James A. Shapiro (bacterial geneticist) and his incredible work as well.
circusOFprecision 1 year ago
@circusOFprecision Haven't looked at James A. Shapiro. I will check him out. =]
NoSuchThingAsMagic 1 year ago
Comment removed
circusOFprecision 1 year ago
@circusOFprecision Also it doesn't matter if you call it conscious or not; you'd have to prove it is.
You'd still have to admit all these things that make "consciousness" are made up of tiny unconscious things.
NoSuchThingAsMagic 1 year ago
@NoSuchThingAsMagic
Yeah, so you just explosed the whole problem with a materialistic account of consciousness. All I can say is if you haven't already, read Carl Jung, particularly on the topic of the unconscious.
circusOFprecision 1 year ago
@circusOFprecision Carl Jung I have read. You're still talking philosophy, not empiricism. Modern psychology's had a major problem converting into neuroscience precisely because of it's purposefully abstract and nebulous explanations of real brain phenomena.
NoSuchThingAsMagic 1 year ago
@NoSuchThingAsMagic
Well, to be fair to the psychologists, they have done some very good empirical research. But yes, many of their theories are still largely philosophical in nature.
circusOFprecision 1 year ago
@circusOFprecision Ad-ignorantiam. They would have found it where? That's not how neuroscience works. The brain isn't designed like a computer which is exactly why Penrose's computational argument is a straw man. Adaptations happen with surprising effects, cascading into trees of information processing within larger trees within larger trees. Nothing is completely centralized by the brain. The prefrontal cortex is dealing with information from other parts of the brain, the limbic emotional etc.
NoSuchThingAsMagic 1 year ago
@NoSuchThingAsMagic
You made some book recommendations, so I will take a look at those. I'm playing devil's advocate, even though it seems from your comments that you are about ready to completely trash my point of view and label me a moron. Perhaps your camp will win the day, but I have my doubts, and it has to do with evolutionary theory as an assumed underlying framework. That view tends to be overly dismissive and simplistic in my opinion.
circusOFprecision 1 year ago
@circusOFprecision I believe in knowing what things are, which is what makes them good for us. Making things purposefully ambiguous and mystified is retrograde to reason.
NoSuchThingAsMagic 1 year ago
@NoSuchThingAsMagic
I understand that, but ignoring the trans-logical doesn't make the logical any more sound. As many people have discussed at Beyond Belief, conceptual leaps in understanding often occur as instances of creativity, discontinued from the normal flow of research. It may seem mystical and retrograde now, but it doesn't necessarily mean it's flat out wrong (speaking of Penrose's ideas).
circusOFprecision 1 year ago
@circusOFprecision "But people still don't want to accept that materiality is a mode of consciousness and not the other way around." if something exists, it exists physically. If you put the definition of "consciousness" so far out of "materiality", you're doomed to never find an answer in the material world.
NoSuchThingAsMagic 1 year ago
@NoSuchThingAsMagic
Of course you won't find an answer in the material world, the material world arises from consciousness. You have to expand the scientific process to a deeper level of meaning. Go back and look at the circular demise of your picture of things, you implicate it perfectly in your comment.
circusOFprecision 1 year ago
@circusOFprecision Uhm... That's just sophist nonsense. Meaning is metaphysical, philosophical, not empirical.
NoSuchThingAsMagic 1 year ago
@NoSuchThingAsMagic
You can be as dismissive as you like, but there is much empirical evidence for what I am suggesting. We can argue about the interpretation, but the immediate implications continue to cause problems for the current materialistic paradigm, problems that compound themselves. For philosophical kicks, I suggest you read Goswami. You may remain skeptical, but at least it might get you to treat the problems of your own view with the same scrutiny as the other camp.
circusOFprecision 1 year ago
@circusOFprecision And you can be a sophist all you like, you're still just appealing to the philosophy and not actually explaining anything. You're just trying to turn consciousness in to some mystified process that can't be explained. You're AVOIDING consciousness.
NoSuchThingAsMagic 1 year ago
@NoSuchThingAsMagic
If I tell you that I think consciousness is a process that lies outside of us (that includes the internal and external split we experience as aware beings, dualism as an illusion), how am I avoiding consciousness? Maybe I am wrong, but it sure does explain a lot. But this doesn't overturn the neurocomputationalists or the evolutionary biologists. Look, if you can't stand the mystical implications, fine. Don't take it that far then. But you can't deny quantum reality.
circusOFprecision 1 year ago
@circusOFprecision I'm sorry I called you dogmatic but I think you're being lead by the sales pitch and not the evidence. If you think that consciousness is actually some math problem in centrality, then you're ignoring the very complicated work that your brain does and can't do and it's patent mystification because appeals to QM on the physiological level are hypothetical at best and at worst philosophical appeals, not empirical causation. The brain does the work. Neuroscience is fairly new.
