i admire Sir Roger Penrose's willingness to acknowledge that our knowledge is incomplete given his accomplishments... reflects his total commitment to the truth... much, much respect!
Roger is my all time favorite Physicist. He faces the Reality that there are missing knowledge of the Quantum Wave Function and Collapse. He is such a forward thinking person he will go down in History as one of the greatest Scientific minds the world has ever produced. Thank you for Posting this wonderful Video.
Maaaaaaaan... perfect comment! I love the way he thinks about the physics like a total reality language! He turns all the logical thinking in contact with biological and evolution process... He's a machine!!!!
A tantalizing subject to listen to, but a topic notoriously difficult to even define. Twenty-six minutes isn't nearly enough time to cover the ideas being spoken about...great, as ever, to have these interviews online. Thanks.
love this guy, he's confident enough to make everything he says very clear and even give explanations in a very short and to the point manner.... a great communicator
I wish more physicists shared Penrose's insight that there's something wrong about QM. Maybe in a hundred years he will be seen as ahead of the game about this.
"It's difficult to get your mind around". Ehh, next question... ;) What I like about Penrose is that he says "I don't know" and "I have no idea" on a regular basis. I challenge you to observe the same in someone like Sean Carroll for example.
Carroll would be too busy plugging his four recent books (and mentioning how many they sold), with his patented, condescending “I’m right, you’re dumb if you disagree” smirk.
@@Squirrel_314 Excellent point. I think a lot of people in this circus we call popular science, don't realize that this is first and foremost a marketplace.
When he said he was back at England after the war, I was thinking how many people can still refer to WW2 like that? Also love his cardigan.. looks like someone who can science very well.
Maybe the way Elon Musk thinks we think...when I see the way people drive, and design or maintain roads, I doubt if FSD will ever surpass a "glorified cruise control" as Marcus Brownlee put it recently.
being ADHD and dyslexic I've always struggled with tests. Which as they touch upon here, mostly rely on rote memorization and regurgitation. When I got into college I had a few courses which instead of giving you such an exam, would instead verify your knowledge by asking you to "do" the thing. One class asked you to code a simple CGI script that redirects reads and writes to different places. Another test was to write a counterpoint to a cantus firmus using medieval rules for harmony. If you had asked me what command does XYZ I might get half those questions right. But ask me to code something, I have the BASH interface (or KSH at that university) with it's man pages, Tab autocomplete etc. Likewise with harmony if you ask me to say what such and such chord would be on a staff, I might only get half those right. Ask me to do something with music and give me a guitar or bass to figure it out, no problem. A couple guys who sat that counterpoint test brought in guitars. I brought my bass. One fellow brought a little casio keyboard! As far as consciousness, I think this is a bit of human chauvinism. We think we are unique because we are self aware. We are doing a thing, and we know we are doing the thing. Theris not real mystery here. It's obviously a self correcting feedback circuit in our CNS. This is quite like an op amp feedback loop to linearize the gain. Or like a computer code conditional loop, such as for/each. Mammals or hominids (depending when this developed) that had this feature would have an advantage over their cousins in certain circumstances. They could monitor their own behavior and modify it, instead of just reacting to stimuli. There is also the question, are humans unique in this? All the youtube videos of dogs and other animals using talking buttons seems to call this into question. Dogs especially seem to be aware. One video had a dog asking "why dog" which in context was taken to mean, why am I a dog, and not a human like you?
Great questions, Krishnan! And what a lovely, clever, and sharp minded man Roger is. So inspiring. At 49, I wish to still be as bright as him if I get to his age. Thank you Sir Roger. 🙏
Light exists: eyes evolve to make use of it. Pressure waves in air exist: ears evolve to make use of it. Consciousness exists: brains evolve to make use of it.
@@benjaminandersson2572 These are interesting and as yet un-testable theories. Is consciousness a property of the Universe? It is beginning to look like that. Something collapses the Eigenstates and actualises effects. Observation is a thing but it can come from a device or a consciousness I'd wager. Has anyone done a complex young's slits with an automated second gate and a human measuring the third effect? That'd be interesting. Luv and Peace.
Fascinating, but kind of sad to contemplate we only have the great Mr Penrose and his full faculty's for just a little while longer, good thing he's so generous with his pursuit of knowledge in public, so the rest of us mortals can listen and learn in awe,
I like his ideas; for me as a mathematician (not a physicist) the foundational problems of QM have always been very bothersome, as has the orgin or nature of consciousness. It becomes clearer and clearer as we see "AI" playing chess and go better than humans, or driving a car quite well in normal circumstances, or composing (not very good) poetry or songs, that AI can as he says "imitate" humans, without having any consciousness at all. It still has exactly as much consciousness as a screwdriver. Extremely useful, potentially extremely dangerous, especially as it could be used for warfare, but extremely stupid and not at all "aware".
Agreed. When weapons systems are run by autonomous AI, ie : without human intervention, the acronym stands for Artificial Insanity. That results in much more serious consequences for warfare, when an autonomous weapon is not able to be stopped.
I'm a psychologist - we don't really know what "I" is, we don't know what intelligence is (it's certainly not ability to calculate quickly), we don't know what consciousness is - all the talk about AI sound like more of typical human arrogance. A hammer is dangerous, too
ChatGPT has an IQ of ~83... for now. Yes that is "stupid" but those tests are designed to test specifically human forms of intelligence and it beats any human in many areas IQ tests either don't even try to test or aren't good at evaluating. Within the next year, whether it is "conscious" or not, you should expect that 83 is going to climb over 100, or smarter than the average human, and yes, again, that will be on tests designed for a human mind, while computers/AI outstrip and outpace us in ways not reflected in that score
@@RomaInvicta202 Well yeah we know what consciouness is (I'm a pharmD student). It's objectively measurable. Its the simultaneous measurement of stimuli and neurotransmitters. Penrose and Hammeroff refer to this as "qualia." When microtubules undergo a wave function collapse (40 times a second), it is becoming "aware" (physically and thermodynamically) of the neurotransmitters travelling across its length. In what dominion or brain region undergoing massive collapse, lets say, in response to a dark object in someone's hands, determines the state of consciousness someone is in. In this case its most likely that the limbic system will be alerted before the cortex, would send information to the hypothalamus, that then prepares a message for the brain stem. The brain stem or autonomic system then tells blood vessels to constrict near the stomach, and dilate near the extremities. Giving our arms and legs enough oxygen for a fight or a run. Visual senses see that the black object is a headphones case. The prefrontal cortex then sends a signal to the ventromedial pfc, which then sends a signal to the basal lateral amygdala, who then tells the hypothalamus to tell the brain stem to call off the alarm. All the while, the neurotransmitters involved in flight fight respnose are being observed by microtubules as they travel from one nerve to the next. In our brains, spinal cords and efferent neurons.
Would be great if Sir Roger would drill down into how does consciousness comes in to the Quantum 'process'. In other words, how can we explain from his purview that an electron becomes a particle when measured/observed [by a conscious being] and stays a wave otherwise? What role does the observer play in this electron's behavioral change? Does the 'physical process' collapse the wave function with or without the observer? If a tree falls in a forest on a planet with not a single conscious being there, did it actually fall? For me, I need more layman detail on this tough subject to comprehend it. Does a consciousness exist independently?
I don't think he is saying the key is "measurement", rather that what is called "the measurement problem" is a pointer to things we don't yet understand about QM, which through some unexplained mechanism involving microtubules in the brain can produce a completely different effect from AI "neural networks" could ever achieve. There are not only nondigital and nonlinear effects but also quantum mechanical effects. So, we are very far from a real understanding of consciousness, plus there is the additional effect of how this gets organised (like self-organisation) at the higher level....
@Roger Imho, the tree most certainly falls... that much is a given even in the question itself... It's just that it doesn't actually make any difference to anyone! ;)
@@lopezb Before I watched Hammeroff's interview with Justin Riddle a few days ago, I was under the impression that the tau proteins of microtubules undergo a wave function collapse every 25msecs, and during the hills and valleys of the wave, all qualia or neurotransmitters that travel across microtubules are processed. The wave function collapse is the moment a wave becomes "aware" of its environment. But Hammeroff clarified this without negating what I said above by saying that there is bioluminescence inside of the microtubules, more notably it is carried out by the tryptophan proteins found in the tubulin, and not the tau. I'm thinking that if light travels through the microtubule it can still have electromagnetic, emphasis on magnetic, properties, and possibly, to the tune of 40 times a second, become aware of the neurotransmitters atop its length. So I'm thinking consciousness or qualia is simply the simultaneous awareness of the world through our external senses and internal qualia.
