4 ms·

This kind of research / line of thinking: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind if true, appears to support hi

This kind of research / line of thinking: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind if true, appears to support his claim, assuming that if we do have quantum minds that they cannot be simulated by non-quantum computers. Roger Penrose is certainly well-respected. I don't have a strong opinion either way.

seiji 14y ago
Yes, the addlebrained old man faction has established their own branch of cookery. The simple truth is consciousness, as created by squishy brains, is a physical process. It doesn't rely on quantum non-locality or anything spooky. It's all physical things you can quite easily introspect by poking around (note: reassembly may be more difficult than disassembly). It's fun to think about "what if our thoughts are the universe itself!" but it's so blatantly wrong. It's just one step away from saying consciousness is "mystical" or created by philotic twining.
- jb55 14y ago
  You seem to be claiming that quantum mechanical effects are somehow non-physical? It's not too crazy to speculate the brain leveraging quantum mechanicals effects to do something (although I agree, as a prerequisite for consciousness is a pretty big claim). Considering evolution has already leveraged these effects in smell and photosynthesis, which we do have evidence for.
  - seiji 14y ago
    I think some people mix "quantum" and "magic" definitions in their minds. Even mtgx kinda alluded to such above with would all be better served by a quantum computer than by anything else. Everything will -- somehow -- be better. Just add quantum. (protip: go read scott aaronson's relevant articles, papers, monographs, course materials, etc). I don't claim the effects aren't present. I do claim they are unnecessary for the emergence of human level consciousness and the reproduction thereof in silicon.
  - jlgreco 14y ago
    The issue with Penrose's ideas in this area is that he worked backwards to get to them. He didn't want the mind of a mathematician to be shackled by Gödel's incompleteness theorems, which means he can't support the idea of an algorithmic mind. The general acceptance of Church–Turing–Deutsch principle backs him into a corner then, and quantum mechanics offers pretty much the only reasonable escape. The real problem then is that every time someone pokes a hole in his ideas for how that might work, he just switches it up how he thinks it might work. He is grasping at an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance with no real reason to do so. What bothers me about all of this is that he writes books about it aimed at the general population, instead of proposing his ideas properly. Inevitably many of the laymen who casually encounter his ideas will misunderstand his point entirely and mistakenly think that Penrose supports a non-materialistic view of the mind (which of course he does not. A mind as Penrose envisions it, despite not being algorithmic, is still quite materialistic). Roger Penrose is a brilliant man, but I think this is a case of the Nobel Disease (well, he hasn't received a Nobel prize, but even so).
- robotresearcher 14y ago
  The tragedy is that even if you are right to say "it's all physical things" that does not mean you can "quite easily introspect by poking around". It's quite possible that some important functional brain processes could be just too complex and subtle for us to figure out, even though they are accessible in principle. That would be sad. It's also possible that consciousness is better understood as a computational process which is implemented on a VM instantiated by a brain. In that case looking too hard at the squishy stuff is not directly relevant and may be distracting, since it's a very complex way to implement a computer. This is logically possible and is of historic significance in AI. My view is that the everyday concept of consciousness is mistaken, and that no such thing will be found. Our common sense view of perception and cognition has been found over and over to be completely wrong, so we shouldn't expect consciousness to turn up anywhere just because it feels like it ought too. Functional approaches to brain modelling neatly avoid this issue by just building away and not worrying about it. TLDR: physical doesn't mean explicable, and consciousness won't be explained by a physical process since it doesn't exist.
- wisty 14y ago
  People want to believe in a soul which isn't just an artifact in a Turning machine, and "quantum" is the only thing which is both credible and vague enough.

seiji 14y ago

Yes, the addlebrained old man faction has established their own branch of cookery. The simple truth is consciousness, as created by squishy brains, is a physical process. It doesn't rely on quantum non-locality or anything spooky. It's all physical things you can quite easily introspect by poking around (note: reassembly may be more difficult than disassembly). It's fun to think about "what if our thoughts are the universe itself!" but it's so blatantly wrong. It's just one step away from saying consciousness is "mystical" or created by philotic twining.

jb55 14y ago
You seem to be claiming that quantum mechanical effects are somehow non-physical? It's not too crazy to speculate the brain leveraging quantum mechanicals effects to do something (although I agree, as a prerequisite for consciousness is a pretty big claim). Considering evolution has already leveraged these effects in smell and photosynthesis, which we do have evidence for.
- seiji 14y ago
  I think some people mix "quantum" and "magic" definitions in their minds. Even mtgx kinda alluded to such above with would all be better served by a quantum computer than by anything else. Everything will -- somehow -- be better. Just add quantum. (protip: go read scott aaronson's relevant articles, papers, monographs, course materials, etc). I don't claim the effects aren't present. I do claim they are unnecessary for the emergence of human level consciousness and the reproduction thereof in silicon.
- jlgreco 14y ago
  The issue with Penrose's ideas in this area is that he worked backwards to get to them. He didn't want the mind of a mathematician to be shackled by Gödel's incompleteness theorems, which means he can't support the idea of an algorithmic mind. The general acceptance of Church–Turing–Deutsch principle backs him into a corner then, and quantum mechanics offers pretty much the only reasonable escape. The real problem then is that every time someone pokes a hole in his ideas for how that might work, he just switches it up how he thinks it might work. He is grasping at an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance with no real reason to do so. What bothers me about all of this is that he writes books about it aimed at the general population, instead of proposing his ideas properly. Inevitably many of the laymen who casually encounter his ideas will misunderstand his point entirely and mistakenly think that Penrose supports a non-materialistic view of the mind (which of course he does not. A mind as Penrose envisions it, despite not being algorithmic, is still quite materialistic). Roger Penrose is a brilliant man, but I think this is a case of the Nobel Disease (well, he hasn't received a Nobel prize, but even so).
robotresearcher 14y ago
The tragedy is that even if you are right to say "it's all physical things" that does not mean you can "quite easily introspect by poking around". It's quite possible that some important functional brain processes could be just too complex and subtle for us to figure out, even though they are accessible in principle. That would be sad. It's also possible that consciousness is better understood as a computational process which is implemented on a VM instantiated by a brain. In that case looking too hard at the squishy stuff is not directly relevant and may be distracting, since it's a very complex way to implement a computer. This is logically possible and is of historic significance in AI. My view is that the everyday concept of consciousness is mistaken, and that no such thing will be found. Our common sense view of perception and cognition has been found over and over to be completely wrong, so we shouldn't expect consciousness to turn up anywhere just because it feels like it ought too. Functional approaches to brain modelling neatly avoid this issue by just building away and not worrying about it. TLDR: physical doesn't mean explicable, and consciousness won't be explained by a physical process since it doesn't exist.
wisty 14y ago
People want to believe in a soul which isn't just an artifact in a Turning machine, and "quantum" is the only thing which is both credible and vague enough.