NoSuchThingAsMagic 1 year ago
@NoSuchThingAsMagic
Actually, I think math can create many interesting things on its own, things that aren't necessarily representative of real natural phenomenon. But this in itself could be evidence against the idea that biological processes give rise to epiphenomenon. Its one more aspect for the neurocomputationalists to reduce. I try not to be dogmatic, but I guess I am kind of partial to QM sneaking into consciousness and biology research these days.
circusOFprecision 1 year ago
@circusOFprecision Uhm... WHAT? Mathematics is arbitrary measurement of things, it doesn't create anything, let alone consciousness. It's a description of the world, not the world itself. Just because there's gaps doesn't mean you start throwing faeries into it. That's why Penrose is a dualist, that's why you sound like one to me, and that's why I think you're missing the point of evolutionary psychology and biology entirely. When nature creates new algorithms, it's not guided like a computer.
NoSuchThingAsMagic 1 year ago
@circusOFprecision I think the problem I'm having with you is my background in studying psychology, biology and evolution, philosophy and specifically consciousness. Hameroff's failed parroting has been debunked on all fronts and you are just simply partial to QM 'sneaking into biology'. Microtubials aren't even shown to have much job in the brain at all. If entanglement happened, it's so small, it'd have no effect. In neuroscience much of what your consciousness does is already known.
NoSuchThingAsMagic 1 year ago
@circusOFprecision Two books I highly suggest you read: The Stuff of Thought by Steven Pinker, Consciousness Explained by Daniel Dennett, and read the Emperor's New Mind by Penrose and see the difference. If you're wise to philosophy of the mind and evolution, this shouldn't be hard to see. Penrose has his mathematic philosophy in his head so bad, he doesn't accept the answers to the problems he presents, which there already are, and his cross-field analysis isn't right. Hes a good mathematician
NoSuchThingAsMagic 1 year ago
@circusOFprecision The problems are only as big as they "Seem", not necessarily impossible or improbable within the realm of evolutionary psychology and that computational point Penrose makes IS a straw man. Just study what neuroscientists are saying from BOTH camps. There's no information for Penrose to jump to such wild conclusions. It's completely made up in his head. Just like String Theory is fashionable, doesn't mean it's reality, to paraphrase Penrose to you.
NoSuchThingAsMagic 1 year ago
@NoSuchThingAsMagic
Do you know what a Birkeland current is? It's something that has been proven to exist, yet is all but ignored by cosmologists because it implies that electricity (electromagnetism) is the primary force operating in the universe, not gravity. The point is that there are fundamental flaws hanging around all over the place in science that are really starting to impede progress. A similar thing may or may not be happening here, but this field needs to be more robust regardless.
circusOFprecision 1 year ago
@circusOFprecision Birkeland uh huh. Can you say "non-sequitur"? Not only that, why do you fall deeper into appeals to ignorance to somehow lay credibility to your point? Sounds like you're not really even on the fence. You already know you don't believe this crap. You're just, lemme guess, a THEIST playing "Devil's Advocate" as you said because you're clinging to the last god-of-the-gaps you can?
I hope not. Anyway, I can see you're not taking this conversation seriously. Have a good one. >=/
NoSuchThingAsMagic 1 year ago
@NoSuchThingAsMagic
That wasn't the reaction I expected, you seemed pretty level headed. I was just using a readily available example to support a general point. And I was taking this conversation quite seriously until this moment. I'm not here to walk on egg shells around your preconceived notions of reality. I'm just trying to KNOW in the same manner you are. But I am not very fond of the current academic system anymore, after reading many books that shed doubt on it. So sue me.
circusOFprecision 1 year ago
@circusOFprecision PS epistemically, no, you don't know what meaning is anymore than you know what existence is. 'I think therefore I am' only proves existence and from there it's indeterminate what things *are*. Brain fail 101
NoSuchThingAsMagic 1 year ago
@NoSuchThingAsMagic
@NoSuchThingAsMagic
That's not a problem because existence IS meaning. If you think, it only proves consciousness, it doesn't prove that you actually exist. It's all in the subtleties of meaning. Don't be so quick to say I am a failure, as if you are pointing out to me things that I haven't already thought my way through.
circusOFprecision 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@circusOFprecision "That's not a problem because existence IS meaning"<--WHAT? I'd say equivocation but it's too incoherent to have been done on purpose. >=/
THIS is why I get mad at people like YOU. You wanna play in the murky realm of magic and make-believe, be my guest, but DON'T go acting like it's SCIENCE.