An illuminating and interesting discussion. You both said what is correct philosophically: “ ‘artificial intelligence’ is a misnomer”. There is advanced computation with inductive reasoning involved in algorithms, but that is not “intelligence” if one’s benchmark measure is human intelligence with consciousness at its center or base.
Thank you. You can liberate yourself from the problem of consciousness by distinguishing it from things as a cause, which is exclusively defined according to the effects it achieves. The confusion in all of these endless and fruitless discussions on the topic, is that people suppose it is some kind of effect or property.
@@kangarooninja2594 "Ghost in the machine" Ryle, one of my favourite philosophers. What Ryle said was that the concept of mind was wrong because it was an idea of something that was invisible, but followed the logic of visible things. That was the ghost in the machine, something that you couldn't see but which was supposed to sort of push it along, in a mechanical or logical way. Whereas following Ryle, what we call the spirit, not only has no body but no time or any sort of definition at all. It really doesn't exist. But in not existing it is a real cause, and is actually effective.
Penrose is ideologically opposed to the idea that consciousness can be the result of computation. The motive for the opposition is the same as the motive that gives rise to the belief in the supernatural - incredulity. How can something made of matter think about itself? Joscha Bach explains it very simply - matter isn't conscious, only a simulation can be conscious, and that simulation is produced through the physical operation of the brain. What we experience is real in the sense that the only reality we can experience is the one our brains simulate. It is a simplified model based on economically sampling sensory data for patterns and producing concepts that contribute to our survival. Signals which our senses detect come from the physical universe which, apart from our simulation of it, is inaccessible to us. Science can help us expand and refine that simulation, but it remains a simulation nonetheless. Intelligence is a measure of the ability to make models. All sentient beings make models. Our brains are especially capable of making abstractions on which complex thoughts can be developed. One of these abstrations is the sense of self. This modeling of ourselves is what creates the ability to self-reflect. This creates cognitive dissonance and leads to confabulation, much like the cognitive dissonance that arises in the minds of animals when confronted with their own image in a mirror causes them to react with hostility. They believe that their reflection is "real" in a physical sense while we think our self-awareness represents a physical reality.
As someone who has had two 'Out of Body Experiences' I can tell you without any doubt that consciousness goes beyond the boundaries of brain chemistry. My consciousness was not in my body. Sounds totally insane, but many would agree. Consciousness is some kind of energy field that is neither created nor destroyed. I don't think it's as simple as saying Neurons produce awareness. I think it has something to with Quantum Mechanics/ Entanglement and the micro tubules in the brain.
'Could a computer make these discoveries?' This could be asked with many other questions to work out what a computer could discover. For example: If a computer was sufficiently programmed with Newtonian physics would it ultimately discover quantum physics? Would it discover electricity? Or the wave particle duality?
Well its a good question. A.I. is still very brute force trial-and-error based in neural nets. So its not thinking, even if a black box due to complexity. It could potentially arrive at this without being conscious or even thought and that could be the scary thing about it, perhaps. Definately a bit scary already with image generation, to me, even if that's wrong or if Penrose is wrong, such as implying our brains being a bit mechanistic, brute forcey or all an illusion which some may suggest
Quantum mechanics allows for the introduction of logical paradox into our description of the information-processing systems of the brain. The most interesting (of these) systems are those in which the logical nature of the missing part of these systems is, mischievously, itself. To orchestrate an explanation or model of such a system is precisely so difficult from within the system of language because language itself is unfit for that purpose. The uncertainties and inconsistencies by which the communication systems maximally self-propagate are exclusive of the kinds of closure that proof requires. Mathematics by abbreviated precision is somewhat more appropriate but once again encounters complex problems of logical self-reference and system self-containment when it seeks the closure that it requires to maintain consistency and completeness. I suspect that we will always have to return to the apparently intractable fact that the languages with which we must communicate and rationally understand these things will never be sufficient to provide the closure that both we and those languages are symbolically and reflexively anchored upon. WWhat should we call it when understanding is foundationally grounded in the impossibility of explanatory closure?
I taught construction trades. But, I am fully aware of the pace in exams. I found a better way was to not time them in pre tests. Let them answer all. Eventually, the questions that slow them down can be pushed, as everyone is individual. By the exam time, I hadn't thought them much more, but allowed the questions to not frighten them. Speeding up the pause between and an average 6% better marks.
When a person speaks, the focus should be left on that person instead of switching between speaker and host relentlessly. Show the host when host speaks. Show the guest when guest speaks. This switching around the view while Roger is speaking is irritating and distracts.
Risk? A truly intelligent machine would be far more intelligent than us. Being truly intelligent it would also value all of the information contained in the natural world. Unlike the human race that seeks to dismantle and destroy. Clearly, we are not in control of ourselves.
10:26 Amazing, this is a first for me. I had never heard this idea before that the collapse of the wave function had to do with the interplay between gravity and QM
We are units of consciousness floating in a dark void receiving a data stream representing our human avatar... part of a larger consciousness system.. sounds like science fiction but true.. you can experience the void with enough meditation.. The wave function is a result of the computation and virtual reality rendering engine not tracking the movement of every particle.. ( huge waste of computational resoirces) so it cheats and uses probability models. That works at the large scale as well.. when we look out into the universe with telescopes as well.. Consciousness is fundamental.
"Evolution has taken a long time". Anyone who believes in evolution will never arrive at any solution concerning existential issues. So with all his learning, Penrose shows he doesn't even have any idea about probability and the inability of a system to produce itself. He's simply 'a believer' that somehow it all worked out on its own and here he is talking about it. Amazing.
Computers aren't intelligent, they NEVER were. What they do, do is add or make associations. That's not intelligence, intelligence requires conflicting information tempered with nuance to produce a human response to a moral or ethical question! When a computer can do that, wake me up!
@@iceman4660 exactly. And with Tesla we have seen that this „glorified program“ has already killed people because it cannot deal with exceptional cases. So either it’s a faulty programming when it comes to boundary values or it isn’t flexible enough to begin with to be able to call it „fluid intelligent“
@@iceman4660 right, human brain cannot be mimicked god made us special and we have our own physics that is different from the rest of the universe, we share the same exact opinion 🤣😭😭😭
Consciousness has to be defined narrowly before asking the question what is consciousness. By consciousness do you mean a conscious being is an entity that is self-aware or is it an entity that responds to external stimuli. If you define consciousness as the former, then conscious is not hardware. It is the data and data structure with the hardware, the brain. without the data(memories of the past), there is no consciousness. If you could delete all the memories of a person, is that person conscious(self-aware)? I don't think so.
I have always been annoyed by the term "artificial intelligence". As we use it now in technology, the term simply means programming, or that the device contains some form of computer. The intelligence is restricted to the skills of the programmer. The effectiveness of the device is unrelated to intelligence since the device is not in itself intelligent. In particular, I don't like the way someone like Mark Cuban (and his ilk) loves to bandy about the misnomer "artificial intelligence".
Yes, there is no difference between solving a classical problem and an AI problem, it's just a term people gave to programs in an effort to make computers solve more complex problems, and really it's an illusion. These programs are just classical math solutions being run extremely fast, something we're not good at, because that's not how we function. The term AI also implies human like characteristics. I suppose they could do the same with the industrial revolution and factory machines and engines, give them a name like artificial strength for cranes and robotics in factories, and have a horde of scientists explaining how much in common we have with a crane, how our blood moves through the muscles and how the oil in the crane and petrol in its engine, is just human like. Then have a bunch of scientists make improved cranes and claim they can eventually be conscious. This is sort of what happened with AI programming... I think it's both the fault of the people who gave this term or misapplied human like attributes to programs, as well as the biologists and neuroscientists fault for mechanically interpreting natural processes we do not understand. The first try to make a computer appear as human like, while the latter try to make humans appear machine like. They are obviously both wrong. And if you continually raise our perception of the first with false facts and misunderstandings, all while degrading our perception of the latter, again with false facts and misunderstandings, our perception will eventually converge to something false we don't understand. There is no harm in using abstractions or interpretations to something you study, in order to get a better understanding, it only becomes a problem when these abstractions and interpretations become a literal truth. What I'm trying to say, is that if it helps someone write a better program by trying to emulate what a human would do, then fine, or if it helps a neuroscientist understand us better by simplifying the way our body works by describing machine like compartments to humans and cable like neurolinks, then fine. Or if it helps physicists describing natural processes as particle elements then fine. It's only a real issue when these are taken as facts or truth. Taken to the extremes you could end up discussing with your oven on how to dismantle your neighbour to fix their cabling problems and on your lunch break you might plan to play snooker with some particles, all while your neighbour is afraid of your oven when in fact, he should be afraid of you.
