11 ms·

You seem to be engaging more with the headline writer than with Penrose. They're both, perhaps, wrong, but Penrose is wrong in a far more interesting way. Penr

You seem to be engaging more with the headline writer than with Penrose. They're both, perhaps, wrong, but Penrose is wrong in a far more interesting way. Penrose doesn't just think quantum mechanics is wrong in the sense that it can't quite be lined up with general relativity, he thinks that quantum mechanics and consciousness are the same problem and that we can't understand one without the other. Now, to me this smacks a bit of the old argument: 1. I don't understand baseball 2. I don't understand women 3. Therefore, women and baseball must be related somehow but he has slightly better reasons than that for believing what he does. Consciousness and quantum mechanics are both fascinating problems to understand; personally I don't think they're the same problem but I don't mind if some smart folks want to think carefully about the possibility that they are. If consciousness is a property of quantum mechanics then this ought to be at least partially measurable. All you have to do is to construct an intelligent non-quantum computer and ask it "Hey, are you conscious?" Of course this doesn't really help you, because what if the computer just thinks it's conscious but doesn't have real consciousness the way we do? What would this even mean? What is it like to be an intelligent but non-conscious mind? In my own opinion the question is meaningless which is why I think consciousness is some kind of inevitable emergent property of intelligent systems; but of course there's thousands of philosophers out there tackling this very question so I won't pretend to have any original thoughts on it.

