Full event featuring Roger Penrose at: kzread.info/dash/bejne/ma5oxsmllsWbkbw.html

@Vorador666

7 ай бұрын

thank you bruh

@EllyTaliesinBingle

5 ай бұрын

is it gone? ive tried entering the link 3 times and each time youtube says this video is unavailable

@Vorador666

5 ай бұрын

@@EllyTaliesinBingle I can access it, could be it's blocked in your country or due to a vpn

@WadhamCollegeOxford

5 ай бұрын

@@EllyTaliesinBingle the link still works on our end!

The celestial bodies gracefully follow the path set by specific differential equations, yet they don't necessitate internal computation of those equations to do so. Similarly, soap bubbles naturally take on the shape of minimum surface area, even without internally minimizing an integral. This raises the question: could the human brain function in a similar manner? It appears that nature has the ability to adhere to intricate mathematical models without explicit computational processes. This leads us to the intriguing possibility that the human brain generates intelligent behavior without the need for explicit computation. Consequently, the endeavor to construct machines explicitly designed for computing intelligent behavior might be deemed infeasible in the pursuit of achieving Artificial General Intelligence (AGI).

@E1an9640

4 күн бұрын

That's insightful!!!

Penrose states that Gödel’s incompleteness theorem is an indication that our consciousness is not computational. But I don’t see how Gödel’s theorem necessarily excludes computational processes being involved. Gödel’s theorem just shows that we are able to identify truths that apply within formal systems but which are not derivable by the rules of those systems. Machine learning algorithms also do this all the time - Natural Language Processing is probably the most well known example, which is able to compile facts about language syntax and semantics without using any rules about language whatsoever. There’s nothing inherently non-computational about this sort of process.

@crabb9966

Ай бұрын

Greetings. I might be wrong but from my understanding/perspective I don't think you understood Penrose's inference.

@hihello-sx1sx

Ай бұрын

@crabb9966 Oh right. What specifically do you think I’ve misunderstood?

@crabb9966

Ай бұрын

​@@hihello-sx1sx"what it really said" "whatever rules we have" "able to transcend" your argument is rigid and doesn't explain what he is getting at, well this is from my perspective. In my opinion most proponents of computer brains should take a step back to a neutral position as it is merely an extrapolation with no sound basis, the way I see it. Materialistic world view doesn't even work philosophically.

@crabb9966

Ай бұрын

@@hihello-sx1sx he said you could transcend this systems whatever the rules might be, don't take the theorem at face value. Think about the alternatvie implication.

@adayah2933

15 күн бұрын

Penrose probably confused Gödel’s theorem with the Church's theorem. Or maybe these two are related in a way that I don't comprehend.

Are we now able to claim that, no matter how long and comprehensive and exhaustive a list or criteria we have that tries to capture what it is to be conscious, there are always going to be aspects of consciousness that will forever remain outside the scope or reach of such a criteria? In other words, it is impossible to devise a test for consciousness.

@dylanhoss3387

5 ай бұрын

Philosophically that was always the claim as per solipsism. And it is true to an extent that the only thing you can truly prove is your own consciousness, everything being fake isn’t even any more or less likely than everything being real. Our instinct is of course to take everything as is (as it should be, I believe that other people have consciousness and that things are more or less as they seem, but i’d be an idiot to claim that I have any actual evidence of that) but we’re talking about a fundamental, from the ground up fakeness that would always render the chance a perfect 50/50. Even if we had a test that looked like it showed consciousness you could always default to a solipsism “everything is fake but convincing you it’s real” which is of course not any way to come to any belief ever, but the option will always be there specifically because we can never personally experience anyone elses’ consciousness.

Love Sir Penrose

To transcend consiousness un must combine words, numbers and symbols to build the bridge to the unconsious CGJ

Equivalence Error - states that in order to establish order or truth, we require the presence of two errors that cancel each other out. This suggest our language is a representation of the world, making it inherently flawed. The natural bias challenges language to differentiate between errors, nature, and entropy. For example does A really equal B? (A 🟰 B) 🤔 We exist within our relationships and interactions. Without others, we become nothing (meaningless).

He is strongly moving towards a mythologization of philosophy and science. We do Not Even know what it really is and he is excluding it by mere feelings.

Yes, true

Hi where can I find this interview?

@WadhamCollegeOxford

Жыл бұрын

Hi! The full interview - part of a panel discussion - is available at: kzread.info/dash/bejne/ma5oxsmllsWbkbw.html

@djtan3313

Жыл бұрын

Remarkable theorem.

@jimmyjasi-anti-descartes7088

Жыл бұрын

​@@djtan3313 Long Live Sir Roger Penrose and Godels legacy! Man of truth saves us from Nick Bostrom Donald Hoffman and philosophical nonsense.

Ive heard that too, that whatever conscious understanding is, it is not computational. How very interesting that mathematics can point to nirvana! 😮

@alexbenzie6585

6 ай бұрын

What do an old band have to.do with this?

@That_Freedom_Guy

6 ай бұрын

​@@alexbenzie6585Lol! 😅

Computation is not intelligence. AI is just an oxymoron

@nickchavez720

7 сағат бұрын

Thank you! Someone finally says it. There is no intelligence behind AI. It's not even artifical stupidity. All AI is a more powerful form of computation.