Can someone please interview Alan Mackay, if possible? He used the Penrose quasiperiodic pattern to show how crystals might look like, and also did a lot of other interesting things.
Sir Roger is one of the greatest mathematicians in the world in the area of topology. Intelligence is a concept and not a physical property. Do we really have intelligence or are we just 3rd rate biological computers ? Rather out of his field with this.
Debating this issue in my opinion is an example of debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Bringing consciousness into the debate in my opinion is a moot point and clouds the issue even further. In the first place we don't yet have a clear picture of the nature of consciousness.
My understanding of the measurement problem is you basically can't measure anything without interacting with and therefore influencing it. Shooting an electron at it for example. It's nothing to do with consciousness.
I don't know if Penrose is barking up the right tree or not (as regards consciousness) but I wholeheartedly agree that nature is free to use any of it's tricks to fashion the products of evolution -- those tricks may include subtle quantum (or beyond quantum) processes.
We are still in the process of learning how the brain and our minds work and that might lead to understanding how consciousness comes into existance. That would be the point where we might be able to replicate that with machines with intent, but it could happen sooner without intent just by increasing the capabilities of (G)AIs. Emerging attributes where the sum is greater than the whole aren't unseen for, right?
Artificial Intelligence is not a misnomer. Here is a definition of intelligence: "late 14c., "the highest faculty of the mind, capacity for comprehending general truths;" c. 1400, "faculty of understanding, comprehension," from Old French intelligence (12c.) and directly from Latin intelligentia, intellegentia "understanding, knowledge, power of discerning; art, skill, taste," from intelligentem (nominative intelligens) "discerning, appreciative," present participle of intelligere "to understand, comprehend, come to know," from assimilated form of inter "between" (see inter-) + legere "choose, pick out, read," from PIE root *leg- (1) "to collect, gather," with derivatives meaning "to speak (to 'pick out words')." You see it's meaning pertains to the human mind and so if it were artificial it would be: "late 14c., "not natural or spontaneous," from Old French artificial, from Latin artificialis "of or belonging to art," from artificium "a work of art; skill; theory, system," from artifex (genitive artificis) "craftsman, artist, master of an art" (music, acting, sculpting, etc.), from stem of ars "art" (see art (n.)) + -fex "maker," from facere "to do, make" (from PIE root *dhe- "to set, put")." So it means it has been created by man and his skills rather than from a natural origin, i.e. the human mind.
It is controversial because of WWIi and Hitler plus the PC left. Yet that's still an interesting field since some humans are more able than others in different disciplines and environments.
Did Einstein go to Oxford? No . Did Einstein consider himself a good mathematician? No. So don't beat yourself up, Einstein himself said it was all intuition feeling and insight, don't let established organisations egos get in the way of greatness
A principle sign of consciousness in an organism is a capacity for boredom and intelligence the ability to repel boredom by creative action. On this basis I would add cats, ravens & elephants to Roger’s list of conscious beings.
It was quite clear Krishnan didn't understand most of the answers Sir Roger Penrose was giving. Perhaps ch4 can employ Dr Matt O'Dowd for the next interview!!!😄
Interesting how common the parental pressures are for children to follow careers in medicine or law. What is also common is that the wrong people pursue these professions. We only need to look at the pathetic complicity of these two professions during this recent Pandemic to understand how embedded they are in the ruling class and how corrupted they by politics, government and big corporations. Follow your passions and dreams. Make a difference and stand up for what is right in this fleeting existence we call life
Ideology determines economic pursuit. Economic pursuit shapes economic function. Economic function determines communicative privilege. Communicative privilege filters available information/disinformation. When certain parties control the negative-value shadow that we call economics, it is then easy for them to feed resources to people they favor, with the capability and integrity of those favored being irrelevant in the face of the necessity to gain and retain favor with the financiers. It should be unsurprising that the most hidden parasites are joined by parasites hidden a little less well, yet in positions to more fully control the host. Science, Education, Medicine. What surprise then, that our scientists are now paid more to promulgate deceit, our public education has become primarily propaganda programming, and our medical institutions have found that it is more financially competitive to create and prolong detrimental conditions rather than cure them. Parasites don't go away on their own. Either the host rejects them, or the parasites propagate and differentiate until they overburden and destroy the host. We are in the late stages of collapse from parasitic load, with parasites in virtually all positions of government. Note that the word "parasite" is originally a political term that was later borrowed by biology.
The argument against religion based on wars fought because of religion is deceitful once you look at the definitions and numbers. First, we must define the word religion: The common usage is either a set of laws, a set of traditions, a set of beliefs, or some combination of these. At least two things I am aware of that people commonly miscategorize as religions do not fit this definition, being rather pursuits of certain goals that cannot ever be fully defined by laws or traditions, and are not fully knowable and so cannot be contained by belief. Second, if you are to say that people fight wars because of sets of traditions, while this is accurate, these are not at all constrained to the traditions of what anyone sane and honest would call religions. Literally every war is fought because of differences, however great or slight. Some differences are resolvable without war, some are not. Further, you have to make a moral judgement that "war is bad" in order to think that this causes a problem, and you can't make such a moral judgement without a religion, whatever you want to call it, it is predicated of morality, thus making the argument against wars based on religion ontologically self-defeating. Third, if we take wars fought at the behest of people claiming irreligion, however poorly they represent it, they have killed more than an order of magnitude more people in the last single century than all religious wars combined in the last millennia. You have at least Stalin, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot, and Mao alone manages this numbers without the others, with upward of one hundred million victims to his name while, for example, the entire series of Crusades which are so trumpeted by the irreligious managed less than two million over several hundred years. But then, why would we be surprised when people who do not love truth or logic, and reject their proponents, are deceitful and illogical? I will take someone who views truth itself as supreme God any day over someone who will not tell me what they think is the supreme or fundamental force of the universe, or who does not have an opinion on the matter and is therefore unreliable. I don't think Penrose is aware of the numbers. I think he's parroting what he's heard from others. Unfortunately he's made at least one poor choice in to whom he listened.
Perry Marshall of Evo2.0 fame a digital communications expert puts it this way "all computing logic is deductive while intelligence is inductive logic and why the former cannot make a choice so will never achieve human conscious intelligence."
Hmm, i was under the impression that consciousness was a spectrum That gauges how well an agent can use its input to perform its own unique output that achieves one or more goals of the agent, that unique part is were everyone is stuck
If the future and the past look exactly the same in CCC theory,do we still get a universe in between when we flip them and make the future the past and the past the future?
Well probably not, I mean we don't know if the model is even right so we can't realy speculate about this but if its true then our universe would be influenced by a universe before us
While I appreciated his honesty in often admitting he didn’t know, I was really disappointed he was so naïve on a number of issues. The religion/wars things is really out to lunch. It’s a known fact secular societies have been responsible for many, many, more deaths than theist ones. Just three atheists butchered more people in the last century than in all 19 before it put together. (Pot, Mao, Stalin) Also, the global warming thing is quickly proving to be not anywhere near they would scare us to believe. In fact it’s pretty much a scam. The SETI thing is such a fruitless endeavour. Most people are unaware the chance of even a single protein forming of the simplest type is virtually impossible. Even the number of the stars in the universe cannot begin to approach making up that improbability. (One chance in ten to the 186th power) Bear in mind the total number of elementary particles in the visible universe if only ten to the 80th power ! Oxford University recently concluded a study that put the chance of us being alone in the universe at greater than 90 percent. But…most people are totally unaware and continue to says things like “with so many stars there must be life somewhere”.
I think the particle is to fast and exist everyplace within the wave and when you measure it your seeing it in one space but when it acts as a wave it just move to fast to be detected so it appears as a wave.
Human beings are perceivers. Computers are...computers. There is a world of difference between a perception and a computation. A perception is subjective; a computation is objective. Subjective experience has a subject as a reference point, objective experience does not have any reference point anywhere. The problem with making computers capable of perception is that objectivity aligns with ultimate reality whereas subjectivity does not. The self is not a real entity, but rather a delusion that human beings suffer from. As such, the only way to make a computer 'intelligent' would be to make it self-delusional.