NoSuchThingAsMagic 1 year ago
@NoSuchThingAsMagic
So existence is meaningless? Or some things have meaning, but others don't? Explain your position, perhaps I will see the error of my ways. There is no reason to get upset. We aren't writing a scientific article here. Two brains are conversing through the internet, that's all. It's not like I'm up to win the Nobel Prize or something, and all of science is threatened by my philosophical views and "misguided" interpretations of empirical observations.
circusOFprecision 1 year ago
@circusOFprecision Meaning is subjective. It's the metaphysical realm. Purely philosophical, not empirical. <--Empirical observation given the fact that your meaning isn't my meaning. Equivocation /existence/meaning<---they are two entirely separate concepts.
You cannot dissect your own feelings if you cloud them up and confuse them with such nebulous definitions of things. You have to identify, test, verify, predict and measure. All of which can be done within science; finally? No but soon.
NoSuchThingAsMagic 1 year ago
@NoSuchThingAsMagic
Honestly, are you using your whole brain on this? Not to be mean, but your secret dualism is getting on my nerves. Here's the problem. How does consciousness arise from things that seem not to have consciousness? You may not realize it, but basically you believe that electromagnetic patterns are equal to experience. Ok, great. Than why isn't the entire universe conscious? Some purely materialistic answers would be nice, but I'm still waiting...
circusOFprecision 1 year ago
@circusOFprecision Check out how close we are to actually identifying thoughts. watch?v=wjWHx2qOyOY This is from CBS, within the last few months. If you dig on the doctors in this, you'll find some shocking things about your brain.
Complex Computational Functionalism, my friend, rather anyone likes it or not, is the future. They also invented a 'quantum switch'. Psychology has to reframe itself for neurology. It's inevitable. Evolution has hands-down more evidence than Penrose in his scribbling
NoSuchThingAsMagic 1 year ago
@NoSuchThingAsMagic
The information in that video is not new. How we are able to have awareness is do to something called quantum entangled hierarchy. But you aren't listening to me. Penrose is just trying to demonstrate that the effects we see on a macro scale are inherently programmed into the foundation of reality. But go ahead and laugh at me now, it's fine.
circusOFprecision 1 year ago
@NoSuchThingAsMagic "Psychology has to reframe itself for neurology. It's inevitable."
Well no, because psychology has to do with subjective experience, and subjective experience is the same regardless of the mechanism that produce it. It doesn't make sense to say that one truth will change because another is discovered.
"Evolution has hands-down more evidence than Penrose in his scribbling"
? Evolution is what caused Penrose's Orch-OR in the first place. Why does it have to be an either/or?
JohananRaatz 1 year ago
@NoSuchThingAsMagic "Check out how close we are to actually identifying thoughts."
Right but how does this solve the hard problem of consciousness? Just because the mechanism is found that links neural activity to individual thoughts doesn't explain why that neural activity is linked to specific thoughts.
Thus far neuroscientists like Hammeroff and Eccles and physicists like Penrose are the only ones I've seen who have taken the hard problem of consciousness seriously.
JohananRaatz 1 year ago
@circusOFprecision I might be going out on a limb here but you strike me as someone who's afraid if there's no cosmic force making you what you are, it's impossible to exist and experience a universe where behind your consciousness is an unconscious, which is made up of unconscious things down a trail of nothing... I don't see the world that way. The mere fact that it is possible is enough to ponder that what's illusory about life is that there's something separating your from a universe at all.
NoSuchThingAsMagic 1 year ago
@NoSuchThingAsMagic
No my friend. I am merely following the evidence. And you just agreed with me in principle, although not in spirit, but I don't think you realize it. Man, the irony of this comment and the amount of meaning contained therein. I bet you that the difference between our points of view is so subtle, that if we could expose it...well, I don't know if it can be done. So far the answer is a big whopping NO.
circusOFprecision 1 year ago
@NoSuchThingAsMagic
"unconscious things down a trail of nothing"...
