3 ms·

I've enjoyed Penrose's books, but "The Emperor's New Mind" (where all this started) wasn't as good as some of his other work. I just came away with the impress

by andyn 19y ago

I've enjoyed Penrose's books, but "The Emperor's New Mind" (where all this started) wasn't as good as some of his other work. I just came away with the impression that the train of thought was: (Brain == Mysterious & Complex) and (Quantum Physics == Mysterious & Complex) => (Brain == Quantum Physics) And with no explanation of how QP would actually solve the problems that regular computation couldn't.

te_platt 19y ago
My impression was a bit different. It seems to me his thought process was: I deduce consciousness is not a computable process. Consciousness is a real physical process. Quantum Mechanics may include processes that are not computable. It is possible to have scientifically understandable processes that are not computable. My deduction is not disproved by our current understanding of physics. I think your reaction is reasonable. It seems to be a (well justified) conditioned response to "God of the gaps" arguments. I don't understand A therefore I need God to explain A. It is common now to see people replace God with Quantum Mechanics. I don't think that is the case with Penrose.
- hugh 19y ago
  Isn't that basically the same argument, except with the words "mysterious and complex" replaced with the words "probably not computable"?
  - te_platt 19y ago
    Not quite. As I understand Penrose he only claims quantum mechanics is a reasonable place to look for an explanation of consciousness. He doesn't propose that QM is the explanation. In other words, he believes consciousness is not computable and uses QM to fight against the argument that "the universe is computable, consciousness is a part of the universe, therefore consciousness is computable".
- curi 19y ago
  he thinks consciousness is not computable, but is quantum computable? umm, all quantum computers do is run code in many universes, then the output can draw from on the total results. it doesn't really change what kinds of things are computable, besides letting some new things run fast enough to be practical.
  - deleted 19y ago
    [deleted]
- andyn 19y ago
  Yes, going back and reading the relevant articles on Wikipedia [1][2], my original post is a bit of a simplistic summary of his argument. I agree that there could be quantum effects that are involved in the operation of the brain somehow. (I gather that some enzymes have been observed using quantum tunneling). But it seems to go on to state that conciousness arises as a result of collapsing waveforms and some sort of special space-time that has the ability to perform/enable "super" computational feats. So really I'm just not comfortable that we've tried to explain away conciousness by delegating it away to another ... plane. Who can say. Certainly at the moment, opinion seems to be against this theory as the quantum effects suggested can't sustain long enough for the time period the theory requires. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orch-OR http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orch-OR [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind#Roger_Penrose http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind#Roger_Penrose

by andyn 19y ago

te_platt 19y ago

My impression was a bit different. It seems to me his thought process was: I deduce consciousness is not a computable process. Consciousness is a real physical process. Quantum Mechanics may include processes that are not computable. It is possible to have scientifically understandable processes that are not computable. My deduction is not disproved by our current understanding of physics. I think your reaction is reasonable. It seems to be a (well justified) conditioned response to "God of the gaps" arguments. I don't understand A therefore I need God to explain A. It is common now to see people replace God with Quantum Mechanics. I don't think that is the case with Penrose.

hugh 19y ago
Isn't that basically the same argument, except with the words "mysterious and complex" replaced with the words "probably not computable"?
- te_platt 19y ago
  Not quite. As I understand Penrose he only claims quantum mechanics is a reasonable place to look for an explanation of consciousness. He doesn't propose that QM is the explanation. In other words, he believes consciousness is not computable and uses QM to fight against the argument that "the universe is computable, consciousness is a part of the universe, therefore consciousness is computable".
curi 19y ago
he thinks consciousness is not computable, but is quantum computable? umm, all quantum computers do is run code in many universes, then the output can draw from on the total results. it doesn't really change what kinds of things are computable, besides letting some new things run fast enough to be practical.
- deleted 19y ago
  [deleted]
andyn 19y ago
Yes, going back and reading the relevant articles on Wikipedia [1][2], my original post is a bit of a simplistic summary of his argument. I agree that there could be quantum effects that are involved in the operation of the brain somehow. (I gather that some enzymes have been observed using quantum tunneling). But it seems to go on to state that conciousness arises as a result of collapsing waveforms and some sort of special space-time that has the ability to perform/enable "super" computational feats. So really I'm just not comfortable that we've tried to explain away conciousness by delegating it away to another ... plane. Who can say. Certainly at the moment, opinion seems to be against this theory as the quantum effects suggested can't sustain long enough for the time period the theory requires. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orch-OR http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orch-OR [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind#Roger_Penrose http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind#Roger_Penrose