Roger is always fascinating to listen to. A proper old skool scientific genius. The only point in this interview which I disagreed with was in relation to computers/AI. I honestly think that within a hundred years, computers will be able to do anything the human mind can, at least from a functional point of view. And I do think that unless we limit the scope of things AI has control over, they will take control from us, possibly for our own good. e.g. Ask a super intelligent computer how to ensure survival of the human race. It might decide the best solution is to make us less human and introduce a eugenics programme to get rid of dangerous genes from the gene pool. Or it might decide that the male of the species is the dangerous one, so all males are destroyed before reaching adulthood.
lol. More like they will decide women are useless and they will be exterminated. Their Judgment would be based on value, value is based on understanding and intelligence, therefore women are going to be dispose of, not male. Everything (including the A.I) you have ever touched and used was invented, developed or discovered by men. Woman are nothing more than parasites. You have to be supremely stupid to think that the A.I is going to let the parasite live but kill the host. Men are LITERALLY better at everything other than raising children, because that what nature built us for and what we evolved to be.
@@michaeljones-kq5zi As a man, I agree we invented everything (good and bad). But I also think toxic masculinity is the biggest threat to human survival in the next 500 years. Killing all males (after they have inseminated females obviously) might be the conclusion an AI would reach. But this is all hypothetical so I am not losing any sleep over it.
'observe on its own observation' what do you mean, specifically? Computers make observations, collect data by sight, smell, temperature, sound etc etc and come to conclusions, and then make decisions based on those conclusions.
@@sandro7 but what does that actually mean, 'self-aware'? That it knows of its own existence in the world? That it can look at the world and know that it has a body that can move around that world? Defined as "conscious knowledge of one's own character and feelings." - a lot of animals are NOT considered self-aware because they can see thier own character or emotions they act instinctively, and not for moral reasons. They don't have moral thoughts or think about life after dead, is there a God etc etc. But the modern super-computers are self-learning and analyze information from the entire world, philosophy, religion, the mind, etc that an animal would have not the slightest concept of. But all creatures are consciousness, aware, and and make decisions. You can argue that computers are just repeating information, but how many humans just repeat what they'v been taught? The majority of humans never have any original thoughts that haven't been learnt.
Modern computers do not observe observation. Take facial recognition as an example. Computers take in images and analyze them. It is human who observe the result, not computers. Maybe computers with AI can decide to observe and observe the result. In such cases, we may say they have consciousness but the level is very low -- like consciousness of insects or fishes. Nevertheless, I believe computers in the future can have high consciousness. Another evolution tree of life.
@@rbttube1 Not only do computers 'observe observations', in some cases they can made better conclusions than humans. AI Facial recognition makes mistakes, but how many humans can make 1000 face observations of a random crowd of total strangers and identify even 1% correctly?? The controversy is what Authorities do with results and making mistakes, not that AI is worst than humans when the numbers are too large. With a single image, AI can narrow down several possible ID's for an investigator to check, but the human can't bring up a strangers ID based on just a photo without more info. A human can 'observe the computer's observations' to narrow down the choice. (Modern large passenger aircraft only fly because AI is making thousands of observation inside and outside the craft, ANALYSING and constantly making instant decisions for hours that a human couldn't even try to do.) And analysing things like Medical Scans have proven to be MUCH more accurate by AI, which can detect issues like tumors and cancers more accurately and faster than human doctors. The final decisions must be by humans, but computers do observe and make conclusions. if you want to get into 'creative' conclusions, thinking, , artist interpretations of observation... that's a separate issue. In my human opinion. 🙂
So could every possible thought exist in a quantum state? So when our mind focuses on an issue, they ‘collapse’ into the definite one we see in our minds eye?
Karl Marx argued this in his notes, commonly called Grundrisse. Basically these were notes that Engels picked up of the floor after Marx’s death. Penrose and Marx: perfect symmetry.
The two words "artificial" and "intelligence" are at odds with each other, because if something just happened to be intelligent, it couldn't “be” artificial. The problem is, if humans with devious intentions program harmful information into the computers, and then refuse to shut the electricity that feeds the computers off, of course harm will be the result. To say that computers cause harm, is comparable to saying that books labeled as being holy information from gods cause harm. It's humans that “use” the computers and the books for selfish reasons that causes the harm. Nuclear weapons are not artificially intelligent, but if electrically is engaged by aggressive human nature, those weapons will get the job done that the humans demand of them. Whether it's a stick or a stone, or a spear, or an arrow, or a gun or a computer, or words in books, those inanimate objects are not responsible for what we as humans coerce them to do. I suggest we should stop giving power to the term artificial intelligence and go to the source of what always was the problem, which is, suspicious and devious human nature. We understand that we can't trust others to not cause harm to us, because we are fully aware from the study of history, that others can't trust us to not cause harm to them. And because as individuals, we all suffer from the weakness of tunnel vision, we are so very artificial, we find it impossible to “be” intelligent.
Honestly with a masters degree in physics which mostly focused on quantum mechanics modules, and 4 years into a PhD in physics too, this interview didn't make much sense to me. Guess I'll have to read his book!
The only thing I hope is that when I'm dead I can become the best imaginable version of myself and have the new life that I always dreamt of having. So learning new and interesting things every day, living in a pristine, natural environment. Having good friends and a harem full of stunning, charming, funny and clever women. It ain't paradise if there's no harem of stunning, charming, funny and clever women.
Not yet. But to change the world I want to say to physist and engineers together with the government and with the wealthy to help fix this hyperinflation with multi millionaires up show the compassion to help out America. The government already tries to help with others countries so much as Our own country. But government needs to bring up minimum wage by many dollars and still have to have some help at times. This is crazy.
The clarity in his conversation makes you listen him forever.
i admire Sir Roger Penrose's willingness to acknowledge that our knowledge is incomplete given his accomplishments... reflects his total commitment to the truth... much, much respect!
Roger is my all time favorite Physicist. He faces the Reality that there are missing knowledge of the Quantum Wave Function and Collapse. He is such a forward thinking person he will go down in History as one of the greatest Scientific minds the world has ever produced. Thank you for Posting this wonderful Video.
Maaaaaaaan... perfect comment! I love the way he thinks about the physics like a total reality language! He turns all the logical thinking in contact with biological and evolution process... He's a machine!!!!
One of humanity's greatest thinkers.
Literally for sure
Of all times. Amazing mind.
A tantalizing subject to listen to, but a topic notoriously difficult to even define. Twenty-six minutes isn't nearly enough time to cover the ideas being spoken about...great, as ever, to have these interviews online. Thanks.
I think Sir Penrose is a brilliant mind. He speaks after a life of studying. He’s a real scientist.
love this guy, he's confident enough to make everything he says very clear and even give explanations in a very short and to the point manner.... a great communicator
Such a comforting person to listen to!
The part where he talks about Artificial Intelligence is the shortest bit, so naturally that's what they put in the title.
No, the algorithm wrote the title.
Yes, why do they always do it? BTW you have the perfect user name for your comment. Homage to the best character in the best film ever made?
@@evocatimedia Impossible. "the" algorithm doesn't do that!
@@thekeysman6760 Sorry, I forgot. 🤓
@@evocatimedia that is a rather genius comment.
Sir Roger Penrose is a national treasure, a wonderful mind.
A.I doesn't need "consciousness" to be a threat
Good point. 👍
Please do elaborate
AI will be a Mass Destruction Weapon of the XXI century. Just like nuclear weapon.
I wish more physicists shared Penrose's insight that there's something wrong about QM. Maybe in a hundred years he will be seen as ahead of the game about this.
He‘s soooooo right
Amazing man. Always such a pleasure to listen to him.
He would beat home with a pauper or a King. Smarter than most and as humble A saint.
He's one of my heros, along with Carl Sagan, Bertrand Russell and Richard Feynman. Guru-Murthy ain't half bad too!
@@nikthefix8918 I had no impressive background In mathematics and turned to learning yt. I like Dr. Norman Wildberger also. He’s a genius.
He’s confused
@@hosoiarchives4858 Lol. Not as much as you, I wager.
"It's difficult to get your mind around". Ehh, next question... ;) What I like about Penrose is that he says "I don't know" and "I have no idea" on a regular basis. I challenge you to observe the same in someone like Sean Carroll for example.
Carroll would be too busy plugging his four recent books (and mentioning how many they sold), with his patented, condescending “I’m right, you’re dumb if you disagree” smirk.
@@Squirrel_314 Excellent point. I think a lot of people in this circus we call popular science, don't realize that this is first and foremost a marketplace.
When he said he was back at England after the war, I was thinking how many people can still refer to WW2 like that?
