Consciousness is Not a Computation (Roger Penrose) | AI Podcast Clips

26
1



Full episode with Roger Penrose (Mar 2020):
Clips channel (Lex Clips):
Main channel (Lex Fridman):
(more links below)

Podcast full episodes playlist:

Podcasts clips playlist:

Podcast website:

Podcast on Apple Podcasts (iTunes):

Podcast on Spotify:

Podcast RSS:

Roger Penrose is physicist, mathematician, and philosopher at University of Oxford. He has made fundamental contributions in many disciplines from the mathematical physics of general relativity and cosmology to the limitations of a computational view of consciousness.

Subscribe to this YouTube channel or connect on:
– Twitter:
– LinkedIn:
– Facebook:
– Instagram:
– Medium:
– Support on Patreon:

Nguồn: https://destinationtuscaloosa.com/

Xem thêm bài viết khác: https://destinationtuscaloosa.com/game/

26 COMMENTS

  1. here's a thought. there is no colour in the universe, colour is invented in the brain. consciousness could really be an allusion, just as colour is constructed in the brain to make sense of the outside world, consciousness could be an invention of the brain to deal with the immense amount of data it has to process, externally and internally, a kind of graphic representation of all it's input.

    i hate to think what kind of backwater good for nothing planet we would be if it weren't for these people, there are maybe a few dozen really deep thinking minds on the planet, but a few dozen out of 7 billion – we really need to get our act together before we meet the little green men, not because we will be conquered, but because we're going to look awfully stupid.

  2. Consciousness is awareness of what's happening to it.
    It's pure information in the constant process of self-interference or in other words: all possibilities happening simultaneously so it's only natural that they would experience evolution and clump up. Fractals can't be created or destroyed, are infinite, non-local, experience self-interference, resist change, can't be defined with perfect accuracy, are dynamic and have size (dimension) as a potential of their ability to do useful work and most importantly are recursive. The mind is the only thing like that and if you don't recognize that you are either a machine or have been conditioned by the machine (the world in which we are now) to the point where you aren't any different from it.

  3. I, universal consciousness built the human brain as a conscious receiver over millions of earth years of trail and error via evolution to better understand myself. just like the many other forms of conscious life on this planet of many many more within me. I do it for fun and play. I, you, it, them, us are all me, us and all are one, the universe. Love the universe. Here's looking me kid xxx

  4. so is he saying?… consciousness might be like light, a particle that is a wave or a particle "depending on how it is observed." If humans look at consciousness, it becomes computational (because all we can do is talk about things, as once said Neil Postman)… but it sure as hell must take forms we can't contemplate. And at the end he's like, "to be frank, we don't know a damn thing." And then the jazz dj says "All right, back to the grooves–we got a cut by Coleman Hawkins, a real… just a total treasure.1978 Decca."

  5. I look at Consciousness as a Byproduct of complex Atomic structures, "metabolic structures" that have become able to change direction in space and time, based on its own evolutionary reflex.

  6. self-ag·gran·dize·ment    –  the action or process of promoting oneself as being powerful or important.

  7. I think consciousness is fundamentally, a dichotomy between different systems. I'm not going to even pretend to know what those systems are, but… I don't know, I guess it's just a feeling I've had for a while. I remember back when I learned the two halves of the brain work wildly differently from each other I thought "everything makes so much more sense now".

  8. There is a fundamental problem with associating quantum observer effect with consciousness. What would happen in a quantum experiment were there are multiple 'observers' and one of the observers are kept in a quantum uncertain state with respect to the others. Say for instance, the first observer is created to do something if something else happens that a second observer doesn't know about and can't tell if the first observer did or did not do whatever it is that it was supposed to do? Quantum error checking for instance arguably proves that an observer can measure the a quantum state without causing it to pick one or the other because the observer that does the observation is itself in a quantum uncertain state to the rest of the experiment. This shows that there is something fundamentally wrong about the notion that the observer effect of quantum systems is not an absolutely defined as something did or did not happen. From a different stand point ever quantum observer is in a quantum uncertain state from another observer. There is no absolute observer that can say this did or did not happen in an absolute sense. Quantum physicists have assumed that the observer effect cannot be held in a quantum uncertain state from another observer and have believed that there is an absolute frame of reference for all observers because of this. That assumption may be in error.

  9. ofc its not a computation alone.
    its a simulation within a simulation.
    complex layers of many computations.
    the product of the software that your wetware (aka the brain) runs
    and in nature we dont deal with 1's and zero's there is no absolutes so natures programming structures are way beyond our current understanding.
    you do not exist outside of the simulation run inside your brain.
    and inside this simulation you your self is simulated.
    and everything you think you are and everything you think you experience is also inside there..
    everything you are is merely another layer in the simulation.
    you do not exist in the real world, infact you could argue that you dont even exist within your own simulation since you are just another set of computations run within the simulation
    you cant even perceive the real world since all your perception is based on how your wetware simulation uses the data provided by your sensory organs
    why ppl still dont get this is a mystery to me.
    and you dont need quantum's to explain this
    because i just did .. with out using quantum's

  10. I'd like to stick with the idea that our brain is just the receiver. If it gets damaged, the signal (consciousness ) can not be transmitted correctly.

  11. A stab at the last part: Awareness is the Descartes beginning of everything in the consciousness. Awareness is the representation of things in consciousness. Understanding is the relation of things in awareness. And intelligence is the generalization and extrapolation capability that can imagine or discover things that were not immediately evident.

  12. I don't think there is such a thing as consciousness, its an illusory word that means to be alive and functioning.
    Because I have eyes, I see. Because I have a tounge, I can taste. Because I have skin I can feel, etc etc etc.
    Its the same problem people have with the universe.
    People think that the laws of physics are an inherent trait of the universe, and I would say that because there is stuff in the universe, there are laws.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here