You do realize that consciousness is not simply awareness or thoughts? The unconscious is a continuing conscious process that doesn't contain self reference. It's more accurate to say that consciousness is at the core of reality. This idea of unconscious things emerging out of nothingness (define that for me and you will defeat your own position) is just...well, I couldn't disagree more with the irrationality of such an idea.
circusOFprecision 1 year ago
@circusOFprecision You're arguing just to argue. You don't have a position. You don't know the facts. You're just making shit up. "It's more accurate to say that consciousness is at the core of reality"<---philosophic mumbo jumbo. I can't take you seriously. You're clueless.
This quantum entangled hierarchy is total BS. There's NO demonstration of what he's saying. It's COMPLETELY in his head ie. HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CONSCIOUSNESS. You might as well have your fingers in your ears going LALALA
NoSuchThingAsMagic 1 year ago
@NoSuchThingAsMagic
If you don't listen to another word I say, I suggest that you go read Stapp, and if you can, try not to get so frustrated. What's wrong with me disagreeing with you? The materialists have not found consciousness. I'm still waiting. I have every right to be skeptical and look at other options at tackling the problem.
circusOFprecision 1 year ago
@NoSuchThingAsMagic "You don't know the facts. You're just making shit up."
Daniel Dennett insisting that everyone is a p-zombie, because the mind is matter and therefore not the mind, is making shit up. Can you actually believe he thinks he's a p-zombie? LOL
JohananRaatz 1 year ago
@NoSuchThingAsMagic
No he isn't a reminiscent of a Cartesian dualist. He understands the concept of tangled hierarchy at the quantum level, which solves such a dualistic paradox. MDM seems to propose that how we perceive is analogous to consciousness. But symbols, perceptions being computationally processed, are not equal to meaning. Shall I go on...?
circusOFprecision 1 year ago
@circusOFprecision Look up Stuart Hameroff on "Beyond Belief" google video. Hameroff gets his ass handed to him by quantum physicists and neuroscientists. Hameroff is Penrose's lapdog on this.
NoSuchThingAsMagic 1 year ago
@NoSuchThingAsMagic
I watched this, Hameroff was pretty much ganged up on by the neurocomputationalists and physicists. They were right to challenge his points, but they were about as disrespectful and arrogant as you can get. I'm convinced that Penrose and Hameroff are on to something, but they may be reaching a bit at this point.
circusOFprecision 1 year ago
@circusOFprecision Arrogant and disrespectful? How's this for arrogant and disrespectful: Fuck you. =]
No, you just don't want to accept that he has no real answers to their questions because he's on the fringe, completely full of shit and trying to start a fucking religion out of the gaps. The stupid shit he's parroting was debunked in the early 90's. You're a joke. I'm done.
NoSuchThingAsMagic 1 year ago
@NoSuchThingAsMagic Penrose is? Penrose isn't on the "fringe" in this field because he's hardly all there is in this field -him and a few others. His field (the study of consciousness) is too small and too speculative to have a fringe as of yet.
I mean they haven't even been able to do experiments yet to study how subjective states are caused by objective neural matter. (studying neural matter isn't the same as studying its link with consciousness) So how do we even know what is fringe yet?
JohananRaatz 1 year ago
@NoSuchThingAsMagic I see that you are apparently a reductive materialist. I am curious which particular computational neural algorithms are responsible for knowledge of Godel statements such as 1+1=2? I'm curious because it would be cool to disprove Godel's theorem.
JohananRaatz 1 year ago
Big bang never happened cause it cant. (if you dont understand it that's because you r not supposed to be there.( in the world? ) you are real.. and the world is not
does time exist witouth us and sun and planet.. all matter only an blakc empty hole
belley669 1 year ago
fake and gay
HalfEatenDimSim 1 year ago
google Doe's Account.
Nevyfling 1 year ago
LOL Don't be stupid, don't you know that I'm a computer?
Kuzya3k 1 year ago
-To all Watching this Video and Not getting enough answers to the questions with the intermitent end of it, please refer to Desteni Productions where you Will really get to know yourself, stop the fuzzyness that humans get stuck in when trying to grasp the knowledge of something - better to understand how it works as yourself and realizing that it is Not as complicated as it seems.
MarlenVargasDelRazo 1 year ago
I wonder what will happen when they discover that consciousness needs to be defined definitely before it can process.
Otherwise there is no certainty in the program and thus no computation. It is easy to assume that we are living consciousness. However, if you really look at our design, it is completely computational in nature and as much as we perceive we have 'free choice' free choice doesn't exist. There is only one choice, the one that we choose.