Also love his cardigan.. looks like someone who can science very well.
you think he can do science because of his cardigan? wow
@@enterthevoidIi first of all I said he can science not do science. Second of all this was a joke so lighten up buddy
Admiration and respect to Sir Penrose.
Time passed by so quick watching this interview, that I was really surprised when it ended.
I looked up casually and saw that 13 min passed, and was thinking where did the time go lol
Sir Roger knows that our computers don't think the way WE think, only the way we THINK we think. 😉
Maybe the way Elon Musk thinks we think...when I see the way people drive, and design or maintain roads, I doubt if FSD will ever surpass a "glorified cruise control" as Marcus Brownlee put it recently.
@@lopezb What's FSD? 🤔
Wow, Sir Roger Penrose. This is as good as it can get!
Where when did he talk about AI ?
@@keepcreationprocess 12:00 to 12:30 hahahaha VERY in-depth. Click-bait???? Disappointing at least. Cheers!
@@kaoskronostyche9939 it is not about AI
@@keepcreationprocess Whatever ...
being ADHD and dyslexic I've always struggled with tests.
Which as they touch upon here, mostly rely on rote memorization and regurgitation.
When I got into college I had a few courses which instead of giving you such an exam, would instead verify your knowledge by asking you to "do" the thing.
One class asked you to code a simple CGI script that redirects reads and writes to different places.
Another test was to write a counterpoint to a cantus firmus using medieval rules for harmony.
If you had asked me what command does XYZ I might get half those questions right.
But ask me to code something, I have the BASH interface (or KSH at that university) with it's man pages, Tab autocomplete etc.
Likewise with harmony if you ask me to say what such and such chord would be on a staff, I might only get half those right.
Ask me to do something with music and give me a guitar or bass to figure it out, no problem.
A couple guys who sat that counterpoint test brought in guitars. I brought my bass.
One fellow brought a little casio keyboard!
As far as consciousness, I think this is a bit of human chauvinism. We think we are unique because we are self aware. We are doing a thing, and we know we are doing the thing.
Theris not real mystery here. It's obviously a self correcting feedback circuit in our CNS.
This is quite like an op amp feedback loop to linearize the gain.
Or like a computer code conditional loop, such as for/each.
Mammals or hominids (depending when this developed) that had this feature would have an advantage over their cousins in certain circumstances.
They could monitor their own behavior and modify it, instead of just reacting to stimuli.
There is also the question, are humans unique in this?
All the youtube videos of dogs and other animals using talking buttons seems to call this into question.
Dogs especially seem to be aware.
One video had a dog asking "why dog" which in context was taken to mean, why am I a dog, and not a human like you?
Great questions, Krishnan! And what a lovely, clever, and sharp minded man Roger is. So inspiring. At 49, I wish to still be as bright as him if I get to his age. Thank you Sir Roger. 🙏
Light exists: eyes evolve to make use of it.
Pressure waves in air exist: ears evolve to make use of it.
Consciousness exists: brains evolve to make use of it.
Or did light evolve to make use of eyes?
Nonsense.
@@danielgautreau161 or did sense evolve to make sense of nonsense?
@@benjaminandersson2572 These are interesting and as yet un-testable theories.
Is consciousness a property of the Universe? It is beginning to look like that. Something collapses the Eigenstates and actualises effects.
Observation is a thing but it can come from a device or a consciousness I'd wager.
Has anyone done a complex young's slits with an automated second gate and a human measuring the third effect?
That'd be interesting.
Luv and Peace.
@@benjaminandersson2572 if we form this question more fundamentally ; "were objects created because of awareness/consciousness" then why not?
Sir Roger is an absolute treasure to humanity.
Fascinating, but kind of sad to contemplate we only have the great Mr Penrose and his full faculty's for just a little while longer, good thing he's so generous with his pursuit of knowledge
in public, so the rest of us mortals can listen and learn in awe,
I like his ideas; for me as a mathematician (not a physicist) the foundational problems of QM have always been very bothersome, as has the orgin or nature of consciousness. It becomes clearer and clearer as we see "AI" playing chess and go better than humans, or driving a car quite well in normal circumstances, or composing (not very good) poetry or songs, that AI can as he says "imitate" humans, without having any consciousness at all. It still has exactly as much consciousness as a screwdriver. Extremely useful, potentially extremely dangerous, especially as it could be used for warfare, but extremely stupid and not at all "aware".
Agreed. When weapons systems are run by autonomous AI, ie : without human intervention, the acronym stands for Artificial Insanity. That results in much more serious consequences for warfare, when an autonomous weapon is not able to be stopped.
I'm a psychologist - we don't really know what "I" is, we don't know what intelligence is (it's certainly not ability to calculate quickly), we don't know what consciousness is - all the talk about AI sound like more of typical human arrogance. A hammer is dangerous, too
ChatGPT has an IQ of ~83... for now. Yes that is "stupid" but those tests are designed to test specifically human forms of intelligence and it beats any human in many areas IQ tests either don't even try to test or aren't good at evaluating.
Within the next year, whether it is "conscious" or not, you should expect that 83 is going to climb over 100, or smarter than the average human, and yes, again, that will be on tests designed for a human mind, while computers/AI outstrip and outpace us in ways not reflected in that score
@@RomaInvicta202 Well yeah we know what consciouness is (I'm a pharmD student). It's objectively measurable. Its the simultaneous measurement of stimuli and neurotransmitters. Penrose and Hammeroff refer to this as "qualia." When microtubules undergo a wave function collapse (40 times a second), it is becoming "aware" (physically and thermodynamically) of the neurotransmitters travelling across its length. In what dominion or brain region undergoing massive collapse, lets say, in response to a dark object in someone's hands, determines the state of consciousness someone is in. In this case its most likely that the limbic system will be alerted before the cortex, would send information to the hypothalamus, that then prepares a message for the brain stem. The brain stem or autonomic system then tells blood vessels to constrict near the stomach, and dilate near the extremities. Giving our arms and legs enough oxygen for a fight or a run. Visual senses see that the black object is a headphones case. The prefrontal cortex then sends a signal to the ventromedial pfc, which then sends a signal to the basal lateral amygdala, who then tells the hypothalamus to tell the brain stem to call off the alarm. All the while, the neurotransmitters involved in flight fight respnose are being observed by microtubules as they travel from one nerve to the next. In our brains, spinal cords and efferent neurons.
@@VonJay Are you saying biological organisms that don’t use microtubles aren’t conscious?
Would be great if Sir Roger would drill down into how does consciousness comes in to the Quantum 'process'. In other words, how can we explain from his purview that an electron becomes a particle when measured/observed [by a conscious being] and stays a wave otherwise? What role does the observer play in this electron's behavioral change? Does the 'physical process' collapse the wave function with or without the observer? If a tree falls in a forest on a planet with not a single conscious being there, did it actually fall? For me, I need more layman detail on this tough subject to comprehend it. Does a consciousness exist independently?
I don't think he is saying the key is "measurement", rather that what is called "the measurement problem" is a pointer to things we don't yet understand about QM, which through some unexplained mechanism involving microtubules in the brain can produce a completely different effect from
AI "neural networks" could ever achieve. There are not only nondigital and nonlinear effects but also quantum mechanical effects. So, we are very far from a real understanding of consciousness, plus there is the additional effect of how this gets organised (like self-organisation) at the higher level....
I did not know that a wave becomes a particle. How fascinating and what an intriguing and important question!
@Roger Imho, the tree most certainly falls... that much is a given even in the question itself... It's just that it doesn't actually make any difference to anyone! ;)
I am not so sure if there are particles...
@@lopezb Before I watched Hammeroff's interview with Justin Riddle a few days ago, I was under the impression that the tau proteins of microtubules undergo a wave function collapse every 25msecs, and during the hills and valleys of the wave, all qualia or neurotransmitters that travel across microtubules are processed. The wave function collapse is the moment a wave becomes "aware" of its environment. But Hammeroff clarified this without negating what I said above by saying that there is bioluminescence inside of the microtubules, more notably it is carried out by the tryptophan proteins found in the tubulin, and not the tau. I'm thinking that if light travels through the microtubule it can still have electromagnetic, emphasis on magnetic, properties, and possibly, to the tune of 40 times a second, become aware of the neurotransmitters atop its length. So I'm thinking consciousness or qualia is simply the simultaneous awareness of the world through our external senses and internal qualia.
An illuminating and interesting discussion. You both said what is correct philosophically: “ ‘artificial intelligence’ is a misnomer”. There is advanced computation with inductive reasoning involved in algorithms, but that is not “intelligence” if one’s benchmark measure is human intelligence with consciousness at its center or base.
