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.
March 18th, 2010 - 00:36
I like the way he taught. It is not the default, if someone love to write a letter more than email, and also love to drive classic car more than new sport car. Among a bunch of new presentation technologies, i love to see the old classic presentation.
March 18th, 2010 - 04:36
If parallel universe theory is true maby sleep is a way of accessing them. I dont think we can access parallel universes physically ( unless there’s some thing i dont know ).
March 18th, 2010 - 09:53
@austpom333: There are A LOT of things u don’t know!
March 18th, 2010 - 14:28
Oh Penrose you are so crazy. But then again if I had been doing quantum mechanics for so long this would look childish compared to the insanity that is loop quantum gravity.
A critique of his works was done by Daniel Dennet. Its a good idea to check it out.
March 18th, 2010 - 16:21
you’re asking the speaker to give a 2hr talk with a hand-held mic? come on!
March 18th, 2010 - 20:51
It reminds me of Donald Knuth’s 2009 visit to Google. Everyone was so respectful and polite. Nobody pointed out what a load of nonsense the speaker was talking. 1:43:12 was about the only question that explored the holes in Penrose’s views.
March 18th, 2010 - 23:23
YouTube seems incapable of linking to 1:43:12 – so *perhaps* try 103:12 – or else 99:99 – and then fast forwards a bit.
March 20th, 2010 - 04:22
Boring maths is boring
March 23rd, 2010 - 18:58
Who liked his book “The emperor’s new mind”? Even when I was still in highschool (when I first grabbed the book) the more he spoke about artificial intelligence being impossible, because of the arguments he was giving, I was more convinced in the opposite. And I would naturally argue his stance, so that should tell you something. So I never really got to the physics part of it, don’t know what he says about the quantum – twice I gave just after the broken philosophical part.
March 29th, 2010 - 23:59
It is so obvious that he wasn’t Sir Roger Penrose but Robin Williams with his impersonation of the Mad English Scientist.
KUDOS TO SIR ROGER PENROSE!!!
(he is funny too!)
March 30th, 2010 - 00:03
t is so obvious that he wasn’t Sir Roger Penrose but Robin Williams with his impersonation of the Mad English Scientist.
KUDOS TO SIR ROGER PENROSE !!!
(he is funny too!)
March 30th, 2010 - 00:07
BTW:
1) he’s not saying AI is impossible at all, he’s only saying that we need different “circuits” in order to achieve self-consciousness.
2) In my personal experience to read and fully analyze his theories takes not less than a good academical knowledge and at least 10 years, so – IMHO – people below 30s and without a sound Physics and Computer Science and/or Theoretical Math backgrounds, would be much better off avoiding trenchant criticism.
March 30th, 2010 - 14:47
Could you please try to improve the sound quality in these videos ?!!!
Have you heard of microphone filters ? Not sure it’s called that in english, anyway what it does is filter out / block microphones that should not be in use, that way you dont have to worry about those damn microphone switch molesters that turn on and off the microphones
With that microphone filter you select the microphone that should be on, simple and easy.
March 30th, 2010 - 14:47
Why you don’t use microphone filter already is a really good question, can you answer it ?
March 30th, 2010 - 21:25
The Google tech who was responsible for this cock-up should be…punished…severely…at least a hundred lines and no supper.
I mean you get a guy of this level of mad-scientist brillance in to talk and have him hold a mic and have other mics coming on and off at the same time.
April 1st, 2010 - 10:22
very confusing. One has to be a genius to follow the threads he leaves unwoven into the fabric of a coherent talk, it is like he weaves together all these topics but leaves a quite unfinished and unsatisfactory pattern. I am with Penrose on many things, he cannot give a talk though.
May 8th, 2010 - 21:44
worst talk ever?
May 23rd, 2010 - 02:35
I can’t follow this.. and thats saying alot
May 23rd, 2010 - 14:49
worst video ever thumbs down
May 24th, 2010 - 17:22
Thank You
I’d like to inform..
Science & Psychokinesis
Fact. I see through the objects:walls,stons,beam,hands,other. I have created images:portraits,animal’s faces on Clouds & Varnish from long distance and to give intentional shape, the area in the clouds must be established before the test.
June 22nd, 2010 - 09:23
@8nwidth I agree. It has become fashionable to pose as philosopher with some sort of vulgar misunderstanding of all these things. (Example, see channel “philosophertoby”).
The discussion by non-experts posing as philosophers has become as uninteresting as between 7 day evangelists and Dawkins’ outdated atheism when the truth is certainly on neither end. Those with a materialist bent usually use straw man arguments against that which they don’t understand. Idealists tend to overstate the point.
June 22nd, 2010 - 09:37
@osofrontinoquantico Daniel Dennet is neither a mathematical logician, nor a physicist and currently the chief propagandist of atheism. To assess his work correctly one need look no further than that his POV is based on the denial of qualia merely based on the inherently impossibility of defining qualia as if they weren’t qualia.
Anyone who claims – as Dennet does – that he is devoid of experiential qualities is certainly saying that talking to him is like talking to a wall: insane.
June 29th, 2010 - 10:38
@mrdrastic He brought transparencies.
July 8th, 2010 - 01:48
@LooksAeterna
Beautifully stated!
July 14th, 2010 - 22:45
Bananas!!!!