MatthewSforcina 1 year ago
@MatthewSforcina Well you obviously dont understand the very first point Penrose makes that human understanding transcends computation. It is also clear there is no supervening computational program running in the brain - this is well established - so the brain is not a computational computer.
Drastam 1 year ago
@Drastam
Actually,
In your deception, you believe you are unique and you stream.
But if you divide yourself, self honestly with numbers. There is only God, as a system. Which divides itself constantly using different algorithms and causative effects using the stimulus from the outside world as a response mechanism, generating the 'energy' (usually with a form of guilt), to manifest the systematic use of living as an 'ego' 'an individual'.
You want to see more, so you will see more.
DesteniPoliticsAus 1 year ago
I have no idea what you mean; but what you write sounds similar to what Tom Campbell is saying...maybe? Search him here on YT. He has a computational theory.
I dont think life or truth is a computer. Life and truth as humans can make a computer; but we are not forms of our own technology. Humans have the tendency to create and believe metaphors.
Drastam 1 year ago
That's exactly that
"I dont' think"
You are still using a mirror to reflect your reality.
A 'belief in something greater' and thereby you are not able to see the source.
Self forgiveness removes these self beliefs in self interest.
It takes real, hard self honesty, to see through our belief systems.
DesteniPoliticsAus 1 year ago
I am the source. I use the mirror of thought and language to express. I as source 'see' clearly that a computer is an object in the mirror. The notion of reality as a computation is simply a metaphor of a image in the mirror applied to That which is the source and witness of the mirror. Understanding is a quality of the source; that is why it utterly transcends its inventions such as computation.
Drastam 1 year ago
@MatthewSforcina Not really, there is a infinite amount of choice, there is however your own will that makes a single choice. There is a difference and the definition of consciousness is simple, being aware of being aware.
Check out my videos about consciousness. Md.
md0206 1 year ago
@md0206: I'm rather with Damasio's somatic marker hypothesis and everything else his work as a neuroscientist makes him lead to his conclusions.
albedoshader 1 year ago
@albedoshader Science can't explain consciousness because the essence of consciousness doesn't exist, it's nothing. This is may hard to grasp tho' , however I came up with this theory and I don't really doubt it.
md0206 1 year ago
@md0206: Good for you that you're so sure about it.
albedoshader 1 year ago
so 'perception' creates reality - like with measuring the electron - but it only creates the reality of the observer - it does not say much about the reality of the electron
this 'perceptual reality' may be the main 'problem' our world in general is faced with today
practically, 'quantum perception' would imply the ability & willingness to see & take into consideration all that is here equally - that would imply to see consequence and therefore realize responsibility
BellaBargilly 1 year ago
study the Desteni research on one-dimensional and multi-dimensional realities - the Physical and the Mind - and do a search on the structural resonance alignment course and the discussions presented by Desteni in terms of 'quantum-time' or 'real-time' participation
BellaBargilly 1 year ago
Obviously this video really only touches on Penrose's views and doesn't go into why our thinking can't be computational. As it happens, most philosophers of consciousness disagree with Penrose on this point.
If you want you can watch my video discussing Penrose's arguments.
philosophertoby 1 year ago
idk but i think we, as a human race, have centuries before we see a simple artificial intelligent machine, idk maybe dr, kaku and other physicist like him, among other great computer technologist and programmers will perform such as great feat
mauricejames 1 year ago
looks like the computer labeled it DnB
defect530 1 year ago
Thank you...
martini4948 1 year ago
Electron and Information
You know, it would be sufficient to really understand the electron Albert Einstein
Information can transfer to you only by electromagnetic waves
But there isnt electromagnetic waves without Electron
Electron carries the minimum quantum of Information
Electron itself is a Quantum of Information
When we understand Electron we will know the
Ultimate Nature of Reality, it means we will know the material basis of Consciousness too
socratus1 2 years ago
Playing with nerve network models in the 70s, seeing if it was possible to get a pattern of pulses- representing a memory - to sustain in a network - it seemed that the only way to do it, was if you provided external impulses - otherwise impulses just died away
This, reports on sensory deprivation, and that it seemed that a large part of consciousness seems to be reproducing internally sensory perceptions of the outside world - I felt that for AI to be conscious it would need sensory inputs.
dadesway 2 years ago
Roger needs to smoke some DMT.
armenianweirdo 2 years ago 16
@armenianweirdo
Reckon he and other giant theorists have a surplus of natural dmt in their own brains that could keep any of us high for a year! ;)
czypauly07 1 year ago
Better still.. read about the holographic universe.. Physics is an illusion.. that will.. given time.. be swept away..