Interviewer is superb , well done.
Thank you. You can liberate yourself from the problem of consciousness by distinguishing it from things as a cause, which is exclusively defined according to the effects it achieves. The confusion in all of these endless and fruitless discussions on the topic, is that people suppose it is some kind of effect or property.
So... duality? I'm not opposed to their being a ghost in the machine, but ghosts are notoriously elusive, lol.
@@kangarooninja2594 "Ghost in the machine" Ryle, one of my favourite philosophers. What Ryle said was that the concept of mind was wrong because it was an idea of something that was invisible, but followed the logic of visible things. That was the ghost in the machine, something that you couldn't see but which was supposed to sort of push it along, in a mechanical or logical way. Whereas following Ryle, what we call the spirit, not only has no body but no time or any sort of definition at all. It really doesn't exist. But in not existing it is a real cause, and is actually effective.
Penrose is ideologically opposed to the idea that consciousness can be the result of computation. The motive for the opposition is the same as the motive that gives rise to the belief in the supernatural - incredulity. How can something made of matter think about itself? Joscha Bach explains it very simply - matter isn't conscious, only a simulation can be conscious, and that simulation is produced through the physical operation of the brain. What we experience is real in the sense that the only reality we can experience is the one our brains simulate. It is a simplified model based on economically sampling sensory data for patterns and producing concepts that contribute to our survival. Signals which our senses detect come from the physical universe which, apart from our simulation of it, is inaccessible to us. Science can help us expand and refine that simulation, but it remains a simulation nonetheless.
Intelligence is a measure of the ability to make models. All sentient beings make models. Our brains are especially capable of making abstractions on which complex thoughts can be developed. One of these abstrations is the sense of self. This modeling of ourselves is what creates the ability to self-reflect. This creates cognitive dissonance and leads to confabulation, much like the cognitive dissonance that arises in the minds of animals when confronted with their own image in a mirror causes them to react with hostility. They believe that their reflection is "real" in a physical sense while we think our self-awareness represents a physical reality.
As someone who has had two 'Out of Body Experiences' I can tell you without any doubt that consciousness goes beyond the boundaries of brain chemistry. My consciousness was not in my body. Sounds totally insane, but many would agree. Consciousness is some kind of energy field that is neither created nor destroyed. I don't think it's as simple as saying Neurons produce awareness. I think it has something to with Quantum Mechanics/ Entanglement and the micro tubules in the brain.
search boy with no brain, Sheffield university.
and half head dude.
and jill bolte Taylor.
'Could a computer make these discoveries?'
This could be asked with many other questions to work out what a computer could discover. For example:
If a computer was sufficiently programmed with Newtonian physics would it ultimately discover quantum physics? Would it discover electricity? Or the wave particle duality?
Well its a good question. A.I. is still very brute force trial-and-error based in neural nets. So its not thinking, even if a black box due to complexity. It could potentially arrive at this without being conscious or even thought and that could be the scary thing about it, perhaps. Definately a bit scary already with image generation, to me, even if that's wrong or if Penrose is wrong, such as implying our brains being a bit mechanistic, brute forcey or all an illusion which some may suggest
Quantum mechanics allows for the introduction of logical paradox into our description of the information-processing systems of the brain. The most interesting (of these) systems are those in which the logical nature of the missing part of these systems is, mischievously, itself. To orchestrate an explanation or model of such a system is precisely so difficult from within the system of language because language itself is unfit for that purpose. The uncertainties and inconsistencies by which the communication systems maximally self-propagate are exclusive of the kinds of closure that proof requires.
Mathematics by abbreviated precision is somewhat more appropriate but once again encounters complex problems of logical self-reference and system self-containment when it seeks the closure that it requires to maintain consistency and completeness. I suspect that we will always have to return to the apparently intractable fact that the languages with which we must communicate and rationally understand these things will never be sufficient to provide the closure that both we and those languages are symbolically and reflexively anchored upon.
WWhat should we call it when understanding is foundationally grounded in the impossibility of explanatory closure?
A breath of fresh air.
What a lovely man
I taught construction trades. But, I am fully aware of the pace in exams. I found a better way was to not time them in pre tests. Let them answer all. Eventually, the questions that slow them down can be pushed, as everyone is individual. By the exam time, I hadn't thought them much more, but allowed the questions to not frighten them. Speeding up the pause between and an average 6% better marks.
When a person speaks, the focus should be left on that person instead of switching between speaker and host relentlessly. Show the host when host speaks. Show the guest when guest speaks. This switching around the view while Roger is speaking is irritating and distracts.
The existential risk of AI is not that computers will outthink us, the risk is that it will simply take control.
Risk? A truly intelligent machine would be far more intelligent than us. Being truly intelligent it would also value all of the information contained in the natural world. Unlike the human race that seeks to dismantle and destroy. Clearly, we are not in control of ourselves.
Yup
Dont be too dilutional
10:26 Amazing, this is a first for me. I had never heard this idea before that the collapse of the wave function had to do with the interplay between gravity and QM
We are units of consciousness floating in a dark void receiving a data stream representing our human avatar... part of a larger consciousness system.. sounds like science fiction but true.. you can experience the void with enough meditation..
The wave function is a result of the computation and virtual reality rendering engine not tracking the movement of every particle.. ( huge waste of computational resoirces) so it cheats and uses probability models.
That works at the large scale as well.. when we look out into the universe with telescopes as well..
Consciousness is fundamental.
It's an old idea.
The problem, of course, is that it requires a mind to make the universe run properly.
I love Penrose!
I could listen to him all day, might need to interrupt though for some clarification.
"Evolution has taken a long time". Anyone who believes in evolution will never arrive at any solution concerning existential issues. So with all his learning, Penrose shows he doesn't even have any idea about probability and the inability of a system to produce itself. He's simply 'a believer' that somehow it all worked out on its own and here he is talking about it. Amazing.
Glad to hear him say that. I am trained in Computer Science and I’ve never liked the term.
Computers aren't intelligent, they NEVER were. What they do, do is add or make associations. That's not intelligence, intelligence requires conflicting information tempered with nuance to produce a human response to a moral or ethical question!
When a computer can do that, wake me up!
Same here. The term is an over simplification. AI is just a glorified program.
@@iceman4660 exactly. And with Tesla we have seen that this „glorified program“ has already killed people because it cannot deal with exceptional cases. So either it’s a faulty programming when it comes to boundary values or it isn’t flexible enough to begin with to be able to call it „fluid intelligent“
@@iceman4660 right, human brain cannot be mimicked god made us special and we have our own physics that is different from the rest of the universe, we share the same exact opinion 🤣😭😭😭
Consciousness has to be defined narrowly before asking the question what is consciousness. By consciousness do you mean a conscious being is an entity that is self-aware or is it an entity that responds to external stimuli. If you define consciousness as the former, then conscious is not hardware. It is the data and data structure with the hardware, the brain. without the data(memories of the past), there is no consciousness. If you could delete all the memories of a person, is that person conscious(self-aware)? I don't think so.
100 percent agree with the title..
I have always been annoyed by the term "artificial intelligence". As we use it now in technology, the term simply means programming, or that the device contains some form of computer. The intelligence is restricted to the skills of the programmer. The effectiveness of the device is unrelated to intelligence since the device is not in itself intelligent. In particular, I don't like the way someone like Mark Cuban (and his ilk) loves to bandy about the misnomer "artificial intelligence".
Yes, there is no difference between solving a classical problem and an AI problem, it's just a term people gave to programs in an effort to make computers solve more complex problems, and really it's an illusion. These programs are just classical math solutions being run extremely fast, something we're not good at, because that's not how we function. The term AI also implies human like characteristics. I suppose they could do the same with the industrial revolution and factory machines and engines, give them a name like artificial strength for cranes and robotics in factories, and have a horde of scientists explaining how much in common we have with a crane, how our blood moves through the muscles and how the oil in the crane and petrol in its engine, is just human like. Then have a bunch of scientists make improved cranes and claim they can eventually be conscious. This is sort of what happened with AI programming... I think it's both the fault of the people who gave this term or misapplied human like attributes to programs, as well as the biologists and neuroscientists fault for mechanically interpreting natural processes we do not understand. The first try to make a computer appear as human like, while the latter try to make humans appear machine like. They are obviously both wrong. And if you continually raise our perception of the first with false facts and misunderstandings, all while degrading our perception of the latter, again with false facts and misunderstandings, our perception will eventually converge to something false we don't understand. There is no harm in using abstractions or interpretations to something you study, in order to get a better understanding, it only becomes a problem when these abstractions and interpretations become a literal truth. What I'm trying to say, is that if it helps someone write a better program by trying to emulate what a human would do, then fine, or if it helps a neuroscientist understand us better by simplifying the way our body works by describing machine like compartments to humans and cable like neurolinks, then fine. Or if it helps physicists describing natural processes as particle elements then fine. It's only a real issue when these are taken as facts or truth. Taken to the extremes you could end up discussing with your oven on how to dismantle your neighbour to fix their cabling problems and on your lunch break you might plan to play snooker with some particles, all while your neighbour is afraid of your oven when in fact, he should be afraid of you.