endtime 14y ago
>In my own opinion the question is meaningless which is why I think consciousness is some kind of inevitable emergent property of intelligent systems; Uh-oh...I was mostly with you up until that sentence. See http://lesswrong.com/lw/iv/the_futility_of_emergence/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/iv/the_futility_of_emergence/ (or the underlying http://lesswrong.com/lw/iu/mysterious_answers_to_mysterious_questions/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/iu/mysterious_answers_to_mysterious_...).
natep 14y ago
I don't see that as an accurate description of how Penrose is thinking about the problem (disclaimer: I've only read this interview, and not any of his books). I think he's saying that 1. Everything about QM other than its extremely accurate predictions is wrong 2. We don't have a theory that explains consciousness And since he is looking for a unified theory, he wants his theory to encompass all of general relativity, the current domain of QM, and consciousness. He certainly understand current QM theory better than most of its detractors (AFAICT from this interview)
- planetguy 14y ago
  I've skimmed one or two of his books. There's no doubt that he knows his physics better than most physicists. However I'm not sure what you're saying he's saying differs from what I'm saying he's saying. In both cases, the basic argument is that since we don't understand physics and we don't understand quantum mechanics then they might be related. Now, that's not a conclusive proof that they're related but it might be true. If you look around the office and note that everybody is here except Alice and Bob, then you could hypothesize that maybe Alice and Bob are off somewhere together in a stationery cupboard smooching. On the other hand, maybe they're independently missing for totally different reasons. Personally I think Bob is at home with a cold and Alice is visiting her grandmother in Keokuk, but if Penrose wants to start flinging stationery cupboard doors open to look for them then that's fine with me. (I may have overdone this analogy.)
  - natep 14y ago
    I think we are saying similar things, but I'm getting the sense that you don't think there is a single unified theory to be found (not simply that humans are incapable of understanding it). Do you have a particular reason for thinking this? I (and Penrose, I believe) like to think that there is a unified theory out there waiting to be found, because the alternative is that reality arbitrarily behaves in different ways in different situations. If that is the case, then fine, but we've made so much progress in science already by assuming that physical laws are universally applicable and not arbitrarily varying. To put it another way, I reversed the premise and conclusion, Penrose think there is a unified theory, therefore there is a connection between consciousness and QM phenomenon that we don't understand. But you claim that Penrose doesn't understand A&B, therefore thinks there is a connecting universal theory. Maybe it's a minor nitpick, but it caused me to question why I think there's a unified theory out there, which was good mental exercise.
    - planetguy 14y ago
      I think we are saying similar things, but I'm getting the sense that you don't think there is a single unified theory to be found (not simply that humans are incapable of understanding it). Do you have a particular reason for thinking this? Well, a unified theory should "explain everything", but not necessarily on the right level. For instance, basic undergraduate-level physics and chemistry are sufficient to explain both "why is copper a conductor?" and "why do dogs like steak?" but this is not the correct level of explanation that you'd go to in order to understand both these phenomena. To explain the conductivity of copper, you'll want to go to crystal structures and electronic energy levels, whereas to explain why dogs like steak you'll want to bypass all the chemistry and go straight to the fact that dogs are omnivores, that fresh meat is a large portion of their ancestors' diets, that animals have nervous systems programmed to keep them alive, that eating is necessary to stay alive, and so forth. You could conceptually go all the way down to "this atom likes that atom" but these aren't the principles which you'd reach for. Similarly, while everything should in theory be explicable by the fundamental physics of the universe, it may well be that consciousness can arise purely from classical physics.
baddox 14y ago
I don't understand why some researchers are so quick to blame our failure to understand consciousness on the fact that consciousness is a quantum phenomenon. I was under the impression that we're still nowhere near fully understanding the brain even from a classical perspective.
- codexon 14y ago
  We understand parts of the brain classically. There are parts of the brain that operate like organic circuits of boolean operators. There is no quantum level magic.
  - ktizo 14y ago
    Quantum biology is making inroads in a few areas, such as in the mechanism of chlorophyll. I would not be surprised if it starts popping up in bits of neurology, even in the parts that we currently understand classically.
    - obfuscate 14y ago
      There's a huge difference between molecule-scale quantum chemical phenomena (as in photosynthesis) and quantum computation. Finding the former in the brain would be very cool, but it wouldn't be terribly surprising or revolutionize cognitive science the way the latter would.
      - troystribling 14y ago
        It is thought that photosynthesis uses quantum computation to determine how to move energy internally within a cell. http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/Issues/2007/May/PhotosynthesisWorksQuantumComputing.asp http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/Issues/2007/May/Photosynth...
  - planetguy 14y ago
    A large slab of Penrose's book The Emperor's New Mind is, if I recall correctly, devoted to describing how certain structures of the brain just might have some quantum mechanics involved. I don't recall the details and I don't know whether it's all been disproven as we understand the brain better.
snowwrestler 14y ago
Oh I definitely am just responding to this headline and article; I won't pretend to be any sort of expert on Penrose's views. Personally I agree with you that consciousness is an emergent property of certain complex systems. I think some folks would like to rest free will on the probabilistic uncertainties we see in quantum equations. But IMO that is not necessary since we know through chaos theory that deterministic systems can still produce unpredictable results at high levels of complexity. And the brain is pretty damn complex.
dgregd 14y ago
It seems that consciousness is overvalued. There are more and more fields where conscious human brain losses against dumb silicon. E.g. chess, search.

endtime 14y ago

>In my own opinion the question is meaningless which is why I think consciousness is some kind of inevitable emergent property of intelligent systems; Uh-oh...I was mostly with you up until that sentence. See http://lesswrong.com/lw/iv/the_futility_of_emergence/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/iv/the_futility_of_emergence/ (or the underlying http://lesswrong.com/lw/iu/mysterious_answers_to_mysterious_questions/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/iu/mysterious_answers_to_mysterious_...).

natep 14y ago

I don't see that as an accurate description of how Penrose is thinking about the problem (disclaimer: I've only read this interview, and not any of his books). I think he's saying that 1. Everything about QM other than its extremely accurate predictions is wrong 2. We don't have a theory that explains consciousness And since he is looking for a unified theory, he wants his theory to encompass all of general relativity, the current domain of QM, and consciousness. He certainly understand current QM theory better than most of its detractors (AFAICT from this interview)