Sounds very logical that our conscious understanding transcends the rules of proof of computational machines! Our conscious understanding is, as he says, not computational, but I believe it is the actions of our individual intelligences which follows our course of logic dependent upon our knowledge and experience. There is not a computational formula for our understanding, this is indeed proof of the term "free agency or will". We have agency to act upon the elements in whatever way we want..,. Though the elements have standards which they must follow to maintain their character as a specific element. That is why we will never create true AI, but only that we try our best to imitate our free agency and will through computational computers and robots to think as if by themselves.!! It is but a database which imitates the actions we enter into it to try and imitate our free will and agency when it is active..!!

@gajananjadhav1312

9 ай бұрын

Good explanation! Thanx

I think it is naive of Penrose to think that the theoretical impossibility of machines to prove theorems implies that humans are not machines. Humans will never be able to prove all theorems either, simply because some of them take 10^300 symbols to even formulate, let alone prove.

So do I. God doesn’t exist 😊 in reality, but exist only in religious belief. 😊

This is pascal or heidegger talking

Considering how computers are undeniably better than us at computation the only thing needed for a computer to transend their creators ( humans ) is an understanding of cause and effect. Essentaily a conscienceness. This would create domino effect of discoveries or an ever evolving artifical intelligence. However not the evolation that were familia with on earth were over millions of years an organism adapts to the evironment, instead this would be ever infintely ecceloration ideas/ theories of our universe that the AI would implement to expand itself through out the universe ultimately discovering a way to stop the end of the universe which from what I know transending the observable universe laws and modifying them to create possible way to exisit indefinitely (aka a god ). ( Oh by the way the purpose of life is that, to stop the end of the universe and as a result exsist definitely ) or maybe even transending the 4 diemention that we inhabit know. Reply if you agree or disagree and why.

@gajananjadhav1312

9 ай бұрын

What if you encounter the dimension that's not strictly dependent on logic, and thus science, as we know it. Just for the sake of discussion if some dimension were to involve mechanics of love, how will this AI will understand, let alone handle, it? I am using Love because it could connote most constructive forces that could be sustaining the universe.

@kevinpusceddu237

8 ай бұрын

@@gajananjadhav1312 I see your point of prospective that your trying to convey however I find dimensions and love not to be fundamentally equivalent, thus your foundation of your argument is flawed. ( in my opinion ) just to put it in prospective how the knowledge of dimensions ( like space time ect) that humans have found out and understood compared to the mechanics of love ( which is just biochemistry ) which is just chemical produce in our brains to motivate us to breed with our own kind is easy to see the difference in level of understanding which clearly ( in my opinion) reflects the level of complexity each concepts are on. Dimensions are far more complex than the concept of love.

@kevinpusceddu237

8 ай бұрын

@@gajananjadhav1312 however answering your question considering AI have the capacity to adapt to things which humans would find years of practice to achieve the same results ( disregarding the possibility that AI in a different dimension wouldn't work as different laws of physics might be precent or lack there of ) I believe an AI could transcend our dimension and would become a new form to complement the new environment and transcending logic or expend on it. There are lots of experiments that prove our logic isn't flawless and still has much expending to occur to fully grasp concepts yet to be understood like dark matter and dark energy. So to say what you said states that our logic is all there is to it which as proven by scientists isn't the case. As computers continue to advance ( as predicted by Steven Hawking ) the likelihood that an AI consciousness would emerge increases overtime of a civilization advancement.( If civilization doesn't destroy themselves before that). You may feel concerned about this AI rising against their creators but if you think about it an AI would progress itself much better than we have and would waste its time on useless things like war, politics and other human made concepts.

@squallox

8 ай бұрын

I agree.. the purpose of life to me is to expand and process more and more information efitiently. To compute more we will need more organized matter, expanding from planets, stars, galaxies and on. Initially we will need to manage entropy, develop complexity until to reach the totality of this universe and trascend to other higher dimensions. I dont expect this will be done being human. We will be another.. thing. I appreciate the share what I think… even I dont have completely developed this idea.

@kevinpusceddu237

8 ай бұрын

​@@squalloxI'm glad you have the same opinion that I do, uncorrelated but what is your general opinion about different ethnic/ genetic people and their impact on first world countries. Essentially I'm asking ( in your opinion ) what is your view on people of different races and if they are having a positive or negative impact on our species as a whole.

Godel's theorem might have a 2D planar instantaneous resolution: comment on a puzzle where you place a piece of paper with two riders on other pieces of paper with two donkeys: wow! I saw a video where a piece of paper was printed with godel's incompleteness theorem, one side of the paper said this is true, the other side said this is !true. it reminds me of the upside down/right side up riders, but if you put them in the right 2D way, they fit, that suggests all kinds of things. if both the donkeys face the same direction it doesn’t work, but if they are like the chemical equilibrium opposite directions double arrow the opposite riders then fit, that suggets that if you can do something at 90 degrees to each other, with reflective symmetry godel’s theorem is instantly resolved, just by putting it in a 2D math space, my previous solution utilized individual element sequential reading of A=!A, mathematicians might like an instantaneous 2D solution by embedding a godel theorem statement in a plane for an instantaneous no-step, noncomputed, timeless solution. If it happens to work that just by putting any undecideable math on a bidirectional 2D plane it becomes consistent, much more math might have whatever order might mean to mathematicians. the orientable donkeys and riders puzzle is at youtube kzread.infoNmJ1ATJeIbM