You must feel needs in order to be conscious.
Purpose is simply attention, on a particular thing. Needs are a problem to be solved, which will invariably lead to suffering.
Can someone please interview Alan Mackay, if possible? He used the Penrose quasiperiodic pattern to show how crystals might look like, and also did a lot of other interesting things.
Sir Roger is one of the greatest mathematicians in the world in the area of topology. Intelligence is a concept and not a physical property. Do we really have intelligence or are we just 3rd rate biological computers ? Rather out of his field with this.
excellent interview
thanks
Debating this issue in my opinion is an example of debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Bringing consciousness into the debate in my opinion is a moot point and clouds the issue even further. In the first place we don't yet have a clear picture of the nature of consciousness.
Sir Roger is not a great scientist.He is a great human being with extraordinary insight.
If channel 4 news could ask as many sensible questions about politics as it did about quantum mechanics the world might be a better place
True
My understanding of the measurement problem is you basically can't measure anything without interacting with and therefore influencing it. Shooting an electron at it for example. It's nothing to do with consciousness.
I don't know if Penrose is barking up the right tree or not (as regards consciousness) but I wholeheartedly agree that nature is free to use any of it's tricks to fashion the products of evolution -- those tricks may include subtle quantum (or beyond quantum) processes.
We are still in the process of learning how the brain and our minds work and that might lead to understanding how consciousness comes into existance. That would be the point where we might be able to replicate that with machines with intent, but it could happen sooner without intent just by increasing the capabilities of (G)AIs. Emerging attributes where the sum is greater than the whole aren't unseen for, right?
I love listening to this man. Just one question, does being good at Arithmetic mean you can never be good at other áreas of Mathematics?
Artificial Intelligence is not a misnomer. Here is a definition of intelligence:
"late 14c., "the highest faculty of the mind, capacity for comprehending general truths;" c. 1400, "faculty of understanding, comprehension," from Old French intelligence (12c.) and directly from Latin intelligentia, intellegentia "understanding, knowledge, power of discerning; art, skill, taste," from intelligentem (nominative intelligens) "discerning, appreciative," present participle of intelligere "to understand, comprehend, come to know," from assimilated form of inter "between" (see inter-) + legere "choose, pick out, read," from PIE root *leg- (1) "to collect, gather," with derivatives meaning "to speak (to 'pick out words')."
You see it's meaning pertains to the human mind and so if it were artificial it would be:
"late 14c., "not natural or spontaneous," from Old French artificial, from Latin artificialis "of or belonging to art," from artificium "a work of art; skill; theory, system," from artifex (genitive artificis) "craftsman, artist, master of an art" (music, acting, sculpting, etc.), from stem of ars "art" (see art (n.)) + -fex "maker," from facere "to do, make" (from PIE root *dhe- "to set, put")."
So it means it has been created by man and his skills rather than from a natural origin, i.e. the human mind.
Wow, his father was the Galton professor of eugenics (1945-1963), which is a very controversial subject.
It is controversial because of WWIi and Hitler plus the PC left. Yet that's still an interesting field since some humans are more able than others in different disciplines and environments.
@@danicapell3181 That's awful, that's ridiculous, and led to the Holocaust.
This man is 91 years old!
5:30 "You see at the time, I was just doing what interested me."
True, everything what wolfram alpha can solve in maths is just computation. True intelligence only starts with creativity.
Did Einstein go to Oxford? No . Did Einstein consider himself a good mathematician? No. So don't beat yourself up, Einstein himself said it was all intuition feeling and insight, don't let established organisations egos get in the way of greatness
A principle sign of consciousness in an organism is a capacity for boredom and intelligence the ability to repel boredom by creative action.
On this basis I would add cats, ravens & elephants to Roger’s list of conscious beings.
Lobsters, crabs, and octopi :p
They are conscious
We do it with our hardware, therefore it has to be possible to emulate it.
It was quite clear Krishnan didn't understand most of the answers Sir Roger Penrose was giving. Perhaps ch4 can employ Dr Matt O'Dowd for the next interview!!!😄
I agree
You know AI has won when the algo begins promoting clips that say don't worry about AI. 🤣
Good one.
Interesting how common the parental pressures are for children to follow careers in medicine or law.
What is also common is that the wrong people pursue these professions.
We only need to look at the pathetic complicity of these two professions during this recent Pandemic to understand how embedded they are in the ruling class and how corrupted they by politics, government and big corporations.
Follow your passions and dreams. Make a difference and stand up for what is right in this fleeting existence we call life
Ideology determines economic pursuit. Economic pursuit shapes economic function. Economic function determines communicative privilege. Communicative privilege filters available information/disinformation.
When certain parties control the negative-value shadow that we call economics, it is then easy for them to feed resources to people they favor, with the capability and integrity of those favored being irrelevant in the face of the necessity to gain and retain favor with the financiers.
It should be unsurprising that the most hidden parasites are joined by parasites hidden a little less well, yet in positions to more fully control the host. Science, Education, Medicine. What surprise then, that our scientists are now paid more to promulgate deceit, our public education has become primarily propaganda programming, and our medical institutions have found that it is more financially competitive to create and prolong detrimental conditions rather than cure them.
Parasites don't go away on their own. Either the host rejects them, or the parasites propagate and differentiate until they overburden and destroy the host. We are in the late stages of collapse from parasitic load, with parasites in virtually all positions of government.
Note that the word "parasite" is originally a political term that was later borrowed by biology.
Finally someone/scientist who is. Not brainwashed by academia
The argument against religion based on wars fought because of religion is deceitful once you look at the definitions and numbers.
First, we must define the word religion: The common usage is either a set of laws, a set of traditions, a set of beliefs, or some combination of these. At least two things I am aware of that people commonly miscategorize as religions do not fit this definition, being rather pursuits of certain goals that cannot ever be fully defined by laws or traditions, and are not fully knowable and so cannot be contained by belief.
Second, if you are to say that people fight wars because of sets of traditions, while this is accurate, these are not at all constrained to the traditions of what anyone sane and honest would call religions. Literally every war is fought because of differences, however great or slight. Some differences are resolvable without war, some are not. Further, you have to make a moral judgement that "war is bad" in order to think that this causes a problem, and you can't make such a moral judgement without a religion, whatever you want to call it, it is predicated of morality, thus making the argument against wars based on religion ontologically self-defeating.
Third, if we take wars fought at the behest of people claiming irreligion, however poorly they represent it, they have killed more than an order of magnitude more people in the last single century than all religious wars combined in the last millennia. You have at least Stalin, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot, and Mao alone manages this numbers without the others, with upward of one hundred million victims to his name while, for example, the entire series of Crusades which are so trumpeted by the irreligious managed less than two million over several hundred years.
But then, why would we be surprised when people who do not love truth or logic, and reject their proponents, are deceitful and illogical?
I will take someone who views truth itself as supreme God any day over someone who will not tell me what they think is the supreme or fundamental force of the universe, or who does not have an opinion on the matter and is therefore unreliable.
I don't think Penrose is aware of the numbers. I think he's parroting what he's heard from others. Unfortunately he's made at least one poor choice in to whom he listened.
I been saying this for ages!!! It's artificial EXPERIENCE not intelligence! It's Training reflex
Consciousness, infinity, and "the present", are one and the same thing
Perry Marshall of Evo2.0 fame a digital communications expert puts it this way "all computing logic is deductive while intelligence is inductive logic and why the former cannot make a choice so will never achieve human conscious intelligence."
Hmm, i was under the impression that consciousness was a spectrum
That gauges how well an agent can use its input to perform its own unique output that achieves one or more goals of the agent, that unique part is were everyone is stuck
Yo he so humble,
If the future and the past look exactly the same in CCC theory,do we still get a universe in between when we flip them and make the future the past and the past the future?
Well probably not, I mean we don't know if the model is even right so we can't realy speculate about this but if its true then our universe would be influenced by a universe before us
While I appreciated his honesty in often admitting he didn’t know, I was really disappointed he was so naïve on a number of issues.