planetguy 14y ago
I've skimmed one or two of his books. There's no doubt that he knows his physics better than most physicists. However I'm not sure what you're saying he's saying differs from what I'm saying he's saying. In both cases, the basic argument is that since we don't understand physics and we don't understand quantum mechanics then they might be related. Now, that's not a conclusive proof that they're related but it might be true. If you look around the office and note that everybody is here except Alice and Bob, then you could hypothesize that maybe Alice and Bob are off somewhere together in a stationery cupboard smooching. On the other hand, maybe they're independently missing for totally different reasons. Personally I think Bob is at home with a cold and Alice is visiting her grandmother in Keokuk, but if Penrose wants to start flinging stationery cupboard doors open to look for them then that's fine with me. (I may have overdone this analogy.)
- natep 14y ago
  I think we are saying similar things, but I'm getting the sense that you don't think there is a single unified theory to be found (not simply that humans are incapable of understanding it). Do you have a particular reason for thinking this? I (and Penrose, I believe) like to think that there is a unified theory out there waiting to be found, because the alternative is that reality arbitrarily behaves in different ways in different situations. If that is the case, then fine, but we've made so much progress in science already by assuming that physical laws are universally applicable and not arbitrarily varying. To put it another way, I reversed the premise and conclusion, Penrose think there is a unified theory, therefore there is a connection between consciousness and QM phenomenon that we don't understand. But you claim that Penrose doesn't understand A&B, therefore thinks there is a connecting universal theory. Maybe it's a minor nitpick, but it caused me to question why I think there's a unified theory out there, which was good mental exercise.
  - planetguy 14y ago
    I think we are saying similar things, but I'm getting the sense that you don't think there is a single unified theory to be found (not simply that humans are incapable of understanding it). Do you have a particular reason for thinking this? Well, a unified theory should "explain everything", but not necessarily on the right level. For instance, basic undergraduate-level physics and chemistry are sufficient to explain both "why is copper a conductor?" and "why do dogs like steak?" but this is not the correct level of explanation that you'd go to in order to understand both these phenomena. To explain the conductivity of copper, you'll want to go to crystal structures and electronic energy levels, whereas to explain why dogs like steak you'll want to bypass all the chemistry and go straight to the fact that dogs are omnivores, that fresh meat is a large portion of their ancestors' diets, that animals have nervous systems programmed to keep them alive, that eating is necessary to stay alive, and so forth. You could conceptually go all the way down to "this atom likes that atom" but these aren't the principles which you'd reach for. Similarly, while everything should in theory be explicable by the fundamental physics of the universe, it may well be that consciousness can arise purely from classical physics.

baddox 14y ago

I don't understand why some researchers are so quick to blame our failure to understand consciousness on the fact that consciousness is a quantum phenomenon. I was under the impression that we're still nowhere near fully understanding the brain even from a classical perspective.

codexon 14y ago
We understand parts of the brain classically. There are parts of the brain that operate like organic circuits of boolean operators. There is no quantum level magic.
- ktizo 14y ago
  Quantum biology is making inroads in a few areas, such as in the mechanism of chlorophyll. I would not be surprised if it starts popping up in bits of neurology, even in the parts that we currently understand classically.
  - obfuscate 14y ago
    There's a huge difference between molecule-scale quantum chemical phenomena (as in photosynthesis) and quantum computation. Finding the former in the brain would be very cool, but it wouldn't be terribly surprising or revolutionize cognitive science the way the latter would.
    - troystribling 14y ago
      It is thought that photosynthesis uses quantum computation to determine how to move energy internally within a cell. http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/Issues/2007/May/PhotosynthesisWorksQuantumComputing.asp http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/Issues/2007/May/Photosynth...
- planetguy 14y ago
  A large slab of Penrose's book The Emperor's New Mind is, if I recall correctly, devoted to describing how certain structures of the brain just might have some quantum mechanics involved. I don't recall the details and I don't know whether it's all been disproven as we understand the brain better.

snowwrestler 14y ago

Oh I definitely am just responding to this headline and article; I won't pretend to be any sort of expert on Penrose's views. Personally I agree with you that consciousness is an emergent property of certain complex systems. I think some folks would like to rest free will on the probabilistic uncertainties we see in quantum equations. But IMO that is not necessary since we know through chaos theory that deterministic systems can still produce unpredictable results at high levels of complexity. And the brain is pretty damn complex.

dgregd 14y ago

It seems that consciousness is overvalued. There are more and more fields where conscious human brain losses against dumb silicon. E.g. chess, search.