Conscious Understanding: What is its Physical Basis?

Google Tech Talk
March 10, 2010

ABSTRACT

Presented by Sir Roger Penrose.

Powerful arguments can be given, to support the case that the quality of human understanding is not something that can be simulated in a trustworthy way, by any entirely computational system. If this case is accepted, it raises the question of what deep physical processes and what subtle brain structures might be involved in order that consciousness can come about. Some remarkable new observations concerning A-lattice microtubules will be briefly described, these having considerable relevance to this issue.

Sir Roger Penrose is an English mathematical physicist and Emeritus Rouse Ball Professor of Mathematics at the Mathematical Institute, University of Oxford and Emeritus Fellow of Wadham College. He has received a number of prizes and awards, including the 1988 Wolf Prize for physics which he shared with Stephen Hawking for their contribution to our understanding of the universe. He is renowned for his work in mathematical physics, in particular his contributions to general relativity and cosmology. He is also a recreational mathematician and philosopher.

• Category

  Science & Technology

[Diemedes]

I find it so amusing that a random YouTube user just calls one of the leading mathematical physicists a retard, thinking he's justified in doing so because he's perhaps read a few books and seen some documentaries on New Age consciousness crap.

Your, sir, are a giant leap backwards in the evolution of the human intellect.

[Zanarkandz]

Science is supposed to verify speculations and ideas, not dismiss and ridicule them just because they are not socially accepted.

It takes more bravery and thirst for knowledge to put his legacy on the line by talking about Quantum Consciousness than to follow the rest of the herd and be a hipster atheist like some popular scientists.

[Thomas Drowry]

Shame he hasnt got lecturing or communication skills as Richard Feynman eg cos topic looks very interesting

[RichardFeynmanRules]

In my view, probably the greatest living physicist -- yes, greater than Stephen Hawking, and 10 times a deeper philosopher of science than Hawking. I can think of no one who has looked more deeply into the nature of consciousness from the standpoint of QED, avoiding all new age "woo woo" and yet he remains open to what shows up and to what can be demonstrated. He is also a terrific, clear writer, one of the best.

[Mayank Sharma]

Hes 100% correct. Consciousness is everything. Science still can't explain things like chi energy and dosen't deny the multidimensional aspect. Pineal gland is a dimensional stargate according to ancient history.

[umadumadumad]

u mad?

[7Nexus21]

... and your opinions matter, how exactly?

[umadumadumad]

no

[ram sharma]

Hi there, have you discovered Supreme Fat loss? (search for it on google) You will learn about the crimes we commit against ourselves. With "Supreme Fat loss", you will discover how to burn calories quickly.

[7Nexus21]

Even scientist are similar to priest. Just because they major the subject that they are talking about doesn't make them always correct and far more knowing all the time.

[rocanten rocanten]

ниочем