The religion/wars things is really out to lunch. It’s a known fact secular societies have been responsible for many, many, more deaths than theist ones. Just three atheists butchered more people in the last century than in all 19 before it put together. (Pot, Mao, Stalin)
Also, the global warming thing is quickly proving to be not anywhere near they would scare us to believe. In fact it’s pretty much a scam.
The SETI thing is such a fruitless endeavour. Most people are unaware the chance of even a single protein forming of the simplest type is virtually impossible. Even the number of the stars in the universe cannot begin to approach making up that improbability. (One chance in ten to the 186th power) Bear in mind the total number of elementary particles in the visible universe if only ten to the 80th power !
Oxford University recently concluded a study that put the chance of us being alone in the universe at greater than 90 percent.
But…most people are totally unaware and continue to says things like “with so many stars there must be life somewhere”.
Is it just gravity that collapses the wave function? What about elecromagnetic or other interactions?
I think the particle is to fast and exist everyplace within the wave and when you measure it your seeing it in one space but when it acts as a wave it just move to fast to be detected so it appears as a wave.
It isn’t the computers that are the problem. It’s the programmers and the use nefarious people put them to.
Roger is an extremely visual mathematician.
I'm not an atheist or a theist, but...I don't think that relgion is bad when user "properly" because it has helped more people than its killed.
Emergence is phenomenal. Beep Boop.
Mycelial Network and PiezoElectric crystals in planet. Lets operate at Scale now.
Human beings are perceivers. Computers are...computers. There is a world of difference between a perception and a computation. A perception is subjective; a computation is objective. Subjective experience has a subject as a reference point, objective experience does not have any reference point anywhere. The problem with making computers capable of perception is that objectivity aligns with ultimate reality whereas subjectivity does not. The self is not a real entity, but rather a delusion that human beings suffer from. As such, the only way to make a computer 'intelligent' would be to make it self-delusional.
Roger is always fascinating to listen to. A proper old skool scientific genius. The only point in this interview which I disagreed with was in relation to computers/AI. I honestly think that within a hundred years, computers will be able to do anything the human mind can, at least from a functional point of view. And I do think that unless we limit the scope of things AI has control over, they will take control from us, possibly for our own good. e.g. Ask a super intelligent computer how to ensure survival of the human race. It might decide the best solution is to make us less human and introduce a eugenics programme to get rid of dangerous genes from the gene pool. Or it might decide that the male of the species is the dangerous one, so all males are destroyed before reaching adulthood.
You mean: A proper old squool genius, surely?
lol. More like they will decide women are useless and they will be exterminated. Their Judgment would be based on value, value is based on understanding and intelligence, therefore women are going to be dispose of, not male. Everything (including the A.I) you have ever touched and used was invented, developed or discovered by men. Woman are nothing more than parasites. You have to be supremely stupid to think that the A.I is going to let the parasite live but kill the host. Men are LITERALLY better at everything other than raising children, because that what nature built us for and what we evolved to be.
@@michaeljones-kq5zi As a man, I agree we invented everything (good and bad). But I also think toxic masculinity is the biggest threat to human survival in the next 500 years. Killing all males (after they have inseminated females obviously) might be the conclusion an AI would reach. But this is all hypothetical so I am not losing any sleep over it.
In my opinion, consciousness is the ability of a creature to observe on its own observation.
'observe on its own observation' what do you mean, specifically?
Computers make observations, collect data by sight, smell, temperature, sound etc etc and come to conclusions, and then make decisions based on those conclusions.
@YS yes!! I completely agree! @John Doe I think they’re essentially just saying that they’re self-aware
@@sandro7 but what does that actually mean, 'self-aware'? That it knows of its own existence in the world? That it can look at the world and know that it has a body that can move around that world? Defined as "conscious knowledge of one's own character and feelings." - a lot of animals are NOT considered self-aware because they can see thier own character or emotions they act instinctively, and not for moral reasons. They don't have moral thoughts or think about life after dead, is there a God etc etc. But the modern super-computers are self-learning and analyze information from the entire world, philosophy, religion, the mind, etc that an animal would have not the slightest concept of. But all creatures are consciousness, aware, and and make decisions. You can argue that computers are just repeating information, but how many humans just repeat what they'v been taught? The majority of humans never have any original thoughts that haven't been learnt.
Modern computers do not observe observation. Take facial recognition as an example. Computers take in images and analyze them. It is human who observe the result, not computers. Maybe computers with AI can decide to observe and observe the result. In such cases, we may say they have consciousness but the level is very low -- like consciousness of insects or fishes. Nevertheless, I believe computers in the future can have high consciousness. Another evolution tree of life.
@@rbttube1 Not only do computers 'observe observations', in some cases they can made better conclusions than humans. AI Facial recognition makes mistakes, but how many humans can make 1000 face observations of a random crowd of total strangers and identify even 1% correctly?? The controversy is what Authorities do with results and making mistakes, not that AI is worst than humans when the numbers are too large. With a single image, AI can narrow down several possible ID's for an investigator to check, but the human can't bring up a strangers ID based on just a photo without more info. A human can 'observe the computer's observations' to narrow down the choice. (Modern large passenger aircraft only fly because AI is making thousands of observation inside and outside the craft, ANALYSING and constantly making instant decisions for hours that a human couldn't even try to do.)
And analysing things like Medical Scans have proven to be MUCH more accurate by AI, which can detect issues like tumors and cancers more accurately and faster than human doctors. The final decisions must be by humans, but computers do observe and make conclusions. if you want to get into 'creative' conclusions, thinking, , artist interpretations of observation... that's a separate issue. In my human opinion. 🙂
So could every possible thought exist in a quantum state? So when our mind focuses on an issue, they ‘collapse’ into the definite one we see in our minds eye?
Interesting viewpoint. And the reason (i suspect) you've had little or no response to it; is competing thoughts don't quite know what to do with it.
A Beautiful Mind
Karl Marx argued this in his notes, commonly called Grundrisse. Basically these were notes that Engels picked up of the floor after Marx’s death. Penrose and Marx: perfect symmetry.
Argued what exactly?
Computar is by product concieness. Computer program limite by concieness.
The two words "artificial" and "intelligence" are at odds with each other, because if something just happened to be intelligent, it couldn't “be” artificial.
The problem is, if humans with devious intentions program harmful information into the computers, and then refuse to shut the electricity that feeds the computers off, of course harm will be the result.
To say that computers cause harm, is comparable to saying that books labeled as being holy information from gods cause harm.
It's humans that “use” the computers and the books for selfish reasons that causes the harm.
Nuclear weapons are not artificially intelligent, but if electrically is engaged by aggressive human nature, those weapons will get the job done that the humans demand of them.
Whether it's a stick or a stone, or a spear, or an arrow, or a gun or a computer, or words in books, those inanimate objects are not responsible for what we as humans coerce them to do.
I suggest we should stop giving power to the term artificial intelligence and go to the source of what always was the problem, which is, suspicious and devious human nature.
We understand that we can't trust others to not cause harm to us, because we are fully aware from the study of history, that others can't trust us to not cause harm to them.
And because as individuals, we all suffer from the weakness of tunnel vision, we are so very artificial, we find it impossible to “be” intelligent.
Honestly with a masters degree in physics which mostly focused on quantum mechanics modules, and 4 years into a PhD in physics too, this interview didn't make much sense to me. Guess I'll have to read his book!
One might argue that what humans are doing to the planet and each other shows a lack of intelligence.
One would be wrong.
@@iordanneDiogeneslucas One might be
no, one might not
@Rich Kanaszyc 🐒🍌
The only thing I hope is that when I'm dead I can become the best imaginable version of myself and have the new life that I always dreamt of having. So learning new and interesting things every day, living in a pristine, natural environment. Having good friends and a harem full of stunning, charming, funny and clever women. It ain't paradise if there's no harem of stunning, charming, funny and clever women.
Thank you sir ^^ when I said that to people they did not like it..
True, that's computing
I wonder if our eyes transmit light waves like sound waves. And this is what affects gravity and collapses the wave function.
Not yet. But to change the world I want to say to physist and engineers together with the government and with the wealthy to help fix this hyperinflation with multi millionaires up show the compassion to help out America. The government already tries to help with others countries so much as Our own country. But government needs to bring up minimum wage by many dollars and still have to have some help at times. This is crazy.
Penrose obviously knows nothing about definitions: their origin is strictly up to the definer. Therefore, they cannot be misnamed.
Many thinkers were, others will. And all remains the same.