The holographic universe concept proves that the physical world we believe is real...... is in fact an illusion.
"There is no reality in the absence of observation.
The Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics
AcceleratorPlus 2 years ago
Comment removed
agent0sephiroth 2 years ago
@AcceleratorPlus metaphysics?
mikevern69 1 year ago
Somebody said something about the Quantum Zeno Effect, but their comment is gone... I think the extrapolations are completely unjustified. When QM can be used to make actual predictions about biological behavior, and my god, consciousness! Then all of these crank physicists can have their heyday. QM is an incredibly obscure theory, and mystics and con men are overzealous about exploiting its ambiguities to justify ridiculous metaphysical nonsense. READ REAL PHYSICS
CaptRussO5 2 years ago
long lasting QED....... not for our undertsanding but for our faith, the 2 ways of the cross astrology and religion...
Tachyon55555 2 years ago
fuck sub consi... you do something way over your own control and it is sticky as glue, look at my face... i may know but hate all of it, it is like a devil lurking hehe, lurking you into a beautyful world but then you are cast through the tube and come out changed forever, but you don´t c that yourself, but ya friends can feel it... fuck it and your electrons cuz you cannot control them when ythey shift as they are told to.
Tachyon55555 2 years ago
Its just another one of those times where you go
"dude..... wtf "
eoinbrett 2 years ago
we already know that quantum physics is an extremely good representation of the quantum world. the classic macroscopic world we experience is essentially a constant process of trillions of superpositioned wave-states collapsing every second, giving rise to our "natural" looking world.
the theory goes that some aspects of the brain, i.e. microtubules within neurons, act as a bridge between the quantum and classical states. there are many peer-reviewed studies on this.
zapproowsdower 2 years ago
Now that is a different subject, but I'd question what effect the microtubules have on consciousness... microtubules act as structural support and allow neurotransmitters and other things to be transported up and down the neuron, but they don't effect the electric impulses in the brain, but here is something that we could model and subject to legitamate experiments.
CaptRussO5 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I don't see how consciousness has a damn thing to do with physics. It's more of a psychological and/or philosophical area of study...
austinguy23 2 years ago
Comment removed
TermDayX 2 years ago
Penrose is a crank! How can you justify trying to apply quantum mechanics to consciousness??? And to the comment below mine "and some especially powerful quantum effect in the brain" WTF are you talking about? Have you people seriously ever studied quantum mechanics? Do you have any idea what it is actually for?
CaptRussO5 2 years ago
I dont know what other commenters are talking about. But this very accomplished mathematical physicist is no crank. I dont necessarily agree with all of his reasoning, but quantum effects cannot be escaped ANYWHERE on a small enough scale, so in that respect he is correct. What the CONNECTION is between the quantum level and classical level in the brain, is anybody's guess. Yet research has shown, such as enzymatic activity and some brain microstructures DO exhibit quantum effects.
qigong1001 2 years ago 2
Fair enough, and well stated... I just get frustrated sometimes because I think people get over-zealous about parading physical principles into philosophical conceptions where they are more or less unwarranted. I respect Penroses accomplishments.
CaptRussO5 2 years ago
Thanks. I like what you say about parading physical principles. It happens especially in New Age religions that promote bad science for selfish gain. Some of the worst offenders are Tolle, Braden, Oprah, Dire, Chopra. I'm sure you can name a few too. I try to channel the frustration into stupid videos I'm working on.
qigong1001 2 years ago 4
you respect his accomplishments yet call him a crank. perhaps you should do some research before running your mouth, assuming that you know more than someone else from reading a short paragraph.
there are many studies that conclude consciousness alone can have physical field effects. obviously consciousness has SOME physical basis. and many physicists and mathematicians conclude that consciousness is incomputable, which is where quantum physical theories come in.
zapproowsdower 2 years ago
I'm pretty sure that if you knew about quantum mechanics (the actual physical theory, not the bull shit/ jargon/ half-assed philosophy that people throw around) you wouldn't comment that some particularly powerful quantum effect causes people to take on dramatic new character traits after organ transplants! And QM is not "incomputable," it's non-deterministic... quantum theory produces some of the most accurate physical predictions of any scientific theory. I don't respect his philosophy.
CaptRussO5 2 years ago
that is why i said the organ transplant concept was anecdotal. i specifically said there were no peer-reviewed studies documenting the effect. i said that consciousness is incomputable, not QM.
zapproowsdower 2 years ago